Full of her media attention..

I'm not sure why you hold that against her?

Whatever her faults are, they don't include past jobs......

When to shut up. I do not hold it against her, it is just clear she needs to learn, then speak. So far she has done more harm than good with her inability t learn before she speaks.

Ocasio-Cortez attended Yorktown High School, graduating in 2007.[17] In high school and college, Ocasio-Cortez went by the name of "Sandy".[18] She came in second in the Microbiology category of the Intel International Science and Engineering Fair with a microbiology research project on the effect of antioxidants on the lifespan of the nematode C. elegans.[19] In a show of appreciation for her efforts, the MIT Lincoln Laboratory named a small asteroid after her: 23238 Ocasio-Cortez.[20][21] In high school, she took part in the National Hispanic Institute's Lorenzo de Zavala (LDZ) Youth Legislative Session. She later became the LDZ Secretary of State while she attended Boston University. Ocasio-Cortez had a John F. Lopez Fellowship.[9]

In 2008, while Ocasio-Cortez was a sophomore at Boston University, her father died of lung cancer.[22][23] Ocasio-Cortez became involved in a lengthy probate battle to settle his estate. She has said that the experience helped her learn "firsthand how attorneys appointed by the court to administer an estate can enrich themselves at the expense of the families struggling to make sense of the bureaucracy".[24]

During college, Ocasio-Cortez served as an intern for U.S. Senator Ted Kennedy, in his section on foreign affairs and immigration issues.[25] She recalled, "I was the only Spanish speaker, and as a result, as basically a kid—a 19-, 20-year-old kid—whenever a frantic call would come into the office because someone is looking for their husband because they have been snatched off the street by ICE, I was the one that had to pick up that phone. I was the one that had to help that person navigate that system."[25]

Ocasio-Cortez graduated cum laude from Boston University College of Arts and Sciences with a BA in 2011, majoring in international relations and economics.[9][26][27]

Last edited Wed Jan 8, 2020, 04:06 AM - Edit history (1)

not worthy of mention.

She earned a Master's degree.

an established member of the Democratic Party..vetted by President Barack Obama, who vetted his people!!... she has issues

She said that the Democratic Party's tent is too big and that she and Biden shouldn't even be in the same party.

Purity is a great way to lose elections.

She's suggesting either Joe Biden isn't a real Democrat or she isn't.

Whataboutism and moving the goalposts have also become quite popular, of late.

"She's suggesting either Joe Biden isn't a real Democrat or she isn't."

I think it's pretty clear that she doesn't consider Biden a real Democrat. She's the pure one.

did for climate change, before she throws any more stones.

I’ve always wondered how she gets away without having to answer any real questions about what real Democrats have done about climate change when it wasn’t cool and trendy.

Changing of the guard can be a difficult transition for some.

Voters are fairly clear about what they would like from a Democrat. They prefer, by 82% to 11%, one who promises to find common ground over one who promises to fight for a progressive agenda; and they prefer a moderate over a liberal, 75% to 19%.


They support Biden over the president, 38% to 27%, but prefer the president to Warren, 37% to 20%. This group voted for Trump by a smaller margin in 2016, 37% to 30%, with the rest casting ballots for minor candidates.

NYT/Sienna poll

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287336368#post2

Not do it slowly and bring the masses along with her but to do it NOW.

And NOT a socialist party.

to change that, liberals would HAVE TO either move to or start a new party. It'd be awfully dramtic of course, like the massive, overwhelming, early 1800s influx of conservative settlers to the original liberal Republican-Democratic Party established by Madison and Jefferson. And again when liberals flooded into the conservative Democratic Party about 100 years ago and took the label over again.

In between most of us moved, like Lincoln, to the new Republican Party and remained as the liberal wing of what became the nation's one huge party label until the conservative wing just got too powerful to remain any longer.

But we were always the same ideologically no matter what the label was. Liberal is one of the two basic personality orientations, and those don't change. We elect liberal leaders to represent us, just as conservatives elect conservatives (or nuts who pose as one of them) to represent them.

Note a huge problem with Sanders, btw? "I am not now, nor have I ever been, a liberal Democrat."

In any case, because Biden's in the middle of the mainstream liberal ideological range, his ideology is similar to that of by far most Democrats. And since he's done a good job for them, his liberal-dominated state has been sending him to congress for several decades.

