Image 01 Image 03

2020 Census May Give NY Democrats Ammo to Eliminate Ocasio-Cortez’s District

2020 Census May Give NY Democrats Ammo to Eliminate Ocasio-Cortez’s District

“New York Dems are reportedly eyeing Ocasio-Cortez’s Bronx district for elimination because she’s been out of sync with state-level Democrats who control the process”

Republicans have been looking for a way to beat Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez at the ballot box next fall, but they might not have to do anything. AOC’s own party may solve the problem.

Democrats in New York State are looking into redrawing the congressional districts, and AOC’s might be on the chopping block.

Frank Luntz brought attention to this story over the weekend on Twitter:

From the story at The City:

AOC Makes a Bronx Census Push Amid Fears of Lost House Seats

For Ocasio-Cortez, a full Census count is more than a matter of making sure her district gets all the funds and services it’s due. In a sense, her own political fortunes could hang in the balance.

A review by THE CITY, building on data and analysis by The Texas Tribune, suggests Ocasio-Cortez’ district could be particularly vulnerable to undercount because a little over a quarter of those living there are non-citizens.

That’s a higher percentage than any other congressional district in the state.

A Census undercount in Ocasio-Cortez’ district and elsewhere in the state could lead to the elimination of congressional districts — potentially setting off politically charged redistricting battles.

New York already is on track to lose up to two congressional seats during reapportionment due to population decline and slower rate of growth, according to a December report by Election Data Services.

How funny will it be if Ocasio-Cortez loses her soapbox at the hands of her colleagues?

Emily Zanotti of the Daily Wire has more:

New York Dems Are Redrawing Congressional Districts And It Could Put Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Out Of A Job

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) may have anticipated a long and prosperous career in Congress, but if the Democrats in New York’s state legislature have their way, the freshman Member may be out of a job as soon as 2022.

According to pollster Frank Luntz, New York is likely to lose a seat in Congress after the 2020 census and Democrats in the state legislature will have to redraw the state’s Congressional districts as a result. Although there are plenty of places to cut, New York Dems are reportedly eyeing Ocasio-Cortez’s Bronx district for elimination because she’s been out of sync with state-level Democrats who control the process…

The Intercept pointed out back in February, when rumors began to surface that Ocasio-Cortez could be out of a job as soon as the 10-member districts commission met after the 2020 census, that Ocasio-Cortez isn’t a typical politician and she doesn’t play well with her own state party, which ultimately controls which member of the New York delegation to Congress won’t be returning to work.

There are some humorous replies to Luntz’s tweet:

None of this should matter to AOC. After all, the world is going to end in like twelve years anyway.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


The Central Committee couldn’t tolerate a Trotskyite.

I wonder if the New York committee has had discussions with their counterparts in Michigan and Minnesota……..

Is there really ANY hope left for America, if there can’t be found a candidate to beat this commie critter?

    GWB in reply to xsnake. | January 2, 2020 at 4:52 pm

    Part of me wonders if the action isn’t also partly to prevent the Republican contender who rose up from taking back the district for the Rs. She was looking like a very populist R mostly-conservative winner.

      notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to GWB. | January 2, 2020 at 7:52 pm


      Milhouse in reply to GWB. | January 2, 2020 at 9:40 pm

      What do you mean “take back”? The seat has never been Republican, and there is no way any Republican could ever win it, no matter what. Even if David Duke somehow won the D primary, the Ds would run an independent against him, and the R candidate would come in third.

ugottabekiddinme | January 2, 2020 at 5:16 pm

Well, she’ll land on her feet — probably a YUGE book deal, to be followed by becoming a contributor or regular on CNN, MSNBC, or The View.

“Ocasio-Cortez’s Bronx district for elimination”

And that purpose is to erase her from Congress? Uh, maybe. Maybe not. Lil Miss Ocasio-Cortez has quite the name recognition and fetish following for her communist dictates she desires to impose upon the nation. Lil Miss occasional cortex can simply pull a Hillary and parachute into a new district (while somehow meeting those pesky resident requirements), and set up shop there.

The big bucks roll in; the nasty ads go up; the fraudulent absentees get counted over and over – then, presto bingo, Bob’s yer uncle – and AOC is still hating Jews and turning screws from the floor against Pelosi.

OleDirtyBarrister | January 2, 2020 at 6:02 pm

If they eliminate her district and knock her out of Congress, Donkeymouth could still make a fortune.

She could move to Florida like all the other yankees and make a ton of cash as a stripper down around Boca or Miami.

Or get a job she is more qualified for, like working in a brothel in Nevada.

Or move to Vegas and do stripping during convention season and turning tricks on the side for high rollers, which is kinda like being a Socialist Dem in Congress.

    OleDirtyBarrister in reply to OleDirtyBarrister. | January 2, 2020 at 6:06 pm

    Alternately, she could become a real, heavy duty whore in D.C. and work in lobbying. Just look at how much money Fusion GPS made on the Steele Dossier.

