AOC's Bitter Committee Seat Snub Fuels Speculation About Challenge to Schumer

[NurseJackie]

https://www.newsweek.com/aocs-bitter-committee-seat-snub-fuels-speculation-about-challenge-schumer-1555964

AOC's Bitter Committee Seat Snub Fuels Speculation About Challenge to Schumer

Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez might not be ready to challenge Nancy Pelosi for the House speaker's job just yet, but the committee seat she was vying for was clinched by Representative Kathleen Rice on Thursday.

Tensions continue to build within the Democratic caucus after Ocasio-Cortez was pitted against Rice in a contentious secret ballot vote for the last seat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee. The panel oversees areas ranging from health care policy to climate issues and consumer protection.

(...)

Ahead of the vote, several Democrats lobbied against her, including Representative Henry Cuellar, who said, "I'm taking into account who works against other members in primaries and who doesn't," according to Politico.

The freshman congresswoman did earn the support of House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler. However, Rice ultimately won the final seat on the committee in a 46-13 vote.

"This is a very powerful committee assignment," James Thurber, a political science professor at American University, told Newsweek.

"It's the most powerful authorization committee, so it's a big deal that [Ocasio-Cortez] didn't get on it," Thurber added. "It's a major message to her to not be so disruptive. That committee has a lot of jurisdiction over a lot of things that Biden will be pushing."

(...)

Long article. More at link above.

===========================
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/newsweek/

[NurseJackie]

1. More...

More from: https://www.newsweek.com/aocs-bitter-committee-seat-snub-fuels-speculation-about-challenge-schumer-1555964

In an interview with The Intercept's podcast, released Wednesday, she said that Pelosi and Schumer need to go. While she said she wasn't ready to run for House speaker, she stopped short of saying the same about challenging Schumer for his Senate seat in 2022.

(...)

Two years ago, Rice tried to block Pelosi from leading the House Democrats in the 116th Congress. The Long Island representative was subsequently denied a seat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, which in hindsight seems like a cautionary tale about how Pelosi delegates Democratic committee seats.

"Pelosi knows how to play the game," Thurber said. "She plays a rough game for people who are not loyal, and I think that's in context this time."

Newsweek reached out to Ocasio-Cortez's team for comment but did not hear back in time for publication.

===========================
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/newsweek/

[kcr]

42. I'm sorry. But that rating just shows what a joke mediabiasfactcheck is.

[NurseJackie]

117. I've always found them to be right on target.

From their FAQ page:

We use the same methodology to evaluate every source. We freely publish the methodology so that anyone can rate sources on their own. Reading bias is quite subjective based on the individual readers’ own biases. We use a team approach to combat this. We suggest you try our methodology on the source in question before declaring it wrong or labeling MBFC as left or right bias. The fact that we get accused of both probably means we are doing a good job.

They make a good point, wouldn't you agree? If they're pissing off both sides, that suggests strongly that their methodology fair and balanced.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Bias/Fact_Check

Reception

The Columbia Journalism Review describes Media Bias/Fact Check as an amateur attempt at categorizing media bias and Van Zandt as an "armchair media analyst."[2] The Poynter Institute notes, "Media Bias/Fact Check is a widely cited source for news stories and even studies about misinformation, despite the fact that its method is in no way scientific."[4] Alexandra Kitty, in a 2018 book on journalism, described MBFC as an apparent "amateur/civic outfit" and wrote that its founder's only qualification was a degree in communications.[3]

The site has been used by researchers at the University of Michigan to create a tool called the "Iffy Quotient", which draws data from Media Bias/Fact Check and NewsWhip to track the prevalence of "fake news" and questionable sources on social media.[5][6] The site was also used by a research group at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in initial training of an AI to fact check and detect the bias on a website.[7][8]

Naturally, I'm sure we'll soon be hearing how wikipedia and the Columbia Journalism Review and the University of Michigan and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology are a "joke" too.

Not bad company to be keeping for an amateur start-up not for profit civic project. Still, I'm sure there must be other organizations who provide a similar service and analysis. Which one/s do you like better?

[Squinch]

2. "Bitter committee seat feud." That's pretty ridiculous. There was no feud. Rice just got tons

more votes.

That being said, I think we would do well with a more activist leader in the Senate. I like Schumer and regularly vote for him and will continue to, but he seems to be working on an outdated "gentleman's agreements" kind of strategy which just isn't working any more.

THAT being said, I would never vote for AOC over Schumer for the Senate. Her positions are right for her district, but given the conservativism of upstate NY, she would never win the Senate seat.

