Ocasio-Cortez on challenging Schumer: 'I'm trying to decide what is the most effective thing I can..

[DonViejo]

Ocasio-Cortez on challenging Schumer: 'I'm trying to decide what is the most effective thing I can do to help our Congress'

BY ZACK BUDRYK - 01/04/21 10:29 AM EST

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) this week did not rule out a 2022 primary challenge to Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), saying she is still deciding what her plans for the future are.

“I’m not playing coy or anything like that. I’m still very much in a place where I’m trying to decide what is the most effective thing I can do to help our Congress, our [political] process, and our country actually address the issues of climate change, health care, wage inequality, etc.,” she told the newly launched publication Punchbowl in an exclusive interview.

Asked whether her decision would be affected if Democrats look likely to lose their House majority, Ocasio-Cortez responded “I’m not sure about that either. For me, I don’t make these decisions based on these short-term factors.”

The 30-year-old congresswoman went on to say she is thinking beyond a two-year timeframe, saying “If I want to have a child, I would want my child - or my nieces or nephews - to have guaranteed health care by the time they’re my age. And freedom from want. I’m also very indecisive.”

more
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/532501-ocasio-cortez-on-challenging-schumer-im-trying-to-decide-what-is-the-most

[Kahuna]

1. ...

[Demsrule86]

2. You have to be kidding me...

[madaboutharry]

3. This is what she should be saying....

“I’m not as mature or as smart as I think.”

She has a lot to learn.

[cwydro]

26. This.

Not impressed.

[Hotler]

120. Looks like Joe wants to play nice, so, Chuck is our man. If we want to stop playing nice...

we need new leader with more bark and bite.

[Wounded Bear]

4. I'm not sure how much support she'd have outside her own district...

especially now, just being a 2d term Rep, she doesn't have that much to lean on as a legislative record.

JMO. I don't know NY politics all that well, but it doesn't seem like Schumer would feel threatened by her.

[Indykatie]

5. Perhaps AOC Needs To Run So She Can See Her Limited Strength Outside Her District

Too often people in the public eye get blinded by their popularity online. This could serve as an effective wake up call for AOC.

[Demsrule86]

14. Really, we should waste money on a primary...money that could be spent turning over

Republican seats? I don't think this is a very good idea...times is key you know. If she wants to know her strength perhaps some internal polls could be helpful to her.

[NurseJackie]

6. Lord.

[R B Garr]

63. +1

[OhNo-Really]

7. Love the moxie

Hope for the future rests with a new generation. Better to be bold as legislators always water down. Start bold. AOC & many Jr Reps have the right stuff. Need time to learn the ropes.

Schumer is WAY too weak for my liking and I’m ancient. What has he done to thwart MMc?

[Demsrule86]

17. Really, in 2022, it is all hands on deck to save the House. OAC should not do this.

I wouldn't primary anyone...we need to face 2022 united or the GOP will ruin Biden's presidency.

[Kahuna]

23. She doesn't seem to get that our Democracy is at stake and should...

take priority over purity politics. As you said, all hands on deck.

[OhNo-Really]

35. I think she is just nudging Schumer to be more bold

She drops her disclaimer in last sentence

But who made the news?

Schumer generally sucks at creating headlines & we are now stuck in a digital world where making headlines is really really important.

I want to hear Democratic Senators crowing loudly about their efforts. Perhaps the Dems need a good publicity firm to help along the lines of The Lincoln Project.

We need Loud mouth Senators!

[Me.]

8. Will She Forgo Her House Seat

if she runs for Senate?

[George II]

16. Yes. The primaries would be on the same day. Can't run in two primaries concurrently.

[Demsrule86]

20. Well that is something. I have no doubt Schumer will win...

[SheltieLover]

58. Ty, George

I was wondering the same thing.

[tritsofme]

18. Yes.

[SheltieLover]

9. Start by wiping the smarmy grin from your face since you are no longer in middle school

That grin can be quite offputting.

Then decide to ONLY attack, primary, or challenge repukes.

Plenty of work for AOC to do, but attacking Schumer & other excellent Dems is not productive.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

11. Seems like telling a woman she needs to smile less is gross.

Do we tell men to do this?

[SheltieLover]

12. I'm not refering to a smile. It's the "see how smart I am" smarmy sneer

Imho, very unprofessional, unappealing habit that detracts from her intellectual approach.

Has nothing to do with her sex or gender. Honestly, just an honest, objective suggestion.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

15. So we're telling her how to smile?

Yeah, that's not better. "I'd like you more if you looked like this." Still gross.

And it absolutely has to do with her gender. These discussions don't happen with men.

[MrsCoffee]

19. Yeah, you never hear anyone say a man should wipe that smarmy grin off his face.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

30. But that's not the point of what was said.

It's that people would like her more if she looked a certain way. It's gross.

