DSA Myths

[tigres88]

I haven't done a deep dive on the DSA ideologies, but I suppose I'm not opposed to most of what I've seen (outside of the rage bait). However, maga (and some establishment Dems) are really using the DSA to stoke fear and propaganda. So lets look at their level of influence:

• DSA: ~120,000 members as of July 2026 vs. ~45.4 million registered Democrats as of April 2026
• So DSA members equal roughly 0.25% of registered Democrats or about 1 in every 380.
• DSA's largest chapter (NYC, ~14,200) is a rounding error next to New York State's 6.0 million registered Democrats.
  
  
• DSA currently has 2 House members (AOC, Tlaib) and is on track for five in the U.S. House after the general election, barring upsets and 0 senators vs. Democrats currently holding 214 of 435 House seats and 47 of 100 Senate seats.
• So DSA is about 1% of the House Democratic caucus today, potentially ~2% next Congress
  
  
• DSA: roughly 216 elected officials, mostly local and state-level vs. Democrats: they hold roughly half of the country's ~7,400 state legislative seats alone (~3,000+), plus 23 governorships, thousands of mayoralties, and hundreds of thousands of local offices.
• DSA's footprint is well under 1% of Democratic officeholders — though concentrated in visible places (NYC mayor, blocs in Albany and Chicago).
  
  
• DSA: dues-funded, roughly $5–6M/year in income historically, with a national surplus of about $2 million vs. Democratic Party: the DNC, DSCC, and DCCC alone raised a cumulative $310 million as of November 30, 2025, and all House and Senate candidates combined raised $2.1 billion through March 31, 2026.
• The entire DSA annual budget is roughly what a single competitive House race costs — and less than 15% of what Jon Ossoff alone raised in 2025 ($43 million).
  
  
• DSA: ~150 backed candidates this cycle, with 35 through their primaries so far vs. Democrats fielding candidates in essentially all 435 House races and 35 Senate races, plus 36 governorships and thousands of legislative seats
  

The DSA is an incredibly tiny wing of the DNC. Sure, it may grow in influence in the future, but really really hard to ever see that happening on the scale that MAGA did when it took over the Republican party.

Some of their ideas will influence and get absorbed in the DNC platform, but the fear, rage, and scare baiting by maga (and others) is outsized and stupid.

Don't be propagandized.

 

[RollingballofButcherKnives]

I haven't done a deep dive on the DSA ideologies, but I suppose I'm not opposed to most of what I've seen (outside of the rage bait). However, maga (and some establishment Dems) are really using the DSA to stoke fear and propaganda. So lets look at their level of influence:

• DSA: ~120,000 members as of July 2026 vs. ~45.4 million registered Democrats as of April 2026
• So DSA members equal roughly 0.25% of registered Democrats or about 1 in every 380.
• DSA's largest chapter (NYC, ~14,200) is a rounding error next to New York State's 6.0 million registered Democrats.
  
  
• DSA currently has 2 House members (AOC, Tlaib) and is on track for five in the U.S. House after the general election, barring upsets and 0 senators vs. Democrats currently holding 214 of 435 House seats and 47 of 100 Senate seats.
• So DSA is about 1% of the House Democratic caucus today, potentially ~2% next Congress
  
  
• DSA: roughly 216 elected officials, mostly local and state-level vs. Democrats: they hold roughly half of the country's ~7,400 state legislative seats alone (~3,000+), plus 23 governorships, thousands of mayoralties, and hundreds of thousands of local offices.
• DSA's footprint is well under 1% of Democratic officeholders — though concentrated in visible places (NYC mayor, blocs in Albany and Chicago).
  
  
• DSA: dues-funded, roughly $5–6M/year in income historically, with a national surplus of about $2 million vs. Democratic Party: the DNC, DSCC, and DCCC alone raised a cumulative $310 million as of November 30, 2025, and all House and Senate candidates combined raised $2.1 billion through March 31, 2026.
• The entire DSA annual budget is roughly what a single competitive House race costs — and less than 15% of what Jon Ossoff alone raised in 2025 ($43 million).
  
