AOC + 'Squad' takes a huge shit on Warren

Okay, this was completely unexpected and unpredicted by me. So far everything I had predicted was panning out just fine except for this. I can't fathom how or why or what motivated AOC to back an old white male when AOC is the flag banner carrier of the SJW movement for intersectional equality.

I agree there was a chance that AOC would wait longer to see which way the wind was blowing and then supporting warren. But i'm not sure why you would be surprised that she chose to support the candidate she has the most in common with ideologically. 

I don't understand the surprise. Bernie is by far the best candidate from the perspective of a progressive.

I don't think there is any other candidate that would even have been an option except for warren. And she isn't as good as Bernie. 

But i'm not sure why you would be surprised that she chose to support the candidate she has the most in common with ideologically. 

more commonly known as the bane of existence to Republican politicians and republican supporters despite the fact that she is essentially irrelevant and holds no actual power,

I can't fathom how or why or what motivated AOC to back an old white male when AOC is the flag banner carrier of the SJW movement for intersectional equality. I'm literally speechless.

Bernie falls on the worst end of that scale out of all the progressives on the stage.

Lol. If he was the best he would be winning. He isn't.

Please leave your utopia at the door and realize winning elections matters more than Bernie, one trick poney, Sanders. Says the same thing and expects to win.

I am not surprised either. She is so politically ineffective and this cries like to it.

That is a false equivalence. The best candidate in an election doesn't always win. Often stupid arguments, fear, etc can play a large role and shift support to a worse candidate. For example, Biden (much like the republicans) is trying to make poor people fear getting better healthcare. 

He has far more of a platform than Joe, remember me I worked for Barack, Biden.

Whether you like her or hate her, calling her politically ineffective is just an outright lie.

She toppled Joe Crowley, a long time incumbent.

She is easily one of the most high profile members of congress.

She is an effective communicator and she has motivated alot of the grass roots base of the democratic party. 

She has been in office for less than a year and has had more of an impact than most of members of congress.

You might believe that is a bad thing, but pretending it isn't happening would show your bias.

How is it a false equivalence? The best candidate is the most electable. 

Bernie has a bigger platform and still losing?

Name me a bill she has passed.

Twitter followers doesn't equal politically effective.

I am sorry who did she motivate to win a race? If you can't find a causal link then she didn't motivate anyone. 

Please you have shown your bias here given you didn't even provide evidence for a single claim. If this wasn't your feelings you would have facts to back up your statements but all I see here are feelings. Are you going to lie again about how you feel about AOC or is there evidence behind your statements? 

Best and most electable is also a false equivalence. Trump was quite electable. He was a terrible, terrible candidate and is now a terrible president. Most of the republicans who ran against him would have been better. 

Yes, because many people don't bother to learn what the candidates actually believe and will fight for. 

She has been in congress for less than a year. Her power has not been in passing bills, which couldn't get past the republican senate anyway.

Her power is in pushing the overton window back towards the rest of the modern world.

Her power is in inspiring over 100 primary challenges to democrats who don't properly represent their constituents. Her power is in inspiring working class people that there are members of congress who don't only care about fundraising and appealing to the right wing. 

Perhaps you are not familiar with what politics is. it is a popularity contest.

Having twitter followers is a reflection of someone's popularity. Getting that many people to follow you and listen to your ideas is political effectiveness.

The fact that no one wants to listen to most of the other democrats in congress shows that they are ineffective in appealing to voters. 

There are over 100 primary challengers for democrats so far. Normal is 2 or 3. No one can definitively prove why every one of them chose to run. But AOC is the prime example showing that centrist dems are weak in their own districts and can be beaten by progressives. If you want to pretend like there is no relation between the 2, you can continue to believe that. 

Are you aware of what modern politics has become? Virtually no one in congress has anything they can point to as legislative success lately. You want to be able to point to laws passed when virtually no significant positive laws get passed any more. She is successful in giving energy and drive to the democratic party which they have been completely lacking for years now. You want to restrict success to extremely limited metrics. 

Are you actually kidding me? You don't define your standard for best then you call what I said a false equivalence? I am not using your standard because I don't know it. I am sure the most important standard as in who is the most electable as best but you don't understand. Care to tell me what you mean by best?

Even if I agree with the bigger platform why even say it when it is not important to who is most electable? 

I am sorry how has she done that? Please show me a causal link.

No one cares. If she isn't passing policy she isn't politically effective. Do you not understand that?

Perhaps you are not familiar with what has done as a congresswoman. Passed no policies.

Doesn't mean anything if it can't translate to passing a single policy. Also not even acknowledging that Twitter is a global platform so she can be getting followed by people not even in the US.

I don't care about your feelings. Please give me a causal link if not keep your feelings to yourself because I don't care.

Best candidate means the one who would do the best job in that role, not who is most likely to be able to get the job. 

Because it is critically important to who would make the best president. Biden's plan is essentially to just carry forward with the flawed policies that brought about Trump in the 1st place. Even if he were electable, which i do not concede, he would still be a terrible choice because he does not want to make significant improvements if given the job.

Are you denying that the overton window has moved in the direction she advocates for? Are you denying that millions of americans aren't listening to what she is saying?

So you don't consider any politician at all to be politically effective? What is the point of categorizing people that way if it doesn't apply to anyone?

Again, virtually no one has. That is why people like AOC, Sanders, and warren need to change the democratic party 1st. 

Again, no one is passing policy at the moment. So saying she is ineffective because no one is able to do anything is a weird metric to use. Do you have evidence to support the idea that she does not have millions of american twitter followers? 

Again, if you want to ignore reality, you go right ahead. 

Circular logic.

Best is best. Sheesh false-equivalence guy doesn't even bother to explain what they mean then they come up with circular logic rather then a more important definition of it.

Can't provide proof for your claims. Push the burden of proof.

Please show me an example of a politician that I don't consider politically effective.

Amy Klobuchar a politically effective politician enacted a bill as of October 16 2019 at the same running for presidency. What is AOC's excuse again?

You defined best as most able to win. I showed how being able to win doesn't mean you aren't a dumpster fire of a candidate. Best in this context would mean doing the most good with the office. Who will improve the country the most. Who will help the most people. 

The overton window of the democratic party has shifted massively. Most of the candidate's platforms are copying left wing ideas. That is proof the window has shifted. AOC has millions of followers. There are millions of people who want to hear what she has to say. She advocates for left leaning ideas that go along with this shifted overton window. Do I claim she is solely responsible, no. But if millions of people are listening to what you have to say and you are advocating for the newly popular position, than to argue she is not having an effect seems foolish. 

You said that being politically effective was passing legislation. There is very little positive legislation getting passed. By your definition then, all politicians are politically ineffective because none of them are succeeding at passing positive legislation. And yet you only want to apply that to AOC. 

I checked your link. that was a simple resolution. It does not have the force of law. It is for authorizing the use of an atrium. You really think that is evidence for being politically effective? School councils pass more useful motions than that.