[MontanaFarmer]

3. Nope, and she won't be president either.

She's hated in the countryside; an effective smear campaign has hurt her. Her most value to the party is in the house, pushing progressive viewpoints. I've been impressed this year at times with the way she's learned to play the "game" of politics, staying in line a bit more for the good of the party's interest, not demanding the moon in this stimulus debate as a condition of her vote, etc. With the slim majority, progressives have power again, and i hope they wield it wisely to achieve good leftward movement on policy, and not simply to throw bombs and kill good bills over purity tests.

[R B Garr]

46. The Republicans love her because she is perfect

for their caricatures, at least in their minds. It’s always a crackup to see people say Republicans are afraid of her —- they love her.

[wellst0nev0ter]

48. Just like they love Nancy Pelosi, right?

[R B Garr]

52. Nancy never runs on defund the police and socialism. Which

Last edited Sat Dec 19, 2020, 02:18 PM - Edit history (1)

you know. Nancy is also from a very liberal district.

[wellst0nev0ter]

54. They ran negative ads about her all throughout this campaign

Maybe she was a bigger factor than "defund the police"

[Demsrule86]

69. AOC had 'defund the police' on her website. It was used verbatim in commercial in Ohio.

Last edited Sat Dec 19, 2020, 04:07 PM - Edit history (1)

I lived in New York City and upstate too...she could never win statewide as things stand now. I hope we can get our message out and change things in the future...but it is was it is. New York has conservative areas outside of the city...look at Senator Gillibrand, she came out of the Albany area and held a moderate / conservative seat when she ran for Senate.

[wellst0nev0ter]

88. You saw Nancy Pelosi in those ads too, right?

According to your logic, Pelosi lost those house seats too, and she can never win statewide in whatever jurisdiction you cite.

[Doremus]

107. And yet, here in NE Ohio, I saw more than one lawn sign that featured Pelosi as the reason to vote R

[R B Garr]

72. Nancy doesn't run on socialism and defund the police, which

the socialism is new through Bernie in the last few years. Which you know.

Defund the police was embraced by AOC through her website at least just this year. Which you know.

Edit: Biden was and has been consistently against Defund the Police, mostly because of how the messaging is so easily exploited.

[PatSeg]

85. Nancy Pelosi is a very experienced

and competent politician. She didn't become who she is overnight. It took years for her to reach her position as a powerful Democratic leader. She has always been liberal, but she is pragmatic as well, which is why she actually gets things done. It is unlikely that we would have the Affordable Care Act without Nancy Pelosi.

Obviously fellow Democrats don't have to agree with her, but they certainly should show her respect. She paved the way for many of the new women in the House today.

[R B Garr]

104. ++++

[wellst0nev0ter]

91. Those who actually ran on "defund the police" won

Look at Cori Bush. Those who ran away from the issue because they are scared of the goops lost.

It's not complicated.

[R B Garr]

103. What's not complicated is to see that blue districts are

safe because they’re blue.

[octoberlib]

4. Members of Congress get snubbed for seats all the time.

Kathleen Rice got snubbed when she tried to get on the Judiciary Committee. Members need to deal with it and move on.

[SMC22307]

44. I think members have gotten over it. The media and some DUers haven't, evidently. (n/t)

[PatSeg]

87. Good point

Not everyone gets what they want, but some people get more media attention than others.

[2naSalit]

5. Newsweek seems to have become quite the disinfo outlet lately.

They published a few bs articles in the past couple weeks that I have noticed. Their headlines are regularly alarmist crap implying that the Democratic Party and its members are in danger of careening off the reality cliff when nothing of the sort is going on.

[Miguelito Loveless]

8. Newsweek

has joined ranks of clickbait sites over the last few years. Actual journalism began waning in the 90s.

[JonAndKatePlusABird]

9. Totally

Newsweek in particular seems to have taken a distinct rightward slant lately.

https://newrepublic.com/article/158968/newsweek-rise-zombie-magazine

[2naSalit]

10. I had a sub back in the early 90s...

I never renewed it. And I have never gone to their website that I can recall so I have only noticed when those few articles showed up and were quickly debunked and were obviously a crock of poo.

[themaguffin]

121. I had a subscription a decade or so ago. They have changed hands a few times now & are now

pretty crappy.

I used to follow their FB page for posts, but wow, did they have some ridiculous things this year.

I'm done. The Newsweek of old is truly dead.

