CNN Poll: A third of Democrats now identify as democratic socialists | CNN Politics
21 days ago by VioletTea to c/politics
Surely, more Republicans will all of a sudden come to their senses…
Most of the time a Republican wins, it's on a platform of Ending The Wars and Protecting the Entitlements and Creating The Jobs with government policy.
Sort of the joke in all this. Guys like Bush, Trump, and Reagan all campaigned far to the left of how they actually governed. They'd take office, their popularity would tank, they'd go into the next election cycle with underwater approval, and Democrats would campaign to the right of the Republicans on the grounds that Reagan / Bush / Trump were incredibly popular.
Periodically, a Democrat will win a primary to the left of the favorite for the office. But they'll immediately tack to the right again during the general for fear of looking to radical in the national media.
Maybe they can get Tom Cotton to join them on the campaign trail this time.
The "centrist"/right-leaning/neo-liberal democrats would rather rip the party in half than to use this swell of popular support for leftist ideals to win elections and make real change. The old Dems will flail and writhe and hurt themselves in confusion as the old guard dies and change happens whether they like it or not. They'll try to kick leftists out, jump ship themselves (going independent, forming a new third party, merging with libertarians, or maybe going all the way to going Republican), and bomb the entire party with infighting, fixing nominations with anti-democratic party tricks, and intentionally letting republicans win rather than supporting a socialist candidate. Can't wait for this cluster fuck.
They've been doing half of what you listed, for decades.
I'm holding on to the hope that DSA candidates winning more elections in the face of centrist nonsense will make moderates realize they're being self defeating by doing this kind of crap. A real working coalition of socialists and liberals could be a political juggernaut that could also create some good policies together.
I think what people forget is that moderates are just fighting for what they believe in, just like progressives do. The problem is they do not want the same thing. Moderates and progressives have fundamentally different motivations. Democratic moderates are not simply progressives that have pragmatically decided to pursue centrism to win the most gains they can. They're not progressives willing to settle for a moderate option. Moderation is their actual desired goal. They themselves are mostly wealthy coastal elites. They're quite comfortable in their lives, and their main goal is to protect the status quo. They fundamentally do not have the same goal of crafting meaningful legislation that progressives do.
For Democratic centrists, eeking out a single seat majority in the Senate is mission accomplished. Progressives need to push for greater gains, as they want 60 votes to pass major reforms. Conservatives need 60 votes, as they want to implement Christian Nationalism. But Centrists? Neither party ever getting more than 55 votes in the Senate is their ideal outcome. Such a government will be able to pass modest bipartisan bills that don't rock the boat, but no real change to either the right or the left will be possible.
Liberals ultimately have little desire to create a "political juggernaut," as a juggernaut is only useful if you want to force through real change.
He's just so...reasonable.
IDK, my wife and I are both Democrats in MI and we're both voting for him Tuesday.
My analogy for this attitude is 90s MTV executives and producers not understanding the appeal of Primus, giving up on music, and becoming surveillance as entertainment with reality TV because we wouldn't sit and listen to Train, gin blossoms, modest mouse, etc.
The corporate centrist wing would sooner switch to the republican party than do anything helpful for their constituents.
The corporate centrist wing is largely made up of ex-Republicans anyway.
Corporate Democrats are just Republicans who happen to inhabit social circles where homophobia is considered distasteful.
Anecdotally, I'm seeing a lot of normie liberals get radicalized by watching Democrats approve Trump's nominees, pass his legislation, and cave on their own government shutdowns. Turns out, if you pitch yourselves as the only opposition to fascism, people expect you to actually oppose fascism.
A-fucking-men!
If this is their attempt at stoking fear, they should do it more
I don't know, I will give them some credit for awarding the journalists for reporting on Donald Trump's Epstein files right in front of him at the correspondants dinner. Ultimately meaningless and toothless like much of the reporting but delightfully petty.
Stoke fear among the ruling class*
They want a cultural divide here so that they can send as many people who will try to stop them to the camps as possible. They know what the next steps are. Question is, do you?
