Democratic Socialists and the Democratic Party

While I agree with you on voting rights for national elections, I beg to differ on municipal & school board elections.  In the local forum, non-citizens are contributors with a stake in what is going on.

On state wide elections, I am undecided on this point.

It's frustrating that moderate Democrats are fighting against Democratic Socialists so much. Why not work together to take back Congress and defeat the Orange Menace in 2028?

Carville is a dinosaur, a relic of the Bill Clinton era.  Time to move on.

yahooyahoo said:

It's frustrating that moderate Democrats are fighting against Democratic Socialists so much. Why not work together to take back Congress and defeat the Orange Menace in 2028?

Carville is a dinosaur, a relic of the Bill Clinton era.  Time to move on.

I think there’s anger on one side (the left) and fear on the other (the centrists). Two powerful emotions. 

Carville and his ilk are afraid that opening the door to more left-leaning members will alienate the center. And scare off independent voters who might otherwise select a mainstream Democrat in a presidential or congressional race. 

I think on the left you have a younger electorate that’s frustrated by what appear to be failures by older mainstream Democrats. Other than the Obama and Biden presidencies, we have been outmaneuvered by the Republican Party since the late 90s. Resulting in massive wealth inequality and less opportunity for younger people. 

mrincredible said:

yahooyahoo said:

It's frustrating that moderate Democrats are fighting against Democratic Socialists so much. Why not work together to take back Congress and defeat the Orange Menace in 2028?

Carville is a dinosaur, a relic of the Bill Clinton era.  Time to move on.

I think there’s anger on one side (the left) and fear on the other (the centrists). Two powerful emotions. 

Carville and his ilk are afraid that opening the door to more left-leaning members will alienate the center. And scare off independent voters who might otherwise select a mainstream Democrat in a presidential or congressional race. 

I think on the left you have a younger electorate that’s frustrated by what appear to be failures by older mainstream Democrats. Other than the Obama and Biden presidencies, we have been outmaneuvered by the Republican Party since the late 90s. Resulting in massive wealth inequality and less opportunity for younger people. 

I think you are interpreting passion on the left for anger. Does Mamdani seem like an angry guy? Our own congresswoman Mejia is certainly not projecting anger. 

if anything these candidates on the left are generating more joy and positivity than any politicians in decades. Calling them angry is adopting the right wing framing.

and not for nothing but "centrism" is a mostly meaningless word when it comes to policy. A person who describes themself as "moderate" or "centrist" isn't likely to be in some middle between two poles on most issues. A hypothetical Maplewood "moderate" probably believes very strongly in reproductive rights, LGBTQ rights, anti-racism, etc. That person may also be against higher taxes on high earners, and against liberalizing immigration laws. None of those positions by themselves is somewhere in a center between left and right.

and that makes sense. Where is the "center" between racism and anti-racism? Where is the "center" between full rights for LGBTQ people and the curtailment of their rights? 

so I agree with mrincredible that all the viewpoints of the old guard Dems and the new democratic socialists should have room in the party. Because the "center" isn't generally some vague middle ground. 

Having spent my life voting against people I abhor, I am excited at the prospect of voting for politicians I support.

"Centrists" have entirely had their way for decades.  If they are upset at the prospect of a candidate who isn't entirely owned by Visa and Mastercard, well that is just the price of a big tent.

ETA:  I know Visa and MC are soooooo 2020.  These days its Palantir and Open AI.

ml1 said:

and not for nothing but "centrism" is a mostly meaningless word when it comes to policy. A person who describes themself as "moderate" or "centrist" isn't likely to be in some middle between two poles on most issues. A hypothetical Maplewood "moderate" probably believes very strongly in reproductive rights, LGBTQ rights, anti-racism, etc. That person may also be against higher taxes on high earners, and against liberalizing immigration laws. None of those positions by themselves is somewhere in a center between left and right.

and that makes sense. Where is the "center" between racism and anti-racism? Where is the "center" between full rights for LGBTQ people and the curtailment of their rights? 

so I agree with mrincredible that all the viewpoints of the old guard Dems and the new democratic socialists should have room in the party. Because the "center" isn't generally some vague middle ground. 

