Democratic Socialism is coming

[Caine Mutiny]

Last night’s primary victories in New York, all Mamdami endorsed candidates over Demoxratic establishment people, represents a watershed moment for both the Democratic Party and. iMO, the United States. I think that within the next decade we will have a Democratic Socialist President for the first time in our history. 
 

I sont see this as the calamity that many conservatives will (last night Stephen Miller went on Fox and warned of violent anarchy and teaching young children to hate America and and be multi gender) but I don’t love it wither. Their economic proposals are too leftist and populist for me. Nonetheless they’re winning. This I believe is the future. 

[Caine Mutiny]

Israel was a big issue last night. 

[Frozenbeernuts]

Liberals will not see how quickly and how far their party moved, and their own values moved right along with the party. Almost like they stand for nothing.

[Sean Mooney]

2 things are important to remember:

1.) Just because a Democratic socialist wins a primary does not mean necessarily that they are a viable contender for the actual election against a Republican. It is akin to me to years ago when the Tea Party ran every far right wingnut they could find and they won the primaries and then got smoked in the general elections. Yes it means the party's far left has some steam right now but that may not be great long term....which leads to...

2.) What works in a New York election does not necessarily portend to success in the generals around the country or the Presidential elections in the future. New York (and California) are special cases for the Democrats where they can push more left candidates because the populace there by a majority, or plurality, will accept it. In a similar fashion what works in Texas or Florida (or Alabama) on the red side doesn't necessarily work on a large scale in the general elections. This is something Republicans have always understood and Democrats don't and it;s why there are struggles at times to win bigger for Democrats. 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Shame about Goldman. DSA has taken out other good Dem congressman before too.

[HotRod]

A couple of NYC districts means nothing  This country is conservative.

[TBayXXXVII]

Um... Democratic socialism is HERE.  We went from Bernie to over 30 elected in Congress.  Mamdani and his cohorts aren't "Democratic Socialists", they're full on socialists moving towards communism.

[Caine Mutiny]

8 minutes ago, Sean Mooney said:

2 things are important to remember:

1.) Just because a Democratic socialist wins a primary does not mean necessarily that they are a viable contender for the actual election against a Republican. It is akin to me to years ago when the Tea Party ran every far right wingnut they could find and they won the primaries and then got smoked in the general elections. Yes it means the party's far left has some steam right now but that may not be great long term....which leads to...

2.) What works in a New York election does not necessarily portend to success in the generals around the country or the Presidential elections in the future. New York (and California) are special cases for the Democrats where they can push more left candidates because the populace there by a majority, or plurality, will accept it. In a similar fashion what works in Texas or Florida (or Alabama) on the red side doesn't necessarily work on a large scale in the general elections. This is something Republicans have always understood and Democrats don't and it;s why there are struggles at times to win bigger for Democrats. 

Both excellent points. Nonetheless I still think it’s an important trend. Here’s the thing: in American politics today, Demoxratic socialism is where the energy is. 

If you had asked me in 2015 I would have told you there is no way the Republicans would nominate a nativist isolationist populist and if they did he would be crushed in the general election. But it happened. The thing that Mamdami’s people have in common with the MAGA movement is this: it’s new. People are attracted to the new, especially when the old seems to be failing. 

[SaintsInDome2006]

There are resonating rebounding aftereffects from 10/7/23, the Iran War & the Trump era as well. And historically income equality provoked major political change, something Republicans used to understand.

[Caine Mutiny]

5 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

 Mamdani and his cohorts aren't "Democratic Socialists", they're full on socialists moving towards communism.

This is pretty much standard rhetoric from conservatives these days. Easy to say, much harder to define. I doubt you could make a successful case of this once you get into specifics. 

[TBayXXXVII]

1 minute ago, Caine Mutiny said:

This is pretty much standard rhetoric from conservatives these days. Easy to say, much harder to define. I doubt you could make a successful case of this once you get into specifics. 

True or false, Mamadani is further left than Bernie?

[Sean Mooney]

19 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

Um... Democratic socialism is HERE.  We went from Bernie to over 30 elected in Congress.  Mamdani and his cohorts aren't "Democratic Socialists", they're full on socialists moving towards communism.

it's important to note that Democratic socialism is not communism.

