# Sanderista primaries out 10-term Dem Congressman **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [June 27, 2018, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanderista-primaries-out-10-term-dem-congressman/816850 "2018-06-27T17:45:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 17
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2018, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanderista-primaries-out-10-term-dem-congressman/816850/321 "2018-08-09T01:21:40Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > I don’t think anyone here made the claim that she has a magic touch, or any similar claim for that matter. I probably disagree with her on all sorts of things, but I don’t see the value in ridiculing her for taking a principled stand. It’s called gloating. He doesn’t need a lot of foundation for it when those darn bomb throwers threaten to upset his Democratic Pary. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2018, 11:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanderista-primaries-out-10-term-dem-congressman/816850/322 "2018-08-09T11:32:02Z")
> [@Ruken](#): > > Working long hours is “good” in the sense that people who work longer are typically paid more. Would you like to have the same amount of scrutiny applied to that statement as people have applied to AOC’s? ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2018, 12:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanderista-primaries-out-10-term-dem-congressman/816850/323 "2018-08-09T12:12:28Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > Would you like to have the same amount of scrutiny applied to that statement as people have applied to AOC’s? Given that the most minimal level of scrutiny applied to AOC’s statement on this showed it to be false, _I_ would. For most individuals more hours worked leads to greater pay than working fewer hours does. Is that verifiably false with minimal evaluation, like AOC’s statement was? Within a job level those who work more hours usually get paid more than those who do not. Is that verifiably false? The top-level for compensation in a company is often the CEO level and they work more hours per week than does the typical worker. That one is even verifiably true, over 58 hours per week compared to the average overworked worker’s 47 hours per week. Many lower level executives are putting in [72 hours per week.](https://hbr.org/2013/09/welcome-to-the-72-hour-work-we) Do too many work too hard in this country for what is still not a livable wage? I’d say yes. Is income and more so wealth inequality increasing in this country and is that a real and serious problem? I’d say yes. Is making false statements good advocacy? I’d say no. ---
**Author:** ![Ann\_Hedonia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ann_hedonia/32/319_2.png) [@Ann\_Hedonia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ann_Hedonia)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2018, 1:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanderista-primaries-out-10-term-dem-congressman/816850/324 "2018-08-09T13:07:16Z")
I know people that work 60, 70, 80 hours a week. But they usually don’t have two real jobs, the scheduling is too difficult. Usually it’s a full-time job + a “hustle” — they clean houses or do handyman work on the evenings and weekends. Or they drive for a car service or collect recyclable cans and bottles. Or they do hair or give massages out of their homes. But a lot of people are working, a lot. I’m not in AOC’s district but most of my neighborhood is, I’m a half block from the dividing line. It’s an incredibly diverse district - in addition to low income and working class neighborhoods in the Bronx and Queens, it encompasses several affluent and mostly white neighborhoods. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2018, 1:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanderista-primaries-out-10-term-dem-congressman/816850/325 "2018-08-09T13:38:18Z")
Long hours are also common for small-business owners. ---
**Author:** ![Pantastic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3bc359/32.png) [@Pantastic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pantastic)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2018, 2:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanderista-primaries-out-10-term-dem-congressman/816850/326 "2018-08-09T14:10:45Z")
> [@Ruken](#): > > 1. People are working 60, 70, 80 hours a week. False, for the most part, as I have shown, but not well supported by the article. Only true in the sense that at least two people are working a lot. “Not well supported” is crap when the article UTTERLY FAILS to refute this claim.“Not well supported” might be appropriate if I was pointing out that the ‘everyone’ is not meant literally, that they’re using nationwide statistics and not statistics for her district (which is presumably the people she’s talking about), or that BLS statitstics don’t include a lot of things as “working” that actually are. But arbitrarily ignoring the actual range of hours that she said (changing 60, 70, 80 to 70, 80) and making a blatantly false claim (that one has to have two full-time jobs to work that many hours) is way beyond “not well supported” and into “they changed her statement and just made up some blatantly false nonsense”. All the stuff you posted disputing the validity of her claim is irrelevant, because I’m not disputing that her statement is incorrect. I’m saying that the politifacts article is completely wrong and blatantly dishonest in multiple ways, and that the article actually failed in what should be a fairly simple mission to refute her claims. ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2018, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanderista-primaries-out-10-term-dem-congressman/816850/327 "2018-08-09T16:40:53Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > I think the ridicule is not aimed at any “principled stand” but at hubris and the silliness of some of the pundit class who put forth her win in the Bronx as some bellwether for the Democratic party and the country as wholes. It SHOULD be aimed at that segment of the pundit class that proclaimed her as New Left Poster Girl. And besides I’m sure there are other New Lefters out there hitting the circuit but the good looking young Latina who upset a top dog is the one who gets eyeballs on the screen/page so there she is. IMO, if her inexperience is at fault for anything, it is allowing herself to be thrown into that role a bit indiscriminately rather than playing to hef strength. She SHOULD be out there creating voter enthusiasm among the young demographic, exciting them at rallies and college visits and registration drives. However she does not need to be put on the high-visibility firing line for deep nitty gritty questions unless the “movement” is willing to provide her a commesurate prep team and I’m not seeing that. ---
**Author:** ![asahi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asahi/32/8693_2.png) [@asahi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asahi)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2018, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanderista-primaries-out-10-term-dem-congressman/816850/328 "2018-08-09T18:22:26Z")
AOC has correctly identified many of our economic problems, but she misses the mark with specific details and facts, which damages her credibility. The lesson she needs to learn going forward is that she needs to go beyond slogans and do her homework before she agrees to do interviews. I’m still a fan, but she has a few things to learn before she goes big league. ---
**Author:** ![asahi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asahi/32/8693_2.png) [@asahi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asahi)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2018, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanderista-primaries-out-10-term-dem-congressman/816850/329 "2018-08-09T18:24:40Z")
> [@JRDelirious](#): > > It SHOULD be aimed at that segment of the pundit class that proclaimed her as New Left Poster Girl. And besides I’m sure there are other New Lefters out there hitting the circuit but the good looking young Latina who upset a top dog is the one who gets eyeballs on the screen/page so there she is. > > IMO, if her inexperience is at fault for anything, it is allowing herself to be thrown into that role a bit indiscriminately rather than playing to hef strength. She SHOULD be out there creating voter enthusiasm among the young demographic, exciting them at rallies and college visits and registration drives. However she does not need to be put on the high-visibility firing line for deep nitty gritty questions unless the “movement” is willing to provide her a commesurate prep team and I’m not seeing that. I would rather see her focus on winning her congressional district and spreading her influence locally first. She won a stunning upset in a primary race, but she still doesn’t have political power yet. She needs that before she’s going to be taken as seriously as she’d like to be taken. ---
**Author:** ![BigAppleBucky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigapplebucky/32/178_2.png) [@BigAppleBucky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigAppleBucky)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2018, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanderista-primaries-out-10-term-dem-congressman/816850/330 "2018-08-09T21:21:49Z")
> [@Pantastic](#): > > I used to think politfact was a good source but… did anyone actually read the article? In particular, they rebut her claim that people are working “60, 70, 80 hours per week” by straight up ignoring the “60” entirely, then arbitrarily deciding that the only way someone could work 70 to 80 hours per week is if they have two full time jobs, that is they claim it’s not possible to work that much with one full-time job (they don’t even list it as a possiblity), two part time jobs, or one full-time and one part-time job though they don’t justify the claim, and then conclude that her claim is false. I’ve worked 60 hours a week on one full-time job before, so I really have no idea why they’re asserting that the only way to work 70-80 hours in a week is with two full-time jobs. And I think I strained an eye muscle when the article claimed that working long hours is a good thing for employees. > > I don’t think I’ll actually trust politifact articles after seeing that, they’re calling her ‘wrong’ because they made a counterfactual declaration and ignored 1/3 of the numbers that she stated. Ha. I’ve done 80 hour weeks working at one job. Not year round, but for a couple of months at a stretch. 60 hour weeks were pretty routine for me. I once worked from December 26 through February 24 at least 12 (sometimes 16) hours a day, every day. (Yes, including New Years Day) Collapsed on the floor at the end of that. Took a cab home and a three day weekend off. Came back the following Monday and restricted myself to only 10 hours a day, six days a week. ---
