I think it deserves to be asked how much of the DSA's rise (and the rise of its fellow travelers) is organic. Cutting USAID funding helped because now these mongs have to dip into their own pockets to run campaigns, but I can't help but look at their support and wonder if it's a flash in the pan. Democrats are (rightfully) playing up the success of far-left candidates in primaries because that's how they drum up voter interest and confidence in generals, but Clinton's primary victory in 2016 was not a portent for the general election.
It also seems (to me, anyway) that far-left political victories are contained to big cities that already struggle to balance a budget. You might get a Mamdani politician winning in your state's biggest city, but that politician could fumble the whole thing, drive the city into bankruptcy, and cause a right-wing backlash. Or, in some cases, that super-left-wing person might backtrack and become more centrist by necessity once in office, and then get trashed by the true believers who say this person was a traitor. This scenario leads to true radicals edging out in elections, maybe, but then they're too fucking stupid to administrate.
The big problem with a lot of left-wing radicals and they run like legislators for administrative positions. Being a radical leftist can work in the legislature, but it doesn't work when you have to run a city or state.
