How socialists have fared in presidential voting

[struggle4progress]

... Once upon a time, Gallup included "Socialist" in its list of political affiliations in polling ... At no point did more than 1 percent of respondents call themselves Socialists, and Gallup, which started asking the question in 1939, stopped asking by 1948 ... A look at historic vote results shows that the peak of interest in Socialist candidates for the presidency came in 1912, when Eugene V. Debs pulled in almost 6 percent of the vote on the Socialist ticket ...

https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=&w=1484

[Katashi_itto]

1. See other posts by this person.

Poster has an agenda.

[cali]

2. I think his/her agenda is adorable.

a bit desperate and needy, but adorable.

[blm]

77. cali, struggle has been here a long time….

and is a faithful, lefty DU member who works hard in a swing state to bring out the Dem vote. There is no need to target him for ridicule.

Sometimes I don't think safe blue state Dems have any clue how much more weight is lifted by those of us in CRUCIAL purple states like Ohio and now NC. Ridicule from other Dems is just an unnecessarily added burden.

I have always admired your quick wit and actually kinda love ya, kid, but….please.

[jwirr]

79. That is very true. Used to be a Democratic voter in Iowa and later in Nebraska. Very hard. And it

makes his/her post much easier to understand. But I still support Bernie. I even call myself a socialist. I have been called that so many times just working for Democrats that I decided that was what I was going to be.

[daredtowork]

91. Chilling Thought: Socialists are Usually Suppressed by War Time

Then they can be arrested and jailed for sedition and draft-avoidance. Also jingoism is high, and that can be used to heighten the atrociously sexist sense of "masculine thrust" against the femininity of socialist caring about other people. Plus those suspicious people in other countries are socialists.

Sooo...if this country starts to embrace socialism, I wonder who the hawks in Congress will declare war on first?

[jwirr]

94. As long as we let them have their half of the pie - no one.

[jwirr]

95. As long as we let them have their half of the pie - no one.

[Scootaloo]

106. No shortage of long-time posters have overexposed themselves in the past

So when a "faithful" DU poster comes up and tells me that the republican roster (Rubio, Paul, Cruz, Walker, and soon Perry and Huckabee) is so amazingly strong, nigh unto unbeatable, that we daren't run anyone to the left of Feinstein on any issue, for fear of the mighty dickslapping these unbeatable, awesome Republicans will dole out... Well, I see no reason to give a shit about their post count.

[blm]

123. My full answer was that struggle is a longtime DUer who WORKS here in his home state

to get out the Dem vote.

I certainly hope you didn't ignore the entire reply deliberately. I DO 'give a shit' about longtime posters who I know do heavy lifting on difficult ground for our Dem tickets year after year.

I'd speak up to vouch for cali's creds, too, even when we disagree. And she knows it.

For some of us this is the THIRD presidential primary here at DU. Most of our crowd know damn well when we're being played.

[Scootaloo]

126. I have to go by my experiences, not yours

Third primary? People can change a lot in twelve years, can't they? What I see from the poster is the following.

1) Hatred of Wikileaks and anyone who doesn't share that hate
2) Decent music from sixty years ago.
3) Anti-Sanders trolling bullshit.

Now, what I said stands. When I see someone claiming that the republicans are so fucking unbeatable that we HAVE to play by hteir rules to have a chance of succeeding in an election... that is boosting for Republicans.

[blm]

128. Well people who bust their humps to GOTV for Dem tickets in this state ARE entitled

to their POVs regarding the election cycle. He won't be the only Dem or DU Dem pulling the lever in the primary based on his reasoning - it will be for the candidate HE views as the most electable in November. That should not be a surprise.

He and I probably have different primary candidates - the day after primary voting ends I know he and I will both be working hard in our counties to get the Dem ticket elected.

Yes - that is from my PERSONAL experience in NC.

[struggle4progress]

3. Yep! I really really wanna win in 2016!

[SamKnause]

15. I think you want Hillary to win even

if she is not the best candidate.

I think you want Hillary to win even

though she is right of center on many issues.

I think you want Hillary to win even

though she represents the needs of the 1%.

Bernie has never voted for a Free Trade Deal.

Bernie voted no to the invasion of Iraq.

Bernie is against the TPP.

Bernie fights for the needs of the working masses, the poor,

the disabled, and the unemployed.

Bernie is consistent to a fault.

Go Bernie !!!!!!!!!!

If the Democratic party really wants to win, they should throw

their support and money behind Bernie.

[struggle4progress]

23. I actually used to have ESP! But I had to give it up!

There are SO many unbalanced people out there; and constantly hearing all those crazy voices in my head just wasn't good for my mental health!

[pnwmom]

90. The best candidate is the won who can beat the Rethugs.

Sanders has a history of being willing to be a voice in the wilderness, losing by large margins but persisting. Unfortunately, we can't afford a huge loss in 2016. Whoever wins the primary must be able to win the general -- and I doubt that Bernie will succeed in the purple states the way he could in Vermont or New York.

Time will tell.

[rhett o rick]

118. But he is making a big mistake. He is confusing political socialism with economic socialism.

Sen Sanders has never been a political socialist. He has been an Independent that caucuses with Democrats. His votes have been for Democratic issues more than a number of other so-called Democratic Senators. He has never run as or supported the Socialist Party.

As for economics, he still isn't a pure socialist. He doesn't want the government to control all businesses. But he does support many social programs like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, US Postal Service, interstate highways, regulated banks, local government controlled fire depts, police depts, highway depts, etc.

I think Clinton would agree with the government controlling most of the same things that Sen Sanders controls but wouldn't call them socialistic.

Our economy works best with a healthy dose of socialism.

