***Official Political Discussion Thread***

[RustyShackleford]

Most people don’t care about the majority of things we talk about in here. We’re politics sickos who post on a message board about the inner workings of the Democratic Party. For people like us after what happened in November, the signaling here for Democratic leadership to maneuver to pick a 74 year old with cancer over AOC clearly seems like the old guard is grasping for power, pushing aside a younger and higher profile rep who is good at political theater, and may indicate that there hasn’t been a lot learned since the election. It all may be over reactionary but discounting what it signals to those who are following can’t be completely dismissed.

Well I don't think people in here should really care either to be honest

I get people like people that like AOC want to see her spare with the GOP more often, because that will make them feel good.

The real would benefits of this seem to all be for AOC and her supporters. She gets to jump the line, her profile might raise, and in turn she might be able to leverage that for more power in the party down the line. Frankly I don't care about any of that. That doesn't help the Democratic Party, or the people they are trying to help, in any real way.

All things consider, of all the old people in parts leadership in the Democratic Party that should go away, Bernie Sanders should be #1 on the list.

But I doubt most people, in here or on social media, would be cool if he were squeezed out.

So yeah, just seems like this is just a vehicle for people to air prior grievances.

 

[dacomeup]

The real would benefits of this seem to all be for AOC and her supporters.

I don’t agree with this.

All things consider, of all the old people in parts leadership in the Democratic Party that should go away, Bernie Sanders should be #1 on the list.

But I doubt most people, in here or on social media, would be cool if he were squeezed out.

I don’t see the connection here at all to AOC and Connolly. You’re saying that this would be squeezing Connolly out?

 

[Mark Antony]

Honestly I rock with Gerry, and I don't know the full nancy of the decision.

 

[RustyShackleford]

I don’t agree with this.

How does this benefit the Democratic Party?

I don’t see the connection here at all to AOC and Connolly. You’re saying that this would be squeezing Connolly out?

People are citing Connolly's age a lot, and the age of people in "leadership" like Pelosi, in these discussions.

Of all the old Dems that will be around next year, no one has done more counter productive **** to hurt the Dems electoral prospects more than Bernie Sanders. And I don't mean since 2016. I mean in the last 18 months.

I doubt Sanders being squeezed out for a younger Dem would go over well with the people most upset with this AOC thing.

So this age argument doesn't seem all that principled.

 

[dacomeup]

How does this benefit the Democratic Party?

Having a younger person is a position of power (albeit minor) and transitioning away from the old guard could definitely be a positive for the party.

 

[IATT]

 

[RustyShackleford]

Having a younger person is a position of power (albeit minor) and transitioning away from the old guard could definitely be a positive for the party.

First, okay that sounds good. I think newer faces and leadership is needed in the party.

But the upshot to specifically AOC getting this position still seems kinda nebulous.

If this were to happen, it needs to happen on a large scale. AOC by herself means little IMO.

Also

From my understanding, the Dems did replace a few committee chairs with younger people (well relatively younger )

Connelly got passed up last time for Raskin last time, who is younger than him. He is well liked an maybe retiring in the near future because of his cancer. So I would understand why members wanted him to have this.

Jefferies even said he sees AOC leading committees in the future.

Also AOC also had a bunch of other things working against her:

-He endorsed primary challengers to a bunch of Democrats, a practice she only promised to stop doing on Monday
-She wasn't playing dues to the DCCC
-She won't campaign for other Dems generally, including Presidential candidates without them cutting deals with her
-Publicly and proudly sending shots at two of the most influential members of Democratic caucuses

It wasn't just leadership or Pelosi that told her no, it was other House members, her colleagues, many of which she has been antizoning for years, that told her no.

I generally think this situation is inconsequential but it also comes off a lot like the complaining about the 2020 Presidential Primary.

The candidate that was ****ting on the "establishment", actively working for them to lose their jobs is surprised that these same people don't support their careers aspirations.

AOC is 35, she will be fine. The party has bigger issues to worry about.

 

[Nike Jordan]

 

[gry60]

the **** of class hierarchies in capitalism is rapidly starting to clip through the closed pants of the fly of the pants of state-digital-capitalism.

I got more:





The tone deafness is legendary, and watching it come from the very people who are supposed to advocate for the weaker among us is surreal.

