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.
The neo-Renaissance awakening is almost upon us. America’s last chance power drive for grift and glory is almost over.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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!
I think a lot of people didn’t even think this was an option.
This is an excellent outcome.
Surely the path to victory is to tack further right again. Surely, more Republicans will all of a sudden come to their senses…
/s
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.
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.
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”.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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?
Cnn trying to stoke fear
If this is their attempt at stoking fear, they should do it more
Well as per usual they are giant failures because they are only managing to stoke hope.
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.
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.
I mean, Americans can just look at Europe. It’s basically entirely social democracy. I don’t understand why entire America is pretending social democracy is some sort of socialist boogeyman…
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.
The difference between it being an option and it being mandated is that when the level of greed we see today is allowed to exist, then it will exist, and power will slowly and inevitably be taken away from the worker class.
There are also multiple types of socialism, and socialism doesn’t necessarilly mean government ownership specifically. Check out Professor Richard Wolff’s excellent lectures on the topic.
There are also multiple types of socialism, and socialism doesn’t necessarilly mean government ownership specifically.
That’s why I wish there was better understanding of social democracy.
I understand social democracy very well and I don’t think it’s a good system because the capitalist class ultimately stays in charge, which will inevitably lead to corruption and the slow reverting of social services. I used to be a social democrat myself around when Bernie started to run for president the first time, so I understand why the premise is popular.
My idea of socialism includes:
- Workers owning the businesses they work for with no exceptions, which eliminates worker exploitation and enshittification
- Having a hard wealth cap (both realized and unrealized) of between $10-50 million tied to inflation
- A universal basic income that is enough to thrive, which will allow people to persue hobbies and become entrepeneurs without fear of failure
- Having all basic necessities be guaranteed and universally available without means testing (healthcare, housing, utilities, food, etc.)
- A universal right to dignity and privacy (eliminate mass surveillance both from governments and from companies, police and prisons must treat people with respect, similar to the Norweigan system)
- Create a government organization that publicly audits code to ensure that neither malicious foreign or domestic actors have the ability to hack into computers to the best of their ability, and have a state bug bounty program for all open source code
- Have the government own essential infrastructure as voted on by the people (public infrastructure, prisons, the military, schools, etc.)
- Have a more direct form of democracy, eliminating representatives in favor of direct voting on legislation wherever possible to aid in abolishing corruption
- Eliminate the Supreme Court’s ability to unilaterally enact laws
- Public funding of elections where representatives are needed, along with a new voting system (RCV, STAR, etc. depending on what mathmeticians agree represents the people best for each individual scenario)
- Ban all advertising, especially political. If any individual is getting paid to speak in any form that is not directly advertising, who pays must be disclosed or else face prosecution
- Ban all for-profit news organizations, excluding independent outlets who receive their funding from small-dollar donations
- Ensure that nobody is above the law by allowing the public as a whole to sue individuals and organizations, even if they were not directly affected by whatever crime has been committed
And that’s just what I came up with and is by no means comprehensive.
deleted by creator
Who is uninformed, Americans or Europeans?
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.
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.
No he wouldn’t have, and we can generally assume that’s true because, again, historically progressives don’t vote, especially not in primaries. Democrats vote. Democrats voted for the Democrat, surprising absolutely nobody that wasn’t terminally online. He never stood a chance because he was never that popular with democrats in the first place.
The Bernie bros thing was entirely propaganda though, very nearly every Bernie primary voter voted for Clinton in the general. More Russian republican disinformation.
I have zero doubt he would have had there been a level playing field.
It wasn’t even close man. Clinton got nearly 4 million more votes, like 30 percent more votes than Bernie. It wasn’t close and Bernie never had a chance. Also why would it be a level playing field? Bernie wasn’t a Democratic party member, obviously the party is going to support the Democratic candidate. There was no cheating, there was no conspiracy, it was simply that too few progressives voted in the primary.
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
From what I’ve read, DSA is in practice a Social Democrat org, I suppose out of necessity. Bernie is the same.
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.
That makes sense. Although we can dream about left unity, the differences between some of the folks in the party may be to great to reconcile (i.e., a lot of people in the party are not left at all).
MAGA successfully took over a major political party. It’s our turn now!
MAGA has a president. DSA has a mayor…
MAGA went directly from nothing to the presidency.
Its better if the movement is decentralized, Trump will croak some day and MAGA will have to pivot or collapse.
Those in the 2000s saw the Tea party as the start of this fascist bullshit.
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.
This person doesn’t know that the neoliberals lost control of the DNC in 2024.
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.
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…
The person you replied to is ignorant of the fact that the neoliberals lost control of the DNC in 2024.
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.
