Most Under-40 Voters Favor Socialism

[S1e2t3h]

Rasmussen Reports, September 04, 2025

A new national telephone and online survey by Rasmussen Reports and StoppingSocialism.com finds that 53% of Likely U.S. Voters ages 18 to 39 would like to see a democratic socialist candidate win the 2028 presidential election. Twenty-seven percent (27%) of under-40 voters would not want to see a democratic socialist elected president in 2028, and 20% are not sure.

Under-40 voters were asked to agree or disagree with this statement: “Major Industries like health care, energy, and big tech should be nationalized to give more control and equity to the people.” Seventy-six percent (76%) agree, including 39% who Strongly Agree. Just 18% disagree.

The survey of 1,201 U.S. Likely Voters ages 18 to 39 was conducted on August 26-27, 2025 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC.

https://www.rasmussenreports.com/pu...DN&utm_source=criticalimpact&utm_medium=email

Rasmussen Reports frequently slants things in a rightwing direction. Young people were born after the end of the Cold War, so red baiting does not work for them. They see an economy of declining opportunities for them, while the number of billionaires and millionaires increases.

Come the revolution…

 

[Wilson23]

Come the revolution…

Gon' be no more limousines!

 

[JohnEngelman]

Come the revolution…

Revolutions usually exchange one tyranny for another. I want a second New Deal with a third President Roosevelt.

 

[Chadrone]

Life is better in the social democracies than here or anywhere else in the world.

You mean the more capitalist nations??

With strict immigration policies???

The ones you wouldn't DARE to try and move too because they would laugh you the fuck off and tell your broke loser ass to stay in America so you don't burden THEIR welfare system like a bunch of MAGA's would??

Yea.....

THEY ain't overregulated shitholes.

Yea, they're more capitalist.

And, yes, happiness IS more important than freedom.

Only if your "happiness" is being dependent on the "collective".......not everyone is a lemming like you.

Not that those countries have had to choose.

They have in some ways.

You can be free or well kept, you can't be both.

 

[Wilson23]

Of course we're not about to have a socialist revolution in the U.S., violent or electoral. What this polling does mean is that socialist and social-democratic options are going to grow a little bit more viable with every election cycle. But we can't expect any drastic systemic change to happen as abruptly as, say, the racial revolution of the 1960s, when suddenly the value of white supremacy was no longer the national consensus. It will happen, but on a generational timescale.

 

[Wilson23]

You mean the more capitalist nations??

As a matter of fact, the social democracies do rank high on the Index of Economic Freedom.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_of_Economic_Freedom

 

[Chadrone]

As a matter of fact, the social democracies do rank high on the Index of Economic Freedom.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_of_Economic_Freedom

Yea, because they're more capitalist. RIGHT WING.

 

[Hel_Books]

As a matter of fact, the social democracies do rank high on the Index of Economic Freedom.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_of_Economic_Freedom

Societies spend money for the common social goods, whether it's building roads, educating citizens, military defence, health care or whatever.

The people who demonize all that as "socialism" don't know the definition of the word!

 

[Chadrone]

Societies spend money for the common social goods, whether it's building roads, educating citizens, military defence, health care or whatever.

The people who demonize all that as "socialism" don't know the definition of the word!

But socialist like to lean on that......"Well if you want to keep any right to your labor/property you must not support having ROADS!!!" LOL

They always lean on that shit as if you can't have civil services without a totallitarian communist regime enforcing the Ultra-Karen ideal.

 

[Wilson23]

Societies spend money for the common social goods, whether it's building roads, educating citizens, military defence, health care or whatever.

Well, I don't like the way both supporters and opponents of socialsm tend to apply the name to any tax-funded public service. Socialism, even democratic socialism, requires at minimum the nationalization or in some sense the socialization of some significant part of the means of production.

 

[Wilson23]

Yea, because they're more capitalist. RIGHT WING.

Well, however you classify what they're doing, we could learn from it. Nothing works there that couldn't work here.

 

[Hel_Books]

Hel_Books said:
Societies spend money for the common social goods, whether it's building roads, educating citizens, military defence, health care or whatever.

The people who demonize all that as "socialism" don't know the definition of the word!

But socialist like to lean on that......"Well if you want to keep any right to your labor/property you must not support having ROADS!!!" LOL

They always lean on that shit as if you can't have civil services without a totallitarian communist regime enforcing the Ultra-Karen ideal.

Don't be silly. The definition of socialism includes control or ownership of the "commanding heights" of the economy by society as a whole, not the abolition of your right to your labour or your personal property!

Interesting that you should refer to labour, though. Isn't it the right-wing thing to crush unions and oppress labour?

