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.”

  • someguy3@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    edit-2
    12 hours ago

    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.

    • ClassStruggle@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 hours ago

      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.

      • someguy3@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        51 minutes ago

        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!

    • TimeSquirrel@kbin.melroy.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      5 hours ago

      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.

      • someguy3@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        49 minutes ago

        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.