Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Yeah anyone talking about AOC going after a larger office in the next few years is seriously off-base, regardless of political inclinations.
- Press Secretary: Jennifer Psaki
- Deputy Press Secretary: Karine Jean Pierre
- White House Communications Director: Kate Bedingfield
- Deputy White House Communications Director: Pili Tobar
I could see a world where she follows the political trajectory of Nancy Pelosi - someone who's been subjected to too many smear campaigns and wouldn't be viable nationwide, but is largely popular in her very very blue district and has enormous power as Speaker of the House.
(I also think people sometimes pin too many of their hopes on a single figure rather than the overall movement and group. The House Progressive Caucus is tightening its membership rules and making changes to be a more powerful voting block in the House, and there are other exciting progressive voices, but to hear some people, AOC is the only person.)
Edited by nova92 on Nov 29th 2020 at 6:17:58 AM
Yeah the thing about AOC is she is very nationally unpopular afaik. She can only really afford to run with the positions she does in a very blue district. People nationwide may like certain progressive policies in a vacuum but progressive candidates are a different story.
The thing that bothers me about people propping up AOC isn't even that I think she's bad on either a personal or political level, but that she's simply way too green. People were talking about AOC for president before she'd even completed her first term of congress, which is waaaaay premature. And she knows that, and has expressed no interest in doing so.
![]()
It's really sad that the only reason why she is less popular nationally than she should be is because of the amount of people in this country who are even at least moderately conservative (meaning unwilling to accept change).
Which is why AOC really should stay in her turf. She can do some actually great things as a Congresswoman for her district, as she is widely popular there.
But America as a whole is still way too hostile towards people on the Left like her, she wouldn't stand any chance as a presidential candidate.
Thankfully, she seems to see it the same way.
Certified: 48.0% West Asian, 6.5% South Asian, 15.8% North/West European, 15.7% English, 7.4% Balkan, 6.6% ScandinavianIt's not like I can say for sure, but I suspect that if she feels disillusioned to the point of considering not staying in congress, it probably has to do with all the harassment she gets. It got to the point of death threats being sent to her office. It's insane.
Edited by Draghinazzo on Nov 29th 2020 at 11:40:36 AM
![]()
I know right? It's like when Pigface essentially called for her and three other congresswomen to go back to their countries to "look at rampant corruption", even though they are Americans (and more American than he is). Pigface also actively encouraged these sorts of death threats against AOC.
Things need to change but it doesn't seem like they're going to change anywhere near as quickly as some people would like. That's part of why the work people like AOC are doing is important as far as introducing social democratic ideas to the public, even if it will take a long time for them to finally become "viable" on a nationwide level.
See what happened with Bernie. As much as I like him, he lost the primary. Twice.
And AOC is widely more unpopular with the general public.
Idealism is good, picking a fight you know you can't win (yet) because of it is bad.
There is a whole lot of overton window moving to be done before.
Certified: 48.0% West Asian, 6.5% South Asian, 15.8% North/West European, 15.7% English, 7.4% Balkan, 6.6% ScandinavianIt also falls into the Savior Complex trap of fixating on the presidency and ignoring the importance of downballot positions. AOC is plenty valuable enough as a representative, or potentially as a senator in the future. She doesn't need to be president to push progressive positions, and if the last decade and change has taught us anything, being president might actually be a step down in power from being a senator.
You know what?
Moderates and Centrists need to let go of the faulty notion that 'small incremental change' works well in a two party system or works at all in a two party system where the other side doesn't subscribe to the same idea.
Did small incremental change end Jim Crow and 'separate, but equal'? No, because every time a Republican government made any progress in that direction, the Democrat government that followed it turned it all back in a couple of months and then spent the rest of their period making it harder for the next Republican government to make small incremental changes again.
What ended Jim Crow was the civil rights movement. And the entire time that process took, moderates and centrists of the Republican (and later Democratic) party did pretty much nothing except complain about how dangerously radical and socialist and icky people like Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. were. Right up until the Civil Rights movement succeeded at which point they loudly hailed MLK as a righteous example of how things are done.
Did small incremental change finally get gay marriage federally legalized to the same status as heterosexual marriage? No, because while legislators in Blue states legalized gay marriage within their states in hopes that people in Red states would see it wasn't so scary, legislators in Red states did their damnedest best to ensure that they would not have to recognize those out-of-state marriages in their own state as much as possible and then waited for the next Republican-controlled House and Senate to find a way to make it illegal for states expect other states to recognize their gay marriage certificates at all.
What did finally get gay marriage federally legalized to the same status as heterosexual marriage? The SCOTUS making the radical decision that not only was it unconstitutional for there to be a such a law, but that not allowing gay marriage to have the same legal status as heterosexual marriage was itself in fact unconstitutional.
What ended 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell? Ha! Trick question, 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' was the small incremental change that utterly failed to lead to further progress in the area of allowing LGBT+ individuals to serve openly in the armed forces until said ban was lifted through a bill that shifted the official policy on the question 'Should LGBT+ individuals be allowed to serve openly in the armed forces?' 180 degrees from 'no' to 'yes' with no series of small incremental changes in between.
Edited by Robrecht on Nov 29th 2020 at 4:38:48 PM
Angry gets shit done.Moderates and centrists are the majority of democrats (or at least, they hold considerable political power) and it isn't realistic to expect them to change their opinion to agree exactly with yours overnight, so even if it sucks, you kind of have to deal with them in some way or another. Even if those radical policy shifts are what really turn things around in the end, you still have to go through a process where the people in power are convinced to go through with it for one reason or another, and that takes time. Which was the point being made.
Edited by Draghinazzo on Nov 29th 2020 at 12:54:10 PM
Ah yes, because if there's one thing the powerful are well known for, it's their willingness to slowly over time cede their power to the powerless. And what they're not at all known for is their willingness to dick over absolutely everyone in order to grab just a little more power for themselves.
What's your point? In a democracy, you have to convince a large enough group of people to agree with your ideas to get elected or to pass policy. And a lot of the country are moderates. There's no real way of getting around that. If people don't like centrist democratic politicians and voters having as much influence, then they need to campaign to replace them with people who more closely represent the politics they want to see and convince moderate/apathetic voters to become more amenable to left-wing ideas. And that's hard and time-consuming. There's no "ignore centrists and moderates so we can get everything we want passed" button.
Edited by Draghinazzo on Nov 29th 2020 at 1:45:45 PM

Also considering that its apparently tied to Russia, its clear that the people who advocate it don't have America's interests at heart.
I've seen people who genuinely suggest it, and it's never read as anything other than, "throw those other people to the wolves", to me.
Also,
Edited by nova92 on Nov 29th 2020 at 4:31:56 AM