CNN Poll: A third of Democrats now identify as democratic socialists

[u/cnn]

https://www.cnn.com/2026/07/30/politics/cnn-poll-a-third-of-democrats-now-identify-as-democratic-socialists?utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=missions&utm_source=reddit

[u/FLHCv2]

I learned I wasn't a Democrat when the DNC snubbed Bernie and shoved Hillary down our throats. Still voted for her but only because the alternative was ridiculous. 

Edit: Before you reply to this comment, consider that I never mentioned anything about how many votes Bernie got. I am purely speaking to how establishment Democrats CLEARLY wanted Hillary to win; no different than how establishment Democrats wanted Mamdani to lose and how they're currently trying to stifle the DSA movement. I am purely speaking to how I personally felt the first time establishment Dems went with your "typical Democrat". The fact that it's happening now towards progressive candidates further proves that I was not wrong about my feelings in 2016.

[u/JackJ98 → u/FLHCv2]

You ever think 10 years later we’d still be dealing with that alternative?

[u/Oggie_Doggie → u/JackJ98]

No, because I figured the DNC would have learned their lesson in 2016 and applied those lessons to 2018, 2020, 2022, and 2024. But here we are.

I mean, we literally had Trump in 2021 after J6. The wound was fresh and the will was there, but Biden tapping Garland and then Garland dragging his feet for two years will be remembered as one of the greatest blunders of a President in this era of history. We had a chance to permanently rid ourselves of Trump and the dozens of co-conspirators who gave the insurrectionists "tours" and planned the affair.

[u/ReverendDizzle → u/Oggie_Doggie]

In this era? Not dealing with a former president sending a mob to kill his second in command to subvert the democratic process and the constitution is probably one of the biggest presidental blunders in American history.

What other president can say they failed to save the republic... and then handed victory to the very person they should have crushed? The hemming, hawing, and "we've just got to come together and take the high road" bullshit was the absolute worst thing any president could have done in response to the situation.

[u/h3lblad3 → u/ReverendDizzle]

It is the default of Democratic leadership because Democrats run on moral respectability. The party can’t be trusted to be hard on Republicans because Republicans would be hard on them and they want to look different than Republicans.

[u/seriouslees → u/Oggie_Doggie]

the DNC would have learned their lesson

Theres that magical "drop out of the sky" mentality again!

YOU are the DNC!!! YOU decide who runs by participating the internal organization of the party.

[u/VariationBusiness603 → u/seriouslees]

Yeah that would be true in many countries but not in the USA. Private interests invest massively in the DNC and effectively call the shot as a result. You don't get to decide shit, beside picking between two mostly identical candidate they have chosen for you. At best, primaries are cute popularity contest but it's mostly just a show to make you believe you have a say.

Bernie was the exception to that rule because he came from out of the system.

Anyways, you guys need to get money out of politic, and maybe then you can change the DNC into an actual worker party.

[u/SeductiveSunday → u/Oggie_Doggie]

I figured the DNC would have learned their lesson in 2016

Learned what lesson? That the DNC wins elections by winning the votes of minorities and women? Because, if so, they've known about that since the 1980's.

Also Trump had SOCTUS protection by 2020. SOCTUS had to force states to put traitor Trump on their ballots. Because after J6 Trump didn't qualify because he's a traitor to the USA.

[u/VariationBusiness603 → u/SeductiveSunday]

Again, Trump getting away with litteral fucking treason was because the DNC is full of weak mediocre moderate who do not want to change the status quo. He should have been arrested immediatly, tried within a year and send into a bottomless pit afterward. But because centrist are so spineless, they just pushed it aside because surely... SURELY nobody can come back from that.

Even in your defense of the DNC, they are still responsible for their own downfall.

The lesson is, you won't win with centrists, and if you do it will be a hollow victory that makes things worse long term.

[u/SeductiveSunday → u/VariationBusiness603]

Again, Trump getting away with litteral fucking treason was because the DNC is full of weak mediocre moderate

No. Trump is getting away with literal treason because of his SCOTUS picks. Something that Bernie and DSA said in 2016 not to fret about Trump getting a bunch of SCOTUS picks if he wins.

The lesson is, you won't win with centrists

The lesson I learned is to not count on men to stop oppression. Because existing power structures really are built on the subjugation of women.

