Democratic Socialists and the Democratic Party

While I agree with you on voting rights for national elections, I beg to differ on municipal & school board elections.  In the local forum, non-citizens are contributors with a stake in what is going on.

On state wide elections, I am undecided on this point.

It's frustrating that moderate Democrats are fighting against Democratic Socialists so much. Why not work together to take back Congress and defeat the Orange Menace in 2028?

Carville is a dinosaur, a relic of the Bill Clinton era.  Time to move on.

yahooyahoo said:

It's frustrating that moderate Democrats are fighting against Democratic Socialists so much. Why not work together to take back Congress and defeat the Orange Menace in 2028?

Carville is a dinosaur, a relic of the Bill Clinton era.  Time to move on.

I think there’s anger on one side (the left) and fear on the other (the centrists). Two powerful emotions. 

Carville and his ilk are afraid that opening the door to more left-leaning members will alienate the center. And scare off independent voters who might otherwise select a mainstream Democrat in a presidential or congressional race. 

I think on the left you have a younger electorate that’s frustrated by what appear to be failures by older mainstream Democrats. Other than the Obama and Biden presidencies, we have been outmaneuvered by the Republican Party since the late 90s. Resulting in massive wealth inequality and less opportunity for younger people. 

mrincredible said:

yahooyahoo said:

It's frustrating that moderate Democrats are fighting against Democratic Socialists so much. Why not work together to take back Congress and defeat the Orange Menace in 2028?

Carville is a dinosaur, a relic of the Bill Clinton era.  Time to move on.

I think there’s anger on one side (the left) and fear on the other (the centrists). Two powerful emotions. 

Carville and his ilk are afraid that opening the door to more left-leaning members will alienate the center. And scare off independent voters who might otherwise select a mainstream Democrat in a presidential or congressional race. 

I think on the left you have a younger electorate that’s frustrated by what appear to be failures by older mainstream Democrats. Other than the Obama and Biden presidencies, we have been outmaneuvered by the Republican Party since the late 90s. Resulting in massive wealth inequality and less opportunity for younger people. 

I think you are interpreting passion on the left for anger. Does Mamdani seem like an angry guy? Our own congresswoman Mejia is certainly not projecting anger. 

if anything these candidates on the left are generating more joy and positivity than any politicians in decades. Calling them angry is adopting the right wing framing.

and not for nothing but "centrism" is a mostly meaningless word when it comes to policy. A person who describes themself as "moderate" or "centrist" isn't likely to be in some middle between two poles on most issues. A hypothetical Maplewood "moderate" probably believes very strongly in reproductive rights, LGBTQ rights, anti-racism, etc. That person may also be against higher taxes on high earners, and against liberalizing immigration laws. None of those positions by themselves is somewhere in a center between left and right.

and that makes sense. Where is the "center" between racism and anti-racism? Where is the "center" between full rights for LGBTQ people and the curtailment of their rights? 

so I agree with mrincredible that all the viewpoints of the old guard Dems and the new democratic socialists should have room in the party. Because the "center" isn't generally some vague middle ground. 

Having spent my life voting against people I abhor, I am excited at the prospect of voting for politicians I support.

"Centrists" have entirely had their way for decades.  If they are upset at the prospect of a candidate who isn't entirely owned by Visa and Mastercard, well that is just the price of a big tent.

ETA:  I know Visa and MC are soooooo 2020.  These days its Palantir and Open AI.

ml1 said:

and not for nothing but "centrism" is a mostly meaningless word when it comes to policy. A person who describes themself as "moderate" or "centrist" isn't likely to be in some middle between two poles on most issues. A hypothetical Maplewood "moderate" probably believes very strongly in reproductive rights, LGBTQ rights, anti-racism, etc. That person may also be against higher taxes on high earners, and against liberalizing immigration laws. None of those positions by themselves is somewhere in a center between left and right.

and that makes sense. Where is the "center" between racism and anti-racism? Where is the "center" between full rights for LGBTQ people and the curtailment of their rights? 

so I agree with mrincredible that all the viewpoints of the old guard Dems and the new democratic socialists should have room in the party. Because the "center" isn't generally some vague middle ground. 

