AOC is the enemy of the Democratic party

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

She's about to enter a house with say a 6 d majority and she's trying as hard as she can to piss off 6 ds she needs for her ideas.

As with the Freedom Caucus, there's value in playing the long game. Unfortunately, she doesn't seem to be playing that very well either.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

Attacking AOC isn't helpful. The Democrats should be a big tent. There's an AOC wing and there's a Conor Lamb wing. They can both coexist.

That's true but we have to have unified messaging. Internal disagreement should not make it's way to the press--let along happen on Twitter. Disagreement with leadership should be saved for personal conversations. Words that don't help move their agenda forwards and make great fodder for Republican ads like "abolish", "Democratic-socialist", and "defund" should be completely blacklisted. Is it really too much to ask every representative to stick to their talking points?

OP has called us the enemy of the Democratic Party.

What happened to the unity you guys wanted? Or is that just when it's convenient?

I can't speak to the OP, but I'm very explicitly endorsing unity. And part of that means sticking to the script leadership gives you--it's a two-way street.

I can sympathise with this in principle but the reason why anti-establishment Reps. are valued is because it's been clear for decades that the scriptwriters can't be trusted. If it was genuinely all about electability, they would not be running candidates like Shalala to begin with.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

Attacking AOC isn't helpful. The Democrats should be a big tent. There's an AOC wing and there's a Conor Lamb wing. They can both coexist.

That's true but we have to have unified messaging. Internal disagreement should not make it's way to the press--let along happen on Twitter. Disagreement with leadership should be saved for personal conversations. Words that don't help move their agenda forwards and make great fodder for Republican ads like "abolish", "Democratic-socialist", and "defund" should be completely blacklisted. Is it really too much to ask every representative to stick to their talking points?

In the heat of elections, yeah sure. But that's over now. You're a good poster, but your argument "internal disagreements should not make it's way to the press" is absolute garbage IMO. AOC and the progressives need to VOTERS to help them grow within the party, and the voters need to see what the disagreements are. If all they have are internal discussions, how is a small minority supposed to ever stand up meaningfully to the establishment? Progressives only have the power to grow and to check / threaten the establishment if the voters are involved.

GEORGIA

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

Moderates before the elecrion: Unity! Heal the wounds! Bind the nation! MUH COALITION!!!!

Moderates after the election: AOC AND HER SUPPORTERS MUST BE THROWN INTO THE CAMPS

OP literally called us the enemy of the Democratic Party but whatever.

Who is “us”? OP is clearly talking about AOC. I swear, you guys on the left have such a victim complex, it’s unbelievable.

Oh? Forgive me, then. Usually when moderates attack AOC, they also either explcitly, or implictly (as OP as done) attack anyone who supports her as well.

No one is attacking her supporters lmao. The issue is her and others, poor messaging which is hurting Democrats in swing districts.

Correct me if i'm wrong,  but didn't you guys actually lose swing districts? And didn't we win ours?

Wow, winning Minneapolis and the Bronx? How impressive. Messaging by people like AOC makes it much easier for the GOP to scaremonger and tie incumbents in swing districts to unpopular policies. That’s part of the reason why they lose. “Defund the police” and “Abolish Ice” doesn’t win votes.

Golden, Kirkpatrick, Levin and Porter who co-sponsored Medicare for All were all just re-elected, so . . .

3/4 of them are in Biden districts, (Levin’s district in particular isn’t even competitive) and Golden’s opponent was a joke, and even then he only won by 5 after being up in the polls by double digits.

Golden's opponent was generic R if not slightly better than that (a former state legislature) and polls overestimating him did not make his eventual overperformance any less impressive.

There were others who supported it and did just fine. DeFazio had a strong opponent (people here were predicting his loss alongside a Democratic wave) and Cartwright did well, too.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

If we're going to drill down into things that might have made Spanberger more likely to underperform than other House Democrats, don't count out her CIA background. If Trump voters with low social trust can be persuaded, the people least likely to succeed would be spooks, who are easiest to connect to "the deep state."

In future, electability-minded candidates are going to have to see what they can get out of these voters as well as the pro-gridlock suburbanites.