How many DUers would vote for a Democratic Socialist?

[kentuck]

Or an Independent?

If they were running against a REPUBLICAN?

The either/or argument does not make sense.

All issues have to be addressed by the Party - both economic and social.

[JHan]

1. I would vote for a social democrat

Not a democratic socialist.

Democratic Socialist - prohibits private control of capital and believes means of production should be controlled by *Government.

Social democrat - believes in enterprise, creating wealth, trade liberalization but also believes in a strong expansive social safety net. Social democrats believe in curbing the excesses of capitalism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy

[MicaelS]

5. Me too. n/t

[JHan]

10. I really think the Scandinavians have it best..

We can't easily compare ourselves to them ( there are some key differences) but the concept is right. America has to work on shifting productivity gains and wealth a lot better.

[MicaelS]

18. Again, I agree.

Especially in terms of parental / family support. Specifically, maternity / paternity leave, child support and rearing.

[JHan]

20. yep ++++

[kentuck]

6. Yes, that seemed to work very well for the social Republicans.

Or did it?? It seems to me that the present status quo has not worked very well, and that would include both major political Parties. Who knows? Maybe the Independents will be the majority by the next presidential election? That does seem to be the direction we are headed?

[JHan]

8. The model I describe is the Scandinavian model.

[kentuck]

16. So, that means we need to change..?

from the present status quo, right?

[JHan]

19. within our framework.

Progress takes time.

Our political system is different to the parliamentary democracies in Scandinavian countries ( which are a kind of hybrid of madisonian and westminster) And that matters. Their history and culture are also different to ours.

[JHan]

25. now seeing your edit:

You can't assume a hypothetical growth in the number of independents will lean liberal - in fact, they're likely to lean libertarian.

What I described is baked in democratic policy and outlook already, it just needs to expand. We will have to implement a UBI or address job scarcity anyway, and Democrats are best able to do it - it is within our core philosophy.

[NurseJackie]

14. A very important distinction. One describes the DEMOCRAT, and the other describes the SOCIALIST.

I'll always (ALWAYS) vote for the DEMOCRAT without hesitation.

[JCanete]

53. just for clarity... Is mello a Democrat, cuz there's a lot of bad feeling going around about

this guy. If for instance, a Democratic socialist who was pro-choice, were in a contest for mayorship against a Democrat who sponsored bills to make it harder for women to get abortions, would you then always vote for the Democrat?

[NurseJackie]

54. LOL

[JCanete]

93. oops, didn't mean to stump you...actually it wasn't a gotcha, but if you are going to make such

a statement, I'm genuinely interested in where your boundaries are, since your statement implies, intended or not, that it is all about the D.

[JCanete]

92. post delete...wrong place

[GulfCoast66]

35. You broke into my head

And stole what little is there.

I describe myself as a social Democrat. I am not a socialist. There is a difference.

But that said I would vote for a yellow dog before I voted for a republican.

[onetexan]

41. Ditto, & second that

[JHan]

49. Do some reading, and no I was not referencing a certain former nominee.

and if you knew and understood what that former nominee's positions were you would know he's a social democrat - he references the Scandinavian model enough times ( adopting some different positions but overall Sanders is not advocating for the State to control the means of production):

EDIT today - I may have to change my definition of Bernie to "progressive independent".

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/03/bernie-sanders-democratic-socialism/471630/

[Kentonio]

59. Socialists don't believe means of production should be controlled by government

Look at basically all of Europe if you want to know what socialism looks like. It's certainly nothing like the media scare stories in the US.

[JHan]

61. this lays out the difference.

European models are based on social democratic models:

There are different flavors to socialism, or hybrids, and the term has been appropriated so there's confusion because the original meaning is lost.

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/03/bernie-sanders-democratic-socialism/471630/

[kentuck]

62. There is no difference between a Social Democrat and a Democratic Socialist.

Someone is just trying to muddy the water.

[JHan]

64. Btw just edited my comment to explain it a little better.

In countries where the government controls means of production - how are they described?

I think the muddying of waters is inevitable because the taxonomy isn't clear since everyone is using the term now - when I first heard Sanders use the "socialist" label I was confused. Reforming market economies to create prosperous outcomes is what we all want ( including Sanders of course) - we may have different ways of going about it, sometimes misguided, but the objective is different to what pure socialism would advocate, which historically rejected the idea of free market economies. Markets aim to make resource allocation more efficient, but it should also create prosperity ( by lowering cost of living). A pure socialist would want more government control.

[kentuck]

65. There is nothing "democratic" about such governments.

Not Social Democratic or Democratic Socialist.

