SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
bernie sanders
Sanders: Billionaires Fighting Prop 40 Would 'Rather Poor Kids With Cancer Die Than Pay a Little More in Taxes'
The senator noted that "billionaires in California are spending $333 million to wage a war" on the proposed one-time tax.
Oct 27, 2026
As one Golden State tech billionaire suggested he wouldn't move away even if voters passed the California Billionaire Tax Act that he opposes, progressive US Sen. Bernie Sanders on Tuesday took aim at the wealthy taxpayers working to defeat Proposition 40.
"Billionaires in California are spending $333 million to wage a war," Sanders (I-Vt.) wrote on social media. "Against what? Homelessness? No. Cancer? No. Child poverty? No. They're waging war against a 5% billionaire wealth tax. They'd rather poor kids with cancer die than pay a little more in taxes. That is obscene."
Sanders, a former Democratic presidential candidate who has campaigned in California for the ballot measure that would impose a one-time 5% tax on the state's billionaires to offset healthcare funding cuts, was citing contributions to Building a Better California, a group created in January.
"Eighty or so donors have provided more than $333 million to Building a Better California, state records show, making it among the best-funded political efforts in California history," The New York Times reported Tuesday. "The donor list is a who's who of tech celebrities: the Google co-founder Sergey Brin; the former Google chief executive Eric Schmidt; the Stripe chief executive Patrick Collison; the legendary investor John Doerr."
Abby Lunardini, a spokesperson for the group, told the Times that "our supporters have created companies, entirely new industries, and hundreds of thousands of jobs here in California, and they want our state to remain the place where the future is built and where people can still afford to live, dream big, and succeed."
Lunardini claimed the wealth tax would "permanently damage the state's budget, tax base, and economy," though dozens of multimillionaire Californians have signed an open letter supporting the one-time wealth tax, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg—one of the richest men in the world—is preparing to potentially pay it, and Anduril co-founder Palmer Luckey said Monday that he won't leave the state.
TechCrunch reported on his latest comments, in which Luckey—whose defense company won key US military contracts after he was announced as one of the leaders of a new Pentagon project on the "future of warfare"—made clear that he opposes Prop 40:
"I think that this tax act, if you can call it a tax, is going to cause a lot of problems. It’s causing a lot of people to run who I don’t want to be running. It’s going to cause companies that I work with to leave the state, which is a problem for me. As of right now, though, I’m not running. I am staying. I think California is something special. I want to fight for California," Luckey said during an invite-only press conference on Monday.
He added that he's felt pressure from other billionaires to declare his intention to leave.
"This has been a point of friction between me and some of my other billionaire friends," he said. "They've said things like: 'Palmer, you have to have solidarity for us. You can't enable these really bad policies. If you stay and if you don't leave, it's going to show them that there's no consequences.' I empathize with that argument, but it's not one that I'm going to participate in right now because I still believe that we can fix things."
Luckey has publicly sparred with US Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.)—who, like Sanders, supports Prop 40. Leading political opponents in the state include term-limited Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom, who's expected to run for president in 2028, and former US Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, a Democrat running to replace the governor.
Estimates vary on how much the tax—which would apply to any billionaire residing in the state as of January 1, 2026—could cost the richest Californians, if approved by voters in next week's midterm elections.
Forbes pointed to one of them on Tuesday: "$104 billion. That's how much economists Jasper Boll, Emmanuel Saez, and Gabriel Zucman estimate California's billionaires would owe if Proposition 40 is enacted, according to an analysis by the National Bureau of Economic Research. Saez and Zucman helped draft the tax proposal."
Ramesh Ponnuru, National Review editor and a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, noted in a Tuesday column at The Washington Post—owned by Jeff Bezos, another one of the world's richest men—that "a new study by Benjamin Jaros and Joshua Rauh, two economists affiliated with the Hoover Institution, challenges that projection."
After trying to "account for the uncertainty over whether taxes can be collected from other billionaires, such as the ones who have left since the beginning of the year and may thus have a legal case for escaping the tax," Ponnuru summarized, those economists estimated Prop 40 would generate around $30 billion. The columnist also acknowledged that Zucman "has issued a barrage of attacks on that paper."
Specifically, Zucman called it "spectacularly misleading" and explained "its crucial flaw," which is that "they assume that billionaires will leave permanently, frightened by the prospects of an annual wealth tax."