  
• DSA: ~150 backed candidates this cycle, with 35 through their primaries so far vs. Democrats fielding candidates in essentially all 435 House races and 35 Senate races, plus 36 governorships and thousands of legislative seats

The DSA is an incredibly tiny wing of the DNC. Sure, it may grow in influence in the future, but really really hard to ever see that happening on the scale that MAGA did when it took over the Republican party.

Some of their ideas will influence and get absorbed in the DNC platform, but the fear, rage, and scare baiting by maga (and others) is outsized and stupid.

Don't be propagandized.

 

[kidmike41]

I haven't done a deep dive on the DSA ideologies, but I suppose I'm not opposed to most of what I've seen (outside of the rage bait). However, maga (and some establishment Dems) are really using the DSA to stoke fear and propaganda. So lets look at their level of influence:

• DSA: ~120,000 members as of July 2026 vs. ~45.4 million registered Democrats as of April 2026
• So DSA members equal roughly 0.25% of registered Democrats or about 1 in every 380.
• DSA's largest chapter (NYC, ~14,200) is a rounding error next to New York State's 6.0 million registered Democrats.
  
  
• DSA currently has 2 House members (AOC, Tlaib) and is on track for five in the U.S. House after the general election, barring upsets and 0 senators vs. Democrats currently holding 214 of 435 House seats and 47 of 100 Senate seats.
• So DSA is about 1% of the House Democratic caucus today, potentially ~2% next Congress
  
  
• DSA: roughly 216 elected officials, mostly local and state-level vs. Democrats: they hold roughly half of the country's ~7,400 state legislative seats alone (~3,000+), plus 23 governorships, thousands of mayoralties, and hundreds of thousands of local offices.
• DSA's footprint is well under 1% of Democratic officeholders — though concentrated in visible places (NYC mayor, blocs in Albany and Chicago).
  
  
• DSA: dues-funded, roughly $5–6M/year in income historically, with a national surplus of about $2 million vs. Democratic Party: the DNC, DSCC, and DCCC alone raised a cumulative $310 million as of November 30, 2025, and all House and Senate candidates combined raised $2.1 billion through March 31, 2026.
• The entire DSA annual budget is roughly what a single competitive House race costs — and less than 15% of what Jon Ossoff alone raised in 2025 ($43 million).
  
  
• DSA: ~150 backed candidates this cycle, with 35 through their primaries so far vs. Democrats fielding candidates in essentially all 435 House races and 35 Senate races, plus 36 governorships and thousands of legislative seats

The DSA is an incredibly tiny wing of the DNC. Sure, it may grow in influence in the future, but really really hard to ever see that happening on the scale that MAGA did when it took over the Republican party.

Some of their ideas will influence and get absorbed in the DNC platform, but the fear, rage, and scare baiting by maga (and others) is outsized and stupid.

Don't be propagandized.

I have been to their website. Is that propaganda or their real platform?

 

[AndreWoolridgeB10MVP]

I have been to their website. Is that propaganda or their real platform?

Like the troons, they're a TINY PERCENTAGE of the population!

Sure, we'll defend their lunacy at every turn, but just ignore it!

 

[tigres88]

I have been to their website. Is that propaganda or their real platform?

Thinking their real platform that you read about on their website is going to move the needle in the States or take over the Democrat party entirely is the propaganda I was referring to.

 

[MuscoHawk]

Much like trans athletes affecting .001% of high school/college sports, the DSA is .001% of democrats.

Same strategy.