[JHan]

66. I still think we need to get the taxonomy correct..

using "Socialist" and adding it to "democratic" just doesn't make sense to me. Socialism has collectivist principles but collectivism can be called collectivism without the added definitions and meaning of "socialist". We need collectivist principles in governance, democratic principles already cover that. Also when I read or hear what people who describe themselves as "democratic socialists" want it just sounds like what obtains in Scandinavian countries - all social democracies. But I'm aware democratic socialist/social democrat have come to mean the same thing, my view is that they're not equivalent in meaning.

[kristopher]

80. That definition isn't very good IMO.

Try this, it's from the horses mouth:
http://www.dsausa.org/what_is_democratic_socialism

What is Democratic Socialism? Q & A

Democratic socialists believe that both the economy and society should be run democratically—to meet public needs, not to make profits for a few. To achieve a more just society, many structures of our government and economy must be radically transformed through greater economic and social democracy so that ordinary Americans can participate in the many decisions that affect our lives.

Democracy and socialism go hand in hand. All over the world, wherever the idea of democracy has taken root, the vision of socialism has taken root as well—everywhere but in the United States. Because of this, many false ideas about socialism have developed in the US.

Join DSA to further the cause of democratic socialism in your town and across the nation.


Q:
Doesn't socialism mean that the government will own and run everything?

A:
Democratic socialists do not want to create an all-powerful government bureaucracy. But we do not want big corporate bureaucracies to control our society either. Rather, we believe that social and economic decisions should be made by those whom they most affect.
Today, corporate executives who answer only to themselves and a few wealthy stockholders make basic economic decisions affecting millions of people. Resources are used to make money for capitalists rather than to meet human needs. We believe that the workers and consumers who are affected by economic institutions should own and control them.
Social ownership could take many forms, such as worker-owned cooperatives or publicly owned enterprises managed by workers and consumer representatives. Democratic socialists favor as much decentralization as possible. While the large concentrations of capital in industries such as energy and steel may necessitate some form of state ownership, many consumer-goods industries might be best run as cooperatives.
Democratic socialists have long rejected the belief that the whole economy should be centrally planned. (Emph. added - ed) While we believe that democratic planning can shape major social investments like mass transit, housing, and energy, market mechanisms are needed to determine the demand for many consumer goods....

[Lotusflower70]

2. I would

But I think they need to use another word because too many people distort the meaning of Socialist.

[DemocraticSocialist8]

22. While this is true, Sanders is proof that times have changed

and people don't think it's the dirty word it used to be. Crony capitalism I think has played a huge role in that.

[stevenleser]

30. That isn't proved at all. Polling is relatively unchanged in the last 30 years.

50% of the country will not vote for any kind of Socialist.

[JudyM]

47. Where's your data for that, please?

[stevenleser]

70. See my post #69 below and those 4 links are a small sample

of what's out there. There are dozens of polls with the same outcome

[truthaddict247]

51. Whopper

That is verifiably wrong by virtue of Sanders success during the election. It was a topic on many news shows how the term "socialist" is no longer a dirty word.

[stevenleser]

69. Hilarious that you claim that. I had been quoting stats throughout the last two years

You might want to have the data to support you before making claims.

Here is the polling. Readem and weep

http://www.gallup.com/poll/191354/americans-views-socialism-capitalism-little-changed.aspx

http://www.gallup.com/poll/183713/socialist-presidential-candidates-least-appealing.aspx

https://today.yougov.com/news/2016/01/28/democrats-remain-divided-socialism/

http://www.cnsnews.com/blog/michael-morris/2016-poll-60-americans-have-positive-image-capitalism-only-35-socialism

[JudyM]

72. Your 2nd link is dead, and all this is from a year ago. It'd be interesting to see something current

[stevenleser]

74. Fixed the second link. And those polls are better than current.

They are from a year ago in the middle of a campaign by a socialist who sought to put as positive a spin on that ideology as possible.

Likely the approval level of Socialism has gone down since then.

[JudyM]

77. I doubt it has gone down. People's eyes are a bit more open since 1/21 plus last year's 17 year olds

have a higher proportion approving socialism than voters who are now of blessed memory.

[stevenleser]

78. Their eyes went in the opposite direction towards the extreme right.

No one who was impressed by the idea of Socialism votes Trump instead of Hillary. If Bernie had made a big change in people's opinions of left policies, it's hard to imagine those folks voting for a tax cut, no givernment programs touting candidate a few months later.

It just didn't happen.

[JudyM]

79. Conjecture. We'll find out whenever new polls come out.

Meanwhile, polls suggest Sanders' popularity continues on a positive trajectory.

[stevenleser]

81. Not conjecture. We have the election results. That's data. nt

[Demsrule86]

57. I don't agree when all was said and done. Sen. Sanders was not the candidate.

I think that was his chance...and do not believe he will run again.

[still_one]

3. The country is currently based on a two party system. Third party's are spoilers. Until that

changes, the question is irrelevant

The Democratic party includes many groups

[Cattledog]

4. I'd vote 4 a goat before a republican.

They are smarter.

