Here's why she lost — Bernie Sanders bluntly dissects Kamala Harris's collapse against Donald Trump in 2024
Live Events
FAQ
(You can now subscribe to our
(You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel
Bernie Sanders said it was not Joe Biden's fault that Kamala Harris lost the 2024 election, it was Harris and her consultants' fault. He explained that the Democrats ran a bad campaign that didn't connect with working-class people. Sanders said Donald Trump was beatable, but the Democrats failed to talk about the real problems people face, as per reports.He personally traveled around the U.S. to help Kamala win and begged the campaign to focus on working-class issues. He wanted the campaign to talk about raising the minimum wage, fixing the healthcare system, building more affordable housing, and stopping greedy landlords. But the Harris campaign ignored him and instead focused on rich friends and anti-Trump Republicans, as per BBC Radio 4.He pointed out that Kamala spent too much time with Liz Cheney, a Republican, which confused working-class voters. Sanders also said it was a big mistake to use Mark Cuban, a billionaire from "Shark Tank", as a campaign supporter. He said this election should have been an easy win, but the campaign was misled by wealthy elites and bad consultants. He asked a very direct question to the Democratic Party: 'Which side are you on?', which means are you with the rich or with regular people?, according to a HuffPost report.In a separate interview, Sanders told The Washington Post that Democrats don't do enough to actually help working-class families. He said the problem is not fighting Trump harder, but not offering a strong plan that actually helps normal Americans. He believes even some Trump supporters would vote Democrat if the party had a better agenda for working people, as per The Washington Post report.Even before the election, people were already worried that Democrats were depending too much on celebrities like Oprah, Beyoncé, Clooney, and J.Lo. After the loss, many political experts said these celebrity endorsements backfired and made the party look out of touch. One Republican strategist, William F.B. O'Reilly, told The New York Times that celebrity support now looks elitist and is a 'kiss of death' in many parts of America, as per The New York Times report.He said her campaign ignored real issues like wages, housing, and healthcare.No, experts said it made her look out of touch with normal voters.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
33 minutes ago
- Time of India
Trump-Musk rift widens over 'big, beautiful bill': Can Democrats woo President's fired 'first buddy'?
Can Democrats woo Elon Musk? Live Events Musk attacks Trump's 'big, beautiful' bill (You can now subscribe to our (You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel Tech billionaire Elon Musk stepped up his attacks on President Donald Trump's signature bill on Wednesday with a barrage of posts on X slamming the megabill, saying in one that no one "should be able to stomach it". He instructed his more than 200 million followers to call members of Congress to "KILL the BILL." Musk Wednesday alone has already posted or helped amplify posts on X criticizing the bill more than 25 times. "Mammoth spending bills are bankrupting America! ENOUGH," Musk wrote in one another, Musk was more forceful, writing, "Call your Senator, Call your Congressman, Bankrupting America is NOT ok! KILL the BILL." Musk has said he is stepping away from politics to focus on his businesses. Anthony Scaramucci , founder and CEO of SkyBridge Capital, has suggested Democrats could gain Elon Musk's support by taking a strategic approach: reminding him that a large portion of his customers likely identify as Democrats, and showing openness to some of his ideas, reported on his podcast The Rest is Politics US, Scaramucci, said it was important to "woo" Musk back after a "cooling off period." Scaramucci was fired by Donald Trump just 10 days into the job as his White House communications director in added that Democrats could move to the centre and forgo more left-wing policies to "bring Elon Musk back into the fold as a prodigal son."However, he said it was unlikely Democrats would do so. It would be a coup for Democrats if they could court the influence of the world's richest man once more. Elon Musk, the world's richest private individual, contributed $288 million to Donald Trump's 2024 election campaign, according to public he has since distanced himself from the Trump administration, voicing opposition to the controversial spending proposal dubbed the 'big, beautiful bill,' and has chosen to reduce his political engagement to concentrate more on his business the podcast, Scaramucci outlined the steps he would take to "woo" Musk. He said: "If I were a Democrat I'd be trying to woo him back. I would tell him 'look your customers are primarily Democrats, let's give a cooling off period, come back into the party and help us and lets acknowledge some of the things that you are right about'"."The Democrats are in sore need of a [former president Bill] Clinton-like experience," he continued. "A radical centrist who can come in, help reform the government, lay-off of the hard-left stuff that the country really doesn't like, go for the heartland which was your base."Elon Musk has ramped up his opposition to Donald Trump's One, Big, Beautiful Bill, criticising it in about two dozen posts on his social media platform X in the past 24 tech billionaire posted on X earlier this week that the bill would add to the US budget deficit and saddle Americans with "crushing" debt. On Tuesday, he described it as a "disgusting abomination", in a widening rift between the left the administration abruptly last week after 129 days working to cut costs with his team, known as Doge. The comments mark his first public disagreement with Trump since leaving government, after having previously called the plan "disappointing".White House officials said Donald Trump remains committed to passing his spending and tax bill through the US Senate, despite the increasingly vocal opposition from his billionaire about Musk's comments soon after the first post, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said "the President already knows where Elon Musk stood on this bill". "This is one, big, beautiful bill," she added. "And he's sticking to it."The comments from Musk reflect wider tensions among Republicans over the plan, which faced stiff opposition from different wings of the party as it worked its way through the House.
Hindustan Times
33 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Iranians' World Cup dream crushed by US travel ban
A year out from kick-off, Iranian football fans are watching their World Cup dream slip away after a US travel ban barred them from entering the land of "Great Satan" to cheer on their team. The 2026 tournament will be co-hosted by the United States, Canada and Mexico, but most matches, including the final, are scheduled to be played on American soil. Many in Iran had clung to hopes of cheering from the stands until Wednesday when US President Donald Trump rolled out a new travel ban on 12 countries including Iran, which will take effect from Monday. "My friends and I have been waiting for years to watch Team Melli play in a World Cup on US soil, and when they qualified, it felt like a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity," Sohrab Naderi, a real estate agent in Tehran, told AFP. "Now with the new travel ban, that dream is shattered because of politics that we don't care about and have no control over," said the 46-year-old who attended the 2022 World Cup in Qatar which saw the US side defeat Iran 1-0 in the group stage. The prospect of Iran competing in a US-hosted tournament comes against the backdrop of a decades-long enmity, with diplomatic ties broken since the 1979 Islamic revolution. The two sides are currently engaged in high-stakes talks over Iran's nuclear programme, with the United States threatening military action if no deal can be reached. Trump said the new travel ban was prompted by a makeshift flamethrower attack on a Jewish protest in Colorado that US authorities blamed on a man they said was in the country illegally. The ban will not apply to athletes competing in either the 2026 World Cup or the 2028 Los Angeles Olympics, the order said. Nonetheless, supporters who had dreamed of crossing the Atlantic to cheer on their team will no longer be able to make the trip. "Every Iranian has the right to support their team, just as much as any other country, whether the game is in America or in any other country," said Hasti Teymourpour, a 16-year-old football fan. Since his return to office in January, Trump has reinstated his "maximum pressure" policy of sanctions against Iran and vowed that "something bad" would happen unless the Iranians "move quickly" towards a nuclear deal. Naderi, who called the ban "inhumane" and "degrading to all Iranians", still hopes the Iran-US nuclear talks will yield a deal that might persuade Trump to reconsider. The outcome of the US-Iran talks that began in April remains unclear, and many fans worry that even if they result in a deal, it may be too late for them. Some Iranians have refused to give up hope, however, seeing in the World Cup an opportunity to thaw relations. "Sports diplomacy can act as a strong catalyst and bring the efforts of political diplomats to fruition sooner," said political commentator Mohammad Reza Manafi. It could be "a great opportunity to help advance diplomacy between the two countries". In a memorable 1998 World Cup clash, Iranian players handed flowers to their American adversaries and posed together for photos a rare public gesture of goodwill between the nations. Iran won 2-1, a victory celebrated in Tehran as a source of both sporting and political pride. With the 2026 draw expected in December, it remains unclear whether Iran and the United States will face off again, but anticipation is building. "The two countries are not hostile to each other, this political discussion is for the governments," said 44-year-old day labourer Siamak Kalantari. Another fan, Mahdieh Olfati, said: "If we face the US again, we'll definitely win." "Ours are real players," the 18-year-old added. Manafi, the commentator, said a friendly before the tournament, possibly hosted by a third country, could help ease tensions. Such a game, he said, could help "achieve what politicians from both sides have not managed to do for years". pdm/mz/ser THE NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY
Mint
40 minutes ago
- Mint
Where There's Smoke, There's $244 Billion a Year in Damage
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- If any Canadian import should be tariffed out of existence, it's one that President Donald Trump couldn't tax even if he wanted to: wildfire smoke. Unfortunately, it's a product in increasing and borderless abundance across North America and the world, endangering lives and inflicting billions of dollars in economic damage every year. In fact, a new study suggests wildfire smoke is a bigger threat to American health and prosperity than many other climate-change effects combined. In recent days — almost exactly two years after Canadian smoke made breathing difficult across a wide swath of the US from Chicago to New York — another huge cloud of the stuff has invaded the Lower 48, spoiling air quality from North Dakota to South Carolina — and, again, Chicago and New York. Some of it even crossed the Atlantic to Europe. The risk of more incursions will linger for several days, with 202 active fires stretching from British Columbia to Ontario as of this writing, 104 of which were out of control. It's no fluke this has happened in two of the past three years. The heat from a relentlessly warming planet has made wildfires more frequent and intense (and weird) around the world. Along with a century of wildfire suppression and increasing human incursions into the wildland-urban interface, this has turned wildfire season into a year-round event in the US, and no longer limited to the far West. 'It's remarkable how quickly this risk is changing and how many people are affected in places historically not affected by this risk,' Marshall Burke, an associate professor at Stanford University, told me in a Zoom call with Marissa Childs, an assistant professor at the University of Washington. 'Ten years ago, it was only in the West. Now everyone is accustomed to it.' The acreage of US land burned by wildfires has doubled in the past 20 years, according to the National Interagency Fire Center. And in each of the past five years, Americans in the contiguous US have been exposed to at least twice as much wildfire smoke-related fine particulate matter (known as PM2.5) as they were between 2006 and 2019, according to a preprint study by Childs, Burke and other researchers. 'There's no part of the US that won't experience wildfire smoke eventually,' Childs said. 'Even if there are small parts of the country not impacted recently, they will be at some point.' All this smoke has undone decades of progress in cleaning the air Americans breathe by lowering pollution from factories, power plants and automobiles. Some researchers have suggested wildfire smoke is far more toxic than those other pollution sources. As my Bloomberg Opinion colleague Lisa Jarvis has written, wildfire smoke hurts much more than just lungs, raising the risk of everything from dementia to premature births. Burke was involved in a new working paper for the National Bureau of Economic Research, led by Minghao Qiu, an assistant professor at Stony Brook University (who also worked on the PM2.5 preprint), trying to measure the economic damage of this novel and growing danger to human health. Their findings are alarming in at least a few ways. For one thing, they estimate that global heating of 3 degrees Celsius above preindustrial averages — the path the world is currently traveling — will lead to 46,200 extra deaths from wildfire smoke every year in the US, doubling the rate from 2011 to 2020. And each of those deaths represents an economic loss. In yet another NBER paper last year, the prolific Qiu, Childs, Burke and other colleagues estimated those smoke deaths would cause $244 billion in annual US damage by 2050.(1) What's also surprising is that most economic models haven't yet incorporated the health risks of wildfire smoke into estimates of what's known as the 'social cost of carbon.' This is a dollar amount economists assign to the damage done by each additional ton of carbon dioxide pumped into the atmosphere, further warming the planet. The Environmental Protection Agency's social-cost-of-carbon model takes a stab at including smoke-related mortality, Qiu told me in a phone call, but uses antiquated wildfire data and so underestimates damage by a factor of seven. Each additional ton of carbon we pump into the atmosphere, thus warming the planet, will lead to enough wildfire smoke to do roughly $15.10 in US economic damage,(2)the new NBER paper suggests. This may not sound like a lot, but multiply that by roughly 40 billion tons of global CO2-emissions each year, and very quickly you're talking real money. In fact, deaths from wildfire smoke alone could be at least as economically destructive as every other factor cranked into most social-cost-of-carbon models, Qiu noted — suggesting most previous estimates of the damage of climate change have been too low by about 100%. Even these larger estimates are still undercounting. They don't measure the hit to labor productivity when people struggle to breathe, along with the medical costs of asthma, heart attacks, strokes, premature births and more. A 2024 working paper from the Dallas and Philadelphia Federal Reserve banks and the UCLA Anderson School of Management found wildfires drive up credit-card debt for people living many miles from the flames, thanks to higher health costs. And, of course, we haven't even mentioned the damage wildfires keep inflicting on the struggling home-insurance industry, as the Los Angeles fires exposed this winter. A recent study by researchers at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business and the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School used the EPA's social-cost-of-carbon measure to suggest US corporate emissions will do $87 trillion in economic damage by 2050. In light of this new paper, maybe corporate America actually owes us $174 trillion. While we wait for those checks, we'll have to be smarter about wildfires and smoke. We could start by quitting fossil fuels. A tariff of sorts to recoup some of this damage, in the form of a carbon tax, would be helpful. But even if we did all that tomorrow, fire risk would keep increasing for decades because of the heat already in the system. Better forest management, including controlled burns, can help mitigate that risk, as can moving humans out of the wildland-urban interface. Meanwhile, public officials must do a better job of warning people of the dangers of smoke and make breathing centers, high-quality face masks and HEPA filters available to everyone who needs them. The Canadian smoke that invaded the US two years ago caught everybody by surprise. We're not in much better shape today. 'Not enough has been done to prepare,' Childs said. 'While in the longer term we need to think about how to manage forests and climate change, in the short term we need to protect people from exposure. That includes not relying on people to protect themselves.' We literally can't afford to be so unprepared anymore. — 'It's Become Harder to Breathe' graphic by Carolyn Silverman More From Bloomberg Opinion: (1) In 2019 dollars; in 2025 dollars, that would be more than $300 billion. But such specificity isn't helpful; there's a lot of uncertainty built into these numbers. (2) In 2020 dollars; in 2025 dollars, that would be closer to $19. Again, remember all the uncertainty. This column reflects the personal views of the author and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners. Mark Gongloff is a Bloomberg Opinion editor and columnist covering climate change. He previously worked for the Huffington Post and the Wall Street Journal. More stories like this are available on