The Republicans have a single ideology - far right quackery.

Democrats have two - the centrist wing (Obama/Clinton/Biden) and the progressive wing (Sanders/Warren).

It seems like the two Democratic wings will need to make peace with each other or one will need to overtake the other (rendering it defunct) as this country will not survive a three party system when so many prescribe to right wing politics nowadays.

Last edited Mon Jan 6, 2020, 03:35 PM - Edit history (1)

humanity has two main personality types -- liberal and conservative. (Libertarian may be a small third; they lack altruism and they glorify this lack, making them very unlike liberals and conservatives.)

I'm sorry but, the notion that our party has "the centrist wing (Obama/Clinton/Biden) and the progressive wing (Sanders/Warren)" is not correct. It's propaganda pushed by a smaller farther left faction who want to be seen as far more numerous and representative than they are. Also as "the only true progressives," which is just plain an outrageous lie to deceive. Both conceits are also pushed by hostile RW press to style Democrats as more extreme than we are, and of course as hopelessly divided and warring.

Progressivism: Liberals and the democracy liberals above all created are intrinsically progressive. You know, as Lincoln described it: "government of the people, by the people, and for the people." "All people are created equal" is the quintessence of liberalism. The right to vote and "rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" are liberal bases in our constitution and Declaration of Independence for progressive government that everyone's familiar with. There are others.

We the people get to say what we need from our government, not an authoritarian elite: pure progressive liberalism. Every progressive advance in our nation's history was the work of liberal progressives, often but not always joined by conservative progressives (who are effectively defunct themselves these days, but no doubt they'll be reborn someday).

To illustrate who's who in our party, Democrats have currently elected 235 Democrats to the house. 200 or more are liberals, 27 blue dog conservatives, and an uncounted handful of farther-lefties, dissident against the liberal majority but actually a liberal variation.

Our 200ish liberals are divided into two major ideological caucuses who, being liberals, share almost all goals. One, the "New Dems" (post-midterms count 103) is generally inclined to smaller, more guaranteed steps to achieve goals, including more cooperation with others. The "Progressive Caucus" (post-midterms count 98) believes in stronger action, pushing to achieve more and sooner, and is less inclined to cooperation with conservatives but critically important, still cooperative, as liberals are.

Again, both caucuses are liberal, and some members align with both groups because the disagreements tend to be in how, how much to go for and give up, and how soon rather than ideology. The press try to portray these as schisms, but even the much inflated noise around universal healthcare is all about universal healthcare.

The dissident handful of course tries to claim the Progressive Caucus as their own, but they're not.
Members of the liberal Progressive Caucus and the liberal New Dems Coalition are completely unconfused about who creates progressive action (Democrats) and who tries to destroy it (GOP).

As for rendering anyone defunct, that can't happen. Again with the house as an example, a handful can't render over 200 liberals representing the vast liberal majority of voters defunct. Nor can 27 conservatives.

In the dissident corner, those wired to opposition are always with us too, and joining the party and developing their own leaders just firms up their differences. After all, if opposition groups agreed with the majority, they'd lose their identity, their reason for existence, and their leaders their stature. Notably, LW dissidents have tried to start their own parties a number of times, but parties made up of dissident types have always fallen apart. One guess why.

From trying to work with other party's , you no longer can progress, you lose. Younger people are more progressive , and the older elderly people aren't. We've already been losing ground from taking the same actions as in the past. It needs to change , and the younger people will change it. I do like Joe, and I like AOC, but we need younger people in our government , not older, and a lot more minorities and women. That's whats wrong with our government , it needs younger people in it representing younger people better, and minorities also.

of elitist.. Biden is for Hard Working Americans

The 2018 Blue Wave was Won by Moderates mostly.. they turned the House Blue.. They are the Winners.. that's who I want.

and kick out those who don't measure up to her standards...great way to lose multiple election and create division...so I am very much unlikely to support her in a national election going forward...since I don't live in her district I have no say in her reelection...she is facing a primary, I hear.

In another country she would not be in the same party. All talk, no accomplishments.

Thank you in advance.

I wouldn't be in the same party as many Dems. I'm don't consider myself a Democrat even though I'm registered as one and always vote for any Dem. I'm a Democratic Socialist.