[Aerows]

131. Blatantly, utterly transparent

I'd put her on ignore, but the lengths she's going to have reached the point where they are laughable.

There are a handful just like her - anyone daring to voice support in the primary to anyone but Clinton is clearly anathema.

The truth is, though, no one has won the nomination yet, and I reserve the right to support the Democrat of my choice in said primary. Whoever gets the Democratic nomination will have my full-throated, explicitly stated support.

But we aren't there yet, and I want someone besides Hillary to choose from in the Democratic Primary. That is my prerogative as a member of the Democratic party.

They can yell all they want about how inevitable Hillary is as the nominee, but I'm still a Democrat, the primary is a ways away, and I intend to make certain that there is someone besides Hillary to contend for it.

[demmiblue]

4. There are no socialists running for president, that I am aware of. n/t

[rainy]

8. Bernie is a self proclaimed socialist. I'm with him but it is a conceptual problem for him. nt

[demmiblue]

19. Democratic socialist, but I agree that some (like the OP) will unfairly portray his ideology. n/t

[merrily]

33. WRONG. He self identifies as a DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST, which is very different from a socialist.

Please see Reply 26.

[okaawhatever]

62. Yeah, go count how many times that is mentioned in the press. nt

[merrily]

63. So Democrats should try to pull the same shit the media does?

[pnwmom]

92. He compares himself to the European Democratic Socialists

and that won't appeal to many people in the purple states, IMO. But we'll see.

[merrily]

93. Whatever. Point is, he does not self-identify as a socialist.

Has also self-identified as an Indie for decades.

[pnwmom]

98. The problem is there is no clear, universal definition of "Democratic Socialist"

so his detractors are free to paint him as an extreme leftist, at least by American terms, or even a Communist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism

Democratic socialism is a political ideology advocating a democratic political system alongside a socialist economic system. This may refer to extending principles of democracy in the economy (such as through cooperatives or workplace democracy), or may simply refer to trends of socialism that emphasize democratic principles as inalienable from their political project.

There is no exact definition of democratic socialism. It may be described as a multi-party system, constitutionalism, freedom of speech, universal suffrage with common ownership and/or a planned economy. Some forms of democratic socialism overlap with social democracy, while many forms reject social democratic reformism in favor of more transformative methods, and other forms overlap with Revolutionary Socialism.

SNIP

The term democratic socialism can be used in a third way, to refer to a version of the Soviet model that was reformed in a democratic way. For example, Mikhail Gorbachev described perestroika as building a "new, humane and democratic socialism."[13] Consequently, some former Communist parties have rebranded themselves as democratic socialist, as with the Party of Democratic Socialism in Germany.

[Orrex]

100. All of that will look terrific on a campaign button!

[merrily]

140. Regardless, that is what he self identifies as, not as a socialist.

The fact that someone doesn't know how Sanders defines it, doesn't give anyone the right to say he self identifies as a socialist when he does not. Neither does anything else you or any of the OP's defenders have posted. It's a very simple and accuratepoint, yet you can't admit it. Says a lot.

[pnwmom]

108. Mikhail Gorbachev described perestroika as "democratic socialism."

We've seen how well that worked out.

(See post #98.)

[merrily]

139. LMAO. That was Gorbachev, not Sanders. Are you going to pretend

everything Gorbachev says applies to Sanders, or that Sanders is responsible for everything Gorbachev says?

I see you're on one of your flailing missions. I hope you don't mind if I don't follow you down the rabbit hole. It's very easy: just say Democratic Socialist who has run as an Independent.

[pnwmom]

141. No, I'm pointing out that there is no standard definition for the label you think is so clear.

Too bad you're so unwilling to be educated.

Because "Democratic Socialist who has run as an Independent" doesn't make his philosophy any bit clearer.

[merrily]

142. Never said a thing about clarity. I said he never self identified as a socialist, only a Democratic

Socialist (and an Independent. Simple statement, true statement. Please stop pretending I said something else.

[True Blue Door]

105. I hope he moves beyond the label without running from it.

Word-parsing about ideology is not persuasive to most people, one way or another.

It's ideas that matter in the primaries to the base, expectations about image that matter to the party moderates, and actual image that matters in the general election.

Since he's still in the army-gathering phase of campaign formation, it's fine. But eventually he has to prove himself beyond being lured into the trap intellectual liberals often fall into, of wanting to be precise at the expense of being clear, and wanting to be clear at the expense of being understood.

[blm]

124. I agree - and think he usually performs extraordinarily well when expressing himself

in interviews. I've been hearing Sanders interviewed since back when he was in congress, and any slip ups or awkward moments have been rare. He's pretty at ease with his positions and who he is and I think he expresses himself in these broadcast appearances so he is easily understood by general public.

[True Blue Door]

125. It is a more auspicious beginning than Howard Dean's.

I remember very early in the 2004 campaign listening to Dean, hearing all his gaffes and possible unintended interpretations, and knowing one way or another it wasn't going to work out. Haven't had any of that with Sanders. Nothing he says screams "loser" to me, and that's pretty promising given how different he is.

Sanders has the base if he's serious, but it will be a steep climb winning over skeptics - not necessarily because Sanders isn't credible, but because a lot of people in the Democratic Party are incredibly timid. Barack Obama just barely managed to get the nomination, and he was a lot more than an "alternative" by the time actual primary voting started.

[quaker bill]

9. Oh there probably will be...

Our ballot almost always has a socialist, a green, and a couple of flavors of communists, along with a few rabid RW splinter types. They all usually end up somewhere between 0 and 1%, but get literally hundreds of votes.

I think these are the stats being cited.

[demmiblue]

17. I agree. n/t

[merrily]

35. I think the OP is implying something about Sanders who is NOT a socialist.

Please see Reply 26.

