AOC's Debut Twitch Stream Is One of the Biggest Ever (theverge.com) 120
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) made her Twitch debut last night to play Among Us and quickly became one of the platform's biggest broadcasters. According to Twitch, her stream peaked at 435,000 viewers around the time of her first match. The Verge reports: That peak viewership puts her broadcast among the 20 biggest streams ever, according to the third-party metrics site TwitchTracker, and much higher if you're only looking at broadcasts from individual streamers. Ninja holds the record for an individual streamer, with more than 600,000 viewers during a Fortnite match with Drake in 2018. TwitchTracker's metrics suggest that AOC's stream could in the top 10 for an individual in terms of peak viewers.
Ocasio-Cortez's stream came together quickly. She tweeted Monday asking, "Anyone want to play Among Us with me on Twitch to get out the vote?" Major streamers quickly signed up -- she ended up being joined by Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN), Pokimane, HasanAbi, Disguised Toast, DrLupo, and more. Her stream even had graphics prepared, which Ocasio-Cortez said came from supporters who started making art after she tweeted. Despite only having minimal Among Us experience -- Ocasio-Cortez said Monday that she'd never played before, but seemed to have brushed up before the stream -- she did well in her first broadcast. She was chosen as an impostor in the first round and, with a partner, knocked out about half the field before getting caught. Omar later made it to the final three as an impostor before getting voted out by Ocasio-Cortez and Hasan.
Ocasio-Cortez's stream came together quickly. She tweeted Monday asking, "Anyone want to play Among Us with me on Twitch to get out the vote?" Major streamers quickly signed up -- she ended up being joined by Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN), Pokimane, HasanAbi, Disguised Toast, DrLupo, and more. Her stream even had graphics prepared, which Ocasio-Cortez said came from supporters who started making art after she tweeted. Despite only having minimal Among Us experience -- Ocasio-Cortez said Monday that she'd never played before, but seemed to have brushed up before the stream -- she did well in her first broadcast. She was chosen as an impostor in the first round and, with a partner, knocked out about half the field before getting caught. Omar later made it to the final three as an impostor before getting voted out by Ocasio-Cortez and Hasan.
Orange is Sus (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
How very citrophobic of you.
Re:Orange is Sus (Score:4, Funny)
Re: Orange is Sus (Score:2)
No more Charlie Brown Halloween for anyone unless they subscribe to the one streaming service that has it. No more on TV. Same with Charlie Brown Christmas. ./sad
Re: (Score:1)
You misspelled 'steaming.'
Re: (Score:2)
It's okay. Disney+'s colour scheme is blue and therefore democrat approved.
Twitch Stream (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Best use of her time. (Score:5, Funny)
Exactly, she should've restricted herself to only travelling to play golf almost every single weekend of her entire political career like a responsible politician.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
No, he's playing golf.
Re: Best use of her time. (Score:3)
He definitely needs it, he's obese. AOC, on the other hand, appears to have a healthy body mass index. Anyway, riding in a golf cart doesn't count as exercise.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Best use of her time. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
https://www.foxnews.com/politi... [foxnews.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You just linked to a place that successfully won the right in court to lie to it's audience and they use that right to the fullest extent.
So why would I read anything from the company that takes pride in lying to it's audience?
Why do you visit the site that is a continuous place of fiction and opinion passed off as fact and news?
Why bother linking a site that can't be trusted what-so-ever? that means by extension that I can't trust you.
Re: Best use of her time. (Score:1)
Re: Best use of her time. (Score:2)
Re: Best use of her time. (Score:1, Troll)
AOC is more than just a first termer, she's the new face of the democratic party, in all of her teenie-bopper glory. She'll be there for a long time. This is just the next phase of the democratic party's long slide into being the party of soviet style socialism.
Re: (Score:2)
party of soviet style socialism.
You can't be taken seriously when you say shit that stupid, man.