She was asked what she thought her role would be as a member of Congress during, for instance, a Joe Biden presidency. I thought that was a great answer.

I can't think of any legislation that comes out of the House that Joe wouldn't support so imo there will be plenty for AOC to do.

that those who are attacking Biden all seem to be Bernie supporters, including AOC. This is deja vu with Hillary. Bernie is not a registered democrat and I still blame a lot of his supporters for Trump, along with Russia, who Bernie also seems to support by voting against sanctions etc. I find it disgusting; they want to compare differences in policies yes but stop with the personal bullshit attacks, it is not becoming to anyone and certainly not helping. Going after Trump should be the priority.

But I am not so civilized. “Posts removed”.
Good on ya for your ability to convey without being alerted on by a Sanders supporter. He is not a registered Democrat and AOC’s support of Bernie hacks me off too! Why are they caucusing with the party if they hate it so much?

Because few would hear from them, or even care to hear from them, if they weren't under the aegis of a major political party.

Declaring that that Democratic Party's tent is too big is similarly misguided.

Alienating people is rarely a good strategy.

That's not funny to me.

her.

But as we used to say in Queens, she's got some chutzpah telling the Democratic Party has "too big a tent". But on second thought, maybe she's right, she's in it.

Last edited Mon Jan 6, 2020, 12:55 PM - Edit history (3)

be the nominee when he is criticized as not belonging in the Democratic party and AOC's theatrical 'groan' at the thought of Biden's presidency didn't help either...I would think she would be pleased that Trump would have lost the election...well those who attack Biden have paid a political price...I don't doubt she will too. Her ill advised words hurt her chances too as I am not that old (more like me than her) and should be around when she tries to run for president...and I would never vote for her in a primary...only a general. Of course she will never win a presidential nomination IMHO in any case. She can stay in her safe blue district unless and/or until someone beats her in a primary. As she proved by beating the incumbent last time...incumbency doesn't guarantee a win for anyone in a primary...not even AOC.

Taking words out of contest doesn't make your point true. Sander will not be the nominee although he has my vote should it somehow happen.But Trump gets four more years in my opinion.

I couldn't agree more.

Even one who is not sure her name comes up as an example of Democrats. That is my objection.

and Biden is an implied attack.

Unless you think that AOC should leave the Democratic Party.

Days before madam speaker announced impeachment proceedings she publicly dissed her saying it was a bigger crime that speaker Pelosi didn’t act than dotard breaking the law. No apology

She claimed CHIP was sanders gig at a campaign rally in Queens. had she prepared at all she would have known it was HRC that crafted it. Sanders voted against CHIP!!!

She and sanders campaigned against Sherice Davids

This OP is more than just differing opinions when one says the kinds of divisive things she says

It doesn’t and won’t wear well

a big tent and there should be 'standards' sure a smaller party would win way more elections.

Than just pointing out a few differences, and you know it. I believe you to be disingenuous with a statement such as that.

far fetched claims. That's why I never liked her.

does not make you any less a Democrat. I have very many issues I think Joe is weak on. By the way I don't drive the same car I drove in the 80s.

and truly feels that way.

But this is not the time to lose sight of the ultimate goal, the country is not going to suddenly lurch to the left no matter how mush some of us want it to.

Change has to be incremental and we can't ignore the fact that a large part of the country is conservative. Ideological purity tests and refusal to try to build a consensus might feel good - but doesn't move the needle.

She has the luxury of representing a deep blue district where her ideas make perfect sense - not necessarily so for the rest of the country.

If we don't win - we get nothing
If we win - we can take steps down the road

I voted 'Less Likely'

win a statewide election in New York. She is in a blue district but it is a pragmatic district that expects their elected to tend to their needs. She should consider carefully her next moves.

She's apparently very well funded by people and interests outside her district, though. Anyone who sends money to a distant congressman is trying to subvert the will of the constituents.

Why not include "doesn't change my opinion at all"? Which is where I am. I think she is a big huge breath of fresh air.

Is that not covered by the pass option or the option to respond?

Alienating people isn't going to win a lot of elections.

....I've already contributed to Badrun Khan and Jose Velazquez.

constituent services.

