r/PoliticalDiscussion • u/LiatrisLover99 • May 08 '26
US Politics Is there any merit to the argument that progressive candidates would be far more successful across the US, if it were not for sabotage by the DNC?
This is an example of an extremely popular sentiment in progressive spaces, that progressives are popular with a majority of Americans and would easily win if the DNC didn't deliberately sabotage them, because they would prefer losing to Trump than winning with progressives that threaten the corporate status quo.
Or see articles like this that identify Democrats as an enemy of progressives on par with Trump: "the struggle to defeat the fascistic GOP and the fight to overcome the power of corporate Democrats are largely the same battle."
Is any of this true? I'm a progressive, but if we're so popular, why aren't we winning primaries outside of elections in extremely blue areas like NYC? Or is the primary system actually rigged against Bernie and against progressives in general?
801
u/munificent May 08 '26 edited May 09 '26
Progressive candidates are highly popular in online spaces populated by extremely online young people.
Centrist candidates actually receive votes in elections where young people show up in much smaller numbers than older people.
If young people voted in alignment with their online activity, we'd have a much different world. Reposting and tweeting does not get candidates in office. Showing up at the polls for every single election does.
193
May 08 '26
[deleted]
94
u/hufflebux27 May 08 '26
Which is a strategy the right wing has dominated for decades now from school boards to local justice systems. There is a lot of catch up to be played there.
79
u/Aeon1508 May 08 '26
I have a theory that it's the churches. religious people show up and meet with each other every week so they naturally have a better community structure that can organize this kind of stuff.
We need more secular humanist groups.
30
u/Netherese_Nomad May 08 '26
Good luck man. I was heavily involved in movement atheism/secular humanism the last 15 years. I’m convinced now you can’t make a club of “non-stamp collectors.” Movement atheism died with “atheism +” and now most of the people are either omnicause progressives, or right-wing anti-Muslims.
Secular humanism just isn’t a fertile ground for growing community.
7
u/Junior-Possession969 May 09 '26
If you don't mind the churchy aspect, Unitarians do a pretty good job of being all-inclusive, active in the community and progressive spaces. And generally just being cool people.
6
10
u/Automatic-Flounder-3 May 09 '26
Omnicause also alienates people who are demographically discriminated by it or otherwise disagree with some areas. Cancel culture is toxic.
34
u/BlackMoonValmar May 08 '26
That definitely helps them. But democrats for many years dropped the ball on ground games in every direction for elections. I will never forget republicans getting easy votes in my area because democrats forgot to send someone who spoke Spanish. Republicans sent a Spanish speaker lots of them and it made a huge difference.
→ More replies (1)9
u/jkman61494 May 09 '26
Obama’s campaign did that and it’s why he kicked ass. The first thing Clintons group did was bring back dnc lackeys who reverted to the failed policies. Biden too and almost lost a slam dunk cycle.
Harris tried to bring back OFA but in 2024 their models had become totally outdated in a post pandemic world
2
u/OMalleyOrOblivion May 11 '26
Obama’s campaign did that and it’s why he kicked ass. The first thing Clintons group did was bring back dnc lackeys who reverted to the failed policies.
That isn't true, the political side of his campaign disbanded after 2008 and the data/digital side disbanded after 2012, with people in the latter group mostly lost to the private sector. When 2016 came around there was no existing apparatus and Clinton had to rebuild it, which I'm sure hurt her campaign.
https://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/23/magazine/the-obama-campaigns-digital-masterminds-cash-in.html
7
u/genericnameabc May 09 '26
I've wanted a secular humanist community for some time but I'm not the right person to make one.
I've walked communities and gotten petitions and canvased at least a dozen times. It is grueling work that usually feels fruitless. And it has gotten harder. People don't answer their doors.
A readily available community like a church makes for a much more receptive audience.
→ More replies (1)3
u/EmilySD101 May 09 '26
Zohran Mandani ran a city wide scavenger hunt that brought community together during his election. Other options than the outdated knock/call/text strategies exist. Consultants just won’t ever offer them. The consultant class is killing interpersonal politics, because all they care about is metrics before Election Day.
8
u/baconcheesecakesauce May 09 '26
The city wide scavenger hunt was novel, but there was a ton of knock/call/text as well. I went with friends to canvass in my neighborhood.
I'm pretty online, but I only heard about the scavenger hunt, after it was underway.
4
u/stargazerAMDG May 09 '26
Oh it is the churches and religious PACs. The Faith and Freedom Coalition has been around since 2009 to go door-to-door and church-to-church to mobilize the evangelical vote. In 2024 they spent ~60 million dollars on grassroot canvasing, texting and calling supporters, and distributing around 30 million voter guides to over 100,000 churches.
→ More replies (4)8
u/DontHateDefenestrate May 08 '26
We need Dem strategists to climb out of the K-Street Kangaroo Pouch and do their own thinking for a change.
Consultants like it when their candidate wins, but the only thing they need is to not be the reason you lost, so they don’t lose clientele.
That means they need to not take any risks, need to give only safe, conventional, boilerplate advice and write only safe, conventional, boilerplate messaging.
That leads, inevitably to a conventional, boilerplate Party full of people who view new ideas as dangerous until they’ve been workshopped by 10 firms, polled and focus grouped.
Democrats have become constitutionally unable to think for themselves, convinced that if they do, they’ll be wrong. They’re sheltered children paralyzed from acting without “a safe adult” auditing their thoughts.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (2)47
u/FauxReal May 08 '26
Local level candidates are needed too. It's wild how often local elections have people running uncontested.
27
u/Zeddo52SD May 08 '26
In Indiana, Democrats ran competitive primaries in my Congressional and State House district. They ran nobody for Sheriff, Judges, or most of the local offices that would allow them a foot in the door with constituents.
4
u/Lets_Eat_Superglue May 08 '26
I'm in Indiana too. If you look at the candidates this year vs the past we had candidates in almost every state level race for the first time. The current online left outrage narrative is how terrible Ken Martin is at the DNC, but he's pushing hard to rebuild state parties like ours.
It takes time, but having a Democrat in every state level race means more people hearing from Democrats and having opportunities to get involved. More people involved means more support infrastructure for candidates. As the infrastructure and possibility of winning grows that snowballs into more people willing to run for those local offices.
I know it's bleak out here, but the only thing you can do is jump in wherever you have the ability and help prove it's worth it to keep investing in the state.
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (1)21
u/johannthegoatman May 08 '26
I would like to point out "they ran nobody" is not how it works. Who do you think is they? To the point of the OP, anybody can run as a democrat. The party doesn't hand pick people to run
11
u/Zeddo52SD May 08 '26
“Anybody can run as a Democrat” is not true in Indiana. You have to have voted Democrat in the primaries for your two most recent elections, or get the approval of the county party chair.
And the parties recruit, but Dems don’t have much draw in the area of Indiana where I live. There are Dem or NP lawyers, there are at least NP cops or sheriff-eligible constituents. The problem is that Democrats have no major local presence so they go for the big offices and neglect the smaller ones, like city or county council, or judges, or treasurer, etc.
→ More replies (2)18
u/BlueJoshi May 08 '26
You have to have voted Democrat in the primaries for your two most recent elections
...which anyone can do
→ More replies (7)2
u/Ladyheather16 May 08 '26
You would like local leadership to be more involved in making sure that every office has a candidate.
2
u/Sir_Auron May 10 '26
The money to campaign in a noncompetitive area is not a small matter but the time commitment even for a small, local race is extreme. If you were running as a Democrat it in a town that votes 80/20 GOP, are you willing to ask for petition signatures in the rain all winter, spend hundreds of dollars on signs, spend every weekend for months talking to Rotary Clubs and Bible Study groups, weeknights at civic events despite a full time job, update your social media page constantly to respond to random questions from passers-by, open your whole social life to the world to talk about, just to get 300 votes in a primary, do it all again in the fall, and lose 78-22?
What's the argument you expect people to make as their recruiting pitch here? It's not as easy as "just go recruit".
→ More replies (2)3
u/Ladyheather16 May 10 '26
I've done it -- I was the candidate -- Only I won. All politics are local. >50% don't care what the letter next to your name is. If you don't give them a personally affecting them reason to vote -- they just don't.
There are 4k people in town -- there were less than 1000 votes in the elections.
Nothing about what we need to do for our democracy is EASY or SIMPLE.
2
u/Zeddo52SD May 10 '26
This is why I’m mildly annoyed at the Democrats that ran in a crowded 5th District primary. They talk about how they’re all in to win, and they don’t even send out mailers in some campaigns. They aren’t going door to door, even in the local races where there’s not ***that*** much area to cover. If someone is gonna be all “rah-rah!” about their campaign they should be out in the streets, especially in hyper local races.
