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.”

  • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    3 hours ago

    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.

    • Brkdncr@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      13 minutes ago

      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.

    • minnow@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      37 minutes ago

      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…

    • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 hours ago

      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.

    • someguy3@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 hour ago

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

    • UsernameHere@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      2 hours ago

      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.

      • FutileRecipe@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 hour ago

        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

        • UsernameHere@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          32 minutes ago

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

      • Cris@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        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”

        • UsernameHere@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          20 minutes ago

          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.