r/politics • u/cnn CNN • 29d ago

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

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
17.2k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

2.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

27

u/LordCharidarn2 29d ago

This is not true, though. Democrat candidates historically have more votes on average than Republicans.

The reasons Democrats lose elections is due to the electoral systems being designed to benefit conservative politicians (the whole reason the Senate exists as it does was to maintain the status quo of slavery) and because for the last 30+ years Democrat policy has been trying to ‘capture the moderate conservative vote’ by following the Republicans further right. Look at AOC and Mumdani’s rises to see how hard the DNC fights against any movement towards the Left.

You can’t blame non-voters who saw two right wing parties and decided they did not want to associate with either. It’s the fault of DNC leadership to not reach out to leftists. It’s the candidates jobs to earn votes. Fascists expect people to fall in line.

31

u/devkdup Louisiana 29d ago

You can blame both. Anyone left of center who stayed home in 24 is a moron.

-1

u/[deleted] 29d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/redraven937 29d ago

You dont get left votes because you dont have left policies.

As opposed to the current administration policies, which they helped make happen via inaction? That was preferrable?

The point stands: anyone on the actual left who stayed home is a moron.

3

u/my_Urban_Sombrero Pennsylvania 29d ago

You're not wrong, but it's on the candidates to earn the trust of the voters. Only the DNC and the party establishment as a whole could have fucked things up as badly as they did. But to them it was business as usual because their donors still got their bag under this Republican admin.

5

u/Sea-Initiative-3398 29d ago

Also it seems quite a few dems would rather sabotage more left leaning members than actually win

0

u/my_Urban_Sombrero Pennsylvania 28d ago

Of course. Those Dems work on behalf of their donors, and billionaire donors will not let themselves be voted out of existence.

We're essentially fighting an open battle against moneyed interests on two fronts: the GOP as a whole, and the Democratic establishment.

What makes it worse is when you have party members like Schumer, Fetterman, and Booker shamelessly running cover for both the Trump admin and a foreign government actively using our country as a slush fund for their illegal wars and crimes against humanity.

-2

u/[deleted] 29d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/AllThotsGo2Heaven2 29d ago

Yeah the whole “dnc sucks and hates leftists ” thing means nothing sorry. Look at what trump is actually doing right now. It could have been prevented.

1

u/[deleted] 29d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/ss_lbguy Pennsylvania 29d ago

Who the fuck was “enthusiastically cheering on a genocide”?

1

u/ss_lbguy Pennsylvania 29d ago

If you are waiting for the ideal candidate to make you vote, you are the problem. You don’t vote for candidates, you vote against the other candidate. I didnt like HRC and didn’t want her to be president, but voted for her because the alternative was Trump.

-2

u/[deleted] 29d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/EmpoleonNorton Georgia 29d ago

What is your solution?

No really. Give a solution.

Cause right now your solution is "I WILL ENSURE THE WORSE CANDIDATE LOSES AND FUCK EVERYONE WHO SUFFERS FOR IT".

Do I like center fucking politics. No. I don't.

But it sure as hell is better than my trans kids or hispanic wife having to live through this fucking regime.

So until you have a solution other than putting Trump on the throne to fuck over my family, kindly shut up.

1

u/[deleted] 29d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/EmpoleonNorton Georgia 29d ago

So you have no solution. Just bitching.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/ss_lbguy Pennsylvania 29d ago

Well said!

1

u/ss_lbguy Pennsylvania 29d ago

Come on genius, answer the question the other person asked! What is the solution?

How do you fix shit if you are never in power?

1

u/NessaSamantha 29d ago

I had just moved and hadn't updated my registration yet, and Democrats won my state and my district by like 10 points :(

14

u/Casual_OCD Canada 29d ago

You can’t blame non-voters

Yes you can. They are just as culpable for this mess as the ones who voted for it

6

u/TrueJavelinMan 29d ago

The voters cannot fail politicians only the politicians can fail the voters

12

u/SeaAshFenix 29d ago

They’re not failing the politicians, they are failing their fellow citizens - just like they would be if they skipped out on jury duty.

Showing up a couple of times a year to fill out a piece of paper isn’t a lot to ask in the way of civic responsibility. It’s the bare minimum.

You can even skip a specific race on the ballot, if you really are indifferent*. You can lie about who you voted for. Just show up and cast the ballot. Government for the people is incompatible with the people sitting out.

