Claire McCaskill’s Bitter Farewell

[No War, but the War on Christmas]

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/12/claire-mccaskill-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-interviews-abortion.html'

You must be logged in to read this quote.

She's 29 years old. What had McCaskill gotten done at 29? And she's just been elected for Christ sake! What do these people expect of AOC, for her to fix all our issues and make good on every promise before she's even held her first elected office?

Apparently the right wing obsession with AOC doesn't just extend to the right. Honestly makes me lose a lot of respect for McCaskill. So much for a classy exit.

[President Johnson]

I really feel sorry for her, she was a fine senator. I'd easily trade her or Bill Nelson for Joe Manchin.

[Fuzzy Bear]

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/12/claire-mccaskill-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-interviews-abortion.html'

You must be logged in to read this quote.

She's 29 years old. What had McCaskill gotten done at 29? And she's just been elected for Christ sake! What do these people expect of AOC, for her to fix all our issues and make good on every promise before she's even held her first elected office?

Apparently the right wing obsession with AOC doesn't just extend to the right. Honestly makes me lose a lot of respect for McCaskill. So much for a classy exit.

There was no reason to challenge Crowley in a primary other than (A) personal ambition and (B) the belief that the district "needed" to be represented by a member of a minority group.  Crowley was a part of the Democratic leadership, and there was no reason whatsoever, outside of personal ambition, to challenge him in a primary, from a partisan point of view.

What really, other than ethnicity, was the burning issue in the Crowley-AOC primary?  What position did Crowley take that was out of sync with the national Democratic Party, a party in which he was in the inner circle of leadership?

AOC is a mediocrity at this point.  She hasn't done anything of real substance, and if she were white/non-Hispanic, with everything else going for her, she'd have likely been buried in the primary.  Maybe she'll grow into the role.  She's often compared to Elizabeth Holtzman, the 31 year old 1972 challenger to Emmanuel Celler, who had been in Congress since the Harding Administration and was the 84 year old chair of the House Judiciary Committee.  (If he had won in 1972, Celler, and not Peter Rodino, would have chaired the House Judiciary Committee during the 1974 Nixon Impeachment hearingss.)  Holtzman, however, had far more going for her than AOC did at her age in terms of personal accomplishment, and Celler was an 84 year old who was out of touch with the Democratic Party on key issues (he was  an obstacle to the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment and was a latecomer to the anti-war movement).  Crowley was in his prime, and was in line with the Democratic Party down the line; he checked all the boxes.  Crowley's district was represented by a leader in Congress; on January 3 of next year, they'll be represented by a backbencher.  In no way was AOC's effort a "merit-based" challenge. 

[Intell]

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/12/claire-mccaskill-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-interviews-abortion.html'

You must be logged in to read this quote.

She's 29 years old. What had McCaskill gotten done at 29? And she's just been elected for Christ sake! What do these people expect of AOC, for her to fix all our issues and make good on every promise before she's even held her first elected office?

Apparently the right wing obsession with AOC doesn't just extend to the right. Honestly makes me lose a lot of respect for McCaskill. So much for a classy exit.

There was no reason to challenge Crowley in a primary other than (A) personal ambition and (B) the belief that the district "needed" to be represented by a member of a minority group.  Crowley was a part of the Democratic leadership, and there was no reason whatsoever, outside of personal ambition, to challenge him in a primary, from a partisan point of view.

What really, other than ethnicity, was the burning issue in the Crowley-AOC primary?  What position did Crowley take that was out of sync with the national Democratic Party, a party in which he was in the inner circle of leadership?

AOC is a mediocrity at this point.  She hasn't done anything of real substance, and if she were white/non-Hispanic, with everything else going for her, she'd have likely been buried in the primary.  Maybe she'll grow into the role.  She's often compared to Elizabeth Holtzman, the 31 year old 1972 challenger to Emmanuel Celler, who had been in Congress since the Harding Administration and was the 84 year old chair of the House Judiciary Committee.  (If he had won in 1972, Celler, and not Peter Rodino, would have chaired the House Judiciary Committee during the 1974 Nixon Impeachment hearingss.)  Holtzman, however, had far more going for her than AOC did at her age in terms of personal accomplishment, and Celler was an 84 year old who was out of touch with the Democratic Party on key issues (he was  an obstacle to the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment and was a latecomer to the anti-war movement).  Crowley was in his prime, and was in line with the Democratic Party down the line; he checked all the boxes.  Crowley's district was represented by a leader in Congress; on January 3 of next year, they'll be represented by a backbencher.  In no way was AOC's effort a "merit-based" challenge.  

You've been told 500 fycking times by multiple people so stop purposely being a dense moron. Ideologically Crowley was atrocious, Cortez is good. As stated again, Cortez won whites in NY-14 and did better with whites than she did among people of colour (not that anything would have changed if the inverse was correct.)

