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 View context
-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
5 points
*

Yes. There isn’t another party. Democratic voters didnt turn out, and lots of people feel that is a reflection of the Democratic party’s strategy, and it’s ability to connect with people and motivate them.

For those who see it that way, there are two options, the reform and improvement of the democratic party, or a replacement that can better motivate people by offering more significant change. And many folks in the camp that are frustrated, and feel the democratic party isn’t reflecting their interests, or doing enough to connect with amercians, also don’t feel like the democractic party can change.

People want to act on what they think will solve the problem. I understand you think their idea of a solution is counter-productive, the case I’m trying to make is that going around assuming everyone you don’t agree with is acting in bad faith in service of a secret agenda is AT LEAST as counter productive, if not substantially more so.

Theres an entirely legitimate good faith reason for someone to post this kind of thing- they think it will build momentum towards what they see as the solution to the problems they care about.

If we can’t even have productive conversations about what the problem is and why we think it should be solved a certain way, we’re fucking doomed. Democracy is fundamentally about collaborative governance, even in an unhealthy democracy like ours. These problems are fundamentally bigger than any of us can solve alone, and the solutions we pick, and how many people will throw themselves behind them, are BOTH materially improved by seeking to understand those you disagree with, rather than insinuating that they’re up to some plot to get a fascist elected, here on one of the most progressive platforms on the entire internet.

Your frustration is understandable. We’re all fucking angry and trying to find the best way to resolve what we see as the source of our anger.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-2 points

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

OP is suggesting we throw away our votes on a 3rd party. That has always been a bad faith argument in a first past the polls system. It is statistically impossible to win that way which is why it is a bad faith argument.

I’m not claiming it’s bad faith as an emotional response. I’m pointing out that when someone suggests the option that guarantees failure, they are not acting in good faith.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

Firstly saying it’s logical to push for a third party doesn’t actually mean “let’s just piss away our votes”

It can mean pushing for voting reform along with a new party. And the change has gotta start somewhere if you want it to happen, and if you think it has to happen then picking a place, even one that you feel is impossible, doesn’t make it a bad faith argument. Its not like there’s any easy route to overturning the two party system, so if that’s what you think has to happen, you don’t exactly have any options that will be a cakewalk.

And furthermore, I’m not aware of statistics that say that (though I wouldn’t be surprised) but you’re essentially saying that because your (I assume) informed opinion is that it can’t be done, anyone who suggests it must be suggesting it with an ulterior motive. You reached for malice as an explanation where, if you’re right, ignorance would be a much more suitable explanation. Its an issue I care about, and if we actually have data to suggest its impossible then I would be ignorant too

It’d be far more productive to say “I really don’t think that’s possible, here’s why: xyz. I think if you want to make that kind of change happen I think you’ll have to find a different approach”

Do you have research or data on the topic? Or are you being hyperbolic in order to make your point that you think it’s unrealistic? (Honest question, I think both would be fair, though if it’s just a personal perspective that its unrealistic I do think that even further weakens the argument that its bad faith on OP’s part)

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

I’m not claiming it’s bad faith as an emotional response.

Yeah. You’re claiming it as a Pavlovian reflex to people disagreeing with Democrats’ failed strategy of moving to the right.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

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

And they just shat the bed because they can’t resist moving to the right and ordering people to love it.

Democrats aren’t interested in beating Republicans. They’re only interested in beating progressives.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

They didn’t lose because they weren’t progressive enough. They lost because Biden inherited a pandemic that caused inflation and weak economy that required increasing interest rates.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points
*

Oh, now the economy at the time of the election was weak. Last month it was roaring and everyone who noticed that they couldn’t afford groceries was a Russian shill.

Democrats supported genocide, ran anti-trans bigotry in their own ads, and reveled in getting the endorsement of Dick Cheney. They moved to the right and lost. Quit defending their shitty behavior.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

The election is over. Democrats failed spectacularly. Now is the time for criticism and accountability. If not now, when? We’re all just supposed to pretend that Harris ran a great campaign? Are you familiar with the concept of learning from failure? I was beating this drum myself before the election—you know, when it actually made sense. Now it just smacks of sticking your fingers in your ears.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-5 points

Democrats lost because fewer Democratic voters showed up this year. That is a sign of apathy. If we spend the next 4 years sowing more apathy then it won’t matter what we are saying the months leading up to the election because everyone will already be apathetic.

To pretend democrats failed spectacularly is to ignore the billionaires doing things like buying votes to win or Russian bots sowing apathy to Democratic voters to convince them to not vote or vote 3rd party.

I see you’re federated with startrek.website. Ever heard the saying “you can do everything right and still lose”.

Apathy caused Democratic voters to stay home. Continuing to sow more apathy will guarantee we lose the next one, if there is a next one.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Sure there were Russian bots. Of course there was billionaire fuckery. That’s been the case every cycle for decades. Do you honestly believe that Democrats lost exclusively because of these things? And furthermore, that nobody should critique their performance or policies, because that constitutes sowing apathy? Weeks after the fucking election? That’s the dumbest fucking thing I ever heard.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Just shut up and never ever criticize the party that only ever moves to the right, or you want the fascists to win!

You will never understand that votes are earned, not demanded.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

You confuse apathy with refusing to support a Republican in liberal clothing

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

  • 10K

    Monthly active users

  • 12K

    Posts

  • 213K

    Comments