General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums
NY-SEN: Schumer quietly nails down the left amid AOC primary chatter
Just a few weeks after a group of young climate activists, accompanied by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, orchestrated a highly publicized sit-in in House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office in late 2018, their Sunrise Movement received an unexpected email from Chuck Schumer’s staff.
Could the rabble-rousers meet with the then-Senate minority leader? He wanted to talk to them about his agenda if Democrats ever won back the Senate, which included tackling climate change, democracy reform, and economic and racial inequality. Before long, his team was asking for their support on a clean cars proposal.
Schumer’s outreach was likely no coincidence. New York, the veteran senator’s home state, is the epicenter of the progressive movement’s efforts to oust incumbent Democrats in Congress. And Schumer, who is up for reelection in 2022, has been taking steps both publicly and privately to steel himself from a left-wing primary challenge — especially from his biggest threat, Ocasio-Cortez.
At the time of the meeting, Ocasio-Cortez was fresh off her stunning primary upset victory. She hadn’t even been sworn into office yet. But in the two years since then, Schumer has thrown his weight behind a plan to cancel student loan debt by executive order. He's voted against the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement. He’s said “nothing is off the table” when it comes to eliminating the filibuster. And that’s only a fraction of the progressive moves he’s made in recent years. It still hasn’t inoculated him from the possibility of a primary.
“It’s exciting to see how much action Schumer is currently taking,” said Saikat Chakrabarti, Ocasio-Cortez’s former chief of staff. “And I hope that progressives continue pressuring him, threatening a potential primary.”
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/02/01/chuch-schumer-aoc-senate-464255
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Celerity
(43,682 posts)
R B Garr
(17,004 posts)Several topics and articles are listed here multiple times per day, often for weeks at a time.
Maybe people have ignore lists and don’t see the other threads.
Celerity
(43,682 posts)R B Garr
(17,004 posts)“exposure”. What is different about this topic that it doesn’t need exposure? 
Celerity
(43,682 posts)R B Garr
(17,004 posts)so I’m pretty sure it was you. Your first post here was monitoring this duplicate thread, so I noticed your name again because of the minimal responses.
It just seems like duplicate threads of every AOC tweet or article are the norm, plus kicking old threads with her as a subject title, so I wondered why the monitoring of this one. Thank you.
Celerity
(43,682 posts)I do not go back in and 'kick up for visibility' old AOC threads. The only time I go back to a thread generally is if someone has replied to me in it, then I reply, like I am doing with you now.
AOC threads are some of the last threads that need 'kicking'. Her as a subject draws bother supporters and opponents like honey draws flies.
Here are the last threads I actually did kick for visibility, and none are about AOC
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100215016403
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=15006973
https://www.democraticunderground.com/109526734
and an OP of mine that sunk like a rock
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100214985761
R B Garr
(17,004 posts)I have the same thoughts you do about the AOC threads...multiple spammed threads, so why are some with minimal responses kicked for exposure after a couple days.
Celerity
(43,682 posts)I do not know, have not really noticed it, you seem concerned, so perhaps ask people who actually do it, if this even is a thing. It seems very inconsequential (and hardly a bad thing if it even is happening, as AOC is a very well known elected Democrat who inspires a shedload of people across the age spectrum ad across the nation, and even internationally, which I can attest to personally, at least for here in Sweden and in the UK) to me, but that is only my take, your mileage may vary.
R B Garr
(17,004 posts)which made me curious why the sudden need to squash this one compared with all the other duplicates.
Celerity
(43,682 posts)of the exact same article, and also that it was from a dodgy author with a history of writing Dems in disarray and other shitstir articles (something that is stock in trade for Politico as a site overall).
You have taken that and ran with it in a attempt to create some sinister narrative, and have repeatedly tried to cast aspersions upon me as a poster, including false accusations. Not only that, but what you are trying to wrongly frame me as doing is not even a bad thing. IF people are doing what you are falsely accusing me of doing, then good on them, as there is absolutely zero wrong with it.
Done here, this is becoming problematic in terms of your interaction with me and I am choosing to end it from my end.
R B Garr
(17,004 posts)You’ve even noticed the same thing I have about the plethora of AOC threads.
Celerity
(43,682 posts)until you falsely accused me out of the blue with a ludicrous charge of 'kicking AOC threads to get them visibility' (as if that is somehow a priori a bad thing anyway, but regardless, i did not do that)
Also, multiple posters on here who are not at all AOC-friendly at times said the exact same thing I did in my first reply on the whole OP:
They said it (this article) was posted multiple times, and that the author is a Dems-in-disarray shit-stirring hack.
Yet you only chose to have a go at me, and then after I simply one line replied to your repeated queries, you spun up some bollocks about me kicking AOC threads.
Even then I simply said you must have me confused with someone else, yet you came back at me and said the same false thing again.
That is when I finally gave a detailed reply, after you twice made a false accusation.
I also (now dealing with this last reply, #27, you just did) never said I agreed with you about these supposedly kicked up threads (as you just stated I did this). I said directly I had not seen that, had not noticed it really at all.
There are always a lot of AOC threads on this board, but I do not premeditatively 'kick them up 'for visibility' after they fall down, nor have I really even noticed how old they are and when they come and go. It is such a pedantic thing to even be engaged over.
You keep accusing me of things I never did (kicking up old AOC threads) or saying I saw things (that I noticed these threads you are on about) that I never did.
It is crystal clear to anyone who reads this entire thread.
Here, BTW, these two posters said exactly what I said with my first reply to the OP.
If you are consistent, you will go and start accusing them of doing things they never did, the same as you did with me, and also infer there is some nefarious motive behind their replies to the OP .
(to be clear, I am NOT advocating you do that at all, I am simply making my point with a rock-solid comparison)
R B Garr
(17,004 posts)Yours was the first reply to this thread and it was about it being a duplicate. I was wondering why this AOC was different than the others that are duplicates. I've seen you kick her threads threads for "visibility". Interestingly, the first google resulted in a deleted post by you, and that was back in early January, so I'm not going to waste time going through all your posts.
Regardless, I said I agreed with you about the plethora of AOC threads and if that is personal to you, I don't see you shutting down other threads about her so this one stuck out. Sorry.
