That’s not neccisarily true. There are a few NYC districts that have been gerrymandered.
But that angle on this story is definitely bullshit for another reason. Until this last round of midterms New York state’s legislature was controlled by Republicans. And that GOP legislature generally had the support and cooperation of our governors save for the brief period where we had Spitzer/Patterson. So NY gerrymanders tend to be GOP supporting. Most of our gerrymandered districts are upstate and on Long Island. They tend to be mild, mostly holding to geography.
AOCs district isn’t so much one of them, though IIRC neighboring districts are. So her district is to some extent so deeply blue thanks to richer neighborhoods being pulled out of it to create some of the rare GOP districts in NYC
ETA: Functionally I don’t think it would be possible to district her out of existence. Best option would be to remove the district entirely. Which wouldn’t likely work, cause any replacement districts would end up being almost as deeply blue. And would still cover the less wealthy and less white voters that put her in office. Bolting some rich white neighborhoods back into it might give her some trouble, but younger voters are at least as responsible for her win as anything else. And those richer, white areas are becoming younger.
So unless we’re proposing that a newly DNC controlled state legislature, with a DNC governor who’s straight panicking about tacking left. In a city controlled by the Progressive caucus within the DNC. Is about to create multiple gerrymandered districts intended to lock in GOP wins. I don’t thing there’s at all a practical way to do this.
The problem is that the Clintonistas who control tje Party aren’t Left or even liberal. They’re “pragmatic Centrists” who have spent decadrs dragging the Democratic Party to the Right. To find out what they believe look at whatever the GOP was doing ten years ago.
The Democratic Establishment is the closest thing the US has to a conservative (in the original political sense of the word) party, the GOP having completed its long devolution into fascism and other forms of authoritarianism. AOC in contrast is an actual progressive. It’s not unreasonable to think the Establishment regards her as a threat to their neoliberal conservatism (which despite the name isn’t really liberal).
It’s perhaps important to make the distinction between voters and Democratic Establishment politicians. The politicians aren’t going to harsh on her publicly in anything more than passive aggressive tones because she’s popular with the electorate they’ve spent their careers betraying. But to see what a politician will actually do, it’s more useful to look at their record of actions than their placation towards voters.
I’m no political strategist, but it seems prudent to my lay-mind to prepare for the various avenues Establishment Dems could conceivably try to sideline AOC since, whether they like her or not, their demonstrable political agendas are at odds with her platform.
It’s inspiring to me that AOC seems to appeal to anarcho-socialist, full-blown socialist and even moderate progressive voters who are sick of the neoliberal depredations of the Democratic Establishment, even if they don’t share all of her Democratic Socialist politics. I get the sense it’s because, whether they share her entire outlook or not, she’s frank and honest, and a politician that can be trusted is such a rarity.
You are correct. Just like Blair and New Labour and what Thatcher and Major were doing before him. AOC is your potential Corbyn, policy-wise (and with the bonus of some charisma and communication ability, unlike Corbyn).
Regardless of how the next electoral map is drawn, AOC taking Schumer’s seat would be an excellent outcome for NY/NYC residents and the Democrats (even if many pouted in the immediate aftermath of such an outcome).