Why Do Most Voters Keep Choosing “Change” Candidates But Reject Real Progressives?

[Hardkill]

Leo,

I have a question about how you understand voters’ psychology around “change” in modern U.S. politics.

In the last few election cycles, it feels like the winners have almost always been the candidate who best embodied “change” against the status quo:

• Obama 2008 & 2012 – “Hope and Change,” post-Bush, anti-Iraq, generational shift
• Trump 2016 – anti-establishment wrecking ball against both parties’ elites
• Biden 2020 – “return to normalcy,” a change away from chaos and Trump
• Trump 2024 – again framed as a change away from Biden and the current direction

So on the surface, voters do seem to want “change” over and over.

Yet at the same time, the public still doesn’t really go for genuinely progressive / systemic change when it’s offered in a more explicit way by people like:

• Bernie Sanders
• AOC
• Elizabeth Warren
• Zohran Mamdani, etc.

These people are arguably the ones proposing the deepest structural reforms (on capitalism, healthcare, labor, oligarchy, etc.), but most voters don’t rally behind them the way they do behind more “safe” change candidates like Obama or Biden — or right-wing populists like Trump.

So my question to you is:

How do you explain this psychologically and spiritually?

Why do voters repeatedly choose symbolic or surface-level “change” (Obama, Trump, Biden/2020, Trump/2024) while rejecting the more genuinely transformative progressive candidates who would actually challenge the system at a deeper level?

More specifically, I’d love to hear your take on:

1. Survival & fear: How much of this is just survival bias — people wanting “change” but only within a narrow safety zone that doesn’t threaten their ego, identity, or material security?
2. Stage development (Spiral Dynamics): Are progressives like Bernie/AOC/Warren/Mamdani simply too far ahead of the median voter’s stage of development, so that even people who are dissatisfied still prefer ego-flattering, tribal, or nostalgic forms of “change” (like Trump or soft-liberal change) rather than true systemic reform?
3. Comfort with institutions: Do most Democratic voters, for example, still trust the basic institutions enough that they’ll opt for “reformist” change (Obama/Biden) instead of “revolutionary” change (Bernie-style), whereas Republicans are more willing to embrace destructive change (Trump) because their distrust has gone much deeper?
4. Media & narrative control: To what degree are people’s “change” preferences basically manufactured by media framing — so that the only acceptable “change” on offer is the kind that doesn’t threaten corporate or elite interests too much?

Why does the collective ego keep saying it wants change, then rejecting the people who actually represent deeper change, and instead choosing candidates who either offer mild reform or outright reactionary backlash?

I’m curious how you’d unpack this using your frameworks around consciousness, survival, ideological bias, and Spiral Dynamics.

 

[Daniel Balan]

Because the voters don't vote for who they want, the voters vote for who the oligarchs that control the media want. Those who control both the legacy media and mainstream media decide elections.

Voters are just sheep that must be herded in one dirrection or another by those who control the informational ecosystem.

Voters don't vote for who they want, they are systemically brainwashed and programmed to vote according to how Musk and other top dogs want. 

[BlueOak]

A simple soundbyte evoking a feeling.

Change is easy to say.
Hard to do. And even harder to put into a 6 second tiktok clip with the results.

Shout change a lot in the bad times and you win the American elections.
Be the status quo in a good time and you win the American elections.

Be the change candidate in the good times and you lose the American elections.
Be the status quo candidate in the bad times and you lose the American elections.

But this is one place where Generation Z will have a strange effect I cannot fully see yet (which makes it interesting to me)
They have no permanence, they like surprise outcomes, they need it delivered to them in 6 seconds, then on to the next thing.

This is a pattern breaker if ever I saw one (and/or a clawing towards needing a stable pattern as they mature). Maybe there will be a trend of 6 second informative political deliveries; I don't know. Someone get on that and make a career :D.
 

Edited Monday at 10:07 AM by BlueOak

[Hardkill]

Yeah, but then what kind of change are most Americans looking for now?

[Breathe]

I've noticed a few things. One, people don't know people farther left on the spectrum. To really care about social issues you need exposure to people who need help. Also, boomers have money. They cannot relate to the struggles that everyday, modern Americans have. Also, poor conservatives are constantly lied to about their "freedom" being taken away. Guns and Jesus specifically. Propaganda is another issue. I think most people get their news from social media which are just lies being propagated from one feed to another. Lastly, the media. "Left wing" media is centrist in nature. Mainstream media only supports corporate dems so people just don't have accurate information.