So, no Cortez's challenge was not based upon merit, which is an overrated concept in politics, it was based on ideology, the most important concept in politics.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/12/claire-mccaskill-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-interviews-abortion.html'

You must be logged in to read this quote.

She's 29 years old. What had McCaskill gotten done at 29? And she's just been elected for Christ sake! What do these people expect of AOC, for her to fix all our issues and make good on every promise before she's even held her first elected office?

Apparently the right wing obsession with AOC doesn't just extend to the right. Honestly makes me lose a lot of respect for McCaskill. So much for a classy exit.

There was no reason to challenge Crowley in a primary other than (A) personal ambition and (B) the belief that the district "needed" to be represented by a member of a minority group.  Crowley was a part of the Democratic leadership, and there was no reason whatsoever, outside of personal ambition, to challenge him in a primary, from a partisan point of view.

What really, other than ethnicity, was the burning issue in the Crowley-AOC primary?  What position did Crowley take that was out of sync with the national Democratic Party, a party in which he was in the inner circle of leadership?

AOC is a mediocrity at this point.  She hasn't done anything of real substance, and if she were white/non-Hispanic, with everything else going for her, she'd have likely been buried in the primary.  Maybe she'll grow into the role.  She's often compared to Elizabeth Holtzman, the 31 year old 1972 challenger to Emmanuel Celler, who had been in Congress since the Harding Administration and was the 84 year old chair of the House Judiciary Committee.  (If he had won in 1972, Celler, and not Peter Rodino, would have chaired the House Judiciary Committee during the 1974 Nixon Impeachment hearingss.)  Holtzman, however, had far more going for her than AOC did at her age in terms of personal accomplishment, and Celler was an 84 year old who was out of touch with the Democratic Party on key issues (he was  an obstacle to the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment and was a latecomer to the anti-war movement).  Crowley was in his prime, and was in line with the Democratic Party down the line; he checked all the boxes.  Crowley's district was represented by a leader in Congress; on January 3 of next year, they'll be represented by a backbencher.  In no way was AOC's effort a "merit-based" challenge. 

The national Democratic party leadership is out of touch with the country, and we need real leadership to set the party in a new direction, and while AOC isn't in any position of leadership now, she is a leader.

[Fuzzy Bear]

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/12/claire-mccaskill-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-interviews-abortion.html'

You must be logged in to read this quote.

She's 29 years old. What had McCaskill gotten done at 29? And she's just been elected for Christ sake! What do these people expect of AOC, for her to fix all our issues and make good on every promise before she's even held her first elected office?

Apparently the right wing obsession with AOC doesn't just extend to the right. Honestly makes me lose a lot of respect for McCaskill. So much for a classy exit.

There was no reason to challenge Crowley in a primary other than (A) personal ambition and (B) the belief that the district "needed" to be represented by a member of a minority group.  Crowley was a part of the Democratic leadership, and there was no reason whatsoever, outside of personal ambition, to challenge him in a primary, from a partisan point of view.

What really, other than ethnicity, was the burning issue in the Crowley-AOC primary?  What position did Crowley take that was out of sync with the national Democratic Party, a party in which he was in the inner circle of leadership?

AOC is a mediocrity at this point.  She hasn't done anything of real substance, and if she were white/non-Hispanic, with everything else going for her, she'd have likely been buried in the primary.  Maybe she'll grow into the role.  She's often compared to Elizabeth Holtzman, the 31 year old 1972 challenger to Emmanuel Celler, who had been in Congress since the Harding Administration and was the 84 year old chair of the House Judiciary Committee.  (If he had won in 1972, Celler, and not Peter Rodino, would have chaired the House Judiciary Committee during the 1974 Nixon Impeachment hearingss.)  Holtzman, however, had far more going for her than AOC did at her age in terms of personal accomplishment, and Celler was an 84 year old who was out of touch with the Democratic Party on key issues (he was  an obstacle to the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment and was a latecomer to the anti-war movement).  Crowley was in his prime, and was in line with the Democratic Party down the line; he checked all the boxes.  Crowley's district was represented by a leader in Congress; on January 3 of next year, they'll be represented by a backbencher.  In no way was AOC's effort a "merit-based" challenge.  

You've been told 500 fycking times by multiple people so stop purposely being a dense moron. Ideologically Crowley was atrocious, Cortez is good. As stated again, Cortez won whites in NY-14 and did better with whites than she did among people of colour (not that anything would have changed if the inverse was correct.)

So, no Cortez's challenge was not based upon merit, which is an overrated concept in politics, it was based on ideology, the most important concept in politics.

