Why is AOC a big deal? She just speaks common sense and calls out absurdity. Have we really gone that far off the rails where we don't do it ourselves?
Like it or not, people need political leaders to follow.
Also, AOC has the advantage of representing a district in New York City, the media capital of the world. She probably wouldn't be as well known if she was the Congressmember from Topeka
Read all the posts here. Most of them are correct in some way.
She threatens populism from the economic side forcing the corrupt MAGA politicians to care about 'fake news' like 'affordability'
She threatens insecure dudes by being smart, attractive and speaking spanish
She threatens the political republicans because she actually interacted wth the public instead of going to an ivyleague college and being taught to speak folksy by a speech trainer
Won't somebody think of the lusty christian men?
So she's like perfect ragebait for every right winger
Yeah, providing good ideas on how to reform current issues and showing how they could benefit the people is a dream it seems.
Every politician im seeing just says, "I'm going to stop immigrants from driving up crime!"
Or some crazy shit, and never provides any method/studies/statistics to show how or why, because the absurdity of the claims start to show.
Trump: "I'm going to cut your electricity costs by half!"
Yet never says how he's planning on doing that, implements no policies aimed at reducing those costs, and suffers no loss of MAGA supporters when he instead drove up those costs starting a war with a country halfway around the world.
So AOC or whomever says, you didn't do what you said, and people cheer it on I guess.
Great and all... But can the representatives show us their plan on How they mean to fix issues
She's an attractive latina. This shouldn't matter. The reason it does is because the right hates her for being liberal, but they hate even more that they could never have her. One thing to understand about the typical "alpha male" hyper^toxic^-masculine right wing narcissistic douche is they view themselves as hunters. They can't or won't acknowledge (or maybe they don't understand) that they are in fact trophy hunters. When it comes to women, some of the biggest "trophies" are the strong, independent ones. Add in the latina flavor and top it with being liberal (that they would view as needing to be educated) and she's one of the biggest trophies in their world. The fact that they have absolutely no chance with her pisses them off to no end. So she becomes the target of their ire. Then they try to trash her every chance they get. For this she has gotten a lot more air time and publicity than others.
When she first showed up, I remember one particular picture of her being all over right wing media. Not the most flattering picture, obviously. She was smiling especially broadly, showing lots of teeth, eyes wide open ("bugged out"). Sometimes associated with speculation that she might have Graves disease or some developmental disorder.
No question her appearance has made the media give her more time than they might, but she has a compelling story and she's connected with millennial voters much better than her septuagenarian peers.
When she first blew up all I would hear about her is how dumb she was, how stupid she was, what a lightweight she was, but everything I ever heard her say made eminent sense and sounded frankly intelligent.
These comments were largely coming from the chudiverse and Fox News, but I realized it was working when a not-conservative-minded relative of mine made an offhand comment along the lines of "everyone knows she's not very smart." I responded very directly with a light challenge like "oh, could you point me to something she's said that's not very smart because everything I've ever heard her say is pretty fucking brilliant."
I knew full well this person would immediately try and dig something up - but she must've come up empty because now she's a fan. I actually think she learned a lesson about how that kind of shit can work on your without you even realizing it.
Gotta say, good on your relative for actually doing her due diligence and coming out of it enlightened. Wish everyone would actually do even the barest of their own research or fact checking after being confronted..or even if not.
Plenty of politicians exist who have sensible policies and speak truth to power and yadda yadda yadda. Most of them lose. The ones that win mostly get back-benched by party leadership or primaried out of office in subsequent elections.
AOC (and Sanders and Mamdani and a few others) tend to be notable because they advance popular policies in a manner that cut through corporate media white noise, while surviving a deluge of character attacks and faux-scandals intent on derailing their mission.
It's not merely that you have some rando saying shit. It's that you can hear that person, you can be represented by that person, and you can organize around that person to elect other politicians with a similar set of values and beliefs.
And by common sense, we mean actual things that might improve the lives of the majority, rather than the racist, sexist twaddle that might come out of a drunk trailer dweller, only spoken by a rich white (or in this case, mostly orange) man in a tie.
Did you know South Australia was the first place in the world to grant women both the right to vote AND the right to stand for parliament — and it happened partly by accident.
In 1894, the SA parliament was debating a women's suffrage bill. The bill originally included a clause explicitly preventing women from sitting in parliament. Enter Ebenezer Ward, an MP who was opposed to women's suffrage. He cleverly moved to strike out that exclusion clause, thinking it was so absurd that women could be MPs that the whole bill would be voted down in disgust.
His plan backfired spectacularly — the amendment was accepted, the bill passed, and South Australian women became the first in the world with full political rights (voting and standing for office). This was 1894, predating Finland (1906) and even New Zealand's right to stand (1919).
ETA: it led me down a rabbit hole upon seeing a woman ran for president in my country (usa) before we had nationwide women's suffrage, where she also ran on free love, had been involved in the first international before being kicked out, published the first English translation of the communist manifesto, was close with Cornelius Vanderbilt because of her skills as a medium and later stockbroker, and was directly responsible for some of the most draconian obscenity laws our country ever enacted…
you're going to read every line of a 2000 page legal document?
no, you have some interns basically skim it and highly the stuff that makes you look good or is the pork for your district, and as long as that's in there, then vote yes for it.
bills in the last two decades are overwhelmingly omnibus bills, as in one giant long document with tons of changes to the law and funding.
we don't pass simple single-issue bills since like the 1970s
She defeated the Chairman of the Democratic Conference by taking his seat in an upset victory. She did it by bringing out the populist left, which absolutely terrified establishment Dems, who would rather let the country burn than move an inch to the left.
For those here who remember AOC being a monitor company and not some politician, OP is talking about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who is one of the representatives of the state of New York in the House of the Congress of the USA.
This was a huge cause of confusion years ago when the media started using "AOC" to refer to her. I was like, damn, their monitors used to be cheap crap, why are they so popular now?
It's really annoying to me when people make posts in a general community without giving any kind of context (to non-US-Americans in this case) and this one had me tripping over mental monitors for a hot second.
As an outsider looking in, yeah, you Americans have lost the fucking script. Spineless, cowed and submissive. Perfect slaves for your future overlords of child rapists and war mongers.
I think it's at least partially because everyone else sucks so bad. She's not a great speaker but she gets a lot of coverage from left-wing influencers because there's no one else to promote. She also positions herself just far enough on the left to get their support but she's also close enough to the center to still get coverage in the mainstream media. So she's the face of progressive movent and gets attacked by Fox a lot. So she's everywhere even though she's kind of bland in my opinion (compared with European left at least).
A point about this is it's a specific long-term strategy used by conservative media that worked on Hillary. It doesn't matter what AOC says or does, they'll give her negative coverage. They'll spend years doing this so when she finally does make a run for president their viewers will already have AOC=BAD baked in.
Hillary shot herself in the foot by holding repellent policies and abhorrent views even within her own party. She was pro-war well into the 2010s. She was Tough On Crime in the middle of BLM protest waves. She was chintzy and hyper-bureaucratic on public health care and education while she freely opened her wallet to mass surveillance and corporate bailouts. She demonstrated naked hostility to the LGBTQ community time and time again. She flaunted her wealth, constantly lied about her own historical record, surrounded herself with sycophants and scammers, and was the worst kind of sore loser.
That's why Obama kicked the knees out from under her in 2008. And that's why Donald Trump could casually outflank her on the left in 2016, by mouthing a few anti-war slogans, bullshitting about popular economic reforms, and hugging the Pride Flag. Hillary made the same stupid mistakes as Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004 and Harris in 2024. She desperately pandered to the Republican Establishment while expecting everyone to the left of John McCain to reflexively bend the knee.
I'm glad Hillary lost. I'm just sad she had to lose in the general, rather than scrubbing out in the primary a second time.
Exactly. I would say Mamdani is "European kind of left" and he's also really good at delivering his message. I totally get why he's so popular. OAC is only OK but she really doesn't have a lot of competition in Congress.
The thing that's been striking me about Mamdani is that he's reminding me of FDR, in that he's so frequently talking to his constituents. The only other American politician I can think of that does that so much is trump. And the difference is Mamdani and Roosevelt maintain professionalism and focus on how they're helping and acknowledging shared experience. Trump by contrast is totally unprofessional and has an incoherent message generally revolving around him being the best and people who dislike him being the worst.
