375

“This is a collapse of the Democratic Party.” Consumer advocate, corporate critic and former presidential candidate Ralph Nader comments on the reelection of Donald Trump and the failures of the Democratic challenge against him.

Despite attempts by left-wing segments of the Democratic base to shift the party’s messaging toward populist, anti-corporate and progressive policies, says Nader, Democrats “didn’t listen.” Under Trump, continues Nader, “We’re in for huge turmoil.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] RandAlThor@lemmy.ca 133 points 1 month ago

They need to fire the leaders of Democratic party. Find new blood and new direction. Swing to the right didn't help them.

[-] dhork@lemmy.world 80 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

So they did that once, Hillary was all set to take the nomination in 2008 then this young charismatic guy took the nomination. Obama served 2 terms and the Republicans lost their mind over it....

..... but maybe the Democrats did too? Because Hillary still thought it was Her Turn in 2016, and there were a lot of machinations to make sure they didnt run a Socialist. Then I distinctly remember all the shenanigans to insure that Joe Biden got the nomination in 2020. And we all know what happened this year. I actually think Harris was a good candidate, I just wish she got the chance to prove it in a meaningful primary. (Edited to add: if she had lost a primary, all it would have meant was that Democrats would have found an even better candidate.)

The Democrats do have a deep bench of Governors and Senators who might make really good Presidents. They even proved that strategy worked in 2008. I wonder why they are so afraid to prove it in a primary.

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 49 points 1 month ago

But when Obama won the nomination the DNC didn't support Obama in the general.

So Obama ignored the DNC for 8 years and let it fester until 2016 when Hillary's primary campaign took control of it they shady backroom financial deals that resulted in her campaign getting approval over what the DNC did during the primary.

There was a brief window Donna Brazille got in leadership and showed everyone the receipts, then Hillary's people got back in control and Biden kept them.

With Kamala losing the DNC votes for it's own leadership, and will likely retain like they always do.

Obama has the chance to appoint progressive leadership to the DNC and fix the party, but instead he ignored it as a relic.

And we're still paying the price.

I wonder why they are so afraid to prove it in a primary

Because challenging the party favorite is career suicide when the party is corrupt.

If Obama hadn't won in 08 none of us would remember his name, and the party did nothing to help him because they knew if he won he could change leadership.

They got lucky and he choose not to fix the party

[-] rishado@lemmy.world 28 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Disagree, Harris would not have been close to winning at all if there was a primary. Even Tim Walz would have absolutely smoked her in a primary.

[-] dhork@lemmy.world 13 points 1 month ago

While I'm not as sure as you are about that, if it had happened that way I wouldn't have minded at all. I liked Harris as a candidate, and feel she would have made a fine President. but I also like other Democrats.

We'll have to watch Walz. His current term ends with the 2026 election, and while he's not term limited he has already been in office for two terms. This campaign might give him the bug to try again in 2028.

[-] peppers_ghost@lemmy.ml 10 points 1 month ago

Harris didn't even win her home state in the primary she actually competed in. She was always the wrong choice.

[-] lemonmelon@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

The only criticism I have with that is the transfer of campaign funds. Harris was able to take control of the war chest immediately. That's the one justification I can see for giving her the nod.

[-] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

Yeah that’s really it, I want primaries that feel fair. The staggering of them is one of the least fair elements imo, it’s how none of the people who anyone was excited for won in 2020

If the Dems want to be relevant in the future they need an FDR, not even an Obama will cut it right now. The American people are demanding change, and so it’s going to have to be pretty radical improvements to life or the fascists are going to keep winning. And it needs to be widespread. I’m not saying that they need to start singing the international and calling for us to overthrow the capitalist regime on international women’s day (though, it would be based as hell). But M4A needs to be one of their milder offers and they need to sell people on it. “Life is hard, and corporations have fucked you, the Republicans are telling you to hate your neighbors. We’re going to make this country more competitive for your quality of life, and if the private sector cannot or will not provide you with your needs at an attainable price then we will”

[-] dhork@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

One of the many problems with the Democratic primary was the attitude that we can skip them altogether for incumbents. Dean Phillips got a lot of criticism for daring to challenge Biden, but I have to admit (in hindsight) that he was onto something. If they had staged a debate early in the primary cycle, we might have seen Biden's decline earlier. Phillips might not have ended up the nominee, but we might have had a more rigorous verring of the eventual nominee.

