“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.”
Maybe blowing up the Democratic party would be best for everyone.
Hope and change. That’s the message Obama won consecutive terms with. The Republicans have always thrived on fear and insecurity–and hate, which is just ripe fear. To quote Yoda, “Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate.” The red scare, the Southern Strategy, urban crime, WMDs, terrorism, immigrants, China–since the 1950s, Republicans have monkey-barred from fear to fear.
It’s a natural fit for conservativism. What is conservatism if not the fear of change? And when you’re afraid, you want a strongman to lead you, someone who takes pride in our military and law enforcement. Someone who shows no fear, who has swagger. It’s also a perfect fit for someone like Trump who would as soon lie as breathe. When you’re conjuring terrors, truth is just dead weight.
Kamala didn’t run on hope and change. She ran on fear, too. She tried to beat Trump at his own game with none of the advantages of his shameless distain for the truth or a Republican Party and media ecosystem at home with fearmongering. She aped his disdain for immigrants and opposition to China, but of course her main bugaboo was Trump himself. Despite widespread dissatisfaction with our nation’s current circumstances, she offered only stasis, while Trump offered revolution.
Non-college graduates know they’re getting fucked. Trump says immigrants and China is to blame. Kamala has nothing to say. She could point to the billionaires, the tax dodging corporations, the thriving defense contractors, the predatory medical insurance and pharmaceutical companies, the monopolies bleeding consumers dry in every corner of the economy.
She could paint a vision of affordable healthcare for all, an end to medical bankruptcy, an end to college debt, a thriving green energy blue collar economy, free early childhood education, a guaranteed jobs program, a universal basic income.
She could acknowledge the people who feel left behind and say, “I hear you. This is what I’m going to do for you.” Instead, her cries of fear just assured those folks that Trump really was going to fuck shit up fighting for them, that the people who sold them down the river are shaking in their boots. Of course, Trump isn’t actually going to make their lives better, but he promised he would, and that’s more than Kamala could be bothered to do.
He is an expert, after all. He’s the guy whose 3rd party campaign in 2000 siphoned enough votes from Gore in Florida to flip the state (and the election) to Bush.
Uhhhh, wasn’t that more due to Jeb! ordering the recount stopped? Like, I seem to recall reading that the recount WAS NOT COMPLETED, and the results that they had at that point had to be accepted, which just so happened to favor Bush.
Not saying Nader didn’t siphon votes, but I seem to remember that there was actual skulduggery and not just “3rd party go brr”.
There was a lot going on. The final count used had bush up by 537 votes out of 5.8 million cast. The close margin triggered a recount and Bush dropped to 327 vote lead.
Nadar probably cost the democrats more votes then republicans by greater then that 327. But there were other things that hurt Gore. Some intentional some random.
There were ballot design issues. In areas where the butterfly ballot was used Buchanan (who was also a 3rd party candidate) got way more votes than elsewhere. So if you wanted Gore saw him under Bush and selected the dot below you voted for Buchanan. See below.
Bush. O O Buchanan Gore. O
In another democratic area the ballot had the presidential race split on the front and back page. 21,000 votes were invalidated because they had multiple selections for president.
There was a large purge of mostly black felon voters. 15% weren’t felons.
Then there were lawsuits trying to stop and start recounts in both state and federal court. The state supreme court ordered recounts while they decided if the recount should be used. Then they decided the recount should be used and set a date it was du. Then the US supreme court stopped the recount. Several days later they decided there wasn’t time for a recount and ordered the Bush ahead by 537 count to be used.
So honestly it probably took all the above to swing the final count to Bush from Gore. I’m guessing if any one had not happened Gore would have been president.
A personal note I live in Florida and that was the first election I voted in. My vote for president has never be closer to making a difference in who was president. It’s shaped my views on elections and voting.
