2026 Mid-Term Elections

[Harry Bosch]

What's the downside?

Massive crime; shortages of everything; massive inflation; low paying jobs; bankruptcies: just to name a few. Not to worry long term though, if dems were foolish enough to adopt the DSA platform: republicans would win the next 20 elections.

 

[Politesse]

What's the downside?

Massive crime; shortages of everything; massive inflation; low paying jobs; bankruptcies: just to name a few. Not to worry long term though, if dems were foolish enough to adopt the DSA platform: republicans would win the next 20 elections.

This is an obvious load of nonsense, though. Three centuries of unfettered capitalist policies have produced all of those problems in abundance. Walk down the "main street" of any small town in America and you'll see more closed businesses than open ones. Talk to anyone, and they'll tell you how much Walmart pays them. Look in their fridge, ans you'll see how many fresh fruits and vegetables that buys them.

The idea that electing Republicans solves any sort of problems, or that Republicans are especially more or less socialist than Democrats, is stupid. Have you ever been to a Republican-controlled state? There are no jobs, and everyone is on welfare.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

What's the downside?

Massive crime; shortages of everything; massive inflation; low paying jobs; bankruptcies: just to name a few. Not to worry long term though, if dems were foolish enough to adopt the DSA platform: republicans would win the next 20 elections.

This is an obvious load of nonsense, though. Three centuries of unfettered capitalist policies have produced all of those problems in abundance. Walk down the "main street" of any small town in America and you'll see more closed businesses than open ones. Talk to anyone, and they'll tell you how much Walmart pays them. Look in their fridge, ans you'll see how many fresh fruits and vegetables that buys them.

I can't recall the name, but back in the early 20th Century, a Social Democrat noted that ~'There is an apparent flaw in the human spirit that makes our cause a pathetic joke.' This a rough quote, not exact.

Look at it like this, the Democrats voted for the ACA. And then got plastered in 2010 mid-terms. The ACA is now popular. Much like the IWW v AFL. People would wobble over to the IWW to gain something, and then cower back to the mainstream to hold onto it. America generally supports liberal policies everywhere but the voting booth. One must accept the reality of the world before trying to fix it.

The idea that electing Republicans solves any sort of problems, or that Republicans are especially more or less socialist than Democrats, is stupid. Have you ever been to a Republican-controlled state? There are no jobs, and everyone is on welfare.

Does it matter when people continue to vote for the GOP?

 

[southernhybrid]

What's the downside?

Massive crime; shortages of everything; massive inflation; low paying jobs; bankruptcies: just to name a few. Not to worry long term though, if dems were foolish enough to adopt the DSA platform: republicans would win the next 20 elections.

This is an obvious load of nonsense, though. Three centuries of unfettered capitalist policies have produced all of those problems in abundance. Walk down the "main street" of any small town in America and you'll see more closed businesses than open ones. Talk to anyone, and they'll tell you how much Walmart pays them. Look in their fridge, ans you'll see how many fresh fruits and vegetables that buys them.

I'm not saying that I disagree with all of your points, but Walmart starts their workers at about 15 bucks an hour, while the women who work in the small assisted living where I do volunteer work only make 10 bucks an hour, pay so low that even in my fairly affordable little city is not enough to support oneself. And, Walmart does have the best, most inexpensive vegetables compared to other stores, so if someone has a roommate or a partner making a Walmart salary, they can certainly afford to buy carrots, broccoli, squash etc. at Walmart.

Sadly, I know too many people who refuse to eat healthy foods and prefer junk food. That's a bigger problem compared to anything due to politics. But, I don't have a problem with having more members of the DSA elected. This country will always be diverse when it comes to politics, and the Democratic Party has always had people who were liberal, moderate or even somewhat conservative. People who fear that the entire country will become socialist are either stupid or poorly informed.

The idea that electing Republicans solves any sort of problems, or that Republicans are especially more or less socialist than Democrats, is stupid. Have you ever been to a Republican-controlled state? There are no jobs, and everyone is on welfare.