Response to R B Garr (Reply #7)
R B Garr This message was self-deleted by its author.
Demsrule86
(68,768 posts)R B Garr
(17,004 posts)group of cohorts who reportedly speak as one voice. Politico or not, why would primarying Schumer be off the table if other Democrats are fair game.
Demsrule86
(68,768 posts)flipped...we can't take the risk...and let me just say I loathe justice Democrats. They attack our party non-stop. Money should not be wasted on primaring Democrats.
R B Garr
(17,004 posts)ex-Republican, Cenk Uyger. I think most people know of the negative history of Justice Democrats attacking Democrats, so it’s surprising that it’s not understood why most Democrats have rejected them.
Demsrule86
(68,768 posts)
Dem4Life1102
(3,974 posts)AOC has never said that she is considering running against Schumer in a primary.
R B Garr
(17,004 posts)uniform platform is that there is a consensus in their goals. That, plus her refusal to deny that she was considering it.
Dem4Life1102
(3,974 posts)said that she was thinking about it.
Demsrule86
(68,768 posts)I doubt Schumer would care.
Dem4Life1102
(3,974 posts)because Neil Armstrong never said the moon landing was faked, then it could have been. Ridiculous.
R B Garr
(17,004 posts)denounced them?
Dem4Life1102
(3,974 posts)No one from JD states she is running against Schumer in the article. They talk about a possible primary challenge to Schumer but never say it will be AOC.
R B Garr
(17,004 posts)“They” being Justice Democrats. Even if it’s not AOC, it will be someone else. That’s how it’s presented.
They being several different groups that are quoted in the article. JD is just one of those groups.
R B Garr
(17,004 posts)being considered to primary Schumer. JD is her group and they say there might be another if it’s not her. It’s not a media creation that she might be running. It is a part of JD’s mission statement.
Dem4Life1102
(3,974 posts)And JD is just one group quoted in the article. None of whom say her name.
R B Garr
(17,004 posts)denounce them. She is agreeing with their assessment...wait and see. No one said this article was about AOC announcing a primary campaign.
Dem4Life1102
(3,974 posts)is based on what she hasn’t said, not what she actually said. And the JD never said her name either.
R B Garr
(17,004 posts)about it. So it’s not “my” argument.
She hasn’t denounced her group Justice Democrats and all the other groups you mention are just spin-offs of Justice Democrats.
Dem4Life1102
(3,974 posts)where she says she is considering running against Schumer. Please quote where JD says she is considering running against Schumer.
R B Garr
(17,004 posts)It's like people know she would lose so they are protecting her by this method. Her own quotes agree with this article.
Dem4Life1102
(3,974 posts)When has she said she is thinking of running against Schumer?
Please post the exact quotes.
R B Garr
(17,004 posts)They are talking about whether AOC or someone else will primary Schumer. It's not another mystery female being discussed. It's definitely AOC.
Schumer quietly nails down the left amid AOC primary ...
https://www.politico.com › news › 2021 › 02 › 01 › chuch...
2 days ago · Schumer quietly nails down the left amid AOC primary chatter ... an unexpected email from Chuck Schumer’s staff. ... a lot of energy on primarying Chuck Schumer in 2022 certainly depends on what ...
AOC Drives ‘Law & Order Democrat’ Chuck Schumer Down a ...
https://www.jewishpress.com › news › us-news › ny › aoc...
1 day ago · On January 25, the organization Just Democracy mounted a billboard in Times Square urging Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) to …
Report: AOC "seriously considering" primarying Chuck Schumer
https://hotair.com › archives › allahpundit › 2021 › 02 › 01 › ...
1 day ago · AOC is a far more galvanizing figure than Nixon was. She wouldn’t lose by 30. But she’d very likely lose: Schumer is near the absolute nadir of his popularity, and he has a 14-point edge on AOC among white voters and a *17-point* advantage among Black voters.
Report: AOC “seriously considering” primarying Chuck Schumer
https://patriotdailypress.org › 2021 › 02 › 01 › report...
2 days ago · Report: AOC “seriously considering” primarying Chuck Schumer Robinhood CEO Explains Move to Restrict GameStop Trading Watch: Woman appears to dance obliviously as Myanmar military instigates coup in background Woman wallops would-be car thief at gas station, tosses him to the ground: ‘I’m not in the mood tonight’ After Years of Mocking Trump, SNL …
AOC won't rule out primary challenge against Chuck Schumer
https://nypost.com › 2021 › 01 › 04 › aoc-wont-rule-out...
Jan 05, 2021 · Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is not ruling out a primary challenge against Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, she revealed Monday. Speaking to Punchbowl News in an interview to mark the launch
Report: AOC “seriously considering” primarying Chuck Schumer
https://clarion.causeaction.com › 2021 › 02 › 01 › report...
2 days ago · This is almost certainly nonsense, fed to Politico for a strategic reason and duly published by the paper because, let’s face it, the idea of a Schumer/AOC death match for the soul of the Democratic Party is irresistible. It’s roughly as sensational as Mitch McConnell being primaried by Donald Trump Jr would be. (Okay, not…
Report: AOC “Seriously Considering” Primarying Chuck Schumer
https://news.0censor.com › report-aoc-seriously...
AOC weighs in on primarying Chuck Schumer; she feels he is out of touch with the party's progressive wing that she and Ilhan and others represent. TRENDING: Mueller Shows True Face And Outright Bias In Testimony. When Race Is Used As A Deflection Against Criticism.
Here's What New York Democrat Party Boss Thinks of an AOC ...
https://townhall.com › tipsheet › bronsonstocking › 2020 › ...
Dec 27, 2020 · Rumors have circulated for months that AOC will attempt to unseat Sen. Schumer in 2022, but Jacobs told The Post that such a primary challenge between Ocasio-Cortez and Schumer would be a loss in...
AOC will not rule out primarying Chuck Schumer in 2022 ...
https://thetimesofnewyork.com › 2021 › 01 › 04 › aoc-will...
Jan 04, 2021 · AOC will not rule out primarying Chuck Schumer in 2022 ajayamola9 - January 4, 2021 0 Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., would not rule out difficult her fellow Democrat Senate Minority Chief Chuck Schumer for his Senate seat in an...
