zakuivcustom wrote:

NYS Dem is indeed a mess. Hopefully this serves as a wake up call after they takes things for granted for too long.

But this is also the same state where AOC came from - and she is definitely behind some of the NYS infighting. Normally in congress, sure, Pelosi basically shuts her up. But within her state? Not so much...

NYS Dems started their downward spiral shortly after AOC first got elected. She's been interjecting herself into the Party's decision-making apparatus. She inspired a slew of like-minded politicians to rise and stage a hostile takeover of the party, regardless of whether it's detrimental. She led the movement against Cuomo and helped orchestrate his ouster. All charges against him were dropped, by the way.

https://www.news10.com/news/cuomo-under ... e-dropped/

And the results speak for themselves. Each election since her rise, Dems have lost voter share. It's only going to get worse to more she pushes. Her state allies are leading the charge now and they're completely rudderless and dysfunctional. Heck, even her own electoral results have been lackluster, receiving half the votes compared to 2020. She lost this election to a MAGA candidate with white supremacist sympathies. If the NYS GOP develops half a brain and puts in someone half competent to stand against her, she's in trouble.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Unit ... istrict_14

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Unit ... istrict_14

leader1 wrote:

zakuivcustom wrote:

NYS Dem is indeed a mess. Hopefully this serves as a wake up call after they takes things for granted for too long.

But this is also the same state where AOC came from - and she is definitely behind some of the NYS infighting. Normally in congress, sure, Pelosi basically shuts her up. But within her state? Not so much...

NYS Dems started their downward spiral shortly after AOC first got elected. She's been interjecting herself into the Party's decision-making apparatus. She inspired a slew of like-minded politicians to rise and stage a hostile takeover of the party, regardless of whether it's detrimental. She led the movement against Cuomo and helped orchestrate his ouster. All charges against him were dropped, by the way.

https://www.news10.com/news/cuomo-under ... e-dropped/

And the results speak for themselves. Each election since her rise, Dems have lost voter share. It's only going to get worse to more she pushes. Her state allies are leading the charge now and they're completely rudderless and dysfunctional. Heck, even her own electoral results have been lackluster, receiving half the votes compared to 2020. She lost this election to a MAGA candidate with white supremacist sympathies. If the NYS GOP develops half a brain and puts in someone half competent to stand against her, she's in trouble.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Unit ... istrict_14

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Unit ... istrict_14

Why would AOC be in trouble. She represents her district well. She won with 70+ % of the vote.
The issue is that the other districts had folks that didn't listen to their voters, or didn't lead well enough to explain trhe issues to the voters during Covid and during the recent crime waves.

Crime may be the biggest issue, but whether the state fixes that or not, it still will leave many of the GOP winners in vulnerable positions in 2024.

casinterest wrote:

leader1 wrote:

zakuivcustom wrote:

NYS Dem is indeed a mess. Hopefully this serves as a wake up call after they takes things for granted for too long.

But this is also the same state where AOC came from - and she is definitely behind some of the NYS infighting. Normally in congress, sure, Pelosi basically shuts her up. But within her state? Not so much...

NYS Dems started their downward spiral shortly after AOC first got elected. She's been interjecting herself into the Party's decision-making apparatus. She inspired a slew of like-minded politicians to rise and stage a hostile takeover of the party, regardless of whether it's detrimental. She led the movement against Cuomo and helped orchestrate his ouster. All charges against him were dropped, by the way.

https://www.news10.com/news/cuomo-under ... e-dropped/

And the results speak for themselves. Each election since her rise, Dems have lost voter share. It's only going to get worse to more she pushes. Her state allies are leading the charge now and they're completely rudderless and dysfunctional. Heck, even her own electoral results have been lackluster, receiving half the votes compared to 2020. She lost this election to a MAGA candidate with white supremacist sympathies. If the NYS GOP develops half a brain and puts in someone half competent to stand against her, she's in trouble.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Unit ... istrict_14

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Unit ... istrict_14

Why would AOC be in trouble. She represents her district well. She won with 70+ % of the vote.
The issue is that the other districts had folks that didn't listen to their voters, or didn't lead well enough to explain trhe issues to the voters during Covid and during the recent crime waves.

Crime may be the biggest issue, but whether the state fixes that or not, it still will leave many of the GOP winners in vulnerable positions in 2024.

Turnout in AOC's district was poor, much lower than previous elections. She won 70+% of the vote against a MAGA nutcase who didn't even live in the district. Should have been close to 90% margin. But again, turnout was key - she didn't motivate voters to come and she barely campaigned. If she had a credible opponent, it would have been much closer.

And what has she done to benefit her district? Not a whole lot. Her district is getting sick of her using the position simply to raise her profile. Hence the low turnout.

And if the state doesn't do anything on crime, those new GOP incumbents will only increase their share. Let's see if NYS Dems heed the warning. I really hope they do, but not all that optimistic.

casinterest wrote:

leader1 wrote:

zakuivcustom wrote:

NYS Dem is indeed a mess. Hopefully this serves as a wake up call after they takes things for granted for too long.

But this is also the same state where AOC came from - and she is definitely behind some of the NYS infighting. Normally in congress, sure, Pelosi basically shuts her up. But within her state? Not so much...