I really think that Mamdani's communication game is a vital lesson to learn for the dems. The policies are also important, you actually do have to help people. But you need to take credit, you need to keep them in the loop, and you need to give frequent updates.
I really think that Mamdani’s communication game is a vital lesson to learn for the dems.
The problem is dems don't want to learn anything. They just want to play the role of controlled opposition, not actually do anything. If they win they will have to come up with excuses why they can't do anything. A long as they are losing they just have to keep promising that they will fix things and keep asking for donations. Mamdani makes it all more difficult for them.
Were I live, Portugal, the policies of the Democrat Party are closest to those of a local party called Iniciativa Liberal (Liberal Initiative) who are considered Far-Right ultra Neoliberal (and were started by people with A LOT of money rather than being a naturally growing movement).
In most of Europe the mainstream parties (whether they used to be center-left or center-right) nowadays are Neoliberal, but the version of that ideology of the US Democract Party is harder than even the old center-right mainstream in Europe (which is how even an EU under a majority of the EPP - which are the EU level group of such parties - is still a lot more pro-consumer than the Democrats, though things have been getting worse).
She’s not a great speaker but she gets a lot of coverage from left-wing influencers because there’s no one else to promote.
She's fine. There are definitely better orators. But she stays on message, advances popular policies, and is generally well-received by her constituents. There are plenty of other aspiring AOCs that don't perform half as well. And you won't be able to name them because they don't win elected office - much less survive multiple hostile intra-party primary bids and smear campaigns - or fundraise effectively or get promoted via social media so aggressively.
There are definitely other people to promote. We just watched Graham Platner's star rise largely on his personal charisma and ability to build a crowd. We've seen Al Franken and Anthony Weiner and John Edwards all come and go along similar trajectories. AOC might demonstrate better staying power simply because she's not a giant sex pest.
So she’s everywhere even though she’s kind of bland in my opinion (compared with European left at least).
Compared to Corbyn or Mélenchon or Reichinnek? I'd say she's par for the course.
Absolutely. She's a capable politician and party member. I just don't think she deserved to get the kind of attention she's getting. For example many people talk about presidency and I think she's not even close to this level. There's simply no one else out there.
I just don’t think she deserved to get the kind of attention she’s getting.
A lot of it boils down to her fundraising numbers. Among all the members of The Squad, she outperforms to the point that the rest of the party needs to periodically come to her with hands out for a cup of money. That extends her influence within party leadership and allows her to effectively lobby for legislative amendments and rally support in her caucus to vote against certain other bills.
For example many people talk about presidency and I think she’s not even close to this level.
I think she's better positioned to work on her bid in 2026 than Obama was twenty years earlier.
Of course, I also think she'd function better as a candidate for NY Governor. Building a hard base of DSA-aligned Democrats inside New York and advancing progressive policy at the state level sounds much more appealing than taking a stab at the White House, only to get the entire country's problems dumped in your lap.
There’s simply no one else out there.
There's Pritzker in Illinois and Andy Beshear in Kentucky. Chris Murphy of Connecticut and Mark Kelly of Arizona are also strong contenders. But, again, anyone taking the Presidency in 2028 is going to inherit an absolute shitshow. I wouldn't want the job and I think you kinda have to be crazy if you do. I also don't think AOC would do well under the degree of pressure the office will apply. You really need someone coming in there with a crowbar and an eye for kneecaps. That's not her style of politics.
I could almost stomach four years of Gavin Newsom if I believed he'd spend his time running down Trump Admin hacks and bankrupting them. Where's Elliot Spitzer when you need him? But I know Newsom would sell out twice as hard as Trump just to prove he's better at it, so that's a no-go.
I don't think there are any good candidates for President in 2028, AOC included. But that's more thanks to the deep endemic corruption of the office and the spinelessness of the Dem Party as a whole. If the only thing you care about is winning a popularity contest, though? AOC's a top contender.
I also don’t think AOC would do well under the degree of pressure the office will apply.
I don't even think she would do well under the pressure of the presidential campaign.
Of course, I also think she’d function better as a candidate for NY Governor. Building a hard base of DSA-aligned Democrats inside New York and advancing progressive policy at the state level
100% agree. Ideally they would the couple of strong contenders for presidency and bunch of AOCs advancing things at a local level. The fact that people propose AOC for presidents shows how bad the state of the party is.
It definitely shows how bad the state of the national news media is. We're watching The Trump Show 24/7/365. I doubt one American in twenty could even name a Dem contender for President who hasn't run already. One reason why Kamala Harris remains a front-runner on paper. Hell, you'll see people talk about Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, and Barack Obama running again, purely because these are the only people whose names register.
But come primary season, that will change as contenders put more money and social pressure on boosting their own name recognition. This time next year, you'll have a dozen different Dem contenders doing their warm-up laps around the field. If AOC isn't running, I doubt she'll be seriously missed.
I don’t even think she would do well under the pressure of the presidential campaign.
Why? She's survived several republican smear campaigns that tried to make her the face of the party so they could beat the whole party, and she's still going strong.
There's nothing about AOC that makes me question her ability to handle pressure, especially in the face of sustained political smear campaigns.
It's just my opinion but I think she's not a very good speaker and she's not good at confronting people. In the hearings I've seen she's usually very soft, can't drive her message through and is unconvincing. Her nice, soft persona works great at local level where what she actually stands for matters more than theatrics but I don't think that would be effective in a presidential debate.
Are you aware the current president is a child raping slob of an anti-intellectual?? Like nobody's saying AOC is the new FDR but yeah she's infinitely better than the current president.
AOC is not the only one who speaks common sense and calls out absurdity; she's one of the very short list that does it, no matter who's watching. She appears not to be owned by AIPAC and other ventures. It's also why they'll keep her out at all costs.
To answer your final question. Yes. American politics has gone so far off the rails that AOC speaking common sense is something that is no longer normal.
For example:
"We should feed children too poor to buy school lunches!"
"Nooooo that's SoCiAlIsM!"
Meanwhile bailing out a bank because their friend's stock gamble didn't pay off is just the American way
American politics: Socialism for the elite, capitalism for everyone else.
This is the BASIC bullshit that AOC and people like her call out and she's labeled an extremist for it.
If you only define AOC in MAGA's terms then neither have you. How MAGA leaders think vs how they convince their flock to think are distinctly different.
There is a really excellent documentary called Knock Down the House. It followed four progressive women launching grassroots campaigns against powerful political figures.
If memory serves AOC is the only one of the four who won her race.
You see MAGA love to hate women. That is one of the reasons why they hate Nancy Pelosi so much.
It is the Howard Stern effect, where people who liked his show listened to about half of it, people who really had no opinion on Stern didn’t listen to any of his show. People who hated Howard Stern listened to every minute of his show. AOC is the same way.
MAGA’s hatred has made her a household name and it is awesome, because I love her. She is just excellent. She is what MAGAs wish Donald Trump was.
I first heard about her from my trump-loving cousin (who is virulently anti-immigrant while being the half-Thai son of an immigrant). He didn't even know her actual name, just "AOC", and was ranting about her wanting to ban airplanes or something.
I'm my experience (as an Australian on the outside) she's one of the few that preaches policies that benefit people right wing parties are blatantly for billionaires (if not just straight up the party of a billionaire in Australia's case) and the traditional/major "left wing" parties are more interested in maintaining the status quo with half measures and compromises. But a lot of actual lefty parties never get anything done because they let perfect get in the way of good.
From what I've seen her policies are things that would benefit most people, and are reasonable. That's rare these days.
"In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king."
But being serious: AOC and politicians like her ARE us "doing it for ourselves." For a very long time, the vast majority of politicians elected in the US have gotten there by getting the backing of wealthy capitalists. They don't say "common sense things" because those things aren't good for the people who helped them get elected. If they did say those things, those capitalists would not only stop funding them, but fund their opposition more. The result is a government comprised of politicians who very rationally don't represent us. (That's not to say some of them aren't crazy on their own, but them being there is a rational outcome of self-interested actors.)
In order to get a politician who does and says things that are good for people, you need an absolutely massive grass roots effort to win an election against the might of rich donors. AOC was one of the notable times when we managed to do that. But this shows the limitations of that strategy within our current electoral system. For every AOC, Illhan Omar, or Mamdani, there are literally hundreds of more races which are still dominated by big money. It took not only a massive on the ground organizing effort locally, but also a lot of support from engaged people across the nation. And it's way more costly for the average person to contribute to a campaign than it is for a billionaire. So even if a lot of us want this, it's going to be really difficult to get a critical mass of wins to actually make an impact.