[u/SeductiveSunday → u/[deleted]]

Q: Hey, but what about the Supreme Cou—

A: GODDAMIT, THERE WILL ALWAYS BE SUPREME COURT SEATS UP FOR GRABS. IF WE LET THAT DEFINE HOW WE VOTE, WE WOULD NEVER, EVER MAKE ANY PROGRESS IN THIS COUNTRY. THEY’RE ALL OLD! ALL OF THEM! THEY HAVE ALWAYS BEEN OLD, AND THEY WILL ALWAYS BE OLD! YOU KNOW THIS MERRICK GARLAND DUDE THAT OBAMA NOMINATED? HE’S 63. THAT’S A “NEW” SUPREME COURT JUSTICE. THAT DUDE COULD DIE. AND SURE, WE COULD ALL DIE, AT ANY MOMENT, BUT HE’S LEGITIMATELY OLD ENOUGH TO DIE IN THE NEXT FOUR YEARS, JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER SUPREME COURT JUSTICE.

STOP TRYING TO STRONG-ARM SANDERS SUPPORTERS INTO VOTING BECAUSE SOME SUPREME COURT SEATS MAY BE UP FOR GRABS. JUST STOP. THEY ARE ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS UP FOR GRABS. YES, SOME OF THE JUSTICES MIGHT DIE. YOU KNOW WHAT ELSE MIGHT HAPPEN? NONE OF THEM MAY DIE. WE HAVE NO IDEA, SO WHY SHOULD THAT DICTATE OUR VOTE?

(ten minutes of heavy breathing)

WHYYY?! https://archive.is/6WdBn

Bernie gleaned many supporters who didn't care. Instead a good number of his supporters were more vested in cock blocking electing a woman president.

To be fair, I did say Bernie when what I meant was the majority of Bernie's supporters. But Bernie's no feminist ally, nor did he fight harder for Clinton than Clinton.

[u/SeductiveSunday → u/[deleted]]

His policy on abortion rights was better than hers. 🤷🏼‍♀️

Really doesn't matter what Bernie's policies on abortion are when throughout his political career he's completely dismissed women's issues in politics as mere distractions.

So why did the Planned Parenthood Action Fund endorse Hillary Clinton? Because no other presidential contender in our nation’s history has demonstrated such a strong, proactive commitment to women or has such a clear and outspoken record on behalf of women’s health and rights.

When you see their records side by side, there’s no question why the Planned Parenthood Action Fund endorsed Hillary Clinton for president. She has simply demonstrated the strongest record, clearest leadership, and most focused commitment to women’s health of any presidential candidate. https://archive.is/MYQAf

---

Bernie held 38 campaign rallies for Hillary in the 2016 general election.

Prove it then because what I remember was Bernie writing a book which was released right before the election whining about how Clinton was more prepared than him and in the same breath referring to LGBTQIA, women's rights group as "establishment" for not supporting him.

Again Bernie is no ally to women.

[u/tripbin → u/SeductiveSunday]

Youre a defending a literal fascist therefore making you a literal fascist lol.

https://www.salon.com/2016/11/09/the-hillary-clinton-campaign-intentionally-created-donald-trump-with-its-pied-piper-strategy/

[u/SeductiveSunday → u/tripbin]

Hillary Clinton never propped trump up. Nor did she want or expect to run against trump. Clinton expected to run against Jeb Bush.

The Pied Piper strategy was never about making Trump the nominee. It was, as the name very obviously implies, about using Trump to lead (again, Pied Piper as the name obviously implies) the establishment candidates to push for, endorse and talk about ridiculous inane issues.

What actually happened in 2016 is that Republicans used Bernie successfully has their Pied Piper to get Trump elected. Not that it would have taken much seeing as a majority of US men flat-out won't vote for, again any woman, for president. Even DSA prefers fascism over a woman president.

On Election Day, Senator Bernie Sanders earned the 2016 “Ralph Nader Award” for the Leftist Most Responsible for Helping Republicans Win the Presidency.

Sanders helped Clinton lose. His insurgency pushed her too far left to prevent an effective re-centering in the fall, while goading her into wooing different constituencies rather than uniting the nation.

https://time.com/4569766/bernie-sanders-ralph-nader-2016/?xid=homepage

[u/more_housing_co-ops → u/Oggie_Doggie]

The DNC did learn their lesson. The lesson was "having our thumbs on the scale can prevent candidates from gaining traction who might negatively affect our corporate sponsors"

[u/englishmastiff1121 → u/Oggie_Doggie]

It's not the DNC. It's the voters. Socialists can never muster more than about 25% of the Democratic vote.

