Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 04-07-2020, 09:42 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,649
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Ha! So was Obama in '07. What a joke!

AOC may not have the talent of Obama (but then again... she's a lot further along than he was at 29), but being "a godsend to Republicans" was pretty much exactly the same what they (Republicans) said about Obama in '07. We'll see. I'm very pleased to have her in the party.
In what way was Obama as wingnutty as AOC in 2007?
  #52  
Old 04-07-2020, 09:44 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,649
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
Just the fact that we're all talking about her is evidence of her level of political skill. Agree or disagree with her positions, but she's definitely good at what she does.
We talk about Trump a lot too. Is he good at what he does?
  #53  
Old 04-07-2020, 09:47 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,649
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
The hottest fire forges the strongest steel. That's what primaries are for -- to test the candidates, and see who emerges strongest. If Biden emerges strongest, then attacks like that will have helped.
So this is Biden's chance to learn how to deal with bold faced lies? I suppose that is good practice for the general election.
  #54  
Old 04-08-2020, 12:18 AM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 44,750
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
The hottest fire forges the strongest steel. That's what primaries are for -- to test the candidates, and see who emerges strongest. If Biden emerges strongest, then attacks like that will have helped.
Biden already won. It's over, the fat lady has sung.

Biden had already won when Bernie paid big bux to spread those lies- and the only possible reason to do so is to help trump. Yes, that's right- I am saying Bernie is deliberately helping trump win.
  #55  
Old 04-08-2020, 04:34 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,855
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
Oh fer heaven's sake. Now you have to demonize Joe Crowley to make it OK for AOC to primary a progressive Democrat who by all accounts was good for the party and good for the country? Jeebus.
Saying that Crowley lost due to his own failures isn't demonizing him. I'd prefer Democrats who take elections seriously over Democrats who blow them off.

Quote:
We'd be better off dusting off Hillary and running her again than running someone like Hillary.
What?
__________________
My new novel Spindown

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 04-08-2020 at 04:35 AM.
  #56  
Old 04-08-2020, 04:41 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,855
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post

Why do we want to nail down these AOC types, where the fuck are they going to go?
We want them (young progressives) because there are millions of them. If they become solid Democrats, then that's millions of solid Democratic votes for decades. If we don't nail them down, but rather antagonize them by shutting down young progressives for the sake of protecting older, less progressive Democrats, many could become apathetic non voters.

And there's no risk, not for safe districts. Encouraging young progressives to challenge older Democrats in safe districts is very healthy for the party. Let the cream rise to the top. Lazy incumbents might lose, but that's okay - they'll be replaced by energetic progressives with more talent.
__________________
My new novel Spindown
  #57  
Old 04-08-2020, 04:42 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,855
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
We talk about Trump a lot too. Is he good at what he does?
Trump is president, not a first term House Rep. And yes, he is good at lying, praising himself, cronyism, corruption, self promotion, appealing to racists, etc.
__________________
My new novel Spindown
  #58  
Old 04-08-2020, 04:44 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,855
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Yes, that's right- I am saying Bernie is deliberately helping trump win.
That's just delusional. Do you have any evidence that these ads have hurt Biden for the general election? If not, it's just fantasizing about your hatred of Bernie. He's not the devil. If he doesn't go all out in the general to help the nominee, then I'll agree with you, but it's ridiculously early to be making such a claim.
__________________
My new novel Spindown
  #59  
Old 04-08-2020, 08:34 AM
Ann Hedonia's Avatar
Ann Hedonia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 4,137
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Ha! So was Obama in '07. What a joke!

AOC may not have the talent of Obama (but then again... she's a lot further along than he was at 29), but being "a godsend to Republicans" was pretty much exactly the same what they (Republicans) said about Obama in '07. We'll see. I'm very pleased to have her in the party.
I think she is incredibly talented, much more talented than Obama. Obama did not have the name recognition that she does until he ran for President. The fact that any freshman congressman has the name recognition and fundraising ability that she does speaks volumes about her talent. This is difficult stuff that all politicians find challenging.

But she is not experienced. There is a difference between talent and experience and sometimes it shows. She has made rookie mistakes in her messaging that any moderately experienced politician would’ve dodged.

But it’s all about fundraising, and she’ll do fine. Even if she loses her primary, she’s not going away. I think she’s going to be an influential force for the next couple of generations.
  #60  
Old 04-08-2020, 08:52 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,855
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ann Hedonia View Post
I think she is incredibly talented, much more talented than Obama. Obama did not have the name recognition that she does until he ran for President. The fact that any freshman congressman has the name recognition and fundraising ability that she does speaks volumes about her talent. This is difficult stuff that all politicians find challenging.

But she is not experienced. There is a difference between talent and experience and sometimes it shows. She has made rookie mistakes in her messaging that any moderately experienced politician would’ve dodged.