They are not necessarily wildly different...but they are different in some very fundamental ways 

[squistion]

34 minutes ago, HotRod said:

A couple of NYC districts means nothing  This country is conservative.

Let's see how conservative this country is come November. 

[TBayXXXVII]

6 minutes ago, Sean Mooney said:

it's important to note that Democratic socialism is not communism.

They are not necessarily wildly different...but they are different in some very fundamental ways 

Uh, lol, yeah.  No kidding.  

This is an undeniable fact... this country has been moving left from it's inception, most notebly since the late 1800's/early 1900's.  There's NEVER been a force to move back towards the right.  Democratic Socialism is a ploy to get people used to Socialsim, via baby steps.  Then next logical step is in fact, socialism.  As history had told us, we keep moving left.  What's the next step?

As evidence, look at @squistion's post, literally above mine.

[Sean Mooney]

4 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

Uh, lol, yeah.  No kidding.  

This is an undeniable fact... this country has been moving left from it's inception, most notebly since the late 1800's/early 1900's.  There's NEVER been a force to move back towards the right.  Democratic Socialism is a ploy to get people used to Socialsim, via baby steps.  Then next logical step is in fact, socialism.  As history had told us, we keep moving left.  What's the next step?

As evidence, look at @squistion's post, literally above mine.

The GOP has been saying the same thing for like 40/50 years at this point. It's Chicken Little'ing at this point because there isn't going to be a wide scale push to the far left (see my 2nd point above)

[TBayXXXVII]

Just now, Sean Mooney said:

The GOP has been saying the same thing for like 40/50 years at this point. It's Chicken Little'ing at this point because there isn't going to be a wide scale push to the far left (see my 2nd point above)

Just means your eyes and ears aren't open.

[supermike80]

This is absolutely the new "sexy" thing for the dems.  Especially the younger voters. And yeah, its where we are going and at this point i dont see it changing soon.  Will be interesting to see how big it gets.

 

[Sean Mooney]

3 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

Just means your eyes and ears aren't open.

no it means you are more worried about some imaginary monster under the bed instead of what is actually happening in the world

[TBayXXXVII]

13 minutes ago, Sean Mooney said:

no it means you are more worried about some imaginary monster under the bed instead of what is actually happening in the world

LOL, the irony of that.

What laws/policies, were made in this country, that have moved us to the right?

[Frozenbeernuts]

1 hour ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

There are resonating rebounding aftereffects from 10/7/23, the Iran War & the Trump era as well. And historically income equality provoked major political change, something Republicans used to understand.

Yes there are still quite a few retards walking around who think socialism is good.

[Fnord]

51 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

This is an undeniable fact... this country has been moving left from it's inception, most notebly since the late 1800's/early 1900's.  There's NEVER been a force to move back towards the right.  Democratic Socialism is a ploy to get people used to Socialsim, via baby steps.  Then next logical step is in fact, socialism.  As history had told us, we keep moving left.  What's the next step?

Uhh, did you sleep through the 80s? Or were you just too young?

[jerryskids]

57 minutes ago, Sean Mooney said:

The GOP has been saying the same thing for like 40/50 years at this point. It's Chicken Little'ing at this point because there isn't going to be a wide scale push to the far left (see my 2nd point above)

You don't think the Overton window is pushing left at an accelerated rate?

[TBayXXXVII]

21 minutes ago, Fnord said:

Uhh, did you sleep through the 80s? Or were you just too young?

Born in 1980.  What happened in the 1980's that moved the country, to the right?

[cyclone24]

2 hours ago, Caine Mutiny said:

Last night’s primary victories in New York, all Mamdami endorsed candidates over Demoxratic establishment people, represents a watershed moment for both the Democratic Party and. iMO, the United States. I think that within the next decade we will have a Democratic Socialist President for the first time in our history. 
 

I sont see this as the calamity that many conservatives will (last night Stephen Miller went on Fox and warned of violent anarchy and teaching young children to hate America and and be multi gender) but I don’t love it wither. Their economic proposals are too leftist and populist for me. Nonetheless they’re winning. This I believe is the future. 

Yeah, honestly, I think we’re all starting to get into a tough spot a little bit here. 
 

