Ocasio-Cortez Not Sure She Wants to Stay In Politics

[babylonsister]

https://politicalwire.com/2020/11/07/ocasio-cortez-not-sure-she-wants-to-stay-in-politics/

Ocasio-Cortez Not Sure She Wants to Stay In Politics
November 7, 2020 at 11:17 pm EST By Taegan Goddard

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) told the New York Times she isn’t sure if she still wants to “be in politics” anymore.

Said Ocasio-Cortez: “The last two years have been pretty hostile. Externally, we’ve been winning. Externally, there’s been a ton of support, but internally, it’s been extremely hostile to anything that even smells progressive.”

[ck4829]

1. We can't become complacent, we have a position we need to defend now

Some people don't want to make waves, but we have to. The 2016 election should have taught us that politics is not something you just "sit back and enjoy the show" in respect to, it is something you HAVE to participate in for it to have any significance worth having.

We will need progressivism and action, not complacency, or we will end up with Trump or worse in 2024.

[Demsrule86]

78. Look. I like AOC. And I had hoped she would do the hard work of helping the progressive

message spread. But this is a center left country and we have the US Senate, and Presidential elections to consider...right now we can't run progressives in purple or red states. In fact, I am not convinced AOC could win a New York Senate seat yet. New York City is progressive but not New York State. She may want something else...can't blame her. She is very smart and maybe doesn't want the Hillary treatment.

[Hortensis]

109. Agree, but terminology! Democrats are the PROGRESSIVE party.

Capital-P Progressives are a dissident faction who dishonestly claim they're The Only True Progressives. Yet, as we know from 2016, that faction is willing to throw progressivism itself to the Republican wolves to hurt the Democratic Party.

CK, America is centrist overall, but that means progressives range from the moderate conservatives who believe in progressive government, just smaller, through moderate liberals, through strong liberals, and over to the farther left, but only those who really do.

It's not a radical label for posturers to use to manipulate people with, but a real thing that real progressives have used for the past 100 years to create great wellbeing among Americans. And that is under attack by the Republican Party and, I'm sorry to say, occasionally the anti-Democratic left.

Ocasio has spent the last 2 years among over 200 fellow progressive Democrats, who've been passing mountains of progressive, badly needed legislation. That she either very bizarrely doesn't know it or knows it but lies through her teeth that it hasn't been happening both say something very bad.

[Demsrule86]

128. I agree...we must support the party. She and others must understand, in order to have majority

we must have a big tent. It was moderates that gave us the house and we lost some this year sadly.

[Hortensis]

136. Yes. They won't, though. They're not just anti-progressivism

when protecting it doesn't further their big class-warfare goals, they're also also anti-democracy. Just like their counterparts on the right, majorities don't support their too-extreme agenda, and they know to win they must overthrow the will of the majority.

They need persuade people to become so unhappy with democracy and the people they themselves elect that they won't vote to protect what they inherited.

And so what Ocasio said here. Typical undermining of trust and belief.

[Me.]

149. Once Again you Nailed It

"Ocasio has spent the last 2 years among over 200 fellow progressive Democrats, who've been passing mountains of progressive, badly needed legislation. That she either very bizarrely doesn't know it or knows it but lies through her teeth that it hasn't been happening both say something very bad"

[betsuni]

153. +1000000

[ehrnst]

135. Hillary managed to not be stymied by 'the Hillary treament."

Maybe she needs to have lunch with Madame Senator/Secretary Clinton on how she managed to keep on serving the people and making progressive change a reality despite decades of "hostile treatment."

[TwilightZone]

2. Easy for her to say in one of the safest districts in the country.

As I said in another thread, she should take a look at what happened in 2018.

She might also want to look at what happened at the top of the ticket in 2020. Seems it did OK strategy-wise.

[empedocles]

11. She could have considered what would have happened if the Progressive was at

the top of the ticket in 2020

[Boogiemack]

180. Getting a taste of the beltway life might make her want to become a lobbyists or

work for Wall Street?? Surely "hard to keep them down on the farm after they see Parieee"

It happens to the best of them.

[grantcart]

17. +1

[Tom Rinaldo]

19. She gets death threats all of the time

She is a national target of hate, one of the biggest ones in fact. Yes it is easy for her to win reelection, that doesn't make the road she has to walk easy. And like a great many other elected Democratic officials, her concerns extend beyond the boundaries of her district

[marlakay]

84. I am sure she doesn't have adequate security

For the amount of death threats she gets.

She is probably thinking seriously if she wants to be fighting a uphill battle when more of the party is moderate over the whole country.

[Boogiemack]

94. So did Obama. So does Nancy. So does Omar. So do most of the Dem former candidates.

I am ok with her leaving politics or staying. I wish she would stay but it has been widely known that some progressives who are Bernie disciples have wanted to utterly destroy the Democratic party just as Trump had destroyed the GOP.

We can either lose some things and fight the battle another day, or lose everything and not be able to fight again.

[robbob]

101. The GOP has been destroyed?

News to me. Wish it were so.

[Vivienne235729]

156. 1000+

[qdouble]

70. Just because she's in a position of power, it doesn't mean she's not a normal person.

She was working a regular 9 to 5 not too long ago. It’s not hard to imagine that certain aspects of politics can be disheartening.

[question everything]

95. As Congressman Clyburn observed: We lost seats because of Medicare for All and Defund the Police

In the aftermath of their unexpected losses, Democrats argued that the party needs to come to terms with a bigger problem: Republicans have successfully cast the most vulnerable Democrats as “socialists” and tied them to liberal ideas, including Medicare-for-all, the Green New Deal and cutting police budgets.

