Asking as someone from the other side of the planet.
From the things I saw about the US election, the Dems were the side with plans for the economy - minimum wage adjustments, unions, taxing the rich, etc. The Republicans didn’t seem to have any concrete plans. At least, this is what I saw.
I don’t doubt Bernie Sanders though - he seems like a straight truth teller. But what am I missing?
Plans are not actions. Sanders is talking about what the Democratic party has done (or rather what they’ve failed to do) not what they promised to do. Words are worthless without action.
I think of Sanders as like a well-meaning version of Trump. He tells people simple, good-sounding things they want to hear. I trust that he truly cares about the working class, but his ideas are probably too big and vague for there to be a path to actually implement them in any Congress of this era. He’s aware of his recent popularity and maybe a little bitter that he hasn’t gotten much out of it. He’s only a Democrat himself to the extent he can gain more from calling himself that than an independent, so with little to lose at this point in his career he’s lashing out while he can win points kicking the Democrats.
Simple, good-sounding things they want to hear is what wins elections these days.
I understood him to mean that Democrats were more interested in appealing to Liz Cheney as Republican lite, rather than advocating vigorously for the working class. They take money from corporate interests, and then pretend they don’t protect them. They didn’t do enough to address the problem of inflation, and American workers were angry.
I see this claim so much, and it’s bullshit. Harris didn’t make a single policy concession to get Cheney on board. And why would she? The entire point of having her endorse was to send the message of “Trump is so dangerous that even people who disagree with me are choosing to support me.”
Harris needed to get progressives and instead they put their efforts into winning over moderate conservatives. Even if she didn’t make concessions, putting time and effort into promoting that meant she didn’t have time or effort to put into the progressive voter base
Building a broad coalition without policy concessions was a waste of time? You’re going to have a tough time convincing me of that point.
She and Biden had four years to demonstrate policies that help the working class. They did so little that the working class supported trump.
That’s the concession: the built in support for corporate agendas, since that’s where Democratic money comes from. You don’t need to put it in your platform when it’s obvious from your actions that “the economy”, to you, means the board room.
There are two components to this question. Did many in the working class feel that Democrats had abandoned them? And is Trump’s economic policy actually better for the working class than Harris’s? I think the answers are “yes” and “probably no”. However, voters don’t listen to economists. If they’re not happy with the status quo, they vote for disrupting the status quo even if experts tell them that that’s a bad idea.
I suppose Sanders thinks that the working class would have supported a Democratic candidate who proposed a leftward (as opposed to Trump’s rightward) disruption. My guess is that that isn’t true and socialism is still a dirty word in America, but who knows?
However, voters don’t listen to economists. If they’re not happy with the status quo, they vote for disrupting the status quo even if experts tell them that that’s a bad idea.
Also see: Brexit.
Sadly it does not stop them whining about the consequences of their poor decision-making.
