2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumKrugman Desperately Invokes Bloomberg Doomsday Scenario to Scare Us into Backing Hillary
Last edited Sun Jan 24, 2016, 03:36 AM - Edit history (2)
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/01/23/how-to-make-donald-trump-presidentHow To Make Donald Trump President
Step 1: Democrats nominate Bernie Sanders. ...
Step 2: Michael Bloomberg decides to save the country by entering the race ...
Step 3: Some Democrats defect to Bloomberg, because they actually listen to those centrist pundits. Hardly any Republicans do ...
Step 4: Trump wins a yuuuuge victory.
This has got to be the most desperate bit of political troma pornography any establishment Democrat has unleashed upon us to date. You must vote for Hillary, not because you agree with her policies but because then the big bad Bloombogeyman won't feel the need to run as third party candidate since Bloomberg is basically Hillary Clinton dressed in stag.
The desperation of the Democratic establishment to cajole, scare, scream, attack, fantasize, whine, patronize, and berate us into voting for more corporate business as usual is truly shocking. When will it dawn on them that only they (and certainly not we) would benefit from more of the same?
LuvLoogie
(6,823 posts)SunSeeker
(51,302 posts)Jenny_92808
(1,342 posts)doing the same, but H is a republican lite. I want a progressive president.
draa
(975 posts)They'll set you up with a TOS violation. They have itchy trigger fingers so be warned.
CorporatistNation
(2,546 posts)Hillary is supported by 1%ers because her election/selection ensures continuation of THE STATUS QUO!
She is supported by these criminals on Wall Street merely to DO NOTHING while BULLSHITTING us to death...
Think "Bipartisanship.. Remember that one? We ain't all morons Krugster... Not by a long shot...
Krugman is ABUSING his standing as something from a long time ago as a progressive who has now crossed to the "Dark Side." He has done up and gone PATHETIC! Any speaking fees on Wall Street lately Pauly?
mhatrw
(10,786 posts)Gothmog
(143,654 posts)HRC will be the nominee and so this will not be an issue
mhatrw
(10,786 posts)Where have I heard something like this before? Will you or will you not support Sanders if he wins the Democratic Presidential nomination?
Gothmog
(143,654 posts)Will you make the same commitment?
Metric System
(6,048 posts)mhatrw
(10,786 posts)because their primary concern is keeping our economy completely rigged for the top 1%?
CoffeeCat
(24,411 posts)All of these mucky mucks attend the same parties in the Hamptons--the politicos and the corporate magnates are all in bed together.
This is a concerted effort.
Why would anyone possibly think otherwise?
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,103 posts)Bernie & Elizabeth 2016!!!
Lage Nom Ai
(74 posts)Do you think just once one of your post could contain some substance?
starroute
(12,977 posts)Would any of the other Hillary supporters on this thread?
I know you couldn't admit to it without violating the TOS. But think about it very carefully.
Are you endorsing this Sanders > Trump scenario because it reflects your own intentions? Do you have Hillary-supporting friends outside of DU who you know for sure would vote for Bloomberg even if it meant a Trump victory?
Or are you just using this as a club to beat up on Sanders?
Ferd Berfel
(3,687 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)Gothmog
(143,654 posts)If the Super Tuesday primaries go as expected, Bloomberg will not get into the race.
last1standing
(11,709 posts)He's changed from when he used to honestly support universal healthcare and common sense regulations. This Krugman can go under the bus with every other corporate sellout.
PyaarRevolution
(814 posts)If his stance on Universal Healthcare was a con job. From what I've noticed about Bloomberg he's taken few to NO stances on anything that's truly controversial.
Segami
(14,923 posts)......a BIG ANGRY BUS WITH FLAMES.......
CorporatistNation
(2,546 posts)Krugster is ... "One of THEM!!!!"
tex-wyo-dem
(3,190 posts)Don't know what has gotten into PK.
nc4bo
(17,651 posts)highprincipleswork
(3,111 posts)False logic is everywhere these days, fueled by decades of rightwing propaganda and the submission to it by cowardly Dems as well.
It's almost as if the American public has no spirit anymore.
But still, to think that more Democrats would default to Bloomberg than would Republicans? I simply don't believe it.