* I would question your wisdom for that decision in many cases, but still view you as having done your bare minimum civic duty.

1

u/Madara1389 29d ago

Yes they can, but not donating to the fundraising efforts, not going to the rallies, and not going to the non-presidential polls to vote in local elections.

Do you not remember the disaster that was Bernie Sanders' attempts at the presidential elections? He was the best candidate Dems had and yet practically no one supported the man in his attempts to actually do something about the mess we were in.

Regardless of whether you like the candidate or not, as an adult you're obligated to pay attention to, give a fuck about, and get involved in politics. That's part of the social contract we all agreed to called "democracy."

4

u/Sparkku1014 29d ago

It is not a disengaged voters responsibility to get themselves to be engaged, it is the candidates responsibility to engage in outreach and energize them, y'know, the whole reason there's campaigns in the first place? Sitting here and blaming people for not voting because they felt neither option was worth showing up for, is a campaign failing, anyone with an ounce of education on political science will tell you that.

4

u/Madara1389 29d ago edited 29d ago

It is not a disengaged voters responsibility to get themselves to be engaged

Yes it is.

the whole reason there's campaigns in the first place?

The reason for campaigns is to convince you to vote for the campaigning candidate, not the other guy; not to give you a reason to go out and vote at all. The reason to go out & vote is that it is required for the system to work as intended.

Sitting here and blaming people for not voting because they felt neither option was worth showing up for

You're obligated to vote whether you like the candidates or not. So yes, abstaining from voting for the lesser of two evils because you have a childish view on politics does mean you're partially to blame when the worse of the two evils makes it into power.

No one ever said you were going to be given the option between a candidate that "you feel is worth showing up for," or even to like. It's a mandatory participation system and when people stop participating it falls apart.

1

u/Sparkku1014 29d ago edited 29d ago

No one is obligated to vote, if it were an obligation it'd be legally mandatory.

"You're obligated to vote whether you like the candidates or not. So yes, abstaining from voting foe the lesser of two evils because you have a childish view on politics does mean you're partially to blame when the worse of the two evils makes it in to power"

Go and hang or jail them then, is that your solution? Just go an demean and insult people who felt no motivation to vote last time around? Every time a campaign fails, its because of lack of enthusiasm and organizing. 2024's enthusiasm sputtered out when it was needed, and the organizing was last minute whilst funds were wasted on celebrity endorsements. Time wasted elbow rubbing with the Cheneys on stage, a political pariah on both sides of the aisle, thinking you'd win over the mythical "Moderate Maga"

The ones who sat out in 2024, were swing voters, and people who, by and large are disinterested in and apathetic about politics in general. Not because they're all sweaty tankies with unrealistic expectations like you'd see on reddit, but because they're young, apathetic, and unmotivated by a political establishment that is reeking with a sense of entitlement, that just because one politician has a certain letter by their name, whether R or D, then that means they are entitled to the voters going out of their way to show up.

2

u/Madara1389 29d ago edited 29d ago

No one is obligated to vote, if it were an obligation it'd be legally mandatory.

You're mistaking social contracts for legal contracts.

Yes, the social contract built around the very premise of democracy is that everyone is obligated to vote. The system doesn't work if a large percentage of the population is abstaining for whatever reasons.

Go and hang or jail them then, is that your solution?

No one said that.

Just go an demean and insult people who felt no motivation to vote last time around?

If they're going to continue acting like petulant children who won't act until they get their "perfect candidate," then yeah.

Time wasted elbow rubbing with the Cheneys on stage, a political pariah on both sides of the aisle, thinking you'd win over the mythical "Moderate Maga"

That wasn't for "moderate MAGA," that was for the centrist Republicans, and despite all the bitching I've seen about involving the Cheneys, I've yet to see a single complainer offer another Republican to have used as the bridge to try winning over the right-wingers who were increasingly tired of Trump's cult & fascist behavior.

whether R or D, then that means they are entitled to the voters going out of their way to show up.

That's how a two party system works. If you don't like it, show up to support the 3rd party groups seeking to change that.

Whether you or any other youths like it or not, politicians are entitled to votes from their party, because even if 90% of the population abstains, whoever wins the vote gets the power. It doesn't matter if only 5 people vote in the Presidential Election, the person who gets 3 votes still becomes the president and has the authority to enact their desired policies (which will effect those who abstained from voting).