That is an exaggeration. I've lived in red states and they aren't much different from blue states, other than the fact that housing and real estate taxes are far less expensive. Georgia is a purple state, but we are run by Republicans. Not that I love them or have ever voted for them, but they do give older adults tax breaks on their real estate taxes, and sometime eliminate the gas tax etc. NJ is so expensive that people like my sister, who is retired, can barely afford to live there. I will never vote for a Republican, but at least on the state level, they aren't all that much different from the Democrats, except perhaps when it comes to social issues.

 

[Harry Bosch]

What's the downside?

Massive crime; shortages of everything; massive inflation; low paying jobs; bankruptcies: just to name a few. Not to worry long term though, if dems were foolish enough to adopt the DSA platform: republicans would win the next 20 elections.

This is an obvious load of nonsense, though. Three centuries of unfettered capitalist policies have produced all of those problems in abundance. Walk down the "main street" of any small town in America and you'll see more closed businesses than open ones. Talk to anyone, and they'll tell you how much Walmart pays them. Look in their fridge, ans you'll see how many fresh fruits and vegetables that buys them.

The idea that electing Republicans solves any sort of problems, or that Republicans are especially more or less socialist than Democrats, is stupid. Have you ever been to a Republican-controlled state? There are no jobs, and everyone is on welfare.

Yea your post is what I’ve been complaining about is the greatest tool for republicans. I was specifically calling out DSA who wants to eliminate private property and business. This would destroy our economy and the Democratic Party. And this is why the republicans are trying so hard to classify all dems as “socialist”. It’s electoral gold for them. BTW: Their policy of closing prisons is looney!

 

[Politesse]

Look at it like this, the Democrats voted for the ACA. And then got plastered in 2010 mid-terms. The ACA is now popular. Much like the IWW v AFL. People would wobble over to the IWW to gain something, and then cower back to the mainstream to hold onto it. America generally supports liberal policies everywhere but the voting booth. One must accept the reality of the world before trying to fix it.

Okay. So we have given it the old college try, and let the Republicans control all three governmental estates, all but unchallenged.

How's it going?

Does it matter when people continue to vote for the GOP?

No, it doesn't. So why do they do that?

I don't think it has anything to do with economic theories, personally. Trump has advanced a number of blatantly socialist policies of late, and they are some of his most popular actions within the ranks of his faithful, and eschewed by most Democrats. People do not give a shit about academic theories about the value of money or alienation from labor. They care about teams.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Look at it like this, the Democrats voted for the ACA. And then got plastered in 2010 mid-terms. The ACA is now popular. Much like the IWW v AFL. People would wobble over to the IWW to gain something, and then cower back to the mainstream to hold onto it. America generally supports liberal policies everywhere but the voting booth. One must accept the reality of the world before trying to fix it.

Okay. So we have given it the old college try, and let the Republicans control all three governmental estates, all but unchallenged.

How's it going?

Well, the idiots that weren't pragmatic in 2000 really fucked the country (and the world) over. 9/11, Iraq War, Samuel Alito...

Does it matter when people continue to vote for the GOP?

No, it doesn't. So why do they do that?

Money, people care about money. And for whatever reason, the GOP has successfully convinced Americans that the GOP is better at handling the economy, regardless of what the performance has actually been.

The key term is "self-interest". The Socialists Democrats ran into this around the turn of the 20th century. While things have modernized, the pandemic has taught us, the people have not. You badly want to shift things to the left, but the people aren't going to support that. So the question is, how do we progress from here? The GOP has mastered name calling. They mocked education. They killed the word liberal so much, there was a shift to progressive, and they went to kill that too. Now they are just slathering the terms communists on the left. The GOP are at this, because they have no sense of decency or pride. This is what we have to fight against.

Harry Bosch isn't wrong. And just because something is in the DSA platform doesn't mean it has to be a good idea.

 

[Politesse]

Well, the idiots that weren't pragmatic in 2000 really fucked the country (and the world) over. 9/11, Iraq War, Samuel Alito...

Ah yes. Those famous socialists, George Bush, Sam Alito, and Colin Powell.

Stop blaming "socialists" for the evil shit you voted for, if you did. No one forced your hand, certainly not Karl Marx. If you didn't, it makes even less sense to make socialism your scapegoat for our vengeful and pointless war against Iraq. I'm sorry, no. Socialism had nothing to do with the American public's desire to "bomb Iraq to the Stone Age" as the public sentiment had it at the time.

