What are Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's Flaws?

ok, enough is enough. she gets a thread.

haha nice callback title

cool now we have four US politics threads

She's fairly disrespectful to our president, for a start.

she's so awesome she makes everyone else look bad

excellent title

if people don't want to use it, they won't

xp

sharp knees

american

If she's able to maintain her political stance (and especially if she winds up being an effective legislator) I would be very comfortable casting a prez vote for her once she's eligible to run.

i think she's wonderful. one thing i especially like about her is that she seems adept at forming a posse of like-minded legislators. she's good at sharing her political fame and recognition and using it to boost others.

in before someone suggests she's nominated for president
xp fuck just missed it.

name has 5-4-2 syllable pattern: last name should have three syllables

left-handed, so she's pretty much limited to 1B or the outfield

Alexandria / Ocasio-Cortez is / a living haiku.

the main reason for this thread is that she is an excellent twitterer, so maybe her daily handful of zings can go here instead of the other threads.

however, if i worry about anything with AOC, it's that one day she's going to slip up in some major way, probably on twitter. the right wing is foaming at the mouth to take her down because they recognize what a beacon she's already become.

buuuuut, the great thing about AOC is that i would have more confidence in her than just about anyone else to bounce back quickly from a hypothetic major twitter fuckup. as our wise president says "we'll see what happens"

Left-handed? Excellent.

yeah i was going to say how bad can she really fuck up on twitter that will make what these assholes say about here matter to anyone but them?

about her*

She cares too much

her ability to get the right to constantly self-own without even doing anything is incredible. at first I thought the "they're terrified of her" thing was overblown but they clearly are. not just because she's so far left but also because I don't think she's willing to "play ball" the way people like Schumer and Obama were. plus the fact that she's young and massively popular will only encourage more like her to come out of the woodwork which could shape US politics for decades to come. she's only been in office for a month but she already feels like an icon.

God, does this woman have a gazillions tons of hope resting on her shoulders or what?

I look forward to many years of right-wing sputtering about the outrageous policy positions of this lefty commie socialist who okay is very attractive but that's not the point because she's going to destroy this country perhaps even with her smoldering good looks.

I think the biggest thing she can achieve, especially in the near term, is to inspire more like minded young politicians to run.

however, if i worry about anything with AOC, it's that one day she's going to slip up in some major way, probably on twitter. the right wing is foaming at the mouth to take her down because they recognize what a beacon she's already become.

they already have. You should read "smart" conservatives like Charles Cooke and Noah Rothman patiently explaining like Paul Muni as Zola how her plans are untenable. They don't get how she's using conservative methods since the Reagan-Poppy era: float a trial balloon, then watch as people accommodate.

she came out too fully formed as an awesome politician and therefore must actually be either an alien or a veteran operative in disguise

fwiw I maintain muted expectations about what she can actually achieve in the system but so far she has exceeded them

https://libcom.org/news/abolishing-ice-funding-it-07012019

she's already exceeded expectations. no one was talking about a Green New Deal or a 70% top rate before she came along.

imo her strength so far has been to say exactly enough, or to respond with tongue-in-cheek fact checks about her stances without jumping into clusterfucks

having someone with actual policy stances without a political or even social past deep enough to sabotage dialogue in favor of ad hominem attacks is a net positive. media and public commentary almost demands a personality or face to link policy to, because policy is abstract and complicated and presenting an individual makes the job easier. if she's that person, have at it

it's a refreshing change from the right-wing version in the tea party goons, who had notional policy ideas and were 90% horrible personality and demagoguery

https://libcom.org/news/abolishing-ice-funding-it-07012019

― xyzzzz__, Thursday, February 7, 2019 1:51 PM (forty-eight seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

this is kind of bullshitty. She voted for the bill to reopen govt.

btw it does pain me to bring up the "Trump of the left" thing but it does occur to me that she's *actually* good at all the political stuff that people thought Trump was good at

xp

This was not a catch-all bill to reopen the federal government, which has been shut down for weeks while Trump refuses to sign a budget until he gets funding for a border wall. That was a different vote. No, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi scheduled an entirely separate vote solely on funding the Department of Homeland Security.

Alfred's post reminds me of an article about perpetual ratfucker Gingrich, who was wildly successful at his goals until the day he wasn't

iirc she has changed her tack on how she votes for bills like that one. she recently was the sole dem holdout on another funding bill I believe?

yeah I was gonna say that libcom link falls more under "legit critique of a particular action" than a "flaw" and if she's already moved on from that stance then so much the better.

the way Congress operates you kind of have to either vote for some bad things or not vote for some good things because it all comes in the same bill. I don't think she'd actually vote against abolishing ICE if such a thing were to come up.

