I have no idea how you got there from this:

You're conflating AOC and her message. In getting people to like and vote for leftist policies, step one is not "make them like AOC".

And I mean, I realise the establishment Dems either don't want or don't have the stones to try to leglislate leftist policy. That is, I'm under no illusions that Pelosi is secretly trying to enact AOC's agenda. But if I were trying to steer the Dems to leftist political success, I would also be avoiding making AOC a standard-bearer of the party nationally. The appropriate person to deliver the message in like Michigan and Wisconsin is Bernie.

We should not take he bad poll numbers as a sign that she will be just as much underwater when more widely known. She was fairly popular but largely unknown shortly after election. Since Fox has been going HAM, she's become more known to people who would hate her anyway and who are being worked into a froth over her. Thus, it seems like the people who know of her are not a representative sample of the country but are instead

1. Her constituents
2. Fox News viewers
3. Liberal politics nerds who follow this stuff too closely.

She scores very high with 1 and 3, and 1 may actually be representative of a fair bit of the country. Meanwhile, group 2 is already about as large and negative as it can be. Group 1 isn't very well connected to politics, but they liked her when she got up in their faces. The same could well go for lots of other working class folks in diverse cities.

So basically, Trump's base knows who she is and hates her because Fox News tells them to... She's the radical leftist not job who wants to kill their cows, take away their cars, make sure they don't get to eat cheeseburgers after the cows get killed, end plane travel and take their guns.

Of the remaining 64% of the country, about a third have a favorable view and two-thirds don't know who she is because she's a freshman Congresswoman.

To make assumptions about her overall popularity if the remaining people got to know who she was based off of the 23-36 split would be a huge mistake. The people who will hate her already know her.

This. And she will win over people who currently hate her. That's why the last thing the GOP wants is her talking to a bunch of coal miners in WV.

Well, yeah, but there is a media dynamic that Trump/Fox News is angling for. They think the more they attack AOC (and Ilhan Omar), the more Democrats will feel the need to defend them (notice that unfair attacks are actually more effective than legitimate disagreements for this) If they don't, then low information voters will just kind of accept the conservative framing of them. But if they do, this provides another media cycle where they can tell their viewers how outrageous it is that the Democrats are defending whatever BS attack they're focused on. More importantly, this is another opportunity for them to keep the focus on AOC/Omar as the identity of the Democratic Party. They want this as their means to froth up the base for 2020 by telling them they need to vote for Trump to protect them from their greatest fears: young, socialist women of color in power. Their viewers are much less frightened of a Bernie or Biden in power.

Yup, good point. But there's really no way to counter it. That's how having a completely bogus propaganda network that 35% of the population thinks is fair and balanced works.

The opposite is also true - that all of the Democrats who are going to be big fans of hers have already heard of her. The Dems who haven't are generally going to be over 50 and Biden fans. She is not even that popular in her own district:

In New York State as a whole, where 75% of people have heard of her, she had 31% favorable, 44% unfavorable in a poll in mid March, down from 29-34 in January. There's no evidence to date that she will become more popular as more people hear about her.

Here's a question: WHY is she the avatar for radical leftism on the right? Sanders never has been. I'm not merely talking about her race, sex and age here, although I'm certainly talking about those things in part. There's a style difference as well.

I don't think America divides neatly into deplorables, who are super duper triggered by AOC, and the rest of the country, who will love her. The right is composed largely of people who love Trump. When I'm thinking about how to get Obama-Trump voters back to the D side, which is what everyone ought to be thinking about, I'm assuming that their cultural preferences are going to be a lot more towards Trump fans than mine are. That is, if AOC super-mega triggers the right, I expect her to trigger some of those guys too.

To elaborate on this, if you can, imagine Michelle Obama running for office a decade ago on AOC's platform. Her campaigning style would look nothing like AOC's, right? AOC leans into the culture wars.

Just to clarify this, this will certainly happen at some point, because currently more Republicans have heard of her than Democrats. However, I don't expect her popularity among Dems who haven't heard of her to match her popularity among Dems who have (her favorability among Dems in her own pretty left-wing district is 65%, nationally it is 47% to 7% unfav, this is unsustainable. That New York poll also had her going from +46 among Dems in January to +17 now). I'd expect her to close the gap but still be underwater on popularity nationwide.

Just to drive home the point, here are the crosstabs from the New York State polls, here's Quinnipiac from January:



Here's the Siena poll from March:



Favorability among Dems went from 54-8 with 37% not having heard enough, to 47-30 with 23% not having heard enough. We can argue about whether there was really a 7% favorability decline or whether it's just noise, but it's hard to avoid the conclusion that centrist Dems tend to dislike her.

