The House approved a resolution backing Israel and condemning Hamas on Wednesday, the first piece of legislation to clear the lower chamber in more than three weeks because of the extended Speaker stalemate.
The legislation, which spans four pages, was the first measure approved under the leadership of Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), who clinched the gavel hours before the chamber voted on the resolution. He succeeded former Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) in the position after the California Republican was ousted from the top job earlier this month.
The House approved the resolution in a 412-10-6 vote, a strong show of support for Israel after Hamas launched an unprecedented attack on the U.S. ally Oct. 7, massacring more than 1,000 civilians in the south of the country, kidnapping more than 200 and raining thousands of rockets down across the country.
One observation: this was a typical sense of the House given the situation and there were 10 Congress critters voting no. AOC voting no means she obviously is not contemplating running for statewide office.
Yeah, can’t be that she won’t compromise her morals for her career…
The why doesn’t matter. The end result is simply an observation.
That is an assumption. And the only way it would make sense is if AOC would be willing to compromise her positions in the hopes it will get her a higher office.
It does not mean that the only reason she stuck to her morals is she isn’t running for higher office.
Maybe you meant something else, but that’s not what you typed.
Again, the why doesn’t matter. The result is that a partisan Democratic base now has a reason not to like her in a primary.
It matters because you made an assumption that discredited her and presented it as obvious facts.
The only reason I’m still trying to explain is this is important to understand in every facet of communication. If you just misspoke, no big deal it happened to me yesterday too. But it’s concerning if you don’t see the issue
It doesn’t matter because by the time she reaches a primary the only consideration is if she voted for the measure or not… Not any ideological reason you come up with.
Honestly, the further she stays away from the NY State Democratic Party, the better. If she runs for something bigger, I want her to win and/or maintain her dignity, not get held back by weird intra-party rivalries and kissing machine boss rings.
The Democratic party is who elects folks in New York. To think you can win there without them is fantasy.
I meant I don’t want her to run for governor of NY (or Senator) if it means getting dragged into the state party’s dysfunction. Look how poorly they handled the 2022 election. She has a chance to be president someday (or, at the very least, play a role like Bernie Sanders) and staying out of state politics probably helps with that.
Not without winning a statewide race.
There’s precedent for it happening. It was awhile ago but in 2016, President Donald J. Trump (from NYC) won without holding a statewide office while his opponent, Secretary Hillary R. Clinton, lost despite having been a NY Senator based further upstate.
Smart assery aside, I don’t think someone like AOC needs a stepping stone the way other politicians do. She‘s a national figure already and has a donor network and all the rest. Basically every other politician needs to take the conventional path you’re talking about.
The reason Trump won was money, which is often the reason. During normal days, money can not be generated by someone who is not a proven winner (ie state or nationwide). He also won due to the electoral college (which is another conversation). The other exception was Eisenhower. But, these are exceptions and, for the most part, a candidate must prove they can win bigger electi9ns than district level.
As someone recently said “Senators dream of being President, Congressmen dream of being King.”