Oh sorry. America is a democracy. Democrats should just listen to their base, obviously, so we can avoid further calamity. Surely that's what will happen next. Surely.
Only a third so far have realized that what is now being called “democratic socialism” is what they have always supported. Mainly: using the tax dollars (we already pay) for programs and services that benefit society. As opposed to the Republican plan of using that money to line the pockets of the Trump-Epstein class.
That percentage will only grow.
Exactly. When people find out what being a Democratic Socialist/ Progressive really means, most support it.
We have a choice between Democratic Socialism that helps the Citizens, or MAGA Socialism that helps only the Wealthy. Frame it that way, and the choice becomes easy, for most people.
I wish there was an option for Social Democrat, because that's what fits me. Bernie made Democratic Socialism famous but I don't think most people who define themselves this way understand the difference.
It prevents money from being taken by the people who want to take your money. They pay a lot to keep the working class from thinking that's bad. Thus the boogeyman-ing.
Because they are uninformed. And Democratic socialism is closer to communism than social democracy.
Democratic Socialism is closer to socialism than communism. It literally means using democracy to transform the economic system to be socialist.
I'd consider myself a democratic socialist myself, as I believe that workers should own the businesses they work for instead of consolidating the power to a small amount of executives and shareholders who only care about making more profit than they did the previous quarter. I also believe this would limit the possibility of corruption by preventing extreme wealth from existing in the first place.
I do not consider myself a communist because I don't believe that centralized control is a good idea in most cases. An exception to that for me would be a single payer healthcare system, where the government guarantees healthcare to all of its citizens and visitors free at the point of service.
transform the economic system to be socialist
Here I reckon you’ve made an important point. Socialism is economics, not governance. Well, in a democracy anyway. Perhaps that should be indented. I think it’s one of the biggest barriers to being comfortable with the word itself.
Workers can own businesses today, so there's nothing stopping that from happening. There are lots of worker owned collectives out there. The major difference between Social Democracy and Democratic Socialism is that Democratic Socialism wants to nationalise many categories of business, ie. to have the government run them.
This tends to not go well where it's been tried because once business and government meld it becomes an unstoppable force that eats everything and has no accountability to anyone or oversight by anyone, and rapidly becomes inefficient and ineffective. I much prefer the Scandinavian way of mass deployment of labor unions, so that labor is a powerful force in it's own right rather than one that's ruled by a powerful merged political/business elite.
Americans. And I can say that as someone who's lived half his life on each continent. But Europeans probably don't know what Democratic Socialism is either.
This sounds like the same kind of splitting hairs that results in fighting between “leftists” and “liberals”. As long as we continue to bicker and come up with all of these ridiculous purity tests then we’re never going to defeat the right.
There are pretty substantial differences.I voted for Bernie so I don't think they are so substantial as to cause a fight, but I just wish there was better education out there in the US on Social Democracy. It works in Europe and most Americans are blind to it or think Democratic Socialism is the same thing.
The function of the DSA, although they may seem extremist to you, is to pull the Overton window back to the left, where it was before virulent McCarthyism. Watch and learn.
Doesn't seem extremist to me at all, it's just not exactly what I'd prefer in the end. I vote for the candidates in it that I can anyway.
Completely relate to this. The reality too is that Bernie Sanders much more closely represent Social Democratic principles.
Not sure what combination it is that people don't understand the difference or have a tendency to gravitate to more absolutist ideologies, but I feel this.
You're absolutely right- Bernie and I'm guessing most of his followers are social democrats. I seem to recall an interview where this came up and he basically shrugged the question off and said it didn't matter to him what ppl called it. As for these political terms, I think Americans are broadly illiterate.
Is a Social Democrat someone who only democrats at parties or with a group of friends? Okay have fun, don't democrat and drive 'cause it's gonna take every decent person to bring down the fascist authoritarian theo/pedo/oligarchy
The fascist authoritarian theo pedo oligarchy consists of the entire system, so unless you're talking about bringing down Democrats as well as Republicans, all you're doing is propping up the system as it is. Our current conditions did not form in a vacuum they had the assistance of the DNC and their ratchet effect
"Every decent person" includes a significant percentage of Democrats, a tiny smattering of people who still call themselves Republicans but don't vote that way, and not a single damned soul of the MAGA base.