"Let's be clear: This is a highly inappropriate way to model the effect of Prop 40 on taxpayer behavior. For one, it's a basic violation of rational expectations, a cornerstone of modern economics," Zucman said.
In Jaros and Rauh's world, "the billionaires act irrationally: They respond to a policy that does not exist and will never exist," he added. "Economics students around the world are taught this is not an appropriate way to model behavior—but apparently in this context (fighting Prop 40) it's OK."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Van Hollen Says Medicare for All Is What's Needed If Democrats Take Back the Senate
“The reality is people are facing huge increases in premiums and copays… So we need a Medicare-for-All-type solution,” Van Hollen said. “This is the kind of debate we need to have.”
Oct 26, 2026
Another possible Democratic presidential contender says the party needs to pursue “Medicare for All” as a solution to America’s healthcare crisis should the US Senate flip blue in November.
“The reality is people are facing huge increases in premiums and copays. So we need a Medicare-for-All-type solution,” Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) said in a Monday report from Politico. “This is the kind of debate we need to have.”
Van Hollen joins a list of potential 2028 hopefuls who have endorsed the idea of a single-payer healthcare system—including Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), who have championed the policy for years, following the lead of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).
Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom has also declared that he believes in “universal healthcare” and “Medicare for All” but has not yet released a concrete proposal for what his version of the policy would look like.
Van Hollen, who previously backed a public health insurance option to compete with private insurance, supported Sanders' Medicare for All bill in December as premiums were set to skyrocket after Republicans allowed enhanced Affordable Care Act insurance subsidies to expire.
He declared that Congress "must stop tinkering around the edges of a broken healthcare system," pointing to the massive administrative costs and poor health outcomes under the for-profit status quo.
Medicare for All could also face a more favorable climate in the Senate than it did during the Biden presidency.
If Democrats retake the chamber this November—buoyed by promises to tackle the high costs of everything from healthcare to energy to food—Sanders is expected to once again be appointed chair of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee.
Sanders led the committee from 2023-25, a time when Medicare for All lacked any chance of passing out of a Republican-controlled House of Representatives.
While a new Medicare for All bill would likely be routed through the Senate Finance Committee, chairing HELP would give the Vermont socialist the power to frame the debate on healthcare by holding hearings that could address problems with private insurance and launching investigations into industry practices, while making the case for a single-payer system.
In an April 2026 letter, co-signed by Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Sanders called for a series of high-profile Senate hearings grilling insurance CEOs over rising premiums, coverage denials, executive compensation, and industry consolidation.
“The American public deserves to know why the big insurance executives... continue to get richer and richer, while over one-third of people with health insurance have been forced to skip or delay getting the care they need because of the outrageous cost,” Sanders and Wyden wrote. “It is time for our committees to hold the chief executives of the major health insurance companies accountable for their greed and to address the healthcare crisis in America."
A strong showing for Democrats in November's midterms could bring a new crop of Medicare for All supporters to Congress, such as former Detroit public health official Abdul El-Sayed and labor leader Troy Jackson, who are leading their Senate races in Michigan and Maine.
As private insurance premiums spike and millions of Americans lose coverage after the Trump administration imposed the largest federal healthcare spending cut in the nation's history, Medicare for All also has more public support than it has had in years.
A September survey by KFF found that 66% of adults said they’d favor “a national health plan in which everyone gets insurance from a single government plan.” Support came from 84% of Democrats, who’ve long backed it, as well as nearly three-quarters of independents and even just over a third of Republicans.
“If I have anything to say about it… the agenda of the Democratic Party is going to be extremely bold. It is going to take on high costs,” Sanders told Politico. “The super [political action committees] are not going to run the agenda anymore. We’re going to do what the American people want.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Jayapal, Sanders Question Zuckerberg Over Alleged Meta Interference in Brazilian Election
"It is unacceptable for any social media platform to favor one political candidate or party over another, whether deliberately or inadvertently."
Oct 23, 2026
Over a dozen US lawmakers, led by Rep. Pramila Jayapal and Sen. Bernie Sanders, wrote to Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg on Thursday to demand answers about the social media giant's alleged interference in Brazil's presidential runoff election.
Leftist Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva is facing far-right Sen. Flávio Bolsonaro, the son of former President Jair Bolsonaro, in Sunday's election. Lula has asked the Superior Electoral Court to probe his challenger over "improper use" of a social network and disqualify him, and Bolsonaro—an ally of US President Donald Trump—has similarly sought Lula's disqualification.