None of these rich folks who love messing with policy want to learn from the history of policymaking, even though the lessons are fundamentally the same: don't deprive your subjects of bread, shelter, or health, or you won't get to sleep. The list of dictators/strongmen who thought they wouldn't die violently, in captivity, or in exile is long; the list of those who didn't end that way is very, very short.

LOL

Love the puzzled faces the last guy was making.

The shortest path to socialism is to read the gospel.

The man looked at all that capitalism that was going on in the Temple, and it bothered him so much he braided a whip and went in on the merchants.

He said, if you see someone without a shirt on, you give him the one you are wearing right then and there. He didn't say, "make sure you have one extra first" or "give him half."

 

[Wargames]

First, okay that sounds good. I think newer faces and leadership is needed in the party.

But the upshot to specifically AOC getting this position still seems kinda nebulous.

If this were to happen, it needs to happen on a large scale. AOC by herself means little IMO.

Also

From my understanding, the Dems did replace a few committee chairs with younger people (well relatively younger )

Connelly got passed up last time for Raskin last time, who is younger than him. He is well liked an maybe retiring in the near future because of his cancer. So I would understand why members wanted him to have this.

Jefferies even said he sees AOC leading committees in the future.

Also AOC also had a bunch of other things working against her:

-He endorsed primary challengers to a bunch of Democrats, a practice she only promised to stop doing on Monday
-She wasn't playing dues to the DCCC
-She won't campaign for other Dems generally, including Presidential candidates without them cutting deals with her
-Publicly and proudly sending shots at two of the most influential members of Democratic caucuses

It wasn't just leadership or Pelosi that told her no, it was other House members, her colleagues, many of which she has been antizoning for years, that told her no.

I generally think this situation is inconsequential but it also comes off a lot like the complaining about the 2020 Presidential Primary.

The candidate that was ****ting on the "establishment", actively working for them to lose their jobs is surprised that these same people don't support their careers aspirations.

AOC is 35, she will be fine. The party has bigger issues to worry about.

I think the issue is a lot of people actually like AOC. Right now she might have the most mass appeal of anyone in congress. So you think the Dems would put her in positions to be seen and by association get positive attention for their goals, BUT party leadership under Nancy (who is at best problematic at this point) decided to play inside baseball and gave the seat to a party insider.

At this point it is tiring to see them do the same incompetent ******** again because it is endemic of the problem the Democrats have had since 2016. They either outright refuse to just give their voters what they want or they do it haphazardly to avoid it offending the big donors.

 

[osh kosh bosh]

I don't think it's good that you have to spend years and years in Congress to have a chance at a high profile position.

It's not good for retaining talent.


But Pelosi's approach has benefits, in that you're incentivized to be a team player, because Pelosi will reward you eventually.

all things considered id prob go with AOC, but i don't think its a big deal.

 

[RustyShackleford]

I think the issue is a lot of people actually like AOC. Right now she might have the most mass appeal of anyone in congress. So you think the Dems would put her in positions to be seen and by association get positive attention for their goals, BUT party leadership under Nancy (who is at best problematic at this point) decided to play inside baseball and gave the seat to a party insider.

At this point it is tiring to see them do the same incompetent ******** again because it is endemic of the problem the Democrats have had since 2016. They either outright refuse to just give their voters what they want or they do it haphazardly to avoid it offending the big donors.

Dude you like AOC, I understand

But she having this position means little. Ole boy didn't get it over her because he was an "insider". He waited his turn, is well liked and they are in the minority.

Nancy Pelosi is probably more politically useful right now than AOC all things considered, it is close but AOC doesn't move the needle as much as people think. I still she should retire, but forcing AOC to be more of a team player is a good thing

 

[RustyShackleford]

I don't think it's good that you have to spend years and years in Congress to have a chance at a high profile position.

It's not good for retaining talent.


But Pelosi's approach has benefits, in that you're incentivized to be a team player, because Pelosi will reward you eventually.

all things considered id prob go with AOC, but i don't think its a big deal.

I would have given it to AOC too, but yeah, people are reading to much into this.

I think if you actively try to sabotage the careers of many of your colleagues for years, and only promise to stop doing that when you want something from them, you should not be surprised if they at minimum make you prove it before giving you what you want.

