Latest news with #Bernie Sanders
The Guardian
3 days ago
- Politics
- The Guardian
Can Democratic socialists get Zohran Mamdani across the finish line?
Was it his charisma, communication skills or his captivating short-form videos? His high-profile endorsements or his clothing style? These elements were said to have contributed to Zohran Mamdani's record-setting success in New York's June mayoral primary. But another major factor in his win may have been his ties to the local chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA). Known for its endorsement of the Vermont independent senator and socialist Bernie Sanders's run for president, as well its role in electing the New York congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the group has re-energized US left political movements in recent years, even while eliciting critique and fear from conservatives and some Democrats. In Mamdani's campaign, a stunning 60,000 volunteers knocked on 1.6m doors across New York City, home to 3.6m housing units. The effort reportedly led to conversations with a quarter of all New Yorkers who voted in the primary. Though the campaign has not yet released data showing how many of those volunteers were mobilized by NYC-DSA itself, Gustavo Gordillo, a co-chair of the chapter, says his organization turned out thousands. Though other organizations, such as the grassroots political group Drum Beats, also brought out volunteers, he said the chapter had an 'unparalleled field operation in New York City'. 'New York City DSA formed the heart of the field team,' he said. But the road ahead for Mamdani, who is a state assemblymember, may still be bumpy. Mainstream Democrats have been slow to embrace the democratic socialist, who ran on universalist material policies like a rent freeze and fast and free buses. In the past, centrists and conservatives have defeated DSA primary winners in elections that looked eminently winnable, such as India Walton in the 2021 Buffalo mayoral race. And rightwingers have already launched heavy smear campaigns against Mamdani, with polls showing the race could be tight. Fellow Democrat and former New York governor Andrew Cuomo, whom Mamdani defeated, switched to an independent party run just to stay in the game, and incumbent Eric Adams is vying to keep his seat. The Democratic strategist Hank Sheinkopf, a centrist, said: 'Mamdani's primary victory in the nation's cultural financial and media capital is the greatest challenge faced by traditional Democrats in more than 50 years. 'The future for the Democrats is unclear,' he said. Asked if mainstream Democrats should embrace the young socialist, he said much of the base the party needs to energize to win elections in New York and elsewhere is moving to the right, and 'will not accept' a socialist. Even so, NYC-DSA says it is ready for the battle, and if Mamdani wins, it could catapult the group from the sidelines to the center of the party. 'The opposition is in total disarray right now [and] their fragmentation is only going to be a source of weakness,' said Gordillo. 'We're ready to mount an offensive campaign that replays a lot of what succeeded in the primary with the army that we've amassed.' When formed in 1982, DSA had 6,000 members nationwide; that number grew modestly over the next 25 years. Then, in the mid-2010s, in the wake of democratic socialist Sanders's run for president – and Donald Trump's subsequent 2016 presidential victory – membership began to soar. Today, DSA boasts 80,000 members who oppose capitalism and advocate for the public ownership and democratic control of key sectors and resources such as healthcare, and the shift of power to workers from corporations. Though socialism was once a dirty word in the US, especially after crackdowns on socialists and communists in the 1950s, more than half of young Americans hold a positive view of it today, according to the rightwing Cato Institute thinktank. Though DSA factions have often sparred over the role elections and endorsements should play in the movement, the group has increasingly entered the sphere in recent years. The national group is supporting candidates in municipal elections from Ithaca, New York, to Atlanta, Georgia, with local chapters backing additional candidates in Boston's mayoral race, council runs in Richmond, California, Detroit, Michigan, and others. In Minneapolis, a DSA-backed mayoral candidate, state senator Omar Fateh won his primary this month, ; unlike Mamdani, Fateh has also won endorsement from local party officials. The New York City chapter, now home to 10,000 members, began prioritizing elections in 2017, creating an electoral working group. Since then, it has secured two New York City council seats and six New York state assembly seats, including Mamdani's, which he has held since 2020. Another 250-plus DSA-backed officials hold office nationwide, including progressive 'Squad' democrats in Congress: Rashida Tlaib and Greg Casar, and Chicago's mayor, Brandon Johnson. NYC-DSA employs a methodical volunteer model for each of its endorsed candidates. It has also been highly selective about who it chooses to support. 