But it’s all about fundraising, and she’ll do fine. Even if she loses her primary, she’s not going away. I think she’s going to be an influential force for the next couple of generations.
Luckily, she's got plenty of time, and she's just a House Rep. I think she's smart, and she'll just keep getting smarter with time. Hopefully you're right about how talented she is -- if so, imagine where she'll be in 20 years!
  #61  
Old 04-08-2020, 08:57 AM
JRDelirious is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Distanced
Posts: 16,464
20 years from now if she has a succesful congressional career she will be the establishment. We'll see how she feels about revolutions then.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
Why do we want to nail down these AOC types, where the fuck are they going to go? The Republicans? If they could have split off to some other fucking party they would have done it already, the entire reason Justice Democrats are running as Democrats is because they know they can't win a goddam thing running as green or socialist or whatever.
That's as much of an election losing position as any purity test. They can't win on their own but we KNOW they can provoke a loss if they merely just drop out and go home (same reason why the R's could not just cast off their supremacists and theocrats). That you'll curse them with your last breath if they do, or even if they don't and he still wins, is little consolation for anyone. "Whattya gonna do? Help Trump win, Huh???" may get them to hold their nose in a time of imminent threat but once things are stabilized they'll be justifiably expecting to get some of what they wanted for having stuck to the fight. I hopeif and when we do win and they ask what do they get, your answer is not "nope, grow up little green SJW".


That the system has evolved to encourage green socialists to run as Democrats and white nationalist fascists to run as Republicans if they want to get anywhere, is another whole book. But meanwhile the latter ones are being succesful at it.

Last edited by JRDelirious; 04-08-2020 at 08:59 AM.
  #62  
Old 04-08-2020, 11:22 AM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,649
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Saying that Crowley lost due to his own failures isn't demonizing him. I'd prefer Democrats who take elections seriously over Democrats who blow them off.
Demonize wasn't the right word. You weren't demonizing him. You were belittling and insulting him. He didn't take AOC seriously because on the surface, she didn't really seem like a serious candidate. She looked like all the other wing nut primary challengers that failed to get any traction in prior primary cycles. That was a mistake, one that cost him the election.

Quote:
What?
I meant to say that we would be better off running Hillary again than trying to run the current incarnation of AOC. She may become moderate enough in 11 years to be a better candidate than Hillary. She certainly has all the Charisma that Hillary lacked but she lacks the competence, experience, connections, etc that Hillary brought to the table.
  #63  
Old 04-08-2020, 11:36 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,855
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
Demonize wasn't the right word. You weren't demonizing him. You were belittling and insulting him. He didn't take AOC seriously because on the surface, she didn't really seem like a serious candidate. She looked like all the other wing nut primary challengers that failed to get any traction in prior primary cycles. That was a mistake, one that cost him the election.
Yes, and good riddance. Not because he's a bad person, but because he wasn't up to the job -- and part of the job is taking elections seriously. He'll be fine as a lobbyist or consultant or whatever.

Quote:
I meant to say that we would be better off running Hillary again than trying to run the current incarnation of AOC. She may become moderate enough in 11 years to be a better candidate than Hillary. She certainly has all the Charisma that Hillary lacked but she lacks the competence, experience, connections, etc that Hillary brought to the table.
She's a first term Rep -- of course she shouldn't be running for Prez. She's not 35, so she can't. With many more years, she'll be much, much smarter -- and I think she's already plenty smart. We'll see.
  #64  
Old 04-08-2020, 11:43 AM
Boycott is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 607
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ann Hedonia View Post
I think she is incredibly talented, much more talented than Obama. Obama did not have the name recognition that she does until he ran for President. The fact that any freshman congressman has the name recognition and fundraising ability that she does speaks volumes about her talent. This is difficult stuff that all politicians find challenging.

But she is not experienced. There is a difference between talent and experience and sometimes it shows. She has made rookie mistakes in her messaging that any moderately experienced politician would’ve dodged.

But it’s all about fundraising, and she’ll do fine. Even if she loses her primary, she’s not going away. I think she’s going to be an influential force for the next couple of generations.
Young Obama didn't have Twitter or Instagram to build an online footprint. But his 2004 speech made him a party star.

The thing about AOC's popularity is how much of it is just within a bubble of political junkies on the left who adore her and the right who mock her. There was a poll last year that several presidential candidates suffered badly from name recognition problems. We're talking US Senators. That could easily translate more to a first term House Rep.
  #65  
Old 04-08-2020, 12:15 PM
Kearsen1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 601
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ann Hedonia View Post
I think she is incredibly talented, much more talented than Obama. Obama did not have the name recognition that she does until he ran for President. The fact that any freshman congressman has the name recognition and fundraising ability that she does speaks volumes about her talent. This is difficult stuff that all politicians find challenging.