So the question is, how do we progress from here?

By demanding progress, obviously.

The philosophy of appeasement has never worked, and it isn't working now. Giving in every time Republicans make a demand has not, by any means or any measure, been inching them slowly away from corrupt corporate oligarchy. Rebranding Democrats as the big tent party with no particular views has not been handing them massive electoral wins. And I'd happily see both parties burn if it meant a return to the actual values expressed in the US Constitution, which in theory we all support.

 

[Elixir]

for whatever reason, the GOP has successfully convinced Americans that the GOP is better at handling the economy, regardless of what the performance has actually been.

When billionaires are all of a single voice saying “we’re billionaires, we know best and if you’d like to be a billionaire, listen to us and ignore those who say we are manipulating you”, they will pocket another 20% of the electorate to go with the 30% already stupid enough to vote for them.
The unity, the power, the money … democracy’s chance are little, drifting toward none. Elon alone will dump BILLIONS this fall, to keep his boys in power after the midterms. This is the last showdown, if Elon succeeds in buying this election and keeping the fascists in control of the house, American democracy IS DONE.
Even with only a Senate majority, they can forestall any threat to their oligarchy.

 

[southernhybrid]

Well since this thread is supposed to be about the midterms, let me just say that I'm glad that several Dems including Ossoff are far ahead in the polls. Can we at least be happy and hopeful about that?

 

[Politesse]

Well since this thread is supposed to be about the midterms, let me just say that I'm glad that several Dems including Ossoff are far ahead in the polls. Can we at least be happy and hopeful about that?

Yes, actually.

 

[Derec]

This is an obvious load of nonsense, though. Three centuries of unfettered capitalist policies have produced all of those problems in abundance.

That is a great exaggeration. Capitalism emerged from the Industrial Revolution, and hasn't existed for three centuries. And certainly not in any sort of "unfettered" condition. In fact, there have been significant regulations and social policies for most of capitalism's existence in the US.

But how can you say that capitalism has produced all these problems? It has caused a great expansion of economic output and innovation. That also led to governments' tax base increasing in western capitalist societies, with the result that more generous social programs were possible to begin with.

[Walk down the "main street" of any small town in America and you'll see more closed businesses than open ones. Talk to anyone, and they'll tell you how much Walmart pays them. Look in their fridge, ans you'll see how many fresh fruits and vegetables that buys them.

That is not true everywhere, but how is that a fault of capitalism anyway? Brick and mortar stores have been hurting due to the convenience of online shopping.
As to your last point: how many fresh fruits and vegetables could an average worker afford before the advent of capitalism? What about fresh meat?
Hell, don't bother looking inside the working class people's fridge - just look at the fridge itself. Consumer grade refrigerators are something that was only developed because of the capitalist desire to make profits.

The idea that electing Republicans solves any sort of problems, or that Republicans are especially more or less socialist than Democrats, is stupid.

Current Republican Party is bad, which is why I - a moderate independent - have generally been voting for Democrats. That does not mean that it's a good thing for Democrats to go insane themselves by embracing the tenets of DSA.

Have you ever been to a Republican-controlled state? There are no jobs, and everyone is on welfare.

Another ridiculous exaggeration. I live in a state controlled by Republicans, and vast majority of people work.

 

[Politesse]

But how can you say that capitalism has produced all these problems?

I wouldn't. In fact, I do not think any economic policy is capable of eliminating crime, poverty, or bankruptcy as described.

That also led to governments' tax base increasing in western capitalist societies, with the result that more generous social programs were possible to begin with.

Remind me, what do Republicans call generous social programs?

 

[bilby]

People do not give a shit about academic theories about the value of money or alienation from labor. They care about teams.

^ QFT.

This is the thing and the whole of the thing.

 

[Derec]

I wouldn't. In fact, I do not think any economic policy is capable of eliminating crime, poverty, or bankruptcy as described.

Eliminating? No, that would be utopia. But a capitalist economy with sensible regulatory framework and a solid safety net is certainly much better than a socialist system.

