this post was submitted on 06 Nov 2024
299 points (93.8% liked)

News

23297 readers
4471 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

“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
[–] dhork@lemmy.world 70 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago) (3 children)

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.

[–] rishado@lemmy.world 17 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago) (1 children)

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 8 points 13 hours ago (2 children)

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.

[–] jaxxed@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

I agree that it would have been better to have legitimacy, despite the results. Now you have legitimacy, and bad results.

[–] peppers_ghost@lemmy.ml 8 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

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

[–] lemonmelon@lemmy.world 1 points 9 hours 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.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 42 points 16 hours 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

[–] NatakuNox@lemmy.world 8 points 14 hours ago (2 children)

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 4 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

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 5 hours ago (1 children)

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 2 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

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

[–] Keeponstalin@lemmy.world 2 points 5 hours 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