 

[hawkeyetraveler]

I haven't done a deep dive on the DSA ideologies, but I suppose I'm not opposed to most of what I've seen (outside of the rage bait). However, maga (and some establishment Dems) are really using the DSA to stoke fear and propaganda. So lets look at their level of influence:

• DSA: ~120,000 members as of July 2026 vs. ~45.4 million registered Democrats as of April 2026
• So DSA members equal roughly 0.25% of registered Democrats or about 1 in every 380.
• DSA's largest chapter (NYC, ~14,200) is a rounding error next to New York State's 6.0 million registered Democrats.
  
  
• DSA currently has 2 House members (AOC, Tlaib) and is on track for five in the U.S. House after the general election, barring upsets and 0 senators vs. Democrats currently holding 214 of 435 House seats and 47 of 100 Senate seats.
• So DSA is about 1% of the House Democratic caucus today, potentially ~2% next Congress
  
  
• DSA: roughly 216 elected officials, mostly local and state-level vs. Democrats: they hold roughly half of the country's ~7,400 state legislative seats alone (~3,000+), plus 23 governorships, thousands of mayoralties, and hundreds of thousands of local offices.
• DSA's footprint is well under 1% of Democratic officeholders — though concentrated in visible places (NYC mayor, blocs in Albany and Chicago).
  
  
• DSA: dues-funded, roughly $5–6M/year in income historically, with a national surplus of about $2 million vs. Democratic Party: the DNC, DSCC, and DCCC alone raised a cumulative $310 million as of November 30, 2025, and all House and Senate candidates combined raised $2.1 billion through March 31, 2026.
• The entire DSA annual budget is roughly what a single competitive House race costs — and less than 15% of what Jon Ossoff alone raised in 2025 ($43 million).
  
  
• DSA: ~150 backed candidates this cycle, with 35 through their primaries so far vs. Democrats fielding candidates in essentially all 435 House races and 35 Senate races, plus 36 governorships and thousands of legislative seats

The DSA is an incredibly tiny wing of the DNC. Sure, it may grow in influence in the future, but really really hard to ever see that happening on the scale that MAGA did when it took over the Republican party.

Some of their ideas will influence and get absorbed in the DNC platform, but the fear, rage, and scare baiting by maga (and others) is outsized and stupid.

Don't be propagandized.

If it is such a small group then maybe the Dems should disavow DSA and put the whole episode to bed. But it sure seem the dem candidates are doing the opposite and giving it oxygen.

 

[Scrubby]

Then why are DSA members the democrat nominees in this election? "They're not mainstream!!!" Doesn't exactly sell well when they are the face of the party at present.

 

[tigres88]

If it is such a small group then maybe the Dems should disavow DSA and put the whole episode to bed. But it sure seem the dem candidates are doing the opposite and giving it oxygen.

It simply is factual that it is such a small group, though I feel like the DNC doesn't quite know what to do with the DSA nor their online followers, which is a small group but incredibly loud.

 

[hawkeyetraveler]

It simply is factual that it is such a small group, though I feel like the DNC doesn't quite know what to do with the DSA nor their online followers, which is small but incredibly loud.

Yeah I’m not arguing it is a small group. I’m questioning why the candidates are giving it so much love when they have general elections to win. The DSA has policy proposals that are so wack-a-doodle that it simply doesn’t make political sense to support them.

 

[tigres88]

Yeah I’m not arguing it is a small group. I’m questioning why the candidates are giving it so much love when they have general elections to win. The DSA has policy proposals that are so wack-a-doodle that it simply doesn’t make political sense to support them.

Probably alot of reasons, but I think there is such disillusionment by the left for the DNC that denouncing the small faction thats gaining popularity could have the opposite affect they are intending.

 

[AndreWoolridgeB10MVP]

Much like trans athletes affecting .001% of high school/college sports, the DSA is .001% of democrats.

Same strategy.

But we'll defend 'em to the death!

 

[AndreWoolridgeB10MVP]

If it is such a small group then maybe the Dems should disavow DSA and put the whole episode to bed. But it sure seem the dem candidates are doing the opposite and giving it oxygen.

Maybe trans lunacy too, eh, @hawkeyetraveler?

