Politics Bernie Sanders blames election loss on Kamala Harris listening to billionaires over working class

[SlyPokerDog]

Bernie Sanders has blamed Kamala Harris for her election loss to Donald Trump, saying she chose to cosy up to billionaires instead of addressing the issues faced by working-class Americans.

The 83-year-old independent senator and former Democratic presidential candidate said while Joe Biden has faced plenty of criticism for the election loss, it was ultimately Harris’s fault.

“A lot of the people are saying it was Joe Biden's fault that Kamala Harris lost the election … not true. It was the fault of Kamala Harris and her consultants,” he said in an interview on BBC Radio 4’s Today program.


“They did not run a campaign designed to speak to the American working class.”

Sanders said he “absolutely” believed Harris could have won, but she did not talk about the needs of working-class Americans.

“I ran all over the country trying to elect Kamala Harris and beg them talk to the needs of the working class, talk about raising the minimum wage to a living wage, talk about real health care reform, talk about building the kinds of massive amounts of housing that we need, putting checks on landlords,” Sanders said. “But they used their billionaire friends.”

He said Harris spent more time with Republican conservative Liz Cheney “almost than with anybody else”, and billionaire businessman and “Shark Tank” shark Mark Cuban was a vocal supporter and spokesperson.


“What is that message out to working class people?” Sanders said.

“To my mind, that was a campaign that absolutely should have been winnable. But it gets back to the fundamental issue that that campaign was also run by consultants and billionaires.”

He continued: “And bottom line here is the Democrats have to answer a very simple question: which side are you on? And that answer has not yet been made.”

Sanders, who has been running a “Fighting oligarchy tour” with popular Democrat Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez that has drawn huge crowds across the United States, said the core issue in America today is that there was more income and wealth inequality in the country than ever before.

He said the reason that Trump won the election was because the Democratic Party had not responded to that economic crisis.

“The average person out there who is working very long hours has less holiday time than many Europeans has, can’t afford healthcare, can't afford to send their kids to college, childcare is a disaster in the United States,” he said.

“That person looks to Washington D.C. and says, ‘hey what are you doing for me, I’m suffering, I’m hurting, and everything being equal … my kid is going to do worse than me’.”

https://www.the-independent.com/new...-kamala-harris-us-election-loss-b2760587.html

 

[julius]

He's not lying.

But what boggles the mind, and will until I die, is the working class voter who looked at this election (and the one in 16) and saw Donald Trump and said "yeah, that's the guy who sticks up for me and people like me".

 

[Phatguysrule]

A comment on that article



When Trump came along Republicans recognized that the huge crowds meant Trump was saying something that resonated with the people. They listened to the people and understood that they wanted massive change from the way things have been. They campaigned on what the people wanted so they could win with the people.

When Bernie came along Democrats were frightened that the huge crowds meant Bernie was saying something that resonated with the people. They dismissed the people and ignored that they wanted massive change from the way things have been. They campaigned on keeping things the way billionaires and corporations wanted so they could win with the billionaires and corporations.

DNC learned how to overcome the will of the people from losing to Obama.

 

[barfo]

A comment on that article

View attachment 73854

When Trump came along Republicans recognized that the huge crowds meant Trump was saying something that resonated with the people. They listened to the people and understood that they wanted massive change from the way things have been. They campaigned on what the people wanted so they could win with the people.

When Bernie came along Democrats were frightened that the huge crowds meant Bernie was saying something that resonated with the people. They dismissed the people and ignored that they wanted massive change from the way things have been. They campaigned on keeping things the way billionaires and corporations wanted so they could win with the billionaires and corporations.

DNC learned how to overcome the will of the people from losing to Obama.

That's hilariously inaccurate.

The Republican party was absolutely 100% against Trump during the 2016 primaries, he won by getting more votes from their idiot voters in spite of the party's wishes.

Similarly, Bernie didn't win because he didn't get more votes in the primary.

barfo

 

[Phatguysrule]

That's hilariously inaccurate.

The Republican party was absolutely 100% against Trump during the 2016 primaries, he won by getting more votes from their idiot voters in spite of the party's wishes.

Similarly, Bernie didn't win because he didn't get more votes in the primary.

barfo

But Obama did. And the Dems learned to prevent that from happening again.

Exactly as my post stated.

 

[barfo]

But Obama did. And the Dems learned to prevent that from happening again.

Exactly as my post stated.

Yes, Obama did get more votes in 2008 and 2012. That much is definitely true.

barfo

 

[Phatguysrule]

Yes, Obama did get more votes in 2008 and 2012. That much is definitely true.

barfo

It's funny that Dems don't understand how they can lose to Trump.