**Author:** ![dalej42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@dalej42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dalej42)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2018, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanderista-primaries-out-10-term-dem-congressman/816850/331 "2018-08-09T23:22:21Z")
She’s still crowing on Twitter, conveniently forgetting that most of the candidates she campaigned for lost. And, I still remember her claims that since Bernie won the tiny Kansas caucus, it’s a sure sign that the Midwest/Plains is eager to elect Democratic socialists. > > > CNN Politics @CNNPolitics ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2018, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanderista-primaries-out-10-term-dem-congressman/816850/332 "2018-08-10T01:09:36Z")
> [@dalej42](#): > > She’s still crowing on Twitter, conveniently forgetting that most of the candidates she campaigned for lost. And, I still remember her claims that since Bernie won the tiny Kansas caucus, it’s a sure sign that the Midwest/Plains is eager to elect Democratic socialists. > > [https://twitter.com/ocasio2018/status/1027694206595133440?s=21](https://twitter.com/ocasio2018/status/1027694206595133440?s=21) You mean she’s still doing good things for the party and inspiring lots of young progressives? Great for the future of the Democratic party! Go AOC! ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2018, 11:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanderista-primaries-out-10-term-dem-congressman/816850/333 "2018-08-10T11:01:01Z")
> [@JRDelirious](#): > > It SHOULD be aimed at that segment of the pundit class that proclaimed her as New Left Poster Girl. And besides I’m sure there are other New Lefters out there hitting the circuit but the good looking young Latina who upset a top dog is the one who gets eyeballs on the screen/page so there she is. > > IMO, if her inexperience is at fault for anything, it is allowing herself to be thrown into that role a bit indiscriminately rather than playing to hef strength. She SHOULD be out there creating voter enthusiasm among the young demographic, exciting them at rallies and college visits and registration drives. However she does not need to be put on the high-visibility firing line for deep nitty gritty questions unless the “movement” is willing to provide her a commesurate prep team and I’m not seeing that. I can agree with this. (Although the being willing to be thrown into the role, embracing it with gusto, is the hubris…) And a somewhat reasonable POV [in today’s NYT](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/09/opinion/columnists/left-sanders-ocasio-cortez-primaries.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-left-region®ion=opinion-c-col-left-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region://) on the meaningful wins the progressives had the other night and what they are doing right: pragmatic wins at the more local race base of the system, such as at the prosecutor and DA levels. ---
**Author:** ![Pantastic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3bc359/32.png) [@Pantastic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pantastic)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2018, 1:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanderista-primaries-out-10-term-dem-congressman/816850/334 "2018-08-10T13:41:01Z")
> [@asahi](#): > > AOC has correctly identified many of our economic problems, but she misses the mark with specific details and facts, which damages her credibility. The lesson she needs to learn going forward is that she needs to go beyond slogans and do her homework before she agrees to do interviews. > > I’m still a fan, but she has a few things to learn before she goes big league. I don’t know that using routine political rhetoric actually damages her postion in any meaningful way; people like the dude writing the politifacts article, who believes that 80-hour weeks are good for employees, are not going to accept her message in the first place, and people that aren’t taking nitpicking to excessive levels are not going to be bothered by the fact that the statement is, if interpreted literally, not actually true. The condescending stuff like “the lesson she needs to learn going forward” doesn’t actually appear to be grounded in actual fact; people don’t generally get elected to office by making technically correct statements. Instead, broad statements that speak to people’s experience and that describe a condition that people are familiar with, even if its not as universal as the statement makes it out to be, tend to work much better at winning elections. We could apply ‘accuracy’ critique to Trump’s speeches and point out that he still managed to get elected, but he’s… not exactly respected. Instead, look at what happens if one applies the same standard of examination to Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s inaugrial speech. You can make criticisms that it’s factually incorrect in many places, but it’s clearly not actually striving for simple factual accuracy, but instead is speaking about issues in broad terms. Certainly no one is going to claim that it wasn’t a moving speech, or that FDR was not a validly successful politician! And yet: > [@FDR](#): > > So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself—nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance. People had to fear hunger, disease, crime, riots, racially charged violence, and a host of things other than ‘fear itself’. Obviously Mr Roosevelt needs to learn a few things before he goes to the big leagues! > [@FDR](#): > > They know only the rules of a generation of self-seekers. They have no vision, and when there is no vision the people perish. X% of the people in high finance referred to by FDR held University degrees, and Y% of them included courses on classical history that covered historical governance courses. Also, only Z number of them are blind, the vast majority of them have either normal vision or vision easily corrected by glasses. Clearly Mr. Roosevelt needs to verify his facts before spouting off! ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2018, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanderista-primaries-out-10-term-dem-congressman/816850/335 "2018-08-10T16:16:25Z")
