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.
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.
And people were saying the same stupid "Bush and Gore are the same" shit in 2000.
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.
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.
Yeah fuck Ralph Nader for that. He definitely helped Bush win.
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.
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
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.
Harris didn't even win her home state in the primary she actually competed in. She was always the wrong choice.
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.
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.
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.
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.
They've already started the talking point that they swing too left and that's why they lost
Fuckers will NEVER learn.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Republicans can blame immigrants, LGBT, black people, brown people, women and much more.
All Democrats had to blame was Trump.
Democrats can never beat Republicans in the blame game. They must offer hope. They can never beat Republicans in threatening despair.
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.
Maybe blowing up the Democratic party would be best for everyone.
that would only be true if there was something to replace it
Well I'd prefer more than one thing to replace it, but certainly this is one of the rare opportunities to do so.
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.
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.
Good fucking riddance...
You fucked up a sure thing and let Trump win. There will never be a female president in my lifetime because Trump beats women.
It's also just another piece of the Overton Window
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window
Everything 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.
Good. Whatever follows can't be any worse than the "we need a strong republican party" dems.
Honestly I would be okay with it. They've been so ineffective and myopic that I've been done with the party as a whole for a while now.