I'm so over some of the current generation of DSA members, currently running for office, or planning to, who have been brainwashed on Russian propaganda, 9/11 and Holocaust denialism (weird how people believe Chevalier was the sole worst candidate Mamdani supported when Kawas is right there, too), and indoctrinated into using violent language under the guise of supporting whatever their cause du jour against the US.
They are trying to do the Democrat party what the Tea Party and MAGA did to Republicans. They don't actually care about delivering on policy, they care about destroying the establishment. If their ideas are bad they still win and if they lose at the ballot box they still win because they hate Democrats more than they love Democracy or beating Republicans.
Chevalier is a fucking nutjob, but she should be a wake up call that Reps need to understand their Districts better, understand where Democratic voters are right now, or they need to fucking retire and make way for someone who can who's hopefully not crazy like Jerry Nadler did. I just really hope these candidates don't drag down the national brand further in 2028.
I think for voters what is mainly attracting them to these candidates is that they are Pro Rent Control, are charismatic and have a good social media game. On the other hand, quite a few are Anti Ukraine/Anti Nato which is bad imo. They support Palestine but won't support Ukraine. They have no principles.
Chevalier is so bad that AOC and Bernie refused to endorse her (which was the right call). Lander is a great pick overall, but I think the Dem party in NYC needs to do a better job on the ground with voters.
The DSA is an organized faction working to capture the NYC Democratic Party. There needs to be an organized "Common Sense Democrats" faction to fight back. Can't count on "the party" to do this.
Curious what you call Cuomo allowing a bunch of right wing Dems to caucus with Republicans to block leftist stuff while governor. I consider it blue dog activity, but there may be a better word.
If the DSA ran in the general election as third party they would get slaughtered, they can only win latching on to the Dems and sucking out the last few ounces of respectable out of them. Same way the ultra-left took over academia, non-profit sector, WPATH, several social media sites.
“ Chevalier is a fucking nutjob, but she should be a wake up call that Reps need to understand their Districts better, understand where Democratic voters are right now, or they need to fucking retire “
David Axelrod and Sarah Longwell had a similar view about planter and the DSA people. They’re nuts and crazy yet Dem voters are very mad. They want someone to fight against Trump.
I don’t see how it’s a contradiction to be moderate and fight, look at Josh Shapiro and Ruben Gallego. The problem is moderates just don’t by nature try to fight.
The vast majority of Democratic voters no longer support Israel. Those incumbents who have consistently voted to support Israel and taken AIPAC money are in serious trouble.
If they have taken a strong stance against their recent actions in Gaza, correctly called the situation genocide and had a consistent record of criticizing Netanyahu and the settlers, they are probably okay. But otherwise they are at risk.
Other left wing positions like universal healthcare, raising taxes on the extreme rich, and action on climate change are extremely popular with democrats. More importantly they are popular with swing voters as well.
I anticipate a cleaning house in the Democratic Party. It will be good to get some new fresh blood in leadership positions.
I can confidently say I dislike DSA more than MAGA. I also live in Chicago where the failed DSA mayor is not helping their shitty cause. My plan going forward is to continue to live in annoyingly liberal areas and continue to stuff DSA idiots into lockers as often as possible because I refuse to concede this city to these fucking idiots. Wish me luck.
It’s mostly based on personal experience. I have work colleagues and family members and probably some friends who are MAGA and are legitimately nice, loving people. Almost every DSA person I’ve met has been pretty awful.
The DSA people I've met are mostly hipster law students and the like -- friendly and nice, but a little too much into politics. The really vocal MAGA people I've met are obsessed with race.
The extreme ends of the political spectrum are both annoying in obvious, salient ways. Everyone else is (for the most part) legitimately nice and people we'd like to have as neighbors. We all need to agree this is true and devote less time and energy to chronicling the ways in which extreme perspectives are annoying.
I think the more subtle difference that elicits a knee-jerk negative reaction (or an impulse to stuff people in lockers) from the rank-and-file right of center folks in the country (presumably including Jackie Blitz) is the discussion-ending assumption of superiority, and disdain for other perspectives, displayed not just by DSA members but also by rank-and-file left of center folks. This air of elitism is a foundational component of the increasing distrust among the political right of experts in all professional fields.
Basically, the nice MAGA people I personally know say stuff like, "I want to live this way and nobody should prevent me from doing that." Whereas the nice progressive liberals I know say, "Everyone should live this way."
It has been the left that has set up a racial quota system recently. So if you are right about MAGA then I face a choice between a racial quota system that is against me or one that is in my favor. It's unfortunate that I may face this choice, but the choice itself is not difficult.
Likewise, reporting from Burlington Vermont. If I hadn't seen incompetence and cruelity of progressives first hand I wouldn't believe it. Even Fox News doesn't have enough hours in the day to report it.