 

[aepps20]

I think Byron should’ve gotten it but that’s just me

 

[Wargames]

Dude you like AOC, I understand

But she having this position means little. Ole boy didn't get it over her because he was an "insider". He waited his turn, is well liked and they are in the minority.

Nancy Pelosi is probably more politically useful right now than AOC all things considered, it is close but AOC doesn't move the needle as much as people think. I still she should retire, but forcing AOC to be more of a team player is a good thing

i am not a AOC fan boy, her best skill is her ability to communicate with the base, so that is the thing this position does mean little, so why not just give it to AOC/the base.

Even the justifications you give all equates to inside baseball being more important than just giving the base what it wants. AOC doesn’t play well with others and she hasn’t been here long enough. Fair enough, but she is still the most popular Democratic politician in the party at possibly the Nadir for the party since the 2000 election. It’s not like everybody else on that committee won’t fall in line if Pelosi tells them too.

Sometimes you just got to give the base what they want, even if you know it’s a trinket.

It just paint Pelosi as a ghoul. I legit think it was the wrong move.

 

[trappedintime]

lol at AOC being good at communicating with the base. Funniest thing I’ve read today by a mile. Those neoliberals and moderates eat up all of her communications! twitch streams are a weekly must see in most Democratic voting households!

The base hates her. The other party hates her. She’s the flip side to the most popular member of congress, Bernie Sanders. Even a lot of progressives are sick of AOC. I’ve just never heard anyone say her best quality is speaking to “the base”. It’s insane unless you’re completely lost about what those words even mean.

 

[RustyShackleford]

i am not a AOC fan boy, her best skill is her ability to communicate with the base, so that is the thing this position does mean little, so why not just give it to AOC/the base.

Even the justifications you give all equates to inside baseball being more important than just giving the base what it wants. AOC doesn’t play well with others and she hasn’t been here long enough. Fair enough, but she is still the most popular Democratic politician in the party at possibly the Nadir for the party since the 2000 election. It’s not like everybody else on that committee won’t fall in line if Pelosi tells them too.

Sometimes you just got to give the base what they want, even if you know it’s a trinket.

It just paint Pelosi as a ghoul. I legit think it was the wrong move.

This argument has a ton of assumptions many I think are pretty weak

What base? Far left college educated progressives? Because those seem to be her biggest fans. I mean she is likeable, but I find it hard to believe that someone that might not be able to win a statewide election, let alone a national one, is so important to the party.

This is only and issue because very online democrats made it one. It means little all things considered.

The Dems problems are they are losing voters on the margin. I don't see AOC helping win back midwestern white voters, or older Asian voters, or Latino men, or disillusioned black men, or low information young men. Her appeal with non-college educated voters I suspect has a lot to do anti-establishment sentiment.

The most loyal Democratic voting bloc is church going older black folk. I would guess those people care little about this. The reps they send to Congress supported the other guy.

AOC can fire up the people that already think like she does, ok cool, but so what?

This is a time for serious reflection and thinking about the party's future. I simply don't care all that much about a special exemption being made for AOC so for such an inconsequential position.

Like I said, only this week she promised to stop trying to undermine her colleagues.

The base doesn't care about this. Progressive that pay a lot of attention to politics do.

 

[RustyShackleford]

AOC seems like she is generally liked by Democrats

Just not uniquely so

I believe she ran ahead of Harris in her district. (While Sanders slightly behind Harris)

The fact some online leftist media turned on her because she decided to become a serious politician should not reflect poorly on her.

No need to put extra sauce on it to act like she is disliked

 

[RustyShackleford]

About to go shower for my flight, sorry I won't be able to respond

But I hope everyone has a great rest of the year, Happy Holidays, and see y'all sometime in the new year.

Got nothing but love in my heart for all of y'all..........except Delk

 

[trappedintime]

Her numbers with Dems (or any human being) on a national level are poor. She couldn’t win any kind of wider race and her own district saw a 24pt swing to Trump.

She’s passed a couple amendments and zero pieces of legislation in six years. The only thing she’s actually accomplished is putting out a bullseye on climate change with her ridiculous(ly half thought out) Green New Deal. Basically nothing has come of that legislation (if you want to actually call it that).

