Sanders says Trump reelection would be the ‘end of democracy’ - eviltoast

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said the reelection of former President Trump would be the “end of democracy” in an interview released Saturday by The Guardian.

“It will be the end of democracy, functional democracy,” Sanders said in the interview.

The Vermont senator also said in the interview that he thinks that another round of Trump as the president will be a lot more extreme than the first.

“He’s made that clear,” Sanders said. “There’s a lot of personal bitterness, he’s a bitter man, having gone through four indictments, humiliated, he’s going to take it out on his enemies. We’ve got to explain to the American people what that means to them — what the collapse of American democracy will mean to all of us.”

Sanders’s words echo those President Biden made in a recent campaign speech during which he said that Trump’s return to the presidency would risk American democracy. The president highlighted the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the Capitol in an attempt to cement a point about Trump and other Republicans espousing a kind of extremism that was seen by the world on that day.

  • Maggoty@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    10 months ago

    A. Parties haven’t held effective primaries for an incumbent since I was born.

    B. Political parties are private organizations. They are completely within their rights to go back into the smoke filled back rooms.

    C. That would be political suicide and tells us exactly what the DNC thinks about us.

    • prole@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      Right? I’m tired of being fucking surrounded by misinformation, even on lemmy.

      Political parties don’t give up the incumbent advantage. This isn’t new.

    • derphurr@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      A. Primaries have existed since 1972. 1976 Ford primaried by Reagan. 1980 incumbent Carter challenged by Ted Kennedy. 1992 Ross Perot.

      If B is true, they shouldn’t be able to use tax dollars and public employees for their primary elections. They should have to fund and administer their private org election themselves. In fact, in many states only the two parties even have access to primary ballots.

      C. DNC could care less about winning. See also Bernie.

      • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        10 months ago

        1992 Ross Perot.

        Ross Perot was a third party candidate, not a primary challenger to an incumbent. I take no issue with anything else in your comment.

      • Maggoty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        Ross Perot was an independent. That’s hardly a party primary. The others were before I was born. Also primaries have been a thing since the early 1900’s. They just didn’t have as much weight then as they do now.

        I’m going to need an example state where minor parties can’t get on the ballot. At any rate afaik, they pay the state for the election. But it’s also in the state’s best interest to run it.

        And they did win with Biden. I think it’s more fair to say they care more about their internal politics than winning.

        • derphurr@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          Ohio is one example that took away third party ballot access. The first hurdle would be getting 60,000 valid voter signatures in a limited time frame. Then you would need to get 120,000 General election votes for a Gov candidate. Arkansas etc are similar

          https://ballotpedia.org/Ballot_access_requirements_for_political_parties_in_Ohio

          Other examples can be found https://ballotpedia.org/Ballot_access_requirements_for_political_parties_in_the_United_States

            • derphurr@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              10 months ago

              You don’t know what you are talking about. Taking Ohio as example when 3rd parties sued for ballot access, Libs had 3% of the vote, 4-6% for statewide.

              https://lpedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Party_of_Ohio_Historical_Election_Results

              Green Party with 1% to 3% when allowed on General election ballots

              https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Party_of_Ohio

              Not sure what your definition of “enough support” is. Ohio repubs then tailored the law to exclude any future 3rd parties. (Through petition signatures which amount to millions in CPRS)

              • Maggoty@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                10 months ago

                Fun story, they were on the ballot for the general election in 2020. They got 1 and 0.3 percent respectively.

                Frankly, these aren’t good enough numbers to be on the ballot. Even if they were at 3 percent. The standard around the world is generally 10 percent to get seated in a parliament.

                So Ohio asking for a fifth of that in signatures isn’t bad. In other countries they’d need to show half a million people for Ohio’s voting population.

        • derphurr@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          Presidential primaries did not exist until the 20th century, and they did not have a major impact on conventions until many years later. In 1960, John F. Kennedy won several Democratic primaries, but Lyndon Baines Johnson remained the favorite of the party establishment.

          At any rate it was the Convention that selected candidate until…

          After the controversial 1968 presidential cycle, the Democrats began to reform their nomination process to make it more inclusive and transparent, and to make its results more representative of the will of the party as a whole, not just the party bosses and insiders.