It's so clear.

 

[Natebishop3]

It's funny that Dems don't understand how they can lose to Trump.

It's so clear.

Both times they rigged the system to put a woman into the nomination. I really don't understand how they didn't see the flaw in that.

With Hillary there were leaked emails from the DNC about how they screwed over Bernie. With Kamala they just skipped a primary entirely.

 

[barfo]

It's funny that Dems don't understand how they can lose to Trump.

It's so clear.

Sure. It's determined by how many people vote for each candidate in each state. Shame on Democrats for not understanding that.

barfo

 

[Phatguysrule]

Sure. It's determined by how many people vote for each candidate in each state. Shame on Democrats for not understanding that.

barfo

 

[Natebishop3]

Sure. It's determined by how many people vote for each candidate in each state. Shame on Democrats for not understanding that.

barfo

They ran someone who was not nominated by the people. She was handed the nomination. That's not a good idea.

 

[barfo]

They ran someone who was not nominated by the people. She was handed the nomination. That's not a good idea.

If you are talking about Kamala, yes, not having a primary was not a great idea, although I suspect she would have won an abbreviated primary anyway, being the sitting VP and there being no obvious wildly-popular alternatives.

If you are talking about Hillary, well, the people did vote, and she got significantly more votes than Bernie. We can complain about the media, and funding, and the debate question, and the superdelegates, etc. etc. but that's basically saying that there shouldn't be politics in politics.

barfo

 

[Phatguysrule]

We can complain about the media, and funding, and the debate question, and the superdelegates, etc. etc. but that's basically saying that there shouldn't be politics in politics.

barfo

No, it's saying that the Democrats should stop listening to their corporate and billionaire backers because they keep shooting themselves in the foot.

Those corporate and billionaire backers want the same things the corporate and billionaire backers for the Republicans want.

 

[barfo]

Those corporate and billionaire backers want the same things the corporate and billionaire backers for the Republicans want.

Ok, sounds like the two parties are on even footing as far as corporations and billionaires go. So the difference between winning and losing must be something else.

barfo

 

[Phatguysrule]

Ok, sounds like the two parties are on even footing as far as corporations and billionaires go. So the difference between winning and losing must be something else.

barfo

Yes, The rubes that vote Republican believe that the corporate and billionaire backers want what's best for the people.

The people who may vote Democrat are too well educated to believe that bullshit.

 

[barfo]

Yes, The rubes that vote Republican believe that the corporate and billionaire backers want what's best for the people.

The people who may vote Democrat are too well educated to believe that bullshit.

But not well educated enough to understand that not voting, or voting Republican to punish the Democratic party, helps the candidate they like least.

Good thing we are getting rid of education in this country, it doesn't seem to be very effective.

barfo

 

[Phatguysrule]

But not well educated enough to understand that not voting, or voting Republican to punish the Democratic party, helps the candidate they like least.

Good thing we are getting rid of education in this country, it doesn't seem to be very effective.

barfo

Make no mistake, Dems would win if they'd basically adopt Bernie's stance. It is appealing to everyone.

Except corporations and billionaires who want desperate masses.

Dems (DNC) are just afraid to cut off that funding source.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Dems fall apart as soon as you call them a socialist. Bernie is impervious to it because he is one, but the rest of them panic over being called one. So they put out Diet Right stances, hoping they can get elected.

 

[barfo]

Dems fall apart as soon as you call them a socialist. Bernie is impervious to it because he is one, but the rest of them panic over being called one. So they put out Diet Right stances, hoping they can get elected.

Which came first, being chicken of being called a socialist, or the egg of losing elections because you got called a socialist?

barfo

 

[barfo]

Make no mistake, Dems would win if they'd basically adopt Bernie's stance. It is appealing to everyone.

Bernie adopted Bernie's stance, and Bernie didn't win the primaries. Either time. So I think there may be an issue with the 'appealing to everyone' theory.

barfo

 

[Phatguysrule]

Dems fall apart as soon as you call them a socialist. Bernie is impervious to it because he is one, but the rest of them panic over being called one. So they put out Diet Right stances, hoping they can get elected.

Don't you think that's because they don't want to be cut off from their corporate and billionaire donations?

And nothing about Bernie is socialist. His proposals are capitalist based (he even uses Nordic and Scandinavian countries as examples of his policy). All of the Nordic and Scandinavian countries will tell you their economies are based on capitalism. They just make sure they offer enough social support to prevent people from falling far enough to drag the system down the way we see here in the US.