Seriously, did your daddy use you as a football when you were a newborn?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, why not?
Re: (Score:2)
Trying to compare the Democratic Party with a Leninist/Stalinist vanguard party? That's just fucking <wish_i_had_more_emphasis_tags>stupid<wish_i_had_more_emphasis_tags>
Now I'll give you they wa
Re: (Score:1)
This is just the next phase of the democratic party's long slide into being the party of soviet style socialism.
Yeah, I used to spend hours watching Stalin's twitch stream back in the day. AOC brings back such memories.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I'm sure every politician involved in that mess is devoting 115% of their time to getting that shit passed.
Re:Best use of her time. (Score:5, Insightful)
It could be worse. She could be spending hours each day watching tv and posting rambling, nonsensical comments on Twitter or spending every weekend golfing on the taxpayer dime.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you real? Do you believe the shit you type, or are you in Kiev?
Criticizing a young firebrand Congressperson for wanting to get the country focused on the issue of climate change... is bad? Playing a game publicly once is somehow unethical or immoral? You're really going to make fun of her for playing "best liar wins" while the sitting president RUNS CASINOS?
Just shut the fuck up.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you real? Do you believe the shit you type, or are you in Kiev?
Criticizing a young firebrand Congressperson for wanting to get the country focused on the issue of climate change... is bad? Playing a game publicly once is somehow unethical or immoral? You're really going to make fun of her for playing "best liar wins" while the sitting president RUNS CASINOS?
Just shut the fuck up.
Well, thank you for assuming. I was referring to an ignorant former bartender attacking the Director of ICE for upholding the very laws her organization created, since she's had a hard-on for attacking the shit out of those who dare uphold immigration laws. Perhaps if she doesn't like it that badly, she should remember her fucking role as a lawmaker instead of attacking those upholding the law. She's the kind who would drag wounded Veterans out on the carpet just to chastise them about why we went to war
Re: (Score:1)
LOL Yea, beer bottle opener. That's what you meant. LOL.
Re: Best use of her time. (Score:3, Insightful)
The way her political career been going it won't be long before she'll be running for president.
Re: (Score:3)
The way her political career been going it won't be long before she'll be running for president.
When Free citizens living in a Democracy mock such things with a scary level of accuracy, it says far more about those who hold the power to Vote, than it does the Idiot Messiah who got their name on the ballot by way of Corruption or Stupidity.
Re: (Score:3)
I agree, it says a lot about our voting citizens that something like Trump got its name on the ballot, and then "won".
Re: (Score:2)
I agree, it says a lot about our voting citizens that something like Trump got its name on the ballot, and then "won".
Drain the Swamp was as valid a statement four years ago as it is today no matter who is in office. If you're still denying that fact because of your blinding political bias, then you might as well stop reading now, and go back to cheerleading for your political gang. Don't worry, I'm sure continuing to ramp up the shit-slinging to feed the Great Divide will work itself out. I mean we did it before, from about 1861 to 1865.
Trump was the End Result of decades of corruption, and many citizens were desperat
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. Corruption is a problem, because of money. It's impossible to have our level; of wealth inequality without massive corruption. What's your plan? More capitalism?
And whatever Trump said about corruption, how can any informed voter look at his terrible record as a con artist and see any hope for change? That's what I do not get. Why Trump? He's not even a good con artist.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. Corruption is a problem, because of money. It's impossible to have our level; of wealth inequality without massive corruption. What's your plan? More capitalism?
And whatever Trump said about corruption, how can any informed voter look at his terrible record as a con artist and see any hope for change? That's what I do not get. Why Trump? He's not even a good con artist.
There is no plan, because neither you or I are In Control. And when you're In Control, you don't even have to be a con artist, much less a bad one.
