Call themselves FDR Democrats, for example, but the word "socialism" (even apart from being inaccurate as applied to American social programs) is anathema. Too many voters associate it, correctly or not, with Soviet-style collectivism. It's political poison. Any candidate who identifies him/herself as a socialist of any kind is shooting him/herself in the foot. People won't listen to complex explanations about economics and how Democratic socialists don't really want people to move to collective farms.

Valuing human lives over confederate statues, getting vaccinated, and, oh yeah, not wanting to get shot in school will still all be "socialism" according to Republicans.

It's not that "socialism" is political poison, the political poison is the party and ideology that is all but openly saying not acting like a sociopath is "SOCIALISM!!!"

We'd be even better off declaring that party and ideology not a legitimate faction in American politics.

will tell you that language is a living thing and grows to fits society's need to express itself. That's up to dem leadership to redefine this .which also isn't going to happen

don’t know the struggle going on in Europe to keep social democracy programs afloat in the face of
rising and bitter protest over taxes, how these systems are being impacted, threatened. FDR is a good association with what we should be talking about as the social net, and Canada probably the best model for single payer as the NHS is going bankrupt and being privatized.
Finally, some of America’s immigrants and their descendants are very, very wary of socialism.

This progressive dalliance could lose the election.

California under Gavin Newsom’s leadership just passed a bill to give undocumented immigrants between ages 19-26 who are low-income full healthcare benefits. We have other excellent medical
programs low cost or free. The bill to extend full benefits to all undocumented immigrants was not passed, but it was under consideration and will be again.

Last time I looked we are still not a socialist state or a social democracy.

a democrat.

right track by posing current socialism for our oligarchs/corporations against a fairer socialism for the middle class/workers.

only people who are trying to promote socialism need to explain it and try to sell it

Except for one (and he's not a Democrat). Then the rest of the field is forced to defend attacks against that one person's party affiliation.

Republicans call everything they don't like "socialism".

In one breath they'll talk about how the U.S. is "the leader of the free world", and in the next decry "European socialism" as if it was about Warsaw Pact police states and not industrialized democracies.

If you take the Republican version of what counts as "socialism" at face value, we spent the Cold War as a "socialist" nation. I guess capitalism didn't win after all?

Reagan got his start in politics shilling a view that the then-pending Medicare would be "socialized medicine" and be a way to indoctrinate Americans to Marxism. Ask people over 65 whether Medicare made them into Marxists.

What we need to explain and educate people about socialism is that Re[publicans use the word as something to throw at people, and they'll call anything "socialist" if it gets in their way.

....they are losing.

because the majority of Americans agree with the policies of Democratic Socialists will do more for them... the left wing of the Democratic Party big tent

...and their ever-ballooning definition of the word.

If you want to make any progress teaching and explaining, first you have to break the reinforcement mechanism.

And there is no quote correctly contrary to the reply

People who have already come to a conclusion are not swayed by facts. This has been proven time and time again psychologically. You will never sway people who are convinced that Democrats are socialists. It's a waste of time and resources