Sanders, who competed against both Harris and Biden in the 2020 Democratic primary, said in Monday’s interview that he wants Harris to make clear that “it is not acceptable that 60% of our people are living paycheck to paycheck while the billionaire class has never, ever had it so good.”
“It’s not acceptable,” Sanders continued, “that we’ve got millions of seniors who can’t afford dental care, hearing aids, eyeglasses, that we have the highest rate of childhood poverty of almost any major country on Earth, and almost all of the new wealth and income is going to the people on top.”
While the facts have worsened over the years, Bernie really has never changed. I credit him with Biden moving to the left in his presidency and I’m excited to see him work with Harris.
Harris needs to skewer the Republicans with the dirtiest shit imaginable that Sanders isn’t remotely capable of being, and then be normal after the win.
The issues Sanders cares about are important to resolve long term, but they will not win the election.
People really need to drop this Insistence that progressive/leftist shit won’t win an election. Even with Trumpism as the alternative, dems can’t get a leg up because they think chasing trumpers further right will flip them - but trumpers are trump loyalists and even “normal” Republicans are all in. There’s no votes for dems there, but they’ve completely lost their potential base playing this game. Nobody votes because our options are corporate far right or corporate mid right.
If Dems want to mobilize apathetic voters, bring the left vote in, AND flip some “traditional Republicans,” they need to run on those policies that are largely popular like M4A and run a candidate with a track record of fighting for more progressive shit that people dont think will drop it all on day 1 like every other dem.
The problem is dems will take Trump over moving an inch to the left 10/10 times.
If anything, it’s been proven time and time again that centrism doesn’t win elections. Centrism is a strategy where you adopt it and hope your opponents just fuck up horribly. You’re certainly not out to create a platform for change or chase votes. See the recent UK election for an example, the Tories collapsed but in actual numbers labour gained almost no ground. That’s almost an impressive amount of walking in a victory.
The issues Sanders cares about are important to resolve long term, but they will not win the election.
But would get a very large portion of voters interested enough to vote in Nov. Lately most people in both sides (except MAGAs, them too braindead) is they are tired that the elite control everything, and while the Harris campaign might not turn the majority of Republicans, it may get the centrist and left energized that there might actually be change coming and vote.
I definitely fall into the category of what you’re saying about people being tired of the status quo, but there’s nothing she could say or do that would get me to vote. She’s just more of the establishment, so she’ll say the right things and then nothing will change. The democrat establishment is the issue and until that changes, nothing will.
The us does not need a president that can be taken down by a bad cold as say an 80 year old man
While there are people who can’t get flood insurance because of climate change he takes money from big oil
Musk plans to spend hundreds of millions to help get trump elected when there a countless number of better ways to use it
I don’t get it what did I say wrong? I just wanted to spitball some things she could say about trump
If Harris becomes president, the number one thing I want from her is to listen to the experts. I want her to listen to climate experts, public health experts, economic experts, etc. I think Democrats are generally better than Republicans at listening to and following the advice of experts, so I think she will meet this requirement.
However, there can be peril in this, as the experts don’t always agree on everything and aren’t always objective. For instance, one of the preeminent economists of the mid to late 20th century was Milton Friedman, who argued that just about everything the government did was bad. His opinions about deregulation, tax cuts, privatization, etc, became gospel, and then policy. We are living with the effects of that gospel and those policies today.
I am certain that Friedman believed his ideology would result in the best outcomes for the largest number of people. I don’t for a minute believe he thought his policies would hurt people or make them worse off. But while economists (or any experts, really) like Friedman may have had the best of intentions, what they lacked was a willingness to be wrong. This is the true weakness of ideologues, and why they can make for poor scientists.
We don’t only need leaders who listen to experts, we need experts who can see beyond their own ideological biases, and rely on evidence and data instead of belief. If we can achieve this, I think many things will improve in the United States.
I refuse to believe economists have the best of intentions in mind when they write in absolutes lol. Too many refuse to factor human costs and irrationality into their calculations, Friedman being one of main examples.
