AOC among most ineffective lawmakers in Congress, according to study
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
A study has found that Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a Democratic member of Congress from New York City and a young face in the party, has not been an effective politician in the legislature, based on a survey from the nonpartisan Center for Effective Lawmaking.
Ocasio- Cortez, popularly known as AOC , introduced a total of 21 “substantive” bills that did not receive substantial backing from other lawmakers, including committee and floor votes, according to the study, a project of Vanderbilt University and the University of Virginia.
“She introduced a lot of bills, but she was not successful at having them receive any sort of action in committee or beyond committee, and if they can’t get through committee, they cannot pass the House,” Alan Wiseman, a Vanderbilt political scientist and the center’s co-director, told the New York Post.
“It’s clear that she was trying to get her legislative agenda moving and engage with the lawmaking process, but she wasn’t as successful as some other members were – even among [other] freshmen – at getting people to pay attention to her legislation,” he said.
AOC was ranked No. 230 out of 240 Congressional Democrats in terms of effectiveness, the study found.
Compared with others in her circle of Congressional allies, collectively known as the “Squad,” AOC was deemed less effective than Ilhan Omar, who sponsored 33 bills, and Rashida Tlaib, who had some of her bills advance to committee, with one becoming a law. Tlaib was ranked No. 92 among the 240 lawmakers.
According to the survey, the most effective lawmakers were Rep. Nita Lowey (D-Westchester, New York), who retired last year and was responsible for 29 major bills introduced in Congress, with seven of them becoming laws, and John Katko (R-Syracuse, New York), with six of his bills becoming laws.
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Who is online
446 visitors
“She introduced a lot of bills, but she was not successful at having them receive any sort of action in committee or beyond committee, and if they can’t get through committee, they cannot pass the House,”
Pretty much sez it all, eh?
230th out of 240??????
This line by itself shows that she is doing her job.
She's not doing her job very well it appears.
She's too much of a progressive extremist to get any meaningful legislation passed.
Compared to other congressmen, who do not submit any bills, just sitting around collecting their money, she is doing a good job.
FYI, this goes for both sides of the aisle. All they can do is submit bills, it takes the rest of the House/Senate to approve or disprove.
... and yet Trumpists run around tearing their hair out about her running the show and turning America into a future bastion of Venezuelan vacuity.
She has become an annoyance and embarrassment to the Democrat party, a loudmouthed vacuous airhead...
[deleted]
That's all, obviously, the 'conservative' republicans in Congress do, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING other than stir up batshit crazy conspiracy theories (Taylor-Greene gqp member) and still claim it wasn't a fair and valid election of President Biden.
This line alone shows she is ineffective at her job.
Well, there ARE 10 Democrats who were deemed less effective than she is.
Good job?
LMAO!
And how does she compare to the Republicans Texan? You're leaving them out as usual. Why don't you post the actual numbers?
I notice that the seeded article references a "study" but never names or links to that "study". Wouldn't you consider that dishonest journalism? Seems that they don't want anyone to be able to look at their source.
Why don't you seed an article on THAT topic instead of deflecting and derailing THIS article?
Why can't you simply stick to the topic?
I thought the topic was Congressmen doing their jobs. The article provided no numbers and no context. I understand this is normal for many right wing news sights, but it is very dishonest when a journalist does it.
How many bills has AOC put forth?
What is the average number of bill that all Congressmen put forth?
That will give you the necessary information for even a basic determination of how well she is doing her job. This article gives no numbers and no context. It is an uninformed hit piece with no data to back it up.
Your mistake then.
Look it up.
I provided some links if you care to actually look at post #1.3.8.
Introducing bills may be some sort of accomplishment to you, but I would consider getting bills passed more of an effective gauge of her effectiveness.
Attacking the source is childish and laziness.
Pointing out how lazy the author was, is not attacking the site. Or do you feel that journalist do not need to have any facts in their articles?
Ozz - read the thread - numbers were included - context was given and obviously your questions were answered.
How many bills has she put forth - 21
Average bills PER congressperson - 18.9
You now have more information than you can handle from the Jerusalem Post - a non-righty/lefty source.