Bloomberg enters, Bernie wins even more convincingly.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)thems get messy coming out of the nose
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)That's what will happen to us if we vote for Bernie.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)well done
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)When we were kids we lived watching the old Godzilla movies, still do - they're cult classics.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)elljay
(1,178 posts)Then you gotta watch the MST3k versions, if you haven't already!
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)For you:
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,103 posts)Bernie & Elizabeth 2016!!!
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)I do what I can, this forum needs more humour.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,103 posts)outta fear it'll go up my nose.
And yes, this place could use a little more humor. Unfortunately, some people here don't know how to take a joke... need to lighten up.
merrily
(45,251 posts)I call statements like that terrrorist politics. We used to do carrot and stick. Then we skipped the carrot.
Ugly stuff.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)This will backfire too.
merrily
(45,251 posts)newthinking
(3,982 posts)outside the status quo!
The trouble with this thinking is that those who are fearful of "losing" actually stop progressive change from happening.
Real change has to grow as a movement accompanied by the spread of new ideas and confidence. That may sometimes mean some losses. But there is no way to get there otherwise.
In this case I think the risk of loss is very low, because there are far more who would vote for Bernie than for Trump. There are far more on the left side of the spectrum that would go to the poles than the right that might be energized. Bernie would energize NEW voters. Trump will mostly energize the rightward that **already* would vote and most from the right.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)A tried but hopefully not so true scare tactic.
It's not working on me either.
Gothmog
(143,654 posts)Bloomberg is evidently only planning on running if Sanders is the Democratic nominee http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/michael-bloomberg-considering-presidential-bid
He has said he's likely to launch a bid if Republicans nominate either Donald Trump or Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Democrats nominate Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), according to the Times.
To me this says a great deal about how electable Sanders is
Gman
(24,780 posts)Gothmog
(143,654 posts)Stoolbend
(23 posts)because her superdelegates will decide she's not worth their effort and the Clinton Machine is already damaged beyond belief.
Gothmog
(143,654 posts)Sanders is only polling well in four states with 90+% white voting populations. These four states have approximately half the number of delegates as the state of Texas by itself. Sanders will not be the nominee unless he broadens his base of support beyond the current narrow demographic supporting him.
The primary will be over on Super Tuesday and Hillary Clinton will be the presumptive nominee of the party
Stoolbend
(23 posts)Where there is none.
Bernie has already made inroads with the PoC community, and polling do not reflect well on those key demographics who have not voted before..
You are in for a ride of your life, and it will end up in a downhill motion for Clinton.
Gothmog
(143,654 posts)Sanders is still not polling well with African American or Latino voters and so maybe he needs to change what he is doing http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/01/poll-sanders-gains-stop-short-of-minorities.html#
Team Sanders is certainly focused on the problem, with a variety of campaign efforts focused on minority voters in the works. The talking points they are putting out there, however, are less than convincing, as I learned as a guest on the public radio show "To the Point" yesterday, when I heard a Sanders supporter argue that an Iowa win would greatly boost Bernie's African-American support just like it did for Obama in South Carolina in 2008. The idea that Sanders's potential to win the black vote in South Carolina is analogous to that of the first African-American president does not pass the laugh test. Still, any early-state win for Sanders, even in exceptionally honkified Iowa and New Hampshire, will likely create some sort of generalized bounce. The question is how high, and how loyal minority voters prove to be to Hillary Clinton, her husband, and her implicit ally Barack Obama. It's worth remembering that she defeated Barack Obama handily among Latinos in 2008, and that Bill Clinton enjoyed robust support in both communities.
Monmouth University has a new national poll out that casts some fascinating, if very preliminary, light on this subject. Compared to its poll in December, Monmouth shows Sanders making pretty big gains: Clinton was up 59-to-26 last month, and only 52-to-37 now. But among black and Latino voters, Clinton has actually expanded her lead from 61-to-18 to 71-to-21. In other words, a legitimate "Sanders surge" nationally has coincided with a deterioration of his standing with the voters he will most need for a breakthrough after the first two contests of the primary season.
Sanders is actually losing ground with African American voters and Sanders' current tactics are not evidently working.