“Democrats’ messaging is terrible; it doesn’t resonate,” Rep. Kurt Schrader (D-Ore.), a member of the Blue Dog Coalition, said in an interview. “When [voters] see the far left that gets all the news media attention, they get scared. They’re very afraid that this will become a supernanny state, and their ability to do things on their own is going to be taken away.”


https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/house-democrats-pelosi-election/2020/11/05/1ddae5ca-1f6e-11eb-90dd-abd0f7086a91_story.html

=====

We are already at a disadvantage for 2022 when the President's party usually loses seats.

[Act_of_Reparation]

175. Really rigorous analysis there.

[lapucelle]

3. I'm sure that there are lots of Democrats who would be happy to represent the people of NY 14. N/T

[Dream Girl]

4. News flash AOC, this is America. Wat did you expect.

This country aint the Bronx where to quote Claims Mckaskill “a glass of water with a D next to its name could get elected”.

[BlueNProud]

5. She's smart and passionate but shes not a House lifer

I expect she'll join the view or something. Make some money. She deserves it.

[Blue_true]

31. Wouldn't "making money" be at odds with her world view?

I like that she talks about raising up struggling working people, but there are more efficient ways of doing that than advocating moonshot policy that is going to turn a lot of people off.

[qdouble]

71. Being a progressive is not a sin.

America as a whole is to the right of many other first world countries, it’s not like she’s talking about pure fantasies.

[Blue_true]

74. I am progressive. Did I say being progressive was a sin? My progressivism is grounded in what

can be accomplished, not what I want because the two face vastly different landscapes.

[qdouble]

76. No one can say with absolutely certainty what can and can't be accomplished politically.

A lot of things progressives are asking for other countries already have. It’s not like we’re talking about putting a man on the moon (even though that was accomplished before universal healthcare in America).

[Blue_true]

80. Putting a man on the Moon took almost a decade, with 100% national consensus

behind the effort. To get universal healthcare and climate intervention on a massive scale, we have to overcome the almost half of Americans who don’t see the problem like we do and are more reliable voters than we are ( they vote in every race, even county dog catcher).

Other than stating what the problems are, what CONCRETE, ACHIEVABLE potential solutions do you propose? Europe has better healthcare because the continent was decimated by WWII and had to start societies from virtual scratch, we only had that possibility after the Civil War, for part of the country.

Europe has not made progress on Climate Change, other than staying in the Paris Accords while Trump foolishly took us out of them. The continent suffers droughts and fires and severe weather events just like we do, at this time. The question that I have for you is other than stating what the problem is, WHAT potential solutions that you can give that are achievable?

[qdouble]

86. Disillusionment with politics is the main reason people don't vote.

Most people that I’ve met or known who don’t vote, don’t vote because they don’t think it’s going to change anything... or candidates are not talking about issues they care about. America has a very low participation rate compared to other countries.

Progressives are way more of a reliable voting block than cross-over conservatives. This current election had the highest voter participation rate in over a century. If you give people a reason to vote, more will show up.

If you ignore people who want to see real change just to hope you can get some Republican support, then I don’t know why people are shocked that so many people decide to sit home most elections.

[Blue_true]

124. The problem that I have with analysis like yours is you overlook inconvenient realities.

As of the last report that I looked at, Joe Biden had just over 4 million more votes than Trump, with record turnout. Trump has almost 7 million more votes than he had in 2016, so a lot of the “record” turnout apparently went to him. Joe Biden has about 6 million more votes that Hillary had in 2016, so it appears that Trump gained more from the record turnout than Joe Biden did.

You and people that push the argument that you just did completely ignore the fact that the vast majority of Americans are moderates. I am to the left of center considerably, BUT I understand that when we push policies that moderates are put off by, we lose elections big. We would have totally lost this election, even against Trump if Joe Biden hadn’t steadfastly distanced himself from idiotic ideals like defund the police, or a whole hearted embrace of a poorly defined concept like the Green New Deal. I believe that if the spectrum that AOC and Senator Sanders are in want to attract a large, elections winning coalition for their concepts, they need to provide numerical heft, the dollars and cents, arguments to their proposals that show how much they cost and the expected returns and how long those returns take to payback expenditures. People can wax on about change until they are blue in the face, but if an elections winning number of people don’t buy into those arguments, we get set back and end up having to recover ground that we had already won at one time.

[qdouble]

181. I'm not overlooking the reality, Democrats are just unnecessarily cautious.

it appears that Trump gained more from the record turnout than Joe Biden did.

No, all the data I've seen about the subject clearly states that new voters (13% of the votes, went to Joe Biden by 34%). This is despite Joe Biden not really bringing in a new audience like someone like Bernie would...but rather the anti-Trump sentiment.

You and people that push the argument that you just did completely ignore the fact that the vast majority of Americans are moderates.

Being "moderate" presupposes that progressive polices are to the extreme left, when they are not. If you poll people on a lot of things that progressives want to see done, close to 50% or more than 50% of the population wants those things. So progressives are moderate.

[Yeehah]

97. yawn

[Hortensis]

6. She says, as the progressive party wins the presidency and

believers in progressive government across the nation cheer and cry in relief.

Yet this. Still. After nearly 2 years among over 200 progressive legislators eagerly passing progressive legislation they're dying to get past McConnell. That they can't is 2016's fault.

With her talent at talking, similar to Sanders, I'd hoped she'd mature into a competent legislator, who at least accepts that government must serve many interests and beliefs, not just hers. But this suggests she's one of those wired to be unable to accept that and work with other representatives to make good things happen.

Like Sanders, who's said that serving in congress is a complete waste of time. He notably was also claiming that for all the colleagues he self-exiled from, but one good glance at his nearly empty 30-year record shows it is genuinely true for him. And for such obvious reason.

I'm completely disgusted at this behavior and just hope she means it.