You should try reading it.
Deflection duly noted, sir!
LOL!
Look, I know it must be hard to be told the truth about the Golden Girl, but facts are facts.
If you have ANY evidence that ANYTHING In the article isn't true, simply present it, otherwise it just looks like whining.
She did know what she was doing and tried to get her rent bill, her water bill, her gas bill, her gym bill, her electric bill her grocery bill, her cable bill, her car payment bill, her gasoline bill, her bar bill and her credit card bill introduced
Interesting - try reading the thread and link(s) and QUIT attacking the author or what country they're from or what color their hair is or whether they wear braces or not.
Stay on topic or stay off the thread.
Only warning.
That would be off topic as the subject is AOC, as you well know.
This is a discussion of a survey. Any legislator mentioned in the source study is on topic.
Exactly. She’s too extreme and had she the inclination to compromise and make deals she could have gotten more bills passed. I believe she’d rather not compromise and simply position herself in a way to drive the rest of her party further left even though little gets done.
Only to get them paid for with OPM, other peoples money.
AOC is in fact the subject of the survey. In my personal opinion, to add other legislators into to group for discussion is simply moving the goalposts away from AOC, therefore it should not be.
If an article cites and is based on a survey, all in the survey is fair play. Rankings aren't done in vacuums.
If you're bitching about her 1st, I'd say she was quite effective.....
Other than getting some temporary negative attention, what has she accomplished?
That negative attention came from the Trump side and apparently the beat goes on.
Oh no - you're gonna go there??
Ain't bitch'n - she's totally ineffective yet so highly praised for her big mouth. She's gotta lot of vision - just not the vision of the Dem party - obviously.
She's perfect 1st......
She's kind of like the simple old Chinese finger puzzles that will keep the right occupied with while the real issues that have been facing the country are tackled.
Of that is how politicians are judged by you, Trump was the most effective and successful politician in history.
Trump was the most effective and successful politician in history
Then what the hell is he doing in Mar-a-Lago?
Complete nonsense.
Playing golf on his personal golf course
Getting shut down as he made it a petrie dish for the CV just like he did the WH.
She cost her district 25,000 jobs averaging $150k a year.
Two problems with that comment, do you have a link to that claim, especially the $150,000 per year claim?
The national average for Amazon employees was $28K in 2018, so $150K x 25,000 even in NYC seems a stretch.
AOC thinks she saved New York State and NYC a minimum of $3Billion in tax abatement to Amazon.
And Amazon still moved 1,500 new jobs to long Island City and is expanding the local tech hub there by leasing
335,000sq ft in more office space and plans to keep hiring.
Greene has sponsored 15 bills. You want to guess how many have passed?
Oh, is the topic other Congresspeople, or is this just yet another attempt to deflect?
Are not other people mentioned in the article? Are not the folks who made the study not mentioned?
Meh!
So because something or someone else is mentioned, you believe that makes them the topic?
Whoo Boy!
I'm just trying to figure out how AOC's 10 passed bills compares to the amount of work accomplished by other representatives.
It makes both the study and everyone involved in it the topic no matter how much you want to practice the right-wingnut version of cancel culture.
deflect, deny, par for the course.
Please provide a list of those ten bills passed into law.
Bills Sponsored by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) | Represent | ProPublica
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez | Congress.gov | Library of Congress
You can mention the folks listed in the article, but don't try the "World view" in your search for answers.
AOC has passed NO bills out of the 21 she's introduced.
Let's compare her numbers:
MISSED VOTES:
COSPONSORED BILLS:
SPONSORED BILLS:
Hmmmm....lots more deflecting, I see.
How does one single thing you posted changes her ratings?
How does one thing you posted equates to her getting a bill actually passed into law?
So, in YOUR mind, providing factual numbers, about AOC's actions in Congress, from YOUR link is deflecting? That would make your post a deflection as well then.
It provided her numbers with context. Her numbers not only show has not being the most ineffective member, but shows that Republican members, on average, are not doing their jobs as well.