The closest Bernie comes to socialism is wanting businesses to be co-ops or have strong unions.

 

[Phatguysrule]

Bernie adopted Bernie's stance, and Bernie didn't win the primaries. Either time. So I think there may be an issue with the 'appealing to everyone' theory.

barfo

And you're going to ignore that the DNC was literally being run by the campaign he lost to...

The DNC literally had to solicit corporate money and support to organize coalitions of other candidates against him to beat him.

It's incredible to me the mental gymnastics you use to try and ignore that.

 

[barfo]

And you're going to ignore that the DNC was literally being run by the campaign he lost to...

I'm not going to ignore that. Bernie failed to line up enough influential supporters to prevent that, and, after many years in politics, he certainly should have known that was important to do. I don't know if he didn't want to, or didn't consider it necessary, or didn't have the relationships to make it happen, although I'd bet it was a mixture of all three. There's more to American politics than drawing crowds (whether we like that or not).

The DNC literally had to solicit corporate money and support to organize coalitions of other candidates against him to beat him.

Coalitions of other candidates? What other candidates? Martin O'Malley?

barfo

 

[Phatguysrule]

I'm not going to ignore that. Bernie failed to line up enough influential supporters to prevent that, and, after many years in politics, he certainly should have known that was important to do. I don't know if he didn't want to, or didn't consider it necessary, or didn't have the relationships to make it happen, although I'd bet it was a mixture of all three. There's more to American politics than drawing crowds (whether we like that or not).



Coalitions of other candidates? What other candidates? Martin O'Malley?

barfo

You don't remember the push by the DNC and Dem establishmet to get Harris, Pete, and Warren (all who ran on Bernie's policies to gain popularity, BTW) to switch to supporting Biden against Bernie?

Biden was the most right wing candidate running and everyone else was only there because they supported Bernie's positions. But they all knelt to the Almighty Dollar when it mattered. And they were also rewarded with positions in the administration.

Bernie knew he needed a coalition. That's why he ran as a Dem rather than an independent.

But the problem is the money is so powerful that it's hard to do. Bernie is advocating for change. Problem is, that change will require politicians to give up money and will require them to do more work.

That's a tough sell. But it's what needs to happen.

 

[barfo]

You don't remember the push by the DNC and Dem establishmet to get Harris, Pete, and Warren (all who ran on Bernie's policies to gain popularity, BTW) to switch to supporting Biden against Bernie?

Biden was the most right wing candidate running and everyone else was only there because they supported Bernie's positions. But they all knelt to the Almighty Dollar when it mattered. And they were also rewarded with positions in the administration.

I remember it, just not the way you remember it. Klobuchar and Bloomberg were probably in the same lane as Biden, and of course Gabbard it's pretty easy to argue was more right-wing (albeit more loony tunes than anything else).

I think Harris, Pete, and Warren are all pretty savvy politicians and endorsed the person they recognized as the eventual winner.

And yes, they collected rewards for driving a few more nails in Bernie's coffin. Didn't have anything to do with Bernie, though.

Bernie knew he needed a coalition. That's why he ran as a Dem rather than an independent.

Bernie's a lone wolf, not a coalition builder. That's part of why he's appealing, but it's also a big part of why he didn't win.

But the problem is the money is so powerful that it's hard to do. Bernie is advocating for change. Problem is, that change will require politicians to give up money and will require them to do more work.

That's a tough sell. But it's what needs to happen.

No disagreement there.

barfo

 

[Phatguysrule]

I remember it, just not the way you remember it. Klobuchar and Bloomberg were probably in the same lane as Biden, and of course Gabbard it's pretty easy to argue was more right-wing (albeit more loony tunes than anything else).

Good point. I didn't really ever consider Gabbard, Bloomberg, or Klobuchar real threats to win. But they were probably close to as right wing as Biden.

I think Harris, Pete, and Warren are all pretty savvy politicians and endorsed the person they recognized as the eventual winner.

Just like the DNC convinced everyone with superdelegates who the eventual winner would be...

Bernie's a lone wolf, not a coalition builder. That's part of why he's appealing, but it's also a big part of why he didn't win.

Yeah, but I think he's a lone wolf because of his position. It's a hard position to take knowing you'll likely have to give up all of that money and "help" with research and writing bills, etc.

Bernie has no choice but to be a lone wolf. If nobody does that the DNC (or Dems in general) will never come around to what needs to happen. Somebody has to do it, so Bernie does it.

We really need the Dems to come around.

