this post was submitted on 26 Nov 2024
233 points (97.6% liked)

United States | News & Politics

7233 readers
521 users here now

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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.”

top 27 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] surph_ninja 10 points 6 hours ago

Yes, and they need to run as third party. The Democratic Party has proven that they will destroy any attempt to push their party left.

[–] [email protected] 61 points 11 hours ago (2 children)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Where is this?

Must've hit hard.

[–] UsernameHere -3 points 9 hours ago (2 children)

Both sides are the same! /s

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 hours ago

Just different wings of the same fundamental team.

[–] Iheartcheese 7 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

They aren't. One side wants to destroy everything and the other waggles their fingers and lines their pockets.

[–] pivot_root 6 points 7 hours ago

To be fair to the other commenter, both are the same insofar that they ~~enrich oligarchs~~ are motivated by lobbyists and corporate interests.

[–] LustyArgonianMana 4 points 6 hours ago

Yes, maybe democrats should have pushed for political literacy in schools. Yet they kept their citizens in the dark on how to participate in using their right to run for office.

[–] blazera 3 points 6 hours ago

The democratic party spent a ton of resources this election on barring progressive candidates from running. Bernie himself endorsed Kamala. Stop listening to anything any of them say, they are all fighting a battle to keep you from supporting progressive candidates.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 7 hours ago

Stop making campaigns so expensive and you might see that. We have had a couple "working class" candidates in the past but they were extremely niche so didn't garner much support

[–] MyPornViewingAccount 22 points 10 hours ago (3 children)

Cant do that while Citizens United ruling still stands and Musk can buy whatever president he wants.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 hours ago

And who is going to undo any of that first?

The key is to look beyond myopic electoralism as the only way a party can express power and organize. Organize with direct action, organize labor, and teach socialism.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) (1 children)

Dont forget to add Aipac to this lists. I have no idea how they aren’t scrutinized more commonly. I am sure they played a big part this election.

Imagine if there was a pro chinese organization being politically active in the US openly lobbying and funding both US parties for chinese interests.

Its bad on a silver plater.

[–] Alwaysnownevernotme 8 points 7 hours ago

Because it's anti-semetic if you stop them from bribing, blackmailing, and spying on our politicians.

[–] Xanis 2 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Musk is focused at his level. I say we sweep the foundations.

[–] MyPornViewingAccount 3 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago) (1 children)

I see youre unfamiliar with the Supremacy Clause

Or how much he also spent down-ballot.

[–] Xanis 4 points 6 hours ago

Nah, you're right, better give up.

Or...

We try and do whatever we can, even at the smallest levels.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

They got until 2026 to figure it out. My hopes aren't high though. If they can turn the mid-terms into their favor and owe up to some of that loss in the 2024 elections, we'll see.

But has the Democratic Party ever owed up to the mistakes when it comes to campaigning? They just ignored the playbook of 2008 and 2012, then decided "oh yeah that one from 2016? yeah we want that one!" and went with it. And it burned up in their face.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 7 hours ago

Not even that, they went with the 2020 playbook of "Hey, at least I'm not Trump." It worked in 2020 due to Trump's shit being fresh in everyone's minds, plus his bungled covid response. Now that covid is basically in the rearview mirror (as far as the majority of the population is concerned) and prices are through the roof, it's once again time to blame the democrats for the previous administration's fiscal irresponsibility and go with the big spenders once again.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 10 hours ago (3 children)

What will more candidates do?

I don't see how that addresses the issue, at least on a federal level. Bernie was one of the most popular candidates in previous elections and that didn't count for anything. It's clear that the game is rigged. Look at other countries, where the equivalent party to the Democrats (that is, the 'middle left') has a leadership still beholden to corporate interests despite their working class rank-and-file and substantial union lobbying.

Third parties already exist and you can see how viable they are. The FPTP spoiler effect isn't going away any time soon.

[–] minnow 3 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

at least on a federal level

The FPTP spoiler effect isn't going away any time soon.

You are 100% spot on. What we need are progressive candidates on the local level, were voting rules are determined, to push Rank Choice Voting. The Two Party System is a result of FPTP voting; take that away and implement RCV and the Two Party System will begin to crumble naturally.

[–] TexasDrunk 3 points 7 hours ago

Yep. And TODAY is the fucking time to talk about it. We just came off an election where a lot of folks were feeling bad about their choices.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago) (1 children)

Third parties already exist and you can see how viable they are. The FPTP spoiler effect isn’t going away any time soon.

Well... if the issue of slavery was central to the development of the Republican Party, and the working class struggles of Europe led to the creation of Labour and SocDem Parties in Europe

There is a slim chance, that by precedent, one breaking issue could widen up, as to create a new political party that swallows up and destroys one of the moribund parties, through its absorption of its former key constituencies

(though it must take advantage of the power vacuum fully) (emphasis on the term 'slim', to refer to 1%)

Heck, we could follow Canada, and have it so that America relies on multi-partisan coalitions, rather than Dems, Reps, or even both alone

Then, again, Idk Americans, so mindlessly downvote me if ye want...

Nothing in life is ever so permanent...

[–] [email protected] 5 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Aside from our need for voting reform, the bigger issue lies in that most prominent media outlets are owned by the same billionaires that are bankrolling the two parties. No third (or fourth, fifth, etc) will have chance in hell at gaining ground in the current media climate because they will immediately be scrubbed and erased from the narrative.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 hours ago

the bigger issue lies in that most prominent media outlets are owned by the same billionaires that are bankrolling the two parties. No third (or fourth, fifth, etc) will have chance in hell at gaining ground in the current media climate because they will immediately be scrubbed and erased from the narrative.

I couldn't agree more...

[–] [email protected] 5 points 9 hours ago

Bernie didn’t stand a chance because both of the “parties” are corrupt af. More candidates that don’t require some corporate controlled party to endorse them to actually show up on the ballot, is exactly what we need.

You can then take it further by outlawing absolutely any lobbying and sponsorships of political campaigns; have an equal amount of funds set aside that allows each candidate an equal amount of airtime/advertising/etc.. You could take it even further by having a government owned and dedicated channel for each candidate to showcase their agenda and goals that they’d like to run on, with proper fact checking and ability for voters to hold those candidates accountable post elections.

Simply saying “more candidates won’t fix it”, is the same as not doing anything at all. We need to separate all the corporate parties and interests from our democracy.