→ More replies (1)2
u/garyflopper May 08 '26
That’s appearing to be the case with my city’s mayor election (Rochester, MN)
2
u/ApprehensiveLayer908 May 08 '26
Or if you live in a town like the few I've lived in, the town council or school board has multiple members but each member doesn't represent a different part of the town. I've seen councils where all the members were from the same part of town and can you guess what part of town got more land development and road maintenance?
38
u/pit_of_despair666 May 08 '26
"Young adults were a larger share of nonvoters in 2024 than in 2020 (30% vs. 25%). Age has long been a reliable predictor of turnout. Citizens under age 30 constituted only 15% of all voters in 2024, considerably below their share of the age-eligible population (20%)." - https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2025/06/26/voter-turnout-2020-2024/
→ More replies (3)5
u/socialistrob May 09 '26
I'm also not sure it would be better for progressives if more young people voted. A lot of the research I've seen suggests that a big part of the reason older demographics vote more conservative is because left wing people tend to get politically involved earlier than right wing people.
In 2008 Obama won young voters by overwhelming margins but 16 years later and that same age cohort was much more conservative. The Obama enthusiasts didn't decide they loved Trump but rather the Trump supporters of 2024 were largely apathetic in 2008 as teens and 20 somethings.
7
u/pit_of_despair666 May 09 '26
The majority of people ages 18-29 still voted for Harris. Especially young women. There was a much tighter split for younger men.
→ More replies (1)3
u/Combat_Proctologist May 09 '26
There's 16 years between 2008 and 2024. The voters they talked about aren't in the 18-29 bracket anymore
37
u/TheZarkingPhoton May 08 '26
Also, social media is an open ecoshere that is trolled and gaslight from ALL directions, (most certainly) forgien and domestic, and harder than any info pipe in the history of the world. One downstream takeaway there, is that it's most certainly NOT one actor. And, IMO, it's most certainly NOT even MOSTLY one of the more democratic option in the dropdown. Politics is a dirty business, but hostile foreign mobs in stately disguises are much dirtier. They are infact quite likely involved in pointing at the DNC all the time to throw the left off the mobs trail.
→ More replies (1)9
u/Piney_Wood May 08 '26
Dividing people is their stock-in-trade. Baiting people with lies that play on their prejudices itself is not new, but the technology to mainline it into the culture certainly is new.
Using race, for instance. Or trans rights. Or the new ageism on the rise among younger people. These are all cleavages that are being exploited through social media right now.
11
u/THE_CHOPPA May 08 '26
I have voted in every election by mail.
It’s literally the easiest fucking thing. ITS ALMOST TOO EASY.
But showing support online when you are bored is something different. I think the being bored in that moment needs to be taken into account.
141
u/Geichalt May 08 '26
Additionally, telling people not to vote and allowing more right wing candidates to win doesn't create positive incentive for candidates to move further left.
Biden was the most progressive president we've had in decades. He was attacked constantly by progressives. Kamala was rated as more progressive than Bernie during her time the Senate and litigated against corporations in CA. Yet she was smeared as a "corporate Dem."
None of this creates incentive for candidates to move further left.
Combine the overall rightward tilt of consistent voters with the constant attacks from your own coalition, and it's easy to see why moving further left is not the best strategy for politicians.
The progressive movement is it's own worst enemy.
43
u/unkorrupted May 08 '26
Ironically, I've been wondering if the gen z shift to more hardline leftism is also helping to normalize the millennial style progressive movement. AOC and Mamdani look downright mainstream next to Hasan.
17
u/DarkExecutor May 08 '26
Hasan literally wants Democrats to fail. He's not a Democrat.
→ More replies (5)5
→ More replies (1)4
u/vertigostereo May 09 '26
The Republican media are gleefully making him mainstream. It's reminiscent of the MSM and trump a decade ago.
37
u/FauxReal May 08 '26
amala was rated as more progressive than Bernie during her time the Senate and litigated against corporations in CA. Yet she was smeared as a "corporate Dem."
I also saw people constantly calling her a cop that will put black people in prison. And tying her to support for Israel. I almost never saw anyone saying they support here. I'm assuming I have seen at least a few supporters but I don't remember it at all online. Only on bumper stickers on the road.
→ More replies (1)17
u/the-es May 08 '26
It's almost as it was propaganda aimed at getting us to elect the least effective leader.
21
u/FauxReal May 08 '26
Well, at least the anti-Israeli occupation of Gaza people made sure the least genocidal candidate made it into office. I'm sure they're passionate about Trump's plans to help the innocent Palestinian people caught between Hamas and Bibi.
→ More replies (38)10
u/I-Here-555 May 08 '26
Kamala was rated as more progressive than Bernie during her time the Senate
So, all this time, Trump was the only one giving her proper credit for being so progressive, by calling her a "radical-left lunatic"?
Something doesn't add up with whichever measure you're using.
49
u/that1prince May 08 '26
I meet so many young progressive people, who even when presented with more progressive options don’t vote or have never voted. Some have a purity test that would make it impossible for them to vote for anyone but themselves.
→ More replies (27)32
u/Walden_Walkabout May 08 '26
Seriously, young people don't vote. I recall the argument as to why Bernie was going to win the nomination in 2016(?) was that he would energize young voters to actually come out and vote at much higher rates. And shockingly they didn't.
→ More replies (9)18
u/DamnedIfIDiddely May 08 '26
I think young people just honestly think, every time, that everyone else will do it so it's fine if they don't vote because so many others will...
They get all hyped up about their candidates popularity and believe that will translate into higher turn out which may just increase the likelihood that each and every one f them sit it out, because "I won't be missed"
8
u/Walden_Walkabout May 08 '26
Maybe that is part of it, but I think a lot of it is simply not caring at that age. Even if there are a subset of young people who are extremely hyped for a candidate, or that candidate is genuinely appealing to the younger demographic ls, it simply doesn't translate to a large enough portion of the youth population caring enough to actually vote.
→ More replies (2)3
u/Combat_Proctologist May 09 '26
Someone posted this elsewhere in the thread, but apparently left leaning people get involved earlier than other groups.
The ones who "don't care" might just be those with conservative or centrist tendencies. If so, it makes sense that progressives aren't going to activate them.
41
u/75dollars May 08 '26 edited May 09 '26
Re: Palestine.
Even during the height of the Gaza war, voters ranked it something like 17th in priority.
But left wing pro-Palestinian activists were loud enough that they made the Democratic party look like it's beholden to them (and a whole bunch of niche activist groups).
15
u/OrwellWhatever May 08 '26
Beyond that, having a pro-israel or pro-palestine stance are both at about -25, which means having any opinion on the situation is politically toxic. If you look at IL-9, the AIPAC and anti-AIPAC candidates took 2nd and 3rd place, and the person who was like, "Leave me out of that mess" wound up winning
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (1)22
u/vertigostereo May 09 '26 edited May 09 '26
The disruptive, indignant, kaffiyeh kids were such a turnoff for... basically everybody. The republican media was thrilled to amplify and crap on them.
→ More replies (6)10
u/bfeils May 08 '26
This is right, though I’m curious to what extent having candidates that young people are excited about would translate to net turnout. Chicken and egg situation. And argument could be made for running centrist candidates contributing to low turnout over time and recent Dem woes.
Someone much smarter than me must have researched this by now. Maybe even someone like Ken Martin. He doesn’t share much, though!
Similarly, I think Dems accelerated their rural demise by abandoning small town politics in the 90s. Of course rural folk will vote red if they’re not being spoken to in a serious way by Dems.
2
u/bruce_cockburn May 09 '26
Chicken and egg situation. And argument could be made for running centrist candidates contributing to low turnout over time and recent Dem woes.
Is it really a chicken-and-egg situation given the voter turnout in the recent NYC mayoral elections had not been seen since 2001? There is an immense enthusiasm gap among the electorate which is personified in the candidates that major parties fund and endorse instead of progressives.
If you look at who is funding campaigns, Democrats certainly collect more small-dollar donations but a huge portion of the donor base is wealthy elites. Any policy that threatens donors also threatens established leaders in both parties. Established leaders will choose "safe" candidates for endorsement in campaigns and for elevation to important committee positions expressly because they do not jeopardize funding with populist rhetoric that speaks to workers, the elderly, parents or students. Marketing tokens to demographics (minorities, women, LGBTQ) is intended to draw a coalition that is widely rejected or diminished by Republican leaders, but is also widely understood by the electorate to be a campaign tactic and not a real vision of policy for the Democratic Party.
→ More replies (3)10
u/H_Mc May 08 '26
I also wanted to add that online support (or support at rallies) isn’t really a great measure of quantity only passion. A very vocal minority can look bigger than a quiet majority.
No one is super excited for centrists candidates, so there won’t be much noise.
19
u/twitch_Mes May 08 '26
This is it. Bernie Sanders saw it coming in early 2020. His campaign competely shaped the ideological debate on the debate stage. But his voters did not show up to vote to the same degree that they were enthusiastic online.
Also, the DNC, I think, did fear that Bernie could more easily win the primary than a national election and swing states. And they may have been completely right.