Your comments are well-taken. I’m just trying to simplify terminology. We’re talking about the left and right wings of the Democratic Party.  I agree it’s more of a 2-axis grid. One could be strongly opposed to fossil fuels, while feeling very strongly that our borders need to be tightly controlled, to your point. 

A political party has to figure out how to keep the largest group of its members on board. I’m sure Carville is afraid a ton of white boomers will bail out if they perceive a party going too far to the left. 

Or maybe he’s setting up to work to establish a “centrist” party, along with some disaffected Never Trump Republicans. Maybe he sees a lane in there for his political philosophy to sweep up a plurality of voters. 

And there are more centrist views. You could say you support the reform of immigration laws, more ability to cross the border legally, without a fully open border. You can say we need to outlaw all fossil fuels tomorrow, in five years, or twenty years, or never. You could say we’re going to create a new tax bracket that’s 5% higher than the current highest vs tax 100% of assets over a billion. Every one of these political beliefs exists on a spectrum. 

As a regular TPM reader, I tend to agree with Josh Marshall that it's not progressive vs. liberal but fighter vs. accommodationist.  As for Mejia, I don't think that she would have won a ranked choice primary election as other candidates split the vote.  Not sure that Sherrill would have won her primary, either, in a ranked choice environment.

mrincredible said:

ml1 said:

and not for nothing but "centrism" is a mostly meaningless word when it comes to policy. A person who describes themself as "moderate" or "centrist" isn't likely to be in some middle between two poles on most issues. A hypothetical Maplewood "moderate" probably believes very strongly in reproductive rights, LGBTQ rights, anti-racism, etc. That person may also be against higher taxes on high earners, and against liberalizing immigration laws. None of those positions by themselves is somewhere in a center between left and right.

and that makes sense. Where is the "center" between racism and anti-racism? Where is the "center" between full rights for LGBTQ people and the curtailment of their rights? 

so I agree with mrincredible that all the viewpoints of the old guard Dems and the new democratic socialists should have room in the party. Because the "center" isn't generally some vague middle ground. 

Your comments are well-taken. I’m just trying to simplify terminology. We’re talking about the left and right wings of the Democratic Party.  I agree it’s more of a 2-axis grid. One could be strongly opposed to fossil fuels, while feeling very strongly that our borders need to be tightly controlled, to your point. 

A political party has to figure out how to keep the largest group of its members on board. I’m sure Carville is afraid a ton of white boomers will bail out if they perceive a party going too far to the left. 

Or maybe he’s setting up to work to establish a “centrist” party, along with some disaffected Never Trump Republicans. Maybe he sees a lane in there for his political philosophy to sweep up a plurality of voters. 

And there are more centrist views. You could say you support the reform of immigration laws, more ability to cross the border legally, without a fully open border. You can say we need to outlaw all fossil fuels tomorrow, in five years, or twenty years, or never. You could say we’re going to create a new tax bracket that’s 5% higher than the current highest vs tax 100% of assets over a billion. Every one of these political beliefs exists on a spectrum. 

but the real problem with our so-called "centrist" Democrats is they aren't even trying to achieve the kind of compromise results you're describing. Which of them has real proposals for even incremental changes like a small increase in tax on higher incomes, or a phasing out of fossil fuels.

they are better described as "status quo" Democrats who don't want to do anything that may upset the political donor class.

ml1 said:

but the real problem with our so-called "centrist" Democrats is they aren't even trying to achieve the kind of compromise results you're describing. Which of them has real proposals for even incremental changes like a small increase in tax on higher incomes, or a phasing out of fossil fuels.

they are better described as "status quo" Democrats who don't want to do anything that may upset the political donor class.

Well, maybe the influx of a more progressive/socialist cadre will pull the center of the Democrats to the left. 

The other interesting thing I’m seeing is all this rhetoric about the massive shift, that somehow this constitutes a takeover by Democratic Socialists.  While it’s not negligible, it certainly isn’t like the Democratic establishment has been broadly overthrown. Mamdani is mayor of the biggest city in the country, sure, but is anyone really surprised that someone like him might win in the bluest dot on the map?  Colorado, especially Denver, as well. There’s a couple hundred other Democrats in Congress who are going to have a lot to say about some of the Democratic Socialist platform. 

