cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/22940159

Bernie Sanders caused a stir last week, when the independent senator from Vermont and two-time contender for the Democratic presidential nomination sent a post-election email to his progressive supporters across the country. In it, he argued that the Democrats suffered politically in 2024 at least in part because they ran a campaign that focused on “protecting the status quo and tinkering around the edges.”

In contrast, said Sanders, “Trump and the Republicans campaigned on change and on smashing the existing order.” Yes, he explained, “the ‘change’ that Republicans will bring about will make a bad situation worse, and a society of gross inequality even more unequal, more unjust and more bigoted.”

Despite that the reality of the threat they posed, Trump and the Republicans still won a narrow popular-vote victory for the presidency, along with control of the US House. That result has inspired an intense debate over the future direction not just of the Democratic Party but of the country. And the senator from Vermont is in the thick of it.

In his email, Sanders, a member of the Senate Democratic Caucus who campaigned in states across the country this fall for Vice President Kamala Harris and the Democratic ticket, asked a blunt question: “Will the Democratic leadership learn the lessons of their defeat and create a party that stands with the working class and is prepared to take on the enormously powerful special interests that dominate our economy, our media and our political life?”

His answer: “Highly unlikely. They are much too wedded to the billionaires and corporate interests that fund their campaigns.”

You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments
33 points

It’s getting to the point where a third party push seems logical.

People just want to move past NH having their primary delegates stolen, but that shit really happened. I don’t see anything from the DNC that would indicate significant change. They have a candidate and that’s who the candidate is going to be.

It’s no effective at winning elections, but the do it’s would rather have a republican than a progressive.

We need to demand the 2028 has strict campaign finance regulations. I can understand the argument we can’t not do it in the general, but the primary is just Dem vs Dem. Keep the billionaires out of it and let voters pick who they’re most likely to vote for in the general.

permalink
report
reply
-2 points

Nah, the republican is gonna win again because the democratic party is beyond repair.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-14 points
*

Still asking for democrats to throw away their votes on a 3rd party because you think both sides are the same eh?

That’s how Trump got elected a 2nd term. But that’s probably why you’re still pushing that narrative.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

Not every single person who disagrees with you is a paid shill. I voted for kamala and did so happily, and I’m very worried about the democratic party’s ability to change in the way they need to also. At some point, we do need to upend the 2 party system, it has yielded only bad things.

I don’t know the right way to do that. I don’t know how we can do that with the least possible compromise, giving conservatives an advantage by splitting the progressive vote while using a voting system that favors two entrenched parties over outside candidates. AND ALSO the two party system is a problem this country desperately needs to solve.

The two parties are absolutely not the same, but that doesn’t mean the democratic party is doing a great job of representing people’s actual interests, it just means they aren’t literal fascists. I dunno about you, but I’d really hope my political representation can be better than “literal fascists, or, people who kinda sorta sometimes care about issues that represent you, except all the times when they don’t”

permalink
report
parent
reply
-6 points
*

The only party that has a chance of beating the republicans is the Democratic Party. There is no other party.

As long as we are sowing apathy towards the Democratic Party we won’t have a chance of beating the fascist republicans that show up to vote no matter what.

So you can call it disagreeing or call it being worried or call it constructive criticism. It doesn’t matter what you call it as long as it sows apathy it will increase the fascist republicans chances of winning.

People like OP are reposting the same posts and commenting in each one systematically with comments to sow apathy. It has been obvious to more than just me for a while now.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

throw away their votes on a 3rd party…That’s how Trump got elected a 2nd term

While that didn’t help, I don’t think it was the cause. Last I checked, if you gave Harris the 3rd party votes, Trump would still win. Republicans had increased voter turnout, while Democrats decreased…and overall turnout decreased. So it was apathy and lack of votes that won.

But I’m busy, going off memory, and didn’t check latest stats. So please, feel free to correct me.

Ref: https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_elections_by_popular_vote_margin

permalink
report
parent
reply
-2 points

Obviously it wasn’t just one thing that caused Trump to win but a culmination of things that tipped the scales.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

That’s how Trump got elected a 2nd term.

Lol, no it’s not. Have you even looked at the numbers? Third parties did worse than their already pathetic historical performance, and were inconsequential in the outcome.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

Idk. I think building a third party seems like a distraction when its pretty easy to just become an “Independent”, case-in-point, Bernie Sanders. Find good, compelling candidates and run them. Small donor donations only.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-6 points
*

Last 3rd party push resulted in Bush and 2 wars. Instead of Gore the environmentalist. Voting 3rd party for progressivism is the biggest self own in history.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

The Supreme Court is not a third party.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Reread your American political history, because Bush got in because Florida was being Florida and totally fucked up a shitload of ballots, and the Supreme Court stepped in and made the decision for them.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

So what was the end result of all those Nader votes? Bring things closer and introduce uncertainty. The result was a Bush admin and lack of progress.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-2 points

Gore lost because Gore was a shit candidate. 15% of Dems that voted for Clinton then voted for Bush had a larger impact on 2000 than the 3% that voted 3rd party. Gore couldn’t even win his home state, if he had, he could have lost Florida and won the election.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Where would we be on the environment with Gore being president? Yeah a fuck load further than we are with Bush timeline.