AOC refuses to rule out launching a primary run against ...
https://www.dailymail.co.uk › news › article-9111529
Jan 04, 2021 · AOC refuses to rule out launching a primary run against Chuck Schumer for his New York Senate seat saying 'I'm trying to decide what's the most effective thing I can do' Representative Alexandria...
Some results have been removed
1
2
3
4
5
Dem4Life1102
(3,974 posts)a quote from AOC saying she is thinking of running against Schumer.
R B Garr
(17,004 posts)ruled it out. Justice Democrats is a source, and they primary Democrats. So they have thought about it. Her thoughts on the matter have been in the media.
Dem4Life1102
(3,974 posts)from her and the Justice Democrats that say she is thinking about it. Anything else is media spin.
R B Garr
(17,004 posts)isn’t wrong. You are just trying to parse it because it is a losing proposition for her and the “movement.”
“thinking about it”...maybe you could explain how she could not think about it if she is asked about it.
Dem4Life1102
(3,974 posts)You produced media manufactured speculation. Either produce direct quotes from AOC saying that she is considering running against Schumer or admit that you can’t.
R B Garr
(17,004 posts)even claim what you are eluding to. She was asked about primarying Schumer and she answered. You want words in a certain order or they have no meaning.
tonedevil
(3,022 posts)Dem4Life1102
(3,974 posts)and didn’t say she was considering it. Thus it is media manufactured speculation.
R B Garr
(17,004 posts)was looking at? Seems like she’s put some thought into it.
True, she hasn’t started an actual campaign, but she’s suggesting that Schumer’s actions are being evaluated.
Dem4Life1102
(3,974 posts)What she said was “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.”. Which in no way suggests that she is evaluating Schumer’s actions. In fact she never mentioned Schumer’s name.
R B Garr
(17,004 posts)platform, that is just one thing she's been asked.
"All of this is to say that when Politico asked AOC the Schumer primary question, there is a 0% chance that she a) didn't expect it and b) hadn't already figured out how to answer it. Which makes the fact that her answer was, effectively, "we'll see," all the more intriguing.
She could have easily said something like I don't agree with Sen. Schumer on every issue but he is the kind of fighter New York needs and I will support him in 2022. But she didn't do that. And she didn't do it on purpose. Because she wants to leave the door open to running or, at least, make sure Schumer is on watch -- and perhaps make it more likely that he fights harder for liberal priorities that AOC cares about between now and 2022."
From CNN. Seriously, her quotes are all over the media. All easily findable.
Dem4Life1102
(3,974 posts)not on what she has actually said. If her quotes are all over the media then show one where she says she is considering running against Schumer.
R B Garr
(17,004 posts)If that's the case, Where are the quotes saying she is definitely not running against Schumer.
And it's not "my" argument. It's just tiresome to think that this kind of manipulation is necessary when it's clear that Justice Democrats primaries Democrats and these are legitimate political questions that the media is asking.
Dem4Life1102
(3,974 posts)She has never said that she is considering running against Schumer. And I don’t have to prove a negative. This is purely a media manufactured story.
R B Garr
(17,004 posts)First you went from saying she wasn't "thinking" about it, but of course she's thought about it. She's been asked in the media, and she answered.
Now you are saying there have to be quotes from her saying she is going to primary Schumer. Then provide quotes saying she is not primarying Schumer.
Dem4Life1102
(3,974 posts)And you nor I know what anyone thinks. She was asked in an interview and never said she was considering or even mentioned Schumer’s name.
tonedevil
(3,022 posts)Representative Ocasio-Cortez could maybe at some point in the future think about deliberating a run for the Democratic nomination to run for Senator and there is a nominal chance that seat could be the one currently occupied by Senate Majority Leader Schumer. Oh, and something, something Justice Democrats.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)When your own query in regards to producing quotes was directed at you some months prior, you simply called it "a silly gotcha point..."
But I get it...
Dem4Life1102
(3,974 posts)Please elaborate.
Demsrule86
(68,768 posts)the speculation.
Dem4Life1102
(3,974 posts)‘I don’t care what they write about me as long as they spell my name right’ lol 😂
R B Garr
(17,004 posts)Their platform is to speak as one voice and primarying Democrats who don’t parrot them is one of their main goals. It would be news if AOC is denouncing them now. Maybe that’s what is happening. They should quit speaking for her.
Dem4Life1102
(3,974 posts)They are quoted in the article along with reps from other liberal groups.
R B Garr
(17,004 posts)So that is the source. It’s not like it’s a secret that primarying Democrats is their goal.
Dem4Life1102
(3,974 posts)plus he is just one of several reps from other groups quoted in the article.
R B Garr
(17,004 posts)seem as if the whole basis is what AOC says. JD is a source for her platform and the article is about primarying Schumer. If she doesn’t do it, it might be someone else
It’s almost as if it’s known she would get beaten, so some are trying to buffer her from that already. The article is correct regardless of the speculation. All of politics is speculation until elections occur, anyway.
Dem4Life1102
(3,974 posts)she is considering running against Schumer when she never said she is. It is false to claim that the source of the article is JD when they are just one of several groups quoted in the article and the JD rep quoted never mentioned her name.
Here the quote from JD, he never says her name:
R B Garr
(17,004 posts)That's the part you didn't highlight. "referring to a challenge by her" "her" being AOC, as that is her group and that is who the article is about. When her name is in the title of the article, and people are talking about her in the article, it's about her. She was quoted agreeing with Justice Democrats and she hasn't denounced them in this article or any other place. Her quotes indicate pretty much what JD is saying, so the article is correct in what they have presented.
All the other "groups" you mention are just spinoffs from her initial group, so let's not pretend that they all some independent thinkers.
Dem4Life1102
(3,974 posts)the JD spokesman. Anything else is spin from the reporter.
R B Garr
(17,004 posts)Which other "her" are you suggesting the article is referring to? She is asked about this enough that we know the "her" being discussed is AOC.
Dem4Life1102
(3,974 posts)Not her or anyone quoted in the article.
As was posted below: https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=15048026
R B Garr
(17,004 posts)Just a quick Google confirms that AOC has been asked about this, so we know it's AOC being referred to. It's not the only article. This is just a quick search of AOC vs Schumer and WOW, look at all the articles.