We're seeing this a lot with what I call Corporate Arrogance. Today mega-corps build products with features no one asked for, and then charge obscene prices for shit people don't want or need, all while manufacturing the most disposable shit products ever. Arrogance in politics is the same as arrogance in Capitalism, and always ends with the same question when
Re: (Score:2)
We've had non violent political revolutions here in the US before now. Six times, by some counts. Six total realignments of power, without violence. We can do it again.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Of course, that's not to say I'm against eating the rich. Well, they may be a bit tough and stringy. Perhaps just a good old fashioned guillotine party. Remind the soi dissant elites that back in the good old days, we'd just beat them to death in front of their family if they went too far.
Re: Best use of her time. (Score:4, Insightful)
It is time America gets representatives who at least have the remaining brain capacity to educate themselves about technology related issues.
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
Yes, she successfully prevented a large corporation from bringing lots of jobs and millions of tax dollars to her district. I'm sure the public must be overjoyed.
Re: Best use of her time. (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, she successfully prevented a large corporation from bringing lots of jobs and millions of tax dollars to her district. I'm sure the public must be overjoyed.
I wonder how many months from now will you be able to tour your local Amazon "job generator" (a.k.a. a warehouse), and see just how many human workers are in that building.
Lots of jobs my ass. Amazons answer to all the bad press associated with horrific working conditions, is not to create better working conditions. Their ultimate answer is to get rid of the annoying human workers.
Once we stop assuming Greed will act good this time, maybe then we can get better at predicting and controlling it, because corruption sure as hell isn't making the world better.
And no, this has fuck all to do with AOC or politics.
Re: Best use of her time. (Score:5, Informative)
She thought it was a bluff, but it wasn't. Amazon were happy to go elsewhere.
There is literally no way to spin that as a win for AOC. All she did in that situation was demonstrate her incompetence and lose billions for her district.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep it would be far better to a deal like with Foxconn, so that way her district not only gets bent over with the bill but also gets to watch the company take the money and vanish, that's what a great dealmaker does.
It's not a Whataboutism (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Except that we know the same thing absolutely would not have happened with Amazon. They needed the facility, they built it elsewhere, and they have a business model that actually does better in a pandemic.
Do their workers do better in a pandemic?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That was not the question. The customers get their goods regardless if the warehouse is in their state or another.
You claimed:
I don't see how Amazon would create "pandemic-proof" jobs, please elaborate.
Perhaps if you close your eyes and only try to "see" it from their customers view, the same customers that would have gotten the same service from any warehouse, you might have a point. But I asked you about the the workers view. Which you ni
They didn't want Amazon in their district (Score:5, Insightful)
It was absolutely a win. We don't need jobs that cost more than they pay. Those aren't jobs, they're a scam. And she chased away a scam. Seems like a win to me.
Re: (Score:1)
If I spend $200,000 to get a $100,000 job I'm an idiot.
If you spend $200,000 per year to get a $100,000 per year job you're an idiot.
But if you spend $200,000 once to get a $100,000 per year job for the next 20 years, then it's not a scam, it's a good investment. You'd be a fool not to.
Anyone with grade school maths should understand that. AOC with her economics degree absolutely should understand that, but as it turns out, she is such a fool.
Re:They didn't want Amazon in their district (Score:5, Interesting)
If I spend $200,000 to get a $100,000 job I'm an idiot.
If you spend $200,000 per year to get a $100,000 per year job you're an idiot. But if you spend $200,000 once to get a $100,000 per year job for the next 20 years, then it's not a scam, it's a good investment. You'd be a fool not to. Anyone with grade school maths should understand that. AOC with her economics degree absolutely should understand that, but as it turns out, she is such a fool.
I'm glad you're considering the long game here, but when it comes to human investments into Amazon, you should really know better.
Between warehouse automation and Bezos planning his next Star Wars sequel (Attack of the Drones), you're going to be hard-pressed to convince me the investment or that jobs sales pitch, is truly worth it in the end for human workers.
