Where is Canada's AOC?

And FWIW, as much as people on babble might hate to admit it, the Canadian politician with the saaviest social-media profile of the past few years has probably been Justin Trudeau. So, careful what ya wish for...

Jagmeet, surely?

josh wrote:

Nikki Ashton.

Ashton would be a risky choice for the NDP.  She appeals to the Bernie Sanders crowd, but doesn't really appeal to mainstream voters.  She's even losing ground in her own riding.  She dropped 7 points this year.  (From 50% in 2019 to 43% in 2021).

Debater wrote:

josh wrote:

Nikki Ashton.

Ashton would be a risky choice for the NDP.  She appeals to the Bernie Sanders crowd, but doesn't really appeal to mainstream voters.  She's even losing ground in her own riding.  She dropped 7 points this year.  (From 50% in 2019 to 43% in 2021).

Appealing to the "Bernie Sanders crowd" is what the NDP needs.  Mulcair and Singh have tried the "mainstream voter " appeal.  How has that turned out,  

The NDP is stuck in a weak third place, yet its "brain trust" always acts like it's just five seats out of winning power and will gain those five seats if only it keeps blurring its policies down to nothing, and continuing to back the militarist status quo on foreign policy, and continues to defer to Bay Street on economics, continues to keep a massive distance from grassroots activists for change, continues down the dead-end street of "respectability".

It's the most delusional approach to electoral politics I've ever seen.

When Jagmeet was making the round of the USA Media a few years ago, he called himself Canada's AOC

pietro_bcc wrote:

Just because he plays Among Us on Twitch doesn't make him AOC.

Also, the man is now 42. I get that part of the reason he was chosen as leader was the hope that he would be more relatable to progressive youth than Angry Tom could ever be. But if he's still relying on the same schtick when he's 46, I'd worry about him giving off "friend's creepy dad" energy.

He is not Canada's AOC. Not even close. It isn't about age, or sex, or being on social media. AOC is authentic. She can respond instantly to whatever happens because she isn't weighing or options or how people might react. She speaks her truth.  Maybe she is freer to do that because she isn't a party leader but I think she would maintain it even if she were. 

I had that sense from Singh in the first days of his leadership but my impression is that he was soon deferring to the party.  As an example, I believe he is far more sympathetic to Palestinians than the party will allow him to express. 

That might be necessary as a party leader as the leader is not supposed to be expressing their personal views.

Pondering wrote:

I had that sense from Singh in the first days of his leadership but my impression is that he was soon deferring to the party.  As an example, I believe he is far more sympathetic to Palestinians than the party will allow him to express. 

Clearly Singh has that same talent Obama has: the ability to be conservative in actions, while convincing left-wing supporters that, if he really had the freedom to, he'd be on their side. It looks like AOC is learning it as well. "It breaks my heart to be conservative! Why can't you see how hard this is for me?"

https://youtu.be/eHCyAeOryHI?t=1445

aoc says peace in the middle east isn't just about the end goal, the "what"; 

it's about the "how",  about the, like, ya'know,"process".

Going back to the article that inspired this thread:

https://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2019/01/25/Canada-AOC/

Ocasio-Cortez keeps her own ego tightly controlled, and argues from facts. That makes her far more credible.

It also makes her tougher to fight, because her adversaries are completely out of the habit of relying on evidence in any argument. All they have in any debate are ideological assertions and personal attacks. Her critics reveal themselves as stuffed shirts, fretting about how well-dressed she is for a struggling young worker, and saying it’s “downright scary” that she wants medicare for all, clean campaign financing and women’s rights.....

ou would think 288 characters is nowhere near enough to articulate policy, but you would be wrong. So when @AOC calls for a 70-per-cent marginal tax rate (starting on incomes over US$10 million), she overturns 40 years of Reagan-Thatcher cant about lower taxes increasing prosperity.

This kind of impact is what any politician dreams of, and we can safely assume that they are all trying to decode @AOC’s ways to learn the secret of her success....

We’ll know we’ve got a Canadian @AOC when his or her tweets make the media scream like a teacher sitting on a tack and political authorities clutch their proverbial pearls until the string breaks. It’ll be a young politician who thrives on five-buck donations, and takes over the local constituents’ association so decisively that the federal party doesn’t dare refuse to sign the papers....

Most likely the upstart will be in the New Democrats or the Greens. The Liberal and Conservative bases alike are too invested in the status quo to endorse some crazy kid who seriously intends to stop climate breakdown and start pharmacare for all. But the NDP and Greens are strategically conservative, solemnly reasonable, and reluctant to call bullshit on their adversaries. An upstart in their ranks would scare the daylights out of them...

The upstart may not appear in next fall’s election. But given the current state of North American politics, the next Canadian election could well coincide with the Americans’ in 2020. In both countries, expect the Goliaths to fall, and the upstarts to dance. 

