AOC: Why do we listen to people who lost elections as if they are experts in winning elections?

[melman]

This discussion thread was locked by EarlG (a host of the General Discussion forum).

Link to tweet

[PTWB]

4. AOC is awesome and is an amazing Democrat.

She’s the face of the future of our party whether you like it or not. And I love it!!

[W_HAMILTON]

13. Then she should get her ass off Twitter and prove it.

Come to the South and start doing rallies in these rural areas where Trump goes and see how well she is received. If she's right, more power to her, since she will help Democrats and prove to skeptical Democrats like McCaskill and myself. If she is wrong, she should pipe down about what these type of voters want.

[Javaman]

61. She's a rep in NYC

She does plenty there. Perhaps you should find you own AOC.

[Demsrule86]

27. I like her too...but this election has shown clearly that we can't win the Senate in red states

without moderate candidates. So she can not be the face of our party or we will end up in the minority consistently. Based on this election, with Black men and Latina voters, demographics will not be enough. We must compete in purple or red states. I think Stacey Abrams is the face of our party really in the future.

[PTWB]

29. Has it?

Look how much money we burned in McConnells race when we ran the moderate instead of the progressive. Not saying the progressive would win in KY, but I doubt it would be any worse! 😂

[gabeana]

36. Exactly! nt

[Malmsy]

117. I like AOC, but she would not have won in Kentucky.

No one like her would have won, I know because my parents still live there, and they thought that McGrath was far left.

[Jspur]

42. I live in a purple state and we ran a moderate candidate

and still lost. If you wondering I live in NC. It's much bigger than running a moderate candidate to win in those states. I think the hardcore red states have made up their mind in the sense that they will never elect a democratic candidate regardless of how moderate that candidate is. It's come to that point of extremism.

[Doremus]

99. But yet a red state like Florida passed a progressive measure like $15/hr min wage.

We've listened to repukes bad-mouth progressives so long that we've come to believe it too it seems.

[Jspur]

100. Polls have consistently favored progressive polices such as universal healthcare, free college,

15 dollar minimum wage but when a Democrat tries to introduce these type of policies immediately they are branded as socialist. My theory is if a republican ran on these polices that it would not be seen as socialism. Look at the ACA and how they have screamed it is socialism when it was actually a policy the GOP came up with during the 90's but because Obama passed it is now seen as socialism. I'm just convinced these people will always label anything a democrat does as socialism. I know this sounds unpopular among some in here but I believe AOC,Bernie would lose by the same margins as Biden did in these red states because all Democrats are now socialists in 21st century America in the eyes of republicans. I say this because even when a democrat passes a right leaning policy that policy is branded as socialism. I can say this that the solution is not to keep going more to the right to win these people over because they will never be satisfied. I wish there was a way to fix this but I don't see any solution in the short term.

[George II]

220. John Dingell SENIOR introduced universal health care insurance (not just "universal health care")...

back in 1943. He wasn't branded a socialist.

[Jspur]

295. It was a different era where people loved and

trusted government. The country had just been scarred by the Great Depression so there was a lot of distrust of corporations. The New Deal was very popular and made people trust government. We are now in an era that’s bizarre in a way that the majority of people want progressive economic reforms but the problem is a good chunk of these people hate the government and democrats which prevents implementing these policies. At least half of country is stuck with 1980 mindset that government is evil and corporations are good.

[George II]

62. It was proven back in 2018 that we can't win in red states or "middle America" without ....

Last edited Thu Nov 5, 2020, 03:19 PM - Edit history (1)

....moderate candidates. Thankfully it was proven only in primaries, and our Democratic candidates who won those primaries went on to win their General Elections.

[Bettie]

87. We ran a moderate in KY

how did that turn out?

We ran a moderate in Iowa. That didn't go well either.

[ehrnst]

110. And you think that running someone less moderate would have done better

in a red state?

Do you have any sort of research on this other than your opinion?

[Wanderlust988]

133. Amy McGrath is not a moderate

She tried to run to the middle, but she was hung with her stupid gaffe about "being the most progressive person in the state in Kentucky." Mitch ran that over and over and over.

[BainsBane]

183. Do you actually think

A leftist NY-style Dem can win in KY or Iowa? Because that is irrational. People aren't voting for McConnell because they want a lefty. Jesus. Funny how people turn around and do exactly what AOC just said people shouldn't do.

[DesertRat]

89. That proved to be true here in AZ in 2018 with Krysten Sinema

And this election Mark Kelly ran (and won!) as pragmatist who would act independently from party leadership.

[Celerity]

198. many of the fails Senate-wise where the more moderate ones from the primaries

Stacey Abram is not a centrist moderate btw (and yes, I love her and wished she had run versus the worm Perdue or the uber thugette criminal vermin Loeffler, but she did heavy-lifting in other ways so not a total loss) She transcends labels, IMHO.


The biggest problem was the horrific recruiting by Schumer and Cortez Masto.

we only had THREE (out the 13 flappable races) races where we had our strongest candidate

AZ win

CO win

MT (and Bullock could have won if he had not been cash-starved (for instance millions of people tossing away over 200 million USD to the fantasyland KY and SC races, as he was leading up until RW dark money dropped in well over 50 million USD to falsely smear him as a commie, and he did not have the cash to truly fight back) I max out to him and Pete, the only two Dems I maxed out on, other than Biden. So frustrated, as Daines is a true POS.

that leaves (none of these had the strongest candidate)

TX I understand why Beto did not run, but the plain fact is, he was the best shot, Hegar was a poor candidate, and an ex-Repub, and tbh, should not even have been in the mix, as she might have (proably would have perhaps) won in 2018 for the US House, if DINO forced-birther, anti-immigrant anti-LGBTQ bigot Henry Cuellar (who almost lost just now in 2020, we really need to primary him out in 2022) had not back-stabbed Hegar and the Party and actively campaigned and fund-raised for her Rethug, racist, climate change denying, forced birther, rabid anti-immigrant, gay-bashing opponent, John Carter.

KY (Beshear would have been best, but he ran and won the Governor race) Charles Booker would have won the primary if it had been a month later, and would have done better versus Moscow McTurtle, I am very sure, than McGrath, who started her campaign in true 'look at me I am so centrist' mode by saying she would have supported and voted for drunk-rapey Kavanaugh (disastrous move, it demoralised the Dem base so much)

TN Tim McGraw is one of the ones (probably the number one) I am most irate at for turning down running, as he has now TWICE, in 2 years turned down OPEN SEAT RACES (he would have easily won in 2018, Blue wave and a SHIT opponent in wingnut and genuinely stupid (up there with Daines (MT), Ernst, and Ron Johnson for the least intelligent US Senator) Marsha Blackburn, after promising for the past 2 decades he would run for TN US Senate when he was 50 and he is 53 now) I am just FURIOUS with McGraw

NC 2 more huge turn-downs, Foxx and Stein, that I am so upset with, as Cunningham was the weakest by far, and blew an easy pick off versus the horrid and oh-so-vulnerable Tillis, in good deal due to his damn sex scandal

AK we did not even field a candidate! Begich, who WAS a Dem US Senator, refused to run, ffs

ME Susan Rice, grr, she would have smashed the fuckstick Collins, Gideon was not at Rice's level

IA another blown opportunity, Vilsack would have won, and yet said nope, same for (probably) Chet Culver and maybe even Cindy Axne. Greenfield was the weakest of all 4 IMHO

GA Special and GA Regular (we still have a shot at each, woot) All things weighed up, Stacey Abrams and Sally Yates would have had the best chances IMHO, both said nope.

KS another one I am raging on, Sibelius was BY FAR our best shot, the major papers said she was not only the only Dem who could win, but that she probably would win, and she flat out said NO, grrrrrr Bollier, another ex Rethug (can we stop running recently ex Rethugs!) lost and it was not that close.

[Malmsy]

116. I think that she's more Justice Democrat. n/t

[Trumpocalypse]

11. AOC is a Democratic candidate and office holder

McCaskill is a TV pundit. So exactly who is attacking the Democratic party?

[Trumpocalypse]

17. Sound like Republicans are attacking Democrats

And have never heard AOC claim to know more about rural voters.

[W_HAMILTON]

19. AOC is claiming she knows better how to win voters over in these states.

And then when a Republican run against """socialist""" boogeymen like her and Sanders, she has the nerve to claim that it is the fault of the DEMOCRAT that lost because of bullshit like that.

Like I said, she should get the **** off Twitter and come to these areas and see what reality is. If she thinks there are all these hidden progressives hidden out in the boondocks of these Southern states, come ******* find them for us.

[Trumpocalypse]

23. Link?

[W_HAMILTON]

26. Link to what?

Read her damn tweet.

Who do you think knows more about the voters in Missouri: McCaskill, even though she lost, or AOC?

[Trumpocalypse]

28. To prove your accusations

Or at least prove what he tweeted is false.

[W_HAMILTON]

33. It's up to HER to prove HER claims.

Come to these ******* areas and hold some rallies in these rural areas and let's see how well she is received. Show us all these secret """socialist""" voters out there in the boondocks. Sanders relied on that same false narrative in the last two primaries -- how well did that turn out for him?

[Trumpocalypse]

37. Thanks for admitting

You can prove what you've posted.

[W_HAMILTON]

43. I can prove it:

See Sanders's failures to turn out these secret """socialists""" in the either of these primaries.

Now, time for his and AOC's side to show us how we're all so wrong, but they won't be doing that on the internet or by doing rallies in blue cities in blue states. See all those red areas on the map? Go there and let's see how well you are received.

[Trumpocalypse]

51. Not proof but opinion

And AOC and Sanders are not the same person. So prove your accusations or admit that you can't.

[Javaman]

66. Woe just wow.

You’re certainly not helping yourself. Need a bigger shovel?

[H2O Man]

249. Seriously.

[George II]

83. Here's one, where she got into it with Tammy Duckworth. As it turned out....

....Tammy Duckworth was right - every candidate she endorsed in the Midwest wound up losing to a Midwestern moderate Democrat. That's the case elsewhere around the country - even outside the Midwest.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jul/01/democrats-ocasio-cortez-tammy-duckworth-midwest

As you may recall, in 2018 she and Justice Democrats endorsed 79 Democrats in primaries and/or general elections, only 7 of them won. And of those 7, two were already incumbents and one ran unopposed. Thankfully in most of those primary cases the victorious Democrat went on to win in the general election.

[Trumpocalypse]

84. Link just shows the headline.

[George II]

88. Here are the first four paragraphs:

Ocasio-Cortez politics will not win in midwest, says Duckworth

After stunning primary upset in New York, Illinois senator cautions party that democratic socialism will not work nationally

As Democrats calibrate their political messaging in advance of the November midterm elections, Senator Tammy Duckworth cautioned her party not to become too starry-eyed about the success in New York of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who won an upset primary victory this week.

While Ocasio-Cortez’s candidacy might have been a fit for New York’s 14th congressional district, said Duckworth, the junior senator from Illinois, her brand of Democratic socialism would not work in the midwest. Ocasio-Cortez ran to the left of incumbent Joe Crowley, a 20-year veteran of Congress.

“I think that you can’t win the White House without the midwest,” Duckworth told CNN’s State of the Union. “And I don’t think that you can go too far to the left and still win the midwest.

“Coming from a Midwestern state, I think you need to be able to talk to the industrial midwest. You need to listen to the people there in order to win an election nationwide.”

As we saw shortly after that, Tammy Duckworth was correct.

[Trumpocalypse]

90. Thanks but

Duckworth was criticizing AOC not the other way around.

[George II]

92. That was a response to comments made on Twitter about Midwestern Democratic candidates being too....

...."moderate". As it turned out each of those "moderate" Democrats defeated the more "progressive" Democrat in the primary and then went on to win their general elections - confirming what Senator Duckworth said.

It was more than two years ago, I don't know how to go back that far to find specific tweets. Maybe someone here more experience in searching Twitter can do so.

It went back and forth a few rounds, too.

[Trumpocalypse]

93. What comments?

Can you post them?

[George II]

95. Like I said, I don't know how to find 2+ year old tweets.

[melman]

96. Here's a link to twitter's advanced search

https://twitter.com/search-advanced?lang=en


Now you know.

