How fucked up is the USA when the word "socialism" is a candidate killer

[stopbush]

while the word “dictator” produces yawns?

[FBaggins]

1. Had an easy answer to your title

But then I saw the rest of the question.

Don’t know

[TheCowsCameHome]

2. How true. Perfect example -

Just look at this LTTE in today's Cape Cod Times. (The writer is a former town official and well known buffoon and TrumpBot)

https://www.capecodtimes.com/opinion/20190505/bernie-should-fess-up-to-being-communist

[ck4829]

3. It speaks to a latent sadism

[Hortensis]

74. Authoritarianism. Some are naturally

more suited to obeying authoritarian government than the responsibilities of democracy. Virtually all with those leanings are conservatives, with some also on the farther left-right.

Now, on the other hand, relatively few are naturally suited to having products of their own industry be owned and controlled by a socialized state, no private ownership of one’s own business and profits allowed. And many of the people this appeals to have some streak of authoritarianism in them.

The big difference between democratic socialism and socialism is not seizure of almost all businesses and other private enterprises. It is mostly how they’re controlled after that. Democratic socialism ideally is less centralized in control.

Sanders soft-pedals this big time. When he was young, Sanders advocated seizing just about everything, but now he’s much more restrained. But some people read an article or two about it, and many older people already knew this stuff because we’ve, like, been here before.

So short answer, there’s a lot of right wing support for authoritarian government (And yes, they do tend to be meaner than most) and far, far less left-wing support for a socialist revolution.

By the way, Social Security and other New Deal-type programs are not socialized, just government run, very different. The VA is socialized.

[vlyons]

4. Socialism gas always been a campaign killer

going back to the late 1940s and 50s with McCarthyism. RWers has labeled socialism as communism and Marxism as "communism-lite" and labeled socialists as "pinkos." The McCarthy HUAC hearings were all about tarring socialist-leaning Dems as "pinkos" and "fellow-travelers." When running against Dem Helen Gahagan Douglas for senate, Nixon said that she was "pink right down to her underwear."

Rest assured, the RWers will resurrect the corpse of old Joe McCarthy from his grave to run against socialists again in 2020. Which is pretty ironic given how much Trump is Putin's puppet.

[Celerity]

82. it was a fellow Democrat,Manchester Boddy, who first called her the Pink Lady, down to her underwear

She beat Boddy in the primary and he immediately endorsed Nixon, the Rethug.

Nixon just repeated it, and JFK actually gave money to Nixon to help beat her.


When JFK Backed Nixon in His Notorious Race vs. Helen Gahagan Douglas
John F. Kennedy and the 1950 Senate contest in California.

https://web.archive.org/web/20160812013446/https://www.thenation.com/article/when-jfk-backed-nixon-his-notorious-race-vs-helen-gahagan-douglas/

[CrispyQ]

5. Forty years of unchallenged hate radio lying about socialism & democrats.

It's why we see grown men who are collecting Social Security & Medicare, wearing tee shirts that read, "I'd rather be a Russian than a Democrat."

[NurseJackie]

6. Agreed, both words should be alarming.

[rgbecker]

8. I hate it most when they slam the programs socialism has brought us.

They go after unions, farm and dairy price supports, public education and now medicare and Social Security. Thank God Democrats in the past weren't alarmed by attacks from the right shouting "Socialism! Bad!". Ask the Garment Workers, Miners, Auto workers, Teachers and all the rest about Socialism.

[NurseJackie]

10. I'm a Democrat, and I believe that Socialism is bad.

[stopbush]

13. So, you want to do away with Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid?

[NurseJackie]

18. ...

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

27. Those things are not socialism.

Socialism is an economic system in which the means of production and distribution are collectively owned, i.e., by the government or by the people directly. We don't have anything close to that here, or in any of the western democracies. Social welfare is not socialism. Sometimes a comparison is made with the Scandinavian countries, which have robust social safety nets, but those countries are not socialist countries; they are capitalist democracies whose citizens, through their governments, have agreed to be taxed in amounts sufficient to ensure that all citizens have pensions, child care, education, health care, etc.