BotHSiDEs
There are no 2 sides to US politics, there is one right wing fascist oligarchy
Vote for progressives in democratic primaries and there would be. It's pretty much too late now, but the path to a legitimate leftist party has always been there, but leftists don't vote in primaries.
I do. And we came very close with Bernie. I would even say that we won, but the party elite simply blocked his nomination. But there's always next time. I consider the primaries to be far more important than the general election where my state and county has gone blue for decades without much risk otherwise.
We didn't come close with Bernie, DNC favoritism aside Bernie overwhelmingly lost because enough progressives didn't register to vote in the primaries. That conspiracy bullshit needs to die. Yes the DNC backed the Democrat because why would they back an independent and not a member of their party? But they didn't cheat, it was simply that not enough Bernie supporters voted for him in the primaries, because progressives mostly don't vote.
Well let's put it this way, if 400-450 superdelegates had pledged for Sanders before any votes were cast as they did for Clinton, he would have won too. No one can really say the outcome without the ballot box being stuffed prior to the election. It was close enough that these kind of things are enough to sway it.
At any rate, my hopes lie with AOC. No one will be able to accuse her followers of being only "bros" and try to divide the vote by sex. She will probably lose the general election but getting her through the primaries will be a win.
I think if the real goal was social democracy they'd just call it that. I do think Bernie (as the primary torch bearer of the term), does want to nationalise much of private business in the end, but is starting with standard social democracy to get the ball rolling. Many of the others may actually just be social democrats who are on the Bernie bus because that's the one going somewhere.
True, but DSA is a large, national organization that's been around for decades, so that implies both institutional inertia and factionalism. It may be a group of both social democrats who don't feel welcomed in the democrat party and actual socialists who may not see any other viable alternative available to them.
Yes there is definitely something to creating a unified front between both camps, and I have no problem uniting under this banner, at least up until the point we take over the Democratic party in a stable enough way to start splitting hairs on policy.
MAGA has a president. DSA has a mayor...
MAGA went directly from nothing to the presidency.
Those in the 2000s saw the Tea party as the start of this fascist bullshit.
Listen, I’m a pretty nuanced guy here in left wing politics. I believe in. Regulating capitalism, not destroying it, I don’t believe in throwing marginalized people under the bus to appeal to conservatives who never vote blue and I think we need to make sure wages go up before prices go down, iykyk.
All that said, even I’m telling you to give these DSA people a try. Will the succeed in their agenda? Probably not, you have to flip actual Republican seats to do so. But dammit they’re gonna try.
Also not a quote from this article
“Are more positive toward the Democratic Party. They are more likely to hold favorable views of the Democratic Party (68% to 60%) and its congressional leaders, and more likely to have negative views of the Republican Party and its congressional leaders”
The DSA are literally more favorable to the Democratic project than the so called “moderates”.
Will the succeed in their agenda? Probably not, you have to flip actual Republican seats to do so. But dammit they’re gonna try.
I find this attitude defeatist. A not insignificant number of people who perennially vote for Republicans are in favor of a lot of Democratic socialist ideas. The problem to surmount is the decades of propaganda making the word socialism somehow demonic and evil. There is also the unholy marriage of the Christian church and republicans. Glued mostly together by the continual fight over abortion.
Conservatives do love to whip out the word "communist/socialist" whenever they can. Here in Missouri they're trying to get rid of income tax and drastically raise sales tax. They saw it was losing steam fast with how they were initially pitching it so they're now framing it as "Socialists like Mamdani, AOC, and Bernie always want your tax money!! Don't give it to them so help us end income tax!!!"