[quaker bill]

87. True, never thought otherwise.

The problem with the analogy the op intends to make is that the "socialist" candidates compared were on minor third party ballot lines. Of course anything left of Attila the Hun is called "socialist" these days.

If Hillary is the nominee, she will be called a "socialist", just like BHO has been since 2008. It is a word now so commonly used to label anything left of the 1000 year Reich as to have become meaningless.

[struggle4progress]

11. Socialist to snap at Clinton’s heels

May 01, 2015, 06:00 am
By Niall Stanage
... it’s difficult to find many people, even among Democrats, who believe he has a credible shot at defeating Hillary Clinton. Even so, the self-described “democratic socialist” will be snapping at Clinton’s heels ...

[merrily]

37. Dishonest OP and dishonest post. Your link says Democratic Socialist and you changed it.

[TM99]

5. Sanders is running as a Democrat

the last I heard.

[merrily]

38. And has never been a socialist. This is dishonest.

[Orrex]

56. He has self-described as a "democratic socialist"

Whether or not he has formally held office as a Socialist, his description will be sufficient for the press to label him that way.

[merrily]

64. DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST is very different from socialist. See Reply 26.

And we should be pushing back against false labels by media, not joining them in their lies.

[Orrex]

70. He has also praised Scandanavian-style Socialism.

That, plus his self-description, will label him as a Socialist out of touch with mainstream America.


I propose a challenge: Give me a clear and compelling 30-second explanation of the fundamental difference between "Socialist" and "Democratic Socialist."

If you can't do it in under 30 seconds, then it won't make it into the news feed and is therefore effectively irrelevant to the average voter.

[font color="red"]Edited to add: Reply #26 does not provide a clear and compelling 30-second explanation, except for people who already know the difference.[/font]

[merrily]

71. See Reply 26. But who made you the arbiter of what's clear and compelling, anyway?

And why does it have to be compelling? It only has to be true. The difference between Democratic and socialist doesn't have to be "compelling." It just is. They're not the same.

Praising Scandinavian Socialism doesn't make anyone a Socialist. I've seen tons of DUers do it. They're still Democrats. You're really reaching and it's obvious and shameful.

[Orrex]

73. Please. That's no more compelling than anything else you've written on the subject

Praising Scandinavian Socialism doesn't make anyone a Socialist.

Where did I say that it does? I have correctly noted that Sanders self-describes as a "democratic socialist" and that he has praised Scandanavian Socialism, and I have correctly noted that the media will label Sanders a Socialist as a result.

As for "the arbiter of what's clear," well, I'm the reader. It's my role to tell you if your argument is clear and compelling, and so far it isn't.

I've seen tons of DUers do it. They're still Democrats.

Sure, and they stand an equal chance of winning the nomination as Sanders.

You're really reaching and it's obvious and shameful.

And you're clinging to a fantasy that Sanders can win the general election.

In the hundreds of pro-Sanders posts I've read here on DU, I haven't found a single convincing argument that he can win the general election. The absolute strongest case I've seen (and it's pretty damn weak) is the endlessly parroted assertion that "Hillary was the shoe-in in 2007, too." Now that's reaching. Desperate, too.

The fact that pro-Sanders posters have repeatedly cited the "fear" that he'll win the nomination is equally preposterous and desperate.


So here's your chance: tell me why Sanders is the best chance that Democrats have to take the Whitehouse in 2016. Tell me how the Senator from the far northeast, representing the 2nd smallest constituency in the country, is going to wow 51% of the general electorate. Show me the poll results indicating that he will defeat any of the current GOP contenders for the office.

If you can't accomplish these, can you at least convince me that Sanders thinks he can win it, and on what grounds?

[merrily]

83. Point was, calling Sanders a socialist or implying he is socialist is dishonest. It is.

[Orrex]

84. If we're content to split hairs, then fine. Sanders isn't a Socialist.

By "splitting hairs," I refer to drawing academic distinctions that will be meaningless to the average voter.

Do you accept and understand that Sanders will certainly be (and has already been) labeled a Socialist by the media? That, I think, is a much bigger problem for him than an anonymous post on an internet forum.


And now the question of much greater importance: Do you seriously think that he can win the general election? What leads you to conclude this?

[merrily]

85. It's NOT hairsplitting.

Democratic Socialist is far more like a New Deal Democrat than it is socialism. Educate yourself.

[Orrex]

86. Perhaps you missed the edit. It most definitely *IS* hair-splitting

For all practical purposes, at any rate. Educate yourself, and quit living in a fantasy world.

Here's how you know that it's hair-splitting: ask the average voter to name Clinton's or Perry's or Rubio's or Cruz' political party, and they'll get it right 99 times out of 100.

Ask them to name Sanders' political party, and 99 times out of 100 you'll either get a blank stare or they'll say "Isn't he that Socialist from Maine or wherever? Is he running?" You'll then have about 10 seconds to explain the difference between Socialist and democratic socialist while simultaneously telling the voter "Sanders represents your best interests and he really is a Democrat but actually an Independent but close enough and yes of course he's a viable candidate no I mean it he really is if only you'll let me tell you about a few of his policy objectives wait where are you going?"

I'm sure that you don't want to hear this, and you'll raise some procedural objection that I'm not the arbiter of the average voter's view, and you're welcome to clasp the blankets over your head as tightly as you like; as long as you vote for the Democrat in Nov 2016, then I don't care.



For the nth time you've avoided answering questions put forth to you. Is this how Sanders' supporters support Sanders? By stamping their feet and refusing to answer questions from people who already know who Sanders is? Yeah, you'll produce one heck of a groundswell for the perceived Socialist candidate with that strategy.

Well done!

