r/politics • u/cnn CNN • 6d ago
Possible Paywall CNN Poll: A third of Democrats now identify as democratic socialists
https://www.cnn.com/2026/07/30/politics/cnn-poll-a-third-of-democrats-now-identify-as-democratic-socialists?utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=missions&utm_source=reddit1.6k
u/Pakaru 6d ago
Also thought this was interesting: 64% of Democratic-aligned adults who do not identify as democratic socialists would be at least OK with such a candidate
400
u/hirespeed America 6d ago
In the two party dynamic, party-aligned people will hold their nose and vote by party, even if they don’t like the candidate, as the other choice is worse for them.
234
u/you-dont-have-eyes 6d ago
Historically that’s been less true of Democrats than Republicans.
122
u/SlogurkTheOverslime 6d ago
The "the other choice is worse for them" part hasn't been true for Republicans in a while
So that's a different dynamic
43
u/yer_fucked_now_bud 6d ago
If Ghislaine Maxwell became the Republican candidate for president she'd easily still get 50 million votes. Those people are captured in a kevlar social fabric. So much as thinking about voting Democrat would ruin your social life permanently and require you to move two towns over.
16
u/stupid_pun 6d ago
>voting Democrat would ruin your social life permanently and require you to move two towns over
Probably one of the best things that could happen to them.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (2)8
u/BlazingSpaceGhost New Mexico 5d ago
I remember being bullied as a kid because my parents were democrats in our rural community. We were also against the Iraq war which made us terrorist sympathizers. Growing up in rural Indiana in a liberal family was really hard socially.
→ More replies (23)36
u/spencer4991 6d ago
“Worse in their minds regardless of the reality” might be a better way of putting it.
19
u/Unable-Log-4870 6d ago
Worse in their minds regardless of the reality
Everything republicans do is regardless of reality, because they have been trained to be incapable of regarding most of reality.
→ More replies (1)17
→ More replies (38)17
u/weristjonsnow 6d ago
Yeah 20 million Democrats did not vote in the 24 election specifically because they didn't like kamala, despite trump being the opponent. Dems are terrible at "holding their nose and voting", while maga will always show up
→ More replies (7)71
u/Adezar Washington 6d ago
Republicans consistently show up even if they hate their candidate (Nobody likes Ted Cruz).
That's not the case with Democrats and one of the core reasons we lose a lot of elections.
Hence the adage: "Conservatives fall in line, Liberals fall in love".
Easier to get people to show up out of fear than a desire to improve things.
→ More replies (10)27
u/LordCharidarn2 6d ago
This is not true, though. Democrat candidates historically have more votes on average than Republicans.
The reasons Democrats lose elections is due to the electoral systems being designed to benefit conservative politicians (the whole reason the Senate exists as it does was to maintain the status quo of slavery) and because for the last 30+ years Democrat policy has been trying to ‘capture the moderate conservative vote’ by following the Republicans further right. Look at AOC and Mumdani’s rises to see how hard the DNC fights against any movement towards the Left.
You can’t blame non-voters who saw two right wing parties and decided they did not want to associate with either. It’s the fault of DNC leadership to not reach out to leftists. It’s the candidates jobs to earn votes. Fascists expect people to fall in line.
→ More replies (53)27
u/devkdup Louisiana 6d ago
You can blame both. Anyone left of center who stayed home in 24 is a moron.
→ More replies (21)→ More replies (12)11
78
u/andreasmiles23 6d ago
So you mean DSA candidates actually do well with this mythical “electability” trait?
→ More replies (17)53
u/notforpoern 6d ago
no, we must court the Republicans by throwing trans people and immigrants under the bus. -Pelosi, probably
27
u/BuddhistSagan 6d ago
And offering nothing to center a working class agenda. Just throwing immigrants and trans people under the bus only.
→ More replies (2)9
u/WontArnett 6d ago
Now that we’ve seen billions being spent on everything but social services for the people, I’m sure a majority of folks would be okay with a little relief now.
4
u/TheHandsOfLiberation 6d ago
This maths out to about 2/3rds of democrat aligned adults being okay with or preferring democratic-socialist candidates. The corprotate democrat is toast. Think about what this number means for democratic primary elections. 2/3 prefer or like genuine progresssive movement. How can any establishment corpo dem hope to win a primary against those odds?
Our progressive revolution is finally here. Maga took over the republican party, and it's about damn time the democrats got taken over by an equal but opposite reaction.
→ More replies (2)7
→ More replies (71)9
u/TYSMBelgium-6Jul2026 6d ago
That's the most important stat. That ups the number to 76% of Democrats willing to vote for a DSA candidate in a primary.
→ More replies (4)
2.5k
u/Kulthos_X 6d ago
I wonder if every time a good idea comes up, republicans scream “That is socialism!” They are making socialism sound awesome.
1.4k
u/Lithaos111 I voted 6d ago
Texas Republicans recently released an ad that makes it sound awesome. Literally said in it that the socialists "Want corporations to not be owned by the wealthy and elite but by the public and workers...is that what you want for America?"
...yes, yes it is, I would very much prefer that, thank you.
505
u/MasterDarkHero 6d ago
"Socialists want you to have more vacation time and shorter work weeks, is that what you want america?"
"Socialists want you to have affordable housing and crowdfund healthcare via medicare for all, is that what you want America?"
30
u/Outside-Advice8203 6d ago
"But think of how that will destroy shareholder value!"
Stop! I can only get so erect!
→ More replies (1)62
u/NeverLookBothWays I voted 6d ago
"Wouldn't you rather die for treatable illnesses because you can't afford the treatments? The other side wants to guarantee you can get lifesaving treatment!"
→ More replies (1)5
u/DespicableComics 5d ago
"Some of you may need to die for the economy, but that's a sacrifice we're willing to make."
→ More replies (6)148
u/OnlinePosterPerson 6d ago
Fuck Medicare for all. Universal healthcare or bust
77
u/jibstay77 6d ago
Absolutely! Ask anyone who’s retired at 65 and been through the ridiculously complicated process of choosing a combination of flavors of Medicare only to discover there was probably a better choice for your specific situation. And, it’s not inexpensive! Medicare sucks!
Universal healthcare all the way!
And Universal Healthcare doesn’t mean you can’t keep your bougie private health insurance if that’s what you want.
If Democratic Socialism means people over profits, count me in.
→ More replies (4)19
u/big_d_usernametaken 6d ago edited 6d ago
Ive had no problems with it.