[George II]

242. Not interested in going back more than two years to "answer" something that's obvious. But thanks.

[melman]

246. Okay

So you acknowledge these "comments" do not exist.


Thanks.

[George II]

252. No, I know they exist. Just not interested in doing someone else's work for him/her. You're welcome.

[melman]

255. No

You claimed they exist. You were asked to prove this.

You said you couldn't provide proof because you didn't know how to find them.


Now you've been shown how and you switched to "I don't want to find them"


This is because you know they do not exist.

[Trumpocalypse]

97. Is there anything in the article?

[AmericanCanuck]

156. Exactly - moderate and centrist Democrats are the future of the party

Not twitter celebrities in extremely safe district.

[Jspur]

46. The republicans are now painting every Democrat as a

socialist. They did that with Biden-Harris and we both know those 2 are far from being socialist. Notice how Biden lost every southern state except VA despite not being a socialist. The republican strategy from this point forward is to scream that every democrat is a socialist so I don't see the point of getting angry at AOC.

[ehrnst]

147. I think that was what lost us Florida. (nt)

[still_one]

104. Unfortunatelyi her endorsement in Iowa for Greenfield didn't help Greenfield

[George II]

18. A week or so ago she was urging New York voters to vote on the Working Families Line, NOT....

....the Democratic Party line.

[Trumpocalypse]

22. So were Schumer and Gilibrand

and for President only.

https://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/new-york-elections-government/ny-working-families-party-schumer-gillibrand-voting-20201026-oz3rspbg2bhyzk4ps7zdhvhayi-story.html

[Mariana]

47. Here is what McCaskill said about the Democratic Party in the clip in the OP:

"Whether you are talking guns or...abortion...or gay marriage and rights for 'transexuals' and other people who we as a party 'look after' and make sure they are treated fairly. As we circled the issues we left voters behind and Republicans dove in."

[Trumpocalypse]

52. So?

[Mariana]

59. It's funny to read folks squawking that AOC is criticizing the Democratic Party

when she was responding to criticism of the Democratic Party by McCaskill.

[melman]

73. Yes

Yes it is.

[George II]

74. Actually she wasn't criticizing the Democratic Party, not at all.

[Trumpocalypse]

77. Exactly

[ehrnst]

200. But you said AOC should be criticized for criticizing the Democratic party.

Which is it?

[Trumpocalypse]

216. Yes she should

But in this case she wasn’t the one criticizing the Democratic Party.

[ehrnst]

344. And you're right about AOC. My apologies.

See how that works?

However Senator McCaskill was offering constructive advice, and not diminishing the party as someone who is an outsider. And she certainly has the experience in successful elections to be respected when she does offer suggestions.

[Trumpocalypse]

349. That's your opinion

Which you are entitled to. And others are free to disagree.

[ehrnst]

471. Irrelevant. No one said they weren't... what did that strawman ever do to you?

Establishment Democrats edge out AOC-backed candidates on Super Tuesday

I win.

[Trumpocalypse]

477. Just as I thought

It’s just all about winning

[ehrnst]

478. Irrelevant.

Establishment Democrats edge out AOC-backed candidates on Super Tuesday

[Trumpocalypse]

480. Weak

[ehrnst]

482. Lulz... just sayin' what you would.

Establishment Democrats edge out AOC-backed candidates on Super Tuesday

[ehrnst]

484. More projection.

Establishment Democrats edge out AOC-backed candidates on Super Tuesday

[SlogginThroughIt]

53. A turd with a D next to it wins in her district.

Claire on the other hand had to win in a less friendly locale.

I like a lot about AOC, but this was an unnecessary shot.

[Trumpocalypse]

55. So you're defending a TV Pundit

Over a Democratic party elected official?

[SlogginThroughIt]

56. I am defending a former dem politician

[Trumpocalypse]

57. Former, being the operative work,

vs a current one.

[SlogginThroughIt]

58. Ok...

Look I am not a massive claire fan or anything but a freshman rep from a super safe district dismissing a seasoned politician who had to win in a tough location seems like one of the dumber things to be going on about. I like AOC but there was no reason for this.

[Trumpocalypse]

78. So it was wrong for her to defend the party

against the criticism of a TV pundit?

[SlogginThroughIt]

80. Good Lord.

Yeah sure whatever.

[Trumpocalypse]

85. Thanks!

[ehrnst]

123. One could describe AOC as a "pundit," as much as she's on the media.

Or appearing at SXSW, etc.

[Trumpocalypse]

125. She's an elected Democratic Party representative

Not a paid tv pundit.

[ehrnst]

129. So that makes everything she says more valuable than any former Party representative,

no matter how much more experienced? Like Jimmy Carter or Barack Obama?

Why is that?

[melman]

131. .

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

[ehrnst]

135. .

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Red-Herring

[Trumpocalypse]

137. No it means she shouldn't get slammed

for criticizing a TV pundit who knocked the Democratic Party.

[ehrnst]

140. You were the one slamming people for being paid to appear, if they were former politicians.

I didn't slam AOC... are you confusing me with someone else, or just attacking a strawman when you have been shown to have double standards for politicians you don't like - former or present?

If you just don't like McCaskill, just own it. Don't try to make it about being on TV or being paid or no longer being in office.

[Trumpocalypse]

146. I never slammed anyone for being a pundit

or even for what she said. So don’t dishonestly try to put words in my mouth.

[ehrnst]

148. This was you, yes?

Trumpocalypse (5,995 posts)

55. So you're defending a TV Pundit

Over a Democratic party elected official?

Apparently, a TV pundit, who is a former Democratic party elected Senator is a lower form of life than a currently serving freshman congressperson, according to your statement.

[Trumpocalypse]

152. Thanks for proving my point

I never criticized her but you keep trying to dishonestly put words in my mouth.

[ehrnst]

155. I didn't put these words there.

Trumpocalypse (5,995 posts)

55. So you're defending a TV Pundit

Over a Democratic party elected official?

[George II]

142. McCaskill wasn't just any former Party representative, she was a former Senator...

Her first election was historic, and being from a very red state being elected and re-elected is huge.

[ehrnst]

144. Yes. She has had more successes in her career than a freshman house member, and more exprerience.

Last edited Thu Nov 5, 2020, 09:26 PM - Edit history (1)

In a red state, no less.

[Trumpocalypse]

161. Big deal

Doesn’t absolve her of any criticism.

[ehrnst]

179. And being a sitting democratic freshmen congressperson does not automatically bestow more worth

than a former democratic rep who appears on TV to give commentary, and gets paid, which would mean the same for Carter and Obama.

But you seem to want to evade admitting that obvious fact.

[Trumpocalypse]

185. Never said it did

But I’m not going to slam an elected Democrat versus a paid TV pundit.

And do you have proof Carter and Obama get paid for appearances on cable news?

[Trumpocalypse]

231. So I guess that's a no

And I don’t care how many times McCaskill was elected in the past because it is not the past. It is the present and in the present she is a cable news pundit and anyone has the 1st amendment right to criticize her comments regardless of her past accomplishments.

[ehrnst]

287. Her success as a Senator is called "experience." This is why she a "political analyst"

Seriously? AOC's experience as a Bartender, degree at BU, being a board member of DSA and with her mother's health care issues are farther in the past than Senator McCaskill's Senate career, but are considered relevant to her current insights, yes? How long ago was Bernie involved in SNCC and MLK's March on Washington? Is that all irrelevant as well because it didn't happen in 2020?



She has far, far more experience with getting elected in a red state, and therefore firsthand knowledge about elections than AOC has. Granted, AOC has more experience in her short career with endorsing candidates that don't win elections, so I'll give you that...

BTW - the First Amendment is about government suppression of speech.

No one's First Amendment rights - not yours, not AOC's are at issue here. If someone can't handle a politician that they admire being
criticized, or handle the heat from their own public statement, that's a emotional issue, not a "free speech" issue.

[melman]

290. Seems to me

you are the one having a problem handling a (former) politician you admire being criticized.

[Trumpocalypse]

300. Well said

[ehrnst]

345. Projection?

I'm just pointing out the clear dislike and disrespect for people that a freshman congresswoman gets irritated by, that others try to futilely and disingenuously rationalize.

But it's nice of you to make them feel like they have someone to defend them, when several others have pointed out the same.

[melman]

365. I don't think so

Unless it's me that has over 90 rage-filled abusive posts in this thread.


But it's not.

[ehrnst]

370. "rage filled"

Projection? I think so.

[Trumpocalypse]

299. And it's a shame that some can't handle criticism

of Claire McCaskill.

[ehrnst]

354. Some just can't handle criticism of a freshman congressperson who is clearly irritated

by a more experienced Democratic leader, Senator McCaskill who is talking on TV, on the news in a discussion, in a respectful and inclusive way about the Democratic party and what it should be focusing on next.

Perhaps the freshman congressperson felt that she should have been the one talking on TV about the election and the Democratic Party instead of the Senator.

[Trumpocalypse]

359. Nope

[ehrnst]

421. Yep!

Whats your post count now?



Establishment Democrats edge out AOC-backed candidates on Super Tuesday

[Trumpocalypse]

427. Nope

[ehrnst]

433. Yep!

What's your post count now?




Establishment Democrats edge out AOC-backed candidates on Super Tuesday

[Trumpocalypse]

149. Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman are former Democratic Senators

And whatever she accomplished in the past doesn’t absolve her of criticism.

[ehrnst]

154. Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama are former Democratic POTUS, who are paid for appearances.

Which makes them inferior to any freshman reps who might disagree with something they said, according to you.

Trumpocalypse (5,995 posts)

55. So you're defending a TV Pundit

Over a Democratic party elected official?

[Trumpocalypse]

160. Did AOC criticize Obama or Carter?

Please provide a link.

[ehrnst]

171. Nice attempt at a derail...this is about you refusing to acknowledge the logical extension of your

judgement on the terms that you judge McCaskill.

You keep bringing Leiberman and Miller into the discussion... I might well ask you for a link to where AOC has criticized them for all the relevance that has.



If *you* are going to diss McCaskill as a "paid TV Pundit who is just a former elected Democratic representatives" as being less worthy of respect than AOC because she is a currently serving rep, then *you" are also tarring Carter and Obama with the same brush.

Unless you just don't like McCaskill, and you like Obama and Carter, which would make more sense.

You got upset that people criticized AOC for saying something negative about someone you don't like. You lashed out at the person that AOC was criticizing as less valid or worthy, in defense of AOC, but when it was pointed out that your criticism of McCaskill was something that also applied to Obama and Carter, it came as a surprise, and you got flustered.

Doubling down on rationalizing your distaste for McCaskill and trying to deflect when it's pointed out that she's no different than Obama and Carter in that aspect, just becomes, as you put it, "embarassing" and not convicing.

[Trumpocalypse]

174. No it calling out a false equivalency

and strawman argument.

[ehrnst]

182. Because you say so? I've pointed out the very uncomfortable fact that your dismissive

generalization of "former Democratic elected official paid TV pundit" as less worthy than AOC includes Obama and Carter.

It's not a straman or false equivalence simply because I pointed out an embarassing gaffe.

[Trumpocalypse]

186. No it is because it is

And Carter and Obama are not paid TV pundits. Stop pretending that they are.

[ehrnst]

193. You're still trying to double down on a gaffe and it's embarrassing.

Stop pretending that you can say that McCaskill is not worthy of respect because she's a former democratic rep who is paid to be on TV, and not include Obama and Carter.

You're mad people are defending her against AOC's criticism, and you lashed out at McCaskill with the first insult that you thought of, and it was a gaffe.

Just owning that it's dislike, and not about her being paid to be on TV that makes her seem inferior to AOC to you. That's just rationalization.

[DLCWIdem]

163. Those politicians changed their party and outright betrayed the dems.

It is a false equivalent

[Trumpocalypse]

165. So is bringing up Carter and Obama.

[ehrnst]

184. It's an attempt at evading being called out on a gaffe. (nt)

[George II]

169. Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman spoke at the republican National Convention. Has McCaskill?

[Trumpocalypse]

172. True and were rightly criticized for it

As was McCaskill for the comment she made which she has since apologized for.