My deeper concern a little bit globally for the country is socialism typically is extraordinarily restrictive. I’m not ripping on Democrats here. I’m just saying in general. I think we all agree everything is more restrictive from the government under socialism.

I mean it’s government control is what it is.

I could see some scenarios where if that grows and that type of restrictive behavior we’ve seen play out a little bit overseas already comes over here? I’m not gonna lie. I’m a little concerned what happens after that. 

[Fnord]

5 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

Born in 1980.  What happened in the 1980's that moved the country, to the right?

Lots of things, but you can distill it down to one main dude: Ronald Reagan. 

[MTSkiBum]

23 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

You don't think the Overton window is pushing left at an accelerated rate?

Overton window is complete BS, there are many distinct issues and one's stance on corporate taxes shouldn't influence ones stance on environmental protections, abortion, or any other issue.

Plus, socially we have been moving more left, however many of our corporate tax laws, etc are getting much more friendly to large businesses. 

 

For example we are getting many monopolies pushed through by our courts that were not pushed through years ago. 

https://www.wsj.com/business/media/justice-department-decision-to-allow-paramount-deal-surprised-staff-investigators-a18f70da

 

If you only look at overton window as it relates to corporate governance we have been moving right very quickly in last 10 years, giving all of the power to large companies. 

 

This is why the overton window is bull . It only matters to people who blindly agree with everything their side does, instead of looking at each individual issue. 

[Mark Davis]

1 hour ago, supermike80 said:

This is absolutely the new "sexy" thing for the dems.  Especially the younger voters. And yeah, its where we are going and at this point i dont see it changing soon.  Will be interesting to see how big it gets.

 

I think you hit on what one of our major issues with socialism is.   Younger people don't see it as a failure.  We haven't educated people on all the successes of capitalism, we are almost apologetic of it as a society and America's success.  We often only talk about our issues or warts, not what is right and why it's the best system and we've been so prosperous where countries who have tried socialism have fallen behind and failed.

Kids are raised differently than most of us were.  In some ways it may be for the better but sometimes allowing people to lose, fail, get picked on, learning to overcome bullying, fighting for yourself is a good thing.  When they hit 21-22 years old and have ran up student loan debt, every bank is issuing college kids credit cards to get further in debt, then they see what the real job market and pricing is, I'm sure it's overwhelming.  They are looking for an answer and a lot of times they don't have the tougher exterior a lot of older generations were forced to have through endurance of some issues.  It's not a failing of the younger people so much as it's a failure on us for allowing this creep toward that dangerous ideology in our society at all.

[Voltaire]

1 hour ago, Sean Mooney said:

2 things are important to remember:

1.) Just because a Democratic socialist wins a primary does not mean necessarily that they are a viable contender for the actual election against a Republican. It is akin to me to years ago when the Tea Party ran every far right wingnut they could find and they won the primaries and then got smoked in the general elections. Yes it means the party's far left has some steam right now but that may not be great long term....which leads to...

2.) What works in a New York election does not necessarily portend to success in the generals around the country or the Presidential elections in the future. New York (and California) are special cases for the Democrats where they can push more left candidates because the populace there by a majority, or plurality, will accept it. In a similar fashion what works in Texas or Florida (or Alabama) on the red side doesn't necessarily work on a large scale in the general elections. This is something Republicans have always understood and Democrats don't and it;s why there are struggles at times to win bigger for Democrats. 

Great observation Sean. I was going to post something similar, you saved me a bunch of time and braincells.

[Strike]

1 minute ago, Mark Davis said:

I think you hit on what one of our major issues with socialism is.   Younger people don't see it as a failure.  We haven't educated people on all the successes of capitalism, we are almost apologetic of it as a society and America's success.  We often only talk about our issues or warts, not what is right and why it's the best system and we've been so prosperous where countries who have tried socialism have fallen behind and failed.

Kids are raised differently than most of us were.  In some ways it may be for the better but sometimes allowing people to lose, fail, get picked on, learning to overcome bullying, fighting for yourself is a good thing.  When they hit 21-22 years old and have ran up student loan debt, every bank is issuing college kids credit cards to get further in debt, then they see what the real job market and pricing is, I'm sure it's overwhelming.  They are looking for an answer and a lot of times they don't have the tougher exterior a lot of older generations were forced to have through endurance of some issues

I can't think of one. 