Sanders will not be the nominee unless he can expand his base of supporters. Super Tuesday will be a long day for Sanders. Vermont is one of the last states with 90+% white voting populations
questionseverything
(9,631 posts)restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)CorporatistNation
(2,546 posts)Fly Commercial ONLY!
Wear a Ballistic Vest and surround himself with trusted hulkster Body Guards willing to make the ultimate sacrifice for their country. These people on WallS treet ...ARE TAHT BAD! Remember Wellstone!
hedda_foil
(16,362 posts)It seems to me that the only way to keep him safe is by choosing Elizabeth Warren as his running mate. TPTB would think twice about Wellstoning Bernie if they knew they were going to get Warren for their troubles.
senz
(11,945 posts)You just added another reason.
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)senz
(11,945 posts)mhatrw
(10,786 posts)They will seemingly do whatever it takes to keep their rigged economy by hook or by crook.
Bloomberg will ride to the rescue to save the establishment!
The one thing they cannot get through their thick skulls is that nobody but them wants the establishment.
7962
(11,841 posts)99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)That much is becoming increasingly clear. It's the ONLY possible explanation
for how he's churning out these uncharacteristically over-reaching & bombastic
articles full of spin and distortions aimed to dissuade voter from supporting
Bernie Sanders.
Mark my words.
Problem is, we probably will never find out, because Hillary's chances of winning
the Primary are waning, and she's got no chances of beating Trump or Cruz or
any other GOP challenger in the GE. Not after she decimates the Democratic
party and alienates millions of Independents.
Gothmog
(143,654 posts)This was just discussed on MSNBC. According to Chuck Todd, Bloomberg will only get in if Sanders is the nominee and has until March 2 to make his decision
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)Bernie would walk-away with a three-way GE against 2 Billionaires, hands-down.
Or do you think Hillary supporters would flock en mass to Bloomberg, just to spite
Bernie?
hopemountain
(3,919 posts)good thinking, 99thmonkey. definitely going to puzzle this, too.
ejbr
(5,852 posts)Bloomberg would draw more voters from Trump as he would be the sane Billionaire.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)Bloomberg draws way more from Trump than Bernie.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)NJCher
(35,342 posts)makes a lot of sense.
I also think you are right.
No, Hillary supporters would not flock to Bloomberg.
Cher
senz
(11,945 posts)because they seem to, ahem, dislike us.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)hopemountain
(3,919 posts)there's a limerick in there somewhere.
SwampG8r
(10,287 posts)There once was a pundit named todd
Who's views were conveniently odd
They would hand out his pay
Tell him just what to say
And then laugh cause they thought him a clod
hopemountain
(3,919 posts)Duval
(4,280 posts)Since Comcast took over, the talking heads at MSNBC have been too cautious. I understand about keeping a job, of course, but I would be concerned with journalistic integrity. It's sad.
SwampG8r
(10,287 posts)mountain grammy
(26,553 posts)senz
(11,945 posts)Never thought I'd find this sort of thing on DU. Makes up for wading through several hundred Hill supporter comments.
lob1
(3,820 posts)Broward
(1,976 posts)Gman
(24,780 posts)You get him if Bloomberg gets in. Pretty much the way it is. Any suggestion otherwise is denial.
questionseverything
(9,631 posts)restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)Gman
(24,780 posts)That's effing getting desperate.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)And you didn't answer the question.
litlbilly
(2,227 posts)funny. So predictable.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)And Clinton supporters will vote for Sanders.....so who exactly is it that votes for Bloomberg, thus splitting the vote and letting Trump win?
Gman
(24,780 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)They really need to do a better job of training you before sending out to troll.
mhatrw
(10,786 posts)And that's it.
Bloomberg = establishment
Nobody but about half the top 5% wants the establishment, despite everyone in the establishment assuring us that we all do.
Autumn
(44,686 posts)Gman
(24,780 posts)Which is it?
What Sanders folks deny is the Right wing has been beating up the Clintons for over 20 years and she is STILL the favorite to win the general election. They haven't even started on Sanders and they WILL reduce him to mush. He can't stand the heat. He will melt immediately.