[George II]

194. You're comparing a comment made by McCaskill on a political talk show to two "Democrats"....

....addressing the republican National Committee?

I'm gob smacked. Have a great evening.

[ehrnst]

197. I know. The false equivalence is breathtaking.

But when one is embarassed...

[Trumpocalypse]

218. And some are comparing a former Senator

who is now a cable news pundit to former Presidents. Talk about gob smacked.

[R B Garr]

224. Actually, the comparison began with your assertion

that Democrats out of office were fair game for smearing.

[ehrnst]

228. Well if they appeared on TV, anyway.

Carter and McCaskill even have the same booking agent.

[R B Garr]

234. Ah, AOCs comment was about not listening to

people who lost elections. Is that why you picked Carter? You never answered about Hillary.

[Trumpocalypse]

238. I never picked Carter

Don’t pretend that I did.

[R B Garr]

251. Actually, I used Hillary as an example of a Democrat

out of office. AOC used Democrats who lost elections. Hillary lost an election, and she is worth listening to, just like Claire is. Both are ex Senators.

Now we see why smearing Democrats is kind of dicey. That’s probably why people analyze AOC’s comments.

[Trumpocalypse]

256. That still doesn't mean

McCaskill or anyone else can’t be criticized for their comments.

[R B Garr]

259. The same goes for AOC. She can be criticized for her

comments.

[Trumpocalypse]

264. Sure she can

Never said she couldn’t be.

[ehrnst]

288. You've been rather testy and have gone on the offensive when someone actually has..

[Trumpocalypse]

298. Projection

[ehrnst]

348. Projection of projection.

[Trumpocalypse]

350. Projection of projection of projection

[Trumpocalypse]

360. Projection of projection of projection of projection

[Trumpocalypse]

476. Already did

[ehrnst]

240. I was responding to someone else who stated that McCaskill was less worthy than AOC

because she was a "former democratic rep who is a paid TV pundit."

I pointed out that both Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama also were paid to be on TV.

I used them as examples because one could not make the case that their views were worth less than AOC's, being former POTUS'.

[R B Garr]

245. Yes, I see that now, thank you. My phone doesn't

expand replies in the thread so I responded to you in error.

Agree with you — That’s why I asked the poster about Hillary Clinton — she’s an ex-Senator who lost an election, as the poster said it was okay to smear Democrats who are out of office. A Senator is just a step or so down from a President, so that makes lots of Democrats smearable.

[Trumpocalypse]

235. So what?

McCaskill is an NBC news contributor and is introduced as such. Is Carter?

[ehrnst]

266. And the goalposts keep on moving...

You really don't like Senator McCaskill, and you really get very protective of and defensive about any criticism of AOC. We get it.

You can take a break from trying to say it's something else... that keeps shifting one way or another and changing when people point out others to whom your insults apply who clearly aren't inferior in value, dignity accomplishment and intellect to AOC.

[Trumpocalypse]

268. Yes because you keep moving them.

Never said I don’t like McCaskill just that she shouldn’t be immune from criticism.

[ehrnst]

291. Don't pretend someone said she should be immune from criticism.

Attacking a strawman: when you need to misrepresent someone else's statements as extreme to make your reactions seem reasonable by comparison.

[Trumpocalypse]

296. Never misrepresented anything

I let you do that.

[Trumpocalypse]

329. Yes

[ehrnst]

334. And yet you still post.

Being called out must have REALLY gotten under your skin. If I and the other people here were wrong about what you revealed about your dislike of who AOC is irritated at, you could just let it go.

But you can't.

And you keep on fishing in vain.

[Trumpocalypse]

335. And so do you

Projection?

[ehrnst]

337. You keep on trying to get me to say something...

And I'm denying you that.

It's clearly very frustrating you, like when people point out Senator's McCaskill's far greater experience and insight on winning elections - difficult ones - than AOC.

Carry on.

[Trumpocalypse]

339. More projection.

And it's former Senator.

[ehrnst]

342. One is called by the last office they held. You don't hear people address Obama or Carter as

"former president," but "Mr President." joe Biden was called "Mr. Vice President" all through the campaign. Do you have a problem with that? Are you going around DU correcting people who refer to him as Vice President and say it's Ex-Vice President?

I didn't think so. You know what the response would be... even if it's "a fact."



Senator McCaskill is the proper way to refer to her. You're welcome.

And your anger at people pointing out that Senator McCaskil far more experienced as a Democratic leader, and her insights on elections that are in deep blue districts is going to be more informed by years of experience than a freshman congresswoman who won a deep blue district, and whose endorsments did not win most of her candidates' elections.

Those are just facts, BTW.

[Trumpocalypse]

346. Nope

When someone no longer holds an office it is proper to refer to them as former. Here is an example:

Former Vice President Joe Biden broke the record for the most number of votes cast for any presidential candidate in history by early Wednesday afternoon.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/11/04/biden-breaks-obama-votes-record-434057

Here's another:

Former President Barack Obama campaigns alongside Florida's leading Democratic candidates in Miami at Ice Palace Films Studios on Friday, Nov. 2, 2018.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/21/politics/obama-campaign-biden-trump/index.html

No anger, just don't think that just because someone is an ex Senator makes them immune from criticism.

[Trumpocalypse]

361. Great

Glad we agree!

[ehrnst]

435. You and your strawman agree, that's for sure.

Establishment Democrats edge out AOC-backed candidates on Super Tuesday

[ehrnst]

356. Here's your chance!

Go correct them, because they're calling Biden "Vice President Biden," instead of Ex-Vice President Biden or "Former Vice President" because they might TOTALLY think that they're talking about the CURRENT vice president!. You go tell 'em!!

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100214423417

[R B Garr]

237. Oh, phone typing! Sorry ehrnst, wrong reply.

Yes, the logic of who is smearable is hard to figure out, lol.

[Trumpocalypse]

233. Never said smearing

So please don’t lie.

[ehrnst]

241. You smeared, you didn't say "smearing."

Still isn't working.

[Trumpocalypse]

248. I never said it was ok to smear anyone.

Don’t lie.

[ehrnst]

343. Don't pretend that I ever said that you did. I, along with others, pointed out your obvious dislike

of that multi-term Senator that irritated a freshman congressperson by going on TV and talking about elections.

Don't lie.

Projection?

[Trumpocalypse]

347. No dislike

Why don't you debate the issue rather than the personal attacks? Isn't that you can't?

[ehrnst]

355. I'm pointing out what others have observed as well.

If you feel that pointing out that Senator McCaskill is far more experienced in winning elections, especially those which are not in a deep blue district, than the freshman congressperson is a "personal attack," then that's your issue.

[Trumpocalypse]

357. Nothing wrong with that

Nor is it wrong to point out that she's a former Senator currently employed by NBC as a pundit.

[ehrnst]

358. Who disputed that or said those things were wrong?

Some thought that they made Senator McCaskill less credible than a freshman congressperson that was irritated that the Senator was on TV, when the freshman congressperson clearly thought that she was more of an expert analyst on what wins elections.

[Trumpocalypse]

364. Good

[ehrnst]

425. Good.

What's your post count now?



Establishment Democrats edge out AOC-backed candidates on Super Tuesday

[R B Garr]

254. Claire was smeared for losing an election.

It’s the subject of the Twitter comment,

[Trumpocalypse]

257. That's your opinion

And you entitled to it. But I never said that it was ok to smear anyone as you accused.

[ehrnst]

261. However, you smeared McCaskill. Don't pretend you didn't.

Scroll up if you forgot.

Several people now have commented on that.

[Trumpocalypse]

262. How did I smear McCaskill?

[ehrnst]

274. Don't pretend you didn't. Others have commented on your swipes.

But here you go... you don't even have to scroll. You can see the evolution and evasion as it's pointed out that those smears also apply to others who are clearly not inferior to AOC in accomplishment, intellect, experience and expertise...

Trumpocalypse (6,035 posts)

55. So you're defending a TV Pundit

Over a Democratic party elected official?

and when someone points out AOC is also on news shows...

Trumpocalypse (6,035 posts)

125. She's an elected Democratic Party representative

Not a paid tv pundit.

When it's pointed out that she's Senator McCaskill, which is also a Democratic Party representative...

Trumpocalypse (6,036 posts)

267. An ex-senator who is now a pundit.

Any questions?

[Trumpocalypse]

276. Those are not smears

They are statements of fact. McCaskill is a cable news pundit. AOC is a democratic elected representative. Is that untrue?

[ehrnst]

289. Several people here have commented on your disrespect and insults. Here they are again...

Trumpocalypse (6,035 posts)

55. So you're defending a TV Pundit

Over a Democratic party elected official?

and when someone points out AOC is also on news shows...

Trumpocalypse (6,035 posts)

125. She's an elected Democratic Party representative

Not a paid tv pundit.

When it's pointed out that she's Senator McCaskill, which is also a Democratic Party representative...

Trumpocalypse (6,036 posts)

267. An ex-senator who is now a pundit.

[Trumpocalypse]

297. Not disrespect or insults, but facts.

What statement is untrue?

[ehrnst]

363. I'm one of several who saw the clear irritation with others who pointed out that

Senator McCaskill is far more experienced in what wins Democratic elections than the freshman congressperson.

Establishment Democrats edge out AOC-backed candidates on Super Tuesday

Perhaps the freshman congressperson was irritated because she wasn't invited on instead?

[Trumpocalypse]

367. I stated facts

If others read something more into them, that's their issue.

[ehrnst]

368. I am stating facts as well.

If your posts were 'misunderstood' in the very same way by several people, that's your issue.

Communication 101.

[Trumpocalypse]

371. Nope

That's their issue.

[ehrnst]

377. I guess we didn't misunderstand you then.

You just weren't subtle enough in your attempts to anger on people who defended McCaskill as being more experienced in winning elections, especially outside a deep blue district, and pointing out the freshman congressperson's previous judgement on what wins elections for Democrats did not pan out as well as McCaskill, who knew she would sacrifice her political career by serving her country in harmony with other Democrats.

Did you get a chance to read this? It really clarifies what you appear to be missing in the comments of people who thought that the freshman congressperson was misguided in her comments.

Establishment Democrats edge out AOC-backed candidates on Super Tuesday

[Trumpocalypse]

378. I just stated facts

Can’t help that some were threatened by them.

[ehrnst]

379. As many have pointed out, it is your attitude, not the facts.

Speaking of facts, did you get a chance to read this?

Establishment Democrats edge out AOC-backed candidates on Super Tuesday

It explains the many of the statements that people made about how the freshman congressperson's tweet sounded misguided, that you've clearly misunderstood. After all - if you misunderstood them, that's your problem, right?

[Trumpocalypse]

382. My attitude is to discuss facts

and the issue and not to comment on people’s motivation.

[ehrnst]

384. The facts are that people here were pointing out your attitude

Speaking of facts:

Establishment Democrats edge out AOC-backed candidates on Super Tuesday

[Trumpocalypse]

385. That's their issue

I only stated facts.

[ehrnst]

391. Says the one who grouses about others' "attitudes" that you can't back up

with any facts. Can't provide any quotes that anyone "announced" that the Senator "is immune to criticism" just hyperbole that's hypocritical.

This is a fact. The freshman congresswoman's judgement on elections has not been as accurate as the multi-term Senator who got a red state to vote for them, despite the piqued response from the freshman congresswoman that she, not the Senator, should be "listened to" on a television program she clearly thought was influential enough to be problematic for her.

Establishment Democrats edge out AOC-backed candidates on Super Tuesday

[Trumpocalypse]

395. Projection again.

[ehrnst]

398. Fact...

Establishment Democrats edge out AOC-backed candidates on Super Tuesday

[Trumpocalypse]

399. So?

[ehrnst]

402. This is a fact. Sorry that you seem bothered by facts. Not my problem though.

Establishment Democrats edge out AOC-backed candidates on Super Tuesday

[Trumpocalypse]

405. Nope

It’s irrelevant to my argument.

[ehrnst]

420. Yep. It's relevant to what other people are talking about in this thread, which is what you are

complaining about. Is that clearer?