How is AOC so radically different than Crowley?  It's not like the Carter-Kennedy challenge in 1980?  It's not like Specter-Murphy for the GOP, or Javits-D'Amato.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Poor Fuzzy. He has a hard-on for a young, attractive Latina and his "Christian" brain can't process it.

[Intell]

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/12/claire-mccaskill-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-interviews-abortion.html'

You must be logged in to read this quote.

She's 29 years old. What had McCaskill gotten done at 29? And she's just been elected for Christ sake! What do these people expect of AOC, for her to fix all our issues and make good on every promise before she's even held her first elected office?

Apparently the right wing obsession with AOC doesn't just extend to the right. Honestly makes me lose a lot of respect for McCaskill. So much for a classy exit.

There was no reason to challenge Crowley in a primary other than (A) personal ambition and (B) the belief that the district "needed" to be represented by a member of a minority group.  Crowley was a part of the Democratic leadership, and there was no reason whatsoever, outside of personal ambition, to challenge him in a primary, from a partisan point of view.

What really, other than ethnicity, was the burning issue in the Crowley-AOC primary?  What position did Crowley take that was out of sync with the national Democratic Party, a party in which he was in the inner circle of leadership?

AOC is a mediocrity at this point.  She hasn't done anything of real substance, and if she were white/non-Hispanic, with everything else going for her, she'd have likely been buried in the primary.  Maybe she'll grow into the role.  She's often compared to Elizabeth Holtzman, the 31 year old 1972 challenger to Emmanuel Celler, who had been in Congress since the Harding Administration and was the 84 year old chair of the House Judiciary Committee.  (If he had won in 1972, Celler, and not Peter Rodino, would have chaired the House Judiciary Committee during the 1974 Nixon Impeachment hearingss.)  Holtzman, however, had far more going for her than AOC did at her age in terms of personal accomplishment, and Celler was an 84 year old who was out of touch with the Democratic Party on key issues (he was  an obstacle to the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment and was a latecomer to the anti-war movement).  Crowley was in his prime, and was in line with the Democratic Party down the line; he checked all the boxes.  Crowley's district was represented by a leader in Congress; on January 3 of next year, they'll be represented by a backbencher.  In no way was AOC's effort a "merit-based" challenge.  

You've been told 500 fycking times by multiple people so stop purposely being a dense moron. Ideologically Crowley was atrocious, Cortez is good. As stated again, Cortez won whites in NY-14 and did better with whites than she did among people of colour (not that anything would have changed if the inverse was correct.)

So, no Cortez's challenge was not based upon merit, which is an overrated concept in politics, it was based on ideology, the most important concept in politics.

How is AOC so radically different than Crowley?  It's not like the Carter-Kennedy challenge in 1980?  It's not like Specter-Murphy for the GOP, or Javits-D'Amato.

Joe Crowely= Chair of the New Democrat Coalition
AOC=  Congressional Progressive Caucus, single-payer healthcare etc

Literally two different wings of the democratic party.

[Fuzzy Bear]

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/12/claire-mccaskill-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-interviews-abortion.html'

You must be logged in to read this quote.

She's 29 years old. What had McCaskill gotten done at 29? And she's just been elected for Christ sake! What do these people expect of AOC, for her to fix all our issues and make good on every promise before she's even held her first elected office?

Apparently the right wing obsession with AOC doesn't just extend to the right. Honestly makes me lose a lot of respect for McCaskill. So much for a classy exit.

There was no reason to challenge Crowley in a primary other than (A) personal ambition and (B) the belief that the district "needed" to be represented by a member of a minority group.  Crowley was a part of the Democratic leadership, and there was no reason whatsoever, outside of personal ambition, to challenge him in a primary, from a partisan point of view.

What really, other than ethnicity, was the burning issue in the Crowley-AOC primary?  What position did Crowley take that was out of sync with the national Democratic Party, a party in which he was in the inner circle of leadership?

AOC is a mediocrity at this point.  She hasn't done anything of real substance, and if she were white/non-Hispanic, with everything else going for her, she'd have likely been buried in the primary.  Maybe she'll grow into the role.  She's often compared to Elizabeth Holtzman, the 31 year old 1972 challenger to Emmanuel Celler, who had been in Congress since the Harding Administration and was the 84 year old chair of the House Judiciary Committee.  (If he had won in 1972, Celler, and not Peter Rodino, would have chaired the House Judiciary Committee during the 1974 Nixon Impeachment hearingss.)  Holtzman, however, had far more going for her than AOC did at her age in terms of personal accomplishment, and Celler was an 84 year old who was out of touch with the Democratic Party on key issues (he was  an obstacle to the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment and was a latecomer to the anti-war movement).  Crowley was in his prime, and was in line with the Democratic Party down the line; he checked all the boxes.  Crowley's district was represented by a leader in Congress; on January 3 of next year, they'll be represented by a backbencher.  In no way was AOC's effort a "merit-based" challenge.  

