AOC + 'Squad' takes a huge shit on Warren

Author: Imabench ,

Topic's posts

Posts in total: 28
  • Imabench
    Imabench avatar
    Debates: 5
    Forum posts: 898
    3
    4
    9
    Imabench avatar
    Imabench
    Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the freshman representative from NY 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, might have just done the exact thing Biden needed to happen that Warren was trying to avoid at all cost: Endorse Sanders and bring new life to his campaign. 


    Just when it seemed that Warren was finally coalescing the left wing part of the Dem base around her candidacy, AOC as well as other members of 'The Squad', which also consists of freshmen house representatives with no actual power but somehow have influence simply because the right wing vilifies them so much, have thrown their support behind Bernie Sanders in the Dem primary. This is a big development because, despite how little AOC and 'the Squad' matter, they are perhaps the highest profile endorsement that was up for grabs as of right now.

    - Barack Obama wont endorse anyone until the general election begins (As he did last time when it was Hillary vs Bernie)
    - Hillary herself has remained VERY quiet and almost certainly wont give an endorsement until much later in the nomination race, if she doesnt wait until the general election to endorse someone as well
    - Bill Clinton would almost be a liability as an endorsement and because Hillary's endorsement carries more weight he will stay quiet
    - Jimmy Carter is basically irrelevant since a good chunk of voters werent even alive when Carter was president
    - The far left senators in Congress that hold the most influence are themselves running for president and not available to endorse anyone

    There basically was not a high profile endorsement that could be won at this point in the race outside of AOC and members of the Squad, and their endorsement of Sanders is a big deal. 

    Just about anyone could have figured out that Biden would not have received their endorsement, nor any of the other candidates who poll below 6% apart from maybe Harris (a fellow woman of color), leaving Warren and Sanders as the ones most likely to get their endorsement. Given the fear that left wing voters have that Warren and Sanders splitting the base could hand Biden the nomination, and also the facts that Warren has done better than Sanders for a good chunk of the race now and is even rivaling Biden as the frontrunner, this endorsement for Sanders is a substantial problem for Warren and her camp.... Sanders was on the verge of slipping out of contention since just recently he was at risk of not winning any delegates in 3 of the first 4 primaries (his numbers have since improved, and will continue to do so). With this endorsement though, Bernie has fresh ammunition to argue that he is the flag-bearer of ultra-liberal policies, which will surely lure voters from the Warren camp over to his side.  


  • Imabench
    Imabench avatar
    Debates: 5
    Forum posts: 898
    3
    4
    9
    Imabench avatar
    Imabench
    Only Nancy Pelosi and Al Gore (Maybe Chuck Schumer) are the other big name people that have substantial weight behind their endorsement that could be won at this stage and shake up the race apart from AOC and members of the Squad. By endorsing Bernie and being the first big names to do so, Sanders gets a big win out of this and Warren is back to square 1 in trying to put distance between her and Bernie
  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 7,966
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @Imabench
    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'm literally speechless.
  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 7,966
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @Imabench
    I still think Warren will win, but it's definitely not a slam dunk like I had predicted in July.
  • HistoryBuff
    HistoryBuff avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,310
    3
    3
    2
    HistoryBuff avatar
    HistoryBuff
    --> @Greyparrot
    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 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. 

    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. 


  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 7,966
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @HistoryBuff
    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. 
    Part of AOC's ideology is a very strong sense of intersectionality justice.

    Bernie falls on the worst end of that scale out of all the progressives on the stage.
  • TheRealNihilist
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    Debates: 44
    Forum posts: 4,888
    4
    8
    11
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    TheRealNihilist
    --> @Imabench
    Oh come on. You can see it from Sam Seder, Kyle Kulinski, Michael Brooks and others lefties online that they are Bernie or die. That is going to be a problem if lets say all those people actually made a large majority of Bernie supporters to simply abstain from voting which would make it even more difficult for a Democrat to win. They are morons basically and this kind of purity testing would only lead to bad stuff happening.

    Basically online lefties don't know what politically effective is so they decide to purity test their way to losing again. Can be seen with Ilhan Omar endorsing Bernie who is losing to the frontrunners. I only hope they decide to vote for Warren or Biden if they do become the democrats nominee. 

    Sorry for not voting for you in the Hall of Fame.  
  • TheRealNihilist
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    Debates: 44
    Forum posts: 4,888
    4
    8
    11
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    TheRealNihilist
    --> @Imabench
    Why is someone so irrelevant so popular? It is just so stupid. 
  • TheRealNihilist
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    Debates: 44
    Forum posts: 4,888
    4
    8
    11
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    TheRealNihilist
    --> @HistoryBuff
    I don't understand the surprise. Bernie is by far the best candidate from the perspective of a progressive.
    Lol. If he was the best he would be winning. He isn't.
    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. 
    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.
    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 am not surprised either. She is so politically ineffective and this cries like to it. Instead of backing the frontrunners she chooses someone gradually declining. I hope she doesn't do some dumb shit when it is Warren or Biden as the Democrats lead. I wouldn't put it past here given like I said before she is politically ineffective but popular for someone. Must be comparable to Trump. Trump was popular enough to win the election but so politically ineffective that his slogan "build the wall" has yet to occur even with a government shutdown while doing it illegally. 
  • Dr.Franklin
    Dr.Franklin avatar
    Debates: 32
    Forum posts: 8,159
    4
    5
    11
    Dr.Franklin avatar
    Dr.Franklin
    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 love it,I absolutely love it. It's a strategy. If you haven't figured it out yet> The crazies like AOC and the squad is what brings people to the GOP. Focusing on them works.