And if we thought the financial nuke of the Olympics was bad on a city, let's see what happens when Amazon pulls out of an area. You really think we're going to successfully go all anti-monopoly on Amazon when they wield that kind of power? Watch and see how Amazon will use their position as a "medical provider" delivering medicine via drone, and abuse that as a reason to never leave an area, and never be shut down. Wait until they build that kind of leverage and dependency and see how many $100K jobs they're offering.
Just because Amazon is doing well financially right now doesn't mean they still cannot cause more harm than good.
Re: (Score:3)
And in fact it was a worse deal than just giving Amazon free money. They would have gentrified the area and forced the people who were supposed to benefit out.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't that what college is?
Re: (Score:2)
and lose billions for her district.
Are those billions she lost "for her district" the same as the "jobs" lost which are overinflated construction figures and never amount to more than a handful of actual jobs at the end?
Sorry kiddo, but the world does not work like that, despite what Amazon, Foxconn, etc and anyone else who thinks that this value will trickle "into the district" rather than into the corporate pockets will have you think.
Re: (Score:2)
Depends what kind of policy you want to make.
Who want to bend over for a giant to give him a deal that is immorally, just because it is a billion of investment, but that giant tries to never pay taxes, or if he does, then to the state and not the district?
Re: Best use of her time. (Score:3, Informative)
There's no reason why those schools can't still (Score:5, Informative)
And jobs isn't an issue. That's why nobody cared that Amazon left. Plenty of companies are lined up to come to NY because plenty of high skill employees are, and in this case the companies have to follow the employees.
I said this elsewhere but the whole thing was a scam. NY was spending $200,000 to land a $100,000 job. They rightfully told Amazon to piss off. It was a win for everybody but Amazon and a few politicians lining their pockets with bribes from Jeff Bezos.
Re: (Score:2)
And so your answer, is for Amazon to literally finance and run the public education system?
Go talk to an Amazon warehouse worker or seventy. Let me know how they're being treated, and then come talk to me about how you wish a country's future to be ran.
As much as we don't want to admit the Donor Class is already funding this country, I sure as fuck don't want to continue to hand over the rest of it to the Walmarts, Amazons, and Googles of the world.
Oh, and speaking of Federal taxes, let me know why the fuc
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, and speaking of Federal taxes, let me know why the fuck you're paying them.
Because of:
a) law
b) navy
c) army
d) air force
e) all the completely unemployable morons produced by a non existing education system that have only a chance to get a job as grunts in b), c) and d)
Re:Best use of her time. (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's the dirty little not-so-secret: no representative can spend a majority of his or her time at legislative business. They spend most of their time raising money. If this counts against her fundraising time obligation, it probably won't affect her legislative work, most of which is generally done by aids anyhow.
Re: (Score:1)
You dumb ass, that is only true for personally unpopular people that cling to power anyways.
Nobody in Congress who gets talked about on the news has to spend a lot of time fundraising. That's a fucking stupid idea. The people actually getting shit done don't spend much time fundraising, and the popular people who don't get much done also don't spend much time fundraising. A few old raisins do, but no, not whichever name you want drop and say "hurr,durr" next to.
Did you know fundraising is necessarily mostly
Re:Best use of her time. (Score:5, Informative)
Both the Democratic and Republican parties maintain Congressional "call centers" off federal properly (because of the Hatch act), and congressmen are expected to spend up to 30 hours per week in the call centers as the election nears (source [cbsnews.com]). That's because the 435 representatives have to collectively raise a total of around a billion dollars every two years. Earlier in the term the norm is at least four hours per day are spent at fundraising calls (source [npr.org]). This is true for both the Democratic and Republican parties -- members of both parties spend more time fundraising than in constituent services (source [politico.com]).
Contributors are limited to donating $2,800 per candidate and $35,000 to the party committee (source [fec.gov], that's means you have to court a lot of people to make the tally; literally tens of thousands of big time donors have to be secured. You are expected to raise money for the party committee, and your success at fundraising for the party largely determines the path of your career, including committee assignments (source [minnpost.com]). This is sometimes referred to as "dues".