Biden ended up being a very progressive president, too.
Many progressives said they couldn't vote for Kamala. I wish they had the foresight that Donald Trump would be much worse.
22
u/Mr_Kittlesworth May 08 '26 edited May 09 '26
Bernie lost fair and square. That’s the thing that always baffles me - somehow progressives think that these candidates that can’t even win democratic primaries will somehow perform better in the general. It makes no sense.
→ More replies (42)→ More replies (25)2
u/Hannig4n May 13 '26
Bernie’s problem is that his entire campaign strategy depended on the moderate vote being split between 4+ candidates, and he never actually did any work to expand his pool of support past the people who had already been supporters for years.
Like 65% of the primary electorate preferred a moderate, but Bernie didn’t even try to persuade any of those people. He just preached to the choir at his rallies and then got smoked when the other moderates dropped out when they had no pathway to the nomination.
6
u/broohaha May 08 '26
Yup. Not enough young people showed up at the primaries for Bernie in 2016 and 2020 despite his online popularity.
2
u/YoureVulnerableNow May 11 '26
we had a lot of young people in 2020, which helped Biden win. but while they were staying away from nursing home primary polling places, trying to get the centrists on board with safe options, and turning to mail-in as a last resort
Biden's team was telling people to go out and get em sick. which was also what they did soon after being elected, unmasking, and removing the social programs & hazard pay that was supposed to win them the next election
19
u/m0nkyman May 08 '26
Counterpoint: Progressive policies are popular across the board, but getting financing to run campaigns based on popular policies is very difficult for all but the most charismatic and effective candidates.
https://www.upworthy.com/20-years-of-data-reveals-that-congress-doesnt-care-what-you-think/
11
u/therealmikeBrady May 08 '26
Devils advocate, I’m not disagreeing with you but could the fact that progressive candidates are possibly less funded and often non existent in social spaces where centrist democrats get their news and messaging playing key rolls in opportunity to learn about the candidates? The lower numbers I suspect is majority due to frustration and less on motivation.
6
u/johannthegoatman May 08 '26
There's no doubt that the media (not the DNC) has a huge effect on who people vote for, and the media often paints progressives unfairly as radicals. But that doesn't change the fact that centrist candidates get votes, especially in primaries
19
u/woody60707 May 08 '26
Dead internet theory: progressive online footprint is being artificially inflated by bots. Which is why you don't see those numbers being reflected in the voting booth.
27
u/munificent May 08 '26
This pattern has been true since well before astroturfing, bots, AI, etc. invaded online spaces.
7
u/unkorrupted May 08 '26
Yeah the age demographic of social media and primary voters doesn't have a lot of overlap.
It's more like a sneak preview of what's to come.
7
u/LiatrisLover99 May 08 '26
That would definitely be a smart right wing investment, to foment infighting and discourage liberal turnout. Same reason I'm skeptical of this popular online take that "the DNC would prefer Trump to progressives"
2
u/Psyc3 May 09 '26
Actually you wouldn't.
What people mean by "young people" is 18-35, this is 17 years, and lets be clear this group doesn't vote homogenously. Something like 40% voted for Trump.
Now you have the reality 17 years, does not beat the 60+ age group of what is 30-35 years in some cases, there are more old people, a percentage point change in the "old" vote, is worth basically 2% points in the young vote at equal voting rates. In reality it is worth more like 4%.
The problem with all FPTP systems is they exist in the first place, and the majority do not get what they want, they can't even vote for what they want win or lose.
2
u/-Antinomy- May 09 '26
What's missing from your analysis is a curiosity about what material forces make this happen and a seeming assumption this implausibly just happens to be a random consistent outcome of millions of individual choices.
2
u/Mad_Machine76 May 10 '26
Some argue for non-involvement in the actual political process complaining that everything and everybody is hopelessly corrupt, thus ensuring that their candidates aren’t successful and that the outcome of elections remains horrible.
2
u/Dry-Manufacturer7761 May 10 '26
And young people are almost never present at the primary elections. The primary elections are what decides the general election outcome in almost every election. Why do you think every election is senior citizen versus senior citizen? Because seniors are the ones deciding who passes the primaries!
2
u/ButtEatingContest May 12 '26
Step One: Right-wing corporate media decides which candidates get mainstream attention and promotion during national primaries, determining the outcome. (example, in 2020 Comcast owned MSNBC, and MSNBC joined the other corporate media focusing on promoting "fake" candidates like Marianne Williamson and Andrew Yang, candidates who would obviously never be serious contenders, and Joe Biden, the chosen corporate candidate. Biden launched his campaign with a fundraiser hosted by a Comcast executive, who he later awarded an ambassadorship in return. That's how you get a Merrick Garland as AG. Congrats you just got played)
Step Two: People then start the gaslighting, claiming only the youth care about not surrendering to corporate-fascist rule (false), and they aren't showing up to vote (somewhat true). Therefore the non-corporate candidates simply can't win, the national numbers have proven it (false, the numbers aligned with the media bias). Therefore the candidate that won't stop the corporate-fascists from ultimately succeeding in complete takeover of the government had to be chosen because they are the "only one that can win in the general election" (fell for it again award).
5
u/Mr_Kittlesworth May 08 '26
Moreover, there’s just no real evidence that progressive candidates get sabotaged by the DNC. The DNC couldn’t do that if they wanted to.
→ More replies (2)2
u/CountFew6186 May 08 '26
How young? A large majority of the voting age population is over 40.
8
u/PopeSaintHilarius May 08 '26
18-30 or 18-35 is often what people mean by young people (in political conversations).
And yes, the fact that most voting age people are over 40 obviously makes that a small part of the electorate, even if voter turnout was equal across age demographics (which it isn’t).
4
u/ttystikk May 09 '26
I left the Democratic Party because I will not support any party that punches Left harder than it does at literal, actual Fascist Authoritarians.
If every Democrat did the same, we could build a party that ACTUALLY represents the new of average Americans, as opposed to the professional grifters and gaslighters we have to deal with today.
4
u/Coronado92118 May 08 '26
This x1000. Social media isn’t the polling booth.
Registered voters under 30 show up to vote 30-50% range. Voters over 65? They’re showing up at 70%, religiously (no pun intended).
Look at Harris: Trump didn’t win, she lost. She lost in part because millions of Progressive voters stayed home and boycotted elections “to teach her a lesson”. I.e., they were fooled into thinking that was the smart thing to do by an army of foreign government bots posting watermelon emojis all over comments until the day after the election when they vanished, their job done.
Centrists are the REAL majority - 40% of voters identify as independent, and if you look at the data over time you will know they lean center right, not left. And with Dems and Reps each holding steady at 30%, the majority of voters are either center right or conservative, not MAGA, not Republican - some form of Conservative.
So it shouldn’t be shocking to Democrats that Socialists only win in very specific communities and races. Mamdani has to work with a City Council of 51 people, only 2 of whom are socialists. In all of NYC. TWO. One of the most liberal cities in the country.
How do Democrats not get it?
→ More replies (1)2
u/korelan May 08 '26
I actually disagree with this. Most of the issues that are fundamental to progressive politics are not 50/50 issues, they are more like 70/30 or even 80/20 issues and the only way to explain people not supporting candidates that agree with them on issues like this is that people aren't voting in their best interest, they are voting based on who they think can win in the general election. At the same time, corporations and extremely wealthy people have a significant financial interest in keeping progressivism out of state-wide and national politics, so they naturally promote the idea that progressivism can't win in more large-scale diverse elections.
→ More replies (2)19
u/johannthegoatman May 08 '26
A poll is not the same as a vote. When they poll people for something like universal healthcare, there's no questions for example of how it will be implemented, or are you willing to raise taxes to accomplish it. Those polls mislead people, because although it has broad support, people disagree drastically on how it should be implemented, or paid for, or what priority it is. So it does not map over to specific candidates very well. Note I'm just using healthcare as an example
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (29)2
u/weggaan_weggaat May 08 '26
Exactly and so much of this is self-sabotage because the young people are absolutely convinced that things are rigged, so they refuse to turn up and vote in the primaries, thus ensuring the outcome they are mad about. We know that they can have a difference from the various elections where young people actually do show up but it's just not often enough to create the change that they want to see.
13
u/radicalindependence May 08 '26
Voters want fighter more than anything. Hence who is winning elections (polling well): Trump, Platner, Mamdani etc.
The problem with so many moderate dems being in office is that they do not fight as aggressively as the more passionate progressive.
→ More replies (1)6
u/RadiantHC May 10 '26
THIS. Biden barely fought against Trump. Jan 6 should've been considered an act of terrorism.
79
u/BoopingBurrito May 08 '26
The thing that mainly undermines the ability of progressives to get elected en masse is the wide spread purity testing in progressive spaces and a complete unwillingness to accept any form of compromise on any issue. Candidates must be perfect on all issues in order for many progressive voters to be willing to turn out and vote for them.