Norway, on account of its oil industry, has the largest sovereign wealth fund in the world, which covers pensions and other programs. 67% of its oil company, Equinor, is owned by the government; 30% is publicly traded, and 3% goes to the pension fund, whose assets are invested so that when there's no more oil there will still be a pension fund. Unlike Venezuela, Norway has invested its oil money instead of paying it out directly. That's capitalism, not socialism. But Norway's capitalism is different from that of the US because its people believe in spreading that oil wealth around for everybody instead of a small number of owners hoarding it.

[NurseJackie]

41. I wish everyone was as smart as you.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

43. I'm not especially smart, but I've become more and more irritated

by people who throw words around without bothering to find out what they mean. Lefties claiming Social Security and Medicare are "socialist" are just as wrong as Righties claiming anything with the word "social" in it is the equivalent of Stalinist collectivism.

[Kilgore]

54. Bravo!

[DashOneBravo]

75. Amen

[Firestorm49]

76. Very good. Thank you.

[emulatorloo]

30. No. FDR was not a socialist. Those programs are rooted in left liberal policy

Those programs aren’t socialist.

[NurseJackie]

36. Thank you!

[AncientGeezer]

32. A social program and socialism are vastly different things.

[NurseJackie]

37. Thank you!

[JI7]

59. those were democratic party programs. not by socialists

[ehrnst]

83. ....

If you don't know what socialism is, you may want to not lecture and complain about other people who do.

[rgbecker]

14. Jackie! Tell me you didn't turn down the oportunity to join the Nurses Union.

I think you are buying into the RW talking points right now, here on the DU. What exactly do you think the Republicans are talking about when they bash socialism?

I'll tell you if you can't figure it out:

They want "right to work" laws to de-power the unions because they are "Socialistic".
They want to Privatize Social Security because it is "socialism."
They want to make sure Medicare isn't expanded and in fact want to de-fund it because it is "Socialize Medicine."
They want to replace Public Education by de-funding it and replacing it with private "Christian" schools and private charter schools. The history of anti Socialized Education has been their talking points since the 1800's.

No you say, socialism means the Soviet Union. You know Animal Farm, 1984, Clockwork Orange. You are equating Socialism with the Word "Bad" rather than thinking for one minute what it even means. It is pointing out to you about how some European countries are somewhat socialistic, you say no they are not Socialistic if you think they are doing OK. But if there is some negative report coming from that same country, suddenly, OMG what do you expect from a country socialists.

[NurseJackie]

17. Don't tell me what I think. Don't lecture me.

I'll tell you if you can't figure it out:

Don't insult me by patronizing me or by talking down to me. I'm smarter than you think I am.

This is a losing issue. All the effort needed to "convert" or "convince" a handful of voters could have been better used to attract dozens of more voters by focusing on other matters rather than in the obsessive defense of "Socialism". Elections are won from the center, not from the extremes. Embrace the center, not the fringe.

[stopbush]

23. You ask people not to patronize you, yet your response

to their opinions is the rolling-on-the-floor-laughing emoji.

But no problem, as you’re smarter than people think.

[emulatorloo]

29. Unions aren't socialism

[NurseJackie]

38. Thank you!

[NurseJackie]

35. ...

[lapucelle]

77. The Soviet Union was communist not socialist.

What's "Socialized Education"? What does "the history of anti Socialized Education has been their talking point since the 1800's" even mean?

There are several different nurses unions in the US. One is famous for quietly running a super pac and for sitting on it's hands during the GE campaign in 2016 and helping to get Trump elected. They disgust me.

[ehrnst]

84. You seem to be confusing anything that's progressive with "socialism."

And that's not the case.

If you're going to complain and lecture, you should know more than the person you're lecturing and complaining to...

[Humanist_Activist]

25. Instead of socialism, how about economic democracy, is that bad?

You know, having workers control the means of production?

[AncientGeezer]

33. That's socialism...by definition.

[NurseJackie]

39. Thank you!

[Humanist_Activist]

42. Yes, by why is it bad? n/t

[NurseJackie]

44. Well... if you have to ask...

... Then there's no amount of explaining that will make any difference.

[Humanist_Activist]

46. Why is it so hard to explain, how is workers owning and controlling their workplaces bad?

Its a simple question. Why not answer it?

[AncientGeezer]

48. As a "worker"...I owned and ran my buisness...for 30 yrs

None of my employees could have...they all worked under my NYS Certification's and licensing. It's costly to get Cert in NYS.
I had a small company....13 people....with 13 different ideas of how to pay for gas in our vehicles....how much time should be spent on that debate?

