Forums
Guides
Features
Media
Zelda Wiki
Patreon
    AOC and a discussion on progressivism in the US
    • In the past several years here, there is this reoccurring debate about why the democrats don't put forward more progressive candidates that will energize complacent voters.

      This article addresses part of my concern: vox.com/policy-and-politics/20…tez-poll-favorables-media

      I love AOC -- she's refreshing, compassionate, progressive and it able to relate to progressives in ways many others have difficulty with.

      However, she is very unpopular nationwide. I think part of it is the Right Wing Propaganda vilifies powerful, progressive women.

      That brings me to my question, is America ready for a strong progressive candidate?
    • The right wing propaganda you mentioned will target whoever the Democrats nominate. They demonized Obama and called him a communist, Maoist, (insert ridiculous descriptor). They did the same to Clinton. If they're going to paint whoever is nominated as a far left radical, may as well nominate a leftist.

      This is the fallacy of trying to appease the right wing media. They are the Democrats enemy, there is no candidate that the Democrats can put forth that will get them to say "oh excellent choice, we really love this candidate and will give him fair coverage". That's not going to happen and the Democrats have to get that idea out of their head. Whoever the Democrats nominate will be a "Maoist" in the eyes of right wing media sources like Fox News and Breitbart.
    • Pietro wrote:

      The right wing propaganda you mentioned will target whoever the Democrats nominate. They demonized Obama and called him a communist, Maoist, (insert ridiculous descriptor). They did the same to Clinton. If they're going to paint whoever is nominated as a far left radical, may as well nominate a leftist.

      This is the fallacy of trying to appease the right wing media. They are the Democrats enemy, there is no candidate that the Democrats can put forth that will get them to say "oh excellent choice, we really love this candidate and will give him fair coverage". That's not going to happen and the Democrats have to get that idea out of their head. Whoever the Democrats nominate will be a "Maoist" in the eyes of right wing media sources like Fox News and Breitbart.
      While I do agree with you, her approval ratings even among democrats aren't stellar.

      Correct me if I'm wrong but in 2018 out of all 435 house races, there wasn't one flip that went to a strong progressive. AOC, Tlaib, Omar, etc all came from deep blue districts.

      Avalanchemike wrote:

      the democrats could put forward reagans corpse and he'd be called a marxist just because he has D next to his name
      It's pretty tell when right wing media hammers Biden as being a socialist and even attack John McCain for being democrat.
    • HeroOfTime5 wrote:

      While I do agree with you, her approval ratings even among democrats aren't stellar.
      Which shouldn't surprise anyone who's been paying attention since she won her election; she's one of the most visibly progressive Democrats today, and has sometimes been at odds with members of her own party. The simple fact of the matter is that a good chunk of the Democratic party ISN'T progressive, and a smaller but still sizable part of it is REALLY not progressive. That those people aren't fans of AOC shouldn't be news to anyone, and shouldn't really worry anyone either; it doesn't take a political analyst to see that AOC is leading the way of the party's future.

      One of my most favorite aspects of her is how conservatives seem to turn into blithering idiots when talking to or about her (go see how Ben Shapiro keeps trying to troll her for attention on Twitter). And then you have Mike Lee with his ridiculous slideshow, talking about how the solution to climate change is making babies. Idiots will show themselves to be idiots when you provide them with opportunity, and AOC is the kind of provocateur that reels them in without having to do much beyond just existing.
    • It's her chief of staff who's implicated, not her.

      Not that it even matters; when I say AOC is leading the way of a more progressive Democratic party, it has nothing to do with what her actual position is, or even whether she's a member of Congress. She's only been a congresswoman for less than four months, and look at the influence she's had on the public discourse from the days of her campaign up to this point. Other Democrats are undoubtedly taking notice, and it's only a matter of time before you have similar progressive-minded Democrats following her lead.
    • We both know that if the chief of staff gets charged it won't be just him indited. Even if she's totally innocent and honestly didn't know he was doing that.

      And, why do you think this attention is a good thing? The Republicans are out to make an example of her. If they succeed, all of this attention she received will serve to scare future progressives into being more silent, not more open.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Kerest ().

    • Kerest wrote:

      We both know that if the chief of staff gets charged it won't be just him indited. Even if she's totally innocent and honestly didn't know he was doing that.
      We... don't know that, actually. The thing about investigations is that they're meant to figure out if there was foul play, and who exactly was doing it. If AOC is not implicated, she's not very likely to be indicted.

      I mean, we did just see the conclusion of an investigation into Trump's campaign that saw multiple people within said campaign being indicted, but the man himself was not.

