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.”

  • surph_ninja@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 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.

  • LustyArgonian@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    2 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.

  • Sam_Bass@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    2 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

    • GarbageShoot [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 hours ago

      Bernie had a lot of support back in 2020, but he got ratfucked by the entire field moving to ensure that Joe had a clear path to beat him.

  • blazera@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 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.

    • webghost0101@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      6 hours ago

      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.

  • NeoToasty@kbin.melroy.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    5 hours ago

    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.

    • bobs_monkey@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 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.

  • comfy@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 hours ago

    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.

    • I_am_10_squirrels@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 hour ago

      More candidates down ballot, not just top of the ticket. Get working class people in local and state government, who can help drive forward voting reform.

    • minnow@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      3 hours ago

      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@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 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.

    • Raymond Shannon@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      edit-2
      4 hours ago

      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…

      • bobs_monkey@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 hours ago

        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.

        • Raymond Shannon@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 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…

    • entropicshart@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      4 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.