“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.”

    • cygnus@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      36
      ·
      20 days ago

      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.

      • FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        24
        ·
        20 days ago

        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.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        edit-2
        20 days ago

        It’s not about right or wrong, it’s about the person weighing in.

        I don’t want to hear what Jill Stein has to say about it either. Fuck both of them.

        And you people downvoting: would you want to hear Newt Gingrich’s take? Even if this is what he said?

        • FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          18
          ·
          20 days ago

          You should be saying: “Fuck Kamala Harris”

          The Dems knew from day one that the economy was the most important issue to voters, because the vast majority of them are working 2-3 jobs just to barely make ends meet.

          So what did they do? They ran a clearly brain-damaged candidate, and when he imploded on live national TV, they subbed in Harris, who spent two months just telling people suffering to be joyful, as if it weren’t only condescending, but terribly bad policy and campaign strategy. Here in Missouri the $15 minimum wage passed overwhelmingly, but Harris decided to cosplay as a moderate Republican and talk about tax cuts that no one actually thought she’d follow through with anyway, because they’ve spent the last four years being ignored by Joe Biden.

          And they kept harping on Trump’s weirdness, as if they haven’t already observed that voters do not care how weird he is.

          Jill Stein and Ralph Nader didn’t make these crappy political decisions.

          The Dems did.

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            15
            ·
            20 days ago

            Kamala Harris would not even be an issue if Nader hadn’t spoiled the 2000 election.

            Because Gore would have been president and everything would have been different.

            So no, fuck Ralph Nader.

            • CmdrShepard42@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              20 days ago

              Gore lost because George Bush’s brother, Jeb, invalidated a bunch of ballots and stopped a recount as governor of Florida.

              Besides that, this argument is absurd as it would be just as valid to say that Gore spoiled the election for Nader and if Gore hadn’t run, Nader would have been elected president instead of George W.

              Quit trying to externalize the blame for the actions of the party leadership. These faults should have been clear to you in 2016 when they handed the White House to Trump, and again in 2020 when their candidate only narrowly defeated Trump (especially at a time when Trump had already wrecked the economy and COVID was skyrocketing and this was fresh on everyone’s mind).

              You seem to keep insisting that everyone else needs to adjust to meet you in backing candidates that keep losing when maybe you should be the one adjusting to meet others. Sliding further and further right isn’t a winning strategy for Dems and that should be quite obvious by now.

              • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                20 days ago

                Gore lost by few enough votes that there are a multitude of people who could have acted differently to produce a win. You can pick and choose who you want to blame and everyone is right.

            • dank@lemmy.today
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              20 days ago

              And if Adam didn’t eat the apple, we’d all be lounging naked in paradise.

              • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                20 days ago

                So you’re comparing something that literally happened within the lifetime of most people here with something that’s totally fictional?

                  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    19 days ago

                    2000 is ancient history to you?

                    Just how old are you?

                    Also, since you seem to think Adam and Eve counts as history, I think I understand why reality is an issue for you.

        • Steve@communick.news
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          edit-2
          20 days ago

          That’s a logical fallacy called an Ad Hominem. Where you don’t argue against an idea, instead attack the person voicing it.

          You’re opinion of a person, doesn’t mean anything to their argument. It actually works against finding truth and solutions.

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            20 days ago

            So then yes, you would like to know what Newt Gingrich’s take is as long as it is a valid argument?

            You don’t think that maybe some people don’t deserve attention in the first place?

            • Steve@communick.news
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              10
              ·
              20 days ago

              Good ideas deserve attention. It doesn’t matter where they come from.
              Your idea here isn’t a good one, and no longer has mine.

              • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                20 days ago

                No one has a right to media attention just because they have a good idea. I assume if a serial killer had a good idea, you wouldn’t want it on all the front pages. Maybe let them tell someone else and have that person bring it up if it’s such a good idea.

                  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    20 days ago

                    Okay, well then I stand by my point. Ralph Nader doesn’t deserve attention on election issues no matter what good ideas he has. If they’re good enough ideas, he has plenty of media connections he can tell them to.

      • tal@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        20 days ago

        I think that if you’re looking at the Presidential race in particular, you probably want to look specifically at turnout in swing states, where the vote could have been realistically shifted.

        Probably a lot of post-mortems happening. I want to see some material from Five Thirty Eight on what shifts happened from 2020. In the runup to the election, for example, I remember reading that young non-college-educated male blacks polled had swung dramatically more Republican between 2020 and 2024. That suggests that division around education is becoming more-important along party lines. A majority was still voting Democrat, but the shift was large, something crazy, like twenty percentage points. I remember reading another article in the runup that Trump had gained slightly among females, also kind of a surprise to me. Now that we’ve got voting data, though, we can look at county level stuff and try to get an idea of which demographics actually shifted their votes and how.