[TM99]

129. Ask a person next week

after the news cycle spins back around stating constantly that Bernie Sanders is a candidate in the Democratic Primary, and you will hear back from people that he is a damned Democrat.

Whether he is a Socialist, an Independent or whatever is fucking irrelevant. Why? Because he is registering as Democrat in all states and he is running as a Democrat. The low information voters you are describing will only know he is running in the Democratic primary. That is all. And you bloody well know that.

That is why all of your dishonest word games here are so ludicrous.

Now if you want to go deeper then, by asking what is Democratic Socialism, then there are plenty of interviews already where Sanders quite succinctly describes Democratic Socialism or being a Socialist Democrat. There will be more as the campaign progresses and he is interviewed more. Let's wait and see how he answers this week on ABC shall we?

There are quite a few flavors of Democrats. Look around DU for proof of that. He is not that far out of the mainstream, and you know that to.

[lovemydog]

119. A democratic socialist wants single-payer health care

and break-up of big banks. A socialist wants government takeover of all large corporations.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

82. There is a Socialist Party in America which he is not a member of?

[jwirr]

81. And I do not think he has ever run as a Socialist? Am I correct Vermonters? He is an Independent

who leans toward democratic socialism. He has caucused with the Democratic Party from the beginning.

[myrna minx]

6. Then you have nothing to worry about...so why the thread after thread after thread

After thread about the scary socialism of Bernie Sanders? His ideas will be dismissed out of hand if the American people are so kiddish about socialism. Or is it frightening that Senator Sanders will be able to present his political philosophy to the American Public himself? The American public, has had socialism defined by the right wing and Fox News. Perhaps a real living breathing Democratic
Socialist defining his own message may show the public Socilism isn't at all why FOX news screams it it.

[struggle4progress]

13. What I'm worried about is losing the election

[Katashi_itto]

21. Then vote Bernie

[merrily]

39. +1

[frylock]

121. which one of those clowns are you afraid might beat the Dem candidate?

[Aerows]

133. Good question!

LMAO. They have nobody that a sane person would vote for. I'm going to push for a Democratic candidate that I have faith in for the primary.

It is absolutely my choice and my prerogative as a Democrat to choose which Democratic candidate I support in the primary, and scare tactics make those who employ them look more desperate than people who up front say "I support candidate x because of _____"

I support Bernie Sanders because he represents my views and the direction I would like for this country to go in. I don't support Hillary Clinton because I don't trust her to move the Democratic party and the nation in a direction I wish to see it go in.

I haven't seen Clinton supporters elaborate why they support her other than "Vote for her, or you'll be sorry!"

[merrily]

47. What is even more dishonest": Bernie Sanders has never been a socialist and the OP knows it.

Please see Reply 26.

In Reply 11, the OP posted a link saying he is a democratic socialist, then dropped "democratic" from the subject line of that very same reply.

[JHB]

7. Those are votes for socialist parties...

Last edited Sun May 3, 2015, 10:43 AM - Edit history (1)

...whereas today, RWers have successfully extended the meaning of the word "socialist" to include Cold War-era US economic policy.

So you're using numbers that are too narrowly-focused to support the broad assertion you are making.

Again.

[struggle4progress]

16. Little Change in Public’s Response to ’Capitalism,’ ’Socialism’

A Political Rhetoric Test
DECEMBER 28, 2011
http://www.people-press.org/2011/12/28/little-change-in-publics-response-to-capitalism-socialism/

[JHB]

29. Yes, because the word itself (and all by itself) is still equated with Warsaw Pact countries...

...not with one person who can actually speak for himself.

The reason for the huge drop-off in the first graph was because the Democrats adopted enough of the Socialist Party's agenda to draw in voters that weren't prepared to vote for the more extensive program of the SP.

But Sanders isn't pushing that agenda, he's pushing one that's quite at home within the Democratic Party. Or was, until neoliberal thinking took over the party leadership.

I know you're worried about being saddled with a bad name, but have you forgotten how the Republicans have acted since 1992? When Clinton was probably the most conservative Democrat in the primaries, they saw that the old "tax and spend, soft on crime llllliberal" line wouldn't work so well, so they just divorced their tactics from reality completely and set about attacking dope-smokin' draft-dogin' Hippy Bill and radical feminist harpy Hippy Hill?

They already act as if Hillary has her own line of Che Guevara berets. And wouldn't recognize how someone having a line of Che Guevara berets would actually be proof against their view.

They already spray around the terms "socialist" and "marxist" like a high-capacity sprinkler system. To describe any and all things Obama proposes.

They'll simply make up whatever they think will get their crowd stampeding in the direction they want. Their entire playbook has been rewritten around that strategy. They'll use any pretext no matter how thin, and invent one if they don't even have that.

Hell, why are you so certain that Sander's mere existence in the primary will be a negative for Hillary? What makes you so certain that it won't take some of the air out of the "Hillary is a radical leftist" tires when an actual (but non-radical) leftist is arguing with her? That she won't benefit as the "good cop" to Bernie's "socialist bad cop"?

[struggle4progress]

34. (1) The Rs have been red-baiting everyone for as long as I can remember, but they wouldn't do it

if it didn't work; (2) The graphic I posted shows that the only group with slight majority support for "socialism" is liberal Ds, and (unfortunately) they're only about 15% of the electorate; (3) It's in the nature of campaigns that some issues dissipate over time, so it might be better for Sanders if lots of folk said "Socialist! Socialist! Socialist!" earlier rather than later, to give everybody time to become thoroughly bored by the refreain

[merrily]

41. Then use the accurate Democratic Socialist label for Bernie, not the bullshit socialist label.

[struggle4progress]

51. There's an incredibly obvious reason that conversation doesn't work

MAN-ON-THE-STREET: He's a socialist.
YOU: He is NOT a socialist! He's a yada-yada socialist!

