It wouldn't be bad to have debate and discussion of the issues. I don't think she is likely to lose.

I'm not saying that I dislike her policy positions. I think that there are others, who disagree with providing health care to all at no cost to patients or who disagree with making taxation more progressive, who may wish to oppose her reelection.

It's inevitable that others (in that blue district likely to reflect more mainstream progressive and social justice positions) will consider running for what might turn out to be a vulnerable seat.

"Primarying" is probably not an appropriate term. After all, that's a hostile, targeted attempt to remove a specific rep, typically punishment for not going along somehow. Ocasio doesn't even have a voting record yet. Sure, there is a lot of talk about her offending a bunch of her colleagues in congress, but this doesn't sound like serious primary talk so much as grumbling, and she can stop offending them any time she wants.

My guess is most in her district prefer to wait and see how their "Wednesday morning surprise" actually performs over the next year. They have time, and in their place I'd look very poorly on outsiders trying to interfere in my district.

WTF people. There is a PROBLEM that needs to be eradicated.

Jeebus H.

....in the Midwest for candidates challenging other incumbent Democrats? Plus, her organization announced a couple of weeks ago that they're going to "target" Democrat Harry Cuellar in Texas next year and is looking for other incumbent Democrats to primary.

If one lives by the proverbial sword one might possibly die by the sword.

Although I’m not in her district we need more in congress like Alexandria ocasio cortez.

but just a bit. If someone decides to run against her, OK, that's the process. But do not support effort to undermine her.

Boy, the Old Boys Club really don't like it when some upstart woman takes out one of their own do they?

...Harry Cuellar next year?

They didn't, and that's what got them so pissed off. It wasn't supposed to happen. No one got permission from them.

It's pure speculation based upon a Hill story using anonymous sources.
I'm sure this is the very first time that's ever happened here on DU.

and split the democratic vote in her district (no matter how safely blue it might be).

OTOH, she needs to realize that she is NOW A MEMBER OF THE SYSTEM... not outside it anymore. Do not align herself with people trying to remove other Democratic members of the House or Senate... those type of operations are often funded by our real opponents, the oligarchy in the US. Jill Stein is the most recent example of such.

How do you feel about her organization already announcing that they're going to primary incumbent Democrats next year? Won't that split the Democratic vote in those districts?

She is very very close to Justice Democrats - she was one of two board members listed on their website last year, and two of Justice Democrats' co-founders are now on her staff in Washington - as chief of staff and spokesperson. That looks to be aligning herself with those trying to remove other Democratic members of the House.

Why has it taken this long for someone....anyone on our side to get this much traction on explaining to the people what that top marginal tax rates mean? Every time a tax discussion comes up I find myself screaming left and right wondering why our side isn't explaining this very simple concept much more.......simply.

She is doing that, and for that alone everyone on our side, if they are sincere about having an actual discussion about tax rates and not just paying lip service for liberal votes....should thank her.

That's not even touching the fact that her enthusiasm for the process and opening windows to that process is infectious to a lot of people, even ones who may not agree 100% with her on every issue. My very centrist parents, who would in fact be very affected by her plans absolutely love AOC.

We marginalize or demonize her at our party's peril.

2. She won the primary by a very slim margin. Not surprised about this

vote whereas Crowley (running as Working Families Party candidate took 6.6%. In other words, of the votes not going R or Conservative, she took 92+%.

Go ahead and primary her. Good luck with that.

That's a slim margin.

Voters were confused, many not realizing that there was a primary in June AND another one in September. Most were expecting to vote in September. Turnout for the September primary was twice that in the June primary.

"...of the votes not going R or Conservative, she took 92+%"? What does that mean?

Pretty simple. And a pretty good trouncing by her.

As for the turnout in D-14 in both the primary and the GE, it was fairly typical for NY City area districts in 2018 as well as past election years. Look it up. Slim margin? Not by a long shot. You can try to minimize it all you want, but the numbers tell the story -- a 15 point margin in the primary is not close by any stretch, especially when it involves a 10 term Congressional incumbent in a deep blue district.

So ... it's quite obvious you don't like the results or her. Too bad.

See how that works?

You can compare her votes vs. Crowley's "WFP" votes, but remember he endorsed her and disavowed his candidacy on that line and refused to campaign, so claiming she "trounced" him rings hollow.

an area full of struggling people in the first and second income quintiles.

See, I'm thinking that voting should become a hell of a lot easier. The problem with being in the lower socioeconomic groups is that while the law does say you have to have time to go vote, that may not be the reality for someone with a job paying minimum.

Now, this thing about primaries in June and September doesn't really pass the smell test. Why? What possible reason could the Democratic Party in that neck of the woods have for doing that in NY's 14th Congressional District?