But she is not experienced. There is a difference between talent and experience and sometimes it shows. She has made rookie mistakes in her messaging that any moderately experienced politician would’ve dodged.

But it’s all about fundraising, and she’ll do fine. Even if she loses her primary, she’s not going away. I think she’s going to be an influential force for the next couple of generations.
Finding ways to be in the press may say something about her , but TALENT? What does she have a talent for, other than stepping on her own tongue? Being popular, being in the news cycle constantly is almost always a good thing. In fact, it probably (most likely helped incredibly) with her fundraising.

But, comparing her to the talented orator that was/is Obama?! Piffle.

From this conservatives viewpoint, he was worth 100 AOC's.

Last edited by Kearsen1; 04-08-2020 at 12:15 PM.
  #66  
Old 04-08-2020, 12:17 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,649
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
We want them (young progressives) because there are millions of them. If they become solid Democrats, then that's millions of solid Democratic votes for decades. If we don't nail them down, but rather antagonize them by shutting down young progressives for the sake of protecting older, less progressive Democrats, many could become apathetic non voters.

And there's no risk, not for safe districts. Encouraging young progressives to challenge older Democrats in safe districts is very healthy for the party. Let the cream rise to the top. Lazy incumbents might lose, but that's okay - they'll be replaced by energetic progressives with more talent.
This is an old article but we can lose votes in swing states if everyone focuses on the AOCs of the party:

https://www.axios.com/alexandria-oca...d569dfdf9.html

Young progressives don't seem to vote any more frequently than young people of prior generations. And maybe (my opinion based on what has happened to every frikking generation before this one) by the time they get old enough to become reliable voters, a lot of them become more moderate.

Chasing young progressive voters in safe blue districts seems pointless. It does little to further the agenda to replace a progressive experienced politician for a more progressive novice in a district that is going to vote blue no matter what, it's not like the old progressive wasn't voting for progressive things. And as the article above shows, we might be losing moderate votes in swing states in an effort to chase votes in safe districts.

Perhaps the argument you are making is that these energized voters in safe blue states can somehow make up for the loss of moderate voters in swing states but I'm not sure how.
  #67  
Old 04-08-2020, 12:29 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,855
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
This is an old article but we can lose votes in swing states if everyone focuses on the AOCs of the party:

https://www.axios.com/alexandria-oca...d569dfdf9.html

Young progressives don't seem to vote any more frequently than young people of prior generations. And maybe (my opinion based on what has happened to every frikking generation before this one) by the time they get old enough to become reliable voters, a lot of them become more moderate.

Chasing young progressive voters in safe blue districts seems pointless. It does little to further the agenda to replace a progressive experienced politician for a more progressive novice in a district that is going to vote blue no matter what, it's not like the old progressive wasn't voting for progressive things. And as the article above shows, we might be losing moderate votes in swing states in an effort to chase votes in safe districts.

Perhaps the argument you are making is that these energized voters in safe blue states can somehow make up for the loss of moderate voters in swing states but I'm not sure how.
There are ways for skillful politicians to appeal to both groups. Knowingly antagonizing young progressives is just pointless (as is knowingly antagonizing any other group, aside from racists/bigots/etc.).
  #68  
Old 04-08-2020, 12:30 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,649
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Trump is president, not a first term House Rep. And yes, he is good at lying, praising himself, cronyism, corruption, self promotion, appealing to racists, etc.
And AOC is not good at lying (let's call it mistating facts, or just talking out of her ass), praising herself, and self promotion?

Sure she doesn't have the cronyism but I'm not sure Trump does either. What unqualified friend has he appointed to positions of power? The only place where I see a lot of this is in white house positions and noone really considers white house positions cronyism.

She herself does not appear to be corrupt but her former chief of staff and head of the justice Democrats ran into some trouble and resigned as her chief of staff. Trump is in fact corrupt but that's not what makes him successful.

She doesn't appear to be racist. AFAICT, she is one of those far left liberals that are NOT racist against asians. She does play the race card and engage in identity politics but it's not in a racist way. She doesn't say white people are evil, she doesn't say that model minorities don't really deserve their success, she generally seem sympathetic to immigrants chasing the american dream. unfortunately Trump is racist and his racism seems to be helping him.
  #69  
Old 04-08-2020, 12:32 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,649
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
That's just delusional. Do you have any evidence that these ads have hurt Biden for the general election? If not, it's just fantasizing about your hatred of Bernie. He's not the devil. If he doesn't go all out in the general to help the nominee, then I'll agree with you, but it's ridiculously early to be making such a claim.
I think the argument there is that Bernie has lost the primary. It is no longer statistically possible for him to win and he should pivot to trying to shape the platform rather than replace the nominee. The only things that would expel Biden from the top spot would be so extraordinary that the current criticism does nothing to improve his chances.

