General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhat happened with AOC in Munich? I see no discussion on here but a lot of bashing on social media.
They say she had a big gaffe. What exactly did she say? I don't see anything on here, so I don't know if things are getting deleted or not.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Prairie Gates
(8,090 posts)Nothing worse than either Dubya or Romney did on the campaign trail (both notoriously weak on foreign policy in their first runs).
The anti-AOC crew are upset because it didn't blow up on her, and her presence at Munich is pretty much proof that she's getting on radar at least for VP. She actually took a relatively modest and centrist position.
Renew Deal
(85,074 posts)She would be pigeonholed as VP. I think senate would be best at this time, but she would be a compelling presidential candidate. People trust her and she would have a shot.
QueerDuck
(1,659 posts)... ergo, she'll never be elected President. She's fine in the role and office that she currently occupies. We need to focus our energies and money on more serious and more electable contenders who have broad appeal across the entire country, not just New England and California.
Eliminate the Electoral College and then maybe we can talk... but until then, this is pure fantasy to think "she would have a shot."
BannonsLiver
(20,536 posts)TBH, while I can’t prove it, AOC getting elected President 15-20 years from now seems infinitely more possible than the electoral college fantasy.
QueerDuck
(1,659 posts)Actually, I have no expectation that the EC will ever be replaced. I only brought up the "fantasy" of removing it as a thought experiment to show how unrealistic political wish-craft has become... and to help illustrate the irrationality of many other political fantasies. Under our current system, she’s just not a viable national candidate. She might run for the nomination, but she won't even secure it, let alone the presidency.
Cirsium
(3,905 posts)Everything is unrealistic. until it isn't.
Advocating only for what is "realistic" guarantees that any and all progress is impossible.
The realistic is what we already have.
Few are willing to brave the disapproval of their fellows, the censure of their colleagues, the wrath of their society. Moral courage is a rarer commodity than bravery in battle or great intelligence. Yet it is the one essential, vital quality for those who seek to change a world that yields most painfully to change. And I believe that in this generation those with the courage to enter the moral conflict will find themselves with companions in every corner of the globe.
For the fortunate among us, there is the temptation to follow the easy and familiar paths of personal ambition and financial success so grandly spread before those who enjoy the privilege of education. But that is not the road history has marked out for us. Like it or not, we live in times of danger and uncertainty. But they are also more open to the creative energy of men than any other time in history. All of us will ultimately be judged, and as the years pass we will surely judge ourselves on the effort we have contributed to building a new world society and the extent to which our ideals and goals have shaped that event.
The future does not belong to those who are content with today, apathetic toward common problems and their fellow man alike, timid and fearful in the face of new ideas and bold projects. Rather it will belong to those who can blend vision, reason and courage in a personal commitment to the ideals and great enterprises of American Society. Our future may lie beyond our vision, but it is not completely beyond our control. It is the shaping impulse of America that neither fate nor nature nor the irresistible tides of history, but the work of our own hands, matched to reason and principle, that will determine our destiny. There is pride in that, even arrogance, but there is also experience and truth. In any event, it is the only way we can live.
Edward Kennedy
Eulogy for his brother, Robert.
QueerDuck
(1,659 posts) 
Cirsium
(3,905 posts)Continually adjusting our agenda based on what we think will win is exactly what has allowed the right wing to become so powerful and dominant.
Abolition was once a "pipe dream." Women's suffrage was once a "pipe dream." Organized Labor was once a "pipe dream." The National Park system was once a "pipe dream." Medicare and Social Security were "pipe dreams." The Land Grant college system, and Cooperative extension and the entire food safety infrastructure were once "pipe dreams."
In each of those cases, there were people saying what you are saying here. Usually the lead in is "don't get me wrong, I agree with you BUT..." "It isn't practical." "Now is not the time." "First we need to win." "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good."
QueerDuck
(1,659 posts)...discussing anything further with you.
Bye.
Cirsium
(3,905 posts)Why post at all if you aren't serious?
QueerDuck
(1,659 posts)... as having a lack of seriousness. I've seen it all before. There is a fine line between rigorous self-examination and a performance of "intellectual superiority" that serves only to demoralize.
I should probably go ahead and say that the common "blame the messenger" attacks, along with microaggressions and personal hostility being presented as as "objective detachment" is a common trope, but it rarely survives a close reading of the actual language used.
Again... bye. Have a nice day.
