No, not on principle. I‘d gladly vote for AOC who has far exceeded my expectations so far. That might change if she ever advocates state ownership of all corporations.

If I‘d ever had to take them seriously and the alternative is not-Trump I might. We do have a socialist party in Germany and I’d never vote for them while only ever having voted for the Social Democrats (maybe the Greens in a local race). You are right that the DSA has very little power now and actual socialism will not become reality in the US in the foreseeable future. It is still a terrible idea to be advocating. This whole discussion started because McMullins (R) criticized the DSA‘s platform and I agreed with him.
In your previous post you said something like in negotiations the starting offer shouldn’t be the compromise one‘s aiming for and the DSA‘s platform drags the Overton window back to the left. That‘s fine but I don’t think that’s useful if you have to take it to an extreme.
You can advocate for UHC without advocating socialism. You can advocate for a high minimum wage or UBI without advocating socialism. You can advocate for 70% marginal tax brackets without advocating socialism. Etc.

Cliffs: socialism is bad

lol

grunching...

where did this andrew yang come from? he's at 10% for democratic candidate on predictit.com. but i'm wondering if a $500 bet would change the odds there? $100 bet? easy to give your campaign a big boost with very little money - basically get a related party to do it.

the scary thing is i can see his chances becoming "self-fulfilling" whereby cnn, nbc, abc, cbs etc. want to have him on for an interview.

I agree with Louis. The negotiating tactic should be to advocate for the policies you actually want, even if they stand no chance of passing currently. Advocating for disastrous policies (or for candidates with disastrous platforms) because it will shift the overton window to the left is a bad idea and imo even immoral.

i will also note that every time ocasio sp? opens her mouth, trump's re-election odds go up. they've been going up very slowly but steadily the past month (maybe State of Union bump too, but that should have disippated by now)

UBI has become a bit hit with the internet crowd, Predictit is almost certainly going to be disproportionately pro-Yang.

Trolly, thx......... it looks like i was wrong. predictit is much bigger than i thought. CNBC has an article where a reporter looked at someone's trading records who did 180 trades a day and made $25K earnings in one month (i'm not saying "wow, a whole $25K in one month", i'm saying that i was wrong in thinking it was a quasi-play money endeavour.

not sure if there'd be arbitrage but predictit has yang at equiv of 9 to 1. oddschecker says he traded quite recently at 125 to 1. no idea where he's offered now

lol wat.

Now 1,000 dogs per month as well. I'm all in #YangGang

i will also note that kamala seems be the lowest odds with bookies as opposed to biden/sanders at predictit.

just my opinion, and i like him myself, but i think sanders is yesterday's news. benefitted from being only real challenger to the despised Hilary.

do you have a tiny brain or something?

yes, check it out. as she's become more prominent in the press, trumps odds of winning go up. maybe bad grammar, his chances of winning go up wouid be the proper wording.

ocasio excites people who are going to vote democratic no matter what.

My tiny brain cannot comprehend all the evidence you've posted.

UBI apparently is quite popular with some leading conservative economists too

She was very prominent in the lead up to 2018 when Trump posted about a red wave.

The number of Democrats who make Trump's reelection chances go up when they speak is infinite because they're all the harbingers of socialist doom.

I'm not suggesting people advocate for what they don't believe in, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't vote for someone more socialist than I am.

And I don't think an absolute definition of socialism is the only definition. Some things are socialist right now in the US.

I don't know wtf Beto is doing waiting around so long before announcing. Playing hard to get seems like a really weird strategy. He's just allowing other people to define him.

(Not saying those people are wrong)

yeah, just like bernie did, which is why his supporters all voted hillary

YANG

It's still 11 months until the first caucus. It's not crazy that Beto is taking so long to announce, it's crazy that everyone else has already announced.

Why do American elections have to be almost 2 years long? Don't other countries have a complete ban of politicking and advertising outside of a limited window of time before the election? We should have that here too.

Bernie is still popular with the same people he was popular with last time. The results will likely be the same, early momentum followed by crashing back to reality in SC.

I wish he would have stepped aside and maybe acted as a booster/mentor for Warren, rather than run again at his age.

Well, sure, but that's a separate discussion. I didn't say Beto waiting is "crazy". I said it's bad strategy.

Huge Bernie supporter but I think a lot of what he is doing to Warren could be considered sexist. It was kinda the same with Hillary. Sad that he has to fight against such powerful women. It would make any man feel small.

First Amendment issues with doing that, I would imagine.