this post was submitted on 13 Aug 2025

173 points (97.8% liked)

Progressive Politics

3223 readers

26 users here now

Welcome to Progressive Politics! A place for news updates and political discussion from a left perspective. Conservatives and centrists are welcome just try and keep it civil :)

(Sidebar still a work in progress post recommendations if you have them such as reading lists)

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

TokenBoomer@lemmy.world

173

Bernie Sanders accuses Harris of being 'influenced' by billionaires in 2024 race (www.usatoday.com)

submitted 1 month ago by return2ozma@lemmy.world to c/progressivepolitics@lemmy.world

29 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 32 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[+] Coolbeanschilly@lemmy.ca 43 points 1 month ago (1 children)

[deleted]

[–] Zos_Kia@lemmynsfw.com 4 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I mean it's a speculation game at this point but I'm honestly not sure he could have won in 2016.

[+] Coolbeanschilly@lemmy.ca 14 points 1 month ago (2 children)

[deleted]

[–] Zos_Kia@lemmynsfw.com 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

While I would have loved a Bernie presidency, I don't think he would have had as much popular appeal. Keep in mind she beat the other guy by 2% of the votes and lost to the electoral college system.

That's a loss on strategy, but definitely not an unpopular candidate choice.

[–] eronth@lemmy.world 5 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

Getting more votes than Trump doesn't really mean she was "popular", people were just willing to vote for her against him.

[–] Zos_Kia@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 4 weeks ago (2 children)

Then I'm not sure I'm getting your point. She was popular enough to win the general vote, so in that sense she was the right candidate. But she lost to the swing states, do you think Bernie would have fared better in that regard?

[–] piefood@feddit.online 3 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

She was shoved down our throats, not chosen by the voters.

If I remember the polling correctly, a lot of people viewed Bernie favorably. He even polled better than Trump in the Red states.

But almost nobody viewed Harris favorably. They only tolerated her.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago

But almost nobody viewed Harris favorably.

You mean dick cheney isn't the voice of the electorate?

[–] eronth@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago

My point is simply "being more popular than Trump isn't particularly meaningful". Maybe she was popular, or maybe she was "better than him" to most people.

[–] tankplanker@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The problem is that Bernie is too left leaning for the right of the Dems. Its highly likely people who supported and funded Hillary would have withdrawn their support and money, and some may have even given it to Trump instead. You can see with Mamdani how that's playing out, they'd rather field Cuomo as a spoiler candidate than let a progressive win.

Dont get me wrong, it was clearly manipulated to steal the nomination from Bernie, and Bernie would have been the better candidate and president than Hillary, but I no longer think it would have been the slam dunk that I did at the time he would get in, simply because hes against both sets of interests at the top of the Dems and the Repubs.

[+] Coolbeanschilly@lemmy.ca -2 points 1 month ago (2 children)

[deleted]

[–] tankplanker@lemmy.world 3 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

Hillary probably didn't do it because shes not very likeable, it would have been another Jeb Bush style mistake. Jeb made himself look worse, so sometimes not bothering is the lesser hurt. Hillary is a long way from her husband in that regard when he was at his peak. Bernie would make it work, that's obvious, but then he would never had not done it.

The problem is that you don't just need one thing, you need as many things as you can get, and what you certainly do not need is your own party's management working against you. Winning when they cut you off becomes very difficult as you lose the biggest funding hose.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago

Hillary probably didn’t do it because shes not very likeable

Yeah, but she has never shown any indication that she knows this.

[–] Bloomcole@lemmy.world 0 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago)

War criminal and Epstein buddy Bill?
And I don't want to see Hitlery, the other Clinton warcriminal ghoul's face ever again.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago

I'm sure Clinton couldn't have. She was carried across the line in the primaries and considered running the rest of the way to be beneath her.

[–] emenl@lemmy.world 18 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Replace Harris with Democrats and then you're talking. Not sure why he's pointing fingers at Harris when he's already brought up the real issue: oligarchs.

[–] njm1314@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

She was the leader of the party at the time? Why wouldn't he bring her up?

[–] Bloomcole@lemmy.world -3 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

Why did he endorse her 'at the time' of elections?
Now Bernie the Sheepdog can perform his 'progressive' anti-establishment act for a few years until the next one.

[–] njm1314@lemmy.world 4 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

Because the other option was a fascist?

[–] Bloomcole@lemmy.world -3 points 4 weeks ago

He helped create the situation where the only option is fascists or fascists-lite with inclusive language. That's the sheepdog's purpose since forever.
Doing all he can to keep actual leftists from creating a 3rd party as alternative.
Eternally going to fix that party. LOL

[–] DancingBear@midwest.social 16 points 1 month ago

You mean the billionaires and CEO’s she was hugging in her campaign ads?

Or different ones?

[–] Armand1@lemmy.world 14 points 1 month ago

She was. You just have to look at their shift in stance on crypto after that industry made huge donations.

[–] defaultusername@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Nah, really?

[–] SereneSadie@lemmy.myserv.one 6 points 4 weeks ago

Trump is literally positioning for a military takeover.

But sure, let's bitch about Harris some more.

Bernie, shut the fuck up, Mr 'I'll work with Trump to get rid of credit card fees'.

[–] Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

"Yeah, but at least with Harris they wouldn't as loud whilst helping mass murder children in Palestine and putting immigrant children in ~~concentration camps~~ detention facilities in the US!"

[–] mrdown@lemmy.world -1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Silently helping mass murder children in palestine is better?

[–] Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Damn, satire is trully dead when even a fake-quote requires an /s marker.

[–] mrdown@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago (2 children)

In what world do you live. There is people with super dumb take or belief that they seriously believe in

[–] Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I hoped that the charicatural mix of "tribalist relentlessly defending their tribal chiefs no matter what" AND being aware of and admitting the role of said chiefs in the mass murder of children in Gaza and the imprisionment of immigrant children in the US, was an unlikelly enough combination of traits here in Lemmy that the satirical nature of the post was obvious.

Mind you, you are right in that, the World being a big place and Human Stupidity being infinite (and the Universe, but we're not sure about that one), there are sure to exist people who think like that.

[–] Bloomcole@lemmy.world -1 points 4 weeks ago

There is people sense can not from sentence make

[–] Bloomcole@lemmy.world -4 points 4 weeks ago

You give libs too much credit

[–] Bloomcole@lemmy.world -3 points 4 weeks ago

Every election cycle Bernie the Sheepdog performs his act against 'the establishment'
Until election time comes when he invariably endorses the corporate dems and rages against actual progressives.
If he's not too busy yelling 'Israel has the right to defend itself!'