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.”
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.
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.
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.
These leftist don’t understand that.
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.
Shut up leftist
It’s pretty sad that you can assume someone is a leftist just because their against corrupt politicians. It doesn’t say much for non-leftists.
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…
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.
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.
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.
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.
Nah, the republican is gonna win again because the democratic party is beyond repair.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The Supreme Court is not a third party.
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.
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!
The protest vote is a vote against something, like Democrats voting against trump. We would be exactly where we are right now with climate change regardless if Gore won or not. Government will never impact the profits of corporations that are polluting the environment. And it isnt the President that drafts law, including environmental law, that’s Congress. The Congress that won in 2000 did nothing for the environment.
People voted for Nader in protest that the Dems were not progressive enough. And that’s what got us Bush.
Gore is the environmentalist. If you think that Gore wouldn’t have implemented environmental policy then frankly you are far gone. And reading the rest of your reply lines up with that, so I’m out. Yes it’s congress, if you have all 3 then the president pushes for what they want to do, and common parlance is to talk about the president.
Numbers are hard, but the 3% that voted for Nader is less than the 15% of Democrats that voted for Bush.
Since you don’t know, Nader is directly responsible for a HUGE part of our environmental laws. Gore talked about it, Nader advocated and pushed for legislation that helped create stronger laws.