[jerryskids]

4 minutes ago, MTSkiBum said:

Overton window is complete BS, there are many distinct issues and one's stance on corporate taxes shouldn't influence ones stance on environmental protections, abortion, or any other issue.

Plus, socially we have been moving more left, however many of our corporate tax laws, etc are getting much more friendly to large businesses. 

 

For example we are getting many monopolies pushed through by our courts that were not pushed through years ago. 

https://www.wsj.com/business/media/justice-department-decision-to-allow-paramount-deal-surprised-staff-investigators-a18f70da

 

If you only look at overton window as it relates to corporate governance we have been moving right very quickly in last 10 years, giving all of the power to large companies. 

 

This is why the overton window is bull . It only matters to people who blindly agree with everything their side does. The media no longer informs, the medias job is to increase viewership to sell more adds, so almost all news now is one side is bad, other side is good. 

Skibum, whazzup?!  Good to see you.  I hope all is well.   

You bring up a fair point, inasmuch as I wasn't thinking of corporate governance.  Also, I don't have a WSJ subscription so I can't read your article.   

[TBayXXXVII]

9 minutes ago, Fnord said:

Lots of things, but you can distill it down to one main dude: Ronald Reagan. 

Read the first two... doesn't look like it's making your point very well.  Not surprised.  You never really make any good points.

[Voltaire]

The Democrats are replacing their more reasonable Scott Evils in favor of more Mini-Mes.

 

 

[Fnord]

2 minutes ago, Mark Davis said:

I think you hit on what one of our major issues with socialism is.   Younger people don't see it as a failure.  We haven't educated people on all the successes of capitalism, we are almost apologetic of it as a society and America's success.  We often only talk about our issues or warts, not what is right and why it's the best system and we've been so prosperous where countries who have tried socialism have fallen behind and failed.

Kids are raised differently than most of us were.  In some ways it may be for the better but sometimes allowing people to lose, fail, get picked on, learning to overcome bullying, fighting for yourself is a good thing.  When they hit 21-22 years old and have ran up student loan debt, every bank is issuing college kids credit cards to get further in debt, then they see what the real job market and pricing is, I'm sure it's overwhelming.  They are looking for an answer and a lot of times they don't have the tougher exterior a lot of older generations were forced to have through endurance of some issues

When today's kids are confronted at pretty early ages with the realities that their future appears significantly less promising from an economic standpoint than it has for any other prior generation, they're going to question the paradigm and mobilize against it.

Capitalism, while creating wild amounts of wealth for so many, if left to its own devices and allowed to nurture its basest philosophies by administrations hell bent on policies favoring Wall Street and the donor class, the end result will always be lopsided. Those with wealth become wealthier, those without it become poorer. Kids see this, and most kids are raised in homes with limited means, where money is tight, or worse. They've experienced the pain that comes with it.

The issue is not that socialism is preferable; it's not. The issue is that America cannot be a healthy nation if those making policy are doing it almost universally for the wealthy. The government needs to act as some kind of check on the worst impulses of capitalism, or money will run roughshod over all other considerations. This has happened time and again, and over the last century has occurred exclusively during Republican administrations. The wealth gap is getting worse, and this admin obviously caters far more to the donor class than any prior admin ever has.

[Caine Mutiny]

21 minutes ago, Mark Davis said:

I think you hit on what one of our major issues with socialism is.   Younger people don't see it as a failure.  We haven't educated people on all the successes of capitalism, we are almost apologetic of it as a society and America's success.  We often only talk about our issues or warts, not what is right and why it's the best system and we've been so prosperous where countries who have tried socialism have fallen behind and failed.

Kids are raised differently than most of us were.  In some ways it may be for the better but sometimes allowing people to lose, fail, get picked on, learning to overcome bullying, fighting for yourself is a good thing.  When they hit 21-22 years old and have ran up student loan debt, every bank is issuing college kids credit cards to get further in debt, then they see what the real job market and pricing is, I'm sure it's overwhelming.  They are looking for an answer and a lot of times they don't have the tougher exterior a lot of older generations were forced to have through endurance of some issues.  It's not a failing of the younger people so much as it's a failure on us for allowing this creep toward that dangerous ideology in our society at all.