Has a bill into law is not something 1 single member can do, it does not show her as failing to do her job. Her job is to vote and submit bills. It is Congress's job to vote and either pass or not pass a bill.
Not submitting any bills, or failing to even show up to vote, show how well members are doing their jobs.
Passing bills is outside their control.
House Democrats have passed nearly 400 bills. Trump and Republicans are ignoring them.
Any blooming idiot elected to Congress can propose legislation. It isn't really such a big deal.
Getting it enacted takes a little more effort and collaboration.
Which the article illustrates is definitely not her strong suit.
I got the number from the article.
Please quote the article then.
And yet so many rarely do. Especially on the Republican side.
It requires a vote, which McConnell generally blocks from any Democratic sponsor.
It shows no such thing. It makes a claim about her performance and provides no facts to support that claim.
But that isn't the topic here.
You should read links more often so you would know how many of her bills ever even make it out of committee. That way you would know that McConnell isn't responsible for her shitty record no matter how hard you spin.
That shows a serious lack of comprehension on your part then.
Denial isn't a good look.
So, you can't answer the question about the 10 bills you claim she got passed??
Quit deflecting.
Ozz - either discuss the topic or find another thread to chase.
We're NOT discussing Republican side. We're NOT discussing McConnell.
has not been an effective politician in the legislature, based on a survey from the nonpartisan Center for Effective Lawmaking.
That is NOT discussing her "performance" - just her effectiveness in Congress - not the same thing.
Nobody asked me that question. I don't give a shit about the answer anyway.
I am on topic, you just don't like my facts.
Your article is claiming that she is doing a bad job because none of her bills have passed into law. I pointed out that any Democratic bill that got to the Senate was blocked by McConnell. ON TOPIC!!!
Your article is claiming that she is doing a bad job because none of her bills have passed into law, I simply pointed out that compared to many many Republican Congressmen, she is doing a better job than they are. AND I provided numbers and facts to show that.
So, unless you are claiming that AOC's job performance is off-topic. You can't call me off-topic.
Please do tell us all which bills she has authored have made it out of committee, passed the House, and went to the Senate.
[Deleted]
[deleted]
Find Legislators – Center for Effective Lawmaking (thelawmakers.org)
Here above is another source, since some here choose to gripe about the source.
AOC passed NOTHING.
AOC and Pelosi rank among least effective Democrats in Congress (msn.com)
She does not pass the bills, she only introduces them.
Ozzie never said that.
It is the only source for the report that the JP seed is based on but fails to give credit to,
Kudos to Fox for listing the source.
It's just like any other poll.
Ripe data for more lies, damnable lies and statistics.
Be nice for you to point out any lies in the article or in my posts.
I mean, if you are going to claim it is lies.
The SEED compares AOC to other Congressmen Tex. The study compares ALL Congressmen. Just stop.
yes, it is mentioned.
yes, already agreed upon.
Sigh.
Sorry, not willing to be a party to your off topic shenanigans.
I really wish people could just grasp the topic.
Be nice for a change!
Not ONE of my comments has been removed for being off topic NOR have I been admonished for trying to interject irrelevant 'conversations'.
Try harder, you may manage it eventually.
To those worthy, always.
And if you read more carefully, you will find I made no claims about any of your posts being deleted or you being admonished.
None of which really have to do with your misunderstanding of the topic.
This notion that because something is mentioned in an article means it is on topic is ridiculous anyways, that is NOT how "topics" are determined by most people.
Because they want to compare her as a member of the majority party with minority party members who have virtually no chance to get anything psssed.
Yet you continue to insist that my comments are off topic.
AGAIN, since none of my comments have been removed as off topic, it's pretty fucking clear that I DO understand the topic.
This notion that your unfounded opinion that my comments are off topic is ridiculous since it's irrelevant. YOU are not the author of the seed.
Utter bullshit Xx. GOP Congressmen sponsored 232 bills that passed in the 116th Session of the House, 65 became law. Hell, even YOUR Representative sponsored a bill that passed through the House. Of course, McConnell never brought it to the Senate floor. You must be proud.
Facts do NOT support your ideology Xx.
look, I never claimed to be the author, so WTF are you saying that shit for??????????????????????