Exactly. Their problem is becoming the fact that there is now at least 2 entire generations of people who have no idea what the "red scare" was. They have grown up knowing Russia as a capitalist country and now that capitalist country is the one that has attacked Ukraine with an eye for conquest. The modern red scare has become capitalists, or more precisely oligarchs like Putin and Trump/Bezos/Musk/et all.
I disagree heavily with the second part of your response. But to address the first part first.
No, this isn’t me being defeatist, it’s me being realistic.
If the senate is made up of 53 GOP and 47 moderate Dems. And the Dems want to pass Universal Healthcare, will it pass? NO!
If the senate is made up of 53 GOP and 47 PROGRESSIVE Dems. And the Dems want to pass Universal Healthcare, will it pass? ONCE AGAIN, NO!
It’s literally impossible to move this country left with any policy if you can’t flip Republican seats. This is a democracy, (that’s heavily rigged in favor of red states). Majorities are king. Not to defend Hakeem Jeffries, but it dosent matter if he, AOC or Karl Marx himself were speaker of the house, without a majority. You’re at the mercy of the party the American people elected over you.
You have forgotten that we actually have THREE parties in this country, and the silent third one is the biggest one.
No candidate can win an election in America with their party base alone. The Independents literally decide EVERY election in this country, without exception.
Indies may still have a general lean left or right, but they remain fluid, and will happily switch if they see something they like better. You don't have to flip hard-core MAGAs, you just have to persuade a bunch of Indies, who have already rejected both parties, and are actively looking for a better idea, that Democratic Socialism is that better idea.
That shouldn't be a hard job, since it is legitimately a better idea. Stop trying to convince Intransigent Dems or MAGAs, and concentrate on those who are already half way there. You know those people who voted "No Opinion?" That's who they should concentrate on. Attract 10% of those people, and they'll win every race.
I don’t know what point of mine you’re trying to rebuttal? None of what you said changes the fact you need majorities to move the country left. Indies have always been the biggest alignment demo, but are also the least reliable, not only can they not vote for you, they can vote against you. Election with good economies usually have less indies voting overall. These are not a demographic that want to be apart of any party.
But most importantly, this still dosent address the major issue. FLIPPING RED STATES. Indies are used to win battleground states, hence why they decide elections. But strong blue/red states are rarely flipped off indies, you’d need alignment shifts within the population. Virginia and Ohio are perfect examples of the population shifting towards and away from populism.
The problem to surmount is the decades of propaganda making the word socialism somehow demonic and evil.
It's probably easier to change the party's name. Lets just call it the Freedom party, because it is.
As someone who reads Harry Turtledove, just anything but that, please.
But dammit they’re gonna try.
This is where the bar is set. It's literally total fascists and people cosplaying opposition, versus people that are actually attempting to do better. It's on the fucking floor, but after watching democrats trip over it for 40+ years, I'm way past done with that bullshit. I'm voting for the "people who are gonna try."
A THIRD of our Base Identifies as THAT! OBVIOUSLY the Path to VICTORY is to WIN over them! the ZERO Percent of our Base who are MAGA!
-The DNC!
Is that why the DNC chair started hyping up Mamdani last year as soon as he won his primary?
Is that why the DNC chair said we need a presidential candidate with policy positions and charisma of Mamdani back then too?
Like, it's getting really really hard to give people the benefit of the doubt at this point that they're genuinely ignorant of what's been happening...
What been smoking he said no such things and tried as he might to keep Mamdani from getting elected.
What been smoking he said no such things and tried as he might to keep Mamdani from getting elected.
...
Not gonna bother adding all the quotations, because I've honestly posted this 100s of times in the last year. But this was all over a year ago before Mamdani won the general, he didn't say shit during the primary because the DNC shouldn't be involved in those.
Amna Nawaz:
What do you take away from Zohran Mamdani's New York City mayoral Democratic primary win? Are there lessons there for the party or the races?
Ken Martin:
Well, first, it was a brilliant campaign. And there's a lot of lessons.