In other words, Hillary can win. Sanders cannot.
senz
(11,945 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)The left of the Democratic Party is not the far left. It's also not a monolith. Everyone to Hillary's left does not "say" the same thing, no matter how hard the right of the Democratic Party pretends we do.
We have actual numbers from 2000. It was not Nader and it's debatable that Gore even lost. Whether you want to say it was on Gore, on rightist Democrats who voted for Bush, as did many more in Florida than voted for Nader, or on Nader is moot at this point. What running Bloomberg might do to the 2016 general, however, is not moot. You might try focusing on that, rather than using something that happened 15 years ago as an excuse for attacking the left wing of your own Party.
Autumn
(44,686 posts)Last edited Sun Jan 24, 2016, 12:06 PM - Edit history (1)
That is what Bloomberg is talking about doing. Melt?
Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)what's wrong with him?
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)Metric System
(6,048 posts)mhatrw
(10,786 posts)7962
(11,841 posts)Most of his articles on economics are written with a condescending "know it all" tone. And he's wrong as often as he's right
Autumn
(44,686 posts)cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)I do not see academia as work experience.
global1
(25,143 posts)if he throws his hat in the race cause Trump will be our next president. I don't know if Bloomberg will take that chance.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Bloomberg is going to make a third party run if Cruz or Trump is the GOP nominee. Might be interesting.
questionseverything
(9,631 posts)bloomberg will not get in since she will protect his 1%ers interest
he is only willing to throw the country under the bus if bernie is the nominee
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)senz
(11,945 posts)SunSeeker
(51,302 posts)Gothmog
(143,654 posts)madokie
(51,076 posts)my sig line gives some insight into where I am and where I'll go.
In the mean time I feel the Bern.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)...he got his Not-A-Real-Nobel prize defending Free Trade bullshit. He is just another centrist Neo-Keynesian who sides with Capital when push comes to shove.
mhatrw
(10,786 posts)mountain grammy
(26,553 posts)CharlotteVale
(2,717 posts)going to make us do his bidding?
It just makes me more disgusted with Clinton than ever.
Thenewire
(130 posts)CharlotteVale
(2,717 posts)candidate getting into the race? He's pulling that arrogant shit on Bernie supporters and I have every right to call him on it. You should be concerned that he's just turning off more people about voting for Hillary with his nonstop nasty attacks.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)RichVRichV
(885 posts)I recall Hillary supporters swearing they would vote for the Democratic nominee and demanding the same from Bernie supporters over and over. So who does that leave for Bloomberg?
He's sure not going to win over the indepedents. They're called independents because they have rejected the establishment.
farleftlib
(2,125 posts)They all are.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)Why isn't the world a better place, with a unicorn in every garage?
People who merely WRITE about things don't impress me at all.
Jenny_92808
(1,342 posts)Go away, little man.
Thenewire
(130 posts)Throwing progressives who have been with us for decades under the bus just because they don't align with Sanders ideas?
mhatrw
(10,786 posts)He is desperately trying to frighten his readers into voting for Clinton no matter whose ideas they support.
Thenewire
(130 posts)Trying to frighten the democratic party into voting for Sanders because to his fans he is the only hope. You might have the numbers behind you on this website but I' certain that you are in for a rude awakening once Sanders goes on and loses states where whites aren't in the majority in the democratic caucus.
mhatrw
(10,786 posts)Into realizing that Democrats could literally not nominate a worse candidate than Hillary Clinton in terms of rallying the Republican base to vote while leaving Democrats cold and independents distrustful?
Into realizing that Democrats could literally not nominate a worse candidate than Hillary Clinton in terms of tapping into the anti-establishment zeitgeist that has characterized this entire election cycle?
Into realizing that if Hillary Clinton is nominated as the Democratic candidate, the most likely result will be complete Republican control of the Presidency, Senate, House, and Supreme Court?
The basic problem with your suggestion that Sanders supporters are trying to "scare" anyone in this manner is that supporters of the establishment are far more afraid of a Sanders Presidency than they are of total Republican control of all branches of our rigged system.
Old Codger
(4,205 posts)True Dems they should already be frightened of her....