[R B Garr]

85. No. That's not what was being said no matter

how you try to repackage it.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

89. It's absolutely what's being said.

They don't have anything against her but would like her more if she didn't smile that way.

[R B Garr]

100. No, wrong again. You are embellishing what was said

to fit your bias. I suppose you think it’s some kind of “gotcha”, but the post #9 you keep misinterpreting is about maturity. Not what you have twisted it into.

[SheltieLover]

22. It's the middle school, smarmy smirk. Not a smile.

I think you are misunderstanding what I'm saying & my intention.

It is offered as constructive criticism.

She appears immature when she sneers that way.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

29. One can be trying to be constructive and still be sexist.

So now it's not that she smiles bad, it's that she "sneers"? So if she smiled more in a way that is pleasing to you, you'd like her more? Or, and hear me out, if she wasn't such a bitch she'd have more friends is another way of looking at that?

[SheltieLover]

32. I am absolutely not sexist!

Welcome to full ignore.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

33. Thanks

In case you haven't put me there yet, realizing that we are all sexist (and racist) because of our living in a sexist and racist society is a key part of making sure that sexism and racism go away. I fully admit I have sexist and racist reactions/approaches/attitudes that I need to be aware of and change. What are the odds I met the one person that has fixed all of that in themselves?

[Cha]

70. I know you're Not "sexist"..

that's a ridiculous accusation.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

74. But are they sexist?

Or did you use scare quotes for some reason other than to indicate irony?

[LanternWaste]

71. Is asking Trump to remove the shit-eating smirk from his face sexist?

If not, what is the precise (rather than a general assertion) and relevant (rather than irrelevant) difference?

[Cuthbert Allgood]

73. Are you telling him that people would respect him more

if he didn't smile that way? Because that's what's being said about AOC.

[SlogginThroughIt]

138. Unfortunately for Donald he has many more issues

But yes if he stopped his shit eating grin smile people might respect him an eensy bit more.

Sorry was my use of "eensy" sexist too? You know because people say he is eensy is some areas?

Give me a break. Your entire line of bullshit is self serving to your own ego inflation of wanting to be seen as battling sexism where it doesn't even exist. You are a freaking joke in this line of conversation at the moment. Give it up.

[Cha]

81. Exactly.. TY.

[R B Garr]

62. Sheltie, I get what you're saying and agree. Some facial

expressions are irksome no matter the gender and you’re entitled to your sensitivities. Dick Cheney comes to mind, among what you described, with that smirk/sneer. ETC! There are lots of them.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

75. Would you argue that Cheney would be more respected

if he smiled in a more pleasing way?

[R B Garr]

83. Another biased misinterpretation. All politicians have image

standards. That’s what’s being discussed here.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

87. Another question you didn't answer.

YOU made the Cheney comparison. I'm asking if your comment about the smirk of Cheney would mean that he would be taken more seriously and respected more if he smiled in a more pleasing way? Because that's what's being said about AOC here.

[R B Garr]

90. No. I replied to another poster that you also misinterpreted.

You replied to me with this further bias.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

93. You replied to another poster with A CHENEY EXAMPLE.

I responded to the Cheney example, because, well, it's a discussion board and that's how it works.

Yet again, no answer to the question about whether YOUR argument is that Cheney would be respected more if he smiled in a more pleasing manner. Want to give it a shot this time?

[R B Garr]

95. It looks like you are getting angry because your comparisons

are biased. Also, it seems your insistence is more about getting someone to say something not allowed here.

[R B Garr]

97. Wrong again. You misinterpreted my post which

was about politicians. The post in question that you insist on misinterpreting was about maturity.

[Judi Lynn]

106. She reveals ego more than a grasp of what really is required to handle the job well.

You are totally correct. It doesn't take a mind reader to understand your meaning.

Her perspective needs a lot of refining, refocusing. She fails to understand how damned serious the situation is.

He has wisdom, something that comes with depth, awareness.

I appreciate your comment, completely agree with you.

[SlogginThroughIt]

136. Give me a fucking break.

Nobody here is being sexist. Nobody. Save for maybe.... You.

[betsuni]

141. +1

[George II]

21. I seriously doubt that comment was made because she's a woman. So 51% of the population....

....gets a pass from criticism?

I've seen similar comments made about Matt Gaetz, Lindsey Graham, Jim Jordan, trump junior, Jared Kushner, etc.

So it's only inappropriate because she's a woman?

[Cuthbert Allgood]

28. So don't be so sensitive about it? You think that's a better approach?

And someone said that Gaetz et al would be taken more seriously if they didn't smile a certain way? Doubt it.

