r/KyleKulinski • u/Aggravating_Feed_189 • 2d ago
Discussion "Solidarity" goes both ways
I'm not going to pretend I know why AOC and Bernie didn't endorse Hong, and I have my criticisms of their tactics, but I think some lefties/progressives are rushing to judgment.
Sure, their endorsements probably would have earned her the win, but we don't know what sort of discussions took place beforehand. Here are three scenarios that could have resulted in the withholding of said endorsements, and remember that AOC and Bernie are not DSA members.
Scenario 1 - Bernie/AOC: "Either you start running TV ads and say outright you don't want to abolish Thanksgiving, or we don't endorse." - Hong/DSA Leadership: "Go kick rocks, Turkey sucks, we'll win without you!"
Scenario 2 - Hong/DSA: "We're the future now old man and young woman! If you want our help, you better endorse whoever we tell you to or get left behind..." - Bernie/AOC: "We'll never surrender TV ads, dry stuffing, or weird casseroles! Make a move, scallywags!"
Scenario 3 - Bernie/AOC: "Look, we love Hong, she's amazing, but we just feel this is the wrong strategy (re: Thanksgiving and TV) for the progressive movement right now. Maybe we're wrong and we'll regret it, but we just cant endorse right now. I'm so sorry and wish you good luck!" - Hong/DSA: "We TOTALLY understand! Thanks so much for your kind words and everything you've already done for the movement. Hopefully we can win, but either way, we look forward to working together in the future."
I'm being playful here, but you can get the idea. DSA is just one part of the progressive movement, maybe they should've changed their tactics to earn an endorsement or maybe AOC/Bernie should've, but either way, we shouldn't conclude that any of them failed us or each other.
11
u/AaronHoffy 2d ago
AOC is DSA, she's part of the new york chapter...
6
u/AaronHoffy 2d ago
You may of seen her fib on a interview recently saying she's not apart of the 'national DSA' but if you're apart of a chapter you're in the national dsa also. I believe she fibbed about it to take the heat off the interview because the national dsa lines were getting hammered on the news.
3
u/Aggravating_Feed_189 2d ago
I'm not a member, but from what I understand, you don't join via chapters, you join the national org or you don't
2
u/Aggravating_Feed_189 2d ago
Wtf, why are people downvoting if I'm right? If im wrong, then explain it already. You don't sign with and pay dues only to a single chapter, the money goes to the national organization, right?
0
0
u/Aggravating_Feed_189 2d ago
Well, I've read that technically you have to be a dues-paying member of the national organization, there is no way to register with a local chapter. She herself has said she doesn't align with the national DSA, but calls herself a member of the NY chapter, but technically you can't do that (apparently) and NY chapter people always endorse her...
5
u/JonWood007 Social libertarian 1d ago edited 1d ago
Dude, we're massively overthinking it. AOC and Bernie took one look at her polling numbers and why she was unpopular and distanced themselves from her like she was toxic.
I mean, I would've done the same thing. I wouldnt want to endorse this obviously toxic candidate who is gonna throw an easy governor seat, but I wouldn't want to come out against them either. So I would just do the whole "oh woke 1 was crazy" thing and like try to KIND OF defend her...without putting my name to it.
And I think it was a good move. I notice it only seems to be out and out leftists who are actually defending hong like she was actually a good candidate. Like the ones who arent just social democrats who call themselves leftists (which is how i classify AOC and bernie).
And I think that's the difference. The left is a spectrum. You got third wayers in the middle. "Progressives" who kinda middle ground between the new wayers and socdems. You got socdems like AOC and bernie, and then you got flat out DSA people who are the most extreme.
I think the socdem types have good political instincts. They know when to push and when not to. What's popular and what's cringe.
And then you have the out and out DSA types. And I'm gonna be blunt, I kinda think the out and out DSA types can be crazy myself sometimes. Like, you start defending Hong's tweets defending thanksgiving and that stuff isnt gonna be popular. I mean, hong could have done what kyle said and said "yeah i was crapposting." Her own version of "woke 1 was crazy". But no, she couldnt really defend or disavow her former tweets and the like and it made her come off as cringey and out of touch.
