Bernie Sanders blames election loss on Kamala Harris choosing billionaires over the working class (www.the-independent.com)

submitted 1 week ago by inclementimmigrant@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

16 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 16 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] xenomor@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

I’m pretty far left of Harris ideologically and never really liked her or thought she was worthy of these powerful offices. I also never really expected that much from her. That being said, I was passionate about dropping Biden and supporting her campaign even at that late hour, given the immense implications of electing trump for a second term. I donated money, and rallied friends and family to get on board. Then she did that DNC speech and talked about the ‘strongest military’ yadda yadda yadda. All of that energy and enthusiasm instantly evaporated. Nothing she or her campaign did after that motivated any active support from me and I had to really fight off the urge to not vote for her. I’m entirely done with the Democratic Party as run by the current regime. Unless that party reforms, the US is absolute toast.

[-] mcv@lemm.ee 0 points 1 week ago

I was so excited after she picked Tim Walz. It was starting to look like the most progressive ticket in decades, she was ahead in the polls, and then she turned around and started campaigning with Republicans and CEOs. Total betrayal.

And yeah, she disappeared. I hear more from Biden and Obama than from her.

[-] SulaymanF@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago

She made an imaginary rule in her head that she had to copy 100% of Biden’s polices no matter how unpopular.

The Democrats were offered a total reset from Biden’s unpopularity and instead decided to repeat it all. It was incredible how they threw away what should have been an easier victory.

[-] lucelu2@lemm.ee -1 points 1 week ago

I think it was an agreement she was told she had to make in order for the nod.

[-] kreskin@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

that and her husband and idiotic brother-in-law campaign manager were ardent zionists first and foremost. She was never going to break from Biden on that.

[-] burgerpocalyse@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago

i hate the dnc but my perspective is mostly dont vote for the fascist

[-] hark@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

That disqualifies democrats as well.

[-] MetalMachine@feddit.nl 0 points 1 week ago

She failed to differentiate herself from biden in many different ways. One of which was her stance on genocide. Less people generally came out and voted for her in part due to these factors

[-] Zexks@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago

Of all the reasons to not vote for her. Gaza is the dumbest of them all.

[-] Corn@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 week ago

Remember the cops beating the shit out of students across the country? If she pledged to end support for Israel, instead of being "the other genocide candidate", Trump would have been the "resume genocide" candidate, and all those politically activated students would be getting their friends to vote. Between that and their response to 2020, they showed the next generation that the democrats are a dead end for enacting social change.

[-] Zexks@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago

Trump IS the BURN ALL PALESTINIANS AND TURN GAZA INTO YHE VEGAS OF THE MIDDLE EAST candidate. And that was somehow better. But yeah you're right. We should capitulate the entire country and everything else because of that right. Fuck it, if we can't have perfection let's just burn it all down.

[-] Wolf@lemmy.today 0 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

From the POV of someone who just wants the Genocide to stop, "Burning all Palestinians and tuning Gaza into New Vegas" and "Burning all Palestinians and tuning Gaza into vacation homes for rich Israelis" is functionally equivalent.

That was by no means the only issue I based my vote on, but I also don't think it's unreasonable for someone to conclude that voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil

[-] Zexks@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

Well one of those evils is going to control you and everyone else one way or another so yes it is unreasonable to not vote for damage mitigation.

[-] Wolf@lemmy.today 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Hence why I said that wasn't the only factor in determining my vote.

The question is though, where will it end? I'm 51 years old and ever since I have been able to vote the choices have been between a shit bag, and an even worse shit bag.

At some point we have to put pressure on the DNC to put up someone who is actually woth voting for, and if they know we will always vote for the lesser evil, what incentive do they have to change their strategy?

Harris was already a Republican in all but name and she only looked good compared to Hitler 2.0, if this trend continues the only "choice" will be between a far right fascist, and an extremely far right fascist.

[-] Corn@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 week ago

Harris could have capitalized on no genocide. You cant run on "genocide, but at least we'll pretend to oppose it:, thats not how humans work.

[-] Zexks@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

That's exactly how the world works. Everyone trying to act like it's not is simply ignoring reality.

this post was submitted on 30 May 2025

5 points (100.0% liked)

politics

24027 readers

1355 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News