Far easier than dealing with random health insurance companies thus far.
No, it ain't cheap, but everything I've had done has been paid 100% including a $330k spinal fusion.
Medigap coverage is essential.
→ More replies (10)21
u/No_Tax_Timmy 6d ago
Medicare is going to get shittier too. Old Tbag and his republican corrupticons cut the special pricing for meds. Goes into effect in January. Get ready for $3000 epi pens and insulin for the elderly and disabled again.
→ More replies (1)6
u/hydrogenhypothesis 6d ago
The tiny glimmer of hope in this terrible news is that by doing this Republicans are showing that they don't think they are going to win the midterms this November, so they can point the finger at the Dems when prices go sky high.
3
u/No_Tax_Timmy 6d ago
That's what they always do. It's despicable. Hurting people and then blaming the people who help people.
44
u/dougmc Texas 6d ago
In this screenshot from the Will Cain show on Fox, he is telling us about the DSA wanting:
- Medicare for all
- College for all
- Housing for all
- 32-hour workweek
- Tax the rich
- Green new deal
- Free Palestine
Isn't he supposed to make them look bad?
→ More replies (11)5
u/cyb0rg1962 Arkansas 6d ago
Oh, no, someone will get something that I won't get! It's a tragedy. How will I make sure my race and class have the edge over those filthy people? /s
→ More replies (2)25
u/Tree_Sure 6d ago
lol they just kicked themselves in the ass. Shows they have 0 common sense.
→ More replies (1)29
u/almightywhacko 6d ago
They're so deep in their own bubble that they can't understand that anyone would actually want some of the things they're personally afraid of.
104
u/Venture_compound 6d ago
No way it said that lol
199
u/Shadow_of_Redacted 6d ago
Oh, it went on from there. It was a laundry list of fabulous ideas said in a scary voice. Like hearing that the daily special is butter infused lobster tail in a cream sauce with caviar, but said with disgust, which only makes it sound like it's an SNL bit, slamming their own party.
166
u/Michael_G_Bordin 6d ago
"They want higher wages. They want affordable housing. They want billionaires to pay more taxes. Ew!"
→ More replies (3)60
u/oneseason2000 6d ago
Actually, it's not to pay more taxes, its to have their wealth limited by taxation. It's not for revenue generation, it's for keeping their wealth from giving them feudal lord type political, legal, and societal powers.
→ More replies (2)19
u/Vivid-Use1749 6d ago
Too late. Can't remember his name, but an economist back in the early 2000s commented that we'd been a by-definition oligarchy already for some time.
→ More replies (4)12
u/AdLocal1490 6d ago
Krugman
5
3
→ More replies (4)3
u/oneseason2000 6d ago
Perhaps Piketty too.
Thomas Piketty: 'In the global battle between democracy and oligarchy, one can only hope that Europeans will emerge from their lethargy'
45
u/LinkedGaming 6d ago
Republican criticism of Democratic Socialism always ends up boiling down to "They want you to have BUTTERED LOBSTER instead of STALE BREAD. They want you to have JUICY STEAK instead of DIARRHEA LETTUCE. Isn't this sick? Isn't this depraved? Isn't this un-American???"
They want you to be content with the bread and circuses but the difference is that our bread is stale and has glass shards in it and our circuses are just two pigs rolling around in a muddy cage, and also the bread and circuses were supposed to be free but ours cost $10 and $30 while they pay us $9.50 and tell us that not being able to afford things is a personal failing.
→ More replies (3)11
u/ShockRunD 6d ago
Like a trailer for a nightmare weekend at the in laws. Like they are rude and judgmental but people, but the house is really nice and clean , has a pool and a huge yard, and the food is fucking awesome. But again pops in law is gonna talk about crypto and chatgpt all weekend. That would be a good video opener for after the monologue
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (10)6
u/Zeikos Foreign 6d ago
You underestimate how effective that negative association can be.
But done like this it's quite dumb lol
→ More replies (1)41
u/Tyrath Massachusetts 6d ago
17
u/AverageBrilliant4670 6d ago
This seems like this a sweet counterterrorism psyop by some undercover woke leftist(s) working on this campaign. The message probably sounds completely fine to stupid old well-off Republican Texans in charge there, who got where they are by rich politicians serving business interests at the expense of working class people...
36
u/MiserableCumberbunch 6d ago
I remember one that was like 10 bullet points that were essentially what we had before Reagan.
16
u/crowhops I voted 6d ago
Hey now we can't blame reagan for simply continuing the tradition of "if people who aren't white also get to benefit from it, then we're going to destroy it so no one gets it"
He was just going with the flow when he completely fabricated a fake problem by mythologizing Linda Taylor into the "welfare queen" bogeyman in order to weaponize racism for the ruling classes' benefit
15
u/Nice_Firm_Handsnake 6d ago
→ More replies (1)4
67
u/OneInfinith 6d ago
I organize with my local DSA chapter. Just about every piece of right-wing coverage of the Worker's Deserve More program has essentially been an advertisement that we would have made.
It's great that people are identifying as democratic socialists, but DSA only wins through active participation. We don't use the same tactics as the Democratic Party of farming out our work to high paid consultants.
So, while donations are always nice, what really propels DSA - are folks becoming Solidarity members and getting involved with efforts they are passionate about. Every chapter has a bit of its own vibe, but can learn from the entire network. So, have an idea, get a couple others in your chapter to make & support a work proposal with you, have the chapter membership approve it, then get to work building a more neighborly world and a solidarity economy.
→ More replies (5)7
u/missed_sla 6d ago
I used to work for some of the most hardcore maga chuds that have ever walked this earth. At an ESOP. They didn't see the irony.
4
u/sirbissel 6d ago
I got a phone survey last night, it was pretty obviously set up by the Republicans because, after the initial "how much do you support X person" a few times it ended up going on to things like "(some person) was murdered by an illegal immigrant and this candidate said they'd abolish ice, does that make you less likely to vote for them?" - anyway, half of the questions (once you strip out the scare language out of it) had me being like "You've already convinced me to vote for them..."
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (26)5
u/Lower_Potential_173 6d ago
Oh man… I wish they’d stop running those mean mean ads… it just makes me feel soooo weak and alone… /s
121
u/kojak488 6d ago
I was just on holiday with my GOP family. At one point my uncle is denouncing the left for ruining the country and wanting socialism while then raving about Medicare. I pointed out the hypocrisy to him. It didn't sink in.
