53 Comments
User's avatar
⭠ Return to thread
Kevin H.'s avatar

Kamala got more votes in Vermont than Bernie. Maybe Sanders has a working class voter problem

Expand full comment
Zero Cool's avatar

Harris’ margin of win in VT was only .6% points higher than Sanders. Hardly much improvement over what Sanders got in his Senate re-election.

I don’t know if Sanders has a working class problem. However, it appears Harris does, at least if the Teamsters President’s statement of his meeting with Harris during the campaign suggests anything.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-elections/vermont-president-results

https://ballotpedia.org/Bernie_Sanders

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/arrogant-kamala-harris-told-teamsters-president-i-will-win-without-you/amp_articleshow/116636032.cms

Expand full comment
Kevin H.'s avatar

I just think it's interesting that the guy throwing rocks after the election didn't get more votes in his home state than the "elitist" candidate.

Expand full comment
Zero Cool's avatar

You mentioned two bits of information in your previous comment that need to be addressed:

1) A better comparison should be the 2022 Senate Race where Senator Peter Welch by roughly 68% points in the open race. This means Sanders got at least 5%+ points less than Welch did, even while 2024 is the presidential election year. Welch actually did 2% points higher than Biden did in 2020.

However, Sanders likely got the drop in margin of victory vs his previous Senate elections because of the national environment, not as much any underlying issues he had as an incumbent Senator. A tiny margin of difference between Sanders and Harris doesn’t particularly suggest anything other than the national environment impacted Sanders’ margin of victory a bit.

2) Harris was perceived to be arrogant by the Teamster’s President, which pretty much is in the same boat of being elitist. There is no data I have seen as of yet (unless anyone wants to share) that Sanders had issues with working class voters, at least in VT. VT is not a rust belt state although I am not too familiar with its blue collar sector.

It is possible Sanders by association with Harris and the Democratic Party did see a drop in enthusiasm in his Senate race. However, this is a 5+% point swing away from Democrats, which isn’t in my view something to be too concerned about.

If Sanders won re-election by 20% or less, then I’d be concerned.

Expand full comment
Andrew's avatar

No, I agree with the original comment and the best comparison is comparing Harris and Sanders in 2024. She did better than he did in his own state so why should we listen to his critiques?

Expand full comment
Zero Cool's avatar

0.6% better is not that much better. Harris also did worse than Senator Welch did in 2022. This means enthusiasm for Democrats was higher in 2022 than 2024 in VT.

However, I did read multiple articles prior to the 2024 election that shows Sanders had a drop in favorability rating. This could explain the drop in his % of votes in winning the Senate election.

That said, Sanders is wasting his energy and not being productive with it. I’d rather he huddle with Robert Reich and others who are aiming to be more productive as they are in line with most of what Sanders stands for.

Expand full comment
Tigercourse's avatar

Sanders and Warren, in particular, were the only incumbents to underperform Harris. Warren did so by around 5 points, off the top of my head. I think that is significant. Why were the two most visibly left wing members of the Senate the worst performers?

Expand full comment
Kevin H.'s avatar

Warren is weak by mass dem standards. Coming in third in your home state presidential primary was not pretty. Right wing populism is a bigger sale these days than left wing populism

Expand full comment
James Trout's avatar

Because populism at its heart is about exclusion. Going against a central tenet of the Democratic Party. For populism to be successful regardless of ideology, it requires “punching down.” People don’t want to be at the bottom, they want someone below them.

Expand full comment
Paleo's avatar

Yeah, the likes of FDR, Truman, Hubert Humphrey sure did a lot of punching down.

One of the central tenets of the Democratic Party stretching back to Jackson and Jefferson was economic populism.

Expand full comment
James Trout's avatar

The New Deal did almost nothing for nonwhites and FDR ordered Japanese people to be locked up. Truman dropped the atomic bomb on Japan and the GI Bill did almost nothing for nonwhites. Humphrey was anti LGBTQ and anti choice. They all “punched down.”

Expand full comment
Paleo's avatar

Oh FFS. Talk about changing the subject. And Humphrey died before gay rights and abortion became big issues.

Expand full comment
James Trout's avatar

No he didn’t. Roe v Wade became law in 1973 and he was a candidate for President in 1976 (he died in 1978). It had absolutely become a major issue by then. Also while in the Senate he proposed a law making it a felony to be a member of the Communist Party. So yes, he absolutely DID “punch down.”

Expand full comment
Paleo's avatar

He didn’t run in ‘76. It was not a major issue until Republicans injected it into some of the senate races in the ‘78 midterm.

Expand full comment
James Trout's avatar

Abortion had been an issue in Presidential Elections as early as 1972. Lest we forget George McGovern was trashed as the candidate of the “three As, “acid, amnesty, and abortion.” Yes Humphrey was always very good on civil rights - his advocacy for a strong civil rights platform at the Democratic National Convention in 1948 speaks for itself - but sadly not on women’s rights. His widow Muriel Humphrey was pro choice though.