I’m not moving to Indiana. I have a house and a kid and family and friends all in chicago.
And frankly I would love to see some Republicans win in Illinois and Chicago. The left needs a check. CTU needs a check. The city needs more pro-business and pro-law enforcement politicians.
So you get to choose between a pro-business GOP that's off the charts crony-capitalist corrupt, or do-gooder social justice Dems, with no experience in business or law enforcement.
But until this year, 90% of the gerrymandering was a Red state phenom. By a party that openly gloats about emulating Orban's model of soft dictatorship. Where corruption and lawlessness eventually crippled the business sector, making an entire country poor.
Better to work with the Dems, and support pro-business, pro-police candidates.
No MAGA candidates have a chance in Illinois or Chicago so it doesn’t really matter. But the DSA folks present legitimate real-life problems. And I’ve got a DSA mayor and alderman. They are pro criminals instead of police. Pro teachers union instead of students. They are economically illiterate. Their answer to every problem is to increase taxes on “rich” people and accuse critics of racism. They present much more tangible problems to me than MAGA.
Are you not optimistic the blowback to Johnson will lead to some moderation from Democrats
Also, I've never got the vibe that Republicans were pro students or smart on crime. Charter schools or longer sentences aren't particularly compelling answers to those questions.
I'm sympathetic to being disappointed dems have failed, but I don't think they're completely captured by DSA the way the Republican party is with MAGA. I think this might be a "the grass is always greener" situation since, like you said, MAGA has zero chance by you so it's all theoretical.
If gerrymandering was a red state thing then the blue state redistricting plans would have been able to squeeze out a lot more than the handful of seats that they did.
Do a little research already. Ask Lord Google: "What proportion of Congressional House Seats were gerrymandered in 2024?" Or somesuch. Actually, Brennan Center rates '24 gerrymandered districts at 41% GOP & 17% Dem. So a little more than 2.4:1
Because there *were* Dem gerrymanders. But only a fraction--roughly 10%--of GOP seats. [Edit: this was before Illinois's 2021 pro-Dem 'manders] THEN Trump ordered--requested?--Abbott to give him five more seats from TX...and then CA retaliated, and the new(est) gerrymander war began.
It's natural for politicians and political parties to want more power. But in the US today, only one party *actively* works to turn us into Orban's Hungary, with its crony capitalism, and pathetic economic performance.
"If It’s Far Right vs. Far Left, the Far Right Wins. If people feel they’re being forced to choose between two extremes, the majority will always tack right." -- Garry Kasparov
The irony of Mamdani claiming his Islamic background informs his anti-imperialism. Islam was a patently imperialist project during its expansion, not to mention a violent one, and arguably still is.
These people aren't equivalent to MAGA, they're the equivalent of Nick Fuentes' groypers. Full Nazis who believe in ZOG and are confident enough that the Jews won't be around long enough for that pictured woman's forehead tattoo to hurt her.
Establishment Dems have just abundantly proven they are completely unprepared to counter DSA. Schumer and Jeffries also have little to no rizz. Maybe if the Blue Dogs *allied* with the Progressives, instead of trying to destroy them?
Netanyahu--and his enabler AIPAC--were the cudgel that NYC DSA's just used as winning wedge issue. But the mainstream Dem establishment isn't budging an inch for fear of AIPAC; despite polling numbers for Bibi's/AIPAC's wars now in the crapper.
If this pattern holds, expect more DSA victories. Along with rising antisemitism nationally. A mainstream Red/Blue reset to the traditional AIPAC consensus is needed; but exactly what that might look like has yet to form.
People like you won't even know what hit you. Another win in Colorado for the good guys. The old guard AIPAC wing of the Democratic Party is on the way out. Good riddance.
Wouldn't be a new thing... Just thinking about a conversation I had the other day trying to convince a guy that unions are why we've got weekends and an eight hour workday. He thought I was crazy.
This is a super interesting article, and I plan to come back to it later today when I have more time.
But I see one highly questionable piece. The statement "And yet Democrats increasingly favor socialism over capitalism" accompanied by the chart that, at a glance, seems to show that 66% of Dems support socialism.
The problem is that "socialism" like "democracy" does not mean the same thing to vast numbers of poll respondents as it does to academics (or, for that matter, to poll respondents of belonging to other political groups).
It's something of a tell that the Gallup poll being referenced allows respondents to "like" both capitalism and socialism -- nothing that would push a person to think about the implications of either system.
Anyone want to guess how the results would differ if, instead of the word socialism, the poll asked about support of government ownership of the means of production?