[George II]

39. I don' think either the post you responded to or mine say anything like what you'd like them to say.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

41. If that makes you feel better.

Usually those that want to get rid of sexism/racism don't dig in so hard when their own sexism/racism is pointed out them. YMMV.

[George II]

46. Truth and reality makes me feel great. You're calling people here sexist (why toss in racist?)....

....in vague terms.

To quote you, "If that makes you feel better."

[Cuthbert Allgood]

48. Because the self awareness of our own sexism and racism are required for those to go away.

As long as people that live in a racist and sexist society hold to the thought that THEY aren't racist and sexist, it's not going way as a systemic reality. We all are and we need to realize it, own it, and work on fixing it.

Certainly as a progressive you know this, right? You've done the reading and hard work about ending sexism and racism? If not, I'd be happy to point you to some books you can start with.

[George II]

61. There's enough sexism and racism (still don't know why you introduced racism into this)....

....to go around in this country for people to make up such bias out of comments that clearly weren't in the first place.

I'm well aware of how to work to end sexism and racism (still don't understand why you introduced racism into this) without attributing it to non-sexist (or non-racist) statements.

Certainly as a progressive you'll agree with me, right?

[Cuthbert Allgood]

77. Pointing out what is sexism when people who don't want to be sexist commit it

is certainly a good step in making sure that people are fighting sexism in the right way, right?

And I introduced racism because of reasons I've made clear already, but here it is one more time: the systems that perpetuate both are similar as well as the thought by some that they aren't sexist/racist unless they are a raging misogynist/KKK member, so they continue to do things that are still harmful and still help prop up the system.

[George II]

113. Just making an issue out of nothing. Again, if that comment had been made about a man....

....(and it has) it would have gone with barely a notice.

I prefer worrying about what really exists instead of trying to make a comment into something it isn't.

[R B Garr]

64. Is there a book about how horribly Hillary Clinton

was treated? “Certainly as a progressive you know this, right?”

[Cuthbert Allgood]

76. There's a few, actually.

I mean Clinton's book addresses it for starters. Plus plenty of academic articles.

Does the fact that Clinton was treated horribly because she was a woman somehow negate that AOC is being treated poorly here? I'm confused.

[StevieM]

80. Clinton was savagely attacked for daring to address that in her book.

I felt she took on way too much responsibility for her loss, especially in her book. But she was still lambasted for addressing the injustices of that election in her book.

Some of the academic articles have been good, but I would like a whole book. One that acknowledges the insane dynamics of that election. What was most amazing to me is the way that the media downplayed the importance of the Comey intervention, or how outrageous and unprecedented his actions were.

[R B Garr]

82. Wow! Just the fact you would compare the two

shows your bias.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

86. Did I say it was equal?

Did you answer my question?

In case you forgot, and I'll even reword it so I'm clear on how I'm not saying they are the same: Does the absolutely horrible treatment of Hillary Clinton by the media and other forces during the election somehow mean that comments aimed at AOC here aren't also sexism albeit at a different level of impact?

[R B Garr]

88. The two are not comparable and I'm sure you know it.

Your whole premise is just biased and self-serving.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

91. Why won't you answer the question?

How does the treatment of Clinton in ANY WAY impact the treatment of AOC here? I really don't understand. Is it OK to say things about AOC because Clinton had it worse? Do we not have to worry about the "smaller" instances because Clinton had "bigger" ones? I seriously have NO CLUE what your argument is making. And I've asked you 3 times now, so hopefully you can make it clear beyond "they aren't comparable."

I'm sure you won't.

[R B Garr]

92. Your whole analogy and comparison of the two is

an embarrassing display, actually. There is no substance to your analogy, sorry.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

94. YOU brought up Clinton. (ETA: actually you did bring her up first)

I'm asking why the example of Clinton makes the discussion about AOC go away. Why does it?

[R B Garr]

96. LOL! Comparing a distinguished career politician, a former

First Lady with some messages on a message board?? Mostly that you misinterpreted BTW.

Sorry, but this is just silly now, sorry about that.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

117. One more time:

What does the treatment of Clinton have to do with the treatment of AOC? Let's someone robbed a person and took a billion dollars from them. Then, later, someone robbed a different person and took one hundred dollars. Would it make sense to you, when someone was talking about how it was wrong from the person to steal $100, to say, well that other person had a billion dollars stolen? I mean, yeah, it's really bad that that person had a LOT of money stolen from them and $1 billion is more than $100, but the other person was also robbed.

[R B Garr]

121. One more time yourself. Now another tangent about...robbery.

You are seriously off base. My original comment to you quoted your own words about “progressives”, presumably a “gotcha” about how women should be treated. That’s why I pointed out how “progressives” treated Hillary, which you didn’t understand.