 

[barfo]

Just like the DNC convinced everyone with superdelegates who the eventual winner would be...

Superdelegates were the way the game was played that year. Bernie knew the rules as well as Hillary, or at least he should have.
Once Hillary had lined all the superdelegates in her camp, it didn't take any convincing from the DNC to make people realize that she had a big advantage.

barfo

 

[Phatguysrule]

Superdelegates were the way the game was played that year. Bernie knew the rules as well as Hillary, or at least he should have.
Once Hillary had lined all the superdelegates in her camp, it didn't take any convincing from the DNC to make people realize that she had a big advantage.

barfo

No. There was never any legitimate reason to count superdelegate votes beforehand. The superdelegates could have changed their votes all the way up until the end.

That was crooked from the start and everybody knew it was crooked. And that has cost the Democrats a lot of support. I guarantee you that Trump got some votes because of how crooked the Democratic primaries have been.

That is the fault of the Democrats. Bernie tried to help them (force them to?) fix it. And they still screwed it up with Harris.

There is no reason to look that crooked unless you're actually crooked. That's the only reason you would accept such an obviously crooked and undemocratic process.

Yes, with that clearly crooked and undemocratic process, Bernie lost.

This is why I'm advocating that they fix that shit.

Of course Bernie (the guy who would take money out of politics) is not going to be popular with the superdelegates who are unelected party officials who rely on the system staying as it is.

But to announce and list the superdelegates as though they were already set votes was horrible. Because the super delegates could have changed their votes if there was enough popular support. Just like they changed their votes for Obama in 2008.

But the DNC didn't have the same inertia behind Hillary in 2008 that they originally did in 2016.

 

[barfo]

No. There was never any legitimate reason to count superdelegate votes beforehand. The superdelegates could have changed their votes all the way up until the end.

You want a rule that says superdelegates are forbidden from expressing their views on the race?

Might as well go further and prohibit all election polling.

That was crooked from the start and everybody know it was crooked. And that has cost the Democrats a lot of support. I guarantee you that Trump got some votes because of how crooked the Democratic primaries have been.

There is nothing necessarily corrupt about polling. It's entirely legal.

That is the fault of the Democrats. Bernie tried to help them (force them to?) fix it. And they still screwed it up with Harris.

There is no reason to look that crooked unless you're actually crooked. That's the only reason you would accept such an obviously crooked and undemocratic process.

Yes, with that clearly crooked and undemocratic process, Bernie lost.

This is why I'm advocating that they fix that shit.

Of course Bernie (the guy who would take money out of politics) is not going to be popular with the superdelegates who are unelected party officials who rely on the system staying as it is.

But to announce and list the superdelegates as though they were already set votes was horrible. Because the super delegates could have changed their votes if there was enough popular supposed. Just like they changed their votes for Obama in 2008.

But the DNC didn't have the same inertia behind Hillary in 2008 that they originally did in 2016.

This all assumes that the DNC had some sort of pre-vote of the superdelegates and announced the results. That's not what happened.
The media are naturally interested in the horse race, so they went around and asked the superdelegates who they liked.

barfo

 

[Phatguysrule]

You want a rule that says superdelegates are forbidden from expressing their views on the race?

Might as well go further and prohibit all election polling.



There is nothing necessarily corrupt about polling. It's entirely legal.



This all assumes that the DNC had some sort of pre-vote of the superdelegates and announced the results. That's not what happened.
The media are naturally interested in the horse race, so they went around and asked the superdelegates who they liked.

barfo

No, the superdelegates were reported as locked in. They weren't listing polls from other states. Only the States superdelegates first, then the states who had completed their primaries.

If it were just polling with other state polling it wouldn't have mattered.

No it wasn't the media. That was information directly from the DNC displayed as the DNC wanted it displayed. The media just played along, because why wouldn't they? They were just trying to work with the DNC to get info to the public.

They mostly fixed that problem (DNC was forced by Bernie) so it wasn't as big of a deal in 2020. But it was still corrupt and turns voters off.

And the DNC Lawyers Argue that DNC Has the Right to Pick Candidates in Back Rooms

https://observer.com/2017/05/dnc-lawsuit-presidential-primaries-bernie-sanders-supporters/

They are straight up honest about it. They do not want a democratic process for the Dem primary. And it's not illegal. They actually do have the right to do it however they want.

And they want the DNC to pick whoever they want regardless of who the people want. According to their own lawyers. As they have proven in the last 3 primaries.

What I'm saying is that's costing Democrats a lot of support. It was probably instrumental in getting Trump elected.