MAN-ON-THE-STREET now backs away slowly, nodding and smiling

[merrily]

55. What you are trying to do is dishonest AND incredibly obvious.

You KNOW he is not a socialist, yet you keep implying he is. That's shameful.

[JHB]

72. 1) Red-baiting also implied "agent or dupe of a foreign power"...

...with &quot fill in the minority)-lover" sprinkled on top. There is no more Soviet Union, and China exports these days don't usually include Mao's little book. In fact, current-day redbaiting depends on blurring any difference between the most mild actions by first Bill Clinton and now Obama with full-blown Marxism.

2) I repeat what I said about the graphic already: it speaks to a faceless word, not someone who can persuade.

3) it would also be better for Hillary if that happens.

[merrily]

40. Bernie Sanders has never been a socialist and you know it. Nor is he running as a socialist, and you

know that as well.

[merrily]

49. Bernie Sanders is a Democratic Socialist who runs as an Independent.

Democratic Socialism is very different from socialism. Bernie Sanders is not, now, nor has he ever been, a socialist.

One Hillary supporter after another tries to peddle this bs and they all know better.

[JHB]

59. Let them peddle, and keep pushing back on it loudly...

The Republicans don't make the distinction, so any public exposure to the fact that there is a difference -- and that Hillary isn't either kind -- stands to work for Democrats and against Republicans.

[merrily]

61. "The Republicans don't make the distinction" Neither do some Dems on this board. nt

[Warren Stupidity]

10. Bernie is running as a Democrat. nt.

[merrily]

42. Has never been a socialist, either. Is a Democratic Socialist, who runs as an Indie.

Democratic Socialism is very different from socialism.

[woo me with science]

12. These corporate propaganda posts are always the same.

Always about labels. And dishonestly so.

Never, ever about Bernie's actual policies.

[font color=red]Reject Third Way diversion from issues.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025767160

[/font color]

[Mnpaul]

31. It's all they have

They lose the arguments on issues so they need a distraction.

[merrily]

43. False labels at that. Sanders has never been a socialist.

[GummyBearz]

14. Plot how black people have fared in presidential voting over the same time period

Then ask the nearest person to slap you back into reality

[m-lekktor]

18. how many of those socialists ran in one of the two major parties?

you must have quite an ego to think you are going to talk people out of voting for the best candidate the DEMS have had in like forever. DEMS like you make me hate the party. keep flacking for the corrupt/business as usual right wing"democrats" just because you think these worthless assholes are the only ones who can win.

[merrily]

46. Bernie has never been a socialist anyway. Please see Reply 26.

[mn9driver]

20. Who is the socialist candidate for 2016? Has the party announced that yet?

We know it won't be Bernie since he is running as a Democrat.

[stone space]

36. The SPUSA will be holding their national Convention in October.

Questionnaire for Prospective 2016 Presidential/Vice-Presidential Candidates

The Socialist Party USA will select its 2016 election nominees for President and Vice President of the United States at the SPUSA National Convention in October 2015. Any prospective Presidential or Vice Presidential candidate seeking official recognition as a potential contender for the Party's nomination must:

(1) complete the Questionnaire for Prospective 2016 Socialist Party USA Presidential and Vice Presidential Candidates; - and -

(2) keep the SPUSA Presidential Search Committee apprised of any campaign website, press releases, and general campaign activity (as applicable), so that records may be maintained.

The SPUSA Questionnaire for Prospective 2016 Socialist Party USA Presidential and Vice Presidential Candidates can be completed by clicking here.

Submitted Responses to the Questionnaire will be published on this website as they are received, and will also be published in the Socialist Party's 2015 Pre-Convention Discussion Bulletin.

Press releases and campaign activity information can be emailed to the SPUSA Presidential Search Committee at [e-mail]. Candidates without email access can alternatively mail such materials to the SPUSA National Office at 339 Lafayette St. #303, New York, NY 10012.

http://vote-socialist.org/pressearch2015.html

I'm guessing that Bernie will do better than the SPUSA's candidate, whoever he or she is, if past experience as indicated by the OP is any indication.

In 2008, the Socialist Party USA's candidate lost to a Black guy running on the Democratic ticket.

In 2016, they might very we lose to a Socialist running on the Democratic ticket.

Wouldn't that be ironic?

[fadedrose]

22. Letterman referred to Bernie as an Independent

He's had something on about Bernie pretty often, so Bernie's at least got his attention....silly stuff, not political

[Enrique]

24. here is a graphic

[LAGC]

80. No doubt.

And FDR's policies were way further out left than Bernie's are.

Why does this make some people so nervous?

[1939]

25. 1952

For the 1952 election, i was in the 8th grade in the Detroit Public School system. We had a "mock election" in the social studies classes using official paper ballots with education in how to properly mark and fold your ballot and how to count ballots. As I recall, the choices on the presidential ballot were Republican (Eisenhower), Democratic (Stevenson), Progressive (leftover from Harry Wallace's 1948 run), Prohibition (their last gasp), Social Workers, and Socialist Labor. As i was given to understand it, one of the two parties was Trotskyite and the other wasn't.

BTW, the election in our blue collar school mirrored the election in Detroit that year with massive ticket splitting going for Eisenhower for president and Democratic in the down ballot races.

[merrily]

26. DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST IS VERY DIFFERENT FROM SOCIALIST. How many times must it be posted?

Socialism advocates government or other collective ownership. Democratic socialism works within capitalism, as did Social Security, for example.

