I'd say the Berniecrats are going to notch another loss on the 26th...

[brooklynite]

Crowley, Ocasio-Cortez argue future of the Democratic party in first and only primary debate

Rep. Joe Crowley defended his standing as a longtime Democratic leader in his first and only primary debate Friday against insurgent primary challenger Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, as both tried to lay claim to the future of the party.

The two Queens Democrats espoused similar beliefs, but the debate laid out their differences in stark relief.

Crowley, 56, is of Irish descent, has held his seat in New York’s 14th Congressional district since the late 90’s and holds the the fourth highest ranking position in House Democratic leadership. It is an open secret that he has ambitions to be speaker, should his party retake the House.

But back home in Queens he is facing his first primary challenge in more than a decade from Ocasio-Cortez, a 28-year-old former organizer for the Bernie Sanders campaign whose Puerto Rican roots go back three generations in the Bronx.

https://www.politico.com/states/new-york/city-hall/story/2018/06/15/crowley-ocasio-cortez-stay-civil-despite-differences-in-primary-debate-470236

[Tom Rinaldo]

1. Safe bet. I would say any opponent of the incumbent likely would lose.

"Ocasio-Cortez is, by any measure, an underdog in the race against one of the city’s and the House’s most powerful Democrats. According to the latest campaign filings available, Ocasio-Cortez has raised $312,881 and has $105,946 on hand. Crowley has raised $3.4 million and has just more than $1 million to spend.

Moreover, Crowley is one of the last and most influential of New York City’s political bosses, presiding over the Queens County Democratic Party which most recently was instrumental in securing City Council Speaker Corey Johnson’s leadership role."

I was glad to read this; "The debate Friday, hosted by NY1’s Errol Louis, was largely civil". It seems to me inevitable that challenges like this will arise in districts like this which grow less white over the years:

"Ocasio-Cortez argued that Crowley is no longer a good representation of the Queens and Bronx district a majority of people of color call home — many of whom feel directly targeted by the Trump Administration."

[WhiteTara]

2. Well, in this case, I hope the Berniecrats pull this one off.

I can't stand Joe Crowley. He is a bully and 2 faced. He begged Pelosi to campaign for him last time and then after he won, he stabbed her in the back and said she was a crappy leader and he was better because he was big and male and "tough." To do that, he hid behind another woman's skirts to use her to blast Pelosi. Coward at heart and a white bully. No thanks Joe.

I called him one day and he's such a coward, he wouldn't call me back even though his aide wanted him to do so, very badly because of the conversation we had about his cowardice.

[brooklynite]

3. Pelosi doesn't seem to be holding a grudge...

I was at a party with both of them last week.

[WhiteTara]

5. Pelosi is the supreme politician

and has earned her place at the table and at the head of the table. Glad to see you get inside insights, but I still say she is the supreme one here. I don't respect Joe no matter how much she smiles. I still think he's 2 faced bully and if you want, you can tell him I said so.

[Demsrule86]

22. He is powerful. We need that right now...and I have to say if OR is behind a candidate, I

am not.

[WhiteTara]

31. Is he a team player as well as powerful?

Powerful is one thing, being part of the team is another.

[Demsrule86]

35. I don't support anyone in a primary endorsed specifically and only by justice Democrats (Young Turks

who take GOP money) or OR (Nina Turner who says she will endorse Republicans).

[Voltaire2]

4. actual headline:

Last edited Sat Jun 16, 2018, 12:35 PM - Edit history (1)

Crowley, Ocasio-Cortez argue future of the Democratic party in first and only primary debate

Primary debates that surface the differences between the centrist establishment and the left wing of the party are a good thing. Yes Ocasio-Cortez is not likely going to win, but she will force Crowley to defend his seat and address the concerns of his district.

No idea why your op framed this as some “berniecrat” nonsense. Seems a bit divisive to me.