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)djean111
(14,255 posts)hopemountain
(3,919 posts)bwhahaha. oogiebooie. the peasants have awakened to their power, paul. whether bernie or hillary wins the primary, trump will still loose in the general.
immoderate
(20,885 posts)--imm
Bread and Circus
(9,454 posts)restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)let the dems figure out who they want, let the repubs figure out who they want, and let the two go at it
this lions eating peasants watching by the 1% is revolting
stay the fuck out of it, bloomberg
Duval
(4,280 posts)KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)edit- Krugman is as much Establishment as Sanders, I suppose.
LOLZ
mhatrw
(10,786 posts)Beacool
(30,243 posts)I come here for laughs. The over the top and melodramatic posts get worse and worse. What ere they going to do when Sanders doesn't clinch the nomination?
mhatrw
(10,786 posts)Do you and all of the "come here for laughs" Democrats of your ilk promise to work hard for and vote for Sanders over Bloomberg?
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)emulatorloo
(43,922 posts)peacebird
(14,195 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)kristopher
(29,798 posts)JRLeft
(7,010 posts)A lot of weak alerts on this site.
SwampG8r
(10,287 posts)Are ok with a nader scenario?
One more piece of moral high ground given up by the conservadems in support of hillary.
mhatrw
(10,786 posts)Bloomberg buttons for Third Way Corpocrats.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)so feeble that BLOOMBERG would calve off enough "centrist" votes and make Sanders lose
THEY'RE AFRAID OF BLOOMBERG
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)Sounds to me like Krugman may be channeling 2008.
What's with all the loyalty tests that we've been beaten with for most of a year, if the Hillary supporters who've been pushing them mean Clinton supporters wouldn't be loyal to the party?
Really?
mcar
(42,179 posts)And please supply a current list of good liberals that DU now hates. I'm having a hard time keeping up. Thanks.
jfern
(5,204 posts)This is just pure idiotic hackery.
Duval
(4,280 posts)JRLeft
(7,010 posts)passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)How he's just embarrassing himself.
He's worried about the Democrats that will vote for Bloomberg, when Sanders wins but hes not worried about the Democrats that would never vote for Hillary or those that just won't vote?
It's interesting that he only pick one side of the argument.
Chathamization
(1,638 posts)...
Now, you can understand why many political and media figures would prefer not to talk about any of this. Some of them, I suppose, may have been duped: may have fallen for the obvious lies, which doesnt say much about their judgment. More, I suspect, were complicit: they realized that the official case for war was a pretext, but had their own reasons for wanting a war, or, alternatively, allowed themselves to be intimidated into going along. For there was a definite climate of fear among politicians and pundits in 2002 and 2003, one in which criticizing the push for war looked very much like a career killer.
...
But truth matters, and not just because those who refuse to learn from history are doomed in some general sense to repeat it. The campaign of lies that took us into Iraq was recent enough that its still important to hold the guilty individuals accountable.
But I guess that's more that we should hold them theoretically accountable, just like Krugman is theoretically in favor of single-payer until he starts trash talking it (It will lead to rationing!) when someone seriously proposes it, or is theoretically in favor of Glass-Steagall, but then says bring it back would actually make matters worse when a serious presidential candidate proposes it.
Eh. You know, I'm actually fine with someone saying "I'm voting for Clinton because she has a better shot" (or saying the same about Sanders, for that matter). But saying "Doing this is how you make Trump president!" is fairly crude scaremongering, especially coming from someone who seems anxious to throw all of their previous positions under the bus for whatever reason (because they prefer Clinton, because they never believed them in the first place, because of some kind of tribalism - I really don't know).
Chathamization
(1,638 posts)Mr. Dean's character will also come under attack. But this, too, will happen to any Democrat. If we've learned anything in this past decade, it's that the right-wing scandal machine will find a way to smear anyone, and that a lot of the media will play along. A year ago, when John Kerry was the presumptive front-runner, he came under assault -- I am not making this up -- over the supposed price of his haircuts. Sure enough, a CNN host solemnly declared him in ''denial mode.''