So it is hard to see the purpose of these ads.
  #70  
Old 04-08-2020, 12:43 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,855
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
And AOC is not good at lying (let's call it mistating facts, or just talking out of her ass), praising herself, and self promotion?
IMO she's more honest (including more likely to admit errors) than most politicians of either party. And less narcissistic, at least in her words and actions.

Quote:
Sure she doesn't have the cronyism but I'm not sure Trump does either. What unqualified friend has he appointed to positions of power? The only place where I see a lot of this is in white house positions and noone really considers white house positions cronyism.
If you're serious, this deserves it's own thread. I have a hard time believing that you're serious here. Most of his non-judicial (and some of his judicial) nominees have been unqualified and clearly were picked for crony-ish reasons.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
I think the argument there is that Bernie has lost the primary. It is no longer statistically possible for him to win and he should pivot to trying to shape the platform rather than replace the nominee. The only things that would expel Biden from the top spot would be so extraordinary that the current criticism does nothing to improve his chances.

So it is hard to see the purpose of these ads.
Those ads are ancient history, and Bernie dropped out today and endorsed Biden.
  #71  
Old 04-08-2020, 01:13 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,649
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ann Hedonia View Post
I think she is incredibly talented, much more talented than Obama. Obama did not have the name recognition that she does until he ran for President. The fact that any freshman congressman has the name recognition and fundraising ability that she does speaks volumes about her talent. This is difficult stuff that all politicians find challenging.

But she is not experienced. There is a difference between talent and experience and sometimes it shows. She has made rookie mistakes in her messaging that any moderately experienced politician would’ve dodged.

But it’s all about fundraising, and she’ll do fine. Even if she loses her primary, she’s not going away. I think she’s going to be an influential force for the next couple of generations.
I don't see how she loses her primary.
The only way she loses is going so far to the left that she somehow loses in the general.
This is what happened to the guy that primaried Eric Cantor.
  #72  
Old 04-08-2020, 01:26 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,649
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRDelirious View Post
That's as much of an election losing position as any purity test. They can't win on their own but we KNOW they can provoke a loss if they merely just drop out and go home (same reason why the R's could not just cast off their supremacists and theocrats). That you'll curse them with your last breath if they do, or even if they don't and he still wins, is little consolation for anyone.
They're mostly staying home anyway. By the time they become reliable voters they aren't that radical anymore. And if you are chasing radicals in blue districts at the expense of modreates in swing districts, then what have you won?

Quote:
"Whattya gonna do? Help Trump win, Huh???" may get them to hold their nose in a time of imminent threat but once things are stabilized they'll be justifiably expecting to get some of what they wanted for having stuck to the fight. I hopeif and when we do win and they ask what do they get, your answer is not "nope, grow up little green SJW".
We can cross that bridge when the current crisis in democracy is over. Who knows what the landscape looks like at that point. Perhaps the parties start to chase the middle again, perhaps they both fly off the rails and a moderate party emerges.

Quote:
That the system has evolved to encourage green socialists to run as Democrats and white nationalist fascists to run as Republicans if they want to get anywhere, is another whole book. But meanwhile the latter ones are being succesful at it.
One thing I do like about the Justice Democrats is their focus on breaking the 2 party system.
  #73  
Old 04-08-2020, 01:31 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,649
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Yes, and good riddance. Not because he's a bad person, but because he wasn't up to the job -- and part of the job is taking elections seriously. He'll be fine as a lobbyist or consultant or whatever.
To the extent that not taking primaries seriously is the result of detachment from the constituency, this might be correct but this was a bit of a surprise to everyone. Noone really thought that the bartender from the Bronx was a serious challenge... until election night.

Quote:
She's a first term Rep -- of course she shouldn't be running for Prez. She's not 35, so she can't. With many more years, she'll be much, much smarter -- and I think she's already plenty smart. We'll see.
She is charismatic but she is not really a stand out intellect. But neither was Reagan and he shaped the country for a generation.

The big test is whether she can expand her appeal beyond socialists.

Last edited by Damuri Ajashi; 04-08-2020 at 01:32 PM.
  #74  
Old 04-08-2020, 01:45 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,649
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
Finding ways to be in the press may say something about her , but TALENT? What does she have a talent for, other than stepping on her own tongue? Being popular, being in the news cycle constantly is almost always a good thing. In fact, it probably (most likely helped incredibly) with her fundraising.

But, comparing her to the talented orator that was/is Obama?! Piffle.

From this conservatives viewpoint, he was worth 100 AOC's.
She has given hope to a socialist sliver of society that thought that America would never embrace socialism. But she has no ability to appeal to crossover voters, heck she has trouble appealing to a significant portion of her own party. My guess is that she moderates and becomes more appealing to folks like me and less appealing to folks like iiandyiiii as she gains wisdom and maturity.

