I guess we have a different definition of “horrible mistake”. This is about as stupid as the hullabaloo over Klobuchar forgetting the name of the President of Mexico.
People who make such trivialities into the main decision on who they vote for deserve the representation that they get.
OK let’s arrange a debate between AOC and Sarah…
OK lets just imagine it…
Oh that is good. Are you seeing this? You do and it’s a bipartisan position.
Chicks, amirite?
OMG that’s so wrong. Her support has nothing to do with Bernie Sanders. A Sanders thrashing would in fact elevate her profile significantly, although I think shed rather it not happen that way nor at this time.
This is at least AOC’s second major economics flub. Remember her stupidity in not knowing how the unemployment rate was calculated?
I can’t imagine any economics undergrad not being required to read Milton Friedman or John Maynard Keynes.
I doubt that. A Sanders thrashing means the loss of the House and they’ll be some young Paul Ryan wunderkind who will have the spotlight.
No, I don’t remember those things. Do you have any cites?
I kinda suspect, for example, that “not knowing how the unemployment rate (was) calculated” is likely more of either an Obama-style “57 states” misstatement or some off-handed hyperbole than it is any actual lack of knowledge on AOC’s part- which is why I ask.
Her bio says she has a BA in Economics and International Relations, and that she graduated cum laude and 4th in her class, so I would be very surprised to find the things you claim are true.
Fourth in her class: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez named 2017 NHI Person of the Year - NHI Magazine
Graduation with BA and cum laude status: https://web.archive.org/web/20151123135730/http://www.bu.edu/commencement/files/2012/12/2011Redbook.pdf
Degrees in Economics and International Relations: https://ocasio-cortez.house.gov/about/biography
These are the kind of “flubs” that smart, educated people who speak all the time about complicated topics make.
How much intellectual curiosity does it take to be a bartender in the Bronx?
Wiki, natch. Sorry to interrupt, you were sneering…?
Here’s AOC showing her stupidity about how the unemployment rate is calculated.
She is only going after one democrat so far with her PAC. I guess that’s an improvement.
That one has already been trotted out a dozen times. That AOC-haters are having to pull the same few mundane mistakes over and over again to support their AOC-hatred just shows how little an actual basis there is. AOC is not the enemy. She’s a young, energetic progressive with a lot of talent who occasionally makes rhetorical mistakes. Give her some time to learn before you jump all over her. She’s just a first-term House Rep.
My point exactly. Thanks.
Right, right - just a few, minor nitpicking details where she’s wrong. Why, over a third of the time she is actually telling the truth, more or less! (As opposed to the 62% of the time where she isn’t.)
But as you say, she’s just a first-termer. No doubt by the time the world has ended in ten years or so, she will be right more than half the time.
Regards,
Shodan
Wow, a sample size in the single digits! IMO, that qualifies as “just a few”, but YMMV.
She’s got a degree in Economics! The basics of calculating the unemployment rate in the USA is covered in any Intro to Macroeconomics class and I bet she had to take at least one core Labor Economics class. And, if you’re going to run your mouth about it. I’d at least double check my facts. I expect more from here than some blowhard on CNBC.
Hopefully she’s learned from this mistake. AFAICT, most of her (relatively few) mistakes were made very early in her tenure, and she’s made fewer, if any, since then.
While this thread has descended into the dalej42 show because of his weak-sauce ad hominem attacks on AOC, which are being joined by some of the conservative “usual suspects”, I would like to hear what dopers think of the Courage to Change PAC, more specifically using AOC’s fundraising abilities to primary other Democrats instead of holding our powder for the real enemy in the general election. My opinion is that this is part and parcel of the whole Sanders-ist belief that the enthusiasm of the progressive base is the alpha-and-omega of this election and somehow purple districts and states that only just squeaked into the blue column in the last election, or that are real toss-ups this election, will go DEEEEP blue (progresssive) in the general election. :dubious:
At least she knows who are the Republicans, and who are the Democrats. Except when she doesn’t.
And of course we need to get rid of the mistaken idea that taxes pay for 100% of government expenditures, because they don’t. There’s also deficit spending, which is a good idea when done to support her Green New Deal but a bad idea when Republicans do it. Because we apparently don’t have record low unemployment, and need more jobs for everybody to have two of, which causes unemployment.
Of course she has mentioned that she finds questions about how to pay for her proposals puzzling.
She is pretty and passionate as well as innumerate, so she seems well-equipped to be the face of the progressives, no matter what, if anything, is behind that face.
Regards,
Shodan