I was pretty involved in my local city’s protest on this and I mostly agree with respect to Occupy. I think they were so shy and naive; Obama’s tepid approval was the best they got, but even back then we know who controlled the airwaves — especially two years post-CU decision. Democrats felt like they were in a good spot and sealed the deal for years to come and we just had to “be patient,” but you know how that went… Pissed me off. No use of bully pulpit to pressure from the top left right-wing media to do its thing and eviscerate the movement.

Worth noting that Trump was there since the early days of the Tea Party; I remember arguing with Tea Party members about how Trump was right about Obama’s birth certificate. He was an enormous catalyst to that conspiracy theory bullshit as well. They were always the same people sadly.

I think we’re talking past each other slightly on this. Nobody – literally nobody – disputes that Tea Party platform is polar-opposite to the demands of even SocDems let alone DemSocs; we’re just stating that the astroturfing worked because it tapped into a dried kindling already yearning for ignition. Catalysts aside; platform aside, both are populist movements who reshaped the broader party and suppressed moderates in their own party. Where Tea Party moved Republicans right, DSA can move Democrats Left. That’s pretty much where the similarities begin and end I’ll agree.

Doesn’t seem that black-and-white to me. The movement was catalyzed by the likes of the Koch Brothers, but it did ultimately become somewhat self-sustaining. Tea Party did become maga after all. Both represent populist movements relative to their end of the political spectrum, which means they can’t really be opposite in this respect.

That doesn’t mean they are equidistant from truth in a false equivalence fallacy; both are wrought from a dissatisfaction with the status-quo and corruption in Washington (“Drain the Swamp”). It’s just that one is Left, and one is wrong in their approach to the solutions.

Though I get that we don’t want to necessarily associate such a movement at all with the Tea Party from a marketing standpoint, as that’s often a comparison made in bad faith in corporate media.

Side note, but my what Occupy Wall Street could’ve become had it had the same sort of catalysts and party-backing…

I do tend to agree that he was more left before the stroke, or at least more covert, though bluest in the Senate during a period of no substantive control really doesn’t mean much. I’m the best runner when nobody else shows up to the race because there’s no reward, too.

This is the talking-point we always heard with Kamala Harris and how she was “More progressive than Bernie Sanders” lol. Or how Sinema was progressive… Until she was actually the deciding vote on something as pivotal as gutting the filibuster.

The narrative that his stroke turned hin conservative is fun, but does not hold up under scrutiny.

Genuinely curious, why?

Most here understand that the Tea Party was astroturfed — arguably the very first movement to fully take advantage of Citizens United v. FEC.

That said, I understand their sentiment.

There is a way to push the buttons of populism for good, and Democrats are doing so. Except this time, it’s a genuine grassroots movement, not necessarily requiring the Epstein Class of billionaires to bankroll them.

This is the way, even if exhausting for some unfortunately. As I’ve said elsewhere 2028 Democratic Primaries officially kick off the moment polls close at midterms.

For any viable challenger to an incumbent with the backing of foreign and domestic mega-donors, it’s important to hit the ground running and seize on this momentum right out of the gate!

Personally, this makes me very excited!

I remember her speaking about this quite candidly not too long ago (I want to say last year or two but time flies these days) about going into a side room off the House chamber and seeing herself giving an interview on a major outlet, and a fellow Democrat – knowing she was there – just shaking his head at the TV.

That cruelty exemplifies what is wrong with the party, and precisely why the likes of Schumer and Jeffries must go.

She needs to overhaul the party. I kind of lean toward her primarying Schumer, but I am amicable to a 2028 run. Whichever she decides, I’m with her.

If she doesn’t, the best compromise I can see that can viably win is probably Ossoff, which given what he said here I think is generally the right message to carry forward.

Edit: I do think it’s worth pointing out that she of course wouldn’t even be viable under the Republican ticket. That like Sanders, she chooses to caucus with Democrats for good reason. Perfect? No. Better? Undeniably so. On every single issue, frankly.

That said, the 2028 Democratic Primaries are officially on, and it’s time to make Democrats a little more perfect.

Power is never ceded willingly. If we’ve already established that Schumer and Jeffries operate in bad faith a la Sinema and Fetterman, then the pressure must come from those newly elected reps and those on the ballot in 2028.

It’s imperative that Democrats distance themselves from Israel as much as they can by '28, and that’s impossible if Schumer and Jeffries are still leading.

I appreciate this point and will mull it over a bit, thank you

2028 Democratic Primaries began the moment polls closed.

Time to continue reforming and purifying the Democrats, in continued fulfillment of Bernie’s goal.

Out with the stagnant old; in with the new.

Those may be dated studies?

“Public opinion can behave like ocean tides,” Kuriwaki said. “When support grows large enough, it can be a very powerful pressure on the institution. Though maybe not as fast as a lot of voters might want.”

While imperfect, especially when sentiment grows so strong that impacts their own electability (e.g., AI data-centers, Iran War, Epstein Files), they can shift. It does have some impact.