Or is that a bridge too far?

 

[kidmike41]

Thinking their real platform that you read about on their website is going to move the needle in the States or take over the Democrat party entirely is the propaganda I was referring to.

When you say you are not opposed to most of what you have seen from them. What do you mean by that?

 

[gohawks50]

Yeah I’m not arguing it is a small group. I’m questioning why the candidates are giving it so much love when they have general elections to win. The DSA has policy proposals that are so wack-a-doodle that it simply doesn’t make political sense to support them.

Probably a stupid question, but how are candidates giving the DSA so much love? Can you provide some examples?

 

[SB_SB]

Yeah I’m not arguing it is a small group. I’m questioning why the candidates are giving it so much love when they have general elections to win. The DSA has policy proposals that are so wack-a-doodle that it simply doesn’t make political sense to support them.

They're scared just like the republicans are scared of MAGA. And the reason is, our country is showing it true colors, and that's extremism (left and right). I'll just keep repeating it, we need to third party.

 

[Palmerhawk]

They're scared just like the republicans are scared of MAGA. And the reason is, our country is showing it true colors, and that's extremism (left and right). I'll just keep repeating it, we need to third party.

When you consider the tiny % the DSA is vs Democrats, we should not panic.
There is a trend in the Midwest and West of nominating moderate Dems also.
In Iowa Sand and Turek are mods.
In midterms all politics are local.

 

[SB_SB]

When you consider the tiny % the DSA is vs Democrats, we should not panic.
There is a trend in the Midwest and West of nominating moderate Dems also.
In Iowa Sand and Turek are mods.
In midterms all politics are local.

We need to learn from history and that history is now. Just look at what MAGA is doing to the republican party. To think that same thing can't happen to the democratic party would be very short sighted. I'm not saying to panic but I would consider them a threat. And when there's a threat, it needs to be confronted, not act like it doesn't exist.

 

[UrHuckleberry]

When you say you are not opposed to most of what you have seen from them. What do you mean by that?

Likely referring to some of the more recent examples people are screaming about, when you look at the candidates platform, as opposed to the random spokesperson the DSA puts on Fox News.

 

[tigres88]

Likely referring to some of the more recent examples people are screaming about, when you look at the candidates platform, as opposed to the random spokesperson the DSA puts on Fox News.

This, I didn't deign it worthy of a response.

That DSA spokesperson is an awful spokesperson though fr

 

[THE_DEVIL]

The DSA is a bunch of amateurs.

Signed,
The Christian Coalition Alumni Committee

 

[jimneffer]

We need to learn from history and that history is now. Just look at what MAGA is doing to the republican party. To think that same thing can't happen to the democratic party would be very short sighted. I'm not saying to panic but I would consider them a threat. And when there's a threat, it needs to be confronted, not act like it doesn't exist.

i certainly don't love or agree with everything in the DSA platform

but the reality is that the democrat party has been DOMINATED by centrists and corporatists for DECADES. and that is a big reason why we are where we are.

the biggest legislative accomplishment of that time is what? a healthcare bill that picked around the edges and may have marginally slowed the rate of growth in cost (depending on whose analysis you use)

recent democrats - for all their ideals and beliefs - have not delivered any meaningful change or substantively addressed any issues that represented a real improvement in people's lives. and that has (in part) provided the opportunity for the sh*tshow currently dominating washington

so, i don't think DSA is the answer to everything. but I also don't think more of the same centrist/corporate democrats are either.

 

[SB_SB]

i certainly don't love or agree with everything in the DSA platform

but the reality is that the democrat party has been DOMINATED by centrists and corporatists for DECADES. and that is a big reason why we are where we are.

the biggest legislative accomplishment of that time is what? a healthcare bill that picked around the edges and may have marginally slowed the rate of growth in cost (depending on whose analysis you use)

recent democrats - for all their ideals and beliefs - have not delivered any meaningful change or substantively addressed any issues that represented a real improvement in people's lives. and that has (in part) provided the opportunity for the sh*tshow currently dominating washington

so, i don't think DSA is the answer to everything. but I also don't think more of the same centrist/corporate democrats are either.

