How are they acheiving this; what material evidence do you have of this? They are considered a threat by both Dems and GOP, wouldn’t a spoiler party be allowed to operate in the space like the Green party has in the past (which is a known spoiler party)? If that’s the case why the opposition to them?
A spoiler candidate is not what you are describing, a spoiler candidate is someone that splits votes in an election in a way that impacts the outcome for another candidate.
Al-Sayad is not DSA endorsed. Sanders and AOC aren’t even in DSA. Mamdani is doing pacman politics and of course that comes with abandoning previous positions.
De La Cruz has yet to be in any position of power. I could point to any of your examples at the same point in their campaigns as De La Cruz and there would be no difference. It wasn’t until after their appointment they changed their tunes. Read the article above for more context on this, it addresses this very issue, esp the section on the Louisiana leadership.
For those that don’t know anything about the internals of DSA, NYC DSA is part of rightwing of the org. Very opportunist but have enough weight to cause shakeups when they don’t get their way. There is a whole debacle right now about them threatening to split because they want to be a standard NGO and not a revolutionary org that doesn’t have to listen to the national org, and that should indicate to you how the rest of the org is relative to them.
That is because that was an avenue they had, and this is an example of why DSA has run under the Democratic name in certain states. Similar stuff happens with DSA, for example the Nevada democrats essentially liquidated their party to prevent DSA from being able to function post election. They were also not supported by Democrats to the point you made earlier.
Have you considered they only did this in swing states because they were viewing her as a spoiler candidate?
What did you learn? How do you share this information? I’m skeptical of your learning without evidence because you’ve already misused a common term but if you can present material evidence then I’m happy to learn from it.
No, I’m saying they’re a spoiler party meant to keep parties acceptable to power structures in place.
How are they acheiving this; what material evidence do you have of this? They are considered a threat by both Dems and GOP, wouldn’t a spoiler party be allowed to operate in the space like the Green party has in the past (which is a known spoiler party)? If that’s the case why the opposition to them?
A threat the way Obama and AOC and Sanders were.
Let’s see, Mamdami met with Trump, was praised by him, threw his wife under the bus, “Israel has a right to exist,” Dems eventually supported him.
Al-Sayed had a nice call with Obama, “Israel has a right to exist,” Dems got behind him.
You know who wasn’t supported by Dems? De La Cruz.
A spoiler candidate is not what you are describing, a spoiler candidate is someone that splits votes in an election in a way that impacts the outcome for another candidate.
Al-Sayad is not DSA endorsed. Sanders and AOC aren’t even in DSA. Mamdani is doing pacman politics and of course that comes with abandoning previous positions.
De La Cruz has yet to be in any position of power. I could point to any of your examples at the same point in their campaigns as De La Cruz and there would be no difference. It wasn’t until after their appointment they changed their tunes. Read the article above for more context on this, it addresses this very issue, esp the section on the Louisiana leadership.
For those that don’t know anything about the internals of DSA, NYC DSA is part of rightwing of the org. Very opportunist but have enough weight to cause shakeups when they don’t get their way. There is a whole debacle right now about them threatening to split because they want to be a standard NGO and not a revolutionary org that doesn’t have to listen to the national org, and that should indicate to you how the rest of the org is relative to them.
Pick all you want, De La Cruz is the only candidate Dems sued to keep off the ballot, and only in swing states. That says it all.
That is because that was an avenue they had, and this is an example of why DSA has run under the Democratic name in certain states. Similar stuff happens with DSA, for example the Nevada democrats essentially liquidated their party to prevent DSA from being able to function post election. They were also not supported by Democrats to the point you made earlier.
Have you considered they only did this in swing states because they were viewing her as a spoiler candidate?
Yeah I considered these things in my 20s, 30s, and 40s. Then I learned.
What did you learn? How do you share this information? I’m skeptical of your learning without evidence because you’ve already misused a common term but if you can present material evidence then I’m happy to learn from it.
Nah. Do you. That’s the best learning.