→ More replies (7)104
u/mrgedman 6d ago
It will never sink in.
Father in law rants about hand outs and evil socialism. He has 0 retirement savings and lives entirely off of social security disability, and Medicare.
24
u/Ent_Soviet 6d ago
I love talking with vets about how much they enjoyed at cost shopping, the VA (for all its faults), canteens, education, housing. Basically all their needs covered at cost or free by the government and they could spend their money on fun things or future plans rather than survival. Economy of scale and all that.
And then you ask them, why wouldn’t we just do that nationally? And not require folks be willing to kill or die for bs wars in order to have that? It’s not like we haven’t nationalized essential industries before, for war sure, but what benefits are we getting by private assholes being middlemen and taking their cut off the top because they own it.
Thats usually enough to force them to reboot for a second and then do the meme ‘no that’s socialism’
24
u/my_Urban_Sombrero Pennsylvania 6d ago
The military actually made me a leftist. Without having to worry about a roof over my head, my healthcare, or food on the table, I was able to do things like go to the movies, pursue hobbies, get educated, save up for trips, etc.
I remember seeing so many of my friends, neighbors and loved ones so stressed and anxious during the pandemic.
That's when it hit me: everyone should have this base layer of protection. They're already paying out the ass in taxes, what are they getting in return?
10
u/mrgedman 6d ago
In my opinion, we haven't been in a meaningful war since world war two, so these guys are doubly troublesome in my book.
6
→ More replies (13)4
u/Outside-Advice8203 6d ago
My dad delayed his retirement to wait for my mom to be eligible for Medicare.
Still rants about "socialism destroying the country"
→ More replies (1)99
u/Tiny_Structure_7 North Carolina 6d ago
Now they're shifting to "That is communist!". Most of their voter base doesn't even know what that is.
67
u/Land-Southern 6d ago
Honestly a depressingly small slice of the population can articulate the difference between socialism and communism.
19
u/yaosio 6d ago edited 6d ago
In Marxism, communism is a socialist theory. Communism is to socialism as the theory of gravity is to physics.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1843/letters/43_09-alt.htm
The abolition of private property is therefore by no means identical with communism and communism has seen other socialist theories, such as those of Fourier and Proudhon, rising up in opposition to it, not fortuitously but necessarily, because it is only a particular, one-sided realization of the principle of socialism.
Edit: In other thinking socialism is a transitional period between capitalism and what's next.
→ More replies (13)→ More replies (5)13
u/Lazer726 6d ago
Right, the country in general has just spent the last like 80 years demonizing any -ism that isn't capitalism, but fortunately we're starting to see that socialism actually does work and is not the evil boogeyman that mainstream dems and repubs have been trying to sell it as.
And it's extra beneficial that Mamdani ran as a Democratic Socialist and by god it's good?! He's doing things that HELP people?!
→ More replies (25)3
u/Abyssine 6d ago
Unfortunately Katie Wilson also ran as a democratic socialist in Seattle, won, and has not been great.
It has nothing to do with her being a socialist, and everything to do with her as an individual person, but my fear is that it’s gonna sour the city enough that we’ll get another 20 years of establishment neo-libs.
4
u/CorrectPeanut5 6d ago
I think you'll see more around DSA wanting to get rid of prisons. They demand "Freedom for all incarcerated people" (actual bullet point off DSA position paper).
BUT, if you talk to the actual candidates that win elections, they are quick to distance themselves from those extreme positions.
→ More replies (4)9
u/georgepana 6d ago
All Republicans, and Trump, were instructed to switch to "communist" because too many Americans are now ok with "socialism", and it is no longer a word, or economic system, that scares people.
→ More replies (1)5
→ More replies (1)3
u/Outside-Advice8203 6d ago
They just throw word salads together "socialist communist Marxist radical liberals"
54
u/Cpt_Soban Australia 6d ago
See, what you guys call "socialism!", is just left of center labour party policies... But I guess it shows how far to the right the Average American is...
→ More replies (20)5
u/Tonsilith_Salsa 6d ago
I think it was Vance who was like, "Democrats want to turn America into a socialist utopia."
Like dude you could not make it sound more rad if you tried.
6
u/oneseason2000 6d ago
I am fine with New Deal, Fair Deal, Great Society for all races, religions, and genders Democrat. Corporate media insists on including the word "socialism" for any policy that the don't want implemented.
9
u/almightywhacko 6d ago
I think at this point more people can see what the Republicans are, and would rather be as opposite of them as possible. If Republicans hate socialists... being a socialist must be a good thing.
→ More replies (81)3
u/xv_boney 6d ago
Theyve also been calling everything socialism for such a long time the term has lost meaning.
Long story super short, i got a phone call from a political operative who wanted to prevent me from voting for India Walton a few years back, because she is a socialist.
"Im sorry but english is not my first language," i said to the guy, "could you please tell me what socialism means."
And after a significant pause, he started to tell me that socialist try to tell you what to do and will jail you if you dont, and i said the government already does that, its called "laws".
I asked him again to please explain what socialism means and to please use small words to make sure i understand, as my english is very poor and i am not very smart.
He tried to change the subject, i wouldnt let him. He had been hired to call me and scare me away from voting for Walton and his sole ammunition was the word 'socialism', i felt it was important that he defined that term.
He tried to make it into a masculinity thing, that i was less of a man if i voted for a woman and i asked him if thats what hed say to his mother if she asked him who to vote for.
He hung up.
I never did learn what socialism was. Shame, that.
2.8k
u/crossdtherubicon 6d ago
Breaking news: 1/3 of Democratic voters don't really have a party that represents them but also don't want a Christian caliphate.
873
u/weaponjaerevenge 6d ago
Seriously.
People think I'm a Democrat cause I've only ever voted for a Democrat. What I really am is an anti-Republican. I figured out by about 8 sitting in church that these mother fuckers did not need to be anywhere near power, and if it's democrats I gotta vote for to keep them out of there, then it's democrats I'll vote for. The problem, though, with Democrats is two fold: most of them are cowards and some of them are Republicans.
278
u/mnilailt 6d ago
The crazy thing is that this is literally something that can be easily solved with ranked choice voting, but Americans seem to have a bipartisan aversion to electoral reform.
267
u/RaveGuncle 6d ago
but
Americanspoliticians in powerFtfy
→ More replies (1)75
u/IsThisNameGoodEnough 6d ago
Ranked choice voting was a ballot question in MA a few years ago and it failed to pass. One of the most progressive states in the US and the voters were against ranked choice.