NYS Dems started their downward spiral shortly after AOC first got elected. She's been interjecting herself into the Party's decision-making apparatus. She inspired a slew of like-minded politicians to rise and stage a hostile takeover of the party, regardless of whether it's detrimental. She led the movement against Cuomo and helped orchestrate his ouster. All charges against him were dropped, by the way.

https://www.news10.com/news/cuomo-under ... e-dropped/

And the results speak for themselves. Each election since her rise, Dems have lost voter share. It's only going to get worse to more she pushes. Her state allies are leading the charge now and they're completely rudderless and dysfunctional. Heck, even her own electoral results have been lackluster, receiving half the votes compared to 2020. She lost this election to a MAGA candidate with white supremacist sympathies. If the NYS GOP develops half a brain and puts in someone half competent to stand against her, she's in trouble.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Unit ... istrict_14

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Unit ... istrict_14

Why would AOC be in trouble. She represents her district well. She won with 70+ % of the vote.
The issue is that the other districts had folks that didn't listen to their voters, or didn't lead well enough to explain trhe issues to the voters during Covid and during the recent crime waves.

Crime may be the biggest issue, but whether the state fixes that or not, it still will leave many of the GOP winners in vulnerable positions in 2024.

AOC is actually popular within her district, though...

Look, if somebody like Sheila Jackson Lee keeps getting elected, what makes people think it'll be different with AOC or MTG?

zakuivcustom wrote:

casinterest wrote:

leader1 wrote:

NYS Dems started their downward spiral shortly after AOC first got elected. She's been interjecting herself into the Party's decision-making apparatus. She inspired a slew of like-minded politicians to rise and stage a hostile takeover of the party, regardless of whether it's detrimental. She led the movement against Cuomo and helped orchestrate his ouster. All charges against him were dropped, by the way.

https://www.news10.com/news/cuomo-under ... e-dropped/

And the results speak for themselves. Each election since her rise, Dems have lost voter share. It's only going to get worse to more she pushes. Her state allies are leading the charge now and they're completely rudderless and dysfunctional. Heck, even her own electoral results have been lackluster, receiving half the votes compared to 2020. She lost this election to a MAGA candidate with white supremacist sympathies. If the NYS GOP develops half a brain and puts in someone half competent to stand against her, she's in trouble.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Unit ... istrict_14

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Unit ... istrict_14

Why would AOC be in trouble. She represents her district well. She won with 70+ % of the vote.
The issue is that the other districts had folks that didn't listen to their voters, or didn't lead well enough to explain trhe issues to the voters during Covid and during the recent crime waves.

Crime may be the biggest issue, but whether the state fixes that or not, it still will leave many of the GOP winners in vulnerable positions in 2024.

AOC is actually popular within her district, though...

Look, if somebody like Sheila Jackson Lee keeps getting elected, what makes people think it'll be different with AOC or MTG?

She ran against a MAGA racist, so of course she'd win. Turnout was low, half of the previous election. Not as popular as it seems. Look, her district is very blue. Maybe a GOP candidate might never win. But if someone primaried her, she'd be in trouble.

Just look at Lauren Boebert's election. Really close when it should have been a blowout for her. Voters are getting tired of the grandstanding with no results.

leader1 wrote:

She ran against a MAGA racist, so of course she'd win. Turnout was low, half of the previous election. Not as popular as it seems. Look, her district is very blue. Maybe a GOP candidate might never win. But if someone primaried her, she'd be in trouble.

Just look at Lauren Boebert's election. Really close when it should have been a blowout for her. Voters are getting tired of the grandstanding with no results.

She did beat a very establishment candidate in 2018 in Joe Crowley that surprised the democratic establishment. I don't think the landscape has changed very much to think her seat would be threat from a centrist challenger. If she drops the woke things then she can be a strong force in the democratic party. If old white men are mad at her she is doing something right.

I think many of you in the centre haven't realized it yet. If a candidate is very common sense and speaks to working class issues they can win anywhere in the country outside of affluent districts.
Fetterman's win is an example of this. He beat an Orpah created star who had essentially unlimited resources by focusing on the economy and blue collar issues.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kn1qbOQi3Mk

leader1 wrote:

zakuivcustom wrote:

NYS Dem is indeed a mess. Hopefully this serves as a wake up call after they takes things for granted for too long.

But this is also the same state where AOC came from - and she is definitely behind some of the NYS infighting. Normally in congress, sure, Pelosi basically shuts her up. But within her state? Not so much...

NYS Dems started their downward spiral shortly after AOC first got elected. She's been interjecting herself into the Party's decision-making apparatus. She inspired a slew of like-minded politicians to rise and stage a hostile takeover of the party, regardless of whether it's detrimental. She led the movement against Cuomo and helped orchestrate his ouster. All charges against him were dropped, by the way.

Interestingly, MAGA candidates have done just this and all we hear from MSM and Republicans is "but they stand with the American people!" I wonder what is different?

leader1 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

leader1 wrote:

NYS Dems started their downward spiral shortly after AOC first got elected. She's been interjecting herself into the Party's decision-making apparatus. She inspired a slew of like-minded politicians to rise and stage a hostile takeover of the party, regardless of whether it's detrimental. She led the movement against Cuomo and helped orchestrate his ouster. All charges against him were dropped, by the way.

https://www.news10.com/news/cuomo-under ... e-dropped/

And the results speak for themselves. Each election since her rise, Dems have lost voter share. It's only going to get worse to more she pushes. Her state allies are leading the charge now and they're completely rudderless and dysfunctional. Heck, even her own electoral results have been lackluster, receiving half the votes compared to 2020. She lost this election to a MAGA candidate with white supremacist sympathies. If the NYS GOP develops half a brain and puts in someone half competent to stand against her, she's in trouble.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Unit ... istrict_14

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Unit ... istrict_14

Why would AOC be in trouble. She represents her district well. She won with 70+ % of the vote.
The issue is that the other districts had folks that didn't listen to their voters, or didn't lead well enough to explain trhe issues to the voters during Covid and during the recent crime waves.

Crime may be the biggest issue, but whether the state fixes that or not, it still will leave many of the GOP winners in vulnerable positions in 2024.