Well yeah, you (and the other poster who referenced the Brooks Brothers Riot) are 100% correct in stating the count ended prematurely, but if Nader hadn’t siphoned away those votes, Gore likely would have had yhe lead throughout the recount and Republicans wouldn’t have been in a position to pick a favorable time to stop.
I blame it more on Gore and the Democrats for not fighting for democracy more. Hopefully it becomes more clear the Supreme Court is an legitimate institution and people point to increasingly inane decisions as a reason not to listen to it.
Agreed. These people are demonstrating the exact behavior that Nader is talking about that put Trump in the Whitehouse in 2016 and now it looks like again in 2024. What the fuck do they expect to happen when running as “diet Republicans” against “Republicans?”
Of course people don’t like to take their medicine and will now lash out and blame everyone else for the mess they’ve caused again.
And people were saying the same stupid “Bush and Gore are the same” shit in 2000.
In the 2000 presidential election in Florida, George W. Bush defeated Al Gore by 537 votes. Nader received 97,421 votes, which led to claims that he was responsible for Gore’s defeat.
However, Jonathan Chait of The American Prospect and The New Republic notes that Nader did indeed focus on swing states disproportionately during the waning days of the campaign, and by doing so jeopardized his own chances of achieving the 5% of the vote he was aiming for.
- his wiki
Yeah fuck Ralph Nader for that. He definitely helped Bush win.
His family was forced out of Lebanon by radical Islam so I think he knows a thing or two about the value of democracy.
His parents immigrated. The Late Ottoman Empire is responsible for their genocides and ethnic cleansing campaigns. Repeatedly blaming Islam over the political parties responsible is just thinly veiled islamophobia
The statement failed to condition this support on the White House’s making immediate enforceable demands on Israel to stop this mass annihilation, including women, children, the elderly, and hospital patients, immediately. There is no indication of any reciprocity, simply a plea without any display of political power on behalf of the Lebanese American community. After all, there are over a million Lebanese American voters that the Democratic Party should be keeping in mind.
They need to fire the leaders of Democratic party. Find new blood and new direction. Swing to the right didn’t help them.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
deleted by creator
https://democrats.org/contact-us/
Their system is so bad they accepted “[email protected]” 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.
No, watch, they’ll run someone like Gavin Newsom in 4 years.
Ooh is it his turn?
Better not be. He’s 100% a corporate suit.
So guaranteed?
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.
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.
Andrew Yang was one of the best spokesmen for UBI. Unfortunately, he got bought out by big Pharma to drop support for universal healthcare and stop advocating for UBI. Both have same rationale. His party of “consolidating moderates” is just pro-neocon warmongering coalition.
I hope forward party can become something different. Back to UBI roots.
Forward doesn’t even need to exist after achieving open primaries, ranked choice voting, and multi-member districts. Until that happens UBI won’t be possible with the corpo duopoly we have.
Parties don’t have to be perminant. Even less perminant should be our support. Other parties will be possible when our process is fixed. Which ever ones support any form of UBI will get my support. But that may be a decade away or more.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Starting from scratch takes as much work and time, doesn’t it?
More, and that’s assuming you can ever build momentum. I wasn’t defending the choice.
They’ve already started the talking point that they swing too left and that’s why they lost
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.
Fuckers will NEVER learn.
They don’t want to learn. They’re both right wing parties.
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.
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.
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.
Kamala wasn’t the better candidate. Biden would’ve done better. They forced the old man out in the middle of a campaign. Kamala never fared well on her own. Stupid Dems thought because Biden lost the debate he’d lose the election. Well Trump lost the freakin debate, but did it matter?! NO! THAT’S why they need to be gone. They got lucky with Biden. They ain’t getting lucky again.
Kamala wasn’t the better candidate.
What do you do when the nation wants a fascist and you don’t want a fascist? Do you run a fascist just to win? Or do you lose elections?
We’re blaming the wrong people. Trump won by stoking fear, prejudice and outrage. How do you compete with that without feeding it?