[PatSeg]

54. It takes more than great ideas

and rhetoric to bring about positive change. Some people are more cut out to be activists than they are to actually govern. Activism is important and often does help to bring about change, but governing takes time, patience, and compromise. Also don't burn down the foundations that made your seat in congress possible. Going after really good Democrats who were fighting the good fight years ago shows immaturity, inexperience, and a lack of historical perspective.

You know, I can say all this because I was young once too. I was full of passion and ideals, but had little understanding of how government actually works and of course, not a whole lot of patience.

You would think that this would be a time of great rejoicing for all Democrats everywhere, but there are still some who just can't stop denigrating members of their own party.

[Hortensis]

91. Really good post. It's not that she couldn't be forgiven

youthful mistakes. We all needed that. It's that she is now a mature woman and that from her, now, this statement is shocking.

Even with total immersion among passionately committed progressive colleagues, she's not growing in understanding and wisdom. Or honesty.

She talked like this when she was still with dissident radicals on the outside, imagining their intractably blind and dishonest opposition to the ideals and wishes of many millions of Democrats resulted from higher principles only they were capable of.

[PatSeg]

166. Yes, youthful mistakes

are part of life and growth. The only thing is that when I was young and in a new environment or job, I was quiet and respectful in the beginning, because I was very aware of my ignorance and inexperience. Like most newbies, I watched and listened as I got my feet wet, not wanting to appear foolish or stupid. Most people I've known do the same. The few who don't, get off to a really bad start and often fall flat on their face.

And you know, if that new job was in congress, I would be very humbled and awestruck in the early days. You know, the biggest turnoff for me was that instead of being eager and ready to fight republican policies and obstruction, so many new people talked first and foremost about primarying Democrats, as if Democrats were the problem. For me, that wasn't a great first impression.

Now someone who has served less than two years in congress is telling seasoned Democrats how to run campaigns and win elections. Now that is some chutzpah.

[Hortensis]

169. +1000. Again, reminding me of that psychologist specializing in extremist

thinking who so pithily explained that a difference between how it manifested on the left and right was that RW extremists hate "everyone else" while LW extremists hate "themselves." I keep repeating it because it explains so much that we see, including everyone's experiences of the "guy at the party" who starts ranting angrily about American imperialism when someone makes the mistake of mentioning a friend in Guatemala or Kuwait.

And, of course, your own "very aware of my ignorance and inexperience." Me too and any sensible, rational person. But that's not a problem for those who know they are the only ones who are not dreadfully ignorant and wrong and the only ones capable of saving us all, or their own tribe, whichever.

Link to tweet

I suspect she sincerely believes that hundreds of her colleagues in congress, including all our party leaders, are all too stupid, and of course corrupt, to allow her to "help" them.

[PatSeg]

170. Good lord

Wow, I don't know what to call that. Arrogance? Ignorance? Probably both. Maybe, if we stop blaming DEMOCRATS, we could get to work on the many problems we face. Clearly, someone is living in a bubble and a lot of the media attention may have gone to her head. I remember when she was insulted because Joe didn't call her and that was after she had made disparaging comments about him.

RW extremists hate "everyone else" while LW extremists hate "themselves."

Sounds about right.

[Hortensis]

173. :) Sure to plain good sense, but truth loses the propaganda war

simply because it's still reciting facts before sending while lies have sped around the planet twice and embedded in vulnerable minds.

Take the term, "defund the police." No one who doesn't work in government had ever heard the term before. It's technical bureaucratese that someone thoughtlessly used in public and was immediately grabbed by enemies and reinterpreted as the centerpiece of a massive lie campaign. We probably wouldn't need to include our feet to count all the angry idiots -- in the entire nation -- who wanted to turn 911 into a disconnected number. And their parents probably set those all straight in quick order.

But one useful thing is that claiming Democrats support shutting down police departments is a sure identifier of a dishonest antagonist. Take names whenever and wherever.

Our big social safety net programs are, of course, all capitalism based and are not socialized even slightly.
Our only big socialized program is the VA, and that's because it was created out of our military institutions, starting during the Civil War. All we can do is know that and tell those who've swallowed the lies, right?

My big thought is that there's no magic competence we can develop that would overcome the reality that lies are a more immediately powerful tool than truth. If there was we'd have done it. But truth is more powerful over time and keeps winning. Just look back over the past turbulent three decades. In spite of huge, extremely well funded and organized attacks on truth and progress, we continue to advance, at slowed and irregular rates with periods of frightening reverse; but overall, even in this period truth, responsibility and decency prevailed and we've continued to advance. And they continue to lose.

“...the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” MLK

[Hortensis]

178. Same regarding yours, CatLady.

[brer cat]

164. +++ nt

[WhiskeyGrinder]

7. PoliticalWire would make that the main takeaway.

[comradebillyboy]

8. How special

[still_one]

9. I am not an AOC fan, but if she is unnerved by what she perceives as internally hostile to anything

that smells progressive, ( which I disagree with her characterization of what I assume she is referring to the Democratic Party as a whole), assuming the article is accurate, it implies she doesn’t have the stamina to fight for what she believes

It is hard for me to believe that she is naive to the hard ball environment involved in politics based on her various actions since she entered the political arena

The Democratic Party has never been monolithic, and it involves working through disagreements and compromise. It is not either my way or nothing

[comradebillyboy]

21. She feels free to attack Claire McCaskill and the

Lincoln Project and "centrist" Democrats but is offended when people push back at her. She apparently wants to lead a party she only has contempt for. She might try coalition building instead of divisive purity testing if she want to get anything done.

[still_one]

36. Well said

[BannonsLiver]

61. +1

All of what you described is part of the deal. If one doesn’t like that or is not comfortable with it then maybe it is time to find another way to make a difference.

[Cha]

88. Thank you, sir!

[betsuni]

100. +1

[Celerity]

103. McCaskill started it. NT

[sheshe2]

157. I am sorry.

Sounds like mommy mommy, mikie started it so I hit him back.

