Assuming this Politico Article as accurate about Elissa Slotkin...then I think she earned herself a primary challenge in 2030. Being Woke has to be a litmus test for us-if you aren't woke, you aren't fit to hold office in my opinion.
Assuming this Politico Article as accurate about Elissa Slotkin...then I think she earned herself a primary challenge in 2030. Being Woke has to be a litmus test for us-if you aren't woke, you aren't fit to hold office in my opinion.
I just read this article and while I think her actual statement is less inflamatory than the headline suggests (She's referring to the PERCEPTION of voters being woke as a derogatory statement). She just hasn't impressed me at all.
I think we should point out that the term “woke” has been washed out and morphed into craziness like removing statues of Abraham Lincoln and trying to insert social justice brainwashing into kids as opposed to actually being about what it’s original intended purpose is. Same goes for the Defund the Police narrative which has in cities like Oakland translated into less police officers on the street while crime is high.
I am in complete support of being woke as in raising awareness of social injustice, particularly as it relates to police brutality toward black peoples. However, the social justice advocates like AOC are not fighting back hard against the wrong-headed definition and instead letting it be defined. It’s like it’s 1988 all over again with Michael Dukakis.
Elissa Slotkin isn’t the problem. The problem is the Democratic Party and it’s failure to use “woke” properly and immediately with the right counter messaging.
As someone who had ethnic studies in high school in Berkeley back in 1994, when Bill Clinton was POTUS, what matters to me is that the woke agenda is productive and not about purity nonsense.
In the case of the Abraham Lincoln statues being removed, I am referring to the George Floyd situation back in 2020 where rioters ended up pushing to get these statues out without any discourse or government involvement. I get rioters were angry and wanted to take it out on the US and it’s history of racism. However, with this kind of agenda, it's more bent on disruption than it is about actually improving society and raising awareness.
Berkeley has gone through changes name wise in the several decades since I was in elementary school. My 4th and 5th grade years were at Columbus Elementary School, which ended up in the mid 90's being renamed to Rosa Parks Elementary School. In Downtown Berkeley, Shattuck Square was renamed as Kaia Bagai Way, named after a South Asian woman who was driven out of Berkeley because of her race. This agenda is fine and makes sense as it involves a more civil discourse and awareness to try to move the U.S. into being culturally aware and socially conscious.
I do think our general unwillingness to push back, to fight, to support ourselves on whatever shit labels we get is part of why those labels keep being used over and over and over again. Republicans wouldn't go through four year cycle on random insults if they didn't work.
A big part of why they work is that instead of defending ourselves too many democrats run away in fear of those labels. That empowers the attack, both in republicans' willingness to keep using it but also in the mind of voters: as a general rule humans run away from attacks that have truth to them. Thus, running away acts as a psychological flag saying "hey, this attack is not only true, but it's also a bad thing!"
The problem isn't people like AOC for sticking by those labels. The problem is people that run away at the first chance.
I don't know if that does or does not apply to Slotkin in this instance because I don't feel like reading the article and it's not uncommon for headlines to add bullshit for drama purposes.
Could you cite some Democrats in non deep, deep blue districts who "fight back" and win? Just because you "fight" doesn't mean you win. With no offense to you intended, I see virtually everyone saying Democrats just need to fight, without really acknowledging that fighting spirit is great, until you actually go up against a boxer, and they kill you in the ring.
Similarly no offense intended, I think you're disagreeing on seeing the word "fight" and not on the substance of my point, because you've had a disagreement on other topics where the word "fight" was used. Would you have responded the same if my initial sentence omitted the "to fight" part early on?
To provide an answer: I'd point heartily and easily to Harry Reid. Nevada was either a light red state or a swing state for much of his career. He didn't back down from the ACA in 2010. He was always and consistently a fighter. He was a political pugilist if there ever was one in our history and he came out on top even when the odds were solidly against him.
Circling back to the start: I think focusing on the word "fight" resulted in a misunderstanding of the core point of my comment. It wasn't about "fighting republicans" in the sense that I have articulated in the past. It's about not running away from any and every random smear attack they use. If republicans run around eg calling every democrat "woke", that attack becomes more potent if those democrats run away from that attack. Psychologically humans are primed to believe those attacks, and to believe the attacks are merited, when they see the target dodge that attack. People who do not react that way get a better result from third parties assessing the validity of the attack.
AOC and the rest of the commenters on this thread aren't exactly doing their homework on Senator Slotkin. In the Senate, she’s argued against giving tax cuts for the wealthy so that food stamps are cut. Also, Slotkin's only a few months into the Senate so criticizing her time so far with no real hard evidence is at this point semantics.
Point being, Slotkin hasn't shown any indication she's losing it like Fetterman is. She's in line with the majority of Democrats in the Senate who do not believe the GOP should get away with cutting essential programs and pandering to the super wealthy.