And while she doesn't have the oratory ability of Obama but who the hell does. She has her own gifts. She has a lot of charisma with a Julia Roberts smile, she has a lot of integrity and honesty, she has a killer instinct and knows what she wants, she is obviously a hard worker, doesn't really engage in identity politics too much.

Perhaps with maturity and experience she will moderate and become a force for change rather than another Bernie Sander off in the corner of the tent.
  #75  
Old 04-08-2020, 01:46 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,649
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
There are ways for skillful politicians to appeal to both groups. Knowingly antagonizing young progressives is just pointless (as is knowingly antagonizing any other group, aside from racists/bigots/etc.).
No need to antagonize them. Just treat them the same way we have always treated young people in the past. Recognize that they are idealist and keep patting them on the head until they grow up.
  #76  
Old 04-08-2020, 01:49 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,649
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
IMO she's more honest (including more likely to admit errors) than most politicians of either party. And less narcissistic, at least in her words and actions.
I think she honest enough for a politician. I don't think she is any more likely to admit errors (at least not without dismissing the errors as irrelevant).She is plenty narcissistic but almost every politician is.

Quote:
If you're serious, this deserves it's own thread. I have a hard time believing that you're serious here. Most of his non-judicial (and some of his judicial) nominees have been unqualified and clearly were picked for crony-ish reasons.
Can you give me the most egregious example?

Quote:
Those ads are ancient history, and Bernie dropped out today and endorsed Biden.
Oh good. I think we're going to win.
  #77  
Old 04-08-2020, 01:57 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 44,750
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ann Hedonia View Post
...

But she is not experienced. There is a difference between talent and experience and sometimes it shows. She has made rookie mistakes in her messaging that any moderately experienced politician would’ve dodged.....
Yes, she is smart but not wise, and not experienced. She shot her mouth off without fact checking several times right after she was elected- and of course got caught making shit up, like "everyone has to work two jobs". AOC didnt realize that as soon as she won- the press would make sure mistakes like that would get publicity.

But she is smart, and she is learning. However, her and her cronies are not helping the party- in almost every case, they are primarying out another Democrat- not winning in a purple seat.
  #78  
Old 04-08-2020, 02:27 PM
tafinucane is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
Nope.

A lot of them are a little pissed at her over the Amazon jobs
How true is this among her constituents? $3 Billion is a lot of dollars to give a wealthy corporation, and very few of the high paying jobs would have been going to people who are in Queens now.
  #79  
Old 04-08-2020, 02:42 PM
Ann Hedonia's Avatar
Ann Hedonia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 4,137
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
Finding ways to be in the press may say something about her , but TALENT? What does she have a talent for, other than stepping on her own tongue? Being popular, being in the news cycle constantly is almost always a good thing. In fact, it probably (most likely helped incredibly) with her fundraising.

But, comparing her to the talented orator that was/is Obama?! Piffle.

From this conservatives viewpoint, he was worth 100 AOC's.

Fundraising and Branding
She’s talented at getting people to send her money. Fundraising. This is 90% of everything in politics. I expect it’s the thing that most newcomers find most difficult. If you want to run for and hold public office, your local and national party machines are going to expect you to bring in cash. It’s like a job in sales, you get a quota that you’re expected to meet. And apparently this young woman has a real talent for bringing in the bucks and she doesn’t have to work that hard.

Everyone knows who she is. She has a short snappy recognizable nickname. Everyone in politics, everyone that follows politics, and a staggering number of people that don’t - know who she is and what she stands for.

There are politicians that have worked their entire lives building a career and they still don’t have the fundraising capability and name recognition that she does. And they have the exact same social media tools that she does.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
I don't see how she loses her primary.
The only way she loses is going so far to the left that she somehow loses in the general.
This is what happened to the guy that primaried Eric Cantor.
Not going to happen.

I never lived in her district but I lived in the district next door when she was elected. This is a deep deep blue district. Her Republican opponent in 2018 didn’t even file the paperwork required to fundraise and spend money, the Republican Party LITERALLY did not want to spend as much as a penny on that race. That is why it was such a big deal when she won her primary. The primary IS the deciding election.
  #80  
Old 04-08-2020, 04:54 PM
Shodan is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 40,870
Quote:
Originally Posted by tafinucane View Post
How true is this among her constituents? $3 Billion is a lot of dollars to give a wealthy corporation, and very few of the high paying jobs would have been going to people who are in Queens now.
None of the jobs are gonna go there now.

Whether or not her constituents care, or care enough that they won't vote for her, I don't know. Maybe "you shouldn't have to worry about working" is part of her appeal, or at least not a drawback. Part of her apparent bewilderment at the idea that we have to pay for anything, that government just magically summons the Money Fairy and everybody gets free health care and free college and free energy.