Anyway, this is really silly now, sorry. Edit: all this over your misinterpretation of other posters, as well.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

122. An analogy isn't a tangent.

And it isn't lost on me that you haven't addressed anything I've said or asked you to clarify. So, it was silly from the moment you refused to have this be a discussion which I attempted.

[R B Garr]

123. Your misinterpretations have been noted.

[Judi Lynn]

107. I passed, reading this thread, when you used your "sexist" accusation, thinking that wasn't meant

by the poster you were addressing, because you didn't understand what was said. It does take someone who is familiar with human beings, behaviors, emotional postures, etc. to look past the personal angle in comments first.

I did believe your reaction indicated you are either actually unfamiliar with any depth, much about people. I assumed you are very young, in a hurry, haven't been open emotionally with people, don't really know too much about them.

I read the entire thread, had gone to see if I could spot a photo which would best resemble a "smirk" to use as an example. It occurred to me that dragging a "smirk" photo in to post would feed the incredibly shallow troll element here who feed on usable statements, etc. which can be turned to degrade Democrats for their own interests. The idea was repulsive, seemed cheap, and stupid. It suddenly occured to me that you also included the "racist" claim, which seemed truly odd at the time.

Looking at so many photos of AOC. it finally hit me: you were accusing the poster of racism because AOC is Puerto Rican. Holy smoke! I have read the poster's comments for ages, and know that poster has NEVER left that impression with any other poster, ever. I have never seen anyone launch at the poster before.

Sexist? Of course not. Racist? Not so much.

You misfired.

If you have actually suffered horrendously insulting, demeaning, smarmy, slimy, patronizing, accusatory sexism coming at you from both men and hostility from women, as a bonus, you would be much quieter, more observant, more thoughtful, less likely to attack.

At some time you will learn you are really on your own far more than you realize you are, and don't really get anything of value from trying to encourage people to join you in excoriating someone else.

[melman]

129. "and know that poster has NEVER left that impression with any other poster, ever. "

How can you know this?

[George II]

131. Very well said. As I've stated in this discussion myself, it seems like, since the message wasn't..

..."acceptable", even though there was nothing wrong with it, it HAS to be sexist or racist because a particular person is being criticized.

Yet the criticisms can fly left right and center about anyone and everything without objection.

I suppose, since I've been criticized here, it must be because I'm an old white skinny bald man, eh? Can I call it "racist" because I'm criticized and of a particular race? Ageist because I'm older? "Weightist" because I'm thin? "Hairist" because I'm bald.

I'm being facetious of course, but it shows the silliness of attributing "isms" to a comment simply because the attributor doesn't like the comment.

Thanks for your post.

[SheltieLover]

31. I am a fierce feminist & comment was offered as constructive criticism

That smarmy "gotcha" smirk is likely a habit she developed in early childhood. It no longer serves her well, imo.

Quite offputting.

My comment has nothing to do with her sex or gender.

[Voltaire2]

34. lulzd: "Start by wiping the smarmy grin from your face since you are no longer in middle school"

hint: that is not constructive criticism. It is just a flat out attack.

[SheltieLover]

47. Not an attack at all!

97% of communication is nonverbal; 55% is visually conveyed.

When a public servant conveys a "gotcha" smirk (like a middle school girl), that is a turn off to a lot of people.

Frankly, if I saw that in a primary candidate, I would vote for any other Dem because the visual impact of that look is not appealing to me in a professional (or anyone else, for that matter).

I have nothing against AOC.

[Voltaire2]

54. Right.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

78. 97%? Where'd you get that number?

Because I've never seen a number that high. Never seen anything over 95% and it's usually a range starting around 70% up to the 90s.

[George II]

37. But of course it's turned into a misogynistic comment, even if it wasn't.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

42. Or, and I know this is having trouble landing with you, it was sexist.

And one can be sexist without being a full-on misogynist. Just like one can be racist without being a KKK member.

Those that teach about ending sexism/racism are always clear to point out that we ALL are sexist/racist since we live in a sexist/racist society.

[George II]

45. In what was was it "sexist"? I'm sure you can explicitly explain it to us naive people.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

49. I think I've been pretty clear on this subthread.

I wish I wasn't so cynical to think that you are just hoping I type something you can alert on since the alerts on my other posts obviously failed.

But, since I'm trying to be less cynical in this new year, telling a woman that if she looked a certain way (e.g. smiled more or smiled in a different way) she would be taken more seriously is sexist. I would hope I'm not telling anyone here something they don't know.

[MrsCoffee]

60. And yet the term is used here quite frequently, most often towards men.

And usually with a good dose of someone wanting to wipe it off his face.

There are multiple facial expressions that don't equate smiling.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

72. So it can be used in multiple ways?

Or are you saying the poster wanted to punch AOC? Which brings us right back to what it meant when said to AOC (and other women).