  • RationalMadman
    RationalMadman avatar
    Debates: 283
    Forum posts: 8,651
    10
    10
    11
    RationalMadman avatar
    RationalMadman
    --> @Greyparrot
    Warren was never the establishment shill, she was the real candidate who'd get things done that they are rigging it against. When will you understand that? Look at who funds who.

  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 7,966
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @RationalMadman
    DNC is most certainly not in Bernies camp. What are you trying to say?

    AOC =/= DNC
  • Imabench
    Imabench avatar
    Debates: 5
    Forum posts: 898
    3
    4
    9
    Imabench avatar
    Imabench
    --> @Greyparrot
    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.

    I did a little digging and while Bernie didn't endorse her for the US House when she was campaigning against the Dem incumbent at the time, she did work as an organizer for Bernie in 2016 during his first run: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandria_Ocasio-Cortez#Early_career

    It doesnt really solidify the reason for her allegiance, at the time it was Bernie or Hillary so there was only one leftist candidate in the race, but apparently she sees a lot in Bernie she simply doesnt see in Warren, despite the fact that Warren literally penned AOC's entry for the Time 100 most influential people edition. 
  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 7,966
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @Imabench
    This mystery is crazier than the Malaysian airplane.
  • HistoryBuff
    HistoryBuff avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,310
    3
    3
    2
    HistoryBuff avatar
    HistoryBuff
    --> @Greyparrot
    Bernie falls on the worst end of that scale out of all the progressives on the stage.
    How do you figure that? His plans are essentially to help everyone while most other candidates want to help specific groups, sometimes. By that measure he would be the best. However, as I am not familiar with the term intersectionality justice, it is possible I have misunderstood your meaning. 




  • HistoryBuff
    HistoryBuff avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,310
    3
    3
    2
    HistoryBuff avatar
    HistoryBuff
    --> @TheRealNihilist
    Lol. If he was the best he would be winning. He isn't.
    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.

    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'm not certain what you are trying to argue. He has plans for a huge range of things. He has far more of a platform than Joe, remember me I worked for Barack, Biden.

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




  • TheRealNihilist
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    Debates: 44
    Forum posts: 4,888
    4
    8
    11
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    TheRealNihilist
    --> @HistoryBuff
    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. 
    How is it a false equivalence? The best candidate is the most electable. 
    He has far more of a platform than Joe, remember me I worked for Barack, Biden.
    Bernie has a bigger platform and still losing?
    Whether you like her or hate her, calling her politically ineffective is just an outright lie.
    Name me a bill she has passed.
    She toppled Joe Crowley, a long time incumbent.
    You haven't changed since our last conversation. You are still lying or living in a reality that is fictional.
    Joe Crowley didn't even bother to put the effort into campaigning. 
    She is easily one of the most high profile members of congress.
    Twitter followers doesn't equal politically effective.
    She is an effective communicator and she has motivated alot of the grass roots base of the democratic party. 
    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. 
    She has been in office for less than a year and has had more of an impact than most of members of congress.
    Like what? Please list her accomplishments. All I see is bad economic takes from a bartender turned congresswoman. 
    You might believe that is a bad thing, but pretending it isn't happening would show your bias.
    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? 

  • HistoryBuff
    HistoryBuff avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,310
    3
    3
    2
    HistoryBuff avatar
    HistoryBuff
    --> @TheRealNihilist
    How is it a false equivalence? The best candidate is the most electable. 
    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. 

    Bernie has a bigger platform and still losing?
    Yes, because many people don't bother to learn what the candidates actually believe and will fight for. 

    Name me a bill she has passed.
    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. 

    Twitter followers doesn't equal politically effective.
    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. 

    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. 
    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. 

