I think Josh Marshall is correct when he warns people off over-interpreting the shocking primary loss Joe Crowley, the chair of the House Democratic Caucus, suffered last night at the hands of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a 28-year-old political novice and Democratic Socialist who was working as a bartender as recently as last year. The district is roughly 50 percent Latino, 50 percent foreign-born, and disproportionately young. Add to this that women have been running strong in Democratic primaries all year long, and it really shouldn’t surprise us that the district was ready to make a change or that it would embrace someone running to Crowley’s left.
I don’t think this really ought to send that much of a message either to the Democratic Party or to the nation as a whole. It’s not actually remarkable that a representative from the Bronx and Queens would embrace socialistic policies. And it’s now a strongly minority-majority district, so there’s nothing out of the ordinary about it being represented by a Latina rather than a more traditional Irish-American pol.
If there is any part of this victory that concerns me, it’s that Crowley’s race was used rather explicitly as a reason why he shouldn’t continue to represent the district. If someone were to use that logic to, for example, explain why former NAACP director Ben Jealous shouldn’t be elected as governor of Maryland, I think it would be rightfully condemned. More than that, though, it sends a message to the broader country that I think is more powerful and alienating than Ocasio-Cortez’s ideological leanings. The case for Ocasio-Cortez was made independently of Crowley’s race and making that an issue was gratuitous and unfortunate.
Trumpism feeds off a sense of white racial solidarity, anxiety and grievance, so when Democrats send a message that whites are not welcome or acceptable, it increases the power of his movement.
Having said that, I also don’t want to overemphasize it. Ocasio-Cortez will probably represent my political leanings better than Crowley would have, and I suspect we can say the same for the constituents of New York’s 11th congressional district. The House Democrats will now have the opportunity to elevate someone to the leadership from the younger generations, which is something many people have been advocating with good reason for quite some time. It’s also encouraging to see that it’s possible to win an election in this country even when you’re badly outspent and running against someone with some significantly entrenched power.
Her story is inspiring and she seems to have a lot of natural talent, charisma and energy, which will all be welcome in the Democratic caucus on Capitol Hill. She was correct, too, to argue that she’ll bring a badly underrepresented perspective to Washington.
On balance, I think this election result is good news for the Democratic Party and not some indication of disarray or that they’re moving too far away from the mainstream.
I spent last night looking up the biographies and positions of all the fresh faces among the Democratic Party primary winners in New York State, and it’s a very impressive and heterogeneous pool of talent. Taken in that broader perspective, I think Ocasio-Cortez’s victory was just one small part of a great night for the Democrats of New York.
It was a horrible day otherwise. I hope this isn’t the last piece of good news we get for a while, because it’s hard to shake that feeling right now.
We’ve been here before. At least in NYC.
Vito Marcantonio.
US Rep. from NYC. He wasn’t a harbinger of the revolution, either.
You say this;
——–
Trumpism feeds off a sense of white racial solidarity, anxiety and grievance, so when Democrats send a message that whites are not welcome or acceptable, it increases the power of his movement.
——–
Not welcome where?
Could you name a prominent elected democrat who has actually said this? Any democrat with any sort of power?
This seems to have become a recurring theme in your writing, in that democrats (small d), and even some POC who nobody knows their affiliation ( NFL protestors) need to be careful, even hold their tongue, for fear of offending deplorables.
It is REALLY out of place in this case, because he was not representative of his district, and he did not bother to show up for debates, which is EXTREMELY disrespectful to his constituents, let alone his opponent..who was a woman of Puerto Rican decent. Perhaps he is not `welcome’, or `acceptable’ because his constituents (whom are majority minority by a large margin) are sick and tired of being disrespected and insulted by their leadership.
.
I haven’t seen or heard anything that suggests that the message is that Crowley, as an older white man was no longer “welcome” or “acceptable” either to his District and/or to the entire cross-section of the Democratic Party or voters. I, too, am puzzled why this is being stated here. Maybe there’s something I missed or don’t know about.
I did see that Crowley refused to debate Ocasio-Cortez, which was likely a big error of judgement on his part and may have contributed to his loss. I think voters are sick and tired of lazy reps, who can’t be bothered to show up and talk to them.
