AOC Snub Shows How Democrats Refuse to Learn Lessons of
2024202020162004200019961992198819841980
FTFY
At least the Palestinian genocide is over now because those Dems didn’t learn the lesson or whatevs.
🤡
It’s really very simple:
On one side, there’s integrity and convictions and serving the interests of the American people.
And on the other side, there’s a handful of corporations and wealthy individuals who will give them money in exchange for protecting their privilege.
And the Democrats have chosen the money
As have the republicans. So now there are no political options for addressing the material concerns of the working class.
BOLD MOVE COTTON
At least it’s on-brand for R. D still tries to pretend otherwise.
So now there are no political options for addressing the material concerns of the working class.
BOLD MOVE COTTON
Good point, that didn’t go well last time did it? Those who forget history…
Looks like our politicians are going to be doomed to repeat it.
The issue is that besides money, and thanks to it, power (military, police, etc.) is much more concentrated in the hands of the rich than before, in my view.
I don’t disagree, but the wealth disparity is a sort of indicator of all the rest, at least IMO.
Oh there are options. We just have to add a little checkbox beneath A or B ourselves. After all, revisions exist for a reason.
Hippity hoppity abolish private property
Swiggity swooty protect each civic duty
I’m sure that’s part of it, but I also think there’s a fair bit of rolling over to protect whatever power they get left with.
I’m sure we’ll see lots of press releases expressing deep concern again.
And the Democrats have chosen the money
and we will vote for them anyways in 2028
We?
No, no, not all of us will.
I’m done with them. I’ll either find a party or individual I can support in each seat, or I’ll stay the fuck home. Not wasting my fucking time if I can’t find someone that actually aligns with my views any more. Those circles will just stay blank, and I’ll only vote in local elections, and even that only if I actually support the candidate.
Soap and ballot boxes have failed too hard.
Not wasting my fucking time if I can’t find someone that actually aligns with my views any more.
As the DNC is unlikely to ever allow that, and with no sign of approval voting ever being implemented to break the 2 party death grip, it would seem that the only option left is solving problems ourselves collectively with mutual aid and direct action, without waiting for the DNC to purge itself of corpos.
The DNC doesn’t have an absolute stranglehold on politics, especially at the local level. Some good people, like Bernie Sanders, run on a Democratic ticket. Having Sanders or AOC lose their seats because you’re unhappy with the DNC monopolizing “the left half” of the political spectrum is definitely counterproductive.
I do personally advocate for harm reduction voting, as it can make the work we need to do much easier, and reduce suffering.
… I’ll either find a party or individual I can support in each seat, or I’ll stay the fuck home…
that’s why harris lost the election.
americans refuse to read and that results in this charade of a democratic system that requires us to vote democrat or republican; they will call you a fool for not playing along or actively standing up for your principals like a 3rd party vote.
like the abolitionists and suffragettes; it’s going to take a generations long cultural shift for things to improve and i think that the biggest indicator is when people start to prefer reading over watching tv.
Honestly, Pelosi has been a non-stop blight. It’s time to cut out the cancer, here.
I’m not sure USA politics can be solved by replacing individuals. Seems to be an institutional issue
To extend the cancer metaphor, a metastisized cancer can still be worth operating on to give the chemotherapy a better chance of success.
You have to replace individuals to change the institutions
Let’s start with people and see what changes. “Institutional issue” is often a product of just a handful of people. Remove the entrenched old money Dems and watch progressives flood the party.
The left is now “business focused” and the right is “money focused” with no room for the problems of us normal people. If CEO and business are determined to set a line between us and them, then “us” will unite to become"we" and they don’t that. Let’s get rid of the people who are a problem and use the organization they use to promote those who care about other people.
The institutional part of it is WHY it’s difficult/impossible to get rid of the corporate politicians. You can say we should vote out x or we should support y policy, but it doesn’t really matter if the entire electoral system is set up to stop that from happening.