'You have to go speak to multiple branches of the chapter, talk to the electoral working group, go through multiple rounds of votes within DSA,' said the DSA-backed New York state senator Jabari Brisport, who represents a Brooklyn district. The robust endorsement pays off, Brisport said. 'When you're running with a DSA endorsement, you really have a whole operation of dedicated volunteers who want to advance socialism,' he said. 'They help with everything from field organizing to comms to fundraising.' For NYC-DSA, electoral campaigns are not only focused on single candidates but also on building support for their movement, said Phara Souffrant Forrest, another DSA state assemblymember from Brooklyn. 'When DSA campaigns for a candidate … we're organizing their district around shared values like housing justice, healthcare for all and workers' rights,' she said. The chapter does not use paid canvassers, though Mamdani's campaign hired roughly 50 for specialized outreach. 'Our main asset, which money can never buy, are volunteers who are passionate, who feel ownership over a campaign because the win would be personal for them,' said Sarahana Shrestha, a DSA assemblymember representing a south-eastern New York district. Her campaign brought in many voters who had otherwise 'given up on electoral politics', she said. DSA members appeared to do the same in the mayoral primary, mobilizing thousands of new voters. Some DSA endorsees – such as Ocasio-Cortez, who the group supported in her 2018 campaign – receive DSA backing upon request once they have launched their campaigns. Others, like Mamdani, are 'cadre candidates' who have strong pre-existing ties to the organization and are recruited by and from the chapter. Since joining NYC-DSA in 2017, Mamdani has been deeply involved with the organization, helping lead other electoral campaigns and working closely with the chapter on his successful 2020 assembly run. Once in office, Mamdani became an integral part of NYC-DSA's socialists in office committee, designed to facilitate chapter communications with elected socialists. Today, many of his staffers are chapter leaders. And when launching his mayoral campaign, 'he said that he would not run at all if he did not receive our endorsement,' the NYC-DSA organizer Michael Thomas Carter wrote in Drop Site News. 'While the coalition that coalesced around his campaign was much broader than NYC-DSA, in this very direct sense our organization is responsible for his mayoral run,' he wrote. This commitment to the chapter has been a throughline in Mamdani's career, said Gordillo. 'He's been really tested to learn how to exercise leadership while also being accountable to a base, because he's done that in DSA pretty often,' he said. Mamdani has championed some NYC-DSA campaigning efforts he did not pioneer, such as the successful fight for a bill to expand publicly owned renewable energy, which Gordillo helmed. But he has been a leader on other initiatives, such as the 'Not on Our Dime!' bill, which aims to pressure Israel to follow international law and on which he was the lead sponsor. (Ending US support for Israel's military is a key issue for DSA, whose national organization ended its support for Ocasio-Cortez and former New York congressman Jamaal Bowman over insufficient support for the issue.) That back-and-forth has continued through the mayoral campaign, with the chapter's political operatives also helping him make connections and shape his platform. 'He met with our Labor Working Group a lot to learn more about what were the top demands for different unions where we have a lot of member density,' said Gordillo, who is a union electrician by day. Mamdani won more votes than any other mayoral candidate in New York City primary election history. Brisport said that's a testament not only to the power of NYC-DSA's organizational skills, but also to the popularity of their political values. 'Clearly there is something in the air that is shifting, because open socialists are running for office and winning, showing that our ideas are good, workable things that people actually need,' he said. Mamdani's embrace of the democratic socialist label has been a boon for NYC-DSA, with about 4,000 members joining since he launched his mayoral campaign. It will also be a test for the chapter and for American socialism. 'Zohran ran as an open democratic socialist and the billionaire class, the most powerful forces in the world and in the city, are aligning against him,' Gordillo said. 'They will be finding every moment to amplify anything that they can say is a mistake or a failure, and because he ran in a way that was so tied to the movement, I think that any of his shortcomings will also be attributed to us.' The chapter is now preparing to mobilize volunteers around the general election, but also organizing to support Mamdani's key policies like a proposal to increase taxes on the rich. The organization is prepared to hold Mamdani accountable to socialist values, but also to communicate his successes to the public, said Gordillo. 'We will make sure that the billionaire class and corporate interests can't just fearmonger about him, or hide it when he fulfills his campaign promises,' he said. 'The fate of the left in New York rests on the success of the Mamdani administration, so ensuring that there is a successful mayoralty is going to have to become our top priority.'