[Mariana]

33. When they're reduced to publishing stories about "speculation"

it's pretty obvious that they shouldn't be taken all that seriously as a news source.

[AmericanCanuck]

6. It is not easy to win state-wide elections outside of the blue coccoons

[Dem4Life1102]

12. Schumer did it

Really depends on the state and the candidate.

[AmericanCanuck]

22. Schumer did it, AOC can't

Schumer is well-known and well-respected.

[Dem4Life1102]

24. He is now

But 20 years ago he was a little known congressman from a solid blue district going up against a powerful incumbent Senator.

[AmericanCanuck]

27. But he was always a center-left progressive and not a socialist

[Dem4Life1102]

31. True but

New York State was more conservative back then. It even had a Republican Governor and nyc a Republican mayor.

[Demsrule86]

70. AOC could move a bit to the right as Schumer did in 98 and might win but that is her only path IMHO.

No, he ran as a centrist...you have to do this to win statewide in New York.


Yet the Schumer of today is a far cry from the Reagan-era liberal who won election to the House in 1980 and then embraced the mantle of a "law-and-order Democrat" when he ran for the Senate in 1998. The self-described "angry centrist" is no more. Once derided for being too close to Wall Street, Schumer aides now boast that he has stood up to the financial services industry. Schumer is still distrusted by some on the left, but the New York Democrat insists his views have shifted to reflect a different constituency, as well as the more progressive Democratic Party of the Donald Trump era.

[DFW]

105. NY was getting tired of Al d'Amato's antics. Schumer had an easier opponent in 1998

Even in 1992, d'Amato only beat Robert Abrams by less than a 2% margin for his third term. My dad knew both Schumer and d'Amato well. D'Amato's theatrical antics finally overshadowed his line-straddling abilities as a Republican Senator. His mocking of Judge Ito in 1994, in particular, hurt him badly.

[PTWB]

28. AOC is well known & widely respected.

[AmericanCanuck]

29. ...

[PTWB]

32. A substantive response!

[wellst0nev0ter]

49. It was

[bigtree]

35. Gallup says Schumer and AOC rate the same

2019 (only polling available from Gallup)

"Whereas the public had mixed views of Ocasio-Cortez in September, her image now tilts slightly negative, with 31% viewing her favorably and 41% unfavorably."

Underscoring how far she has come so quickly, Ocasio-Cortez's ratings are currently similar to Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, whose favorable, unfavorable and no opinion ratings from December are nearly identical to the congresswoman's latest figures. Schumer has served in Congress since 1981, first in the House of Representatives, and since 1999 in the Senate.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/247820/rep-ocasio-cortez-better-known-image-skews-negative.aspx


"Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer’s (D-NY) favorability remains at 31 percent. His unfavorability rating climbed to 46 percent."
https://news.gallup.com/poll/287633/approval-congressional-republicans-tops-democrats.aspx

[Demsrule86]

74. And that tells you something...he is the minority leader and is expected to have a low approval

rating. He will continue in New York as long as he chooses...and this is a gallop poll.

[Demsrule86]

71. She is in a deep blue district. And she has not made many friends in the House if the reports are

true.

[George II]

94. Apparently not, considering the vote in the Steering Committee this week (46-13)

[NurseJackie]

95. Of course, the fact that members could vote by secret ballot meant...

Of course, the fact that members could vote by secret ballot meant that they were able to thoughtfully and honestly consider who would is more qualified and who'd actually be a better fit, rather than making a decision that was influenced by worry about whose fans will threaten and intimidate them... or needlessly primary them, thereby wasting funds that are better spent facing their general election opponent/s.

I've heard people complaining that the process wasn't "transparent" but none of those have given any evidence that anything OTHER than a straight-up binary vote took place. There weren't any accusations of ballot-stuffing, or ineligible people voting. This wasn't a vote on legislation. So I really can't see what the big deal is regarding the objections to the secret ballot.

[PTWB]

99. That's politics, man.

Secret ballots. I’m glad that AOC is making waves in unconventional ways. She’s a Democratic superstar!

[George II]

101. Secret ballots allow Members to vote their consciences without recrimination on Twitter or Twitch.

By the way, on that Steering Committee are 26 members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. That means at least 13 of them voted for Rice, if not more.

My guess is that probably politics had little to do with it and the Members compared the relative qualifications and experience of the two candidates and voted accordingly.

By the way 2, I see now on Twitter that Cori Bush is claiming her life experience qualifies her to be on the Judiciary Committee, without a law degree.

