Of course it matters. The issue not whether the public perception of the party’s association with the movement was harmful to them in purple districts. The issue is where she is placing the blame. If she wanted to have a discussion about how candidates can regain control of defining their own candidacy in an era of misinformation that would be valuable. But instead she is saying it is unfair and unproductive that they get characterized for things they don’t believe in…by characterizing the campaigns of members of her caucus as something other than what they were.
The whole thing just speaks to a lazy attitude towards doing the work of campaigning…requiring other people to say what you need them to so you dont have to work on characterizing yourself. GTFO if that is your attitude and make room for someone who will do the work. This is was AoC’s criticism of the establishment has been…dont expect the party to define your candidacy for you. Get out and do the work yourself.
Notably a term she didnt use. Instead she spoke intelligently about ways in which policing can be improved, which is a million miles away from what the moderate voters who allegedly ran away from Dem candidates claimed they were scared of.
AOC has highlighted an issue amongst some Senate candidates where they were woeful in their campaigning methods ( she named for example one guy who set up a website only a week before the election spending $5k on online campaigning)
The real disagreement among Dems right now is not about progressive vs liberal or moderate vs left, it’s about investing in an district vs investing in an establishment picked candidate. What the likes of AoC and Omar are actually renowned for is knowing their districts and being known in their districts. Yet what the national party wants to do is grow candidates in an establishment lab and drop them into a district with millions in funding and a district who doesnt GIF about who this person they dont know is. If you listen to the likes of AoC, way beyond policy disagreements, this is what she is saying the party needs to do better. And then you’ve got lazy fucking entitled people like Lamb, a test tube candidate, complaining that its unfair that people dont know them for who they are when all their campaign is is tv ads paid for by the DCCC.
I probably read it in a Guardian article where AOC talked passionately about the importance and contributions of the grassroot organizations/activists.
President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr. defeated President Trump in Georgia and Mr. Trump eked out a victory in North Carolina as the two states were called on Friday, drawing to a close the election results after a week and a half.
That’s not how politics works. Words matter. If you use phrases and words that scare people, you are going to have difficulty winning people over. “Defund the police” scares the middle class, even if you mean something different.
What part of “notably, a term she didn’t use” did you not get? In the piece you cited, she was asked about it and she responded with a nuanced discussed of how she thinks policing can be improved without ever using or supporting the term.
If you’re explaining, you’re losing. If your opponent labels you as something and it sticks, and you need nuance to explain your position, then you are probably going to lose.
In American politics, the game is played between the 40-yard lines. It’s won and lost in the swing districts. It’s not won and lost in districts like AOC’s where a potted plant with a D behind it’s name would win. And the moderates - who are talking to their voters - are saying that “defund the police” is hurting them, you need to listen. Explaining it away as nuance is useless.
So yes, we’re back at what I said on my initial response. It can be a challenge to define your own campaign. But if she thinks that is solved by asking her colleagues to stop using a term they don’t use then she doesn’t understand the problem and will never find the solution.
“Defunding police means defunding police,” the congresswoman said in a statement. “It does not mean budget tricks or funny math. It does not mean moving school police officers from the NYPD budget to the Department of Education’s budget so the exact same police remain in schools.”
Bordered by Illinois, Ohio, and Michigan, so plenty of blue history there…why is Indiana so reliably red (in a historical sense)??
Never set foot there (did get the train through the state on my way to Kalamazoo) but was just wondering why it was never part of the mid-west blue wall…
I live in Indiana. It’s always red, apart from an Obama first term blip, I think.
Interestingly, blue is growing though. Carmel (where I live) and Fishers are the two wealthiest towns in Hamilton County, suburb of Indianapolis. You would think that wealth would usually vote Republican, though in this past election the Democrats had a majority in both cities. Both are educated places, lots of grad degrees, international people etc. Not the typical farming Indiana at all.
Anyway, I see two Indiana’s. A traditional red, conservative, farming, former manufacturing type of state… and a blue state emerging, with tech, medical, science, engineering, etc.
But overall, statewide, the reds still have it by a fair bit.
As for defunding the police, I would suggest, “improve the police.” It is way less threatening. Improve their training. Improve how money is apportioned… less military gear for starters. But the details don’t matter in a sound bite world (they do, but “defund the police” is a bad slogan and conjures up images of lawlessness that spooks the horses).
As for AOC, she is a very bright light. I hope she will be President one day, as she cares about the climate, health insurance, lifting people out of poverty, education, etc.
Between now and then she will gain traction and also get slapped down a bit and will have to lick her wounds. I think she speaks carefully, but arguably she may need to speak even more carefully in order to bring more people with her.
The majority of people that first hear it will have a negative response.
Most people want low crime, don’t want cuts to public services. Especially during a time of civil unrest. With defund the police, you need to explain, no, it does not mean what you think it means, it means something different.
For those that wish to misrepresent or smear a cause, it makes it too easy. For those that don’t take much interest (and don’t take the time to understand), they will remain ignorant and dismiss it.