That's not to say that a candidate's qualifications don't matter: it would be nice if Mr. Dean were a decorated war hero. But there's nothing in the polling data suggesting that Mr. Dean is less electable than his Democratic rivals, with the possible exception of General Clark. Mr. Dean's rivals may well believe that he will lose the election if he is nominated. But it's inexcusable when they try to turn that belief into a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Let me suggest a couple of ground rules. First, while it's O.K. for a candidate to say he's more electable than his rival, someone who really cares about ousting Mr. Bush shouldn't pre-emptively surrender the cause by claiming that his rival has no chance. Yet Mr. Lieberman and Mr. Kerry have done just that. To be fair, Mr. Dean's warning that his ardent supporters might not vote for a ''conventional Washington politician'' was a bit close to the line, but it appeared to be a careless rather than a vindictive remark.
More important, a Democrat shouldn't say anything that could be construed as a statement that Mr. Bush is preferable to his rival. Yet after Mr. Dean declared that Saddam's capture hadn't made us safer -- a statement that seems more justified with each passing day -- Mr. Lieberman and, to a lesser extent, Mr. Kerry launched attacks that could, and quite possibly will, be used verbatim in Bush campaign ads. (Mr. Lieberman's remark about Mr. Dean's ''spider hole'' was completely beyond the pale.)
The irony is that by seeking to undermine the election prospects of a man who may well be their party's nominee, Mr. Lieberman and Mr. Kerry have reminded us of why their once-promising campaigns imploded. Most Democrats feel, with justification, that we're facing a national crisis -- that the right, ruthlessly exploiting 9/11, is making a grab for total political dominance. The party's rank and file want a candidate who is running, as the Dean slogan puts it, to take our country back. This is no time for a candidate who is running just because he thinks he deserves to be president.
Can we have this guy back?
retrowire
(10,345 posts)jwirr
(39,215 posts)But this vote for Bloomberg is anything but an FDR message.
Both he and Ed Rendell are pushing the Bloomberg run as a threat to us today. I think they got the talking points straight from Hillary's desk.
But both of them have just placed themselves outside of our party. Not because they support Hillary as individuals but because they are party leaders. And when our party falls to pieces it will not be individual Bernie supporters or individual Hillary supporters who are to blame. It will be people like Krugman, Rendell and DWS who used their positions of leadership in the party to make "of the people, by the people, for the people" a laughing stock of the world. They are no different than the Rs.
mikehiggins
(5,614 posts)Will any of his employees dare to tell him that? While drinking a SuperSized cola?
The only thing I like about him is his support for anti-ammosexual policies. As to the rest, well, he's as much establishment as any billionaire.
pnwmom
(108,915 posts)mhatrw
(10,786 posts)And it's a completely desperate, utterly tone deaf 4 speculative step brand of scare mongering.
1. Sanders needs to triumph because we all support his policies and are all sick of establishment politicians promising us more government of, by, and for the top 1%.
2. Bloomberg has to toss his name into the third party hat because establishment pundits urge him to rescue the establishment from the angry hoi polloi.
3. Then all of your fellow Hillary supporters need to abandon the Democratic Party en masse because loyalty oaths are only for those pesky progressives whose votes establishment Corpocrats love to take for granted. And Republicans need to keep preferring the batshit crazy billionaire to the semi-sane one.
4. Voila! We all get the fascist strongclown the establishment would far prefer to giving up their rigged economy.
pnwmom
(108,915 posts)mhatrw
(10,786 posts)Democratic party to vote for a financial empire multibillionaire if Clinton is not the nominee?
thesquanderer
(11,937 posts)especially if Hillary backs Sanders, as any "proper" Democrat would support their party's nominee.
The question is more what the Independent voters would do. Those are the ones that Bloomberge would be counting on.
mhatrw
(10,786 posts)A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)if she doesn't get to be prom queen this time she has no other options down the road. I think she walks out of the dance and starts looking over her list of enemies.
thesquanderer
(11,937 posts)...though there would still be a question of just how enthusiastic that support would be.
Not only is that "proper form" within the party, but certainly neither of them would want the Republican nominee to win... and honestly, I kind of doubt that Hillary would even want Bloomberg to win, over her party's nominee.
UNLESS... Bloomberg picks Hillary as his VP?? Uh oh, I think I may be on to something...
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)neverforget
(9,433 posts)Billionaire Bloomberg.....
The wealthy are definitely afraid.
Go Bernie!