And you just proved my point, the threat is real. if the DSA becomes a major player in the democratic party it will be take a far (and far) left turn.

The democratic party hasn't been dominated by centrists, it been dominated by people scared to speak the truth. Independents didn't vote for trump because the democrats were centrists and for corporations, they voted for trump because of the BS from the left with regards to not taking a stand on anything. And not the democratic stand is going to be the DSA. The DSA will create the same sh*tshow, just under a new tent.

I'm going to keep repeating, we need a third party.

 

[Moogy]

i certainly don't love or agree with everything in the DSA platform

but the reality is that the democrat party has been DOMINATED by centrists and corporatists for DECADES. and that is a big reason why we are where we are.

the biggest legislative accomplishment of that time is what? a healthcare bill that picked around the edges and may have marginally slowed the rate of growth in cost (depending on whose analysis you use)

recent democrats - for all their ideals and beliefs - have not delivered any meaningful change or substantively addressed any issues that represented a real improvement in people's lives. and that has (in part) provided the opportunity for the sh*tshow currently dominating washington

so, i don't think DSA is the answer to everything. but I also don't think more of the same centrist/corporate democrats are either.

And this right here is the reason to be concerned about DSA ... because much like the MAGAt virus ... it creeps in. We're already seeing folks, despite being fully aware of just how radical DSA is (no private ownership of businesses, total destruction of current governmental model, etc.) finding ways to see the positives in it, see how it's as good as, or better than the alternative, etc. The infection doesn't happen overnight, where people suddenly pop up shouting "We Are DSA!" while they sign their name on the dotted line as DSA party members ... it enters into the psyche and spreads.

So, this is, without a doubt, rather than a reason to downplay DSA ... a reason to sound the alarm on DSA.

It should also be noted that someone who has been mostly pro DSA, is now starting threads saying "hey, let's not worry about the DSA." Trying to buy time to let the infection spread, before anyone can administer the medicine of light and reality.

 

[Moogy]

Also note that places like this board seem particularly effective breeding grounds for the DSA virus, given that a predominant demographic of DSA is the downwardly-mobile white male. The type that might have a rather useless advanced degree (in something like Poli Sci, English, Education, etc.) that causes them to be "educated" (often at a lower tier university) but not intelligent, or able to be successful or well-off, financially. So they want to blame society for not appreciating them, and their solution is to bring everyone down to their level.

Progressive leadership has an increasing disdain/lack of use for blacks, women (particularly white women) and Jews, which are now considered "establishment figures." In that respect, they are mirror evils of the MAGAts, having been born from the same original revolt ... they just eventually split into how to channel their frustrations with the current system.

 

[hawkeyetraveler]

i certainly don't love or agree with everything in the DSA platform

but the reality is that the democrat party has been DOMINATED by centrists and corporatists for DECADES. and that is a big reason why we are where we are.

the biggest legislative accomplishment of that time is what? a healthcare bill that picked around the edges and may have marginally slowed the rate of growth in cost (depending on whose analysis you use)

recent democrats - for all their ideals and beliefs - have not delivered any meaningful change or substantively addressed any issues that represented a real improvement in people's lives. and that has (in part) provided the opportunity for the sh*tshow currently dominating washington

so, i don't think DSA is the answer to everything. but I also don't think more of the same centrist/corporate democrats are either.

I really wish people would stop correlating having a moderate position with being pro corporate money in politics. I bet if you surveyed regular moderates you would find most of us are against Citizens United and corporate involvement in politics. It just happens that many career politicians happen to be moderate and also in the corporate sway.

But having a ruling class carve out financial benefits for themselves is not unique to moderates or capitalists or the United States. I can point to EVERY socialist nation throughout history and demonstrate that the same tendency for the controlling few to carve out elite benefits for themselves. In fact it seems to me to be more of a thing in socialist countries than capitalist countries historically.