This article is correct. It is referring to AOC and correctly refers to her consideration of the questions about primarying Schumer.
Schumer quietly nails down the left amid AOC primary ...
https://www.politico.com › news › 2021 › 02 › 01 › chuch...
2 days ago · Schumer quietly nails down the left amid AOC primary chatter ... an unexpected email from Chuck Schumer’s staff. ... a lot of energy on primarying Chuck Schumer in 2022 certainly depends on what ...
AOC Drives ‘Law & Order Democrat’ Chuck Schumer Down a ...
https://www.jewishpress.com › news › us-news › ny › aoc...
1 day ago · On January 25, the organization Just Democracy mounted a billboard in Times Square urging Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) to …
Report: AOC "seriously considering" primarying Chuck Schumer
https://hotair.com › archives › allahpundit › 2021 › 02 › 01 › ...
1 day ago · AOC is a far more galvanizing figure than Nixon was. She wouldn’t lose by 30. But she’d very likely lose: Schumer is near the absolute nadir of his popularity, and he has a 14-point edge on AOC among white voters and a *17-point* advantage among Black voters.
Report: AOC “seriously considering” primarying Chuck Schumer
https://patriotdailypress.org › 2021 › 02 › 01 › report...
2 days ago · Report: AOC “seriously considering” primarying Chuck Schumer Robinhood CEO Explains Move to Restrict GameStop Trading Watch: Woman appears to dance obliviously as Myanmar military instigates coup in background Woman wallops would-be car thief at gas station, tosses him to the ground: ‘I’m not in the mood tonight’ After Years of Mocking Trump, SNL …
AOC won't rule out primary challenge against Chuck Schumer
https://nypost.com › 2021 › 01 › 04 › aoc-wont-rule-out...
Jan 05, 2021 · Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is not ruling out a primary challenge against Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, she revealed Monday. Speaking to Punchbowl News in an interview to mark the launch
Report: AOC “seriously considering” primarying Chuck Schumer
https://clarion.causeaction.com › 2021 › 02 › 01 › report...
2 days ago · This is almost certainly nonsense, fed to Politico for a strategic reason and duly published by the paper because, let’s face it, the idea of a Schumer/AOC death match for the soul of the Democratic Party is irresistible. It’s roughly as sensational as Mitch McConnell being primaried by Donald Trump Jr would be. (Okay, not…
Report: AOC “Seriously Considering” Primarying Chuck Schumer
https://news.0censor.com › report-aoc-seriously...
AOC weighs in on primarying Chuck Schumer; she feels he is out of touch with the party's progressive wing that she and Ilhan and others represent. TRENDING: Mueller Shows True Face And Outright Bias In Testimony. When Race Is Used As A Deflection Against Criticism.
Here's What New York Democrat Party Boss Thinks of an AOC ...
https://townhall.com › tipsheet › bronsonstocking › 2020 › ...
Dec 27, 2020 · Rumors have circulated for months that AOC will attempt to unseat Sen. Schumer in 2022, but Jacobs told The Post that such a primary challenge between Ocasio-Cortez and Schumer would be a loss in...
AOC will not rule out primarying Chuck Schumer in 2022 ...
https://thetimesofnewyork.com › 2021 › 01 › 04 › aoc-will...
Jan 04, 2021 · AOC will not rule out primarying Chuck Schumer in 2022 ajayamola9 - January 4, 2021 0 Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., would not rule out difficult her fellow Democrat Senate Minority Chief Chuck Schumer for his Senate seat in an...
AOC refuses to rule out launching a primary run against ...
https://www.dailymail.co.uk › news › article-9111529
Jan 04, 2021 · AOC refuses to rule out launching a primary run against Chuck Schumer for his New York Senate seat saying 'I'm trying to decide what's the most effective thing I can do' Representative Alexandria...
Some results have been removed
1
2
3
4
5
Dem4Life1102
(3,974 posts)and not one of those articles has a direct quote from AOC saying she is thinking about running against Schumer. It is a media manufactured story.
R B Garr
(17,004 posts)takeaway. She has been asked about it (primarying Schumer) and she answered. So she is also a source, as well as Justice Democrats, her organization known for primarying Democrats. Those are the sources.
So they have been thinking about it, if that is your latest sticking point. They aren’t being asked if they have started an actual campaign.
Dem4Life1102
(3,974 posts)And the JD spokesman didn’t say she was either. That is just spin from the reporter.
And I’ll ask again, can you produce a quote where she states she is considering running against Schumer?
R B Garr
(17,004 posts)more pages. Why don’t you produce quotes from Justice Democrats that they will no longer primary Democrats. Then explain why AOC answered questions about primarying Schumer if she never “thought” about it.
tonedevil
(3,022 posts)and she deflected. If that is your smoking gun you should turn in your Jr. Detective badge.
Dem4Life1102
(3,974 posts)Trump won the election. Doesn’t make them true. I don’t need to prove a negative. And just because a reporter asks a question doesn’t mean someone is considering anything. Just means the reporter is fishing for a story.
R B Garr
(17,004 posts)for primarying Democrats. Has something changed in Justice Democrats platform? Why would the media not take them seriously and ask questions?
Dem4Life1102
(3,974 posts)and never mentioned AOC’s name. Plus they were not the source, they were just quoted along with several other groups. The only source is the media itself because they are trying to generate a controversy. That’s what they do.
R B Garr
(17,004 posts)So we know they took place... the questioning of her. I’ve printed just the first page that would fit, but there are more.
The other “groups” are all just displaced people from Justice Democrats, so it’s really just an illusion that there are multitudes of people being quoted.
Justice Democrats are known for primarying Democrats, so the “controversy” is more driven by them than the media.
Dem4Life1102
(3,974 posts)then there should be at least one quote where she says that she is considering running against Schumer. And at least one quote where JD says the same.
And JD is not some multi headed hydra that controls all other groups. Plus they didn’t issue a press release or go to the media to pitch this story, the reporter went to them to ask them to comment.
R B Garr
(17,004 posts)It's funny how now you are taking the angle that Justice Democrats no longer have a platform about primarying other Democrats or have criteria and measurable platforms, especially when they state right in the article. Also, you are suggesting that Justice Democrats should not be taken seriously when they are quoted in the media.
