Summary

Democratic divisions intensified as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Nancy Pelosi sharply criticized Chuck Schumer for supporting a Republican-led funding bill to avoid a government shutdown.

AOC called Schumer's decision a "betrayal," urging Senate Democrats to reject the legislation backed by Trump and Elon Musk. Pelosi called the bill a "devastating assault" on working families.

Schumer defended his stance, arguing a shutdown would empower Trump and Musk further.

The controversy sparked suggestions among Democrats that AOC might challenge Schumer in a primary.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 13 points 2 years ago (20 children)

"AOC is amazing, but..."

I have never understood this rhetoric.

She is more than qualified, has enough experience where she is out there educating her colleagues & the public about governmental processes and barriers, AND she speaks in a way that resonates with the working class AND younger generations.

Her Among Us Twitch stream was a brilliant way to connect with her younger constituents and made her approachable.

She does the same thing Bernie does, going out to rural America and speaking with the working class voters that feel unheard and abandoned.

At Congress, she ain't fucking scared to speak truth to power.

And most important, she has demonstrated that she is impossible to buy.

This whole rhetoric that because she's a woman Americans won't vote for her:

No. Hilary is a crook and she still won the popular vote. If the electoral college wasn't a thing, she would have been president.

Kamala came in way too fucking late thanks to Biden. But even so, her policies were still pandering to corporations and the rich, although it is undeniable she would have been vastly superior to Trump which is why she got my vote.

Whether America is ready for a female president or not is not the issue.

America needs someone who will be strong against corporate interests and bring forth universal healthcare.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago (18 children)

    It's because a large portion of America is both sexist and racist. She should be a no brainer to win, but Trump should have been a no brainer to lose.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago* (7 children)

    I don't understand why people are so fucking thick to not understand this. If we're so lucky to have a fair and free election in 2028, we can't risk global stability to prove the DNC wrong by relying on a notoriously racist and misogynistic population of voters to choose a female person of color. Despite being one of the most qualified and intelligent members of congress, an AOC ticket is doomed to fail by her demonization by mainstream media and social media manipulation and propaganda.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    This kind of electability politics is exactly what gets us one feckless candidate after another. We're too scared to support all we actually believe in, and we end up with candidates that can't rally popular support.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Listen to the fucking poll results. Good god. Joe Biden was even more milquetoast than Harris and he garnered 9 million more votes. Harris is left of Biden. That's a fact. So the only reasonable explanation is that either Harris didn't have enough campaign time (I think a few months is plenty) or older voting Americans don't want to vote for a woman/POC.

    By your logic, since she's more left leaning than Joe, she should have been able to garner more popular support but that didn't happen. 16+ years down the road if Dems can hold the office for that long AND have shored up protections for social programs AND removed blanket immunity from the executive branch, I have absolutely no problem with AOC. But until they're able to gain a more stable foothold in the current political climate, you're just going prematurely kill their one shot at a presidential run. That's all you typically get is one chance. If Trump loses in 2016, he doesn't come back in 20 and 24.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    DNC centrism was a loser in 2016, 2020, and 2024. 2020 was the outlier. Biden managed to squeak out a victory due to covid. And even then, he had to borrow a bunch of ideas from Bernie to win the election. DNC centrism was a loser in 2008 and 2012 as well. Obama usurped the DNC and won in spite of them; they supported Hillary in 2008.

    Kamala ran to the right of Biden. Yes, in her past she supported some left wing things, but she abandoned all those positions when she ran in 2024.

    I don't recall Biden campaigning with Dick Cheney.

    The centrist, soulless, govern-by-focus-group strategy has been a loser since 2008. Nearly 20 years at this point. But here people like you are, still with your head in the sand denying reality.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago

    I don’t understand why people are so fucking thick to not understand this. If we’re so lucky to have a fair and free election in 2028, we can’t risk global stability to prove the DNC wrong by relying on a notoriously racist and misogynistic population of voters to choose a female person of color.

    Limiting all women because the party wants to shut out one woman. Democrats smeared Sanders for allegedly saying what you just said.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    Yeah it sucks but it's the truth. I live by Chicago and a shocking amount of people I interact with drop racist or misogynistic comments without a thought around me because I'm a white guy.

    Most comments I've heard about AOC are either who or that she's dumb. I've asked two people why she's dumb and they couldn't give me a solid reason.

    Anyway I guess my point is anecdotally this lines up with a lot of interactions I've had in the last few years

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (9 children)

    We can't pander to the worst of us.

    You'd be shocked at how well people respond to someone genuine like AOC, especially because voters on all sides recognize her name and her spirit, especially because she makes healthcare access & relief her focus.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago* (5 children)

    You have to be pragmatic, though. There's a time and place to push for progress, and this isn't either. You need to stop the house from burning down before you can renovate it.

    If 2028 even happens, it'll be a fight to reclaim the country. That means the person with the best chance of winning needs to run. AOC is not that person this year.

    You have to remember that the vast majority citizens aren't anywhere near as informed on anything related to politics as the people here are. This is by design thanks to mass media. You have to field a person that appeals to the most people, and a Hispanic woman doesn't do that.

    It's really fucking stupid that things are this way, but people are really fucking stupid. Tim Waltz is a very likable old white man, and that's what will win an election.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    You have to be pragmatic, though.

    The false pragmatism of timid complicity got us here.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    It's not timid complacency to acknowledge that the country is sexist. Half the country doesn't even see them as people. I'd say the same thing if we were talking about an openly LGBTQ+ person too.

    We need someone who isn't an insane fascist and has a long track record of trying to make things better. That's step one. After that, we can focus on step 2.

    AOC being the VP pick will help the country shift more towards being ready for a female president, because she would be way more active than Harris was.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    We need someone who isn’t an insane fascist and has a long track record of trying to make things better. That’s step one. After that, we can focus on step 2.

    We did that in 2020. Turns out, step 2 is "move to the right and support genocide."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (2 children)

    Yes but we're not talking about someone genuine like her, we're talking about her, specifically. I would love to see her win, but she's been heavily demonized by right wing media.

    "We can't pander to the worst of us." is a righteous idea, but it's not tactically wise. Elections are a popularity contest, if you don't approach them as such you will likely lose. It very obviously doesn't matter how qualified a candidate is, it all boils down to pandering to enough demographics to win.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    but it's not tactically wise.

    No but it is strategically disasterous to pre-emptively hamstring your best most popular leaders skilled at inspiring people for bullshit pre-emptive handwringing about things conservatives will do to anybody no matter who it is.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

    Kamala came in way too fucking late thanks to Biden. But even so, her policies were still pandering to corporations and the rich, although it is undeniable she would have been vastly superior to Trump which is why she got my vote.

    I think what's been proven is that the US will not vote overwhelmingly for a DNC robo-woman candidate.

    It's still America. There are people who voted for two terms of Obama and then flipped to Trump. Hell, there are some people who voted for Biden in 2020 and then Trump in 2024.

    Perhaps most voters in the country have absolutely zero fixed values or do any meaningful analysis into who they are voting for. It's vibes-based and perhaps always has been.

    All that said, I don't think it's been proven or disproven that the US will not vote for a woman candidate that aligns with the country's "vibes" at the moment so to speak.

    The data doesn't look very good that America will vote overwhelmingly for a woman for president based upon the limited results we have so far...but they did vote to send Harris into the east wing before she had been thoroughly unmasked as a corporate drone....so that's something positive.

    It easily could be that the American electorate is just way more misogynist than it is racist. 🤷 We'll never know without running a reasonably charismatic woman candidate with non-corporate drone policies though.

  • source
  • parent