Moderates aren’t the problem, corporate influence in politics is the problem. I am all for voting out Schumer, Jeffries et al, but I won’t vote for a socialist as a replacement.

 

[dpic73]

The rise in what people now call socialism feels like a youth movement driven by the economic pressures being faced by young adults who came of age during a time when they have low wages, many with high student debt and housing costs that make the American dream out of reach for most of them. For that reason they're dissatisfied with the status quo and souring on capitalism because it's not meeting their needs.

Viewed through that lens, you can understand why this younger generation seems radicalized, when in reality, it's the equivalent of screaming from the rooftops that no one is listening and this is their way of getting the attention of the powers that be who ignore them.

I agree we should all reject the extreme platform we see on the DSA's website but I wonder if we're over-reacting, when maybe we should do a litlle bit of listening. If some of them do get elected, the realities of governing will constrain them from going too far so maybe we should take a deep breath and see it for what it is. A cry for out with the old and in with the new - who knows, it might end up being better for all of us if they're influential in implementing some of their more popular policy ideas.

 

[jimneffer]

I really wish people would stop correlating having a moderate position with being pro corporate money in politics. I bet if you surveyed regular moderates you would find most of us are against Citizens United and corporate involvement in politics. It just happens that many career politicians happen to be moderate and also in the corporate sway.

But having a ruling class carve out financial benefits for themselves is not unique to moderates or capitalists or the United States. I can point to EVERY socialist nation throughout history and demonstrate that the same tendency for the controlling few to carve out elite benefits for themselves. In fact it seems to me to be more of a thing in socialist countries than capitalist countries historically.

Moderates aren’t the problem, corporate influence in politics is the problem. I am all for voting out Schumer, Jeffries et al, but I won’t vote for a socialist as a replacement.

what is "the problem" you're discussing here?

i don't think moderate positions are necessarily pro corporate money in politics. but i think in practice, that's exactly what has occurred in recent decades. i don't foresee that changing anytime soon.

personally, i don't really care whether someone opposes corporate money in politics (or any issue, really) if you aren't willing to vote on who will change or address it. i've had my fill of politicians and other people who state what they care about or what their values are - but then vote for status quo at every opportunity.

again - i've never supported (here or anywhere else) DSA. but we have a decades of experience on what moderate, centrist dems say and do. if you think change is necessary, then you have to actually pursue change.

does that change have to be with a socialist? of course not. i guess it's just a coincidence that everyone actually advocating for change gets that label.

 

[SB_SB]

The rise in what people now call socialism feels like a youth movement driven by the economic pressures being faced by young adults who came of age during a time when they have low wages, many with high student debt and housing costs that make the American dream out of reach for most of them. For that reason they're dissatisfied with the status quo and souring on capitalism because it's not meeting their needs.

Viewed through that lens, you can understand why this younger generation seems radicalized, when in reality, it's the equivalent of screaming from the rooftops that no one is listening and this is their way of getting the attention of the powers that be who ignore them.

I agree we should all reject the extreme platform we see on the DSA's website but I wonder if we're over-reacting, when maybe we should do a litlle bit of listening. If some of them do get elected, the realities of governing will constrain them from going too far so maybe we should take a deep breath and see it for what it is. A cry for out with the old and in with the new - who knows, it might end up being better for all of us if they're influential in implementing some of their more popular policy ideas.

MAGA was also a cry for out with the old and in with the new. The problem is it comes with extremism and leaders who aren't just crying out, like trump. At this point we're all waiting for trump to die in hope that MAGA goes way. The DSA is a different animal and won't be going away by a single death (by old age). When normal people start accepting (or unwilling to confront) the extremism, then the minority become the majority just by speaking louder.