Turnout in AOC's district was poor, much lower than previous elections. She won 70+% of the vote against a MAGA nutcase who didn't even live in the district. Should have been close to 90% margin. But again, turnout was key - she didn't motivate voters to come and she barely campaigned. If she had a credible opponent, it would have been much closer.

And what has she done to benefit her district? Not a whole lot. Her district is getting sick of her using the position simply to raise her profile. Hence the low turnout.

And if the state doesn't do anything on crime, those new GOP incumbents will only increase their share. Let's see if NYS Dems heed the warning. I really hope they do, but not all that optimistic.

Most democrats in NY didn't have much to vote for in this election. The crime vote was driven mostly up in regions where it isn't the predominant issue in real terms(but it is large in the Politically driven propoganda).
2024 will see more voters engaged as the Presidential Elections and Senator Elections draw more scruitiny.

StarAC17 wrote:

leader1 wrote:

She ran against a MAGA racist, so of course she'd win. Turnout was low, half of the previous election. Not as popular as it seems. Look, her district is very blue. Maybe a GOP candidate might never win. But if someone primaried her, she'd be in trouble.

Just look at Lauren Boebert's election. Really close when it should have been a blowout for her. Voters are getting tired of the grandstanding with no results.

She did beat a very establishment candidate in 2018 in Joe Crowley that surprised the democratic establishment. I don't think the landscape has changed very much to think her seat would be threat from a centrist challenger. If she drops the woke things then she can be a strong force in the democratic party. If old white men are mad at her she is doing something right.

I think many of you in the centre haven't realized it yet. If a candidate is very common sense and speaks to working class issues they can win anywhere in the country outside of affluent districts.
Fetterman's win is an example of this. He beat an Orpah created star who had essentially unlimited resources by focusing on the economy and blue collar issues.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kn1qbOQi3Mk

Joe Crowley never showed up to the district. He'd send aides and basically stayed in DC the whole time. When there was a primary debate, he didn't show and sent one of his underlings instead. Made him looked dethatched and uncaring. He deserved to lose for the disdain he showed his constituents. And the turnout for the primary was low that year.

Landscape has changed since 2018. Crime has shot up since then, especially the last two years. It's a big issue in NY in 2022, whereas it wasn't in 2018.

And AOC won't ever drop the wokism. It's what makes her who she is and what appeals to her fanbase. But it also limits her appeal to the general population.

Fetterman ran a brilliant campaign, in spite of his disastrous debate. He appealed to average Joe and came across as honest and trustworthy. Also helped that he was a well-known entity in PA during his stint as Lt. Governor. Fetterman's campaign should be a guide on how to run a race.

leader1 wrote:

And AOC won't ever drop the wokism. It's what makes her who she is and what appeals to her fanbase. But it also limits her appeal to the general population.

Why is including all Americans in America a bad thing? That is the heart of "wokeism" the right hates so much.

casinterest wrote:

leader1 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Why would AOC be in trouble. She represents her district well. She won with 70+ % of the vote.
The issue is that the other districts had folks that didn't listen to their voters, or didn't lead well enough to explain trhe issues to the voters during Covid and during the recent crime waves.

Crime may be the biggest issue, but whether the state fixes that or not, it still will leave many of the GOP winners in vulnerable positions in 2024.

Turnout in AOC's district was poor, much lower than previous elections. She won 70+% of the vote against a MAGA nutcase who didn't even live in the district. Should have been close to 90% margin. But again, turnout was key - she didn't motivate voters to come and she barely campaigned. If she had a credible opponent, it would have been much closer.

And what has she done to benefit her district? Not a whole lot. Her district is getting sick of her using the position simply to raise her profile. Hence the low turnout.

And if the state doesn't do anything on crime, those new GOP incumbents will only increase their share. Let's see if NYS Dems heed the warning. I really hope they do, but not all that optimistic.

Most democrats in NY didn't have much to vote for in this election. The crime vote was driven mostly up in regions where it isn't the predominant issue in real terms(but it is large in the Politically driven propoganda).
2024 will see more voters engaged as the Presidential Elections and Senator Elections draw more scruitiny.

This is my district, which is one that flipped. Crime is up 86% compared to last year. Don't tell me it's politically driven propaganda when the statistics clearly say otherwise.

https://www.nyc.gov/assets/nypd/downloa ... 109pct.pdf

sierrakilo44 wrote:

the American people want government run healthcarel

So you want the USA to have Canada's health care system? Fine but we also have to adopt how they conduct their elections. Can't pick and choose. What is going on in AZ and CA is complete joke.

NIKV69 wrote:

sierrakilo44 wrote:

the American people want government run healthcarel

So you want the USA to have Canada's health care system? Fine but we also have to adopt how they conduct their elections. Can't pick and choose. What is going on in AZ and CA is complete joke.

Who says it has to be Canada's? And what's wrong with having everyone covered?

And why you so pissed at what's happening in AZ? Because Masters lost and Lake's losing?

seb146 wrote:

leader1 wrote:

And AOC won't ever drop the wokism. It's what makes her who she is and what appeals to her fanbase. But it also limits her appeal to the general population.

Why is including all Americans in America a bad thing? That is the heart of "wokeism" the right hates so much.

Well, her wokism isn't exactly translating to popularity. That's all I'm saying. She's underwater with how most Americans think of her.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/120 ... us-adults/

scbriml wrote:

I've never quite understood what hard-working folks believe Trump has done for them that they continue to donate money to his endless grifts.

If you saw Dave Chappelle's monologue on SNL, he hit the nail on the head. In the 2016 debates, Trump was saying the tax code was unfair, that certain groups didn't pay their fair share. Clinton responded that Trump himself didn't pay his fair share. Trump shot back, "That makes me smart. I know that the tax code is unfair because I take advantage of it."

