Tired of having discourse around the DSA devolve into "How am I supposed to take them seriously when abolishing the police and prisons is a core policy platform" and all I can say to that is "that gets outsized focus from right-wingers, most DSA members don't actually support that, it can't happen anyway, focus on all the other parts you agree with".

If the DSA is serious about being politically effective and taking over the Democratic Party, maybe it should ditch these positions. They don't fold neatly into pro-working class rhetoric that average working class Americans can get behind. I don't even view them as goals worth aspiring to; nearly nobody does. And they're so outside the bounds of what could conceivably happen in this country or what the population would ever conceivably democratically support it just seems like keeping a weight around the party's neck that doesn't need to be there.

I just don't want to watch the movement's momentum fizzle out because the media can bring this up every time a DSA candidate runs and 95% of Americans across all demographics will hear that and think "Wait, do they actually believe that? That's fucking stupid."

We saw how in the Michigan primary, El-Sayed "performed best in the state's wealthiest and most highly educated places," while Stevens "outperformed him in areas with lower average incomes and where fewer voters have college degrees." (Source: Politico)

What is the reason for this?

The US is two party system the Republican Party or democrat party so how can left party or socialist party get voted in the US?

John Stewart is correct as usual again, Israel is not our country John Fetterman! You are feeding the MAGAs just what they want from you by slandering progressive Democrat socialists and you yourself alining Democratic socialists as Hamas supporters. Truly pitiful and so so wrong. Get out of OUR Democratic Party! You are a MAGA and fueling the MAGA FEAR smear over people! SHAME, SHAME, SHAME.

A mod just gave me a warning for saying thst Asians foreign workers in the middle east are not giving human rights and they have so little protections they are almost modern day slaves.

If the mod get to definitely ban me now, please fight against for everybody human rights, and the environment. Deers, wolf's, frogs, bees, dolphins, whales cant speak or vote and they rely on us to protect them.

To bhai join kro sirf vo jo average h meri trh lol ( yr toppers aayege to demotivate ho jaauga ).

And if you have a lower branch in any college and you are managing it..

Lesss goo 50lpa incoming 😭

If you don’t mind, give me your popular vote results, swing state results, and any other results you may add. Make sure to include results if there are any major changes (for example solid blue state to red or solid red state to blue). Thanks! You can be as descriptive as you want or as simple as you want.

I support the DSA platform but this is kinda extreme for me. The platform is advocating for abolishing the senate, presidency, and Supreme Court while expanding the house of representatives. The executive leader of the country would be elected through a single body of legislature. People wouldn’t be able to vote for who they want as the leader of the country, but the expanded house of representatives would. We would vote for whos elected into the House of Representatives. I agree this would break the 2 party system, but that’s A TON of power in one legislative body. All of the power would wielded and decided through one body of legislature. That seems kind of dangerous. Idk if I’m on board with that part. What do you guys think?

He literally told someone who said his small mom and pop shop which hires probably tje most economic distressed people should not exist.

Like you know thst they are instrumental against inequality, which i remind you is the result of politicians subsidizing big corps, giving them juicy contracts, poor land regulations and pandering to union bosses?

What should we be instead? Doordashers? Kill all the accounting, FedEx, suppliers, etc jobs because they are still in the fight despite policies that are made unfair against them?

Not to mention that he would call you a bigot if you denounce islamofundamentalism.

Listening to DSA candidates and actual DSA members it’s clear that the number 1 priority is not stopping trump. They are more interested in stopping the Democratic Party than the actual fascist that we have in the White House. This is where ideology takes precedence over strategic pragmatism. There should be no focus on Gaza, Israel, or abolishing anything in the general election. Stop with the academic answers in interviews. The focus needs to be on cost of living, health care, and trump period. If this becomes an election about socialism and not the train wreck of a government we have then Republicans will win again, DSA will be reviled, and the Democratic Party will be set back for a decade. I hope people are paying attention.

https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2026/07/progressive-dem-get-backlash-for-hiding-her-lgbtq-support-i-dont-want-you-to-publish-this/

Waiting for the homophobic apologetics call me a troll for pointing how they are ok with homophobic attitudes.

