AOC Seen as ‘Face’ of Democratic Party — and It’s Not Even Close: New Poll

Conservatives, they are putting conservatives in charge. Don't be fooled by how republicans label themselves. They haven't been conservative since before the turn of the century.

It's DNC leadership that has taken up that mantle.

Quickest way to mobilize the Democratic party is to threaten to put a progressive in charge

They learned their lesson with Obama. The funny thing is he’s not even a fucking leftist, the party is just so full of dinosaurs they think a modern centrist is a leftist.
- With Obama they just learned how to take a somewhat progressive candidates and bend them into a moderate. It's the same thing that happened with Kamala, although of course it's hard to say if either were ever really progressive or if they just used that for votes and didn't mind discarding it once they got pressured by the party and consultants.
  
  Kamala was never progressive.
  
  Neither was Obama. Not long after he put a bow on the nomination, he voted for an expansive security bill. A lot of people were surprised, but not me.
  
  plus his voting record pre-presidency was very conservative. they fabricated his progressive persona
  
  Yeah I definitely agree, both Kamala and Obama are candidates that acted progressive in their primaries but as soon as they eventually got the nomination they went towards the corporate Democrat establishment. My main question is whether they were progressive at some point but let themselves be changed by the establishment, consultants, and donors or if they never really cared that much to begin with. The end state is the same but the difference is important as it gives us insight into how much power the consultants and others have over candidates vs if they didn't really care then it wouldn't have taken much to change them.
  
  Kamala was picked as VP because Dems thought she would get votes from the republicans who aren't so MAGA. She's on the conservative side of things: tough on crime as AG, opposed cannabis legalization (changed position later), opposed abolition of death penalty (flipped later), etc.
  
  Forgot hard on incarcerated trans women...
  
  I'm not even sure it was as deep as that, IMO they shoo'd her in without any chalengers as she could legally use the Biden-Harris ~~bribes~~ donations they had already collected. Thats about the extent of their thinking.
  
  In general, no. In terms of specific policies as an AG, there were some.
  I'd say she's a centrist, with some progressive policies and some regressive. Just my opinion obviously.
  
  Obama wasn’t even somewhat progressive before the Democratic Party. He was against gay marriage for a while.
- The dinosaurs know they're marching right, that's where all the money is (for them).
See David Hogg
- See Bernie Sanders.
they'd rather lose to Trump for a third term than do that.

They’re definitely for the billionaire people.

DNC: I am here for the working people-- from billionaires, all the way to millionaires.
- From the business owners to the CEOs, the Democrats are here to hear you. All the people, white or tan, brown people of light complexion as long as they have a 401k and 10 million in assets they will LISTEN
Aren't there primaries for the Dems?
- Voter turnout in primaries is pathetic. In 30 states, you have to be registered with the party - i.e.: give them your name and address for fund-raising purposes - to vote. This all works to bias primaries to 'establishment' candidates, or at least people well known among party apparatchiks. They are, theoretically, the best way to get progressives or populists into office, but practically, those progressives are fighting demographics and the general apathy of voters under 40.
  The same phenomena that let MAGA take over the GOP keep the moderates in charge of the Dems. At least, until someone figures out how to motivate all the young internet revolutionaries to actually go and vote instead of memeing about how useless voting is.
  
  You're blaming the DNC for something that is controlled by each individual state.
  
  Not really. I'm saying that the system discourages change. If there's blame for the DNC, it's that their message has constantly been something along the lines of "be reasonable & empathetic; improve the world through measured change" which tends to demoralize people who think the system is seriously fucked. That empowers the career politicians. GOP propaganda, at least for the last 50-or-so years, has been "More guns! More babies! No brown people!" which tends to attract passionate radicals.
  
  The DNC in a nutshell. Absolute garbage.
  
  Okay, but the states decide if there are open primaries or not. The State is to blame for that, but it can be changed if made a state ballot measure.
  That's not really up for debate. It's literally state law and dependent on the state. The DNC and GOP don't decide that.
  
  Is that not the second sentence in my original comment?
  
  It was, but the rest of your statement went on to say this is for the purpose of blah blah and putting on your tin foil hat to somehow blame the establishment, any establishment.
  It's decided by the people. If there was a state ballot measure to remove closed primaries and make them open, it would then be up to the people to decide.
  There are also multiple types. Blue and red states all do different things and there is no trend.
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_primaries_in_the_United_States
  
  Are you suggesting that the primary structures came into existence without the support of the parties? Or that the people can somehow rise up and rewrite election rules over the objection of party incumbents? I thought we were having a serious discussion.
  US primaries aren't like France's two round election system, even in open primary states. California, Washington and Nebraska have a single-ballot "jungle" primary system that's kind of close (although Nebraska is kind of special because it's only for non-partisan state legislature races), but most open primaries still list only the candidates of one party - you can't vote for a (D) in one race and an (R) in another. US primaries are supposed to let the parties - which are essentially semi-private clubs - reach consensus on who they run against the other clubs. Having the states run those primaries was supposed to be democratizing and let more people have a voice in their representation, and maybe it even worked that way a hundred years ago. It's the nature of people to organize themselves into cliques to consolidate and maintain power, and they'll figure out ways to manipulate any system to do that. The fact that no one votes in primaries - regardless of their structure - makes them an easy lever of manipulation.
  
  There have been ballot measures in the past. I even voted for one when I used to live in Florida. I was even one of the signatures outside the grocery store because they need X thousands of signatures to put it on the ballot. I don't know why you're acting like it's impossible
  I now live in Oregon, where it is "closed" but they allow no party affiliated to vote for any. Guess what. The most recent primary had a bunch of other parties.
  So again, blame the correct people. There's plenty of reason to be mad at the GOP or DNC, spreading a lie because you are ignorant to the multiple and different state laws is not one of them.
  Clearly, you don't want to have an actual conversation.
- Sort of, sometimes. They can and will heavily disadvantage candidates they dont like. Like when they gave Hillary the questions for debates beforehand but not to Bernie, and let hillary control the funding of races, including her own. And like when they cut new hampshire out of the primary results this year because the New Hampshire dems wouldnt move the date for the primary to when the dnc wanted. So sure you could vote in that primary, but nothing was done with the results. Straight to the garbage can with those ballots.
  Russia says they have a democracy too, with votes and everything. Not saying we're the same, but proving we have "democracy" by the fact that voting happens is not that firm of a thing. Its easily corrupted.

Sadly I don't think it's possible to have a party "for the people" with only two parties. There's too much pressure for both of them to champion the status quo.

"Championing the status quo" is not how I would describe what Republicans are doing right now.
Yes it is. If the part "for the people" turns out to be captured you drop it and get in an actual party for the people. Rinse and repeat as needed. There is a problem with political parties growing too old and becoming too institutionalized. But keeping them in power instead of giving them the boot is a choice made by the voters.