If the establishment Democrats are wise, they won’t try to dismiss this new group. They shouldn’t capitulate either but they should find a way to welcome their ideas and rethink their own.  And I hope the DSA see an opportunity to be heard and make change. 

ml1 said:

but the real problem with our so-called "centrist" Democrats is they aren't even trying to achieve the kind of compromise results you're describing. Which of them has real proposals for even incremental changes like a small increase in tax on higher incomes, or a phasing out of fossil fuels.

they are better described as "status quo" Democrats who don't want to do anything that may upset the political donor class.

The problem isn't to come up with proposals like "incremental changes like a small increase in tax on higher incomes, or a phasing out of fossil fuels", the problem is to get back the majority and the presidency. The "small increase in tax on higher incomes" is really a rolling back of the "big beautiful bill" tax cuts - which requires the majority and the presidency. Similarly, "phasing out of fossil fuels" also requires undoing what Trump and the GOP did - because under Biden there were already laws and policies in place to promote alternatives and "phase out" fossil fuels.

yahooyahoo said:

It's frustrating that moderate Democrats are fighting against Democratic Socialists so much. Why not work together to take back Congress and defeat the Orange Menace in 2028?

Carville is a dinosaur, a relic of the Bill Clinton era.  Time to move on.

Trying to get everyone on the same page of a movement is never easy. I can't think of anyone I personally know who is in total lockstep with any political party's policies. Even those who appear to agree in principle, differ on details. For example, I remember when Maplewood was going through integration challenges, particularly with the schools, in the late 1990s. (Anyone else remember that crazy zig-zag/cross-town-stripe school attendance zone map?)   Don DeMarco of the diversity advocacy group "Fund for an OPEN Society" was brought in to help the community successfully and holistically integrate. I recall him telling a story about how, in his work, he often would ask white residents of a community, all of whom enthusiastically said they were in favor of living in a diverse community, what they thought a "diverse" community would be and they usually responded "oh...about 10% to 20%" persons of color.  When he asked Black residents who also wanted a diverse community what they thought a diverse community would look like, they typically replied at least 50% persons of color. I am sure my recollections of the exact percentages DeMarco referenced are "off" but his point was that even people who appear to agree on the surface don't necessarily agree when it comes to the details.  Can Democratic Socialists and Democratic Centrists find common ground beyond getting rid of Trump and MAGA?  I'm not so sure. 

nohero said:

ml1 said:

but the real problem with our so-called "centrist" Democrats is they aren't even trying to achieve the kind of compromise results you're describing. Which of them has real proposals for even incremental changes like a small increase in tax on higher incomes, or a phasing out of fossil fuels.

they are better described as "status quo" Democrats who don't want to do anything that may upset the political donor class.

The problem isn't to come up with proposals like "incremental changes like a small increase in tax on higher incomes, or a phasing out of fossil fuels", the problem is to get back the majority and the presidency. The "small increase in tax on higher incomes" is really a rolling back of the "big beautiful bill" tax cuts - which requires the majority and the presidency. Similarly, "phasing out of fossil fuels" also requires undoing what Trump and the GOP did - because under Biden there were already laws and policies in place to promote alternatives and "phase out" fossil fuels.

and to get back the majority idiots like Carville denouncing progressive candidates should shut their traps and vote blue no matter who.

like how they told progressives to vote all these years.

ml1 said:

and to get back the majority idiots like Carville denouncing progressive candidates should shut their traps and vote blue no matter who.

like how they told progressives to vote all these years.

Yup.

I was 100% ready to vote for whoever won the nomination in 2016 and 2020. If 2024 had a primary I would have voted for the winner. I’ll vote for the Democratic nominee in 2028. 

tomcat said:

While I agree with you on voting rights for national elections, I beg to differ on municipal & school board elections.  In the local forum, non-citizens are contributors with a stake in what is going on.

On state wide elections, I am undecided on this point.

It’s a debate I’d be willing to engage in.  My personal opinion is that certain rights should be reserved for citizens. In the USA the right to vote in all elections is one of the only rights that permanent residents don’t enjoy. To me it represents an ultimate commitment to the nation that entitles a person to participate in its governance. 