The message that I see being sent is more one of: get out there and talk to your voter constituents, instead of only just to the money people. Don’t be so complacent. Pay attention to what’s happening to the 99%, rather than just focusing on the 99%.
And from where I sit, can we stop focusing on whether ANYTHING a Democrat or leftist does is somehow “wrong” or sending some kind of message to Trump or voters that will somehow be misconstrued.
Please: can we just figure out HOW we can elect good Democrats and stop worrying about Trump voters think about our message. We’re never ever going to reach them. They will never ever vote for a Democrat. I don’t care what they think or what Rush/Fox tells them to believe and how to behave.
oops: I mean “rather than just focusing on the 1%”
My platform during `16 is the same as it is now: run Oscasio-Cortez’s in every blue area, run Jason Kanders and Tom Perriello’s statewide in the red states and “moderate” areas, and Richard Ojeda and Joe Manchin where necessary. That coalition can survive what’s ahead and give us political power.
You can feel the message developing, in that the Democratic Party is no longer `acceptable’ or `welcoming’ to white people…white men in particular. My prediction is that’s where the Republican leadership is going. Sure, it’s been whispered, but Trump, like so many other things, is bringing it out in the open.
For generations constituents, no matter their racial make up, have been subtly told that the white person (mainly male) is a better representative, they are natural leaders, they can more naturally fit in, they are simply smarter.
Best not help them, by re-enforcing that message.
It’s now the time that we need bare knuckle fighters.
.
Yeah I don’t know what Booman is so afraid of. An Oscasio-Cortez style message tailored to a specific area would appeal to a lot of suburban women that are trending Democrat. Individual issues are important, but ultimately people want a community and feeling of belonging. She wouldn’t win in a statewide race in Iowa, but I think she’d be competitive in Virginia or Colorado.
Nationally? I’ve been on team Gillibrand since `14-15, and I still am. She gets the base and is responsive. Been proved over and over.
It’s really very simple. If you have a message that the incumbent needs to go because he’s white and the district is not, that sends a message that can be heard all over the country, and it’s not a helpful one. It’s also not right.
As I said, Maryland is mostly white, so should the governor say that people shouldn’t vote for his opponent because he’s black?
That wasn’t her only message. If it were, it was be a big problem. But it was part of her stated rationale for why Crowley needed to go. It should not have been.
Just say that he’s been around too long and grown out of touch, that the district needs a representative with fresh ideas and talk about her own female, Latina perspective rather than his white male perspective.
I’d like to see Democrats run for office without making it about racial differences. If white Jewish guy is doing a good job representing Memphis, then don’t make an issue out of the fact that Memphis isn’t a white Jewish city. And if he’s not doing a good job, then offer yourself as a better alternative, not a blacker alternative.
It’s not complicated.
But I just don’t understand how you can get that from any of her campaigning unless you’re predisposed to view any form of identity politics as “anti-white”. A lot of people will interpret these results through that lens, but they’re unreachable unless we do some Sistah Soldia’ing nationally, which obviously isn’t and can’t happen.
I’m about as far from NY as you possibly get, and read no NY papers, but none of the coverage on her victory I’ve seen mentioned she campaigned on that. Are you saying the Republicans (or FOX) have video? Right now on TV nobody is talking about it.
.
I live in the district. Even among those who voted against him, not a bad word was said about Crowley. He just wasn’t right for the times. I didn’t detect any anti white sentiment coming from the campaign, although the “one of us” slogan on the campaign flyers was a little creepy due to my affection for the movie Freaks. And a little odd since Crowley was from Queens and graduated Queens college, where as AOC was mostly Westchester and Boston University. The only anti white sentiment I detected was from affected white assholes who think they’re “woke” but are really just a bunch of self aggrandizing dipshits.
And turnout was very low. At least at my polling place.
I don’t see how her campaign can be interpreted the way you seem to be seeing it, Martin. I’m truly confused and don’t get it.
I don’t see her campaign as “anti white” or that she or her people said Crowley should go because he’s white.
What I read mostly from those who voted for AOC was that they were fed up with Crowley for a variety of reasons, on the main ones being that they felt he wasn’t truly representing their interests anymore. I read stuff about Crowley being sleazy and a grifter.
Nowhere did I see any criticism of Crowley simply because he’s white.