“It’s dependent on what Schumer does,” said Waleed Shahid, communications director for Justice Democrats, the left-wing group that recruited Ocasio-Cortez to run for Congress, referring to a challenge by her or another progressive candidate. “Schumer will have to explain every one of his decisions to one of the most progressive primary electorates in the country, and if voters think he’s capitulating to Mitch McConnell and not organizing his caucus to deliver for working families, then he’s going to be in some trouble.”
Dem4Life1102
(3,974 posts)they are definitely going to primary Schumer or that they are running AOC.
R B Garr
(17,004 posts)Schumer are in the article.
JUSTICE DEMOCRAT MILESTONES:
“It’s dependent on what Schumer does,” said Waleed Shahid, communications director for Justice Democrats, the left-wing group that recruited Ocasio-Cortez to run for Congress, referring to a challenge by her or another progressive candidate. “Schumer will have to explain every one of his decisions to one of the most progressive primary electorates in the country, and if voters think he’s capitulating to Mitch McConnell and not organizing his caucus to deliver for working families, then he’s going to be in some trouble.”
Dem4Life1102
(3,974 posts)do they say they are going to primary Schumer or that they are going to run AOC?
R B Garr
(17,004 posts)Since that is the latest diversion, who is the "she" Justice Democrats is referencing?
Where in the quote does it say they are not going to primary Schumer?
Dem4Life1102
(3,974 posts)not what the JD spokesman said. The word she is not in the JD quote.
R B Garr
(17,004 posts)about the same question have been asked of her and answered?
Dem4Life1102
(3,974 posts)So ‘she’ is the reporter’s word.
R B Garr
(17,004 posts)Who is the article about then?
Dem4Life1102
(3,974 posts)determined by the reporter.
R B Garr
(17,004 posts)Dem4Life1102
(3,974 posts)The point is that the JD spokesman never said AOC or she. What the reporter wrote is the spin of the reporter alone.
R B Garr
(17,004 posts)They are not talking about a female here?
“It’s dependent on what Schumer does,” said Waleed Shahid, communications director for Justice Democrats, the left-wing group that recruited Ocasio-Cortez to run for Congress, referring to a challenge by her or another progressive candidate. “Schumer will have to explain every one of his decisions to one of the most progressive primary electorates in the country, and if voters think he’s capitulating to Mitch McConnell and not organizing his caucus to deliver for working families, then he’s going to be in some trouble.”
From the article, her name and a reference to "her"
"the left-wing group that recruited Ocasio-Cortez to run for Congress, referring to a challenge by her"
Dem4Life1102
(3,974 posts)as the spin of the reporter alone. The quote from the JD spokesman doesn’t say she or mention AOC.
R B Garr
(17,004 posts)That's been posted hours ago. Now you're back to denial that it was even her and you're speculating that the "her" referred to might not be female.
Who is this article about? lol 
Dem4Life1102
(3,974 posts)And never said she was considering running against Schumer.
And I’m not denying anything just pointing out the JD spokesman never said she or mentioned AOC. Any mention of AOC is the reporter’s spin only.
R B Garr
(17,004 posts)running against Schumer.
"the left-wing group that recruited Ocasio-Cortez to run for Congress, referring to a challenge by her"
No, you are saying that the article is about someone else other than the person named in the article? Isn't it accurate that Justice Democrats recruited Ocasio-Cortez?
Dem4Life1102
(3,974 posts)The reporter constructed a narrative about AOC but none of the direct quotes from JD in the article even mention AOC.
R B Garr
(17,004 posts)"the left-wing group that recruited Ocasio-Cortez to run for Congress, referring to a challenge by her"
So who else is the article about if not AOC?
Dem4Life1102
(3,974 posts)but since there is no transcript provided, there is no way to know what the JD spokesman was “referring to”, especially since he never said AOC’s name or says the word she or even stated they are going to primary Schumer.
That is the reporter’s spin only.
R B Garr
(17,004 posts)Who is the article about?
The article isn’t about primarying Schumer? Who are they discussing primarying in the article? The quotes about primarying Schumer aren’t real either?
Dem4Life1102
(3,974 posts)is the reporter’s spin and there is no direct quote to support the narrative that the reporter is trying to construct.
R B Garr
(17,004 posts)Where are the quotes that they she/they are not primarying Schumer?
Dem4Life1102
(3,974 posts)None of the quotes in the article state that AOC is considering running against Schumer.
There are no quotes where AOC says she is not a werewolf. That doesn’t mean that she is one.
Just because a reporter writes something and posts it on the internet doesn’t make it true. If it did then the earth is flat, climate change is a hoax and Trump won the election.
R B Garr
(17,004 posts)Democrats. You just can’t admit it.
The article doesn’t say she’s starting a campaign.
Dem4Life1102
(3,974 posts)where she says she is considering running against Schumer in a primary. I’ve asked several times now.
R B Garr
(17,004 posts)I've asked several times, as well.
tonedevil
(3,022 posts)do you need quotes from everyone in New York State indicating they won't be trying to primary Senate Majority Leader Schumer? If they haven't expressly said they will not they could be a threat using your logic.
Dem4Life1102
(3,974 posts)she’s not a brain eating zombie either, so she might be. Lol 😂
tonedevil
(3,022 posts)Dem4Life1102
(3,974 posts)that she dresses up as Batwoman and fights crime at night. So maybe she does. 😉
Dem4Life1102
(3,974 posts)Burden of proof rests on the person making the allegation.
R B Garr
(17,004 posts)is not running, but it’s great that you now acknowledge that this article is actually about AOC. It was kind of iffy there for awhile. 
Dem4Life1102
(3,974 posts)Nor did I ever deny the article was about her. I said that she has never said that she is considering running against Schumer and have asked several times for any quote where she says she is. An honest person would admit that no such quote exists and stop playing games.
R B Garr
(17,004 posts)are now forced to admit that the article is about the female Justice Democrats was talking about, which is AOC.
You are making it about exact word formations, so I’ve asked for the same thing. I’ve quoted from the article and googled AOC quotes about the subject matter, so an honest person would admit that the article is correct. It was your construction that the article said she is running, but that’s not what the article says.