We are better than this and we are not children.

[Blue_true]

37. One of the issues that I see with her worldview is that

she sees compromise as unacceptable, so doing that is hard for her. Senator Sanders seem to be similar. I don’t disagree that the end state they espouse isn’t where we should be headed, but I do have serious reservations about the tactics they believe would work. Americans tend to be resistant to change fairly broadly, if change is set upon them in big doses, they will start to favor those that say change is bad and life 60 years ago was better.

[still_one]

38. I agree with your assessment

[ehrnst]

145. People with that world view are generally much happier and more effective in

activism and organizing than politics where administrivia and working in teams is much bigger part of the job description.

[Blue_true]

146. True. nt

[betsuni]

147. +1

[ehrnst]

139. +1000.

She should have lunch with Speaker Pelosi and Secretary Clinton and get some advice about how to deal with hostile treatment.

[Me.]

150. If I Understand Her Correctly

Last edited Sun Nov 8, 2020, 10:46 PM - Edit history (1)

After her first six months she was ready to pack it in.

[RobinA]

158. Kids Today!

[Buckeyeblue]

10. I think more politicians should have her attitude

Being in Politics for most should be temporary. I realize our current president elect has been in politics most of his life. And that knowledge will help us recover.

But for the most part, I prefer term limits and caps on serving.

[SlogginThroughIt]

13. Term limits would be a terrible idea.

It only serves special interests and big money politics even more.

[liskddksil]

25. Seems to me they are quite served by the status quo nt

[Caliman73]

141. Special interests are served by the money they spend on elections.

Uber and Lyft spent over $100 million dollars on an initiative in California to keep drivers as independent contractors instead of as employees with benefits. The opposition spent maybe 10 million. Why would they spend that much money if they weren't getting back much much more?

Term limits will do nothing except lose institutional knowledge. Getting money out of politics is a more needed solution than limiting how long a person can serve in office.

Make them run a fair election where it is about policy, performance, and debate rather than how much money you can throw in advertising.

[treestar]

59. I agree - there are already limits

and every election we can change the people who hold the offices. So if we want the same people in the office, we should have that right.

[Buckeyeblue]

104. How? Encombants are very difficult to beat because of money

There may be some very talented people who are blocked because the seat hasn't changed hands in 20 years.

[SlogginThroughIt]

113. I think you mean incumbents.

The only thing beholding a politician is their job. If they do not have to keep their job then they have an expiration date. As it is now if people don’t want to keep a politician they vote them out. Why would we want to punish our own good leaders by removing them after x amount of time because we are afraid that we cannot reach another politicians supporters.

This is more of taking away the people’s voice and frankly guarantees more money in politics.

[Codeine]

118. Exactly.

It pisses me off that great leaders like Obama are forced to leave office for no other reason than the simple-minded managed to impose their “throw the bums out” mindless nonsense on the office of e President after FDR ate their lunch time after time.

[Codeine]

115. If it hasn't changed hands in 20 years

then perhaps that’s an indication that the voters in that constituency prefer to keep that candidate. Why deny those voters the ability to continue to choose that incumbent if that is the person by whom they wish to be represented?

And the recent failure of several incredibly well-funded Democratic challengers shows that money, while important, is not necessarily decisive.

[Codeine]

52. I really, really despise that view.

Politics is a unique skillset, and I prefer to be represented by someone who has, or can, develop and perfect that skillset over time. I also prefer to have the freedom to choose a representative as many times as I want, to re-elect them for as long as they choose to serve and as long as I am happy with their service.

The notion of term limits is inherently undemocratic and smacks of know-nothingism. The only term limits required for any politician at any level are elections. Beyond that you’ve removed my ability to freely vote for my leadership.

[Buckeyeblue]

108. I think encombants become too entrenched

And they start raising money as soon as they are elected. But it only works if all states do it.

[Codeine]

112. "Become too entrenched" is a statement without a shred of meaning.

Money, and the raising and spending thereof, is an issue entirely separate from term limits. It IS an issue, just an unconnected issue.

Also, “incumbent.”

[Hekate]

117. The US Constitution provides a method of term limits that works quite well. Vote.

My state, California, instituted term limits for all politicians elected to serve within California. It has been imo a disaster.

[Codeine]

119. I hate the California term limits crap.

They don’t go anywhere, they just shuffle around to different offices because we still want them around. Better to keep them doing the job we hired them for in the first place.

[JI7]

161. Term limits is one reason California has too many Propositions with BLUE California voting not so

blue on many of those issues that were on the ballot.

[Dem4Life1102]

12. I like her and think she will have a great future

in politics if she should chose to stay in it. However, she does need to mature a bit and realize that everyone is not always going to agree with you 100% and others see things differently. Conversely she does face an extraordinary amount of hostility from the right and even among some Democrats which is unfortunate.

[Blue_true]

41. I believe that she brings some of the issues from democrats on herself.

One of her first actions after the election was to point out that very progressive candidates in very progressive districts all won, while moderate candidates lost. What she seemed to have failed to acknowledge is that the moderate candidates were running in much, much more hostile districts and a lot of them like Lucy McBath and Abigail Spanberger won.

[Dem4Life1102]

43. You have a point

But to be fair, she didn’t initiate. She was responding to Spanberger.

[Blue_true]

46. Spanberger was angry because she had a difficult race that didn't need to be difficult.

But Spanberger made a private complaint among democrats, AOC chose to go public with her response to that. I believe that is a key difference between the two, Spanberger appears to be willing to sit and work out differences within the party, without going public with Tweets.

[Dem4Life1102]

47. Again you have a point

And while Spanberger may not have indented for her remarks to go public, they did. In fact during the CNN interview Jake Tapper played recordings of Spanberger’s comments.