[MrsCoffee]

101. You are really trying too hard.

And it’s gross.

[R B Garr]

102. Perfect description. It's too contrived.

[BainsBane]

27. How would she primary a Republican?

When she isn't one?

[SheltieLover]

59. I misspoke

I should have said I feel she should, perhaps, direct her energy towards primaries 8n which the encumbant is not an established, well-seasoned, and valuable Dem.

But I don't follow such races & procedures a lot. Very busy in real life, although I do try to keep up.

[Polybius]

36. I like that she acts younger than her age

She even goes on Twitch to play video games.

[Caliman73]

40. That isn't necessarily acting younger than her age.

30 year old people still play video games. I am 47 and still play. I don't go on Twitch to play, but mainly because I am not one for putting myself out there. I like AOC too, but think that there is an inordinate amount of attention paid to her by the media which is primarily used to highlight disagreements within the Democratic Party. I would prefer that she have a lower profile with regards to issues that highlight those disagreements.

[Sympthsical]

53. Millennials began turning 40 this past year. AOC isn't doing anything unusual

And my generation is still very much into video games. Console gaming started in earnest in the 80s when we were children. Online gaming's heyday began because of us. We're still plenty involved in it. Hell, I'm about to fire up a game as soon I finish reading the news and things.

It's a little odd on this board. Whenever I hear people refer to Millennials, I think they're thinking we're much, much younger than we are. Millennials are hedging into middle age now.

And just for the record. AOC is 30. The average age of an active gamer is 30.

So, she is acting precisely her age =)

[progressoid]

43. WUT? Smarmy grin?

I just scrolled through a few hundred AOC photos and couldn't find any "smarmy grin" pics of her.

WTF are you talking about.


edit: but I did find this...

[Cuthbert Allgood]

51. Yeah, but look at her smile in that gif.

She CLEARLY thinks she's better and smarter than us.

for the impaired (and not who I'm replying to)

That more people don't find this subthread gross is surprising.

[Sympthsical]

98. Eh, defending AOC here is begging for an alert fest

I've had people tell me that even some of my most innocuous posts in AOC threads get alerted on. Most of the time it doesn't succeed. Sometimes they do. You can tell when the threads are being swarmed and brigaded. Happens 99% of the time. So, I don't always bother.

I think the sexism and ageism towards her is obvious. You can tell people are just dying to use the word "uppity" against her, but they know how that would look against a woman of color. However, the inflection and meaning are all there. Every thread about AOC invariably devolves into dozens of posts bemoaning just how uppity she seems. Who does this 30 year old Latina think she is?

I just chalk it up to the fact that, while AOC is extremely well-liked by those under 40, many older, more conservative people cannot seem to stand her, and need to forever make it known.

Once Millennials come into political power, quite a bit about the Democratic Party will change. We just have to deal with it for a bit longer. Shame about the environment, though.

[betsuni]

99. "Quite a bit about the Democratic Party will change."

Could you give examples?

[Sympthsical]

115. In general, the party will move away from the moderation of the past 40 years

While we've won myriad political battles, we've largely been losing the policy war as long as I've been alive. Income inequality, baby steps on the environment (see: the hostility to the Green New Deal). There will be a more sensible approach to higher education and the loan system that has made an entire generation of people almost like indentured servants. How are people in their 30s and even 40s still paying loans merely because they wanted an education? That's insanity. Universal health care will be pushed rather than universal health insurance, that many people still can't afford to use (see: hostility towards Medicare for All).

When you look at, for example, the hostility towards someone like Bernie Sanders, you see people who do not understand what life has been like for people 40 and below. Wages have been stagnant. Health care has been expensive and often unusable. Housing prices have kept people from achieving what their parents did.

And our messaging just hasn't been there. We're really not very good at it. It feels like our leadership are playing the same old games, like it's the 90s or something. When you see someone like AOC on Twitter, she gets mocked relentlessly for it. Yeah, except that's how we all communicate now. Social media are incredibly integral to our lives. It's baked into our social cake. Denigrating someone for using social media to fight political battles (happens to AOC all the time), shows that people aren't grasping how much the country has changed.

And - and this is just my perception and experience - my generation just isn't that partisan. Take Speaker Pelosi. Now, I'm glad Speaker Pelosi was re-elected. I think we need her experience and wisdom to kind of jump start the Biden years after the hellstorm that was Trump. However, I'm also glad this will be her last term. Our leadership needs to change. Power is too centralized and calcified, and promising figures we need for the future are constantly benched in favor of the old guard. This isn't very liberal to me. That being said, sometimes the party does deserve criticism. When our leadership is criticized, a part of the party starts screaming bloody murder. In my experience, that's not my generation.