The Guardian
21-07-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
Are non-voters the key to Democrats winning in 2028?
Since Bernie Sanders's first presidential campaign, the electoral theory of the American left has rested upon the idea that a sizable bloc of Americans – alienated from the traditional politics of left and right – have withdrawn from politics entirely. They stand closer to the Democrats on many issues, but, seeing little by way of material benefit from the party's soaring rhetoric of 'defending democracy', they have opted out of the political process. And, as the theory goes, a bold, populist candidate – someone like Sanders himself – could bring this silent constituency back into the fold. If that logic once explained how Sanders might have won, it might now explain why Kamala Harris lost. And, as new troves of post-election data surface, the debate over whether Democrats might have avoided last year's defeat by mobilizing non-voters has become one of the party's hottest factional disputes. Among those strategizing within the Democratic party, one's confidence in voter activation is often a proxy for their broader politics. Those who believe Harris's campaign failed to activate non-voters typically argue her platform lacked the populist edge needed to mobilize disaffected Americans. Their critics tend to believe the problem ran in the opposite direction: the electorate had moved right and the Democrats' failure lay in their inability to meet it there. Detractors of the activation theory point to a 26 June Pew Research report – which found Donald Trump leading Harris by three points among non-voters – as decisive proof that non-participants lean Republican. The catch, though, is that the survey concluded less than two weeks after Trump's victory. Polling taken in the aftermath of a race is notoriously vulnerable to distortion, and the bandwagon effect can temporarily inflate a victorious candidate's popularity. That effect is especially pronounced among disengaged or loosely affiliated voters. That number almost certainly marks the high-water line of Trump's support among non-voters. Another oft-cited figure from the New York Times/Siena College, which the Democratic strategist and data scientist David Shor referenced during his own interview with the Times's Ezra Klein, found Trump leading by 14 points among 2020 non-voters. But it uses survey data collected before Biden dropped out of the race. Then there is Shor's own post-election poll, conducted through his polling firm Blue Rose Research, which found Trump leading by 11 points among non-voters – though the underlying data remains private and the methodology undisclosed. The Cooperative Election Study (CES) – a late-November survey of more than 50,000 voters – offers one of the few high-quality, public windows on 2024. An analysis of the CES data by political scientists Jake Grumbach, Adam Bonica and their colleagues found that a plurality of non-voters identified themselves as most closely aligned with the Democratic party – and an absolute majority of registered voters who declined to cast a ballot in 2024 considered themselves Democrats. The non-electorate certainly wasn't blue enough to have swung the race, but by no means as red as the activation theory's opponents claim. What's even clearer is the geography of turnout. Voter participation dropped especially sharply in Democratic strongholds – particularly urban counties in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Georgia. By contrast, turnout in Republican areas held steady or even increased modestly. In other words, the Democratic campaign had more to gain from energizing its own base than from chasing centrist swing voters. Harris wouldn't have prevailed under conditions of 100% turnout. (Grumbach, Bonica, etc don't claim as such.) But a more focused strategy – mobilizing the Democratic base, speaking directly to material concerns, and resisting the pull toward bland centrism – might have narrowed the margin significantly. Ironically, the aforementioned Pew report concludes the same. 'As in prior elections, a change in voters' partisan allegiances – switching from the Democratic to the Republican candidate or vice versa – proved to be a less important factor in Trump's victory than differential partisan turnout,' write the authors. 'Republican-leaning eligible voters simply were more likely to turn out than Democratic-leaning eligible voters in 2024.' Even so, the CES data may disappoint progressives, if not for the reasons their critics imagine. An analysis of the CES from the Center for Working Class Politics's Jared Abbott and Dustin Guastella found that Democrats who stayed home in 2024 were, on average, less ideologically liberal on hot-button social questions – more skeptical of an assault-rifle ban, receptive to a border wall, less concerned with climate change, and cooler to the language of structural racism – than the Democrats who showed up. Yet, as Abbott and Guastella found, those same non-voters were more economically populist: disproportionately working-class and non-college, while eager for bigger public investment programs, a higher corporate tax rate, and a stronger social safety net. The Democratic non-electorate doesn't clearly align with progressive orthodoxy. Equally clear, though, is that a blanket lurch toward cultural moderation, absent populist economics, would do little to fire up non-voters who already share many progressive economic instincts. Making decisive claims about non-voters is necessarily difficult. By definition, they are the least likely to respond to pollsters, and their political preferences are often tentative or inconsistent. Yet certain commentators' eagerness to cast non-voters as Trump supporters reveals more about elite assumptions than about public sentiment. There's been a rush to cast non-voters as conservatives, not because the evidence demands it, but because the alternative – that Democrats need to speak more directly to the working class – remains uncomfortable for the party establishment. There is no way around the fact that in 2024, those Americans didn't hear anything worth voting for. Alex Bronzini-Vender is a writer living in New York
The Guardian
21-07-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
Are non-voters the key to Democrats winning in 2028?