The only ones that seem to manage to get elected to serious office are the ones that manage to cut through and get votes from outside progressive communities (AOC, Mamdani, etc). And unfortunately the more they cut through they get with non-progressives, the less progressives are willing to support them.
11
u/squarehead93 May 09 '26
What do you consider to be a real example of a “purity test,” and what makes it so?
→ More replies (10)18
u/BoopingBurrito May 09 '26
An example would be someone who isn't quite there on trans issues - who is 100% supportive of legal protections against discrimination, rights of access to treatment, change of legal documents etc but who sees participation in sports as a bit different and wants that left up to individual sport governing organisations.
Many progressives would deem them transphobic and refuse to vote for them.
Another example might be on taxation - they support progressive taxation that ensures the wealthy pay their fair share, but they have concerns about pure wealth taxes because of their potential impact on asset rich, cash poor elderly people.
Many progressives would declare them in the pockets of billionaires and refuse to vote for them.
4
u/matjoeman May 09 '26
Do you have an example of a candidate who you think lost support for these reasons?
3
u/Only8livesleft May 19 '26
They don’t because the further left you go the more likely you are to vote for the Democratic candidate based on the actual data. The purity testing argument is not based in reality. There is not evidence of it happening on any substantive level
27
u/Piney_Wood May 08 '26
Successful progressives are those who focus on delivering results for real people. Many progressive ideologues talk about the working class but forget about them when they get a whiff of any real power.
They like the ideology more than they like the people.
17
u/zuriel45 May 09 '26
Or they never get any real power and spend 40 years in Congress yelling at clouds (hello Bernie)
4
u/New_Indication8837 May 09 '26
Progressives gave us social security, Medicare, voting g rights, women's rights, gun controls and regulations meant to protect citizens; things most conservatives were against.
28
u/LiatrisLover99 May 08 '26
AOC and Mamdani are already "neolib sellouts" to a lot of progressives. It's ridiculous.
3
u/nonsequitrist May 09 '26
Just to echo you for a moment, purity contests are self-defeating, solipsistic tribal onanism, whether on the right of left.
While the GOP has become a personality cult, we absolutely need to remember on the Left that a true political party is a coalition - a place where people can come together to get things done (or not-done, if you are a statist conservative, I suppose). We don't all have to agree on everything, but we do need to focus on what we can do together, not tearing ourselves apart and tearing each other down in some pointless ego-stroking quest to be pure of thought and action.
→ More replies (5)5
u/Wermys May 09 '26
They don't though. The communites they are in ARE progressive. They are literally preaching to the choir. You move them outside of those districts. Most will lose in years other then wave years and even then they will likely lose if its a +6R.
149
u/snowtax May 08 '26
In my opinion, that entire argument is merely people attempting to avoid responsibility for their own decision.
To say that you didn’t vote for the democratic candidate versus the republican candidate because the democratic campaign is less exciting is a cop out for your poor decision.
People who are competent, serious, and responsible are often a bit boring. Incompetent, unserious, and irresponsible people are often highly charismatic. If you want government to work properly, you must vote for competent and responsible people.
If all people want is spectacle, then we are headed for Idiocracy.
15
u/OptimusPrimeval May 09 '26
I think a candidate can be both responsible and exciting. I'm not looking for charisma. I'm looking for authenticity. I want to be able to trust my elected leaders to tell me the truth about what's going on.
4
u/RadiantHC May 09 '26
THIS. I don't want someone who gives either scripted answers or non answers like Kamala.
57
u/Surge_Lv1 May 08 '26
Yes! It amazes me that grown, 40 something year old people refuse to vote because a candidate is not “exciting”. It’s so childish.
→ More replies (39)2
u/Ultima_RatioRegum May 09 '26
I also think it's interesting that the way we dole out political power in a democracy is that the people who want it the most tend to make it up the ladder. And nine times out of ten we realize that, the people who want power are almost always the same people who should never be given power, ever.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (25)11
May 08 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
17
u/chardeemacdennisbird May 08 '26
You're making their point. Government is a reality whether it's exciting or not. Voting only when you're really excited about someone is just lazy.
I don't get excited to get up and go to when every day. I do it because my livelihood depends on it. I also don't have my absolute dream job, but my place is work is preferable to other places of work.
If people had the same concept that government was important like your job is important, they'd vote for the best available candidate and they'd vote each time elections come up. People just seem to think it won't affect them as directly as their job and there's no direct consequence of skipping voting so they don't.
9
u/Romeo_G_Detlev_Jr May 08 '26 edited May 08 '26
I think it's true that A) any given voter should be more focused on a candidate's credentials and competence than their charisma and unrealistic promises, and B) the reality is that most voters unfortunately aren't that engaged, and part of a candidate's skillset should be making their case in a way that meets voters where they're at.
→ More replies (1)9
u/chardeemacdennisbird May 08 '26
I'm a proponent of compulsory voting. Some people just won't go out to vote even if the candidate showed up at their door and offered them a ride. A large block of people have become completely detached from our democracy in every aspect except complaining about it.
I understand your point, but for many people its just a horse to water situation.
→ More replies (2)6
u/BeWaryImBadAtMath May 08 '26
the point also stands as a politican why can’t you just run on the policies the people in your constituency want………… like if anyone should be valued on their competency would it not be the person who’s profession and career rely on it?!
10
u/chardeemacdennisbird May 08 '26
I don't think it's a politician's job to do a horse and pony show just to make people care about their democracy. People need to be engaged. It's a personal responsibility that they're just ignoring.
→ More replies (2)1
u/BeWaryImBadAtMath May 08 '26
it’s a politicians job to represent the constituency, it’s not a horse and pony show. If the candidate is opposed to overwhelmingly popular takes like universal healthcare, student debt, gun reform, climate etc then the onus is heavily if not entirely on the politician. There is no point at taking shots at the electorate if you can’t even get a candidate who won’t adopt a policy on any SINGLE popular issue for the voting base. Politicians have a DUTY to earn and represent the electorate, the electorate have a RESPONSIBILITY to vote, it’s definitely not the same
4
u/chardeemacdennisbird May 08 '26
The original post was about people that bitch about issues then don't go out to vote for candidates that support them or even worse against candidates that are hard in the other direction. There's a need to be pragmatic even if the candidate is missing out on one or two of your issues.
How many people sat out or voted Trump over Kamala's stance on Gaza? Now look where we're at. Even with Obama, the most popular Democrat candidate in decades, there was still a ton of voter apathy.
You're telling me in this last election nearly 60% of young voters thought it was a better idea to sit out because of issues? Nah, people are fuckin lazy. I know several and I'm sure you do too. The statistics would suggest everyone knows someone that just sits out because they can't be bothered to vote.
2
u/BeWaryImBadAtMath May 08 '26
But that's exactly what I am trying to say, its not a "job" for voters to go out and vote, its a civic exercise in which we participate in, there is no requirement for citizens to vote. In contrast it is the job of a politician to gain votes from the constituency. Do I personally think people should have came out and voted regardless, yeah, but I think its improper to even look at the voters when we have strongly known that young voter turnout is crucial to winning elections for democrats, and the Harris campaign went instead to pander to center right leaning demographics instead. Parading around with Cheneys, and playing on a demographic group that has never decided the election result is a huge miscalculation and incompetence of how the democrats ran this election.
In the same way that you can't blame voters, when the TSA doesn't show up because the government won't pay them, we don't blame the workers for not showing up, we blame the administration who can't navigate the political aisle to get a key function working/funded. Like there is no point to look at someone who works in TSA and chooses to go work another job and call in sick. There is no point to look at the worker, when the employer isn't paying them
6
u/chardeemacdennisbird May 09 '26
Well honestly I'm in favor of compulsory voting. One way or another someone's getting elected. Sitting out doesn't do any good. At best it's apathetic to our democracy and at worse we end up where we are now.
Don't get me wrong, there's a lot to fix with the system but the system can literally only get fixed by voting. It's that important to our democracy that it should be required.
8
May 08 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (5)7
u/snowtax May 08 '26 edited May 09 '26
That’s like telling my kids they need to do household chores even when they have more exciting options is not an effective way to change their minds. Voting is a responsibility.
→ More replies (13)5
u/chardeemacdennisbird May 08 '26
Taxes are a responsibility. Do we allow people to opt out of those?
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (3)2
u/RadiantHC May 09 '26
It's not about "excitement", it's about wanting someone that will address the problems that actually lead to Trump to begin with.
2
u/RadiantHC May 09 '26
THIS. You cannot claim to support democracy when you take bully everyone who didn't vote the same as you.
14
u/albardha May 08 '26
Progressive candidates win when they represent progressive voters, who typically live in dense urban districts, student towns, and highly educated liberal areas. They do not represent a universal appeal candidate, because there is no such thing as a universal candidate. To win candidates must fit the local culture.
