Sanders warns Biden: address working-class fears or risk losing to demagogue
www.theguardian.com
Sanders warns Biden: address working-class anxieties or risk losing election to demagogue

In an interview with the Guardian from his home base in Burlington, Vermont, Sanders urged the Democratic president to inject more urgency into his bid for re-election. He said that unless the president was more direct in recognising the many crises faced by working-class families his Republican rival would win.

“We’ve got to see the White House move more aggressively on healthcare, on housing, on tax reform, on the high cost of prescription drugs,” Sanders said. “If we can get the president to move in that direction, he will win; if not, he’s going to lose.”

The US senator from Vermont added that he was in contact with the White House pressing that point. “We hope to make clear to the president and his team that they are not going to win this election unless they come up with a progressive agenda that speaks to the needs of the working class of this country.”

Sanders’ warning comes at a critical time in American politics. On Monday, Republicans in Iowa will gather for caucuses that mark the official start of the 2024 presidential election.

Biden faces no serious challenger in the Democratic primaries. But concern is mounting over how he would fare against Trump given a likely rematch between them in November.

  • Rusticus@lemmy.worldEnglish
    2728·
    10 months ago

    If Americans can’t realize for themselves that Biden is the most progressive president we’ve had since Jimmy Carter then we deserve Trumps dictatorship. I’m not saying Biden is adequately progressive (he’s not), but can anyone name a more progressive president in the last 50 years?

    • the_q@lemmy.world
      437·
      10 months ago

      No I can’t name a more progressive president in the last 50 years. That’s the problem.

    • the post of tom joad@sh.itjust.works
      124·
      10 months ago

      bringing up the idea of voting third party is not a good choice here, huh? If i did that, i would get a lot of copypasta ‘but trump’ if i did so I’ll just say this instead:

      Since we all know we need a third party eventually, what do we think we could do to make that happen in the future? (After this election i mean, and trump disappears forever, melted by our vote power.)

      How long would we need to wait? (Don’t want to steal votes from Democrats mind you) would they’re ever be a time where that wouldn’t happen? If we asked the DNC about timing, do you think they would help us get one started? If we tried and somehow succeeded in getting something off the ground, how might both parties feel about that attempt? Would they be for or against? If they were against, would they try to crush it? If they tried to crush it, what would they do to crush it? They probably wouldn’t use force first, so maybe they’d use words. What might they say about it?

      • Drivebyhaiku@lemmy.world
        101·
        10 months ago

        Sadly for more than a two party race you really need a hardier representative voting system like ranked choice voting so that as parties are knocked out of the running people’s actual choices are not entirely relegated to the garbage pile.

        We’re still trying to get that off the ground here in Canada where we have established parties outside of two but everyone keeps voting back and forth between liberal and conservative because of the spoiler effect.

        Trudeau originally ran on a promise to bring in ranked choice voting but that was an outright lie I have been salty about for years. Not that I particularly believed him because really why would he? His party benefits from a lack of representive representation by historic bias. Still its very frustrating to actually have good parties that have been well established for decades and know that if I vote for them I might increase the risk of LGBTQIAphobia and Neoliberal economic policy running the gorram country.

      • TheSanSabaSongbird@lemdro.idEnglish
        61·
        10 months ago

        It would require massive reform to our current laws in order for there to be a viable 3rd party option. That’s what you should be working for, not throwing away your vote.

      • Adub@lemmy.worldEnglish
        4·
        10 months ago

        I’m the Democrat you probably are referring to. Quite frankly nothing is wrong with your interest in a third party or even having an interest in alternative voting method (Ranked Choice or Star voting) to get a more preferable candidate.

        My only thing to bring up is to understand the objective as well as its difficulties. On a federal aspect ‘but Trump’ is a very real issue. Nobody should be ignorant to harm that having Republicans in the White house & 1 and/or 2 branches of congress is very dangerous & detrimental.

        The enthusiasm that people have for wanting to have something better is commendable & shouldn’t be discounted. The task to win an executive office is based on electoral college not a popular vote. President Obama & Biden has soon how even that large of an office can be well checked & handcuff to a unaccommodating congress so you need to have more one office to present an alternative. That is fifty sates & with several states having various methods of how they allocate those votes. A third party & Independent candidate run that hasn’t spent at least multiple years & decades should really owe potential voters a serious analysis than supposed moral platitudes(There are real harms for Republicans winning). They need concrete real & achievable measurable goals & strategies so their voters can gauge their success a long the way so voters could make rational choices come time for the general election. Democrats & Republicans benefit from a long history of being established players(or the only ones), it can seem unfair but don’t be discouraged.