 

[Hel_Books]

Well, I don't like the way both supporters and opponents of socialsm tend to apply the name to any tax-funded public service. Socialism, even democratic socialism, requires at minimum the nationalization or in some sense the socialization of some significant part of the means of production.

That's why so many people criticize the USA's bank bailouts, agribusiness subsidies etc. etc. etc. as "socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor"!

 

[Chadrone]

Well, I don't like the way both supporters and opponents of socialsm tend to apply the name to any tax-funded public service. Socialism, even democratic socialism, requires at minimum the nationalization or in some sense the socialization of some significant part of the means of production.

The social democracies you tout as socialist sucess stores manage to not do that.

You psychotic authoritarian control freaks are wrong.

 

[Wilson23]

That's why so many people criticize the USA's bank bailouts, agribusiness subsidies etc. etc. etc. as "socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor"!

Well, it does bolster a Marxist POV, that the state will usually do what those with money want it to. Not that you have to be a Marxist to see that happening.

 

[Hel_Books]

Wilson23 said:
Well, I don't like the way both supporters and opponents of socialsm tend to apply the name to any tax-funded public service. Socialism, even democratic socialism, requires at minimum the nationalization or in some sense the socialization of some significant part of the means of production.

The social democracies you tout as socialist sucess stores manage to not do that.

You psychotic authoritarian control freaks are wrong.

Why is it that right-wingers think Sweden and places like that are "authoritarian" but then they cozy up to Putin, Orban & Co.?

 

[Wilson23]

The social democracies you tout as socialist sucess stores manage to not do that.

You psychotic authoritarian control freaks are wrong.

Great! Let's be a social democracy! You'll love it!
Generally, what distinguishes a social democracy from the American version of capitalism is:
1) A vigorous welfare state.
2) A redistributive tax system.
3) Pro-worker labor policies, including official involvement of unions in their formation.
4) Some sort of dirigisme in its industrial policy.

This environment turns out to be perfectly friendly to the emergence of a lot of innovative business enterprises, and there is nothing about it that could not be made to work just as well here.

 

[Rightguide]

Rasmussen Reports, September 04, 2025

A new national telephone and online survey by Rasmussen Reports and StoppingSocialism.com finds that 53% of Likely U.S. Voters ages 18 to 39 would like to see a democratic socialist candidate win the 2028 presidential election. Twenty-seven percent (27%) of under-40 voters would not want to see a democratic socialist elected president in 2028, and 20% are not sure.

Under-40 voters were asked to agree or disagree with this statement: “Major Industries like health care, energy, and big tech should be nationalized to give more control and equity to the people.” Seventy-six percent (76%) agree, including 39% who Strongly Agree. Just 18% disagree.

The survey of 1,201 U.S. Likely Voters ages 18 to 39 was conducted on August 26-27, 2025 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC.

https://www.rasmussenreports.com/pu...DN&utm_source=criticalimpact&utm_medium=email

Rasmussen Reports frequently slants things in a rightwing direction. Young people were born after the end of the Cold War, so red baiting does not work for them. They see an economy of declining opportunities for them, while the number of billionaires and millionaires increases.

We all know this is the dumbest generation in US history as well. They know nothing about the history of the country, its constitution, or American culture. They only know what the treasonous left, who dominate the education system, tells them. Saw a video interview the other day, a majority of the kids interviewed didn't know what 9-11 was.

 

[JohnEngelman]

We all know this is the dumbest generation in US history as well. They know nothing about the history of the country, its constitution, or American culture. They only know what the treasonous left, who dominate the education system, tells them. Saw a video interview the other day, a majority of the kids interviewed didn't know what 9-11 was.

It is easy to do a video interview asking a controversial question and only showing the stupid answers.

One does not get places in politics by changing peoples' minds. One gets places by channeling and articulating opinions that already exist. Young people know that that they are working harder for less than their parents were at their ages, and that the rich keep getting richer.

 

[Chadrone]

It is easy to do a video interview asking a controversial question and only showing the stupid answers.

One does not get places in politics by changing peoples' minds. One gets places by channeling and articulating opinions that already exist. Young people know that that they are working harder for less than their parents were at their ages, and that the rich keep getting richer.

Sure they don't realize it's socialism that's causing that though.

Turns out when you regulate entire industries/markets into the hands of the few, and then use "COMMON SENSE REGULATIONS!!" Like million dollar licencing you need a million dollar army of lawyers and some congress critters in your back pocket to even apply for......... ya know, socialism. The rich keep getting richer.

Buuut morons seem to think MORE GOVERNMENT!! MORE REGULATIONS!!! MORE TAXES!!!! = prosperity for the lil guy....LOL what a bunch of fucking retards.

 

[JohnEngelman]

Sure they don't realize it's socialism that's causing that though.