Regards,
Shodan
  #81  
Old 04-08-2020, 06:35 PM
tafinucane is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
None of the jobs are gonna go there now.

Whether or not her constituents care, or care enough that they won't vote for her, I don't know. Maybe "you shouldn't have to worry about working" is part of her appeal, or at least not a drawback. Part of her apparent bewilderment at the idea that we have to pay for anything, that government just magically summons the Money Fairy and everybody gets free health care and free college and free energy.

Regards,
Shodan

I think her constituents are smart enough to know a bad deal when they see one, or at the very least are self-serving enough to realize it doesn't benefit them--even indirectly.

I find it hypocritical that you mock paying for social welfare, but don't object to the corporate subsidy.
  #82  
Old 04-09-2020, 06:57 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,855
Quote:
Originally Posted by tafinucane View Post
I find it hypocritical that you mock paying for social welfare, but don't object to the corporate subsidy.
I wondered about this too. The best I can figure is that Shodan might think that spending doesn't count if it goes to those who already have a lot of money?
  #83  
Old 04-09-2020, 09:13 AM
Shodan is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 40,870
AOC's line of reasoning (so to speak) seems to be that welfare spending is fine, as long as nobody has to go to work.

Regards,
Shodan
  #84  
Old 04-09-2020, 09:54 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 20,115
And yours would be "corporate handouts don't count as welfare". Well, I assume that's what your line would be if you were forced to stop ignoring the point.
  #85  
Old 04-09-2020, 05:29 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,649
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ann Hedonia View Post
Fundraising and Branding
She’s talented at getting people to send her money. Fundraising. This is 90% of everything in politics. I expect it’s the thing that most newcomers find most difficult. If you want to run for and hold public office, your local and national party machines are going to expect you to bring in cash. It’s like a job in sales, you get a quota that you’re expected to meet. And apparently this young woman has a real talent for bringing in the bucks and she doesn’t have to work that hard.
And she doesn't pay her dues to the DCCC. She prefers to pick which candidates she thinks needs the support and frequently that candidate is a primary challenger to a sitting Democrat.

Quote:
Everyone knows who she is. She has a short snappy recognizable nickname. Everyone in politics, everyone that follows politics, and a staggering number of people that don’t - know who she is and what she stands for.

There are politicians that have worked their entire lives building a career and they still don’t have the fundraising capability and name recognition that she does. And they have the exact same social media tools that she does.
Everyone knows who Kim Kardashian is too.

Quote:
Not going to happen.

I never lived in her district but I lived in the district next door when she was elected. This is a deep deep blue district. Her Republican opponent in 2018 didn’t even file the paperwork required to fundraise and spend money, the Republican Party LITERALLY did not want to spend as much as a penny on that race. That is why it was such a big deal when she won her primary. The primary IS the deciding election.
I also grew up in a neighboring queens district and lived in her district when I was first starting out. It was a largely working class immigrant neighborhood.

I thought maybe Elizabeth Crowley might take a credible run at her but the people who might have been encouraging her are probably not encouraging her now that AOC has backed off her threats to primary safe blue seats.

I think she is probably safe for the time being. If she pulls another stunt like Amazon HQ2 again, I think she is in trouble.
  #86  
Old 04-09-2020, 05:48 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,649
Quote:
Originally Posted by tafinucane View Post
I think her constituents are smart enough to know a bad deal when they see one, or at the very least are self-serving enough to realize it doesn't benefit them--even indirectly.

I find it hypocritical that you mock paying for social welfare, but don't object to the corporate subsidy.
So do you understand where the $3 billion was coming from? It wasn't NYC handing over $3 billion it had in its coffers.

Amazon was going to develop 4-8 million square feet of space in Long Island City An area that has been ripe for development since I was a kid. Amazon would receive a $3 billion tax break. The project increases the value of the property immensely, the incentive gives them a break on the real estate tax on that increased property value.
The tax break is contingent on Amazon creating at least 25,000 direct jobs within 10 years and 40,000 direct jobs within 15 years, the incentives are cut or eliminated entirely if they don't meet these objectives. Those jobs were expected to pay about $150K. The development was supposed to generate several times as many lower paying jobs in the area.

Amazon was also obligated to spend about $2.5 billion on new schools, a "tech incubator" campus and new green spaces.

The biggest criticism from people who know what they are talking about was lack of consideration of the strain all this economic activity was going to place on the subway system.

The project was projected to generate $27.5 billion in tax revenue over 15 years.

It's not like NYC was going to take money they could have spent on more medicaid and diverting it to Amazon. They were giving Amazon a break in taxes that they were not otherwise going to collect at all.
  #87  
Old 04-10-2020, 08:54 AM
naita is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Norway
Posts: 6,990
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
The tax break is contingent on Amazon creating at least 25,000 direct jobs within 10 years and 40,000 direct jobs within 15 years, the incentives are cut or eliminated entirely if they don't meet these objectives. Those jobs were expected to pay about $150K. The development was supposed to generate several times as many lower paying jobs in the area.