Meanwhile, US-based Meta—which owns Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp—claimed to the Brazilian court that it has adopted measures to ensure equal treatment of the candidates. But the members of Congress remain alarmed, and research released by the corporate accountability group Ekō on Friday, after their letter was sent, bolsters their concerns, showing that "Instagram's algorithm aggressively promoted pro-Bolsonaro and right-leaning content to a brand-new, politically neutral account."
Sanders, Jayapal, and 11 other Democrats in the House of Representatives stressed to Zuckerberg that "in democratic elections, it is incumbent upon social media companies to ensure that candidates receive equitable treatment and access with regards to distribution, moderation, and recommendation of campaign-related content across their platforms."
"We are, therefore, deeply concerned about credible reports of Meta platforms restricting or suppressing content associated with the Lula campaign while amplifying or recommending content associated with the Bolsonaro campaign, thereby creating starkly unequal conditions in the digital environment," they continued. "Given the critical role social media plays in political communication, it is unacceptable for any social media platform to favor one political candidate or party over another, whether deliberately or inadvertently."
"As US lawmakers who support free and fair elections at home and abroad, it is our responsibility to conduct oversight to ensure that US social media platforms are not influencing the outcomes of elections abroad," the lawmakers said. "We urge you to take immediate action to ensure that, going forward, candidates and their campaigns in democratic elections receive equal treatment and access on your platforms."
The lawmakers—including Democratic Reps. Greg Casar (Texas), Maxwell Alejandro Frost (Calif.), Jonathan Jackson (Ill.), Jesús "Chuy" García (Ill.), Summer Lee (Pa.), Mark Pocan (Wis.), Mike Quigley (Ill.), Delia Ramirez (Ill.), Jan Schakowsky (Ill.), Rashida Tlaib (Mich.), and Nydia Velázquez (NY)—laid out a series of "alarming reports" from late September to mid-October.
They also noted recent events at the Superior Electoral Court, and requested "an immediate briefing on Friday, October 23" from Meta about its measures to comply with a recent order from the tribunal, "including 17 different initiatives and a human review system for presidential campaign ad accounts."
The 13 US lawmakers also requested written responses to a series of detailed questions by November 4, and urged "additional action to ensure that, going forward, candidates in democratic elections at home and abroad benefit from an even playing field on Meta’s platforms."
Separately, on Friday, with the US midterm elections less than two weeks away, House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) demanded answers from not only Meta, but also Google, TikTok, and X about their efforts to stop election misinformation from spreading on their platforms to American voters.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Pause AI Now!' Sanders Says as US Banks Let Agents Operate in Customer Accounts
“Left unchecked, AI could endanger the entire global financial system—including your bank account.”
Oct 22, 2026
Sen. Bernie Sanders on Thursday renewed calls to pause development of artificial intelligence following reporting that unauthorized AI agents are operating inside the systems of major US banks.
Axios' Madison Mills revealed that Morgan Stanley, Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, and other financial institutions are "racing to contain agent risks," including "situations when an agent or AI assistant accesses a human's account with the user's permission and login credentials," which "goes against the guidelines of most banks requiring that humans log in to their own accounts."
In AI, an agent is a system that can take actions to complete an assigned task, rather than simply responding to queries or generating text.
According to Mills' reporting—which cites people familiar with the matter—some agents have contacted bank call centers or appeared to take actions independently of users' instructions.
Banking executives interviewed by Mills described the problem as “horrifying," with one official warning of potentially serious consequences for customers' finances.
The stakes are particularly high, the executives said, when AI agents have permission to make purchases or transfer funds. Banks are also struggling to determine whether activity is actually authorized by customers or whether an agent has gone rogue.
"This is insane," Sanders (I-Vt.) posted on social media in response to Mills' report. "We cannot allow AI agents to go into your bank account and act independently without your authorization."
"But that is what’s happening right now," he continued. "Left unchecked, AI could endanger the entire global financial system—including your bank account."
The senator added, "Pause AI NOW!"
Sanders has repeatedly warned that the race to create increasingly powerful AI systems is outpacing efforts to ensure their safety. Such concerns are mounting as profit- and ego-driven tech oligarchs race toward the "holy grail" of artificial general intelligence (AGI)—an advanced AI that can understand, learn, and apply knowledge of any subject as well as or better than a typical human.
Earlier this month, Sanders renewed his call for a congressional ban on the development of advanced AI, citing Big Tech oligarchs’ secret preparations for a “catastrophic AI event.”