That also led to governments' tax base increasing in western capitalist societies, with the result that more generous social programs were possible to begin with.

Remind me, what do Republicans call generous social programs?

It's not about what Republicans call, but comparison of what social programs are possible with a capitalist economic base vs. the alternatives. Even with US having a less generous social programs than countries of western Europe, it is still far better than what was possible under actually existing socialism.

 

[bilby]

But a capitalist economy with sensible regulatory framework and a solid safety net is certainly much better than a socialist system.

According to the GOP and their supporters, the bolded IS a socialist system.

Don't believe me? Try proposing a policy that introduces either a sensible regulatory framework OR a solid safety net, and see what it gets called.

Words have meaning that is defined, not by dictionaries, but by usage. 'Socialism' long ago stopped meaning 'state ownership of the means of production'. In today's America, 'socialism' observably means a "sensible regulatory framework and a solid safety net".

The equivocation that the word "actually" means only what it meant long ago, and is still described as meaning by most dictionaries, is a large part of the reason that your regulation is not sensible, and your safety net is full of gaping holes.

 

[Derec]

This isn't even bordering on paranoia level nonsense. Biden Admin shifted significantly to the Left?

Yes. The Biden administration was more left-wing than the Obama administration.
Are you really trying to deny that?

I am hardly the only one who has noticed it.
There Are Some Damned Good Reasons Why Joe Biden Moved to the Left
Here the author does not disagree with Jon Chait that Biden moved significantly to the left, but unlike Chait he thinks it's a good idea.
More articles:
Biden's Democratic Party is to the left of Obama's. Thank a Progressive.
How Biden Surprised Progressives
Why Did Progressive Democrats Support Joe Biden?

The suburbs won't accept anything with a label of Socialism (big 'S') and General Elections can't be won without the suburbs.

So why are Dems rushing arselong into embracing the Gospel according to the DSA?

 

[Toni]

Look at it like this, the Democrats voted for the ACA. And then got plastered in 2010 mid-terms. The ACA is now popular. Much like the IWW v AFL. People would wobble over to the IWW to gain something, and then cower back to the mainstream to hold onto it. America generally supports liberal policies everywhere but the voting booth. One must accept the reality of the world before trying to fix it.

Okay. So we have given it the old college try, and let the Republicans control all three governmental estates, all but unchallenged.

How's it going?

Well, the idiots that weren't pragmatic in 2000 really fucked the country (and the world) over. 9/11, Iraq War, Samuel Alito...

Does it matter when people continue to vote for the GOP?

No, it doesn't. So why do they do that?

Money, people care about money. And for whatever reason, the GOP has successfully convinced Americans that the GOP is better at handling the economy, regardless of what the performance has actually been.

The key term is "self-interest". The Socialists Democrats ran into this around the turn of the 20th century. While things have modernized, the pandemic has taught us, the people have not. You badly want to shift things to the left, but the people aren't going to support that. So the question is, how do we progress from here? The GOP has mastered name calling. They mocked education. They killed the word liberal so much, there was a shift to progressive, and they went to kill that too. Now they are just slathering the terms communists on the left. The GOP are at this, because they have no sense of decency or pride. This is what we have to fight against.

Harry Bosch isn't wrong. And just because something is in the DSA platform doesn't mean it has to be a good idea.

People also care about being heard (or believing that they are) and about not feeling like they are beneath others who have more money or education. Do not ask me how that comports with Trumpism but it seems to do so. I think that people like to have their prejudices reflected back to them even more than they like money and they like to see people who make them feel bad feel worse. Hearing their own bigotries reflected back by someone who seems to be wealthy and powerful is a real boost to the ego.

 

[laughing dog]

Moving to the ______ does not necessarily moving significantly in that direction. Obama and Biden were centrists. Only true conservatives or MAGAtards think either one is on the left.

 

[Derec]

That's barely a walk through.

It doesn't address the almost innumerable state and federal laws that would have to be changed for you irrational fears to come about.

So you are saying that because they can't implement their entire agenda immediately, we should see no problems with proliferation of DSA extremists in the Democratic Party?

Is it also "irrational fear" to oppose electing more fascists?