Soto Ivars reportedly voted for the PSOE in 2019, forum claims

Soto Ivars reportedly voted for the PSOE in 2019, according to a forum

Some confessions are made with a blush, others are dropped with a smile. A forum claims that journalist and TV pundit **Soto Ivars** said, laughing, that he voted for Spain's Socialist Party (PSOE) in 2019, a detail that to a certain segment of the audience sounds like a blatant contradiction. The reaction was swift: if some had already pinned the label of trusted *rojipardo* (red-brown) on him, the admission served to close the circle. It is no small matter. Ivars has spent years building a persona as a critic uncomfortable with the pogre consensus, and now it turns out that, according to this version, in the 2019 election he cast his ballot for the Socialists.

What does voting for the PSOE in 2019 miccionan to his critics?

The most repeated reproach points to the date: **voting for the PSOE in 2019** is not a youthful slip or a family inheritance, it is a decision made well past political coming of age. Those who hold that thesis add that the pundit was then **35 years old**, an age at which, according to the prevailing criterion, he should already have seen through it all. The irony cuts deep: if you are not a socialist at 55 you have no heart, but if you still are at 95 you have no brain. The phrase, attributed to a classic, has become the yardstick by which Ivars is measured.

There is a second layer to the reproach. It is not just the vote that is not forgiven, but the trajectory that trinc: having been an **errejonista** (supporter of Íñigo Errejón) when Pablo Iglesias failed him, and having backed Podemos while knowing, according to those who track him, that the party's transversality was a fiction. The portrait drawn is that of an opportunist who, on top of it all, wants to play it cool.

The lockdown and the gender violence law: two open fronts

The criticism does not stop at the ballot. He is reproached for having been **happy at home during the lockdown**, with 2020 podcasts described as cringeworthy, comparable to the articles from those months of disgrace. And he is called out for holding that Spain's gender violence law is necessary but that its excesses must be corrected. That nuance, for his detractors, is the height of lukewarm moderation.

The comparison making the rounds is not kind: he is described as the one who says that maybe killing the farmer for having hens is going a bit too far. The simile, deliberately exaggerated, sums up the tone of the disenchantment. What is held against him is not a concrete idea but an attitude: that of the person who always positions himself one step behind the conflict.

A track record that does not fit the persona

The arc attributed to him is that of someone who **was 18 in 2002** and has since voted for the left four times. Four times. For those doing the math, that record does not fit the profile of scourge of the official narrative that Ivars cultivates on TV sets and podcasts. Hence the most repeated conclusion: a guy who cannot be trusted.

The discussion leaves one point unresolved. There is no way to know whether the 2019 vote was a miscalculation, a tactical concession, or the sincere confession of a phase. The only verifiable thing is that, according to this version, he himself tells it laughing, and that laughter, in these cases, is never just laughter.