Dems now view Socialism more favorably than Capitalism

[thesquanderer]

from https://today.yougov.com/news/2015/10/17/debate-recap-most-americans-agree-bernie-about-hil/

(emphasis mine)

Socialism remains less popular than capitalism in the United States: only 25% of adults have a favorable opinion of it, while 48% view capitalism positively. Among Democrats, however, the balance is flipped, with 49% favorable to socialism compared to 37% for capitalism. In May, capitalism and socialism were tied at 43% favorable. What’s more, more Democrats say Sanders’ “democratic socialist” label makes them more likely to support him (20%) than say it would turn them away (6%).

The times they are a'changing...

[daleanime]

1. But are they changing fast enough?

[thesquanderer]

2. Obama turned the country around on the idea of a black president pretty quickly.

It could happen.

And I suspect that, a year+ before Obama's election, there were probably more people bothered by the idea of an AA in the WH than there are today bothered about the prospect of a Democratic Socialist!

But we'll see...

[LoveIsNow]

55. I think rhetorically, Obama did a lot

to reopen people's minds to the idea of government helping people rather than always being the enemy (though he sort of tried to argue both sides sometimes).

It definitely took chutzpah to say "you didn't build that!"

I think the shift has been coming for a while.

[RichVRichV]

9. Fast enough to elect Bernie?

No clue, we'll just have to wait and see. But it will definitely help future candidates now that the word is no longer toxic to a good chunk of the electorate.


Ever since certain people started rolling out polls showing that 50% of the population would never vote for a socialist, I just kept reminding them that having 50% already willing to in spite of half a century of demonizing the word with no real advocates was amazing. Now that Bernie is showing how much good mixed socialism/capitalism can do, people are finally warming up to the concept.


This only bodes well for shifting politics back to the left.

[7962]

11. Hillary will NOT allow it.

Her minions are hard at work to prevent it.

[Chan790]

27. I don't expect Hillary to have long coattails.

I expect that in the first mid-term, it's going to be Sanders and Warren getting more Democrats elected to Congress than Clinton and if we do ever regain Congressional majorities under Clinton should she win, it'll be Congress dictating agenda to the WH, not vice-versa.

[7962]

29. I know you're familiar with her personality.

Do you really think she would allow Congress to dictate to HER? I certainly dont
But she is the horse the Dems will have to ride in '16. Bernie gave her a pass on her ethics and by doing so lost his biggest advantage.
So far it looks like the GOP wont nominate the one man I think would be a formidable opponent, Kasich.
So it's going to be Hillary

[JRLeft]

42. Hillary will work with republicans to do the billionaire class's bidding.

[hifiguy]

50. Without question.

It is blindingly obvious that she is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the oligarchs and the MIIC.

[JRLeft]

51. Obama's done the same thing.

[hifiguy]

53. The last president who did not wholly toe the corporate line

and give the oligarchy whatever it wanted was named Jimmy Carter.

[reformist2]

13. While Hillary waits for the times to change, Bernie goes ahead and changes the times!

What is that old saying - lead, follow, or get out of the way?

[sabrina 1]

33. Berniie is a Leader, Hillary is a follower. On every major issue she has been behind, later having

to explain why you 'made a mistake'. Bernie otoh, took the initiative on most of the controversial issues.

[FreakinDJ]

3. We don't have "Capitolism" in America any more

[Hydra]

5. Sure we do

This is capitalism in an increasingly pure form. Beautiful, isn't it? It consumes everything available, including souls.

[ToxMarz]

6. Yes, though Pure Socialism would be as bad an alternative

Every economy is a mix of principles, getting the right mix is what matters.

[7962]

12. THank you

[Ed Suspicious]

14. Do we have any candidates advocating pure socialism?

[thesquanderer]

17. There is a Socialist Party in the U.S.

and they generally put up a candidate. I don't really know anything about them, though.

[thesquanderer]

23. There are also about 100 other people running for the Democratic nomination

Who knows what they advocate?

The list is at

http://www.politics1.com/p2016.htm

[Ed Suspicious]

24. I meant of the three who have an ice cube's chance in hell of getting elected.

[ToxMarz]

26. That wasn't my point or what I said.

Capitalism and socialism (and every other economic principle) are ideas. They are tools. People treat them like their favorite sports team. Neither is good or evil, neither deserve anyone's allegiance. Deciding when and when not to use them, or how they should used and regulated in conjunction with use of the others is what Government and society should be arguing about, not fighting about which tool should be thrown out of the tool box.