You get to a company the size of GE, FedEx, Amazon, Apple.....with thousands of different paths/visions...you don't have a company...you have a fist fight in the cafeteria over where to buy sticky note pads or printer ink under socialism.

I'll ask you again....where has it EVER worked....worker ownership and control of their workplaces.....effectively and long term?
One example of a sustained socialist state working? I'm sure you can open my eyes....

[Humanist_Activist]

51. Why couldn't they, were they not as intelligent as you, or incapable of cooperating with each other?

Its not like Worker Cooperatives are a new thing, they been around for a while and not that rare as to be unheard of, just rarer in the United States.

[AncientGeezer]

62. I'll ask again...where has it worked?

I never said I was smarter or that they were incapable of cooperating, they/me to this day can't agree on a place to hold a 1yr celebration of my retirement.

I had the start up money, I wrecked myself to get licensing and Certs in NY, and after many yrs of busting my ass was able to hire people that were great employees....they couldn't run the company.

[Humanist_Activist]

66. Several places, here's a link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_cooperative

[riverine]

49. Because no investor would ever loan money to start up a company run/owned by employees.

Therefore it would never exist.

There is nothing to stop employees from pooling their funds and starting a company. Except for one big thing - those who put in the most money want to own more than the others. Basically right back to Capitalism.

Socialism in reality is a farce with a company of any real size.

[Humanist_Activist]

50. Well that's not true...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_cooperative

I mean, at least try to make claims that aren't so easily debunked.

[riverine]

52. Tiny little companies. I said "of any size"

Obviously a handful of people can split ownership evenly.

[Humanist_Activist]

56. Yeah, teeny tiny like a company owned by 83,000 workers....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lewis_Partnership

And there are others with 150 or so employees that are more direct in the workplace democracy thing:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kantega

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suma_(co-operative)

That's just, you know, reading down the article I linked to, I'm sure I can find numerous more examples through a Google search.

[riverine]

57. JLP, a UK based company with a nice ESOP plan for employees

I notice that the Chairman earned 1.1 million pounds last year (about $1.4 million)

https://www.johnlewispartnership.co.uk/content/dam/cws/pdfs/financials/annual-reports/governance-report-annual-report-and-accounts-2019.pdf

page 72


I doubt that is the point you were trying to make but the execs are doing very well.

[Humanist_Activist]

58. Its not, what is your point?

You have been proven wrong on multiple different levels and after you moved the goalposts at least once, just acknowledge that and move on.

[riverine]

61. I'm not wrong. Employee cooperatives (where everything is equal) only work for small companies

and partnerships. Bakeries, cleaning services, lawn care, accounting firms, etc.

Your JLP example simply confirms that true equality cannot happen in a large company. The Chairman makes 66 times the average worker there.

RULE 63
In the 2018/19 year, the Chairman’s:
– Pay was 66 times the average basic pay of non-management
Partners, calculated on an hourly basis; and
– Total reward, excluding Partnership Bonus, was 55 times
the average total reward, excluding Partnership Bonus,
of non-management Partners with three or more
years’ service.

Same JLP link.

[Humanist_Activist]

65. So there you go moving goal posts again, try again.

The point of cooperatives is to make sure the workers have a say in how the company is run, no more, no less, never claimed anything more than that, you are the one adding things to it to make the definition of it even more restrictive.

[AncientGeezer]

69. That doesn't show where it's worked as I asked.....only an idea...

[Humanist_Activist]

70. So real world examples of cooperatives, some existing for decades or more, isn't enough?

Did you read the links I provided?

[AncientGeezer]

81. You linked wikipedia....I can link a rainbow farting unicorn....

You have YET to show where it's worked....

[AncientGeezer]

45. Yes it is....

I'll have to answer your question with 2 questions...Where has it EVER worked? When did it not end up with abject hunger, poverty, subjugation, uprisings, collapse of the "state"?

[Kilgore]

53. Bravo!

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

28. Social programs are not socialism. See #27.

[NurseJackie]

40. Yes. Thank you!

[Kilgore]

55. Bravo!

[appalachiablue]

7. When are we going to hear the "F-Word"/ Fascism?

[Jose Garcia]

86. Have any candidates admitted to being a Fascist?

[comradebillyboy]

9. Which socialist state isn't a dictatorship?

North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, Vietnam?