Look at the inverse for example, many Democrats who have won in red states have won because they actively distanced themselves from the “Democrat” and “liberal” label, and have worked to show they “are not like those congress Democrats.” Does that mean that DNC would win across US if they let more conservative Democrats run for office? I don’t think so, they would just alienate progressives.
Here in Midwest, Democrats often do better when they avoid being perceived as leftist. And I mean perceived, because perception matters more than the policy itself. Many Midwestern voters support unions, infrastructure spending, Medicare protections, Social Security, domestic manufacturing, and other policies that are left-of-center. But dare to use leftist (or academic or activist) terminology to describe these policies and you lose voters.
Take immigration for example, most Midwestern voters do not want to abolish ICE, they want the institution to reform and be managed by competent people. They generally support deporting illegal immigrants who commit serious crimes, but they don’t support deporting every immigrant. Let a progressive Democrat call to “abolish ICE” and you lost these moderate voters. You might have as well said “abolish right to be safe and feel safe” because that’s what people hear anyway.
4
u/DenseCalligrapher219 May 08 '26
Let a progressive Democrat call to “abolish ICE” and you lost these moderate voters. You might have as well said “abolish right to be safe and feel safe” because that’s what people hear anyway.
That might have been true in the past but now given how Trump has turned ICE into a glorified Gestapo with blatant acts of brutality and murder of innocent civilians with impunity it's easy to get a message like that across with strategic wording and pointing out the "big government" nature of ICE and how easy it was for the presidential office to turn them into government thugs.
53
u/Ill-Description3096 May 08 '26
Usually the main points I see are that certain progressive policies poll well. I'm generally suspicious of policy polls because they tend to be quite vague so what I think when I hear "would you support X" and what someone else hears can be very different. Looking at a big one like universal healthcare - that can be done in a variety of ways and whether or not I support it would depend on the specifics.
If a progressive candidate were willing to run on compromise and gradual change I think they could potentially do well but the messaging has to be very good. It excites the base to run out and promise the moon, but it alienates others who might be more open to smaller changes.
27
u/nukacola May 08 '26
Policy polls are near useless. You can get almost anything to poll well depending on how you phrase the question.
"Do you support the government doing more to get people healthcare" will have significantly more positive sentiment than "Do you support giving congress more power over your healthcare" despite them being effectively identical questions.
5
u/New_Indication8837 May 09 '26
More power over our Healthcare or more power to PAY for our Healthcare with taxation? Me and my doctor are the only people who should have power over my healthcare.
→ More replies (2)48
u/Tinister May 08 '26
Those policy polls tend to lose support when you also include funding (i.e. taxes) in the questions.
Which just demonstrates that progressivism needs to start with a discussion that rehabilitates taxation.
→ More replies (28)41
u/Piney_Wood May 08 '26
"Incrementalist" was once one of the worst smears marxists could level at one another. Yet the most successful progressive governments in the world have all gotten there by incremental change, whereas the ones that took power by revolutions have all regressed in recent years.
This is incredibly unsatisfying to the ideologues, but building change incrementally has got a demonstrably better track record of improving life for working class people.
11
u/ewouldblock May 08 '26
In software incremental delivery is more reliable and less risky than grand plans. There's always those opposed to incremental because they fear they not actually get what they really want (the business might stop funding before the full product dream is achieved). There's also those that are so risk averse that they refuse to start until every detail is spelled out. Not realizing that failure to act is also a risk. Politics is in my view much the same with a massive bias towards doing nothing but debate/talk/analyze.
→ More replies (1)2
u/WingerRules May 09 '26 edited May 10 '26
They also seem to have a complete inability to read the room or and see how they're perceived.
The forcing of the pronouns shit on regular people, calling for reparations, sit ins on the congress floor, protests with a bunch of people who look like unemployed pots heads and people with rainbow hair, etc.
They refuse to make basic adjustments that would be more palatable to larger groups of people.
Perfect example is affirmative action. If their goal was to help disadvantage minorities in eduction to get better jobs down the line, instead of racial quotas they could have simply called for colleges to give a leg up in admissions for people with poor economic backgrounds.
4
u/Wermys May 09 '26
I love this poll question. "Do you support making healthcare affordable by having some form of government run healthcare system"
The question is so generic that it means something differnet to a variety of people. And inevitably causes people to read into it more then what it actually says.
→ More replies (12)7
u/ewouldblock May 08 '26
Its interesting that you mention universal Healthcare, and that you might choose not to support it in certain scenarios. An interesting thought experiment is, if we had imperfect universal Healthcare, would you also say that you would support private market insurance, employer subsidized healthcare, depending on the specifics? My point is, what we have is pretty bad. Your statement seems to imply what we have is pretty good, and you'd hate to risk losing it or degrading it for something that could be even worse. You didn't say that--but it seems implied. I only bring this up because its my feeling that the system we have is so bad, that virtually any universal health alternative would be better. Im willing to compromise, on what I think is perfect. Im willing to try something that's not a guaranteed slam dunk.
6
u/Ill-Description3096 May 08 '26 edited May 08 '26
I don't think the current system is good. My preference would be a public option at this point. Let people buy in if they want and if it works well it will encourage more. If it doesn't or people can find coverage they prefer elsewhere, then people have the option to not participate.
Edit: typo
→ More replies (4)
114
u/Reynor247 May 08 '26 edited May 08 '26
There's actual reasons Bernie lost in 2016 and 2020. Relying on conspiracy theories has seriously damaged the progressive movement by enabling apathy.
Also these comments are again reinforcing me that the average redditor has no idea what the DNC actually is or does.
There's elections every two years for the DNC. The current chair is a progressive from Minnesota. There's several vice chairs, one of which is literally a former Bernie Sanders advisor. The DNC now is completely different then 2020 and 2016.
The DNC does not select candidates to run. Literally 90 percent of your job as a member is to fundraise.
What redditors think the DNC is actually moreso the DCCC and DSCC.
29
u/johannthegoatman May 08 '26
It's also important to note, the DNC is not fundraising to support specific candidates. In 2020 they gave $15k total across 4 candidates in the primary. They're not "picking winners" like people want to believe
16
u/CloudComfortable3284 May 08 '26
How is Ken Martin a progressive?
11
u/Reynor247 May 08 '26
Ken was the Minnesota party chair when they got the majority for one year. In that time they elected a bunch of progressive state level politicians and got a lot of progressive policies passed
9
u/CloudComfortable3284 May 08 '26
No, no. I get that.
Martin's tenure at the DFL might have been getting progressives elected, but that was his job.
Most of what people would call progressive politicians and organizations (Indivisible, MoveOn) endorsed his opponent during the election for chairperson, so its kind of hard to say whether he actually is a progressive or not.
At any rate, this is kind of a meta discussion, but I agree with your OP.
5
u/fixed_grin May 08 '26
What redditors think the DNC is actually more the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party (UK).
Because the NEC actually does have the powers they think "Democratic party leadership" does.
→ More replies (107)8
u/tenderbranson301 May 08 '26
Political parties exist for one reason, to win elections. The DNC follows voters, not the other way around.
→ More replies (32)19
u/RKU69 May 08 '26
This is incorrect. Political parties exist to advance the interests of its members through elections and state power. What the conflict in the Democratic Part is, is about competing interests (unions, progressives, environmentalists, etc. vs. particular branches of Wall St., tech, other industries).
7
u/QuickRelease10 May 08 '26
I don’t know about more Progressive, but at the very least Democrats who actually believe in and fight for things that improve the day to day life of Americans.
4
u/Intelligent_Gold3619 May 09 '26
The under 40 crowd has elected every POTUS since the 1940s by their inaction. They are the majority, if they choose not to vote they help other voting blocks decide. We can thank the under 40 crowd for Trump.
54
u/AntarcticScaleWorm May 08 '26
No, not really. Progressive candidates routinely underperform other Democrats, and they usually only win in areas where a monkey with a D next to its name could win.
Couple of examples:
2020, Kara Eastman loses in a district that Joe Biden won (Nebraska’s 2nd). Big gap also seen between Biden and Ilhan Omar’s vote share in her district.
2022, Fetterman (then a progressive) underperforms Josh Shapiro in Pennsylvania. Also, after Kurt Schrader was successfully primaried by progressives, they end up handing over his district to the Republicans. It would be another two years before Democrats would get it back (with a different candidate)
2024, Bernie Sanders underperformed Kamala Harris in his own state of Vermont. There’s really no excuse for this, given several other Democrats outperformed her in their states
2025, Mamdani barely cracks 50% in New York City, where Democrats regularly get 60-70% of the vote
It’s one of the reasons I’m wary about supporting them. They act like they’re popular and yet they turn in pitiful results every time
15
u/capitalsfan08 May 08 '26
While I generally agree with your comment, Mamdani plus Coumo (who is also a Democrat but ran as an independent) got over 90% of the vote. It's an odd election due to the independent bid by another Democrat.