Just because it's uncomfortable for you doesn't make it irrelevant. The freshman congresswoman is asserting that she knows better than the Senator who actually won races outside of a deep blue NY district, when the facts show otherwise. Many people here commented on that, and I guess you chose to try to pretend otherwise.

Establishment Democrats edge out AOC-backed candidates on Super Tuesday

[Trumpocalypse]

426. Nope

[ehrnst]

432. Yep. Just because you refuse to read the posts doesn't mean they're not there.

Unlike that "people are announcing that McCaskill's immune from criticism' strawman.

That's not there.



Establishment Democrats edge out AOC-backed candidates on Super Tuesday

[R B Garr]

263. AOC's Twitter comment was an unnecessary

attack on an ex-Senator. The Twitter comment is in the OP.

[Trumpocalypse]

267. An ex-senator who is now a pundit.

McCaskill’s former job doesn’t mean she can’t be criticized for her comments. AOC, me, you or anyone else has the right to do so.

[R B Garr]

269. AOC's comments were about Claire's loss. Do we get to attack and

mock all those Cortez endorsed and then lost? Like Bernie?

[Trumpocalypse]

270. That's your opinion.

And no one should be immune from criticism.

[R B Garr]

273. Yes, AOC should not be immune from criticism.

[Trumpocalypse]

278. Agreed

[ehrnst]

277. It's your opinion that Senator McCaskill is less worthy of respect than AOC because

A. She's no longer in office
B. She gets paid for her analysis on TV, instead of being interviewed without pay, which a sitting representative must by law do for free.
C. She talked about the Democratic party (including herself in that definition) in a respectful way about how it could improve
D. AOC was offended by the idea that McCaskill spoke on TV about elections, in a way that indicated that AOC, as freshman rep dismissed the electoral insights of a Senator who was elected to multiple terms in a red state, because she knowingly sacrificed her seat to vote against Kavanaugh for the sake of party unity. AOC who has endorsed several candidates who went on to lose, and never be sitting Democratic reps at all, which she clearly didn't see the irony in when she questioned why McCaskill should be talking in public at all about elections, and accused her of "taking her base for granted."

[Trumpocalypse]

279. Never said McCaskill is less worthy of respect

so please don’t put words in my mouth.

[ehrnst]

280. Again...

Trumpocalypse (6,035 posts)

55. So you're defending a TV Pundit

Over a Democratic party elected official?

[Trumpocalypse]

304. Which is true

Are you claiming it isn’t?

[ehrnst]

306. And you're claiming you're not insulting McCaskill with the word choice, despite others here

getting that loud and clear?

Now who's the one doing the "pretending" that you accuse everyone else of who calls you out on your not-so-subtle digs?

[Trumpocalypse]

310. How is it an insult

She works for NBC news. It is a statement of fact, not an insult.

[ehrnst]

314. Don't pretend your posts weren't diminishing and insulting the Senator.

Look at the replies from other people to your post pointing out the same thing.

TagURit.

[Trumpocalypse]

316. Not pretending anything

Stating a fact that McCaskill is not a TV pundit who is employed by NBC is just a statement of fact. It is in no way an insult.

[Trumpocalypse]

321. Just stated facts

Don't you like facts?

[Trumpocalypse]

328. Nope it's the facts

McCaskill is a TV pundit who works for NBC.

[ehrnst]

331. Yes,your choice of words in your posts made it obvious to several people your dislike of the Senator

TagURit!

[Trumpocalypse]

333. Stating the facts is just stating the facts

and I don't dislike former Senator McCaskill. I'm just being honest about who her current employer is.

[Trumpocalypse]

338. Stating the facts is not demeaning.

Former Senator McCaskill is currently a TV pundit who is employed by NBC/Comcast. Those just the facts.

[ehrnst]

390. As several have said, your choice of words in referring to Senator McCaskill

made your feelings very clear. You were not subtle.

Establishment Democrats edge out AOC-backed candidates on Super Tuesday

[Trumpocalypse]

396. I stated facts

Either dispute them or admit you can’t.

[ehrnst]

397. Facts...

Establishment Democrats edge out AOC-backed candidates on Super Tuesday

[Trumpocalypse]

401. Again so what?

[ehrnst]

407. It's a fact. Why are you bothered by facts?

Establishment Democrats edge out AOC-backed candidates on Super Tuesday

[Trumpocalypse]

409. Agreed

It’s a fact. No dispute on that. It’s just irrelevant.

[ehrnst]

412. Because you don't want to acknowledge that it's been discussed several places on this thread

as a response to the irony of the freshman congressperson's complaining on twitter and insulting a Senator because a news program is invited a more electorally savvy and experienced Senator on the air who is talking respectfully and knowledgeably about analysis of Democratic party and where it's headed, when she has something different to say.

And AOC certainly made some assumptions about her attitude "takes her base for granted" based on the language she used when she said nothing of the kind...

Establishment Democrats edge out AOC-backed candidates on Super Tuesday

[Trumpocalypse]

414. It's irrelevant

And no cable news pundit should be immune from criticism for their comments and every person has a right to do so.

[ehrnst]

415. It's relevant to this discussion, because it's mentioned several times.

And there's that poor strawman again... still can't provide any links to where someone "announced" anyone should be "immune to criticism." You just need people to think that so you don't look as extreme in your reactions to any commentary about how the freshman congressperson who didn't show as effective judgement about what wins Democratic elections outside a deep blue district as the Senator did, and therefore seemed rather resentful in her twitter rant.

I don't think you really want to be proving me right so often. What's your post count now?



Establishment Democrats edge out AOC-backed candidates on Super Tuesday

[Trumpocalypse]

417. No it's irrelevant to my argument.

[ehrnst]

418. That happens when you invent things to argue with that no one has said.

You wind up arguing with yourself...and that strawman.

Establishment Democrats edge out AOC-backed candidates on Super Tuesday

[Trumpocalypse]

419. Projection

[ehrnst]

423. Because you say so?

Establishment Democrats edge out AOC-backed candidates on Super Tuesday

[Trumpocalypse]

430. More projection.

[ehrnst]

436. Because you say so? Lulz.

Maybe that strawman will finally agree with you..



Establishment Democrats edge out AOC-backed candidates on Super Tuesday

[Trumpocalypse]

444. And even more

[ehrnst]

451. And even more more.

Pro-tip... if you want people to think you "don't care" how your statements are percieved, frantically trying to one up someone who tells you how you're percieved with dozens of posts with various logical fallacy responses doesn't really give that claim credibility.



Establishment Democrats edge out AOC-backed candidates on Super Tuesday

[Trumpocalypse]

453. And still more projection

[ehrnst]

459. Because you say so?

Lulz.



Establishment Democrats edge out AOC-backed candidates on Super Tuesday

[Trumpocalypse]

461. More projection

[ehrnst]

466. Because it makes you uncomfortable? Lulz.

I win.

Establishment Democrats edge out AOC-backed candidates on Super Tuesday

[melman]

282. A lot of people didn't find her comments all that respectful

That's why she had to apologize.

--

On an appearance on MSNBC, former U.S. Sen. Claire McCaskill called out “transsexuals,” gay marriage, abortion, gun safety, and people Democrats “look after” as part of the reason the Democratic Party has lost some voters. The pundit from Missouri issued an apology (met with a mixed response on Twitter) saying she was “tired.”

The Advocate

[ehrnst]

283. That's not what AOC or the poster I was responding to was talking about.

Go back and read it again...

[ehrnst]

404. +1000.

[ehrnst]

226. Are you saying that Obama and Carter are NOT former elected Democratic reps who

get paid to appear on TV? Sometimes even CABLE TV?

Really?

(See what I did there?)



But seriously:

[Trumpocalypse]

236. You have proof that they get paid?

[ehrnst]

243. You seem shocked and dismayed... Carter has a booking agent.

I showed the link earlier, but here it is again, with his fee:

https://www.speakerbookingagency.com/talent/jimmy-carter

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/may/01/barack-obama-speaking-fees-economic-racial-justice

I hope that doesn't lower your respect for them to the level you have for McCaskill..




But can you tell me how much Claire McCaskill and other pundits get paid?

The secret pundit decoder works like this: A “contributor” (such as Meghan McCain) is an exclusive network hireling who gets paid for his or her sound bites. He or she earns a fee for each appearance or a flat amount for being on call, like a firefighter, whenever his or her services are required. The amounts can range from around $150 per “hit” to the mid-six figures for a marquee name such as Karl Rove or David Axelrod, both former campaign savants and presidential advisers. An “analyst” (such as CNN’s David Gergen or David Gregory, the former host of “Meet the Press”) is a salaried or contract employee who is expected to analyze the day’s Narrative rather than opine about it like a contributor. A “strategist” is usually a part-timer and a partisan hired for his or her political experience and insight.

Not that these rules really matter. Analysts contribute opinions, contributors analyze and strategists do both.

Then there are “guests,” Punditstan’s temporary-worker class. Guests typically aren’t paid, and often aren’t even identified as guests. Guests are free to peddle their thoughts to whichever network will have them (full disclosure: I’ve been an occasional guest on cable, like just everyone in Washington who has ever had a byline). The ever-itinerant nature of this class of talking heads explains why you’re likely to see vaguely familiar faces such as political scientist Larry Sabato or think-tank wise man Norman J. Ornstein on MSNBC one day and on CNN the next.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/style/2016/06/02/pundits/

[Trumpocalypse]

247. So what?

Doesn’t mean he gets paid to be a cable news contributor. If he was he would be introduced as such.

[Trumpocalypse]

253. But you didn't prove anything

And yes McCaskill is introduced as an NBC News contributor, that means she works for NBC. Is Carter introduced as a contributor when he appears on Cable News?

[ehrnst]

260. You're really embarassed now, aren't you?

You challenged me to prove that they got paid.

Trumpocalypse (6,029 posts)

236. You have proof that they get paid?

I showed you proof. Sorry if that got you so upset that you feel a need to deny it happened.

Now it's your turn.

What is she paid? Any ideas? You seem to think that getting paid for commentary on one's area of expertise on network news is demeaning, I'm just curious if you think it's more or less demeaning the bigger the check.

[Trumpocalypse]

265. No you didn't prove they get paid for appearing on cable news

McCaskill works for NBC.
https://www.kshb.com/news/local-news/former-sen-claire-mccaskill-to-join-nbc-msnbc-as-political-analyst

[ehrnst]

271. I never said that. Don't pretend I did.

[Trumpocalypse]

275. Then I must have misunderstood your point

And apologize for it.

[ehrnst]

281. I think you understood it fine. As I've said, I think it made you uncomfortable, and

so you attacked a strawman.

As I pointed out similarity after similarity to other politicians who did not deserve the disrespect that you clearly have for McCaskill, as you say, for

Being on TV
Being a former Democratic politician
Being paid for public appearances where they talk about their political experience

You kept trying various combinations, and bringing in politicians who weren't all Democrats and many don't respect in as a false equivalence, in order to try to deflect from the fact that indeed Obama and Carter could be damned as well.

But AOC clearly doesn't like or respect McCaskill, and that is the real difference for you, I suspect.

Apology accepted, however.

[Trumpocalypse]

303. Never disrespected anyone

Just stated facts

[ehrnst]

307. Yes you did. Don't pretend you didn't.

Several people have pointed it out.

[Trumpocalypse]

311. How is stating a fact

an insult?

[ehrnst]

312. Don't pretend you weren't insulting her. Others here also pointed that out.

TagURit.

[Trumpocalypse]

313. How is pointing out that she works for NBC an insult?

[ehrnst]

315. Keep on moving the goalposts... you insulted the Senator with your language choices

as other people here have pointed out.

Now you're just really embarassing yourself.

TagURit!

[Trumpocalypse]

317. No leave that to you

I'm just stating the truth. Sorry you have an issue with facts.

[ehrnst]

323. Nice pivot! But doesn't change your very clear ill will towards the Senator and those of us

who pointed out the obvious, if uncomfortable truth.

TagURit!!

[Trumpocalypse]

326. Stating the truth is not ill will

And she's a former Senator and currently a TV pundit employed by NBC.

[ehrnst]

330. Your feelings were very obvious, as others have pointed out.

Are you going to start using all caps next?

TagURit!