All of the states which had socialist governments were dictatorships. Like Hungary, East Germany, Czechoslovakia and the rest of the old Soviet block.

Sweden, Norway and Denmark are not socialist states even though they have generous social welfare policies.

[crazytown]

12. Only one of those states had a claim to being socialist.

That was Venezuela, which devolved into a dictatorship soon enough.

The others where Marxist/Leninist dictatorships from the outset, better known as Communist.

The UK Labour Party implemented socialism after WWII. Steel, coal, railways, electricity, gas, aerospace, telephony & communications and health were all nationalised after the war.

[MarcA]

22. When faced with successful Socialist accomplishments some deny it

by resorting to semantics.

[Humanist_Activist]

24. Even Venezuela failed at the whole "socialism" thing when most of its economy...

is still capitalistic. People seem to forget that part.

[AncientGeezer]

64. What part of the Venezuelan economy is still capitalistic?

What does the Venezuelan economy consist of anymore at all?
It's a crap show....

[uawchild]

11. Its's as fucked up as the word "union" being a campaign killer

The republicans have brainwashed the majority of Americans into thinking unions are a bad thing.

The same anti-union vitriol has been repeated for decades

They invoke racists subtext into their hate campaign against unions, driving home their hate message that unions are "handing stuff to lazy minorities" and that hard working white people should not have to pay "union dues" to support that. Don't worry the company will take care of hard working people like you, you don't need a union.

A "union boss" is some Italian or Jewish mobster lining their pockets with your dues.

A "union thug" is a black or latino union member. Thug being the give away dog whistle in that one.

So, yes, demonizing collective action by working people as "socialism" being pushed by "union bosses" has been par for the course in America.

[brush]

15. Unfortunately this is the country we live in. Agreed that the word...

socialism has been loaded with negative connotations here for decades which is why Sanders and AOC, IMO, have made a mistake by labeling themselves as socialists.

As far as unionism, if anyone can turn it into a positive it's Joe Biden. He's had a blue-collar, man-of-the-people image his whole political career and he's declared himself a union man. That just may resonate in Pa, Wi, Mn and Mi, critical electoral college states that the trump camp cheated with the Russians to win in 2016.

[uawchild]

16. "He's (Biden) had a blue-collar, man-of-the-people image his whole political career "

But it has to be about more than "a blue collar image", there has to be substance and policies to solve problems working people are facing right now.

Biden's family back ground is not a typical blue collar one:

His paternal grandparents, Mary Elizabeth (Robinette) and Joseph H. Biden, an oil businessman from Baltimore, Maryland, were of English, French, and Irish ancestry.[12][13] His paternal great-great-great grandfather, William Biden, was born in Sussex, England, and immigrated to the United States. His maternal great-grandfather, Edward Francis Blewitt,[14] was a member of the Pennsylvania State Senate.[15]

Biden's father had been wealthy earlier in his life but suffered several financial setbacks by the time his son was born. For several years, the family had to live with Biden's maternal grandparents, the Finnegans.[16] When the Scranton area fell into economic decline during the 1950s, Biden's father could not find sustained work.[17] In 1953, the Biden family moved into an apartment in Claymont, Delaware, where they lived for several years before again moving to a house in Wilmington, Delaware.[16] Joe Biden Sr. became a successful used car salesman, and the family's circumstances were middle class.[16][17][18]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Biden#Early_life_(1942–1965)

Biden attended Archmere Academy, a private Roman Catholic college preparatory school, then went on to college and law school and never was a blue collar worker himself, nor was his father. Biden's father had been wealthy, lost the money by the time Joe was born, but became a small businessman selling used cars and recovered middle class level prosperity.

So, despite his Dad's financial setbacks, Biden's financial status was never really blue collar working class.

[brush]

19. It's not about whether he is/was a lunch pail carrying blue collar worker...

it's the "every man" image he has cultivated by his outgoing nature, not to mention his commuting to work daily on the train to DC.

That's his image. That's what he projects. No one cares about researching his family history. If he gets the nod from us that image will help in the Midwest.

[uawchild]

20. It's about being MORE than the image

Biden just needs to tell voters what his economic policies are and how they will make the lives of American workers better.

I am sure he and his staff are working on that and I wish him well.

Thanks for the discussion!

Cheers

[brush]

21. I'm sure they're working on it too. What I like is that he's not...

shy about ridiculing trump. He just called him a clown.