Given the immense amount of money the party committees need to raise, they can't afford to let their heavy hitters slack off. AOC's rock star status means she can probably pull in as much dough in half an hour as an unknown freshman could in a full day of calling, but the object of this game is to bury the other side. You don't stop milking the cow sooner because the cow delivers faster; you milk every cow until the cow can't stand it any more. What's at stake is enormous: the ability to define the laws of the United States and direct the almost 5 trillion dollars the government spends every year.
On the Senate side, the situation is as bad or perhaps worse. Senators in the last two years of their term spend a full two thirds of their time fundraising (source [represent.us]). Over the course of their six year term in office, they have to fundraise an average of $10,000/day (source [politico.com]).
The almighty dollar rules Congress, and ultimately determines the fate of the country.
Re: (Score:2)
That shines a bright light on capitalism.
And you guess do not even know that in "real democracies" that stuff is completely illegal.
Re: (Score:3)
I can see you weren't aware of the DNC/RNC call centers.
A little google would have saved you that embarrassment.
Re: (Score:2)
Do, it, find the words! Say the thing!
You just think I must look stupid because yer teevee told you that... that... what the fuck? Your teevee told you that... knowing about DNC call centers teleports a congress critter through Stargate, of what the fuck are you talking about?
Now look up "call center" and try to figure out who spends their days their; people elected to Congress, or employees and volunteers?
I say the sky is blue and fucking morons say "no it isn't, discovery channel says there used to be m
Re: (Score:2)
The more she neglects her elected office, the better.
Here's the dirty little not-so-secret: no representative can spend a majority of his or her time at legislative business. They spend most of their time raising money.
You dumb ass, that is only true for personally unpopular people that cling to power anyways.
The chain of reasoning is apparent, so don't try to dodge your lame fucking assertion.
Elected congress critters are required by the RNC and DNC to put a large amount of hours in calling donors, otherwise the RNC and DNC will not fund their campaigns. In no way is it "only true for personally unpopular people that cling to power anyways"; i.e., making your statement 5 pinocchios of horse shit.
You're welcome for the education; but really- for everyone's sake, please try to practice following a discussion
AOC is what we in the biz call a Tank (Score:2)
She does need money, but not all that much. She's actually spend a good chunk of her fundraising time helping other left wing candidates.
Re: (Score:2)
She needs to raise the money for the party committee.
The party national committees need to raise 300-400 million dollars every two years. You can look it up on OpenSecrets. This year the RNC has raised over 600 million, but that's an outlier because Republican donors expect a rough year and are spending to prevent a bloodbath. Really for a presidential year election a party committee needs to raise roughly 350 mil.
$350 million is a pretty huge hole for unknown reps from low profile districts to fill, esp
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
All politicans should do this. (Score:5, Insightful)
All politicans should play Among Us on stream. It'll be useful for voters to hear their 'I am lying to you' voice.
Re: All politicans should do this. (Score:2)
Yeah, all politics aside, it's actually nice to see some politicians who are "normal everyday people". We should have more politicians that are more modern and relatable to the current generation.
Re: (Score:2)
Normal everyday people aren't dumb enough to be politicians. So, do I want my boss to yell at me every day, or do I want three quarters of the country to yell at me every day? Or, I don't know what I'm doing, so where can I go to do the maximum amount of harm?
Re: (Score:2)
We should vote for more politicians that are relatable. It's literally their job to relate to the people. Modern politics is a messed up place where voters seem to stop caring or interacting outside of a campaign window. That's partly on us, not just the politicians who often stop listening. I'm 100% for any government representative coming down to "our level" and doing normal human things with us. It means we see them as human beings too and should encourage us to talk to them.
Re: (Score:2)
Problem is "normal everyday people" are very divisive under our systems.
