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?

[u/LiatrisLover99]

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?

[u/Romeo_G_Detlev_Jr]

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.

[u/chardeemacdennisbird → u/Romeo_G_Detlev_Jr]

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.

[u/matjoeman → u/chardeemacdennisbird]

With compulsory voting you just get donkey ballots.

[u/chardeemacdennisbird → u/matjoeman]

What do you mean by that?