        First, read up on your state statues & laws on what it takes to form or be a recognized political party. Then check out some of those recognized especially ones you believe align closest to you. Make sure you aren’t reinventing the wheel. You might find out the those parties have platforms you for the most part agree with. Check out those parties state rules & bylaws on how they are governed or operate. If their is possibility to get involved that might be an easier option. There is something meritorious in a state having their own voice or say in a different candidate even if they aren’t the presidential pick. Just see how Bernie Sanders’s status is viewed as a Independent who caucuses with Democrats. Even as Democrats we got to keep an almost free pickup with Joe Manchin in MAGA country West Virginia & also John Tester in Montana. Distinctions can be made while existing under the umbrella.

        There are lots of other avenues to explore that doesn’t have to be a national campaign or even a state-wide one. Apathetic voters that don’t or rarely do as well as plenty of disgruntled two party members exist to provide a strong base for third parties. Nobody would be upset with third parties increasing the voter pool & providing them with a voice better aligned to their views or interest.

        Don’t discount the importance of city, county, and state legislators importance in everyone’s life. Some states don’t prevent minimum wage increases passed at the city level & one insane aspect of RW SCOTUS is municipalities can enact environmental laws they are trying to strip from the federal government. Cities give “incentive” deals to businesses and I’ve seen them get involved in housing schemes. There are possibilities for improvement. Just Imagine taking that kind of victory separate from Dems or Repubs to the national stage. Also, how much better an individual would feel being involved in that kind of improvement.

        (The only challenge would be that both parties at state & federal election filing may challenge petitions to be recognized and later to field candidates with challenges. Easily addressed by CHECKING your state laws. Some states like Florida & Tennessee the party can field their own candidates so check the laws. Be prepared and really try to work on a process to get candidates to support the issues & actions condoned by the group recruiting them. After building a good strong base its really just working on the party’s appeal & protect their image from attacks by the Big Two. Establish an ethics committee or other aspect to help guard against accusations. Be accountability & trust in the party but not naive. Not being so paralyzed you have to be afraid but vigilant enough to challenge entryist that are only there to sabotage.)

      • Rusticus@lemmy.worldEnglish
        41·
        10 months ago

        Good questions. As with most things in society, true change has to start small. So you have to start by changing the messaging. With greater organization and messaging you start local and build a foundation. It drives me nuts that we have these conversations every 4 years about the presidency and then everybody goes back to their lives for another 4 years. Meanwhile the corporate machine is continuing their messaging that “government bad, worker’s rights/unions bad, minimum wage bad, welfare bad, education bad, stock market good”. What do you expect?

        • the post of tom joad@sh.itjust.works
          1·
          10 months ago

          Yeah. If i use myself as a barometer of what regular people are capable of, i simply don’t have the time n money n energy to start my own campaign or put time and money into a smaller political entity, to try and build them up for the next, out even the next next presidency.

          I mean, were talking realism it would be a small party that won at the local level first yeah? Or so I’ve been told.

          So we’re talking decades. I have thought idly about how something like that could even happen over that time, and the only realistic starting point i can’t think of is a pipe dream on its own, UBI.

          I cannot think of another way the common man could compete with all that corpo monkey

          • Rusticus@lemmy.worldEnglish
            21·
            10 months ago

            I get it. Maybe we can all just start by changing the conversation and focus on the positive things Biden has done and encourage more of the same. The narrative is only focusing on the negatives and that will affect polling and voting.

            • go_go_gadget@lemmy.world
              12·
              10 months ago

              The narrative is only focusing on the negatives and that will affect polling and voting.

              Good. Biden losing the general election is the only way the fucking pieces of shit who voted for him in the primaries will get the fucking message. Stop voting for procorporate trash in the primaries. We won’t show up for them in the general.

      • RatzChatsubo@lemm.ee
        68·
        10 months ago

        Oh God the “vote blue no matter who” crowd is coming back soon this year aren’t they?

        • the post of tom joad@sh.itjust.works
          12·
          10 months ago

          Oh they have been around the whole time for slobs like me who never touch grass but you’re absolutely right they are gonna get real real loud, huh? And they’re gonna sound just like this article too! Hear that?

          That’s the sound of them sharpenin their waggin fingers

    • RatzChatsubo@lemm.ee
      78·
      10 months ago

      Feelings about Trump aside: Biden? Progressive? What are you smoking?

      Having zero policy changes during your time in the office is progressive now, huh? I’m pretty sure many would consider Obama more progressive due to the fact that he campaigned for like universal healthcare at some point when president. Hell even trump gave us multiple stimulus checks lol /s

        • willis936@lemmy.world
          21·
          10 months ago

          Biden’s party is more progressive, but Biden is not. Note how he is on par with popularity polls with the guy who attempted to lynch our political representation. Obama was easily more progressive.

          Edit: migrating my response to a deleted comment so others can read it. The deleted comment below accused me of not reading the article. This was my response.

          Sure did. It’s an embarrassing op-ed. Short and flimsy arguments. Every link is either something that someone else did (mostly state legislators) or about lip service rather than action. About the only thing Biden can claim credit for is related to the economy, where his policy has helped transfer wealth upward. If “progressive” means “keeping things perfectly as they are” then you can go ahead and be a progressive.