Since Bernie Sanders's first presidential campaign, the electoral theory of the American left has rested upon the idea that a sizable bloc of Americans – alienated from the traditional politics of left and right – have withdrawn from politics entirely. They stand closer to the Democrats on many issues, but, seeing little by way of material benefit from the party's soaring rhetoric of 'defending democracy', they have opted out of the political process. And, as the theory goes, a bold, populist candidate – someone like Sanders himself – could bring this silent constituency back into the fold. If that logic once explained how Sanders might have won, it might now explain why Kamala Harris lost. And, as new troves of post-election data surface, the debate over whether Democrats might have avoided last year's defeat by mobilizing non-voters has become one of the party's hottest factional disputes. Among those strategizing within the Democratic party, one's confidence in voter activation is often a proxy for their broader politics. Those who believe Harris's campaign failed to activate non-voters typically argue her platform lacked the populist edge needed to mobilize disaffected Americans. Their critics tend to believe the problem ran in the opposite direction: the electorate had moved right and the Democrats' failure lay in their inability to meet it there. Detractors of the activation theory point to a 26 June Pew Research report – which found Donald Trump leading Harris by three points among non-voters – as decisive proof that non-participants lean Republican. The catch, though, is that the survey concluded less than two weeks after Trump's victory. Polling taken in the aftermath of a race is notoriously vulnerable to distortion, and the bandwagon effect can temporarily inflate a victorious candidate's popularity. That effect is especially pronounced among disengaged or loosely affiliated voters. That number almost certainly marks the high-water line of Trump's support among non-voters. Another oft-cited figure from the New York Times/Siena College, which the Democratic strategist and data scientist David Shor referenced during his own interview with the Times's Ezra Klein, found Trump leading by 14 points among 2020 non-voters. But it uses survey data collected before Biden dropped out of the race. Then there is Shor's own post-election poll, conducted through his polling firm Blue Rose Research, which found Trump leading by 11 points among non-voters – though the underlying data remains private and the methodology undisclosed. The Cooperative Election Study (CES) – a late-November survey of more than 50,000 voters – offers one of the few high-quality, public windows on 2024. An analysis of the CES data by political scientists Jake Grumbach, Adam Bonica and their colleagues found that a plurality of non-voters identified themselves as most closely aligned with the Democratic party – and an absolute majority of registered voters who declined to cast a ballot in 2024 considered themselves Democrats. The non-electorate certainly wasn't blue enough to have swung the race, but by no means as red as the activation theory's opponents claim. What's even clearer is the geography of turnout. Voter participation dropped especially sharply in Democratic strongholds – particularly urban counties in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Georgia. By contrast, turnout in Republican areas held steady or even increased modestly. In other words, the Democratic campaign had more to gain from energizing its own base than from chasing centrist swing voters. Harris wouldn't have prevailed under conditions of 100% turnout. (Grumbach, Bonica, etc don't claim as such.) But a more focused strategy – mobilizing the Democratic base, speaking directly to material concerns, and resisting the pull toward bland centrism – might have narrowed the margin significantly. Ironically, the aforementioned Pew report concludes the same. 'As in prior elections, a change in voters' partisan allegiances – switching from the Democratic to the Republican candidate or vice versa – proved to be a less important factor in Trump's victory than differential partisan turnout,' write the authors. 'Republican-leaning eligible voters simply were more likely to turn out than Democratic-leaning eligible voters in 2024.' Even so, the CES data may disappoint progressives, if not for the reasons their critics imagine. An analysis of the CES from the Center for Working Class Politics's Jared Abbott and Dustin Guastella found that Democrats who stayed home in 2024 were, on average, less ideologically liberal on hot-button social questions – more skeptical of an assault-rifle ban, receptive to a border wall, less concerned with climate change, and cooler to the language of structural racism – than the Democrats who showed up. Yet, as Abbott and Guastella found, those same non-voters were more economically populist: disproportionately working-class and non-college, while eager for bigger public investment programs, a higher corporate tax rate, and a stronger social safety net. The Democratic non-electorate doesn't clearly align with progressive orthodoxy. Equally clear, though, is that a blanket lurch toward cultural moderation, absent populist