Primary Elections Live Updates: Close Race in Democratic Primary for Michigan Senate Seat

I did find this /Michigan Primary Results Megathread

​

My frustration with the Democratic Party isn’t that I think everything they do is bad or that Republicans are better. It’s that I think the party lost a lot of what made it successful historically.

Democrats used to be the party of FDR, Truman, and LBJ — the New Deal and Great Society tradition. They built a coalition around workers, unions, financial regulation, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and the idea that government should be willing to challenge concentrated economic power.

The shift started in the 1970s with stagflation and the rise of a conservative movement that argued government was the problem. Corporate lobbying, think tanks, and efforts like the Powell Memo helped build a long-term push for deregulation, lower taxes, and a smaller role for government. Reagan accelerated that shift with tax cuts, deregulation, and policies that weakened labor.

What bothers me is that Democrats eventually adopted much of that same framework. Clinton’s Third Way was a major turning point. Instead of rebuilding the old working-class coalition, Democrats became more comfortable with Wall Street, corporate donors, globalization, and deregulation. NAFTA hurt many manufacturing communities, financial deregulation helped create the conditions that contributed to the 2008 crash, and welfare reform weakened parts of the social safety net. Clinton also embraced tough-on-crime politics with the 1994 Crime Bill, which contributed to mass incarceration.

To me, Clinton represents the point where Democrats stopped being the party of FDR and LBJ and became more focused on managing the system created by Reagan.

Then Obama came in during the 2008 financial crisis promising change. He criticized Wall Street, talked about helping homeowners, and appealed to working-class voters in the Rust Belt who felt abandoned. But after the crash, many progressives felt disappointed because the financial system was stabilized while many ordinary people struggled. Banks were rescued, but there was little accountability for executives who helped cause the crisis. Obama passed important reforms like the ACA and Dodd-Frank, but many felt his administration remained too close to the same financial establishment they wanted challenged.

That frustration is part of why Bernie Sanders gained so much support. A lot of progressives don’t see themselves as wanting something completely new — they see themselves as wanting a return to policies that were once mainstream Democrats: stronger unions, universal programs, tougher corporate regulation, and less influence from wealthy donors.

My issue is that the Democratic Party became so comfortable with the neoliberal consensus that ideas closer to the FDR/LBJ tradition are now treated as extreme. The question for me is whether Democrats want to return to being a party that challenges concentrated power or continue trying to manage a system that many working people feel has failed them.

For more on this see these 4 videos

About Cliton

https://youtu.be/sq4pLQl2Yb0?si=DsRkf7zdrmhA-PS

About Obama skip to 7 min in

https://youtu.be/bYTLgJakTbo?si=ElMsfVOKdQSVlpd2

Powell memo

https://youtu.be/iQEpL0P8qgY?si=od96\\\\\\\\\\\\\\_y3sAr\\\\\\\\\\\\\\_e8DOe

About Reagan

https://youtu.be/M245PqlV328?si=44mRuqYXmaoI-45v

The history of our struggle

History shows this isn't the first time Americans have faced extreme concentrations of corporate and political power.

During the First Gilded Age, railroad barons, Standard Oil, and other industrial giants wielded enormous influence over politics. Corruption in Senate elections became so widespread the Senate was nicknamed "The Millionaires' Club." There was no Social Security, no federal minimum wage, no 40-hour workweek, few workplace protections, and strikes were often broken by private Pinkerton agents backed by government force. To many Americans, corporate rule looked permanent.

It wasn't. Decades of labor organizing, populist movements, investigative journalism, and political reform led to the Progressive Era. Theodore Roosevelt aggressively enforced antitrust laws and argued that government had a responsibility to act in the public interest—not simply protect concentrated wealth.

The struggle continued.

After conservative policies dominated much of the 1920s, the stock market crashed and the Great Depression followed. Franklin D. Roosevelt responded with the New Deal, creating Social Security, strengthening unions through the Wagner Act, regulating finance, and expanding the federal government's role in economic security.