Again, imo, forget about trying to frame things so that Republicans feel all warm and cozy or something.
This is about citizens electing someone who they hope/think/believe will represent them. I didn’t see this particular election as a commentary on race or being anti white.
IF Fox and Rush are framing it that way? So what? Of course, they’ll do that every chance they get. They LIE about everything. EVERYTHING. They’re racist Nazis. There’s nothing we can do about that.
Add it to This and This!
I like Pelosi (Schumer not so much), but this was too much. She has to go, she needs to be told that her time is over, time to hand her district to someone younger, and more hungry.
The whole upper leadership has to be told by their constituents that they are no longer acceptable, or welcome. Time has passed them by.
This district did it first.
Time to pass the torch to a generation that is willing to fight. And that is what we are in, a no holds barred fight.
.
At last someone pissed off at the Orange Turd enough to tell him and his friends.
Schumer needs to go. I get the feeling if we took back the senate he would assume leadership and run to the WH to make a deal with the donald. There is no deal with the donald unless you got something he wants to trade….and I’m not talking about some wall.
I cannot see why we would want to make any deals with the Donald. Make him want to make deals with us. On our terms.
C’mon, nalbar, keep your eye on the ball. Take a cue from Maxine Waters, who was asked about Pelosi’s statement, gave it a verbal handwave and got back immediately to talking about Trump’s kidnappings and baby jails, finishing by literally reading from a list of Trump quotes which were explicit calls for violence.
Shine it on. Maxine don’t care. I am completely willing to protest Nazis fiercely and do not particularly care about Pelosi’s opinion of that. It doesn’t affect my view of her as caucus Leader much, and I don’t see anyone who would be a better Leader. Pelosi holds her Caucus together and knows how to whip and count votes. If we get the majority, it’ll be a very thin one, and we’ll need every damn vote.
“Someone else other than Pelosi” is an incredibly weak and ultimately futile position.
Fair enough. And I admit that right now I am a little….frustrated with what is going on….and probably over reacting.
But also…..I’m getting old. And the one thing the old know, beyond all doubt, is that they are not what they once were. Only a fool can fool themselves on that subject.
What I see is a bunch of really old rich fools, tangling with issues that don’t in any way effect their lives. They are completely isolated. A month or so ago someone asked Pelosi if her time was done, and if it might not be Schumer’s turn, and she responded `if I am no longer qualified, then that also applies to Schumer’ (paraphrased). She was right. But she also does not have much time left, she does not have the energy she once had (no, she does not).
.
I’m approximately the same age as Pelosi. Energy isn’t my problem, but I certainly am not as sharp and quick mentally as I once was. And definitely not on the level required for the Speaker job, if I ever was.
A huge problem in the 2016 election was that Hillary and many other candidates were from the 90’s. And the Clintons blocked new blood in the party because they wanted loyalists who would support her. We need to mentor and give opportunity to younger people who better represent the needs of those under 40 years old and the demands and challenges of different times.
The Democratic Party sucks in terms of creating a bench. So many are old fossils who REFUSE to let go.
DiFi: I’m looking at you!!
The Clintonistas have done huge damage to the party with their insistence on absolute loyalty to the old fogeys in the party.
Now we’re having Uncle Joe Biden – who will be 77 in 2020 – rammed down our throats as the “best candidate.”
UGH. Get ready for a second Trump Term, everyone. Stick a fork in it, we’re done for.
It’s way past time to be blaming `Clintonistas’ for where we are. And a reminder…..not all those `Clintonistas’ are over 50.
We are where we are because 40% of this country LIKES IT when children, some of them no more than babies, are locked in cages, far from their parents. And that 40% is absolutely fine that a rather large percentage will NEVER have a reunion.
Time to get real, and stop hitting that punching bag the media has spend so much money telling you was at fault for every problem America faces.
.
I’m not blaming Clintonistas for where we are now as a country. I agree with you that 40% are deplorable and would be whether the Clintons existed or not.
I’m talking about how the Democratic party is presently being run, and, imo, it’s a lot to do with Clinton influence combined with some sort of collective will NOT to develop a bench.
That has nothing to do with Republicans.