She’s smart enough to have realized 5+ years in she had to play more shrewd politics with her colleagues, but that’s precisely why she’s getting no respect from them. She’s become very transactional and rather transparent about it and she doesn’t offer much to working with her because she doesn’t have any real power due to how she’s operated “for the people”.

I can’t find one poll that shows her having strong support amongst Democrats nationally which would be the bottom of the barrel measure for someone supposedly so great at communicating with the base. The best I could do is find one survey ranking her as the 11th most popular democrat in congress

 

[Wargames]

This argument has a ton of assumptions many I think are pretty weak

What base? Far left college educated progressives? Because those seem to be her biggest fans. I mean she is likeable, but I find it hard to believe that someone that might not be able to win a statewide election, let alone a national one, is so important to the party.

This is only and issue because very online democrats made it one. It means little all things considered.

The Dems problems are they are losing voters on the margin. I don't see AOC helping win back midwestern white voters, or older Asian voters, or Latino men, or disillusioned black men, or low information young men. Her appeal with non-college educated voters I suspect has a lot to do anti-establishment sentiment.

The most loyal Democratic voting bloc is church going older black folk. I would guess those people care little about this. The reps they send to Congress supported the other guy.

AOC can fire up the people that already think like she does, ok cool, but so what?

This is a time for serious reflection and thinking about the party's future. I simply don't care all that much about a special exemption being made for AOC so for such an inconsequential position.

Like I said, only this week she promised to stop trying to undermine her colleagues.

The base doesn't care about this. Progressive that pay a lot of attention to politics do.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez passes 1m followers on Bluesky

US congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is topping the Bluesky chart as she passed 1m users last night on the X rival.

www.siliconrepublic.com

Full stop, AOC is a Democratic star, and while that doesn’t turn to a national or state election, that’s not related to why this was just another Pelosi mistake (in a line of mistakes) that shouldn’t be waived away by saying “well it’s no big deal” out of the respect of who she use to be.

I mean come on AOC is an acronym and a known quantity. I could understand your argument if I was talking about Ihlan Omar, but AOC is a star in the party, not a progressive star, a overall star and I bet most casual voters don’t know she is progressive but know she is a democrat. You brought up demographics and saying no one cares and Trump went and tweeted about it to his followers. Saying it’s a story no one knows about is just really underestimating AOC’s national notoriety.

Secondly, I know it’s not a big deal, but that is exactly why it’s such an unforced error. Nothing would have been lost, doing it for the base. You keep adding up all the stories related to Pelosi and her pushing the party to do things based on her view of politics and it all adds up to a narrative. She’s out of touch and forgotten it’s not just about power and big donor it’s about giving the base what it wants especially if it shiny trinket.

The whole damn Republican Party is winning on giving their voters shiny trinkets, it just works. Also maybe me saying the base through you off I just don’t have a name for AOC’s million of casual followers. Maybe it’s the undecided voters or whatever that group of people who are taking time to fill out surveys but will go and vote.

 

[mister friendly]

Hey they laughed at Trump.

 

[kdawg]

Hey they laughed at Trump.

Still do...

It's not funny though - more nervous laughter and a bit of fear.

 

[nonnative]

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez passes 1m followers on Bluesky

US congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is topping the Bluesky chart as she passed 1m users last night on the X rival.

www.siliconrepublic.com

Full stop, AOC is a Democratic star, and while that doesn’t turn to a national or state election, that’s not related to why this was just another Pelosi mistake (in a line of mistakes) that shouldn’t be waived away by saying “well it’s no big deal” out of the respect of who she use to be.

I mean come on AOC is an acronym and a known quantity. I could understand your argument if I was talking about Ihlan Omar, but AOC is a star in the party, not a progressive star, a overall star and I bet most casual voters don’t know she is progressive but know she is a democrat. You brought up demographics and saying no one cares and Trump went and tweeted about it to his followers. Saying it’s a story no one knows about is just really underestimating AOC’s national notoriety.

Secondly, I know it’s not a big deal, but that is exactly why it’s such an unforced error. Nothing would have been lost, doing it for the base. You keep adding up all the stories related to Pelosi and her pushing the party to do things based on her view of politics and it all adds up to a narrative. She’s out of touch and forgotten it’s not just about power and big donor it’s about giving the base what it wants especially if it shiny trinket.