[Warpy]

9. So's the blue lint between your toes when you take your socks off

I did vote for one Republican, a New England progressive running against a conservative stiff. I often think the party threw that election.

[Warpy]

7. I voted Socialist Workers Party back in Boston

for more local offices because they often had the best candidates. They were Trotskyist, I was not. I'd have preferred a Democratic Socialist on the ticket but none ever seemed to turn up while I was there.

Offhand I'd say get progressives into office at the local level any way you can. When a Democratic candidate is putrid (and local ones often are), don't feel guilty voting against him.

At the national level, I've always been a Yellow Dog with one exception. I did vote for Ed Brooke once when his opponent was a conservative stiff and Brooke was at his peak pushing for progressive civil rights legislation.

[Hayduke Bomgarte]

11. Me

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

12. Me.

[ghostsinthemachine]

13. Wish I could have... BUT NO

We had a Democratic corporatist, with baggage real or imagined.

[Thomas Hurt]

15. No one ideology is going to "save" the US

ideologies are the creation of fallible humans and implemented by fallible humans.

They are all inevitably subject to corruption.

we should take what works from conservative, progressive, liberal, socialist ideologies.

Otherwise, we end up like communists, who sought party and ideological purity and only got totalitarianism and corruption. Putin being the bastardized results of their ideological myopia.

FF45 thinks he is going to fix the US with his ideological scams and failed conservative gimmicks while trying to scrub the government and society of the left.

If he succeeds we will be living in a christofascist theocracy. What he has bought so far is already rotten with corruption to its core.

[kentuck]

17. Thoughtful.

[paleotn]

43. Spot on....

Ideologues and true believers scare the shit out of me. With them ideology becomes a kind of religion, ruled by emotion instead of critical thinking and good sense. Take from all what works best, is fair and supports basic human rights. Human governance is extraordinarily complex and one ideological size does not fit all.

[moonscape]

75. Yes, except I don't believe he thinks (much ever, but ...) he's

going to fix the US, more that he's going to fix his faux wealth. He wants his personal reality to be what his personal fantasy has been, and that has not much to nothing to do with ideology.

[DemocraticSocialist8]

21. You see my name? LOL

I definitely would

[samnsara]

23. i will never vote for a Republican i dont care if we are running daffy duck as a dem...however...

..if we had a dem as dangerous and crazy as trump I would do whatever I could to get him or her NOT elected! Country first!

[sellitman]

24. In a NY minute

X1000

[Kath2]

26. Hell, yeah!

In a heartbeat.

[demigoddess]

28. plus one

in a heartbeat. as long as they don't kill health care or birth control and abortion.

[Kath2]

33. Birth control and abortion are health care.

In a decent society, those services would be available and free.

[demigoddess]

50. sorry, at my age, they are separate

while i agree that they should be available and dirt cheap.

[cheapdate]

27. It would be a very rare situation where I would not vote for a Democrat

over a Republican in a competitive election.

[Steven Maurer]

29. Only if there were no Democrat in the race

If there were a Democrat in the race and some Democratic Socialist was running as a spoiler, of course I would vote for the actual Democrat.

[WinkyDink]

31. I'd vote for a dead dog if it were running against a Republican, so maybe I'm not a good standard.

[Hekate]

32. I do not vote for 3rd party candidates in a 2 party system. Period.

The only exception would be deeply local nonpartisan elections, where a nontraditional candidate has a chance of getting in and working their way up before running statewide -- as a Democrat.

[Iggo]

34. How many DUers would vote for a Democratic Socialist? I already did.

Or an Independent? Again, I already did. In the Democratic primary.

If they were running against a REPUBLICAN? Yes of course I would.

[Break time]

36. Me

Absolutely.....

[MineralMan]

37. If that person ran in the primaries and won the

Democratic nomination, of course I'd vote for that candidate.

[L. Coyote]

38. How many DUers think you can fit people into simplistic two-word castegories?

None, I would hope.

[MedusaX]

39. In the eye of the beholder....

FWIW....IMO
Classifications/ labels/ hell just about any adjective or adverb will vary in perceived meaning depending upon the person(s) involved.....

Just open a 128 pack of crayons.... for any given primary color classification--
Take blue for example --- there is an entire spectrum of variations, which technically are 'blue':
Aqua .. teal... turquoise... blue-green...
green-blue... robin's egg... marine... tiffany... ocean... sky... lapis... sapphire... navy... denim... royal... baby... slate... powder... cornflower... periwinkle...

If not for the handy little paper name tag wrapped around each one .... it would be difficult to know exactly which one was which...
And even then we don't really know what they had in common & how they differ...

my idea of 'baby blue' might be identical to what another person calls 'sky blue' which might be damn near exactly what someone else calls 'aquamarine'...