Your comments are well-taken. I’m just trying to simplify terminology. We’re talking about the left and right wings of the Democratic Party.  I agree it’s more of a 2-axis grid. One could be strongly opposed to fossil fuels, while feeling very strongly that our borders need to be tightly controlled, to your point. 

A political party has to figure out how to keep the largest group of its members on board. I’m sure Carville is afraid a ton of white boomers will bail out if they perceive a party going too far to the left. 

Or maybe he’s setting up to work to establish a “centrist” party, along with some disaffected Never Trump Republicans. Maybe he sees a lane in there for his political philosophy to sweep up a plurality of voters. 

And there are more centrist views. You could say you support the reform of immigration laws, more ability to cross the border legally, without a fully open border. You can say we need to outlaw all fossil fuels tomorrow, in five years, or twenty years, or never. You could say we’re going to create a new tax bracket that’s 5% higher than the current highest vs tax 100% of assets over a billion. Every one of these political beliefs exists on a spectrum. 

As a regular TPM reader, I tend to agree with Josh Marshall that it's not progressive vs. liberal but fighter vs. accommodationist.  As for Mejia, I don't think that she would have won a ranked choice primary election as other candidates split the vote.  Not sure that Sherrill would have won her primary, either, in a ranked choice environment.

mrincredible said:

ml1 said:

and not for nothing but "centrism" is a mostly meaningless word when it comes to policy. A person who describes themself as "moderate" or "centrist" isn't likely to be in some middle between two poles on most issues. A hypothetical Maplewood "moderate" probably believes very strongly in reproductive rights, LGBTQ rights, anti-racism, etc. That person may also be against higher taxes on high earners, and against liberalizing immigration laws. None of those positions by themselves is somewhere in a center between left and right.

and that makes sense. Where is the "center" between racism and anti-racism? Where is the "center" between full rights for LGBTQ people and the curtailment of their rights? 

so I agree with mrincredible that all the viewpoints of the old guard Dems and the new democratic socialists should have room in the party. Because the "center" isn't generally some vague middle ground. 

Your comments are well-taken. I’m just trying to simplify terminology. We’re talking about the left and right wings of the Democratic Party.  I agree it’s more of a 2-axis grid. One could be strongly opposed to fossil fuels, while feeling very strongly that our borders need to be tightly controlled, to your point. 

A political party has to figure out how to keep the largest group of its members on board. I’m sure Carville is afraid a ton of white boomers will bail out if they perceive a party going too far to the left. 

Or maybe he’s setting up to work to establish a “centrist” party, along with some disaffected Never Trump Republicans. Maybe he sees a lane in there for his political philosophy to sweep up a plurality of voters. 

And there are more centrist views. You could say you support the reform of immigration laws, more ability to cross the border legally, without a fully open border. You can say we need to outlaw all fossil fuels tomorrow, in five years, or twenty years, or never. You could say we’re going to create a new tax bracket that’s 5% higher than the current highest vs tax 100% of assets over a billion. Every one of these political beliefs exists on a spectrum. 

but the real problem with our so-called "centrist" Democrats is they aren't even trying to achieve the kind of compromise results you're describing. Which of them has real proposals for even incremental changes like a small increase in tax on higher incomes, or a phasing out of fossil fuels.

they are better described as "status quo" Democrats who don't want to do anything that may upset the political donor class.

ml1 said:

but the real problem with our so-called "centrist" Democrats is they aren't even trying to achieve the kind of compromise results you're describing. Which of them has real proposals for even incremental changes like a small increase in tax on higher incomes, or a phasing out of fossil fuels.

they are better described as "status quo" Democrats who don't want to do anything that may upset the political donor class.

Well, maybe the influx of a more progressive/socialist cadre will pull the center of the Democrats to the left. 