For many middle-class Americans who have long known that they shouldered the majority of the tax burden, that was like Moses coming down from the mountain. Finally a truth-teller among the wealthy, who was on their side. Those people earn too much to be benefited by progressive measures, but not enough for tax shelters to be effective for them either.

Of course as Chappelle pointed out, it was all an opportunistic bluster. Trump saw a weakness and exploited it, but never stopped doing the things he claimed were unfair, even after he was in office. But that kind of thing resonated with a lot of people.

leader1 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

leader1 wrote:

Turnout in AOC's district was poor, much lower than previous elections. She won 70+% of the vote against a MAGA nutcase who didn't even live in the district. Should have been close to 90% margin. But again, turnout was key - she didn't motivate voters to come and she barely campaigned. If she had a credible opponent, it would have been much closer.

And what has she done to benefit her district? Not a whole lot. Her district is getting sick of her using the position simply to raise her profile. Hence the low turnout.

And if the state doesn't do anything on crime, those new GOP incumbents will only increase their share. Let's see if NYS Dems heed the warning. I really hope they do, but not all that optimistic.

Most democrats in NY didn't have much to vote for in this election. The crime vote was driven mostly up in regions where it isn't the predominant issue in real terms(but it is large in the Politically driven propoganda).
2024 will see more voters engaged as the Presidential Elections and Senator Elections draw more scruitiny.

This is my district, which is one that flipped. Crime is up 86% compared to last year. Don't tell me it's politically driven propaganda when the statistics clearly say otherwise.

https://www.nyc.gov/assets/nypd/downloa ... 109pct.pdf

So that is one district. Here is the whole city.

https://www.nyc.gov/assets/nypd/downloa ... s-city.pdf

And yes crime is up, yet it a lot lower than it was 30 years ago, so investigations need to be made into why the state decided to let out so many criminals during covid, but i fail to see, other than lowly informed constituents, how this affects federal level officials. All it highlights are badly informed voters for house districts.

leader1 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

leader1 wrote:

And AOC won't ever drop the wokism. It's what makes her who she is and what appeals to her fanbase. But it also limits her appeal to the general population.

Why is including all Americans in America a bad thing? That is the heart of "wokeism" the right hates so much.

Well, her wokism isn't exactly translating to popularity. That's all I'm saying. She's underwater with how most Americans think of her.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/120 ... us-adults/

Coming from a country where AOC’s policy positions would see her largely at the core of our Prime Minster’s faction, I see whole lot of hating on AOC for who she is rather than what she stands for.

Her opponents seem to have made an art form of hating on how she engages digitally with her constituency but also painting her as a crazy socialist - even though her views align with the centre in most of the world.

leader1 wrote:

And AOC won't ever drop the wokism. It's what makes her who she is and what appeals to her fanbase. But it also limits her appeal to the general population.

I haven't followed her too much, but I thought she was more famous for her democratic socialism and beliefs simply to tax the rich. What are the woke stuff she won't drop?

StarAC17 wrote:

Her record as a prosecutor is completely fair game as it was with Kamala Harris. This is the woman who was potentially seen as being light on Derek Chauvin back in 2006. This did dash any VP hopes she had.

By the time we got to that time, following George Floyd's death, Democrats who were not of color were all out of the running for the VP. Biden then narrowed down to Black women candidates only. i.e. not even Tammy Duckworth could be considered. Whitmer was taken off the list as well, but Kamala remained and Susan Rice was in the top two, and Keisha Lance Bottoms and Val Demings were added to be considered. Had Floyd had a real $20 on hand, he wouldn't have been arrested, no death, no BLM riots, and maybe even a different VP today, although Biden's son (Beau) was apparently friends with Kamala, and that personal relationship had an influence in Kamala's selection.

phluser wrote:

leader1 wrote:

And AOC won't ever drop the wokism. It's what makes her who she is and what appeals to her fanbase. But it also limits her appeal to the general population.

I haven't followed her too much, but I thought she was more famous for her democratic socialism and beliefs simply to tax the rich. What are the woke stuff she won't drop?

My issue with her is her squawking populism and her mismatched personal narrative. We’re roughly the same age and I have significantly more job experience than she does, in spite of having much more time spent out of the workforce obtaining an education. So…what was she doing all that time with her Princeton degree besides tending bar?

casinterest wrote:

leader1 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Most democrats in NY didn't have much to vote for in this election. The crime vote was driven mostly up in regions where it isn't the predominant issue in real terms(but it is large in the Politically driven propoganda).
2024 will see more voters engaged as the Presidential Elections and Senator Elections draw more scruitiny.

This is my district, which is one that flipped. Crime is up 86% compared to last year. Don't tell me it's politically driven propaganda when the statistics clearly say otherwise.

https://www.nyc.gov/assets/nypd/downloa ... 109pct.pdf

So that is one district. Here is the whole city.

https://www.nyc.gov/assets/nypd/downloa ... s-city.pdf

And yes crime is up, yet it a lot lower than it was 30 years ago, so investigations need to be made into why the state decided to let out so many criminals during covid, but i fail to see, other than lowly informed constituents, how this affects federal level officials. All it highlights are badly informed voters for house districts.

That's a poor argument. 30 years ago, this city was a shithole and in decline. Heck, I wasn't even living here back then. But that's exactly the excuse Dem candidates used and it failed. Voters care about how crime is now compared to more recently and it's a lot worse. 30% year-over year increase city-wide is terrible and not something to campaign on. A 30% increase is indicative of a noticeable decline in quality of life.

I believe the decision to let criminals out during COVID, at least in NYC, was former mayor DeBlasio's. He wasn't for reelection, so he didn't care.