You've been told 500 fycking times by multiple people so stop purposely being a dense moron. Ideologically Crowley was atrocious, Cortez is good. As stated again, Cortez won whites in NY-14 and did better with whites than she did among people of colour (not that anything would have changed if the inverse was correct.)

So, no Cortez's challenge was not based upon merit, which is an overrated concept in politics, it was based on ideology, the most important concept in politics.

How is AOC so radically different than Crowley?  It's not like the Carter-Kennedy challenge in 1980?  It's not like Specter-Murphy for the GOP, or Javits-D'Amato.

Joe Crowely= Chair of the New Democrat Coalition
AOC=  Congressional Progressive Caucus, single-payer healthcare etc

Literally two different wings of the democratic party.

The "wings" of the Democratic Party aren't as different as when I was active in the Democratic Party.  Then, you had one "wing" that had James Eastland and Herman Talmadge, a "wing" that included Henry Jackson and Gale McGee (hawkish liberals), a "wing" that included HHH and Edmund Muskie (traditional liberals) and a "wing" that included the McGovern-Fraser reformers. 

There is nowhere near the chasms between factions of Democrats now as there were then.  In 1970, John Stennis, James Eastland, James B. Allen, John Sparkmen, Herman Talmadge, Russell Long, John McClellan, Allen Ellender, and Richard Russell were Democratic Senators.   There are no such figures in the Democratic Party today. 

If AOC and Crowley were like McGovern and Eastland, that would be one thing, but it's not.  Furthermore, NY is a state that traditionally gets the short shrift in terms of their share of Federal Dollars.  Crowley isas the only NY member of Congress that was in line to be in the leadership of the majority party in this Congress.  It's not happening now, of course.

[Virginiá]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

ahahaha

"You fools! I lost because you just had to go and regulate big banks! How was I supposed to explain that to the downtrodden white working class voters whose primary concern in life is the well-being of Wall St?"

[No War, but the War on Christmas]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

ahahaha

"You fools! I lost because you just had to go and regulate big banks! How was I supposed to explain that to the downtrodden white working class voters whose primary concern in life is the well-being of Wall St?"

Let's be honest, the point she was really making was that it probably cost her some money from banking lobbyists; and let's be reflect on how sad that really is.

[Intell]

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/12/claire-mccaskill-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-interviews-abortion.html'

You must be logged in to read this quote.

She's 29 years old. What had McCaskill gotten done at 29? And she's just been elected for Christ sake! What do these people expect of AOC, for her to fix all our issues and make good on every promise before she's even held her first elected office?

Apparently the right wing obsession with AOC doesn't just extend to the right. Honestly makes me lose a lot of respect for McCaskill. So much for a classy exit.

There was no reason to challenge Crowley in a primary other than (A) personal ambition and (B) the belief that the district "needed" to be represented by a member of a minority group.  Crowley was a part of the Democratic leadership, and there was no reason whatsoever, outside of personal ambition, to challenge him in a primary, from a partisan point of view.

What really, other than ethnicity, was the burning issue in the Crowley-AOC primary?  What position did Crowley take that was out of sync with the national Democratic Party, a party in which he was in the inner circle of leadership?

AOC is a mediocrity at this point.  She hasn't done anything of real substance, and if she were white/non-Hispanic, with everything else going for her, she'd have likely been buried in the primary.  Maybe she'll grow into the role.  She's often compared to Elizabeth Holtzman, the 31 year old 1972 challenger to Emmanuel Celler, who had been in Congress since the Harding Administration and was the 84 year old chair of the House Judiciary Committee.  (If he had won in 1972, Celler, and not Peter Rodino, would have chaired the House Judiciary Committee during the 1974 Nixon Impeachment hearingss.)  Holtzman, however, had far more going for her than AOC did at her age in terms of personal accomplishment, and Celler was an 84 year old who was out of touch with the Democratic Party on key issues (he was  an obstacle to the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment and was a latecomer to the anti-war movement).  Crowley was in his prime, and was in line with the Democratic Party down the line; he checked all the boxes.  Crowley's district was represented by a leader in Congress; on January 3 of next year, they'll be represented by a backbencher.  In no way was AOC's effort a "merit-based" challenge.  

You've been told 500 fycking times by multiple people so stop purposely being a dense moron. Ideologically Crowley was atrocious, Cortez is good. As stated again, Cortez won whites in NY-14 and did better with whites than she did among people of colour (not that anything would have changed if the inverse was correct.)

So, no Cortez's challenge was not based upon merit, which is an overrated concept in politics, it was based on ideology, the most important concept in politics.