One is, he campaigned for something. And this is a critical piece. We can't just be in a perpetual state of resisting Donald Trump. Of course, we have to resist Donald Trump. There's no doubt about it for all the reasons we just talked about. But we also have to give people a sense of what we're for, what the Democratic Party is fighting for, and what we would do if they put us back in power.
And that's really critical. And I think that's one of the lessons from Mamdani's campaign, is that he focused on affordability. He focused on a message that was resonant with voters, and he campaigned for something, not against other people or against other things. He campaigned on a vision of how he was going to make New York City a better place to live.
I think that's one of the lessons. The other lessons, of course, is the tactics he used to get his message out, both a very aggressive in-person campaigning, meeting voters where they're at, and then also in those digital spaces, using very creative messaging to cut through the noise and to get to voters in an inexpensive but authentic way.
There's a lot to learn from that campaign, and I'm excited to learn more.
Edit:
Apparently only saw your comment because page reloaded and signed me out.
Not taking you off because you got on there for a reason whatever it was, but you got a freebie.
I think the point you're trying to make, past the hostility, is that the DNC is changing. This is true. It is also true that the DNC has sucked out loud for decades. Your expectation that people turn on a dime because the chair said something kind of nice about Mamdani is neither reasonable or rational. Trust takes time.
is that the DNC is changing. This is true
I'm saying it changed past tense.
Your expectation that people turn on a dime because the chair said something kind of nice about Mamdani is neither reasonable or rational
That is not the only reason.
But you apparently don't know any of the others, because I didn't mention them in my last comment.
And instead of asking for more, or even (God forbid) you looking into it yourself...
You're insisting there isn't anything else, when even Donald fucking Rumsfield knew:
The evidence of a sense is not the evidence of a sense
But again, it take very little effort to pay attention.
Trust takes time.
Time?
Were 17 months into a four year term...
Start fucking paying attention, and I'm sorry if I'm not holding people's hands enough but we need informed voters and I've tried being nice.
If all you think is wrong is my tone, then stop tone policing because that accomplishes nothing and try saying the same thing I said to the same person but use a nicer tone and see if that works.
I literally don't care as long as one method works but insisting everyone use the same method obviously won't work on everyone.
So you go be productive and I'll just ignore you and hope it works out
I look at this comment and wonder where to even begin. Overall, if your goal is to make people not like you and refuse to entertain whatever point you're making, your messaging is flawless. Perhaps you should work for the DNC!
The DNC is more than one guy and knowing the history of, say, the last decade or so might help understand the position people take concerning the DNC.
Is that why the DNC chair started hyping up Mamdani last year as soon as he won his primary?
The DNC's actual function is to run the presidential nomination, so right now in a non-presidential year with a Republican president the DNC chair is mostly just a figurehead to hype up the base, and institutional power is with Hakeem Jeffries and the DCCC and Chuck Schumer and the DSCC. That's why you have a pattern of alternating progressive and centrist DNC chairs. When Democrats lose the presidential election they put in Tom Perez or Ken Martin to keep donations coming and tide them over while they're out of power, then once there's a Democratic president they put in Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Jaime Harrison to behead all those who insult Israel.
"DNC" as shorthand for establishment Dems became common back in 2016 when the DNC was very tightly integrated into the Hillary Clinton campaign and was the main conservative power center in the Democratic party. That's not true all the time but the way power works inside the Democratic party is deliberately swampy and confusing to stop you from putting an easy name to the problem.
and institutional power is with Hakeem Jeffries and the DCCC and Chuck Schumer and the DSCC
They were both lame ducks the second Martin became chair.
They got their positions and people listened to them because if not the DNC would cut off funding to entire states at a time...
Like, why do you think as soon as the new chair was set, everyone stopped caring what those two say?
And the DCCC and DSCC never did anything, neoliberals are trying to gaslight people I to thinking those are important, because neoliberals still control those.
That's good news.
I do have one "BUT," though: Let's hope the Democrats don't follow in the footsteps of many (at least in name) left-wing political groups and split apart. Nothing could be better for the Republicans than to face two parties whose voter bases are each too small to defeat them in the election.
