Vast Majority Of Americans Won’t Vote For A Socialist, New Poll Finds

[Swordsmyth]

If socialist candidates are the future of the Democratic Party, that future won’t be too bright, if the findings of a new Hill.TV/Harris X American Barometer poll hold true.
Seventy-six percent of respondents in a recent survey said they would not vote for a “socialist candidate,” while 24 percent of those polled said they have no problem with the hypothetical candidate. (RELATED: OCASIO-CORTEZ SPLITTING THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY IN MORE WAYS THAN ONE)
Those results conflict with Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom Perez’s prediction that young politicians like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez — a dues-paying member of New York City’s chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America — represent his party’s “future.”
Ocasio-Cortez beat Rep. Joe Crowley, the fourth-ranking Democrat, in a June primary.
Other primary candidates, like Maine Democratic Senate candidate Zak Ringelstein, who is challenging Sen. Angus King, are running as Democratic Socialists.
Yet not all Democrats are thrilled with this trend.
In an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal earlier in July, former Democratic vice presidential candidate Joseph Lieberman cautioned his party about turning too far left.
“The policies Ms. Ocasio-Cortez advocates are so far from the mainstream, her election in November would make it harder for Congress to stop fighting and start fixing problems,” Lieberman wrote.
The Hill.TV/HarrisX poll was conducted between July 21-22 and sampled 1,001 American voters.

http://dailycaller.com/2018/07/26/am...ote-socialist/

[oyarde]

Leiberman could be right , as many people who are willing to accept that $#@! might already be in the fold .

[oyarde]

When I was a kid these people had to hide it . Now they put signs in own yard . In order for america to be Great , they need to slither back to the coven and hide .

[AuH20]

Meanwhile in the 51st State..................

[DamianTV]

If people wont vote for a socialist, they wont have many people to actually vote for.

[CaptUSA]

If people wont vote for a socialist, they wont have many people to actually vote for.

Right?! When was the last time either party had a non-socialist on the ticket?!

[pcosmar]

Been doing it all my lifetime.. what has changed. Every one has been a disappointment. Ron Reagan (first vote.)on down.

I wrote in Ron.

[pcosmar]

Right?! When was the last time either party had a non-socialist on the ticket?!

yup.

[Occam's Banana]

Vast Majority Of Americans Won’t Vote For A Socialist, New Poll Finds

Since when?

[timosman]

Since when?

Since candidates stopped hiding their true calling?

[AuH20]

[Occam's Banana]

Vast Majority Of Americans Won’t Admit To Pollsters That They Vote For A Socialist, New Poll Finds

Fixed.

[phill4paul]

If we still had thread ratings I'd 5-star this one just for the responses.

[Anti Federalist]

If we still had thread ratings I'd 5-star this one just for the responses.

Well, I'll be damned...they are gone...I hadn't noticed.

[CCTelander]

Since when?

For real. Not that voting ever produces any lasting improvements anyway.

[Zippyjuan]

Since when?

Sounds like it was a generic term question rather than listing candidates who may or may not be socialist and having them pick one of those. "Would you vote for a Nationalist president?" "Would you vote for a communist for president?" "Would you vote for a populist for president?" "Would you vote for a socialist for president?" (No link to the actual question any place I can find).

Put some real names instead of a generic label and the poll would probably change pretty dramatically. Then it will be closer to the "Republican" "Democrat" divide.

[TheTexan]

Socialism has some good ideas, like UBI, so I don't have to work any more

[Anti Globalist]

I don't know about that. Americans have already been doing that for decades.

[DamianTV]

One big issue with Socialists is that people fall for Changes in Definition all the time.

A great example of this is the way we use the word "Right" today. If you read a contract, they grant you "Rights" to do certain things, like appeal or discuss or whatever, but that is an Exchange of Definition. Since that "Right" is granted by the Authority of the other Party, its more Contract Law, which, by definition can not grant Rights. The actual word that should be used is Permission. You can grant me Permission to come into your house upon request, but you cant grant me a Right to do so, at least under Contract Law. Permissions are granted by other people, Rights come from a power higher than government or people.

The muddying of the definition of Rights has been done so that those Rights that have been granted by other people are eventually REVOKED. That is why they want you to think you have Rights that are actually Permissions; anyone can revoke a Permission.

The muddying of the definition of the word Right is also where Socialists have it flat out WRONG. We dont have a Right to an Education, or to Health Care, or to ANY "Right" that infringes upon the Equal Rights of others. The best example I can think of is "The RIGHT to WELFARE".