It's important to note, Bernie Sanders overwhelmingly won the primary vote with voters under the age of 44. It wasn't even close. It was older voters who turned out more and are more conservative that won things for Biden. Now look at how much hostility Sanders gets in a place like here. It's just not in tune with Millennials and Zoomers.

We great up in and have experienced half our working adulthood in a broken system that our leadership seems unable to make a dent in or even address in an effective way. Our needs and concerns go unaddressed, if not openly mocked.

It's going to change.

[George II]

132. "Bernie Sanders overwhelmingly won the primary vote with voters under the age of 44"?

I don't know where you get that number from, but the fact is Biden got almost double the number votes as Sanders and almost three times the number of delegates.

Considering the age distribution of Americans over 18 (roughly 35% between 18 and 44, and roughly 42% over 44), these numbers just don't add up if Sanders "overwhelmingly won the primary vote with voters under the age of 44."

Moving on from that, just why are you even discussing this now in January 2021? That's ancient (and inaccurate) history.

[Sympthsical]

137. It's a matter of turn out percentages

More older voters, more votes for Biden. There were plenty of exit polls during the primary showing Sanders the clear favorite among younger voters, including PoCs. The reason I bring it up, because I was asked how the party would change. I’m noting Millennials and younger clearly favor Sanders’ policies and approach over the existing Establishment. So, things will change.

It’s perfectly accurate. Polls aren’t hard to find. Maybe give them a glance before accusing someone of being wrong. And also figure how math and percentages work.

[George II]

139. There is only a difference of 7-10% in Americans 18-44 years old and those 44+ years old....

Yet the two candidates got 51% and 27% of the total primary votes - a difference of 24%. And between just those two candidates the difference was more than 30%.

Even so, what good is being the clear favorite of younger voters if they don't actually vote? Plus you're assuming that the ideology of younger people won't change as they get older. I don't think the party will change as much as you expect it will. No doubt as those younger voters get older they'll become part of the mythical "Establishment".

By the way, I'm very well aware of how math and percentages work. You?

[betsuni]

140. +1

[betsuni]

135. During the last two Democratic presidencies, Republicans have controlled the House for six of the

eight years. The lack of progress is because Democrats haven't had large enough majorities in legislature. Look at blue states like Washington -- higher minimum wages, green energy -- Democrats haven't been "moderate" on purpose, they just don't have the power.

Jimmy Carter put solar panels on the White House and told people to conserve energy. Al Gore has been talking about global warming forever. Barack Obama ran on a Green New Deal in 2008. Everybody knows the Democratic Party regulates industry and protects the environment.

The Clinton administration tried for universal health care reform. Medicare for All has been around a long time, voted every year since 2003 (John Conyers), 2005-2008 (Ted Kennedy and Rep. Dingell). Ted Kennedy has been saying health care is a right and not a privilege since the '70s. Both Democratic candidates in 2008 ran on a public option, and Clinton in 2016. Everybody knows Democrats are the party of health care. One particular version of the old Medicare for All idea is not the Holy Grail. The popularity of the ACA has increased, especially with the threat of Republican control of Congress during Trump's first two years. People aren't as nervous about government involvement in health care.

Be your own leader. There is no savior. Things change when people get involved and that's up to them.

Bernie Sanders believes that the reason why progressive policies haven't happened is because both parties are corrupt, beholden to corporations/Wall St./wealthy donors. Incorrect. He says trade policies have caused manufacturing jobs to disappear. Not true. That the Democratic Party is "ideologically bankrupt" and has shifted Right over the last 40 years. Wrong. This makes young people who don't know how government works cynical and pessimistic for no good reason. The U.S. isn't an oligarchy. Republicans want unregulated capitalism.

Anybody who blames Democrats for things that are out of their control ("Why didn't Democrats stop ____ ?" without understanding that Republicans have the majority) will be corrected here. This is a forum for supporters of the Democratic Party. When people get mad at leadership criticism, it's because it's incorrect. Too many people don't do their own research and assume bad motivation when there is none.

Research. Study. Think. Age has nothing to do with it.

[AmyStrange]

105. +100000000000000000000000000000000 x 2

[SheltieLover]

57. Next time I see it, I'll try to grab a pix

[progressoid]

65. One would think that it would be easy to find

Apparently she's done it enough that it's made a lasting impression on you.

[Mariana]

104. If it really is a habit and she does it all the time

It should take very little effort to find many such pictures.

[jcgoldie]

67. This is sexist you should self delete

Critiquing a female politician because you don't like her smile is ridiculous.

[SheltieLover]

69. I respect your opinion

But wholeheartedly disagree.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

79. What? No "off to the blocked list with you"?

I feel special that I got that and others didn't.

[MerryBlooms]

103. I commend you for fighting the good fight.

The true colors revealed in every AOC thread is, revealing. Not beautiful.

