Interesting, good to know! I find it strange that states can’t impose restrictions on who can be elected, but are free (within certain bounds) to define who can vote…
It’s not strange at all, IF you ponder on whom the system is really set up to benefit ^^’.
To an extent, I’m surprised that you (and apparently so many others) are surprised. Pelosi is probably not nearly as progressive as a lot of BBers want, but I’m fairly convinced that the narrative of “establishment Democrats” fighting tooth and nail against “progressive Democrats” is largely overblown. In particular, Pelosi’s shown herself to be really good at playing House politics, so it absolutely makes sense for her to support a prominent and promising newcomer like AOC, when doing so both makes the party look better to the more left-leaning voters, and lets the Dems stick it to the Republicans harder.
Yeah, AOC is unusually good at communicating this stuff. She manages to be fun, scathing, and highly informative all at once, which is no mean feat. Like I’ve said, I foresee great things for her if she doesn’t get sidetracked somehow.
that is because the qualifications for the offices are specified in the constitution but a right to vote is not specified except in terms of how it cannot be restricted. it cannot be explicitly restricted based on age for citizens 18 and older, it cannot be explicitly restricted by sex, it cannot be hampered by the requirement of a payment of a poll tax, and it cannot be explicitly restricted by race. beyond that, there is no constitutional right to vote.
I think the purpose is not to sow division among Dems as much as to point out division among them that already exists.
Usually that doesn’t involve using the Daily Caller as a source for an article aimed as disenfranchised progressives. I don’t see a reason to say this is trying to do much else than trying sow division, even if the division is already there (and for good reason).
True, she’s young and doesn’t have much political power but what she does have is a naive honesty that resonates with a large swath of people across a wide range of spectrums who are tired of the bs double talk from pols of both sides.
What she also, and this is what really scares the right and the establishment Dems, is this uncanny knack to change the conversation. And THAT is where her true power lies and that can have more long terms affects of change than the short-sighted “save my income at all costs” establishment of both parties.
Also, I think we need to stop referring to the Democratic Party as a “left” leaning party. The flippin’ Pendulum has swung so far to the right they are anything but.
The establishment Dems are going to find out what the establishment Repubs found out in 2016… if you alienate your base sufficiently, it DOES become a popularity contest. And one that they know they will lose.
NYS upstate population barely moving, the city has gone up roughly 500K from 2010-2017. So if anything, unless they shift districts sharply northwards, the loss will have to be upstate, not downstate
I think the key thing there is that narrative isn’t coming from the progressives.While the “establishment” politicians who have done XYZ aren’t in party leadership. But are instead red state centrists who seem to be on the outs. And if you look at how the house is actually being organized. You’ve got progressives given seats on important committees, and leadership pathways. Rather than being pigeon holed or locked out.
I really think this whole establishment vs whatever we like today narrative is just a lazy pin for the media to hang on. A follow on from half assed explanations of how Trump won. It wasn’t racism and nationalist spite that made his campaign. It wasn’t that he’s fascist adjacent and directly appealed to dangerous political elements. Its cause he’s an “outsider” and citizens are sick of “the establishment”.
So we’re gonna bolt that same false narrative onto all of politics.
Hah! I wish I had the opportunity to vote for AOC over Schumer.
The message is, was, and always will be “Only gullible dupes trust the intercept without a much more solid second source, and preferably third.”
We’re talking about an outlet that published conspiracy theories during the election(About one of clinton’s “Biggest backers” buying The Onion to stop them making fun of her- pretty much no part of which was actually true or panned out).
We’re talking about the outlet that grassed a source to a letter agency because their Celebrity owner will never admit that he’s wrong, and thus refused to take a story seriously, and treated a vulnerable source with negligence.(Yes, they did help out after - but it’s too little, too late, especially when it comes to problems that they could have avoided by employing even the most basic source protection. Double bonus - one of the reporters assigned to the story is also famous…For grassing another source to another letter agency.)
We’re talking about the outlet that literally published mocking articles about a left wing professor being attacked by the alt-right, because the author of that article had a personal disagreement with the professor.
The outlet that is well known for weaseling out of paying contributors(For example, I know of at least one contributor who left because she was getting grossly underpaid, and Intercept was essentially getting a bunch of her work for free. They told her that her options were basically get used to it, or quit, because they wern’t going to pay her more. She quit. They ran stories based on her work - which they hadn’t paid for - later.)
The Outlet that sat on a story stemming from the Snowden leaks for fifteen months, right up until it looked like they’d be scooped by someone else, at which point they rushed it to print - with some of the more popular reporters, rather than the one who did the actual work. (And insult to injury, they even consulted her on it, because nobody else at Intercept had the expertise to properly report on the story!)
The same outlet where we have stories of senior editors crushing stories they don’t like, throwing full-on paper-throwing tantrums when stories don’t come out how they wanted, Astounding editorial meddling and incompetence, and an editorial structure that is inefficient, absurd, and not only cliqueish, but rewards sucking up to the more powerful senior writers and editors.
They’ve already show their negligence, they’ve already shown they’re willing to publish conspiracy theories, and they’ve already shown their complete inability to cover politics either from the standpoint of expertise(I recall at one point, one of them insisting that you should literally ignore all evidence to the contrary, their preferred candidate was the TRUE frontrunner of the race - their candidate then lost in a landslide) or neutral reporting.
Don’t trust The Intercept.
These sentence fragments. Are not how the English language. Is punctuated.
In Discourse, three hyphens will get you an em dash — you could try that instead.
Yeah there’s certain sites that have a very clear role in laundering far right nonsense for left wing consumption. We should have learned this in 2016.
Maybe stick to proofreading…
It wasn’t asked before and you haven’t answered.
She’d be 34 at a 2024 inauguration and 2028 is 9 years away. So I don’t see how your math works out. 2026 might be a good time mid-term election for AOC to switch over to the Senate.
My guess is that Cory, like me, uses Dragon to dictate rather than type everything manually. “Ouster” for “oust her” during connected speech commonly happens. I’m sure you meant well.
The Democratic machine in New York has never paid a lot of attention to the wishes of actual Democrats. And yes, it controls nearly all elections, and is beholden only to it’s donors. They could very well try to get rid of Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, they are not concerned with the well being of their state or their country.
Which is some sort of twisted mirror image of Trump’s support. I am generally happy with her ability to move the Overton window towards some sort of sanity rather than “How big a tax-cut should we give billionaires this time?”
As usual politicians mask their true intentions with farces, with the real goal of increasing personal power and wealth. More than a thousand times, they create enemies and / or problems in order to be able to sell their convenient solutions or realities. As they would say: do not rock the boat, or…