[Ed Suspicious]

28. Thank you for clarifying. I agree.

[Hydra]

16. I've yet to hear a good answer as to why capitialism should be part of that mix

And with climate change and increasingly unusable environments it has created, it's pretty much an unsustainable luxury for us now.

I'm sure we'll still do it 'til it kills us though- bad ideas are like that.

[daleanime]

18. +1

[AOR]

19. +2

[Mnpaul]

37. I just saw this over at kos

Socialism without Capitalism is Communism

Capitalism without Socialism is Fascism


we are tilting to far towards Capitalism right now

[ToxMarz]

38. Perfect simple explanation

And it could fit on a bumper sticker, which apparently seems to be good for spreading important messages.

And yes, the mix is way off balance.

[PowerToThePeople]

43. I do not agree.

You do not understand the differences between socialism and communism.

[FreakinDJ]

21. Then why do we bail them out "Socializing the Losses"

Why have we "Socialized" Corporate responsibility and created a tax code were many Corporations pay ZERO taxes

Why have we "Socialized" the R&D cost

[Hydra]

40. Because in pure capitialism

You get other people to foot your bill so your profit margin increases. While some people have tried to get socialism to become more accepted by pointing out how the Weathly use it, in practice it's much closer to robbery or simply leaving a mess for someone else to clean up.

[hifiguy]

54. For the last 35 years, the nature of the American system has been clear.

Socialism for the rich, and to the nth degree.

The sharpest part of the wedge of capitalism straight up the asses of everyone else.

[AgingAmerican]

44. Supply side economics isn't Capitalism

[hifiguy]

52. Capitalism, especially unregulated capitalism

will inevitably devolve fairly rapidly into fascism. We're most of the way there already, and Bubba and Obama did more than their share of the pushing.

"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power."

Giovanni Gentile, the house philosopher of Italian Fascism (though most often attributed to Mussolini)

[Hydra]

56. It's the natural path of capitalism

Power gathers in fewer and fewer hands from all possible sources. Capital, Gov't and Crime begin to merge into the same block of people, and they in turn suck more and more out of the system to feed themselves with.

FDR simply delayed the inevitable.

[hifiguy]

58. Which is why they hated him so much.

They were patient, and they seized power on 11/22/1963 after outlasting Truman and Eisenhower. And Allen Dulles was almost certainly the man who gave the final word to proceed with the Deep State's coup against democracy. Dallas was his M.O. all over again.

[Uncle Joe]

4. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, thesqaunderer.

[appalachiablue]

7. K & R. Very interesting, thanks.

[dae]

8. Sure works for me.

[FairWinds]

10. Dems now view Socialism more favorably than Capitalism . .

As well they should !!

[restorefreedom]

15. hell yeah

go bernie!

[sadoldgirl]

20. I am sure that Bernie only was allowed

to run within the D party was the hope to
make him look as a weird un-American sample
to give HRC the "reasonable" voice.

It did not turn out to be quite as easy as
they thought - eh?

[DCBob]

22. Not Republicans or Independents.

Who make up the majority of the voters in this country. His socialist label is a huge liability in the general election.

[thesquanderer]

31. True. But two things...

One is, a 6 point turnaround among Dems in 5 months is pretty impressive, especially considering that the campaign is in its early stages (no TV ads yet, no campaigning in many states) and something like 20-30% of dems don't even know who he is yet.

Also, as I alluded to in another thread, I don't think being anti-socialist is necessarily even a deep conviction among those who say they consider it a negative. It may be a gut reaction, but could still be nothing they have thought deepely about or really care much about. And also, some people are understanding that there are different "flavors" of socialism. I think we're seeing both of those ideas refelected in the fact that this poll shows that 23% of Dems view socialism UNfavorably, yet only 6% say they would be less likely to vote for someone if they were a Democratic Socialist. Point being that a large percentage of people responding negatively to the socialist label does not automatically equate to those same people actually ruling out voting for Sanders on that basis.

[DCBob]

32. Granted that change is interesting but..

the barrage of negative ads from the RW attack machine have not happened yet. It's a gift to the Republicans and a huge liability to overcome if Bernie should somehow become the D nominee.

