Home | About | Donate

Working Class Politics 'Not Just for the Bronx': Ocasio-Cortez Debunks 'Too Far Left' Warning From Midwest Democrat

Working Class Politics 'Not Just for the Bronx': Ocasio-Cortez Debunks 'Too Far Left' Warning From Midwest Democrat

Jake Johnson, staff writer

Echoing what has become a go-to talking point among prominent Democrats in the aftermath of democratic socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's landslide victory over New York Rep. Joe Crowley in last week's primary election, Sen.


The Dems that are not far left are the crooks. You stay the course!


From the article:

“…instead of bashing left-wing ideas on Sunday talk shows, Duckworth should hold town halls across Illinois…”

Corporate Ds prefer to talk AT their constituents, especially in venues where pro-war/pro-capitalist propaganda will go unchallenged, rather than listening TO them. Increasingly, that will prove a losing strategy.


Understand rural white homeowner families as conservatives afraid to lose what they have during these confusing and turbulent times.

It was the same story in France during the dictatorship of the second Napoleon. City slicker Napoleon said he would make France great again and protect the property of rural people. The rural folks were of course sold out to bankers in financial centers just like Trump is doing.

Bernie did well in rural areas because people did not feel threatened by his policies. Trump stoked their fears and rode Napoleon’s coat tails to victory over a democratic war hawk with nothing but austerity on the table for the people. Pelosi tells the same rotten story.


Prepare for a truckload of bullshit from party hacks about how Ocasio-Cortez only won because she is brown, she is young, and Brooklyn is different.


Another “triggering” article excoriating a Democrat trying to win a statewide election in a state controlled by Republicans. Duckworth knows our reactions are exactly what she needs to differentiate herself with a majority of white voters that went for a regressive racist in the general in 2016 (keep in mind, many of her previous voters have been eliminated from the voting pool via the state). She also knows not-Clinton votes in a primary don’t translate into pro-Bernie votes in the general. But she’s a stupid sellout, right?

Oh well.


Duckworth has a point. While Pennsylvania isn’t actually the Midwest the western part of the state is pretty similar to eastern Ohio and Connor Lamb showed that a Democrat can win a seat in Congress in area that went strongly for Trump if you support the working class but still stay somewhat moderate. He didn’t support limiting guns, only better background checks, he didn’t support single payer healthcare but expanding Obamacare, and he supported fracking which was taking place in his district. I think the Bronx district has something like 5% registered Republicans. In the northern Bronx and lower Westcheter County, only a few miles to the north, long time congressman Elliot Engel easily defeated two more progressive candidates. I think there are come important lessons to be learned from the surprising victory by Ocasio-Cortez but I think it would be a mistake to generalize too much. She had tremendous grassroots support which was able to mobilize a lot voters who do not usually vote. That was her key to victory. Some other districts may not have that many type of voters and it may be difficult to get that much grassroots support. So I think there is some truth to what Duckworth is saying, at least with regard to some districts in the Midwest.

1 Like

Senator Duckworth also benefited from DNC/DLC/DSCC efforts in 2006 against a grassroots candidate who was for a timeline to get out of Iraq. I believe Truthout had an investigative article that went into how the Corporate Dems went as far as looking for wealthy Republicans to run as Democratic.

Now that she’s a senator, will she go against the Pro-Corporate, undemocratic leadership of the Democratic Party? I don’t think so.


Exactly. Tammy Duckworth is nothing but a Neo-Liberal (read Fascist) shill and always has been. Just a few weeks ago, she was pushing a bill to stop talks with North Korea, because, well…Trump. Nothing to do with her militaristic leanings, huh? And as I said then, she was “chosen” by Rahm Emanuel to run because she ticked all the identity politics boxes. So, of course, Duckworth is going to smear Ocasio-Cortez - Ocasio-Cortez had to build a grass-roots organization and take on the establishment, while Duckworth was picked out of a hat BY the establishment and never “earned” a d*mn thing.


Oh, and one other thing - how long do you think it will take for Adam Schiff to claim Ocasio-Cortez was helped by the Russians? Cmon, you know its coming.


Corporations getting scared, cannot talk of helping “the people “ again. But duckworth? Come on. Thought SHE was on our side. Alexandria is WONDERFUL!