> [@Pantastic](#): > > …people that aren’t taking nitpicking to excessive levels are not going to be bothered by the fact that the statement is, if interpreted literally, not actually true… I don’t think asking if something is true or not is excessive, or nitpicking. YM obviously V. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Ruken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f475e1/32.png) [@Ruken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruken)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2018, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanderista-primaries-out-10-term-dem-congressman/816850/336 "2018-08-10T16:37:44Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > Would you like to have the same amount of scrutiny applied to that statement as people have applied to AOC’s? I’d like to see you try. ---
**Author:** ![Ruken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f475e1/32.png) [@Ruken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruken)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2018, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanderista-primaries-out-10-term-dem-congressman/816850/337 "2018-08-10T16:52:51Z")
> [@Pantastic](#): > > I’m saying that the politifacts article is completely wrong If the article is _completely_ wrong then the following must be incorrect: > [@](#): > > “Everyone has two jobs” > > The Bureau of Labor Statistics keeps track of how many people work two jobs rather than just one. > > Over the past 12 months, the number of multiple job holders has ranged between 6 million and 7 million. That compares to more than 148 million Americans who are employed in a single job. > > So by the official statistics, multiple job holders account for a tiny fraction of American workers. > > And this percentage isn’t high by historical standards. > > The percentage has moved in a pretty narrow band — 4.7 percent to 5.2 percent — during the recovery from the Great Recession. That range is actually below where it was between 1994 and the Great Recession. In fact, the percentage was at its highest (as high as 6.5 percent) during the peak of the 1990s boom. Please let us know why you think that’s completely wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Pantastic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3bc359/32.png) [@Pantastic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pantastic)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2018, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanderista-primaries-out-10-term-dem-congressman/816850/338 "2018-08-10T16:53:32Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > I don’t think asking if something is true or not is excessive, or nitpicking. YM obviously V. So you think that criticism of FDR’s speech in the style that I gave is not excessive, nitpicking, or otherwise unreasonable? YM obviously V. Reading the Dope is like peeking into bizarro-world sometime. “If you want to play in the big leagues as a politician, you’re going to have to make only statements that are true under nitpicking scrutiny, hyperbole, metaphor, and other figures of speech are right out!” is just not advice I’d expect to see, especially after the last presidential election. > [@Ruken](#): > > If the article is _completely_ wrong then the following must be incorrect My bad for using ordinary English on this board. (Not really). ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2018, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanderista-primaries-out-10-term-dem-congressman/816850/339 "2018-08-10T17:11:05Z")
> [@Pantastic](#): > > > [@FDR](#): > > > > So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself—nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance. > > People had to fear hunger, disease, crime, riots, racially charged violence, and a host of things other than ‘fear itself’. Obviously Mr Roosevelt needs to learn a few things before he goes to the big leagues! An inspirational speech where a person is stating an opinion (it is my belief) or crafting a vision for the future is quite different from giving an interview to a reporter about the current state of affairs. To nit pick FDR like that is to miss the point of the speech entirely. Not at all the same as AOC’s interview where she is talking about the current state of affairs. She made a mistake, and should just correct it, learn and move on. No big deal. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2018, 2:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanderista-primaries-out-10-term-dem-congressman/816850/340 "2018-08-11T02:10:42Z")
How should she correct it? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanderista-primaries-out-10-term-dem-congressman/816850.md?page=16) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanderista-primaries-out-10-term-dem-congressman/816850.md?page=18)