Amazon was also obligated to spend about $2.5 billion on new schools, a "tech incubator" campus and new green spaces.
A common factor for many such deals is that they don't pan out as planned and agreed. Once a company as big as Amazon has landed one such deal they keep pushing. "Oh, we haven't had the expected growth, so we need to keep the tax break without filling the obligations.", "Oh, we could start paying full taxes, but we don't want to. Cut us another deal or we will leave. Atlanta is willing to give us a great deal if we relocate there."

Massive tax breaks are simply bad politics as long as corporations are ruled almost exclusively by profit motive and can play political subdivisions against each other.
  #88  
Old 04-10-2020, 05:46 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,649
Quote:
Originally Posted by naita View Post
A common factor for many such deals is that they don't pan out as planned and agreed. Once a company as big as Amazon has landed one such deal they keep pushing. "Oh, we haven't had the expected growth, so we need to keep the tax break without filling the obligations.", "Oh, we could start paying full taxes, but we don't want to. Cut us another deal or we will leave. Atlanta is willing to give us a great deal if we relocate there."

Massive tax breaks are simply bad politics as long as corporations are ruled almost exclusively by profit motive and can play political subdivisions against each other.
WTF are you talking about?

These tax breaks are not based on mutual trust and good faith. The tax breaks are based on a contract and if Amazon does not fulfill their end of the contract, they do not get the tax breaks.

I agree that tax breaks are bad politics. I have always held that tax competitions between countries was a race to the bottom. Tax competition between states is cannibalism. But that doesn't mean that the agreements on which tax breaks are given are not enforcable.

When the Republicans give tax cuts to corporations and the rich, the corporations and the rich do not provise to hire more people, etc. They don't pay for the tax breaks after they get them, they paid for them before they were passed.

When cities give tax breaks to corporations they do not give those tax breaks based on mutual trust and good will. The corporation insists on a legally enforceable contract to protect their right to those tax breaks and that contract also say that those tax breaks disappear if the corporations doesn't hold up its end of the bargain.

Why in the world would NYC continue to give tax breaks they are not required to give? Amazon will have already made billions of dollars of investment in their HQ2, they're not going to walk away.
  #89  
Old 04-10-2020, 06:19 PM
Rick Kitchen's Avatar
Rick Kitchen is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Citrus Heights, CA, USA
Posts: 18,329
What makes her formidable?
  #90  
Old 04-11-2020, 02:14 AM
Johanna's Avatar
Johanna is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Altered States of America
Posts: 13,906
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Kitchen View Post
What makes her formidable?
I don't rightly know. But I was going to say—

My district is represented in the House by a low-key liberal Democratic congressman who's been there for six terms. In the upcoming primary he's being challenged by a young woman from the left, very much in the mold of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Except here the congressman is steadily popular, while the challenger I had no idea about until I searched on Google for a while. She's not exactly standing out in the media. I like the incumbent just fine, and expect him to coast to easy victory in the primary. But I donated to the challenger and I'm going to vote for her. Why? Because I feel like it.
  #91  
Old 04-11-2020, 10:15 AM
naita is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Norway
Posts: 6,990
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
WTF are you talking about?

These tax breaks are not based on mutual trust and good faith. The tax breaks are based on a contract and if Amazon does not fulfill their end of the contract, they do not get the tax breaks.

I agree that tax breaks are bad politics. I have always held that tax competitions between countries was a race to the bottom. Tax competition between states is cannibalism. But that doesn't mean that the agreements on which tax breaks are given are not enforcable.

When the Republicans give tax cuts to corporations and the rich, the corporations and the rich do not provise to hire more people, etc. They don't pay for the tax breaks after they get them, they paid for them before they were passed.

When cities give tax breaks to corporations they do not give those tax breaks based on mutual trust and good will. The corporation insists on a legally enforceable contract to protect their right to those tax breaks and that contract also say that those tax breaks disappear if the corporations doesn't hold up its end of the bargain.

Why in the world would NYC continue to give tax breaks they are not required to give? Amazon will have already made billions of dollars of investment in their HQ2, they're not going to walk away.
The issues isn't continuing tax breaks after promises have been broken, it's that the broken promises are usually only obvious in hindsight and clawing money back from unwilling companies is costly. There are reasons why the politicians have been more stringent about including clawback clauses and creating bodies to enforce them, but companies still speculate in that being more expensive than just taking the loss.

Amazon successfully threatened to abandon their HQ in Seattle, why would you think they wouldn't try the same in NY?
  #92  
Old 04-11-2020, 07:48 PM
Linden Arden is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 641
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Kitchen View Post
What makes her formidable?
MCC is representative of a 70% Democrat (like Biden) vs AOC - the 30% Democrat (like Sanders).