Cool thanks I wasn't really buying it too much (basically if you fuck with electoralism lib com goes after you)

But that's the only thing I've seen (and I almost always only entertain critiques of left-politicians from the left)

I was reading this piece on her call with Corbyn and she was swayed a bit on the allegations he is an anti-semite. That's more a product of doing too much twitter where everyone tweets to you with their agendas.

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2019/02/how-to-think-clearly-about-anti-semitism-controversies-in-the-labour-party

But if the worst thing is that she might tweet something that isn't so good at times then she's doing amazing.

they already have. You should read "smart" conservatives like Charles Cooke and Noah Rothman patiently explaining like Paul Muni as Zola how her plans are untenable. They don't get how she's using conservative methods since the Reagan-Poppy era: float a trial balloon, then watch as people accommodate.

― Your sweetie-pie-coo-coo I love ya (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, February 7, 2019 1:50 PM (seven minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Trump methods too. You float something outrageous (end birthright citizenship), everyone goes "THAT'S PREPOSTEROUS" and then the "smart" and "reasonable" people say "well actually lots of countries don't have birthright citizenship at all." Now you've shifted the debate into your territory, and maybe you can't change the constitution in that particular case, but you've weakened resistance to tighter immigration laws.

I realize a lot of people *say* that Trump does this, but I don't think that's true - were there not a bunch of so-called smart conservatives who insisted that the "wall" was just a metaphor for "strong border security", which he's rejected over and over again because he actually wants a big dumb physical wall?

I'm still laughing at this tweet chain where her chief of staff was clued in not to take a meeting with known grifters (original post deleted but you get the jist)

This guy is a dingbat grifter, take the time to do 3 seconds of googling bro

— Dan (@dankmtl) February 4, 2019

man alive otm way upthread. It’s almost spooky how skilled and self assured she is this early in her career. Like a Mozart or Tiger Woods of politics.

frogbs otm, that would be the real overton window shifting strategy, but Trump literally doesn't understand it and is obsessed with numbers

If he were to get six billion he's still not building a wall, he's saying "we built it" and just tossing the money at the border patrol/DHS and never calling them to check to see where it went

he's stuck on six billion = wall

I realize a lot of people *say* that Trump does this, but I don't think that's true - were there not a bunch of so-called smart conservatives who insisted that the "wall" was just a metaphor for "strong border security", which he's rejected over and over again because he actually wants a big dumb physical wall?

― frogbs, Thursday, February 7, 2019 2:03 PM (one minute ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Trump personally is a mental and emotional child. I mean Stephen Miller and the like.

man alive otm way upthread. It’s almost spooky how skilled and self assured she is this early in her career. Like a Mozart or Tiger Woods of politics.

― Trϵϵship, Thursday, February 7, 2019 2:05 PM (fifteen seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I literally told a friend I thought she could be president back when we weren't even sure if she could win her primary. I don't attribute that to any special insight, it's plain to see.

She’s actually impressive in an age of mass disillusionment.

I mean decisively taking down a well-liked establishment dude like Crowley with like 5% of the funding and no corporate endorsements whatsoever is legit one of the most impressive political accomplishments I've ever witnessed

for sure

although "well-liked" might be a stretch -- I think he was a bit complacent and absent from his district, leaving more of an opening than realized. But def well-connected in queens overall. I mean, chair of the queens democratic party, mr. machine.

I like her a lot and think she has a bright future, including a possible path to the presidency if she chooses to pursue it (which is a bit difficult to do from the House, historically). There is, of course, still plenty of time for her to flame out or not deliver on big legislative priorities, but so far she's been very sure-footed and she has excellent priorities and communications skills.

I liked AOC's thing about the growing threat of communism the right is constantly going on about: "Well, that's just silly." Like don't even try to refute it on their terms

That moment exactly two years ago when the Harris-Walz campaign was making genuine strides peaked with "They're WEIRD" and the Trump campaign literally had no response, there were thrown back on their heels. In a couple of the post mortems his campaign people admitted they were most scared they'd lose between August and the first debate.

And now Tim Walz is trolled 24/7 about fraaaaaaaaaud and period products by racists who can’t spell. Great trade-off.

I thought the "weird" line was effective, and I wish Walz hadn't been muzzled as much. But I am also not convinced that we'd be rolling in coconuts if only Walz had been allowed to say "weird." I feel like it gets brought up as often as it does because it was something that was very fun and cathartic for the *Democratic faithful* to hear, and the campaign putting the kibosh on it is a concrete example of a miscalculation that we can readily blame them for. While the line had the potential to be more broadly persuasive, there were also a lot of other dynamics going on in the campaign. It wouldn't have stopped Republicans from tarring Walz as a gay communist, for instance.

