Billionaires control both the Democrats and the Republicans.
As long as the two party system exists a candidate that isn’t in the pocket of Oligarchs doesn’t stand a chance.
Money wins elections in the US
How do you feel about a parliamentary system?
I’m a fan, people shouldn’t vote for a person but for representatives. And those representatives should have power based on how many votes they have and decide on laws.
I like how the EU works, it’s flawed in ways but there is no huge concentration of power in one person.
So you’re for parliamentary systems?
Yes, although I don’t know thaaaat much about the details. So my mind can be changed if I’m missing something.
Mamdani won by focusing his campaign on the most pressing issue to voters today: affordability. The cost of living keeps going up, wages stay the same, and everybody’s scared and frustrated looking for someone to promise they can do something about it. And he had answers.
In increasingly uncertain times, we can win voters over by appealing to their fears and frustrations and promising change that will directly address their needs. This is, in a way, how Trump won. He told voters, “I know you’re upset and scared in a changing world. Well it’s the immigrants’ fault, it’s trans people’s fault, it’s whatever target I tell you to hate next’s fault, and when I own the libs, I’ll bring the price of eggs down.”
Of course you and I both know Trump was full of shit. But as long it sounded like he was addressing their fears, the most frightened people struggling to make ends meet latched onto whatever false hope he gave them. And I believe we can win people back by speaking to those same fears, but this time we offer real solutions.
However, there is a very important catch. Do not ever say the word ‘socialism’. The legacy of McCarthyism has ensured that that word is still political suicide on the national stage today. You can get away with it in a city as deeply blue as NYC, but not in a general election.
But it’s really only the word that’s the problem, not the ideas behind it. People really are fed up with capitalism, they just don’t know that that’s really what they’re fed up with. And as long as you avoid the word, I think you’d be surprised what you can get people to agree with.
Look at Obama in 2008. He ran his campaign on universal healthcare as his main issue, knowing that healthcare in America is a major problem voters wanted addressed. Detractors called it socialized medicine, but as long as he never said that word himself, voters just understood that he was offering change and they wanted to try change. They were fed up enough with American healthcare that red scare tactics didn’t stop them from considering change.
I believe a viable next step that could work in 2028 could be to campaign on universal basic income. The job market is becoming increasingly unstable, especially with the AI bubble. People fresh out of college can’t get jobs because everything that claims to be entry level wants three years of experience, and they can’t get that experience because they don’t have experience. We’re coming to a point where it’s time to rethink one of the fundamental flaws of capitalism, that everyone must work or else they starve and die, as this is about to break when too many people lose their jobs. But don’t use the c-word, don’t use the s-word, just talk about UBI as its own issue and I think people will warm up to the idea.
But as long it sounded like he was addressing their fears, the most frightened people struggling to make ends meet latched onto whatever false hope he gave them.
Bit of a differenceI should point out – trump addressed their fears by giving them someone to blame with at best a nominal economic statement. LGBTQ, libs, Biden, “elites”, brown people, foreign countries, etc. were all to blame.
He never actually had a plan to offer anyone on how he was going to fix things other than by punishing the scapegoats. “I’ll lower prices” vs a boring, difficult to understand, years-long effort to maneuver industry and economics in a positive direction for the middle and lower classes.
So what you’re saying is that Andrew Yang should run again.
I would prefer to have it come from someone who… is not Andrew Yang.
I think UBI is pretty interesting - Andrew Yang did run for President in 2020 on the basis of UBI, so I think some Democrat should campaign on UBI. Seriously!
Step one: there must be a 2028 presidential election.
That is not guaranteed to happen. Not with the regime in power.
Since even the world’s worst dictators still hold sham elections, I conclude that there will be an election, and they will focus on how to cheat to win. If they even need to that is. This is way easier to do and conceal than canceling the election.
Should we use force to stop Trump at this point?
The problem with American politics is that it affects the whole world but the rest of the world doesn’t get a say. If you organize armed resistance against 47, that becomes very active when he declares himself king with no more elections, you are looking at a civil war 2.0. The right-wing supporters are already armed and organized, you’d give them something to shoot at. And the standing military will probably majority side more with the other side. At the same time, while the US is distracted by killing each other at a higher rate than usual, China will grab Taiwan, Russia will push through to the Elbe river, etc. So it would be better for the rest of the world if you could not solve this predicament by force/assassination. Protest, strikes, use politics. But I can totally understand why the sentiment to use the 2nd amendment for its stated purpose for a change is an appealing option.
… How would that even work
You have to convince the swing state undecided voters, not new yorkers.
During Zohran’s methods?
A socialist will not win 2028, provided there even is an election. NYC is not representative of the whole country. And most Americans are still on this cold war hangover where socialism became a dirty word. An outspoken socialist would not win. Unless we get another great depression - which will if history is our guide more likely lead to war. Or if they manage to fake centrism so believably well and are then okay to be a one-termer once they show their real colors. The Democrats need a Mr. Rogers type politician (preferably male, blame the Midwest) without scandals (so nobody from CA) who can appeal to a sense of decency again. #MADA
Why do you think a Mr. Rogers type person would be the ideal choice? That just leads to “we need to forgive and put this all behind us” type responses which drives even more unaccountability, more inaction, and leads to more problems. I think a Mr. Rogers type is the exact opposite of what we need in response to Trump.
I chose him because he is generally well liked. I haven’t heard anybody shit talk him. I don’t see him as a person of inaction or unaccountability. I do see him as somebody who acts from a set of values and who can heal wounds thoughtfully (without letting perpetrators go unpunished). Go ahead and replace him in your mind with somebody who fits that profile.
The Democrats need a Mr. Rogers type politician
Maybe Governor of Kentucky Andy Beshear. Seriously!
more career-family politicians are not what anyone in the US needs, you want actual change you need a Lincoln type.
working class roots whose class/privelage conscious, but also not ignorant/naive of The Game.
The Game
Well that’s a game I haven’t heard about for a while
Why do you think USA needs even more mismanagement and authoritarianism? Isn’t trump bad enough already?
That’s NOT what I mean by “socialism”, I mean democratic socialism.
Would they use the exact methods used by Zohran Mamdani which earned him the office of Mayor of NYC?
Advancing policies that benefit and appeal to the voters so that they vote for you?
Something like that - I think the key is to be ambiguous, and probably euphemisms like “class-conscious populism”. I assume Zohran won the mayoral election without mentioning socialism or capitalism in his platform. What did he do without mentioning socialism?
He’s not a socialist, he’s a social democrat like Canada and most of Europe.
He’s a democratic socialist.
Right.
Socialism broadly advocates for social ownership/control of production, while democratic socialism specifically seeks this within a multi-party democracy, opposing authoritarianism and aiming to empower workers, often through reforms within capitalism (social democracy) or by transitioning away from it, contrasting with state-controlled, non-democratic socialist models. The key difference is the “democratic” part: ensuring political freedom, worker voice, and using democratic processes (elections, unions) for change, not revolution or single-party rule
.
Yes, it is right.
Social democracy is a broad, centre-left[1] to left-wing[2] social, economic, and political ideology within the wider socialist movement[3] that supports political and economic democracy[4] and a gradualist, reformist, and democratic approach toward achieving social equality. In modern practice, social democracy has taken the form of a predominantly capitalist,[5] yet robust welfare state, with policies promoting social justice, market regulation, and a more equitable distribution of income.[5][6]
Not the socialist boogieman that the right uses to inspire panic among the stupid.
How do I think it would happen? Someone is dressed as a moderate, then after the primary they have a huge press conference. They rip their skin off and reveal they are actually a completely different person.