      Kerest wrote:

      And, why do you think this attention is a good thing? The Republicans are out to make an example of her. If they succeed, all of this attention she received will serve to scare future progressives into being more silent, not more open.
      Why do I think garnering attention as a politician is a good thing?

      Well, let's start with how dominating she's been in the news cycle. This allows progressive policies to enter the spotlight, and stay there as Republicans are pretty much forced to try and take her down (and, as I already mentioned, kinda sucking at it).

      If you think future progressives will be "scared" by Republicans "making an example" of AOC because of... campaign finance violations... then you don't give progressives NEARLY enough credit. They would still be able to look at the things AOC has been doing very, very right.
    • Abyss Master wrote:

      Kerest wrote:

      We both know that if the chief of staff gets charged it won't be just him indited. Even if she's totally innocent and honestly didn't know he was doing that.
      We... don't know that, actually. The thing about investigations is that they're meant to figure out if there was foul play, and who exactly was doing it. If AOC is not implicated, she's not very likely to be indicted.
      I mean, we did just see the conclusion of an investigation into Trump's campaign that saw multiple people within said campaign being indicted, but the man himself was not.
      Obstruction of justice doesn't stick for a President, but it can easily for a young member of the House. Even if it turns out to be utter bull, it'll be enough to make her look guilty. Just like how a lot of people, myself included, think Trump is guilty despite not one single person being charged with the actual collusion.

      And you know the FEC has to be smarting and looking for someone to take down after all of the election rigging that's slipped by them. A young politician who doesn't have the political contacts to defend herself and is hated by those in charge? Tempting target for an organization that wants to say it's not completely ineffective.

      Let's not forget, either, who appoints the FEC's members right now.


      Abyss Master wrote:

      Why do I think garnering attention as a politician is a good thing?
      Well, let's start with how dominating she's been in the news cycle. This allows progressive policies to enter the spotlight, and stay there as Republicans are pretty much forced to try and take her down (and, as I already mentioned, kinda sucking at it).

      If you think future progressives will be "scared" by Republicans "making an example" of AOC because of... campaign finance violations... then you don't give progressives NEARLY enough credit. They would still be able to look at the things AOC has been doing very, very right.
      If I am underestimating the progressives so much, then why are the people with the most progressive support for a Democrat candidate for President old white men? I was told, after Clinton lost the last election, that I was underestimating progressives to assume they wouldn't massively support a woman by 2019.

      For that matter, scroll up to that article about how popular AOC is and notice who she's mostly known by: Republicans. Nearly half the Democrats who answered have no idea who she is. This attention on her would be nice if it wasn't primarily conservative attention. This means that any progressive like her who sees her is going to see a candidate mostly unsupported, and unknown, by her own side while being massively targeted by the opposition; in short, someone who got staked out for the wolves and effectively abandoned.

      The message? All being as open as AOC would do is leave you to have your career destroyed while your own allies ignore you.

      I'm not underestimating progressives. I'm just assuming they're not politically suicidal and won't Leeroy Jenkins their way through politics. I'm assuming they will take a look at what failed before and make some intelligent decisions on how to be progressive in-office and still manage to have a career long enough to have a positive effect. Which, interestingly, is something the Democrats usually excel at on the individual level.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Kerest: Removed an ending portion that is not necessary. ().

    • Abyss Master wrote:

      HeroOfTime5 wrote:

      While I do agree with you, her approval ratings even among democrats aren't stellar.
      Which shouldn't surprise anyone who's been paying attention since she won her election; she's one of the most visibly progressive Democrats today, and has sometimes been at odds with members of her own party. The simple fact of the matter is that a good chunk of the Democratic party ISN'T progressive, and a smaller but still sizable part of it is REALLY not progressive. That those people aren't fans of AOC shouldn't be news to anyone, and shouldn't really worry anyone either; it doesn't take a political analyst to see that AOC is leading the way of the party's future.
      One of my most favorite aspects of her is how conservatives seem to turn into blithering idiots when talking to or about her (go see how Ben Shapiro keeps trying to troll her for attention on Twitter). And then you have Mike Lee with his ridiculous slideshow, talking about how the solution to climate change is making babies. Idiots will show themselves to be idiots when you provide them with opportunity, and AOC is the kind of provocateur that reels them in without having to do much beyond just existing.
      In case anyone is thinking I'm using this discussion as a soap box I actually really like AOC.
      My concern is that it may come to a point where some "moderates" in the democrat party may get turned off by her. I know this is anecdotal but my father has been a staunch democrat my entire life and he said to me the other day "AOC is out there-- she's too extreme!"

      The concern I have is will the new wave of voters who like strong progressives outnumber the older democrats who may get turned off?