I can declare anything I want to be off topic and there simply isn;t one damn thing you can do about it other than argue, cry, whine, complain, or ignore.
I have tried to explain it to you to no avail.
I am sorry you are unable to determine the topic of the article.
Yet you pretend, ad nauseum, that your opinion about what ONLY the author can decide is relevant.
ONLY the author can curb your persistent whining about my comments as off topic. One has to wonder why he continues to let you get away with critiquing his moderation of his seed.
I would have thought that after the first couple of times you whined and the seeder ignored your 'suggestions', you'd have gotten the hint.
That is a startling recognition of ineptitude on your part.
It's unfortunate that the seeder continues to allow you to try to derail his seed with your demands for his intervention on perfectly appropriate comments.
You are completely free to believe whatever it is you seem to believe. Doesn't have anything to do with me.
And whether you are able to recognize the topic is no longer a concern of mine, since it is painfully obvious to me that you don't.
Rinse and repeat...
If it does, what does it say about the 72 GOP Congress critters that are ranked LOWER than AOC?
BTW, that's over a third of the GOP Representatives.
Gee, maybe you should seed an article about THAT topic instead of derailing here.
Gee maybe you should let the seeder decide WTF is relevant and on topic in his seed Tex.
[deleted]
The article cites the source of the study Tex. As someone that likes to garner facts for myself rather through the lens of an author's interpretation, I took the time to look up the source, find the study and get an 'firm understanding' of the study that is the topic of the article.
The data that I shared from the study isn't hype, deflection or cheerleading, it's right there for anyone to read for themselves.
You replied to me, I will reply to you in whatever way I see fit.
DITTO.
Could be because the topic is discussing DEMOCRATS - not GOP.
BTW - 219 is the major holder in the House, and the Repubs have 211 with 6 vacant seats.
Yup - 34% is actually "over a third". Wow.
Dulay - don't know where your math comes from, but if AOC is # 230 OUT OF 240, please explain how 72 folks are lower than she if she is 10 folks from the bottom of the list and if the list is ALL DEMOCRATS??
Math is hard.
Interesting - can't find any links to any study provided by U of VA or Vanderbilt for AOC.
Really would be glad if you actually shared that info with us.
I have, several times, the link is buried in the report
and Hallux has posted it once,
I guess that's why people with a pre-existing opinion about AOC are ignoring the data.
Gee 1st, if there is no study, your entire seed lacks credibility.
Shouldn't YOU be the one supplying a link to the study that your seed hangs it's hat on?
Only for those that are afraid of ALL the data.
Just stop.
Geez o Pete 1st. Your seed is about the 116th Congress.
How the fuck could AOC 230th out of 240 if there were only 219 Democrats 1st?
Sheesh, try to keep up.
Or maybe Tex was right when he said that math is hard...for you...
Don't care.
You cared enough to bother to reply!
LOL!
But...but...but... she's so frightening to Trumphumpers! They jabber in fear and write 10 articles ever time she farts.
I like her as a spokeswoman for Democrats.
Gift that will continue to give to Republicans.
I'm sure it's similar for partisan Democrats to hold Matt Gaetz up as the model of Republican ethics.
Perhaps. But then again, Democrats and liberal progressives do seem to get all worked up over anything a Republican does.
meh.
What republican ethics, or standards, or values, or morals, or empathy, or common decency or . . . . .
Here's an interesting bit of news about AOC:
At least three House Democrats return donations from AOC fearing funds could hurt chances with swing voters: Report (msn.com)
Don't throw any side conversations into this please.
ok
When AOC is compared to Jim Jordan she is certainly much better. Jordan rates 202nd out of 204 Republicans.
Good to know, and would be right on topic if the article was about the ratings of someone other than AOC.
Why the deflection?
Not a deflection at all, just a comparison of incompetent members of congress and Jordan is more incompetent.
Why the deflection by choosing this article over others that had far more in depth reporting?
deleted
Does that make AOC's sterling record better or worse in any way?
Compared to Jordan she is better or it could be said less incompetent.
So it does nothing to bolster her ratings or reputation by citing OTHER members' ratings.