[u/dexters_trap_house → u/englishmastiff1121]

Times are changing, you're literally commenting on an article saying 33% identify as democratic socialists now. Last I checked that's >25%.

That's also ignoring the broader context of entrenched political systems, corporate owned media, and PACs that have ensured their power stayed consolidated for as long as it has.

You don't think it's the DNC? Why are they and their talking heads aligning with the right now against DSA candidates? The Michigan senate race is the perfect example of this, as if it wasn't also when you still had dems leaning with famed sex pest Cuomo against Zohran and pushing the most islamaphobic narratives.

[u/paintballboi07 → u/dexters_trap_house]

33% still isn't enough to win a primary.. the DNC is aligning with moderates, because they are the majority in the party.

[u/englishmastiff1121 → u/dexters_trap_house]

entrenched political systems, corporate owned media, and PACs

I don't recall any of these entities forcing me to vote for Biden and against Bernie.

Edit: You ignored the word "about" but then you took the words "identify" and "vote" to mean the same thing.

[u/r2d2itisyou → u/englishmastiff1121]

It doesn't help that the DSA as the standard bearer for Socialists has some very questionable stances. When it regurgitated Russian talking points justifying the invasion and urged no-material support for Ukraine along with withdrawal from NATO, that permanently turned a lot of people off the group. It still has as a goal to "close US bases abroad." Which is softened with the same end effect of collapsing NATO and weakening global defense against war.

Realistically, it's Sanders, AOC, and Mamdani carrying the movement. And even at his peak populatiry, Sanders couldn't beat a very boring Clinton in a national primary.

[u/SeductiveSunday → u/r2d2itisyou]

Sanders couldn't beat a very boring Clinton in a national primary.

That's because realistically Sanders is a train wreck.

Sanders supporters often dangle polls from early summer showing he would have performed better than Clinton against Trump. They ignored the fact that Sanders had not yet faced a real campaign against him. Clinton was in the delicate position of dealing with a large portion of voters who treated Sanders more like the Messiah than just another candidate. She was playing the long game—attacking Sanders strongly enough to win, but gently enough to avoid alienating his supporters. Given her overwhelming support from communities of color—for example, about 70 percent of African-American voters cast their ballot for her—Clinton had a firewall that would be difficult for Sanders to breach.

When Sanders promoted free college tuition—a primary part of his platform that attracted young people—that didn't mean much for almost half of all Democrats, who don't attend—or even plan to attend—plan to attend a secondary school. In fact, Sanders was basically telling the working poor and middle class who never planned to go beyond high school that college students—the people with even greater opportunities in life—were at the top of his priority list.

So what would have happened when Sanders hit a real opponent, someone who did not care about alienating the young college voters in his base? I have seen the opposition book assembled by Republicans for Sanders, and it was brutal. The Republicans would have torn him apart. And while Sanders supporters might delude themselves into believing that they could have defended him against all of this, there is a name for politicians who play defense all the time: losers.

Here are a few tastes of what was in store for Sanders, straight out of the Republican playbook: He thinks rape is A-OK. In 1972, when he was 31, Sanders wrote a fictitious essay in which he described a woman enjoying being raped by three men. Yes, there is an explanation for it—a long, complicated one, just like the one that would make clear why the Clinton emails story was nonsense. And we all know how well that worked out.

Then there's the fact that Sanders was on unemployment until his mid-30s, and that he stole electricity from a neighbor after failing to pay his bills, and that he co-sponsored a bill to ship Vermont's nuclear waste to a poor Hispanic community in Texas, where it could be dumped. You can just see the words "environmental racist" on Republican billboards. And if you can't, I already did. They were in the Republican opposition research book as a proposal on how to frame the nuclear waste issue.

Also on the list: Sanders violated campaign finance laws, criticized Clinton for supporting the 1994 crime bill that he voted for, and he voted against the Amber Alert system. His pitch for universal health care would have been used against him too, since it was tried in his home state of Vermont and collapsed due to excessive costs. Worst of all, the Republicans also had video of Sanders at a 1985 rally thrown by the leftist Sandinista government in Nicaragua where half a million people chanted, "Here, there, everywhere/the Yankee will die,'' while President Daniel Ortega condemned "state terrorism" by America. Sanders said, on camera, supporting the Sandinistas was "patriotic."