I disagree with the claim that the Democratic Party is not providing an opportunity for younger elected leaders to have prominent public voices on issues and campaigns. I agree that it’s time for some of them to begin having more official Caucus leadership positions. Moving aside a couple of the old men in leadership would be fine by me.
I continue to ask who would be a better Speaker, and who would do Pelosi’s superb job of whipping and counting votes. As recent Republican Speakers have shown, that’s a very hard job, an absolutely crucial job, and one which will have to be done near perfectly by the next Democratic House leader, given that the House is likely to be extremely closely divided.
The claim that the 2016 election turned at all on the age of the Democratic Party candidate and Congressional leadership strikes me as very sexist. Trump is older than Hillary and looks and sounds like it, McConnell has held his Senate leadership position longer than any Republican in the history of the United States and moves and speaks like the tortoise he is, and Ryan’s policies and attitude are not helping pull many younger voters other than racist or racist-curious white people, who will be difficult to get as long as Trump and his Congressional enablers stoke their toxic furnace.
What you’re sayign is true but the Schumers, Pelosis and Clintons should also appreciate how damaging their political baggage no matter that the baggage is the result of 20 years of political smears. Let the younger guns take over.
The younger guns took over the GOP House leadership. They can’t get their caucus lined up for much at all, and the Speaker sure as fuck can’t count votes, which has caused his leadership to faceplant repeatedly. They’ve got a majority of about 30 House members and they still fail on important votes, over and over.
We will have to keep every vote lined up in the caucus in 2019-20. If we have a majority, it’s likely to be by only around 5 House members. I want to feel confident that the younger guns will do as well as Pelosi in lining up votes. How am I to take confidence that some anonymous House member will skillfully perform literally the most important job for a Caucus leader?
I want to stress that when younger Congressmembers take over leadership, the right-wing slime machine and their media enablers, including the self-identified neutral media, will smear them immediately and they will become as notorious as Pelosi. In the face of that, I don’t see the benefit of trying to avoid what you call Pelosi’s damaging political baggage, whatever that is.
The claim that the Party leadership is ramming Biden down people’s throats now is bizarre. I haven’t heard much about Biden at all, and Biden will not be the 2020 nominee, no way no how. I think you’re confusing some portions of the press with the Party.
“I think you’re confusing some portions of the press with the Party.”
This seems to be a common trait throughout the country.
.
As I learned of Pelosi’s, Schumer’s, and more surprisingly, Elijah Cummings’s stances against Huckster/Nielsen-styled “incivility”, I experienced immediate, visceral, negative reactions against them.
Then, upon further reflection, I reconsidered along these lines: perhaps there’s value in Dem leadership making “civility” the official party leadership position, which everyone else in the party (or at least the more, the better) meanwhile proceeds to completely ignore, à la Maxine Waters, the Red Hen staff and owners, Nielsen’s mic check protestors, etc.
I.e., the official position of the party is civility, while in practice the members/supporters engage in every bit of “incivility” that the current wave of criminality, corruption, bigotry, and inhumanity from the Banana Republicans/Trumpites demands and fully justifies. (Perhaps even with behind-the-scenes acceptance/endorsement by the leadership, though of course I have no evidence that’s the case.)
In fact, I can see a lot of benefit in such a dual approach. Meanwhile, not sure I can see any practical benefit in Dem party leadership officially endorsing Waters’s recommendations (e.g., would just be fodder for Corporate Media vapors and dishonest, hypocritical right wing propaganda).
We can call it the Janus Approach.
.
Your implication seems pejorative (Janus = “two-faced”, i.e., negative)?
But I’m suggesting the party leadership say one thing and the rest of the party ignore it and do the opposite. (I.e., not that the same person(s) say one thing out of one side of the mouth, then contradict it out of the other.)
So the more apt analogy would be a mythical beast with head and body in verbal conflict with one another while acting together towards the same goal. Not aware of such an existing myth, but maybe somebody better-versed in mythology can suggest one?
The media is pushing the “Dems in disarray” because they are afraid of what this really shows – that the Democratic “big tent” is very real and encompasses the vast majority of Americans. Ocasio-Cortez has made it clear she’s happy to work with the Democratic mainstream and the Democratic mainstream has made it clear it’s happy to work with her. Democrats are very arrayed here.
She is probably better for turnout in November in her district than the bland old guy. I call this a win.