Could be because no other article/thread/seed has been posted - ya think?
So, yeah - deflection.
Didn't see that in my thread/seed. Don't think Jordan is a Freshman either as he was elected in 2007, 17 years ago. Apples and Oranges.
If you would have taken the time to check my link you'd have seen Jordan is ranked as part of the 116th congress the same years as AOC.
So it is Apples to Apples.
Try again.
...uh... try again.
Jordan is a Repub - AOC is a Dem - apples and oranges since only Dems were considered in the study - which, btw, is the topic of the thread.
2007 + 3 + 10 + 1 = 14 - 4 is below the 7 - bad keyboard.
I'm well aware of the parties that each belongs to. Of course, only dems were in the study that was psosted and I supplied another study that showed that within the republican party Jordan had a ranking that was worse than AOC.
I can also supply another study that shows all of the dems and the republicans.
I'm aware that you dislike AOC and that is the purpose of the article. My comments and links simply show that Jordan is less effective than AOC based on the two studies within their party.
It's all based on the CEL report here.
What they choose to highlight and or ignore displays the bias.
Totally effing false.
The report graded all Congressional Reps and Senators of both parties and independents.
One more time
It seems like a bit of an arbitrary assessment. What genuinely makes a member of Congress effective? Surely there is more to it than just writing bills that get passed. I think there are a lot of ways to be effective.
Bills get passed (or not) based on all sorts of factors. Sometimes an idea in a bill ends up in someone else’s bill. There are in-House political reasons why a particular member’s name might appear on a bill instead of someone else.
A lot of bills that do get passed are sort of junk legislation - renaming a post office, for example.
And honestly, I wouldn’t expect someone who has only been in Congress a few years to have done all that much. Meanwhile, there are people who have been in Congress for decades and you can count on one hand the number of bills they have gotten passed.
What AOC has done, without question, is get people talking about things they wouldn’t otherwise talk about. Sometimes that means we’re laughing at absurd, child-like ideas, but every now and then something else might slip in there that is worth considering.
As an example, Scalise and Cheney both have lower ratings than AOC but both are in leadership and obviously effective in ways other than legislative.
And neither of them are DEMOCRATS - that, I think, is the issue based on the story.
So, you admit it is a hit piece, thanks.
The fucking seed cites the study 1st. The study INCLUDES and RATES both Democrats AND Republicans within their caucuses AND give each a OVERALL effectivity rating.
Is your 'story' bias in that it reports ONLY on AOC and ignores the ineffective Republicans? Why yes, YES it is.
You can't open a can of worms and pick only the worms YOU want to talk about. That's NOT how this shit works.
[Deleted]
A; where is the link to the data source?
B; very disappointed in the JP's editing, there are not 2040 Democrats in Congress.
C; who is included in the 230? There are 219 in the House ( 5 vacancies ) and 48 in the Senate. That's poor math by any measure.
Kind of kills the credibility of the "non partisan" hit piece.
What is funny is I never hear about the woman except from right wing hit pieces that just seem to have a hard on for her.
kudos for FOX news to pick up the story and run with it, after all AOC is their favorite Democrat, lol.
How ever the Fox link is also only a breakdown of the top 10 to 15 D's & R's by various standards.
For the actual cores for the 116th Congress, you have to dig into the CEL website.
Here are the bottom 41 legislators. (There were a lot of ties in the R's list.)
In fact, using AOC's score of .209 places her ahead of 9 Dem's (including Nancy Pelosi) and
higher than 72 Republicans including Jordan, Gaetz, Brooks, Nunes, Womack, Scalise, and liz Cheney.
Apples to Apples.
SP - talking 'bout FRESHMAN - not folks who are starting to wither on the vine for being there too long.
Compared with others in her circle of Congressional allies, collectively known as the “Squad,” was deemed less effective than Ilhan Omar, who sponsored 33 bills, and Rashida Tlaib, who had some of her bills advance to committee, with one becoming a law. Tlaib was ranked No. 92 among the 240 lawmakers.
Apples to oranges - still.
