Democratic Socialists or main stream Dems. We've been electing "main streamers" for over 50 years and for

[Bluetus]

84. This is breaking into the open FINALLY

Last edited Fri Jun 26, 2026, 01:42 AM - Edit history (1)

The party establishment has been without vision or unity since 1980. They didn't know how to opose Reagan but they were really good at clinging to whatever power they had inherited from the FDR years. The real value system of the Dem Party coalesced under FDR's leadership and vision and was continued by JFK. And LBJ was able to get The Great Society ideas into law, and LBJ is under-appreciated for that -- that was huge.

But that's when it stopped. We have had some tactical gains here and there, but basically it has been over 50 years since Dems were on offfense. The people who cling to leadership positions today were never, ever part of any of the real progress and they only know how to "split the difference" with Republicans. That is a losing game because the Republicans keep moving the negotiating position farther and farther to the right.

The gress roots has had enough of this. We have good people coming up in the party, but still we have a leader who just today says that it is up to Mamdani to apologize for promoting the success of strong progressives. No, thank you. Wrong answer.

Like the OP, I don't know if there is time left for real progressives to reverse any of the losses we have absorbed over these past 50 years, but I am damn sick of the status quo people. We literally have nothing left to lose by going with a new generation of more combative, more principled, more driven politicians.

Just as an aside, this is a question for historians: Was FDR often accused of being a socialist? I don't recall ever reading anything like that. Yet he created vast public works projects to get us out of the Great Depression, and these socialistic programs laid the foundation for the greatest middle class the world had ever seen (now deeply eroded by 50 years of Reaganomics and Republican graft.)