Regardless of anything else, primarying a Democrat for words we disagree with in a state Trump won twice even while Trump was on the ballot, is like trying to shoot ourself in the face, missing and shooting ourselves in the face again just to make sure we’re dead.
It’s very simple for Democrats: DON’T talk about this stuff in campaigns, but DO something about it when in power. That’s what Republicans keep doing over and over again. Talk about issues that’re popular with voters, that’s our economic policies. If we insist on being pro-woke and run on that in 2026 elections, we’re screwed plain and simple.
Just in case someone misunderstands what I believe, woke is a bogeyman word the right uses as derogatory that basically (I know the actual definition isn’t exactly this, but paraphrasing) means respect, enforcement and understanding the rights of non-white conservative Americans and I wholeheartedly support being woke in actions taken AFTER Democrats have power).
Do you have any idea how unpopular wokeness is outside of liberal bubbles?
Being anti-woke is possibly the only thing the entire Republican coalition agrees on (other than about Trump himself). I know people personally who agree with Dems on many issues, but vote Republican largely because they hate how woke the Democrats have gotten. They view wokeness as a form of censorship of them, much the same way we view book-banning and attempts to remove minorities, LGBT people, and climate change from school curriculums. Democrats need to stop being performatively woke and start doing things that actually improve people's lives.
Like it or not, those views you want to censor are held by a large majority of Americans. Good luck trying to win elections by telling most of the country that their views should be censored.
And, apparently unlike you, I actually believe that the First Amendment is a good thing.
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/04/24/slotkin-has-a-war-plan-to-beat-trump-dont-be-weak-and-woke-00308176
Assuming this Politico Article as accurate about Elissa Slotkin...then I think she earned herself a primary challenge in 2030. Being Woke has to be a litmus test for us-if you aren't woke, you aren't fit to hold office in my opinion.
I just read this article and while I think her actual statement is less inflamatory than the headline suggests (She's referring to the PERCEPTION of voters being woke as a derogatory statement). She just hasn't impressed me at all.
She is just an establishment liberal not some Fetterman, Emanuel or Maher.
Please we don't need these purity tests especially in a purple state.
She's not Fetterman neither is she Sinema.
What’s wrong with what she said?
She implied being woke is bad-the exact opposite is the reality-no matter how hard Republicans make us believe being woke is bad.
I think we should point out that the term “woke” has been washed out and morphed into craziness like removing statues of Abraham Lincoln and trying to insert social justice brainwashing into kids as opposed to actually being about what it’s original intended purpose is. Same goes for the Defund the Police narrative which has in cities like Oakland translated into less police officers on the street while crime is high.
I am in complete support of being woke as in raising awareness of social injustice, particularly as it relates to police brutality toward black peoples. However, the social justice advocates like AOC are not fighting back hard against the wrong-headed definition and instead letting it be defined. It’s like it’s 1988 all over again with Michael Dukakis.
Elissa Slotkin isn’t the problem. The problem is the Democratic Party and it’s failure to use “woke” properly and immediately with the right counter messaging.
None of that is craziness in my opinion.
As someone who had ethnic studies in high school in Berkeley back in 1994, when Bill Clinton was POTUS, what matters to me is that the woke agenda is productive and not about purity nonsense.
In the case of the Abraham Lincoln statues being removed, I am referring to the George Floyd situation back in 2020 where rioters ended up pushing to get these statues out without any discourse or government involvement. I get rioters were angry and wanted to take it out on the US and it’s history of racism. However, with this kind of agenda, it's more bent on disruption than it is about actually improving society and raising awareness.
Berkeley has gone through changes name wise in the several decades since I was in elementary school. My 4th and 5th grade years were at Columbus Elementary School, which ended up in the mid 90's being renamed to Rosa Parks Elementary School. In Downtown Berkeley, Shattuck Square was renamed as Kaia Bagai Way, named after a South Asian woman who was driven out of Berkeley because of her race. This agenda is fine and makes sense as it involves a more civil discourse and awareness to try to move the U.S. into being culturally aware and socially conscious.
Point being, make progress, not riot or troll.
https://www.berkeleyside.org/2020/03/12/opinion-berkeley-might-name-a-street-after-kala-bagai-this-is-her-story
I do think our general unwillingness to push back, to fight, to support ourselves on whatever shit labels we get is part of why those labels keep being used over and over and over again. Republicans wouldn't go through four year cycle on random insults if they didn't work.
A big part of why they work is that instead of defending ourselves too many democrats run away in fear of those labels. That empowers the attack, both in republicans' willingness to keep using it but also in the mind of voters: as a general rule humans run away from attacks that have truth to them. Thus, running away acts as a psychological flag saying "hey, this attack is not only true, but it's also a bad thing!"