I’m sure there are economists that do, but the few I’ve spoken to talk about people abstractly and as expendables.
Yeah it’s batshit that an economist won a nobel prize for his theory that people don’t act 100% rationally so that’s why economic models were failing to predict reality.
Like, I’m sure it wasn’t obvious and I’m not trying to sound like I’m smarter than economists, but holy fuck duh
Hahaha that’s fantastic! Do you remember who it was? I’d love to read about this…
It’s even worse than that it’s not even just the irrationally that’s unaccounted for. It’s also that people rationally optimize for variables that are disregarded. Neoclassical economics takes obviously falsifiable assumptions as axioms. It’s brutally stupid shit. No amount of numbers attached to it would make it work if those axioms are wrong. Yet it’s been used to enact major economic policy all over the world. Including “shock therapy” that got applied to many countries around the world, such as my country of origin where that led to dramatic drop in GDP, standard of living, life expectancy, more than a decade of poverty and a 20% population exodus. People like to badmouth Psychology as a shit science, boy, Psychologists check their results a lot more than these folks.
This kind of technocratic approach can sound great and it’s always good to have policy and positions formed by those most knowledgeable in the relevant field. The problem is that the “experts” that will likely have her ear will be the ones that are vetted and approved by the power elite, the wealthiest in this country who will largely recommend what is best to protect their privilege, wealth and position.
When I learned about him I was surprised that a big part of Friedman’s ideology was the Negative Income Tax. A form of Universal Basic Income. That would have made a big difference if that was implemented also.
I want her to listen to climate experts
Yep!
public health experts
Yep!
economic experts
You lost me.
Economics is just political economy somehow supposedly divorced from politics.
The economics Nobel prize is not even a “real” Nobel prize. No kidding, look it up.
The economics Nobel prize is not even a “real” Nobel prize. No kidding, look it up.
I know. Believe me, I have had my issues with the field of economics. But, who else should our elected officials seek guidance from on economic issues? The only alternative seems to be choosing some heterodox economic ideology and forming policies based on those unproven theories. Do we know if those theories, when put into practice, will make people’s lives better or worse? Is it ethical to make the American people guinea pigs in an experiment to find out? I don’t think so.
I like that Sanders treats Harris just like he has treated every other political colleague.
And I hope that Harris awakens every day happy to have Bernie on her side.
In a separate interview Monday with CNN’s Anderson Cooper, Sanders said he is “sure” he will ultimately endorse Harris for the Democratic nomination but stressed that he wants to see her put forth an agenda “that speaks to the long-neglected needs of working families,” specifically calling for a permanent expansion of the child tax credit and an increase in the stagnant federal minimum wage.
“I just want to make sure that her campaign understands that for too many people in this country, when they look at Washington, D.C., they feel ignored. They feel insulted that people are not understanding what is going on in their lives,” said Sanders. “Life expectancy for working-class people is 10 years shorter than it is for the rich. And working-class people want a government that represents them and not corporate America.”
This is all good stuff for people who like Bernie and for people who like Kamala, remind Kamala/give her the opportunity to remind everyone else she supported Medicare for All in the 2020 primaries and was willing to get into specifics
She’s willing to go along with moderates when that’s what the teams she’s on has already decided (see; her time as California AG dealing with a moderate governor, her time as a VP dealing with Biden), but when she’s starting from square one she looks left for support. She’s not my favorite Dem ever, but she’s absolutely someone we can work with.
Biden managed to get a bunch of unions to endorse him for the elections, both due to negotiations and his policy. Given that Kamala was in his team, the only thing she needs is the will to declare that she will continue along Biden’s lines.
Something I learned yesterday: Statistically, Harris’ voting record is closer to Sanders than anyone else’s record.
Did you learn it from a meme on Lenny and have you verified that it’s true? I didn’t, and I’d like to believe that stat.
Well I learned about it from a meme, but there is indeed research:
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/report-cards/2020/senate/ideology
GovTrack’s methodology isn’t unassailable (they still have to figure out how to score certain legislative actions to produce these report cards), but it it repeatable and impartial.