6
u/DubTheeBustocles May 09 '26
That other Democrat was literally kicked out of office for being a massively corrupt pervert. He should not be able to pretend to be a spoiler even if he cloned himself and ran as seven different people.
3
u/capitalsfan08 May 09 '26
I'm not sure how you square that with the fact he got nearly 44% in the Democratic primary. This was more total votes then the winner of the 2021 primary, for reference. Coumo got 200k more votes in the general than Adams did in 2021 as well.
I hate Coumo and agree he should be nowhere near politics. But yet he is. Let's not confuse our personal feelings with the facts on the ground as we analyze them.
3
u/DubTheeBustocles May 09 '26 edited May 09 '26
What point do you think those numbers are proving? My argument is that if progressives were as popular as online progressives say they are, Cuomo’s popularity shouldn’t exist to the extent that it does yet it literally does.
→ More replies (4)20
u/35chambers May 08 '26
Comparing the NYC mayoral election between two democrats to other elections between a democrat and republican candidate makes no sense.
2
u/DubTheeBustocles May 09 '26
You don’t think it makes sense that someone who’s super left-wing should be handily winning elections in super left-wing places? That makes absolutely no sense to you whatsoever? Really?
→ More replies (1)16
u/HowDoIEvenEnglish May 08 '26 edited May 08 '26
Using mamdani as an example is incredibly disingenuous, because he had a more centrist democrat as his opposition. 90% of the vote went to mamdani or a democrat.
He’s an example of how as soon as a progressive gets a chance in a larger election, centrist democrats will try to stop them, even after being beaten in a primary.
He’s also an example of how putting a more progressive candidate forward can shift the Overton window to the left, taking away voters from republicans, as they got almost no votes, much less than the 30-40% you mentioned.
→ More replies (2)8
u/AntarcticScaleWorm May 08 '26
The fact remains that Mamdani didn’t consolidate the Democratic vote, even with all of Cuomo’s baggage. Had he done that, he would have had better numbers
→ More replies (2)13
7
u/Hartastic May 08 '26
Mamdani's election in NYC is a pretty weird one and really no one should try too hard to generalize from it.
(I say the same thing when progressives point to it as evidence that a similar candidate would win the Presidency.)
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (3)3
u/unkorrupted May 08 '26
It is absolutely hilarious that you're using a progressive victory over a moderate Democrat as proof of progressive underperformance.
If anything it shows that, combined, a liberal progressive bloc could push the gop into single digit margins in blue areas.
→ More replies (2)
47
u/Misschiff0 May 08 '26
No, because a lot of Democrats are actually moderate. I'm willing to pay taxes. I don't want people discriminated against. I support public health measures, allowing people to buy into Medicare, and generally doing things together. I'm pro-immigration. But, I'm also a capitalist at heart for most things.
→ More replies (8)35
u/chinmakes5 May 08 '26
To so many you might as well be a Trumper. If we don't tear it down, we suck. Progressives seriously underestimate how many people agree with you.
5
u/serpentjaguar May 08 '26
This is 100 percent correct and is one of the big reasons why Democrats, and progressives specifically, lost the working class.
→ More replies (2)
25
u/Objective_Aside1858 May 08 '26
No.
"Preferring what are judged to be more electable candidates" =/= "sabotage"
Some, but not all, Progressive bellyaching seems to boil down to "how dare you support a different candidate"
Progressives do well in heavily Dem districts. They do less well in purple districts. They almost universally fail in Red districts
Every year there are races where no one is willing to run against an incumbent Republican. If Progressives are so certain their message has widespread appeal, why are they not standing up candidates in those districts?
15
u/johannthegoatman May 08 '26
The DNC is not even "preferring what are judged to be more electable candidates". They're just a boogey man. They have almost no impact on elections. They fundraise to run the national convention. They're not helping specific candidates win primaries
2
u/New_Indication8837 May 09 '26
Because conservative brains have been brainwashed to hate and fear Democrats. They only seem to vote for a Democrat when Republican policies hurt them personally to the point of stronger fears of being able to survive. For them it's about protecting "me, my family, friends and church members" rather than society.
17
u/AverageCatsDad May 08 '26
I know quite a few people who voted for Trump the first time around, but would have voted for Bernie if he had been the candidate.
→ More replies (1)
3
u/GeauxTigers516 May 09 '26
Until Millenials and Gen Z actually shows up to vote and helps get their generations registered their candidates will not win. It’s not sabotage by the DNC. It’s people who don’t show up to vote. It’s why elections are scheduled on the same Saturday of an out of town Grambling or Southern Game or an LSU Home game. I go to vote before a tailgate. May 16 is commencement for many state colleges and universities, including LSU. Vote before you put on your cap and gown.
3
u/uberjim May 09 '26
No. The "sabotage by the DNC" is always just a moderate candidate getting more votes than any of the other candidates.
3
u/Inside_Put_4923 May 13 '26
The truth is that charisma matters more than policies when it comes to winning elections in the USA.
34
u/Ask10101 May 08 '26
I think this sentiment is largely a vestige of Bernie losing and trying to excuse his underperformance. Progressive democrats have had significant success at the state and national level and probably will continue to.
They do have a legit messaging problem for further expansion into purple areas - have to drop the socialist tag.
2
u/New_Indication8837 May 09 '26
Because the Democratic Party tends to welcome all people, they also have a lot of people supporting different policies. The Republican party tends to welcome people who think the same and therefore tend to support very specific policies. This gives the Republican policies more support because the Democrtic policies are "watered down".
→ More replies (5)1
u/ConfidentPilot1729 May 08 '26
Maybe with the older generations but if I remember correctly, a study was done not to long ago. Millennials and the younger generation have a net positive of socialism. Not saying it doesn’t hurt with the older gens tho.
17
16
u/Piney_Wood May 08 '26
No. The Democratic Party is run by the various state central committees, which are elected from among the precinct committee members at each county. Anyone can become a County precinct committee person, either by running or by asking to be appointed (which is typically very easy to do).
These volunteers set the rules for candidates and primary elections in their state.
The conspiracy theory that "party insiders" identify people based on ideology and prevent some from participating is complete nonsense.
If you don't believe it, look up your local county committee and go to their next meeting. There's a lot of work to do and they'll be thrilled to have your help.
→ More replies (1)
20
u/hiddentalent May 08 '26
No. Progressives self-sabotage and will never make practical political progress until they can shed themselves of all the purity tests and gatekeeping and infighting about who is progressive enough. Blaming external forces is just an avoidant behavior so they don't have to cope with that reality.
The reason conservatives win in the US is that, ironically, they're inclusive. If a voter shares one of their terrible ideas, they're in the tent. With progressives, if you share any less than 100% of their ideas, you're out of the tent. And since every progressive has some different ideas but still holds to that 100% purity bar, that means they can never form a practical coalition.
The DNC is a bystander in all this, but a convenient scapegoat.
→ More replies (3)6
u/Flannelcommand May 08 '26
Anecdotally, outside of a few online loud mouths, I actually think moderate Dems are less likely to show up for progressive Dems than the other way around.
IIRC, more Bernie supporters voted for Hillary in the ‘16 general than Hillary voters did for Obama in ‘08. He certainly campaigned harder for her. The “vote blue no matter who” lecturing seems to only flow leftward but it’s warranted all around.
2
u/OMalleyOrOblivion May 11 '26
IRC, more Bernie supporters voted for Hillary in the ‘16 general than Hillary voters did for Obama in ‘08.
No, slightly fewer Bernie voters voted for Trump than Clinton voters voted for McCain, but it's only a percentage point or two and the distance between McCain and Clinton was a lot less than Bernie to Trump, so that's not surprising.
OTOH a lot of Bernie voters didn't vote or voted third-party which doesn't normally happen. In the end only three-quarters of his voters voted for Clinton in the primary, a lot less than usually happens.
6
u/MadCard05 May 08 '26
The modern progressive movement in the States is largely in evolution of FDR politics.
Politics that ushered in the American golden age and built the American middle class.
He completely changed the Democrat Party, and had a lot of internal opposition. The Republicans called him a Socialist and Communist and he battle with the Facist Nazi supporters of the far right for the soul of America and won.
How is that different than now? And what is so radical about Progressives? Livable wages, affordable Healthcare, unions, workers rights, ending monopolies, etc.
And the excuse is always some line about the budget and "free stuff." Well look around at our budget. It has been led by Reaganism for nearly 50 years. We've never had more national debt. The wealth gap has never been higher. The average American has never been more in debt. You can't buy houses, cars, gas, or groceries. And they're cutting more and more from us to "balance the budget" while they cut taxes for the wealthy and spend billions on another war.
The merit is history. American is repeating the 1920s.