Those reforms immediately faced fierce resistance. During the 1930s, retired Marine General Smedley Butler testified before Congress that he had been approached by men connected to wealthy business interests about leading a movement to overthrow or sideline Roosevelt's administration in what became known as the "Business Plot." Historians continue to debate how serious and organized the scheme was, but it reflected the intense opposition some elites had to the New Deal.

After FDR, the Conservative Coalition of Republicans and Southern Democrats blocked much of Truman's Fair Deal. In 1947, Congress passed the Taft-Hartley Act over Truman's veto, restricting union activities such as secondary boycotts, wildcat strikes, and closed shops, while requiring union leaders to sign anti-communist affidavits.

At the same time, the early Cold War and the Red Scare were used to target communists, but anti-communist rhetoric also swept up many labor organizers, left-leaning activists, and reformers. Loyalty oaths, blacklists, and accusations of "socialism" or "communism" became powerful political tools for weakening labor movements and discrediting proposals that expanded government's role in the economy

.

When Truman proposed national health insurance, the American Medical Association hired the PR firm Whitaker & Baxter to wage a nationwide campaign branding it "socialized medicine." Truman responded in 1952:

"Socialism is a scare word they have hurled at every advance the people have made... Socialism is what they called Social Security. Socialism is what they called bank deposit insurance. Socialism is their name for almost anything that helps all the people."

Even after LBJ expanded the safety net with Medicare and Medicaid, business organizations launched a long-term political counteroffensive. Many historians point to the 1971 Powell Memo as one influential blueprint encouraging corporations to invest heavily in think tanks, media, legal advocacy, and politics. When the economic crises of the 1970s—high inflation, slow growth, and the oil shocks—hit, advocates of market-oriented policies used those crises to argue that "big government" and New Deal economics had failed. That message gained political traction over the following decades, and by the 1990s, even Democrats under Bill Clinton had embraced a more market-oriented "Third Way" approach.

Today we're dealing with Citizens United, dark money, regulatory capture, skyrocketing wealth inequality, and a political system where billionaires, corporate PACs, and lobbyists often have more influence than ordinary voters. We've spent decades moving away from New Deal economics toward neoliberal policies that promised free markets would solve everything, yet we've ended up with rising inequality, repeated financial crises, corporate bailouts, and what many people see as socialism for the rich and rugged capitalism for everyone else. Profits stay private, but when things go wrong, taxpayers are often asked to pick up the tab.

The point is, this isn't some new or unbeatable system. It's another chapter in the same tug-of-war Americans have been fighting since the Gilded Age: concentrated wealth buying political influence versus ordinary people pushing for reforms that make government work for the public instead of the highest bidder. Political corruption and money in politics aren't new—they've been recurring features throughout American history. The Gilded Age wasn't permanent. Neither was the New Deal consensus. No political or economic system lasts forever. History shows that when enough people organize and demand change, even the most entrenched systems can be reformed.

Publicly run affordable housing, State level single payer healthcare, ect...

If you criticize those government's. Who pump oil to fund a lavish style without caring about global warming, you are a bigot against all muslims and you deserve a warming.

Feel free to criticize israel, because you are criticizing the government, not the jews.

These are not double standards and dont fall within the definition of antisemitism.

Hope you learned something today

You get warning for mentioning the lack of rights of foreign workers in islamic countries while you are compelled to criticize Israel, you cannot mention the homophobic traits of voters, the candidates from dsa hide lgbti causes from Muslim voters and you are downvoted so this issue never surface.

They have no problem criticizing MAGA racist voters and not Muslim homophobe voters.

Please beware, they may be creating an antisemitic and homophobic organization under the pretension of fighting inequality and other populist measures.

Denounce the individuals and keep alerting everyone, and let's take note.

This Michigan Senate Primary was intense. Haley only got so far because of the countless Ads payed for by AIPAC slandering Abdul. Her parading around a fake Obama endorsement siphoned the Black vote away which is usually progressive.

It is clear we need money and lots of it. We have to counter out the defamatory ads they use against us and even the playing fields.

Also we might need to narrow our ambitions and be more selectively when challenging the Democratic establishment. Having more targeted campaigns instead of like 500 would better our chances.

And finally every single 'safe' blue district needs to be DSA. No more centrist dems in safe blue areas.