[WhiteTara]

6. I hope Joe can be pushed.

[leftstreet]

7. Pushing the party left is a good thing

[NY_20th]

9. She was endorsed by Our Revolution, Justice Democrats and

The People for Bernie. These groups often refer to their candidates as Berniecrats.

https://www.ozy.com/rising-stars/this-berniecrat-aims-to-unseat-a-queens-power-broker/83063

[Demsrule86]

23. I don't live there but those endorsements alone would make me never even consider her.

They are not Democrats really. OR has Nina Turner who will support Republicans...and Justice Democrats is a young turks organization. I despise them both and think they had much to do with our loss in 16. I want nothing to do with any candidate endorsed by these folks.

[brooklynite]

13. "Ocasio-Cortez, a 28-year-old former organizer for the Bernie Sanders campaign"

https://ourrevolution.com/candidates/alexandria-ocasio-cortez/

http://www.peopleforbernie.com/endorsements/

Add to which, I don't support burning cash against Incumbent Democrats when every dollar we have should be going to win against Incumbent Republicans.

[Voltaire2]

16. So you are opposed to voters choosing our candidates.

Interesting position.

[brooklynite]

17. I have no doubt which candidate voters will choose...

...but an unnecessary Primary against an incumbent (plenty of Open or Republican seats to run in) is a waste of assets and raises questions about the ultimate goals of the insurgent candidates.

I'm probably going to spend upwards of $100,000 this election cycle. My goal is to beat Republicans. What's yours?

[Tom Rinaldo]

29. I rarely consider a primary "unnecessary".

When I do it is only when someone challenges an effective and popular incumbent who holds identical views on all the major issues. Those I might consider mere "vanity" challenges. But if there are issues to be debated, by all means have that debate, even if only a portion of the electorate tunes into that debate and the outcome of the primary seems virtually predetermined. It is a part of our democratic system to flush out office holders on where they stand on specifics. Most would rather communicate to their constituency through vague platitudes that never pin them down. Primary challenges help make sure that happens.

As soon as we begin to dismiss primary challenges based on the likelihood that they have little chance of succeeding we start entrenching incumbents into a near permanent political class. When you consider how dangerous it is in America to give any support to Republicans as an alternative to returning an incumbent Democrat to office, we lose an important element of essential checks and balances over elected officials if primaries are discouraged.

In this case this woman seems to be running to some extent on the literal argument that she is most representative of and responsive to the constituency that she seeks to serve. It makes NO sense for her to go shopping around elsewhere for an empty or Republican seat to run for. Even if she loses, as seems likely, her campaign itself can be an important organizing tool within her community - bring new people into politics who always assumed they were simply frozen out by the powers to be. If she is as intrinsically talented as she appears to be, this campaign, by raising her public profile, can help her become more of a force in her community moving forward from here, whether she wins or loses. That in and of itself is a reason for a primary.

My goal is to build a better future for all Americans. Defeating Republicans is an essential element of that. So is a robust debate on the issues that face us involving all of us who will be effected by decisions make. I believe in participatory democracy as a central tenet of our liberty.This primary challenge helps bring important new voices onto the public square. I support that.

[brooklynite]

30. "Elections have consequences"

The needs of the voters in this district will not be better represented by someone with a 99% liberal rating as opposed to, say, 75%. They'll be better represented by having Nancy Pelosi as Speaker. Investing any time and money not targeted to that goal is damaging in this election cycle.

[Demsrule86]

24. I agree. Waste of money that could be better spent on taking Republican seats.

We need to increase are numbers so running for a Democratic seat is not smart.

[kamalafan]

8. I REALLY like her!

She is young & is going places! We need more like her, a lot more! Her video in her tweet is beautiful.

Link to tweet

[Tom Rinaldo]

11. "I was born in a place where your zip code determines your destiny".

That was a really powerful (and yes, lovely also) video. To be honest I essentially knew nothing about either her or her primary opponent before opening up this thread, but I am immediately drawn to her. I hope she has a future in politics regardless of the results of this primary. I think she does.

[Demsrule86]

25. My hubs is from the Bronx. They won't support her...waste of money and waste of time.

I don't like OR or the Turks group which should have the word' Democrat 'removed as they are no such thing. They are funded by Republicans.