Too much effort is spent on tearing down a system that is literally built to withstand outside influences. Has anyone ever changed a government from outside the government without violence? To make the work matter, the effort needs to be applied to the problem areas, those few individuals who are at the top and prevent any needed change.
Voting absolutely works or else Russia and Republicans wouldn’t worry about it. Male change happen by voting for a Democrat who will support the people, not business. A politician who cherishes the value of their community and not money.
Voting works when there is both turnout; and accurate counting based on easy to understand methods which can be verified to everyone’s satisfaction.
That is not the case for the majority of USA states where the exit polling fails using computer counts that require faith.
The only reason this has been unchallenged for decades is that deep down, most people understand government is fundamentally broken and cannot be repaired by any method including peaceful protest or violence
I think we need to sacrifice a few more CEOs to the money gods just to test this theory. For science.
Not sure thatll work but its worth a try. And its for science. Or at least math and statistics.
Gotta recall ‘em all
Its a voter issue.
Dem voters suffer from this delusion that because they are more educated, think up clever names for Trump supporters, post screenshots of conservatives getting roasted on Twitter and pointing out all the logical fallacies in republican policies that they are winning.
Trumps voters can be functionally illiterate, effectively retarded and possibly inbred but they cared enough to VOTE. Its literally the only thing that matters. You can have 6 Phds and are literally never wrong about anything but that vote only counts as much as Cletus McGee who has never left Deer tick creek Alabama his whole life. They actually know how to win an election, they turn the fuck up.
I’m one of those people who spent a lot of time cheer-leading the Democratic party and the Harris campaign before the election. I still think it was the right thing to do given the alternative. AND I still think that anyone who stayed home or voted for Trump is a moron. But now that the worst possible thing has come to pass and we’re gonna have to spend the next couple of decades dealing with the consequences anyway: Fuck the Democrats. I’m done.
Fuck the Democrats. I’m done.
the only thing that matters to them is that you vote for them in 2028 and people will be calling you a moron for not falling in line.
I live in California. My vote doesn’t count for sheeet.
not california; but i’m also in a blue state
i vote swapped so that i can vote 3rd party to give them the middle finger; it’s not much, but it’s the only thing i can do.
At least you can say you’re the Dems ATM. I’m in Hawaii and they hadnt counted a single vote before the news just attributed all hawaiis electoral college votes to Harris. They were right, but come on. At least lie to me about my vote mattering.
Gavin Newsom 2028 here we come…
Newsom isn’t the worst option but that’s not saying much. He’s basically a neocon in mildly progressive clothing when it’s convenient for him. But Republicans have spent years vilifying him and disparaging California as some kind of socialist haven (I wish)… meaning he pretty much doesn’t stand a chance. But I’m certain he will run.
Ughhhh
Newsom, Blinken, Shapiro, or Harris again. I bet they’ll try to ram Blinken down our throats.
Good list, but I am afraid that there’s at least a 10% chance that the nominee will be Liz Cheney (got to keep chasing those moderates)
Failing to cultivate younger politicians is exactly why people are disillusioned with the party, and why they had to keep running Biden in the first place. SMH
It should have been Bernie in 2016, yet here we are.
When the right wing voters didn’t like what their elected leader were doing, they primaried them with more ideologically pure leaders.
Left wing voters just bitch and moan but take no action proving that some of the qualities the right claims of the left, like being lazy and entitled are true.
The magas have no problem voting for good enough… Dem base consistently let perfect get in the way of good… And various factions have a different definition of perfect.
Did you read the article? They’re saying that’s possibly what lost AOC some favor with the dem leadership, that she was supporting progressive primary challengers.
What fucking primary?
The primary every congressional district has. The right ran some crazy fucks against some well established right wing politicians so where is the left’s version of this.
Everyone hung up on the presidential primary is failing to heed our own advice to the people who vote for a third party as a protest against the Democratic Party.
They are doing that. At least they did in my state.