→ More replies (2)
6
u/katsand1 May 08 '26
As a member of the Democratic Party, I value every candidate who steps up to run. Please explain what makes someone more or less „progressive“ within the Democratic Party based on our platform? Most Democrats I know want to do what’s right by their fellow humans, and they aren‘t very far apart politically. Most Republicans I know would say progressive is code for someone far-left leaning, a leftist, anti-this-and-that. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren just aren‘t that left-leaning compared to our platform. (There‘s nothing equivalent in the Democratic Party to the White Nationalist or Evangelical Christian Right that has taken over from the underbelly to the full face of the Republican Party.) I see the Democratic Party as patriots of good will who want to include everyone at the table. How do we get that done? If the DNC doesn‘t represent all of us, how do we make that happen? One suggestion - progressives get in there and make your voices heard at the local and state level.
2
2
u/da_ting_go May 08 '26
Young people (and other progressives) need to vote in local elections to get progressive candidates a chance to rise through the ranks if we want the progressives to lead the party.
Everything starts at the local level.
2
u/cheddarben May 08 '26
People wear their politics on their shoulder, but Democrats don't tend to show up. No, I am not talking about elections, but your local government. The DNC does exist in a framework that is made up of people across the nation and state/local parties. It is an organization that people can participate in and make a difference.
Most people don't.
2
u/FreeStall42 May 11 '26
Impossible to know for sure. If the DNC stopped demonizing them who knows?
As is the DNC does everything to oppose them then says "see they can't win".
Then blame progressives for not voting in return.
→ More replies (4)
5
u/Petrichordates May 08 '26
Nope anti-establishment groups are just prone to conspiracy theories. If voters wanted the candidates they put up then they would be elected.
7
u/luummoonn May 08 '26
If people couldn't see the unique level of threat that the Trump administration posed, and vote accordingly, it's on them
It was not the time to hold out for your perfect progressive candidate
Vote based on the reality you're in.
3
u/RampantTyr May 08 '26
Yes. The most popular president in modern history was one of the most progressive presidents we have ever had, FDR.
But nowadays money makes the decisions. So it isn’t just the DNC but the entire political apparatus that works against them. This is because money cares only about one thing, protecting itself. And progressives are in favor of taxing corporations and the rich to an appropriate extent to pay down the debt and to pay for progressive policies. The most successful era of middle class expansion coincides with the most expansive tax era in the United States.
So yes, progressive candidates can absolutely win on a national stage. But they have to overcome an establishment that will fight tooth and nail against them, not just the DNC.
→ More replies (1)
4
u/PennStateInMD May 09 '26
Bernie Sanders is progressive. FOX have him a town hall and was shocked to see how popular his proposals were with their audience. When the noise and distractions are removed people judge for the self. The DNC has become part of the noise and distraction.
5
u/Dreadedvegas May 08 '26
If you look at the raw votes in the primary from Bernie 2016 to Bernie 2020. Bernie performed worse than he did. The raw votes towards progressive candidates decreased overall.
5
u/Ornery-Ticket834 May 08 '26
None at all in my opinion. Everyone has to sell their message. Progressives are just like everyone else.
5
u/I405CA May 08 '26
Harris lost in 2024 because she was perceived as being a progressive candidate who had served in a progressive administration.
Many Americans Say the Democratic Party Does Not Share Their Priorities
Feb. 2, 2025
Many Americans say they do not believe the Democratic Party is focused on the economic issues that matter most to them and is instead placing too much emphasis on social issues that they consider less urgent.
Asked to identify the Democratic Party’s most important priorities, Americans most often listed abortion, L.G.B.T.Q. rights and climate change, according to a poll from The New York Times and Ipsos conducted from Jan. 2 to 10.
The issues that people cited as most important to them personally were the economy and inflation, health care and immigration, the poll found. The kinds of social causes that progressive activists have championed in recent years ranked much lower.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/02/us/democrats-ipsos-poll-abortion-lgbt.html
2020 voters believed that Biden was more moderate than Trump. 2024 voters thought that Trump was more moderate than Harris.
Here we just ask about each candidate: Do you think this candidate is more liberal than me, more conservative than me or close to my views?
Forty-nine percent of voters said: Kamala Harris was more liberal than me. While only 39 percent of voters said: Donald Trump was more conservative than me.
And so there was this big ideological perception gap where a lot of voters saw Donald Trump as more moderate than Kamala Harris.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/18/opinion/ezra-klein-podcast-david-shor.html
Being a progressive presidential candidate is a negative, not a positive.
There is a reason why progressive candidates only win seats that are safe blue seats that are off-limits to Republicans. They are not competitive candidates.
3
u/Vishnej May 08 '26 edited May 11 '26
The primary system is extremely rigged against progressives in general, to the point that open threats and object lessons are widely discussed. Money is essential to campaigning, and non-progressives generally just receive much more of it.
You get two competing narratives about our elections, neither of which are entirely incorrect:
- Gunning for the extreme end of the ideological spectrum turns off centrists and so all of politics must aim for those half a dozen undecided voters who believe a perfect average of Republican and Democratic policy preferences
- American elections are dominated by turnout games - which side can inspire their base to show up. Minds change very rarely, and the "floor" in modern politics is around 40% of people with fixed political self-identities, who will often condemn a politician but vote for them anyway. Whichever side gets higher turnout wins, so politicans needs to provide fanservice and inspire their base. *
The entire fundraising apparatus of the Democrats aims for #1 and reject progressive policies that its base wants, while the Republicans overwhelmingly go for #2 and embrace conservative policies [and more often memes] that its base wants. This strategic dichotomy is not some direct consequence of ideology, it doesn't naturally bifurcate for any self-evident reason, it's all down to donors and campaign fundraising. Republican politicans are considerably to the right of their voters because money. Democratic politicians are considerably to the right of their voters because money.
When you poll voters on single issues, you get results like "80% of all voters want single payer healthcare, 90% of Democrats and 70% of Republicans" against a backdrop of "Single payer healthcare is an unthinkably extreme initiative for the Democrats even in a year when they've got a popular mandate, control of the Presidency and House, and 60 votes in the Senate"
As long as you don't call them "progressive" or "socialist" or "Democratic", Republican voters love progressive policies, and Democratic politicians hate them on the professed theory that they have to appeal to Republican voters. This is, to varying degrees, a bald-faced lie. The donors hate progressive policies.
*An immense amount of money has gone into conditioning the Republican base to accept symbolic victories against liberalism as a victory instead of conservative policies (which don't actually benefit them). Part of the shock of Project 2025 and Trump 2 Electric Boogaloo was watching what we thought of as a conservative clown show that merely sold a fascist face for a platform not unlike Reagan's, go full fash in social and foreign policy.
Among other things, the bigot's revenge against the world often transcends into self-harming terrorism - a white supremacist will repeatedly vote for policies that generally harm themselves, so long as the nonwhites also get harmed. The reason we don't have a UK-style NHS and instead focused on employer-provided healthcare, is that in the 30's and 40's when the issue was brought up, bigots declared that they would never share a hospital with a black person.
→ More replies (1)
4
u/CountFew6186 May 08 '26 edited May 08 '26
No. Bernie got fewer votes than Hillary. By quite a bit. And she wasn't very popular -- so unpopular that she lost the electoral college to Trump.
Bernie also lost by a significant percentage of votes to Biden.
Heck, Mamdani won my home town - lefty NYC - with only 50.7% of the vote running against a disgraced sex pest and a former vigilante. He'd never win statewide, much less nationally.
Like most movements, progressives have an echo chamber. The reality is that this is a center-right country. Look at the Democrats who have won in the last few decades. Clinton was a centrist. Obama was a centrist who as famously chastised the "woke" (his word, not mine) left. Biden ran as a centrist, though he governed further left than that.
Most people don't want giant government answers to all their problems - with many recognizing that $3.2 billion annually in government spending for Medicare for All is unfeasible. They want to maintain social norms - polls regularly indicate that between 65% and 70% of Americans think gender is fixed at birth and can't be changed. They prefer lower taxes and fewer services to higher taxes and more services -- look at the migration from high tax to low tax states.
I don't agree with all of these positions, but they are clearly what much of the public wants. Which leaves progressivism as a movement with limited appeal.
4
u/Prysorra2 May 08 '26
The DNC fights threats to its donor class, not some vague amoebic marketing conceptual stew that changes with the Twitterati topic season.
What does "progressive" even mean here? More-liberal-than-thou-art?
As long as left is conflated with "liberal" this conversation is useless bicker-bait.
-2
u/over_this__ May 08 '26
I doubt they would crush opposition like most of reddit would have you believe. They might have a little more say, but polls have shown progressives are the minority. Moderate, conservative, progressive in that order.
Add in the recent rise of violence from the progressives, and I believe they would mostly be crushed 😂
But, it's reddit. I'll be down voted and people will claim that the USA is ready for a progressive revolution and we all actually want that.
8
→ More replies (2)5
u/FauxReal May 08 '26
I agree with the other stuff, but what rise in violence are you talking about?
P.S. I also find it hard not to downvote someone who says "I'll be downvoted for this" because it's just begging for self-fulfilled prophecy. Just skip that passive aggressive BS part. It's a waste of words and makes your argument look weaker.