Sanders was clearly defined and Biden was just a prototype anti-Sanders who had no real campaign spending in the last couple of weeks of the primary season.

I voted for "Anyone But Bernie" for example. My first choice was Senator Bennett.

Now that is a nationwide split of course (70-30).

AOC's new district may be a 50-50 district. If that is the case MCC would be a formidable candidate. In the 2018 district AOC would be a near lock.
  #93  
Old 04-11-2020, 09:38 PM
Rick Kitchen's Avatar
Rick Kitchen is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Citrus Heights, CA, USA
Posts: 18,329
Quote:
Originally Posted by Linden Arden View Post
MCC is representative of a 70% Democrat (like Biden) vs AOC - the 30% Democrat (like Sanders).

Sanders was clearly defined and Biden was just a prototype anti-Sanders who had no real campaign spending in the last couple of weeks of the primary season.

I voted for "Anyone But Bernie" for example. My first choice was Senator Bennett.

Now that is a nationwide split of course (70-30).

AOC's new district may be a 50-50 district. If that is the case MCC would be a formidable candidate. In the 2018 district AOC would be a near lock.
She isn't a representative of anything. Are there polls?
  #94  
Old 04-11-2020, 11:40 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,649
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johanna View Post
I don't rightly know. But I was going to say—

My district is represented in the House by a low-key liberal Democratic congressman who's been there for six terms. In the upcoming primary he's being challenged by a young woman from the left, very much in the mold of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Except here the congressman is steadily popular, while the challenger I had no idea about until I searched on Google for a while. She's not exactly standing out in the media. I like the incumbent just fine, and expect him to coast to easy victory in the primary. But I donated to the challenger and I'm going to vote for her. Why? Because I feel like it.
Well, to be fair, AOC didn't stand out in the media until she won.
  #95  
Old 04-11-2020, 11:54 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,649
Quote:
Originally Posted by naita View Post
The issues isn't continuing tax breaks after promises have been broken, it's that the broken promises are usually only obvious in hindsight and clawing money back from unwilling companies is costly. There are reasons why the politicians have been more stringent about including clawback clauses and creating bodies to enforce them, but companies still speculate in that being more expensive than just taking the loss.
It sounds like you don't understand how the deal was structured. NYC was going to get more in real estate tax revenue even after the tax deals because the assessed value of the property was going to increase by more than the tax breaks.

Quote:
Amazon successfully threatened to abandon their HQ in Seattle, why would you think they wouldn't try the same in NY?
They can TRY. I mean why haven't ALL the large corporations in NYC done this?
  #96  
Old 04-12-2020, 12:43 AM
Johanna's Avatar
Johanna is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Altered States of America
Posts: 13,906
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
Well, to be fair, AOC didn't stand out in the media until she won.
The difference is that she caught fire, while in my district the AOC equivalent just isn't going anywhere.
  #97  
Old 04-12-2020, 03:08 AM
Chisquirrel is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 3,009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Kitchen View Post
She isn't a representative of anything. Are there polls?
There's not even a single policy position.

All I know is her "conservatism good, AOC Squad bad" stances, and blind support for Israel. There's no "there" there, at least so far. Two months in, I'd expect more from a serious candidate.
  #98  
Old 04-12-2020, 04:06 AM
road_lobo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 286
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Kitchen View Post
What makes her formidable?
Shodan likes her.
  #99  
Old 04-12-2020, 10:23 AM
Linden Arden is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 641
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chisquirrel View Post
There's not even a single policy position.

All I know is her "conservatism good, AOC Squad bad" stances, and blind support for Israel. There's no "there" there, at least so far. Two months in, I'd expect more from a serious candidate.
MCC is pro-choice, pro-immigrant, and pro gay rights. How does that fit in the Republican Party?

Democrats need the Blue Dogs back. If there were still Kent Conrads, Byron Dorgans, Claire McCaskills, Heidi Heitkamps, Mark Pryors, and Blanche Lincolns in the Senate there would be no Majority Leader McConnell.

70% is greater than 30%.

Blue Dog types won big in the House in 2018.
  #100  
Old 04-12-2020, 01:40 PM
Saintly Loser is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 3,631
Quote:
Originally Posted by Linden Arden View Post
AOC's new district may be a 50-50 district. If that is the case MCC would be a formidable candidate. In the 2018 district AOC would be a near lock.
I spent half my life (I'm 60) in Rep. Ocaso-Cortez's district. And I still live in New York City, albeit in a different district.

There is no possible way that her redrawn district will be a 50-50 district, no matter how bizarre the new lines are, no matter how weird the shape. It's simply not possible.

There is not a single Republican congressperson from New York City. There aren't that many from the whole state. Five, I think.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:25 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017