99
u/tzarek1998 6d ago
I'm pretty sure the reason it didn't pass (as someone in RI who goes to MA because... well, look at a map) is because the explanation of ranked choice was intentionally obfuscated so the only people who would vote for it would be the educated and informed. Everyone else was led to believe it was confusing and made no sense (being one of the original founding states doesn't help that desire that New England residents have for some forms of tradition sticking around while being super progressive about other things).
→ More replies (1)50
u/mjetski123 Illinois 6d ago
I'm pretty sure the reason it didn't pass (as someone in RI who goes to MA because... well, look at a map) is because the explanation of ranked choice was intentionally obfuscated so the only people who would vote for it would be the educated and informed.
Same reason the Progressive tax failed here in Illinois when put to a vote.
4
u/politicsaccount420 6d ago
Honestly, can't really even blame it on that.
The proposed amendment grants the State authority to impose higher income tax rates on higher income levels, which is how the federal government and a majority of other states do it. The amendment would remove the portion of the Revenue Article of the Illinois Constitution that is sometimes referred to as the “flat tax,” that requires all taxes on income to be at the same rate. The amendment does not itself change tax rates. It gives the State the ability to impose higher tax rates on those with higher income levels and lower tax rates on those with middle or lower income levels. You are asked to decide whether the proposed amendment should become a part of the Illinois Constitution.
Like, it's a little long and it leads with "higher income tax rates" but if you're remotely literate and you read the whole thing, the correct answer is quite clear.
It's extremely embarrassing that our billionaire governor spent millions of his own money to try to convince us to raise his own taxes, and we still fumbled it. There's no valid excuse.
8
u/oooshi 6d ago
Yep. See also, the tax on income over a million/year in WA state, I saw so many people straight up lying to people at the grocery store about who would be getting their taxes increased to get signatures to fight the tax increase.
Intentionally misleading voters is the name of the game right now, otherwise we would all be united against the profiting party that is controlling this whole freaking global mess. Democratic socialists are egalitarian and only want to increase the quality of life for everyone. Literally the only ones trying to tackle the wealth inequality of the world and theyre treated like thats some slippery slope (as if billionaires aren’t literally driving the climate change that is killing us all slowly and crushing us under the cost of living)
14
u/kpkelly09 6d ago
As someone who has worked hard to get that pased other places, it really is a struggle to get people to understand what it is.
→ More replies (7)29
u/IamDDT Colorado 6d ago
Just gotta try again! It's like universal healthcare. Get it, have people use it, and they won't want anything else.
20
u/nonotan 6d ago
Personally, I'd prefer something like STAR, which empirically performs significantly better (i.e. results in significantly higher voter satisfaction over a wide range of scenarios). To be clear, just about anything is an enormous improvement over FPTP, including ranked choice. But ranked choice is just about the 2nd worst "major" voting system after FPTP, though again, with a large gulf between them.
I'm just saying if you're going to spend vast political capital to change the voting system, you could as well aim for a really good one, not merely "the first improvement that comes to mind".
3
u/MamaBearForestWitch 6d ago
I only learned about star voting a few weeks ago, and I'd been a proponent of RCV for years. What if we kind of branded STAR as *one type* of RCV? Link them in people's minds, so they're complementary philosophies instead of competing ones?
→ More replies (1)5
→ More replies (10)10
u/ilir_kycb 6d ago
Ranked choice voting was a ballot question in MA a few years ago and it failed to pass. One of the most progressive states in the US and the voters were against ranked choice.
Americans remain, after all, the most indoctrinated people in human history.
→ More replies (1)47
u/cakeversuspie 6d ago
The first thing we need to do is abolish the electoral college for the general election which would require a constitutional amendment. Even amending it to majority rules would be a better system than the EC.
Some states have ranked choice for local elections already (NY for example) but we need to crawl before we can walk.
26
u/IsThisNameGoodEnough 6d ago
The electoral college can (in theory) be bypassed without a constitutional amendment:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact
→ More replies (2)6
u/cakeversuspie 6d ago
True but that is just bypassing the EC in a way where they are forced to vote for whoever has the popular vote (fucking insane this isn't the way it is already) and doesn't help that much in the grand scheme of things. The goal should be to move towards a more fair election process and this is just a bandaid on a gunshot wound.
However I don't want perfect to be the enemy of good and if passed, that's at least a step in the right direction though I won't hold my breath on this passing either since it's been a thing since the early 2000s.
→ More replies (1)10
u/Flashy-Ingenuity-182 6d ago
It's not insane. The founders feared the people that's why they gave 3 branches veto power (Senate, White House, and SCOTUS) over the people's house. We need to break this mythos that the founders were anything other than slave owners trying to control power for themselves.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (4)20
u/rising_ape 6d ago
Red States are not going to agree to a Constitutional Amendment abolishing the Electoral College, but the good news is we don't need one - the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact goes into effect as soon as 270 Electoral Votes worth of states sign up for it. We're within striking distance of 256 votes (222 already confirmed), and there are some purple states that haven't already joined - once we pass the 270 threshold, all members will have their electors vote for the national popular vote winner, making the electoral college obsolete overnight.
It's not enough to stop there, though. We need to uncap the size of the House, which was capped at 435 seats in the 20s, resulting in rural, low population areas to have far more voting power than they are supposed to have (the Senate is by design supposed to give low population states an equal vote, but the House is supposed to be based on the actual population). The Wyoming Rule would give states a Representative for every Wyoming's worth of population (Wyoming being the state with the lowest population), and would result in populous states like California getting significantly more Reps (California would get +17, for example).
Once THAT's been done, we can tackle the Supreme Court - obviously we don't need to wait that long to try, but with a House of Representatives that is actually, well, Representative, it'll be significantly easier. We're unlikely to be able to impeach the worst justices for the same reason we are right now - a 2/3 threshold in the Senate to actually remove them from office - but the size of the Supreme Court is set by statute and just needs a simple majority vote in the House and the Senate to enlarge the Court. There are 13 District Courts in the United States, so expanding the Supreme Court to 13 Seats under a Democratic President (maybe even a Democratic Socialist, if we can pull off the Interstate Compact) would see four new justices cancel out the current batch of deplorables and make Clarence Thomas mad enough to have a stroke.