[Blue_true]

49. There is a difference between a leak and a public Tweet.

Could Spanberger done things differently? Yes, she could have made a private call to AOC to sit her complaints and stayed cool during the meeting. But again, there is a difference, in my mind, between a comment that a person didn’t intend to have become public and a public Tweet that basically attacks some democrats that lost races.

[Dem4Life1102]

51. Yes there is

But I don’t think either Spanberger or AOC attacked anyone by name.

[Blue_true]

60. AOC had names in her Tweet. nt

[Dem4Life1102]

64. Which tweet?

I didn’t see that one and what did she say about them?

[Blue_true]

67. She listed the two South Florida reps that lost, the one in Iowa that lost and

the one in South Carolina that lost, there could have been a couple others. In the same Tweet, she listed the progressives that won in very progressive districts.

[Dem4Life1102]

79. Do you have a link?

I would like to see what it says.

[Blue_true]

82. I don't follow her. I saw the Tweet in a news story.

You can find it yourself, I feel no need to.

[Dem4Life1102]

83. You have a link to the news story?

[Blue_true]

111. I found several news articles about the disagreement.

But none had the won/lost table that AOC supposedly Tweeted.

[Dem4Life1102]

116. Won/lost table?

Let me try to find that. Thanks.

[Blue_true]

126. I am 100% sure that I saw a table that listed names, how the voted on one piece

of legislation or how the favored the concept and the result for them in the election. The table listen people by name. The policy was either Medicare for All or the Green New Deal, one of the two.

[Dem4Life1102]

132. This table?

Link to tweet

[Blue_true]

133. Yes, that is it. She retweeted it, when I originally saw it, I thought that she did

the original tweet, my mistake, so I apologize for that. I don’t disagree with her point, but I don’t think that she acknowledges that those people are in much tougher districts than the one she is in.

[Dem4Life1102]

140. Interesting

I can’t find the retweet but did find this:

Link to tweet

[Celerity]

179. that table is a reply to AOC, not her retweeting it

Link to tweet

[StarfishSaver]

14. Politics is hard. If it were easy, everyone would do it

One of the reasons I push back so hard on criticisms of our older lions who have stayed in the game and didn't give up because it got hard. The ones who are still around stuck it out and put in the work. They deserve respect, not scorn.

[lapucelle]

24. As someone else said down thread...

... follow the money.

[ehrnst]

102. Yes. Politics is mostly administrative, despite what one may think going in.

MLK needed LBJ and vice verca in order to get legislation into being. Neither could or should have been both politician and activist, because the expectations of those jobs are different.

[StarfishSaver]

154. Contrary to common belief, MLK actually had very little to do with getting legislation passed

He has a few high profile meetings with LBJ, but the real work was done by others. Not a knock against Dr. King. His value, voice and importance in the movement was tremendous and he played a huge role in drawing attention to the news for social justice. But he wasn't very active - and wasn't expected to be because that wasn't his role - in getting civil rights bills through Congress.

The person most responsible was a great and brilliant man to whom history, sadly, has paid little heed: Clarence Mitchell.

Known as the "101st Senator" and "The Lion in the Lobby," Mitchell was the NAACP's lobbyist. He was strategic and legislative genius and fierce advocate and it was Mitchell who worked the Hill and, with LBJ, got the 1957, 1960, and 1964 Civil Rights Acts, the 1965 Voting Rights Act, the 1968 Fair Housing Act, and other major legislation through Congress.

It's a shame he's gotten so little attention while Dr. King is credited with the work he did. But he was a great man. This country owe him much.

[ehrnst]

159. I'm referring to LBJ telling MLK that MLK being in the streets enabled him to convince

legislators that Civil rights legislation was necessary.

MLK did what he did best, which was organize and show the support for justice, which allowed LBJ to do what he did best, getting justice codified.

[StarfishSaver]

167. That's partly true. Dr. King HELPED LBJ convince legislators but he didn't do it alone

But the protests in the streets were just one part of a very sophisticated effort comprised of many parts to get the legislation passed. It wasn't the case that Dr. King took to the streets and then LBJ had what he needed to get the bills passed.

What actually happened was that a broad base of civil rights leadership strategized together to figure out where the pressure points needed to be pushed to get the bills passed. They knew that, among other things, they needed to give LBJ the public support he needed to make it easier for him to lean on Congress. Public protest was one of the tactics that could lead to that goal, so MLK did that, but that wasn't the only tactic and he wasn't the only one who employed it. There were lots of protests across the country that were organized by many other individuals and groups, not just Dr. King and SCLC. But those marches weren't enough by themselves and if marches were the only thing the movement did, the bills would have died. They needed strength and savvy on the Hill to get those bills through.

Clarence Mitchell worked hand-in-hand with LBJ and key senators and congressmen to draft, shape and whip the bills and get the votes they needed to get them passed. LBJ didn't even do most of it - he stepped in and out as needed, pressuring the people that Clarence Mitchell and his people on the Hill told him needed to be pushed and would respond to pressure from LBJ. Mitchell used other means to convince others who might not be susceptible to pressure from LBJ. That was a very complex legislative operation and Dr. King wasn't involved in that.

Yes, Dr. King was instrumental its success. But he didn't do it alone and he wasn't even the leading player in the effort. It's really unfortunate that history treats him as if he was THE person in this fight and has ignored not only the people but also the brilliant strategy that made it happen. That leaves too many people thinking that Dr. King just rallied a lot of people to march and that made LBJ force Congress to pass civil rights bills. It's bad history and makes it seem that the movement was more about marches than strategy.

[ehrnst]

168. Thanks for the clarification.

There is much I need to learn about this.

[StarfishSaver]

171. Here's a great book

"Lion in the Lobby: Clarence Mitchell, Jr.'s Struggle for the Passage of Civil Rights Laws" by Denton Watson

https://www.amazon.com/Lion-Lobby-Clarence-Mitchell-Struggle/dp/0761864504

There's so much civil rights history that has been whitewashed in popular culture. Like Dr. King being both over-hyped and diminished - portrayed as a milquetoast kumbaya figure when he was actually a fierce badass while being credited as THE ONLY civil rights leader of any import when he was just one of many.

For example, I know several of the surviving civil rights lions of the time who were furious at how the movie Selma made it seem as if Dr. King had almost single-handedly negotiated the Voting Rights Act - and that it falsely portrayed LBJ as reluctant to fight for it until Dr. King persuaded him - when, as I said, he actually had very little to do with getting it passed.

[betsuni]

107. +1

[Autumn]

15. She's right. The hostility toward progressives and progressive policies is obvious. nt

[RandiFan1290]

16. Amen. nt

[Reader Rabbit]

18. And she's also getting constant threats from the right, as well.

It’s hard to fight a war on two fronts.

[NickB79]

20. The pushback she's gotten on the Green New Deal has been eye-openng

So many moderate Dems saying it's too aggressive, who clearly don't realize how close to climatic and ecological collapse we are, assuming we haven't already gone over the cliff.

[jalan48]

22. Yep. Follow the money...

[Gothmog]

23. We lost a ton of seats that we should have won

The Green New Deal and MFA were very effective attack lines. We had 7 seats in Texas that we could have picked up. The only ad that the GOP ran in my district was about Medicare for All would double taxes for everyone.

[octoberlib]

27. Saw it in NC, too. It was poison.

[lapucelle]

29. The problem is assuming that tactics that win seats in a district like NY 14

will win seats everywhere.

We lost state assembly seats in NYS and failed to pick up Peter King's congressional seat in NY 2. We had a great candidate and high hopes.

The local Republican ads tied the Democratic candidates and incumbents (even Max Rose) to "socialist" policies and defunding the police.

Local candidates don't need their constituency 'splained to them.

[Gothmog]

34. These programs can not be sold in anything but very blue districts

Again, the MFA ads were very effective because they use real cost estmates for these progam and the fact that taxes would have to go up a great deal to pay for these program.s

[lapucelle]

45. Confusing a nationally-driven cash cow with a national mandate

is problematic at best.

[LeftInTX]

81. I didn't see Tony Gonzales attack Green New Deal in San Antonio (media market)

However, I'm sure it was an attack ad in oil country

CD - 23 is a big oil production district
(Gina Ortiz Jones v Tony Gonzales.)


There was a constant attack that she supported sex reassignment surgery...It was a constant drone.....But I kinda don't think that is why she lost.

[LostOne4Ever]

93. I live in Tx-23 and that was all I saw

Was the transphobic attack ad against Jones. It made me want to punch the TV every time it was on.

I also saw lots of ads attacking Hegar calling her a pawn of Peloci and Socialist.

[Blue_true]

42. It is not hostility, it is legitimate questions about how we best accomplish the

things that she says she wants. I doubt that ANY democrat disagrees with the end state that she wants, plenty, including lots of progressives disagree with the path that she insists will get us to that end state. It doesn’t help her cause that she has frequently thrown very public punches at democrats who are not in the same part of the progressive spectrum that she is in.

[Autumn]

48. Please point me out to the discussion on how we can get the things we need? Because I haven't

seen any discussions on them. Not discussions that will slow down the destruction we face, discussions that will reverse the course. What you say she wants are things that must be done. Healthcare is in a crises, that system is broken. Climate change IS HERE. Punches should be thrown back, they get thrown at progressives and the Left all the time. Come's a time when you realized you only have 2 cheeks to turn maybe she's at that point . Also maybe point me out to when House leadership officially reprimanded Rep. Ted Yoho called AOC a fucking bitch in the House? I can't seem to remember.

[Blue_true]

57. The problem is the mechanics of how things are done.

I don’t disagree about needing to do something. What AOC and Senator Sanders are advocating on healthcare is a whole overhaul, akin to stripping a car down and rebuilding it. Yet that ignore the fact that it took decades to even get the ACA. So the legitimate question for you is why do you think the American public will jump for a massive overhaul when the cost/benefit analysis for doing that change has been poorly done, in the best estimate of the justification work? On climate change, millions of American families depend economically on the fossil fuel industry, those people are not going to launch themselves on a path when what will happen to the living style they know isn’t answered with a solid degree of clarity. We can say that clean energy jobs will fill the void, but how long will it take to get to the critical mass of those jobs to match what people already have? I am not advocating doing nothing, what I am advocating is doing things in a way that there are no big setbacks once we are on the path to a better future state. Every time a Trump or Bush or Reagan get elected because the American public perceived us as moving ahead too fast, we suffer massive setbacks that have us building from the zero point again.

[Autumn]

62. Then that problem is something that needs to be addressed. They either get an massive overhaul

or people and the planet die. That discussion seem to be missing while politicians are busy punching the progressives and the Left because they are trying to wake people up about it. There is no time to move slow

[Blue_true]

66. You are looking past the reality that almost half of Americans

have said electorally that it is ok if nothing is done. What do we do with those people? Kill them as we implement policies that we think will work? They certainly are not going to go away otherwise, of move very fast to the urgency that we see. We have people refusing to wear face coverings, in the face of compelling evidence that face coverings work, yet we are supposed to get people to wholesale buy into changes that will eliminate the livelihoods that they know now? One of the unfortunate realities is that we will most likely end up with mitigation changes that will slow but not eliminate the problem, and a large part of the public and some politicians will claim that is enough.

You asked that I layout how to address the problems of climate change and healthcare access and quality. Why don’t you detail your solution that can be implemented, other than saying that they are problems that need a solution now, I know and accept the need to address the problems as fast as possible.

