>That Amazon deal was horse shit. And you are severely
>over-rating their image. Lol at people “trusting” the
>institution of Amazon. Especially in a district that’s
>70-80% Dem. Youre just making up shit.

I assume this is what Reeq was referring to.

https://bakercenter.georgetown.edu/aicpoll/

Among Democrats, Amazon is more trusted than ANY other institution that they tested. Among Republicans, Amazon is more trusted than RELIGION. Republicans trust Amazon more than religion.

>
>Low turnout in the primary? Lol, when was the last time
>Crowley even faced a primary? What are you comparing
>it to?

Uhh, I assume he's comparing it to the overall number of voters in the district, as people normally do. The total number of votes in the district was just shy of 30,000 in that primary:

https://ballotpedia.org/Alexandria_Ocasio-Cortez

This is in a district with over 200,000 registered Democrats. Bernie used to rant about "low votah turnout," and say that his revolution would come when he excited more people to come to the polls. Well AOC somehow won with about 15% voter turnout.

That's not her fault. Nor is it Crowley's fault. New York State is notorious for its weird primary system. I seem to remember that in that case the primary was held on a weird day or something. It doesn't matter, she won fair and square.

>Lol their campaign worked on getting non-voters to
>vote. Why does that upset the establishment so
>much?

What makes you think it upsets the establishment? It's just a fact that when turnout is that low, the result will be highly dependent on random statistical fluctuations. She still won fair and square. But it's revisionist history to say this was all the genius of getting non-voters to the polls. Every non-incumbent tries to do that. It was successful this time because of the random statistical fluctuations that get more important when turnout is low.

Again, nobody is saying she's illegitimate in any way. Reeq has said she's an important voice in the party. I don't really have an opinion on her one way or the other (other than how she and her staff botched the Green New Deal rollout). All we're saying is that she might be at risk in 2020. True or false, this is an objective statement, and we will find out in 2020.

>I see you’ve moved the goalpost on her polling
>too.
>
>So do national polls on congress reps matter or not?

Again, not to answer for Reeq, but I'm pretty sure the answer is "Yes, polls matter. And they should be understood in context."

>You keep making claims with no real support, “That’s
>how you get a pink slip” etc...do you have examples?

Examples of the fact that it's bad for a politician to make promises they can't keep? Just off the top of my amateur head:

* Why do you think Trump has been going so hard to get even just a few pennies for a wall that's overwhelmingly unpopular and that he obviously won't be able to finish? Because otherwise he'd be lambasted by those who should be supporting him, for giving up on a promise.

* How did it go when Barack Obama promised to close the prison on Guantanimo Bay?

* How did it go when George W Bush promised that we'd be saving the world from weapons of mass destruction?

* Hillarycare.

* "Read my lips. No new taxes!"

These failures defined these candidates, and their parties, for the rest of their careers.

>Reeq, you should take some time off from your bubble. Talk
>to some non Dems, etc. Youre slipping.

In this country, the vast majority of "non Dems" are either conservatives or centrist independents. Maybe you should talk to more non Dems.