Non-citizen voting rights raise some logistical issues. If you move to a town are you automatically allowed to vote in local elections there? Is there a process to establish residency?  

Norman_Bates said:

Can Democratic Socialists and Democratic Centrists find common ground beyond getting rid of Trump and MAGA?  I'm not so sure. 

Well, hopefully there are a number of major policy positions we can all agree on. Advocating for labor union growth should be a rallying point. Reduction in fossil fuels and ambitious development of renewable energy is another. Women’s reproductive rights. Reduction of the power and influence of corporations and wealthy individuals. We actually stand for certain things besides being against MAGA and Trump. In fact, we’re against those entities because of what we believe in. 

A lot of stuff is more of a sliding scale. Increasing the minimum wage could be incremental or revolutionary but either way it should happen. More progressive taxation should happen. Health insurance should be affordable for everyone.

Some of these things are hard to find a compromise position (Medicare For All vs the ACA model) and there will be some people on each end of the spectrum that fall out of the tent.

mrincredible said:

tomcat said:

While I agree with you on voting rights for national elections, I beg to differ on municipal & school board elections.  In the local forum, non-citizens are contributors with a stake in what is going on.

On state wide elections, I am undecided on this point.

It’s a debate I’d be willing to engage in.  My personal opinion is that certain rights should be reserved for citizens. In the USA the right to vote in all elections is one of the only rights that permanent residents don’t enjoy. To me it represents an ultimate commitment to the nation that entitles a person to participate in its governance. 

Non-citizen voting rights raise some logistical issues. If you move to a town are you automatically allowed to vote in local elections there? Is there a process to establish residency?  

citizens have to establish residency to vote in local elections 

ml1 said:

citizens have to establish residency to vote in local elections 

But not to establish their right to vote. 

If someone moved here from Russia, or China, or (heaven help us) Denmark and signed a lease here in South Orange, should they automatically be able to register to vote in local elections?  What if they lease an apartment but only stay here two weeks a year?

mrincredible said:

ml1 said:

citizens have to establish residency to vote in local elections 

But not to establish their right to vote. 

If someone moved here from Russia, or China, or (heaven help us) Denmark and signed a lease here in South Orange, should they automatically be able to register to vote in local elections?  What if they lease an apartment but only stay here two weeks a year?

An out-of-state student at Seton Hall can register here and vote in South Orange and Essex County elections. A 20-year resident with a Green Card can’t. 

DaveSchmidt said:

An out-of-state student at Seton Hall can register here and vote in South Orange and Essex County elections. A 20-year resident with a Green Card can’t. 

So where do you draw the line? 

The Seton Hall student you’re referencing is a US Citizen. They have the right to vote by virtue of their citizenship. They get to decide where to register to vote.

mrincredible said:

So where do you draw the line?

I don’t know. I was only illuminating a complication in the previously proffered commitment principle.

DaveSchmidt said:

I don’t know. I was only illuminating a complication in the previously proffered commitment principle.

Well, it’s kind of apples and oranges. One person is a citizen with a constitutionally guaranteed right to vote. Where they choose to vote is a matter of local regulations and deadlines. It’s a formality, but the right is already there. The Seton Hall student could just as easily do an absentee ballot and vote in their home municipality. 

The debate is over what criteria do you use for a non-citizen resident?  Like I said before, is the right secured simply by signing a lease or buying a house?  Or declaring residency at relative’s house?

mrincredible said:

Well, it’s kind of apples and oranges. One person is a citizen with a constitutionally guaranteed right to vote. Where they choose to vote is a matter of local regulations and deadlines. It’s a formality, but the right is already there. The Seton Hall student could just as easily do an absentee ballot and vote in their home municipality.

The debate is over what criteria do you use for a non-citizen resident? Like I said before, is the right secured simply by signing a lease or buying a house? Or declaring residency at relative’s house?

Both are apples living under and beholden to the same (with rare exemptions like selective service) local, state and federal laws, which are rooted in the vote. Why should only one of those apples get to exercise it?

To register to vote in New Jersey, I need to be a resident of the county for 30 days. I also need to show a driver’s license, but I can get proof of residency for one of those in fewer than 30 days. Why should a noncitizen need to be a resident any longer than that, or need any more proof of it than a driver’s license?