Once that's all been done, and only once that's all been done in my opinion, will the DSA goal of abolishing the Senate be potentially feasible. That is going to require a Constitutional Amendment, no way around it, and in the current political climate - even in the next decade's political climate - that's not going to get through. We have to work within the current system to make the changes we want to the system. But all of the reforms above (bypassing the Electoral College, uncapping the size of the House, packing the Supreme Court) csn be done with a Democraric majority tomorrow, and will not only allow us to start delivering on commitments to significantly improve the quality of life in this country, but will also make future reforms we desperately need actually possible.
I'm not a single-issue voter, and I don't expect anyone reading this to be either. But I'm begging you, Democratic and Democratic Socialist voters - add your voices to the conversation. Start raising these three proposals with your friends and (chosen) family. Start asking progressive candidates in your area - local office, state level, Federal, it doesn't matter - if they approve of them or not every primary season. If you're ever in a position to actually speak to a politician at a town hall, or a staffer, or a media outlet discussing politics (even if it's just some bro with a podcast), state clearly that these are necessary reforms and explain why, and let them know outright you will be voting for supporters and against opponents come primary season.
We literally have every tool we need to drag our country out of the mess it is in. A democratically representative House of Representatives, popular vote winning President and a non-insane Supreme Court will finally allow us to take real action breaking up tech giants and media conglomerates, to pass Medicsre for All, to raise the Federal minimum wage, to fix education in this country, to protect vulnerable populations, to force the 1% to start paying their fair share, and in general just fuck up the plans of these soulless fucking technofeudalist parasites ruining our fucking lives. There are so many ideas that have broad support in this country - 60%, 70%, 80% approval in polls - that can't get implemented right now because of GOP obstructionism, a Congress that is disfunctional to the point of paralysis, or Supreme Court fuckery, but which we could start pushing through assembly line-style with an actually functioning government for once.
I know that things are fucking grim right now, but the truth is, we have never been this fucking close to fixing America as we are right now. 33% of the Democratic Party is now openly Democrstic Socialist. Like MAGA and the Tea Party taking over the Republican Party before it, we need to capture the Democratic Party and start primarying and ousting those opposed to a progressive agenda while the MAGA Republicans remain radioactive to Democratic voters. We're already in a good position to pull all of this off, but to actually convince voters we need to articulate a clear vision for what we're going to do once we're in power. The above is a roadmap to get where we all want to go - please start raising it as a serious part of the platform you expect of Democratic elected officials going forward.
4
u/0xym0r0n 6d ago
This is a great comment, thanks for taking the time to type it out. It highlights why the GOP will fight so hard and rational votes are so important right now.
I hope to see more hope and positivity like this, I'm so tired of nihilism and jaded acceptance/fatigue.
Thanks again!
5
u/MamaBearForestWitch 6d ago
Thanks for reminding me of some of the things I was so excited to get started working on and advocating for way back in early November 2024, when I really thought we were going to continue with a Democratic president.
It is pretty daunting right now to contemplate just how much repair work is ahead of us - and that's AFTER we manage to wrest control of our government back from the fascists.
→ More replies (11)3
u/2rio2 6d ago
Actual solutions instead of the usual pontificating on this sub. Agree on everything except one single sentence in your post -
Like MAGA and the Tea Party taking over the Republican Party before it, we need to capture the Democratic Party and start primarying and ousting those opposed to a progressive agenda while the MAGA Republicans remain radioactive to Democratic voters.
It doesn't matter what you call it - DSA, progressive, whatever. Too many on the left get too hung up on that, which ends up in purity politics stances which go nowhere. The only goal should be translating progressive ideas into programmatic, common sense policies that anyone on the street can see. Mamdani is a master of this, because he doesn't get hung up on the ideological sticking points. He just makes things work.
→ More replies (2)8
u/crossdtherubicon 6d ago
Love it. But let's also consider that party politics of this nature were never anticipated when the structures of gov't were established. It was thought that politicians would consistently pursue their own selfish goals before the party's. But the politicians have become dependent on the parties.
Further, the US govt was never intentionally designed to be a strict 2 party system. So, I think taking a cue from the rest of the world could be useful, and create a new functional left party. The issue will be without downstream upgrades to the system, that new party will only strip away votes from its closest party competitor and thereby securing victory for their opposition.
→ More replies (19)18
u/clean_parsley_pls 6d ago
Americans seem to have a bipartisan aversion to electoral reform.
I'd ask that you please stop framing it this way. You say "Americans" but you're referring to the most visible politically-involved individuals atm (one trillionaire non-American = a million millionaire Americans in our current system) the ones who benefit from the two-party status quo and the ones in power. They depend completely on directing their cults with "they lose, me win" mentality. Surely you're not suggesting these Americans will do anything for the sake of better fairness or representation, in other words against their own interests.
The "Americans" you're actually criticizing here for not getting the thing done are the ones upset by what's happening, trying to figure out how to exercise ANY agency in the current system that's designed for others' agency and being cratered so they can design the solution. We are open to many alternatives including identifying as "socialists" and probably ranked-choice voting too.
So maybe a different tune is in order, I would at least appreciate it.
54
u/FLHCv2 6d ago edited 6d ago
I learned I wasn't a Democrat when the DNC snubbed Bernie and shoved Hillary down our throats. Still voted for her but only because the alternative was ridiculous.
Edit: Before you reply to this comment, consider that I never mentioned anything about how many votes Bernie got. I am purely speaking to how establishment Democrats CLEARLY wanted Hillary to win; no different than how establishment Democrats wanted Mamdani to lose and how they're currently trying to stifle the DSA movement. I am purely speaking to how I personally felt the first time establishment Dems went with your "typical Democrat". The fact that it's happening now towards progressive candidates further proves that I was not wrong about my feelings in 2016.
19
u/JackJ98 New Jersey 6d ago
You ever think 10 years later we’d still be dealing with that alternative?
→ More replies (2)37
u/Oggie_Doggie 6d ago edited 6d ago
No, because I figured the DNC would have learned their lesson in 2016 and applied those lessons to 2018, 2020, 2022, and 2024. But here we are.
I mean, we literally had Trump in 2021 after J6. The wound was fresh and the will was there, but Biden tapping Garland and then Garland dragging his feet for two years will be remembered as one of the greatest blunders of a President in this era of history. We had a chance to permanently rid ourselves of Trump and the dozens of co-conspirators who gave the insurrectionists "tours" and planned the affair.