The one that exists in the argument but not in reality. Keep up. It’s straw man season
Primaries are internal party elections that determine what candidate a party will support for presidency. In US generally speaking the Democratic Party primaries are open or semi-open, so every voter can participate.
For example, in lasr Dem primaries approximately 10 million people vited for Bernie Sanders, 2 for Elisabeth Warren, and 20 for Biden, which amounts to less than 20% of registered voters.
I’m sure it has nothing to do with multiple billionaire backers like Trump and Thiel pushing their candidates.
Must just be that the left doesn’t care in comparison.
The billionaire backers came after the crazies won against right wing encumbrants.
thiel has been doing thiel things for decades. others too.
This is exactly the attitude I am talking about. You’ve given up without trying.
Thiel is not a boogeyman.
What billionaire funded AOC?
nothing in your response is actually a response to me. What do you think you’re even responding to?
LOL
Okay buddy.
When the right wing voters didn’t like what their elected leader were doing, they primaried them with more ideologically pure leaders.
I’ve been thinking the same thing. The current form of the Republican party that is MAGA is clearly influenced by the Tea Party movement. The Wikipedia entry say the movement dissolved and doesn’t say what legacy it left. But in hindsight, it is clear that it made the Republican party evolve into MAGA that it is today.
The Democratic Party should have its own MAGA movement but from the left. The American left only seem to be animated if the candidate or leader is deemed progressive enough. They don’t seem to actively try to influence the Democratic Party themselves unlike what the right did to the Republican Party.
What I find hilarious is that every “progressive” leader that does make their way in ends up being a Republican/Russian puppet. (See Sinema/Fetterman).
Proves horseshoe theory is real. The DNC doesn’t care about you guys because you’ve shown you don’t care about the DNC. Bitch all you want but why should they try to pursue lazy kids who bitch and moan but don’t vote when it counts or protest vote.
That’s why the DNC drives further right because at least that voting base actually consistently votes.
The tea party was astroturfed. There’s no wealthy PACs propping up a movement of soc dems like AOC
I don’t know. It’s not directed at you but I think anyone who disagrees with a movement would always find ways and angles to smear it.
Nonetheless, many of what had been advocated by the Tea Party movement-- both social and economic policies-- are still visibly present and implemented by MAGA. So I think even with astroturfing, the goals of those involved in Tea Party had their way.
even with astroturfing
That’s basically the point though, right? Without astroturfing the tea party probably wouldn’t have grown into maga. Compare the occupy wall st movement (as mentioned below)-- there was no corporate backing so it fizzled as soon as popular support couldn’t sustain it. But money kept pumping into the tea party and it eventually metastasized into maga.
Growing up with these movements, it felt like the Occupy Movement could have been that, but it was smeared by The Powers That Be alongside infighting or a focus on strange parliamentary procedure. It helps with cops also are on your side (Tea Party).
I don’t think the left makes enough persistent noise at their leadership compared to the right. I’m really proud of the recent strike announcements from Unions & hope they stick through the tough shit.
I volunteer in municipal work on a town board local to me. It’s not much, but there’s a few chuckleheads “from the private sector” that think they know everything in five minutes. If you put hard facts and actually argue them in proper settings with conviction, you can at least have a voice in the bullshit around you.
Have Republicans ever had any primary corruption controversies, like that whole superdelegates thing?
The corruption is their goal.
Ron paul 08
I’m not sure where you’re going with a thus since I’m referring to primary if congressional leaders and you’re hung up on the presidency, another weird thing we only do on that left.
The right did have a candidate that refused to participate in their party’s debates and threatened the party’s leaders so there is something there but it’s not a fair comparison since the left isn’t good at authoritarian demagoguery.
Too soon to expect that. They still haven’t learned their lesson from 2016. A lesson from 2024 never stood a chance.
They haven’t learned their lesson since 1980.