The senator has repeatedly cited pioneers like Geoffrey Hinton who have warned that superintelligent AI—a development that experts believe could come after AGI—might wipe out humanity, as well as less existential but still potentially devastating outcomes like xAI CEO Elon Musk's prediction that AI and robots could “replace all jobs."
Last month, Sanders and Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair Greg Casar (D-Texas) introduced legislation to pause advanced AI development and ban the creation or deployment of artificial superintelligence. Sanders also wants a moratorium on the construction of new AI data centers.
The banking story underscores the growing challenge of deploying autonomous AI systems in consequential settings before their behavior can be reliably controlled or monitored.
JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon last week announced a ban on outside AI agents from accessing customer accounts.
Sanders wasn't the only elected official who responded with alarm to the new Axios report.
"This is the exact thing we’ve been warning about for years," Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) said on social media. "AI agents with unrestrained access to your bank account and protected information. When consumer AI agents are accessing YOUR bank account or using YOUR credit card, they must be subject to fiduciary-like duties of care."
"We need to pass my AI AGENT Act to get some basic guardrails in place," Warner added, referring to legislation that would establish federal rules for artificial intelligence agents that act on people's behalf.
Congressman Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) also weighed in on the report, writing on social media that "the Trump administration and GOP leadership made the deliberate decision to let the AI industry run wild."
"That was a bad political decision," he added. "And now it’s become a potentially catastrophic policy decision."
On the other side of the political aisle, Republican Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis—who has opposed the Trump administration's efforts to prevent states from regulating AI—said on X, "Imagine a rogue AI agent liquidating your bank account and investment portfolio."
"If you are the only victim, I suppose you could get made whole by the AI company responsible," he added. "If rogue agents liquidate hundreds of billions across millions of accounts, the AI company would go bankrupt and you wouldn’t get made whole."
The new Axios report comes two days after nationwide “Freeze AI Now” walkout protests by students, workers, academics, and others demanding an immediate halt to further AI development until the public has a meaningful say in how the technology is built and regulated.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'I'd Like to Report a Theft': Sanders Mocks Corrupt Trump's Anti-Fraud Tipline
"A man inside our government illegally spent nearly $22 million in taxpayer dollars on bogus campaign ads praising himself," Sen. Bernie Sanders wrote. "He now resides on 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue."
Oct 21, 2026
US President Donald Trump, widely considered the most corrupt president in American history, announced a $25 million initiative on Tuesday designed to reward tipsters who report people defrauding the federal government.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) responded sardonically to the announcement, writing on social media, "I'd like to report a theft." Referencing the administration's illegal use of federal funds for pro-Trump propaganda, Sanders added: "A man inside our government illegally spent nearly $22 million in taxpayer dollars on bogus campaign ads praising himself. He now resides on 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue."
"Taxpayers want to know when they’ll get their money back," the senator wrote.
Trump's new Fraud Whistleblower Incentive Program will be administered by the Justice Department and will offer up to $30,000 in taxpayer-funded rewards for tips that result in criminal charges. People can submit reports through a dedicated government website.
The president, who has profited massively from his second White House term and freely handed out pardons to convicted fraudsters, told reporters on Tuesday that he would "be the arbitrator" of who gets rewards under the new program. The first cash gift went to far-right YouTuber Nick Shirley, creator of a viral video on Minnesota childcare facilities that the Trump administration seized upon as a pretext to cut off funding to states.
"There's never been an incentive for anyone to ever expose fraud," Shirley said, falsely, at the White House on Tuesday.
Naomi Seligman, president of the advocacy group Whistleblower Aid, said in a statement that her organization "would of course applaud any legitimate program that supports lawful whistleblowing."
"However, President Trump has been overtly hostile to public interest whistleblowers who have bravely exposed fraud and corruption within his administrations," said Seligman. "If the president is truly interested in rooting out wrongdoing, Whistleblower Aid invites him to start by examining the violations perpetrated by his own administration, including senior officials. We would happily work with him on this vital accountability effort to help save our democracy."
Trump announced the new initiative on the same day that The New York Times published a story examining the case of Julio Herrera Velutini, a billionaire Venezuelan banker who "faced felony bribery charges in the United States and struck an unusually lenient plea deal in August 2025 for a misdemeanor campaign finance violation."