How is AOC so radically different than Crowley?  It's not like the Carter-Kennedy challenge in 1980?  It's not like Specter-Murphy for the GOP, or Javits-D'Amato.

Joe Crowely= Chair of the New Democrat Coalition
AOC=  Congressional Progressive Caucus, single-payer healthcare etc

Literally two different wings of the democratic party.

The "wings" of the Democratic Party aren't as different as when I was active in the Democratic Party.  Then, you had one "wing" that had James Eastland and Herman Talmadge, a "wing" that included Henry Jackson and Gale McGee (hawkish liberals), a "wing" that included HHH and Edmund Muskie (traditional liberals) and a "wing" that included the McGovern-Fraser reformers. 

There is nowhere near the chasms between factions of Democrats now as there were then.  In 1970, John Stennis, James Eastland, James B. Allen, John Sparkmen, Herman Talmadge, Russell Long, John McClellan, Allen Ellender, and Richard Russell were Democratic Senators.   There are no such figures in the Democratic Party today. 

If AOC and Crowley were like McGovern and Eastland, that would be one thing, but it's not.  Furthermore, NY is a state that traditionally gets the short shrift in terms of their share of Federal Dollars.  Crowley isas the only NY member of Congress that was in line to be in the leadership of the majority party in this Congress.  It's not happening now, of course.

I don't care about the past, the ideological underpinnings between the new Democrats and the CPC ideologically different amount for every new democrat to face a primary challenge, and are greater than the different strands of liberalism you mentioned.

[Fuzzy Bear]

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/12/claire-mccaskill-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-interviews-abortion.html'

You must be logged in to read this quote.

She's 29 years old. What had McCaskill gotten done at 29? And she's just been elected for Christ sake! What do these people expect of AOC, for her to fix all our issues and make good on every promise before she's even held her first elected office?

Apparently the right wing obsession with AOC doesn't just extend to the right. Honestly makes me lose a lot of respect for McCaskill. So much for a classy exit.

There was no reason to challenge Crowley in a primary other than (A) personal ambition and (B) the belief that the district "needed" to be represented by a member of a minority group.  Crowley was a part of the Democratic leadership, and there was no reason whatsoever, outside of personal ambition, to challenge him in a primary, from a partisan point of view.

What really, other than ethnicity, was the burning issue in the Crowley-AOC primary?  What position did Crowley take that was out of sync with the national Democratic Party, a party in which he was in the inner circle of leadership?

AOC is a mediocrity at this point.  She hasn't done anything of real substance, and if she were white/non-Hispanic, with everything else going for her, she'd have likely been buried in the primary.  Maybe she'll grow into the role.  She's often compared to Elizabeth Holtzman, the 31 year old 1972 challenger to Emmanuel Celler, who had been in Congress since the Harding Administration and was the 84 year old chair of the House Judiciary Committee.  (If he had won in 1972, Celler, and not Peter Rodino, would have chaired the House Judiciary Committee during the 1974 Nixon Impeachment hearingss.)  Holtzman, however, had far more going for her than AOC did at her age in terms of personal accomplishment, and Celler was an 84 year old who was out of touch with the Democratic Party on key issues (he was  an obstacle to the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment and was a latecomer to the anti-war movement).  Crowley was in his prime, and was in line with the Democratic Party down the line; he checked all the boxes.  Crowley's district was represented by a leader in Congress; on January 3 of next year, they'll be represented by a backbencher.  In no way was AOC's effort a "merit-based" challenge.  

You've been told 500 fycking times by multiple people so stop purposely being a dense moron. Ideologically Crowley was atrocious, Cortez is good. As stated again, Cortez won whites in NY-14 and did better with whites than she did among people of colour (not that anything would have changed if the inverse was correct.)

So, no Cortez's challenge was not based upon merit, which is an overrated concept in politics, it was based on ideology, the most important concept in politics.

How is AOC so radically different than Crowley?  It's not like the Carter-Kennedy challenge in 1980?  It's not like Specter-Murphy for the GOP, or Javits-D'Amato.

Joe Crowely= Chair of the New Democrat Coalition
AOC=  Congressional Progressive Caucus, single-payer healthcare etc

Literally two different wings of the democratic party.

The "wings" of the Democratic Party aren't as different as when I was active in the Democratic Party.  Then, you had one "wing" that had James Eastland and Herman Talmadge, a "wing" that included Henry Jackson and Gale McGee (hawkish liberals), a "wing" that included HHH and Edmund Muskie (traditional liberals) and a "wing" that included the McGovern-Fraser reformers. 

There is nowhere near the chasms between factions of Democrats now as there were then.  In 1970, John Stennis, James Eastland, James B. Allen, John Sparkmen, Herman Talmadge, Russell Long, John McClellan, Allen Ellender, and Richard Russell were Democratic Senators.   There are no such figures in the Democratic Party today. 