[Pauls' Revere]

I would agree with him 100% on this point. After, the 2008 meltdown the American Dream shattered. Homeowner and big business were bailed out. "To big to fail" was the battle cry. I remember Obama talking about bailouts for homeowners, banks, and big business. What if you don't own a home?, aren't a bank? or just a small business? What if your a working stiff trying to make it paycheck to paycheck? Where was the help for those folks?

[Occam's Banana]

Sounds like it was a generic term question [...]

Put some real names instead of a generic label and the poll would probably change pretty dramatically. [...]

Which was precisely my point ... (humor, like a , dies when it is dissected ...)

[Zippyjuan]

I would agree with him 100% on this point. After, the 2008 meltdown the American Dream shattered. Homeowner and big business were bailed out. "To big to fail" was the battle cry. I remember Obama talking about bailouts for homeowners, banks, and big business. What if you don't own a home?, aren't a bank? or just a small business? What if your a working stiff trying to make it paycheck to paycheck? Where was the help for those folks?

Bailouts for everybody! But that would be socialism.

[Swordsmyth]

Bailouts for everybody! But that would be socialism.

There are other ways to help people, like lowering taxes and spending.

[Swordsmyth]

I agree that most candidates and voters are more socialist than the average voter realizes but this poll doesn't bode well for the "Democratic SOCIALISTS" that the Democrat party is embracing, it is kind of hard to confuse people when you admit up front to being a socialist.

[Pauls' Revere]

Bailouts for everybody! But that would be socialism.

Right, my point is that nobody should've been bailed out. That's how the market decides. Don't leave it to politicians to decide who wins and who loses.

[pcosmar]

Observed 60 years of socialism in a socialist country..
But suddenly voters are not going to vote socialist..

You can make a Poll say anything.

[VIDEODROME]

What about a 'Democratic Socialist' ?

[juleswin]

Love the many excellent responses to the OP. I would add to those responses and say that if anything, the vast majority of Americans would not vote for a candidate who was against socialism. Think SS, medicare, CHIP, VA etc etc. Americans love those socialist programs very much.

Just don't call it free xxx service and you can convince them that the most socialist govt program is not socialist at all.

[osan]

If socialist candidates are the future of the Democratic Party, that future won’t be too bright, if the findings of a new Hill.TV/Harris X American Barometer poll hold true.
Seventy-six percent of respondents in a recent survey said they would not vote for a “socialist candidate,” while 24 percent of those polled said they have no problem with the hypothetical candidate. (RELATED: OCASIO-CORTEZ SPLITTING THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY IN MORE WAYS THAN ONE)
Those results conflict with Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom Perez’s prediction that young politicians like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez — a dues-paying member of New York City’s chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America — represent his party’s “future.”
Ocasio-Cortez beat Rep. Joe Crowley, the fourth-ranking Democrat, in a June primary.
Other primary candidates, like Maine Democratic Senate candidate Zak Ringelstein, who is challenging Sen. Angus King, are running as Democratic Socialists.
Yet not all Democrats are thrilled with this trend.
In an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal earlier in July, former Democratic vice presidential candidate Joseph Lieberman cautioned his party about turning too far left.
“The policies Ms. Ocasio-Cortez advocates are so far from the mainstream, her election in November would make it harder for Congress to stop fighting and start fixing problems,” Lieberman wrote.
The Hill.TV/HarrisX poll was conducted between July 21-22 and sampled 1,001 American voters.

http://dailycaller.com/2018/07/26/am...ote-socialist/

I do believe that NY has proven this poll to be in some error. I can easily see the black states voting in socialists and even communists. It's not even a mini-stretch.

Just take a gander at what NY put into Congress and give it some time to sink in:










And finally...





Yes Nancy, do - because she's bat-$#@!tier than even you, and that's REALLY saying something.

I can readily see this sort of thing happening in California, Ill-Annoy, Oregon, Massachussetts, Minnesota, and all the other idiot-dense population centers.

[Swordsmyth]

I do believe that NY has proven this poll to be in some error. I can easily see the black states voting in socialists and even communists. It's not even a mini-stretch.

Just take a gander at what NY put into Congress and give it some time to sink in:










And finally...





Yes Nancy, do - because she's bat-$#@!tier than even you, and that's REALLY saying something.

I can readily see this sort of thing happening in California, Ill-Annoy, Oregon, Massachussetts, Minnesota, and all the other idiot-dense population centers.

Because idiots tend to flock together the 24% that said they would vote for an open socialist will undoubtedly elect some, other complete socialists who don't wear the label will also continue to be elected by ignorant people.

But the more the Democrats embrace the declared socialists the more they will lose swing voters' support and become a regional party.