https://twitter.com/RepAOC/status/1291355844773400580
( twitter | raw text )
wat?
I suspect that when she made the choice to not endorse she was being calculating. I don’t hate seeing her being calculating. Bernie style idealism is not how we get out of the deep hole we are in as a civilization.
She was probably making the right decision and then ran bad. You don’t know why she made the choice and you don’t know what she was weighing. Saying it was a mistake because it didn’t work out is the definition of being results oriented.
And let’s not pretend like her decision to not endorse is going to cause her any political damage on the left. She’s the leader of the faction.
Do you even understand what the posts you write mean? I can’t tell if you didn’t understand Thin_Slicing or didn’t understand what you said yourself.
My post was a reply to Thin_Slicing saying that it was really disappointing that she didn’t endorse beforehand. And yes I see now that the post isn’t marked as a reply to thinslicings post.
He was disappointed. You accused him of being results oriented. Then you posted your opinion on what you think AOC might have or should have done and that was completely irrelevant to how and why Thin_Slicing was disappointed.
kinda feel like it’s good to endorse good candidates when they lose as well as when they win
5 Likes
I took it as a reply to Thin_Slicing.
stop being an idealist
1 Like
Seriously. Who’s going to stop supporting AOC if she backs a leftist who loses?
I’m going to explain this to you. Thin_slicing was disappointed. The most direct interpretation of that is that he would have wanted AOC to make those endorsements before the election. There’s no reason at all to suspect that he wouldn’t have wanted those endorsements if they ended up losing. So, there’s no basis for you to accuse him of being results oriented.
I understand that you have a different theory of when AOC should endorse, but other people have different brains than yours and they have their own ideas about this and other things as well.
1 Like
Sure… I guess the thing I’m disagreeing with is the notion that what we want from AOC is that she absolutely always do the ‘right thing’ which I perceive as Bernie style. I assume there’s some political science oriented approach to how you decide who to endorse. You probably want to be able to show that your endorsement matters to election results so that its value in influencing people to do what you want is high. I recognize that politics is a game and I want to see the players on my team playing that game with a high degree of competence, even when that means they decide to do something that probably wouldn’t happen on the West Wing (to please the old libs) or that Bernie would approve of.
1 Like
You had some tangential idea in your head, some conversation with yourself, where you imagined some whole argument from Thin_Slicing that never happened and then based on that fiction, Thin_Slicing was being results oriented.
I’m not interested in your tangent at the moment. So, it’s fair to say that your post: “That’s pretty results oriented probably.” directed at Thin_Slicing was not accurate, right?
1 Like
Yes being disappointed did seem results oriented to me in the moment. I didn’t think he’d be as disappointed if she hadn’t endorsed and the candidate hadn’t won.
We also do not know what AOC got in exchange for not endorsing against that establishment stooge. Hopefully it was something good.
Maybe it’s hard for you to believe that people are genuinely different than you.
This is lol. She didn’t get anything. Chuck, Nancy, et al are never giving AOC anything.
1 Like
To receive something in trade is not to be given something. You actually think that the relationship between Nancy and AOC has broken down to the extent that they can’t horse trade and set ground rules? You think AOC is incapable of telling an establishment Democrat what it would take to NOT endorse his opponent? And that it would matter that she kept her word in that spot so that she could do that transaction again?
Like I’m genuinely confused. I’m well aware that most people do not think as transactionally as I do, but many social situations are best understood that way. I think AOC is a tremendously gifted politician. That means she’s doing her job in the back rooms just like she is on twitter.
1 Like
I don’t think she is a tremendously gifted politician like that and I think she has little chance of advancing beyond representing an extremely leftist district. And, I think she’s a much bigger threat to Chuck and Nancy than someone like Mitch McConnell is and they’d horse trade with someone like him long before they would with her.
Her gift is that she gets some support from liberal normies who so far don’t recognize how radical she is because she’s charming and usually respectful towards people she disagrees with.
1 Like
Yeah we see the field really differently here. Not sure who is right and it very likely is neither of us… I get where you’re coming from I think.
1 Like