If AOC and Crowley were like McGovern and Eastland, that would be one thing, but it's not.  Furthermore, NY is a state that traditionally gets the short shrift in terms of their share of Federal Dollars.  Crowley isas the only NY member of Congress that was in line to be in the leadership of the majority party in this Congress.  It's not happening now, of course.

I don't care about the past, the ideological underpinnings between the new Democrats and the CPC ideologically different amount for every new democrat to face a primary challenge, and are greater than the different strands of liberalism you mentioned.

The Eastland/Sennis/Talmadge etc. crowd wasn't a strand of liberalixm on its best day.

[JA]

McCaskill’s the type of Democrat that can lose a state at the same time it votes for a minimum wage increase by 62-38% during a Democratic wave election. Who the hell thinks she should be taken seriously?

[Brittain33]

Fuzzy Bear, the differences between AOC and Crowley are well-documented and all over the Internet. Hard to imagine Crowley going to the mat for a select committee to target Climate Change before he even takes office.

We're not going to do your research for you; merely we note that you're incorrect and encourage you to learn how.

[RINO Tom]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

ahahaha

"You fools! I lost because you just had to go and regulate big banks! How was I supposed to explain that to the downtrodden white working class voters whose primary concern in life is the well-being of Wall St?"

Yeah ... good speech and all, Claire, but...

[PragmaticPopulist]

There are parts of this that I agree with, and parts that I disagree with.

The banking regulation stuff I have a hard time understanding. I don't see how a state that overwhelmingly voted for a minimum wage increase would be opposed to reasonable banking regulations.

On the other hand, I totally get where whe's coming from on abortion. She has a solid record of supporting abortion rights, but you can't go constantly bragging about it when you're representing a state like Missouri.

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/12/claire-mccaskill-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-interviews-abortion.html'

You must be logged in to read this quote.

She's 29 years old. What had McCaskill gotten done at 29? And she's just been elected for Christ sake! What do these people expect of AOC, for her to fix all our issues and make good on every promise before she's even held her first elected office?

Apparently the right wing obsession with AOC doesn't just extend to the right. Honestly makes me lose a lot of respect for McCaskill. So much for a classy exit.

There was no reason to challenge Crowley in a primary other than (A) personal ambition and (B) the belief that the district "needed" to be represented by a member of a minority group.  Crowley was a part of the Democratic leadership, and there was no reason whatsoever, outside of personal ambition, to challenge him in a primary, from a partisan point of view.

What really, other than ethnicity, was the burning issue in the Crowley-AOC primary?  What position did Crowley take that was out of sync with the national Democratic Party, a party in which he was in the inner circle of leadership?

AOC is a mediocrity at this point.  She hasn't done anything of real substance, and if she were white/non-Hispanic, with everything else going for her, she'd have likely been buried in the primary.  Maybe she'll grow into the role.  She's often compared to Elizabeth Holtzman, the 31 year old 1972 challenger to Emmanuel Celler, who had been in Congress since the Harding Administration and was the 84 year old chair of the House Judiciary Committee.  (If he had won in 1972, Celler, and not Peter Rodino, would have chaired the House Judiciary Committee during the 1974 Nixon Impeachment hearingss.)  Holtzman, however, had far more going for her than AOC did at her age in terms of personal accomplishment, and Celler was an 84 year old who was out of touch with the Democratic Party on key issues (he was  an obstacle to the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment and was a latecomer to the anti-war movement).  Crowley was in his prime, and was in line with the Democratic Party down the line; he checked all the boxes.  Crowley's district was represented by a leader in Congress; on January 3 of next year, they'll be represented by a backbencher.  In no way was AOC's effort a "merit-based" challenge.  

You've been told 500 fycking times by multiple people so stop purposely being a dense moron. Ideologically Crowley was atrocious, Cortez is good. As stated again, Cortez won whites in NY-14 and did better with whites than she did among people of colour (not that anything would have changed if the inverse was correct.)

So, no Cortez's challenge was not based upon merit, which is an overrated concept in politics, it was based on ideology, the most important concept in politics.

How is AOC so radically different than Crowley?  It's not like the Carter-Kennedy challenge in 1980?  It's not like Specter-Murphy for the GOP, or Javits-D'Amato.

Joe Crowely= Chair of the New Democrat Coalition
AOC=  Congressional Progressive Caucus, single-payer healthcare etc

Literally two different wings of the democratic party.

The "wings" of the Democratic Party aren't as different as when I was active in the Democratic Party.  Then, you had one "wing" that had James Eastland and Herman Talmadge, a "wing" that included Henry Jackson and Gale McGee (hawkish liberals), a "wing" that included HHH and Edmund Muskie (traditional liberals) and a "wing" that included the McGovern-Fraser reformers. 