So that's why they're a big deal. They might be basic social democrats in some less corrupt countries, but here they are the few who are unbought. What they say is less relevant than the fact that they are able to say it at all.
Most politicians at that level (maybe all levels) appear to be bought and paid for, are not genuine, and just say whatever the polls and their campaign managers tell them. She seems to be more genuine, competent, charismatic, and a threat to the status quo.
It might not look like much, but the really impressive part about their journey is how they avoid being dragged into a political sport between the liberal/conservative/MAGA cesspool, and instead drag our attention towards the meaningful.
Its a dreamers game, and those who captures the imagination of the people are the winners.
At the same time, Washington politics is a money game, and Sanders wing have been able to keep up with them only with money from small donors.
Well at least thats my takaway from following us politics between 2015 to 2021.
yes. anyone who's 35+ years of age should notice this.
while shitty things used to happen or fly under the radar, mass media used to act as cultural checks and balances to keep the insanity at arms length. but it's all been monopolized--it's all controlled by the crazy people. you have independent journalism but few americans read it, and most online magazines are read by out-of-touch, overeducated yuppies and aren't nearly as biting as they used to be or should be.
but this bullshit should be obvious to anyone because the rest of culture needs to adjust to the insanity, to normalize it. how hard is it to differentiate between parody/satire and reality these days?
it's impossible IMO. when i watch most newer films i assume they're parody because they're so fucking stupid.
The right is so incompetent, destructive, and dangerous that anything on the other side seems reasonable. But the democrats need to remember that part of the DSA (which AOC is a member of) playbook is open borders and public control of large corporations. The majority of Americans are absolutely not going to go for that. Maybe the democrats will take back the House and/or the Senate in the midterms as a response to the shit show happening now, but they have to come up with something else if they plan on having a Democrat as president in 2028. The democrats are as equally incompetent as the republicans so I don't have much hope.
Must be a blissful experience not observing any official political discourse at all. It's all disingenuous rhetoricizing because the 'conservative' right only has a policy of extraction and enriching the insanely affluent, and they know that's not popular, so they simply force the conversation away from practical topics of governing, often with distractions and moarlizing non-issues. The liberal 'left' are happy to descend to that arena because they're also funded by the same insanely rich, and their alleged beliefs and goals conflict with those interests. So it is currently unusual when a politician sidesteps that whole dynamic and just addresses the actual issues living perople everywhere on the political spectrum can identify with in their lived experience. AOC is a pretty good example of someone who is consistently trying to drag the conversation into the practical realm, which the establishment hates because it draws attention to the fact that they have nothing to offer of value to better the lives of the majority of their constituents, and no intention to do so, in fact.
So yes, as crazy as it is, we are just so far off the rails that simple and practical reform and adressing obvious problems seems outlandish and impossible, but that's not an accident; It's what the donor class has paid both sides for. It is a good sign that more political actors are wading into that conversation, and an indicator of the eventual expiry date on corrupting the body politics with bribes.
we went off the rails in the 1980s dude. Carter and Nixon were the last presidents that remote had any grounding in reality, and they were both loathed by the public for it. 1970s were a shitshow and instead of fixing shit we decided to just start mortgaging the country for the next 50 years.
we have been riding them every since, no feet on the ground.
We have had like a handful of pols who wanted to like fix shit in this country, but they are not widely popular and the establishment totally hates them, so they are portrayed as radicals.
I agree that this should have been spelled out because the abbreviation AOC can stand for other things too and web search engines don't necessarily think of this representative as the primary meaning.
Quite frankly, Democrats just aren't going to rally behind a candidate the way Republicans do. Republicans can promise much less and still expect a decent turnout.
The first female president will be a Republican, a nightmarish ghoul, and the source of a significant amount of right wing deflection. Everything liberal women are saying now, justifiably, will be twisted in to an evil, disingenuous retort. And that will only be a distraction from the nightmare president this woman is going to be.
The first female president will have no way to climb the ladder without being horrifyingly competent. Savvy enough to know when to look like an idiot without ever being one. Manipulative enough to not only work a crowd but work a room of powerful people.
Men can get by knowing the right people and being charming. Women have to know the right people, be charming, and absolutely crush any opposition to their ascent.
I think they did a study in Australia about this. People who voted for a minority candidate were less likely to vote for one in the future because voting for that minority candidate was there "get out of jail free" card for any future racist voting patterns.
Obama was a once-in-a-lifetime candidate and also almost engineered in a lab to make white people comfortable.
Likely the first woman president we have will be conservative --someone who woman might vote for because she is a woman, but also someone who men might vote for because she advocates patriarchy... example: Margaret Thatcher. Though, to be honest, the current crop of Christian Nationalist wouldn't allow it, I don't think..
Time to stop falling for tokens and politicians. They lie. Stop falling for it. No strongman (or woman) to save us. Every little bit of do-ocracy helps ease and inspire more do-ocracy clawed back from the purple party and its two punch tactic to keep us down.
Because a lot of you are cowards and hid away instead of helping to shape public opinion. When these leaders like AOC and others do not have people creating content on popular platforms then it leaves a runway for the opposition to create any narrative they want. It's a numbers game at this point. The opposition convinced supporters to run away and hide and they did willingly.
If you go to a bar and drink to much the bar tender is likely to cut you off, because you are clearly an alcoholic.
If you go to a casino, count cards and constantly win, the Casino will kick you out then ban you from ever coming back.
If you use exploits in a MMOG, you'll get banned. (then hopefully the deves patch the exploit)
Notice a pattern?...
Greed is a drug. The stock market is gambling. And Inflation is caused by an infinite money glitch only the uber rich can use.
I think I know EXACTLY what needs to be done and you do too, even if you don't like it.
Lately she's not been impressing me. When she first came on the scene, I was highly in favor of her. She's slowly been worn down by Mama Bear Pelosi and that ilk.
It took her forever to find the right language for the genocide in Israel. She's been slow or absent to speak up about what matters.
Nobody knew the threat of Hitler better than FDR. He wanted to start arming Britain and France the day the Nazis went into Poland, if not sooner. He had to wait for the right time.
Another example. Frederick Douglas was an escaped slave. He had suffered the horrors not just observed them. When the 1860 election came around, Douglas stepped away form the candidate who wanted instant Abolition and backed Abe Lincoln, who said he would keep slavery if it meant saving the Union.
Douglas decided it was smarter to back the winner and have the ear of a sitting President than it was to back someone he might have agreed with much more.
Frederick Douglas was an escaped slave. He had suffered the horrors not just observed them. When the 1860 election came around, Douglas stepped away form the candidate who wanted instant Abolition and backed Abe Lincoln, who said he would keep slavery if it meant saving the Union.
Another good lesson is Obamacare. Even with majorities in both Houses, Obama barely managed to get the ACA passed. He thought that because he'd based his bill on Mitt Romney's plan the GOP would embrace it. Instead they attacked full force. How Obama got it done is a master class in politics.
No, no. When the country is even more in shambles, that’s when we’ll have the right where we want them. In this day and age of nearly instant information and social isolation you really gotta look to a time when newspapers, word-of-mouth, and rumors were the glue to a social hierarchy that was barely trying to remove slavery from its scaffolding. That’s what you really need to imitate, the past where brown people paid the heaviest price for not rocking the boat too much. Remember: Think of how much it upset the 1800s popular white vote, pay no attention to the popularity of progressivism, and don’t. rock. the boat.
I wholeheartedly agree that "It's not politically wise" is often a bullshit excuse.
However, when you are an openly socialist mayor in the process of overhauling numerous aspects of city laws and regulations, opening a war on additional fronts is risky. The US public is tired of more of the same, but that doesn't mean we live in a post-Red-Scare society.
From what I understand, he's focused on improving conditions in NYC to demonstrate that the policies and theory are effective and accumulate some public wins. If he doesn't play nice in the meantime, national Democratic leaders might find ways to prevent him from getting many victories in NYC.
Similarly, going to war with the NYPD would likely lead to them purposely doing a shit job to make him and his policies look bad. Police unions have done it multiple times. Again, he's looking accumulate good will first so that the public will stay on his side when the NYPD pulls that bullshit.
Normally, I'm in favor of organized labor... but using that power to protect corruption, racism, and the capital class basically makes them class traitors so get no sympathy from me.
