"Women like me aren't supposed to run for office," Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said in her now viral biographical campaign video.
Now, the 28-year-old educator, Bernie Sanders organizer, and former bartender from a working-class family is set to become the youngest member of Congress. In doing so, she defeated the "King of Queens," Joseph Crowley, a Democrat representative so high-ranking he was expected to replace Nancy Pelosi.
However, the media has thrown various labels and boxes to reduce her monumental victory. Her victory has been dubbed the "Eric Kantor of the left" in a comparison to the rise of the Tea Party. It has been narrated as a victory of the progressive wing of the Democratic party over the establishment. Some headlines only focus on the defeat of Crowley and don't even mention Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's name: The Hill's headline of her victory is "Political Stunner! Crowley Knocked Off By Millennial Challenger." The Associated Press tweeted "U.S. Rep. Joe Crowley defeated by young challenger"
It's not as if contributions from top progressives didn't matter, or undercurrents of animosity toward the Democratic establishment didn't play a role. All the pieces matter.
Despite that, there is a strong tendency to analyze local races like the New York 14th Congressional District Democratic Primary through top-down lenses and narratives, such as the progressive vs. establishment wings of the Democratic Party and a populist vs. elitist battle. It's not like they're wrong - Ocasio-Cortez identifies as a democratic socialist, but to put this victory into these labels is to ignore many of the individual nuances of this race, to deny ourselves the ability to learn the specifics of this district's primary, and ultimately, to discredit the candidate herself.
To label the results of the race for anything less than what it is - the widely unexpected triumph of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her campaign, is a drastic reduction of what happened. It was her race, her victory, and her face that should be the cover photo of stories about the race. Did the 15,000 people who voted for Ocasio-Cortez vote for her because of top-down, external factors like the out of touchness of Joe Crowley or the support of more well-known progressives like Cynthia Nixon? Maybe. But what's clearly prevailing is that most people voted for Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez because of herself as a candidate, and that's the narrative we have to realize. Perceptions matter more than ever in the political era of today.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez responded to Nancy Pelosi's urge to "not get too carried away" by saying "we're in the middle of a movement in this country...but that movement is going to happen from the bottom up. That movement is going to come from voters."
That's the groundwork and ideology for political upsets heading into an uphill battle for Democrats this election season: bottom-up, grassroots, local campaigns that rely on passionate candidates, passionate organizers, and passionate voters. The truth is that there is no framework for every district to go blue - that's a unique bottom-up approach that is specific to each district. What we can do, and what the media can do to help, is stop trying to buy in and reduce these unique district battles into top-down labels, not to read too much into what we don't know - the headline for Ocasio-Cortez's victory could have been as simple as "Ocasio-Cortez upsets Crowley"
So I implore you to do this: say her name and give her credit. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's upset was not the rise of the "Tea Party of the Left," or the victory of the "progressive vs. the establishment," or the "Democratic version of Eric Kantor." It was the surprising victory of one young woman's incredible campaign, a woman named Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