When it came to the congressional candidates, the GOP candidate in my district campaigned aggressively on crime, education and cost of living. He went door to door and pounded the pavement to get his message out and it resonated with the voters. The Dem candidate did nothing other than a few fundraising events. And he was vague about crime and his stance on some of the laws contributing to it.

Also, my district has a very large Asian population. The two biggest issues in the Asian community are crime and education. The last mayor got rid of merit-based admissions for academic schools, which is a big no-no to Asians and they remembered that it was a Democrat who did it. Asians have also been on the receiving end on a lot of high profile crime here and they're tired of the Democratic Party giving lip-service or ignoring it entirely. They voted for the GOP in big numbers.

Avatar2go wrote:

Of course as Chappelle pointed out, it was all an opportunistic bluster. Trump saw a weakness and exploited it, but never stopped doing the things he claimed were unfair, even after he was in office. But that kind of thing resonated with a lot of people.

That’s exactly my issue - Trump did nothing for these people yet they continue to send him their hard-earned $$$.

Kent350787 wrote:

leader1 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Why is including all Americans in America a bad thing? That is the heart of "wokeism" the right hates so much.

Well, her wokism isn't exactly translating to popularity. That's all I'm saying. She's underwater with how most Americans think of her.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/120 ... us-adults/

Coming from a country where AOC’s policy positions would see her largely at the core of our Prime Minster’s faction, I see whole lot of hating on AOC for who she is rather than what she stands for.

Her opponents seem to have made an art form of hating on how she engages digitally with her constituency but also painting her as a crazy socialist - even though her views align with the centre in most of the world.

I am sure that some dislike her because of who she is, but there are plenty here who don't like her message or her conduct. You can't prove the former makes up the majority, can you?

I dislike her because she's accomplished nothing for her district, which is one I used to live in. She uses her position as a platform to elevate her standing, and not that of her district, which she barely engages. She voted against several bills where they would have benefited.

Compare that to Congresswoman Grace Meng, another Democrat. I was living in her district until the recent redistricting. She's always engaging the community and has successfully passed bills to benefit her district. She’s much more low key, but her record and results speak for themselves. She's done more for her district than AOC has done.

But hey, don't take it from me. Here is a State Senator from her district and fellow progressive who says AOC is only out for herself.

https://qns.com/2022/07/ramos-blasts-oc ... n-twitter/

I will also add that I've met AOC at a few functions. She struck me as a diva. I've also met Jessica Ramos, the State Senator who publicly criticized her in the article above. While I disagree with her on some policies, she's the real deal and comes across as genuine and she truly about her constituents. Both are Hispanic, so "who they are" ain't part of the equation.

luckyone wrote:

phluser wrote:

leader1 wrote:

And AOC won't ever drop the wokism. It's what makes her who she is and what appeals to her fanbase. But it also limits her appeal to the general population.

I haven't followed her too much, but I thought she was more famous for her democratic socialism and beliefs simply to tax the rich. What are the woke stuff she won't drop?

My issue with her is her squawking populism and her mismatched personal narrative. We’re roughly the same age and I have significantly more job experience than she does, in spite of having much more time spent out of the workforce obtaining an education. So…what was she doing all that time with her Princeton degree besides tending bar?

She went to Boston University, not Princeton, but hardly something to sniff at. And while she was born in the Bronx, she actually grew up in Yorktown Heights, which is a nice town In Westchester County. I think her dad was an architect or engineer, so she wasn’t poverty stricken.

As for what she did, she worked at a few nonprofits and for Bernie Sanders’ campaign. Bartending was for extra cash.

NIKV69 wrote:

sierrakilo44 wrote:

the American people want government run healthcarel

So you want the USA to have Canada's health care system? Fine but we also have to adopt how they conduct their elections. Can't pick and choose. What is going on in AZ and CA is complete joke.

We should definitely emulate both. More mail in voting is a great approach.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-58589809.amp

leader1 wrote:

luckyone wrote:

phluser wrote:

I haven't followed her too much, but I thought she was more famous for her democratic socialism and beliefs simply to tax the rich. What are the woke stuff she won't drop?

My issue with her is her squawking populism and her mismatched personal narrative. We’re roughly the same age and I have significantly more job experience than she does, in spite of having much more time spent out of the workforce obtaining an education. So…what was she doing all that time with her Princeton degree besides tending bar?

She went to Boston University, not Princeton, but hardly something to sniff at. And while she was born in the Bronx, she actually grew up in Yorktown Heights, which is a nice town In Westchester County. I think her dad was an architect or engineer, so she wasn’t poverty stricken.

As for what she did, she worked at a few nonprofits and for Bernie Sanders’ campaign. Bartending was for extra cash.

I appreciate the clarification. For whatever reason I got the schools mixed up. Thanks! My intended point remains: her carpetbag politics doesn’t match her background.

I am just wondering why all the psychos around the country screaming about ‘rigged Dem this, rigged Dem that’ failed to notice that Boebert was losing until the last batch of late-count votes came in. Oh, that would require critical thinking...my bad.

luckyone wrote:

leader1 wrote:

luckyone wrote:

My issue with her is her squawking populism and her mismatched personal narrative. We’re roughly the same age and I have significantly more job experience than she does, in spite of having much more time spent out of the workforce obtaining an education. So…what was she doing all that time with her Princeton degree besides tending bar?

She went to Boston University, not Princeton, but hardly something to sniff at. And while she was born in the Bronx, she actually grew up in Yorktown Heights, which is a nice town In Westchester County. I think her dad was an architect or engineer, so she wasn’t poverty stricken.

As for what she did, she worked at a few nonprofits and for Bernie Sanders’ campaign. Bartending was for extra cash.