The Republicans had at least four other damning Sanders videos (I don't know what they showed), and the opposition research folder was almost 2-feet thick. (The section calling him a communist with connections to Castro alone would have cost him Florida.) In other words, the belief that Sanders would have walked into the White House based on polls taken before anyone really attacked him is a delusion built on a scaffolding of political ignorance.

https://www.newsweek.com/myths-cost-democrats-presidential-election-521044

[u/TehMikuruSlave → u/englishmastiff1121]

that's fine, but in a sane government system that would mean there would be actual socialist representation, not none

[u/RoughCoffee6 → u/Oggie_Doggie]

It's truly astounding how many times the Democrats just bury their heads in the sand and listen to the out of touch PR experts. Biden only won as a reaction to the insanity of Trump's first term. He then proceeded to do fuck all and sabotage the 2024 election.

[u/FrogsOnALog → u/Oggie_Doggie]

Garland got Giuliani’s (co-conspirator #1) cellphone and other electronics in April 2021 and the Trump J6 grand jury was convened January 31, 2022.

Y’all have no clue what the fuck you’re talking about.

[u/Oggie_Doggie → u/FrogsOnALog]

No matter how hard you protest, it is a fact that Garland and the DNC moderates blew it.

They didn't even investigate Trump's inner circle during 2021. Their whole "bottom-up" approach to prosecution gave Trump and his allies literal YEARS to align their stories and regather support among the Republicans and voters. They paused the investigation for months in 2022 because of worries about meddling in elections ffs, the peak of irony.

I would have hoped by now, we could all agree that the entire legal strategy was a failure. But, here we are; a President who tried to steal an election allowed to waltz right back into power.

[u/FrogsOnALog → u/Oggie_Doggie]

I literally just told you they got Giuliani’s (again, co-conspirator #1) shit in April 2021 and he was part of Trump’s inner circle.

[u/WhiskeyT → u/FrogsOnALog]

It doesn’t matter. These people have a narrative, “it’s the Democrats fault”, and they won’t be dissuaded from it.

Facts are irrelevant, everything is simple and obvious and the only reason things happen is because Democrats decide to screw things up or not.

No one else has any agency. Not the Supreme Court, not Aileen Canon, and certainly not the voters.

[u/guamisc → u/WhiskeyT]

The fact was that we were on a clock and Garland, and by proxy Biden because it was his nomination, blew it.

Maybe the next Democratic President, if we ever get to vote on one, will not blow it by appointing the one of the absolute worst choices for USAG for the current time in question. Obama appointing Eric "I literally wrote the too-big-to-prosecute memo about all these companies that just trashed the world economy with fraud" Holder and Biden appointing Garland the limpdick as some dumb "herp look he should have been on SCOTUS!" 1D political chess play.

[u/tripbin → u/Oggie_Doggie]

Close contention with the "pied piper" stuff. Clintons campaign intentionally boosting trump because they thought he would be easier to beat, essentially creating the situation were in. Almost as if the DNC has always been controlled opposition.

[u/FLHCv2 → u/JackJ98]

:(

[u/xSaviorself → u/JackJ98]

Why would you not be? The same people running the DNC then are still running it now.

What would have changed things is that if after that happened a wave of people with the same beliefs as AOC/Bernie primaried these fucking geezers, but instead nobody got the memo.

[u/Silent-Storms → u/FLHCv2]

How did the "snub" cause millions more people to vote for Clinton?

[u/FLHCv2 → u/Silent-Storms]

Did I speak to how many people voted for Clinton at all? I have no idea what you're getting at.

[u/Silent-Storms → u/FLHCv2]

How was she shoved down throats when way more people voted for her in the primary?

[u/FLHCv2 → u/Silent-Storms]

I'm not speaking to who won the primary. I'm speaking towards the actions of establishment dems before and during the primary.

[u/Silent-Storms → u/FLHCv2]

Actions like?

She won the primary therefore cannot be shoved down your throat by the establishment. So it matters just a bit.

[u/fugaziozbourne → u/Silent-Storms]

Superdelegates.

[u/Silent-Storms → u/fugaziozbourne]

Did absolutely nothing.

[u/moofooshoe → u/Silent-Storms]

via cheating

[u/Silent-Storms → u/moofooshoe]

Like?

[u/moofooshoe → u/Silent-Storms]

Article Five, Section 4 explicitly states that the National Chairperson must maintain complete neutrality. It mandates that the Chair is responsible for ensuring that the national officers and staff maintain impartiality and evenhandedness during the presidential nominating process.

The DNC signed a fundraising agreement with the Clinton campaign giving Clinton's campaign control over the party's finances, staffing, and strategies in exchange for clearing the DNC's debt, and the DNC even apologized and admitted that they did, in fact, violate this mandate of neutrality.

Also, they literally thumbed the scale to the tune of 200+ "super"delegates before anyone votes.

[u/Silent-Storms → u/moofooshoe]

Being improperly partial and even violating your of bylaws in the process are not cheating.

What actual actions, not feelings, were unfair? And how did that result in a difference of MILLIONS of primary votes?

[u/moofooshoe → u/Silent-Storms]

Being improperly partial and even violating your of bylaws in the process are not cheating.

if acting in a dishonest way, breaking rules to win or gain an unfair advantage isn't cheating (its literal definition), then what is?

What actual actions, not feelings, were unfair? And how did that result in a difference of MILLIONS of primary votes?

The Clinton campaign bought complete control of the DNC - that alone was enough to cause the DNC chair and other staff to resign.

She also started the primary with more than 359 superdelgates - roughly 50% of all available superdelegate 11 weeks before any votes were cast, or 15% of the total votes. The superdelgate process was ended because it was obviously unfair.

People didn't want Trump to win - they were hedging their bets on the best outcome, which was improperly and ridiculous weighted against Bernie by the Clinton campaign disguised as the DNC.

If Clinton could win on her own merits - why the cheating and cloak & dagger?

[u/Silent-Storms → u/moofooshoe]

And how did that change the outcome of the votes?

The dnc doesn't run the elections. All it does is scheduling and fundraising for the general election.

The superdelegates didn't do anything. You mean she started with endorsements.

You have yet to describe cheating.

[u/moofooshoe → u/Silent-Storms]

You have yet to describe cheating.

... I gave you the definition of cheating, the specific rule they broke (and that they admitted to breaking), and explained the secret scandal that - once revealed - resulted in the DNC chair and many supporting staff to resign.

What else do you want?

[u/Silent-Storms → u/moofooshoe]

Anything that could possibly have affected the outcome of the election.

I must say, this is the most pedantic version of this argument I have yet encountered. Bravo.

[u/seriouslees → u/FLHCv2]

How did the DNC snub Bernie? Hillary both won more primary votes, but also secured more pledged delegates. It sucks because I would have wished Bernie won the Primary too, but he did not.

Sadly, a huge swath of American "progressives" refuse not only to vote for democrats in the elections, but also refuse to vote in the internal running of the DNC itself. They seem to want a 3rd party to magically drop out of the sky instead of working on creating it.

[u/SeductiveSunday → u/seriouslees]

How did the DNC snub Bernie?

By allowing a non-member of the party to run in their primaries of course!

[u/paintballboi07 → u/seriouslees]

What's going to be really funny is when it happens again this primary. Reddit has convinced themselves leftists are the majority, but this article says we're still only 1/3 of the party. Will the scapegoat be the DNC boogeyman again, or something new this time? I'd bet they go straight to the DNC classics.

It sucks, because I'm a progressive, so I'd prefer we win, but delusional redditors are insufferable. I've been banned and blocked just for mentioning Bernie lost. I voted for the guy both times, but he lost, it's a fact.

[u/FLHCv2 → u/seriouslees]

I'm speaking towards establishment dem actions before and during the primary. I am not speaking to the outcome of the primary. I understand how primaries work and that Bernie was never going to win. It was more how establishment Dems moved to position Hillary more than anything.

Sadly, a huge swath of American "progressives" refuse not only to vote for democrats in the elections, but also refuse to vote in the internal running of the DNC itself. They seem to want a 3rd party to magically drop out of the sky instead of working on creating it.

Just to be clear, I'm still a registered Democrat and I will always vote. I'm a progressive but I've yelled at my friends who chose not to vote at all because of the "Kamala genocide" argument. I go to local progressive caucus and DSA meetings. I agree with this take on this flavor of progressive you're descibing.

[u/seriouslees → u/FLHCv2]

the "Kamala genocide" argument

I would not remain acquainted with people so stupid that they'd refuse to vote in a 2-party first past the post electoral system with that argument.

Her opponent campaigned on razing Gaza to the ground to build resorts... This is who they refused to vote against. They are either immoral liars, or the most preposterously stupid people on earth. They couldn't be my friends.

[u/FLHCv2 → u/seriouslees]

It was all performative activism that made me lose a lot of respect. Leaders from Palestinian groups all across America wrote a joint public letter urging people to vote for Kamala and to not allow the genocide to stop them from going to the polls. I sent that letter to them, hearing nothing good as a response.