[Trumpocalypse]

332. I was just stating facts

Sorry if the truth makes you uncomfortable.

[ehrnst]

340. You're very unhappy with people pointing out Senator McCaskills far greater experience and insight

concerning winning elections in places that are not deep blue than AOC.

Multiple people pointing out the emotional basis for your flurry of angry responses to people, likely feeling like you needed to defend the freshman congresswoman from criticism, surprised you, didn't it?

[Trumpocalypse]

341. No

I was unhappy with the attitude that she is not allowed for be criticized for comments that she has since apologized for.

[ehrnst]

372. No one said she was no allowed to be criticized.

As you like to say, "don't lie."

People were stating facts and pointing out some ironies about the freshman congresswoman complaining about more electorally successful and experienced Senator being asked for her opinion, when the less experienced congresswoman stated that she was more qualified than the multi-term Senator for analysis of what wins Democratic elections.

Establishment Democrats edge out AOC-backed candidates on Super Tuesday

If those facts are uncomfortable for you, that's your issue.

[Trumpocalypse]

373. True

Just some had a big problem with it.

[ehrnst]

374. And some had an even bigger problem with people pointing out that the experienced multi-term Senator

might have a more accurate vision than the less experienced freshman congressperson on the Democratic party and what wins elections.

[link:Establishment Democrats edge out AOC-backed candidates on Super Tuesday|https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2020/03/establishment-edge-out-aoc-candidates20/]

It may have been that the freshman congressperson had a problem that she wasn't the one that was invited on TV to give her opinion.

[Trumpocalypse]

380. You mean

A former Senator who now works for NBC/Comcast as a pundit.

And I really doubt AOC would ever go on Joe Scarborough’s show. BTW since he’s an experienced politician, who never lost an election, are we supposed to listen to his advice too?

[ehrnst]

383. Sorry the fact that she won more elections than AOC is threatening to you.

But as you say, that would be on you.

The freshman congressperson with a track record of not picking winners in the last primary would probably have loved to be asked her opinion about Democrats and the election on a network news show.. The freshman rep seemed to think that the program was important enough to complain "why are we listening to...." yes? She thought enough people were taking it seriously enough to take to twitter to protest about it. I didn't see her scoff at the program as being inconsequential. Sounds like the sour grapes may be going around.



Personally, I would trust the 'advice" and analysis someone with experience in winning elections in difficult places for a Democrat to win them over a freshman congressperson who does not have those qualities, especially if that freshman congressperson gets testy that someone else is being "listened to" instead of her.

Establishment Democrats edge out AOC-backed candidates on Super Tuesday

[Trumpocalypse]

386. So did Joe Scarborough

So did Joe Lieberman and Zell Miller for that matter. So anyone who has won elections is not allowed to be criticized?

[ehrnst]

388. Yet another strawman. No response to the facts?

Unlike you, I owned my opinon, and apparently the justification I gave for that opinion really got under your skin.

Establishment Democrats edge out AOC-backed candidates on Super Tuesday

[Trumpocalypse]

392. No

My point is and has always been that no one should be immune for criticism for their comments.

[ehrnst]

400. lulz... No one here said anyone was immune - only you said that.

Establishment Democrats edge out AOC-backed candidates on Super Tuesday

[Trumpocalypse]

403. Good

Glad to hear it.

[ehrnst]

406. It's your strawman, Attack as you like.

Establishment Democrats edge out AOC-backed candidates on Super Tuesday

[Trumpocalypse]

408. Nope

[ehrnst]

413. Yep. Right there in the link. You just need to click it to see.

Establishment Democrats edge out AOC-backed candidates on Super Tuesday

[Trumpocalypse]

416. Still irrelevant

[ehrnst]

422. The posts from various people on this thread prove otherwise.

But keep on arguing with that straw man - he always proves you right.



Establishment Democrats edge out AOC-backed candidates on Super Tuesday

[Trumpocalypse]

429. No it's irrelevant

[Trumpocalypse]

441. Irrelevant to my argument

[ehrnst]

445. Well, if you're arguing with yourself and a strawman, sure...

He doesn't seem to be doing well...





Establishment Democrats edge out AOC-backed candidates on Super Tuesday

[Trumpocalypse]

449. Still more projection

[ehrnst]

455. Because you say so? Lulz.

Copying and pasting something over and over again doesn't make it any more factual.

Have you considered all caps?



FYI - this is a fact, backed up with sources.

Establishment Democrats edge out AOC-backed candidates on Super Tuesday

[Trumpocalypse]

458. The lady douth protest too much

[Trumpocalypse]

448. Not to my argument

[ehrnst]

464. Well, that happens when you argue with yourself. Nothing anyone else says is relevant.

Good thing you 'don't care" how your statements are perceived...protest a bit too much?



Establishment Democrats edge out AOC-backed candidates on Super Tuesday

[LanternWaste]

439. Irrelevant like random video's of Yang? Or irrelevant in a different way?

[Trumpocalypse]

443. Not random at all

[Trumpocalypse]

475. Yes it was

But wasn’t responding to you

[ehrnst]

485. Why are you the only one who gets to say what's relevant and what's not on this page?

Establishment Democrats edge out AOC-backed candidates on Super Tuesday

[Trumpocalypse]

486. Awww

[ehrnst]

487. More projection, And irrelevant.

Establishment Democrats edge out AOC-backed candidates on Super Tuesday

[ehrnst]

489. Aww. It'll be OK.

You may want to make use of the ignore feature to save yourself this kind of frustration and anger in the future.

When you lose your sense of humor when someone holds up a mirror, it usually doesn't turn out well.



Establishment Democrats edge out AOC-backed candidates on Super Tuesday

[Trumpocalypse]

490. .

[Trumpocalypse]

497. .

[George II]

500. Who is that supposed to be?

[R B Garr]

102. Wait, so the AOC rules are that former elected Dems

are okay to slam? Like Hillary Clinton, etc. Who else can we smear?

[Trumpocalypse]

108. Why not if they are criticizing the Democratic party

Which McCaskill was doing.

[George II]

170. No she wasn't. To use your go-to.........link?

[Trumpocalypse]

173. Yes she was

Link to tweet

[George II]

175. That wasn't criticizing the Democratic Party. Of course, Waleed Shahid would jump on that.

[Trumpocalypse]

177. So who was she criticizing?

[George II]

180. No one. She was commenting on the events of the day. Why does everything have to be...

...either a criticism or acclamation?

[Trumpocalypse]

188. She was criticizing the party

Stop denying reality.

[George II]

189. That's your opinion.

[Trumpocalypse]

191. Maybe/maybe not

[ehrnst]

285. Not even trying to hide evading the question while still posting...

in an effort to not let them "WIN" with the last word?

[Trumpocalypse]

301. More projection

[ehrnst]

375. Nope. You're the one projecting. Clearly.

[Trumpocalypse]

381. That's exactly what someone projecting would say

[ehrnst]

438. Because you say so? Or did the strawman say that?

Establishment Democrats edge out AOC-backed candidates on Super Tuesday

[Trumpocalypse]

447. And even more

[ehrnst]

472. Irrelevant. I win!

Establishment Democrats edge out AOC-backed candidates on Super Tuesday

[Trumpocalypse]

474. Yes it's all about winning

Good for you

[ehrnst]

483. Lulz...

Establishment Democrats edge out AOC-backed candidates on Super Tuesday

[ehrnst]

286. I know, right? And she refers to "Us" when she talks about the Democratic party, not as an outsider

who is trying to keep their distance while criticizing.

[anamnua]

181. Her repeated use of the word 'we' means she sees herself

as a Democrat and is -- as she is perfectly entitled to do -- merely expressing some misgivings about some aspects of the party's strategizing.

[Trumpocalypse]

187. Which she is free to do

But to announce that she can’t be criticized for her comments smacks of fascism.

[ehrnst]

206. Who "announced that she can't be criticized?"

Don't set up and attack strawmen and expect others to defend them...

[Trumpocalypse]

208. Great

So you agree that it was fair to criticize her for her comment.

[ehrnst]

219. Still can't answer the question?

What did that strawmen ever do to you?

[Trumpocalypse]

230. What question?

[ehrnst]

284. Who "announced that she can't be criticized?"

Still waiting.

[Trumpocalypse]

302. Sounds like you have

[ehrnst]

308. Never 'announced' McCaskill is 'immune to criticism."

so please don’t put words in my mouth. Show me where I did, like I did your posts.



Please show me where anyone else has said that I was "announcing that she is immune to criticism."




Dismissing her career because it's "2020" and therefore her multi term career as a Senator - which she sacrificed to vote against Kavanaugh - is not relevant to her expertise or value as a Democratic analyst could also be applied to.... Obama and Jimmy Carter, who are no longer in office.

I look forward to your dismissing their insights as being less valid or having anything to contribute than a freshman congressperson who is irritated by something they say, because they were POTUS "in the past, not now." Because that would be consistent, and not at all based in a personal distaste for the Democratic Senator from Montana that said something that got under your favorite freshman congrespersons' skin.

[Trumpocalypse]

309. Great

And I apologize for making an assumption.

But I'm not dismissing her. I just don't think that McCaskill or AOC or anyone else can't be criticized for their comments.

Just an FYI my favorite congressperson is Nancy Pelosi.

[ehrnst]

410. Which is it - people saying some are immune, or is that your mistaken impression?

Sure seems that strawman keeps making an appearance, despite your apologies for setting him up and flailing away.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=14476512



Establishment Democrats edge out AOC-backed candidates on Super Tuesday

[Trumpocalypse]

411. Maybe it's a mistaken impression.

If it is, I apologize.

[ehrnst]

428. "Maybe?" "if?"

Lulz.

Establishment Democrats edge out AOC-backed candidates on Super Tuesday

[Trumpocalypse]

431. Yes

[ehrnst]

437. So that's a "no, I don't apologize." Got it.

Lulz.

Establishment Democrats edge out AOC-backed candidates on Super Tuesday

[Trumpocalypse]

446. Nope

[ehrnst]

465. Yes it is.

Lulz....

Establishment Democrats edge out AOC-backed candidates on Super Tuesday

[ehrnst]

207. You will not hear AOC include herself in criticisms of the Democratic party. (nt)

[Trumpocalypse]

212. So?

[ehrnst]

215. And?

I understand you are a big fan, but jumping down the throat of anyone who makes a valid observation that isn't praise is a bit unnecessary.

[ehrnst]

190. Criticizing the Democratic party is something that you find distasteful?

AOC criticises Democratic Party: ‘We don’t have a left party in the United States’

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez argued that the Democratic Party “can be too big of a tent” and suggested that there might not be room for the party’s presidential front-runner.

[Trumpocalypse]

192. And she should be criticized for it.

[ehrnst]

195. So, what exactly was it Claire McCaskill said that was critical of the Democratic Party

that incited your scorn and disrespect in contrast to the praise of AOC?

[R B Garr]

202. Interesting, since AOC's criticism of the party gets

a pass.

[ehrnst]

114. I guess that would also include Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama? (nt)

[R B Garr]

204. Exactly!

[ehrnst]

205. We aren't the only ones who picked up on that.

[R B Garr]

211. +++, Glad to hear it. There was no legitimate reason

for this attack on McCaskill and the logic was deeply flawed.

[ehrnst]

213. I think someone was being hyperdefensive of a particular favorite that they perceived was being

criticized for going after someone they didn't like.

[R B Garr]

223. A shame it had to go on Twitter, as that's risky

and unnecessary.

[ehrnst]

452. I guess if you can't get invited onto a news show to air your grievances, Twitter's always there.

ESPECIALLY for some public figures.

[melman]

214. see post #197

[ehrnst]

469. Irrelevant.

[George II]

105. She spent TWELVE years in the Senate, elected as a DEMOCRAT in the red state of Missouri....

....and, as you put it, "vs a current one" who has spent less than two years in the House of Representatives, frequently referred to as the "lower house".

She won two state-wide elections as a Democrat in Missouri.

In her first election in 2006 she received 1,055,255 votes, in 2012 she received 1,494,125. She never received as few as 110,000 votes in her elections.

[Trumpocalypse]

107. That's nice

But now she's a TV pundit.