If there is one reform I want to see in the Democratic party going forward, it's that all Primaries be contested. we shouldn't give an incumbent a pass. We should hear him defend themselves in debates before they become the nominee. Heck, have the sitting VP debate the incumbent. Why not?

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] NatakuNox@lemmy.world 10 points 1 month ago

Obama, sadly was a failure. Better than any other president since FDR and Carter, but that's not saying much. America wanted change and all we got was the ACA from him and a few less terrible trade deals. Obama deported more people than Trump and never fixed the decline in the middle class. I turned 18 when Obama first ran and was so excited for all the "change" and nothing improved sustainably for the average American. He could have solidified himself as the best ever but road the middle too often and now the party is officially dead.

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago

We keep using that line about deportation but the problem is deportation is popular. Speedy removal and asylum in Mexico are popular. It's easy for people to blame immigrants.

[-] Keeponstalin@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

In the same polls Americans support deportations but also legalization of immigrants in about equal measure.

https://www.vox.com/policy/368889/immigration-border-polls-election-2024-trump-harris

https://news.gallup.com/poll/647123/sharply-americans-curb-immigration.aspx

Republicans have primed Americans into thinking illegal immigrants are criminals bringing in crime and drugs into the country. Which is completely fabricated and untrue. However, since Biden, Democrats have failed to counter message and instead adopted the right wing on immigration. That's the entire reason we see this contradiction. A genuine counter message would be popular. And it's essential considering that Trump is going to start mass deportations, which means concentration camps for millions of Americans

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

I agree, under the heading that if they can cart anyone away that easily, they can cart me away that easily.

[-] Keeponstalin@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

Yeah, the concentration camps will absolutely extend to any legal immigrants, and even people that look 'immigrant passing'. (Not white immigrants like from Canada or Europe of course, it's all racially motivated). I won't be surprised if Trump begins to deport political enemies

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 35 points 1 month ago

The issue is the same with trump.

A lot of stuff is dependent on people "doing the moral thing".

The DNC is a private organization, and if they decide to keep making the terrible decisions they've been making, there's not a lot we can do about it.

Their platform for a decade has been "what are you gonna do, vote trump?"

So I really really think that today being the day after the election is the day we start talking about a third option in 2028. There's no reason to expect the same people who have been running the DNC to magically change this time or even just get out of the way for the best of the country.

We can't just "find new leadership" because when a Republican wins, the DNC votes for its own leadership and almost always elects the same kind of people if not literally the exact same people.

[-] BombOmOm@lemmy.world 16 points 1 month ago

Their platform for a decade has been “what are you gonna do, vote trump?”

The people: Yes

But seriously, the Democrats need to get better candidates, and they need to take a long-hard look at their policy agenda. The people don't want it and will literally vote for Trump before what Democrats are offering.

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 32 points 1 month ago

That's not what I'm seeing.

Obviously totals aren't in yet, but looks like trump gained a million voters and Dems lost between 8-17 million

Which is what I've been saying for years. The danger isn't cross over voters, very few people bounce between parties.

What matters is energizing your own base and getting them out to vote.

Dems keep pissing off their own base to court Republicans and it never fucking works

Because what people will do, is just not vote.

Which is what just happened. And at the end of the day the entire point of a campaign is to motivate voters, this is a failure of Kamala and her campaign.

[-] Steve@communick.news 10 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

So I really really think that today being the day after the election is the day we start talking about a third option in 2028.

Might I recommend supporting the Forward Party.
They're trying to build a whole New Kind of Party, genuinely from the bottom up. Focusing on local politics, where election rules can be changed to make representatives more responsive to their voters. They're quite unlike other 3rd Parties that just run pointless presidential candidates every 4 years.

Then there's RepresentUs. Not a Party, but a political organization trying to do the same. Fix our election system at the state and local level.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago

Fine. Then people need to do something about it. Because the people saying it this time didn't. Despite asking over and over, I found one person this year on Lemmy who said they actually worked for a third party's campaign.

And when you asked them which third party candidate to vote for, they generally wouldn't give me a name. If you can't rally around a single candidate, you will never win.

Also, I'm not sure why abandoning something is better than fixing it from the inside.

[-] ahornsirup@feddit.org 2 points 1 month ago

Because fixing something from the inside takes work and time. And it's not like it wasn't happening (as much as I'm not a fan of it because I actually am one of the evil liberals people here love to complain about), people like AOC or Tlaib would never have been prominent voices ~20 years ago. But generational change happens over a timespan of, and I feel that it's very odd that I need to point this out, generations.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

Starting from scratch takes as much work and time, doesn't it?

