CORRECTION: A previous version of this article misstated that this poll had a likely voter screen. Democrats have a 57%-40% lead among men ages 18-30 who say they’re the most determined to vote.
CORRECTION: A previous version of this article misstated that this poll had a likely voter screen. Democrats have a 57%-40% lead among men ages 18-30 who say they’re the most determined to vote.
I hear you, but if you look at things that the progressive wing of the dems are doing, there’s a clear sign that one of the parties is willing to do something. Look at Mamdani in NYC fighting against wage theft. Look at Abdul campaigning with backing from Harris and his pro labor platform and experience.
I’d cite AOC and some others, but what a lot of dems did with the train union is appalling and I have no defense for it. But I will say that they are far more pro labor than the Rs. Even the more conservative dems back programs like OSHA, which save lives.
These things are happening in spite of the Democratic party - not because of it. Just look at how hard it was to convince the leadership to back Mamdani even after his meteoric rise.
Whether it’s in spite of the party or because of it, it’s still a good sign that the Overton window is shifting and people are more willing than ever to vote for progressive candidates. If we can keep this momentum up then progressives will eventually be the leadership.
You’re not witnessing the Overton window shift. For God sakes, more and more people are getting deported every day. The USA is careening off the cliff of reaction at breakneck speeds. What you are witnessing is the emergence of a popular front, which is par for the course for the fascist descent.
I think it’s a stretch to say one Party is willing to do something. I think the people willing to do something tend to end up in one party, and those are not the same thing. I think there’s a plurality, and perhaps even a majority within the Democrats that are committed to actually helping, but there’s also a significant faction that are committed to undermining every step forward, and that’s going to keep being a problem. By “A lot more pro-labor” what they end up meaning is that there’s a lot of pro-labor reps, but they’re never going to make a difference because the rest of the party isn’t going to commit to being a real “party” with shared goals and principles and the things that make a party more than just a fundraising apparatus. It’s two parties in a trench coat, one with money and very little public appeal, and one with broad public appeal and very little money.
Now that does mean something important. It means they’re probably not going to successfully make things worse, which at this point is a lot more than we can say for the GOP, and that matters, but it also means that if things are going to get better, we’re going to have to figure out how to do it ourselves, and not look to “the party” to save us.
I think it’s fair to say that the same people who are pro working class, progressive candidates are more likely to side with the pro lgbt party over the pro churchianity party, whether or not there is corruption among either of the establishments. You know, if they have to choose one side or the other. Assuming the DSA movement takes over, the obvious shills will either have to splinter off or defect to the republicans.
The tide of billionaire or AIPAC money has not helped anyone win an election in a while now, that paints a pretty good picture tbh