Discussion: Democratic Socialism Is Surging In The Age Of Trump

I am thinking this is a story about tilting at windmills. Some great ideas, but not gonna happen.


sigh. Hopefully, enough Dems will ignore this and get on with the work of defeating the feral trumpers via voting for any Democrat running for office. That’s it. Forget about the “democratic socialism” and just vote D. :worried:


It is too bad that we put outdated labels on good policy ideas. Defeats significant change every time. Both systems failed us. Let’s talk medicare for all, $15 minimum wage, free college tuition and addressing climate change. Forget the old labels and identities. The times are too urgent to get catch up in that.


Besides winning when the Repubs are out of favor, what should the democrats stand for?


Better Deal?
(forgot the new one already)
Continuing failure?

with her?
Better together?

Oh, yeah, forgot. We already tried those. They sucked.

They should change their name to The Social Democratic Party. Sounds better.

It surged in exactly one race in New York.

It was defeated in the primaries in Texas.


As long as they don’t turn into the Dem’s version of the Freedumb Caucus all power to 'em.


What we have here is an over excited AP reporter mistaking one upset victory in NY (over an incumbent whose primary goal was to stick around long to become speaker and who sent a proxy to a debate) as a populist uprising surge revolution. While I believe the Democrats are going to make affordable healthcare, universal healthcare, single payer, whatever it may be called, their top of the agenda priority, D voters have to show up in November and they’re notoriously apathetic in midterm turnout.


The kind of candidate you want is all about the district. I’d run Ocasio-Cortez happily in certain districts around the rural Midwest, let’s say IA 1 or 2, KS 2 or 4, MN 8, where populists are known to do well; the hardcore racist vote is gone as it is, while the economic and social messages are geared for swing voters in these kinds of districts. But wealthy suburban Chicago and Minneapolis? That’s more of a stretch; I can’t see it at all in MN-3 or IL-10, both of which are far too economically comfortable and socially secure to accept the message, and while a place like IL-6, 8 and 11 and MN-2 might be more receptive, it would require some serious coalition-building. The city of Chicago itself, let’s say CDs 1 through 5 as well as 7? She’d be my first choice. The very left-liberal but also wealthy and rather elderly 9th? Difficult to say; though she’d be in no danger of actually losing the seat.

By the same token a Clinton soft-liberal would be a perfect fit for well-educated big city suburbs and also a possibility for prosperous, relatively progressive, suburb-centered cities like Des Moines, Iowa, but falls rather flat elsewhere. You need a sense of possibility to overcome mid-term apathy and in a lot of these potentially swing rural seats or in very urban seats where a turnout boost can help in statewide contests, and the current Democratic Party leadership doesn’t provide that sense.


Ms. Ocasio is a nice story but she has to be careful not to go off the rails. I know her district. Heck I was born in the same housing development as her 40 years earlier. She is not a new wave. She is being used by every fringe group with an agenda. I hope she get good advice.


Hers is a courageous, hopeful story, and successful outcome we can all aspire to, but I think we’re looking for a Meghan Markle-like figure who’s going to sweep the country off its feet through her sheer charisma.

1 Like

“The swift evolution is latest evidence of a nationwide surge in the strength and popularity of an organization…”

Based on one schmo in Maine becoming a dues-paying member? Hilarious hyperbole!


“Members during public meetings often refer to each other “comrades,” wear clothing featuring socialist symbols like the rose and promote authors such as Karl Marx.”

Oh, so you mean they’re Trumptards with slightly higher wardrobe budgets. Oh, ok.

Thanks, Comrade!

Please let us know when the Jill Stein Defense Fund Gala is this year!



I was for Mrs. Clinton from the get-go, given the other choices. (And I thought she was a poor politician/campaigner and had way too much negative baggage–deserved and undeserved, also from the get-go.) I voted for Clinton. In the only state that gave an EV to Bernie. Spare me your garbage.

“I’m with her.”
“Better Together.”

were both the best thing the Democrats (and/or the Clinton campaign) could come up with as slogans to capture what they stood for. And they both sucked. “Make America Great Again”, by contrast, was a call to action and a projection of a result. Ignoring all else, as a slogan, it had way more going for it than anything the Democrats (and/or the Clinton campaign) came up with.

1 Like

While I wish them well (let a thousand flowers bloom and all that), I do not see the DSA as the wave of the future. More 19th Century. Getting hung up on labels and ideology is a powerful intoxicant, but we are (I hope) beyond all that.
As said above, more important is to focus on those things which better the community, and do not imagine we are still in an age of proletarians. Universal healthcare is not a “democratic socialist” idea, nor is education quality, wage minimums, and detoxifying the immigrant issue. More something Otto Von Bismark would do to strengthen his country.


Well, there is a difference between democratic socialists and social democrats. At origin, the one wanted to abolish capitalism, and the other only desired tio fix up the worst abuses of capitalism.
Things have been blurred since.

1 Like