Strange bedfellows indeed! Glad to see you on the AOC train. Good for you!
Snipping the rest of the silliness, as we’re getting far off topic. I’m glad energetic young and talented progressives like her are part of the party. I like the big tent, with her and moderates welcome. Hopefully we’ll maintain this big tent party with a diverse coalition. Hopefully you won’t succeed in your efforts to boot, muzzle, or minimize voices you don’t like in the party.
Not smart? “The MIT Lincoln Laboratory named the asteroid 23238 Ocasio-Cortez after her when she was a senior in high school in recognition of her second-place finish in the 2007 Intel International Science and Engineering Fair.[20][21] Ocasio-Cortez was named the 2017 National Hispanic Institute Person of the Year by Ernesto Nieto.[9]” (The latter was before her election to Congress.)
How not-smart must one be, majoring in international relations and economics at Boston University, to graduate cum laude? How not-smart must a novice be to defeat a long-term incumbent? No, she’s not merely clever, nor stupid, and those portraying her as such are not just wrong, but worse. Fear gleams in their eyes. She’s dangerous.
She *is *smart- But she is inexperienced and brash. She was putting her foot in her mouth often, until advisors pointed out that ANYTHING she got wrong would be all over the news.
Suggesting the D’s move left is not the same as “attacking” fellow Democrats. But I really do NOT follow personality politics. Tell me her most egregious attack and I’ll probably agree with you. But I am NOT going to go Googling for it myself.
As for the D tent being too big, that agrees with an article I linked to in a recent thread. Should the D’s tailor their appeal to the Left or to the Center? That’s the big dilemma now; I do NOT know the answer.
According to Wikipedia (starting with the same link as you), she got 16,898 votes in the primary. Is that number wrong? Does 16,898 round to 17,000 or does it round to 15,000? It may seem nit-picky to quibble about a smallish error here, but if your argument is sound, why do you need to fudge the numbers?
AOC trounced Pappas in the general, but you emphasize the truism that low-turnout off-year primaries have low turnout. You didn’t mention that the blue sky is colored sky-blue; would that help your argument? 
You realize that this is exactly what she is trying to do right?
She thinks the tent is too big.
She doesn’t want a lot of diversity of opinion, she wants the party to look more like her.
She wants to boot incumbent democrats by primarying them.
She is bad for the party. She gains us no new voters and turns off some current voters.
I agree she is dangerous. Mostly to the Democrats.
She won a science fair. Good for her. Like I said, she’s not stupid.
She graduated cum laude from Boston University. It proves she’s not stupid but I don’t think it proves she’s smart or some sort of rare intellect that we must preserve.
Like I said, she’s not stupid but she’s not Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton.
She doesn’t even have the “cleverness” and craftiness with decades of experience like Nancy Pelosi. She may develop into that one day but right now she is not.
Charismatic, well spoken and photogenic is how I would describe her. She might make a good politician one day if she can avoid making herself irrelevant with her own ignorance.
This was pretty early in her term. There are other examples of her going after moderates.
I think the best way to approach political questions is with politics in mind. Would moving to the left win us more swing states or swing districts?
Would moving towards the center (at least on some issues) win us more swing states or more swing districts?
Yes, I think it is nitpicky. I also said she won by 5000 votes when she only won by 4000 votes. Was I trying to fudge the numbers there too?
Also the numbers within the article itself says:“On June 26, 2018, Ocasio-Cortez received 57.13% of the vote (15,897) to Joe Crowley’s 42.5% (11,761), defeating the 10-term incumbent by almost 15 percentage points”
I see that there is a chart later on that shows more votes like you say.
The general election result is a foregone conclusion in that district.
I don’t think you’re accurately describing her positions with nuance.
But I get that she wants to push the party left – but that’s her role as a very progressive Democrat. She should be trying to tilt the party left – just like moderate Democrats should be trying to tilt the party towards the middle. “Primarying” is another way of actually testing these ideas. This is how politics and a political party should work – not get-in-line obedience, but raucous and rowdy debate!
Good for her! The party will be stronger with energetic voices like hers, whether on the progressive side, the moderate side, or elsewhere (as long as those voices are not hateful and bigoted).
I doubt we will agree on AOC in her current incarnation. She may mature someday to the point where I agree with you. I prefer progressives like Pelosi, Crowley was this brand of progressive.
I’m happy to have all these folks and more, and happy to have their energy and even their disagreements. It’s a sign of a healthy party, and healthy debate, to have so much diversity of opinion within the party.
I feel like the diversity of opinion is being narrowed in the Democratic party much as it was narrowed by the tea party in the Republican party. The Republicans came up with the term “RINO” Republican in name only and i thought how stupid can you be to push moderates out of your party. Then Democrats like AOC said “hold my beer”
I see no evidence that AOC is pushing anyone out of the party. Criticizing some moderates – especially moderates in progressive districts – is not pushing them out of the party. It’s good to have this kind of debate within the party.
We’ll see who’s correct in the next few elections.
AFAICT, the first two paragraphs of that article “accuse” Ms. Ocasio-Cortez of taking the same side as Speaker Pelosi on the issue of Democratic infidelity.
The single sentence about AOC makes me think she was encouraging her D colleagues to remain faithful. Hardly the same as actually denouncing them publicly.
You call AOC “ignorant.” Just to verify that we’re speaking the same dialect of English, do you apply this term to Jim Inhofe, beginning his 25th year as a U.S. Senator, famous for disproving climate change with a snowball? Or Congressman Steve Stockman whose stupidity was even worse?
What about Donald J. Trump? Would you agree that every time he ad libs he shows more ignorance than all of AOC’s ignorances added together?
We shouldn’t discuss AOC’s “ignorance” until we ascertain what “ignorance” means in your dialect.