And Crowley had a chance against her in the general but only carried 9,300 votes to her 110,000. That says something to me about how the people in the district felt about him (or maybe didn't know/hadn't heard of him).

Now, I'm not one to just sit here wondering why. I went on votesmart and looked at his actual voting record. Do you realize he abstained from voting on a Congressional resolution expressing the sense that a carbon tax would be detrimental to the US economy? He didn't even have the political courage to yell out 'NAY.' Essentially he just sat there and did nothing. He also voted yes on the 'Protect and Serve' Act of 2018, basically a superfluous law made unnecessary by numerous state and local laws.

Hmm. So what does votesmart say about his political courage? Well, he refused to take any actual positions. Endorsements? Well, he's very solidly pro choice, has decent environmental scores. So we're OK. How about labor unions? Good record there.

A look at his campaign finances tells a bit of a different story. Lots of healthcare, pharma, bank, insurance and investment donations.

I have a Dem senator like this in my state. He's OK. Recently got national attention when he gave an impassioned speech, but I've been trying to get him to DO stuff that helps people and be more vigorous for years. No go. See, for me the test of ANY politician is whether they do anything to actually help the people they represent. I mean, is my life actually better because of things this person has done? Sadly, I've got to say...meh.

I'm thinking it was a lot like that with Crowley. On the face of it, some decent endorsements, but...meh. That's probably why he lost, and why he was vulnerable.

Why is it a horrible thing if some of these people get defeated by candidates who are a bit more fiery and more committed to actually getting stuff done. Ocasio-Cortez has repeatedly been told to slow down, pay her dues, etc. but the thing is a few months ago she was waiting tables. I'd call that paying pretty steep dues. She's smart, dynamic, articulate and committed to educating people about things like the primacy of the shareholder and why that is a corrosive acid on the welfare of workers, consumers and the environment. She understands taxation a hell of a lot better than most of these Tea Party morons. Immigration, social justice, healthcare for all, a Green New Deal - these are things the American people need now.

I've often quoted MLK, when he said that justice delayed is justice denied. I'm sick to death of voting for people who pay lip service to my interests and then do nothing for me when elected. I don't think I'm the only one, either. The new Democratic party needs to be downright vigorous in passing stuff that actually benefits the people who have elected them. For example, in the House they have crafted legislation to expand Social Security. It won't pass, but they've drafted the legislation and if we had the Senate and the WH, it WOULD pass.

Harris wants Medicare for all Americans, and she's gaining steam.

Warren wants to topple the primacy of the shareholder and expand fiduciary responsibility of CEOs to include the welfare of workers, consumers and the environment.

Ocasio-Cortez wants a Green New Deal.

Those are good things that will actually help me and my family.

If she and the justice 'dems' consider other Dems suitable targets it shouldn't be too surprising if other Dems think turnabout is fair play

One or a hundred...they'll be pushing an agenda just as the JDs are. All's fair.

hasn't served the people well, while on the other, those who seek to preserve what is current presumably because they view it as working well. People will seek change when things aren't working in their favor; it's only human nature.

If she has a qualified challenger from the district she'll have a primary and the people of the district will choose the winner. It's how she got to Congress and how it's done.

in that district. Good luck with that waste of time. The days of the status quo are waning.

It's pretty simple. If someone qualified wants to challenge her they can and will. The voters will decide. End of story. LOL.

See, I can play that way too.

and the main character is anonymous, that says it all for me.

the ability to change the right wing narrative. Of course they want to take her out.

Many of us (Democrats, and former Democrats, now I's or G's) have actually been waiting at least a couple of decades for people like AOC, Bernie and Elizabeth Warren to appear on the scene and effectively challenge the status quo. My sense is there are more who welcome than have disdain for these non-conformists who disturb the existing balance. But it's also human nature that some people will seek preservation of the status quo when it already serves them well.

that Americans are capable of understanding things. Maybe I'm too jaded but I have found that I can't dumb down to their level some of the conversations I have with others. These people are not capable of understanding issues and are not willing to listen or educate themselves about an issue. My hope for the future is in our youth.

I grew up in the 60s/70s and believed the same thing.

But the youth of the time morphed into yuppies.

Anyway, the next generation is raised by the last one. And they're generally no better.

Think: College Republicans, age of Richard Spencer, etc.

Demographics has never saved us in the past.

Or are they scared of her? And if the article is true, bring it on, I would bet on AOC right now.

I'm neutral on A O-C but - this seems a bit heavy handed for someone who's only been on the job for less than a month.

Well said, Patrick.

She’ll be fine