I'm not sure that the bolded is generally true. Even Tucker Carlson has acknowledged that she is smart. Early on, she said some dumb things that got a lot of attention in the right-wing blathersphere.

in her unique case there are two camps who think this:

one is the "silent majority" but maga derposphere types, to put it simply

another is a small cadre of ivy league educated manhattan institute types who think she is a bartender who doesn't deserve to be in their orbit.

In what is generally considered "dumb" aoc is smart. mtg is smart in a newt gingrich way.
lauren boebert is actually "dumb" which is one of the things I liked about her.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...ies/ar-AAUTIuv

Pretty incredible. This low life Crawford from North Carolina called Zelenskyy a thug.
This is not what the GOP is. There are still Republicans with integrity like Romney. But unfortunately for them, their party is where these Putin boot licking, rejects of Democracy have found a home.

Ya that simply is not true.

It has been proven over and over (election was rigged) that what you can convince the masses to believe is not necessarily correlated with reality.

But you seem stuck in that belief system thus your belief there must be some truth to these things, when there are not.

Curious what makes you think that?


We see progressives winning across the US most of whom are not attractive and many of whom are men. So what makes you single her out as being in an likely unwinnable race, if not for those attributes?

She still could have won. NY had dumb rules separating the primaries into statewide and district level offices. This was done because it was thought this would help incumbents due to name recognition. But the flip side is a challenger that works hard, shakes enough hands and tells people when the election is can have a higher name recognition amongst the people who bother to vote over a lazy incumbent in a very low turnout primary.

She was running against an Establishment Democrat with $$$, and she created a lot of excitement among those in her district disgruntled with the Establishment Dems. She had a lot of positive attributes (youth, smarts, looks) that she used well to overcome her lack of $$$ to generate interest in her campaign. In my opinion, a Bernie Sanders clone probably would have lost.

Makes sense.

That is the story of most progressive wins over establishment Dems though.

So again, what specifically about this race makes that the factors when Progressives (ugly and/or male) have been knocking off wealthier establishment Dems and that same template seems to always be the story?

Maybe I could answer your question if you cite another actual example in which a highly-regarded (by the Democrat Establishment) wealthy incumbent lost the primary to a progressive (and hitherto unknown) upstart challenger. Thanks.

Ok. And in return I ask you to tell me whom you assume Progressives are typically running against in the Dem party?

As the strategy, as I see it (not always successful) is to target well established, well enriched, typically rich and perceived lazy Democrat Establishment politicians who the Progressives feel have mostly more apathetic base support. But anyway, explain what you think the Progressive tactic is and who they typically target???



Jamaal Bowman ousts longtime incumbent Eliot Engel in New York

Former middle school principal Jamaal Bowman has defeated Rep. Eliot Engel, the House Foreign Affairs chairman, in a hotly contested New York Democratic primary, ...

Bowman's victory is an extraordinary rebuke to the Democratic Party establishment both in New York and on Capitol Hill...

Bowman, a 44-year-old political newcomer, follows in the footsteps of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who ousted former Rep. Joe Crowley, then the fourth-ranking House Democrat, in a 2018 primary. ...

This literally doesn't address what I wrote at all. You might as well have just written something about your favorite band or food.

This is an example of why your thinking often ends up being so conservative.

The above looks like the prototypical template for Progressives winning primaries: Target an old Establish Dem with a dynamic, young(ish) Progressive that can put together a effective "ground game.". Probably some progressives fit that profile in SF that could challenge Speaker Pelosi.

You seem to be blaming me that you cannot make a point clearly.

This started with you trying to equate Lauren Boebart with AOC with if culminating with you offering the quoted below, which seems to be offering the 'proof' that many on the Right 'believe AOC is dumb' and thus that is a 'barometer on reality'...

I then pointed out that those on the right can be convinced of so many things (Rigged Election, Hilary Health, etc) that ARE NOT a barometer on reality at all.

So if you did not mean that point, you can clarify, as it certainly reads that way.

So it seems you have reversed yourself on this prior point by you "...in the sense that if she were a man instead of a smart, likeable, attractive young lady she probably wouldn't have won the primary that propelled her to office in the first place...." and now believe this young man is the prototypical template to win in New York, like AOC did against an older monied Establishment Dem.


So how about this one...



Democratic House Incumbent Ousted By Progressive Challenger In Illinois Primary



And do you still want to stick to your prior position that "if she were a man", like above or a "...likeable, attractive young lady ..." , she likely "she probably wouldn't have won the primary that propelled her to office in the first place". Or can you see Progressives come in all shape, sizes and colours and seem to be winning on merit, or their positions resonating with voters regardless of their 'look'?

Seems obvious that being likable and attractive help people get elected to public office.

The fact that progressives often aren't either is actually a problem imo.

Progressives have the ideas that need to be debated but for some reason the cool kids take the easier, more lucrative path quite often.

The solution is to make progressive politics cool (like my under title).

not arguing that 'better looking' people don't typically have an easier path to anything relatively. Meaning if you could take the same person with the same ideas and just make them better looking, it would not be easier, as it would.

But what Laggy and others try to do is dismiss both AOC as a candidate and/or the Progressive message as one that resonates.

By trying to use the swipe 'she would not have won but for her looks...' is a swipe at one of both of the above as it clear progressive ideas are winning in many areas and against very solid incumbents regardless of whether it is a good looking woman, younger man (POC), or an older women.

Quite frankly it seems the 'look' is not the point at all, even if it helps an already winning position.


On the flip side, I would suggest the GOP has a long history and many current politicians who are 'all look'. Empty heads and empty shells and morally vacuous, and yet they get in following the Sarah Palin template.

AOC’s primary opponent was a clown who couldn’t be bothered to show up for debates. She didn’t win based on looks.

My current position is that a young(ish), smart, articulate Progressive that can put together a decent grassroots campaign can successfully oust an old Establishment Dem in a primary. AOC and Bowman seem to fit that scenario.

So, I have indeed modified my position on the matter.

Can we modify also to include 57 year old women like the one above?

Or are you excluding her win simply because she does not fit your definition.

Except I didn't "dismiss" AOC or her message at all.

Having said that, the fact that she is young and attractive certainly had a lot to do with her being dubbed by many, "The new face of the Democratic Party."

Newman situation differs in important ways from AOC and Bowman:

1. Newman wasn't a newcomer; she lost the 2018 primary by only two points.

2. Newman's opponent was NOT a typical Dem; he opposed "Gay Marriage" and the ACA, two major issues in which he was at great odds with his constituency.

this doesn't make you want to toss out your vows?

A breath of fresh air for sure.

Too bad the system breaks everyone. Still, she's easy on the eyes.

Not one person addressed the things I like about boebert , but more importantly no one addressed my point.
I'm not saying anyone needs to, what I am saying is that I find that very rude.

not my problem