Your links are both the same, so I can't pull up the Siena poll, but there are too many variables - especially in a NY poll - to draw any conclusions IMO. The Amazon HQ2 thing was going down which a lot of New Yorkers got mad at her about, so I think it's reasonable to think her favorables in NY might have been lower then than they will be, say, in a few months.

It's definitely fair to point out that she's already known among the people who are most likely to be big supporters, so she won't take as high of a percentage of remaining Dems, but I still think my general point stands.

Whoops. Siena poll.

Edit: The crosstab image had all the relevant infomation though. I don't have a discussion article or anything. It was linked from this.

I agree the Amazon thing probably hurt her in NY. I'll see if I can find change in Dem numbers in national polling.

Looks like there's some Amazon stuff in there... Amazon leaving was bad: total 67-21, Dem 63-26, Rep 82-12, Ind 65-19. (So independents basically in line with Dems/overall...)

Amazon was a hero/villain/role player: Total 20-26-39, Dem 19-36-32, Rep 24-14-47, Ind 21-20-45... (Indies basically in line with overall, they're less likely to consider Amazon a villain and more likely to consider Amazon a role player and LOL at the last part...)

Cuomo was a hero/villain/role player: Total 21-28-36, Dem 27-21-36, Rep 16-39-28, Ind 15-31-43 (Independents near the total, way less likely to see him as a hero than Dems, or as a villain than the GOP... They think he was a role player. This is where partisan politics seem to be influencing the results a lot... So this is a good baseline for looking at AOC.)

AOC was a hero/villain/role player: 12-38-24, Dem 19-27-27, Rep 2-60-13, Ind 6-43-26 (Holy **** the independents HATE how she handled this. It's worth noting they are as likely as Dems to consider her a role player, but way more likely to find her a villain and way less likely to consider her a hero... And even the Dems are against her on this one.)

So she's just getting absolutely killed on the Amazon thing among New Yorkers, which makes sense. You could easily argue that it hurt New York, but it's good for the country if cities stop rolling out all the taxpayer-funded incentives for these corporations. She took a principled stand that should arguably be more popular with people outside New York.

Either way, in 3, 6, and 12 months I'd expect the effects of that to go away and her polling numbers then would be a better indicator for the long-term. It's also worth noting that she caught a lot of national press over the Amazon thing.

OK, here we go:

Conducted	Pollster	Dem Fav	Dem Unfav
August	Morning Consult	29	13
September	Gallup	42	9
December	Morning Consult	32	12
January	Morning Consult	43	11
Late Feb	Gallup	56	15
Late March	Quinnipiac	47	7

Lot of noise, which is what you tend to get on crosstabs. Hard to say anything with any certainty.

Edit: I'll grab Ind fav/unfav, hold on.

Conducted	Pollster	Ind Fav	Ind unfav
August	Morning Consult	10	22
September	Gallup	24	22
December	Morning Consult	15	21
January	Morning Consult	19	24
Late Feb	Gallup	31	36
Late March	Quinnipiac	20	36

Also not very edifying. Longitudinally, Morning Consult have her putting on fav faster than unfav, but Gallup strongly disagree.

Poll links:

August Morning Consult poll
September Gallup poll
December Morning Consult poll
January Morning Consult poll
February Gallup poll
March Quinnipiac poll

Sanders has favorables of 74-13 with Dems in a recent Quinnipiac poll, which is probably a bit better than AOC will end up with. Whether she can match Sanders' 39-43 among Ind, it's hard to say.

Sanders' popularity is slipping, by the way. Back in 2016 he was like 59-30, he's now back to almost zero difference.

Anyone think Sanders may have been the Nader of this last election?

No, he campaigned aggressively for Clinton after the nomination and only 6-12% of his voters voted for Trump (as opposed to the 25% of Clinton to McCain in 2008), which is of course bad of them but is just something baked into politics, nothing unique to Sanders.

Nader is great in any event.

I don't. I supported Hillary, but she wasn't entitled to an uncontested primary. Bernie ran a clean campaign and did what he could afterward.

He did a great job of making cars safer and making sure we didn't end up with Gore. Would have made a terrible president though.

Supreme Court made sure we didn't end up with Gore, and if liberals weren't feckless cowards they would have stormed the streets at that point and begun a left renaissance.

Also Florida ballot design, which probably tricked enough people into not voting for Gore such that the recounts wouldn't have mattered.

Also Gore being a mediocre candidate.

Then, in the midst of a left anti-war movement, you somehow manage to nominate another weak ass "we will still do Iraq but we'll just do it better" in 2004.

Y'all just wanna punch left.

Says a guy typing away at a computer and not in the streets.

That's a dumb meme to use, goofy. It doesn't have anything to do with my point.