Plus Obama saw that environmentalism cost Gore the election and steered clear of it. Thanks 3rd party protest voters!

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

I don’t think that’s quite the strategy we need.

What we really need is a genuine grassroots movement with significant movement, like the Tea Party but not astroturfed, today gets more progressive in the Democratic party.

BUT

We need them locally, not on the federal level, because locally is where voting rules are established. The Progressives can then push for Rank Choice Voting. City by city, county by county, State by State, we get RCV implemented everywhere possible. This in turn breaks the Two Party System by allowing voters to pick third party candidates without fear of their vote being wasted.

The only problem is that the best time for this strategy was fifteen years ago, and not enough people cared back then to do it. The second best time is now, of course, but…

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Just a few more decades of fruitlessly pursuing a pipe dream that we’ve set up as a prerequisite and then we’ll consider not moving to the right.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

I think if we work towards ending electoral college then other things will fall into place just because people will be more incentivized to vote.

I heard 15million between NY and CA alone decide not to note at all because their vote doesn’t make a difference.

Think of all the down-ballot voting would happen with all those voters.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points
*

Ranked choice voting systems were offered in four states in this past election and were rejected in all four. If I’m remembering correctly, around $60m was spent campaigning for them. Two states have RCV already, one of which is Alaska which just narrowly avoided switching back.

No, now is apparently not the time to attempt a 3rd party strategy.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

These leftist don’t understand that.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

What does being leftist have to do with it? Our government is an amalgam of corruption and grift, and people across the political spectrum are fed up with it. The Republican party is worse than the Democratic party, and Trump is an extra special helping of sewage, but the whole system is one big grift. One way or another, the criminals running both parties are long overdue for the gallows, or at least a tiny prison cell.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

Progressives should take over the Green Party and threaten to run unless they get concessions from Democrats.

Of course, this requires Democrats to care about winning and not just shutting out progressives.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

requires Democrats to care about winning

Their goal is not winning or defeating Republicans, but to prevent leftist candidates, movements or organizations from obtaining any power. They are gatekeepers for fascism.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

The problem I have with this point of view is that it describes the DNC as an enormous entity, when in reality they are a small organisation that mostly gets its financing from individual campaigns (especially the presidential campaign).

The issue the progressives face is not the DNC but systemic issues with politics in the US. A big issue is the reliance on campaign contributions by the rich. Another issue is the media environment. The DNC is just a tiny cog in a much larger machine.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

when in reality they are a small organisation that mostly gets its financing from individual campaigns (especially the presidential campaign).

Since 2015 when Hillary literally made backroom deals to fund the DNC on the condition that her campaign was allowed final review on any action the DNC was going to take…

Ignoring that the reason it was bankrupt in 2015 was it worked against Obama in 08, and refused to help him in 2012.

Like, we are not at the point yet where “it is what is”. These incredibly damaging changes are very very recent.

And that’s not even getting I to the “victory fund” nonsense that allows people to donate to the chosen candidate via maximum state donations, drastically underfunding any state party who doesn’t tie the DNC’s line. Or that in the most recent election the DNC ordered a state to violate their state election laws and when they refused, their primary delegates were removed.

This shit is not how it always was.

We can not ignore modern party leaders destroying our party just because Republicans are destroying our country.

If we do that then it might really not matter what letter is by a future president’s name.

Even if you think the wealthy haven’t bought both parties already, with both parties continuingly pulling shadier and shadier “campaign finance reform”. Eventually some wealthy person will realize it takes a billion to buy a general, but only like 10 million to buy a primary if the DNC handpicks the first 10 states and calls it before 40 have had their primary.

And that’s the rub. Even if you don’t think it’s happened, it’s really hard to argue that any random billionaire couldn’t do it if they wanted.

Which makes this a perfect time to mention trump donated so much money to the Clintons in support of them pulling the Dem party right. That Bill and Hillary went to his wedding.

trump is literally the type of people who have been paying for neoliberal primary campaigns, and others like him are still cutting checks to Dems.

permalink
report
parent
reply

politics

!politics@lemmy.world

Create post

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to “Mom! He’s bugging me!” and “I’m not touching you!” Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That’s all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

Community stats

  • 9.9K

    Monthly active users

  • 12K

    Posts

  • 213K

    Comments