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.
“We DO opposite fascism. We sent a letter about it and everything!”
- Jeffries, probably
A-fucking-men!
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.
Al-sayed is the key. If he beats Stevens AND the establishment falls in line, there is hope. If they don’t, there isn’t.
He’s just so…reasonable.
IDK, my wife and I are both Democrats in MI and we’re both voting for him Tuesday.
Because that’s what they’re paid to do, obviously.
Like David "iPAC"man?
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.
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 would bet that has always been the case but those feelings were suppressed.
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
No it isn’t. Not unless the government is controlled by the working class, which it isn’t.
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.
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).
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.
Nothing is tastier to a leftist than other leftists. Eat the rich, sure, but have you TRIED eating another leftist with slightly different political views??
99% of leftist stop infighting right before the movement becomes pure enough!
Listen we can’t have any 1%ers. We gotta deal with that last percent or this is for nothing. TO THE GALLOWS BOYS
The neo-Renaissance awakening is almost upon us. America’s last chance power drive for grift and glory is almost over.
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.
Ding ding ding. Trump: 77.3m, Harris: 75.0m, Population: 340m. That’s why even pissweak Dems win in landslides when there’s good turnout.
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.
Many Red states aren’t as Red as many people think. They’re just really good at convincing weak Dems that they have no shot, so they give up and don’t bother to vote.
For instance:
Texas does not track official party registration, but modeling data and primary participation show about 46.5% lean Democratic, 37.5% lean Republican, and 16% are independent.
So if 46.5% are Dems, and only 37.5% are Republican, then why are Republicans running everything in the state? Clearly if Dems actually voted in Texas, theyd win every race. In addition, they have 16% independents, who are people who have decided to not align with Republicans, so presumably the Dems have a shot at them, if they can pitch them properly.
Yet when I hear people talking about how they don’t bother to vote because they are too outnumbered, they are often from Texas.
People need to stop listening to ANYTHING the MAGAs say. They talk a good game, but everything they say is a lie. They make it sound like they are unstoppable, and weak Dems believe them, but they are vulnerable in a lot more places than many think.
They’re saying the number of total votes cast isn’t zero-sum. Exciting former non-voters is generating “free” votes, and the DSA does precisely that.
I don’t know, becoming speaker of the House without a majority sounds like a pretty impressive feat. They could probably swing 3-4 votes with that kind of mojo.
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.
As someone who doesn’t read Turtledove, what does that mean?
The fascist party that does an equivalent of the Holocaust is named the Freedom Party in his Southern Victory series.
Okay, I doubt the people who would find a real-life freedom party appealing haven’t read turtledove
Because there is no moderate position on outright fascism. Reaching across the aisle to a Nazi makes you a fucking Nazi.
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.”
I think a lot of people didn’t even think this was an option.
This is an excellent outcome.
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.
This person doesn’t know that the neoliberals lost control of the DNC in 2024.
this person goes by what people say rather than what they actually do, which is the oldest political trick in the book.
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
I’m not sure those are the two basic pillars of DSA. Well, in fact, they are not. But I was being polite.
Have you read Workers Deserve More? And did I say they were two basic pillars?
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”
That’s it? I really expected it to be more. I now suspect that might be an over inflation or misunderstanding
Democialist Party
Here’s the poll: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/28524353-cnn-july-poll-conducted-by-ssrs-midterms-parties/
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.
We really shouldn’t have to assume…
Also how are we going from “has a favorable opinion of” to “identifies as”?
Turns out they always did, they just didn’t realize their views aligned that way.