Biden barely beat Trump in 2020 and is now much older and the incumbent who people typically blame all the current issues on. They made the right choice forcing him to step down but he never should have run for a second term in the first place but instead defeat Trump and run a single term like he said he would in 2020. The DNC should have spent the last 4 years grooming someone more appealing to the public instead of trying shift the party to be more like the Republicans.
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.
“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.
Liberals would choose fascism over adopting left wing elements into the party. They’ve made their choice and will now live with it. Repeated failure by leadership to choose a candidate people actually like is what brought us here. Never forget that.
Move on from the Democrats. It’s over. They had their chance with Bernie.
To be fair, before Trump took over the party, the Republicans were generally considered to be in a death spiral.
The prevailing idea was that the party just didn’t have a future. Their brand was this basically an unappealing mix of boring religious people and self-professed ‘sensible’, common-sense stewards of the status quo. Looking at demographic trends at the time, they were trending towards irrelevance.
Then Trump took over and brought back the enthusiasm. They also started to court minority votes (Hispanics, Blacks) which tend to be very socially conservative. At the same time, the democrats slipped into the ‘boring status quo protectors’ role.
Hopefully the Dems wake up, but it might take a while.
After this term Trump cannot be reelected. What will the democratic message be then? Who will be the new boogie man?
The Democratic Party will never change on its own. It is run by neoliberals. Neoliberals are moderate conservatives. They will always shift a little right before shifting a little left.
If the Party is not overtaken by progressives, we will repeat all this bullshit again and again until only far right people remain.
The party needs to be taken over by leftists not progressives. It needs leadership who isn’t afraid of being titled left, those who reject the right as an outward identity.
My concern is numbers. The party needs to appeal to enough people to be successful. The public understands “progress” and “progressive”. The public requires quite a bit of education on “leftist” to be sold. I think this would be the difference between success and failed obscurity.
Unless the R’s hold their constitutional convention and crown Trump Emperor
Eh, even if they do, because I do believe it’s 100% possible they’ll try to end democracy in all but name this cycle, I don’t think Trump will even live out his full term in the next 4 years. The man looks older every rally and photo op. He can’t even open doors.
Vance sucks in all the same ways every neocon sucks, so I don’t think he’ll be a totalitarian aberration like Trump if he’s elected. He doesn’t seem to have that something Trump has. I think he’ll be more like Reagan or Bush. Which is awful, but I think it’s something we can push through at least.
They’ll devour each other competing for the seat of cult leader when he dies.
Acting like there will be an election (e.g. organizing and building political coalitions) will put us in a better position to deal with whatever else happens
Yes, the Democratic party is out of touch. They lost due to stubbornness - expecting Muslims to vote for Kamala without her making a plan to end the war in Gaza was a gamble that didn’t pay off.
Now that the election is over, we need to focus our attention on third parties.
Fuck you, Nader. We wouldn’t even be in this mess if it wasn’t for you.
Looking purely at vote counts, he isn’t wrong. Trump lost about 3 million votes compared to 2020, whereas the Dems lost 15 million. There’s certainly a lot of blame to lay at the feet of “both sides bad” people who didn’t vote, but either way that’s catastrophically bad turnout for the Dems.
There’s certainly a lot of blame to lay at the feet of “both sides bad” people who didn’t vote
No. Absolutely not.
The Democrats and Republicans have spent 40 years, but more importantly, the last six months making it very clear that losing a badly-needed day’s pay for a worker isn’t worth the time it takes to vote. (Unless you were in Missouri with the $15 minimum wage on the ballot.)
Democrats are the reason that Democrats lose.
I think that if you’re looking at the Presidential race in particular, you probably want to look specifically at turnout in swing states, where the vote could have been realistically shifted.