If all we ever use to identify our personal favorite color are the terms baby blue, sky blue, and aquamarine ...then we will never realize that we all 3 share the same favorite color....

( yeah I know...dammit, MedusaX, wtf ? get to the point already)

Focus on identifying candidates/platforms in terms of their specific position on key components of Fiscal & Social issues....

Move away from the use of buzz words, labels, classification terminology .... as they do not represent universally held definitions..... and even the smallest variation in interpretation will prevent people from recognizing that they share the same goals/objectives.....

[paleotn]

44. +1000

[saidsimplesimon]

83. I agree Medusa. Thank you

[BainsBane]

40. I would IF

It was someone I believed credible and competent. I would not vote for them in the GE over a Democrat.
If the person truly championed equality for ALL. If they understood that economic justice cannot exist without equal rights.

[onecaliberal]

42. Me and my entire family

If there running on a dem ticket. Never against a dem and NEVER EVER to help in any way shape or form a republican

[Union Label]

45. I would vote for a dog turd before a republicant

they both stink but one is honest about it.

[paleotn]

46. It depends...

What do they mean by democratic socialism? How far do they believe government control of capital should go? Where do they think the commons end and private ownership begins? Like most things in life, it's a spectrum and simple labels don't suffice.

In a two candidate race, yes, depending on the independent's politics. If the independent is psychotic? Probably not, but that depends on how psychotic the Republican is, as they tend to be crazier than most. In a 3 way race like the last 2 gubernatorial elections in Maine? Probably not. For better or worse, it's a 2 party system and spoiler independents gave us W and inflicted LePage on Maine twice. However, if the Dem has far less support and the independent stands the better chance of winning, I'll weigh my options.

You see, it's complicated. That's why my answer to most questions like this is...it depends.

[Starry Messenger]

52. Of course, if they were committed to bringing in a diverse coalition.

I live in the Bay Area in CA, so it would be more likely that a Democrat and a Democrat would be competing, because we also have top two primaries now. If there were a Democratic Socialist running in that case, I'd compare the records of both candidates. The person who got my vote would have to be attractive to more than white people to win in my state.

[Demsrule86]

56. I would not vote for an independent

during a primary assuming he/she was somehow on the ballot. And I would vote for the Democrat during the election...now if there was no Democrat running, I would vote for the Socialist independent.

[we can do it]

58. If general election maybe for local, if Democratic Party nominee otherwise, yes.

[aikoaiko]

60. I'm more interested in record and stances than labels.

[Dem2]

63. Yes of course

I would vote for the candidate that presented the best solutions for my family and the country at large.

[moriah]

67. If they're the right Independent, sure.

But Fuck Ron Paul and the "Independents" who support his policies.

[stevenleser]

68. It would depend. Most likely no.

It would depend on:

1. Has the person railed against the Democratic Party? If so they don't get my vote. I would stay home or cross the aisle just to prevent them from getting elected. I view attacks from people on the left against the party as demagoguery aimed at simpletons. I don't support demagogues.

2. Does the person have a deep understanding of how this economy works and how well intentioned mistakes could easily wreck it? If not, I would stay home.

I'm generally not impressed by people whose schtick is to play the aggrieved lefty against the Democratic Party that according to their rhetoric isn't left enough. As I said, I find it simplistic, trite and the stuff of demagoguery.

[kentuck]

71. Interesting...

I don't know if it was the personality of Bernie Sanders or the fact that he was an Independent, Democratic Socialist, that made him so popular in the last election?

What happens if Bernie, or his Party, have more votes than the Democratic Party, the next time around? I would not discount that entirely.

I am inclined to believe that we should be allies, instead of opponents. Just my opinion.

[stevenleser]

73. If someone like Bernie gets nominated or wins an election, I will occupy the space that

Republicans who are never Trump occupy now.

I will watch as that person screws up, destroys the economy and foreign policy and say I told you so. I'll be there to help rebuild the party once that person loses re-election.

[ret5hd]

84. Not that it matters, but why should I believe you?

Hillary was evil incarnate, then you loved her.

Maybe the same with Bernie, huh?

[stevenleser]

85. Who are you that I should care whether you believe me or not? nt

[ret5hd]

86. Absolutely nobody. Who are you?

[stevenleser]

87. I don't disagree with you. nt

[ret5hd]

89. Ahhh yes...but the real question is "Do you drink with me?"

(Some will get this, some not)

[RKP5637]

76. Yes! n/t

[mvd]

82. Obviously I would

My avatar says it all.

Saying you would work against a progressive Democrat or the person who represents Democratic values more the Repuke is against the spirit of the rules as much as a progressive saying they wouldn't vote for a more "centrist" candidate.

[malaise]

88. I've done so several times

but I don't live or have a vote in the US

[alarimer]

91. Always and gladly.

I'd probably (and probably have) voted for anti-choice Democrats in the past, because I lived in Texas.