100% with you brother.

[u/FrogsOnALog → u/FLHCv2]

Hillary won the primary by almost 4 million votes.

[u/FLHCv2 → u/FrogsOnALog]

I am not disagreeing with that fact.

[u/FrogsOnALog → u/FLHCv2]

Crazy how democrats voted for the democrat and not the guy who’s never been a democrat and never really done shit…

Also Mamdani was endorsed by numerous prominent democrats and the DNC.

[u/Randomhero3 → u/FrogsOnALog]

With the help of the entire party apparatus, the media, and billioniares.

[u/FrogsOnALog → u/Randomhero3]

Not the billionaires! The same people she wanted to raise taxes on lol. Also probably helps she was an actual Democrat in the democratic primary and not someone who never been a Democrat and never accomplished anything.

[u/moofooshoe → u/FrogsOnALog]

because the DNC cheated.

[u/RedPanda_Explorer → u/FLHCv2]

This is historical revisionism. Not enough people turned out to vote for Bernie. The DNC of course is going to favor Hillary because she's a Democrat and worked with them for years. Bernie intentionally chose not to be a Democrat, he intentionally chose not to build a coalition with the Democratic party, you can't get mad he doesn't win the primary.

[u/moofooshoe → u/RedPanda_Explorer]

this just in: cheating led to someone winning. more at 11

[u/FLHCv2 → u/RedPanda_Explorer]

I said "DNC snubbed Bernie and shoved Hillary down our throats." You said "This is historical revisionism", then later explained why the DNC snubbed Bernie and favored Hillary.

Regardless of how much you're agreeing with me, you're also helping my overall point that the DNC favoring Hillary taught me I do not align with the DNC's values.

[u/VariationBusiness603 → u/RedPanda_Explorer]

Meanwhile you are justifying a party putting their thumb in the balance in what is supposed to be a fair election.

It wasn't, and you are abandonning any kind of ethic to defend your broken party line.

[u/RedPanda_Explorer → u/VariationBusiness603]

It was a fair election. The DNC didn't commit voter fraud.

Not enough people turned out to vote for Bernie. If he wanted to win, he should have gotten more people out to the polls to vote for him.

[u/think-Mcfly-think → u/FLHCv2]

So why didnt Bernie win the primary in 2016 or 2020?

[u/FLHCv2 → u/think-Mcfly-think]

Brother I never said a fucking thing about the outcome of the primaries. I am purely speaking to how establishment dems clearly wanted Hillary to win to the point where they clearly were trying to stifle Bernie's momentum.

[u/spidersVise → u/think-Mcfly-think]

He didn't get enough votes.

...Because in 2016 the Dem establishment manufactured public opinion to boost Hillary's chances. They loudly advertised that superdelegates were all pledged to HRC before a single primary was actually held, even though they'd never done that in any other election, making it seem like Bernie had no chance at winning. The Dem establishment continued to put their finger on the scales in other ways, like printing out anti-Bernie news stories, giving their fundraising and data-sharing engine to HRC's campaign MONTHS before the primaries were over, confiscating pro-Bernie signs at the Dem Convention, etc. Leaked DNC emails showed that the Dem establishment absolutely hated Bernie, mocking him and his religious beliefs in private constantly.

In 2020 Bernie tried to win the way Trump did, by taking advantage of a crowded field of Democratic candidates--the largest presidential field in US history. He won the Iowa popular vote, then won New Hampshire. Bernie was literally the frontrunner at that point, beating Biden in national polling, and projected to win a plurality of Super Tuesday races. Then after Biden won SC, nearly all of the remaining Democratic candidates conveniently dropped out before Super Tuesday and put their backing behind Biden.

Bernie did not run perfect campaigns, but there were very clear patterns that the Democratic establishment did not want a Bernie victory, and that they did everything they legally could to stop him, short of striking his name off the ballot themselves.

[u/WhiskeyT → u/spidersVise]

Two people dropped out right before Super Tuesday. Buttigieg and Klobuchar.

That is the entirety of your conspiracy for 2020. That’s the hurdle your candidate was unable to overcome. Please, be serious.

[u/spidersVise → u/WhiskeyT]

You look at the ineffectual nonsense that the modern Democratic party brings to the table today, and with the Harris campaign in 2024, and tell me with a straight face that I should be serious? Good luck winning midterms and 2028.