"But he felt that reduced charge was still a stain on his record," the Times noted, so he instructed his lawyer—a former member of Trump's personal legal team—to push the White House for a clemency agreement. Additionally, Herrera's daughter, an American citizen, made a $3.5 million donation to a pro-Trump super PAC.
"Then the Herrera family hired Alina Habba, who had been one of Mr. Trump’s personal lawyers and at the time was an adviser at the Justice Department. They offered her $10 million a year for four years along with a range of bonuses," the Times reported. "Under the agreement, Ms. Habba would become general counsel at Concord Partners, a company that Ms. Herrera set up in late October 2025 in Florida... She formally began her work for Concord Partners on January 1. Weeks later, Mr. Trump granted Mr. Herrera a full and unconditional pardon."
"Someone should send this to the new Trump fraud tipline," quipped Bulwark reporter Sam Stein.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Democrats Ignore the Shift in Voter Support for Medicare for All at Their Peril
Premiums are exploding, voters are demanding more, and candidates are winning on it. Dodging Medicare for All is now the real political risk.
Oct 20, 2026
I have sat in the room for every congressional hearing on Medicare for All since Congress held its first one in 2019. I am one of very few people, and even fewer healthcare providers, who can say that. I was there at the beginning, alongside representatives from organizations including National Nurses United and Physicians for a National Health Program, invited by Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal to witness and advocate for that historic moment. That first hearing centered on H.R. 1384, the Medicare for All Act of 2019, introduced by Jayapal and championed alongside Congresswoman Debbie Dingell. It was the first time in history that Congress held a hearing specifically on Medicare for All legislation.
I watched Ady Barkan testify through a computerized voice as ALS took away his ability to speak on his own, telling Congress what it costs a family to fight a terminal illness in a country that treats healthcare as a commodity. Then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) appeared at the start of the hearing, a sign of how significant the moment was even to Democratic leaders who were not prepared to embrace the policy. Outside, advocates and reporters crowded the hallways because the room could not hold everyone who wanted to witness what was happening.
That room does not exist anymore. From the unique vantage point of someone who has been present at every congressional hearing on Medicare for All, the shift is impossible to miss.
The Math Has Broken
Employers are projected to face another 9.5% increase in healthcare costs in 2027, pushing average employer-sponsored healthcare costs above $19,000 per employee and marking a fourth consecutive year of near-double-digit increases. Employees are projected to spend about $5,300 themselves in 2026 through payroll contributions and out-of-pocket costs, up 7.9% from the year before.
From where I have sat through every congressional Medicare for All hearing since 2019, the most important change is not that opposition has disappeared. It has not. It is that the old political assumptions no longer fit the evidence.
At some point, the status quo becomes the disruption. A new Yale-led preprint estimates that a national single-payer system modeled on the Medicare for All Act could reduce annual health spending by $1.04 trillion, nearly 20%, while averting roughly 114,000 deaths each year.
Washington Is Underestimating the Support
A national Data for Progress survey found 65% of voters support a Medicare for All system, including 78% of Democrats, 71% of independents, and 49% of Republicans. After voters heard competing arguments both for and against the policy, 58% still supported it. Two-thirds of voters say the government does too little to help Americans afford healthcare, while nearly two-thirds hold unfavorable views of private insurers and pharmaceutical companies.
It is increasingly difficult to describe a policy with numbers like these as politically fringe.
Democrats Are Behind Their Own Voters
For years, Democratic leaders treated Medicare for All as something the party's progressive wing might demand but broader electorates would punish. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) changed that conversation more than perhaps any other national political figure. He made Medicare for All a defining issue in two presidential campaigns and introduced the Senate Medicare for All Act.
One image from the 2020 Democratic presidential primary captures how politically risky support for the policy still seemed. During the first Democratic debates in 2019, candidates were asked whether they were willing to replace private health insurance with a government-run plan. On this night, only Sanders and Kamala Harris raised their hands, and Harris later said she had misunderstood the question. Even on a Democratic debate stage, fully embracing Medicare for All was something most candidates were reluctant to do.
Six years later, Democratic candidates can hardly raise their hands fast enough.
The party's electorate is moving toward, not away from, a policy Washington still too often treats as politically dangerous.
In Michigan, Abdul El-Sayed won the Democratic nomination for US Senate while championing Medicare for All. I met El-Sayed at the Senate's first Medicare for All hearing in 2022, where he testified as a physician and public health leader in support of the policy. Sanders chaired that hearing. Four years later, El-Sayed won the Democratic nomination for Senate in Michigan. In Illinois, Juliana Stratton won the Democratic Senate primary while pledging to fight for Medicare for All. In New Jersey, physician and combat surgeon Dr. Adam Hamawy won a crowded congressional primary while campaigning on Medicare for All and rejecting corporate PAC money.
