Why do you call El-Sayed a "DSA candidate?" He's not a member of the DSA, and when asked explicitly about this by David Remnick, he said (paraphrasing from memory) "I'm not a socialist, I'm a capitalist. I believe in free markets." He talks about the benefits of free markets, and the only diss you could make against him in this arena is that he doesn't like 'monopolies,' which puts him in the same group as other familiar commies like Theodore Roosevelt.
Do you apply the same test to Republican candidates, a great many of whom are “backed” by neo-Nazis, right-wing militia groups, and white supremacists? Do you refer to Trump as the “Nazi-backed Donald Trump”?
Yes, I would call any candidate who did rallies with Nazis and who emphasized their endorsements from prominent Nazis in their campaign literature “Nazi-backed”.
You do refer to him several times in your post as a "DSA candidate." My main point is that just because he's endorsed by DSA doesn't mean he agrees with them on every important issue, and even in those areas where he does agree at a gross level, his position is often more nuanced than a typical DSA talking point.
I'm not arguing that DSA doesn't have some truly stupid positions, and many of these are pretty fundamental to what the DSA is. I'm just arguing that he isn't a DSA candidate in any real sense. I think he mainly gets crap for being critical of Israeli governments that talk about a 2 state solution, and then do their best (along with many Palestinians unfortunately) to prevent that from ever happening.
Yeah, you're right, what an unreasonable request he made, for a potential guest of a show to go where the show is recorded. Which is something all of his guests manage to do, including Trump.
Absolutely. Rogan has an average listener audience of eleven million people, many uncommitted, but she apparently found it more compelling to get to a rally in the middle of Michigan where she'd have an audience of 2,000 people, all of whom were already going to vote for her.
Harris is a crap politician. Someone like Bill Clinton in his day would have *relished* the opportunity to try to convert people to his viewpoint.
My guess is that “we are going to give you lots of free stuff and not raise your taxes” part of the DSA would over perform polls, though be bad governance.
Is there a candidate for folks who like some of the socialist policies but are repelled by others? Most people are not all in on any one candidate's platform. Pretending they are is the boosters jobs, so Klipperstein and Piker are out there, just peddling their trade. Yeah, some of us like the idea of Medicare for All, but how are you going to sell the notion of taxing people for it, and transitioning to it?
I live in Michigan. El-Sayed will win the Dem nomination. The Republican candidate is already preparing for that possibility, as is Trump, who is dropping the word "communist" around a lot already. The Republicans are practically salivating, because, no matter what else you say about them, they understand the majority of the American public much better than this iteration of Democrats do.
split-ticket.org has done this analysis for a few cycles now, and candidates with DSA affiliation have pretty consistently performed worse than expected. I’m sure they’ll do the analysis again this year.
As a Wisconsinite my main concern isn’t so much that Hong will lose—I think it would be hard for even her to blow it in this environment—but that she’ll either cost us our shot at winning back the legislature or that we’ll win the trifecta but then we’ll waste time with pointless infighting and not accomplish anything in the narrow window we have.
I'm sure this is a fool's errand, but I'm trying to parse the logic of the secret leftist majority Piker stated (and coincidentally, it's fitting that South Park was also referenced) and here's where I'm stuck: The South Park guys have said many times they hate Republicans but they really hate Democrats. But it seems DSA folks have the same formulation, which doesn't make sense to me since the Democrats at least share some of their values, maybe not as stridently, but they are closer ideological fellow travelers to Democrats than they are to Republicans.
Wouldn't it make much more sense, as a long-term project, for DSA people to infiltrate the GOP and destroy that party to achieve their political aims rather than destroy the DNC? They're lying anyway when they say they just want healthcare, they should keep up the lies and take up moderate positions on campaign trails and then just vote as radicals.
I think it’s part hippie fantasy (“the people are behind us!”) and partly what they know they need to say because they know “you’re helping Trump” is a potent argument.
I don't think it's logical, but I think it's because they see democrats as rivals while republicans are more of a "far group" (to use Scott Alexander's term) that they are neutral toward emotionally. They have more contact with democrats and tend to compete with them for status and in primaries. Through this competition they have likely come to see democrats as the enemy even though it doesn't really make sense.
If they started their own party it would get little support. On some level they might realize this even though they claim most people agree with them.
Their real opposition is often democrats. They have more conflicts with their rivals in their own party than with republicans even though they have more in common with mainstream democrats.
To be clear, I'm not defending them, I don't like them either. I'm just trying to understand something that seems puzzling on the surface.
Why do you call El-Sayed a "DSA candidate?" He's not a member of the DSA, and when asked explicitly about this by David Remnick, he said (paraphrasing from memory) "I'm not a socialist, I'm a capitalist. I believe in free markets." He talks about the benefits of free markets, and the only diss you could make against him in this arena is that he doesn't like 'monopolies,' which puts him in the same group as other familiar commies like Theodore Roosevelt.
I called him “DSA-backed”, which he is — they endorsed him, and prominent DSA members including Bernie Sanders, AOC, and Hasan Piker endorsed him.