    The one thing that is continually overlooked in the whole Trump campaign spying scandal is just how much money the entities and parties involved were making off of opposition research and report generating.

    Seeing how much they got paid for their works of fiction makes me feel underpaid for deep research and writing serious documents like petitions for cert., motions, briefs, advisory memos for clients, white papers, etc.

Our esteemed governor, AG, two senators, and 27 congresscritters ought be demanding congress increase it’s numbers.

Amendment 14: 2: Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. No state should be losing representatives. It’s impossible for representatives to be apportioned to the states according to their population when Congress is limited to 435 members. (NY population 2010 census)/(WY population 2010 census)=34. NY has 27 congresscritters. 29 of the 50 states would see an increase in numbers of congresscritters if congresscritters were actually apportioned according to the states according to their respective numbers.

    GWB in reply to gospace. | January 2, 2020 at 8:05 pm

    No state should be losing representatives.
    HUH?!? The House is limited to 435 members by legislation enacted under the Constitution. So, when one state loses population to another state, someone will eventually lose one of their seats to another state*. It’s why we have a census.

    (* Though, a state at the minimum representation wouldn’t go below one. They wrote that one down in the Constitution.)

      gospace in reply to GWB. | January 2, 2020 at 8:46 pm

      Read the word of the 14th amendment. Then explain how representatives are apportioned among the states according to the population when the house is UNCONSTITUTIONALLY limited to 435 members. When (NY’s 2010 census population)/(WY’s 2010 census population)=34 and NY has only 27 representatives. NY is not represented in the house according to it’s respective population. 39 of the 50 states right now ought be raising hate and discontent about that.

      Delaware and Montana by the 2010 census would double their representation, going from 1 to 2 congresscritters. Texas would add 15.

      The plain English meaning of the words of the 14th Amendment (virtually identical to the unamended constitution regarding numbers), or the words of the Constitution really have no meaning at all, which at times it seems the Supreme Court insists on trying to prove.

        Milhouse in reply to gospace. | January 2, 2020 at 10:27 pm

        Your theory is nonsense. There is nothing in the constitution that requires the house to keep growing with the population. The 14th amendment simply repeats the language of the original constitution, without the 3/5 clause. And the original constitution, with the same language, goes on to say that no state can have less than one representative. Nobody then supposed this to mean that the house had to be big enough to compensate for this.

          Dusty Pitts in reply to Milhouse. | January 2, 2020 at 11:33 pm

          Correct. Congress can amend the perfectly constitutional law that set the House at 435 seats, doubling, tripling, or halving the total. They could move the decimal point one or even two digits to the right, if they chose.

          But the 435-seat mark is neither unconstitutional nor set in stone.

        I think an admonition from you about “the clear meaning” of a text is not terribly weighty. Oy.

      gospace in reply to GWB. | January 3, 2020 at 1:29 am

      Amendment 14: 2: Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.

      Exact wording of the 14th amendment.

      NY/WY=34. NY has 27 representatives. Explain, using MATH, how 27=34. Or else explain, using math, how when NY/WY=34 how 27 is apportioned according to their respective numbers.

      The writers knew the population would grow- which is why there is no upper limit in the Constitution on house member numbers. They also put in a requirement that representatives be apportioned to the states according to their numbers.

      Math doesn’t lie. 435 members cannot mathematically be apportioned among 50 states according to their numbers with the current population. Explain how, using MATH, how 435 can be fairly apportioned.

      Or else explain why limiting the numbers and allowing 39 or the 50 states to have fewer representatives than MATH calls for is Constitutional. I’m going with the actual real live words in the 14th amendment. What are you going by if you’re criticizing that? Your feelz? Because no underrepresented state has challenged it? I’ve explained my reasoning- MATH. Simple f—–g MATH, that any 8th grader should be able to use. Now explain your position using logic. And the WORDS of the actual Constitution, not the law passed by Congress limiting the number to 435. Should be simple for the TWO IDIOTS who downvoted it to explain.

        gospace in reply to gospace. | January 3, 2020 at 2:55 am

        And while I’m thinking about it, some of you (Milhouse) have defended the SC decision that made state upper houses nothing more than mirrors of the lower houses because of the non-existent “One man one vote” provision hidden between the lines in invisible ink and in the penumbras and emanations coming from the Constitution. Explain, in simple words, how limiting the numbers in Congress to 435 does not violate the “one man one vote” Constitutional decision, especially when combined with the actual words of the 14th “Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed”.

        Milhouse in reply to gospace. | January 3, 2020 at 10:36 am

        I’ve already explained it, but I’ll do it again.

        Forget Amendment 14.2. The language you cite from it is exactly the same as in the original constitution; the entire purpose of A14.2 is to add the provision that comes after that, penalizing states that don’t allow black people to vote, and that never came into effect because it was completely overridden by A15, which simply prohibits states from doing that. Therefore no penalty.