Mamdani barely squeaked in. He got 51% of the vote running against a known molester and a radio host in a funny hat. Harris got 65% of the NYC vote and Biden got 80%.
Common sense? She’s as intelligent as your average bartender, which is what she was when she was picked by the DNC to be pushed up the flagpole.
She’s as dumb as a doornail. She routinely makes a fool of herself when she’s asking people questions, showing she doesn’t have the faintest clue what she’s talking about.
Yeah, people that had to work during/after university are inherently idiots, and everyone knows that bartenders are morons that should never aspire to anything greater than cracking beers and making cocktails for actual smart people. /S
She obviously doesn't know anything about governing. A degree in international relations and economics is totally useless to governing. And why would she have bothered with an internship with Senator Ted Kennedy when she was going into the House of Representatives‽ Total idiot
Didn't she defeat the Democratic incumbent to get on the ballot for her seat? Oh that's right, she defeated the Democratic caucus chair, so hardly "picked by the DNC".
Asking questions when you don't know a thing (AOC) is smarter than pretending you know the thing (the vast majority of old congresspeople, especially in the GOP).
She’s not asking questions to learn though, she’s asking questions to try and catch people doing the wrong thing in these senate hearing sessions or whatever they’re called. She then frequently gets made to look like an idiot because she’s trying to ask “gotcha” questions without realising that her questions make no sense and/or are based on her incorrect understanding.
This was literally the first result for “AOC dumb quotes”. There are hundreds of other results.
She has repeatedly shown she is not an intelligent person. Most politicians aren’t. She was chosen by a Democrat PAC as a candidate to be pushed, she wasn’t an up and coming politician who got there on the back of her hard work and intelligence.
I’m massively intrigued that you believe this construct exists. Where do you socialise; and are outsiders welcome? I’d like to meet a default bar tender, just to see what they’re like.
Making drinks is fairly easy, dealing with customers is the difficult bit…
I assume you live somewhere where all further/university education, accommodation and sustenance is provided freely by the state. Lucky you.
Most of the places I’ve lived you have to pay real actual money to further your formal education and if mommy and daddy can’t financially help their brave little soldier than that brave little soldier would need to get a job. Maybe something in the evening; or the weekend. So it don’t interfere with class time…
153 Comments
DagwoodIII@piefed.social · 142 pts · 8d
Like it or not, people need political leaders to follow.
Also, AOC has the advantage of representing a district in New York City, the media capital of the world. She probably wouldn't be as well known if she was the Congressmember from Topeka
saltesc@lemmy.world · 12 pts · 8d
These little town bluuues
Ain't melting awaaay
I'm gonna be as bored as shit
In Topeeekaaa!
RIotingPacifist@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 8d
Who knows who Joseph Crowley was?
DagwoodIII@piefed.social · 4 pts · 7d
The Shadow knows...
fartographer@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 6d
Me: Ozzy sang about him!
Satan: It's okay, Aleister, the moron didn't mean anything by it. Look what you've done to my boy!
Fedizen@lemmy.world · 80 pts · 8d
Read all the posts here. Most of them are correct in some way.
So she's like perfect ragebait for every right winger
DagwoodIII@piefed.social · 17 pts · 7d
Right Wingers lost their minds over Jimmy Carter, a Christian, Naval academy graduate.
They need to stay mad, because being angry makes them feel powerful.
glitchdx@lemmy.world · 69 pts · 7d
Yes, the bar is that low.
LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 7d
Yeah, providing good ideas on how to reform current issues and showing how they could benefit the people is a dream it seems.
Every politician im seeing just says, "I'm going to stop immigrants from driving up crime!"
Or some crazy shit, and never provides any method/studies/statistics to show how or why, because the absurdity of the claims start to show.
Trump: "I'm going to cut your electricity costs by half!"
Yet never says how he's planning on doing that, implements no policies aimed at reducing those costs, and suffers no loss of MAGA supporters when he instead drove up those costs starting a war with a country halfway around the world.
So AOC or whomever says, you didn't do what you said, and people cheer it on I guess.
Great and all... But can the representatives show us their plan on How they mean to fix issues
scarabic@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 6d
meco03211@lemmy.world · 61 pts · 8d
She's an attractive latina. This shouldn't matter. The reason it does is because the right hates her for being liberal, but they hate even more that they could never have her. One thing to understand about the typical "alpha male" hyper^toxic^-masculine right wing narcissistic douche is they view themselves as hunters. They can't or won't acknowledge (or maybe they don't understand) that they are in fact trophy hunters. When it comes to women, some of the biggest "trophies" are the strong, independent ones. Add in the latina flavor and top it with being liberal (that they would view as needing to be educated) and she's one of the biggest trophies in their world. The fact that they have absolutely no chance with her pisses them off to no end. So she becomes the target of their ire. Then they try to trash her every chance they get. For this she has gotten a lot more air time and publicity than others.
tburkhol@slrpnk.net · 29 pts · 8d
When she first showed up, I remember one particular picture of her being all over right wing media. Not the most flattering picture, obviously. She was smiling especially broadly, showing lots of teeth, eyes wide open ("bugged out"). Sometimes associated with speculation that she might have Graves disease or some developmental disorder.
No question her appearance has made the media give her more time than they might, but she has a compelling story and she's connected with millennial voters much better than her septuagenarian peers.
HAL_9_TRILLION@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 36 pts · 8d
When she first blew up all I would hear about her is how dumb she was, how stupid she was, what a lightweight she was, but everything I ever heard her say made eminent sense and sounded frankly intelligent.
These comments were largely coming from the chudiverse and Fox News, but I realized it was working when a not-conservative-minded relative of mine made an offhand comment along the lines of "everyone knows she's not very smart." I responded very directly with a light challenge like "oh, could you point me to something she's said that's not very smart because everything I've ever heard her say is pretty fucking brilliant."
I knew full well this person would immediately try and dig something up - but she must've come up empty because now she's a fan. I actually think she learned a lesson about how that kind of shit can work on your without you even realizing it.
Dzheyk@sh.itjust.works · 21 pts · 8d
Gotta say, good on your relative for actually doing her due diligence and coming out of it enlightened. Wish everyone would actually do even the barest of their own research or fact checking after being confronted..or even if not.
joeljoelle@piefed.blahaj.zone · 50 pts · 8d
yes
Treczoks@lemmy.world · 50 pts · 7d
Any politician that actually speaks common sense is a big deal.
UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world · 16 pts · 7d
Plenty of politicians exist who have sensible policies and speak truth to power and yadda yadda yadda. Most of them lose. The ones that win mostly get back-benched by party leadership or primaried out of office in subsequent elections.
AOC (and Sanders and Mamdani and a few others) tend to be notable because they advance popular policies in a manner that cut through corporate media white noise, while surviving a deluge of character attacks and faux-scandals intent on derailing their mission.
It's not merely that you have some rando saying shit. It's that you can hear that person, you can be represented by that person, and you can organize around that person to elect other politicians with a similar set of values and beliefs.
kent_eh@lemmy.ca · 12 pts · 7d
Careful with that term these days.
The rightwingnuts tend to call their anti-progressiveness talking points "common sense".
Blackmist@feddit.uk · 3 pts · 7d
And by common sense, we mean actual things that might improve the lives of the majority, rather than the racist, sexist twaddle that might come out of a drunk trailer dweller, only spoken by a rich white (or in this case, mostly orange) man in a tie.
Eyekaytee@aussie.zone · 35 pts · 8d
Did you know South Australia was the first place in the world to grant women both the right to vote AND the right to stand for parliament — and it happened partly by accident.
In 1894, the SA parliament was debating a women's suffrage bill. The bill originally included a clause explicitly preventing women from sitting in parliament. Enter Ebenezer Ward, an MP who was opposed to women's suffrage. He cleverly moved to strike out that exclusion clause, thinking it was so absurd that women could be MPs that the whole bill would be voted down in disgust.
His plan backfired spectacularly — the amendment was accepted, the bill passed, and South Australian women became the first in the world with full political rights (voting and standing for office). This was 1894, predating Finland (1906) and even New Zealand's right to stand (1919).
captainlezbian@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 6d
This timeline is really interesting.
ETA: it led me down a rabbit hole upon seeing a woman ran for president in my country (usa) before we had nationwide women's suffrage, where she also ran on free love, had been involved in the first international before being kicked out, published the first English translation of the communist manifesto, was close with Cornelius Vanderbilt because of her skills as a medium and later stockbroker, and was directly responsible for some of the most draconian obscenity laws our country ever enacted…
Reality@feddit.org · 2 pts · 7d
Doesn't Iceland have some form of parliament that includes everyone for a thousand years?