[ehrnst]

111. A mere "former democratic politician"... You mean like Jimmy Carter? Or Barack Obama?

[Trumpocalypse]

113. Or Joe Lieberman

Or Zell Miller. The difference is none are paid pundits.

[Malmsy]

115. Actually, Leiberman is no longer a Democrat. n/t

[Trumpocalypse]

120. Yes he's a former democrat

So what?

[Malmsy]

121. I don't think that he fits into your category of Democrats who are former politicians. n/t

[Trumpocalypse]

122. Not the point.

[Malmsy]

126. We disagree. I think I made you uncomfortable because it was the point. n/t

[Trumpocalypse]

127. No it wasn't

[Malmsy]

136. Yes, it was. n/t

[Trumpocalypse]

138. I know the point I was making

[Malmsy]

141. So do I, n/t

[Trumpocalypse]

153. No you don't

or you wouldn’t still be arguing about it.

[Malmsy]

158. Yes I do, and that's why you're unable to let it go.

Namaste.

[Trumpocalypse]

162. No you don't.

And I guess I’m not the only one unable to let it go. Think that’s called projection.

[Malmsy]

201. You just made my point.

Namaste.

[Trumpocalypse]

209. Glad I could be of service

[ehrnst]

124. So Obama and Carter don't get paid for their appearances or books?

[Trumpocalypse]

128. They are not paid tv pundits

who attack the Democratic Party.

[ehrnst]

130. So if they get paid for a speech or appearance because they are a former Dem rep

and it's not televised, that makes it different?

The camera?

Or the booking agent?

How to hire Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez for an event

Learn how to hire Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez or research availability and pricing for booking Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to speak at a corporate event, fundraiser, private party, social media campaign, fair or festival, tradeshow or conference, endorsement project, or hire Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez as a guest speaker, please submit the form to our agency.

https://www.celebritytalent.net/sampletalent/16593/alexandria-ocasio-cortez/

[Trumpocalypse]

134. Yes it does

Stop pretending that it isn’t.

[ehrnst]

139. Perhaps you're pretending she doesn't get booked for appearances, like a pundit does.

But that doesn't make it any less true.

How to hire Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez for an event
Learn how to hire Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez or research availability and pricing for booking Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to speak at a corporate event, fundraiser, private party, social media campaign, fair or festival, tradeshow or conference, endorsement project, or hire Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez as a guest speaker, please submit the form to our agency.

https://www.celebritytalent.net/sampletalent/16593/alexandria-ocasio-cortez/

Jimmy Carter Speaker & Booking Information
Former United States President (1977-1981), Author
Category:Authors Government and Political Officials

$10,000 - $20,000

https://www.speakerbookingagency.com/talent/jimmy-carter

Oh look, McCaskill has the same Pundit agent as Jimmy Carter.

Claire McCaskill Speaker & Booking Information
Former U.S. Senator From Missouri
Category:Government and Political Officials Political Commentators Liberal Speakers

https://www.speakerbookingagency.com/talent/claire-mccaskill

[Trumpocalypse]

143. Cut the bs

You’re embarrassing yourself.

[ehrnst]

145. I'm not the one painting myself into a corner..

Again - if you just don't like McCaskill, just own it. Doubling down and denying it is what is embarassing.

Trumpocalypse (5,995 posts)

55. So you're defending a TV Pundit

Over a Democratic party elected official?

[Trumpocalypse]

157. Never said I don't like McCaskill

Again you try to dishonestly put words in my mouth. Which just exposes that you can’t make a real one.

[ehrnst]

159. You can ignore this as much as you want, but you wrote it. Your own words...

Trumpocalypse (5,995 posts)

55. So you're defending a TV Pundit

Over a Democratic party elected official?

Or has someone hacked your DU account?

Maybe you react in an outsized manner to any criticism of AOC, and that's why it comes off as derogatory.

I think AOC will be OK if DU has a discussion on her public statements...

[Trumpocalypse]

164. And there is no criticism in what I wrote

no matter how many times you dishonestly try to spin it as such.

[ehrnst]

199. Again with the sidestep...

You stated that AOC was defending the party from a mere "TV pundit" who is no longer a democratic representative.

[Trumpocalypse]

272. So?

Was there anything I said that was untrue? But I never said mere.

[ehrnst]

318. Keep on trying with the smokescreen and sidestep.

It's not just me that pointed out your clearly stated ill will towards the Senator, and anyone who called you out on it.

TagURit!

[Trumpocalypse]

319. Never stated any ill will

Just pointed out reality.

[Trumpocalypse]

324. What did I state that was untrue.

McCaskill is a TV pundit who works for NBC. Nothing untrue about that.

[ehrnst]

351. Your distaste for any defense of a Senator that AOC was irritated to hear talk on TV has been

noted by several.

Nothing untrue about that.

It looks like you're not going to get me to say what you want me to say.

[Trumpocalypse]

362. Just stating facts

Sorry that is uncomfortable for that.

[ehrnst]

366. I'm not uncomfortable, but you appear to be on being told how your posts were perceived

by several people as being demeaning and disrespectful in their tone.

You came to the defense of a freshman congresspersons irritation at a far more experienced Senator that had won multiple terms in a red state being asked about her opinon on TV about what wins elections, and respectfully talking about how the Democratic party can move forward from here and get more Democrats elected.

Establishment Democrats edge out AOC-backed candidates on Super Tuesday

Those are facts.

[Trumpocalypse]

369. I don't care how they are perceived

I just stated facts.

[ehrnst]

440. If you "don't care" how you statements are perceived then what's the point of discussion?

Seems you found your problem right there... you could just talk to yourself or your strawman, and then everything would "be relevant."

But, tell me, why bother spending so much time and energy to go after people and try to get them to get mad or submit to you when they tell you how you're being perceived, if you 'don't care' - which is it?



Establishment Democrats edge out AOC-backed candidates on Super Tuesday

[Trumpocalypse]

442. You tell me

[ehrnst]

450. That's one non-answer. But if you 'don't care' about how your statements are perceived...

why bother with interacting with anyone?

There seems be a deep need here to get a rise out of people if not submission or silence, and you seem to get very frustrated and upset when they just. don't. cooperate. Ask Uncle Joe about that. He really learned the hard way.


Establishment Democrats edge out AOC-backed candidates on Super Tuesday

[Trumpocalypse]

454. More projection

[Trumpocalypse]

460. Yet again projection

[George II]

101. Claire McCaskill is a "TV Pundit" in your eyes? You may want to do a little research into her resume

[Trumpocalypse]

106. I don't care about her resume

At the moment, she's a TV pundit.

[betsuni]

258. The McCaskill Rule: Get paid for a televised appearance, your experience and career disappear and

*poof* you turn into a mere TV pundit (you know ... media). Variation of the Hillary Rule: Get paid for a public appearance giving a speech and *poof* you are somehow corrupt.

[comradebillyboy]

32. Amen...

[Sogo]

45. Hear, hear!!

Not to mention the fact that Claire did win elections (plural) in MO.

Why does AOC think she's an expert on every area of the country?

[LisaM]

2. Wait until she loses an election.

I've enjoyed Claire McCaskill as a pundit, and not only is her state very different from New York, she was representing the whole state, not just some deep blue urban district.

I think that remark was not really justified. I'll give AOC the benefit of the doubt, but I wish she'd find a way to relate better to rural areas.

[melman]

8. "I've enjoyed Claire McCaskill as a pundit"

That makes one of us.

And how is it unjustified to say things that are true?

---

During an interview with Fox News’ Bret Baier on Monday, Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) embraced some of President Donald Trump’s rhetoric about border security and attempted to distance herself from what she called “one of those crazy Democrats” who oppose him and his policies.

McCaskill is viewed as one of the most embattled Senate Democrats up for re-election this year, and her appearance on the president’s favorite cable news network one week from the midterm elections suggests she’s at real risk of losing her bid for a third term.

She affirmed that she backs the president “100 percent” when it comes to preventing the entry of a caravan of asylum-seekers and migrants marching toward the U.S.

“I do not want our borders overrun. And I support the president’s efforts to make sure they’re not,” McCaskill said in the interview.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/claire-mccaskill-trump-missouri_n_5bd8639be4b017e5bfd5ff7d

[Demsrule86]

39. Do you think AOC could win in Missouri?

[George II]

48. Bazinga. Actually she's campaigned for two candidates in Missouri twice, both lost.

[muriel_volestrangler]

81. Why is that relevant? McCaskill was asked about the whole country

Her troubling answer about LGBTQ+ people and women’s reproductive freedom followed a question Brian Williams read on-air.

“When did the Democrats become the Whole Foods party when the nation, I insist, is still a Ralphs country, a Piggly Wiggly country, a Safeway country, and so on?” Williams read.

“I think it began around cultural issues. The Republican Party, I think, very adroitly adopted cultural issues as part of their main theme, whether you’re talking guns or issues surrounding the right to abortion in this country or things like gay marriage and the right for transsexuals and other people who we as a party have tried to quote-unquote look after and make sure that they're treated fairly,” McCaskill said.

“As we circle those issues, we left some voters behind and Republicans dove in with a vengeance,” she continued. “And you’ve seen this shift. You saw it in the South. I saw it in the rural areas of my state.”

“So we’ve got to get back to the meat and potatoes issues. We’ve got to get back to the issues where we are taking care of their families,” McCaskill said, appearing to make a distinction between blue-collar issues and identity politics.

“We also have to quit acting like we’re smarter than everybody else,” she said, adding that she knows Donald Trump is a “disaster.”

https://www.advocate.com/politics/2020/11/05/claire-mccaskill-sorry-blaming-transsexuals-democrat-losses

Of course, the Democrats campaigned in 2020 on "meat and potatoes" issues like healthcare. You know, "taking care of their families". McCaskill has the chance to say 'no, I don't accept we're the "Whole Foods" party'. But she bought into Williams' spin, and made it worse. Her call to dumb things down was pretty stupid. Even if she was still running as a Democratic candidate in Missouri, I don't see that would be good advice. Democrats are smarter than Republicans (look at the response to Covid, or climate change, or ...), and shouldn't have a cultural cringe of trying to deny it.

[LisaM]

65. No, it doesn't make "one of us". Lots of people here enjoy her commentary.

Cherry picking a couple of quotes doesn't change that.

Is she to the right of me? Sure. And some people are to the left of me, though I consider myself to be on the left-leaning side of the center left moniker, albeit with a practical bent.

But she knows the Senate, knows a lot of the people in it, was brilliant during impeachment, and has delivered plenty of zingers on the talk shows (which can't be easy on any of these people, frankly, endlessly having to be "on" at home all the time, ready to treat their homes as a TV set and mixing their personal and work lives to an extent that is probably unimaginable to most of us). Listening to her, it's pretty clear that she herself leans more left than her constituents, but I think she tried to serve them well and it's to their discredit that she was voted out.

I like AOC, but sometimes I wish she'd see a little bit bigger picture. There are places where being more progressive (and aggressive) on some issues helped the Dems and helped turnout. There are also places where it didn't and where it also energized the other side and attacks against Democrats. I think AOC has a great career ahead of her. I look forward to watching it. I just wish she'd temper herself a little bit and stop worrying quite so much about making wisecracks on Twitter.

[PatSeg]

12. Well said

This is hardly the time to be attacking other Democrats. Her comments are ill timed and inappropriate. That is more primary season dialogue.

I like Claire McCaskill as well. She is a down-to-earth politician and yes, coming from Missouri, she is different from a New York Democrat.

Just because an observation pops into one's head, doesn't mean it needs to be expressed out loud. A little bit of self discipline would go a long way for the young and inexperienced congresswoman. That said, I'm sure she has a long and bright career ahead of her, but she is still a bit rough around the edges.

[Mariana]

35. You've enjoyed Claire McCaskill as a pundit.

Even when she's attacking the Democratic Party, as she did in the clip in the OP?

"Whether you are talking guns or...abortion...or gay marriage and rights for 'transexuals' and other people who we as a party 'look after' and make sure they are treated fairly. As we circled the issues we left voters behind and Republicans dove in."