I appreciate the clarification. For whatever reason I got the schools mixed up. Thanks! My intended point remains: her carpetbag politics doesn’t match her background.

Definitely does not.

I’ll say this though, she’s way better-looking in person.

leader1 wrote:

I am sure that some dislike her because of who she is, but there are plenty here who don't like her message or her conduct. You can't prove the former makes up the majority, can you?

I dislike her because she's accomplished nothing for her district, which is one I used to live in. She uses her position as a platform to elevate her standing, and not that of her district, which she barely engages. She voted against several bills where they would have benefited.

That covers literally ever politician from your local dog catcher to the president.

Did she vote to expand Medicare and vote for the CHIPS act and vote for voting rights and vote to enshrine a woman's right to decide her own health care decisions? Then she voted for bills her constituents would have benefitted from.

EDIT:

Unless she is trying to advance her political career by becoming House Majority Leader or governor or Senator or something, what the rest of the country thinks of her is irrelevant. MSM has made it seem the opposite, but voters for the other 434 seats have zero say in her election or her votes on the floor. So, these right wing polls showing she is wildly out of step with right wing voters in, say Kansas or Alaska, is moot. It just shows right wingers have bought into this anti-wokeism boogeyman. Just like the Red Scare of the1950s. It does not exist. It is just there to scare right wingers.

leader1 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

leader1 wrote:

This is my district, which is one that flipped. Crime is up 86% compared to last year. Don't tell me it's politically driven propaganda when the statistics clearly say otherwise.

https://www.nyc.gov/assets/nypd/downloa ... 109pct.pdf

So that is one district. Here is the whole city.

https://www.nyc.gov/assets/nypd/downloa ... s-city.pdf

And yes crime is up, yet it a lot lower than it was 30 years ago, so investigations need to be made into why the state decided to let out so many criminals during covid, but i fail to see, other than lowly informed constituents, how this affects federal level officials. All it highlights are badly informed voters for house districts.

That's a poor argument. 30 years ago, this city was a shithole and in decline. Heck, I wasn't even living here back then. But that's exactly the excuse Dem candidates used and it failed. Voters care about how crime is now compared to more recently and it's a lot worse. 30% year-over year increase city-wide is terrible and not something to campaign on. A 30% increase is indicative of a noticeable decline in quality of life.

I believe the decision to let criminals out during COVID, at least in NYC, was former mayor DeBlasio's. He wasn't for reelection, so he didn't care.

When it came to the congressional candidates, the GOP candidate in my district campaigned aggressively on crime, education and cost of living. He went door to door and pounded the pavement to get his message out and it resonated with the voters. The Dem candidate did nothing other than a few fundraising events. And he was vague about crime and his stance on some of the laws contributing to it.

Also, my district has a very large Asian population. The two biggest issues in the Asian community are crime and education. The last mayor got rid of merit-based admissions for academic schools, which is a big no-no to Asians and they remembered that it was a Democrat who did it. Asians have also been on the receiving end on a lot of high profile crime here and they're tired of the Democratic Party giving lip-service or ignoring it entirely. They voted for the GOP in big numbers.

Crime, Education and Cost of Living are mostly local issues. They aren't federal. This is the main issue with voters, They aren't very discerning.

As for crime, it still remains to be seen if it is a long term issue. Many effects of isolation are still working themselves out, and while people love to pander to a political stance, there are some big socio economic and health issues being contended with as well.

We also have issues in the data and how it is being recorded.

https://www.npr.org/2022/10/27/11318258 ... -elections

Some people go for the vibe of the moment though, and that is really whati s telling about the voters and low informaion.

Aaron747 wrote:

I am just wondering why all the psychos around the country screaming about ‘rigged Dem this, rigged Dem that’ failed to notice that Boebert was losing until the last batch of late-count votes came in. Oh, that would require critical thinking...my bad.

Remember,. it was never their candidates election that was fraudulent.

seb146 wrote:

leader1 wrote:

I am sure that some dislike her because of who she is, but there are plenty here who don't like her message or her conduct. You can't prove the former makes up the majority, can you?

I dislike her because she's accomplished nothing for her district, which is one I used to live in. She uses her position as a platform to elevate her standing, and not that of her district, which she barely engages. She voted against several bills where they would have benefited.

That covers literally ever politician from your local dog catcher to the president.

Did she vote to expand Medicare and vote for the CHIPS act and vote for voting rights and vote to enshrine a woman's right to decide her own health care decisions? Then she voted for bills her constituents would have benefitted from.

She voted against the infrastructure bill. That benefited her community tremendously. Luckily, it had enough votes to pass.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/12/nyre ... -vote.html

Pretty much every other NYC congressmember voted for it, including GOPer Nicole Malliotakis. Even a nut like her could see through the politics and do something that would benefit her district.

leader1 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

leader1 wrote:

I am sure that some dislike her because of who she is, but there are plenty here who don't like her message or her conduct. You can't prove the former makes up the majority, can you?

I dislike her because she's accomplished nothing for her district, which is one I used to live in. She uses her position as a platform to elevate her standing, and not that of her district, which she barely engages. She voted against several bills where they would have benefited.

That covers literally ever politician from your local dog catcher to the president.

Did she vote to expand Medicare and vote for the CHIPS act and vote for voting rights and vote to enshrine a woman's right to decide her own health care decisions? Then she voted for bills her constituents would have benefitted from.

She voted against the infrastructure bill. That benefited her community tremendously. Luckily, it had enough votes to pass.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/12/nyre ... -vote.html

Pretty much every other NYC congressmember voted for it, including GOPer Nicole Malliotakis. Even a nut like her could see through the politics and do something that would benefit her district.