Ilikepurple
(627 posts)It’s great to have opinions, but your posts in this thread are just that. The argument seems to be that she’s not electable because it’s a “fantasy” to think so. How convincing do you think she is not a a viable candidate because it’s laughable that you think she’s not a viable candidate is. Obviously, you do not know that the probability is zero that she could get the win or even get the nomination. You admit reason for bringing up replacing the EC is to show people the “irrationality of many other political fantasies.” You haven’t really shown anything except that you believe we should keep New England and California ready political ideas out of the conversation. I can only infer that you mean to make the argument if we want to have success in national elections, we should not stray too far from the center. That’s a serviceable political viewpoint, but your argument here is just that straying is political fantasy. Calling something a “fantasy”, “wish-craft”, and a “pipe dream” does not make it so. It mainly serves as a rhetorical device to shut down further discussion by denigrating others’ as living outside reality. I’ve seen other posts by you that are enlightening in their analysis. This isn’t one. There seems to be a battle for the direction of the Democratic Party. I’m happy to listen to all opinions and arguments. I just wish people would not disguise unsupported opinions as arguments by putting them forth as self evident to those with their feet on the ground.
QueerDuck
(1,659 posts)...in two years and you'll see I was right all along. Time will prove me correct. She will not be our party's nominee. Period. We can do better with someone who has broad national appeal rather than limited regional appeal. Actually, my characterisations don't "make it so" ... it doesn't *make* anything so. I'm just telling it like it is. You don't need to believe me now, but time will tell and you'll believe me later. Everything I've said is true, not dismissive... true.
Renew Deal
(85,074 posts)in the next 20 years
QueerDuck
(1,659 posts)Our political aspirations need to be based on reality, not some "wouldn't it be nice" fantasy.
mucholderthandirt
(1,783 posts)No one better hope for any improvement in gay rights, women's rights, human rights. Get under that bus already! Stop thinking the Democrats are going to actually do what the people want, we need to win so we can keep the status quo. No one needs abortion rights, or prosecution of the Epstein monsters. No siree, we gonna just keep going down the middle, voting with our MAGA collogues because we don't rock no boats!
Damn, America, it was good for 249 years. Sorry it ended because liberals have no courage to fight the hard fights.
Renew Deal
(85,074 posts)OK
QueerDuck
(1,659 posts)Maybe this will make things clearer:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1322&pid=106431
I hope this helps.
A Clearing
(10,109 posts)It’s worth noting that recent presidential elections have been responses to the previous administration…electing Bush in response to Clinton, Obama in response to Bush, Trump in response to Obama. AOC in response to Trump isn’t as far-fetched as one might think, and people will be hungry for something more progressive than the traditional Democratic Party has to offer by the time this is over.
QueerDuck
(1,659 posts)There’s a key distinction between Obama’s strategy and the current progressive movement that you are overlooking. Obama didn’t win by moving to the extreme left, instead, he won by building a Big Tent coalition that included moderates, independents, and even disaffected Republicans (remember?)
Unlike AOC (or even Bernie) who primarily energize a progressive base, Obama was viewed by a majority of voters in 2008 as being just-about-right (ideologically) and not "too liberal" to the typical swing-state voters.
You can't win a national election by only speaking to the "hungry" wing of one's own party. We win by making the middle feel safe, which is exactly what Obama did and why others fail. Moving even further left is not the solution that many seem to think it is.
With regard to describing a candidate or a politician as being the "face of the party" or the "future of the party"... while those are flattering compliments, that really isn't the same as being a viable national candidate.
Obama's 2008 brand was "Hope and Change," which was intentionally broad and inclusive. In contrast, AOC and Sanders brand themselves on "Revolution" and "Democratic Socialism." Obviously, this is quite polarizing, and is not a winning message in most of the swing states or battleground states.
Also, if your theory that "AOC easily wins in response to Trump" were true, we would have seen it already with Bernie Sanders. I recall the massive crowds, but in the end, he was unable to expand his base beyond his core ideological supporters when the field cleared in 2020. Yes... Bernie won some primary states, but in the end, he failed to build the broad coalition (specifically with older Black voters and moderate suburbanites). This is something that Obama and his campaign mastered, and it's something that's REQUIRED for a General Election victory.
Obama's rise wasn't simply a response to Bush ... it was ALSO a masterclass in primary math. He won the nomination by out-performing in moderate and swing states. This, I think you'll agree, is something the current progressive stars have yet to prove they can do outside of their home states and outside of safe, deep-blue districts.
In the end, Obama won because he was a candidate who presented a narrative that everyone could relate to. He presented a vision of the future that people could see themselves being a part of. However, extreme candidates (even those who are incorrectly perceived as being "too extreme'') end up becoming a litmus test that half the country ... and much of the Democratic Party ... will inevitably fail.
I agree with you in one regard... there is no denying that AOC is a generational talent. She's spirited, enthusiastic, and a deeply committed Democrat who helps to reshape the party's conversation. Her message resonates powerfully within her own district and the progressive base... however (a big HOWEVER) the transition from a deep-blue New York seat to being successful on the national stage remains a bridge too far.
We need her voice to rally the voters and to gin up support for the party. She'll be great at that.