I don't say this to be pedantic, but because the words to label extreme, discredited movements ought to be applied accurately for practical reasons. When you throw around the term fascist loosely, then no one much notices when an incompetent, right wing, ignorant, corrupt, but not-fascist government starts inviting fascists into positions of power. You've been calling all of them fascists for years, the sky never fell, why listen now?
Let's not start saying that 68% of Dems are really socialists, because the day may soon come when an irresponsible Democratic administration actually invites real life socialists into the government, and a whole lot of us want people to notice that something alarming has occurred.
I do not think 66% of Democrats are socialists, but the fact that Democrats are significantly more likely to give a favorable rating to socialism than to capitalism does seem important!
That is certainly a fair point. As long as we keep in mind that the vast majority of them mean things like Medicaid, public schools and universities, maybe free college and universal healthcare, probably qualms about privatizing prisons. Not for nationalizing ownership of industry or even buying up stakes in major corporations (not that anyone I can think of is in favor of that).
In truth, I think that this is an argument that the Right has won. They have termed a lot of the programs from the New Deal to Great Society to the ACA as socialism, and once that's accepted as socialism, well, Dems can get behind it.
The trouble is that that 66% has not a thing to do with the beliefs espoused by the Democratic Socialists, and the far left, the far right, and the media are united in trying to muddy up that fact.
I think this is exactly correct. The vast majority of people who claim to like Socialism think it means higher taxes on the rich, and maybe a national health insurance system like Medicare that covers everyone.
They most definitely do *not* think it means the government takeover of entire industries. When they support the DSA, they're thinking of the addition of several city run child care centers.
The word socialism definitely has different meanings. I grew up in the Midwest, where it was a synonym for Communism. I now live in California, where people use it mostly to mean Social Democracy.
I think part of the problem is the whole complex of similar terms. Socialism, Social Democracy, Democratic Socialists…
Jeez. I've never felt more negative about American democracy or freedom of speech than I have now. Contemporary America makes China and India feel like bastions of sane pragmatism and a source of hope for the future, which is kind of crazy to think about. Despite our problems, I'm also glad to be Canadian, and really hope we don't keep getting infected by the insanity of the American right and left.
Please don't think that way about China. Or even India. At least journalists in the few MSM outlets not yet controlled by pro-Trump billionaires aren't being assassinated or arbitrarily jailed when they publish content disliked by the GOP. Not yet.
"Mamdani’s election in NYC was clearly intended as a middle finger to Trump"
I don't think that's quite right. Mamdani's Democratic primary challengers were largely tainted by allegations of misconduct, and the Republican opposition wasn't moderate enough to get a majority in Blue New York. That really left Mamdani with very weak opponents. If there were a solid Democratic moderate in the mayoral primary who hadn't been tainted by scandal, they probably would have won instead.
Goldman was--is--a solid Dem politician, and scandal-free. Who was unseated by another Jewish candidate *only* because he's an ardent Zionist. Not just unseated: Lander wiped the floor with Goldman by a 2:1 margin.
People seem to easily forget that Bibi--Israel--is sharing a considerable portion of the blame for our current universal anger over $5/gallon gas. And Bibi's policies are also arguably the biggest current driver in rising *global* antisemitism.
Rising antisemitism is the result of antisemites. The fact that Bibi is a shithead does not give a person cover to engage in antisemitism. It is a choice and if they use Netanyahu you prove Zionism, but not Bibi, right.
Bibi is hurting not only Israeli Jews, but the entire Diaspora, with his warmongering. Gaza got pretty much everybody under forty riled up; and then $5/gallon gas clinched it. Now all the antisemitic wingnuts are coming out of the woodwork; egged on by RW and Lefty pro-Palestinian influencers.
Meanwhile AIPAC--instead of keeping their heads down--is throwing gasoline on the fire with high-profile primaries blowouts, like the $16 million to unseat Massey last month.
Antisemitism is a choice. If you chose to be antisemitic, whatever your rationale (and there's always a rationale), you freely chose hate. It's easy to criticize Israeli policy; Israelis do it constantly. And when Bibi is gone they'll still hate Jews. And it's not the onus on Jews to solve hatred against anymore than it is for Blacks to have non-blacks stop hating them.
So much about the USA reminds me of a hormonal 15 year old: impulsive, brash and self-centered, given to contradictory and unpredictable moods, choosing bad company, following trendiness and picking slick media characters as leaders, given to swings between spiteful violence and generosity. Net result -- way too much chaos and craziness.
This makes a lot of sense, but I have one major question. If a "Left-wing MAGA" is indeed taking shape, it seems to be missing the most crucial ingredient that made its right-wing counterpart so devastatingly successful: Where is their cult leader?
To me, this is the fundamental divergence between the extremes of the two parties. The populist Right, perhaps rooted in a deep tradition of religious organization and hierarchy, can rapidly fall into line behind, well, You-Know-Who. A singular, charismatic personality cult is exactly what allowed them to break conventional polling models, win the presidency, and ultimately hollow out and reconstruct the entire Republican establishment.