[kamalafan]

32. They're Democrats & running as such

I hope she wins, she has a wonderful backstory. It isn't a waste of time or money to run either, it's standing up for what you believe in. If I lived there she'd have my vote.

[Demsrule86]

33. Nope...they have the backing of two groups that are anti-Democratic...primarying sitting Democrats.

They will lose and should lose.Don't accept endorsements for groups who support Republicans (OR) or who take money from Republicans (Young Turks justice Democrats).

[kamalafan]

34. They are Democrats

and have a (D) behind their name.
I suspect if Bernie Sanders was to suddenly change his party affiliation to (D) we'd hear the same argument. Hm.

Have you looked at the issues she stands for and what her platform is?

[Demsrule86]

36. I don't care. The endorsements are a deal breaker for me in a primary situation.

[kamalafan]

37. Endorsements are greater than issues & platform?

[Demsrule86]

39. Yes, those two groups have been very anti-Democratic Party. And the fact they

are challenging a sitting Democrat in a time when we need more Dems, and they could have run for an open or GOP held seat infuriates me...shouldn't even be a primary...I would never vote for such candidates. Waste of money and time by those who want to divide us.

[kamalafan]

41. So you think primaries should be uncontested?

Am I understanding this correctly?

It's a primary, there are challengers, there always has been and there always will be. I like her and I like where she stands on the issues. To me, that's what matters, a lot more than endorsements.

[Demsrule86]

43. This year for sure. In the age of Trump we desperately need the House and should be

going after GOP seats...not wasting time and money primarying Democrats...the house is on fire. We risk losing all progressive policy almost 100 years old if we don't win...already the courts are being packed by Trump. With an emphasis on GOP House seats we could use the savings to work harder for the Senate and save our judiciary by stopping Trump cold. A primary is a means to an end...ultimately to have power and pass a Democratic agenda...primaries this year in particular harm this effort.

[kamalafan]

46. I find that take scary TBH

That isn't how democracy works but how an authoritative regime works and your idea that "there should be no primary challengers in the age of Trump" is frightening. Primaries don't hurt our party at all and in fact do the opposite, they strengthen it by letting the voters have actual representation.

It also seems long time Democratic strategist, former Hillary staffer and head of Shareblue Media Peter Daou disagrees with you.

Link to tweet

[Demsrule86]

49. There won't be any democracy if we don't stop Trump, and I said you shouldn't not that you couldn't

That is very different. People should have the good sense to go after Republicans seats not sitting Democrats...which is why OR and Justice Democrats are dead to me as are any candidates that may run in a primary I vote in that are endorsed by them exclusively. Trump is the danger and all the primaries Democrats in the world won't stop him...unbelievable. Primaries are merely a means to an end-to win an election and actually get something done...and without power all the talk talk in the world is meaningless. We have the best platform ever and it means nothing in the real world where we can't bring legislation to the floor. We have children being torn from their parent's arm. Trump needs to be stopped cold We need to win in 18.

[Demsrule86]

44. Yes, endorsements from anti Democratic groups exclusively...not the candidates that OR latches onto

that everyone endorses...are more important than issues which is just talk without power.

[kamalafan]

47. Issues are what matter most for me

[Demsrule86]

48. The Democratic Party matters and OR hired a Trumper ( Tezlyn Figaro) and rumor is they

didn't get rid of her as they said they did-Don't know about that. They said they would support Republicans. Also, they trash the party. It matters to me. Individuals spouting views is meaningless without a majority and primarying sitting Dems is foolish. Young Turks is behind justice Democrats and just google and see what they said about Hillary Clinton. In addition, they get money from Republicans. I don't care how great your views are if you are anti-Democratic Party, you lose my vote in a primary...and if you are endorsed by one of the groups just discussed, you have to be anti- party or you would have gone after a GOP seat and helped us get the numbers to regain power instead of wasting money and time...which would be better spent going for more house seats and the Senate. We have to stop Trump... I could care a less about a primary involving a sitting Democrat.

[SidDithers]

45. Hey, remember when Bernie did, briefly, change his party affiliation to (D)?...

It didn't stick, though, did it?