There is nowhere near the chasms between factions of Democrats now as there were then.  In 1970, John Stennis, James Eastland, James B. Allen, John Sparkmen, Herman Talmadge, Russell Long, John McClellan, Allen Ellender, and Richard Russell were Democratic Senators.   There are no such figures in the Democratic Party today. 

If AOC and Crowley were like McGovern and Eastland, that would be one thing, but it's not.  Furthermore, NY is a state that traditionally gets the short shrift in terms of their share of Federal Dollars.  Crowley isas the only NY member of Congress that was in line to be in the leadership of the majority party in this Congress.  It's not happening now, of course.

Actually not true. Hakeem Jefferies (NY-8) is literally going to take Crowley's place as House Democratic Caucus Chair.

[Stranger in a strange land]

One would think that campaigning so far to the right that she took barely 45% of the vote as an incumbent running in a year that was favorable to her party would have humbled McCaskill. She actually ran behind the referendum on a gas tax increase!

#KanderWouldHaveWon

[Peanut]

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/12/claire-mccaskill-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-interviews-abortion.html'

You must be logged in to read this quote.

She's 29 years old. What had McCaskill gotten done at 29? And she's just been elected for Christ sake! What do these people expect of AOC, for her to fix all our issues and make good on every promise before she's even held her first elected office?

Apparently the right wing obsession with AOC doesn't just extend to the right. Honestly makes me lose a lot of respect for McCaskill. So much for a classy exit.

There was no reason to challenge Crowley in a primary other than (A) personal ambition and (B) the belief that the district "needed" to be represented by a member of a minority group.  Crowley was a part of the Democratic leadership, and there was no reason whatsoever, outside of personal ambition, to challenge him in a primary, from a partisan point of view.

What really, other than ethnicity, was the burning issue in the Crowley-AOC primary?  What position did Crowley take that was out of sync with the national Democratic Party, a party in which he was in the inner circle of leadership?

AOC is a mediocrity at this point.  She hasn't done anything of real substance, and if she were white/non-Hispanic, with everything else going for her, she'd have likely been buried in the primary.  Maybe she'll grow into the role.  She's often compared to Elizabeth Holtzman, the 31 year old 1972 challenger to Emmanuel Celler, who had been in Congress since the Harding Administration and was the 84 year old chair of the House Judiciary Committee.  (If he had won in 1972, Celler, and not Peter Rodino, would have chaired the House Judiciary Committee during the 1974 Nixon Impeachment hearingss.)  Holtzman, however, had far more going for her than AOC did at her age in terms of personal accomplishment, and Celler was an 84 year old who was out of touch with the Democratic Party on key issues (he was  an obstacle to the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment and was a latecomer to the anti-war movement).  Crowley was in his prime, and was in line with the Democratic Party down the line; he checked all the boxes.  Crowley's district was represented by a leader in Congress; on January 3 of next year, they'll be represented by a backbencher.  In no way was AOC's effort a "merit-based" challenge. 

You know, Fuzzy, I would tend to disagree. AOC did have some rhetorical and ideological differences to Crowley that did him in in the primary. Rhetoric and ideology do matter in politics, much more in primaries, and when you have a young, admittedly charismatic woman and self-identified democratic socialist running against a boring white guy who was the epitome of the establishment, it is pretty clear who will win a Democratic primary in New York of all places. You do not say Eric Cantor was a product of some racial business, but rather, his rhetoric and positions were what led to what happened in the 2014 primary. Same thing with AOC, one canmot presume such a challenge was a product of mere gender or skin color. Ethnicity was a talking point, sure, but saying it was the main one in the primary is drastically oversimplifying the D primary voters. Besides, is she really a backbencher with the shockwaves she has sent? Like her or hate her, she's pretty darn influential for a mere Congresswoman-elect. Additionally, on the topic of McCaskill:

One would think that campaigning so far to the right that she took barely 45% of the vote as an incumbent running in a year that was favorable to her party would have humbled McCaskill. She actually ran behind the referendum on a gas tax increase!

[pbrower2a]

The demographics of Missouri have been shifting in favor of Republicans. The population growth is heavily in the Ozarks, an area practically a dead-ringer for Appalachia. How dead a ringer? Missouri along I-44 looks a lot like West Virginia along the West Virginia Turnpike.  Southern Baptists, one of the most Right-tending religious denominations, are a big part of the population.

Educational standards in Missouri are very low. The only large ethnic group hostile to the Right is blacks, and they are not a growing population in any part of Missouri.

There are liberal areas around St. Louis and Kansas City; indeed, St. Louis County is about as D as suburbs around Chicago.  But neither St. Louis nor Kansas City is an area of population growth.