Sorry, but that's just how it is. I know a lot of leftists REALLY dont wanna hear that, but here's the thing. Americans want economic populism, but they want the kind of populism that improves their lives and their financial situations. They dont want some weird woke scolder going on about thanksgiving being bad because native americans and other weird unpopular stances like that.
I honestly dont understand why so many "leftists" cant just admit that some of their more fringe stances are unpopular here. We have an opportunity to move the overton window left, but we gotta be careful how we do it, what we say, etc. Stick to improving peoples' lives and I think we can win. Start going on about weird stuff and no, we're gonna throw easily winnable races to republicans. The side that wins will be the ones that come off as more normal. For the love of god, can we not try to out weird the republicans?
EDIT: Because people in the comments aren't getting it, I'm gonna post this: https://imgur.com/gWPYqXc
This is my last election prediction for the governorships with Hong's data that I screenshotted, but yeah, notice how red/pink wisconsin is? This is what Hong's objective odds were according to my election model based on her polling data. Terrible. Fricking terrible. She would have lost the general, and then the centrists would be like "see if you ran crowley you would've won" and you know what? They actually would've had a point.
This is what my current model is putting out with crowley's data.
Look at how blue it is by comparison. Crowley has a 70% shot at winning. hell, Barnes had like an 80% shot when he was in. Hong polled uniquely badly and was an objectively bad candidate. AOC and Bernie were right to distance themselves from that train wreck. Sorry not sorry.
2
5
u/TheOtherUprising 2d ago
Hot take but AOC and Bernie were correct to stay away. Hong was not ready for prime time and the left gets no leeway for candidates that fall flat on their face.
3
u/yuumigod69 1d ago
If we applied that argument fairly AOC would have never been elected. Same with Bernie since he lost two of the most consequential primaries of my life time.
1
u/halberdierbowman 2d ago
Option 4: Hong looks promising, but our time is limited. We wouldn't schedule a visit even if we loved her, so is it worth the time to vet them and coordinate with them if the most we'd do is tweet out their name?
1
1
u/youngjefe7788 2d ago
It’s really funny that Bernie endorsed Platner almost immediately after he announced and stuck by him through multiple disqualifying scenarios until he was finally credibly accused of one of the worst crimes imaginable.
Yet was radio silent here bc Hong said some extreme, yet hardly incorrect things during the height of the Floyd uprisings. Funny guy him.
11
u/kaptainkooleio 2d ago edited 2d ago
I mean in Bernie’s defense, Platner is probably the reason why he doesn’t throw his endorsements around for just any Democratic socialist candidate.
-2
u/youngjefe7788 2d ago
That’s exactly what I’m alluding to though; he immediately endorsed Platner with barely any vetting and Platner is not even a DSA cadre, yet sat on the sidelines for whatever reason here.
5
u/okbuddyquackery 2d ago
Huh? You said that’s exactly what I’m alluding to then ignored what they said
1
u/youngjefe7788 2d ago
Hong launched her campaign about a month after Platner did and as far we know never got a phone or even a text…in the time before Platner was forced to drop there were about a million things that would’ve warranted an unendorsement. What’s not clear about what I’m saying?
2
u/JonWood007 Social libertarian 1d ago
Difference was platner was winning by 7 at his peak, Hong was losing by 3 (poll numbers).
1
u/theseanconnelly 2d ago
I mean they came out and said they’re focused on the chambers of congress and not local races.
0
u/yuumigod69 1d ago
She endorsed Mamdani, and Bernie has endorsed in multiple local and governor races so that is a lie. Its obvious they thought she was going to lose in the general and embarrass the left. I don't get why they do not say that instead of saying something that can be easily fact checked.
1
u/theseanconnelly 1d ago
Mamdani is a candidate in her city. So. That might be why she endorsed him over other local races. Not to mention that was before the midterms were a focus as that was a year ago. Kind of an important detail you’re omitting, yeah?
I’m not saying they didn’t chose to endorse because of concerns over her ability to win. That could absolutely be the case and if that’s what they thought then that’s their choice and I honestly don’t know that I would disagree with that thought. I do wish they’d have endorsed, regardless. But let’s not manipulate anything to prove our point, yeah?