Do you apply the same test to Republican candidates, a great many of whom are “backed” by neo-Nazis, right-wing militia groups, and white supremacists? Do you refer to Trump as the “Nazi-backed Donald Trump”?
Yes, I would call any candidate who did rallies with Nazis and who emphasized their endorsements from prominent Nazis in their campaign literature “Nazi-backed”.
You do refer to him several times in your post as a "DSA candidate." My main point is that just because he's endorsed by DSA doesn't mean he agrees with them on every important issue, and even in those areas where he does agree at a gross level, his position is often more nuanced than a typical DSA talking point.
I'm not arguing that DSA doesn't have some truly stupid positions, and many of these are pretty fundamental to what the DSA is. I'm just arguing that he isn't a DSA candidate in any real sense. I think he mainly gets crap for being critical of Israeli governments that talk about a 2 state solution, and then do their best (along with many Palestinians unfortunately) to prevent that from ever happening.
You really don’t think the DSA will be taking credit if he wins?
He's also claimed to be a practicing physician but that is not true. And he's attended and spoken at DSA events.
Speaking in front of an audience doesn't imply agreeing with everything that group endorses. If Kamala understood that, she might be President today.
Her refusing to go on Rogan was one of the biggest unforced errors in all of politics.
She didn’t refuse to go on Joe Rogan. He refused to have her on unless she flew down to Austin.
Yeah, you're right, what an unreasonable request he made, for a potential guest of a show to go where the show is recorded. Which is something all of his guests manage to do, including Trump.
Absolutely. Rogan has an average listener audience of eleven million people, many uncommitted, but she apparently found it more compelling to get to a rally in the middle of Michigan where she'd have an audience of 2,000 people, all of whom were already going to vote for her.
Harris is a crap politician. Someone like Bill Clinton in his day would have *relished* the opportunity to try to convert people to his viewpoint.
My guess is that “we are going to give you lots of free stuff and not raise your taxes” part of the DSA would over perform polls, though be bad governance.
Their culture war stances are toxic.
"Give you lots of free stuff and not raise your taxes" - nailed it - That's the Republican / Trump promise to the Billionaire class in a nutshell!
Is there a candidate for folks who like some of the socialist policies but are repelled by others? Most people are not all in on any one candidate's platform. Pretending they are is the boosters jobs, so Klipperstein and Piker are out there, just peddling their trade. Yeah, some of us like the idea of Medicare for All, but how are you going to sell the notion of taxing people for it, and transitioning to it?
I live in Michigan. El-Sayed will win the Dem nomination. The Republican candidate is already preparing for that possibility, as is Trump, who is dropping the word "communist" around a lot already. The Republicans are practically salivating, because, no matter what else you say about them, they understand the majority of the American public much better than this iteration of Democrats do.
split-ticket.org has done this analysis for a few cycles now, and candidates with DSA affiliation have pretty consistently performed worse than expected. I’m sure they’ll do the analysis again this year.
As a Wisconsinite my main concern isn’t so much that Hong will lose—I think it would be hard for even her to blow it in this environment—but that she’ll either cost us our shot at winning back the legislature or that we’ll win the trifecta but then we’ll waste time with pointless infighting and not accomplish anything in the narrow window we have.
El-Sayed and Hong are heavy favorites on the prediction markets: https://manifold.markets/Jack1/will-abdul-el-sayed-and-francesca-h?r=TWF4SGFybXM
In the PRIMARY. This article is about the general election.
Democrats’ odds of winning the governorship in Wisconsin tanked in prediction markets when it became clear that Hong will probably be the nominee.
I'm sure this is a fool's errand, but I'm trying to parse the logic of the secret leftist majority Piker stated (and coincidentally, it's fitting that South Park was also referenced) and here's where I'm stuck: The South Park guys have said many times they hate Republicans but they really hate Democrats. But it seems DSA folks have the same formulation, which doesn't make sense to me since the Democrats at least share some of their values, maybe not as stridently, but they are closer ideological fellow travelers to Democrats than they are to Republicans.
Wouldn't it make much more sense, as a long-term project, for DSA people to infiltrate the GOP and destroy that party to achieve their political aims rather than destroy the DNC? They're lying anyway when they say they just want healthcare, they should keep up the lies and take up moderate positions on campaign trails and then just vote as radicals.
I think it’s part hippie fantasy (“the people are behind us!”) and partly what they know they need to say because they know “you’re helping Trump” is a potent argument.
I don't think it's logical, but I think it's because they see democrats as rivals while republicans are more of a "far group" (to use Scott Alexander's term) that they are neutral toward emotionally. They have more contact with democrats and tend to compete with them for status and in primaries. Through this competition they have likely come to see democrats as the enemy even though it doesn't really make sense.
They're too lazy to start their own party and too stupid to identify their real opposition.
If they started their own party it would get little support. On some level they might realize this even though they claim most people agree with them.
Their real opposition is often democrats. They have more conflicts with their rivals in their own party than with republicans even though they have more in common with mainstream democrats.
To be clear, I'm not defending them, I don't like them either. I'm just trying to understand something that seems puzzling on the surface.
Ugh, reality bites. At least this post had two funny clips.....