The radical Left has no shortage of extremist fervor, but—thank God or whoever—they are notoriously fractious. They have the ideological echo chambers, but they completely lack a central messiah. Why? Perhaps because this Left-wing populism is born out of Ivy League classrooms and incubated among over-educated, hyper-individualistic elites. When everyone in the room has a PhD or a law degree, they are culturally allergic to bowing down to a single master. Maybe.
So, while the trend Noah describes may be very real, and we might see these DSA types winning House seats and wreaking havoc as an asymmetric opposition to a right-wing government, can they actually seize the White House in 2028 or beyond without a left-wing You-Know-Who? I highly doubt it. Ideological purity tests can win a New York primary, but a real political revolution requires a cult of personality—and right now, the Left just has too many chiefs and not enough Indians.
I see the governors race here in Ohio as a litmus test for the GOP. Can a non white, non Christian candidate win statewide office in a red state? Yes, Vivek has the personality of a socket wrench, but him winning that race changes the demographic formula for the GOP. That would open up a lane that puts the groyper types in the party on the sideline and opens the field for more non white, non Christians (at least non Protestants) moderates to come into the party.
He's obviously not going to become President, but Mamdani is clearly playing that role.
And to be clear, while I disagree with him on many issues, that isn't to suggest any moral equivalence with Trump. Mamdani is smarter, harder working, more competent, and a better person.
But he's clearly playing the Messiah role, especially in New York, which is the only place where the DSA even matters.
Disagree. Potentially *any* Blue-leaning major metro area is now fair game. The Blue Dogs have been so focused on containing the Progressives, they failed to see the threat from far-left field.
Cult leaders tend to emerge most easily out of shared hatred and resentment. The Left has certainly proven that it is capable of that kind of thing, and I worry what may occur when MAGA falls in '28.
Are they??? Like say what you want about Florida or Mississippi or Wyoming but they all seem much better governed, with better schools, hospitals, roads, etc, than Gaza or Lebanon. XD
Noah, well-written. The reason for people like Trump’s ascension, Hilton/Pratt CA campaigns is that there is a vast Silent Majority that look for common sense in their leaders. We’re looking for people that look to do the right thing. There is a “Maslow’s Hierarchy” of services required - Safety/Security, Water, Electricity/Broadband, Roads/Transportation, Education K-12 and CC, Business Development (to help pay for these basic services). If you successfully do those, you can move onto to other items. Too many people that don’t understand economics and where value is generated are showing up in elections. I can’t tell if that is because there are machines that can get them elected (note the votes in the NY elections) or if the electorate are not well-informed and/or well-educated. Either one is a problem.
China grows their best and brightest to run their cities, their provinces, their nation. When I see some of the folks that are running for office in the U.S., we’d have to admit - they aren’t our best.
I'm so over some of the current generation of DSA members, currently running for office, or planning to, who have been brainwashed on Russian propaganda, 9/11 and Holocaust denialism (weird how people believe Chevalier was the sole worst candidate Mamdani supported when Kawas is right there, too), and indoctrinated into using violent language under the guise of supporting whatever their cause du jour against the US.
They are trying to do the Democrat party what the Tea Party and MAGA did to Republicans. They don't actually care about delivering on policy, they care about destroying the establishment. If their ideas are bad they still win and if they lose at the ballot box they still win because they hate Democrats more than they love Democracy or beating Republicans.
Chevalier is a fucking nutjob, but she should be a wake up call that Reps need to understand their Districts better, understand where Democratic voters are right now, or they need to fucking retire and make way for someone who can who's hopefully not crazy like Jerry Nadler did. I just really hope these candidates don't drag down the national brand further in 2028.
I think for voters what is mainly attracting them to these candidates is that they are Pro Rent Control, are charismatic and have a good social media game. On the other hand, quite a few are Anti Ukraine/Anti Nato which is bad imo. They support Palestine but won't support Ukraine. They have no principles.
Chevalier is so bad that AOC and Bernie refused to endorse her (which was the right call). Lander is a great pick overall, but I think the Dem party in NYC needs to do a better job on the ground with voters.
The DSA is an organized faction working to capture the NYC Democratic Party. There needs to be an organized "Common Sense Democrats" faction to fight back. Can't count on "the party" to do this.
You've got blue dogs. As far as I can tell all they've done is scuttle the policies that would have kept the DSA onboard.
No Blue Dogs in NYC. Also, read the DSA platform. Nothing resembling any prior version of what Dems have stood for.
Curious what you call Cuomo allowing a bunch of right wing Dems to caucus with Republicans to block leftist stuff while governor. I consider it blue dog activity, but there may be a better word.