You say citizenship represents the ultimate commitment. Citizens move away from the country all the time. They’re free to renounce their citizenship. Why is a noncitizen by definition less committed?

These aren’t meant to be leading questions. They’re questions I’m asking myself as I follow your line of thinking.

DaveSchmidt said:

mrincredible said:

Well, it’s kind of apples and oranges. One person is a citizen with a constitutionally guaranteed right to vote. Where they choose to vote is a matter of local regulations and deadlines. It’s a formality, but the right is already there. The Seton Hall student could just as easily do an absentee ballot and vote in their home municipality.

The debate is over what criteria do you use for a non-citizen resident? Like I said before, is the right secured simply by signing a lease or buying a house? Or declaring residency at relative’s house?

Both are apples living under and beholden to the same (with rare exemptions like selective service) local, state and federal laws, which are rooted in the vote. Why should only one of those apples get to exercise it?

To register to vote in New Jersey, I need to be a resident of the county for 30 days. I also need to show a driver’s license, but I can get proof of residency for one of those in fewer than 30 days. Why should a noncitizen need to be a resident any longer than that, or need any more proof of it than a driver’s license?

You say citizenship represents the ultimate commitment. Citizens move away from the country all the time. They’re free to renounce their citizenship. Why is a noncitizen by definition less committed?

These aren’t meant to be leading questions. They’re questions I’m asking myself as I follow your line of thinking.

In New York City, they tried to allow noncitizens to vote in local elections if they had a green card or a work permit (in other words, specific Federal documentation). That would address some of the concerns about whether the person had sufficient "connection" to living and working in the community.

The NYC law was struck down by the New York Courts based on an argument that a provision in New York's Constitution prescribing that "every citizen shall be entitled to vote" should be interpreted as not allowing that. New York top court strikes down law to allow noncitizen voting in Big Apple elections | Courthouse News Service

nohero said:

In New York City, they tried to allow noncitizens to vote in local elections if they had a green card or a work permit (in other words, specific Federal documentation). That would address some of the concerns about whether the person had sufficient "connection" to living and working in the community.

The NYC law was struck down by the New York Courts based on an argument that a provision in New York's Constitution prescribing that "every citizen shall be entitled to vote" should be interpreted as not allowing that. New York top court strikes down law to allow noncitizen voting in Big Apple elections | Courthouse News Service

I don’t think NYC’s documentation requirement would have addressed mrincredible’s issue without stipulating what counted as residency and how long a holder of a Green Card or work permit had to meet that standard before being allowed to vote.

And, yes, I took it as a given that the topic of discussion is currently unconstitutional.

To register in New Jersey, you must be:

• A United States citizen
• At least 17 years old but cannot vote until reaching the age of 18, except that you may vote in a primary election if you are 17 and will be 18 at the time of the following general election.
• A resident of the county for 30 days before the election
• A person not serving a sentence of incarceration as the result of a conviction of any indictable offense under the laws of this or another state or of the United States.

The registrant must complete a Voter Registration Application and/or Party Affiliation Form. Mail or deliver the Voter Registration Application and/or Party Affiliation Form to the County Commissioner of Registration or Superintendent of Elections for your county.

To qualify for voter registration in New York State, you must:

• be a United States Citizen;
• be 18 years old (you may pre-register at 16 or 17 but cannot vote until you are 18);
• be a resident of this state and the county, city or village for at least 30 days before the election;
• not be in prison for a felony conviction;
  • learn more about felon registration rights
• not be adjudged mentally incompetent by a court;
• not claim the right to vote elsewhere

To register to vote in the City of New York, you must:

• Be a citizen of the United States (includes those persons born in Puerto Rico, Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands).
• Be a New York City resident for at least 30 days.
• Be 18 years old on or before Election Day.
• Not be in prison for a felony conviction.
• Not be adjudged mentally incompetent by a court.
• Not claim the right to vote elsewhere (outside the City of New York).
• A person who is at least sixteen years of age and who is otherwise qualified to register to vote may preregister to vote and shall be automatically registered upon reaching the age of 18.