[PTWB]

106. We will have to agree to disagree.

It is clear that secret ballots enable politicking, not the other way around. And that’s fine. Those are the rules of the game. I think it is admirable that AOC is trying to shake things up and help our party become even stronger. We are very fortunate to have her.

I completely agree with Cori Bush, too! We have some very strong Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee without law degrees.

Karen Bass? Val Demings? Pramila Jayapal? Lucy McBath? Debbie Jessika Mucarsel-Powell? Veronica Escobar?

Perhaps you were misinformed that the Judiciary Committee requires its members to hold a law degree. It does not. Many are attorneys but it is still quite common to serve on the committee without a law degree.

Diverse representation is a beautiful thing. We need more people like Cori Bush in Congress. That’s for damn sure!

[George II]

108. Then I guess there was politicking since at least 13 members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus

....were "politicked" into voting for Kathleen Rice.

I suppose I should have said that perhaps members of the Judiciary Committee requires a college degree? Not sure. All of those you mention have degrees, some several.

[PTWB]

109. No, there is no such requirement.

There is no requirement for a law degree as you initially suggested. There is no requirement for any degree at all, as you’ve now suggested.

Do you think the judicial system in our country deals exclusively with members of the public who have degrees? Or, perhaps, does the judicial system disproportionately impact marginalized communities and those without degrees? It is imperative that those communities and people are also represented.

There will always be a place for attorneys on the committee but we must also make room for Representatives like Cori Bush!

[SMC22307]

50. LOL, nonsense. If "country folk" can be convinced to accept city-slicker Donald Trump...

(who doesn't give a shit about them), they can be convinced to accept AOC (who does give a shit about them). It won't be easy, but it can be done.

[Demsrule86]

77. He didn't run as a city slicker. AOC like Hillary has been damaged by the rightwing noise machine.

[SMC22307]

80. I didn't say that he did. But this "city slicker" serial adulterer who couldn't even quote...

a Bible verse when asked somehow convinced these deeply religious "rural folk" that he cares about them. That he's "strong." That he gets stuff done. The right-wing noise machine has been killing us for decades and we've got to figure out a better way to combat it. Corporate Media is not on our side and politicians like AOC take to social media to communicate and she shouldn't be trashed for that.

[flamin lib]

7. I really love AOC. She's got guts, takes no shit from anyone and

so far no fight she's been in was fair 'cause she makes her opponents look so small and dumb.

We need people like her in the party, more of them in fact.

What's lacking is a mentoring method to groom the next generation of leadership. I don't know enough about house rules and such but it seems that the leadership is stratified to the point of being isolated.

The last thing we need is a family war, the first thing we need is inclusion in the power structure and mentoring on where it emanates from and how to wield it. Nance P is a master and what a shame to have someone try to duplicate that without benefit of her tutoring.

[StarfishSaver]

18. Why do you think there's no "mentoring method"?

Younger Members are being groomed for leadership consistently. Perhaps people don't notice it because those who are being groomed are too busy performing their junior leadership roles and learning the ropes from the more senior Members to be spending a lot of time in the limelight raising their own profiles or attacking the party leaders who are mentoring them.

[AmericanCanuck]

30. Younger members, if and when they want to learn the ropes

observe and replicate the more senior members and not attack/ridicule them.

This principle holds true with doctors, lawyers, accountants, carpenters, machinists, welders, farmers and all other vocations/professions/trades.

Those who value experience try to absorb it. Some just want to put a dynamite under the experience and claim to know it all to their detriment.

[Generic Brad]

20. Winning Twitter feuds is not leadership

If it were, our nations leaders would be AOC, Jeff Tiedrich, George Takai and John Fugelsang.

[AmericanCanuck]

23. [phone]

Her entire "popularity" comes from her tweets and not from any legislative accomplishments.

[bigtree]

45. Chuck Schumer, as congressman, had one major accomplishment

...then-Rep. Schumer introduced The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (also known as RFRA) on March 11, 1993.

He'd been there since 1980.


fd: I've liked and admired CS since the 80's. Chuck was a firebrand (much like AOC) and we proudly called ourselves liberals.

[PatSeg]

89. It would seem that when liberal senators and representatives

get older and more experienced, they are often accused of being too conservative or moderate, when actually they've learned the ropes and have become more deliberative and pragmatic. They didn't necessarily become less liberal, they just learned what can be done and how to do it. They also learned some patience and acceptance.