economics, would do little to fire up non-voters who already share many progressive economic instincts. Making decisive claims about non-voters is necessarily difficult. By definition, they are the least likely to respond to pollsters, and their political preferences are often tentative or inconsistent. Yet certain commentators' eagerness to cast non-voters as Trump supporters reveals more about elite assumptions than about public sentiment. There's been a rush to cast non-voters as conservatives, not because the evidence demands it, but because the alternative – that Democrats need to speak more directly to the working class – remains uncomfortable for the party establishment. There is no way around the fact that in 2024, those Americans didn't hear anything worth voting for. Alex Bronzini-Vender is a writer living in New York
Reuters
19-07-2025
- Entertainment
- Reuters
Colbert is latest casualty of late-night TV's fade-out
LOS ANGELES, July 19 (Reuters) - Late-night television had been fighting for its survival even before 'The Late Show with Stephen Colbert' was canceled this week. The announced end of one of the most popular broadcast late-night shows, days after host Stephen Colbert accused the network owner of bribing President Donald Trump to approve a merger, drew cries of political foul play from liberal politicians, artists and entertainers. "Stephen Colbert, an extraordinary talent and the most popular late-night host, slams the deal. Days later, he's fired. Do I think this is a coincidence? NO," Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, an independent, wrote on X. CBS executives said in a statement that dropping the show was "purely a financial decision against a challenging backdrop in late night. It is not related in any way to the show's performance, content or other matters happening at Paramount." Whether or not politics were at play, the late-night format has been struggling for years, as viewers increasingly cut the cable TV cord and migrate to streaming. Younger viewers, in particular, are more apt to find amusement on YouTube or TikTok, leaving smaller, aging TV audiences and declining ad revenues. Americans used to religiously turn on Johnny Carson or Jay Leno before bed, but nowadays many fans prefer to watch quick clips on social media at their convenience. Advertising revenue for Colbert's show has dropped 40% since 2018 - the financial reality that CBS said prompted the decision to end 'The Late Show' in May 2026. One former TV network executive said the program was a casualty of the fading economics of broadcast television. Fifteen years ago, a popular late-night show like 'The Tonight Show' could earn $100 million a year, the executive said. Recently, though, 'The Late Show' has been losing $40 million a year, said a person briefed on the matter. The show's ad revenue plummeted to $70.2 million last year from $121.1 million in 2018, according to ad tracking firm Guideline. Ratings for Colbert's show peaked at 3.1 million viewers on average during the 2017-18 season, according to Nielsen data. For the season that ended in May, the show's audience averaged 1.9 million. Comedians like Colbert followed their younger audiences online, with the network releasing clips to YouTube or TikTok. But digital advertising did not make up for the lost TV ad revenue, the source with knowledge of the matter said. The TV executive said reruns of a hit prime-time show like 'Tracker' would leave CBS with 'limited costs, and the ratings could even go up." "The Late Show with Stephen Colbert" is just the latest casualty of the collapse of one of television's most durable formats. When 'The Late Late Show' host James Corden left in 2023, CBS opted not to hire a replacement. The network also canceled 'After Midnight' this year, after host Taylor Tomlinson chose to return to full-time stand-up comedy. But the end came at a politically sensitive time. Paramount Global (PARA.O), opens new tab, the parent company of CBS, is seeking approval from the Federal Communications Commission for an $8.4 billion merger with Skydance Media. This month Paramount agreed to settle a lawsuit filed by Trump over a "60 Minutes" interview with his 2024 Democratic challenger, Kamala Harris. Colbert called the payment 'a big fat bribe' two days before he was told his show was canceled. Many in the entertainment industry and Democratic politicians have called for probes into the decision, including the Writers Guild of America and Senator Edward Markey, who asked Paramount Chair Shari Redstone whether the Trump administration had pressured the company. Paramount has the right to fire Colbert, including for his political positions, Markey said, but 'if the Trump administration is using its regulatory authority to influence or otherwise pressure your company's editorial decisions, the public deserves to know.' A spokesperson for Redstone could not immediately be reached for comment on Friday night. "It's a completely new world that artists and writers and journalists are living in, and it's scary," said Tom Nunan, a veteran film and TV producer who is co-head of the producers program at UCLA's School of Theater, Film and Television. "When the news came in about Colbert, we were shocked but not surprised."