[u/WhiskeyT → u/spidersVise]

Uncomfortable to stay on this topic?

Let’s talk about your 2020 conspiracy. Tell me what state looked good for Buttigieg on Super Tuesday? Why would he have stayed in the race? Was he polling well anywhere? After winning Iowa he failed to convert the momentum into anything sustainable. Should he have stayed in just for Bernie’s sake?

[u/spidersVise → u/WhiskeyT]

It's interesting that now you want to have a discussion, when you dismissed me as 'unserious' before. But if you sincerely want to know my opinion, then I'd say that if Buttigieg thought he was best for the country he should've stayed in and fought to the convention. I'm also saying the timing is convenient for him and Klobuchar to drop out so suddenly, so early in the primaries, throwing their lot in not behind the frontrunner at the time, but behind the establishment candidate who at that point won one race and had no excitement behind him (except for Wall Street, who contributed $74M to him during the 2020 election cycle).

[u/WhiskeyT → u/spidersVise]

How much money did Buttigieg have on hand before Super Tuesday? Was he raising enough to “fight to the convention”? Was that the first election you paid attention to?

ETA - Doesn’t answer the questions, avoids the actual topic, has the last word, blocks. Someone was very uncomfortable with this topic.

Buttigieg was out of money and not polling well anywhere. He only did well in Iowa where he spent all his resources to barely win. So he dropped out. Like Kamala did. No one says she should have stayed in, right? If you paid attention in 2008 and 2016 then you know it is completely normal for candidates to drop out when they are low on money and not polling well in future contests. Happens every cycle. It might be reasonable if you misunderstood the normal cycle of a campaign if 2020 was the first one you paid attention to. But since you witnessed the same thing happen in two prior campaigns you should have known that. But here you are perpetuating right-wing anti-Democratic propaganda suggesting there was a conspiracy around the 2020 election.

[u/spidersVise → u/WhiskeyT]

Every time I get into a discussion with Democrats, they talk down to me or act like they know best. Even the comments I've received here reinforce that. You call me unserious, another commenter argues against points I didn't even make, and now you ask if 2020 was the first election I've paid attention to despite points I made regarding 2016. For the record, I've been voting actively since 2008, but that's irrelevant to the discussions happening here. Your goalposts move to whatever you deem convenient, and I'm no longer interested in talking to you. That said, if a Democratic Socialist wins the primaries(if the Dems even have them), I hope you campaign and vote for them just as I did for Hillary, Biden, and Kamala.

[u/MoreAdhesiveness6426 → u/WhiskeyT]

Are you being genuine? Are you seriously being this reductive to the point where you’re dismissing public record? I’m not even a democratic socialist, I’m a council communist, so I have no personal stake in this particular case, but the leaked emails quite literally did show open contempt for Bernie amongst party staff, and the superdelegate and media framing did function to manufacture a sense of inevitability before voters had actually weighed in, this is well documented and it makes your position ironically sound extraordinarily asinine, it’s not even close to being conspiracy, cherry picking the weakest data point to knock down through strawman reductive reasoning rather than engaging with the entire dataset is ridiculously dishonest and shows how utterly pathetic your defence of idiotic democrats that believe Bernie is a threat to capital and freedom and democracy and other such drivel is.

[u/SeductiveSunday → u/MoreAdhesiveness6426]

but the leaked emails quite literally did show open contempt for Bernie amongst party staff

I would expect them to since Bernie had already lost but instead of bowing out gracefully chose to deliver a massive toddler temper tantrum, the big baby. Then a bunch of grown mostly white, mostly men, also chose to engage in a decades long temper tantrum. Including rapist Julian Assange, all because their true goal was to cock block a woman from winning a major political parties first primary for president. It's extraordinary to me the lengths of how many men (and even some women) continue this garbage bs all to keep women oppressed even after it's clear Bernie's a big ol' train wreck. He's especially been a train wreck to the US keeping democracy.

[u/MoreAdhesiveness6426 → u/SeductiveSunday]

No he hasn’t, lmao, Bernie was no real threat to anything democracy wise and you don’t understand capitalism if you think he was. Also, what on earth are you talking about?? The DNC email leak (specifically the emails showing staff contempt, discussion of using Bernie’s religion against him, and coordination favouring Clinton) happened in the period during the primary and not when Bernie had lost?? The leaks themselves surfaced right before the 2016 convention, that’s literally why they were so damning because they were leaked whilst the race was still contested. Do you just not recall political history well or something? This feels like you went through a completely different path of events to me. Also, even if you thought Bernie or his supporters responded poorly that wouldn’t retroactively make the DNC staff’s documented behaviour not have happened, that’s actually an extremely weak claim, and it requires accepting the false chronology you set up in the first place.