You don't always get what you want, but you can take pride in what you have been able to accomplish. Our system of government was designed this way for a reason. Sudden, overwhelming change can be very disruptive and can lead the way to tyranny and authoritarianism.

[Vivienne235729]

118. EXACTLY THIS!!! PRAGMATISM is reality based. Like I keep telling my work,

There's a difference between a wish list and a work list. What we WANT is sometimes not feasible and we need to be able to see the difference so that we can bridge the distance.

[PatSeg]

119. I like that

"There's a difference between a wish list and a work list." Identifying what the problems are and what we want is often the easy part. The solutions take a whole lot of work, time, and patience, as well as the ability to accept compromises and sometimes defeat.

I remember not all that long ago, when I was one of many Democrats who were very critical of the Affordable Care Act. Though I still think it falls short, eventually I saw it was the first in many steps in the right direction and that we are better off with it than without it. Social Security and Medicare did not start out the way they are now. Lasting change comes in increments and takes a lot of work.

[R B Garr]

47. Yup. The Twitter feuds play right into their hands. nt

[Progressive dog]

11. New York State Democrats

are very unlikely to vote against the Senate majority leader who is from their state.

[Dem4Life1102]

13. Really doubt she'll run against Schumer

In New York it’s very difficult to primary an incumbent statewide.

[NurseJackie]

15. Even if it were an open seat... she'd have a very difficult time being competitive statewide.

Additionally, there's a good chance that her very safe and very blue district will be redrawn (or that it may disappear entirely) the next time that these things are done. Her career may be short-lived in that case because it will be much more difficult for her to appeal to voters in a more diverse district. The same thing applies to the predictions that she may be considering a run for the mayor of NYC.

Of course all these things do not square with her recent comments that indicated she would like to leave politics entirely and live on a farm somewhere. I think that will pretty much doom any chance she has of finding an experienced party member who is willing to spend their time mentoring her and grooming her for continued work within the party. Such acts of kindness would most likely be reserved for up-and-coming individuals who showed great promise, who demonstrated loyalty to the party, and who had a clear desire to excel and continue down a political path that benefited the Democratic party.

It will be interesting to see how all of this unfolds. But it's my expectation that she won't be around by the time the next presidential election rolls around. We'll just have to wait and see.

[Dem4Life1102]

16. Her district will be redrawn

All in NY will. But doubt it will disappear. Upstate New York will most likely lose a district. That’s what happened 10 years ago.

[AmericanCanuck]

25. It would be fun to see Jamaal Bowman against AOC in the primary

[bigtree]

14. none of this is a thing. Flimsy, gossipy premises without citation or attribution

...just more of this perpetual campaign against this relatively new, Democratic legislator.

You put that ridiculous graph up as if it indemnifies the rag against every clickbait dig at Democrats. The proper name for this publication has been 'Newsspeak' for years because its propaganda quotient is off the rails.

"Tensions continue to build within the Democratic caucus..."

Oh, my!!

[Mariana]

34. At least they're honest enough to say the story is about "speculation" in the headline. nt.

[bigtree]

39. it's their own

...and they're positing it as Democrats'.

It's standard misinformation, third-hand at least, in this case.

[Sympthsical]

17. Starting early today, I see n/t

[MineralMan]

19. It would be a big mistake to challenge Schumer.

I don't think AOC has the chops yet to run for a statewide office in NY. She might never have those chops, actually.

Not every district, even in NYC is as progressive as she thinks.

[bigtree]

21. who says she 'thinks' she can or will?

...Politico? Newsweek? Intercept?

Because I've yet to see one quote where she says 'Pelosi and Schumer need to go,' as Newsweek claims, citing Intercept which also never produced any quote saying anything of the sort.

This article is clickbait, I supposed designed to elicit the type of response you made, about what she 'thinks' about 'every district.'

[MineralMan]

36. I'm commenting on the story linked-to in the OP.

AOC would probably not run against Schumer, for the very reasons I mentioned, but that article appears to mention that possibity, so I added a comment to the thread. Should I not have done that, in your opinion? I, like many others post opinions about news stories here. That seems to me to be the purpose of DU in the first place.

However, I stand scolded by you, I guess.

[bigtree]

37. you took an uncalled for shot at AOC about her progressiveness

...not a new thing around here.

Moreover, this article is misinformation, designed to draw out critics looking to further the artificial divide they're working to make real between Democrats. You took the bait, pure and simple, and I called you on it.

It's just that important to me.

[MineralMan]

40. No, actually, I did not take a shot at her progressiveness.

I said that I didn't think she could win statewide office in NY, which is not, overall, as progressive as she is.