[demmiblue]

27. I'm sure the OP already knows this.

"I think (democratic socialism) means the government has got to play a very important role in making sure that as a right of citizenship all of our people have healthcare; that as a right, all of our kids, regardless of income, have quality childcare, are able to go to college without going deeply into debt; that it means we do not allow large corporations and moneyed interests to destroy our environment; that we create a government in which it is not dominated by big money interest. I mean, to me, it means democracy, frankly. That’s all it means."

-Bernie Sanders

[merrily]

45. The OP definitely knows this. See the link in the OPs post 11 on this thread.

Yet, the subject of that same post 11 drops the Democratic and uses only socialist.

[pnwmom]

112. Hillary would agree with all of this and so would most moderate or liberal Democrats.

What about this makes him a Democratic Socialist?

[struggle4progress]

28. Nobody's going to win by arguing about what "democratic socialist" really means

You'd be far better off saying: Let's talk issues. Bernie supports a living wage, universal health care, and incentives to encourage companies to offer employees ownership in the business

[merrily]

30. Nobody's going to win by pretending Sanders is a socialist, either, as your OP implies.

I see nothing wrong with HONESTLY talking definitions. Facts matter.

Your OP is misleading.

BTW, exactly what is it I'm not winning?

[pnwmom]

113. The problem for Sanders is that he took that label on before the collapse of the Soviet Union,

when Socialist wasn't yet a dirty word -- Communist was.

Now that the Communists are gone, Socialists are perceived as far left.

And he's too stubborn to let go of the label, even though it has also been claimed by people like Gorbachev.

[merrily]

136. DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST.

[Unvanguard]

103. That's not the distinction.

Democratic socialists are socialists who support democracy (usually, for people who feel the need to use the term, Western-style liberal representative democracy). You can't be a democratic socialist and not a socialist. The interesting question is what a "socialist" is. Bernie Sanders, like some others who use the term, seems to mean something like "supporter of a comprehensive welfare state," but that definition is contested; I, for one, think definitions like Sanders' that don't address the capital ownership structure of the economy unhelpfully blur distinctions between socialists and left-liberals.

[merrily]

138. In any event, Sanders has never self identified, or run as a socialist, only as a Democratic

Socialist, an Independent* and, now, as a Democrat. Saying or implying otherwise is dishonest. That is the point.

His wiki says something about affiliaton with Liberty Union and Vermont Progressive, but I am not sure what that is about.

[pnwmom]

111. Hillary believes in Social Security and Medicare. So do all Democrats. So what distinguishes Bernie

as a Democratic Socialist? Why isn't he just a Democrat?

[99Forever]

32. More unsolicited "advice" from you?

As I told another of you backbiters.

No thanks, I want Bernie to win.

Living in the 50s isn't going to cut it, neither is being a pretend "liberal." We the People are on to your shit and won't put up with it ever again.

[merrily]

50. Neither is pretending Sanders is a socialist or that Democratic Socialist is the same as socialist.

This is disgusting.

[99Forever]

52. This is what Clinton people do.

It's what caused HRC's campaign to fail last time and what will do the same to it again.

[merrily]

53. Yes. I don't know if that was what caused the campaign to fail last time, but it SHOULD have.

[Marr]

60. It really is-- it's so odd that a subgroup could have such a disctinctly different tone.

I usually put perceptions like that down to personal bias, but in this case it really does seem to be true. There are plenty of reasonable, level-headed Hillary supporters on this site, of course-- but the group as a whole does seem to have a near monopoly on dishonest, sleazy assholes.

The post the other day that attempted to use race as a wedge against the Occupy movement was one of the lowest I've seen. I think it was from the same poster, in fact.

[99Forever]

69. True dat.

[L0oniX]

65. ^^^THIS^^^

[Bluenorthwest]

44. What's probably most hilarious about this series of OP's is that Republicans say the exact same

things about Hillary, Bill, Obama and Democrats in general. We've spent the last few years hearing that Obama is a Marxist Kenyan.
The 1992 GOP Convention keynote speech alone Pat Buchanan called Democrats and Hillary Clinton malcontents, radical feminist allies to militant homosexuals, radicals 'cross dressing' as moderates.

It is really sad to see a person attempt to support Hillary by doing to other Democrats that which Republicans have done to Hillary for so many long years.

[Bonobo]

48. StruggleVSProgress nt

[struggle4progress]

54. "Why are we traversing this cliff face? I want to climb UP the mountain!"

There's no safe way straight up from here. We've got to get over there to climb up
"But I want to climb UP the mountain!"

[libdem4life]

57. Perhaps if we called it European-type Socialist, people would understand better. They are all

Democratic, European countries, I think...not sure. They just treat their middle class and poor and elderly like human beings deserving of a basic human level of survival. I know they have currency and big vs. little ... north vs. south issues, but still our system is far below the European Bar. Again, I don't have a link, just watching over the decades.

[Marr]

58. I've noticed that almost all of the anti-Sanders posts are dishonest.

And exactly zero have argued against the policies he stands for.

[L0oniX]

66. A sign that they're getting worried someone who will be great for the country is competing for POTUS

[truebluegreen]

67. According to Fux et al, we have had a socialist president for the last 6 years

and yet he was re-elected.

Soshulism rulz!

[JEB]

68. I'd take a Democratic Socialist over a Corporatist any day.

[odd_duck]

74. The Founding Fathers...

gave us Socialism. It is in the Constitution. Provide for the Post Office and roads via taxes......................

[Gothmog]

75. Cool chart

[magical thyme]

76. they've fared quite well in the elections

We have a Kenyan Muslin Socialist Communist sitting in the white house right now.

When hasn't a non-GOP President been a Socialist by default?

Meh. Your agenda is showing again.

[jwirr]

78. You are correct but that was then. The cold war ended in 1980s. Back then they did not have

the internet and they did not have any real way to get their message out. Newspapers were the media back then. They also were seen as representative of a foreign country - I do not see that happening with Bernie.