(they werent gonna win by rolling “theyre weird theyre weird.” they needed to bury biden and more. “Theyre weird!” was true enough, and fun for a minute)

i deleted the word “deluded” from my post, but it’s still in my head

Don't misunderstand me: we weren't gonna win on THEY'RE WEIRD by itself. It seemed indicative of how consultants didn't know what they had and how they couldn't transcend KH's connections to Biden.

xp yeah agree they needed to bury Biden more. but apparently that was not on the table. "no daylight, kid."

I know, Alfred, I think I'm just getting a little tired of seeing people mention it.

wouldn't have stopped Republicans from tarring Walz as a gay communist

they went after his autistic son ffs... they were desperate to find *anything* to tar him with

MAHA orthodoxy is that if your child is autistic you are a bad parent and it’s your fault

choices have consequences.

like when i make them die in a fire? you shoulda thunk it out better, fucker.

i jest. i deplore violence of all kinds.

i DO! i do.

imo the main reason it worked so well as an attack line is because their reactions to it made them look like even bigger freaks. half of it was just really crude remarks about Joe Biden's mental health. I think everyone remembers those kids at school who would get made fun of a little and react like Kramer at the Laugh Factory. this administration is full of those kinds of people. and I think its pretty clear that this specific kind of weirdo is who they're talking about here.

Lots of 'calculation' and gaming here...same with "the point of the game".

― xyzzzz__, Thursday, August 13, 2026 2:03 AM (yesterday) bookmarkflaglink

it's good to win and good to be strategic about how to do so

That's politics, baby

As often happens, I think I'm seeing the discourse about the discourse but not the actual discourse here. Apparently it upset a of of people? (men?) when AOC shared these personal decisions about her reproductive choices and desire to define her options w/r/t future children and hopes for her family.

I don't think it needs saying here but just to stipulate: if it generates an outsized amount of outrage that a woman is freezing her eggs so she can have children in the future as part of owning her own reproductive capacity, then it's not about "women should want to have children and a family," is it. The backlash is because women aren't supposed to control their own reproductive capacity.

I'm sure ppl are saying all sorts of things about her, but the thread revival here was because Nathan J Robinson complained that she useful her platform to talk about freezing her eggs instead of endorsing Francesca Hong. Which didn't really make sense because it's not like AOC is allotted only one social media post per week. And so bringing it up felt like a weird dig, at the very least minimizing the value and importance of the message.

AOC gets criticized from the left constantly. It's just noise at this point.

iirc the DSA didn't endorse her re-election. Not sure why she needs to endorse every DSA candidate.

Perfectly fine to criticize her (and Bernie) when they started acting real funny fall of 2023. Their allegiance to Biden and the absolute fiction his admin was wOrKiNg TiReLeSsLy to end a genocide was some maddening bullshit. That said, of all the names currently being bandied about for 2028 I’m hoping I’m pulling the lever for her. But these people aren’t my friends. They aren’t superheroes. They are tools.

I don't know who Nathan J Robinson is, I just caught the meta-meta-discourse on other channels.

yeah, I'm sure right-wingers are mad about it for other reasons.

It's been more than just a one-day announcement: She's been posting 10-minute videos every day this week (on Facebook and Instagram) in which she discusses all the issues surrounding fertility and reproductive health while giving herself the daily injections required for egg harvesting, and explaining how the whole procedure works. She's talked about how much it costs ($7000 was the figure she quoted, which was apparently not covered by her Congressional health insurance), all sorts of things.

And just as a general principle, fuck Nathan Robinson.

why? he’s editor in chief of one of the only actual left leaning mags in the country.

he looks like Bud Cort

why? he’s editor in chief of one of the only actual left leaning mags in the country.

He's an off-putting idiot who's wrong about everything. When he's right, it's accidental; when he supports an ostensibly good cause, he supports it for the wrong reasons, or in a way guaranteed to alienate other potential supporters. He sucks and he should fuck off.

man i just wrote the spiciest zing then didn't take it because i am trying to be nicer.

i disagree, but that we disagree isn't anything notable lol.

man i just wrote the spiciest zing then didn't take it because i am trying to be nicer.

we were probably all thinking it

(not that Robinson doesn’t come off as a big doofus)

Unperson is really the guy for the Trump era

it's good to win and good to be strategic about how to do so

― flopson, Friday, 14 August 2026 bookmarkflaglink

There will be wins and losses no matter how much 'strategy' there is.

Doing the right things, consistently, is more important.

step 1: control the definition of “the right things”

There will be wins and losses no matter how much 'strategy' there is.

there will be more wins and fewer losses if there is more and better strategy

Doing the right things, consistently, is more important.

i can see why "strategy has no effect on winning" would be a comforting thing to believe; it makes it seem like there is no tradeoff being doing the "right things" and winning

however it's not true and the tradeoff does exist

I see we are not really gonna agree.

And it's a difference of belief, not strategy.

interesting discussion. xyzzzz, do you take this stance on strategy in general or is this specific to electoral politics?