She’s in a D+29 district. Being alive is enough to generate turnout.
Yeah, Cuomo isn’t concerned about turnout.
Might not matter much in 2018. But there will be more Novembers after this one.
That seat is safe until the heat-death of the sun, or redistricting, whichever comes first.
It was not so safe for Crowley.
.
Which Republican beat him again? I’m hazy on this point.
I was wondering how much her victory was a result of the news of the last few weeks. I think the average liberal is far more outraged than they were a month ago, when the national Democrats were breathing a sigh of relief and we were reading articles with titles like:
Bernie Sanders’ Revolution Isn’t Carrying His Candidates Through The Midterms (June 5th TPM)
Does anyone know whether there was a spike in turnout compared to earlier primaries, or is this a matter of the differences in the electorate from state-to-state?
If nothing else, Ocasio-Cortez’s is a needed infusion of youth, enthusiasm and plain outspokenness into the party. And hopefully it will spur other young people to challenge some of the older members, not just because they are old, but because it is time for new faces, fresh approaches and ideas.
I don’t think the results of an election in one New York district, the 14th, where all of 28,000 votes were cast, signifies a fucking thing for the party or the country.
You are probably right. But it is worth noting that she is rather far left and says she wants Medicare for all, free college and a federal jobs guarantee program among other things. And she is allied with Cynthia Nixon who probably has even less chance to beat Cuomo.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/6/27/17508528/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-new-york-primary
-election-socialist
Sully at digby’s place embedded interviews of Ocasio-Cortez by Chris Hayes and on Morning Joe (in which blowhard JoeScar remoted in, and so was kept somewhat less obnoxious than usual, though still obnoxious). Highly recommended viewing.
Sully also quoted booman’s assertion above:
Given that
it sure would be nice if booman were to be responsive to those questions/requests. To which I’ll add my own: “were used” by whom? By Ocasio-Cortez, or someone officially designated to speak for her? By somebody else? If the latter, who?
That was a great interview and I noticed she was not put out by the question of how will you pay for it. Very confident. Me thinks she knows more about how she will pay for it than she lets on.
So Ocasio-Cortez’s victory isn’t a big deal because she won because she is young and Hispanic in a young and Hispanic district, and it’s “concerning” that her campaign harvested “anti-white” sentiment even though no evidence for that is given.
No mention of the policies she ran on, like Medicare for All and a Universal Jobs Guarantee, or how most of them would have been considered “pie-in-the-sky” by Dems as a whole only a couple years ago. This is completely ignored in favor of chalking all her support up to “Hispanics vote for Hispanics”.
Ooookay then. Whatever Dems need to tell themselves to feel justified in not offering any substantial policies to help the working class, I guess.
All of the various disses aimed the Ocasio-Lopez campaign by the neocenrist media?
And, I might add, loyally rebroadcast above by various so-called “pragmatic” neocentrist Dems above?
It’s just the old-line DNC controllers setting up their lines of defense against a new threat to their hegemony, just as they did with Bernie Sanders.
Same old, same old.
Different (internal) opponent, different disses.
And…look around.
You can easily see how well that worked out on a large scale, “pragmatically political” level several years after it was put into effect on Sanders.
Yup.
Worked like a charm, it did!!!
For Trump!!!
I mean…hell, if you’re going to lose, at least lose with some dignity while simultaneously establishing a position for future wins as your opponents fail due to karmic re-leveling actions!!!
Have a nice day…
AG
P.S. It is beginning to more and more often occur to me…watching the major neocentrist media and its acolytes in the so-called “progressive” world…that perhaps the best act the sub rosa enemies of the U.S. may have pulled off is supporting the continuation of the neocentrist forces in positions of power in the Democratic Party with an aim to keeping said party ineffectual in terms of real change.
What a coup that would have been, eh alla you neocentrist trollers?
Think on it.
We probably won’t live long enough to find out the truth of the matter, any of us. No more than we will live long enough to find out the real truths regarding the assassination years, Watergate and 9/11.
They’re down the memory hole and out into space, maybe.
Gone forever!!!
Oh well…at least it simplifies things.
For some of us, anyway… :>) :>) :>)
Like I said…have a nice day.
I am.
I’m back inna Bronx, and happy to be so.
You?