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.
I love it but it’s real risky
Can it get any worse?
The decision needs to be made right now, because there are always going to be those that encourage voting 3rd party like 3 months before the election even though none of the groundwork has been done for the previous 4 years.
If the work is started now it’s a lot better then 3 months before the election where it really just syphons votes away from at least preventing Republicans from winning.
Fuck it. Look where we’re at now, the only safe bet is that the Democrats will not change and this cycle will continue indefinitely until something else takes over.
How would it be worse than the current situation?
Fwiw, that was my logic up until the election. I fully admit I was wrong. The DNC is simply not capable of mounting a winning campaign in this context. It has atrophied into an unrecoverable state. Refactoring is not going to be useful. A new project is the best way forward.
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?
Can’t you setup a structure where people from both sides would together commit to voting third-party?
Can’t really do that with a First-Past-The-Post system because someone needs to get past the post. If there are four major parties (left and right both have significant numbers voting 3rd party), there would ultimately have to be a coalition or two that just ends up being the Republicans and Democrats all over again.
The system itself has to be changed first, and the two parties who benefit from there only being two parties aren’t going to change it to allow for that.
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.
Nowadays, I have very little respect or identification with Democrats. It feels like a failed party
Yeah, but lots of us reached that point decades earlier…
08 Obama was the lone bright point going back forty years of the party.
Hell, at Carter’s time he faced a fractured party because he was moving to far right. So really it’s more like 50 years.
Dems have lost the plot for longer than most of us have been alive, and I’m all about reducing the strength of the party as an organization.
But we still need a DNC and state parties if only to facilitate primaries, that’s a very important function.
What would it take to get a primary system up and running for Independents (or more accurately I guess it would have to be a proper party for a primary to make sense)?
I assume it’s some combo of setting up the event hosting ($$$) and somehow coming up with the rules for deciding on how to operate the primary (schedule, thresholds for qualification, voting system, etc). And unfortunately I have no idea how to accomplish either.
What would it take to get a primary system up and running for Independents (or more accurately I guess it would have to be a proper party for a primary to make sense)?
A lot, because you’d need a national and one for each state…
But the time to talk about this was anytime in the last fifty years up till a month ago when we got a DNC chair who will let a fair primary happen…
You’re trying to fix a problem we literally just fixed, and in doing so likely hand control back to neoliberals.
You want to know why it took mainstream media up until the last month to start talking shit about Dems?
It’s because the neoliberals just lost power
Now is the time to rally around the new Dem party, not make a new one
But we still need a DNC and state parties if only to facilitate primaries, that’s a very important function. a month ago when we got a DNC chair who will let a fair primary happen… Now is the time to rally around the new Dem party, not make a new one
Totally agree here with emphasis on the new part. Surge the turnout in the primaries. Without ballot access in every state it’s just not realistic to expect a 3rd party can rise up and replace the Democratic party in 2026 or 2028. Except in states with direct ballot initiatives to switch to ranked choice voting, but even that is only a solution for at best the election after getting that voted into existence.
I’m just a bit worried about any potential schism among the Democrats because the electoral system in the US is still incredibly broken and will always gravitate towards a 2-party state.
To me, it seems easier for the Democrats to rebrand as more left-leaning than they currently are and try to remain a united front, rather than splinter into several competing parties.
If anything is to supplant the Democratic party, it would need to be one party supplanting the whole of the Democrats, or else Republicans will remain a plurality and retain control of the US government until the electoral process changes or their numbers diminish.
Well, I suppose one way to look at it is that we needed the unified front against Trump, but didn’t get it. So for now, and especially for the midterms, maybe now’s the time to get an alternative party started?
And then they can choose to run a presidential candidate in 2028 or not, depending on the momentum they get?
I dunno. Mostly thinking out loud here.
After how 40 years of operation, the Green Party still isn’t on the ballot in 10 states. Less than 1% of the legislative offices around the country (state and federal) are held by 3rd party or independents. You need to either make ranked choice voting the state-wide method in your state first, or put that energy into taking over your state’s Democratic party via the primaries and the internal leadership elections.
The green party doesn’t realistically try though
Ballotpedia makes it even more bleak than I thought: “Three minor parties were recognized in more than 10 states as of January 2025”
https://ballotpedia.org/List_of_political_parties_in_the_United_States
I thought the Libertarians were on the ballot in all 50 states. Just crazy when you consider Perot had just shy of 20% of the popular vote in 1992 (and still received zero electoral votes).
3rd party for anything beyond county level just isn’t happening without ranked choice.
We just need to get big enough with defectors that the parties come to us willing to deal because they know they cant win without us.
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.
That’s triangulation and it’s been the basis of the DNC since Clinton’s presidency
We really should be calling the “centrist” ones “Republicrats.”
Neoliberals are Fascist enablers.
Sanders and AOC can come.
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.
Our two parties are engrained at this point, for better or worse, and will not change until we change our First Past the Post voting system. Everyone that’s disenfranchised with the Democratic party in this thread right now represents the owl voters in this video - watch it please, it’s very clear at explaining why what you are suggesting will absolutely NOT WORK and will allow the GOP to win in perpetuity.
I’ve seen that video. Everyone’s seen that video.
And if my only option is to keep voting for the party that has failed so completely a fascist is in office then we are well and truly fucked.
“Have you tried rebranding?”
Brilliant.
Hell, run as Republicans and infiltrate.
worked the opposite way for fetterman
I think he may have actually been progressive before the strokes.