I think something interesting about DSA is that it has an internal constellation of caucuses, which are largely ideologically based. There's a reformist caucus, and anarchist caucus, a Marxist Leninist Caucus, multiple Trotskyist Caucuses, a Maoist Caucus, etc.
So the various mergers and splits that leftist orgs have been doing for decades now essentially get to do them in the sandbox of DSA.
Many movements have tried this before. The moment power and money are at stake, the representative system—in which self-interested individuals tend to work their way into leadership positions—leads to divisions.
Furthermore, it won’t help much if the DSA is united when a schism occurs with the old Democrats: On its own, the DSA certainly doesn’t have enough supporters to win the election.
Even if Trump is as unpopular as can be (though 40% still remain loyal to him—but that’s just an aside), there will still be enough Democratic voters who were politically shaped during the Cold War and would never vote for anything with “socialism” in its name.
Well, let's just hope for the best.
Furthermore, it won’t help much if the DSA is united when a schism occurs with the old Democrats: On its own, the DSA certainly doesn’t have enough supporters to win the election.
This is something DSA has long thought about, and the dominant position in the org is what's called the "Dirty Break" strategy. Essentially, DSA parasitizes the Democratic ballot line, such that DSA supercedes the Democratic party itself.
Even if Trump is as unpopular as can be (though 40% still remain loyal to him—but that’s just an aside), there will still be enough Democratic voters who were politically shaped during the Cold War and would never vote for anything with “socialism” in its name.
Plenty of Trump voters also voted for Mamdani. The fact of the matter is that, of you give people things that benefit them, and can demonstrate good governance, then you can override that cold war programming without a ton of friction. Especially when the institutions of American liberal democracy are decaying before our eyes
there will still be enough Democratic voters who were politically shaped during the Cold War and would never vote for anything with “socialism” in its name.
Then they deserve the fascism that the Neoliberal ghouls they've been supporting for decades have enabled. Too bad the rest of us will have to suffer because the fucking ShitLib wastrels are too Lead-addled to get out of the way.
What needs to happen is for people to vote in primaries so democratic socialist candidates have a shot at winning the nomination (for whatever office they're running for).
99% of leftist stop infighting right before the movement becomes pure enough!
The DNC wont acknowledge the dem socialists. They would rather lose. So they will lose and the voters will choose between the Republicans and the DSA, which will probably then replace the democratic party. It all hinges on whether the DSA continues to try to reform the Dems from within, which has been tried many times previously and always fails. If the DSA go their own way theres a path to the people being represented and Democratic policies sprouting anew. Otherwise fascism wins and US democracy ends. The DNC will allow democracy to end too, just very slightly slower.
It all becomes pretty clear and consistent if you look at the arc of the democratic party's history. They have always been a sheepdog party and the voters keep pouring our hopes and dreams into them and let that define who we think they are.
The DNC is like 15 people and they have a lot less power than you're describing.
They can fuck up the Presidential race and that's about it. The good work, the "let's get some D/S people elected" work all happens at the local level, the county level, and maybe the state level in a few places.
I agree that we should elect more Dem Soc everywhere, but let's not pretend that the reason we're not doing that is the DNC.
I respectfully disagree -- A long arc of history has shown differently. If you are curious what I mean, that video makes the case. a politcial party's leadership tier is tremendously powerful and legally independent regardless of whether its 2 people, or 15, or 5000. They decide who the candidates will be who wear their logo. They have proven in court that they can and will disregard or meddle with primary votes if they want to, or change voting rules with tools like superdelegates, at will. They are legally a private corporation who make their own rules, and the courts dont hold them to much of anything in terms of the fairness of democratic principles in their internal rules. The party leadership is the layer where the rubber meets the road -- where capitalism meets with government to make sure capitalist interests are represented in candidates DNA. They will make sure a mamdani-like candidate never makes it past a primary. No amount of reform will change that.
Dont forget to remind everyone that the trump government decision to buy equity stakes in the private sector is literal socialism by definition. The government owns the means of production instead of private.