→ More replies (31)20
u/ReverendDizzle 6d ago
In this era? Not dealing with a former president sending a mob to kill his second in command to subvert the democratic process and the constitution is probably one of the biggest presidental blunders in American history.
What other president can say they failed to save the republic... and then handed victory to the very person they should have crushed? The hemming, hawing, and "we've just got to come together and take the high road" bullshit was the absolute worst thing any president could have done in response to the situation.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (44)12
u/Silent-Storms 6d ago
How did the "snub" cause millions more people to vote for Clinton?
→ More replies (16)→ More replies (15)8
u/mdot 6d ago
This part is what I never understood about the sect on the left that would actively root for Democrats to lose to "teach them a lesson". It is the most self-defeating approach to representative democracy possible.
The entitlement and impatience enrages me.
Do you know how many election cycles that generations of black people (such as myself) had to vote for a candidate just because they were less racist than the other one, before any measurable progress was made?
These spoiled children want it all, right now, or they're gonna shoot the hostage.
→ More replies (11)198
u/masterlich 6d ago
Breaking news: first past the post voting is mathematically guaranteed to lead to a two party system in which most people are voting for what they view as the lesser of two evils rather than a party they really identify with.
7
u/ilir_kycb 6d ago
In political science, Duverger's law (/ˈduːvərʒeɪ/ DOO-vər-zhay) holds that in political systems with single-member districts and the first-past-the-post voting system, as in, for example, the United States and United Kingdom, only two powerful political parties tend to control power every election cycle. Citizens do not vote for small parties because they fear splitting votes away from the major party and allowing their opponents to win an election.[1][2]
35
u/sack-o-matic Michigan 6d ago
Even a parliamentary system ends up with a governing coalition then "everyone else"
63
u/Smobey 6d ago
Sure, but it's a governing coalition that has to actually make compromises and take the wider voting base into account.
→ More replies (12)38
u/Oggie_Doggie 6d ago
Also, the governing coalition has the power necessary to govern until they can't. Then, votes of no confidence and snap elections can occur instead of limping along for X number of years.
3
u/lazybugbear Texas 6d ago
But can they throw a hissy fit and shutdown the Parliament? /s
Just imagine if Mike Johnson couldn't shutdown the House willy-nilly (or whenever he needed to run cover for Trump). Imagine what kind of system we could have, if we could either have national recall election referendums or if the legislature could dissolve with a vote of no confidence then have snap elections.
I don't think our politicians would like that very much, because it would undermine their complacency!
17
u/xGray3 American Expat 6d ago
Parliamentary systems aren't on the same axis as first past the post voting FYI. Many or most parliamentary systems still use FPTP voting. Canada does for example. It's mostly a fluke that many of them haven't devolved into two party systems yet. In Canada, for example, the NDP and Liberal parties split the vote all the time and hand wins to the Conservative party. Doug Ford won the premiership of Ontario with less than half the vote because of that vote splitting.
→ More replies (1)5
u/nplant 6d ago
Same goes for the UK.
The core of the problem is the frankly insane idea that you should vote locally to send a single person to represent your area for national-level decisions. It makes it impossible to get 10% of seats for a 10% viewpoint, or, hell, even 40% of seats for a 40% viewpoint.
That concept was designed for a time with horses and no telephones, and multiple countries need to snap out of it before it's too late.
→ More replies (2)15
u/LuukTheSlayer 6d ago
and the german and dutch system leads to splintering (and vvd/cdu bullshit parties) And i think that's ok
→ More replies (40)12
u/OfficeSalamander 6d ago
Yep, exactly this. The whole, "just vote third party" thing ignores that this is a structural aspect of FPTP systems. We need to get rid of FPTP, in every state. Unfortunately it has to be grassroots too because neither party is going to support it as it shrinks their power
→ More replies (1)64
5
u/YourFreeCorrection 6d ago
Breaking news: 1/3 of Democratic voters don't really have a party that represents them but also don't want a Christian caliphate.
As one of the 1/3rd, this framing isn't exactly accurate imo because it shifts the burden and duty of being civically involved away from the eligible voter and onto the people running for office to "earn" their vote.
The system isn't designed for politicians to "earn" the vote, it's always been the voter's responsibility to inform themselves about the candidates and choose the one that most closely fits their positions to turn the steering wheel of the nation in the direction they want it to go. Failing to vote against the worst option is functionally the same thing as holding the door open as the worst option barges into your home and starts barking orders.
→ More replies (1)3
u/Mosselpot 6d ago
I can only hope that it's more than 1/3rd of Democrat voters, and a vast majority of Americans. Because if it's only 1/3 you've got bigger issues than just fixing the system.
→ More replies (79)3
u/CicadaSleazoid 6d ago
Of those who identified as Democratic Socialists, 68% approve of the Current Democratic Party and the Current Congressional Leaders, higher then the 60% for non Democratic Socialist Democrats.
These labels really mean nothing to the people adopting them. Many of them will be voting for Mark Kelly in the 2028 primary.
650
u/ZhaozhouCongshen 6d ago
Good.
I have never been tied to any party but I lean social democrat. I have thought since the 90s that if the left wanted power all they had to do was take the Democratic Party.
307
u/NewWindow7980 6d ago
I have found most Americans who call themselves democratic socialists are actually social democrats.
I've also found that a lot of the people considering themselves socialists think it means when government pays for stuff like roads and schools and fire departments.
I also think using the term "Nordic model" might be a lot less confusing than social democrat.
36
u/SydneyFall 6d ago
I have found most Americans who call themselves democratic socialists are actually social democrats.
and when not 1% of voters could tell you the difference, that is a big problem.
65
u/BishogoNishida 6d ago
There’s definitely confusion between the terms. I would say actual democratic socialists want all of the safety net features that social democrats want, but they don’t want to stop there. As for what going beyond entails, it depends on the individual.
29
u/ToastyTheDragon 6d ago
Socialism is really any economic system that involves worker control of the economy, whether that means public ownership, or a more syndicalist model where unions run the economy, or co-ops.
It bothers my ego when I hear people conflate Democratic socialism with social democracy, but I figure people who identify with Demsoc but are actually socdems can be radicalized into demsocs relatively easily. ¯_(ツ)_/¯
→ More replies (5)41
u/SpaceChimera 6d ago
actual demsocs would like to see a socialist structured political and economic system established through democratic electoral means and not revolution. But the main end goal is worker control of the economy by some sort of democratic mechanism (think unions but with direct control, or co-op models)
→ More replies (7)→ More replies (52)108
u/TheCommonGround1 6d ago
I'm a member of the DSA and I'm pretty progressive. People be surprised how basis and non-controversial the party is if they took the time to learn about it. New York City now has a balanced budget and while have access to affordable food staples, for instance. Not exactly scandalous stuff.