Their music isn’t that bad
You can get a good number of republicans to agree with leftist ideas as long as they aren’t presented that way.
You can say something like:
“Why should we let those liberal elites control all the businesses when real hard working Americans are doing all of the work? the people doing all of the work should all have part ownership over their workplace”
And they will agree with you
The independent party is back!
Unpaywalled link: https://archive.ph/s09Er
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?
Short version: If we’re talking national level (that is, electoral votes), then Congress elects the president (House for President, Senate for VP).
If we’re talking state level however, for most states the 34% will win and take all of the state’s electoral votes.
This is the cornerstone of the two-party system, which emerges naturally as a consequence of plurality voting systems. If you have two left-wing parties, one of which gets 10% and the other 42%, they both loose to the 48% of the single right-wing party. Hence, it’s strategic for the left wing to unite, which would theoretically earn them 52% of votes (practically, voter disillusionment makes it more complicated).
This is called the Spoiler Effect: A left-wing party would end up splitting votes off the Democrats, leading to a plurality victory for the Republicans. And in winner-takes-all systems, that plurality is enough to get the respective state’s electoral votes.
The candidate that gets 270 electoral votes wins. In most states, the candidate who gets the most votes and not a majority wins all the electoral votes for that state.
There are as many ways to do it as there are countries. In France for example it’s a two round system, so in the first round you vote for whoever you want, then the two top candidates make it to round two and everyone votes again between these two.
You can read the current top comment to see how it works in the Netherlands (one of my favourites). Otherwise you can also look at the Australian system which has ranked voting which is also pretty cool.
Everyone is terrified of the word socialism, God damn
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.
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.
He already started it in 2016.
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.
Yes. Or even run in the Republican primary (might be easier to get on the primary ballot than to get on the general election ballot).
Started a Tea Party like movement? Or started saying we need one? Because he did not start one at all. If he had we would have Democrat voters coming out in primaries more, and kicking out establishment Dems more if they don’t adhere to the parties core beliefs. He may have wanted to start one back then, but it was a false start because people lost a lot of steam when he wasn’t the candidate. Sure there were a lot of progressives elected in the next midterm, but that should have been a continuing trend, instead of something that plateaus. The Left has lost steam with their movement because they don’t keep their eye on the ball, we get distracted with infighting and splitting our votes with third parties instead of relentlessly pursuing our goal of remaking the party, something the Tea Party movement did extremely well at.
Dunno if running in the Republican primary would be worth anything because Republican primaries are very MAGA and if you aren’t that then you won’t get the nom at all.
Started a Tea Party like movement? Or started saying we need one? Because he did not start one at all.
The Republican Tea party movement started with Ron Paul running in the 2008 Republican primaries, and that having an impact on the kinds of Republicans who won the 2010 primaries and became part of the House flipping that year. Bernie started a progressive movement for the Democratic party by … running in the 2016 Democratic party. And that had an impact of more progressives running in the 2018 primaries (hello Squad) and helping flip the House that year.
If he had we would have Democrat voters coming out in primaries more, and kicking out establishment Dems more if they don’t adhere to the parties core beliefs. He may have wanted to start one back then, but it was a false start because people lost a lot of steam when he wasn’t the candidate. Sure there were a lot of progressives elected in the next midterm, but that should have been a continuing trend, instead of something that plateaus.
Well maybe progressive voters should have kept at it, then. It’s a long road to change an organization that big. I would actually put the moment as being in the 2020 primaries when a bunch of the moderates dropped out to coalesce for Biden before super Tuesday when it looked like FPTP was helping Bernie. But that just again speaks to the fact that not enough progressives were coming out to vote.
The Left has lost steam with their movement because they don’t keep their eye on the ball, we get distracted with infighting and splitting our votes with third parties instead of relentlessly pursuing our goal of remaking the party, something the Tea Party movement did extremely well at.
Ok we’re on the same page mostly. The Tea Parties continued momentum was, in no insignificant part, thanks to the billionaire Koch brothers co-opting it by funding a bazillion primary challenges to win over state legislatures towards their goal of calling a Constitutional Convention to rewrite it in their anarcho-capitalist ideals. They weren’t quite as interested in the US Congress or the presidency.
So, I still maintain that Bernie already started the movement in much the same way that Ron Paul started theirs. Just by running in the primary and inspiring both voters and candidates to go out to the primaries.
Dunno if running in the Republican primary would be worth anything because Republican primaries are very MAGA and if you aren’t that then you won’t get the nom at all.
Sometimes just getting a platform to speak your ideas is enough to get things going. Progressive ballot measures did well in 2024. Conservative voters can change their minds when confronted with first hand experience. Bernie convinced a Fox News studio audience to like Medicare for all. And even losing the primary after that, the exposure could very well help you get the signatures to appear on the general ballot as an independent.
I think most state parties are ok, and the DNC just got it’s furtherest left chair in 30 years…
But the idea behind this, that politicians are loyal to voters over party is a lot better than where party comes first. Because helping voters is hard, and if it’s not the priority it doesn’t get done.
When we help voters when able, we have the numbers for majorities.
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.
You clearly have very little knowledge of history. I’d recommend starting with early 20th century Russia.
You clearly seem to think because something was effective in the past- it automatically defaults to being effective in the present.
I’d recommend you learn why we no longer prescribe cigarettes to help asthma sufferers like we did back in the 50’s.
I’d also recommend you learn the difference between Russia in the early 20th century and America in the present.
Do me a favor and search, “FDR New Deal.”