Eyekaytee@aussie.zone · 8 pts · 7d
Who could participate in the original Althing:
Chieftains (goðar) held the real power—they controlled the agenda and made laws
Free men, particularly land-owning farmers and their dependents, could attend, speak, and vote on legal matters
Women could be present as observers but had no voting rights
Miaou@jlai.lu · -1 pts · 7d
Also happened before that year in France, that first in the world claim is bs
Eyekaytee@aussie.zone · 4 pts · 7d
...
https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/women-s-studies-and-feminism/france-grants-suffrage-women
Archer@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 7d
It’s kinda alarming that very few people read bills
TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 7d
you're going to read every line of a 2000 page legal document?
no, you have some interns basically skim it and highly the stuff that makes you look good or is the pork for your district, and as long as that's in there, then vote yes for it.
bills in the last two decades are overwhelmingly omnibus bills, as in one giant long document with tons of changes to the law and funding.
we don't pass simple single-issue bills since like the 1970s
bufalo1973@piefed.social · 1 pts · 6d
Maybe that should change by law.
Skyrmir@lemmy.world · 25 pts · 8d
She defeated the Chairman of the Democratic Conference by taking his seat in an upset victory. She did it by bringing out the populist left, which absolutely terrified establishment Dems, who would rather let the country burn than move an inch to the left.
username123@sh.itjust.works · 4 pts · 8d
Accurate enough.
craftrabbit@lemmy.zip · 22 pts · 7d
For those here who remember AOC being a monitor company and not some politician, OP is talking about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who is one of the representatives of the state of New York in the House of the Congress of the USA.
zod000@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 9 pts · 7d
This was a huge cause of confusion years ago when the media started using "AOC" to refer to her. I was like, damn, their monitors used to be cheap crap, why are they so popular now?
Folstar@lemmus.org · 12 pts · 7d
It was nothing compared to the horrors of MTG
LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 7d
I hear magic the gathering is addictive, never gotten around to playing it
Bazoogle@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 6d
MTG played the wrong cards (or right cards, really) and won't be nearly as relevant in the news
zod000@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 2 pts · 7d
Good point
craftrabbit@lemmy.zip · 3 pts · 7d
I can definitely see that.
It's really annoying to me when people make posts in a general community without giving any kind of context (to non-US-Americans in this case) and this one had me tripping over mental monitors for a hot second.
bitjunkie@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 7d
Typing how useless this comment is on one of several AOC monitors I use daily
XeroxCool@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 7d
Typing how useless this comment is for the other 94% of the planet
Fiery@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 2 pts · 6d
The Advent Of Code shares the same abbreviation
minorkeys@sh.itjust.works · 21 pts · 8d
Because shes a populist who seems to fight for the things she preaches so people have built their hopes around her.
systemglitch@lemmy.world · 17 pts · 8d
As an outsider looking in, yeah, you Americans have lost the fucking script. Spineless, cowed and submissive. Perfect slaves for your future overlords of child rapists and war mongers.
MummifiedClient5000@feddit.dk · 15 pts · 8d
Perfect slaves for your
futureoverlords of child rapists and war mongers.Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 7d
I hate that your edit is accurate.
bloogoose@lemmy.zip · 3 pts · 8d
Lol you better not be Canadian...
corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca · 1 pts · 8d
I think he is. Sorry.
ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net · 17 pts · 7d
I think it's at least partially because everyone else sucks so bad. She's not a great speaker but she gets a lot of coverage from left-wing influencers because there's no one else to promote. She also positions herself just far enough on the left to get their support but she's also close enough to the center to still get coverage in the mainstream media. So she's the face of progressive movent and gets attacked by Fox a lot. So she's everywhere even though she's kind of bland in my opinion (compared with European left at least).
nullspace@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 7d
A point about this is it's a specific long-term strategy used by conservative media that worked on Hillary. It doesn't matter what AOC says or does, they'll give her negative coverage. They'll spend years doing this so when she finally does make a run for president their viewers will already have AOC=BAD baked in.
UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 7d
Hillary shot herself in the foot by holding repellent policies and abhorrent views even within her own party. She was pro-war well into the 2010s. She was Tough On Crime in the middle of BLM protest waves. She was chintzy and hyper-bureaucratic on public health care and education while she freely opened her wallet to mass surveillance and corporate bailouts. She demonstrated naked hostility to the LGBTQ community time and time again. She flaunted her wealth, constantly lied about her own historical record, surrounded herself with sycophants and scammers, and was the worst kind of sore loser.
That's why Obama kicked the knees out from under her in 2008. And that's why Donald Trump could casually outflank her on the left in 2016, by mouthing a few anti-war slogans, bullshitting about popular economic reforms, and hugging the Pride Flag. Hillary made the same stupid mistakes as Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004 and Harris in 2024. She desperately pandered to the Republican Establishment while expecting everyone to the left of John McCain to reflexively bend the knee.
I'm glad Hillary lost. I'm just sad she had to lose in the general, rather than scrubbing out in the primary a second time.
kent_eh@lemmy.ca · 5 pts · 7d
Compared to European politics, the USA doesn't really have any "left".
Most Democrats would be considered center-right in a lot of other countries.
ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net · 4 pts · 7d
Exactly. I would say Mamdani is "European kind of left" and he's also really good at delivering his message. I totally get why he's so popular. OAC is only OK but she really doesn't have a lot of competition in Congress.
captainlezbian@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 6d
The thing that's been striking me about Mamdani is that he's reminding me of FDR, in that he's so frequently talking to his constituents. The only other American politician I can think of that does that so much is trump. And the difference is Mamdani and Roosevelt maintain professionalism and focus on how they're helping and acknowledging shared experience. Trump by contrast is totally unprofessional and has an incoherent message generally revolving around him being the best and people who dislike him being the worst.
I really think that Mamdani's communication game is a vital lesson to learn for the dems. The policies are also important, you actually do have to help people. But you need to take credit, you need to keep them in the loop, and you need to give frequent updates.
ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net · 2 pts · 6d
The problem is dems don't want to learn anything. They just want to play the role of controlled opposition, not actually do anything. If they win they will have to come up with excuses why they can't do anything. A long as they are losing they just have to keep promising that they will fix things and keep asking for donations. Mamdani makes it all more difficult for them.
Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 7d
Hard-right even.
Were I live, Portugal, the policies of the Democrat Party are closest to those of a local party called Iniciativa Liberal (Liberal Initiative) who are considered Far-Right ultra Neoliberal (and were started by people with A LOT of money rather than being a naturally growing movement).
In most of Europe the mainstream parties (whether they used to be center-left or center-right) nowadays are Neoliberal, but the version of that ideology of the US Democract Party is harder than even the old center-right mainstream in Europe (which is how even an EU under a majority of the EPP - which are the EU level group of such parties - is still a lot more pro-consumer than the Democrats, though things have been getting worse).
UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 7d
She's fine. There are definitely better orators. But she stays on message, advances popular policies, and is generally well-received by her constituents. There are plenty of other aspiring AOCs that don't perform half as well. And you won't be able to name them because they don't win elected office - much less survive multiple hostile intra-party primary bids and smear campaigns - or fundraise effectively or get promoted via social media so aggressively.
There are definitely other people to promote. We just watched Graham Platner's star rise largely on his personal charisma and ability to build a crowd. We've seen Al Franken and Anthony Weiner and John Edwards all come and go along similar trajectories. AOC might demonstrate better staying power simply because she's not a giant sex pest.
Compared to Corbyn or Mélenchon or Reichinnek? I'd say she's par for the course.
ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net · 2 pts · 7d
Absolutely. She's a capable politician and party member. I just don't think she deserved to get the kind of attention she's getting. For example many people talk about presidency and I think she's not even close to this level. There's simply no one else out there.
UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 7d
A lot of it boils down to her fundraising numbers. Among all the members of The Squad, she outperforms to the point that the rest of the party needs to periodically come to her with hands out for a cup of money. That extends her influence within party leadership and allows her to effectively lobby for legislative amendments and rally support in her caucus to vote against certain other bills.
I think she's better positioned to work on her bid in 2026 than Obama was twenty years earlier.
Of course, I also think she'd function better as a candidate for NY Governor. Building a hard base of DSA-aligned Democrats inside New York and advancing progressive policy at the state level sounds much more appealing than taking a stab at the White House, only to get the entire country's problems dumped in your lap.
There's Pritzker in Illinois and Andy Beshear in Kentucky. Chris Murphy of Connecticut and Mark Kelly of Arizona are also strong contenders. But, again, anyone taking the Presidency in 2028 is going to inherit an absolute shitshow. I wouldn't want the job and I think you kinda have to be crazy if you do. I also don't think AOC would do well under the degree of pressure the office will apply. You really need someone coming in there with a crowbar and an eye for kneecaps. That's not her style of politics.
I could almost stomach four years of Gavin Newsom if I believed he'd spend his time running down Trump Admin hacks and bankrupting them. Where's Elliot Spitzer when you need him? But I know Newsom would sell out twice as hard as Trump just to prove he's better at it, so that's a no-go.
I don't think there are any good candidates for President in 2028, AOC included. But that's more thanks to the deep endemic corruption of the office and the spinelessness of the Dem Party as a whole. If the only thing you care about is winning a popularity contest, though? AOC's a top contender.
ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net · 3 pts · 7d
I don't even think she would do well under the pressure of the presidential campaign.
100% agree. Ideally they would the couple of strong contenders for presidency and bunch of AOCs advancing things at a local level. The fact that people propose AOC for presidents shows how bad the state of the party is.
UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 7d
It definitely shows how bad the state of the national news media is. We're watching The Trump Show 24/7/365. I doubt one American in twenty could even name a Dem contender for President who hasn't run already. One reason why Kamala Harris remains a front-runner on paper. Hell, you'll see people talk about Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, and Barack Obama running again, purely because these are the only people whose names register.
But come primary season, that will change as contenders put more money and social pressure on boosting their own name recognition. This time next year, you'll have a dozen different Dem contenders doing their warm-up laps around the field. If AOC isn't running, I doubt she'll be seriously missed.
Bluescluestoothpaste@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 6d
Why? She's survived several republican smear campaigns that tried to make her the face of the party so they could beat the whole party, and she's still going strong.
There's nothing about AOC that makes me question her ability to handle pressure, especially in the face of sustained political smear campaigns.
ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net · 3 pts · 6d
It's just my opinion but I think she's not a very good speaker and she's not good at confronting people. In the hearings I've seen she's usually very soft, can't drive her message through and is unconvincing. Her nice, soft persona works great at local level where what she actually stands for matters more than theatrics but I don't think that would be effective in a presidential debate.
Bluescluestoothpaste@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 6d
Are you aware the current president is a child raping slob of an anti-intellectual?? Like nobody's saying AOC is the new FDR but yeah she's infinitely better than the current president.
Snapz@lemmy.world · 16 pts · 7d
Look up the "overton window"
rumba@lemmy.zip · 15 pts · 6d
AOC is not the only one who speaks common sense and calls out absurdity; she's one of the very short list that does it, no matter who's watching. She appears not to be owned by AIPAC and other ventures. It's also why they'll keep her out at all costs.
BeUnique@lemmy.zip · 13 pts · 6d
To answer your final question. Yes. American politics has gone so far off the rails that AOC speaking common sense is something that is no longer normal.
For example: "We should feed children too poor to buy school lunches!"
"Nooooo that's SoCiAlIsM!"
Meanwhile bailing out a bank because their friend's stock gamble didn't pay off is just the American way
American politics: Socialism for the elite, capitalism for everyone else.
This is the BASIC bullshit that AOC and people like her call out and she's labeled an extremist for it.
I hate it here.
chunes@lemmy.world · 13 pts · 6d
She's a big deal because fox news made her one. She's the new target after Hillary stepped out of politics.
SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca · 9 pts · 6d
Young, female, Latina, everything MAGA hates.
Ninjasftw@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 6d
Don't forget smart and assertive
Thebeardedsinglemalt@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 6d
Don't forget she was a bartender in college, which they hate.
Meanwhile boebert was very literally an escort, which is how she got into politics. Yet nobody cares
LovableSidekick@lemmy.world · -1 pts · 6d
Chalking it up to racism etc. doesn't give her the credit she deserves - typical superficial social media thinking.
natecox@programming.dev · 7 pts · 6d
If you think that avenge MAGA thinking rises above this then you haven't been paying attention.
LovableSidekick@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 6d
If you only define AOC in MAGA's terms then neither have you. How MAGA leaders think vs how they convince their flock to think are distinctly different.
VitoRobles@lemmy.today · 2 pts · 6d
Pretty much. She's currently in their crossfires.
Which honestly, is good. AoC is tough. Shes been doing this for a few years now, picking up the torch that Bernie Sanders lit three decades ago.
And behind her are hundreds of politicians who are empowered by people like her to rise up. AoC (and Bernie) walked so these new folks can run.
IWW4@lemmy.zip · 12 pts · 7d
There is a really excellent documentary called Knock Down the House. It followed four progressive women launching grassroots campaigns against powerful political figures.
If memory serves AOC is the only one of the four who won her race.
You see MAGA love to hate women. That is one of the reasons why they hate Nancy Pelosi so much.
It is the Howard Stern effect, where people who liked his show listened to about half of it, people who really had no opinion on Stern didn’t listen to any of his show. People who hated Howard Stern listened to every minute of his show. AOC is the same way.
MAGA’s hatred has made her a household name and it is awesome, because I love her. She is just excellent. She is what MAGAs wish Donald Trump was.
ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 7d
I first heard about her from my trump-loving cousin (who is virulently anti-immigrant while being the half-Thai son of an immigrant). He didn't even know her actual name, just "AOC", and was ranting about her wanting to ban airplanes or something.
IWW4@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 6d
It is incredible isn’t it?
mechoman444@lemmy.world · 11 pts · 7d
Have you been watching any political discourse? Literally no one off the Epstein list has been arrested.
Obituarykidney@lemmy.world · 11 pts · 8d
I'm my experience (as an Australian on the outside) she's one of the few that preaches policies that benefit people right wing parties are blatantly for billionaires (if not just straight up the party of a billionaire in Australia's case) and the traditional/major "left wing" parties are more interested in maintaining the status quo with half measures and compromises. But a lot of actual lefty parties never get anything done because they let perfect get in the way of good.
From what I've seen her policies are things that would benefit most people, and are reasonable. That's rare these days.
spacegoat@lemmy.world · 11 pts · 6d
Republicans are in an echo chamber and fixated on like 3 incorrect things she's said
They're terrible, stupid people
Postmortal_Pop@lemmy.world · 11 pts · 7d
How many other politicians are doing that? When a mechanic doesn't try to scam you, you tell very person that will listen.
darthelmet@lemmy.world · 11 pts · 7d
"In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king."
But being serious: AOC and politicians like her ARE us "doing it for ourselves." For a very long time, the vast majority of politicians elected in the US have gotten there by getting the backing of wealthy capitalists. They don't say "common sense things" because those things aren't good for the people who helped them get elected. If they did say those things, those capitalists would not only stop funding them, but fund their opposition more. The result is a government comprised of politicians who very rationally don't represent us. (That's not to say some of them aren't crazy on their own, but them being there is a rational outcome of self-interested actors.)
In order to get a politician who does and says things that are good for people, you need an absolutely massive grass roots effort to win an election against the might of rich donors. AOC was one of the notable times when we managed to do that. But this shows the limitations of that strategy within our current electoral system. For every AOC, Illhan Omar, or Mamdani, there are literally hundreds of more races which are still dominated by big money. It took not only a massive on the ground organizing effort locally, but also a lot of support from engaged people across the nation. And it's way more costly for the average person to contribute to a campaign than it is for a billionaire. So even if a lot of us want this, it's going to be really difficult to get a critical mass of wins to actually make an impact.
So that's why they're a big deal. They might be basic social democrats in some less corrupt countries, but here they are the few who are unbought. What they say is less relevant than the fact that they are able to say it at all.
sobchak@programming.dev · 9 pts · 7d
Most politicians at that level (maybe all levels) appear to be bought and paid for, are not genuine, and just say whatever the polls and their campaign managers tell them. She seems to be more genuine, competent, charismatic, and a threat to the status quo.
CultLeader4Hire@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 7d
There’s no such thing as common sense.
__Lost__@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 8 pts · 6d
It's a very low bar, and yet she is one of the few politicians who can clear it.
vegafjord@slrpnk.net · 8 pts · 7d
It might not look like much, but the really impressive part about their journey is how they avoid being dragged into a political sport between the liberal/conservative/MAGA cesspool, and instead drag our attention towards the meaningful.
Its a dreamers game, and those who captures the imagination of the people are the winners.
At the same time, Washington politics is a money game, and Sanders wing have been able to keep up with them only with money from small donors.
Well at least thats my takaway from following us politics between 2015 to 2021.
rossman@lemmy.zip · 6 pts · 7d
She makes insecure people panic without screaming or playing into games.
Imo good leadership traits and reminds me a lot about Obama. She handles pressure smoothly, one can say even more pressure than Obama.
LovableSidekick@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 6d
The US Congress certainly has gone that far.
whereitsat@lemmy.zip · 6 pts · 7d
yes. anyone who's 35+ years of age should notice this.
while shitty things used to happen or fly under the radar, mass media used to act as cultural checks and balances to keep the insanity at arms length. but it's all been monopolized--it's all controlled by the crazy people. you have independent journalism but few americans read it, and most online magazines are read by out-of-touch, overeducated yuppies and aren't nearly as biting as they used to be or should be.
but this bullshit should be obvious to anyone because the rest of culture needs to adjust to the insanity, to normalize it. how hard is it to differentiate between parody/satire and reality these days?
it's impossible IMO. when i watch most newer films i assume they're parody because they're so fucking stupid.
khepri@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 7d
We absolutely do, it's just that none of us ever seem to get elected to the US Congress, so when someone does, yeah, it is kind of a big deal.
Kazel@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 4 pts · 8d
yes
DoucheBagMcSwag@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 4 pts · 6d
betanumerus@lemmy.ca · 4 pts · 7d
Disinformation is so widespread, largely because of O&G marketing firms, that speaking common sense has become a big deal.
deft@lemmy.wtf · 4 pts · 6d
People will post questions like this and ignore how many politicians are straight up corrupt from any country you can think of
melsaskca@lemmy.ca · 3 pts · 7d
It's america. It's because she is easy on the eyes. Don't overthink it.
HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 7d
People want to hear politicians repeat what they think
tigermountain@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 6d
The right is so incompetent, destructive, and dangerous that anything on the other side seems reasonable. But the democrats need to remember that part of the DSA (which AOC is a member of) playbook is open borders and public control of large corporations. The majority of Americans are absolutely not going to go for that. Maybe the democrats will take back the House and/or the Senate in the midterms as a response to the shit show happening now, but they have to come up with something else if they plan on having a Democrat as president in 2028. The democrats are as equally incompetent as the republicans so I don't have much hope.
anomnom@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 6d
Most of the other Congresspersons are too beholden to the donor class to speak up for the rest of us.
Hueristic_Autistic@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 6d
If you do it yourself that's called thinking for yourself and having an opinion and you know how that goes these days 🙄
Binturong@lemmy.ca · 2 pts · 7d
Must be a blissful experience not observing any official political discourse at all. It's all disingenuous rhetoricizing because the 'conservative' right only has a policy of extraction and enriching the insanely affluent, and they know that's not popular, so they simply force the conversation away from practical topics of governing, often with distractions and moarlizing non-issues. The liberal 'left' are happy to descend to that arena because they're also funded by the same insanely rich, and their alleged beliefs and goals conflict with those interests. So it is currently unusual when a politician sidesteps that whole dynamic and just addresses the actual issues living perople everywhere on the political spectrum can identify with in their lived experience. AOC is a pretty good example of someone who is consistently trying to drag the conversation into the practical realm, which the establishment hates because it draws attention to the fact that they have nothing to offer of value to better the lives of the majority of their constituents, and no intention to do so, in fact.
So yes, as crazy as it is, we are just so far off the rails that simple and practical reform and adressing obvious problems seems outlandish and impossible, but that's not an accident; It's what the donor class has paid both sides for. It is a good sign that more political actors are wading into that conversation, and an indicator of the eventual expiry date on corrupting the body politics with bribes.
TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 7d
we went off the rails in the 1980s dude. Carter and Nixon were the last presidents that remote had any grounding in reality, and they were both loathed by the public for it. 1970s were a shitshow and instead of fixing shit we decided to just start mortgaging the country for the next 50 years.
we have been riding them every since, no feet on the ground.
We have had like a handful of pols who wanted to like fix shit in this country, but they are not widely popular and the establishment totally hates them, so they are portrayed as radicals.
reddit_sux@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 6d
There is a saying in my country, one eyed man is the king amongst the blind.
Mrkawfee@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 5d
Does she take AIPAC money?
Sam_Bass@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 6d
we really have
GeneralEmergency@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 6d
samus12345@sh.itjust.works · 7 pts · 6d
No, the problem is that the dumb fucks have hugely outsized representation in elections due to a corrupt, broken system.
creamfresh@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 7d
who’s that?
schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de · 6 pts · 7d
A US Representative from New York: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandria_Ocasio-Cortez
I agree that this should have been spelled out because the abbreviation AOC can stand for other things too and web search engines don't necessarily think of this representative as the primary meaning.
SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 8d
I do, I just don't hold office.
Kurtismayfield@lemmy.zip · 0 pts · 6d
This country will never, ever vote a woman in as President. The "What I see as a leader" (sexism) runs too deep.
mossberg590@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 6d
They said the same thing about a black man being president. We are obviously not ready yet but we will get there.
SippyCup@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 6d
Quite frankly, Democrats just aren't going to rally behind a candidate the way Republicans do. Republicans can promise much less and still expect a decent turnout.
The first female president will be a Republican, a nightmarish ghoul, and the source of a significant amount of right wing deflection. Everything liberal women are saying now, justifiably, will be twisted in to an evil, disingenuous retort. And that will only be a distraction from the nightmare president this woman is going to be.
The first female president will have no way to climb the ladder without being horrifyingly competent. Savvy enough to know when to look like an idiot without ever being one. Manipulative enough to not only work a crowd but work a room of powerful people.
Men can get by knowing the right people and being charming. Women have to know the right people, be charming, and absolutely crush any opposition to their ascent.
schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 6d
I think they did a study in Australia about this. People who voted for a minority candidate were less likely to vote for one in the future because voting for that minority candidate was there "get out of jail free" card for any future racist voting patterns.
Obama was a once-in-a-lifetime candidate and also almost engineered in a lab to make white people comfortable.
Likely the first woman president we have will be conservative --someone who woman might vote for because she is a woman, but also someone who men might vote for because she advocates patriarchy... example: Margaret Thatcher. Though, to be honest, the current crop of Christian Nationalist wouldn't allow it, I don't think..
Digit@lemmy.wtf · 0 pts · 6d
Time to stop falling for tokens and politicians. They lie. Stop falling for it. No strongman (or woman) to save us. Every little bit of do-ocracy helps ease and inspire more do-ocracy clawed back from the purple party and its two punch tactic to keep us down.
Melvin_Ferd@lemmy.world · -1 pts · 7d
Because a lot of you are cowards and hid away instead of helping to shape public opinion. When these leaders like AOC and others do not have people creating content on popular platforms then it leaves a runway for the opposition to create any narrative they want. It's a numbers game at this point. The opposition convinced supporters to run away and hide and they did willingly.
SalamiDommie@lemmus.org · -1 pts · 7d
JD Vance is the male Republican AOC
Abyssian@lemmy.world · -2 pts · 6d
I guess OP asked a stupid question.
Anyway, she's also kind of an ass about things and she's attractive so most people want to do sex with her.
I'm not saying she's an ass in a bad way. She's a mocking dick to asshole morons, and that's beautiful.
Shindo66@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 6d
I never really thought about it, but yes, I probably have sex with her over any woman in the world.
TheStaffmaster@lemmy.world · -2 pts · 6d
If you go to a bar and drink to much the bar tender is likely to cut you off, because you are clearly an alcoholic. If you go to a casino, count cards and constantly win, the Casino will kick you out then ban you from ever coming back. If you use exploits in a MMOG, you'll get banned. (then hopefully the deves patch the exploit)
Notice a pattern?...
Greed is a drug. The stock market is gambling. And Inflation is caused by an infinite money glitch only the uber rich can use. I think I know EXACTLY what needs to be done and you do too, even if you don't like it.
orbituary@lemmy.dbzer0.com · -16 pts · 8d
Lately she's not been impressing me. When she first came on the scene, I was highly in favor of her. She's slowly been worn down by Mama Bear Pelosi and that ilk.