[tonedevil]

111. You have been deliciously...

blunt.

[ahoysrcsm]

112. Your posts appear to be borderline stalking this poster.

Why don't you leave them alone? After all, they gave you the courtesy that they will never see your messages and reply to your trolling attempts.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

118. I have only responded to them on this thread. That's hardly stalking.

They also have the ability to not post here. And if they can't see my posts, then that, too, is on them.

[ahoysrcsm]

124. HAHAHHA

Don't stalk me bro.

[muriel_volestrangler]

114. I respect you, but I think you're way off base here

This idea that her smile is a '"see how smart I am" smarmy sneer' is not, as you claim, 'just an honest, objective suggestion'; it's a subjective evaluation of her, without evidence, or respect of her. It's a kneejerk, shallow take on what you see, without thought. It has no place on a Democratic forum.

[SheltieLover]

119. 97% of communication is nonverbal; 55% is visual

Simply an observation, Muriel.

More interesting to me is the fierce number of objections to my post, and apparently posts removed, which were not intended attacks, but a blunt Gestalt-type constructive criticism.

This is not about her normal smile, which appears to be genuine & beautiful. This was something I saw which might have been on a Twitter post
of hers, in which she masterfully ripped some repuke. Lol

I looked up her Twitter account & no longer see that image, so perhaps her image consultant or speech coach or even a friend or colleague might have already pointed this out to her. (?)

Which, of course, makes this all a moot point.

I do not use Twitter, so it's not something I see daily. Only those that are posted on DU.

[muriel_volestrangler]

125. "97% of communication is nonverbal" is psuedoscience

Someone once put that ridiculously precise number on their claim to make it look like science. It isn't; it's just made up. There is no fixed amount; it obviously depends on the situation, such as whether you're communicating on the internet, or in person. It will also depend on the people involved.

This is sounding even worse; you once saw one picture, which you can't find now, and on that basis, you attacked her general attitude and appearance. This is the first time you've mentioned it was a single Twitter picture, so you shouldn't be surprised by the number of fierce objections to your posts (more than one; you've stood by your initial bad take). I do not understand how your opinion, based on one photo, has anything to do with "gestalt". That seems a direct contradiction.

[SheltieLover]

126. Wow, really?

Lol

Do some research, Muriel. These numbers are quite well accepted in the psychology profession.

You do not comprehend the concept of Gestalt in a clinucal sense. It is a snapshot in the moment.

I am not a Twitter user, therefore, I only see tweets posted here.

And I do not have time or the desire to defend myself on DU.

TY for showing me your true colors.

This seems to be the thread that just doesn't end.

Welcome to full ignore.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

127. I know I'm on ignore, but 97% is not accepted.

At best we know it is the primary form of communication. Generally, you will see 70-93% as the range that nonverbal takes up. Which brings up two points:
1. it is not something based on actual quantitive studies. It is qualitative. It is not science.
2. it is WHOLLY dependent on a lot of things. What is being communicated; who is communicating; what the relationship is between the people communicating. Plus a whole host of other things.

Source: My M.A. in Communication.

[muriel_volestrangler]

130. Just to bring something real in, from psychology, for anyone not ignoring inconvenient reality

First result for a Google search for "psychology" "communication" "nonverbal" that gives a figure:

Research suggests that nonverbal behavior accounts for between 60% and 70% of all meaning (Mehrabian, 1981).

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/psychology/nonverbal-communication

That, of course, is about "behaviour", in 1981 - ie in-person, not how a politician is displayed on the internet. Notice how they don't attempt to give an unduly-precise number; and leaves 30-40% for verbal behaviour, not an absurd 3%.

Gestalt psychology, school of psychology founded in the 20th century that provided the foundation for the modern study of perception. Gestalt theory emphasizes that the whole of anything is greater than its parts. That is, the attributes of the whole are not deducible from analysis of the parts in isolation. The word Gestalt is used in modern German to mean the way a thing has been “placed,” or “put together.” There is no exact equivalent in English. “Form” and “shape” are the usual translations; in psychology the word is often interpreted as “pattern” or “configuration.”

https://www.britannica.com/science/Gestalt-psychology

So, no, not "a snapshot in the moment".

Shame you don't feel like defending your numbers or definitions. The thread will go on until you've put enough people on ignore, I guess.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

128. I love when people throw this around like it's actual science.

There is a great deal we do know about communication that is based on actual studies that give solid quantitative numbers. This is not one of them. But, often the nonsense makes sense when supporting one's point, so I guess that somehow makes it OK.

[tonedevil]

133. You know...

87% of statistics are made up on the spot. That would appear to be the source of the 97%.

[R B Garr]

134. You are so right again, and it's notable that this is really

about Bernie, with AOC being the only link to the rejected Revolution.