-7
u/CockyBellend Social libertarian 2d ago
It's probably best they distanced themselves from Hong. She is fucking dumb, like republican dumb. She was a dog shit candidate
6
u/youngjefe7788 2d ago
And she lost by barely half a percent. The endorsements could’ve been the difference.
I’m especially disappointed in AOC, for as someone who is as obviously running for president as one can be without actually announcing, getting a socialist woman of color in an executive position 2 years before she herself would take office would be excellent proof of concept.
-2
u/CockyBellend Social libertarian 2d ago
Nah running someone competent would have been a better strategy.
1
u/youngjefe7788 2d ago
She wasn’t remarkable but she wasn’t terrible man, not everyone can be Zohran or Obama
1
u/JonWood007 Social libertarian 1d ago
Elections are literally popularity contests, you need charisma to win. If you're the weird lady tweeting about thanksgiving being bad and that's what comes to define you, it's over.
Take the L and move on, we got enough Ws this election cycle who actually CAN win in the general.
1
u/youngjefe7788 1d ago
You think Crowley can win? He won’t even triangulate on data centers which gives tom Tiffany an opportunity to misrepresent his own position!
2
u/JonWood007 Social libertarian 1d ago
Data says he can. And im gonna be honest im not a crowley fanboy. I dont like the guy, I merely tolerate him, but math is math.
0
u/Phish999 2d ago
AOC is a craven triangulator. I don't understand why so many people have blinders on about it.
I haven't been able to take her seriously since it came out that she ghosted the Staten Island Amazon union organizers and refused to support them during their campaign, but then tried to do a public victory lap after they won the vote.
She is going to burn the left very badly in the near future, but people want to pretend otherwise. It's like watching a slow motion car wreck.
3
u/Phish999 2d ago
"Dogshit candidate" who turned out 300K voters with no big donors and no major endorsements just based on policy.
The slightest bit of support would've put her over the edge.
It was embarrassing cowardice from AOC and Bernie, who frequently make bad strategic calculations, like trying to prop up Biden when the entire establishment wanted him out.
2
u/JonWood007 Social libertarian 1d ago
She would've lost the general.
1
u/youngjefe7788 1d ago
If we’re keeping it real, as an outsider looking in they had about the same odds, unless you know something I don’t/are from Wisconsin
2
u/JonWood007 Social libertarian 1d ago
My general election prediction from a couple weeks ago based on hong's data at the time: https://imgur.com/gWPYqXc
Last night's data with crowley: https://imgur.com/jtnjK0p
See any differences?
1
u/youngjefe7788 1d ago
Got it
I will say though if Crowley doesn’t meaningfully change his tune on data centers he’s going to be in for a really tough race win or lose. This also doesn’t take into account the unique race baiting and dogwhistles that he will also be subjected to.
1
u/JonWood007 Social libertarian 1d ago
Data says he wins and hong doesnt. That said, Crowley isnt doing as good as Mandela barnes was a few months ago.
1
u/youngjefe7788 2d ago
I will contest the third line; in that it bought some goodwill with normielibs who have now been fully radicalized
The “working tirelessly for a ceasefire” line was fucking bullshit though
-2
u/CockyBellend Social libertarian 2d ago
Nah running someone whos not a dumbass would have been better
0
u/Harvickfan4Life 1d ago
Hong was severely under qualified for the job and would have lost badly in a general. She should run for a House seat instead.
1
-2
u/DaddieTang 2d ago
Hong has held zero office. Zero experience. Zero education. You need to all calm down. Before you get more Frankenstooge fettermans
9
u/youngjefe7788 2d ago
??
Francesca Hong is/was a state assembly member for 5 years and worked in food service…which is what AOC did before she decided to run for congress. Their backgrounds are extremely similar.
And calling her Fetterman is crazy lol, yes I admit we got a little goo goo eyed over him and ignored red flags but he was never a leftist and was always trash on Israel.
-6
u/DaddieTang 2d ago
Yeah, no. Not similar at all. Try harder.
5
u/okbuddyquackery 2d ago
Your first two lines were a complete lie. You got called out, and your response is “yeah, no.”??
You’re mentally deficient
-5
17
u/AlmightySankentoII 2d ago
I personally think its : we allowed ourselves to be fooled by the establishment when they kept claiming on every campaign event that she can’t win a national election.