If the DSA ran in the general election as third party they would get slaughtered, they can only win latching on to the Dems and sucking out the last few ounces of respectable out of them. Same way the ultra-left took over academia, non-profit sector, WPATH, several social media sites.
I guess we see if the people saying "vote blue no matter who" live up to that when the shoe is on the other foot.
“ Chevalier is a fucking nutjob, but she should be a wake up call that Reps need to understand their Districts better, understand where Democratic voters are right now, or they need to fucking retire “
David Axelrod and Sarah Longwell had a similar view about planter and the DSA people. They’re nuts and crazy yet Dem voters are very mad. They want someone to fight against Trump.
I don’t see how it’s a contradiction to be moderate and fight, look at Josh Shapiro and Ruben Gallego. The problem is moderates just don’t by nature try to fight.
The vast majority of Democratic voters no longer support Israel. Those incumbents who have consistently voted to support Israel and taken AIPAC money are in serious trouble.
If they have taken a strong stance against their recent actions in Gaza, correctly called the situation genocide and had a consistent record of criticizing Netanyahu and the settlers, they are probably okay. But otherwise they are at risk.
Other left wing positions like universal healthcare, raising taxes on the extreme rich, and action on climate change are extremely popular with democrats. More importantly they are popular with swing voters as well.
I anticipate a cleaning house in the Democratic Party. It will be good to get some new fresh blood in leadership positions.
I can confidently say I dislike DSA more than MAGA. I also live in Chicago where the failed DSA mayor is not helping their shitty cause. My plan going forward is to continue to live in annoyingly liberal areas and continue to stuff DSA idiots into lockers as often as possible because I refuse to concede this city to these fucking idiots. Wish me luck.
Good plan, but I dislike MAGA even more because I see where they're headed
It’s mostly based on personal experience. I have work colleagues and family members and probably some friends who are MAGA and are legitimately nice, loving people. Almost every DSA person I’ve met has been pretty awful.
The DSA people I've met are mostly hipster law students and the like -- friendly and nice, but a little too much into politics. The really vocal MAGA people I've met are obsessed with race.
Yes, it's not a stretch to characterize MAGA as the mother of all race panics.
And religion. And gender.
The extreme ends of the political spectrum are both annoying in obvious, salient ways. Everyone else is (for the most part) legitimately nice and people we'd like to have as neighbors. We all need to agree this is true and devote less time and energy to chronicling the ways in which extreme perspectives are annoying.
I think the more subtle difference that elicits a knee-jerk negative reaction (or an impulse to stuff people in lockers) from the rank-and-file right of center folks in the country (presumably including Jackie Blitz) is the discussion-ending assumption of superiority, and disdain for other perspectives, displayed not just by DSA members but also by rank-and-file left of center folks. This air of elitism is a foundational component of the increasing distrust among the political right of experts in all professional fields.
Basically, the nice MAGA people I personally know say stuff like, "I want to live this way and nobody should prevent me from doing that." Whereas the nice progressive liberals I know say, "Everyone should live this way."
It has been the left that has set up a racial quota system recently. So if you are right about MAGA then I face a choice between a racial quota system that is against me or one that is in my favor. It's unfortunate that I may face this choice, but the choice itself is not difficult.
Likewise, reporting from Burlington Vermont. If I hadn't seen incompetence and cruelity of progressives first hand I wouldn't believe it. Even Fox News doesn't have enough hours in the day to report it.
Burlington, VT is the perfect showcase of this lesson.
That being said, I still dislike MAGA more.
I’m not moving to Indiana. I have a house and a kid and family and friends all in chicago.
And frankly I would love to see some Republicans win in Illinois and Chicago. The left needs a check. CTU needs a check. The city needs more pro-business and pro-law enforcement politicians.
So you get to choose between a pro-business GOP that's off the charts crony-capitalist corrupt, or do-gooder social justice Dems, with no experience in business or law enforcement.
But until this year, 90% of the gerrymandering was a Red state phenom. By a party that openly gloats about emulating Orban's model of soft dictatorship. Where corruption and lawlessness eventually crippled the business sector, making an entire country poor.
Better to work with the Dems, and support pro-business, pro-police candidates.
No MAGA candidates have a chance in Illinois or Chicago so it doesn’t really matter. But the DSA folks present legitimate real-life problems. And I’ve got a DSA mayor and alderman. They are pro criminals instead of police. Pro teachers union instead of students. They are economically illiterate. Their answer to every problem is to increase taxes on “rich” people and accuse critics of racism. They present much more tangible problems to me than MAGA.
Are you not optimistic the blowback to Johnson will lead to some moderation from Democrats
Also, I've never got the vibe that Republicans were pro students or smart on crime. Charter schools or longer sentences aren't particularly compelling answers to those questions.
