this post was submitted on 26 Nov 2024
590 points (97.7% liked)

politics

31206 readers
2166 users here now

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 US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted 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 other users of being bots or paid actors.
  3. No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
  4. No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. 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 an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have 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. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.

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

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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 comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 33 points 2 years ago (67 children)

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 4 points 2 years 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 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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...

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

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.

[–] Tinidril@midwest.social 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (4 children)

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.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Eatspancakes84@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

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.

[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years 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.

load more comments (62 replies)