You know, it’s just getting to the point where I LOL every time I read one of your posts. The logic is so twisted it just boggles the mind. You can’t “prove” what a progressive candidate would have achieved in Pennsylvania on the basis of what a center-right candidate didn’t run on. Logical fallacy foul! – Non Sequitur

You do know that Ocasio-Cortez won by getting people who might not otherwise have voted to actually get out and vote, right? You and the Democratic Party apparatchiks are stuck in a zero sum game. Your view is that you’re stuck with (cling to? depend on?) the notion that there is only a small subset of “regular” voters to work with and that they somehow represent what the rest of the population wants. Ocasio-Cortez proved that to be erroneous.

If you worked as hard to support progressives as you do to undermine then the Party and a strong base of progressives might actually take full control of the government. But then, you don’t really want that, do you? In fact, you’re terrified of losing control – what would your corporate masters do then? Oh dear! Don’t blister your fingers wringing your hands!


With many of those “wide swaths of the US” having little left to lose, they WILL embrace an agenda based on reality rather than Trump’s agenda that is limited to proving that there is no lie you can’t get away with.

While Progressive Democrats may lose, corporate Democrats WILL lose. Murkin voters have proven that when given a choice between real Republicans and pseudo Republicans, they will elect the real Republicans.


It’s a nice dream to believe that voting will change amerikkka. In reality the socalled powers that be will burn this country to the ground before any socialist government would get power. The empire loves sweet talk, sweet begging for more rights while cops, military and the courts strangle the masses. Some sweet marches, speeches, and the empire gives up a few crumbs! This crass story plays over and over.

"Get this into your head: if violence were only a thing of the future, if exploitation and oppression never existed on earth, perhaps displays of nonviolence might relieve the conflict. But if the entire regime, even your nonviolent thoughts, is governed by a thousand-year old oppression, your passiveness serves no other purpose but to put you on the side of the oppressors.”
― Jean-Paul Sartre, The Wretched of the Earth


That was Frantz Fanon.


Of the list of states Sanders won the most significant was Michigan. He did relatively well with African American voters so Clinton’s margin of victory in the Detroit area was not enough to overcome Sander’s lead in the rest of the state. I would disregard any caucus state as Clinton hardly won any of those against Sanders or Obama and the caucuses are not representative of the population. In Wisconsin Sanders probably benefited from the ID law which was found to keep about 200,000 from being eligible to vote and about half of those were in Milwaukee and of course that law hurts African Americans the most and it certainly was responsible for Trump winning Wisconsin based on his small margin of victory and the number of ineligible voters due to the law. Kansas and Nebraska are largely white rural states so Clinton had no significant voting base in either of those states.

It says quite a bit that the majority of the criticism Ocasio-Cortez is getting is from the Democratic Party.

What’s the matter Tammy and friends? Are you afraid to come out and say you really just don’t give a *^$@ about poor, or even ordinary people?


In one of your ordinary, low-turnout, “reliable” voter years, that may be true, because they tend to be dominated by party insiders. In 2016, they were actually a keen insight into “the population” which was rising up against the establishment in both parties and showed up at the caucuses to the horror of the Party. You Party folks are just blind to reality.


On the 538 podcast, Nate Silver noted that standard issue Democrats did well on primary night, that if you were going based on the data, Ocasio-Cortez would be the outlier. Moreover, we are enjoying a win, but generalizing based on a single district, and not really even in a real substantive way. We could do the same, for example, with respect to Texas 27th, which featured a House special election on Saturday. Here’s 538’s more cautious, numbers based attempt at projection based on that election:

We are basically just projecting what we want to believe on 400 congressional districts and 50 states across the country. As the 538 article indicates, that’s difficult to do even with a strong understanding of polling data etc.


You know the democratic party so utterly corrupt when they go after a democrat that represents what the party was 50-75 years ago. The ruling class now has both parties on their side and will be content to have the ‘establishment’ democrats attack their own. Rest assured if a real actual left wing pf the party kicked out the old school incumbents such as Palosi and Schumer and acted in unison the ‘right’ would declare full scale war against the left. As it stands we have no real left, with very few exceptions, with mostly right and far right along with a sprinkling of real fascists. (far, far, far right)