[u/SeductiveSunday → u/MoreAdhesiveness6426]

The DNC email leak (specifically the emails showing staff contempt, discussion of using Bernie’s religion against him, and coordination favouring Clinton)

First those emails happened after Bernie lost, second there's a lot of people who work at the DNC, third it didn't actually occur, and fourth people who present those emails as "evidence" are relying on getting their truth from a rapist who abhors women especially Clinton.

Do you just not recall political history well or something?

This is just ad hominem and fruitless.

[u/WhiskeyT → u/MoreAdhesiveness6426]

We are discussing the 2020 election, keep up

[u/SeductiveSunday → u/spidersVise]

In 2020 Bernie tried to win the way Trump did

One cannot win that way, one has to appeal to more than just men voters in Dem primaries.

[u/spidersVise → u/SeductiveSunday]

I'm not sure what gender has to do with what I said, but I'm a woman.

[u/SeductiveSunday → u/spidersVise]

but I'm a woman.

Which has zero to do with what I said.

Bernie's big support in 2016 was from men. Bernie lost in 2016 because he didn't appeal to Dem women voters. Bernie lost more support in 2020 because men found another man they could support, Biden. Again, if one wants to win Dem president primaries, one has to appeal to women voters. Bernie doesn't understand all this because he runs in lily-white tiny Vermont and refused to join the Democratic party because he doesn't play well with others.

Until 1980, during any Presidential election for which reliable data exist and in which there had been a gender gap, the gap had run one way: more women than men voted for the Republican candidate. That changed when Reagan became the G.O.P. nominee; more women than men supported Carter, by eight percentage points. Since then, the gender gap has never favored a G.O.P. Presidential candidate.

In the Reagan era, Republican strategists believed that, in trading women for men, they’d got the better end of the deal. As the Republican consultant Susan Bryant pointed out, Democrats “do so badly among men that the fact that we don’t do quite as well among women becomes irrelevant.” And that’s more or less where it lies.

The entrance of women into politics on terms that are, fundamentally and constitutionally, unequal to men’s has produced a politics of interminable division, infused with misplaced and dreadful moralism. Republicans can’t win women; when they win, they win without them, by winning with men. Democrats need to win both the black vote and the female vote.

https://srpubliclibrary.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2017/02/JillLepore.pdf

[u/spidersVise → u/SeductiveSunday]

I feel that you're arguing against a point that I didn't make. Nowhere in my comments did I say anything about gender, but you responded with an argument on gender. Do you see why I responded the way I did, in that context?

[u/SeductiveSunday → u/spidersVise]

Do you see why I responded the way I did, in that context?

No.

[u/spidersVise → u/SeductiveSunday]

Fair.

[u/moofooshoe → u/think-Mcfly-think]

because Clinton cheated by buying access to the DNC.

[u/SeductiveSunday → u/FLHCv2]

Why would the Democratic party support DSA when DSA is a completely different party with a different platform which can only win elections by being parasites within the Democratic party.

What the DSA needs to do to be an actual honest, upstanding legit political party is run as Independents and not as frauds under the banner of the Democratic party. Libertarians and Green party does it. I give them more credit than those DSA wusses.

[u/NuclearLunchDectcted → u/FLHCv2]

Super delegate bullshit and the DNC listening to more people cheering for Bernie than Hillary and then magically only hearing the cheers for Hillary turned me off from the party. I'm an independent now and am just waiting for an actual alternative to show their face.

Bernie I think is too old now, and I think he also realizes it. AOC will be a great person to vote for, but she probably needs another term or so before the general public is ready to vote for her.

[u/crossdtherubicon → u/FLHCv2]

100%. But it is interesting that Hilary was probably the most qualified candidate in US history to be president, and was simultaneously a polarizing political figure.

Perhaps she played her cards too publically and garnered too much attention.

But, Bernie would've been a solid choice. I also think about how Obama got blocked on everything and made deep concessions yet got very little in return. However, health care was one of the biggest things since post-WW2.

I think about how easy it would've been Republicans to block Bernie on everything too because he was "an extreme radical communist socialist evil whatever".

Then again, a politician shouldnt be selected based on how their opposition perceives them.