I'm sympathetic to being disappointed dems have failed, but I don't think they're completely captured by DSA the way the Republican party is with MAGA. I think this might be a "the grass is always greener" situation since, like you said, MAGA has zero chance by you so it's all theoretical.
If gerrymandering was a red state thing then the blue state redistricting plans would have been able to squeeze out a lot more than the handful of seats that they did.
Do a little research already. Ask Lord Google: "What proportion of Congressional House Seats were gerrymandered in 2024?" Or somesuch. Actually, Brennan Center rates '24 gerrymandered districts at 41% GOP & 17% Dem. So a little more than 2.4:1
Because there *were* Dem gerrymanders. But only a fraction--roughly 10%--of GOP seats. [Edit: this was before Illinois's 2021 pro-Dem 'manders] THEN Trump ordered--requested?--Abbott to give him five more seats from TX...and then CA retaliated, and the new(est) gerrymander war began.
It's natural for politicians and political parties to want more power. But in the US today, only one party *actively* works to turn us into Orban's Hungary, with its crony capitalism, and pathetic economic performance.
No. Go move to Indiana where that attitude might do some good instead of just spiking the left to help Republicans get in.
"If It’s Far Right vs. Far Left, the Far Right Wins. If people feel they’re being forced to choose between two extremes, the majority will always tack right." -- Garry Kasparov
The irony of Mamdani claiming his Islamic background informs his anti-imperialism. Islam was a patently imperialist project during its expansion, not to mention a violent one, and arguably still is.
These people aren't equivalent to MAGA, they're the equivalent of Nick Fuentes' groypers. Full Nazis who believe in ZOG and are confident enough that the Jews won't be around long enough for that pictured woman's forehead tattoo to hurt her.
Those groypers were always a big part of MAGA, and after Trump is gone they'll run the show.
https://unherd.com/2025/11/its-the-groypers-america-now/
I think this is a significant possibility. If Dems don't purge this rot we'll have two American red-brown groyper parties
Establishment Dems have just abundantly proven they are completely unprepared to counter DSA. Schumer and Jeffries also have little to no rizz. Maybe if the Blue Dogs *allied* with the Progressives, instead of trying to destroy them?
Netanyahu--and his enabler AIPAC--were the cudgel that NYC DSA's just used as winning wedge issue. But the mainstream Dem establishment isn't budging an inch for fear of AIPAC; despite polling numbers for Bibi's/AIPAC's wars now in the crapper.
If this pattern holds, expect more DSA victories. Along with rising antisemitism nationally. A mainstream Red/Blue reset to the traditional AIPAC consensus is needed; but exactly what that might look like has yet to form.
"
Maybe if the Blue Dogs *allied* with the Progressives, instead of trying to destroy them?
"
Isn't that the exact same logic republicans use to welcome racists in?
People like you won't even know what hit you. Another win in Colorado for the good guys. The old guard AIPAC wing of the Democratic Party is on the way out. Good riddance.
As a liberal (free speech, free markets, rule of law), I feel like I'm stranded on a deserted island 🏝️
Cool; that's how the left has felt for decades. Good luck!
Conversely, perhaps the left will now get to enjoy the experience of no one giving you credit for your accomplishments
Wouldn't be a new thing... Just thinking about a conversation I had the other day trying to convince a guy that unions are why we've got weekends and an eight hour workday. He thought I was crazy.
You're talking about the Democrats?
Everyone who saw this coming was told they're insane closet Republicans.
Some people in the thread above are saying that they prefer MAGA.
This is a super interesting article, and I plan to come back to it later today when I have more time.
But I see one highly questionable piece. The statement "And yet Democrats increasingly favor socialism over capitalism" accompanied by the chart that, at a glance, seems to show that 66% of Dems support socialism.
The problem is that "socialism" like "democracy" does not mean the same thing to vast numbers of poll respondents as it does to academics (or, for that matter, to poll respondents of belonging to other political groups).
It's something of a tell that the Gallup poll being referenced allows respondents to "like" both capitalism and socialism -- nothing that would push a person to think about the implications of either system.
Anyone want to guess how the results would differ if, instead of the word socialism, the poll asked about support of government ownership of the means of production?
I don't say this to be pedantic, but because the words to label extreme, discredited movements ought to be applied accurately for practical reasons. When you throw around the term fascist loosely, then no one much notices when an incompetent, right wing, ignorant, corrupt, but not-fascist government starts inviting fascists into positions of power. You've been calling all of them fascists for years, the sky never fell, why listen now?
Let's not start saying that 68% of Dems are really socialists, because the day may soon come when an irresponsible Democratic administration actually invites real life socialists into the government, and a whole lot of us want people to notice that something alarming has occurred.