Turns out when you regulate entire industries/markets into the hands of the few, and then use "COMMON SENSE REGULATIONS!!" Like million dollar licencing you need a million dollar army of lawyers and some congress critters in your back pocket to even apply for......... ya know, socialism. The rich keep getting richer.

Buuut morons seem to think MORE GOVERNMENT!! MORE REGULATIONS!!! MORE TAXES!!!! = prosperity for the lil guy....LOL what a bunch of fucking retards.

There was more economic inequality during the Gilded Era. It was alleviated during the Progressive Era and the New Deal when the government moved in a socialist direction.

 

[ll74]

Sure they don't realize it's socialism that's causing that though.

Turns out when you regulate entire industries/markets into the hands of the few, and then use "COMMON SENSE REGULATIONS!!" Like million dollar licencing you need a million dollar army of lawyers and some congress critters in your back pocket to even apply for......... ya know, socialism. The rich keep getting richer.

Buuut morons seem to think MORE GOVERNMENT!! MORE REGULATIONS!!! MORE TAXES!!!! = prosperity for the lil guy....LOL what a bunch of fucking retards.

Here's some tips from ChatGPT regarding your arguments:

Bottom line
Strong intuition, sloppy framing.
The real issue you’re circling is:
Government complexity + political influence → market concentration → upward redistribution of power
But by:
Calling it socialism
Treating all regulation as equivalent
Skipping incentive-based analysis
You give critics multiple easy exits.
If you want, I can rebuild the same argument in a way that:
Survives economic scrutiny
Can’t be dismissed with definitions
Still hits hard without softening the message

 

[Rightguide]

Socialists Suffering Seismic Shakes in Spain​

Beege Welborn 11:20 AM | December 24, 2025

https://media.townhall.com/cdn/hodl/2018/263/be6138c9-56f2-44ac-9860-71917cee54c0-1052x615.jpgAP Photo/Kerstin Joensson

I know that these lessons now being taught to our European brethren will be ignored by our routinely and supremely confident socialists here, but the fact remains, and the lesson never ends differently - The s**t doesn't ever work. EVER.

Prime Minister Sanchez's star had been dimming with the Spanish people before this year, but the past nine months have been brutal. His attempt to raise his profile on the world stage by attending the annual World Economic Forum soiree made him look more like a pathetic social climber. Besides a politically mortally wounded Olaf Scholz, Sanchez turned out to be the only government head of any note to attend. Everyone from Asia to Washington avoided Davos like the plague.


That was only the start of his terrible year.

At the end of April, sixty million Spaniards and a good chunk of pissed-off Frenchmen had their lives grind to a halt and were plunged into the dark. They had no power thanks to Sanchez's rickety renewables blowing the entire grid for the Iberian Peninsula and beyond.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1916885476352659705

https://hotair.com/tree-hugging-sis...ts-suffering-seismic-shakes-in-spain-n3810218

 

[Rightguide]

Here's some tips from ChatGPT regarding your arguments:

Bottom line
Strong intuition, sloppy framing.
The real issue you’re circling is:
Government complexity + political influence → market concentration → upward redistribution of power
But by:
Calling it socialism
Treating all regulation as equivalent
Skipping incentive-based analysis
You give critics multiple easy exits.
If you want, I can rebuild the same argument in a way that:
Survives economic scrutiny
Can’t be dismissed with definitions
Still hits hard without softening the message

 

[rainsol]

Rasmussen Reports, September 04, 2025

A new national telephone and online survey by Rasmussen Reports and StoppingSocialism.com finds that 53% of Likely U.S. Voters ages 18 to 39 would like to see a democratic socialist candidate win the 2028 presidential election. Twenty-seven percent (27%) of under-40 voters would not want to see a democratic socialist elected president in 2028, and 20% are not sure.

Under-40 voters were asked to agree or disagree with this statement: “Major Industries like health care, energy, and big tech should be nationalized to give more control and equity to the people.” Seventy-six percent (76%) agree, including 39% who Strongly Agree. Just 18% disagree.

The survey of 1,201 U.S. Likely Voters ages 18 to 39 was conducted on August 26-27, 2025 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC.

https://www.rasmussenreports.com/pu...DN&utm_source=criticalimpact&utm_medium=email

Rasmussen Reports frequently slants things in a rightwing direction. Young people were born after the end of the Cold War, so red baiting does not work for them. They see an economy of declining opportunities for them, while the number of billionaires and millionaires increases.

What a bunch of horseshit, they want free everything and that isnt socialism. The dems have fucked up everything they touch and then when its overprice like Obama No Care, they piss and moan. Wait for the turds get hit with garnishment to find out Joe lied about free college or your loans are forgiven. Nothings free