Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., has issued a dire warning to her party about the chaos that could ensue if they succeed in pushing President Joe Biden off the ticket. And she criticized Democrats who’ve given off-the-record quotes that suggest the party has resigned itself to a second Trump term.
In an Instagram Live video on Thursday, Ocasio-Cortez warned liberals that a brokered convention could lead to chaos, in part because she says some of the Democratic “elites” who want Biden out also don’t want Vice President Kamala Harris as the nominee in his place.
“If you think that is going to be an easy transition, I’m here to tell you that a huge amount of the donor class and these elites who are pushing for the president not to be the nominee also do not want to see the VP be the nominee,” she said.
Ocasio-Cortez claimed none of the people she’s spoken with who are calling on Biden to drop out — including lawmakers and legal experts — have articulated a plan to swap out the nominee without minimizing the serious legal and procedural challenges that are likely to ensue.
Ocasio-Cortez also highlighted the racial, ethnic and class divisions that appear to have formed between the majority of those pining to blow up the ticket — led mostly by white Democrats and media pundits — and those elected officials who feel they and their constituents have too much at stake to upend the process at this point and so are willing to do the work to re-elect Biden-Harris. She alluded to this cultural divide in her video when she spoke out against anonymous sources expressing a sense of fatalism on behalf of Democrats about what might happen if Biden remains on the ticket:
What I will say is what upsets me is [Democrats] saying we will lose. For me, to a certain extent, I don’t care what name is on there. We are not losing. I don’t know about you, but my community does not have the option to lose. My community does not have the luxury of accepting loss in July of an election year. My people are the first ones deported. They’re the first ones put in Rikers. They’re the first ones whose families are killed by war.
I wouldn’t say I dislike her, but I don’t like the AOC worship here.
Yes, she voices what we’re all thinking. She elevates our voice.
The problem is that she’s also unrealistic in expectations, and that can cause a rift. I wouldn’t say her comments cause a rift in the party itself, but among voters.
For example, she was all in on the expanding the SCOTUS bandwagon. Functionally, it’s untenable. Any politician should know that. There’s some loophole that would allow you to do it with simple majorities in house and senate, but that loophole is sketchy and likely won’t work out. And if it does, that opens Pandora box to completely railroad this country next time Reps get simple majorities in both houses. Which may be half a year away.
But it seems like a brilliant workaround on the surface. And people who bought into that pipe dream became extremely disruptive, causing fights amongst blue voters.
And this isn’t the only time. She’s a consistent voice of the Progressives. Which is fine. Idealist should have a voice. But I would prefer it if her and Bernie would also include pragmatic expectations with their ideas in a way that doesn’t put their more moderate colleagues on blast for no reason.
To give it a real world hypothetical we can all probably relate to. I’m a programmer, so I’ll put it in those terms, but this applies to pretty much any job one way or another.
Let’s say you’re maintaining a code base that has a lot of problems. Maintaining it is a nightmare. Ask an experienced engineer, I have identified a number of solutions of varying effort and effectiveness.
The best solutions would require giant re-writes and would require parallel effort from other teams to support our effort. Risk is large
The next best requires extensive refactoring of our teams code base, but can be done in isolation from other teams for the most part. Risk is still large because we’re going to need to swap out major parts of our internal infrastructure, but no impact to other teams.
And then there’s the shortest path. Fix problems as they come up, make small refactors as you can to help relieve some headaches. Let’s you move fast and not be disruptive, but the underlying problems stay around. Smallest risk.
Now, having brought these to the table, management chooses the least risky option because they can’t or won’t commit to larger scale efforts because of other priorities.
Do I talk shit, be extremely negative, try to get other non-management colleagues to join my outcry for the “right” solution? I could. I have. But if I do, I’m putting my employment / influence at risk. And sometimes it’s more appropriate to just keep the ideal solution on the backburner, do what’s immediately effective, and bring the best solution to the table at a better time.
To me, AOC and Bernie are those coworkers that won’t shut up about the “perfect” solution. And maybe even attack their colleagues for not supporting them in their pursuit of perfect when they’re just trying to tread water and get the easier wins to the finish line.
Damn straight! Us software developers know better because we’re expected to learn any domain. Obviously the government works a lot like software and that makes me a theoretically political scientist.
Fuckin tech bros are worse than doctors and the “as a mom” people
And what specific points do you disagree with.
Great job ignoring the point.
Wisdom is choosing when to pick a fight. AOC is intelligent, but not very wise.
She’s very popular with the progressive crowd who want to hear their problems and solutions echoed by a prominent politician. But she’s also tact-less. Stirring up shit that has zero chance of becoming reality.
And again, I think it can lead to healthy discussion of what things could be like. If we had a possible super majority and could really reform the government. If it were phrased as such, I wouldn’t have any problem.
But in practice, I find her antics to be more screaming into the wind than being productive. And it has only served to weaponize the “leftists” against the party to the point we’re losing votes and not gaining anything.
You make a lot of claims and generalize from there, but I am not sure what specifics you are talking about. In the specific case of Kamala, it seems she was right and got here way (breaking news). So really, your point (which I am not sure if it goes beyond personal attacks) is rendered moot.
deleted by creator