I do not think 66% of Democrats are socialists, but the fact that Democrats are significantly more likely to give a favorable rating to socialism than to capitalism does seem important!
That is certainly a fair point. As long as we keep in mind that the vast majority of them mean things like Medicaid, public schools and universities, maybe free college and universal healthcare, probably qualms about privatizing prisons. Not for nationalizing ownership of industry or even buying up stakes in major corporations (not that anyone I can think of is in favor of that).
In truth, I think that this is an argument that the Right has won. They have termed a lot of the programs from the New Deal to Great Society to the ACA as socialism, and once that's accepted as socialism, well, Dems can get behind it.
The trouble is that that 66% has not a thing to do with the beliefs espoused by the Democratic Socialists, and the far left, the far right, and the media are united in trying to muddy up that fact.
If it were health care, education, national security, utilities? I expect that government ownership would be quite popular.
Do you think it would be popular to call for Trump to be in charge of all the universities?
I don't think anyone needs to call for it, given things like the New College in Florida. Control is already being exercised.
He and the GOP already are. At least regarding State University systems; and all but a few well-endowed private ones.
? The government runs K-12 education already, and people are abandoning schools in droves.
And the TVA, although popular for providing electricity at lower rates, gets hammered by the left constantly for not innovating fast enough.
The latest, just today. https://www.sierraclub.org/press-releases/2026/06/groups-threaten-tva-lawsuit-over-clean-air-act-violations-cumberland-plants
I think this is exactly correct. The vast majority of people who claim to like Socialism think it means higher taxes on the rich, and maybe a national health insurance system like Medicare that covers everyone.
They most definitely do *not* think it means the government takeover of entire industries. When they support the DSA, they're thinking of the addition of several city run child care centers.
This. They're thinking of well-heeled EU industrial democracies.
If so, they're advocating for something, they don't understand
The word socialism definitely has different meanings. I grew up in the Midwest, where it was a synonym for Communism. I now live in California, where people use it mostly to mean Social Democracy.
I think part of the problem is the whole complex of similar terms. Socialism, Social Democracy, Democratic Socialists…
Jeez. I've never felt more negative about American democracy or freedom of speech than I have now. Contemporary America makes China and India feel like bastions of sane pragmatism and a source of hope for the future, which is kind of crazy to think about. Despite our problems, I'm also glad to be Canadian, and really hope we don't keep getting infected by the insanity of the American right and left.
Please don't think that way about China. Or even India. At least journalists in the few MSM outlets not yet controlled by pro-Trump billionaires aren't being assassinated or arbitrarily jailed when they publish content disliked by the GOP. Not yet.
"Mamdani’s election in NYC was clearly intended as a middle finger to Trump"
I don't think that's quite right. Mamdani's Democratic primary challengers were largely tainted by allegations of misconduct, and the Republican opposition wasn't moderate enough to get a majority in Blue New York. That really left Mamdani with very weak opponents. If there were a solid Democratic moderate in the mayoral primary who hadn't been tainted by scandal, they probably would have won instead.
Goldman was--is--a solid Dem politician, and scandal-free. Who was unseated by another Jewish candidate *only* because he's an ardent Zionist. Not just unseated: Lander wiped the floor with Goldman by a 2:1 margin.
People seem to easily forget that Bibi--Israel--is sharing a considerable portion of the blame for our current universal anger over $5/gallon gas. And Bibi's policies are also arguably the biggest current driver in rising *global* antisemitism.
Rising antisemitism is the result of antisemites. The fact that Bibi is a shithead does not give a person cover to engage in antisemitism. It is a choice and if they use Netanyahu you prove Zionism, but not Bibi, right.
Bibi is hurting not only Israeli Jews, but the entire Diaspora, with his warmongering. Gaza got pretty much everybody under forty riled up; and then $5/gallon gas clinched it. Now all the antisemitic wingnuts are coming out of the woodwork; egged on by RW and Lefty pro-Palestinian influencers.
Meanwhile AIPAC--instead of keeping their heads down--is throwing gasoline on the fire with high-profile primaries blowouts, like the $16 million to unseat Massey last month.
Antisemitism is a choice. If you chose to be antisemitic, whatever your rationale (and there's always a rationale), you freely chose hate. It's easy to criticize Israeli policy; Israelis do it constantly. And when Bibi is gone they'll still hate Jews. And it's not the onus on Jews to solve hatred against anymore than it is for Blacks to have non-blacks stop hating them.
So much about the USA reminds me of a hormonal 15 year old: impulsive, brash and self-centered, given to contradictory and unpredictable moods, choosing bad company, following trendiness and picking slick media characters as leaders, given to swings between spiteful violence and generosity. Net result -- way too much chaos and craziness.
Chaos and crazy get the clicks.
