[OFFICIAL] AOC Derangement Syndrome in full force thread

I qualified to competent politicians. Debate is hard. You can have all the info, be very well nuanced on policy, and yet struggle in debates. Just look at Obama vs Romney. Obama was far more knowledgeable on the subject matter, but Romney still debated well. Clinton was far stronger in subject matter over Trump, but he largely won the debates. The audience does matter and playing to that audience matters, but that's why politicians are tough to debate, not because they are wonks but because they are masters of spin - the competent ones at least.

 

She's not really a leftist. She talks about how she will have to tack to the center later in her career. It's surprising how open she is about that given that she is railing against the center.

Ben Shapiro is a very smart guy, and a strong debater. I view him as a politician more than a political analyst. Is he beatable in a debate? Yes but not on his show where is going to set everything up for his own victory and get the soundbites he needs. It's easy to win a debate when you control the questions and don't have to answer any. That's what he wanted from AOC and she was wise not to go onto his show and play into his hands. She has absolutely nothing to gain from debating him - not because she could win or lose, but because how does it actually help her??? But I do think he'd be tough in a debate (for anyone not for her).

The others would not do as well, particularly Marjorie Green. If you truly want an example of an idiotic person, it would be MTG. She doesn't know policy, doesn't know the law, and lives in a complete bubble. I am sure her fervent followers will see her as always winning a debate no matter how poorly she would perform, but to the middle of the country she is a joke.

The difference between AOC and MTG is that AOC manipulates her base for her gain, whereas MTG is her base.

 

No, her charisma is not limited to young liberals. She wouldn’t get the type of media coverage she gets, not would she occupy so much head space with Republicans if she was only charismatic to young liberals.

Also the population is rapidly changing, Baby Boomers are dying. She also doesn’t have to really mend fences, she only has to look at Donald Trump. A lot of forgiven if you play the game well and have charisma.

It isn’t about wanting her representing my team. I don’t really agree with her policy positions and I find her to be a sensationalist. However, it doesn’t really matter a lot in 2022. That doesn’t even get into how she connects with women.

She doesn’t have to be principled in the traditional sense to win. Also you think she made a fool out of herself, but you were never in her sight. She largely doesn’t care what you or people with your political opinions think about her. People hating Trump didn’t cancel out the people that elected him in 2016. The same is true for AOC. The sexist comments against AOC and sexist jokes only help her, because a lot of Americans under 40 know sexism when they see it, and a lot of women of all ages can identify it as well. It just plays right into her hand.

 

A lot of people do like her or think they do .... and she does weaponize negative attention.

That means you really have to be careful as to how you go about criticizing (attacking) her.

it cannot be about race, gender or her appearance - those things just play into her attention seeking hand.

You have to attack her solely on policy, things like supporting the $93trillion dollar "green new deal" where "every building in the United States has to be retrofitted"(Her words) .... when you consider that the federal budget has been between ~$4.2T- $4.6T per year in the preceding decade (pre covid), that's an insane 21 years' worth of spending that they want to tack onto the debt ... Or the financial impact on her district of running Amazon's headquarters and those thousands of jobs elsewhere ....

And I'm not saying we don't need to do something about climate change because it's quite obvious that we do .... but you can't just throw money at every problem AND we have to demand compliance from the worst offenders (China & India).

These politicians will tell on themselves if we listen ....

 

I wouldn't call that leftist but centrist.



On abortion, I never thought we'd see the day RvW was overturned ..... it was the law of the land for half a century and should have remained so.
I think it was maybe the dumbest thing the right / GOP could have done at this moment in time where they are almost a lock to gain both the house & senate along with the whitehouse - all this did was stir up the left and give them a reason to vote. It likely also alienated a majority of women.

Gun laws (people not politicians)- The left want to do away with most / all and the right want to keep them out of criminal hands. Neither is a real solution to the problem and to be honest, I'm not sure there is one without a constitutional amendment "Shall Not Be Infringed" is just too strong a wording.

Most normal people (not politicians or batsh1t crazy wingnuts) would look at the climate and realize humans have a negative effect on our planet and that the status quo is unsustainable. But we also don't want to give up our comfortable way of life .... Then you have China & India trying to bring almost 3 billion people up to our standard of living ....

 

She doesn't have to debate issues when her opposition says dumb shat .... it feeds her fire.

We hear ALL ABOUT how they attack her on dumb shat like her looks or "favorite big booty latina" or this latest handcuff act NOTHING ABOUT the issues and she gains every time.

You have to stick to the actual issues - she's very Trump like in that aspect. If you get off topic even for a moment .... she takes advantage.

 

Missed this one. I think she's be stupid to go on Ben Shapiro's show and "debate" him. It's a trap and she has 0 to gain from doing that. He's not interested in honest debate about issues but getting ratings. It would be like having MTG go on the View to debate them by them asking questions and having all the time in the world to set her up.

 

You have MTG on your team, which is disturbing enough.

AOC has already plotted her tack to the center. She's only drawing from radical liberals now because that's how she can get power. If she was centrist she'd be a nobody. She is dangerous, and the right plays with fire by making her the target and letting her play the victim. Her agenda is power - and while that doesn't make her all that different from many other politicians, she should not be underestimated. This is not a Hillary Clinton that will be easy to bash and attack AND make it stick.

 

Is she like fascist?