I'm going to do my best to help Lascaris be that person. I don't think the Goliaths will fall in the next election. I think it's going to take at least two. 

josh wrote:

JKR wrote:

I thought Niki Ashton was our AOC.

She is.

No she isn't. She doesn't have AOC's communication skills. If she did she would be leader of the NDP by now. Her attempt to make the Trudeau elbow thing into a feminist issue was ridiculous. It showed poor political judgement on her part because it make her look like she was just looking for excuses to attack, in other words playing politics. I don't know her well enough to know why she did that but it was a significant mistake, not that anyone would remember it. It is signficant to me because it is an indication of her political judgement. It could be a one off or it could be a fatal flaw. 

If we had an AOC we would know it. 

Pondering wrote:

josh wrote:

JKR wrote:

I thought Niki Ashton was our AOC.

She is.

Her attempt to make the Trudeau elbow thing into a feminist issue was ridiculous. It showed poor political judgement on her part because it make her look like she was just looking for excuses to attack, in other words playing politics. I don't know her well enough to know why she did that but it was a significant mistake, not that anyone would remember it.

Oof. Count me among those who'd forgotten Ashton's role in that drama. Had to go back and look it up. I wonder how that whole episode is viewed by NDP partisans today, now that they no longer feel like they have to support Team Tom. I'm torn between which is a more cringeworthy lowlight from those years; elbowgate, or that time people got so jazzed-up over Angry Tom's whitesplaining to a group of Indigenous water protectors and climate activists.

laine lowe wrote:

I think Svend Robinson was our AOC. Bill Siksay was probably the most principled politician of this century but he was very soft spoken and not one to step in the limelight.

I think AOC pales in comparison to both those men. What one has to realize is that Bill wrote all Svend's best speeches. I have not been at home in the federal NDP since I listened to Bill at an Executive meeting explain why he was not going to run again. I was privileged to have served on both their executives. Bill never made a major decision, like opposing the whip, without running it by his riding executive. Of course we cheered him on, even in his decision to retire from federal politics.

Pondering wrote:

It depends on what you are measuring them on. When I think of "our AOC" it is in the context of a leader on the left who can capture the attention of the nation. 

Then Svend would fit your definition. Bill and Svend were a team, with Svend being the front man and Bill providing the meat for his speeches about the issues that were regularly brought to MSM by the force of Svend's personality. Bill was not the showman but in my opinion he is a far deeper thinker and idealist and he is and was a humble man deeply in tune with his Christian faith. His faith was like Tommy's and he too sought the New Jerusalem.

Pondering wrote:

I could see that as a team they could fit the definition but AOC is both the thinker and the front person which has big advantages.

I did not say Svend was not a thinker I merely said Bill was the deeper one. I have seen nothing to show me that AOC's political thought is any better than Svend's was. You are merely enamored of US celebrity. A very common Canadian trait. "Sure they are good but how could they possibly be in the same league as an American?

Pondering wrote:

It depends on what you are measuring them on. When I think of "our AOC" it is in the context of a leader on the left who can capture the attention of the nation. 

I think AOC mostly captures the attention of right wing news outlets like Fox News, Newsmax, Breitbart Report, and OneAmerica News. AOC still has a long way to go. I think it's still very much in doubt whether she could win a Senate seat for the state of New York, let alone the presidency. As it is she is a high profile member of the House of Representatives. I don't even see her ever getting elected as Speaker of the House. I don't think she has the depth of knowledge to go that far politically. She seems like a lightweight to me. A lot like Niki Ashton.

We don't have any single person in Canada getting the kind of media attention that AOC attracts. She is a celebrity as is Bernie Sanders.  She has a talent for getting under the skin of conservatives causing them to make fools of themselves. She is succinct which makes for good soundbites. She comes across as authentic. 

Pondering wrote:

We don't have any single person in Canada getting the kind of media attention that AOC attracts.

We also don't have anything comparable to the huge news media entertainment circus they have in the US. We have nothing that compares with the hyper partisan Fox-CNN-NewsMax-MSNBC entertainment circus that is much closer to reality tv than it is journalism. Who's our Sean Hannity? Our Rachel Maddow? Our Tucker Carlson? Canadian politicians will never have the huge box office appeal of US politicians like AOC, Trump, Obama, Palin, Sanders, etc.... Many Canadians also watch the US politicsl reality show for entertainment. Conversely most Americans don't even know anything about our prime minister let alone our other politicians. Luckily Canadian politicians will never have the media profile of US politicians and that's a great benefit to Canada. More Canadians know who Sarah Palin is than know who Christina Freeland is and that is a good indicator of our superior news services.

'Then you've internalized Imperial Double Standards...'

https://twitter.com/rosendo_joe/status/1445168773397417984

"Are you a westerner who harshly attacks the democratically elected Maduro in Venezuela, or Ortega in Nicaragua, but also praises useless cowards like Bernie Sanders, AOC, Ilhan Omar (or shameless militarists like Gabbard)? Then you've internalized Imperial Double Standards."