It's a nonsense comparison since it ignores 86 other freshman House Reps and 9 "freshman" Senators.
It's a thinly veiled hit piece on a legislator not considered to be a friend of Israel
because she openly condoned cutting aid to Israel,
opposed annexing the West Bank
and is critical of any occupation
and the blockade of Gaza.
When Fox pushes the story in a much fairer light,
you have to agree this is just a cheap shot, hit piece, regardless of the JP's reputation.
So WHY are you comparing AOC to ALL of the Democrats and not just the Freshman 1st?
Oh and BTFW, your seed doesn't say anything about freshman lawmakers.
That's strike 2.
Can you explain why you have such a huge issue with comparing AOC's efficacy to ALL Congressmen? Does AOC being more effective than over a third of GOP Congressman burst your bubble?
AOC was ranked No. 230 out of 240 Congressional Democrats
Don't see 2040 in any paragraph other than the comment sentence.
You're gonna take issue with that?????
Sure, it's sloppy editing by someone at JP,
is it not?
Can you imagine turning in a report to your CO or XO with that kind of
"in your face" error?
I find this seed rather silly.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is an advocate. She is a national leader for the young people of her political party and her ideology, she is not a nuts and bolts bureaucratic politician.
She is a national political figure of immense importance. How many congresspeople can say that ?
Of course you do. What else is new?
So Democrats want to be represented by advocates, not someone who can do something?
She is a polarizing political figure. Even her own party is divided on her and her tactics.
Ditto for Louie Gohmert and Devin Nunes, so what?
Many do. She has won her district quite easily.
So is Bernie Sanders. Ocasio- Cortez wants to make life better for working class and poor Americans. It is a very noble cause.
Perhaps one of the fine folks here who want to talk about everything EXCEPT AOC should open an article about all the other things they want to yak about.
A glass of water with a "D" behind it can win that district.
"Noble causes" are all well and good, but without accomplishments, a cause is not enough to effect real change.
Not polarizing to me and since I rarely watch Fox cable, never see her on the news, just here.
AOC is ranked 453 out of 535
and is in some mighty fine company ( Jordan, Cheney, Nunes & Pelosi )
That suggests that there are other criteria to being successful in Congress
than how many bills one can author.
Yes, the articles talks about success other than authoring bills.
16,000 in her district - shouldn't be hard to win them over.
I agree with you on that and obviously there are other requirements - but, MSM doesn't look for good on anyone it seems.
I would never consider the Jerusalem Post to be MSM,
IMHO
16,000 WHAT 1st? The population of NY's 14th district is 696,664.
??????????????????
LOL!
See how far some have to go for their hit pieces?
Hey Razing .. long time no see ... hope you and the family are well : )
Is fear the correct term when speaking of Ocasio-Cortez? I applaud her for stepping outside of the digital platform and taking real world action .. yet said action is unnerving in respect to aspects of her Green New Deal proposal, her support of socialism, as well as [seemingly] anti-Israel sentiments ... do I fear her if I do not agree with her?
hence the only reason for the tone of the Jerusalem Post and lack of the link to the report on ALL
members of the 116th Congress
I did not check the source of the seed .. I stand by my opinion that she seems to have anti-Israel sentiments
Meh ... last time I talked to you you seemed to harbor anti-49 + territories sentiments.
I talked to you a couple few hours ago .. I was anti Montana buying Canadian lumber!
Go back to sleep.. : )
Stop sawing my log. ; - )
Well I am sure the Israeli's consider her a foe, due to her vocal stand on occupation, Gaza, the West bank
and desire to curb financial and military aide to Israel.
Quite speculative .. but nonetheless most likely accurate that Israel does not like her mouth - this article is simply being mean to her ... there was a time when wars were fought to obtain land - there are a catch 22 or 2 involved here. Above my pay grade .. however, my understanding is remove Hamas from the 'power' equation and things could be different ...?
Haha .. is that a metaphoric log?
Now it's metaphonic ...
Thread @1.4 locked for slapfighting. Continue in a respectful manner, please.
Thread is closed - getting way to personal with some animosity.
Sorry 'bout that.
Just that thread 1st?