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

"muh minimum wage increase!" is a silly argument that really misunderstands how two-party politics works in this country now

McCaskill lost because she was associated with the Democratic Party, for decades. Initiatives for minimum wage increases, medicaid expansion, and independent redistricting commissions can win because voting for those doesn't (directly) enact other disagreeable parts of the Democratic platform. There's no cross-pressure, e.g., gun restrictions, abortion, land use regulations and conservation, etc. that's being applied to voters with a singular ballot initiative.

That's not true when talking about a politician. There's zero doubt that McCaskill is in favor of a higher minimum wage, but there are a lot of other things she would endorse that many pro-wage increase workers wouldn't approve of. Hell, there are tons of positions that voters probably assume she holds because some Democrat in Massachusetts holds them; Republicans ran ads against multiple Democratic Congressional candidates saying they advocated for M4A when in fact they didn't, but the ads stuck because those candidates were running under the Democratic brand. The truth is when dictating which coalition a voter is willing to empower, they're increasingly voting on which identities they want to empower, which makes voting for a wage-hike candidate who supports abortion much more difficult than voting for a wage hike without a face/label/party affiliation attached.

Stop acting like voting for banking regulations would have earned her another 75K Hawley votes in the Bootheel or other garbage like that. Missouri isn't a state that's impossible for a Dem to win statewide in but it's damn hard and it gets harder every year, for reasons that are largely beyond a candidate's control and being repeated in countless other states. Voting for a labor-friendly ballot initiative takes less cross-pressure than supporting a labor-friendly candidate, and if you can't understand that you're going to misunderstand a lot of American politics.

[Bojack Horseman]

I really think AOC is becoming the Sarah Palin of the left. She’s not well-articulate and has become a focal hate target of the right. Plus she’s just a bartender who accidentally won what started out as a vanity campaign. She needs to be primaried or have her mouth duct taped shut.

[Barack Oganja]

McCaskill should get lost, disregarding AOC as a "shiny new thing" is very condescending

[Mr. Smith]

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/12/claire-mccaskill-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-interviews-abortion.html'

You must be logged in to read this quote.

She's 29 years old. What had McCaskill gotten done at 29? And she's just been elected for Christ sake! What do these people expect of AOC, for her to fix all our issues and make good on every promise before she's even held her first elected office?

Apparently the right wing obsession with AOC doesn't just extend to the right. Honestly makes me lose a lot of respect for McCaskill. So much for a classy exit.

There was no reason to challenge Crowley in a primary other than (A) personal ambition and (B) the belief that the district "needed" to be represented by a member of a minority group.  Crowley was a part of the Democratic leadership, and there was no reason whatsoever, outside of personal ambition, to challenge him in a primary, from a partisan point of view.

What really, other than ethnicity, was the burning issue in the Crowley-AOC primary?  What position did Crowley take that was out of sync with the national Democratic Party, a party in which he was in the inner circle of leadership?

AOC is a mediocrity at this point.  She hasn't done anything of real substance, and if she were white/non-Hispanic, with everything else going for her, she'd have likely been buried in the primary.  Maybe she'll grow into the role.  She's often compared to Elizabeth Holtzman, the 31 year old 1972 challenger to Emmanuel Celler, who had been in Congress since the Harding Administration and was the 84 year old chair of the House Judiciary Committee.  (If he had won in 1972, Celler, and not Peter Rodino, would have chaired the House Judiciary Committee during the 1974 Nixon Impeachment hearingss.)  Holtzman, however, had far more going for her than AOC did at her age in terms of personal accomplishment, and Celler was an 84 year old who was out of touch with the Democratic Party on key issues (he was  an obstacle to the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment and was a latecomer to the anti-war movement).  Crowley was in his prime, and was in line with the Democratic Party down the line; he checked all the boxes.  Crowley's district was represented by a leader in Congress; on January 3 of next year, they'll be represented by a backbencher.  In no way was AOC's effort a "merit-based" challenge.  

You've been told 500 fycking times by multiple people so stop purposely being a dense moron. Ideologically Crowley was atrocious, Cortez is good. As stated again, Cortez won whites in NY-14 and did better with whites than she did among people of colour (not that anything would have changed if the inverse was correct.)

So, no Cortez's challenge was not based upon merit, which is an overrated concept in politics, it was based on ideology, the most important concept in politics.

How is AOC so radically different than Crowley?  It's not like the Carter-Kennedy challenge in 1980?  It's not like Specter-Murphy for the GOP, or Javits-D'Amato.

Yes it is. It's Mourdock vs Lugar or Bennet vs Mike Lee for Democrats. But I get that you wouldn't get that.


As for McCaskill, good riddance. Heitkamp and Donnelly had more integrity anyway.