    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? 
    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. 
  • TheRealNihilist
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    Debates: 44
    Forum posts: 4,888
    4
    8
    11
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    TheRealNihilist
    --> @HistoryBuff
    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. 
    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?
    Yes, because many people don't bother to learn what the candidates actually believe and will fight for. 
    Even if I agree with the bigger platform why even say it when it is not important to who is most electable? 
    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.
    Okay so none. Thank you for answering she is politically ineffective. 
    Her power is in pushing the overton window back towards the rest of the modern world.
    I am sorry how has she done that? Please show me a causal link.
    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. 
    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 politics is. it is a popularity contest.
    Perhaps you are not familiar with what has done as a congresswoman. Passed no policies.
    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.
    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.
    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. 
    Ineffective to appealing to voters. Please Twitter politics is a minority when comparing them to the people who vote.
    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. 
    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.
    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. 
    Like what I said earlier. You don't evidence nor did you even attempt to show anything. That is the problem. What separates facts from false is the evidence behind. If you don't present anything how am I supposed to verify if you are saying things that are true or false? Refrain from telling me your feelings instead put more effort into proving your statements to be true. I have no reason to contest your feelings with fact because you haven't even presented facts to begin with. 
  • HistoryBuff
    HistoryBuff avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,310
    3
    3
    2
    HistoryBuff avatar
    HistoryBuff
    --> @TheRealNihilist
    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?
    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. 

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

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

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

    Perhaps you are not familiar with what has done as a congresswoman. Passed no policies.
    Again, virtually no one has. That is why people like AOC, Sanders, and warren need to change the democratic party 1st. 

    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.
    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?

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


  • TheRealNihilist
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    Debates: 44
    Forum posts: 4,888
    4
    8
    11
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    TheRealNihilist
    --> @HistoryBuff
    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. 
    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.
    If it wasn't clear you didn't actually define best. You just said it twice.
    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.
    This follows off your circular please explain it before making more advanced points that you have earlier that you can't even explain. If it wasn't clear you can't even define best without it being circular so I am not going to take your feelings seriously. Still have shown no evidence.
    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?
    Can't provide proof for your claims. Push the burden of proof.
    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?
    Please show me an example of a politician that I don't consider politically effective.
    Again, virtually no one has. That is why people like AOC, Sanders, and warren need to change the democratic party 1st. 
    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?
    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? 
    Please there are others passing bills as well. You just don't even bother to look for them. Tell me how are these not your feelings?
    Again, if you want to ignore reality, you go right ahead. 
    Please only one person has. The other person has provided evidence for their claims. 
  • HistoryBuff
    HistoryBuff avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,310
    3
    3
    2
    HistoryBuff avatar
    HistoryBuff
    --> @TheRealNihilist
    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.
    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. 

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

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

    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?
    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. 


  • TheRealNihilist
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    Debates: 44
    Forum posts: 4,888
    4
    8
    11
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    TheRealNihilist
    --> @HistoryBuff
    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. 
    Not defending your definition being circular and not actually defining the word. You didn't show what you said here it showed. You showed you don't even know how to define words. You do know you can simple search Google for a definition right?
    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. 
    Please bring evidence to support your claims.
    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. 
    So you can't find a politician. Okay. I ask you define a word you can't. I ask for evidence you don't deliver. I ask you for specifics yet again you fail. What can you do again? I know one thing provide your feelings. 
    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. 
    Your claim was "virtually no one has" passed laws but they have. That was all I need to demonstrate you are wrong. You bring in another claim. I'll see if you can even provide evidence for that. 

  • Imabench
    Imabench avatar
    Debates: 5
    Forum posts: 898
    3
    4
    9
    Imabench avatar
    Imabench
    SUBSTANTIAL UPDATE: 

    While AOC's favorability among Bernie supporters was only around 50% or so, her support among Warren supporters was up in the 60 percentile range, making her defection to Bernie that much more noticable. 

    "Ocasio-Cortez's favorability shoots up among Sanders' supporters, 55% of whom have a favorable view of the lawmaker.
    But the 30-year-old Bronx native is most popular among voters who support Warren — 63% have a favorable opinion of AOC, which makes her endorsement of Sanders particularly harmful to the Massachusetts lawmaker."


    It gets worse (or better, depending on who you are supporting in the Dem Primary) Based on polls taken way the hell back in July, 

    "Based on polling we conducted in July, the AOC endorsement is the single most coveted endorsement of any Democrat who has not been a president before. A quarter of Democrats then said that they'd value Ocasio-Cortez's endorsement in the primary, putting her higher than 2016 presidential nominee and fellow New Yorker Hillary Clinton and just shy of the 27% who value the endorsement of former President Jimmy Carter."

    Now while I dont buy for a second that Hillary Clinton is somehow less powerful of an endorsement than AOC, or that fuckin Jimmy Carter's endorsement somehow carries more weight than either of them, the fact that AOC is effectively on the same tier as those two is important to note, particularly for Sanders since her endorsement holds the most importance among Warren supporters, who Warren and Sanders are currently in competition over. 

    The polling does indicate that 45% of Biden's supporters also view AOC in a favorable light, but given the ideological gap between the two and the assumption that she would not have endorsed Biden under almost any circumstance, her endorsement of Sanders will not have nearly as big of a sway on Biden's numbers as it will for Warren
  • Greyparrot
    Greyparrot avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 7,966
    3
    3
    8
    Greyparrot avatar
    Greyparrot
    --> @Imabench
    Predictit.com showed a dramatic drop for Warren after the endorsement, but she is still the lead horse by a good bit.