This kind of politics will lose the Democrats elections.
Thanks! So even though I live in LA, I could run for congress anywhere in California. I might lose, because I’m not from there, but if I won (maybe by spending millions on wonderful advertising!) I could serve.
You don’t seem to understand: GOP gerrymandering just about ALWAYS also creates Dem districts, as well (although fewer), and the opposite is also true when Dems gerrymander. That’s the exact point of the entire affair; the voters don’t simply “disappear”, but they’re regrouped so that giving up one (or a few) districts allows a larger number of districts to be taken over.
Corey is going too far in assuming the Dems will fully control the districting commission. In actuality the voters passed a state constitutional amendment in 2014 that established a bipartisan redistricting commission. It’s a commission with ten members, 2 from each of the two top parties in the State Assembly and 2 from each of the two top parties in the State Senate. These eight choose the final 2 (who must have no formal party affiliation). Writing as if the commission will automatically fall under the control of the Democratic party is assuming too much when it’s clearly set up to produce a 50/50 split. Even less certain is that Democratic assembly/senate speakers would dare appoint commission members without caring for what the strong progressive wing thinks, as it would be a great way to trigger a leadership challenge. Anyway, the very fact that this is the first time New York has a commission like this could lead to many big changes that shouldn’t be automatically assumed to be some nefarious plot against progressives.
It should also be noted that New York lost two seats after the census in 2010. That time the thorny question of redistricting ended in a stalemate that didn’t get resolved until a federal court stepped in and appointed a magistrate to draw the map. 2020 could well turn out just as acrimonious.
A related comment from last year:
maybe they weren’t complex to begin with, it was just that a coalition-of-the-willing-to-muddy-the-waters, ranging from think tanks to former cia operatives turned CNN anchors who all have a vested interest in tricking the populace into thinking concepts like “the market” and “rational actors” have scientific rigor
She has to wait until 2022 for that, since that’s when Schummer’s term ends; Gillibrand’s current term lasts until 2024. I for one would be happy with Ocasio-Cortez staying in the House for a while: she can do a lot of good work there, and that way she would be campaigning every two years, not every six. If we are going to have the media obsessed with a politician, in order to get more views, I would much better prefer for them to talk about AOC than about Trump.
If you like her, it’s all the more reason to push for the repeal of The Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929 and replacing it with either the Wyoming Rule or fixing representation to something like 250k per Representative. That was about the level of representation when the act was passed in 1929. It would subtly shift power in the House back to urban areas and correct almost a century of subtly decoupling the House from population.
i have to say though, pelosi is an establishment type but she seems to be fine with empowering aoc with good committee appointments and having positive things to say about her. i think it depends on the democrat.
Definitely. Polosi’s recent Speakership has been a really welcome and pleasant surprise for me.
But the goal is to build more districts for your own party than for the other. And the only real way for AOC’s district to become a place where she won’t win. Is for the party in charge, the DNC, to build a district that is unwinable for the DNC. Why in the god damn hell would the party risk control of the state for the sake of spiting 1 official? And this article is predicated on the idea that the “establishment” end of the DNC is responsible for the current districts. Which isn’t the case. The GOP is, and they didn’t get to go as extreme as they might like because there’s a natural check in DNC control of state wide offices.
You kind of can’t nuke AOC’s district by grouping voters together, because there aren’t enough voters of the kind necessary there to group together. The 14th district just doesn’t have enough voters of the other sort to get up over her support. While there are some areas surrounding it where that can be done. The 14th is the leftovers. Rolling it in with those gerrymandered surrounds just creates safe DNC seats made up of Ms. Occacio-Cortez’s base.
That’s why, as I pointed out. GOP driven gerrymanders, intended to create GOP control of the state. Happen outside of NYC. A bit on LI, and much more so in the Upstate region. And again I fail to see how or why a newly DNC controlled state government would want to build a system that disadvantages themselves.
Yeah no. They’re complex. Go ahead and read up on taxation and how it all works. Then look at how nicely AOC distills the case for progressive taxation. Without compromise or misrepresentation.
This woman is capable of distilling 2 hour lectures about math into 140 characters, without room for “well actually”.
Don’t rob her of that.
IF ONLY. Good Ole Chuck has been my senator as long as I’ve been alive. I’ve met him. And I fucking hate him. And I’ve voted for the guy since I turned 18. And I think you can tell how I feel about that.
This is good though. AOC and the other Women who ran for the house this past election seem to have pretty specifically chosen the federal office with the most apparatus for training new politicians. At least a term in the house is an awesome way to work your way up. I’d probably like to see Rep Ocaccio-Cortez stick around in the house, because even as short as it’s been she seems to be pretty good at it. But chasing after another office wouldn’t be unwelcome.
In terms of the whole experience thing, and women being accused of not having enough. Bunch of women seem to have found an end round on that shit. And bunch of newly elected officials seem to have rolled with an approach that involves learning as much as leading.
Its time one of the world’s more retarded (held back) attempts at democracy discovered the establishment of statuary, independent and non-partisan entities to administer the determination of electoral boundaries and the conduct of elections in general.
Do a search for ‘electoral commission’, in Australia, Canada and New Zealand to see how it is done in more developed democracies.
See a ranking of democracies here: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/02/nordic-countries-top-democratic-rankings-2017/
There definitely exist more appropriate synonyms.
Good points; thanks for the clarification.
She CANNOT primary Chuck Schumer. Senators need to be 35 yo.
late 15c., “make slow or slower,” from French retarder “restrain, hold (someone) back, keep (someone from doing something); come to a stop” (13c.) or directly from Latin retardare "make slow, delay,
Yeah, could be actually not purposeful action by the ruling classes in holding back reforms and just be a result of insular ignorance begotten of arrogance fostered by ingesting a diet of the ‘world’s greatest democracy’ baloney.
25 to be a Representative, 30 to be a Senator, 35 to be President. She’d qualify.
The process for electing representatives (and, for that matter, all federal elected offices) is left to the states, though, is it not? So couldn’t New York potentially impose additional requirements for office?
This is a needlessly divisivr article. Speculating about AOC being pitted against some unnamed Dem representative, which is disengenuous. There after only two possible such candidates,tge two closest. Serrano in the 15th district (most likely) or Engel in the 16th (my congressperson). Serrano will br 77 in 2020, Engel will be 72. Givrn Serano’s district is currently closest, the demographics would work in AOCs favor there, just as they did in the 14th. And itvis highly likely Serrano won’t run in 2020. That he will retire.
So, begs the question. Did this article fail to take the next logical step in its speculation, naming potential congressional opponents, on purpose to promote division? Or was it a lack of follow through in journalism ?