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
    2
    ·
    30 days 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!

    • ClassStruggle@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      30 days ago

      The protest vote is a vote against something, like Democrats voting against trump. We would be exactly where we are right now with climate change regardless if Gore won or not. Government will never impact the profits of corporations that are polluting the environment. And it isnt the President that drafts law, including environmental law, that’s Congress. The Congress that won in 2000 did nothing for the environment.

      • someguy3@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        30 days ago

        People voted for Nader in protest that the Dems were not progressive enough. And that’s what got us Bush.

        Gore is the environmentalist. If you think that Gore wouldn’t have implemented environmental policy then frankly you are far gone. And reading the rest of your reply lines up with that, so I’m out. Yes it’s congress, if you have all 3 then the president pushes for what they want to do, and common parlance is to talk about the president.

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

          Numbers are hard, but the 3% that voted for Nader is less than the 15% of Democrats that voted for Bush.

          Since you don’t know, Nader is directly responsible for a HUGE part of our environmental laws. Gore talked about it, Nader advocated and pushed for legislation that helped create stronger laws.