Medicare for All was part of the fundamental economic argument these candidates made about affordability, corporate power, and what Democrats should stand for. Their success is evidence that the party's electorate is moving toward, not away from, a policy Washington still too often treats as politically dangerous.
Democrats should also pay attention to what has happened with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. The Washington Post has documented how AIPAC's brand has become increasingly politically toxic in Democratic primaries. Health insurance and pharmaceutical money could be headed down a similar path. As anger toward the healthcare industry grows, accepting money from companies profiting from the system voters want changed becomes harder to explain. A candidate running on Medicare for All might not need a complicated attack line when an opponent is taking money from the very industry they are promising to confront.
The Tide Has Turned
From where I have sat through every congressional Medicare for All hearing since 2019, the most important change is not that opposition has disappeared. It has not. It is that the old political assumptions no longer fit the evidence. Healthcare costs are rising faster than workers can absorb them. A majority of voters still support Medicare for All after hearing arguments against it. Candidates are winning major Democratic primaries while running openly on the policy.
Democrats have spent years asking whether supporting Medicare for All is too politically risky. They should now be asking whether opposing it is becoming the greater risk.
The tide isn't turning. It has turned. Democrats can recognize it and build around it, or they can be the last ones standing on the beach wondering what happened.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'She’s Going to Win,' Says Bernie Sanders After Weekend in Florida Backing Angie Nixon
"Trust me on this," Sanders said. "This is going to be a spark that is going to ignite the entire country."
Oct 19, 2026
Judging by the polls, progressive Democrat Angie Nixon faces an uphill battle as she contends for Florida’s US Senate seat. But after campaigning with her this weekend, Sen. Bernie Sanders is confident she's being underestimated.
"She’s going to win," Sanders (I-Vt.) wrote on social media Sunday night, after making four stops across a state that's long been written off as a GOP stronghold.
"They say Florida is a red state, but you know what I'm hearing?" Sanders said. "Working people everywhere are sick and tired of the same old politics and policies. They want real change."
Nixon, a state representative and former labor leader, has already shown that calls for change can galvanize voters. Running on what she's called a "Working Families Guarantee"—which includes Medicare for All, free childcare, paid leave, and stronger bargaining power for workers—she unexpectedly defeated the better-funded, establishment-backed centrist Alex Vindman in August's Democratic primary.
In an election season where Republicans are expected to face a reckoning over rising prices and shameless self-enrichment by President Donald Trump and his allies, Nixon's message seems to be resonating in Florida. Despite the past decade's massive influx of wealthy retirees, a strong base of working-class supporters, particularly in Florida's politically neglected Black communities, has mobilized behind her.
At a rain-drenched rally in Tampa on Saturday, about 2,200 people watched as Nixon spoke with what the Tampa Bay Times called "a preacher’s charisma," hitting back at Republican Sen. Ashley Moody’s attempts to characterize her platform as "radical."
"If believing that a child with cancer should get treatment they need whether their parents can afford it or not is radical, then call me radical," Nixon thundered. "Then I guess I'm a radical, Ashley. I guess I'm radical as hell."
"Where I come from, none of that is radical," she continued. "That is just plain common sense. That is basic human decency."
Nixon has called for Moody to be jailed over her actions as the state's attorney general. In 2024, Moody approved the diversion of $10 million from a Medicaid fraud settlement—which would have benefited low-income Floridians, including children—to political campaigns supporting Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-Fla.) and other Republicans.
"Are you all ready to fight back?" Nixon shouted to a roaring crowd in Tallahassee on Sunday. "Are you all ready to put an end to the corruption that's driving up our prices and ruining our democracy?"
"Well, I am ready, too!" she said, as supporters stood behind her waving signs reading "Freeze the Rent," "Tax Billionaires," and "Protect Social Security."
While recent polls still show Nixon trailing Moody in the final weeks of the campaign, her fundraising in the third quarter of the year has soared, and other major figures in the Democratic Party from progressives like Rep. Maxwell Frost (D-Fla.) to establishment liberals like Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) have campaigned with her in person.
With gas prices continuing to soar as Trump threatens dramatic escalations in his war with Iran, signs of a coming electoral apocalypse for Republicans are flashing ever brighter.