Yahoo
17-07-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Bernie Sanders: If AI Is Doing Such Amazing Work, Everyone Should Get a Four-Day Workweek
In 2025, we're constantly told, artificial intelligence is bringing about a workplace revolution. Countless billionaires have waxed poetic about the "coming recession" and "unemployment crisis" that their hyped up AI chatbots are sure to bring. Bernie Sanders, the progressive senator from Vermont, has been listening. Calling the US tech industry on its AI hype — which mostly involves generating shareholder value — Sanders recently posed a rhetorical question on the Joe Rogan podcast: if AI is as powerful as they say, why not give workers a 30-hour week? "Technology is gonna work to improve us, not just the people who own the technology and the CEOs of large corporations," Sanders said. "You are a worker, your productivity is increasing because we give you AI, right? Instead of throwing you out on the street, I'm gonna reduce your work week to 32 hours." "That means, give you more time with your family, with your friends, for education, whatever the hell you want to do," the senator suggested. "You don't have to work 40 hours a week anymore." While a 30-hour work week may sound untenable to some, it's important to remember that the 40 hour week is less than a century old, only becoming federally law in 1940. One could look at that legislation as a concession to placate industrial workers, who in 1933 were agitating for the same 30-hour week which most of us in 2025 can hardly imagine. Even Bernie agrees. It's "not a radical idea," he told Rogan, adding that "there are companies around the world that are doing it with some success." However, the reality is that AI is far from ready to bring about optimistic labor reforms like Sanders' laudable 30-day week, or even OpenAI CEO Sam Altman's guilt-ridden idea for universal basic income. Despite widespread fear of AI-fueled layoffs and a job market in shambles, AI's main function is currently to give corporations cover as they outsource high-paying jobs to lower-wage workers. As time goes on, more and more corporate executives are realizing that AI — buggy, inefficient, and stubbornly prone to hallucinations — is no match for human beings. Still, even in the utopian world where AI could execute tasks accurately, Sanders' idea has some flaws. Most notable is the issue of unequal exchange between rich and poor countries. Given the tech industry's growing tendency to offload laborious tasks like AI grading to low-wage workers in countries like Kenya, it's likely that an AI-powered 30-hour workweek in the US would only increase inequality in other parts of the world. We're already seeing signs of this: a 2024 digital labor study found that the AI industry helps rich countries maintain poor nations' economic dependencies on exploitative trade, at the expense of their workers. In poor countries, AI also leads to new types of economic turmoil, while worsening that which already exists. Within the US, the 30-hour concept also relies on the goodwill of for-profit companies, something they've never offered workers out of the kindness of their hearts. Even now, with today's deeply flawed AI, workers in the US report that the tech is lowering their productivity and saddling them with more work per day — not less. Meanwhile, studies show massive AI investments have had "no significant impact on earnings or recorded hours in any occupation." These issues aside, Sanders' proposal does cut to an exciting fact: that a universal 30-hour workweek is possible, and it's up to the workers of the world to win it for ourselves. More on labor: Top Venture Capitalist Says AI Will Replace Pretty Much All Jobs Except His, Which Relies on His Unique Genius Solve the daily Crossword