She claimed that taking over Crowley's office would have been "too expensive", yet her office is costing almost the same as his would have cost PLUS she's spent hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars renovating her office.

She's hardly ever in the district. Even that big rally under the Queensboro (Edward I. Koch) Bridge wasn't in her district.

She's virtually dismissed the seniors in the district and alienated many of the ethnic voters in the district.

You're more in the loop, apparently.

Thread winner.. imho!

She's not my Congresswoman, so I won't be voting for her; she's not in an at risk District so I don't need to invest any money; she's not implementing critical policies that need my influence.

of the Democratic Party to get ELECTED should stop shitting on the party. PERIOD.

Her elected office has a D beside it. She USED US! Like Bernie does.

It's not an "attack"

Joe might not be a progressive warrior but a Vichy Democrat he isn't. Jeff Van Drew was a Vichy Democrat, now he's a Republican.

Just that in general, I mostly agree. And don't like the race to the right that establishment and corporate democrats are taking us on.

AOC is right. In any country, they would be in different parties. Most countries have more than 2 parties. Each of their multiple parties is less of a big tent and their members' positions are more closely aligned.
I also wonder how some people within the Democratic party can call themselves progressive.

I can think of a lot more conservative Democrats than him.

Even the terminology selected is childish and used to manufacture outrage.
Perhaps she referenced Joe because that was the way the question was asked.
Even if the question did not reference Joe, she may chosen to refer to Joe simply because he is the most visible and best known of conservative Democrats.

Why did Alexandria -Ocasio- Cortez hold out Joseph Robinette Biden for opprobrium?






*like our 33rd president

That day cannot come soon enough.

She is free to leave the Democratic party, join one of those smaller tents and try to win a house race for them. If she's a member out of convenience and despite her convictions, then that is kind of telling. There is no point in complaining about it when it's in your power to change that unless her point was that Biden shouldn't be in the party.

The Green Party is a joke.
BTW, she also ran on the Working Families party in 2018 and will again in 2020.

and caucus with one of the major parties. There are enough examples for that.
But you seem to agree, it's out of convenience and choosing the easy route. I doubt she wants to run only for the Working Families party in 2020 with a Dem contender in the race.

All they can do is act as a spoiler.

I cannot wait for proportional representation.

... her... my district Rep is Adam Schiff - and I do support him! If I were in AOC's district, I would vote for her over the Republican. I don't agree with everything she says, though, and I might go for another primary candidate. I do think AOC is smart and has a great future. I see "memes" portraying her as completely deranged, but she always speaks with great knowledge and she's obviously very learned. I believe her comments about Biden may be in her role as a Bernie surrogate.

as part of the nickname for someone it is a clear indication to me that of all the things they are honest isn't one of them. I don't believe that VP Biden lacks honesty so I think that calling him Honest Joe is not a good idea.

since then it is more frequently associated with used car dealers and card sharks. Perhaps I am alone, but to me it paints a picture of the opposite type of person VP Biden is.

Painting a picture, indeed.

calling VP Biden Honest Joe will make people think he is honest, please proceed. I think it is the moniker of a used car salesman and I don't think that truly reflects Biden's character.

is a name that invokes trust you and I must travel in vastly different circles.

We had 59/60 Senarors back then. (60 for only about 90 days) It's also going to take a big tent to get the White House and the Senate back!! I like the Dems big tent!!

I have no idea why she needs support.

so I can't support her (or not) anyhow. I would say, though, that if Biden is the nominee I hope she will at least support (or not speak against) him in the general election, and if he is elected I hope she doesn't undercut his legislative proposals - since he would then be the head of the party to which she claims to belong.

Give me Sharice Davids any time over AOC.

On this site - But, NOT Bernie, or your posts will be removed and you will be kicked off. Hmmm. Biden is a Dem and Bernie Independent. I have had enuff!

We will have a 2016 because if this situation and I can now care less if admin kicks me off this site due to me being outspoken about Bernie.

I also doubt the strength of her influence on a national basis, when it comes to the presidential election. I doubt she has much influence on that even in her own district.

She's part of a small minority in the House that holds views farther to the left than the average. As such, she gets some attention, but is still a very minor player in national politics. I admire her enthusiasm for her positions, but give her no more credit than he has earned through her influence.

She's probably someone to watch, but her time to wield power has not yet arrived.