[crickets]

38. This is the thing about AOC. I like her, I really do.

I think she gets things done for her constituents and they adore her and that's great. She's a breath of fresh air for the party, and I think that's also a great thing overall.

BUT.

With all of the Repub targets out there to choose from, with all of the stress we're going through while waiting for the final vote count, why is she firing at someone on the same team? Generally, I don't mind when Dems disagree with one another a bit because we're a big tent party and it happens all the time. But today of all days, she takes aim a fellow Dem who didn't say anything remotely outrageous or untrue.* WTF?


*OUCH. Mea culpa. I did miss a very important part of that comment, and I apologize to transgenders everywhere. Yeah, that was not cool on McCaskill's part at all. Most of the rest of her comment seemed innocuous, though I do disagree with "stop acting like we're the smartest people in the room." Again, I was too quick on the draw there.

My sincere apologies.

[George II]

44. That makes two of us, in fact it makes many many of us. If people didn't enjoy her as a pundit....

....she wouldn't be booked on MSNBC to analyze and comment on elections.

McCaskill was the first woman elected to the US Senate from Missouri, and served twelve years in the Senate, all in a red state. And I guarantee she never went on the road to campaign for anyone to "turn this seat red".

She's been a dedicated and loyal Democrat for decades, again, in a red state.

[gollygee]

5. I do think we need to look at these things differently

I don't know if I 100% agree with her but I do think we could use a change in perspective.

I read an article once about how people were studying planes in WWII to find out the most vulnerable spots when they got shot, and a mathematician said they were studying it wrong. They were looking at planes that got shot and returned assuming the spots with bullet holes were the spots that needed reinforcement, but the mathematician said those were the spots that least needed reinforcement - those planes were able to return so getting shot in those locations meant those were the safest places to get shot, not the least safe places to get shot. The planes that were shot elsewhere were the ones that crashed.

[JI7]

6. Good Point about Sanders who lost a blue Primary twice

let's remember that next time he wants to lecture others.

[Cha]

14. Exactly who I was thinking of..

[R B Garr]

34. Exactly!

[PunkinPi]

456. +1 nt

[Jamesyu]

7. TN Senate race Marquita Bradshaw

Ran as an AOC progressive and got her clock cleaned by 30 points. AOC is in a very blue district in NY, AOc hasn’t even run statewide and she wants to lecture on losers how rich.

[AmericanCanuck]

151. IKR?

Would she make the same statement about Bernie Sanders who lost two primaries by millions of votes?

[LexVegas]

9. I don't usually agree with AOC, but I do here. I am sick of McCaskill. nt

[StarfishSaver]

49. Then don't watch her?

[Rice4VP]

10. I like AOC, but don't come at Claire McCaskill

She lost her seat because she voted against Kavanaugh

[ehrnst]

210. Indeed. McCaskill is not a self-serving representative who was in it for her own branding purposes.

She's very much a team player.

[Celerity]

293. she lost her seat because she went over the line & ignored the A-A base & attacked the more

to the left too much. It hollowed out her support.

There is a limit to how much this tippy-toe to the right can go, and she found it.


McCaskill asked black leaders to push back on criticism of her campaign. No one would.

https://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article207156999.html

African American leaders in Missouri are frustrated with what they see as Sen. Claire McCaskill’s lacklustre engagement with minority voters. Frustrated enough that they refused to sign a letter pushing back against comments made last month by Bruce Franks, a prominent black activist and state legislator from St. Louis, who called on McCaskill to “show up” and earn the support of minority voters in her state. “I’m going to vote for Claire, but Claire is going to have to bring her ass to St. Louis,” Franks said to applause at a town hall he hosted Feb. 17.

In response to Franks comments, McCaskill had asked African American elected officials in Kansas City and St. Louis to sign the letter. Among those who were approached by McCaskill are U.S. Reps. Emanuel Cleaver of Kansas City and Lacy Clay of St. Louis, and state Rep. Gail McCann Beatty, the minority leader in the Missouri House.

Each declined to sign.

“I’m 100 percent certain that nobody signed it,” Cleaver said in an interview Wednesday with The Kansas City Star. “We talked about it very seriously and strongly and every one of us said, ‘We’re going to support her, but signing this letter isn’t going to achieve what she wants. It’s just going to make people angry.’ ”

Cleaver said he’s sympathetic to McCaskill’s plight. She’s a Democrat running for re-election in a state Republican President Donald Trump won by nearly 19 points in 2016. He understands she must win over some right-leaning voters to survive. But as McCaskill works to burnish her reputation as a centrist, Cleaver and other African American leaders said they worry she’ll leave minority voters on the left with the impression that she’s taking them for granted — and it could cost her turnout in the urban centres that are crucial to her base. “The state is large and diverse, but she might need to take the campaign into the repair shop in the black communities,” Cleaver said. “I think if people see that she’s actually trying to win them over then I think it will be a benefit to her re-election.”

snip


Sen. McCaskill distances herself from Warren, Sanders and ‘crazy Democrats’

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/sen-mccaskill-distances-herself-from-warren-sanders-and-crazy-democrats/2018/10/31/30ef5e4c-dd27-11e8-85df-7a6b4d25cfbb_story.html

Facing a tough reelection battle, Sen. Claire McCaskill (D) is distancing herself from liberal members of her party, including Sen. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.) — even as Warren’s leadership PAC donated to the Missouri Democrat’s campaign this cycle. PAC for a Level Playing Field, which is affiliated with Warren, gave McCaskill $10,000 last year, according to Federal Election Commission filings. Republicans seized on the donation, with the National Republican Senatorial Committee arguing that McCaskill’s efforts to separate herself from leading Democrats were “laughable” in light of the funds.

The back-and-forth comes as McCaskill has taken aim at “crazy Democrats” in the final stage of her campaign against Missouri’s Republican attorney general, Josh Hawley. Polls show a close race. “Claire’s not one of those crazy Democrats. She works right in the middle and finds compromise,” a male voice says in one of McCaskill’s recent radio ads. She has also tried to distance herself from recognizable liberals such as Warren and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).

“I would not call my colleagues crazy, but Elizabeth Warren sure went after me when I advocated tooling back some of the regulations for small banks and credit unions,” McCaskill said in a Fox News Channel interview broadcast this week. “I certainly disagree with Bernie Sanders on a bunch of stuff.”

McCaskill was among 16 Senate Democrats who voted to advance a Republican-led rollback of banking regulations in March. At the time, Warren criticized those Democratic colleagues on Twitter and also rebuked them in a fundraising email, a move that ruffled feathers among some members of her caucus. McCaskill told CNN this week that “the crazy Democrats are the people who are getting in the face of elected officials in restaurants and screaming at them. The crazy Democrats is whoever put a swastika on one of Josh Hawley’s signs in rural Missouri.”

snip






Here she is being praised by a RW anti-immigrant think tank


Claire McCaskill Pushes MSNBC to Open Its Eyes to the Border Crisis

https://cis.org/Kammer/Claire-McCaskill-Pushes-MSNBC-Open-Its-Eyes-Border-Crisis

Claire McCaskill, the former Democratic senator from Missouri, was too liberal to survive last year's election challenge from Trump loyalist Josh Hawley, who is now representing the Show Me State. But McCaskill, whose resume includes work as a county prosecutor, state representative, and state auditor, was known in the Senate as a moderate with her finger on the public pulse and a willingness to compromise. She has said she believes that the center is where the most valuable legislative work gets done.

A Bloomberg column after the election reported on McCaskill's assessment of politics in Washington. She said the news media had become part of the problem. She pointed particularly at MSNBC and Fox, which she said were aiming at "the people making the noise".

That's why it was a surprise to learn in January that MSNBC had hired her as a political analyst and commentator.

Good for MSNBC, which often manifests a liberal bias as blatant as the conservative bias on Fox. Consider MSNBC's head-in-the sand reporting on the ongoing influx of Central American asylum-seekers.

[quickesst]

15. Arrogance....

....is such an unbecoming trait, especially when it defines who you are. Winning one election that was handed to her on a silver platter does not a champion of progress make. In this case, it seems to have produced a spoiled brat. 😒

[BlueStater]

20. Sorry, but it's pretty easy to say something like this when you're from New York.

McCaskill NEVER would have won a single election in Missouri if she ran like AOC.

[PatSeg]

24. Exactly

I know it is a worn out cliché, but we ARE a big tent party. If we weren't we'd never hold power again.

[jcgoldie]

21. AOC is correct

I like Claire McCaskill but that interview she's referring to in which McCaskill commented that "Democrats need to stop acting like they think they are smarter than everyone else..." was pure right wing bullshit.

[maxsolomon]

118. That pissed me right off.

There is no way NOT to condescend to people who believe QAnon absurdities or Trump's substance-free claims.

I've tried, and I always fail. Usually it's once you ask them for substance: a source, or a fact. Or when you provide one.

[Blasphemer]

25. Very poor argument. Progressives lose all the time

Based on 2018, should we not listen to any of them?

[melman]

30. Claire McCaskill apologizes for 'hurtful term' used during live MSNBC interview

Former Missouri Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill apologized on social media Thursday morning for language she used during a late-night interview with MSNBC’s Brian Williams.

In particular, McCaskill said she regretted saying the word “transsexuals” as opposed to “transgender.”


https://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article246986262.html

[R B Garr]

31. Then that eliminates Bernie since he lost twice.

She was still supporting him after a loss 4 years ago.

[brooklynite]

40. Why do we listen to people who win elections in absolutely safe D seats...

...as if they are experts in winning elections where Republicans and Independents also get to vote?

[Boogiemack]

41. What we really don't need are for progressives to begin the attacks upon life-long Dem who

have been in the trenches for decades making persistent progress for our benefit. And we don't need any Dems attacking our progressive brothers and sisters. We need to begin to prepare a band of support for Joe as he enters into office in the face of horrific economic, social, moral and political decay in our nation. We need to take a deep breath and give him some space to maneuver around the scum that will still be in power until Jan 20. Yes, make you lists of grievances, idea, and priorities. But WRITE THEM DOWN and hand them directly to Joe or Kamala and stop the public bickering and hostile snipes at each other. We do not need to air our differences in public where the Trumpsters languish. It will only hurt us.

This is not group hugging or cum-by-ya statement either. It is a statement of political strategy and support and respect for each others feelings and thoughts. We will have 4 years to get this shit together but we won't be able to do it if we are wasting time griping and sniping at each other.
What we do with the POWER we have earned through hard-fought political battles will determine our legacy. Let it not be the legacy that our opponents, the indecent GOP has left smoldering in on the grounds of what is left of our government and our democracy.

We are only STRONGER TOGETHER!!!

[StarfishSaver]

50. Why is AOC on Twitter complaining about tv pundits?

She's U.S. Congresswoman. She should focus on something important and leave this kind of petty shish to Trump.

[Cha]

60. Precisely.

[ehrnst]

72. Indeed. Perhaps her district. (nt)

[dsc]

54. There are many things one can criticize Clair McCaskell for

an inability to win elections isn't one of them.

She ran in 11 elections and is 9 wins 2 losses. State wide she is 6 wins and 2 losses. Her losses came in 2004, when Bush was reelected (the only time the GOP presidential candidate won the popular vote in the last 8 elections) and in 2018 when we had a disaster of a Senate cycle. I don't agree with her comments there but I can't say she isn't good at winning elections, she demonstrably is.

[ffr]

63. I cannot argue with that logic.

[ehrnst]

67. Does that include people who lost a primary race or two?

How about people who endorse candidates who lose?

Establishment Democrats edge out AOC-backed candidates on Super Tuesday

[George II]

71. That happened in 2018, too.

Last edited Thu Nov 5, 2020, 03:45 PM - Edit history (1)

[BainsBane]

178. It should

unless one wants to prove themselves hypocrite.

[GoCubsGo]

68. Does she not know that Claire McCaskill was once an elected official?

Which means she has actually won elections. Way more than the two of them that Ms. Ocasio-Cortez has won. FFS.