Blame Zuckerberg and the other social media tech bros.
This makes a lot of sense, but I have one major question. If a "Left-wing MAGA" is indeed taking shape, it seems to be missing the most crucial ingredient that made its right-wing counterpart so devastatingly successful: Where is their cult leader?
To me, this is the fundamental divergence between the extremes of the two parties. The populist Right, perhaps rooted in a deep tradition of religious organization and hierarchy, can rapidly fall into line behind, well, You-Know-Who. A singular, charismatic personality cult is exactly what allowed them to break conventional polling models, win the presidency, and ultimately hollow out and reconstruct the entire Republican establishment.
The radical Left has no shortage of extremist fervor, but—thank God or whoever—they are notoriously fractious. They have the ideological echo chambers, but they completely lack a central messiah. Why? Perhaps because this Left-wing populism is born out of Ivy League classrooms and incubated among over-educated, hyper-individualistic elites. When everyone in the room has a PhD or a law degree, they are culturally allergic to bowing down to a single master. Maybe.
So, while the trend Noah describes may be very real, and we might see these DSA types winning House seats and wreaking havoc as an asymmetric opposition to a right-wing government, can they actually seize the White House in 2028 or beyond without a left-wing You-Know-Who? I highly doubt it. Ideological purity tests can win a New York primary, but a real political revolution requires a cult of personality—and right now, the Left just has too many chiefs and not enough Indians.
Mamdani will probably emerge as the charismatic leader, replacing Bernie, but it won't be like Trump's cult of personality.
Depends on how well he does as Mayor.
I see the governors race here in Ohio as a litmus test for the GOP. Can a non white, non Christian candidate win statewide office in a red state? Yes, Vivek has the personality of a socket wrench, but him winning that race changes the demographic formula for the GOP. That would open up a lane that puts the groyper types in the party on the sideline and opens the field for more non white, non Christians (at least non Protestants) moderates to come into the party.
He's obviously not going to become President, but Mamdani is clearly playing that role.
And to be clear, while I disagree with him on many issues, that isn't to suggest any moral equivalence with Trump. Mamdani is smarter, harder working, more competent, and a better person.
But he's clearly playing the Messiah role, especially in New York, which is the only place where the DSA even matters.
NYC Metro specifically.
Which would be a mere detail if the Media didn't sit there and navel gaze over this and continue to ignore except as an abstraction "flyover country."
It's also the financial capital of the US, with Wall Street a bigger earner than any other profit center. Bar none.
But it's funny to think that Trump's 15,000 sq' pied-a-terre is now being taxed under Mamdani's new billionaire tax.
Exactly! And I do agree, New York is the only place where the DSA even matters
Disagree. Potentially *any* Blue-leaning major metro area is now fair game. The Blue Dogs have been so focused on containing the Progressives, they failed to see the threat from far-left field.
I cannot see someone from DSA becoming the President, but I can see the DSA caucus holding some thin Congress majority hostage over their pet causes.
Also the fact that being a left-wing leader gets you FBI interviews and surveillance tends to encourage decentralized movements.
I would say that it is too early to tell.
Cult leaders tend to emerge most easily out of shared hatred and resentment. The Left has certainly proven that it is capable of that kind of thing, and I worry what may occur when MAGA falls in '28.
As extreme as MAGA but more competent. Talk about a scary combination.
Are they more competent though…?
In the same sense that Hamas or Hezbollah are more competent.
Are they??? Like say what you want about Florida or Mississippi or Wyoming but they all seem much better governed, with better schools, hospitals, roads, etc, than Gaza or Lebanon. XD
And yet FL, WY, etc. have considerably shittier social services than pretty much any Blue state.
Noah, well-written. The reason for people like Trump’s ascension, Hilton/Pratt CA campaigns is that there is a vast Silent Majority that look for common sense in their leaders. We’re looking for people that look to do the right thing. There is a “Maslow’s Hierarchy” of services required - Safety/Security, Water, Electricity/Broadband, Roads/Transportation, Education K-12 and CC, Business Development (to help pay for these basic services). If you successfully do those, you can move onto to other items. Too many people that don’t understand economics and where value is generated are showing up in elections. I can’t tell if that is because there are machines that can get them elected (note the votes in the NY elections) or if the electorate are not well-informed and/or well-educated. Either one is a problem.
China grows their best and brightest to run their cities, their provinces, their nation. When I see some of the folks that are running for office in the U.S., we’d have to admit - they aren’t our best.
If MAGA and the DSA are my choices in November, I'm staying home.
Just like the people who didn't vote for Kamala because of Gaza? Yeah, sounds about right.
I'm super excited for the upcoming era of whip sawing between idiotic racist xenophobes and idiotic anti-western communists every election.
As long as social media rules our public discourse, I fear this will continue.