[-] ahornsirup@feddit.org 5 points 1 month ago

More, and that's assuming you can ever build momentum. I wasn't defending the choice.

[-] MsPenguinette@lemmy.world 21 points 1 month ago

They've already started the talking point that they swing too left and that's why they lost

[-] octopus_ink@lemmy.ml 13 points 1 month ago
[-] SalaciousBCrumb@lemy.lol 12 points 1 month ago

They don’t want to learn. They’re both right wing parties.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] HK65@sopuli.xyz 8 points 1 month ago

Yeah, courting far left people like Dick Cheney was the problem. Next time they will just run Ivanka Trump and if you're against her, you are a misogynist.

Just kidding, they won't run her until she's at least 60, everyone knows people who are younger than that can't politics.

[-] littlewonder@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

I don't even need to fact check this. They do the same bullshit every time.

What's the definition of insanity again? The DNC doesn't appear to know.

[-] Asafum@feddit.nl 20 points 1 month ago

https://democrats.org/contact-us/

Their system is so bad they accepted "gofuckyourself@fuckyou.com" as my email so go have a blast. I encourage everyone to do so.

I told them all to resign and congratulated them on chasing the mystical moderate all the way off a cliff.

[-] lemonmelon@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

Thanks for doing that, they'll probably be sorted out by 2026!

[-] ICastFist@programming.dev 3 points 1 month ago

Implying anyone in the party even knows how to open and read emails received from that form

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] tehcooles@programming.dev 12 points 1 month ago

Really think they have the ability to see that? Because I don't. Nor does history. My gut tells me the Dems are going to move dramatically further right after this because "they didn't appeal enough to the 'center'" and "they can't rely on the left to support them". Our only option might be a leftist coalition committed to not voting dem until they capitulate or we gain enough support to be a viable party.

[-] UpperBroccoli@lemmy.blahaj.zone 17 points 1 month ago

“they can’t rely on the left to support them”

Worse, they do not want to. That would be bad for their billionaire buddies. The same buddies that funnel untold millions to both parties at the same time, to ensure they get what they want either way.

[-] teawrecks@sopuli.xyz 10 points 1 month ago

This is why I'm hoping that all the impending hardships reflect poorly on Trump's term, and he can merely serve as the Hoover to an FDR-like successor.

Would be great if we avoided all the unnecessary deaths along the way, but we wouldn't be human if we didn't insist on learning everything the hard way.

[-] littlewonder@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

You've been subscribed to Hoover facts.

✨ Herbert Hoover was raised as a Quaker. ✨

[-] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

Yeah, he seems committed to collapsing a strained economy. It’s going to hurt. With any luck he’s going to struggle with his social control problems and focus on doing things that hurt everyone.

[-] marine_mustang@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 month ago

No, watch, they’ll run someone like Gavin Newsom in 4 years.

[-] bacon_saber@fedia.io 8 points 1 month ago
[-] marine_mustang@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 month ago

Better not be. He’s 100% a corporate suit.

[-] TwoBeeSan@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

So guaranteed?

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

Hahahaha, he's been lining up a 2028 run for the past few years.

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

That's been the talk.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 month ago

They need to fire the leaders of Democratic party. Find new blood and new direction. Swing to the right didn’t help them.

We need better people who won't vote for Trump.

Seriously though - Biden did win. And your conclusion now is that that they need "new blood"? Biden's as old-blood as you can get.

I love how everybody is blaming the party rather than the idiots voting for the crazy grandpa. Kamala was the better candidate. The people are broken more than the parties.

[-] Fosheze@lemmy.world 11 points 1 month ago

Kamala was the better candidate. But that doesn't mean she was a good candidate. If they want to win then making people choose between a pile of shit and a turd sandwich isn't the winning move.

[-] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 month ago

If they want to win then making people choose between a pile of shit and a turd sandwich isn’t the winning move.

They were choosing between a competent adult and the first US president to actively try to overturn the results of an election in the United States. A potted plant would be a better option than Trump.

Who do you imagine would have done better? Trump is promising the biggest deportations in US history - you think an ultra-liberal is going to compete with that?? The people of the United States are terrible - they picked this - they are to blame.

[-] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 8 points 1 month ago

Biden barely won. No one should take 2020 as evidence of expertise. That was an embarrassingly nail-biting result.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
this post was submitted on 06 Nov 2024
375 points (94.1% liked)

News

23655 readers
4455 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS