Instead of posting more AOC bashing threads, how about we all use our time to phone bank GA voters!

[liskddksil]

https://www.georgiademocrat.org/events/

Seems a lot more productive, don't you think.

[luv2fly]

1. Progressives make centrists nervous

Especially when the centrists think they are progressive.

[ananda]

13. I'll never understand it.

Liberalism is the heart and soul of good America.

[brooklynite]

41. Maybe it's the whole "left-wingers not winning elections" thing...

Show me where someone in the AOC vein has been competitive in a purple district.

[AmericanCanuck]

54. +1000

[wellst0nev0ter]

62. Here

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/11/07/every-single-one-ocasio-cortez-notes-every-democrat-who-backed-medicare-all-won

[brooklynite]

63. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: D+29 district

Ayanna Pressley: D+34 district
Cori Bush: D+29 district
Ilhan Omar: D+26 district
Jamaal Bowman: D+24 district

Do I need to go on?

[wellst0nev0ter]

69. You didn't list the swing district candidates

Like Katie Porter, Matt Cartwright, and Peter DeFazio

Wonder why?

[brooklynite]

70. Because they weren't on the list?

[wellst0nev0ter]

72. You needed to actually scroll down the article

To get the full list

Link to tweet

?s=19

[questionseverything]

79. Tada

[George II]

88. You listed the first five in the list, and the only five in the original graphic. ALL DEEP BLUE....

But I guess that wasn't "good enough". The fact is most of those listed with the green "Yes" are NOT "swing districts", unless they changed the definition.

For example, Tlaib's district +33, Mondaire Jones' district +7 - that's at least seven of the eleven winners on that list. As you asked, "need to go on?" The entire premise of that graphic and list of names is false.

Also, many of those who won didn't do as well in 2020 as they or the Democrat did in 2018, and most also underperformed Joe Biden.

[George II]

83. Really? Those seats in the list are "swing seats"?

MA-07
MN-05
MO-01
NY-14
NY-16

Each and every one of them are considered "STRONG DEM"!

I guess not only do we need a clear definition of a "progressive" now we need a clear definition of a "swing seat", too.

[wellst0nev0ter]

91. I already discussed this with another poster

Read the thread

[George II]

92. I know, but that graphic is misleading, as is the article in which it appears....

It claims that those in "swing seats" who supported M4A won, while those who didn't lost, with the graphic presumably presented to reinforce that premise.

It has 19 names listed (including the actual district would have been helpful for reference, but would have contradicted the intended narrative), 11 who won and 8 who lost.

Turns out that 7 of the 11 winners were NOT in swing districts. Of the eight that lost, SEVEN were freshmen Representatives that were surprise winners in their normally republican districts. And they won in 2018 before "Medicare for All" had been introduced in the House, and not being incumbents they wouldn't have been in a position to co-sponsor it anyway.

The implication that the reason they lost, including the one incumbent, was because they didn't support "Medicare for All" is false.

So, of the 435 House elections last month, why were these 19 selectively presented? What about the other 416? Remember, in addition to the 11 winners in that list Democrats won in 211 other districts, too (and possibly one more in Iowa, there's only a six-vote margin and hasn't been determined yet) So why weren't all 222 Representatives who were elected discussed in the article?

Highly selective facts to support a very narrow conclusion.

[wellst0nev0ter]

93. I have neither the time nor the patience to walk you through this

If you choose to deliberately misunderstand the data, that's on you.

[George II]

97. Nor I you. No, I didn't deliberately misunderstand the data, and I actually presented more....

...."data" than that article did.

Bottom line, there were 435 House elections last month, of which Democrats won 222 or maybe even 223 (lost 213 or 212), yet only 19 (4.3%) were used to confirm a pre-determined conclusion.

[R B Garr]

95. This is pure deception that you take a win by the formidable Katie Porter and ascribe it to M4All.

It's an upscale Orange County district, median income over $100,000. Irvine, Tustin, Lake Forest, Laguna Niguel. Ever been there? It's upscale Orange County all the way. Katie Porter beat her rival -- an incumbent -- in 2018 if anything because of Trump'/s anti-immigration stances.

Those folks were not voting for M4All. Katie's appeal to voters was that her opponent favored repealing the ACA, so voters were focused on that.

But now we know the superficiality of these links that claim some kind of victory just to prop up the extensive Bernie losses.

[George II]

82. Bazinga!

[ananda]

59. It's not the logic behind it, it's the bashing.

We don't have to agree, just be decent to one another.

[Dem4Life1102]

64. Well said nt

[George II]

84. Perhaps you can speak to the author of Post #1 here?

[StarfishSaver]

85. The prohibition on "bashing" seems to be a one-way street

[brush]

19. Let's get smarter. Why the divisive OP head? Why not just say...

do phone banking for the Georgia run-offs?

We don't need this.

[treestar]

26. That's really divisive

Yes we think we are progressive. And there are those why try to make us nervous by blackmailing they are not going to vote for "centrists" and so are willing to risk Republican victory, if we don't take positions that will be losing with independents that are needed for electoral victory.

[Cha]

40. Moderates WON the Democratic BLUE WAVE

House for us in the 2018 VICTORY!

They Won it on Health Care! We couldn't have been able to hold back Fascism or Impeach trump without them.

They Flipped over 40 red seats to BLUE!

They have NO FEAR!

[wellst0nev0ter]

61. And the progressives who won in 2018

in swing districts actually kept their seats this year

[George II]

81. Who determines who is "progressive" and who isn't?

[gibraltar72]

2. Gonna sign up for a couple more. To be clear I am not am AOC basher.

[RandiFan1290]

3. trump lost and the trolls are trying to divide us. nt

[JI7]

4. But if it's done on Twitter then it's productive

[AmericanCanuck]

6. Bazinga!

[melman]

39. Interesting

[AmericanCanuck]

50. Not at all :)

[George II]

89. Bazinga!

[BannonsLiver]

5. LOL

[Irish_Dem]

7. I like AOC. She reminds me of the '60s when we changed the world!

Viet Nam, Women/Civil Rights, Environment.
The list is longer, and America was a better place after the young upstarts hit the ground running.
The world thought we wanted too much, and that such change was too radical.

[AmericanCanuck]

56. 60's were 51-60 years ago

We have a very divided electorate now and getting votes from centrists and independents is like pulling teeth.

Socialist badge of honor and incendiary slogans like "Defund the Police" will not work in this environment.

Voters are affected by soundbites now - no one reads in-depth articles.

[Bobstandard]

8. AOC happens to be right, but, yeah...

I’m phonebanking. It’s fun.

[BainsBane]

9. I'm all for volunteering

and I do so for every presidential election and some congressional ones, but I won't be calling into Georgia because I think Yankees getting involved in a GA election will be seen as carpetbaggers and has a very good chance of backfiring.

Regarding the bashing AOC threads, I see one that links to her tweet. Are we again at the point when pointing to a politicians own words is "bashing," when we see threads every day extolling AOC's tweets? If that is what you considering bashing, you have a problem with AOC, not the poster.

[ehrnst]

10. +1000.

[BainsBane]

14. I see a dash

but I guess I don't know the meaning. How is it insulting?

[liskddksil]

25. There's a zero in there instead of an O

Typo, maybe, maybe not.

[betsuni]

44. I saw some people say it was, or it must be, a right-wing insult.

Why? I Googled but nothing came up. I don't go to Republican message boards, is it used there? Can anyone tell us where they've seen it used as an insult?

[BainsBane]

60. Okay, thanks

Seems silly.

[PTWB]

58. There are several anti-AOC posters who have started replacing the O in AOC with a 0 (zero)

I'm not going to call them out because that is a violation of the forum rules. I'd like to think that we were above that level of pettiness but it appears that some people have let their frustrations get the best of them.

We've got a big tent. There is plenty of room for ALL Democrats.

[Mariana]

78. Imitating the Freepers, who like to write President Obama's name "0bama".

Apparently some posters here consider that to be appropriate.

[Progressive dog]

12. Thanks

I think you're right on both points.

[AmericanCanuck]

15. hear hear!

[liskddksil]

16. I'm referring to the comical thread of people

criticizing her for educating her followers on getting the Covid vaccine.

[BainsBane]

17. This?

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=14735022

[liskddksil]

18. Yeah, an utter embarrassment

for this Board, and I've been here since 2003.

[BainsBane]

21. Talk about a thin skin

You are very selective in your outrage. That you think that an embarrassment is ridiculous.

Why is it embarrassing? Because it exposes how little some care about equality? That they defend the political elite being prioritized over front-line healthcare workers and the elderly in long-term care facilities? All because they think AOC is better than the rest of the human beings on the planet? It is interesting to see how little some adhere to their professed values, meaning not at all.

I'm one who doesn't believe that AOC or any other politician (it's all the same to me), except for those in the immediate line of succession to the presidency, deserve higher priority than the vulnerable, than those the CDC said should be the priority. But then I believe in equality, not a hierarchy of human worth.

[liskddksil]

22. Because AOC was mandated to take it and took it

If she didn't take it these same posters would criticize her for defying orders. Than came a series of posts about how she was grandstanding when she posted a detailed and informative post to educate her massive following, in order to convince them to take the vaccine.

[BainsBane]

27. Argument holds

It doesn't matter. The priority on the political elite is a sign of a corrupt society. But the fixation with AOC means that people who pretend to believe in equality show that they in fact believe in privileging a few over the many.

For me, it's not about AOC. It's about something far deeper and sicker in our society. All the politicians got the same privileged treatment, and it turns my stomach. I don't understand how anyone who pretends to be on the left can see it otherwise.

I recall just last week the outrage that the WH was going to get the vaccine first, but now that outrage vanishes when the privilege is extended to a favored congresswoman.

Yet your concern is that people dare to criticize AOC. There is little that shows an absence of leftist principles of equality more than reverence for an elite individual over the rest of humanity. It's far too common in our society today, and it is inconsistent with democracy, much less social democracy.

That isn't close the worst thing said on this site, and your claiming so is absurd.

[lapucelle]

28. It was a recommendation, not a mandate.

https://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/121720-1

https://www.reuters.com/article/health-coronavirus-usa-capitolhill/members-of-congress-to-get-covid-19-vaccine-in-first-round-physician-says-idUSKBN28S0BM

[BainsBane]

38. I would like to think

that I would have declined it until my age range came up. She does, however, have the added danger of being around the Republicans who never wear masks. Still, her risk is far lower than a front line health worker or senior in a residential facility.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

46. I am 100% certain that if she had declined to take it

people here would have criticized her for adding to the fear of those thinking of not taking it. No doubt. And I'm pretty sure it would be the same people that criticized her on that thread.

[BainsBane]

71. Yet no one addresses the question of privilege

Of why politicians far from the presidency, not just AOC, should receive the vaccine before front line healthcare workers and seniors in group residences. What happened to equality? That seems to be an anathema for some. It is interesting to see how some so fervently promote the interests of a select few over the many. I wonder what principles people actually have?

[StarfishSaver]

86. Exactly

The fact that she has privilege and used it is not a knock against her. I don't blame her for taking the vaccine if it's available to her, regardless why she's getting a priority. It's not like if she refused to take it, the dose intended for her would have been given to a healthcare worker.

But the issue of privilege should be discussed.

It's the same thing with white privilege. Talking about white privilege is not an attack on white people who have it. It's just addressing a basic fact in our society. Yet people flip out whenever it's brought up as if it's a personal attack on all white people.

[George II]

87. Not that I fault her but she didn't decline. Why negatively speculate about your fellow DUers?

[lapucelle]

47. It was a prudent thing to do, and that should be enough.

It does have a whiff of privilege, though, for all of the members (and their staff, some of whom are also eligible) except for those in the direct line of presidential succession.

[melman]

34. Hi

Today is SundaY.

[BainsBane]

37. I noticed you posted about Pressley the other day

I'm proud of you!

[melman]

49. You're too kind

You should be proud of yourself for noticing.

[George II]

90. That's how I feel, too. I wonder how a Georgia voter on the fence would feel if....

....he/she gets a call from someone with a strong Boston accent or New York accent or Midwest accent?

That quite possibly could do more harm than good.

[brush]

20. Why the divisive OP head? Why not just say...

do phone banking for the Georgia run-offs?

We don't need this.

[liskddksil]

24. I didn't start the divisive posts but I will respond nt

[brush]

29. What does "will respond" mean, that you will continue the divisiveness?

[brush]

55. Enjoy your stay.

[SidDithers]

23. Leave AOC alone!!!1!1!...

/Crocker

Sid

[NurseJackie]

68. Ha!

[Squinch]

30. Instead of posting threads that stir up random shit, why not use your time to phone bank GA voters?

[Cha]

43. Ex-Cell-Ent!

[AmericanCanuck]

53. +1000

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

75. Touche'

[R B Garr]

31. Oh look! Another AOC thread that really is about

discussing DUers.

[Hortensis]

32. Be what you call on others to be. NO bashing. nt

[Maru Kitteh]

33. Great. I guess we will check in with you for approval before posting threads then?

Won't DU be empty if we're all phone banking for GA and not allowed to post?

Oh and hey - WHY THE FUCK ARE YOU POSTING ON DU WHEN YOU SHOULD BE PHONE BANKING FOR GA!???? OH MY GOD . . . . . . OH MY GOD LADIES AND GENTLEMEN . . .THE HUMANITY . . . .

[AmyStrange]

35. I agree

-

It happens here all the time after an election.

DU is the best, and most DUers are cool, but some just like to make trouble.

Thank God, it's a very small minority.

......GO AOC!!!
=============

[ismnotwasm]

36. TT

[demmiblue]

45. I've come to the conclusion that there may be...

some mental health issues involved. The complete obsession is quite bizarre.

[AmyStrange]

48. +1

-

Exactly
========

[demmiblue]

52. I don't mean to be flippant, but...

it reminds me of Trump's election obsession, and his constant rage tweeting. So unhealthy.

[AmyStrange]

57. Never thought of it that way, but...

-

you can't be flippant without SOME grain of truth behind you.

Anyway, this happens here after EVERY freakin' election!

I think it actually drives people away from us.
============

[R B Garr]

67. Yeah, posting her every tweet could mean that.

I see what you mean, complete obsession — and so unnecessary. I think it’s called spam...?

[Bettie]

73. I've wondered that

too. They truly are obsessed.

[NurseJackie]

66. Ridiculous. Nobody is bashing anyone here.

Lord.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

74. Agreed

Curiously these left vs those not quite as left posts started to proliferate right after Obama was elected.

Deja Vu?

[betsuni]

76. Holding feet to the fire and constructive criticism is bad now?

[SMC22307]

94. LOL

[pecosbob]

77. AOC...Joe Manchin...both bother some in the party.

Choose a target, or not.

[questionseverything]

80. I disagree with a lot of manchins policies but

I can debate policy and still be glad we vote together

[SMC22307]

96. A-fuggin'-men!