I suggest that you are not reading my posts as they are written, but as you think you know what I meant by what I wrote.

AOC is not my House representative. She is not even in my state. She is a very junior member of the House. I wish her all the success she can earn.

However, I do not believe she is ready for a leadership position in the House, nor is she ready to run for Senate in that state. She has not earned either so far.

My House Representative is Betty McCollum. Perhaps you know of her.

[bigtree]

41. you said: "Not every district, even in NYC is as progressive as she thinks."

...and I responded to that presumptuousness.

I also took note of the way you ran with the speculative rumor in the article, to your presumptive end.

Characterize that however you want, but it was in response to what you wrote in your reply.

[MineralMan]

57. You are, of course, welcome to chide me as you see fit.

However, AOC's progressivism is her trademark, so analyzing a constituency based on its willingness to elect a progressive is completely pertinent to her chances.

Statewide, NY is not spectacularly progressive. That overall constituency is center left at best, so a statewide race would be, I think, out of reach for her. That is simply an analysis, not a criticism of her.

I look at politics pragmatically, and always have. For example, I knew that Colin Peterson would lose his seat here in Minnesota in November. His centrist position enabled him to win several terms in a rather conservative district, but this year, his opponent, along with the GOP, labeled him as a Pelosi toady and tied him to the "Defund the Police" position. Neither thing was true, but it made it impossible to retain his seat, so Minnesota lost a house district to a Republican.

What could Peterson have done to win? Nothing. It simply wasn't in the cards for him this year. Not in his district.

Progressive candidates can win, but only in districts where their constituency will elect a progressive. In more moderate districts, they are liable to lose to a moderate Republican. A right-wing Republican, on the other hand is less likely to win. We had another district in Minnesota where a reasonably progressive candidate won, because her opponent was a right-winger and a Trumper. the Republicans went so far as to run a fake liberal running in the Legal Marijuana Now party against the incumbent to try to pull votes away. It might have worked, but he died shortly before the election. Had he not died, it is quite likely that the Trumpist would have won.

AOC has a niche district to run in - for now. She might be able to retain her seat, but it's not a certainty. In a statewide race, however, she will lose in the primary to someone closer to the center of the Democratic Party.

That's my analysis. It's not based on my own personal political leanings in any way. It's based on a pragmatic view of the constituency.

But, scold away! Chide me as you wish. I'll still post my opinions here as I choose.

[bigtree]

61. from what I've seen, AOC is also pragmatic

...but the things she actually defends and supports are the issues the candidates support, not simply singling out their ideology and targeting them.

I realize that the defenders of the legislators and candidates she calls out for their support, or dearth of support for something want to frame the opposition as ideological, but it really comes down to legislation with the congresswoman.

I'm not certain that's as evident as it might be, reading the more prominent reports about her. I did find a good example the other day of how she views the relationship between her grassroots and efforts to advance legislation.

You may or may not be interested...

Link to tweet

[ahoysrcsm]

120. Gee, I wish people would stop that "Link to tweet" garbage.

You waste all our time every time you post "Link to tweet" instead of the article.

[wellst0nev0ter]

53. Then you know about Keith Ellison too

[MineralMan]

58. Yes, of course. I pay close attention to DFL

politics in Minnesota. To what about him are you referring?

[wellst0nev0ter]

60. About how he won a statewide office

While being a staunchly progressive Muslim.

[Polybius]

65. Maybe she'll primary Kirsten Gillibrand instead

That will be easier than going against Schumer.

[MineralMan]

67. I'll just wait over here in the flyover and see what she does.

Right now, the new Congress is about to begin its term. There is very much to do, and all hands will be needed on the floor to get things done.

[George II]

93. When asked if Pelosi should not be speaker and Schumer should not be Senate Democratic Leader....

....she agreed. You can play with the wording, but it is here:

"Isn't this grounds, though, to take a stand, and say: 'No, I'm sorry. Nancy Pelosi should not be the speaker and Chuck Schumer should not be the leader?'" Scahill asked.

The progressive Democrat from New York agreed, though argued that replacing them wasn't simple.

And clearly she's looked into the process of replacing them.

https://www.businessinsider.com/we-need-new-leadership-aoc-criticizes-pelosi-and-schumer-2020-12

[AmericanCanuck]

26. well-put

[R B Garr]

82. +1, the chops came a lot from Bernie's campaign,

which has been rejected soundly by voters.