The socialist democrat that is now running as a democrat has caucused with the Democratic Party since the day he was elected as an Independent. He has never really ran on a Socialist Party ticket. And I have not seen one single bill he presented or supported that does not reflect our platform.

All he needs is to have people listen to what he is talking about. The issues. That is what makes him unique not his being a socialist democrat.

[quaker bill]

88. If true, then not worth the time or bandwidth to post

If you are correct, then Bernie will not last much past South Carolina in the primaries and all we will get is one or two interesting debates....

On the other hand, if you are incorrect, then the aversion many people feel about putting the Clintons back in the WH will perhaps find a home, and Hillary will finish a close second again.

The socialist label is worn out to the point of uselessness as a political tool. It was pounded into the ground in 2008 against BHO, who despite all the attempts to hang the label on him, is in fact a very poor socialist.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

89. Best thread ever. Now, can you please explain the irrational...

hysterical threads and posts of multitudes of Hillary supporters? They're ridiculous.

[whatchamacallit]

96. You're flapping in the wind

but no one cares.

[DirkGently]

97. I love this tidal wave of Bernie-phobia sweeping ... a couple of people!

OMGawdballz!! -- rouse the troops and think of new ways to de-legimitize Bernie Sanders before he TAKES OVER THE WORLD!

So far we have running for President:

- One American-style (racist-y) Libertarian, running as a Republican

- One (or is in Huckabee in -- that would be two) fire-breathing Evangelical Theocracy candidate, also running as a Republican

- An assortment of practitioners of garden-variety American Klepto-Corporatistism, running as Republicans

- Hillary Rodham Clinton

- And a nice progressive man from Vermont, who espouses mildly socialist views, which is only rare and shocking because Americans believe "socialism" involves drinking lots of vodka and standing in line for shoes.

But HE's the one we should be freaking out about, right? Not the climate-change denier who believes gay marriage will destroy us all, or the latest scion from that family who thought fascism was a spiffy idea, or the guy who thinks kidnapping women is a fun college prank and the Civil Rights Act should have been worked out by the "free market."

Excellent.

Seriously, though, it's good to know Bernie is ruffling feathers and striking fear in the hearts of ... like one or two people. He can use the exposure.

[Orrex]

99. Once again we have a Sanders supporter claiming that fear is the source of concern

Why do his supporters keep playing that card, when there's simply no evidence that it's true? What, exactly, do you imagine they're afraid of?


As for your recitation about the GOP's candidates, please produce the poll results that shows Sanders beating them by better margins than Hillary currently shows. That would go a long way toward eliminating the "fear" that you perceive everywhere.

[DirkGently]

101. Well you don't post frantic nonsense like this unless you're TERRIFIED.

To someone who thinks Bernie Sanders is a non-starter, their response to his candidacy would be a sleepy yawn.

But trying to concoct a weird racist attack on Occupy Wall Street just because it endorsed him? Waxing pedantic about the general viability of socialism in the U.S.?

Even a rational disagreement with the guy would mention, like, a POLICY or something. These are weak, tribalistic, in-group attacks. Identity politics of the lowest form. It's thoughtless knee-jerk attack beneath any consideration beyond an eye roll and a chuckle.

C'mon.

But it does show a desperate desire to tear the man down "by any means necessary." It's someone without any actual ideas racking their brains from a frantic defensive crouch.

It's funny, and it's not working, which is also funny. And denying it also is funny and also does not work in a funny way.

[Orrex]

102. You defend one false dichotomy with another. Bravo!

The first false dichotomy is this: One must either think that Sanders is electable, or else one is afraid of him.

This has been parroted dozens of times in that past few days. It is an idea pulled entirely out of the imagination of the Sanders supporter, and it ignores the many legitimate reasons why one might conclude that Sanders can't win the election.

And then here's the second false dichotomy:

To someone who thinks Bernie Sanders is a non-starter, they're response to his candidacy would be a sleepy yawn.

That is, One must react calmly to Sanders' bid for the nomination, or else one must think that Sanders is a viable candidate.

Further, it's not up to you to dictate why someone might oppose his prospective candidacy. Sure, you can speculate about it, but if you're going to issue definitive proclamations about why people think a certain way, then you'll have no basis to object when your support Sanders is claimed to be motivated by a desire to reproduce Vermont's demographic breakdown nationwide. That would be a bullshit accusation, of course, but you have basis to object to it, having already established that it's fine for one group to outline the motivations of the other.

It is entirely possible to recognize that Sanders will be a lightning rod for the media and that he may as a result damage the credibility of a subsequent non-Sanders Democratic ticket, so it frankly doesn't matter whether you or he thinks he stands a chance.

I'm hopeful that Sanders knows how to form an argument better than his supporters, or else he won't make it past the admission desk at the first primary debate.


Also, as is so far typical of his supporters, you simply ignore questions that you can't answer, while giving bogus responses to questions that you think you can answer at all. If this is typical of his base, then he's in even more trouble than is immediately apparent.

[DirkGently]

107. So you're scared of him too, is what you're saying?

C'mon. "He's too socialist!" is a bumper sticker beneath the level of a Breitbart publication. It's rightwing scare-mongering at best, and it's not even as well done.

And that attempt to smear Occupy Wall Street as being full of entitled white people (and therefore worthless) the second it endorsed Sanders?

Silly, silly, silly. It's poo-flinging.

You don't fling poo because you have a reasoned opinion you want to share for the good of the group. You do it because you sense A COMPETITOR, and think whatever you're trying to accomplish can only work if that FEARSOME COMPETITOR is destroyed.