Dem4Life1102
(3,974 posts)where she says she is considering running against Schumer.
And for the record the quote from the JD spokesman never says anything about any female. The only person mentioned in the quote is Schumer.
R B Garr
(17,004 posts)The subject matter was asked of
AOC and she answered. You were saying she wasn’t “thinking” of running and her quotes prove you wrong. The Justice Democrat quotes have been posted multiple times, and they prove you wrong.
Dem4Life1102
(3,974 posts)Please post the quotes where she says she is thinking about running against Schumer.
And the quotes don’t prove me wrong quite the contrary. Here is the exact quote of the JD spokesman without the reporter’s spin.
“Schumer will have to explain every one of his decisions to one of the most progressive primary electorates in the country, and if voters think he’s capitulating to Mitch McConnell and not organizing his caucus to deliver for working families, then he’s going to be in some trouble.”
They never mentioned AOC or any female.
R B Garr
(17,004 posts)AOC is the female that Justice Democrats is talking about. 
I've asked you to name who the mystery female is that they are discussing, but you haven't yet. You say they are not discussing a female, but AOC's initials are there as well as the reference to "her".
The article doesn't talk about her starting a campaign. You've even quoted her yourself, so you know very well what was being discussed, so please quit ad libbing.
And, LOL, before you were saying that JD wasn't talking about primarying anyone...
QUOTE FROM THE ARTICLE: 4th or 5th posting
"the left-wing group that recruited Ocasio-Cortez to run for Congress, referring to a challenge by her"
Dem4Life1102
(3,974 posts)That is the reporter’s spin. The JD spokesman said nothing about AOC or any female. And the JD spokesman never said they’re intending to primary Schumer either.
Again this is the exact quote from the JD spokesman.
“Schumer will have to explain every one of his decisions to one of the most progressive primary electorates in the country, and if voters think he’s capitulating to Mitch McConnell and not organizing his caucus to deliver for working families, then he’s going to be in some trouble.”
Please point out where AOC or any female is mentioned.
And you’ve not posted one quote from AOC where she says she’s considering running against Schumer.
That is reality.
R B Garr
(17,004 posts)"the left-wing group that recruited Ocasio-Cortez to run for Congress, referring to a challenge by her"
"AOC" = Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
"her" = the female, known also as AOC.
The article really is about AOC.
Now you are pretending that this is a stand-alone quote and not part of the article. Really lame. 
Dem4Life1102
(3,974 posts)And I’m not pretending anything. The JD spokesman never said anything about AOC or mentioned a female. That was the reporter’s spin.
R B Garr
(17,004 posts)A reporter knowing who they are discussing isn’t spin. The article is about AOC, and the source is Justice Democrats.
You’ve even been given AOC quotes on the subject matter, so we know that primarying Schumer has been discussed.
tonedevil
(3,022 posts)Do you think you have proven something nefarious?
Dem4Life1102
(3,974 posts)There are no quotes of AOC saying that she is considering running against Schumer. And the quote by JD spokesman doesn’t say anything about AOC. If the JD spokesman had mentioned AOC, it would be in the article. That’s journalism 101.
R B Garr
(17,004 posts)she is not running.
The article isn’t about her starting a campaign. Reading 101. You are not a journalist, obviously.
The article is about AOC, but why don’t you tell us who the mystery person is that JD is talking about?
Where did the reporter lift the quote from JD and insert it in their article? What is the original source of their quote?
Dem4Life1102
(3,974 posts)Doesn’t mean she is. I don’t have to prove a negative.
And yes the reporter wrote an article about AOC and was clearly constructing a narrative, but the reporter’s narrative is not necessarily the truth.
And the quote from the JD spokesman never mentioned AOC, just Schumer and McConnell and no one else. What we don’t know is what question the reporter asked to get that quote.
R B Garr
(17,004 posts)logic. No quotes that she is running against him means the opposite applies. There are also no quotes that she isn't running against him, so your whole construction is false.
So you are sticking to your false construction that what you read in the article was a quote lifted by a reporter. Or, your other premise is that there was a question asked that the reporter slipped in but then misapplied the answer to trick us all. Then you are saying that AOC's quotes on the same subject matter are also false? How is it that AOC was answering a question on the subject matter of primarying Schumer?
Dem4Life1102
(3,974 posts)And the truth is not a false construction, at least to those of us who value facts and are not blinded by hatred.
Fact: There is not one single quote by AOC where says she is considering running against Schumer in a primary.
Fact: The JD spokesman quoted in the article never mentioned AOC either directly or indirectly nor do they say anything about any other primary challenger to Schumer.
Fact: The question the reporter asked the JD spokesman is not included in the article so we don’t know if the JD spokesman even knew the article was going to be about AOC.
Those are the facts.
R B Garr
(17,004 posts)insisting she isn't running because she wasn't quoted means the opposite applies. To test your "premise," we can see that there are also no quotes saying she is not running. So there goes that "fact". It's a "fact" that there are no quotes saying she is not running. lol
You still haven't answered how it is that AOC has answered questions about whether she is primarying Schumer. How is she addressing a subject matter that you are insisting never happened. CNN also covered her answer, and whether it's a deflection or not, it's still an answer. How did all this happen?
edit: You positing that the reporter asked a question that they did not include is also not "fact." It's just a biased fabrication.
Dem4Life1102
(3,974 posts)I've never insisted that she is not running, just that she has never said that she is thinking about or considering running against Schumer. Since not one quote has been produced which she says that she is makes it a fact.
Just because a reporter asked her a question, in which she didn't answer yes, doesn't mean it is either. It means the media is trying to manufacture a controversy.
And it is a fact that the reporter included their question to the JD spokesman in the article. The reporter didn't. It's not a fabication at all.
I'm stating facts, I'm not the one here indulging in biased opinion.
R B Garr
(17,004 posts)You are the one fabricating motives about the reporter and claiming that they asked a question that they did not include in the article. Yet you have no plausible explanation as why AOC was answering the same questions.
You are the one insisting that quotes are necessary to show she is running, but it's not necessary to have quotes that she is not running.
You are the one in denial that AOC answered questions about primarying Schumer in a manner consistent with the article, yet you have many other theories which are entirely your bias, hence your projection.