I agree with quite a bit of this argument, not so much the “damgerous creeping in” part but the “failed” part. 
 

And this is, IMO, the problem with the conservative (and centrist Democrat) response so far. You guys are going with the “they’re all evil Communists!” trying to stoke fear. That’s never going to work. For one thing voters don’t consider the long term consequences of anything. The way to combat Democratic socialism is to attack their ideas- like for instance Mamdami’s government run stores. Explain how that idea has failed in the past. 

[Mark Davis]

3 minutes ago, Fnord said:

When today's kids are confronted at pretty early ages with the realities that their future appears significantly less promising from an economic standpoint than it has for any other prior generation, they're going to question the paradigm and mobilize against it.

Capitalism, while creating wild amounts of wealth for so many, if left to its own devices and allowed to nurture its basest philosophies by administrations hell bent on policies favoring Wall Street and the donor class, the end result will always be lopsided. Those with wealth become wealthier, those without it become poorer. Kids see this, and most kids are raised in homes with limited means, where money is tight, or worse. They've experienced the pain that comes with it.

The issue is not that socialism is preferable; it's not. The issue is that America cannot be a healthy nation if those making policy are doing it almost universally for the wealthy. The government needs to act as some kind of check on the worst impulses of capitalism, or money will run roughshod over all other considerations. This has happened time and again, and over the last century has occurred exclusively during Republican administrations. The wealth gap is getting worse, and this admin obviously caters far more to the donor class than any prior admin ever has.

I probably disagree with you on what some of the remedies to that would be.  Inflation is a huge factor in this though, we do likely agree on that.  Our system definitely has winners and losers, but our losers aren't as bad off as they are in a lot of systems that have failed. 

[Caine Mutiny]

8 minutes ago, Fnord said:

When today's kids are confronted at pretty early ages with the realities that their future appears significantly less promising from an economic standpoint than it has for any other prior generation, they're going to question the paradigm and mobilize against it.

Capitalism, while creating wild amounts of wealth for so many, if left to its own devices and allowed to nurture its basest philosophies by administrations hell bent on policies favoring Wall Street and the donor class, the end result will always be lopsided. Those with wealth become wealthier, those without it become poorer. Kids see this, and most kids are raised in homes with limited means, where money is tight, or worse. They've experienced the pain that comes with it.

The issue is not that socialism is preferable; it's not. The issue is that America cannot be a healthy nation if those making policy are doing it almost universally for the wealthy. The government needs to act as some kind of check on the worst impulses of capitalism, or money will run roughshod over all other considerations. This has happened time and again, and over the last century has occurred exclusively during Republican administrations. The wealth gap is getting worse, and this admin obviously caters far more to the donor class than any prior admin ever has.

Great great post. 
 

Another point is that young people are coming out of college and not able to find jobs. Unless that changes don’t expect them to love capitalism. People love whatever works. 

 

 

[Fnord]

13 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

Read the first two... doesn't look like it's making your point very well.  Not surprised.  You never really make any good points.

OK, mini-Strike.

You asked a question, I answered it. The 80s are widely accepted as having seen a hard turn to the right; sorry it contradicts your previously formed, ignorant opinions. You've obviously never questioned why Reagan is considered the gold standard of American conservatism. Do you think that occurred in a vacuum?

Always appreciate a dikish response, and the GC never disappoints on that front.

[Fnord]

2 minutes ago, Mark Davis said:

I probably disagree with you on what some of the remedies to that would be.  Inflation is a huge factor in this though, we do likely agree on that.  Our system definitely has winners and losers, but our losers aren't as bad off as they are in a lot of systems that have failed. 

True. And I think that speaks to the greatness of our systems when they're working properly.

[Frozenbeernuts]

So weird that rich people who got rich off of capitalism are now claiming how evil it is. Of course they aren't giving away their own money.

[Caine Mutiny]

This nation MIGHT have gone Communist in 1933 had not FDR and the New Deal saved capitalism. Were conservatives grateful to FDR? Hardly, they attacked him as “Communist lite” and made the exact same arguments against the New Deal that they’re making now: it’s creeping socialism and soon we’ll all live in totalitarian state!! 
 

These sorts of arguments never work.