So when Republicans start moaning about socialism, feel free to educate them on their president who is implementing socialist policy
Government owning the means of production is only socialism if the working class controls the government, which is demonstrably not true in the slightest. Instead we have capitalists controlling the government, and when the capitalist class exerts its power over the government to directly seize more ownership of the means of production, that is fascism (or at least often a hallmark of fascism).
That's why I used the term Socialist Policy.
But he’s not implementing socialist policy, he’s implementing fascist policy.
The government buying private equity is a socialist policy
So you're telling me that a third of democrats now support open borders and public control of large corporations?
No a third of people beleive that all people should have basic provisions of life like healthcare water housing and education. Beleive that all people are humans and kind ness and happiness prevail.
Third of people think capitalism is now greed
Probably more than that. What we've got is a third of democrats who would accept a DSA member implementing those policies, rather than waiting for a Hillary or Obama to get 99 1/2 votes in the Senate before passing the "Deregulate immigration slightly and maybe consider a public option for large utilities Act of 2052"
Have you read Workers Deserve More? And did I say they were two basic pillars?
That's it? I really expected it to be more. I now suspect that might be an over inflation or misunderstanding
Turns out they always did, they just didn’t realize their views aligned that way.
Here's the poll: https://www.documentcloud.org/...
How are they drawing the conclusion that "A third of Democrats now identify as democratic socialists" from that?
They must have more data than was presented there. For example, 18% of ALL respondants viewed the DSA positively. I would assume that what we didn't see there was the number that 30% of those who viewed Democrats positively also viewed DSA positively.
It's a start. When they get to at least two thirds and purge all the Third Way Boomers from any positions of power they might almost be a party worth supporting again.
I don't believe that's really possible, at least not this time around. DSA is not a registered political party running candidates in races, they are running as Democrats. Meaning there might be DSA vs Dem in primary, but whoever wins that would be the Dem candidate.
How that affects voting is up for debate, but it doesn't split the vote like running a DSA candidate against Dem and Rep candidate would.
Look, i don't like democratic socialism nor social democratism BUT it's something, appreciate the little things because you walk to the next floor by walking each step on the stair
(Or you can jump on the next steps, which takes more collaboration and courage)
i don’t like democratic socialism nor social democratism
Historically, a large contingent of social democrats taking power has not been great for a country's long term outlook.
I don't think that's really their fault, strictly speaking. But it feels like the socio-economic calm before the fascist hurricane rolls through.
Yeah, but there is a higher chance that they fuck up way less than straight up righr wingers or fascists (which are currently in the USA leadership), i'd prefer socialists but that's better than nothing
It's more that you see a socialist majority gain a slim plurality for a few years. Then things aren't perfect, the oligarchs throw a fit, fascists start rampaging on the streets, and the leftist coalition collapses to give way to an ultra-nationalist government shortly thereafter.
Nearly every European country has experienced this cycle at least once in the last century. Some have gone through it a few times, even.
This is just them pivoting because they know they need to rejuvenate the party
I mean, what's 1/3 of like ten people?
Who actually identifies as Democrats? The majority of the US population is wayy too progressive to identify as a Democrat.
Reading this reminds me of when the Marvel movies were announced. Cool! The thing I've been into for decades is finally getting wide spread support... oh wait, people are going to fuck it up, aren't they?
The voters the headline is referencing?
If the DSA did more than attack liberals I might be inclined to think this is a good thing, but so far they can't win in any district that isn't overwhelmingly blue. Not sure how they're going to beat back conservatives.
Idk, I think the DSA is only going to succeed in fracturing the Dems. We'll see.
People thought the Tea Party would split the Republican Party, but they just morphed into MAGA, and entirely took over the Republican Party.
That's what the DemSocs should do. Just take over the Democratic party, whether they like it or not.
The Tea Party did split votes away from the conservatives, they were literally spurred on by Ron Paul's presidential campaign. They flipped conservative house seats, sure, but I'm pretty fucking sure Obama won that year and in 2012. Do you want to see JD Vance win? Do you like the way things have gone with the extremism from MAGA?