Reminds me of how he dismantled Ryan in the 2012 VP debate. He manhandled Ryan and laughed at him. It was very effective and his performance left no doubt as to won that debate.

I think he could handle himself well against trump.

[Humanist_Activist]

26. First things first, one of the things that annoys me is the American use of the word "Socialism"

It is not, necessarily, about the government doing stuff, but rather attempts to make it easier for workers to take power away from Capitalists/Oligarchs. Usually by not having them be sole or primary owners or controllers of means of production.

So Social Security isn't socialist in itself, but Warren's idea of partial worker control of large corporations is(based on the German model), though I find it far too modest.

In addition, we live in pretty much a single global Capitalistic economy where decisions by the WTO have more affect on workers in much of the world than their local governments. So claiming that a single nation's economic system is ideal while they participate in this global economy is rather foolish. They are being subsidized by said economy, so the Nordic Model, for example, wouldn't be sustainable without the existence of sweatshops in Bangladesh, etc.

[robbedvoter]

31. Having lived under a socialist dictator, I can only say: half way

[ucrdem]

34. It hasn't killed Sanders and he's not shy about it

He's not much of a socialist but I'll give him credit for helping to relaunch the word with a fresh coat of paint ...

[emulatorloo]

47. Well as you note, Sanders isn't much of a socialist.

He’s mostly advocating left liberal and liberal progressive policy and extensions of that. Much of what he draws on comes from FDR. FDR was not a socialist

[doompatrol39]

60. Well, when even too many in the party that is supposed to be liberal....

...have been working for decades now to disavow themselves of that word ("I'm a different kind of Democrat!!!&quot , and feed into the Republican led narrative that being liberal is bad....those same Republican strategists are moving on to the next leftward words and phrases.

[TwilightZone]

63. Not sure many people are taking the dictator talk seriously.

Besides, he's more like a wannabe dictator.

At present, our system makes it pretty difficult for him to pursue his dictatorial impulses, particularly while we're in control of the House. He can't pass legislation by himself. His executive powers are not absolute. He doesn't have the power to cancel elections or declare himself absolute ruler.

As much as he might like to be a dictator, our government isn't really set up to allow that to happen, mostly by design. Some checks and balances still exist, one being Nancy Pelosi. Example: the wall.

[Gothmog]

67. Most Believe Socialism Is Not American

Here is some polling that supports the concept that socialism is not in favor with American voters https://politicalwire.com/2019/05/06/most-believe-socialism-is-not-american/

A new Monmouth poll finds 57% of Americans say that socialism is not compatible with American values, while just 29% say it is compatible.

Key finding: 42% have a negative opinion of socialism in general, with another 45% having a neutral opinion and just 10% holding a positive view of socialism.

Meanwhile, 39% of Americans have a positive opinion of capitalism in general, while 40% have a neutral opinion and another 17% hold a negative view of capitalism.

[Gothmog]

68. Washington Post-Opinion: Voters aren't playing along with the media narrative

Link to tweet

The mainstream media narratives persist: The Democratic Party has been taken over by the far left. There’s a war between the status quo Democrats who just want to get rid of President Trump and the radicals who want fundamental change. Leftists such as Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) control the terms of the debate. Democrats want ideological agreement more than electability.

The problem with all of these “takes” is that there is little or no evidence that they correspond with reality. To the dismay of the pundits and the cable TV news execs who pine for high-decibel shouting matches between two evenly matched sides (Good ratings!), at this stage in the race there is extraordinary consensus around a moderate Democrat well-situated to beat Trump.

The latest Hill-HarrisX poll shows former vice president Joe Biden opening up a 32-point lead over Sanders, whose claim to the party’s heart is evaporating before our eyes. The latest Morning Consult poll shows Biden expanding his share to 40 percent (up 4 points from the previous week) and Sanders tumbling to 19 percent (down from 27 percent in February). In other words, available evidence suggests that at present the predicted story lines aren’t emerging....

However, the gap is striking between the race that the mainstream media has been covering and the actual race to date. Rather than assuming that Sanders rules the roost and that African American voters are going to be the most progressive and most open to left-leaning newcomers, reporters should spend less time on Twitter and more time with regular voters. They would be surprised to find that they have been extrapolating from a small segment of super-progressive, mostly white Democrats. Their “take” is therefore not a very accurate representation of the party as a whole or of the current state of the race.