Probably a lot of post-mortems happening. I want to see some material from Five Thirty Eight on what shifts happened from 2020. In the runup to the election, for example, I remember reading that young non-college-educated male blacks polled had swung dramatically more Republican between 2020 and 2024. That suggests that division around education is becoming more-important along party lines. A majority was still voting Democrat, but the shift was large, something crazy, like twenty percentage points. I remember reading another article in the runup that Trump had gained slightly among females, also kind of a surprise to me. Now that we’ve got voting data, though, we can look at county level stuff and try to get an idea of which demographics actually shifted their votes and how.
It’s not about right or wrong, it’s about the person weighing in.
I don’t want to hear what Jill Stein has to say about it either. Fuck both of them.
And you people downvoting: would you want to hear Newt Gingrich’s take? Even if this is what he said?
You should be saying: “Fuck Kamala Harris”
The Dems knew from day one that the economy was the most important issue to voters, because the vast majority of them are working 2-3 jobs just to barely make ends meet.
So what did they do? They ran a clearly brain-damaged candidate, and when he imploded on live national TV, they subbed in Harris, who spent two months just telling people suffering to be joyful, as if it weren’t only condescending, but terribly bad policy and campaign strategy. Here in Missouri the $15 minimum wage passed overwhelmingly, but Harris decided to cosplay as a moderate Republican and talk about tax cuts that no one actually thought she’d follow through with anyway, because they’ve spent the last four years being ignored by Joe Biden.
And they kept harping on Trump’s weirdness, as if they haven’t already observed that voters do not care how weird he is.
Jill Stein and Ralph Nader didn’t make these crappy political decisions.
The Dems did.
Kamala Harris would not even be an issue if Nader hadn’t spoiled the 2000 election.
Because Gore would have been president and everything would have been different.
So no, fuck Ralph Nader.
Gore lost because George Bush’s brother, Jeb, invalidated a bunch of ballots and stopped a recount as governor of Florida.
Besides that, this argument is absurd as it would be just as valid to say that Gore spoiled the election for Nader and if Gore hadn’t run, Nader would have been elected president instead of George W.
Quit trying to externalize the blame for the actions of the party leadership. These faults should have been clear to you in 2016 when they handed the White House to Trump, and again in 2020 when their candidate only narrowly defeated Trump (especially at a time when Trump had already wrecked the economy and COVID was skyrocketing and this was fresh on everyone’s mind).
You seem to keep insisting that everyone else needs to adjust to meet you in backing candidates that keep losing when maybe you should be the one adjusting to meet others. Sliding further and further right isn’t a winning strategy for Dems and that should be quite obvious by now.
And if Adam didn’t eat the apple, we’d all be lounging naked in paradise.
So you’re comparing something that literally happened within the lifetime of most people here with something that’s totally fictional?
That’s a logical fallacy called an Ad Hominem. Where you don’t argue against an idea, instead attack the person voicing it.
You’re opinion of a person, doesn’t mean anything to their argument. It actually works against finding truth and solutions.
So then yes, you would like to know what Newt Gingrich’s take is as long as it is a valid argument?
You don’t think that maybe some people don’t deserve attention in the first place?
Good ideas deserve attention. It doesn’t matter where they come from.
Your idea here isn’t a good one, and no longer has mine.No one has a right to media attention just because they have a good idea. I assume if a serial killer had a good idea, you wouldn’t want it on all the front pages. Maybe let them tell someone else and have that person bring it up if it’s such a good idea.
Who said the person deserves attention? Even a right to it?
I didn’t.
Good. Whatever follows can’t be any worse than the “we need a strong republican party” dems.
Those same dems who thought that seeking endorsements from Dick Cheney was a good idea?
Or my favorite “we shouldn’t hold trump accountable for crimes because we need to beat him at the ballot box”
Hakeem Jeffries should feel like an idiot for that one.
It’s also just another piece of the Overton Window
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_windowEverything in this election saw a monumental move to the right for everyone … the left (if there ever was any) went to the center, the center went to the right and the right went to the far right
Now right wing or right wing leaning ideas have become the norm and anything that is even remotely left or leftist has become extreme.
America shifted to the right and it brought along everyone, no matter their political leaning along with them.
