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
These little town bluuues
Ain’t melting awaaay
I’m gonna be as bored as shit
In Topeeekaaa!Who knows who Joseph Crowley was?
The Shadow knows…
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!
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
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.
speaks common sense and calls out absurdity
Yes, the bar is that low.
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
deleted by creator
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” hypertoxic-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.
yes
Any politician that actually speaks common sense is a big deal.
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.
common sense
Careful with that term these days.
The rightwingnuts tend to call their anti-progressiveness talking points “common sense”.
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).
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…
It’s kinda alarming that very few people read bills
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
Maybe that should change by law.
Doesn’t Iceland have some form of parliament that includes everyone for a thousand years?
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
-
Also happened before that year in France, that first in the world claim is bs
Also happened before that year in France, that first in the world claim is bs
…
The granting of suffrage to women in France, finalized in 1944
https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/women-s-studies-and-feminism/france-grants-suffrage-women
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.
Accurate enough.
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 was nothing compared to the horrors of MTG
I hear magic the gathering is addictive, never gotten around to playing it
MTG played the wrong cards (or right cards, really) and won’t be nearly as relevant in the news
Good point
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.
Typing how useless this comment is on one of several AOC monitors I use daily
Typing how useless this comment is for the other 94% of the planet
The Advent Of Code shares the same abbreviation
Because shes a populist who seems to fight for the things she preaches so people have built their hopes around her.
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.
Perfect slaves for your
futureoverlords of child rapists and war mongers.I hate that your edit is accurate.
Lol you better not be Canadian…
I think he is. Sorry.
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).
gets attacked by Fox a lot
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.
that worked on Hillary
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.
she’s kind of bland in my opinion (compared with European left at least).
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.
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.
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).
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.
She’s fine.
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.
Look up the “overton window”
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.
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.
MAGA’s hatred has made her a household name
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.
It is incredible isn’t it?