You are correct, especially in the political world of imaging. Who can forget the lesson that one of the first TV debates brought us: Kennedy vs Nixon. On the radio with no visuals, it was thought that Nixon was winning, but the visuals that TV brought showed a handsome cool and collected Kennedy. Nixon was perspiring and had unpleasant facial expressions.

It’s just common sense what you’re saying, and we all know these things.

[still_one]

10. Actually I think it would be interesting if she would do it. We would then see just how

much traction she has outside her district

I don't think she will do it, because she realizes that her popularity only goes so far outside of her district

[empedocles]

13. As the commentary here acknowledges, this is not a realistic challenge at all.

Could be about . . . publicity.

[still_one]

24. No surprise this is coming from the hill

[Demsrule86]

25. I do too...her district is safe.

[whistler162]

68. The image I get is

6 inches of icy snow and racing slicks.

Won't vote for her in the primary if she does try.

[question everything]

38. Have been wondering who will Pelosi endorse

[Hortensis]

44. To win a state-wide election, Ocasio would have to restyle herself as

mainstream, and rack up a record to prove she's changed. Unlike congressmen, senators have to draw voters from across the spectrum. There's a big reason the ideological spectrum in the senate is narrower.

Even Sanders, the seeming exception, doesn't get elected by the hoards of socialists in VT. He maintains strong support among conservatives, who use him to defeat Democrats. The year he lost their backing would be the year VT's liberal Democrats primaried him with one of their own.

Best guess, Ocasio already knows she's not running for the senate -- or at least not running to win. She could do the fake run thing to both boost her brand and for some really major fundraising, and then use the funds for other political purposes.

[themaguffin]

50. FFS, she doesn't need to weigh in on this. Jesus.

[Blasphemer]

52. Not really a fan of AOC, but I don't have a problem with this statement...

She doesn't know what she is going to do next. She has previously said she doesn't know if she can stay in politics, but she is clearly committed to helping effect change. The bottom line is is that anything is a possibility. I think a challenge to Schumer would be a bad idea and she's probably better off out of politics, but that's for her to decide.

[Vivienne235729]

55. I understand her frustration. She comes from a very blue district, is young,

Super smart, and super passionate. I commend her for all those things. I think she is a breath of fresh air.

But I think she needs to visit AZ, GA, and other states that are not so very blue. See what's out there. Meet people here and see how well those progressive ideas are met by the people. We're changing but not enough. I know we flipped to blue, but AZ is really purple. There's so much ignorance and knuckle dragging here and in so many other places. I think if she knew what it's like for her colleagues who aren't in such blue districts, she wouldn't be so quick to undercut them. I wish she would try to find a way to work with them. This will help her tremendously in DC to getting what she wants done. But that may just come w experience.

Having said that, I AM rooting for her. I want to see a universal health care system in place before I get old (in my body anyways). And I think she has a powerful voice that she needs to fine tune so that she can affect that change she wants to see. It's a fine line to walk, I guess.

[Hekate]

110. Good idea about visiting other areas. From what my sis in rural upstate NY says, that's quite "red"

I got a great RBG magnetic bumper sticker, & knowing how much my sister admires the late Justice, told her where she could get one too. Sis informed me she really did not want her car egged, or worse.

So I figure AOC could save on travel costs and not even have to leave her home state in order to have some broadening experiences.

As always, I continue to watch her progress with interest.

[kcr]

56. I really hope she has smart people in her ear

Telling her the most efficient thing to do would be to not do it because she'd get her clock cleaned.

[BlueNProud]

66. Just join The View already will you please.

[marlakay]

108. Lol she and McCain would be fighting daily

And I have noticed during last election most of the rest were for the moderate candidate.

I think she would be bored by doing that and feel like she isn't helping change.

[TheFarseer]

84. I love AOC

And she should not run because she wouldn’t win. Even if I share her frustration with Schumer.

[Skittles]

109. I agree we could use new blood

but.....she is overreaching

[Celerity]

116. Typical 'The Hill' sloppiness, AOC is 31, not 30.

Also, I would think that the anti-AOC clique would welcome this, as she has to vacate her House seat to run, and will more than likely lose to Schumer in the Senate Primary (at least if you believe what they say about her perceived small, weak power projections beyond her district that will neuter her attempts at State-wide office), so she would then be out of elected politics, unless she tried to grab a House seat back in 2024 (which would turn into a shitshow here on the board unless some NY US House incumbent member near and/or in NYC retires, which looking at the map is doubtful).

I say 'a' House seat back as NY will more than likely lose a House seat post 2020-census reapportionment, and IF AOC does not run for the House in 2022, then it would make sense to do away with that one, as there would be no incumbent to force into a cannibal race versus another Democratic House incumbent.