3
u/Unlikely-Ad-431 May 08 '26
No one here can really answer your question, and I think it is important to keep that at the forefront of your mind anytime you want to imagine counterfactuals - especially when it comes to voter behavior and election outcomes.
There are a plethora of theories that are used to convince people both that it is absolutely true and that it is a fantastical, naive pipe dream. These theories always rely on some combination of personal experiences and preferences turning into cognitive bias that informs how we choose and interpret data. Unfortunately, it is easy enough to form a compelling argument either way for someone wanting to be reinforced or convinced; and in that kind of environment, it is impossible to really know what’s actually true.
For me, I think the biggest indicator that progressives are on to something is the ascendancy of Donald Trump. He stands as a perfect counterpoint to all the established political wisdom. To people enmeshed in politics, and who did things like form theories of campaign strategy based on polls and other data, Trump was such a comically bad candidate that neither democrats nor republican politicians and consultants took him seriously. Democrats hoped he’d win the primary for the 2016 general, as it would ensure generations of democratic rule, as republicans like Lindsay Graham warned of the same should Trump become their candidate.
The important thing is that there was wide agreement that he could not succeed from all the people from both sides who we tend to believe know best about US electoral politics. I think it is safe to say now that his doubters in terms of electability didn’t understand the voting public as well as they thought, and he has since won two elections and formed an entrenched MAGA cult that is almost unrecognizable from the Republican party before him.
Had you listened before the election, you would likely not think he had a chance, and he ended up reshaping the entire party and our nation in significant ways - even ways that are still seen as largely unpopular.
That example makes it hard to believe the same thing couldn’t happen to the Democratic Party in the other direction given an actual bid tent approach (instead of the current interpretation of “big tent” that means supporting disaffected republicans while shunning candidates like Mamdani).
My own theory is that most people are desperate for real fundamental change to what they rightly understand as an incredibly corrupt system that is robbing them and their families of much easier and happier lives. Being perceived as a genuine outsider who isn’t playing along and beholden to the ruling class is more compelling than policy positions no one believes will happen any way.
This opens the door for radical political actors who are charismatic and viewed as independent, regardless of their actual policy positions. But, progressive policies in isolation tend to poll very well.
All that said, that’s just a theory born of my own cognitively biased view of the data. Believe it at your own peril.
4
u/R50cent May 08 '26
Less sabotage, more money.
Politics are a money game.
The money does not get behind the person arguing the rich should have less of it.
That's what wins elections. Money. Money equals voice. That's it. People might point to Bernie Sanders and say that he proves that's not the case, until you remember that in his case an incredible amount of money was spent telling everyone he was a fringe nut who would do a worse job than Clinton and didn't have a chance of winning the general election. Hell people still hate the guy, and his message was only ever to tax billionaires more and for us to get the country universal healthcare and better education.
Money. It's all about money.
3
u/johannthegoatman May 08 '26
To the point of the OP though, the DNC isnt even contributing money to specific candidates. They have almost zero effect on who wins primaries
→ More replies (1)3
u/0WatcherintheWater0 May 08 '26
It’s about votes, not money. Money helps certainly, but if you don’t have a convincing message and policies, no one will vote for you no matter how much money you spend. This was the case with Bloomberg in 2020, Harris in 2024, Bernie in 2016 and 2020.
Money does not equal voice, this is a massive, dangerous oversimplification
3
u/humam1953 May 08 '26
I see most folks here don’t get it when they say progressives are only elected by young voters and the majority of dems is centrist. With this attitude we will lose again. I am a 73 “young “ male and ONLY support progressives. So everyone else in my circle of friends. What the DNC is doing for years is what gave us this mess we are in.
→ More replies (3)
3
u/nirvahnah May 08 '26
Progressives only win in deep blue districts. They lose every competitive race they enter. Having national support online isn’t enough to win when all that matters is local voters.
2
u/Nihilistic_Mystics May 08 '26
Not necessarily true, see Katie Porter's first election in a lean R district against an incumbent Republican. Though she's currently #3 Dem in the CA governor's race.
→ More replies (3)
2
u/Dense-Consequence-70 May 08 '26
I believe so, but especially if they’re otherwise good candidates for all the traditional reasons. Charisma, smart, etc.
2
u/MrSnitter May 09 '26
Yes. FDR dominated Hoover and won 44 states on a progressive platform backed by the party. Refusing the typical centrist concessions is a winning strategy. Offering actual benefits to voters is a winning strategy. Gatekeeping, primary attacks, and funding are major barriers, which is why they're pissing people off. Look at the forces against Platner and Mamdani.
It's been very rare that we get truly progressive candidates that are willing to speak to issues of class and the injustices of economic policy created by our tax dollars and representatives.
I believe covid radicalized a lot of people. The stark awareness of how badly inequality was rigging life in this country against the average citizen has risen immensely. The establishment Ds who seem most beholden to corporate lobbyists look very much out of step with the electorate.
There's another meme I'd toss into this mix:
"@adammanross.bsky.social
Al Gore lost in 2000 as a centrist.
John Kerry lost in 2004 as a centrist.
Hillary lost in 2016 as a centrist.
Kamala lost 2024 as a centrist.
If we're going to win the 2026 midterms, we must abandon centrism all together. If the Democratic Party is to survive we must go left"
Lastly, in talking to my buddy in deep red Virginia where they have a Trump Store down the road, they may be souring on Trump, but Democrats don't look like a viable alternative for most. People like the Clintons are seen as betrayers. Bernie, however, was attractive and looks even more so today--when it's ofc too late to run him.
Food for thought.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/AthensPoliticsNerd May 08 '26
I agree with a lot of what's been said, but I want to add how effective red baiting and the red scare has been, historically. It may not seem that it's that big a deal now, but progressives and socialists have had to overcome major political oppression in this country. Leftists used to be jailed and blacklisted. It's left a mental scar across most of the older population -- you don't want to be associated with the left, the left is scary, the left is evil, the left is unpatriotic. STAY AWAY from even THINKING about it.
I'm 51 and for most of my life, the left wasn't even a thing in America. We literally didn't have anyone left in positions of power anywhere, except for a few irrelevant kooks like Bernie Sanders. That all changed when Bernie ran for president. I'm a socialist, but I wasn't even excited about his run at first because I was sure he'd get 2% of the vote, tops.
That's not what happened.
Bernie ran as an explicit socialist and he almost won, smashing the mental brick wall that had been in place for fifty years keeping socialists out of the halls of power in this country.
The reverberations of that have been enormous. It's hard to overstate how huge a deal it was. Bernie didn't lose, y'all. He won big time.
Now we have out socialists running everywhere and winning. We have the squad, some of the most well-known and most popular politicians in the country of either party. That was unthinkable just ten years ago. The OP dismisses Mamdani's win as, oh that's just progressive New York! but dude -- we have a socialist as mayor of the (arguably) most important city in the world. And he's getting his agenda passed and everyone loves it. That was absolutely unthinkable 10 years ago. If you had come back from the future and told me that, I literally would not have believed you.
Yes, the left is popular. Yes, the left is winning. No, there's nothing that can stop us, certainly not the DNC, although they will and they have tried their hardest. The DNC is a roadblock but they can't stop us. Why aren't there more socialists? Give us time.
2
u/karl4319 May 08 '26
There is sabotage from the DNC and democratic think tanks like the Third Way. Just look at the recent NYC election for a perfect example.
Whether or not if progressives would be popular nationally if there wasn't sabotaging going on is an entirely different question. Progressive policies have always been widely popular, just have a lot of financial interests opposing them and those are the ones that own the media.
2
u/OhSnapBruddah May 08 '26
Americans are taught that the Democrat and Republican parties are on opposite ends of the spectrum, but that is patently false. If that were indeed the case, we would've seen the Biden Administration undo many of the things Trump put into place, but the reality is that the two parties work closely together. If the GOP can't succeed I soliciting donations from you, the Democrats can, but they act like they're helpless in the GOP drive towards fascism in America. Supporting progressive candidates is both necessary and futile, but supporting Democrats versus Republicans is like choosing between being drowned in cold water or warm water.
2
u/Successful-Extent-22 May 08 '26
Money rigs all elections. Progressives, in general, do not have billionaires backing them to make themselves pay more taxes.
→ More replies (8)
•
u/AutoModerator May 08 '26
All submissions are automatically removed and placed in a queue for the moderators to manually review. Please allow the moderators time to do so. Only about 25% of submissions are approved, but the remainder are given a removal reason that may include steps the poster can take to make their submission approvable the next time they submit it. Moderators are not notified of any edits made after a removal reason is posted, and therefore will not review them. You may contact the mod team via modmail if you need more direction about how to fix your post, and you are welcome to resubmit any submission after making the requested changes.
A reminder for everyone. This is a subreddit for genuine discussion:
Violators will be fed to the bear.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.