No matter how you slice it, either way if public sentiment isn’t there, then it’s definitely not happening.

Seconded 100%.

It holds us back so much. Definitionally archaic and exploitable.

With it, organized divinity and faith-based religions, and in the void a universal rallying around humanism.

The public option sounds like a step toward universal health care, but it’s really a delay tactic.

Before going further, I’ll note that these two things aren’t mutually-exclusive though. I think Public Option is a stepping-stone to Single-payer, and just like the benefits ACA brought with it over the former failed system, it’s a small step of progress which almost inevitably leads to everyone jumping ship to national insurance anyway in the long-run. Whether we can sell to the electorate going straight to the end-goal of Single-payer is the real question.

Last year, PEW did a survey on where people stand on this and if you assume Mix government / private programs suggests public option then Single-payer is overtaking it by 4 percentage points. Keep pushing until we’re forced to settle.

Forget the meta-talk about, “Should we go for it or not” and do the groundwork of pitching it to people across all states as to why it must be the goal from the outset. Convince the people, and then the representatives will follow.

Thank you for reminding me of this; saving for future reference. Will be more relevant the closer 2028 comes.

I remember seeing that Israel quintupled its online troll farm budget back in July and within a month, operations had clearly spun-up online. That’s not to mention disinfo groups from China, India, and Russia…

We have to acknowledge the elephant in the room, that just like the Green Party (Jill Stein, Sinema), the Socialist movement is often sometimes (and mostly online) used by far-right extremist factions to drive a wedge within the Democratic coalition and dissuade people from voting in their own interest.

Like, I totally get wanting to move Democrats left. Even I said that Democratic Primaries begin the day after the midterms and the purity tests should come on issues of wealth tax, medicare for all, holding the Trump regime accountable, distancing from Israel, etc… But this issue? This is manufacturing division when there isn’t fucking any.

But my aforementioned point that went entirely ignored disproves your argument: People vote for conservatives over and over, even though it fails to create that reality even faster.

… Which means there’s more to the story in persuasion of the electorate, and people duped into voting against their own interest.

Ergo, the fearmongering. Ergo the money. Ergo the propaganda and megaphones of misinformation.

Yes, Democrats won Kansas, but it wasn’t a progressive who won it. They’re just a stepping-stone along the way to the progressivism which you and I both seek.

People like you said America would never elect an openly pro-Palestine candidate, yet Mamdani won the mayorship.

Please don’t put words in my mouth. I supported Obama from primaries, and I supported Mamdani. I was one of the earliest supporters and campaigners for Bernie in 2015, but still voted Hillary when it was her or Trump at the end. I feel one has strawmanned me for positions I’ve never taken.

Yeah I absolutely believe from here through 2028 the most progressive members of the coalition should be going to these places – kind of how AOC and Bernie reached out to rural voters in West Virginia this past cycle.

It’s the only way to make inroads and to short-circuit the onslaught of money and propaganda that comes from their televisions, social media algorithms, and churches.

My only point is that there comes a point when you must make a choice between two non-ideal candidates, and take what you will. I’m doubting these candidates had the most progressive platforms in the general election, but hey, they did elect their first open trans state legislator (I assume that’s a gerrymandered district, much how Maxwell Frost can win uncontested in FL).

I’ve already acknowledged agreement of the problem; the question is implementation of a solution. If I could magically snap my fingers and put a Mamdani, AES, AOC, Talarico in every single seat in government, I would.

But again the forces of money and how poorly educated the electorate is means sometimes persuasion to vote for a better candidate doesn’t come in time, and then we must choose between Center-Right and Far-Right because the electorate only voted for these two choices, given the paradigm I laid out in my original comment.

I want A+ polling on Democratic voters and whether they want a change of leadership from Jeffries and Schumer.

Based on recent petitions for their removal, I’m betting that’s also a hard yes.

That didn’t stop conservatives whose lives continue to get worse voting for Republicans in Arkansas and Alabama, so I’m not understanding your point?

I’m 100% all for getting more progressives in office, fully embrace a Social Democratic Nordic Model — but I’m still not seeing this viable path to actually getting even a liberal let alone a progressive candidate on the ballot and to vote for in the likes of Arkansas and Alabama.

And are you American? I see you moderate Europe, so perhaps there is a disconnect in one’s understanding of our electoral system and the breadth, depth, and pulse of this nation and its particular states’ electoral makeup.

There’s a superseding point. The fearmongering works because the electorate is uninformed and misinformed by megaphones of fearmongering from conservative billionaire megaphones and erosion of education and diversification of media. Yes, we should’ve stuck with FDR’s New Deal approach and his desire for a Second Bill of Rights. But the Business Plot 2 (Reagan) and 3 (Trump) won – especially with aid from foreign interference most notably Russia and Israel but possibly China too.

This makes those who try to do the right thing less palatable to the masses because Fox News & Friends is telling them that any leftist is the literal devil.

Not an easy task to overcome, but tell me a viable path for how we put a Mamdani, AES, AOC in Arkansas and Alabama and I’ll listen.