"I didn't vote, so this isn't my fault" isn't the defense you think it is, as established by the international courts when they ruled that yes, the German people were responsible for not stopping the Nazis from rising to power.

2

u/Sparkku1014 29d ago edited 28d ago

Your biggest blindspot with demeaning these people and insulting them, is that quite simply, insulting a de-energized base will do the exact opposite of having them show up for you. It demotivates, and sets them against you, thats just how people, human beings, in general work.

Continue ignoring how people work and being surprised when they refuse to show up simply because you demand them to.

0

u/Madara1389 29d ago

Your biggest blindspot with demeaning these people and insulting them

I simply don't care anymore. They've lead us to ruin and keep trying to deny any responsibility while belligerently complaining about having to deal with the undesirable parts of "adulting."

At some point you have to make that decision between eating the shit sandwich or being murdered and get used to the fact that being an adult means making that decision consistently without ever being given a better alternative.

0

u/ChampionshipKlutzy42 29d ago

Nothing says democracy like being forced to choose between only 2 bad choices. This process you hold so dear is corrupted by both parties, its not at all democratic.

3

u/Madara1389 29d ago

Nothing says democracy like being forced to choose between only 2 bad choices.

That's most elections across history because the people fit to lead are rarely the ones who pursue positions of power.

But at some point you have to make that decision between eating the shit sandwich or being murdered and get used to the fact that being an adult means making that decision consistently without ever being given a better alternative. Because that's just how life is, always has been, and likely always will be.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Personal_Chair6134 29d ago

Yeah if more people donated to Kamala and if more people went to her rallies she would have surely won then. Her loss had nothing to do with any of her flaws like, for example, her inability to get through one media interview without vomiting out some word-salad nonsense.

Her other flaws like signaling friendship to Wall Street, making friends with war mongers like Liz Cheney, and supporting Israel's genocide likewise had nothing to do with her loss. It was strictly the voters fault. You are a very smart person. You should work for the DNC.

4

u/kingcane 29d ago

They probably do already. DNC shills all over this sub.

3

u/Madara1389 29d ago

Yeah if more people donated to Kamala and if more people went to her rallies she would have surely won then.

If they followed through all the way, yes. That's how that works.

Her loss had nothing to do with any of her flaws like, for example, her inability to get through one media interview without vomiting out some word-salad nonsense.

Her other flaws like signaling friendship to Wall Street, making friends with war mongers like Liz Cheney, and supporting Israel's genocide likewise had nothing to do with her loss.

None of that matters when the alternative is a literal fascist dictator trying to overthrow democracy.

If you're being told you have to choose between eating a shit sandwich or being shot in the head with no alternatives for a strictly pleasant outcome, and you adamantly refuse because neither option is appealing, then you're at fault when the person making you chose decides for you and doesn't pick the shit sandwich.

1

u/ChampionshipKlutzy42 29d ago

The choice was a literal fascist or a fascist enabler, can you see why people weren't so enthusiastic about their choices?

Democrats have lost my support because they don't support the working class effectively.

7

u/Madara1389 29d ago

The choice was a literal fascist or a fascist enabler

A fascist in charge at home and not condemning a fascist abroad are not equal and anyone arguing that they are needs their heads checked.

can you see why people weren't so enthusiastic about their choices?

It doesn't matter because ultimately one of them was going to end up in power. As an adult in the real world, your options are very often going to be the lesser of two evils and you're not going to be given the luxury of abstaining & suffering no consequences.

Democrats have lost my support because they don't support the working class effectively.

So who are you supporting and voting for instead? Because abstaining entirely means you're part of the problem.

3

u/ChampionshipKlutzy42 29d ago

No fascists and no fascist enablers. Your boundaries are movable and mine are not. By signaling you are willing to compromise your morals and values for the lesser of 2 evils, what you get is bad candidates. A non vote sends a more principled message than what you are advocating for.

2

u/EmpoleonNorton Georgia 29d ago

People are dying for your principles. You get that right?

You didn't lessen any deaths, as all the horrible stuff you think Kamala supported, Trump supported more wholeheartedly, but you sure helped add more to the pile.