I'm asking because it's very hard for me think about labour organizing—i.e., the most political thing I've been involved in personally—in your terms. I don't love the language of winning and losing, but it's unlikely a union is going to achieve every single one of its goals in a collective bargaining negotiation. And trying to organize a workplace without having a strategy is difficult to fathom. But perhaps none of that is germane to what you're saying?

I see we are not really gonna agree.

And it's a difference of belief, not strategy.

― xyzzzz__, Tuesday, August 18, 2026 3:04 PM (eleven minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

imo there is both a difference of values (how much we care about strategizing-and-winning v.s. not-strategizing and losing, holding fixed beliefs about how effective strategy is) and an in principle reconcilable difference in beliefs (how important is being strategic to winning)

the former is not very interesting, but the latter is. i'm not an expert by any means, but i feel like if you look at any of the examples of leftists gaining power anywhere at any time in history, they were being extremely strategic. happy to consider counterexamples

politics by definition is about winning. you can't be a very effective politician if you aren't winning office. maybe there are some rare examples of a politician who wielded legitimate power after losing an election, but that's not really how it works. certainly if you intend to have power thru the act of governing or representing a constituency, then you have no choice but to win office. so we can sit here and have a discussion about prioritizing "doing the right things" over winning, but you really want your politicians to prioritize winning over "doing the right things"

Yes, a politician's job is to win, and an activist's job is to push them to do the right things.

is the idea here that the presence of any strategy is not the same as having an effective or winning strategy?

fwiw this subject came up on the UKpol thread previously where xyzzzz was criticizing the Greens for *not running* a candidate for Manchester mayor (or for Farage's seat iirc) for strategic reasons, so I think some of this pushback isn't quite on the mark. I think he's attacking a kind of base cynicism where political strategy becomes a force to itself, but I should probably stop trying to speak for him.

I think he's attacking a kind of base cynicism where political strategy becomes a force to itself

My interpretation too and I agree -- but no one on this thread has reverted to Sunday morning talk show cynicism. Some of us are involved in local politics, whether labor organizing or collective bargaining (at my uni our union chapter, of which I'm an officer, is in the middle of negotiations).

i feel utterly run over but remain where i stood. first— convince ppl WHY you are FUCKIN DECENT AND RIGHT. if you cannot?

jefferson said shit was self-evident. i may like to think so— but good fuckin luck. keep tinkering with the bells and whistles. i’d say worse but i respect you all

Thanks!

lol especially you!!!

fwiw this subject came up on the UKpol thread previously where xyzzzz was criticizing the Greens for *not running* a candidate for Manchester mayor (or for Farage's seat iirc) for strategic reasons, so I think some of this pushback isn't quite on the mark. I think he's attacking a kind of base cynicism where political strategy becomes a force to itself, but I should probably stop trying to speak for him.

― rob, Tuesday, 18 August 2026 bookmarkflaglink

I am not at all sure having these strategies really serve people.

I want to elect representatives that will serve on left politics, and will see it through if they win, whether they win or not. To me then, winning isn't the definition of politics. Of course you need to win, but how many winners actually serve the constituents and the politics they are voting for? This is what strategy often overlooks.

In the UK example it was bad not to run anyone. From a left POV it deprives people of a choice and conversations at the door, there's a sense that people are just there to be strategised, just to be useful to someone somewhere along the line.
--

but i feel like if you look at any of the examples of leftists gaining power anywhere at any time in history, they were being extremely strategic. happy to consider counterexamples

― flopson, Tuesday, 18 August 2026 bookmarkflaglink

I don't actually think this is entirely true. Yes leftists are good at politics, their strategies could be sharp and their campaigns effective but also a lot of the wins are a culmination of multiple factors where leftists build movements with all sorts of people, or that people were suddenly crying out for what they are offering as the alternatives put forward often fall by the wayside. That can be a in the right place at the right time type of thing.

How do you build movements without at one point including and excluding people because of their utility?

*skips to end*

you need both

otm

maybe there are some rare examples of a politician who wielded legitimate power after losing an election

https://www.sanders.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/about-senator-bernie-sanders-headshot-376x476-1.jpg

Yes leftists are good at politics, their strategies could be sharp and their campaigns effective but also a lot of the wins are a culmination of multiple factors where leftists build movements with all sorts of people, or that people were suddenly crying out for what they are offering as the alternatives put forward often fall by the wayside. That can be a in the right place at the right time type of thing.

fair enough. but there's an important complementarity between the broader movement and electoral victory. the movement has an easier time with like-minded people in power (than when its opponents are in power). so it's ok for the politicians to be more strategic

base cynicism where political strategy becomes a force to itself

pretty long way to go from aoc and bernie endorsing sayed but not hong and this imo