[Autumn]

75. You are looking past the reality that it is up to Democratic leadership to step up and move on this

Maybe Bloomberg can spend some of his millions on Democrats talking about the devastation those people face instead of the fantasy of turning the country blue.

[Blue_true]

77. Again. Other than restating the problem, what solutions do you propose, other than

a rich guy step forward and throw money at it? What can you do? What are your list of potential solutions that are achievable?

[ehrnst]

137. +1000. (nt)

[qdouble]

72. Yeah, it's definitely sad to see the hostility.

Can’t expect progressives to be there on Election Day but yell at them the day after.

[Dagstead Bumwood]

90. Yes she is. n/t

[Gothmog]

26. AOC said she might quit politics, as some centrist Democrats blame progressives for House losses

I will not open any NYT articles but I found this description of this interview to be interesting

Link to tweet

"I don't even know if I want to be in politics," she told The Times. "You know, for real, in the first six months of my term, I didn't even know if I was going to run for re-election this year."

The Bronx native said the Democratic party has been hostile to progressive causes, like Medicare for All and the Movement for Black Lives.

"Externally, there's been a ton of support," she said, according to The Times. "But internally, it's been extremely hostile to anything that even smells progressive."

The interview happened Saturday, shortly after major news networks called the election for President-elect Joe Biden. While Biden won the presidency, Democrats down-ticket didn't fare quite as well, with some centrist party leaders blaming progressive messaging for the loss of House seats.

[lapucelle]

33. A great Democrat may have said it best...

[Alhena]

28. Can you really accomplish much as 1 of 435 Reps? She could have her own MSNBC show

or something like that where she'd have a bigger impact and make a lot more money to boot (not that that's her motivation).

[PatSeg]

65. Yes

If you want to really make a difference, you should go where you can best do that. She has the presence and personality to perhaps to well on television.

[DFW]

30. The politician that gets everything he or she wants is usually addressed thusly:

"Your majesty."

All others only get what they want (if at all) with years of arguing, compromising, and learning to deal with frustration.

The expression, "if you can can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen" is not an empty old adage. There are many kitchens, and if Washington isn't AOC's place, there are many others where she can do her thing. If she's as smart and as tough as she makes herself out to be, she'll grow a thicker skin and deal with it. But no one will force her to stay with a situation she doesn't find to be one she wants to stay in. What does she think Hillary endured over the decades? Even here on DU, was saw Barack Obama dissed as a "POS used car salesman."

If you want to see hostility from our own side, just wait until Biden is about 18 months into his administration, and hasn't yet cured Corona and cancer, eliminated student debt, medical bills, voter disenfranchisement, poverty and global warming. You will see him dissed on this very board by people who suddenly "know" that he was the worst possible choice, etc. etc. Never mind that he was probably the ONLY candidate that could have done what he did--at least out of the ones who were still running at the beginning of the year.

There are more than two choices. You are not just part of the solution OR part of the problem. No one forced her to enter politics. No one will force her to leave politics. But if she has made her foray into wanting to be part of the solution, well, she can either stick with it or not, as she sees fit. In politics, you forge alliances and/or you make enemies, and it's up to you which goal you want to pursue. If you are a Democrat, and you go around trying to primary perfectly good progressive Democrats, you will garner hostility. If you want to work with progressives that were there before you, you will forge alliances. Someone as intelligent as she obviously is must have realized that. I think she is confusing hostility toward "anything that even smells progressive" with hostility toward "anyone that tries to primary anyone that even smells progressive." If all you see is enemies, that is what you will have, but it means your vision is rather limited. I think she might see a temporary low point, but I'd be surprised if she threw in the towel already.

When I was 15, I attended the first speech by a foreign head of government (Germany), who said to have friends, you must be one. Trump never figured that out. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think AOC is smarter.

[Autumn]

55. Our world and it's people don't have years left. Some people can do the math. nt

[PatSeg]

63. As always DFW, that was very well said

Interesting comparison to a young Hillary Clinton. I remember a young, very outspoken Hillary, who also learned the hard way to control her rhetoric on the public stage. What is refreshing and passionate to some, will be a total turnoff to others. Politics is a really rough game and it is definitely not for everyone. The difference between a democracy and a dictatorship is reasonable compromise. Anyone who enters the political arena expecting total consensus from colleagues and voters is in the wrong profession.

Also, I think too many people in government tend to forget its not about you, it is about the people you serve. You need a whole lot of ego to get there, but often you have to set that ego aside to serve your constituents and protect the constitution. To be a better public servant, you have to periodically step outside yourself.

[betsuni]

105. +1

[Hekate]

125. I agree with every point you make, DFW

As I was telling my husband at breakfast, most of my comments about AOC boil down to “I watch her progress with interest.”

She’s intelligent, bright, quick, charismatic, and I’d hate to see her squander her own political future because of impatience and an inability to compromise. But she may do that very thing.

[Karma13612]

165. Sanders could maybe give

Her some advice regarding patience and pacing herself??

[Owl]

142. Well said.

[Spazito]

152. Well said n/t

[BusyBeingBest]

32. OK.

[gulliver]

35. Maybe she's not selling the ideas right.

She doesn't say what the position of the anonymous people she's accusing of hostility is. Did they just "smell" something "progressive" and react with irrational "hostility?" Or was her approach to getting what she wants just ineffective? If she can't be specific about what the hitch is in her sales quota underperformance, maybe it's the latter. Maybe she really is in the wrong job.

[Takket]

39. the only way to guarentee your ideals are never realized is to run away

[PatSeg]

58. Maybe there are better ways

for her to promote and enact her ideas. I'm not sure she really understands how government works.

[R B Garr]

40. Such irony about her own use of the word "hostility."

If you read the election results starting with the primaries, the divisive name-calling was rejected by voters. It’s about unity now.

