She won the general election by winnin the primary. On that primary victory,
Maps compiled by the CUNY Center for Urban Research show that support in the election that has the country buzzing did not break down neatly on racial lines; in fact, Ocasio-Cortez maintained strong support throughout the district, across areas of various demographic makeups.
“This wasn’t a fluke,” said Steven Romalewski, of the Center for Urban Research. “She was able to get voters from almost every neighborhood to come out and support her.” Romalewski noted that, contrary to the conventional wisdom of voting on racial lines, the areas where Ocasio-Cortez’s showing was strongest were areas that weren’t predominantly Hispanic, signaling that her showing may not have been due to the district’s changing demographics (it has been steadily becoming less white for years), but due to desire for change from Crowley.
I too think she's a dingbat and a never-ending source of humor that should be ridiculed. But she won the primary on about 12% voter turnout...how many Deplorables could have taken a congressional seat in a similar manner? She may be idiotic but her ground game got it done.
All these articles on Cortez the Killer are the conservative equivalent to Dems losing their mind over Trump tweets. Ignore her and get to work. Trump won by 78k votes. If we take the next 2 years and keep thinking the Dems won by fraud and this sort of identity politics and that we needn't do anything for Trump to get re-elected, we will get 4 years of President Kamala Harris and her Veep Spartacus. We need to build a tsunami of MAGA-loving voters by red-pilling Normal Centrists that overwhelm Dem fraud.
In a democracy or a democratic republic, people get the representatives they deserve.
If you are too lazy and/or uninformed to get out and vote for a decent representative, you are also unworthy of being considered to be a mature citizen.
"bread & circuses" should keep you somnolent and satisfied.
There you go again.
Clouding the issue with facts, logic and common sense.
Of course that’s true - but the salient point about "the deep state” is that it functions with - or is controlled by - “the media.” Mark Twain said that “Everybody talks about the weather, but nobody does anything about it.” So it is, by and large, with “the media.” They say that because of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, nothing can be done about “the media.”If you take a look at that 1964 SCOTUS holding, which was unanimous (and more so, in that two dissents signed by 3 justices wanted to go further) you actually want to cheer its stand in favor of freedom of the press. The First Amendment is vital. But by itself it is not sufficient. We have other necessary laws, too. The problem with Sullivan is not that it is wrong, but the facts which were not brought before the Court in that case.
1A protects the people from having the government restricting what we can read (aside from libel and porno laws, which - existing as they did prior to the Constitution and Bill of Rights, constituted accepted bounds of “the” freedom . . . of the press before and after 1A was adopted). 1A long preexisted the Sherman AntiTrust Act of 1890, and was enacted by a polity which was not then worrying about private actors implementing de facto rather than de jure control over what the public could/would read.
The telegraph was demo’d by Morse in 1844, and by 1848 the NY Associated Press was starting up. The AP has as members a great many news organizations, and any major news organization will have relationships with one or more wire services. Each wire service constitutes a virtual meeting of many journalists. The effect of the wire services, especially but not exclusively the AP, is precisely what Adam Smith warned about in Wealth of Nations:
People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. (1776)Public concern arose over the propaganda power of the AP by about 1875, and the AP defended itself by pointing out that it carried the articles produced by its members, who (this was true at the time) didn’t agree about much of anything - so the AP itself was objective. But the ideological independence of the members of the AP could not withstand to acid test of the temptation to claim objectivity. From “newspapers are independent, and the AP is objective” it was just a hop, skip, and jump to “all journalists are objective.” This is a mutual admiration society, and also a conspiracy against the public. Actually trying to be objective is difficult, being called objective only requires that you call all other journalists objective in turn - and join a mob stoning to death the career of anyone who claims to be a journalist but who does not go along and get along.This explains why there is such a thing as “the media” as we know and “love” it. The "if it bleeds, it leads” negativity of journalism is called “objectivity,” and that constitutes cynicism. And being the opposite of faith, cynicism is anathema to conservatism.
The bottom line is that a suit must be brought against the AP and other wire services on antitrust grounds, pointing out that in fact the full expression of the full range of ideas contemplated by 1A and the Sullivan decision is suppressed by a conspiracy against the public. And that the government has a tendency to respect the illegitimate claims of the “the press” which presents itself to the government and the courts at times as a monolith. What are we to make of someone who claims a pass to the White House as a matter of right? And of “a press” which takes that claim seriously, and promotes it??? The FCC tends to take the “objectivity” claims of “the press” at face value and credit the broadcasting of what Establishment journalism chooses to say and to avoid saying as established, and important, truth. The very existence of the Federal Election Commission is based on the assumption that Establishment journalism is objective.
The reduction of cost of rapid transmission of information which changed first from infinite (before telegraphy) to “very expensive” - creating the value of the wire services in conserving bandwidth - has now proceeded to the stage of very cheap. And that means that wire services are no longer “too big to fail.” Damages sufficient to destroy them can be contemplated, and are justified.
Anyone can, theoretically, sue under Sherman. I’m not a lawyer; if I knew how to do it I would. The Republican Party is the primary victim of the Sherman violation, because of Establishment Journalism’s cynicism towards society and the middle class. It seems like the Trump Republican Party would have the chutzpah required to pull it off; the McCain Republican Party never would.