In places where coalition governments are the norm voters accept a plurality of views. Where there is a two party system people only want candidates matching their views to have any power because it's winner-takes-all.
There are various tactics that politicians employ because of this. Some try not to have any policies, a particularly popular trick in the UK. Don't commit to anything, be as vague as possible so nobody can object to anythi
Re: (Score:2)
It'll be useful for voters to hear their 'I am lying to you' voice.
That's not a problem. I'm more interested in hearing the "I'm telling the truth" voice. I've never heard that from a politician before.
Can't just be that popular streamers... (Score:2)
have anything to do with the hundreds of thousands of combined followers who consistently watch "Pokimane, HasanAbi, Disguised Toast, DrLupo, and more".
This isn't really news to anyone who understands that when you invite some of the top 20 names of twitch to all be on the same stream, and then add two politicians to act like they're "normies" and say "WHITE IS SUS!" every once in a while, sure - it's the politicians that are the draw... not the pretty much top tier streamers bringing their audiences along.
She's not dumb (Score:5, Informative)
You can disagree with her, but she's definitely not dumb.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
Proof that the concept of conservatives wanting to elect a down-to-earth blue-collar everyman(woman?) was yet another momentarily convenient lie, exhibit A. Wait for its next appearance the next time a left-ish politician with an elite academic background proposes policies that are suboptimal for the ownership class.
Re: She's not dumb (Score:2)
I'd mark this down as sexist, but your assumption that someone employed as a bartender must be dumb is even worse.
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect they're highly threatened that a woman with an outside "teeny bopper" appearance who is way too hot for them to ever catch, and talented as hell, is also smarter than them.
It ruins their whole self-image where they felt better about being a nasty ass basement troll by telling themselves that they were smarter than everyone else.
Re: (Score:2)
LOL, you think a BS in econ takes math... (Score:2, Insightful)
> she's got a degree in economics. That means a lot of math.
I've seen what economists consider a "lot of math." It was basically a bit of low level algebra and they liked longer variable names. The only derivatives they knew were investments.
AOC is a pretty face for ideas and campaigns that aren't hers.
Re: (Score:3)
> she's got a degree in economics. That means a lot of math.
I've seen what economists consider a "lot of math." It was basically a bit of low level algebra and they liked longer variable names. The only derivatives they knew were investments.
AOC is a pretty face for ideas and campaigns that aren't hers.
Still more math than a lawyer has to take. What educational background do the majority of politicians have again?
Economics majors take a shit ton of statistics (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know how modern CS programs are, but at my university I practically had to get a minor in math to graduate in CS.
Re: (Score:2)
Then you took a basic course,maybe in high school. I mean, some of the basic fundamental equations are simple. But so are foundationql chemistry equations like the ideal gas law.
So, maybe not even an econ course ever. Most economic equations have one or two letter variable names.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It was a double major (Score:4, Informative)
I just put a kid through college and they worked their ass off. And they're gonna spend 2 years in a residency and 2 years working and follow that up with 2-4 years more ass busting working full time while going to school. College is not a vacation. Hasn't been since the 90s and even then only at a handful of diploma mills.
Go spread your misinformation somewhere else please. We have google.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What's your degree in?
Re: (Score:2)
"she's got a degree in economics"
So be fair, so does Donald Trump.
Re: (Score:2)
TO be fair
damnit...
Re: (Score:1)
She didn't do it. She answered an advertisement and applied for the position. So did 5 other people. You know the four, they're "the squad."
She's had all kinds of money thrown at her to get her where she is. Communists behind it all. She does what she's told to do.
Re: (Score:2)
...so she's perfect for Twitch.
You're half right. She is definitely hot.
Re: She's hot and dumb (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
All you can really say for her is that she is slim and young, and that's a pretty low standard IMHO.
Re: (Score:2)
If you judge someone who has perfect natural teeth by his teeth ... sorry, I spare me more ...
Re: (Score:2)