 

[BelemNole]

It's amazing that we're watching the deconstruction of our democracy in real time and yet the conversation is about what the DSA MIGHT DO if they increase their support by 1000%

 

[SB_SB]

It's amazing that we're watching the deconstruction of our democracy in real time and yet the conversation is about what the DSA MIGHT DO if they increase their support by 1000%

The DSA literally wants to destroy our democracy as well. For some of us, we're fighting two battles now, the far left and the far right.

Remember, everyone had a jolly of a time laughing at trump when he said he might run. Remember that, the statement was, what harm can he cause, he's a single person. The thought was, here's no way he could take over the republican party. If one man can do, the DSA should have an easier time, especially with people downplaying what they're trying to accomplish.

 

[dpic73]

MAGA was also a cry for out with the old and in with the new. The problem is it comes with extremism and leaders who aren't just crying out, like trump. At this point we're all waiting for trump to die in hope that MAGA goes way. The DSA is a different animal and won't be going away by a single death (by old age). When normal people start accepting (or unwilling to confront) the extremism, then the minority become the majority just by speaking louder.

I believe they will be going away, especially if they lose elections like they did in WI last night. When the voters looked more closely at their platforms, they rejected the DSA candidate as unelectable in favor of another candidate who didn't exactly light the world on fire himself. That's a warning flare right there, so it defies your argument that people will start accepting the extremism, when last night was a sign that it may be going in reverse after all the fear-mongering. In other words, the noise is having an effect. Now that more people have heard the words of the party chairs for themselves, they are rejecting their vision. Deep breaths...

 

[jimneffer]

The DSA literally wants to destroy our democracy as well. For some of us, we're fighting two battles now, the far left and the far right.

Remember, everyone had a jolly of a time laughing at trump when he said he might run. Remember that, the statement was, what harm can he cause, he's a single person. The thought was, here's no way he could take over the republican party. If one man can do, the DSA should have an easier time, especially with people downplaying what they're trying to accomplish.

i'm fine with saying I don't support the DSA

i'm not fine with saying I don't support any politician that has ever had a connection or been accused of a connection with DSA

i don't think every political movement or ideology that I disagree with is an insidious plot

 

[SB_SB]

I believe they will be going away, especially if they lose elections like they did in WI last night. When the voters looked more closely at their platforms, they rejected the DSA candidate as unelectable in favor of another candidate who didn't exactly light the world on fire himself. That's a warning flare right there, so it defies your argument that people will start accepting the extremism, when last night was a sign that it may be going in reverse after all the fear-mongering. In other words, the noise is having an effect. Now that more people have heard the words of the party chairs for themselves, they are rejecting their vision. Deep breaths...

That election could have gone either way. One election doesn't mean they're going way. Trump lost to Biden and guess who's back.

 

[SB_SB]

i'm fine with saying I don't support the DSA

i'm not fine with saying I don't support any politician that has ever had a connection or been accused of a connection with DSA

i don't think every political movement or ideology that I disagree with is an insidious plot

This post is totally different than your other posts.

 

[DailyBuck7]

I haven't done a deep dive on the DSA ideologies, but I suppose I'm not opposed to most of what I've seen (outside of the rage bait). However, maga (and some establishment Dems) are really using the DSA to stoke fear and propaganda. So lets look at their level of influence:

• DSA: ~120,000 members as of July 2026 vs. ~45.4 million registered Democrats as of April 2026
• So DSA members equal roughly 0.25% of registered Democrats or about 1 in every 380.
• DSA's largest chapter (NYC, ~14,200) is a rounding error next to New York State's 6.0 million registered Democrats.
  
  
• DSA currently has 2 House members (AOC, Tlaib) and is on track for five in the U.S. House after the general election, barring upsets and 0 senators vs. Democrats currently holding 214 of 435 House seats and 47 of 100 Senate seats.
• So DSA is about 1% of the House Democratic caucus today, potentially ~2% next Congress
  
  
• DSA: roughly 216 elected officials, mostly local and state-level vs. Democrats: they hold roughly half of the country's ~7,400 state legislative seats alone (~3,000+), plus 23 governorships, thousands of mayoralties, and hundreds of thousands of local offices.
• DSA's footprint is well under 1% of Democratic officeholders — though concentrated in visible places (NYC mayor, blocs in Albany and Chicago).
  