[George II]

70. Claire McCaskill was the first woman elected to the Senate from red state Missouri.

[GoCubsGo]

79. Yep. This "Democrats bashing other Democrats" shit is nauseating.

[ehrnst]

109. Truly...

[DLCWIdem]

168. Yeah I am just ready to trash this thread. Didn't Biden call for unity

[Hekate]

69. Does she mean like Stacey Abrams?

[StarfishSaver]

76. Boom!

[Cha]

91. Boom.

[Azathoth]

75. Maybe AOC could move to a competitive district and show us n/t

[highplainsdem]

112. +1,000,000

[budkin]

82. I love AOC!

BOOM

[AmericanCanuck]

86. I think younger Democrats should not publicly attack veteran Democrats

They should target republicans instead.

This is not a good look.

[Mariana]

244. I think veteran Democrats should not publicly attack the Democratic Party.

Around cultural issues, the Republican Party, I think, very adroitly adopted cultural issues as part of their main theme. Whether you’re talking guns or issues surrounding the right to abortion in this country or things like gay marriage and the right for transsexuals [sic] and other people who we as a party have tried to look after and make sure that they’re treated fairly.

As we circle those issues, we’ve left some voters behind, and Republicans dove in with a vengeance and grabbed those voters. You’ve seen this shift. You see it in the South. I see it in the rural areas of my state. So we’ve gotta get back to the meat-and-potatoes issues. We’ve gotta get back to the issues where we are taking care of their families, and we’ve gotta stop acting like we’re smarter than everybody else. Because we’re not.

[Turin_C3PO]

94. I don't agree

with AOC or McCaskill here. Both statements are untrue.

[alarimer]

98. Indeed.

It's like NFL coaches. When they lose, they get fired, yet somehow find other jobs in the NFL. The caravan of losers from 2016, just pivoted to almost losing the House.

[still_one]

103. Rep Ocasio-Cortez endorsed Greenfield several days before the election. How did that endorsement go

[Wanderlust988]

132. Hey AOC! Run a statewide race in New York and win it!

Or else shut your trap about Claire! AOC couldn't even win a statewide race in NY and she knows it. If she thinks she's so perfect and has the great ideas EVERYONE loves, then prove it. Put your money where your mouth is. Run in New York State!

[AmericanCanuck]

150. I wonder if she means Bernie Sanders?

He lost TWO primaries badly but is still out there lecturing Democrats

[BainsBane]

196. I think this falls under

I meant you, not me.

[AmericanCanuck]

203. +1 well said

[Spazito]

166. I would rather listen to someone with years of experience as...

an elected Democratic senator than a newly minted Congressional freshman with a penchant for self promotion. AOC is talented and will go far but still has a lot to learn, imo.

[dflprincess]

167. She's right to a point

Yes, a candidate's message may need to tailored to their district. But, ever since Reagan, the Democrats have been willing to support damn near anyone who puts a "D" after their name no matter what positions they take. The Democratic party needs to decide what it stands for and it needs to make that message clear. The Republican-lite crap doesn't work.

[BainsBane]

176. Yes, that was my view in 2016

How we were told we needed to jettison abortion rights and civil rights in order to appeal to the more important white male voter (or what some insisted was the "working class," as though women and people of color aren't working class). We were also told we should have chosen the loser in the primary as the nominee. In fact, I heard nothing but. Maybe it's time people started taking their own advice? Here I'm not talking about AOC since she wasn't around at the time.

And we aren't losing this election. We are winning it.

McCaskill's statement is offensive. What is true is that a candidate needs to speak to the interests of the locality in which they run. AOC doesn't seem to get that.

[former9thward]

225. You must define "this election" as just the President.

And barely winning there. Losing members in the House, not gaining Senate control, losing the number of governors and losing state legislatures.

[BainsBane]

227. Yes, the presidency

My number one priority is getting rid of Trump.

Are you going to do exactly what the OP cautions against?
I can't know what's on your mind, but there is no way I throw away the rights of the majority to cater to knuckle-dragging, racist Trump voters. The problem isn't the Democratic party. It's that we share this country with despicable people.
Forgive me because I'm probably talking to myself.

[Autumn]

217. AOC! Correct again.

This woman is amazing.

[melman]

222. Yes!

And people are really mad. So mad. So, so mad.


Again.

[Autumn]

232. They should calm down. She won't hurt them

yet. AOC rocks my world. I see or hear her name and I get happy. I know whatever she says, it will make me smile.

[Mariana]

239. It's ridiculous.

McCaskill criticizes the Democratic Party in an interview, and that's apparently all fine and good and right and proper. But AOC casts the slightest bit of shade upon McCaskill in her response, and we see some folks wig right out.

[Celerity]

229. she is right, and if we try and lurch even more to the right it will be disastrous

I already have seen some advocate a more rightward tack (couched in the disingenuous 'centrist' verbiage), and at some point, we will blow out vast swathes of the farthest left third to half of the Dem voters in a futile attempt to round up and keep centre right moderate Rethug types.

I say disingenuous for 'centrist' as the central axis of American politics is already so artificially skewed to the right of any other advanced western democratic nation. In the EU, many, many of our present Dems would be in centre right liberal parties (liberal is another term SO misused in the US, as in every other nation liberal is centre-right, as in free (never fair or rarely so) trade, pro-deregulation, pro big business, anti labour unions, semi laissez-faire etc). The Democrats who are labelled as far left would NEVER be considered that anywhere else. They would be bog standard, middle of the road centre-left to middle left social dems. None would be in am actual far left EU, etc party IF they kept their current stances.

Some of the most conservative Dems Cuellar for one, would be totally on the right overall, especially with hsi anti-LGBTQ, anti-immigrant, forced-birther, and pro big oil and pro big prison stances) would be on the further right edge of the centre/right parties, and the average Rethug on the RW HALF (maybe 2/3rds to even 3/4ers) of the Rethug party would be considered a radical right winger nut job and borderline (full blown in many cases) neo nazi.

We simple HAVE to stop the rightward slide of the nation. Using US terminology, a centre to centre-right (in an American sense) neoliberal (both types, centre-left to centre and then right wing) corporatist, de-regulation pushing, big bank loving, further-wealth inequality-producing (a giant negative that WILL occur from this all) state will be a soft dystopian nightmare, even if it does not have the insane fascist (and christofascist), racist, violently misogynistic, and lack-of-the-rule-of-lawed environs that the Trumpian model spews out as the alternative from the right of the right of the right.

[ehrnst]

292. You really think that AOC could get elected to office in Missouri? Or Tennessee?

Seriously?

We lost Miami Dade, and Florida, because the GOP managed to convince Cuban immigrants that Biden was simply a front for the "far left Castro praising socialism/communism" of Bernie Sanders who would "turn us into Venezuela."

Biden's more centrist appearance gave us an edge with independent voters who were tired of Trump's drama and extremism. We didn't need someone yelling from a podium about revolution- people on that edge wanted needed someone who would restore some semblance of order to our institutions that have been so dismantled, someone who is steady and sure. Our population who wants a change from Trump wants that sense of strength and calm who can get the ship back upright before making a 90 degree turn, Change, yes - but not a "revolution." Not until we are simply back online in terms of the pandemic and health care, the economy, and the racial reckoning with our white supremacist police.

Many who voted for Obama thought that HRC was going to be this leftist feminist harpy who was going to put abortion clinics on every corner and turn all the bathrooms co-ed and voted for Trump. She wasn't centrist appearing enough for them.

I really disagree that right now a hard push to the left will work to get us into office - 2018 was a road map. Restore the groundwork first. Obama did not get his social justice accomplishments in place with his fist in the air. Americans don't self-identify by class, they identify with concepts like race, ethnicity, gender identity, region, educational background, occupation...

"Sanders’s defeat is a hammer blow to the left’s class-based theory of winning political power, especially given socialist Jeremy Corbyn’s crushing losses among the working class in the 2019 UK election.

Sanders had success in shifting the Democratic Party in his direction on policy. But the strategy for winning power embraced by his partisans depended on a mythologized and out-of-date theory of blue-collar political behavior, one that assumes that a portion of the electorate is crying out for socialism on the basis of their class interest. Identity, in all its complexities, appears to be far more powerful in shaping voters’ behaviors than the material interests given pride of place in Marxist theory.

The failure of this approach meant that Sanders needed to rely heavily on the second prong of his 2016 coalition, young voters, turning out in large numbers. This too is consistent with the socialist theory of victory, which would expect young people who have faced precarious employment and a lower standard of living than their parents would find left politics appealing.
.......................................................
Second, it seems that Sanders and his campaign assumed that his popularity with the white working class in 2016 was about him and his policies — when, in fact, it wasn’t.

“The white working-class voters that Sanders won were mostly anti-Clinton voters,” McElwee tells me.

A regression analysis by FiveThirtyEight’s Nate Silver finds support for this theory. Silver’s data shows that Clinton-skeptical Bernie supporters in 2016 were not progressives who opposed Clinton from the left, but from moderate or conservative Democrats who tended to have right-leaning views on racial issues and were more likely to support repealing Obamacare. These #NeverHillary voters also tended to be rural, lower-class, and white.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2020/4/10/21214970/bernie-sanders-2020-lost-class-socialism

[Celerity]

294. Strawman. I never said that an AOC type was a universal model. What I am saying is that

the Democratic Party cannot move further to the right OVERALL. It would be disastrous, for all the reasons I already laid out. Another disastrous consequence is that it allows the Rethugs to go even more batshit crazy RW.

The further rightward slide stops here.

[Withywindle]

305. The reason why AOC was angry here

Is that in this one, only specific quote, is that Claire McCaskill seems to be acting like LGBTQ Americans and all women of childbearing age who might need an abortion at some point or anyone who might be worried about themselves or their child being randomly shot in a country where guns are uncontrolled and unregulated, are people the Democratic party should consider expendable - if the Party loses votes by having our backs and standing up for our rights.

I think the Democratic Party is better than that. I think it's full of people who are actually willing to be in red areas and STAND UP for basic human rights like the right to be openly LGBTQ without getting fired or beaten, the right for a woman to have her medical care between herself and her doctor, the right to exist without being shot by random gun nuts with a grudge against the world. Georgia is in play right now in large part because Stacey Abrams put her anger into being cheated out of her election into grassroots organizing for progressive causes right where she lives so the vote is more accurately counted AND ALSO building up more progressive candidates in small local offices from the ground up to help us in FUTURE state and national elections.

[melman]

393. Yes

It's amazing how many are ignoring the substance here. But that's what happens.

[KG]

376. I lulz'd

oh. the butt-hurt.

[CTyankee]

387. Why is the word "transsexuals" in quotes?

Why are these people somehow in quotation marks? The are just as real and human as others!

[melman]

389. Because that is considered an outdated term and is offensive to some

https://lgbtqexperiment.com/2019/02/14/whats-the-difference-between-transgender-and-transsexual/

[CTyankee]

394. Thanks. I have a transgender grandson and I use the term transgender but I thought it was the

same, or rather considered so, as transsexual.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

424. I don't honestly have a good answer for what is a winning strategy

but I will say that:

a.)No one person has all of the answers
b.)Different states/localities may require different types of candidates and/or strategies to be successful
c.)Just because somebody lost doesn't mean that they were the wrong candidate. Sometimes, the time/place/opponent is just too difficult to overcome
d.)A bunch of infighting doesn't help. We need to acknowledge the talents and arguments of all parties and try to come to a unified stance.

[OnDoutside]

463. AOC could always put her money where her mouth is and run for the open Senate seat in Missouri in

2022. It's a perfect opportunity for her to try her own approach.

[Gothmog]

473. I agree with McCAskill

Link to tweet

[ehrnst]

498. Well, it appears that Lindsay Graham has retweeted this.

I'm not going to link to it, obviously but one can find his retweet if one wants to.

I don't think it's a response that AOC anticipated...

[melman]

501. Let's take a look at Lindsay's tweet, shall we?

What do we see?

Well, one thing we can see is his use of the right-wing framing of "socialist agenda"


We know that his "encouragement" is meant mockingly and that he believes this "agenda" is a losing one for Democrats.


And so if we think about this for even half a second we can see it's really not AOC he's agreeing with here.




lol

[ehrnst]

502. Who said that he's agreeing with her?

You're the only one who said anything like that.

[melman]

503. Right

Because it's so hard to tell that's what you were trying to imply. No one else can see it.

Only me.