Is the Democratic Party quietly embracing a socialist transformation from within?

[SolitarySolace]

Recent democratic-socialist victories are raising a larger question about the future of the Democratic Party.

RNC Research compiled statements from prominent Democrats responding to the socialist/progressive wing’s growing influence. Raphael Warnock, Chris Murphy, Seth Moulton, and Johnny Olszewski have all defended Democrats as a “big tent” party. Bernie Sanders has celebrated progressive and democratic-socialist victories. AOC called socialism’s momentum a “very good sign for November.” Ro Khanna said the progressive movement is “on the ascendancy,” while Jim Clyburn acknowledged that socialism can play well politically.

The compilation also highlights Cory Booker, Jamie Raskin, Ami Bera, Cori Bush, Alex Bores, and Brad Lander discussing accommodation of or cooperation with the socialist wing.

Zohran Mamdani has gone even further, arguing that recent democratic-socialist victories represent a vision extending “beyond the midterms” and “beyond 2028.”

This matters because the DSA generally does not compete as a separate national third party. Its candidates commonly run through Democratic primaries and seek influence from within the Democratic electoral coalition.

That does not mean every Democrat is a socialist. There are still establishment and moderate Democrats resisting that direction. But DSA-backed candidates are winning races, socialist politicians are gaining influence, and more Democrats appear willing to treat them as part of the party’s governing coalition.

I strongly oppose that direction. The DSA agenda goes far beyond a few popular economic proposals and includes major changes to America’s economic and political institutions.

So is this merely one faction gaining influence—or are we watching the Democratic Party gradually embrace a socialist transformation from within?

Yes

No

Updates

1 mo

Democrats are Fully Embracing the Socialist Takeover of Their Party - x.com/rncresearch/status/2071671674144207196?s=46

[Chazmatazz269]

What is so “quiet” about it? They’ve been screaming it for years.
Let’s not pretend that the republicans have no accountability. Republicans leaving the entire public education system to the democrats to control resulted in far and away the worst education for the money spent in all the world. Even graduates are the dumbest they’ve been in generations. They go off to college and continue their radical leftist indoctrination. They spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on useless degrees and the democrats promise them “tuition forgiveness”.
You have to be brain dead to not see this coming.
Republicans did nothing to stop it. So they are complicit, at the minimum.
Regardless of what “system” we claim, socialism or capitalism or any other nonsense, the rich always get richer and the poor always get poorer. I defy anyone to point to any economic system in human history that was immune to greed and corruption.
It has always been the “haves” versus the “have-nots”, and the haves always win.

[SolitarySolace]

@Chazmatazz Fair point on the word “quietly.” At this stage, much of it isn’t particularly quiet. Democratic socialists are openly celebrating their victories and openly organizing to build greater political power.

The reason I used “from within” is more important. The DSA generally is not trying to compete with Democrats as a conventional national third party. Its electoral strategy includes supporting socialist candidates in Democratic primaries, and DSA itself says its electoral work is part of building broader political power. Its current endorsement process also says endorsed candidates’ platforms must align with DSA’s political platform and theory of power.

And the electoral effort is not imaginary. DSA publications counted almost 90 endorsed candidates in the 2026 cycle, including more than a dozen congressional candidates, and the organization has been openly celebrating a series of recent victories.

[SolitarySolace]

Where I’d push back on your comment is the idea that Republicans are simply “complicit” because they supposedly did nothing. Republicans have certainly made mistakes, and I’m perfectly willing to criticize them when they fail. But the people choosing to organize, run, endorse and vote for democratic-socialist candidates are responsible for those political choices. I’m not going to transfer responsibility for the growth of socialism from the movement advocating it to the people opposing it.

I also agree with your broader point that no economic system eliminates greed or corruption. Human beings remain human beings under capitalism, socialism or anything else. But that is actually one reason I distrust systems that concentrate substantially more economic and political power in government or collective institutions. Greed does not disappear when private ownership disappears; the people wielding state power can be greedy and corrupt too.

So I’d revise my headline before I’d abandon the argument: this is becoming less of a quiet socialist transformation and more of an increasingly open struggle over the future direction of the Democratic Party.

[OlderAndWiser]

I hope so. This will fracture the Democrats for the next 20 years.

[SolitarySolace]

That or it would make future elections against republicans even more dangerous because if a democratic socialist were to win, say, the presidency, say goodbye to the system as we know it and hello to a second constitution that the people of this country will have to choose between which to follow and this includes people in positions of power like governors and judges

[SolitarySolace]

They would simply declare their constitution valid and the people would have to choose between the founders constitution and the DSA constitution while the DSA president works to find a way to abolish the senate and scotus and make the presidency and everything else subordinate to the house

[SolitarySolace]

Constitutional crisis + civil war anyone?

[OlderAndWiser]

So you favor a dictatorship?

[SolitarySolace]

@OlderAndWiser No. I do not favor dictatorship. You are confusing my warning about a hypothetical attempt to overthrow the constitutional order with support for that attempt.

My concern is this: suppose a democratic-socialist president declared a newly drafted constitution valid without lawful ratification. That declaration would be legally void because Article V—not a presidential proclamation—governs constitutional change. The existing Constitution would remain the supreme law of the land.

But constitutional safeguards do not enforce themselves. If enough ideological allies in Congress prevented impeachment or conviction, sympathetic judges accepted the administration’s actions, executive officials obeyed, and parts of the states or military divided over which authority to recognize, America could face a genuine constitutional crisis. There still would not be two legally valid constitutions; there would be the lawful Constitution confronting an attempted extra-constitutional regime.

This is relevant because the DSA’s own official program says it seeks to “draft a new constitution” and create a “democratic socialist republic.” I am not claiming that electing one democratic socialist would automatically accomplish that. I am warning against allowing a movement committed to that transformation to accumulate sufficient power throughout the institutions meant to prevent it.

My answer is not dictatorship. My answer is preserving the existing Constitution, checks and balances, lawful elections, and defeating democratic-socialist candidates before they acquire the institutional power necessary to attempt such a transformation. Destroying constitutional government to save constitutional government would be self-defeating.

[OlderAndWiser]

Thanks for clearing up my misunderstanding.

[strateguy632]

Absolutely they could exclude fanatics as "not representing the party" but run them inside without schumer criticizing the differences.

[exitseven]

yes, they are going full bore commie.

[fishbone77]

seems like they are.