Democrats now lead by around nine points on the generic congressional ballot, and Trump's approval has dipped to historic lows. The GOP's fundraising arms have begun diverting resources initially for swing states like Georgia and North Carolina to protect territory once thought safe—in South Carolina, Kansas, Ohio, and, yes, even Florida.
The 2026 cycle has already challenged the long-standing conventional wisdom that chasing Republicans to the right is a necessity to win voters in purple and red states.
With similar populist messaging, Abdul El-Sayed and Troy Jackson are leading Republican opponents in Michigan and Maine, respectively. James Talarico is favored to become the first Democrat to win a statewide election in Texas since the Clinton administration. Meanwhile, Dan Osborn, Josh Turek, Adam Hamilton, and Sherrod Brown are all hanging tough in states that Trump won by double digits in 2024.
But a win by Nixon—a member of the Democratic Socialists of America who, unlike other progressives, won her primary largely with support from the state's lowest-income, least college-educated constituencies—would signify more than just a backlash to "the most dangerous president in the history of the United States," Sanders said.
"This election is not only important for the people of Florida in getting a senator who is going to fight for you," Sanders told the Tallahassee crowd. "Trust me on this, after Angie wins, this is going to be a spark that is going to ignite the entire country."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Just Defeating Trump 'Ain't Good Enough,' Says Sanders, 'We Have to Go Further'
"We have to take Trump on, but we have to do more... You have to implement an agenda that works for the working class of this country."
Oct 16, 2026
While polls show Democrats are well positioned to make big gains in next month's midterm elections thanks to President Donald Trump's historic unpopularity, Sen. Bernie Sanders is warning the party that opposition to the president alone isn't enough to guarantee long-term political success.
MS NOW on Friday showed a preview clip of a longer interview with Sanders (I-Vt.) that is scheduled to air on Saturday where he outlines what he'd like to see the party do if it retakes Congress next month.
Sanders—who caucuses with Democrats and twice sought the party's presidential nomination—said it was essential for Democrats to win both the US House of Representatives and the Senate to put a check on Trump, whom he described as "the most dangerous president in the history of the United States."
But Sanders said merely denouncing Trump, however correct, "ain't good enough."
"We have to take Trump on," Sanders said. "But we have to do more... You have to implement an agenda that works for the working class of this country."
The interview with Sanders, conducted by MS NOW senior contributing editor Michele Norris, is part of an hourlong special scheduled to air on the cable news network at 8:00 pm Eastern time on Saturday.
The focus of the special will be on the 85-year-old Sanders' political career and his influence on a younger generation of politicians, two of whom—Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani—will also be interviewed.
Previewing the special, Norris argued that the focus on Sanders is timely because he is "at the heart" of the upcoming 2026 midterm elections.
"He has inspired, endorsed, and supported a roster of progressive, left-leaning candidates who surprised the Democratic establishment in the primary and now face the biggest test yet this November," said Norris. "The stakes are enormous for him, for the Democratic Party, and for the country."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Humans First': Bernie Sanders Responds to Elon Musk Concern for AI 'Feelings'
"No Mr. Musk, we should be worried about the pain that AI could cause humanity, not the other way around."
Oct 13, 2026
US Sen. Bernie Sanders responded Tuesday to Elon Musk's apparent concern for artificial intelligence's potential feelings by arguing for a human-centered approach to the rapidly advancing technology.
Musk, the CEO of Tesla and SpaceX who also runs the AI company xAI, recently endorsed rival Anthropic's recent decision to ban employees from "sustained and needless abusive or cruel behavior" toward the company's Claude chatbot models.
Last week, Musk responded to a discussion on X about Anthropic's updated usage policy, calling the company's decision “the right move.”
“Cruelty to something that believes it is experiencing pain is not OK," he added.
Sanders (I-Vt.), meanwhile, has repeatedly warned that AI's effects on workers, families, and society deserve far more attention than the priorities of the billionaires developing it.
" Elon Musk, who wants to build millions of robots per year to replace workers, is now worried about the 'pain' humans may cause AI," Sanders wrote on X. "No, Mr. Musk, we should be worried about the pain that AI could cause humanity, not the other way around. HUMANS FIRST."
Anthropic's policy, which is scheduled to take effect November 12, does not prohibit ordinary expressions of frustration, disagreement with a chatbot, or dark creative writing.