It took her forever to find the right language for the genocide in Israel. She's been slow or absent to speak up about what matters.
DagwoodIII@piefed.social · 24 pts · 8d
Nobody knew the threat of Hitler better than FDR. He wanted to start arming Britain and France the day the Nazis went into Poland, if not sooner. He had to wait for the right time.
Another example. Frederick Douglas was an escaped slave. He had suffered the horrors not just observed them. When the 1860 election came around, Douglas stepped away form the candidate who wanted instant Abolition and backed Abe Lincoln, who said he would keep slavery if it meant saving the Union.
Douglas decided it was smarter to back the winner and have the ear of a sitting President than it was to back someone he might have agreed with much more.
Politics is a game, learn the rules
SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 8d
Teach me.
DagwoodIII@piefed.social · 2 pts · 7d
Frederick Douglas was an escaped slave. He had suffered the horrors not just observed them. When the 1860 election came around, Douglas stepped away form the candidate who wanted instant Abolition and backed Abe Lincoln, who said he would keep slavery if it meant saving the Union.
Another good lesson is Obamacare. Even with majorities in both Houses, Obama barely managed to get the ACA passed. He thought that because he'd based his bill on Mitt Romney's plan the GOP would embrace it. Instead they attacked full force. How Obama got it done is a master class in politics.
SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 7d
Black men are magic, got it.
DagwoodIII@piefed.social · 1 pts · 7d
I am sure if you try you can find a White politician somewhere in america.
And apologize deeply for scaring you by foring you to read about Black people outside of February.
SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 7d
🙄
orbituary@lemmy.dbzer0.com · -2 pts · 8d
Mamdani has set the standard. Read the room.
theparadox@lemmy.world · 11 pts · 8d
Mamdani literally, strategically avoided a fight with Hakeem Jefferies (as well as the NYPD) because it's not the time.
orbituary@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 2 pts · 8d
When is? After Trump fabricates an emergency and subverts elections with some rebranding of martial law?
username123@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 8d
No, no. When the country is even more in shambles, that’s when we’ll have the right where we want them. In this day and age of nearly instant information and social isolation you really gotta look to a time when newspapers, word-of-mouth, and rumors were the glue to a social hierarchy that was barely trying to remove slavery from its scaffolding. That’s what you really need to imitate, the past where brown people paid the heaviest price for not rocking the boat too much. Remember: Think of how much it upset the 1800s popular white vote, pay no attention to the popularity of progressivism, and don’t. rock. the boat.
::: spoiler Spoiler /s :::
theparadox@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 7d
I wholeheartedly agree that "It's not politically wise" is often a bullshit excuse.
However, when you are an openly socialist mayor in the process of overhauling numerous aspects of city laws and regulations, opening a war on additional fronts is risky. The US public is tired of more of the same, but that doesn't mean we live in a post-Red-Scare society.
From what I understand, he's focused on improving conditions in NYC to demonstrate that the policies and theory are effective and accumulate some public wins. If he doesn't play nice in the meantime, national Democratic leaders might find ways to prevent him from getting many victories in NYC.
Similarly, going to war with the NYPD would likely lead to them purposely doing a shit job to make him and his policies look bad. Police unions have done it multiple times. Again, he's looking accumulate good will first so that the public will stay on his side when the NYPD pulls that bullshit.
Normally, I'm in favor of organized labor... but using that power to protect corruption, racism, and the capital class basically makes them class traitors so get no sympathy from me.
DagwoodIII@piefed.social · 2 pts · 7d
I live in New York and voted for him.
Mamdani barely squeaked in. He got 51% of the vote running against a known molester and a radio host in a funny hat. Harris got 65% of the NYC vote and Biden got 80%.
Don't confuse one battle with winning the war.
orbituary@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 2 pts · 7d
And don't confuse barely winning with what I intend: he's running his government in a way that they should be trying to emulate and copy.
Thwompthwomp@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 8d
A while ago jacobin had some stats showing how often she would mention Medicare for all, and it decreases by a lot as time went on
GoatSynagogue@lemmy.world · -28 pts · 6d
Common sense? She’s as intelligent as your average bartender, which is what she was when she was picked by the DNC to be pushed up the flagpole.
She’s as dumb as a doornail. She routinely makes a fool of herself when she’s asking people questions, showing she doesn’t have the faintest clue what she’s talking about.
Rcklsabndn@sh.itjust.works · 7 pts · 6d
Yeah, people that had to work during/after university are inherently idiots, and everyone knows that bartenders are morons that should never aspire to anything greater than cracking beers and making cocktails for actual smart people. /S
captainlezbian@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 6d
She obviously doesn't know anything about governing. A degree in international relations and economics is totally useless to governing. And why would she have bothered with an internship with Senator Ted Kennedy when she was going into the House of Representatives‽ Total idiot
GoatSynagogue@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 6d
If you think everyone that has degrees is intelligent you clearly haven’t spent much time with many people who have degrees.
Not to mention that degrees in international relations and economics are fluff degrees. May as well be an arts degree.
I bet the Republican politicians you think are idiots have degrees.
captainlezbian@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 5d
Fair enough, though her degree does counter the "just a bartender" narrative
GoatSynagogue@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 5d
Many bartenders have degrees, usually useless ones like AOCs.
NotEasyBeingGreen@slrpnk.net · 4 pts · 6d
Didn't she defeat the Democratic incumbent to get on the ballot for her seat? Oh that's right, she defeated the Democratic caucus chair, so hardly "picked by the DNC".
edgesmash@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 6d
Asking questions when you don't know a thing (AOC) is smarter than pretending you know the thing (the vast majority of old congresspeople, especially in the GOP).
GoatSynagogue@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 6d
She’s not asking questions to learn though, she’s asking questions to try and catch people doing the wrong thing in these senate hearing sessions or whatever they’re called. She then frequently gets made to look like an idiot because she’s trying to ask “gotcha” questions without realising that her questions make no sense and/or are based on her incorrect understanding.
Bluescluestoothpaste@sh.itjust.works · 4 pts · 6d
You're just wrong, she's quite intelligent and if you can't see that you have something else going on.
GoatSynagogue@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 6d
https://snugfam.com/top-25-aoc-dumbest-quotes-that-went-viral-and-sparked-endless-debates/
This was literally the first result for “AOC dumb quotes”. There are hundreds of other results.
She has repeatedly shown she is not an intelligent person. Most politicians aren’t. She was chosen by a Democrat PAC as a candidate to be pushed, she wasn’t an up and coming politician who got there on the back of her hard work and intelligence.
Bluescluestoothpaste@sh.itjust.works · 0 pts · 6d
Well i fully agree with her on like 22 of those and about 3 are forgiveable slips, but i guess if im a liberal it's because I'm stupid
GoatSynagogue@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 5d
If you fully agree with her on any of those then yeh it probably is.
Bluescluestoothpaste@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 5d
Damn wish i was smarter so i could support conservatives instead
TheDingNoiseInToolSongs@eviltoast.org · 1 pts · 6d
Are people like the commentator bots or just really dense?
Noel_Skum@sh.itjust.works · -1 pts · 6d
“… average bartender…” ?
I’m massively intrigued that you believe this construct exists. Where do you socialise; and are outsiders welcome? I’d like to meet a default bar tender, just to see what they’re like.
GoatSynagogue@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 5d
Where is your average bartender a dumb useless-degree-having woman who thinks she’s super intelligent? Try any bar around a university in any city.
Noel_Skum@sh.itjust.works · 0 pts · 5d
Wahmen, hey? Shrug emoji. Eye roll emoji.
natecox@programming.dev · 0 pts · 6d
Bartending is, like, really hard. Average bartender must be on the upper end of the bell.
Noel_Skum@sh.itjust.works · 0 pts · 6d
Making drinks is fairly easy, dealing with customers is the difficult bit…
I assume you live somewhere where all further/university education, accommodation and sustenance is provided freely by the state. Lucky you.
Most of the places I’ve lived you have to pay real actual money to further your formal education and if mommy and daddy can’t financially help their brave little soldier than that brave little soldier would need to get a job. Maybe something in the evening; or the weekend. So it don’t interfere with class time…
natecox@programming.dev · 1 pts · 6d
I genuinely don't know what point you're trying to rebut here.
Noel_Skum@sh.itjust.works · 0 pts · 5d
That’s ok.