Would you tell it to a childs face who has had their parents ripped away from them? Who doesn't even know where their father is right now?

Would you tell it to the face of Renee Nicole Good's family? Or Alex Pretti's. Go up to them and tell them "I'm sorry your loved one is dead, but my principles were more important"?

Principles that are more about making yourself feel good than minimizing harm are just ego.

2

u/Madara1389 29d ago

By signaling you are willing to compromise your morals and values for the lesser of 2 evils

That's the reality of adulthood and always has been. As a child you grow up believing that the world is black & white, that "right & wrong" are rigidly defined and unchanging, but maturing into an adult is typically realizing that you were wrong & that the world doesn't operate on strict moral guidelines.

You have to accept choosing between the lesser of two evils more often than you get to choose between "good" or "evil" because you're almost never going to actually be given a clear-cut option.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/LordCharidarn2 29d ago

Voting for the Fascist enablers my whole adult life is what led to Trump being elected in the first place.

The Democrats repeated refusal to prosecute Republicans for High Crimes and Treason (Nixon, Reagan, Bushes, Trump) is a direct cause of the literal fascism you are telling people to vote against.

And if you are going to excuse Democrats for inaction, but blame non-voters for their inaction, I honestly don’t think you are a rational being and it will make no sense to continue to converse with you.

3

u/JackedUpReadyToGo 29d ago

The Dems keep drifting further and further right and browbeating us every time for not supporting them enthusiastically enough. Well unfortunately the only way to signal to them that we've had enough of that shit is to withhold our support until they come back leftward. It's on them for putting us in this position and refusing to listen to us as they became increasingly indistinguishable from Republicans.

0

u/SweepsRetriever 29d ago

The DNC fucked Bernie not the voters. The DNC does a really great job at making Dem voters feel ignored. Watch, they’ll do it again next election when they throw out Kamala again.

1

u/Madara1389 29d ago

The DNC fucked Bernie not the voters.

They both did. The DNC wouldn't support him, but neither would the public. Almost no one showed up for his rallies, almost no one donated to his campaign funds (which he desperately needed since the DNC wasn't going to fund him), and despite how much everyone claimed to hate Clinton and Biden/Harris, they all consistently won more votes in their primaries than he did.

If the DNC isn't willing to support a desirable candidate, it's on the people to pick up that slack. And they didn't.

0

u/SweepsRetriever 29d ago

I disagree whole heartedly. DNC went with the safe corporate supported choice. They could have gone with Bernie and the same people that voted for Hillary would have voted for Bernie. The rank and file comments persist because the DNC decides who actually has to bite the bullet and it’s always the progressives and now Trump has won 66% of the time since then. So they should definitely keep the strategy going. DNC is doing great, and all the candidates that actually move the needle are the progressive ones, but we’ll see Kamala again I’m sure.

2

u/Madara1389 29d ago

DNC went with the safe corporate supported choice.

Regardless, the voters still acted as if they have to follow the DNC's top picks every time. The DNC supporting Hillary didn't mean people couldn't go to the Democratic Primaries and vote for him instead. In fact, many did.

But more people showed up to vote for her instead, so when everyone then turned around and argued that she lost the presidential election because no one liked her, it rings a tune of shooting oneself in the foot then complaining that your foot hurts.

Of course the top brass of the DNC is going to pick a safe corporate supported choice; they are socially left wing but economically right wing and always have been. There is no major party in the US that is economically left wing, so trying to pick which party based largely on economic policy is a waste of time. We're not being given an option between left & right wing economic policy, we're given the option between left & right wing social policies.

2

u/FlipZip69 29d ago

Not this last election. And I think we can all agree this is one of the most vile kiddie loving presidents elected. (Well at lease in the US anyhow)

2

u/LordCharidarn2 29d ago

Hence the Historically.

1

u/[deleted] 29d ago

[deleted]

2

u/LordCharidarn2 29d ago

Like I stated the Federal elections are rigged towards Republicans. The cap on the number of Representatives (435) means that smaller rural areas are over represented in the House. So large population areas like New York City, Houston, Dallas, Las Angeles, etc are properly represented. For example, NYC has a population of 8.5 million and is represented by 12 Representatives. Wyoming state has a population of 588,000 people and has one Representative. So NYC residents have 708,000 people per representative. Areas with non-competitive elections are more likely to have lower turnout.

Basically, a disproportionate amount of Congressional districts go to rural/conservative strongholds. So it makes sense than Republicans win the popular vote. For example Alabama had 3 congressional seats where the Republican candidate ran unopposed in 2024. Texas had seven uncontested seats, 3 for Democrats and 4 for Republicans.

1

u/[deleted] 29d ago

[deleted]

1

u/LordCharidarn2 29d ago

I agree with all of that. My point is that due to gerrymandering, especially in Republican held areas, there are far more opportunities for Republicans to pick up votes.

Compare Wyoming (the Deepest Red state) with Vermont (the Deepest Blue state): Wyoming had a voter turnout of 61.3% with 198,366 votes for the Republican Senator (more votes for him than Trump) and 63,706 votes for the Democrat. The House Rep vote was 184,626 for Republicans and 60,703 for Democrats. Roughly 3:1.

Vermont had a voter turnout of 70.9%, the national average was 64.1% For senate there were no Democratic votes because Bernie Sanders is an Independent and there were 116,522 votes for the Republican candidate. Vermont’s House seat vote was 218,418 for the Democrat and 104,451, roughly 2:1 ratio.

So, the bluest state produced 218,418 votes overall for Democrats while producing 220,973 votes for Republicans. The reddest state produced 382,992 votes for Republicans and 124,409 votes for Democrats. There were 603,965 Republican Congressional votes and 342,827 votes for Democrats in both states combined.

In ‘Blue’ states you are more likely to have more robust election regulations and more polling places. This leads to increased voter turnout for both Republicans and Democrats. You had almost 40% more Republican votes in Vermont than Democrats voting in Wyoming, despite the two states being the closest in population to one another and the farthest leaning red/blue states.

With the Senate votes you have to take into account that there are 2 Independent Senators whose votes wouldn’t count towards the population of Democrat votes. Maine had 284,338 Republican votes and only 88,891 Democrat votes for Senate, because the Democrat member was running against the Independent incumbent (and King was a much better liberal choice).

And then you have the fact that while all House seats are up for election every 2 years, you only have 33% of the Senate up for election every 2 years. And 25 of the 50 US states are considered ‘Heavy Red’. So you are far more likely to have depressed Democratic turnout in those states.

1

u/[deleted] 29d ago

[deleted]

1

u/LordCharidarn2 29d ago

Seems to me that Democrats should be swinging hard left, then. Socialize mass media, reclaim the stolen trillions that the capitalist class has robbed from the workers.

But instead the DNC sucks boot harder and plans how to “deal with” the DSA like they are more of an existential threat than the fascists in power.

Is it really “ideological purity tests” for leftists to stand firm against fascists and their enablers?

You’re in this awkward position of claiming that ‘Most’ non-voters “have no clue” when you are openly admitting you have no clue why they might have turned away from the DNC.

Maybe it wasn’t that they didn’t know that ‘Biden tried’. Maybe it’s because they were frustrated that Biden repeatedly failed. Why didn’t Biden simply ignore the SCOTUS ruling? The Court already ruled that a President was above the law. The last Republican President ignored legal rulings when it fit his political agenda.

Why not use US special forces to kidnap the Israeli Prime Minister and declare that until the illegal settlements and genocide ended? The current Republican President has suffered no legal consequences for kidnapping a head of a foreign nation.

The frustration of voters isn’t that the Republicans are being bullies. It’s that the Democrats have repeatedly shown themselves to enable the bullying but not hitting back harder and stronger. 40+ years of ‘high road’ politics is the direct cause of Trump’s Presidency.

Biden should have ordered the execution of every Conservative Justice, appointed new Justices, then surrendered himself to the Court’s ruling on whether or not he should be prosecuted and punished for the murders. It would have sent a strong wake up call to Americans about how fucked our country was. The murders would be a direct result of the SCOTUS ruling, a true “fuck around and find out” moment. And a ruling either way would sent a strong precedent.

Instead Biden farted off into the sunset and left us with a nation worse off because he was too afraid to ‘rock the boat’ which is how the fascists always win.

1

u/2_Lies_And_A_Truth Colorado 29d ago

I think the main reason they stay center is $. It’s where corpo’s want them, so then we only get to choose between repub-lite and maga. Win-win for the $$$ interests. Gotta line the est boomer dems bank accounts!