They don’t care if they protect their party or the people they represent. They care about getting as much personal wealth as possible for themselves. Exactly the same as Republicans but they at least represent a portion of their voters by passing crazy laws for them.
but they at least represent a portion of their voters by passing crazy laws for them.
I can’t stand republicans but I respect them for this. They constantly throw red meat to their base while still upholding their power structure of their donors. The democrats don’t even bother with the red meat.
They toss red meat constantly, knowing it will be intercepted mid-flight by the much better-fed animals. The keepers have no incentive to save the starved animals. The starved animals have only each other and their hunger. What will the starved animals do?
America is dead. It just doesn’t know it yet. Its corpse will continue to twitch for a little while longer while it proceeds to bleed out and each of its neurons fire their last time one by one. We are not America; we’re the microbiome that was living inside it. And the infection has won. It’s starting to rot and there’s nothing we can do to stop it.
The hell it is.
Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?! Hell no!
And it’s not over now.
Is this a reference I’m not recognizing?
John Belushi in Animal House
It’s been a long time.
Thx
Let him go, he’s on a roll.
I think it’s important to realize that there is corruption in the Democratic party (too). We need a left wing party. People paint left wing ideas as crazy but the opposite is true.
Most people have realized it. But many people also keep repeating the “2 party, can’t be helped, lesser evil” line. This latter point is the problem.
I mean, the whole political system has been corrupted by capitalism, with politicians spending 30% of their time fundraising and meeting with lobbyists. Lobbying is essentially legal bribery so there’s no need for illegal corruption. However, elected representatives should not be acting against their constituents interests.
The US democracy is so fucked by the winner-takes-it-all system. In a healthy political system, AOC and the other real progressives would just fuck off and do their own party that would end up with house seats the next election.
The US democracy is so fucked by the winner-takes-it-all system.
I believe there was some discussion about that prior to the election, yes.
In a healthy political system, AOC and the other real progressives would just fuck off and do their own party that would end up with house seats the next election.
All she needs to do as far as I’m concerned is tell us when and where.
I’m 54 and I’m tired of this old guard. We need some new blood and energy.
Paywall. Can we get the cliff notes?
Archive version
paywall freestill paywalled never mind.Screw their paywall, have my complimentary visit:
AOC Snub Shows How Democrats Refuse to Learn Lessons of 2024 Seventy-four-year-old Gerry Connolly was picked to lead the House Oversight Committee over Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who embodies the kind of generational change that the party is sorely in need of.
By Eric Lutz December 18, 2024
Given the frequency with which Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has been described as a Democratic “rising star” since her 2018 election to the House, it’s worth asking: When, exactly, will Democrats actually let her star rise? The 35-year-old New York progressive Tuesday lost her bid to head up the Oversight Committee, a panel that will play a key watchdog role over Donald Trump and his incoming administration. Winning out for the post was Gerry Connolly, the 74-year-old Virginia congressman who just last month announced that he was being treated for esophageal cancer. Ocasio-Cortez ran on a message of generational change, the appetite for which has greatly increased since the party’s crushing losses in last month’s election. But Connolly had some powerful old-guard allies in his corner—including former Speaker Nancy Pelosi, 84, who made calls on his behalf. Connolly reportedly carried the vote 131-84.
Some of the opposition to Ocasio-Cortez seems to have stemmed from concern about her more progressive politics, as well as her previous support for primary challenges to incumbent Democrats. But “there was also a sense,” Politico reported, citing eight Democratic lawmakers, “that it was Connolly’s turn, after he had previously run for the Oversight spot twice and served on the panel for 15 years.” Democrats appear to have picked Connolly—at least in part—because they felt he was entitled to the influential post, as a reward for his loyalty and longevity. “He’s been the ranking member-in-waiting,” Democratic Representative Emanuel Cleaver, 80, told Axios.