[betsuni]

110. You are correct. Not every district is as progressive as she thinks.

Justice Democrat-types believe that the majority of Americans support their ideas, that opinion polls show their platform is overwhelmingly popular and therefor the majority of Americans are progressive. From what AOC says, I do think she overestimates how progressive the country is in general. Bernie Sanders has said this for years, that the vast majority of Americans support his policies over those of the Democratic Party.

Their mistake is to take polls asking Americans if they want universal health care, environmental regulation, higher wages, etc., and of course people of all parties say yes, and assume once voters have the chance, naturally they'll vote for a true progressive (the Democratic Party not being progressive according to them). Things are not so simple, as this year's elections have shown.

[MineralMan]

112. Thanks!

[R B Garr]

122. +1

[Alex4Martinez]

38. "Bitter"? A derogatory term usually reserved for woman, it's off-putting from the get-go.

It's an unnecessary use of a divisive term, shame on the author for adding fuel in the headline.

AOC is a champion of human rights and equity, I encourage her to not back down and hope others see the wisdom of her proposals and sense of urgency.

[SMC22307]

43. How could DU survive without your never-ending OPs trashing AOC?

And I'll echo what a poster says above, "bitter" is misogynistic - right up there with shrill, feisty, etc. Good job.

[NurseJackie]

56. Lulz! What a ridiculous accusation.

How could DU survive without your never-ending OPs trashing AOC?

Lulz! What a ridiculous accusation about me.

And I'll echo what a poster says above, "bitter" is misogynistic - right up there with shrill, feisty, etc. Good job.

I don't read it in the same way. Nobody is being characterized as being "bitter". It's the competition, the battle, and the outcome, and/or the "snub" that's being described as "bitter".

But, I guess that's an argument that needs to be taken up with Katherine Fung, not me. I'm sure she'd be happy to discuss it with anyone who cared to contact her.

https://www.newsweek.com/authors/katherine-fung

Katherine Fung, Staff Writer

Katherine joins us as a staff writer on the breaking news team. Originally from Toronto, she graduated from the University of Western Ontario where she studied media, information and technology before completing her Masters degree in Journalism at NYU. Katherine's work has previously been published in Marie Claire and Good Housekeeping.

[SMC22307]

59. It's the truth, girlfriend.

Anyone capable of conducting a search knows that. Are you suggesting that because the author of that ridiculous puff piece is a woman that it can't be misogynistic? Oy vey.

A measly 11 recs. I'm glad DU is rejecting it.

[NurseJackie]

62. Oh, please! Spare me!

Are you suggesting that because the author of that ridiculous puff piece is a woman that it can't be misogynistic? Oy vey.

I've made no suggestion one way or another. Instead, what I've actually done is to explain my understanding of the headline and what it meant. But rather than spending an inordinate amount of my time trying to defend the journalist, I suggested that anyone who had an issue could contact her directly (and I linked to her bio/contact page).

Anyone capable of conducting a search knows that.

No search needed. I can review the "My Posts" tab, and after reviewing THIRTEEN pages detailing my posting history, I can tell you with a great degree of certainty that I have made exactly two (2) OP's regarding A0C. (I do participate in many different threads on many different topics. Perhaps I'm being confused with some other poster.)

In any case, notwithstanding my participation within various OP's of that subject matter... the previous accusation of "How could DU survive without your never-ending OPs trashing AOC?" is demonstrably false.

[NurseJackie]

63. Lulz!

A measly 11 recs. I'm glad DU is rejecting it.

Lulz! Interesting. I rarely pay attention to things like that. I wasn't aware that it was a competition. But the day is still young. And there are over 50 replies so far... it's got a icon... so as long as the thread isn't sinking off of page-1 in this forum... then clearly people are interested in participating. I guess that makes it a win/win for everyone, right?

[bigtree]

64. not surprising for a clickbait article

...full of inaccuracies and gossip, pitting Democrats against each other with misinformation.

The 'speculative' Newsweek article contains third-hand misinformation cut-and-pasted from a shit-stirring Politico article, which provided zero direct quotes to support their 'attack' claims, which relies on an Intercept interview which supports absolutely zero of what's contained in either hit-piece.

'Win-win,' for who?

[NurseJackie]

66. I was poking fun and making light of the notion...

'Win-win,' for who?