Oh, and welcome to DU.

Sid

[shanny]

51. And how long has it been since hubs lived there?

Since this district has changed quite a bit.

Speaking of that, how long since Crowley lived there?

[earthshine]

10. As usual, you phrase things in the most negative way.

Obviously, you don't want the progressive vote.

[NurseJackie]

12. "Obviously, you don't want the progressive vote." --- Exactly who *are* these progressives who...

Obviously, you don't want the progressive vote.

Exactly who are these progressives who have such fragile egos that they'll choose to refrain from voting because of something that some anonymous individual said on Democratic Underground.

All I'm saying is that it's fairly obvious that this is a passive-aggressive threat to not vote, or to withhold support of Democrats. So I have to wonder... what kind of person will abandon their civic duty simply because they were "offended" over the editorializing that someone posted in this small and isolated corner of the Internet?

In my opinion that's an immature, petty and vindictive response... it's very Sarandonesque in approach and philosophy. What good purpose does it serve?

I think we can all agree that it's important to ALWAYS vote for Democrats, regardless of whether or not someone said something on the Internet that hurt our feelings.

[EffieBlack]

15. Thanks, Jackie!

Like you, I don’t get the “I don’t like what some unnamed person I don’t know and will never meet said on an anonymous internet discussion board, so I’m gonna show them by not voting for whoever they are voting for. So THERE!” threats.

Thanks for calling it out!

[brooklynite]

14. So, you're saying she's not a Berniecrat?

Because the Berniecrat groups are endorsing her.

[earthshine]

21. Someone won the election, but you chose to write about who lost.

Why don't you say the "corporatists won" instead of "Berniecrats" losing?

[brooklynite]

27. The election hasn't been held yet.

That said I focused on the people running against Democrats, instead of running against Republicans.

[Demsrule86]

26. I won't vote for any OR ( Nina Turner) or Justice Democrats (the name is a lie/Young Turks group) .

in any primary. The Turks are funded by Republicans for a reason.

[Tom Rinaldo]

28. I respect your stance because you are clear about it applying to primary choices

Since we do not have a functional two party system in America (since one of our major parties has gone racist wingnut crazy) we can only really express support for our ideal positions through our participation in Democratic Primaries. After that it is on to us all opposing the Republicans.

However I would ask you to at least do a cursory examination of all the plausible candidates running in a Democratic primary, and not just automatically dismiss someone with OR connections. I understand that, given your convictions, an OR involvement serves as a warning light to you. Fair enough. But candidates are also individuals. Many good Democrats were active in Bernie's 2016 campaign for positive reasons. Seems to me this woman is one of those. She may or may not be a better choice for Congress for any number of reasons but they at least deserve to be considered, along with her primary opponents record. Our Revolution from what I understand for the most part functions in a relatively decentralized way in terms of local endorsements. One local chapter may, if you knew its members, seem overall rational to you, another might be off the wall.

The candidate her or his self deserves to at least be briefly considered on her or his merits.

[Demsrule86]

42. I see your point. And she seems like a good candidate in a different year. But I don't approve of

primarying sitting Dems in the age of Trump. she could have run for a different seat. I really dislike the Young Turks and OR...I feel that they do this as an attack on Democrats. I would vote for yellow dog who had a 'D' next to his/her name. I would add that many who live in the Bronx and other boroughs are not necessarily ultra liberals. Hubs has friend still there that I would consider moderate. So I am not sure she fits the district...don't live there anymore so I am not up on the stats.

[Demsrule86]

38. Really so vote for what I consider substandard candidates in a primary or else?

[GulfCoast66]

18. I am drawn to the most left candidate, but

Even more important to the team players. If the Revolution and Bernie folks would run on their beliefs and also strongly support the winner, as strongly as they support their candidates then they would have much greater success.

But the underlying threats to withdraw support as is often seen even on DU just poisons their candidates.

[JCanete]

19. which is really really realy rfucking too bad if you look into crowley. nt

[DFW]

20. Probably so, but I like Ocasio-Cortez

If she keeps both her feet on the ground, I think she has a future.

