While many views are presented about how and if to support Bernie Sanders’ campaign to be the Democratic Party’s presidential candidate, one thing the campaign has generated is a discussion about socialism in the USA.

Yes, it may be unlikely that Sanders will win the nomination. In national polls for the primaries Hillary Clinton, the favorite, did not poll less than 50% since April. Bernie Sanders has not polled over 25% since June 2014. But recent polls seem to suggest growing support for Sanders, particularly in the Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire primary. Regardless of the results however, Sanders’ bid for candidacy has led to a discussion around socialism.

Bloomberg describes Sanders as a socialist. As have the Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, and MSNBC, among others. And the media isn’t always using the term ‘socialist’ negatively, but often just as a descriptor. This softer side of ‘socialism’ clashes with the fiercely negative use of the word by the right towards Obama.

But is socialism an idea that’s back on the American public’s radar?

In 1912, Eugene V. Debs ran for president for the Socialist Party of America. He got 6% of the vote. According to Donald F. Busky’s book Democratic Socialism: A Global Survey, Americans elected ‘1,039 dues-paying members [of the Socialist Party of America] to public office, including one congressman, Victor Berger, fifty-six mayors, and numerous state legislators and local councilmen’ that year. In 1920, Debs ran for president from prison (after he was sentenced for eight years under the Espionage Act for allegedly making an anti-war speech). Even from jail he received over 900,000 votes.

This may not sound like much, but as stated in the keynote speech at the according the Socialist Party Convention:

“…in 1916, Woodrow Wilson ran as a ‘radical.’ He promised practically Socialism through the shortcut of the Democratic Party. One-half of the normal supporters of the Socialist Party cast their votes for him. Woodrow Wilson was elected over Charles E. Hughes by the vote of Socialists. In California alone, the defection in the normal Socialist vote determined his victory in the Presidential contest.”

Are we seeing a resurgence of the popularity of socialism? One hundred years later, could we elect a real socialist president? Far from it.

First, ‘socialism’ means something different today than it meant in 1920 – at least for the general public. Bernie Sanders – a self-described democratic socialist – had this to say about the economy:

“If we are truly serious about reversing the decline of the middle class we need a major federal jobs program which puts millions of Americans back to work at decent paying jobs. At a time when our roads, bridges, water systems, rail and airports are decaying, the most effective way to rapidly create meaningful jobs is to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure.”

Here’s what the Socialist Party of America had to say in their 1920 platform:

“The Socialist Party of the United States demands that the country and its wealth be redeemed from the control of private interests and turned over to the people to be administered for the equal benefit of all.”

The times have certainly changed. Following crack downs via legislation and repression against socialists, the word ‘socialism’ has taken on a new meaning. Today the word ‘socialism’ has been reconstructed to mean a welfare state in which basic services such as health care, education, and pensions operate through the government. Others have pointed out that such welfare states in Europe did not grow out of socialist projects but through conservative rulers, particularly in Germany under the rule of Bismarck. In the United Kingdom, it wasn’t the left-leaning, union-supported Labour Party that developed its welfare state, but the more centrist Liberal Party.

In a sense ‘socialism’ has turned into something entirely different. But what about this moderate version of ‘socialism’? How do Americans feel about it?

In 2010, a Gallup poll found that only 36% of Americans had a positive image of the word ‘socialism’, compared to 58% who viewed in negatively. While a majority of Democrats and those leaning towards the Democratic Party viewed the term positively (53% versus 41%), Republicans and those leaning toward the Republican Party had a stronger aversion to it (79% viewed it negatively).

In 2011, a Pew Research study found little change in those results. Indeed, ‘socialism’ was viewed as negative by more people than the terms ‘libertarian’ or ‘capitalism’. Interestingly, the groups that viewed the term ‘socialism’ more positively than negatively were black non-Hispanic respondents and respondents aged 18-29.

More recently, Gallup asked Americans the following question:

‘If your party nominated a generally well-qualified person for president who happened to be a socialist, would you vote for that person?’

Perhaps surprisingly, 47% said Yes (although 50% said no). This is an interesting statistic. First it should be noted that when asked if they would vote for an athiest, Muslim, Gay or lesbian, a majority of respondents said they would vote for them. ‘Socialist’ was the only candidate descriptor that got more Nays than Yeas. This makes some sense since socialist is not a matter of identity but of political ideology.

When the statistic was broken down between pro-Democrats and pro-Republicans we saw a distinction between Yes respondents. 59% of Democrats would vote for a well-qualified socialist candidate backed by their party whereas only 26% of Republicans would. For independents it was 49%. These were the lowest scores across the three political party categories.

But when we look at the breakdown by age groups we again see some promising figures. While 30-49 year olds were 50-50 on the question of voting for a socialist president (with older voters being a lot less willing), 69% of 18-29 year olds would vote for a socialist candidate. That is over two thirds of young people.

There may be hope in young voters, but what about others who are not keen on socialism? For some, even 47% is promising but given the large chunk of Americans who view the term negatively maybe it is worth considering dropping the label and sticking to the issues. These issues can be popular and promote the development of ‘socialistic’ policies.

Public opinion polls have found that Americans favored increases to the minimum wage, the government employing more people, taxes on the wealthy and corporations in order to reduce inequality, increased government involvement in education, and a greater government role in providing healthcare (although a majority of Americans do not favor government providing healthcare for everyone).

While those in favor of a welfare state still have some work to do in convincing the American public of the virtues of many egalitarian government programs that help the poor, promote equality, increase wages and provide a general safety net, the public seems to favor ‘socialistic’ policies over the ‘socialist’ label.

Even for those in favor of more progressive goals than a simple welfare state, dropping the ‘socialist’ label can also be an advantage in overcoming the misconception over what the term means (along with its negative connotations).

What label should take its place? I will leave that to you.

Eugene Nulman (@eugenenulman) is a Lecturer in Sociology at Birmingham City University where he researches social movements and their outcomes. He is the author of the upcoming book Climate Change and Social Movements: Civil Society and the Development of National Climate Change Policy and is a member of the International Organization for a Participatory Society (IOPS).