The problem isn't people like AOC for sticking by those labels. The problem is people that run away at the first chance.
I don't know if that does or does not apply to Slotkin in this instance because I don't feel like reading the article and it's not uncommon for headlines to add bullshit for drama purposes.
Could you cite some Democrats in non deep, deep blue districts who "fight back" and win? Just because you "fight" doesn't mean you win. With no offense to you intended, I see virtually everyone saying Democrats just need to fight, without really acknowledging that fighting spirit is great, until you actually go up against a boxer, and they kill you in the ring.
Similarly no offense intended, I think you're disagreeing on seeing the word "fight" and not on the substance of my point, because you've had a disagreement on other topics where the word "fight" was used. Would you have responded the same if my initial sentence omitted the "to fight" part early on?
To provide an answer: I'd point heartily and easily to Harry Reid. Nevada was either a light red state or a swing state for much of his career. He didn't back down from the ACA in 2010. He was always and consistently a fighter. He was a political pugilist if there ever was one in our history and he came out on top even when the odds were solidly against him.
Circling back to the start: I think focusing on the word "fight" resulted in a misunderstanding of the core point of my comment. It wasn't about "fighting republicans" in the sense that I have articulated in the past. It's about not running away from any and every random smear attack they use. If republicans run around eg calling every democrat "woke", that attack becomes more potent if those democrats run away from that attack. Psychologically humans are primed to believe those attacks, and to believe the attacks are merited, when they see the target dodge that attack. People who do not react that way get a better result from third parties assessing the validity of the attack.
Slotkin tells me Democrats should stop using the term "oligarchy"—no one knows what it means.
The average voter absolutely doesn't know what it means.
You can attack the excesses of the super, powerful and corrupted wealthy without having to use "oligarchy."
"We don't want the super wealthy to make it harder for the little guy to get ahead."
Simple, right?
https://bsky.app/profile/thetnholler.bsky.social/post/3lnmbixdvsk2v
AOC and the rest of the commenters on this thread aren't exactly doing their homework on Senator Slotkin. In the Senate, she’s argued against giving tax cuts for the wealthy so that food stamps are cut. Also, Slotkin's only a few months into the Senate so criticizing her time so far with no real hard evidence is at this point semantics.
Point being, Slotkin hasn't shown any indication she's losing it like Fetterman is. She's in line with the majority of Democrats in the Senate who do not believe the GOP should get away with cutting essential programs and pandering to the super wealthy.
https://www.slotkin.senate.gov/press-releases/slotkin-colleagues-warn-about-raising-food-costs-to-give-tax-breaks-to-billionaires/
File this under facts that sound stupid at first but are true: Kamala Harris got more votes than Elissa Slotkin in Michigan last year.
That's not a shock-it's relatively normal for Presidential candidates to get more total votes than Senate candidates.
For what it’s worth, Kamala Harris also didn’t face Mike Rogers or John James in the presidential election.
Regardless of anything else, primarying a Democrat for words we disagree with in a state Trump won twice even while Trump was on the ballot, is like trying to shoot ourself in the face, missing and shooting ourselves in the face again just to make sure we’re dead.
It’s very simple for Democrats: DON’T talk about this stuff in campaigns, but DO something about it when in power. That’s what Republicans keep doing over and over again. Talk about issues that’re popular with voters, that’s our economic policies. If we insist on being pro-woke and run on that in 2026 elections, we’re screwed plain and simple.
Just in case someone misunderstands what I believe, woke is a bogeyman word the right uses as derogatory that basically (I know the actual definition isn’t exactly this, but paraphrasing) means respect, enforcement and understanding the rights of non-white conservative Americans and I wholeheartedly support being woke in actions taken AFTER Democrats have power).
Democrats really have to stop engaging with Republicans on their rhetorical battleground.
Slotkin’s no bargain. Stevens will be worse. Both are a step down from their predecessors.
WTF?
Do you have any idea how unpopular wokeness is outside of liberal bubbles?
Being anti-woke is possibly the only thing the entire Republican coalition agrees on (other than about Trump himself). I know people personally who agree with Dems on many issues, but vote Republican largely because they hate how woke the Democrats have gotten. They view wokeness as a form of censorship of them, much the same way we view book-banning and attempts to remove minorities, LGBT people, and climate change from school curriculums. Democrats need to stop being performatively woke and start doing things that actually improve people's lives.
Have you considered that the views Republicans hold SHOULD be censored?
Seriously, most functioning democracies ban hate speech.
Like it or not, those views you want to censor are held by a large majority of Americans. Good luck trying to win elections by telling most of the country that their views should be censored.
And, apparently unlike you, I actually believe that the First Amendment is a good thing.