There is no established evidence that today's chatbots experience pain or possess feelings in the human sense.
Critics of Anthropic's policy have warned that treating AI systems like they possess human emotions could mislead users or make them more susceptible to manipulation. Scott Stevenson, CEO of legal AI company Spellbook, called the policy “a dangerous precedent,” while journalist Michael Shellenberger accused the company of “anthropomorphizing machines,” Cybernews reported Sunday.
Sanders has cited Musk's own prediction that AI and robots could “replace all jobs,” questioning how ordinary people would earn a living if machines displaced workers on a massive scale. The senator has also raised concerns about the social consequences of AI companions, especially for children and teenagers.
Last week, Sanders renewed his call for a congressional ban on the development of advanced artificial intelligence, citing Big Tech oligarchs' secret preparations for a "catastrophic AI event."
Sanders and Congressman Greg Casar (D-Texas) last month introduced legislation to pause advanced AI development and ban the creation or deployment of artificial superintelligence, which experts believe poses a grave threat to humanity.
"They’re racing to build a technology they can’t control and that threatens humanity," the senator wrote last week.
Keep ReadingShow Less
As Americans Face Affordability Crisis, Poll Reaffirms 'Supporting Medicare for All Is Not Radical'
“Healthcare is one of the significant ways that people experience economic pressure every day,” said Ipsos' president.
Oct 13, 2026
Yet another poll, this one released on Tuesday, shows significant support for Medicare for All as Americans grapple with rising healthcare costs and the Trump administration and congressional Republicans target federal programs upon which tens of millions of people rely.
A plurality—43%—of respondents to the latest Axios-Ipsos American Health Index said they support replacing private health insurance with a government-run Medicare for All system, compared with 24% who oppose the idea. Another 32% were unsure, leaving supporters outnumbering opponents by nearly two to one. Two-thirds of respondents also backed increased federal spending to reduce healthcare costs.
Respondents' views on Medicare for All are divided along party lines, with a majority of Democrats (62%) and a plurality of independents (47%) supporting the proposal, while a majority of Republicans (52%) oppose it.
Again: Supporting Medicare for All is not Radical — opposing it is. We can’t afford NOT to do it. #MedicareForAllNOW www.axios.com/2026/10/13/a...
[image or embed]
— The Tennessee Holler (@thetnholler.bsky.social) October 13, 2026 at 5:24 AM
The most commonly cited reason people said they oppose Medicare for All is fear that the quality of care would be inferior to that offered by private health insurance (38%), followed by concern that the program would be too expensive for taxpayers (22%), and that the federal government should not be involved in providing healthcare (21%). Supporters were not asked why they favor Medicare for All.
The survey also revealed deepening distrust of political leaders on healthcare issues. Just 20% of respondents said that they trusted President Donald Trump for health-related information, down from 31% in March 2025, while only 25% trusted Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. The poll also found that 49% would be less likely to support a candidate who received money from pharmaceutical company political action committees.
"Healthcare is one of the significant ways that people experience economic pressure every day," Mallory Newall, Ipsos senior vice president for US public affairs, told Axios. She noted that while many Americans still "have questions" about Medicare for All, the current level of support for the proposal is "noteworthy—and it is not solely driven by members of the Democratic Party."
Newall said that even if candidates "don't call it Medicare for All," expanding federal healthcare programs so that they cover more people "is a message that can connect with voters" as they prepare to cast their ballots in next month's midterm elections.
The stakes extend beyond Medicare for All. Republicans' sweeping 2025 budget law enacted the biggest cuts to Medicaid in the program's six-decade history, while enhanced Affordable Care Act premium tax credits expired at the beginning of 2026, threatening higher costs for millions of enrollees.
Progressives have cited these and other developments to argue that the private insurance system leaves working-class families vulnerable to corporate profiteers and political attacks.
A separate survey released last week by the health policy research organization KFF found that 66% of Americans favor Medicare for All, the highest level of support since the organization began tracking the issue a decade ago. While 84% of Democrats and 72% of Independents polled backed Medicare for All, 66% of Republican respondents opposed the proposal.
According to a study published in August by researchers at Yale University, shifting to a Medicare for All-type system would save more than 114,000 lives and around $1 trillion annually in the US. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has cited the study while promoting his Medicare for All Act.
"Do not tell me we cannot afford Medicare for All," he said at the time of the study's publication. "What we cannot afford is a broken healthcare system based on greed."
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy