Ex-Sanders campaign advisor knocks former boss for catering to White liberals with AOC anti-oligarchy tour
Since the Democratic Party's historic loss to President Donald Trump in November, the party has been struggling to find a new message or leader to rally around. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., and Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., have spoken at rallies across the country, but Figaro argued that they need to change their messaging strategy, particularly when it comes to Sanders' "Fighting Oligarchy" tour.
"Bernie Sanders' demographic, and I'm just going to be honest, the progressive demographic, the Rainbow Coalition, is White liberals, pretty much, White progressives," Figaro told host Charlamagne tha God on the Breakfast Club podcast. "There's still a lack of talking to those that have completely given up, completely disenfranchised."
Bernie Sanders, Aoc Take Aim At Trump And Musk, As Well As Democrats
Sanders had recently appeared at the Coachella music festival, a festival whose tickets, as Figaro observed, cost hundreds of dollars.
"He is talking to a very progressive, White-ran movement, to me," the former advisor to Sanders said. "Even if you're Hispanic, it's still White-adjacent."
Read On The Fox News App
"He struggles when dealing with race. I'm saying this as his formal racial justice director," Figaro added.
She also argued that the mega-wealthy are simply not top-of-mind for many people.
"Everybody ain't mad at rich people, Charlamagne," she said. "Like, people are really trying to get the bag."
Charlemagne argued that Sanders, all things considered, is a better vessel for this message than many Democrats.
"I think the 'Fighting Oligarchy' tour is a good message," Charlamagne said, arguing, "it's not a hypocritical message from Bernie Sanders and AOC, but for a majority of the Democratic Party it's a hypocritical message because they're all taking money from the billionaires and the corporate lobbyists."
Figaro argued that such messaging falls on deaf ears for different constituencies.
"Well, the hood don't know who the [oligarchy] is," she replied, mispronouncing the word.
"I don't even know what the hell you were talking about. I mean, they don't. You know, when people are talking about 'neo-liberal' – all of that, they don't know what you're talking about," Figaro argued. "So there's different messages people need to have to engage."
She also argued that the Democratic Party is simply "too big."
"It's too big. It needs to be broken down. Everybody is not going to relate to Bernie Sanders. Everybody is not going to relate to AOC. Everybody is not going to relate to Jasmine Crockett. Everybody is not going to relate to me."
Fox News Digital reached out to Sanders and did not receive an immediate reply.Original article source: Ex-Sanders campaign advisor knocks former boss for catering to White liberals with AOC anti-oligarchy tour
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
12 minutes ago
- New York Post
Democrats demand a new Constitution — maybe America should take them up on it
For quite some time, the leftist political establishment has been accusing President Donald Trump of abandoning the US Constitution. Now they have me wondering why that's supposed to be a criticism. Just last week The New York Times, the establishment's chief house organ, boosted the arguments of writer Osita Nwanevu in a column headlined: 'Abolish the Senate. End the Electoral College. Pack the Court.' Advertisement Why? Because 'The left can't win without a new Constitution.' He's hardly the first Democrat to say so. Advertisement I've noticed that whenever the Constitution stands in the way of something the left wants at the moment, it's decried as a flaw in the Constitution — not understood as a problem with what the left wants. When Republicans propose to draw district lines for political gain, as blue states have done to an extreme degree, we're told it's a threat to the Constitution. But when Democrats want to chuck the Constitution altogether, well, that's different. But I suspect their current temper tantrum is also a pretty accurate predictor of what Democrats might try to do if they return to power. Advertisement So I have a few suggestions of my own. First, if Democrats can pack the Supreme Court, why can't Republicans? Unlike the Senate or the Electoral College, both established by the Constitution, the size of the Supreme Court is entirely up to Congress. Advertisement It's been nine justices for over a century, but that's a matter of custom and inertia. Democrats introduced legislation in the previous Congress to increase the size of the court, and the GOP could do the same (it's bipartisan!) Fifteen is a nice number — or how about 59, with Trump appointing 50 additional justices, one per state. Nothing in the Constitution forbids that, and with the vastly increased output of the appellate courts, a larger Supreme Court is arguably necessary just to keep up. At the very least, such a court would be more representative of the nation. The Framers didn't care about that, but we moderns tend to. An increase so large would mean that the fate of the nation no longer hangs on a single appointment, as has been the case in recent history — so much so that (leftist) crazies have tried to assassinate crucial justices. The other big changes Nwanevu and his fellow leftists push for center on the supposedly undemocratic Senate and Electoral College, which only a constitutional overhaul could revise. My first instinct is to quote The Beatles: 'You say you'll change the Constitution — well, you know, we'd all love to change your head.' Advertisement But a majority of state legislatures have already voted to call a new Constitutional Convention — though not (quite) the two-thirds necessary to trigger one. It's been over two centuries since the original document was drafted; maybe it's time for a reboot. In that case, I'd advocate for a few updates — starting with a new legislative House of Repeal. Advertisement Congress passes a lot of bills but repeals few, because there's more of a reward for passing legislation than for ending it. I propose a third house entirely devoted to repealing existing laws, or portions of them. With its members running on promises to undo unpopular legislation, we'd finally have someone in Congress with an incentive to give us less government rather than more. Advertisement I'd also suggest no representation without taxation. We have a huge debt because many, possibly most, voters don't really have skin in the game. Let's limit voting to net taxpayers — that is, those who pay more in taxes than they receive from government (sorry, federal employees). Too extreme? We could instead require every adult to pay some income tax, with the amount to increase as federal spending does. Speaking of spending, most states have a balanced budget requirement. The federal government should, too. Advertisement To give it teeth, we could make members of Congress ineligible for reelection if the budget goes out of balance by more than 3% (that is Warren Buffett's idea, not mine). Let's also allow intra-state secession, to free large rural red areas from the rule of blue urbanites with very different values and priorities. Upstate New York is a prisoner of New York City politics, while ruby-red downstate Illinois is totally dominated by Chicago Democrats. These counties and others should be allowed to vote themselves into separate states if their voters so desire. The Constitution currently forbids that, sure — but it also provides for the undemocratic Senate and Electoral College, doesn't it? Of course, there's a difference between my proposals and the leftists' notions. Democrats want to change the Constitution because they don't think they can win if it's obeyed — and winning is, as ever, their highest and only political value. My ideas wouldn't help Republicans win; they're already winning on their own. They'd just make the government, and our country, work better for all of us. Glenn Harlan Reynolds is a professor of law at the University of Tennessee and founder of the blog.
The Hill
12 minutes ago
- The Hill
Gallego slams Democratic criticism of Mamdani: ‘Shrinking our tent as much as possible'
Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) pushed back against Democratic criticism of New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani in an interview that aired Sunday. 'It seems like the center-left of the party is like, attacking him,' said Dennis Welch, a journalist with the local outlet Arizona's Family. 'Yeah, I don't know why they're — I don't know why they're attacking him. I think it's stupid when maybe we're not in 100 percent agreement, right? But he has some ideas that are clearly, you know, attracting people. It's OK to say, 'I disagree with this, this and this, but I agree with that,'' Gallego responded. 'But the idea that we're again, we're just going to throw out people that are really bringing in new ideas to the fold, exciting people just because they're slightly to the right or to the left of us, I think, is dumb,' he added. 'The problem with Democrats is that we have been shrinking our tent as much as possible to the point where there's not many people left, and that happens on the left side of our party, and also happens on the right side of the party. And we can't do that.' Mamdani, a democratic socialist, won his city's Democratic mayoral primary in June over political heavyweight and former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo. The former governor has since launched a campaign against Mamdani as an independent. The Democratic mayoral nominee has been facing criticism from members of his own party as he has gained national attention, with New York Rep. Laura Gillen (D) distancing herself from Mamdani shortly after the primary. 'Socialist Zohran Mamdani is too extreme to lead New York City,' Gillen said in a previous statement. 'His entire campaign has been built on unachievable promises and higher taxes, which is the last thing New York needs.'
Epoch Times
13 minutes ago
- Epoch Times
Senate Democrats Urge Trump to Reverse AI Chip Deal With China
Half a dozen senior Senate Democrats urged President Donald Trump to reverse a decision allowing U.S. chipmakers Nvidia and AMD to sell advanced artificial intelligence (AI) chips to China in exchange for a 15 percent government fee, warning the arrangement could undermine U.S. national security and violate export control laws. In an open letter dated Aug. 15, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D‑N.Y.), and Sens. Mark Warner (D‑Va.), Elizabeth Warren (D‑Mass.), Jack Reed (D‑R.I.), Jeanne Shaheen (D‑N.H.), and Chris Coons (D‑Del.) said the decision trades away U.S. technological leadership for what amounts to a 'commission' on sensitive technology sales to a strategic competitor.