Did you read why she voted against it? She wanted Build Back Better and not the watered down (to appease Republicans who still voted against it) infrastructure bill. That shows character. Republicans do it and are applauded for it. Why can't progressive Democrats do it too? Both sides do it, as MAGAs love to scream.

BTW, there were five other progressive Democrats who voted no for the exact same reason. Why single out AOC for standing up to bullies?

seb146 wrote:

leader1 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

That covers literally ever politician from your local dog catcher to the president.

Did she vote to expand Medicare and vote for the CHIPS act and vote for voting rights and vote to enshrine a woman's right to decide her own health care decisions? Then she voted for bills her constituents would have benefitted from.

She voted against the infrastructure bill. That benefited her community tremendously. Luckily, it had enough votes to pass.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/12/nyre ... -vote.html

Pretty much every other NYC congressmember voted for it, including GOPer Nicole Malliotakis. Even a nut like her could see through the politics and do something that would benefit her district.

Did you read why she voted against it? She wanted Build Back Better and not the watered down (to appease Republicans who still voted against it) infrastructure bill. That shows character. Republicans do it and are applauded for it. Why can't progressive Democrats do it too? Both sides do it, as MAGAs love to scream.

BTW, there were five other progressive Democrats who voted no for the exact same reason. Why single out AOC for standing up to bullies?

I single out AOC because she represents the city I live in. I don’t care about how the other politicians voted; I care about how politicians representing MY city vote. And she voted against my city’s interests. It’s not character, it’s selfish posturing.

And bills are about making compromises. It wasn’t perfect, but it was better than nothing and this was about the best we could get given the circumstances.

Again, a nutbar GOP congresswoman bit the bullet and voted for the bill because she deemed it beneficial for her community. She joined all other NYC congressmembers in doing so. All of them except AOC.

Aaron747 wrote:

I am just wondering why all the psychos around the country screaming about ‘rigged Dem this, rigged Dem that’ failed to notice that Boebert was losing until the last batch of late-count votes came in. Oh, that would require critical thinking...my bad.

You're reasoning in the wrong direction. The core ideology of the psychos isn't anything that you can really articulate as a point of fact or policy - it's that they should be the ones who hold power. They'll believe or disbelieve whatever they want in service to that.

With 97 % of the votes in , it looks like Hobbs will win Az.

https://www.cnn.com/election/2022/resul ... a/governor

There are 2.5 milion votes in, with only probably 75,000 outstanding

There is a +20 thousand vote differential between Hobbs and Lake.,

even if it goes 60% 40% those last 75K votes, there isn't enough votes for Lake.


A quick search shows MSNBC and NBC are calling for Hobbs, but i expect others will hold out longer for another vote tally.

//edit CNN just called it at 9:15 EDT

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/ ... index.html

casinterest wrote:

With 97 % of the votes in , it looks like Hobbs will win Az.

https://www.cnn.com/election/2022/resul ... a/governor

There are 2.5 milion votes in, with only probably 75,000 outstanding

There is a +20 thousand vote differential between Hobbs and Lake.,

even if it goes 60% 40% those last 75K votes, there isn't enough votes for Lake.


A quick search shows MSNBC and NBC are calling for Hobbs, but i expect others will hold out longer for another vote tally.

//edit CNN just called it at 9:15 EDT

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/ ... index.html

Incredible...I was sure the loon was going to prevail. Then again, Fontes resoundingly won AZ SoS against a denier candidate, so it seems sanity prevailed overall.

Aaron747 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

With 97 % of the votes in , it looks like Hobbs will win Az.

https://www.cnn.com/election/2022/resul ... a/governor

There are 2.5 milion votes in, with only probably 75,000 outstanding

There is a +20 thousand vote differential between Hobbs and Lake.,

even if it goes 60% 40% those last 75K votes, there isn't enough votes for Lake.


A quick search shows MSNBC and NBC are calling for Hobbs, but i expect others will hold out longer for another vote tally.

//edit CNN just called it at 9:15 EDT

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/ ... index.html

Incredible...I was sure the loon was going to prevail. Then again, Fontes resoundingly won AZ SoS against a denier candidate, so it seems sanity prevailed overall.

I am sure we will get a recount asked for on this one. And in the sake of democracy it will be granted, but I don't expect Lake to let it go at all.

leader1 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

leader1 wrote:

She voted against the infrastructure bill. That benefited her community tremendously. Luckily, it had enough votes to pass.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/12/nyre ... -vote.html

Pretty much every other NYC congressmember voted for it, including GOPer Nicole Malliotakis. Even a nut like her could see through the politics and do something that would benefit her district.

Did you read why she voted against it? She wanted Build Back Better and not the watered down (to appease Republicans who still voted against it) infrastructure bill. That shows character. Republicans do it and are applauded for it. Why can't progressive Democrats do it too? Both sides do it, as MAGAs love to scream.

BTW, there were five other progressive Democrats who voted no for the exact same reason. Why single out AOC for standing up to bullies?

I single out AOC because she represents the city I live in. I don’t care about how the other politicians voted; I care about how politicians representing MY city vote. And she voted against my city’s interests. It’s not character, it’s selfish posturing.

And bills are about making compromises. It wasn’t perfect, but it was better than nothing and this was about the best we could get given the circumstances.

Again, a nutbar GOP congresswoman bit the bullet and voted for the bill because she deemed it beneficial for her community. She joined all other NYC congressmembers in doing so. All of them except AOC.

What if these six Democrats voted against the GOP bill because:

1. They knew there were enough votes to pass the GOP bill?
2. They wanted to stand with their principles?

BTW, when Republicans were in control last time, they didn't compromise and water their bills down. And we are all the worse for it. But, why is it wonderful when Democrats compromise?