The other interesting thing I’m seeing is all this rhetoric about the massive shift, that somehow this constitutes a takeover by Democratic Socialists.  While it’s not negligible, it certainly isn’t like the Democratic establishment has been broadly overthrown. Mamdani is mayor of the biggest city in the country, sure, but is anyone really surprised that someone like him might win in the bluest dot on the map?  Colorado, especially Denver, as well. There’s a couple hundred other Democrats in Congress who are going to have a lot to say about some of the Democratic Socialist platform. 

If the establishment Democrats are wise, they won’t try to dismiss this new group. They shouldn’t capitulate either but they should find a way to welcome their ideas and rethink their own.  And I hope the DSA see an opportunity to be heard and make change. 

ml1 said:

but the real problem with our so-called "centrist" Democrats is they aren't even trying to achieve the kind of compromise results you're describing. Which of them has real proposals for even incremental changes like a small increase in tax on higher incomes, or a phasing out of fossil fuels.

they are better described as "status quo" Democrats who don't want to do anything that may upset the political donor class.

The problem isn't to come up with proposals like "incremental changes like a small increase in tax on higher incomes, or a phasing out of fossil fuels", the problem is to get back the majority and the presidency. The "small increase in tax on higher incomes" is really a rolling back of the "big beautiful bill" tax cuts - which requires the majority and the presidency. Similarly, "phasing out of fossil fuels" also requires undoing what Trump and the GOP did - because under Biden there were already laws and policies in place to promote alternatives and "phase out" fossil fuels.

yahooyahoo said:

It's frustrating that moderate Democrats are fighting against Democratic Socialists so much. Why not work together to take back Congress and defeat the Orange Menace in 2028?

Carville is a dinosaur, a relic of the Bill Clinton era.  Time to move on.

Trying to get everyone on the same page of a movement is never easy. I can't think of anyone I personally know who is in total lockstep with any political party's policies. Even those who appear to agree in principle, differ on details. For example, I remember when Maplewood was going through integration challenges, particularly with the schools, in the late 1990s. (Anyone else remember that crazy zig-zag/cross-town-stripe school attendance zone map?)   Don DeMarco of the diversity advocacy group "Fund for an OPEN Society" was brought in to help the community successfully and holistically integrate. I recall him telling a story about how, in his work, he often would ask white residents of a community, all of whom enthusiastically said they were in favor of living in a diverse community, what they thought a "diverse" community would be and they usually responded "oh...about 10% to 20%" persons of color.  When he asked Black residents who also wanted a diverse community what they thought a diverse community would look like, they typically replied at least 50% persons of color. I am sure my recollections of the exact percentages DeMarco referenced are "off" but his point was that even people who appear to agree on the surface don't necessarily agree when it comes to the details.  Can Democratic Socialists and Democratic Centrists find common ground beyond getting rid of Trump and MAGA?  I'm not so sure. 

nohero said:

ml1 said:

but the real problem with our so-called "centrist" Democrats is they aren't even trying to achieve the kind of compromise results you're describing. Which of them has real proposals for even incremental changes like a small increase in tax on higher incomes, or a phasing out of fossil fuels.

they are better described as "status quo" Democrats who don't want to do anything that may upset the political donor class.

The problem isn't to come up with proposals like "incremental changes like a small increase in tax on higher incomes, or a phasing out of fossil fuels", the problem is to get back the majority and the presidency. The "small increase in tax on higher incomes" is really a rolling back of the "big beautiful bill" tax cuts - which requires the majority and the presidency. Similarly, "phasing out of fossil fuels" also requires undoing what Trump and the GOP did - because under Biden there were already laws and policies in place to promote alternatives and "phase out" fossil fuels.

and to get back the majority idiots like Carville denouncing progressive candidates should shut their traps and vote blue no matter who.

like how they told progressives to vote all these years.

ml1 said:

and to get back the majority idiots like Carville denouncing progressive candidates should shut their traps and vote blue no matter who.

like how they told progressives to vote all these years.

Yup.

I was 100% ready to vote for whoever won the nomination in 2016 and 2020. If 2024 had a primary I would have voted for the winner. I’ll vote for the Democratic nominee in 2028.