 

I don't get the point you are trying to make here

 

Well I said left leaning, not leftist. My point is that the values of this country are actually in line with more Democrats, even Republicans are in alignment with many of the positions. Most Dems dont' favor repealing the 2nd Amendment. I know I don't. I am not against guns and think there is value to having a well trained militia at the local level. The day may come when society breaks down for various reasons and community defense may be what results in survival. I just want these guns on the streets and feel they should be in the hands of responsible people. Assault weapons should be kept at local gun clubs and managed. People should have to have a license that checks their mental health. And that's what Dems and Reps both support, gun control isn't about denying people their 2nd amendment rights. But instead it gets twisted to, "Liberals want to take our guns away" which simply isn't true.

Most liberals want action on climate change but don't want the economy to take a hit. That position never gets represented in the media, just the more extreme positions as being the mainstream liberal position. I don't want to give up my comfortable life either.

Point being is that centrist positions are what the left is mostly about. It's not AOC or Bernie Sanders. It's not "woke culture". Obama, Clinton, and Biden are all Centrists, yet they are portrayed as Leftists.

I am not sure Abortion is a turning point issue in a midterm election, especially when the concerns about inflation and a likely recession is in the works for the later half of this year / the first half of next. Republicans will win the House, and most likely the Senate.

 

She knows you can't retrofit every building in the US. She's being provocative much like Trump. The Amazon thing...most people living in that area of Queens where happy Amazon didn't come there. The rents were already too high and they feared it would have made it worse. She capitalized on that fear of higher rents and that's why she took the position she did. Everything she does is calculated.

But the idea that she put her hands behind her back because she thought it would generate controversy is too much. Yes, she knew getting arrested would benefit her as a fighter for the people. But she couldn't have expected the boon and attention from handcuff-gate. It's almost as if she is in cahoots with the far right.

 

You're making my point. It's about the rules, subject matter, and forum. Yes Trump "won" many of his debates especially against the GOP field in 2016. If we were scoring this under National Forensic League (the other NFL) rules he loses badly. He only won because he knows how to manipulate perception and to get under his opponent's skin. Substance wise he's done terribly in all of his debates.

One of my hobbies used to be tracking down politicians at the Minnesota State Fair, as that is the single biggest even in Minnesota and attracts politicians from statewide and even nationally. I would do a lot of the stuff I do here in the D&D and ask them tough questions, often using something they said publicly, deliberately try to trip them up. Yes I am a complete nerd. Most of them didn't do a very good job. For the most part they stuck to their stump speeches and talking points even if it had nothing at all to do with what I was asking. Some got tripped up by the question. In a few cases they actually did engage and respond substantively. I noticed it would drive their handlers crazy because there really wasn't any political benefit for a candidate to engage in a debate with some smart @ss nerd.

The best politicians that I saw were ones who would disarm me before I could grill them. When Amy Klobuchar was running for Senate the first time. When I got to her she immediately shook my hand said "It's great to see you again!" (to my knowledge I had never met her before) and started asking me inane small talk questions. After about a minute she moved onto the next person. She understood I was an @sshole looking to have a debate. She stopped that before it even started. That is political skill. Not showing how intelligent, deep a thinker you are, but recognizing a potential political pitfall and not even dealing with it substantively yet still giving the impression of being an open and friendly candidate.

 

Thanks for sharing those interesting stories.

To me the skills of a politician are how well known they are, how well liked, and how well they can manipulate perception. The last one is the one that ties into debating skills.

Your encounter with Klobuchar doesn't tell me she has this skill in recognizing potentially dangerous people to debate, it tells me she doesn't want to debate anyone at State Fair. In reality, no well-known politician probably wants to get into a debate with any constituent in public as it can only do potential harm.

However, if you are less well known, you may need to do the opposite so you can get better known. So I think what you encountered was more about their marketing strategy than their debate strategy.

 

Marketing strategy and political strategy have much overlap. Trump's success has to do with that he is a master marketer. Recognizing the time and place to debate along with how to approach it is vital in politics. That doesn't mean they are good debaters in the sense of things like Parliamentary debate or Lincoln Douglas Debate where substance especially responding substantively to the other side matters.

 

Trump will likely never get into another high stakes debate again in political career.

Saying Trump is a master marketer is like saying Keanu Reeves is a master actor.

 

If he wants any shot at winning he might not have a choice. While he has an outsize control on the GOP he doesn't control the general electorate and it will be harder for him to try the stuff he did leading up to Jan. 6th without being the President. Also his hold on the GOP while strong isn't guaranteed. He might be compelled to debate DeSantis just to fire up his supporters and to try to make DeSantis look weak.

Yet Keanu keeps on getting roles and millions even with everything we know are still slavishly devoted toTrump.

 

He might, but he'll pull a throw over the game board move once in their and try and pull it off with what he thinks are humorous nicknames about his opponents.

 

Americans really don't need to see Trump debate anyway, everyone has already made up their mind about him. I doubt he debates DeSantis and I definitely don't think he will debate Biden if Biden is the nominee. He's much more comfortable having control of the mic to speak endlessly.

My point is that Keanu doesn't get his roles for his acting abilities. Trump doesn't get his popularity because he's mastered marketing, people just love who he is for what he is.

 

Trump is a successful debater because he has very strong political instincts and isn’t afraid to go off script. He won the GOP primary debates because he successfully went off script and the other candidates didn’t know how to handle it or respond. He “gets it” in the modern sense.