[Nanjeanne]

40. I hope not. Ocasio Cortez is impressive.

[Jim Lane]

50. For all of you who say that a primary against an incumbent is a waste of assets...

You can head on over to this thread and reiterate your opinion there. It also concerns a primary against a Democratic incumbent Congressmember.

Of course, there's a slight difference between the two races if you look at them solely through the lens of the 2016 primary.

That other thread is full of people who say the 2016 alignment isn't what's motivating them. Instead, they say, it's the incumbent's issue positions. Well, in the New York race as well, there are many Democrats who have serious disagreements with the incumbent.

This meme of "don't waste assets in a primary challenge" seems to be applied selectively.

For my part, I don't agree with trying to stifle internal disagreement by implying that a primary challenge is ipso facto wrong. I don't agree with that even when it's applied neutrally, rather than selectively. My guess is that both these incumbents will win their primaries, but I recognize that our nominees are picked by the voters. No incumbent has a right to automatic renomination.

[NY_20th]

52. Do you not see that you are being selective, as well?

In the thread you link, you said

"I hope this ill-advised challenger"

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=10731998

It seems that you believe that some primary challenges are good, while others are ill-advised.

[Jim Lane]

54. I guess I must despair of shaking you of this misunderstanding that you so cherish.

Well, I should despair, but I'll try once more.

Yes, absolutely, I'm being selective. The difference is that I don't hypocritically dress up my preferences as being some kind of generalized concern for "unity".

If some people want to say that Joe Crowley, conservaDem though he be, is right on the issues, and they will therefore support him against a progressive challenger, that's perfectly legitimate. I of course disagree with them, but that's what primaries are about -- resolving intraparty differences.

What we see in this thread, however, goes beyond defense of Crowley's votes. We see sweeping statements, not limited to this particular district, that any primary challenge to any incumbent Democrat is a waste of assets. The implication is that you don't need to familiarize yourself with Crowley's record or with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's disagreements with him. You need only see that Crowley is a Democrat and he's an incumbent to know that this challenge is ill-advised.

Let me be clear (yet again): I reject that generalization.

The point about hypocrisy, though, is that people who say that any challenge is ill-advised, and who say that in the context of a challenge by someone who supported Bernie Sanders (NY-26), then abandon that generalization when the context is a challenge against someone who supported Bernie. The obvious implication is that the purported devotion to party unity above all else is pretextual. The cry of unity unity unity is advanced when it can be made to work against a progressive challenger, but is then conveniently forgotten when it's the incumbent, rather than the challenger, who is disliked.

I'm being selective. They're being selective. The difference is that I'm being straightforward about it.

[NY_20th]

55. Do you even recognize the disaster of this Trump administration?

You are calling Joe Crowley, a strong voice in the Democratic Party, a "conservaDem". I assume you mean it as an insult to him.

You are still fighting a past primary battle that has long been determined, while calling yourself "selective".

The whole world is going to hell in a handbasket and you are fighting fellow liberals.

That's not selective. It's dangerous. And it's what helped elect Donald Trump.

Enough.

[Jim Lane]

56. Thank you for proving my point.

You actually posted in the other thread. In that thread, however, you did not say that any primary challenge to an incumbent Democrat is "dangerous" because "The whole world is going to hell in a handbasket...."

When you posted in the thread about the primary challenge to Tulsi Gabbard, did you think about telling those cheering the challenge that they were helping Donald Trump?

[NY_20th]

57. I did not discourage or insult either candidate

for running.

You, however, did.

That's what I am pointing out.

[NY_20th]

58. Let me put it this way,

You are calling people out for disparaging Cynthia Nixon's candidacy, but you are on another thread disparaging Sherry Campagna's candidacy.

Again, you can't have your cake and eat it too.

[Jim Lane]

59. You're free to believe whatever foolishness you like

When you actively misstate my position, though, you really tick me off.

At this point I'm confident that any fair-minded person reading our exchanges will understand where I'm coming from, so I have nothing more to add.

[shanny]

53. I'd say you need a new hobby.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

60. I would say so

[SixString]

61. .