but it's interesting when and where we apply these unfavorable/favorable statistics. For instance, Sanders has consistently held the highest approval ratings in the Senate and is constantly at the top in terms of favorable ratings - but I didn't see you citing that in his defense. In fact, I saw just the opposite.

Such ratings are even more important for him because he's a presidential candidate - whereas AOC is a freshman in the House holding a futurist view of where she believes the party to go. She's also wildly popular in her congressional district and has become almost a celebrity.

Further, millennials are now the largest voting bloc and as they become increasingly active in the political process - I would expect her ratings to climb.

But yes - she's not a popular candidate with Independents and party loyalists - but that isn't a reason to not support and celebrate her as she's pushing the envelope and not bound by party dogma.

This speaks to the point I was trying to communicate to you in a different thread. That is: at some point as a party you have to have a forward-thinking view to where the party is moving in the future, as opposed to being frozen in the current status-quo. Politics will change dramatically over the next decade - and the Democratic party has the largest potentiality to be on the cusp of that evolution by enlarging its tent. It'd be political malpractice to not understand the very clear signs that AOC is a future superstar of the party (and in many ways is already a superstar in the party, without the help of the Pelosi/Schumer wing).




-->