[MH1]

71. The USA is fucked up for reasons that come way before the misunderstanding of "socialism"

Like the propensity of an innocent black man to get killed by the police during a traffic stop, while white mass shooters somehow always end up safely in handcuffs.

That's just for one.

Now, as for "dictator" producing yawns - I think you're down to the 30%, give or take, that think "abortion is murder" and that they will physically suffer the torment of eternal hellfire if they don't support whoever gives them judges that will put a stop to abortion. Not exactly rational thinking, and "dictator" doesn't even break through their mental barriers installed by their cult leaders.

[ehrnst]

73. Thank you.

It seems that something becomes very urgent when straight white men are affected.

When one talks about issues that don't directly affect straight white men - getting killed by law enforcement at traffic stops, being legally forced to bear a child, someone opening fire in your house of worship, being denied a job because of sexual orientation
- one often gets splained to by straight white men on the left that those are mere "identity politics" and that once the "universal issues" (ones that can be solved with making things more affordable, or a higher wage) are solved, then all those other secondary issues "will be made right."

[ehrnst]

72. It's a racist dogwhistle that took the place of "communism."

Last edited Sat May 11, 2019, 10:29 AM - Edit history (1)

To those on the right, it means "big government taking your stuff and giving it to lazy brown people who don't want to work."

When you say "Democratic Socialism" they hear "Big DEMOCRAT government taking your stuff and giving it to lazy brown people who don't want to work."

That's why they just assumed Obama was going to "turn this country socialist."

Memes are already going around conservative social media that "Socialists want to take the Medicare you paid into for years to earn, and want to dilute it by giving it to people who don't want to work."

So, yes, we have to accept this, and deal directly with it, no matter how frustrating it is.

We need to use the word "public" or "national" and compare programs to public schools and national parks.


As for the word "dictator" I haven't seen RWers accept that word, as much as laugh roll their eyes, because they don't think he's one at all. They call people who call him a dictator 'snowflakes.' After all, many evangelical males are abuse heads of households, and they have a manly angry God who they see in Trump. Also, they were FINE with the words "dicator" and "tyrant" when it came to that uppity black man who walked into the room when they played Hail to the Chief.

[lapucelle]

78. Wait...what? I don't think the USA is "fucked up". That's a horrible thing to say.

I favor Democratic candidates and generally have little use for those who follow socialism, especially hipsters (I live in NY) who have no idea what socialism actually is.

The word "dictator" does not produce yawns in the people I engage with.

[BannonsLiver]

79. It's pretty fucked up in a lot of ways

I notice that the more time I spend away from the US. Sure, every country has their problems...and we do too. Loads of them. The difference is we are a world power. That makes those problems more impactful.

As for the OP I couldn’t care less about what reaction the word socialism elicits here. You don’t want that reaction come up with better messaging. It’s that simple.

[lapucelle]

80. There are many messed up things in our country,

but for some reason hearing "how fucked up is the USA?" in a post about the glories of socialism makes me as spitting mad as someone criticizing my hubby, even though I do it all the time.

[JI7]

87. good point, the gun culture is a sign of being fucked up, but not rejection of a failed system that

many who immigrated here did so to get away from .

[Gothmog]

85. Gallop-Less Than Half in U.S. Would Vote for a Socialist for President

This polling would make it very difficult to win with a socialist candidate on the ballot https://news.gallup.com/poll/254120/less-half-vote-socialist-president.aspx

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Less than half of Americans (47%) say they would vote for a qualified presidential candidate who is a socialist -- the same percentage Gallup found in 2015. A socialist candidate is the only one among a dozen hypothetical candidates about whom a minority of Americans say they are willing to give their vote....

In spite of the expanded tolerance for diversity, candidates labeling themselves as socialists may struggle to gain traction in a presidential race, as Americans have not become more open to such a candidate. Even as political figures advocating socialist ideas have gained popularity in Democratic circles in recent years, less than half of Americans remain willing to give an avowed socialist candidate their vote. This creates a challenge for the Democratic Party, as it seeks to avoid alienating the Democratic socialists within its rank and file, while still aiming to win a national election.

[comradebillyboy]

88. I wouldn't vote for a socialist.

Unless, of course, that was the Dem nominee. But I think a socialist couldn't beat Trump.