True, but
a) usually not THIS low
b) low turnout makes it more likely such accidental upsets happen
Surely you do not believe that AOC was responsible for low voter turnout? It's hardly her fault if her opponent was so complacent that he didn't care to mount an actual campaign.
He did not predict a threat, true. Another thing that broke her way. Or rather, JD's way.
Oh, FFS. Yes: elections are won and lost on decisions, both poor and wise and twists of fate and the weather and so on. AOC certainly has invested a great deal of energy and effort into winning her office and into serving her district well. Too bad her predecessor did not.
It seems to me that she's the one who fell ass backwards out of office by putting in so little effort to defeating a young, inexperienced opponent.
He didn't expect to be stabbed in the back by somebody ostensibly from his own party. But then again, AOC's main allegiance is not the Democratic Party but JD and DSA.
Thinking you can do a better job and being willing to do it is not 'stabbing someone in the back.' He'd had 10 terms. Was he entitled to office for life? If he wasn't interested enough in defending his seat, he deserved to lose it.
And isn't this all ironic? I thought you were opposed to holding office for life and also that you blamed Hillary for not taking Wisconsin seriously....
I think the real issue is that it bothers you to see a woman, especially a young, attractive woman in office.
In the general election she won with 78% of the vote (110,318) to Pappas' 14% (17,7620.
In a district that would vote for anybody with a D behind their name with similar margins.
So?
People seem to like her pretty well so I wouldn't call her win an 'accident.'
Some people sure like her. Especially lpetrich.
But others are annoyed by her.
And so it ever was and is and will be on any issue or person ever.
I am certainly not part of that contingent. But I have seen enough of what AOC has put forward since 2018 that I do not believe her to be intelligent or well informed. She is certainly well educated formally (although I do not think she benefited that much from it) and I do not think anybody would dispute her being passionate.
Well, of course you don't think she's well informed or intelligent. She's a young woman. And she holds positions that you don't agree with.
She accumulated debt at Boston College (my personal dream college)
Boston
University is where AOC went to. Boston College is a Jesuit college. Which one is your personal dream?
Lol: Boston University. I mis-typed.
but she would have also accumulated debt at any of the SUNY schools.
Not necessarily, and if so, far less than she ended up accumulating.
Oh, quite probably she accumulated very similar amounts of debt. Again, I write from the experience and perspective of having put all of my children through college, some private some public. The net cost was extremely similar between the two for our middle to upper middle class family. And also from watching one of their close friends whose financial situation was actually quite dire turned down for any real financial aid beyond loans from a state university. He had excellent grades and test scores despite a very chaotic home life that included bouts of homelessness and being told at age 18 that he was now responsible for his grandmother who stole the rent money from this same 18 year old grandson. That whole situation is a novel and a half but nope: in the US, being very bright and motivated does not get you reduced rates at a state college. So yeah, I think I probably know better than you do on that score.
Having sent two of my kids to out of state private colleges, I can tell you with great certainty that there is a sticker price for such schools---and then there is the price that is offered to very bright and talented students. I have no idea how much AOS paid in tuition and room/board but I do know that the price offered my kid was virtually identical to the price that it would have cost at a local, in state university.
Well, as you said, we don't know how much AOC was paying total. But the
google search page lists average cost after aid as $35k. Which is of course still high. And you can't compare after aid cost of a private school with sticker price of a state school. There are scholarships etc. available there as well.
I just did compare them. I am telling you the absolute truth that my kid's offer at the fancy private school, whose prices were on par with BU's was right in line with what they would have paid at the state university system school. It is really, really, really difficult to get any aid from a state university except loans. Please see my example above. And also, please note: My kids are about the same age as AOC so it's a pretty spot on comparison. I don't write this to convince you of anything. You made your mind up because of some drivel you read on some alt-right site (I've seen that crap as well so I recognize things). But there are parents out there with kids who may not be aware that it is indeed possible to afford private school if that's the school that best suits your kid.
The cost to attend a private school is the same for in state and out of state students, except that transportation tends to be more for out of state schools.
I know that. But if a NYC kid goes to a local private school like NYU they can live at home and not pay room and board.
Depends on where they live. What is your personal hard on for the idea that no working class kid, especially if they are not lily white can dare to go to a private school? Frankly, good for her that she went to BU! It's a great school with a wonderful program.
Sure she used her degree even if she didn't sign on to be economist 2nd class at some firm somewhere.
Please tell me how.
She certainly is well informed for her current job.
I don't care what she attends. I care what she understands. I have not seen anything in what she is saying that indicate any understanding of economics.
She disagrees with you. Where did you become so well educated on economics?
Were you unaware that the government can make new money?
Too well aware. I used to pay for things like groceries with notes denominated in the millions. Not quite as bad as Zimbabwe's infamous 100 trillion, but still pretty bad.
Now in the US monetary policy is one step removed from the actual government for the very reason to reduce the danger of governments inflating the money supply to pay for projects like GND.
I misunderstood that you were a first generation American, not an immigrant yourself. My apologies.
I paid attention in my high school civics class. Didn't you?
I sure have.
If you say so. Perhaps things work differently here in America.
I do, usually. But sometimes people don't use words the same way and when one is talking about a specific discipline, such as economics, sometimes people use words as they are commonly used rather than as specific terms as defined and used within that discipline. This is a problem that I see with economics. A lot of people think they know much more than they do know because they think that the words they use are the same as the terms an economist uses when really, they aren't talking about the same things at all.
What are you talking about here specifically? Do you think AOC used some word in a highly technical sense that somehow makes her plan to implement GND workable?
No, I think you don't understand GND or economics or half of what you write. You cannot tell the difference between disagreeing with how to achieve something or about what goals should be achieved or attempted and actual understanding. Again: did you go to college? Do you have a background in economics aside from whatever you read on the altright and incel sites you like to frequent?