Expand full comment
Jonathan's avatar

Simply wrong.. The New Deal helped all races

Expand full comment
James Trout's avatar

Not equally. I'm not going to pretend it did. Deal with it.

Expand full comment
michaelflutist's avatar

No-one pretends that it did.

Expand full comment
Jonathan's avatar

Still wrong and creating straw men to boot

Expand full comment
Zero Cool's avatar

I'm not sold on your argument. The way I've assessed things, Warren suffered in the presidential primary race because Sanders entered the race and took away all the energy from her campaign.

Also, Warren had similar appeal as Sanders did towards Trump supporters during early stages of the primaries. Even Tucker Carlson of all people at one point was considering voting for Warren because of her economic agenda and even referenced her Two-Income Trap book.

https://www.salon.com/2019/01/26/salon-interview-tucker-carlson-bashes-capitalism-says-he-might-vote-for-elizabeth-warren/

Expand full comment
michaelflutist's avatar

Sanders did steal a lot of her thunder.

Expand full comment
Zero Cool's avatar

Yeah. And a Biden vs. Warren race would have been interesting to watch if Sanders didn't jump in as a candidate.

Expand full comment
ArcticStones's avatar

Far more interesting to watch would have been a Warren presidency. With backing from a Democratically-controlled Congress, or even just with the inherent powers of the Executive, President Elizabeth Warren would have done wonderful things for our country!

Expand full comment
michaelflutist's avatar

I don't think there's much chance she could have gotten the highly substantive types of bipartisan legislation through that Biden did, though.

Expand full comment
ArcticStones's avatar

I agree.

Expand full comment
Zero Cool's avatar

In all fairness to Biden, he had decades of experience in the Senate working with the GOP and knowing the system. That helped him a lot as POTUS.

Warren however would have been more aggressive in pushing a 21st century Glass Steagal Act law to get a vote in Congress. Whether it would have passed or not under her presidency would have been a question.

Expand full comment
michaelflutist's avatar

I suspect it would not have. It would have needed the support of Manchin and Sinema.

Expand full comment
Zero Cool's avatar

Warren underperformed Harris by 1.4% points, which is slightly worse than how Sanders did his Senate Race. However, Warren's percentage of victory in 2024 is actually .6% points lower than her re-election victory back in 2018.

In other words, not really much difference for Warren.

2024 US Presidency in Massachusetts

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-elections/massachusetts-senate-results

2024 U.S. Senate Race in Massachusetts

https://ballotpedia.org/United_States_Senate_election_in_Massachusetts,_2024

2018 U.S. Senate Race in Massachusetts

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2018-election/midterms/ma/

Expand full comment
Avedee Eikew's avatar

I think someone in a previous thread pointed out that Warren did worse in upscale communities vs. Harris and better in "working class" areas but I don't think Warren is all that problematic in terms of throwing unnecessary rock throwing and i'm glad she is in the Senate.

Expand full comment
Jonathan's avatar

Warren didn't have a real race..this is such a simplistic thread that has no real way of examination.. Massachusetts wasn't competitive at all in basically every race

Expand full comment
Avedee Eikew's avatar

I don't disagree. I do think for all the talk of understanding the working class though the people making the claim they understand it better should have an explanation for why they did worse against third tier opponents in their super blue states. She has been much more of a team player though Google each of them and Democratic party and it's different to say the least.

"Many political experts and D.C. insiders are already blaming President Joe Biden’s economic agenda for Vice President Kamala Harris’ loss. This does not stand up to scrutiny. Even though the Biden economy produced strong economic growth while reining in inflation, incumbent parties across the globe have been tossed out by voters after the pandemic. American voters also showed support for Democratic economic policies, for example, approving ballot initiatives to raise the minimum wage in Alaska and to guarantee paid sick leave in Missouri.

But good economic policies do not erase painful underlying truths about our country. For my entire career, I’ve studied how the system is rigged against working-class families. On paper, the U.S. economy is the strongest in the world. But working families are struggling with big expenses like the cost of housing, health care, and childcare. Giant corporations get tax breaks and favorable rules while workers are gouged by higher prices. Billionaires pay paltry taxes on their wealth while families can’t afford to buy their first homes.

Americans do not want a country where political parties each field their own team of billionaires who then squabble over how to divvy up the spoils of government. Vice President Harris deserves credit for running an inspiring campaign under unprecedented circumstances. But if Democrats want to earn back the trust of working people and govern again, we need to convince voters we can—and will—unrig the economy."

https://time.com/collection/time100-voices/7173801/elizabeth-warren-democrats-plan-after-2024-election/

Expand full comment
michaelflutist's avatar

I'd like to think her prescription is right, but I'm very skeptical.

Expand full comment
michaelflutist's avatar

I love Warren, but election results are what they are.

Expand full comment