Hasan Piker has been proudly wearing a fucking Chairman Mao suit. He was literally fucking glazing the man just the other day on stream. How far gone are you that you've forgotten how he killed tens of millions of people in order to industrialize? Last time I checked the United States didn't need to kill millions of it's own citizens in order to pull itself out of poverty - oh by the way the Great Depression happened.
Fuck - all this revisionist history from tankies on this platform really has cooked your brains, hasn't it?
The oligarchy has aligned themselves with anyone that further their goals. The oligarchy owns every major social media platform and have been fomenting extremism for decades but your political movement isn't extremist because you're different (you aren't, you just color yourselves differently).
You are a sheep, and you all speak the same way 'we don't this, we don't that, we support this etc.' Any movement filled with so many people who seem to think that they can be the mouthpiece for everyone grouped with them is filled with idiots and charlatans.
Edit: two week old user lmao, you're a fucking DSA shill - thank you for outing yourself I'll be sure to remember you.
Of course I haven't liked the extremism from MAGA, but I definitely like what I'm hearing from the Progressives and the Democratic Socialists, so I will support them, and their policies.
I have no fear of that leading to Mao-style Red Chinese Communism, that's just ludicrous. We can't even get Dems and Republicans to agree on rasing the minimum wage, we'll never change our system of government to a failed Chinese political system from 50 years ago through elections. And if we do, then that's what we'll get because we VOTED for it. But it won't happen.
I don't understand how retreating from the clearly Fascist/ Nazi policies to policies that actually serve the American people will somehow lead to millions of dead Americans. I'm much more confident that MAGA policies will lead to that outcome long before Democratic policies will.
I'm not afraid of the word Socialism, and won't be scared off of positive, constructive government policy just because corrupt treasonous MAGA pedophiles labelled it Socialist.
Bottom line: I'd MUCH rather live with Democratic Socialism, than MAGA Socialism.
What makes you think the DSA is advocating for anything other than authoritarianism when their loudest voices are complimenting fucking Mao? This is a genuine question, what makes you think that electing the opposite side of the extremist/authoritarian coin will result in anything other than living in a falling dictatorship?
Edit: By the way, according to those loud voices - being against the DSA means I must be paid off. That sure does seem fucking weird, doesn't it? 'If you aren't with us, you're against us.' Who does that sound like I wonder?
Edit 2: crazy, the DSA strategy of never discussing anything with anyone criticizing you has filtered down to the plebs. Fucking MAGAts all over again.
This might not be the case after DSA interview on Fox News. See https://thehill.com/...
If done well it can be an important form of outreach. I've seen good interviews of leftists on Fox but it requires a lot of skill. And I would never agree to this kind of rapid fire q&a where you can't give context to answers that sound a little wacky to normal voters.
I really don’t think anyone who watches Fox News at this point is “reachable”. It’s not even a real news channel, so odds are you’re just setting yourself up for failure. Plenty of better outlets to invest time and effort into.
I strongly disagree with this. Fox is one of the most watched news channels and not all of their viewers have the same political views.
Fox News’s Shannon Bream asked Romer a string of rapid-fire, true or false questions — including whether the DSA platform includes “abolishing the Senate,” to which Romer replied, “True.”
“Replace the presidency and Supreme Court as we now know them?” Bream asked on Sunday.
“Yep,” Romer replied.
Romer then proceeded to say a DSA government would “absolutely” abolish U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. When asked if a DSA government would abolish borders and give amnesty to anyone who is in the U.S. illegally, Romer replied, “As a long-term plan, yep.”
Romer also said the DSA platform would “absolutely” defund the Pentagon and would also abolish prisons “as part of a long-term program.”
Based af.
No, Megan is great and all of those positions are great.
What did she say that you disagree with?
@lemmy.world
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
go to feed...
@lemmy.world
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
go to feed...
Surely the path to victory is to tack further right again. Surely, more Republicans will all of a sudden come to their senses...
/s
save