That sentiment is as telling as it is infuriating. It’s emblematic not only of the party’s gerontocracy but of its tendency to treat powerful positions as a kind of remuneration for loyalty, longevity, and legacy—often at the expense of the party’s best interests. During Barack Obama’s second term, amid suggestions liberal justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg should retire with a Democrat in office, the late California Senator Dianne Feinstein defended her: “She is certainly entitled to serve,” Feinstein told Politico in 2014. Ginsburg would die in office six years later, at 87, allowing Trump to install a third conservative on the Supreme Court—establishing a six-member majority that would fell Roe and erode the liberal principles she championed.
By then, Feinstein herself was the subject of concerning reports about her cognitive and physical decline, which were underscored by her performance in the confirmation hearings of Amy Coney Barrett, Ginsburg’s successor. While she relinquished her leading post on the Senate Judiciary Committee, she remained in office—even as it became clear she was no longer capable of executing her duties. But Pelosi pushed back on calls for Feinstein to resign during an extended medical absence last year: “I’ve seen up close and firsthand her great leadership for our country, but especially for our state of California,” Pelosi told reporters in April 2023, suggesting Feinstein’s critics were sexist. “She deserves the respect to get well and be back on duty.” Feinstein died five months later, at age 90. That wouldn’t carry the same political consequences as Ginsburg’s death; California Governor Gavin Newsom appointed fellow Democrat Laphonza Butler to the vacant seat, allowing the party to keep its majority in the upper chamber. But there would be major fallout the next time Democrats put deference to one of their elder dignitaries over the party’s future.
Joe Biden—who ran and won in 2020 as a transitional figure—was 80 when he announced he was seeking reelection. There were already significant concerns about his age and unpopularity when he kicked off his campaign in 2023. But they were nothing compared with the groundswell he faced after his faltering debate performance this summer. As calls for him to step aside mounted, he insisted, “No one’s pushing me out. I’m not leaving.” Some Democrats rallied around him, framing their support for his flagging candidacy in personal terms: “Joe Biden’s had our back,” Newsom told CNN. “Now it’s time to have his.” Biden would give up his bid, in no small part because of pressure from Pelosi and other leading Democrats. But by the time he passed the torch to then-59-year-old vice president, it may have been too late: Kamala Harris had just 107 days to campaign against Trump, and her run was haunted by her association with Biden and the perception that the administration had sought to hide Biden’s senescence. Harris’s loss—and the governing trifecta Republicans will enjoy in January—carries a lesson for Democrats about the need for a new generation of leadership, about the inadequacy of the party’s status quo. The ground has begun to shift: Jamie Raskin, currently the top Oversight Democrat, will take over as the ranking member of the powerful Judiciary Committee from Jerrold Nadler; Raskin, at 62, isn’t exactly a “new generation,” except when compared with the 77-year-old Nadler. Meanwhile, Jared Huffman, 60, will succeed 76-year-old Raúl Grijalva as the top Democrat on the Natural Resources Committee. But AOC’s loss seems to point to a lingering resistance to the new generation among some party elites, who have downplayed concerns about Connolly’s age and health. “Gerry’s a young 74, cancer notwithstanding,” remarked fellow 74-year-old Representative Don Beyer. Ocasio-Cortez is not entitled to the post by sole virtue of her youth, of course. But the New York representative has distinguished herself on the Oversight Committee, and even some who supported Connolly acknowledged her qualifications after her defeat Tuesday: She is “equipped with all the tools necessary for leadership,” Cleaver told Axios. “Sometimes, it’s a little more time to get there.” But for a party scrambling to curb Trump’s extremist plutocracy, and its own struggles with younger voters ahead of the 2026 midterms, isn’t now as good a time as any?
lost her bid to head up the Oversight Committee, a panel that will play a key watchdog role over Donald Trump and his incoming administration.
Ah so there it is. Cant have real opposition to Trump. Lets get the guy whose literally dead in his chair to head that committee up. Heck of a job, Pelosi.
@auk@slrpnk.net do you not run into the paywall? I’m curious if it’s region-specific or something.
No idea. Maybe it’s region-specific, or maybe it allows a certain number free before it kicks in.