A Clearing
(10,109 posts)The main reason I think Rep. Ocasio-Cortez is capable of winning is that people believe she means what she says and that elections eventually come down to binary choices. I think after Trump, and whoever Republicans put up next if not Trump, she will be preferable in the eyes of the electorate. Also, Trump is a good example of someone catering to the fringe of their party and winning because of dissatisfaction with the status quo, i.e., Biden/Harris, right or wrong. Biden/Harris were a hell of a lot more popular than Trump/Vance are, so I don’t think Dems are required to put forth a moderate consensus candidate. Democrats should probably swing for the fences, confident that any semi-reasonable candidate is going to clean-up against more fascism.
fujiyamasan
(1,643 posts)I don’t see her building a coalition to win the presidency, or even the nomination for that matter. Not at this point anyway. Maybe in ten years, or at least a single term in statewide office
The house isn’t a good springboard for the presidency. And I think it was Pelosi that said a glass of water could win her district over a republican.
Scruffy1
(3,532 posts)It used to be a political dead end.
Reader Rabbit
(2,758 posts)From her FB page:
AOC is rising--and so are the establishment attacks on her.|
questionseverything
(11,786 posts)Then delivered her thoughts clearly and concisely…. Kinda like Obama
Response to questionseverything (Reply #3)
PeaceWave This message was self-deleted by its author.
Melon
(1,487 posts)Is what the media is running with that I saw. Very minor.
Response to Melon (Reply #74)
PeaceWave This message was self-deleted by its author.
Melon
(1,487 posts)
Walleye
(44,655 posts)That’s sort of a foreign concept to the Maga people. They just want to blurt out propaganda. She gave a very thoughtful answer. It’s a delicate question which I’ve never heard asked of Trump.
Greg_In_SF
(1,236 posts)YouTube for viewing.
Response to Greg_In_SF (Reply #5)
PeaceWave This message was self-deleted by its author.
Wanderlust988
(780 posts)
Scrivener7
(59,409 posts)
Cirsium
(3,905 posts)
Wiz Imp
(9,911 posts)She stammered for a few seconds when she started to make a statement. just a few seconds. Then she made her statement completely clearly .
Response to Wanderlust988 (Reply #33)
PeaceWave This message was self-deleted by its author.
Renew Deal
(85,074 posts)I thought she was diplomatic and didn't really answer the question directly. If she says yes, she pissed off China. If she says no, she is going against longstanding US policy, potentially putting Taiwan at risk. She should get credit for being cautious and contemplative.
Response to Renew Deal (Reply #39)
PeaceWave This message was self-deleted by its author.
Renew Deal
(85,074 posts)Last edited Fri Feb 20, 2026, 09:06 AM - Edit history (1)
Those that hate her will always find something. In this case it’s this but her answer when she got there was actually good.
Cirsium
(3,905 posts)It was a gotcha question with no good answer.
Ask Rubio that question. It's his remit.
Response to Cirsium (Reply #53)
PeaceWave This message was self-deleted by its author.
leftstreet
(40,424 posts)"They say she had a big gaffe"
Thanks
Scrivener7
(59,409 posts)
Skittles
(171,509 posts)
JBTaurus83
(1,318 posts)The sitting “President” has a gaffe any time he opens his mouth.
Prairie Gates
(8,090 posts)"Someplace nice, eh?"
Imagine trying to light up AOC for thinking before answering when Trump is the head of your party!
susanr516
(1,512 posts)He's no genius.
Fiendish Thingy
(23,064 posts)And was asked a question on whether the US should send troops to defend Taiwan if it was ever attacked by China, and was clearly caught off guard and wasn’t prepared to answer such a question.
Of course, the media has focused on the latter minor gaffe, completely overshadowing the significance and importance of the main focus of her comments.
JBTaurus83
(1,318 posts)It’s popular to say we would send troops to Taiwan. I don’t think the general public would have any stomach for such a thing whatsoever, especially when facing an adversary that could do real damage to the USA.
Fiendish Thingy
(23,064 posts)But this question was quite specific regarding American boots on the ground in Taiwan.
It’s a question I don’t think any member of congress would have a prepared answer for.
Response to Fiendish Thingy (Reply #22)
PeaceWave This message was self-deleted by its author.
Torchlight
(6,759 posts)
Jedi Guy
(3,466 posts)We've generally avoided saying just what we'd do if China got frisky to keep them guessing.
As a practical matter, if China invaded Taiwan I think we'd go to war to defend them and I think it'd be the right call. Quite apart from defending a friendly democratic nation from aggression, Taiwan manufactures a huge percentage of the world's computer processors and similar.
Allowing China to take Taiwan would give them a stranglehold over that critical industry. No way we could allow that to happen.
But that's just me being an armchair strategist, so what the hell do I know?