[thesquanderer]

34. HRC and BS would both have major liabilities to overcome in the general

but luckily, the electoral map favors the Dem in November regardless, so either of them at least starts with an edge over the Republicans. And current polls show them doing about equally well overall against the various Republican contendors, see http://www.270towin.com/2016-polls/2016-general-election-matchups/ - which is kind of surprising considering that BS is so much less well known... but I guess that speaks to probably HRC's biggest liability, her high unfavorable rating. Lots of people may be against a socialist in the abstract... but lots of people are against the actual candidate of HRC.

Apart from the obvious "liability" they both share, that some people won't vote for the Dem candidate no matter what, each has their own unique set of liabilities. Positions aside, I assume some people won't vote for HRC because she's a woman, some won't vote for her simply because she's Hillary Clinton. Similarly, some won't vote for BS because he's some kind of Socialist, some presumably won't vote for him because he's Jewish.

I don't think BS will get the nomination. But if by some chance he did, I think he would be more likely to prevail in November (or prevail by a greater amount), for reasons I described in post #139 at http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251697741

Related to that, I think he has the potential for bigger coattails downticket, because I think he would motivate a bigger turnout among those who traditionally are less inclined to vote.

There's also the interesting article at
http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/first-read-we-dont-our-candidates-very-much-n448411

which shows how optimistic Americans feel about the prospect of various potential presidents

Sanders: 43% optimistic/satisfied, 50% uncertain/pessimistic (-7)
Clinton: 43% optimistic/satisfied, 56% uncertain/pessimistic (-13)

(both rated higher than ANY Republican)
...and I think an important point there is that almost everyone has an opinion about HRC, whereas the 50% uncertain/pessimistic about Sanders would include people who just aren't sufficiently familiar with him yet (they would be some amount of "uncertain&quot , so his optimistic figure is much more likely to significantly increase than HRC's would.

In short, I think his road to the nomination is much tougher than his road from there to the presidency would be.

[DCBob]

35. I generally agree with most of what you suggest here.

But I think you misjudge Sanders liabilities. I am sure the right-wing will dig up all sorts of dirt and possible dirt on Sanders and exaggerate it and lie about it and make up all sorts of controversy about it. They will coordinate all the RW media and talks shows and politicians to keep saying the same thing over and over again until many people believe it.

This they have done this to the Clintons already many many times. The Clinton team is ready and prepared and knows how to fight back. Sanders is a newbie to all this and will probably be shocked by whats coming and may not be able to react fast enough to put out the fires.

This is big leagues now.. his experiences running for Vermont senate do not prepare him for this. I am sure he has some big league people on his team but the candidate has to be ready also.

We have a very strong candidate in Hillary Clinton. She proved that in the Benghazi hearing. She is a fighter, she is smart, she is confident and she can win... and will win.

[RichVRichV]

36. He hasn't had issues attracting Republicans and Independents in his home state.

It's not like he just started calling himself a socialist.

[DCBob]

39. Well he has been in Vermont like 30 years.

I think over that long period of time he's proven he a good guy regardless of how people feel about the label.

The problem for Bernie is he is somewhat new to the national stage so I dont think there is time to establish that sort of reputation he has in Vermont.

[RichVRichV]

41. Name recognition has always been his biggest obstacle.

Fortunately he still has a year to work on that.

And the reputation for honesty he cultivated in Vermont is benefitting him, even among people new to him. It's easier to sell something when people don't think your trying to pull one over on them.

[thesquanderer]

48. He has a year for the general...

...but he doesn't have that much time to get the nomination! I think he's going to have to have at least a reasonably respectable showing on Super Tuesday (March 1) to be able to keep going.

[RichVRichV]

49. Read the posts directly above yours.

We were discussing views by Republicans and independents which applies primarily to the general election. Hence the comment on having that long to win those groups over.

Obviously he has to win the primary before the general matters. But the primary is mostly among Democrats whom a sufficient number already find socialism an acceptable option according to the poll in the OP.

He has to win over the Democrats (and some crossover votes) soon. He has time to work on winning over the Republicans and Independents (at least enough to win the presidency) assuming he gets that far.

[thesquanderer]

57. Ah, got it. (n/t)

[frizzled]

25. I'd like to hear most people attempt a good definition of *either*

nt

[thesquanderer]

45. Yes, I think the fact that most people have only a vague idea about what these words mean...

...is why they would not be so heavily invested in the labels for it to actually make a major impact on their final choice, regardless of their generally positive or negative preconceptions.

[rug]

30. This will be the lasting legacy of Bernie's campaign.

[pinebox]

46. But but but....

[demwing]

47. this^^^