I was poking fun and making light of the notion that that DU-recs are some sort of competition. It's hard for me to believe that such superficial things would matter to anyone, but obviously there are many different metrics that can be used to determine the value of an OP, eh? Not everyone will agree, but I do believe it's fair to point out that there's certainly a lot of distraught accusations, angry personal insults and overwrought hand-wringing since the General Election. I guess it's true that beauty is in the eye of the beholder (or something) and it all depends on whose ox is being gored.

All I'm saying is that this will probably blow over by tomorrow and then there will be some new outrage that will be "all-the-rage"... until the next thing comes along, eh?

[SMC22307]

68. AOC isn't the enemy. Hopefully you'll figure that out someday.

Merry Christmas.

[NurseJackie]

75. Another ridiculous accusation.

AOC isn't the enemy. Hopefully you'll figure that out someday.

Another ridiculous accusation. I never said that she was. I never said she was "the enemy". Nor am I a source of "never-ending OPs trashing AOC" ... both of these accusations/insults are demonstrably false.

What good purpose does it serve for anyone to make false accusations about me. Why try to make it personal. I've haven't insulted you? What makes it acceptable to insult me? Please stop.

Merry Christmas.

Bah! Humbug!

[R B Garr]

78. Some people wonder the same thing about every

Tweet that she makes. How could some of them be so important to fill up this board every day.

[George II]

92. You're accusing a WOMAN of posting a "misogynistic" article? REALLY?

[R B Garr]

51. WHOA! 46 to 13 vote! I just saw that. Wow, that

was a huge repudiation. Hopefully this Schumer speculation isn’t just a way to get back at them.

[Me.]

55. They Just Simply Don't Trust Her

or so I've read

[Blasphemer]

73. I'm from NY. She'd lose spectacularly, but she might want that.

She's talked about getting out of politics. A loss like that would give her a good opportunity to move on to a different form of activism.

[aidbo]

76. I would absolutely support AOC challenging Schumer for his seat.

[Demsrule86]

79. And this is why some in Congress don't trust AOC apparently. Primaries are expensive and

unnecessary at this time for Schumer or anyone else. We need to spend out money saving the House and winning Senate seats. She would have no shot against Schumer. She is very popular in her deep blue district (thank God) but won't win statewide.

[aidbo]

81. Your arguments haven't changed my mind.

[R B Garr]

84. +1, it looks like some like the idea of wasting money

and giving the Republicans more help in how to attack Dems.

[aidbo]

96. Some don't care what the fascists say about members of the Democratic Party.

Perhaps some others should stop worrying what the fascist republicans have to say about anything at all.

Worrying about what the fascist republicans have to say about anything implies that the fascist Republican Party has any ideas worth considering. And it does not.

[Demsrule86]

98. I implied no such thing. But no doubt the ads I described in my post helped Trump win

Ohio and other places. One must consider how we expand our party and win more seats in every decision we make and in how we spend our limited resources. Politics must always include real world concerns...

[R B Garr]

102. Getting elected is the priority. Thank goodness Biden

got that done despite that poor messaging.

[Cha]

116. Exactly.. Biden Made it Clear that he di NOT

support "defund the police".

[George II]

90. I would too.

[George II]

83. By the way, even though it was a secret ballot, we know that at least half of the members....

....of the Steering Committee who are also members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus voted for Kathleen Rice and against her.

There are 26 members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus on the Steering Committee. Inasmuch as she only got 13 votes total that means at least 13 CPC members voted against her, perhaps more.

[NurseJackie]

86. Put another way, House progressives control almost half of the Steering Committee Seats.

At least 26 House Progressives serve on the 59-member Steering Committee. They are: Reps. Barbara Lee, Dan Kildee, Darren Soto, David Cicilline, Deb Haaland, Debbie Dingell, Donald Norcross, Frank Pallone, Frederica Wilson, Grace Meng, Hakeem Jeffries, James McGovern, Jamie Raskin, Jan Schakowsky, John Yarmuth, Judy Chu, Katherine Clark, Linda Sanchez, Matt Cartwright, Maxine Waters, Peter Welch, Rosa DeLauro, Sheila Jackson Lee, Steve Cohen, Ted Lieu, and Veronica Escobar.

[Cha]

111. Interesting!

[R B Garr]

113. OOh, thanks for that...makes it a very interesting outcome. nt

[Ms. Toad]

97. Like the headline yesterday, this was written to stir up internal bickering

The person who was appointed to the committee has significantly more experience both in congress and on committees than AOC. It is not a "snub" to award the seat to the person with more experience.

[MerryBlooms]

100. Yep, always toxic headlines to go with the 'meh', articles...

There are bitter people, but it's not AOC. lulz