I'm simply reading a simple article, accompanied by known simple media reporting and simple answers from AOC herself.
edit: we've already gone over your premises about whether AOC was "thinking" about running yesterday...all day yesterday. She was answering questions about it, Justice Democrats is known for a platform of primarying Democrats, so let's not go back to your premises about "thinking".
Dem4Life1102
(3,974 posts)I'm not denying anything. Yes AOC was asked a question about primarying Schumer. She answered it and didn't say yes. That is a fact.
I've asked several times for one quote from her where she states she is considering to run in a primary against Schumer. So far none have been produced. That is a fact. And just because a reporter asks a question, does make the premise of it valid or a fact.
Also, it is not guilty until proven innocent. It is the other way around. Therefore, no quotes of her saying she is not running are required. If the accusation is that she is thinking of running in a primary against Schumer, then quotes of her saying that she is are required.
So you can play all the twisted logic and semantics games that you want. But they don't change the facts.
R B Garr
(17,004 posts)See how that works? Logic. Your premise is not "fact." It's also a "fact" that there are no quotes saying she is not considering running.
You are the one now saying the reporter asked a question that they did not include in the article. Yet you have no plausible answer as to why AOC has answered the same questions about primarying Schumer. Explain how it is that AOC answered the same question.
Not one thing you are saying is remotely "fact." It's all conjecture and biased opinion.
Dem4Life1102
(3,974 posts)That is just twisted logic. The burden of proof is with the one making the accusation, not the other way around.
And yes the question asked to the JD spokesman is not included in the article, just their quote:
“Schumer will have to explain every one of his decisions to one of the most progressive primary electorates in the country, and if voters think he’s capitulating to Mitch McConnell and not organizing his caucus to deliver for working families, then he’s going to be in some trouble.”
So I'll ask once again to please produce any quotes from AOC that says she is thinking about running against Schumer in a primary.
R B Garr
(17,004 posts)saying she is not considering running. Your logic doesn't track. If there are no quotes saying she is considering running, and there are no quotes saying she is not running, then logically it can go either way and there is no "proof," just an attempt on your part to distract.
The JD quote was qualified in the article, and you've been provided the quote numerous times. QUOTE:
"the left-wing group that recruited Ocasio-Cortez to run for Congress, referring to a challenge by her"
You are saying that the reporter left out a question, and they fabricated the AOC part. Yet, AOC has answered the same question about whether she is primarying Schumer, so this conjecture fails, as well.
Explain how AOC answered a question about primarying Schumer. If you say she answered it, which you have already, then you see how the article is about AOC, which you say it isn't. lol
Dem4Life1102
(3,974 posts)The allegation is that she is considering running against Schumer, thus the burden of proof is one the one making the allegation to prove it. To date, she has not made a single statement saying that she is thinking about running against Schumer. If she was accused of murder, would she have to prove she didn't do it or would the accuser have to prove that she did?
And yes the JD quote was qualified by the reporter. That doesn't change the fact that the JD spokesman never said anything about AOC in their statement. Nor did the reporter included the question asked in the column. So it is impossible to conclude that the JD spokesman's statement had anything to do with AOC.
Finally, I've never denied that the article is about AOC. So don't dishonestly put words in my mouth. From my first post all I've contended is that AOC has never said she is considering running against Schumer in a primary. Since no one has produce a single quote from her stating that she is, I stand by my argument. And the only way to prove me wrong is to actually produce a quote from AOC where she says that she is thinking about running against Schumer.
R B Garr
(17,004 posts)own twisted biases and conjecture.
There is no "allegation" that she is running against Schumer. So your entire logic fails. If there is no allegation that she is running against him, and there is no allegation that she isn't, then it is just you trying to twist logic.
You have continually denied this article is about AOC. That was your whole "premise" about the reporter supposedly omitting a question to JD. Your premise is that the reporter omitted a question so there was no way of telling what the article was about. You are forced to admit the article really was about AOC. AOC's own words show that she was asked about running against him and she answered.
Your premise isn't even about the article. The article never tried to establish the "allegation" that she is running against Schumer, so your entire logic fails. It's a false construction.
Dem4Life1102
(3,974 posts)Never denied the article is about AOC.
My contention has always been that AOC has never said she is thinking about running against Schumer in a Primary. Since not one quote has been produced, I stand by my statement.
R B Garr
(17,004 posts)Your "statement..." lol, exactly. It's your statement. Not fact. The fact is that there are also no quotes saying she is not running. That's how logic works.
Dem4Life1102
(3,974 posts)Is there one quote from AOC where she says she is considering running against Schumer in a primary? Yes or no? It's a simple question.
R B Garr
(17,004 posts)Simple question.
Dem4Life1102
(3,974 posts)But I never contended that she has said she isn't running. So I'll ask the question again. Is there a single quote where AOC says she is considering running against Schumer in a primary? Yes or no.
R B Garr
(17,004 posts)is not about AOC. Especially since you were forced to admit that AOC herself answered the primary question. She didn’t yes;she didn’t say no.
Dem4Life1102
(3,974 posts)she didn't say she was thinking about running.
R B Garr
(17,004 posts)about running. Her input has been posted here since yesterday. You were just saying then that this article was not about her.
Dem4Life1102
(3,974 posts)My contention from the beginning was that she never said that she was thinking about running against Schumer.
Here is my very first post in this thread: https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=15046738
R B Garr
(17,004 posts)about it and she answered. So another fail, but at least you admit to “contentions” and not facts. It’s also a fact that she never said she’s not running.
Dem4Life1102
(3,974 posts)Post a quote of her own words that prove me wrong.
And my contention is a fact. She has never said she is considering running against Schumer in a primary. The only way to prove me wrong and that it is not a fact is to produce a quote where she says that she is.
R B Garr
(17,004 posts)So you know what is being discussed, yet you are exaggerating. Exaggerations are not fact.
Dem4Life1102
(3,974 posts)As I've always stated, AOC has never said she is thinking about running against Schumer in a primary. The only way to prove me wrong is to post a quote where she says that she is. Can you provide one?
R B Garr
(17,004 posts)a quote that says she isn’t running.
Her own word answer shows she has thought about running, so your contention is wrong. At least you see that this thread is about her.
Dem4Life1102
(3,974 posts)I’ve only said that she has never said that she is considering running against Schumer in a primary. If there is a quote that proves me wrong, please produce it.
R B Garr
(17,004 posts)that says she is not running. I don't have to prove what AOC herself has answered. lol
At least you are admitting this article really is about her.
Dem4Life1102
(3,974 posts)From my first post I’ve only said that AOC has never said she is thinking about running against Schumer in a primary. If that’s not true, post the quote where she says she is to prove me wrong.
R B Garr
(17,004 posts)That is the fact here.
At least you admit now that this article really is about her.
Dem4Life1102
(3,974 posts)Is there a single quote where she says she is considering running against Schumer in a primary? Yes or no?
R B Garr
(17,004 posts)construction? Provide quotes.
Please also quote where she said she is not running.
Dem4Life1102
(3,974 posts)All I’ve stated from my first post is that she has never said that she is considering running against Schumer in a primary. Either post a quote where she says she is considering running against Schumer or admit that none exists.
R B Garr
(17,004 posts)construction about the article. To review, you were forced to admit this article really is about AOC when her own words about primarying Schumer couldn't be denied.
Admit that there are also no quotes saying she is not running.
Show quotes of where and who "contended" she is running.
Dem4Life1102
(3,974 posts)From my very first post:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=15046738
Everything else is your own construction.
R B Garr
(17,004 posts)proved you wrong.
Post quotes that "contend" that AOC is running in a primary against Schumer. AOC herself has answered.
Post quotes that say she has never considered running and is not running.
I believe AOC, not your false construction.
Dem4Life1102
(3,974 posts)My contention has always been that AOC has never said she is considering running against Schumer in a primary. One simple way to prove me wrong. Post a quote where she says she is.
tonedevil
(3,022 posts)I've usually made some intemperate remark that winds up hidden by this point.
R B Garr
(17,004 posts)“Contention” is not fact and your construction is false.
Who said she is running? Provide quotes.
Dem4Life1102
(3,974 posts)And she never said she is running. Glad we agree.
R B Garr
(17,004 posts)something not in the article. You were told the article isn’t about her starting a campaign, but that didn’t stop you from contending this article title really wasn’t about AOC. Now you are forced to admit it really is about her. Then came the “thinking” about running segment of this thread. You also gave no proof she is not going to run.
She has answered questions about it so, no offense, the contentions don’t matter. “Chatter” is in the article, which is what it was.
Dem4Life1102
(3,974 posts)noun: chatter
1. incessant trivial talk.
R B Garr
(17,004 posts)insisting this article wasn’t about AOC, especially when she has answered questions on the subject matter already.
Dem4Life1102
(3,974 posts)Never said the article wasn’t about AOC, but feel free to believe whatever you want.
R B Garr
(17,004 posts)It was a very odd diversion.
Dem4Life1102
(3,974 posts)But believe whatever make you feel good about yourself. 
R B Garr
(17,004 posts)article title, which was a big clue as to the substance.
Dem4Life1102
(3,974 posts)But believe whatever you want.
R B Garr
(17,004 posts)Dem4Life1102
(3,974 posts)R B Garr
(17,004 posts)Dem4Life1102
(3,974 posts)R B Garr
(17,004 posts)
George II
(67,782 posts)She's on record as saying Pelosi and Schumer should be replaced
She's said she hasn't ruled out running in a primary against Schumer
She's made other comments about it (no, I'm not going to dig them out)
There are also several articles about it other than this Politico "article". I suspect this particular piece is a repackaging of those other article and quotes with just enough vagueness so the writer won't be called out for producing an inaccurate account of all of this.
Dem4Life1102
(3,974 posts)But please feel free to dig up all the quotes you want and we'll see if they pass muster.
BTW still waiting for the link to the Young Turks interview.
tonedevil
(3,022 posts)to think Representative Ocasio-Cortez has given any more thought to running for Speaker Schumer's seat than any other congressperson from New York State. You have an equal amount of proof that Kathleen Rice or Hakeem Jeffries are planning to run for that seat yet you aren't speculating on their schemes.
Demsrule86
(68,768 posts)I like her and all but she is in a deep blue district...I don't see her winning statewide elections.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)She's a truly awful writer... but she's good at stirring shit and amplifying differences and promoting the "Democrats in disarray" narrative. She's a dime-a-word "reporter" whose talents are more suited for Hollywood gossip tabloids.
BlueLucy
(1,609 posts)but... I am always worried about hurting feelings. Does her father post here?
tonedevil
(3,022 posts)by making a mocking reference to their name? Wouldn't actually addressing what they have written be a more reasonable way to behave?
BlueLucy
(1,609 posts)I'm not mocking anyone. I asked a question. Besides, I responded to NurseJackie not you.
tonedevil
(3,022 posts)Holly Gottawhine. In your post you said you have been wanting to say that for a long time. Since the standout thing in the post you answered was name mocking I thought that's what you wanted to do.
George II
(67,782 posts)tonedevil
(3,022 posts)contained the slur i don't see how that is a reasonable conclusion. Although I can agree that Politico is a generally crap publication.
George II
(67,782 posts)tonedevil
(3,022 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)tonedevil
(3,022 posts)R B Garr
(17,004 posts)response to this before, as well as Justice Democrats bragging about primarying Democrats, it would be a flusher.
George II
(67,782 posts)The interesting, or disappointing, thing about that "article" is that there isn't a single direct quote from anyone about the subject on which it's written. It's a repackaging of a bunch of information taken from various sources and quotes, none first hand, stitched together with a provocative and speculative headline.
But then it's from Politico, and it's from a writer known for doing that.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)... and add her name to the by-line. Lazy-lazy-lazy.
She fancies herself as some sort of "activist-slash-reporter" but neither of which is true. In reality, she's a shit-stirrer who is among those who think that their far-left agenda can be realized by damaging, dividing, weakening, or otherwise "destroying" the Democratic party. Of course, such misguided beliefs are not only foolish but dangerous in that those types of efforts to "punish" Democrats only serve to benefit the GOP.
tonedevil
(3,022 posts)NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)
demmiblue
(36,911 posts)