The whole damn Republican Party is winning on giving their voters shiny trinkets, it just works. Also maybe me saying the base through you off I just don’t have a name for AOC’s million of casual followers. Maybe it’s the undecided voters or whatever that group of people who are taking time to fill out surveys but will go and vote.

Just getting caught up after a work trip but your read on this is exactly right and another reminder as to why I don't really waste my time engaging too much with online intellectuals. The guys that can see "the real" story and understand what's "really going on" so they can look down on the masses but have completely lost the plot in doing so.

"Dusty old, corrupt Nancy is using her dark powers to hold back the newer, younger generation"

That's the story. Full stop. That's the story the news is selling, what AOC herself is alluding to, and the story the vast majority of the public is consuming.

The X's and O's of congressional dealings, how AOC does her business, and why or why not she might deserve the seat don't matter.

"She's become transactional and fellow congressmen don't like that", "Gerry got passed up before so it was his turn", "AOCs polling in her district is down so she doesn't deserve it", etc. None of that matters. Zero. None, except to political junkies.

And these same people that write off people's concerns cause it's "just a committee assignment, who cares, it's not a big deal. You guys shouldn't care" completely fail to realize that if that's true, then Nancy should have just given it to her. On the national level, for a party that is in dire need of change, it's a bad look.

I hate to bring it back to Trump but he figured this out and it gave him 2 terms. This doesn't get talked about enough but they very smartly in the last few months of the campaign started going with "Trump will fix it" as their slogan. "It" isn't even clear, it can be whatever you want it to be. Whatever problems you have with Biden or the Dems. Doesn't matter. And the Dems response was to hit the public with numbers about how the CHIPS act and the inflation reduction act are helping. It doesn't work and it doesn't matter.

I use this analogy a lot but this is stat nerd stuff. This is "actually this guy didn't really have a good game. If you look at his true shooting percentage and his 4th quarter +/- he actually had a pretty bad game" and meanwhile that same guy is drowning in 10's at the club cause they're celebrating the game winner he just hit.

 

[TooOlfForThisIsh]

Just getting caught up after a work trip but your read on this is exactly right and another reminder as to why I don't really waste my time engaging too much with online intellectuals. The guys that can see "the real" story and understand what's "really going on" so they can look down on the masses but have completely lost the plot in doing so.

"Dusty old, corrupt Nancy is using her dark powers to hold back the newer, younger generation"

That's the story. Full stop. That's the story the news is selling, what AOC herself is alluding to, and the story the vast majority of the public is consuming.

The X's and O's of congressional dealings, how AOC does her business, and why or why not she might deserve the seat don't matter.

"She's become transactional and fellow congressmen don't like that", "Gerry got passed up before so it was his turn", "AOCs polling in her district is down so she doesn't deserve it", etc. None of that matters. Zero. None, except to political junkies.

And these same people that write off people's concerns cause it's "just a committee assignment, who cares, it's not a big deal. You guys shouldn't care" completely fail to realize that if that's true, then Nancy should have just given it to her. On the national level, for a party that is in dire need of change, it's a bad look.

I hate to bring it back to Trump but he figured this out and it gave him 2 terms. This doesn't get talked about enough but they very smartly in the last few months of the campaign started going with "Trump will fix it" as their slogan. "It" isn't even clear, it can be whatever you want it to be. Whatever problems you have with Biden or the Dems. Doesn't matter. And the Dems response was to hit the public with numbers about how the CHIPS act and the inflation reduction act are helping. It doesn't work and it doesn't matter.

I use this analogy a lot but this is stat nerd stuff. This is "actually this guy didn't really have a good game. If you look at his true shooting percentage and his 4th quarter +/- he actually had a pretty bad game" and meanwhile that same guy is drowning in 10's at the club cause they're celebrating the game winner he just hit.

No one in this world, so far as I know—and I have searched the records for years, and employed agents to help me—has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby. The mistake that is made always runs the other way. Because the plain people are able to speak and understand, and even, in many cases, to read and write, it is assumed that they have ideas in their heads, and an appetite for more. This assumption is a folly.

Quote Origin: No One in This World Has Ever Lost Money by Underestimating the Intelligence of the Great Masses of the Plain People – Quote Investigator®

quoteinvestigator.com