[BlueIdaho]

44. A case of unmet expectations?

I Just don’t know. But if she feels like her time is not well spent she should go and I for one will miss her.

[ananda]

50. It's now up to us as a civic duty to propel..

.. liberal policies into our society.

No politician can do it alone.

[Baltimike]

53. The day Biden is announced the winner...and Putin *might* be on the way out too?

That's just weird to me.

I'm making another tin foil hat for good measure.

[BannonsLiver]

56. I think she should explore every Avenue possible if that's what she wants.

Who knows. Maybe she’d be happier out of Congress, but involved in some other way. I’m not surprised she said this though. She clearly does not enjoy being in Congress and the politics associated with that.

[Lars39]

68. She's got to learn how to work behind the scenes.

She's got social media down pat, but building relationships and coalitions takes time.

[wyldwolf]

69. Well... bye.

[mvd]

73. She's young and needs to give it time

She needs to mature a bit, too. The left needs fighters like her. We’ve definitely come a long way and still have work to do in making sure the party keeps going left economically as well as socially.

[4now]

85. That might be best

[The Polack MSgt]

89. But what would she do?

It isn't as if she has the breadth of political experience to become a political commentator on a major platform.

She's never even campaigned for a state wide office

I mean, she's no Claire McCaskill

[Celerity]

121. Not a single Democratic candidate ran on Defund the Police, you are repeating RW talking points

Nor did a single one run on socialism. The Rethugs scream socialism and commie commie! every election, it is nothing new.

If you get your wish and run AOC and most of the other progressives out of office, you will cleave off a huge segments from multiple voting blocs (from the more progressive 1/4 to 1/2rd of the party, plus a tonne of the younger voters) and doom us in state-wide races and nationally. It is a big tent party, and this purity test of 'only marginally centre-left to centrists to even some centre-right moderates and a few conservatives need apply' is electoral suicide.

[Wanderlust988]

123. I live in Kentucky. They tagged Dem candidates with those slogans

Regardless if they endorsed them or not. It was horrible. It's the reason why we lost congressional races.

[Hekate]

130. Odd then how James Clyburn himself said that stupid Defund the Police slogan cost us seats

“Defund the Police” didn’t come out of the Dem Party itself — it came out of the agony of the BLM actions — but it got hung around the necks of every Democrat running for office this year because it was snappy, easy to repeat, and had no nuance.

[Celerity]

138. here is breakdown of the 8 flips, the narrative (solely blame the left) doesn't hold up under strict

scrutiny

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100214503170#post134

[ehrnst]

96. What do her constituents think about that? (nt)

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

98. "Internal hostility"? Is that like trying to primary Democratic reps outside your district?

She would be familiar with that concept.

[Spazito]

99. When it comes down to post-election analysis...

I think Representative James Clyburn, 37 years in Congress knows more about why losses/wins occurred than Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, 3 years in Congress. Experience does count.

[Happy Hoosier]

106. That's what she needs to learn....

How to build coalitions within the party.

If you are always poking people in the eye, they tend to get annoyed.

[Codeine]

120. She should learn from the Independent Curmudgeon from Vermont

rather than repeating the errors that have rendered him an utterly ineffective politician.

[Happy Hoosier]

122. Absolutely correct. NT

[moondust]

110. Maybe she read this.

Thomas Frank has a critique of what some might call 40 years of neoliberalism that didn't start with Trump and won't end with his defeat. I think Republicans deserve more blame than he gives them for dragging the "center" farther and farther right starting with Gingrich, Delay, and Kenneth Starr's witch hunt. And not to forget that Republicans did pretty well in down-ballot races despite Trump.

Ding-dong, the jerk is gone. But read this before you sing the Hallelujah Chorus

[OnDoutside]

114. It's not a big ask for her to realize that she's in a very safe seat, and her loose words hurts Dems

in Red Districts. If she is unwilling to take that on board, then maybe she is right about leaving politics, which is unfortunate because she is clearly very intelligent and talented. As President Obama frequently says, it's not about getting everything you want, it's about making things better.

[Hekate]

127. Kick & Rec for the OP & thread that turned out to be a discussion worth having. TY Babylonsister. nt

[tavernier]

129. I don't mind.

But then again, I am for term limits anyway.

[ehrnst]

131. Maybe she should ask Speaker Pelosi and Hillary Clinton how they managed to stay in politics

and even thrive and be incredibly effective even after being treated in a 'hostile' manner for decades.

[betsuni]

143. +1

[joshcryer]

144. That's a shame. I like her voice.

[betsuni]

148. "In any other country, Joe Biden and I would not be in the same party."

Still don't know what that's supposed to mean.

[Celerity]

174. proportional representation systems yield non-binary, multi-party outcomes nt

[onetexan]

151. AOC should invest in law school. Judging on how well she performed on one of the House panels i feel

she'd make a damn good lawyer.

[Vivienne235729]

155. Give me a break. It doesn't happen over night. If she's willing to give up now,

Then that's on her. Her tenure has been during Trump's fiasco and McConnell's bullshit. What did she think could possibly be accomplished? We couldn't even get rid the bloated criminal in the WH bc the senate stopped us.

[oasis]

160. See ya! nt

[NurseJackie]

162. Okaybye!

At one time she was "on the board" for Justice Democrats. I wonder if she'll return there to make that her career, or if it will be a springboard to something else.

Only time will tell. I'll watch with interest.

[lagomorph777]

177. Understandable, but she has reconsidered and is happy to continue.

Part of healing the country will be healing the Party.

Look, we have to stick together and craft messages we can all agree on, in language that will have broad appeal.

She needs to be part of the very important effort, and so do centrist Dems.

We agree on 90% or more in policy terms. Let's focus on that, and infiltrate RW media with a unified message to undermine the oligarchs' noise.