        So we go back to the original constitution, which has the same language you quote. (the 3/5 clause is moot because there are no longer any “other persons”, just as there are no longer any “Indians not taxed”.) It says states should get representatives according to their numbers, and that the average district can’t be smaller than 30,000, and then adds an exception, that no state can drop below 1. This is an explicit exception to the previous rule, and does not affect it.

        By the way, even without that provision the apportionment would never be exactly proportional, because a state’s representation must be an integer. Every state’s representation must be rounded and therefore they will never be in exact proportion.

        cuthroattrout77 in reply to gospace. | January 3, 2020 at 4:52 pm

        Your math is correct. Your original premise that each and every state be apportioned according to their respective numbers is also correct with one exception. No state shall have less than 1 representative. In this case, you have chosen the least populous state in the nation to make your argument. The very exception that allows all states to have a minimum of 1 representative is the reason the math does not work out in this case.

          The least populous state is chosen as it’s necessary for the calculations.

          MT currently has one congresscritter. Representing a single district 1.75 times as large as WY. The supreme court hasn’t ruled how far off a state legislative district can have and still be legal, since it is impossible as Milhouse put it, to be completely equal, but 1.75 would under their rulings be clearly illegal By going from one to two, using simple math and rounding up or down to the closest integer, we get WY single district being 1.13 larger than MT, a lot closer. Doubling DE changes district difference from 1.6 larger DE district to 1.25 larger WY district, again a lot closer.

          Works even better with larger states. CA currently 1.24 larger districts based on 2010 figures. Going from 53 to 66 would make CA districts 1.001 larger than WY. TX going from 36-45 would change district disparity from 1.24 to 1.01.

          Taking the 2 in the middle KY from 6 to 8, 1.28 KY larger to 1.04 WY larger. OR 1.36 larger to 1.03 WY larger.

          435 cannot be shared among 50 states with a much larger population than when that number was fixed to properly represent the PEOPLE in the PEOPLE’S house, which is what the House of Representatives is.

          Nothing any or you have said defends having the House limited to 435 members when increasing it using the simple formula (State population)/(smallest state population) vastly reduces district size disparity. Your argument boils down to “Well, that’s the way it is- deal with it, stupid!” The smallest state is guaranteed one. The larger states are supposed to be represented according to respective numbers. That’s what the actual words are- according to respective numbers. Doesn’t say “divided up amongst an artificial limit of 435”. Those words aren’t in there.

          Defend 435. Go ahead Why is it fair? How is it Constitutional?

          The_Mew_Cat in reply to cuthroattrout77. | January 3, 2020 at 10:00 pm

          A very simple defense of 435 – the House chambers in the Capitol can’t hold any more. If they want to increase the size of the House, they need a bigger building.

          Gospace, your claim that just because it can be done therefore it must be done is invalid. There is nothing in the constitution that requires it. The one-seat-per-state minimum is an exception to the rule requiring rough proportionality; therefore although Congress can make that exception not matter, it’s under no obligation to do so.

          A very simple defense of 435 – the House chambers in the Capitol can’t hold any more. If they want to increase the size of the House, they need a bigger building.

          It’s not actually necessary for each member to have their own assigned seat and desk. The UK House of Commons has no assigned seating, and does not have enough seating for all of its members to sit at once. On the rare occasions when there’s a full house the excess members can be seen sitting on the floor. So increasing the US house without expanding the chamber is possible. I just can’t see them doing it, and there’s nothing in the constitution to require them to.

So, she worked at a bar, which has now gone out of business.

Then she got elected to represent a congressional district, which is about to disappear.

Next, can we get her a gig on CNN? Please?

I heard aoc has dirt on hildabeast…

Finally, after many requests, Mini AOC t-shirts & mugs!! Click on the link to give the gift of mini AOC. High-quality & guaranteed to last the last 12 years.

The whole premise of this story is nonsense. If the 14th is eliminated she’ll just contest whichever seat she ends up in, and win it. Remember she ousted the chair of the D caucus; she could certainly beat any of her neighboring D congressmen. Or she might decide to go for Chuck Schumer’s senate seat instead.

    The key is her seat won’t end up in another district.
    And the current occupant of the seat wherever her residence ends up will put up a much better fight than the last guy. Basically they threw a primary and nobody came, last time. She was the only one that did any work and it paid off. The party, though, was already talking about primarying her. I don’t think she’ll find it so easy to win next time around, no matter what district she’s in.

    (Yes, she could decide to go for Schumer’s seat. But there’s way too much backroom strength there for her to succeed this time. IMHO.)

    cuthroattrout77 in reply to Milhouse. | January 3, 2020 at 5:10 pm

    I agree that she will just run for the seat in whichever district she ends up in. Don’t underestimate the power of the uber exuburant progressives (she is a rising star among them) to raise money to push her over the top, despite what local powers in Albany may or may not want……I did like the comment about not looking for work with Amazon, made me laugh…

She can always work for iran.

She can always challenge Chucky Schumer for the Senate nomination in 2022 if her district is eliminated.