On Tuesday, Trump is expected to make an announcement that he will be running again for the Republican Party nomination for President in 2024. He has a number of perverse motives. His obsession to get attention to feed his massive ego. To try to put off continuing and future criminal and civil actions on him on the grounds that the US DOJ and others cannot do so if a Presidential candidate. Finding another money scam to pay his debts. This 'announcement' will be overwhelmingly covered by the news and other media, shifting attention from the recent election.

ltbewr wrote:

On Tuesday, Trump is expected to make an announcement that he will be running again for the Republican Party nomination for President in 2024. He has a number of perverse motives. His obsession to get attention to feed his massive ego. To try to put off continuing and future criminal and civil actions on him on the grounds that the US DOJ and others cannot do so if a Presidential candidate. Finding another money scam to pay his debts. This 'announcement' will be overwhelmingly covered by the news and other media, shifting attention from the recent election.

Pretty stupid on his part if he goes ahead with this as for shifting attention I think the media will love it since they are prolonging projecting the house race being over as long as they can.

ltbewr wrote:

On Tuesday, Trump is expected to make an announcement that he will be running again for the Republican Party nomination for President in 2024. He has a number of perverse motives. His obsession to get attention to feed his massive ego. To try to put off continuing and future criminal and civil actions on him on the grounds that the US DOJ and others cannot do so if a Presidential candidate. Finding another money scam to pay his debts. This 'announcement' will be overwhelmingly covered by the news and other media, shifting attention from the recent election.

I do wish the man would just go away already.

casinterest wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

With 97 % of the votes in , it looks like Hobbs will win Az.

https://www.cnn.com/election/2022/resul ... a/governor

There are 2.5 milion votes in, with only probably 75,000 outstanding

There is a +20 thousand vote differential between Hobbs and Lake.,

even if it goes 60% 40% those last 75K votes, there isn't enough votes for Lake.


A quick search shows MSNBC and NBC are calling for Hobbs, but i expect others will hold out longer for another vote tally.

//edit CNN just called it at 9:15 EDT

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/ ... index.html

Incredible...I was sure the loon was going to prevail. Then again, Fontes resoundingly won AZ SoS against a denier candidate, so it seems sanity prevailed overall.

I am sure we will get a recount asked for on this one. And in the sake of democracy it will be granted, but I don't expect Lake to let it go at all.

Lake is already complaining that votes for her weren’t counted. I guess when your campaign is based on the lie of election fraud, it’s obvious you’ll double down when you lose.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-63627007

NIKV69 wrote:

So you want the USA to have Canada's health care system? Fine but we also have to adopt how they conduct their elections. Can't pick and choose. What is going on in AZ and CA is complete joke.

Sure you can pick and choose - one has nothing to do with another. If the American People want a healthcare reform, then they vote on that - has nothing to do with a voting reform which would be a completely different vote.

Does my heart good to see Katie Hobbs prevail over Kari Lake. It was basically a referendum on telling the truth.

Most of the outright election deniers have gone down. Those who questioned the election, or supported denial before Jan 6 but not after, have been given a pass by voters.

Hopefully all the nonsense surrounding elections will die out now. It's been demonstrated through two cycles, that you can't get into office by claiming election fraud.

Boebert was an exception in Colorado, but just barely, by the slimmest of margins. Would really have liked to see her defeated as well, for the same reason as Lake.

scbriml wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Incredible...I was sure the loon was going to prevail. Then again, Fontes resoundingly won AZ SoS against a denier candidate, so it seems sanity prevailed overall.

I am sure we will get a recount asked for on this one. And in the sake of democracy it will be granted, but I don't expect Lake to let it go at all.

Lake is already complaining that votes for her weren’t counted. I guess when your campaign is based on the lie of election fraud, it’s obvious you’ll double down when you lose.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-63627007

If you can't accept the rules of the race. Don't compete.

ltbewr wrote:

On Tuesday, Trump is expected to make an announcement that he will be running again for the Republican Party nomination for President in 2024. He has a number of perverse motives. His obsession to get attention to feed his massive ego. To try to put off continuing and future criminal and civil actions on him on the grounds that the US DOJ and others cannot do so if a Presidential candidate. Finding another money scam to pay his debts. This 'announcement' will be overwhelmingly covered by the news and other media, shifting attention from the recent election.

On the other side of the coin, Trump risks several things that threaten his aura.

Declaring so soon while the election results are still raw might turn the GOP off.

First mover may garner him the spotlight, but major donors may decide to hold off until they see what, if any, opposition yhere is.

I believe that as a declared candidate, his use of funding is more constrained than otherwise, and will undoubtedly come under close scrutiny.

Being first means he can pick off competitors as they stick their heads over the parapet. Ron DeSantis is prime target, even without saying anything. DeSantis does, however, have the thermo-nuclear response to saying nothing - ' I am concentrating on using my HUGE MANDATE to take Florida forward during my SECOND TERM in office.' That would wind Trump up no end.

casinterest wrote:

scbriml wrote:

casinterest wrote:

I am sure we will get a recount asked for on this one. And in the sake of democracy it will be granted, but I don't expect Lake to let it go at all.

Lake is already complaining that votes for her weren’t counted. I guess when your campaign is based on the lie of election fraud, it’s obvious you’ll double down when you lose.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-63627007

If you can't accept the rules of the race. Don't compete.

Who's actually surprised? What else was she going to do...Like a lot of candidates in this election she's (pick your metaphor) a hand puppet or a show pony.

Psycho traitor Michael Flynn weighed in on the AZ race already:

https://twitter.com/patriottakes/status ... YmrP5gnMvg

Why are we still paying this guy's pension again??