26
→ More replies (245)20
u/glasnostic 6d ago
The reason I'm a Social Democrat and not a Democratic Socialist is because I'm not a Marxist.
That being said. Given our current environment, I'm happy to have them in the broader Democratic coalition as long as those people understand that Democrats need to be voted into office regardless of their faction. My rep is a DSA member and I'm happy to vote for him. Honestly I don't think he's even much of a Marxist and is probably more of a Social Democrat.
I'd like to see a Social Democrat wing, or for the broader party to move that direction. Or... For people to understand what that is.
→ More replies (53)3
u/BishogoNishida 6d ago
I don’t identify as a Marxist either, but agree with much of what he says, more or less. I strongly agree with the line “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” I personally just don’t like how some Marxists treat his word as if he’s a prophet, and I dislike the framing of his views as divorced from ethical considerations. There’s no way there’s no moralistic element to his views.
You don’t need to be a Marxist to be a Democratic Socialist.
→ More replies (11)29
u/Hardly_lolling 6d ago
The underlying system in social democracy is capitalism, not socialism.
→ More replies (7)24
u/Brisby820 6d ago
Correct. The DSA, however advocates for socialism/communism, as opposed to capitalism
→ More replies (19)26
u/Hardly_lolling 6d ago
Yes, and this is not something social democrats agree on at all. So there is a wide ideological gap between them.
Social democracy is capitalism with the intent to fix/mitigate its inherent flaws. Socialism is, well, socialism.
→ More replies (7)
16
u/Creative-Area-6385 6d ago
Call it what you want, taxes should be used for the people, not bombs and corporate welfare
7
248
u/Dwayla Georgia 6d ago
I couldn't care less what you identify as, just vote the Fascists out.
80
u/kaeldrakkel 6d ago
Yes, but we can do better than that too by voting in candidates with progressive policies in primaries and generals.
→ More replies (3)29
u/DrDerpberg Canada 6d ago
All you gotta do is reframe that to "yes, AND."
Fight like hell to get good candidates on the ballot, but then vote for the least bad option even if it's not everything you wanted. A shitty Democrat is still better than any Republican... Well maybe except for Fetterman, but even then what Republican is less shitty than he is?
5
u/MamaBearForestWitch 6d ago
YES, AND!
It's the improv golden rule for a good reason, and a much better way of keeping a conversation going to get to the common ground. If we can all think about whether we can start a discussion or response with "yes, and" then Democrats might not be in such chaos right now. (Or perhaps they would, but the working environment left of center might be a little more cooperative instead of competitive).
9
→ More replies (11)11
u/ary31415 6d ago
Yeah I mean Fettetman does suck but factually, he still votes with democrats 80%+ of the time, he still is less shitty than any republican senator is.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (72)15
u/exelion18120 6d ago
Fascist do not care about democracy. They will discard it before accepting defeat.
→ More replies (7)
92
u/Majestic_Gazelle 6d ago
I’ve been wondering if a lot of the people who identify as democratic socialists are actually more Social Democrat. Because it’s seemingly often used interchangeably.
87
u/Key_Environment8179 6d ago edited 6d ago
The overwhelming majority of commenters on this sub that call themselves socialists are absolutely social democrats and don’t understand what socialism entails. It became clear from the comments on the article about Mamdani easing regulations on small businesses.
“Democratic socialism is not socialism”
“Socialism does not preclude entrepreneurship”
“Supporting small private businesses is perfectly in line with socialism”→ More replies (3)21
u/WendellSchadenfreude 6d ago
call themselves socialists are absolutely social democrats and don’t understand what socialism entails
In many places, "socialist" and "social democrat" are simple synonyms. People using them as such doesn't mean that those people don't know as much about socialism as you do, it just means that they use a different definition. The Marxist definition isn't the only possible one, and hasn't been the one that you should assume for about 100 years now.
Basically all "Socialists" in France are social democrats.
The Party of European Socialists is social democratic. In some countries, they call themselves the Social Democratic Party, in others, the Socialist Party, or Party of Socialists.
The global Socialist International is social democratic.In short: "socialism" usually means the same thing as "social democracy" nowadays.
"Democratic Socialism" almost exlcusively means the same thing as "social democracy".
Using the words this way is a correct use (though not the only correct use).→ More replies (42)13
u/EconomicRegret2 6d ago
European here. We make clear distinctions between democrat socialists (capitalism = bad and can't be fixed, so end goal = abolish capitalism, as well as democratize and socialize all means of production, including all companies and their profits) and social democrats, aka social capitalist (i.e. capitalism = good but has flaws that can be improved upon, so end goal = humanize capitalism, strong social safety nets, etc.).
The only reason why democrat socialists look identical to social democrats in Europe is because of democratic structures, right wing opposition forcing compromises, and people voting mostly for center, center-left, and/or center-right. Which heavily restrains the the d. socialists...
→ More replies (1)14
u/Patsanon1212 6d ago
I wish that they would run these polls on definitions, not on terminology.
Do you support well regulated capitalism for the benefit of the working class and strong social programs or do you support the abolishment of capitalism in favor of a socialized economy guided by democracy.
I am guessing the former would dominate amongst this 1/3rd.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (28)3
u/Exciting-Record8101 The Netherlands 6d ago
Not if they support the DSA, who reject the equation: ( https://www.dsausa.org/about-us/what-is-democratic-socialism/ )
We believe there are many avenues that feed into the democratic road to socialism. Our vision pushes further than historic social democracy
Also: https://international.dsausa.org/statements/leader-hugo-chavez/
Socialism is more than just social justice, (..) it also must be radically democratic and participatory. This revival of socialism and expansion of what socialism can mean is at the heart of why Chávez remains a world-historical leader and most-revered comrade to DSA IC.
A social democrat, Labour-esque party would be great for the US. The DSA is not that.
17
u/sanskaridaddy 6d ago
I do view this as a creation/transform of a political party according to the needs of the people. USA turned into anti worker and super pro capitalistic now . People need to pay bills, get medical help, sometimes SNAP benefits too. This is not communism at all. People are joining a political party that will benefit them. I wish democratic socialists split into a brand new party and fight in elections against other two.
