But, if that's the guage, there are lots of other people who have also won tougher races with progressive messages in rougher terrain under more difficult circumstances - e.g., Sharice Davids, Lucy McBath - who should also be given credit as potential world-changers.

And ran as one.

And doesn’t logically flow from your post I was replying to. That said, it’s so vague you might need to elaborate for me to understand.

because the survival of both democracy and progressive government depend on the Democratic Party just as much, perhaps more.

Where was everyone, anyway?

I hear the 18-29 voting group voting participation rose big time -- all the way to 31% of their eligible voters in November. Gee, that's 10 points higher than 2014, when they were seemingly fine with the Republicans controlling congress and maybe kicking Obama out.

Had those who belatedly stood for the first time this November against evil and for progressivism belatedly realize that their failure meant they still have to take out loans (if only they could qualify) just to take a quarter of community college classes? That minimum wage is still $7.25 instead of $15? That the advances to universal healthcare we promised didn't happen? Maybe they objected to children in cages? Or all of it?

Or maybe some realized that the many, many millions of Democratic voters lost by a hair because we were standing alone and that the failure was theirs? It's not that we didn't tell them. We would have begged on our knees if that would have worked.

If Ocasio causes another 3% of young nonvoters to get up and stand against Republicans by voting for Democratic Party candidates who can win, I'll know she'll have developed into an important asset. But she still has to prove that, like some of the others, she now realizes that progressive change will only happen by voting for Democrats who can win.

but when working in a large institution, one learns that team work is also essential in building alliances.

Before they can expect the team to follow any directions they try to give.

And last time I checked, the team has a pretty awesome leader right now who has the team rowing together very nicely ...

I see what you did there!

in helping to move things in a new, more progressive direction.

And Pelosi is a good leader.

If no one is even talking about raising taxes on the rich, it’s definitely not going to happen. If someone is out making the case, it has a chance.

Most Dem voters want policy moved to the left.

...to stories back in the 80s and 90s.

In fact, my thrilled amazement at realizing all those supposedly "apathetic" Democrats most polls insisted they revealed were not apathetic at all. They were like me -- eager to support more and bigger efforts by our representatives, not less. And the representatives I always knew were progressives were thrilled also. Power comes from the people. When the voters don't care, or are believed not to,...

In fact, the polls were overall so consistently very wrong that to this day I'm wondering if there wasn't a plot manipulating a good deal of it. We know most of the big-business MSM boost Republicans and undermine Democrats.

One thing I do know is that the Republicans succeeded in making "liberal" and "Democrat" dirty words by the 1990s, so that fewer people self identified as "anti-family," "anti-moral" "business-hating" "radical" liberals. Yet almost all polls required people to self-identify their political orientation, causing what I always knew had to be severe undercounting.

Beyond doubt the wording of the questions lead to distorted results because the excitement caused by Warren's wonderful achievements proved their evaluations had been tragically wrong since at least the 1990s.

Too bad for the seekers of the mythical center--my heart weeps for them.

I just despise how the press is trying to use her as a divisive figure, and my fellow Democrats are letting them.

For the typical Democratic voter, she's good news.

For the atypicals, she's either only Satan or another Sacred Cow, and the aggressive push by both those subsets are becoming the media narrative.

The Democratic party has always been diversified, and the left and the middle of the party have always been its base, while the actual conservative Democrats in the party have been the minority.

You can also tell that Shane Goldmacher still brings along his distorted views from politico when he not so subtly mischaracterizing what she says:

"proposals to tax the superrich at 70 percent, to produce all of America’s power through renewable resources or to abolish Immigration and Customs Enforcement."

Here is what Representative Ocasio-Cortez actually said regarding taxes:

"You know, you look at our tax rates back in the '60s and when you have a progressive tax rate system, your tax rate, you know, let's say, from zero to $75,000 may be ten percent or 15 percent, et cetera. But once you get to, like, the tippy tops, on your 10 millionth dollar, sometimes you see tax rates as high as 60 or 70 percent. That doesn't mean all $10 million are taxed at an extremely high rate, but it means that as you climb up this ladder you should be contributing more."

That misrepresentation from the NY Times is intentional.

As for the abolishing of ICE, despite what the media wants to convey, most Democrats do not want ICE abolished. They want it reformed, or replaced, and those who have been misdirecting the purpose of ICE removed.

Every since Judy Miller the NY Times has gone down hill.

From blaming "the hubris of Obama" and the Democrats, for causing the republicans to deny climate change":

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/03/us/politics/republican-leaders-climate-change.html

To setting up the more than frequent false equivalencies between republicans and Democrats.

I am glad I dropped the NY Times, and subscribe to the WP

It’s almost like you are trying to start a political discussion deeper than “hey simpletons, read my article promoting false narratives that I know you inherently want to believe anyway.”

I don’t think you should be trusted. Please put down your thinking cap.

Guess I was wrong.

I would like to use the excuse that it is early in the morning where I am, but the fact is, I was pretty dense on this
Thanks, and I apologize again for flying off the handle

I really was trying to pay you a compliment. I liked reading your post. I should have responded in a way that was more in line with your post. In a way, I did what I was thanking you for not doing...

Have a good day.

It's nutty that anyone believes in the fictional Democratic Party where they are in the majority.

and Nixon implemented his scorched earth policy

everyone know that they are, it's that the media and the party itself gives them more sway on policy and excuses them of their bad votes.. see ACA, who had more influence during those negotiations?? did progressives get the "public option"... or was that shot down by Republicans and bad faith Dems like Leiberman?? Why did Leiberman & Repubs have more power in that situation?? Answer... because Dem leadership GAVE it to them... that is where that perception came from..

Either a public option and no ACA because he wouldn't vote for it, or 60 votes and an ACA without a public option. This is not difficult to understand and it wasn't Democrats' fault.

Putting everything on one is ridiculous.

A lot!

I have every conceivable combo oh her name on it.

I am fine with AOC, I like her, but damn, I can’t get away.

Interesting language they chose. Could not one have described it as pulling them, or more importantly attracting them towards issues that they otherwise might have avoided choosing to address? Can't it be viewed as a charismatic congresswoman creating a context that gives others an opening to address common democratic issues.

but 'push' is more accurate in context.

and they keep pushing false narratives and non-stories. RW media in particular is obsessed with AOC, it will backfire cause she is genuine unlike them. AOC is actually pushing the dem party back to where it used to be: supporting universal healthcare, progressive taxation, public education, etc. She barely brings any new ideas except for the new green deal which is actually good for the economy. The only major problem I see is that AOC, Sanders and other normalized the term ‘socialism’ which is a non-starter for most; labels matter, americans are obsessed with labels; there are many better ways to describe them, e.g. responsible capitalism, social democrats, etc. They almost killed themselves from the start by using the term that is inherently negative and unamerican.

She has introduced nothing not already a belief of the Democrats past or present.

What she hasn't learned is how hard it is to make all that happen when you have repukes also in Congress.

And imagine that... no mentoring required!!

I think they just recycled an article from before and put in Ocasio-Cortez instead of Bernie.

And that's scares a lot of people who are in others pockets not to change. I'd vote for her over them any day, and hope she keeps it up, they have gotten to use to doing what those who pay them want them to do. Her tax plan is exactly what we need to get passed, and then onto the environmental issues.

she's pulling.