  
• DSA: dues-funded, roughly $5–6M/year in income historically, with a national surplus of about $2 million vs. Democratic Party: the DNC, DSCC, and DCCC alone raised a cumulative $310 million as of November 30, 2025, and all House and Senate candidates combined raised $2.1 billion through March 31, 2026.
• The entire DSA annual budget is roughly what a single competitive House race costs — and less than 15% of what Jon Ossoff alone raised in 2025 ($43 million).
  
  
• DSA: ~150 backed candidates this cycle, with 35 through their primaries so far vs. Democrats fielding candidates in essentially all 435 House races and 35 Senate races, plus 36 governorships and thousands of legislative seats

The DSA is an incredibly tiny wing of the DNC. Sure, it may grow in influence in the future, but really really hard to ever see that happening on the scale that MAGA did when it took over the Republican party.

Some of their ideas will influence and get absorbed in the DNC platform, but the fear, rage, and scare baiting by maga (and others) is outsized and stupid.

Don't be propagandized.

Maybe you want to watch the DSA co-chair, who is beyond stupid try to speak.

 

[tigres88]

It's amazing that we're watching the deconstruction of our democracy in real time and yet the conversation is about what the DSA MIGHT DO if they increase their support by 1000%

This- AOC said it best, "All this talk of communism and socialism and we can't even get Healthcare to everyone. We can't even get affordable HOUSING to the masses. We are so far from anything near socialism or communism that this is all faux outrage and scare tactics by the right"

 

[tigres88]

Maybe you want to watch the DSA co-chair, who is beyond stupid try to speak.

She's a terrible spokesperson, and it's already been said. Further, this thread has nothing to do with their platform, but the propaganda and scare tactics done by your ilk. So pipe down

 

[Moogy]

AI Overview




The core demographic supporting the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) consists of highly educated individuals who are "downwardly mobile"—holding college or post-graduate degrees but earning relatively low incomes (such as under $60,000 a year). This group often experiences financial strain, debt, or a mismatch between their high educational credentials and their actual economic status.

The "Downwardly Mobile" Dynamic

• 
  
• • The Core Data: Analyses (including membership data and political commentary like Nate Silver's breakdown) note that a massive portion of the DSA base has a college degree, yet a substantial percentage reports modest household incomes. [1, 2]
  • Elite Overproduction: Commentators tie this phenomenon to Peter Turchin’s "elite overproduction" theory. This concept suggests that society produces more high-credentialed graduates than there are high-status, well-paying professional jobs available, creating a frustrated stratum of educated workers. [1, 2]
  • Grievance and Community: Observers argue that this demographic feels economically squeezed despite elite background or expectations. The DSA provides them with a political ideology, an explanation for their downward trajectory, and a collective community. [1, 2, 3, 4]
  Criticisms and Politics
  • • Class vs. Credentials: Critics point out a contradiction: while the DSA champions the traditional working class, its active base is largely composed of downwardly mobile professionals or over-credentialed youth rather than traditional blue-collar workers. [1, 2, 3]
    • Political Impact: This alignment explains why socialist messaging gains traction in deep-blue, high-cost urban areas among young professionals, but often struggles to expand into a broader multi-class or non-college working-class coalition. [1, 2]

 

[dpic73]

That election could have gone either way. One election doesn't mean they're going way. Trump lost to Biden and guess who's back.

The polls showed her 20 points up before the party chairs were interviewed on national tv so she was thought to be a slam dunk before voters realized how extreme a DSA candidate could be. I see a gradual movement left led by young people, not the whack-a-doodle extremes seen on the DSA's website.