JBTaurus83
(1,318 posts)Selling that to the American public if thousands of Americans were dying would not be an easy task. I’d be in favor of giving Taiwan equipment for defense, but, if the Chinese blockaded the country, there really would be no way to assist them without a huge confrontation.
Wanderlust988
(780 posts)You're going too far saying every member of Congress would be stupefied by this question. it's actually not a hard question. The US is committed to Taiwan's defense and will help Taiwan in case of an attack. U.S. troops on the ground? Not sure it would even be necessary. It wasn't a hard answer.
She needs to learn how to think better on her feet. You're going get all sorts of gotcha questions. These are the sorta questions that sunk Sarah Palin and how we laughed our asses off.
Fiendish Thingy
(23,064 posts)“Not sure it would even be necessary” is a dodge from the reporter’s straightforward question to AOC, which was specifically a yes/no question of the willingness of the US to put their troops on the ground in Taiwan, fighting PRC troops.
Has Whitehouse answered that specific question without hedging or dodging?
Wanderlust988
(780 posts)The question is too black and white and there are a lot of variables for a hypothetical event that is not guaranteed to happen. It was a layup question. No reason to stammer and stutter.
Renew Deal
(85,074 posts)That couldn’t be answered clearly in writing and unlimited time.
JBTaurus83
(1,318 posts)Because any politician who wants to be president and says we will have all out war with China will lose. The average American person doesn’t want that. We don’t get basic services here and we are going to fund a war against China?
It's amazing how you translate:
to:
Those 2 statements aren't even in the same universe with regards to what they mean.
Ursus Rex
(484 posts)... once you see someone get caught in the headlights, you should be smart about when you carry sunglasses (or some other half-assed folksy metaphor) - she made that mistake and now no one else should. What will matter is whether anyone can use it against her.
RoseTrellis
(163 posts)Definitely love me some AOC, and I’ll admit I did see or hear about this “gaffe”
However, under both parties, US does not recognize Taiwan as an independent country. It follows a “one China” policy, recognizes the PRC as the sole legal government of China, and maintains only unofficial relations with Taiwan via the Taiwan Relations Act (since 1979). The US takes no position on Taiwan’s sovereignty and does not support unilateral changes to the status quo.
Every member of government should understand this and be able to articulate this without hesitation
Fiendish Thingy
(23,064 posts)Even if they could, I don’t think they would, especially if asked by a Taiwanese journalist .
It would cause an international diplomatic incident to give such a frank, albeit honest and accurate, reply, even by a president.
W_HAMILTON
(10,324 posts)Response to Wanderlust988 (Original post)
PeaceWave This message was self-deleted by its author.
Torchlight
(6,759 posts)Scrivener7
(59,409 posts)Admittedly, if we're to judge by the news reaction, it WAS worse than being part of a child rape ring, but these things happen.
Seeking Serenity
(3,322 posts)"it happened"
sure bro
Skittles
(171,509 posts)yup
SocialDemocrat61
(7,566 posts)will write a book about it. 
SSJVegeta
(2,820 posts)The bots are likely out in full force in other places to dissuade from the positive narrative it created.
Response to Wanderlust988 (Original post)
Post removed
Scrivener7
(59,409 posts)
niyad
(132,097 posts)
RandySF
(83,825 posts)Skittles
(171,509 posts)
betsuni
(29,038 posts)Doing an Obama (empty suit, has to use teleprompter, just a celebrity) on her.
Renew Deal
(85,074 posts)She’s one of the few people that can take Vance on in a debate. She’s also trusted by a lot of people that don’t trust easily.
Wiz Imp
(9,911 posts)My cat could take Vance in a debate.
Renew Deal
(85,074 posts)Vance is particularly squirmy. He tries to make horrible things sound palatable and you sound terrible for objecting to the horribleness. Buttigieg and AOC can handle him. Not sure about how many more others.
Wiz Imp
(9,911 posts)Response to betsuni (Reply #61)
Nixie This message was self-deleted by its author.
Autumn
(48,949 posts)It's the usual moderate and right wing bullshit.
themaguffin
(5,193 posts)I keep tabs on a few conservative pages like National Review's FB page and they have been non stop with posts about her "bad" she was. I refuse to read their crap, but seriously they have posted like a dozen times this week.
Quiet Em
(2,902 posts)because it upsets them that AOC has influence, respect, intelligence and power that they will never achieve.
Scrivener7
(59,409 posts)
Response to Scrivener7 (Reply #77)
PeaceWave This message was self-deleted by its author.
JoseBalow
(9,441 posts)Just asking questions? 
Torchlight
(6,759 posts)fujiyamasan
(1,643 posts)Which I found silly and actually a pretty easy mistake to make. In general Americans have a poor sense of geography anyway and usually learn about it after we invade or bomb another country.
Never forget Ubek Ubek Ubek eee Stan…