Bernie Sanders Has an Idea for the Left: Don’t Run as Democrats

I think this is the same shift for Republicans post-Obama. Every Republican started saying, “I’m an independent.” and the Tea Party started. Back then, Trump’s claim to fame was the birther movement, which eventually became MAGA & the presidential run.

Nowadays, I have very little respect or identification with Democrats. It feels like a failed party. I think they’ll either transform more left (see Bernie & AOC’s shifts & populism) or die out to something else. I like the Working Families Party because it focuses on the economic disparities rather than identity politics.

I’m glad we found more freedom for more people, but I think the Left has lost cohesion in doing so. We don’t need to all be the same, but the message used to be “Working class vs. Rich” and the Right manipulated that into its current populism. Now there’s the “Liberal Elites” that are out of touch, and recent events make it feel that way, not just propaganda any longer.

Fuck yeah, there it is. Let’s go. New party. This one’s dead. November was the DNC’s last chance. Time for a new party. DNC leadership and political consultants aren't allowed anywhere near this one.

Hell, run as Republicans and infiltrate.

At this point the Democratic brand is so tarnished that it might be best to abandon it. More people now approve of Tesla than Democrats.

Republicans started their takeover by running a ton of local candidates. And in a lot of places having a D next to your name is an automatic defeat.

If republican voters agree with progressive goals - as many claim - then the best way to actually get things done is to run as a progressive independent in these local races.

Everyone is terrified of the word socialism, God damn

We really should be calling the "centrist" ones "Republicrats."

Here in the Netherlands our house of representatives has 150 seats and they're filled by 15 parties, the biggest of whom has 37 seats, the second 25. People sometimes suggest that political fragmentation makes things more complicated, because usually at least 3 or 4 parties are needed to form a coalition. I don't really think it matters because I look at it this way: there are different views on things in society and compromises need to be found one way or another, it's where this takes place that's different. In one case it's on the conference of 1 or 2 big parties, in the other case it happens in parlement/government where the many small parties meet. The benefit of a many-party system is that people actually got a choice, if you're on the left and don't like what a particular party is doing, you can pick another leftwing party. You don't have that option in a 2-party system, you'll probably stick with your party despite everything you don't like about it. Here, if a party really fucks up, they're done for, a party can get 20% one election and 1% the next one. The system is more dynamic. At the same time, the actual governments usually have an overlap, like there will be different coalitions, but our center-right party has been in the coalition for over a decade now. There may be a certain charm to knowing that every other election a completely new set of people forms the government, but that also has many downsides I think. There'll be little continuity, republicans undo everything democrats have done and in 4 years we'll see the reverse. Haven't heard any really convincing arguments against political fragmentations. It's just the path towards it that may be difficult if you're in a 2 party system, because as soon as you go third party, you're hurting your side of the spectrum. What would be helpfull is if it would happen on both sides simultaneously. Can't you setup a structure where people from both sides would together commit to voting third-party?

Someone also needs to start a fourth party at the same time which is socially left but fiscally right. A lot of conservatives don't give a shit about the social aspect of the Democrats but just like the financial side of Republicans more so they vote that way instead.

A 4 party system is better than 3 party, and this way instead of a third party syphoning votes from only Democrats you'll have another party syphoning votes from Republicans at the same time so there's no downside.

How would any other party get any time on a national platform to campaign, the way Democrats and Republicans do? I mean, we do have more than those two parties; but they're never included in big debates or really given any attention at all. I'm surprised I don't hear idiots saying shit like "Dude, I voted today and there was like 6 motherfuckers on the ballot instead of just two!"

Dude should be saying we need our own tea party movement where we take over the Democrat party. Not that we need to fracture ourselves even more.

That said, I think there is an argument for independent runs in purely local politics in areas that only have Republicans run for things and have a hatred for Democrats they can't seem to move past.

Regardless. Bernie should know how our system works by now, he should know that fracturing has and will always be a stupid idea that only removes power from the leftists and progressives in the country and then gives it to the Republicans. Which then makes the Democrats move right because the progressives have left the building. This is just fucking stupid on a non local politics scale and Bernie should know better.

How would elections even work if there were three parties? Doesn't there need to be a majority for the president to be declared? Or is that because of the current two party system? Does it just need to be the party with the most electoral votes, not over 50%?

If there were three parties and it ended up being 33/33/34, would the party with 34% of the electoral votes be the one to win the presidency?

he's only saying that because he happens to live in a super liberal small rural state.

know what happens in most ither states where you don't have name recognition or a party infrastructure behind you and you run for office? unless you have some sort of money reserve you can tap into and dollar bills come gushing out like an oil geyser, it's damn near impossible to not just win but get ballot access TO win. and if you do get ballot access, all you will do is steal votes from the registered democratic candidate (or the democratic candidate steals votes from you) and the republican wins.

a brilliant strategy from a man who twice ran for president as a democrat but refused to change his party affiliation. he didn't even take his own damn advice, and look at what that got us. just the fact that he didn't do this his own damn self should show how stupid an idea it actually is.

and by the way, sure he and aoc are drawing huge crowds. crowds are nothing. how many of those people vote? how many of those people get 2 more people to vote? just showing up to a rally means absolutely fuckall if you don't actually go vote and vote for viable candidates. because if your message resonates with the people enough you don't have to run unaffiliated with a major party because you would have the votes to run and win as a democratic candidate in the first place. because to be very honest, the thing that bernie is suggesting not only sounds like an exercise in liberal grifting, it also sounds like an excellent way to divide a voting bloc that when split has absolutely no chance of beating a republican ever but would absolutely lead to entrenched infighting among a group that should be united in beating republican christian nationalist fascism.

Senator, First Past the Post would like a word.

I get what he's saying, but the history of third parties in the US says this is futile. Then again, the last thing the Democrats need right now is extensive party in-fighting when they should be united.

It’s worked out so well for them so far. The left organizing themselves into anything useful and productive, historically can be compared to cats herding cats.