[Basman]

Progressive politics are complicated and require education to understand, let alone appreciate. They look cuckish and foolish to conservative minds, like giving free housing to asylum seekers. 

The often felt but rarely fully understood grievances like economic exclusion or untethering from communal bonds are complicated and not at all obvious and part of certain greater trends that have been going on for decades now. 

[Ramasta9]

The voting system is a rigged system. Its just there to make people believe they are deciding shit.

[MightyMind]

@Basman

5 hours ago, Basman said:

They look cuckish and foolish to conservative minds, like giving free housing to asylum seekers. 

And "progressives/liberals" don't understand the world we live in. I do like the idea of helping out those who come from horrific conditions. Problem is, there are billions living in brutal conditions and so if you open the door to them and then offer to pay for housing, food, health care etc...due to the world we live in, you will end up spending the people's money in unsustainable ways. You'll have many who will take advantage of handouts. Here in Canada you'll find no shortage of people who make videos coaching people from their country on how to get, get and get. We also have a political party which has made it extremely easy for people with criminal records to cross the boarder and get financial assistance. 

Here's an example in the US that I recently became aware of. This is an AI write up:

"2020s: Major Fraud Scandals Involving Taxpayer Funds

Feeding Our Future Scandal (2020–2024): The largest U.S. welfare fraud case involved Minnesota's Somali community defrauding $250 million+ in federal child nutrition funds (taxpayer-backed COVID relief). Prosecutors (2024) revealed a Somali nonprofit received $1 million to oversee fraudulent sites, with stolen EBT cards and checks sent to Somalia via hawala. A 2024 Minnesota Reformer report tied this to broader schemes exploiting vulnerable immigrants.

Al-Shabaab Links (2024–2025): Federal probes (unsealed November 2025) allege $14 million+ in Medicare fraud and $250 million in food aid theft by Somali networks, with funds wired to Somalia—where Al-Shabaab allegedly took 10–20% cuts. NewsNation and NY Post reports (November 2025) cite investigators: "Once the funds reached Somalia, Al-Shabaab routinely took a share." This is described as "one of the largest welfare-fraud waves in U.S. history," with millions funneled abroad.

Broader Patterns: A 2023 HHS report on immigrant assistance indirectly highlights risks, while 2025 City Journal analysis estimates "millions" of stolen Minnesota funds ended up in Somalia, exacerbating anti-fraud backlash.

Key Takeaways and Caveats

Public assistance is intended for U.S. living costs, but recipients (including refugees) can legally remit portions via informal channels. However, fraud—explicitly using taxpayer funds for unauthorized transfers—has escalated, costing hundreds of millions. Remittances play a vital role in Somalia's economy (40%+ of GDP), but U.S. cases show misuse strains systems. For balance, most diaspora remittances (~$1.3 billion/year) stem from employment, per World Bank data, and fraud affects a minority. Evidence gaps exist pre-2000s due to limited tracking, but patterns of high welfare use and cultural remittance norms persist."

[Basman]

6 hours ago, Ramasta9 said:

The voting system is a rigged system. Its just there to make people believe they are deciding shit.

Even dictators needs to legitimize their power or there will be anarchy. Kings are divine represntatives of god, etc. Democracies legitimize power through votes.

Democracies are also characterized by checks and balances of power, most promptly term limits. Trump is an authoritarian but he can't do whatever he wants currently.

I see comments like these as a symptom of technocratic alienation. Common people can't make sense of it, and seemingly the government doesn't take people's genuine concerns seriously. For example, the threat of Russias hybrid warfare in Europe is making the government look ineffective, the long-term goal of which is to make future governments more ideologically aligned with Russia through a populace that increasingly prefer a more authoritarian style of government for said reasons. Immigration is another case of alienation. People feel insecure when they feel that their borders are too soft. 

The issue that progressive tend to have is that they treat political and moral issues as if they are not issues but a given. It's inherently culturally elitist, which also upset people.

[Hardkill]

So, do all of you believe that incrementalism is the only kind of change that's possible?