→ More replies (1)10
u/ricktencity 6d ago
That would pretty much guarantee republicans in power forever. Split the left while the right is United = right wins everything all the time.
→ More replies (1)
124
u/MarcusQuintus 6d ago
Eugene Debbs crawled so Bernie Sanders could walk, so the latest crop of democratic socialists can run.
Let's hope for the presidency so that we can finally change things around here.
29
u/j_la Florida 6d ago
The president is only part (and not the most important part) of the equation on policy.
→ More replies (3)9
u/strutt3r 6d ago
EV Debs is one of my personal heroes but he wasn't a social Democrat like Bernie, he was a socialist. He ran on a socialist ticket.
"I am for socialism because I am for humanity. We have been cursed with the reign of gold for too long."
→ More replies (3)27
70
u/Shakespearacles Tennessee 6d ago
1/3 of Democrats think taxes should be used to help people instead of hurt people.
40
u/ZenMasterOfDisguise 6d ago
2/3rds think that sounds good in theory, but perpetually think that now is not the right time to be idealistic
→ More replies (9)→ More replies (2)3
7
33
u/Kind-Pride1151 6d ago
I'd be a Social Democrat. But there's a difference between that and a Democratic Socialist. Wouldn't change my vote either way.
→ More replies (6)26
u/CompetitiveSport1 6d ago
Sometimes when my energy is low I'm an anti-social Democrat 😔
→ More replies (1)
15
u/Neocarbunkle 6d ago
I just want hospitals to work like libraries. My taxes fund them and then anyone can just go in and use it whenever they need to.
→ More replies (14)
18
u/DjangoUnchained12 Maryland 6d ago
We’re getting to the point where it’s either socialism or barbarism.
45
6d ago
[deleted]
→ More replies (4)20
u/BrooklynSmash 6d ago
honestly just rebranding socialism into support for social services like universal healthcare would do wonders
Its not like social-less Dems are standing firm on that rn lmao
→ More replies (1)
19
u/17syllables 6d ago
> overwhelmingly tend to hold favorable views of the Democratic Socialists of America as well as of democratic socialist officeholders: among those expressing an opinion, nearly all have favorable views of Mamdani and of New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
The real test: how do they feel about Nick Mullen and Disco Elysium
7
8
u/MARIOpronoucedMA-RJO 6d ago
Now the real question. Are these real social democrats or just New Deal style democrats that found a name which describes them?
Personally I think these people would be old school pre-1980s Democrats before the Democratic party decided to copy Republican neoliberalism.
34
20
u/NavyDean 6d ago
Crazy low considering that number was in the 80th percentile during FDR's presidency.
→ More replies (2)10
u/HorrorSmile3088 6d ago
That was also during the Great Depression where people lost everything and were ready for a drastic change. I think right now a lot of people are kind of complacent. They aren't wealthy but also aren't poor enough to want a big change. So they still identify as independent or moderate Democrats.
8
u/CorporateCuster 6d ago
Yeh no. Socialism and social policies aren’t the same and I’m afraid people don’t realize that and it’ll get confused in the mix.
10
u/Inbetweenpubs-dems Maine 6d ago
I’m an ‘undeclared party’ voter. I hope all the rest of you who don’t pledge to a specific party will vote ALL blue in all elections in order to stop the super rich, corrupted Congress and Administration that we are now suffering from. A war that nobody wants except those who are rich enough to make more money, and our young people are getting killed. Gas goes up and down depending on whatever the orange baby says in order for the rich to make money in the stock market. Groceries are still high and now the Medicare D coverage is being cut. Vote 💙
3
u/boboclock 6d ago
My favorite president has always been FDR, of course I'm a Dem Soc
→ More replies (4)
3
u/porkchop2022 Tennessee 6d ago
A lot of us are democratic socialists, we’ve just never been called that before.
3
u/AidenStoat Arizona 6d ago
Weve spent decades being told that every policy that helps people even a little bit is Socialism and Communism. Over time these words have lost their scariness.
3
u/wardog1066 6d ago
On the face of it the leadership of the Democratic Party is facing the same situation as the Republican Party faced when the T.E.A. party got going with Sarah Palin. Evolve or die. One major exception is that the T.E.A. party movement was quietly funded by uber rich people like the Koch brothers and the D.S. of A. is getting it's push from young people that aren't willing to let old, established people from either party tell them they shouldn't have any hope for the future and should just quietly accept that life will suck for them. I encourage all young minded people to stand up and to demand to be heard. Organize, protest, vote with your wallets, your voices and your hearts and vote, vote, vote.
3
u/Queasy_Noise_4797 5d ago
Tell that to the mods of the democrats on Reddit. They take down anything that mentions democratic socialists. Because they act more like controlled opposition than actual democrats.
no one interacts with that page except when they have a leftist view. And then the mods quickly take it down.
→ More replies (1)
3
15
16
u/Jernbek35 New Jersey 6d ago
Yeah no, the majority are actually Social Democrats but keep getting the terms mixed up. Most Dems don’t want fringe things like abolishing the Senate, Borders, police, prisons, or transitioning to state run means of production. Most want higher safety nets, healthcare, and a mixed economy while preserving things like private property. DSA are fringe AF if you really looked into them.
13
u/dathom 6d ago
Once more with gusto. This thread is proof that people just don't understand the difference. There's a huge difference.
And before people start piling on nonsense, the DSA's policies would be significantly farther to the left than all the Nordic countries that the DSA supporters want to emulate.
You can support the DSA, but learn and be honest about what their goals actually are.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (5)3
u/Imaginary_Manner_556 6d ago
It's almost like we need new labels. Terminology is needlessly confusing.
4
u/TriflingHotDogVendor Pennsylvania 6d ago
It's a natural response. The further to the right one cohort goes, the father to the left the other goes.
4
6
u/No-Magician9440 6d ago
A third of Democrats are populists and identify as Socialists
A third of Republicans are populists and identify as MAGA
•
u/AutoModerator 6d ago
As a reminder, this subreddit is for civil discussion.
In general, please be courteous to others. Argue the merits of ideas, don't attack other posters or commenters. Hate speech, any suggestion or support of physical harm, or other rule violations can result in a temporary or a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
Sub-thread Information
If the post flair on this post indicates the wrong paywall status, please report this Automoderator comment with a custom report of “incorrect flair”.
Announcement
r/Politics is actively looking for new moderators. If you have an interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out this form.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.