What's hilarious about it is that elevates and legitimizes the importance of whatever "other" the thoughtless partisan mindset is RAWWWRRing at. Whether it's claiming Glenn Greenwald murdered a baby ferret (I think that was in there somewhere -- but there was a lot to keep track of) or hissing that Edward Snowden had too many boxes in his garage, getting a worthless ad hominem attack out of people who don't think past "That's not MY guy!" is as simple as poking a rather dull-witted animal with a stick.

And of course it backfires. Because screaming "socialist" at people doesn't win arguments about Democratic candidates, any more than implying that OWS protestors were wealthy brats. It just makes whoever is saying it look desperate, frantic, and

SCARED.

[Orrex]

109. Well, there's another Sanders supporter who can't argue worth shit.

You guys are doomed.

[DirkGently]

114. Not arguing. Laughing! At the Bernie-phobia!

Again, the man just announced. He's not well-funded. He does not have great name recognition. We rarely elect guys named "Bernie" to be President.

No one on Hillary Clinton's actual "team" is frothing at the mouth about "socialism" and twisting themselves into anti-Occupy knots trying to chop him into to little pieces by sheer force of bile and blind partisan rage. They are not shrieking about "Sanders supporters" on the Internet with knickers all aflutter and making him look like a dire existential threat to her candidacy.

They're smarter than that. They probably welcome debate, and discussion of policy, and the political cover that comes from multiple candidates in a primary process.

Come to think of it though, most people are smart enough to see it that way.

[Orrex]

115. You are projecting fear upon people who don't actually fear him. That's pathetic of you.

You are attempting to rationalize their objections by psychoanalyzing what you imagine to be their motivations. That's desperate and comical of you.


How about this: instead of pretending that you know what motivates people who identify your candidate as non-viable, why don't you demonstrate why you're sure that your candidate can win the primary and defeat the GOP candidate in Nov 2016?

So far I haven't seen even a single post in dozens of Sanders-related threads that actually presents a compelling case that he's the best candidate.

You look desperate and petulant. Will you be laughing if your candidate gets trounced for exactly the reasons that have been outlined here?

[DirkGently]

120. Well, no. Frantic attacks like these ONLY come from fear.

Likewise all your language about "trouncing" "your candidate" blah blah blah.

Good lord, THIS is the problem. This grim mindset of someone locked in a life-and-death struggle for supremacy.

That is not a thing that is happening between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton on DU in the first seconds of Bernie Sanders candidacy. Neither this OP nor you are warriors for that cause. Seriously.

And to be clear, if it were, "Occupy sucks!" and "Socialists always lose!" are facially ludicrous ways to go about attempting to engage. Democrats? Democrats are going to turn on someone based on skeevy claims that Occupy was terrible and socialism -- as in "Social Security" can't work? These are not things people with genuine concerns say out of genuine concern. It is poo flinging.

I'm happy to see another, more liberal Democratic candidate in the race. One with fewer ties to monied interests, and one who openly talks about democratic socialism.

I think Hillary's candidacy benefits, because she'll have the headroom and the political cover to shift away from her donors in the financial industry, and another liberal voice getting press every night.

I will not be hanging my head morosely if Bernie Sanders is not the Democratic candidate for President. I am not EXTREMELY ANGRY that other people favor a different Democrat, nor tied up in the idea you can scream at people on an Internet forum in a way that would help one candidate or the other.

That would be kind of stupid.

But, sorry, it IS fear, and specifically a species of small-minded, ineffectual and misplaced fear, that would lead someone to post this way in the belief they were somehow helping Hillary Clinton by hurting Bernie Sanders. Neither of those things can be accomplished with Occupy smears or 'Murcia-flavored side-eyes at "socialism."

So all it points to is insecurity. Hillary is in no danger, unless YOU think a charming, white-haired social Democrat is so much more appealing than her that he must be STOPPED AT ALL COSTS!



Sorry, still hilarious.

[Orrex]

130. Well, it's not frantic, so you're still projecting.

If you aren't simply trolling and you really want Sanders to win, then you should make an effort not to speak about it in pubic. Your silliness will make his supporters seem preposterous, and people--after they figure out who he is--will wonder how good he can be if his supporters are of your ilk.

[True Blue Door]

104. On the other hand, how well would a party fare if its name had the word "Capitalist" in it?

I'm guessing not well either.

[valerief]

110. How about a Democratic Socialist chart instead? nt

[rhett o rick]

116. Why don't you superimpose on your graph, how women have fared running for President.

And until 2008 people of color haven't fared well either. You see it's like this. Usually every first time event is preceded with failures.

I think your attempt at discouraging Sen Sanders supporters is wasted. He is the candidate of the people.

[DirkGently]

135. Be interesting to cross-reference the folks

shrieking angrily that Obama was "too liberal," or came from a previously under-represented demographic, the last time Hillary Clinton was in a primary race, with the people fearfully belting out the same tune regarding Bernie Sanders.

Bet those Venn diagrams would overlap. A LOT.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

117. I'm a Socialist and have always fared well when I voted for a Socialist.

"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." John Quincy Adams

[frylock]

122. How have women fared in Presidential elections?

[Aerows]

134. Just as valid of an observation.

"Vote for Hillary or you'll be sorry!" doesn't cut it for me.

[orpupilofnature57]

127. FDR Did pretty good .

[morningfog]

132. How about democratic socialist running as Democrats?

Or simpler yet, Democrats? Or liberals?

Sanders will not be on any presidential ballot as anything other than a Democrat.

[deutsey]

137. Yep, the Red Scares, Palmer Raids, McCarthyism, COINTELPRO, the Powell memo...

they've all been wildly successful in snuffing out democratic socialism in America.

Yippie!

[Warren DeMontague]

143. Prior to 2008, how did African American candidates perform in Presidential elections?

Got that graph handy?