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Autumn
(44,686 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)PatrickforO
(14,479 posts)The reality is that if Bloomberg runs it will hurt the Republicans far more than the Dems.
Bernie would win for sure if Bloomberg gets in.
If Clinton is the candidate, Bloomberg will win. Seriously, SO many people outside of here dislike or even hate Clinton it isn't even funny. And it won't be funny if she's the nominee because no matter how many people on here support her, she'll lose. She is a lackluster, boring status-quo campaigner who has so much negative baggage she will be like someone sitting in a dunk tank.
Oh, sure, they will call Bernie a socialist, tar him with the hammer and sickle but that won't wash because the stuff he's advocating is favored by a majority of Americans in ALL cases. This is why Bernie will win. This, and the fact that the establishment no longer controls the message.
We do.
Jarqui
(10,094 posts)Bernie had to start somewhere so he focused on the early primary states. Without the mainstream media paying attention as they have with Trump and others, a lot of folks haven't heard what he has to offer America. Folks in Iowa and New Hampshire seem to like what he's offering.
So what is wrong with the rest of the country hearing what Bernie has to offer and going to the polls to provide their response? Isn't that what we call democracy? It's the only way we're going to find out how great a candidate Bernie can be. Media that doesn't provide that is doing a disservice to the citizens (but we've seen them flirting with doing that)
The reason candidates, particularly Clinton, want to shut Bernie up is that they fear more folks are going to like what he has to offer more than Hillary.If they didn't fear it, they could sit on their hands and just let him burn himself out.
The media companies owned by Wall Street would like to milk bunches of that Koch ad money so giving a little attention to Bernie to drain some of Hillary's campaign money into their pockets and bump their ratings during the primaries isn't going to hurt anyone in the media. They can still play king maker in the general election.
This seems to be where Krugman is coming from.
Bloomberg, Trump and Clinton: are all wealthy 1%ers with their Wall Street corporate connections. Hillary suffers a little in the first poll I've seen on this matchup.
Bloomberg, Trump & Sanders: only two are wealthy 1%ers. Sanders is a true alternative to the other two. I think he'd do better in the polls than Hillary when folks hear what he has to offer.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)They've been hanging onto it just in case something comes up in the FBI investigation of Hillary's forgotten emails forcing her out of the race.
This fantasy predates both Bernie and Trump.
Keep in mind this comes from people who really do believe this country has a vast uncounted undecided vote that leans to the right.
raindaddy
(1,370 posts)It's your choice bitches, Hillary or the Donald!!
-Paul Krugman, honest liberal...
Trump's a scary prospect alright. So maybe this time around the plutocrats should think twice about running Bloomberg and if we do elect an unfit crazy ass Trump who would screw up the country they can take responsibility. After all THEY have the most to lose..
Iggo
(47,470 posts)How DARE he accuse fine democrats of going PUMA.
The nerve!
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)"Bloomberg is basically Hillary Clinton in a suit?"
Instead of "Hillary Clinton is basically Blookmberg in drag."
mhatrw
(10,786 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)When some attempt to make an argument based in the negative, they often go into the memory bank and pull out other terms that they personally view as negative, in order to bolster the "feeling" of negativity trying to be promoted in the message. It is often learned behavior and the more nefarious aspects are often not even recognized by the author. For women, it's often an everyday aspect that is very noticeable. The patriarchy runs deep in people's minds as many aspects are instilled since birth.
mhatrw
(10,786 posts)But that was really classist of me.
Jack Rabbit
(45,984 posts)I don't want blame Krugman for the meme. For one thing, I have too much respect for him and for another, it is a fact that Bloomberg is thinking out loud about running as an independent, regardless of who reports it. It is not Professor Krugman by Mr. Bloomberg himself invoking this scenario. If anyone is a villain in this story, it is Michael Bloomberg.
As far as I am concerned, the difference between Hillary Clinton and a Republican is that Hillary has a better record on matters pertaining to making America a more inclusive society than do racists, misogynists, sectarian bigots and homophobes like Donald Trumo, Ted Cruz, etc., etc. Otherwise, they all favor a social hierarchy that favors the rich over the rest of us and will pursue basically the same policies that for the last 35 years have eroded the American middle class. It is a disastrous, unsustainable program and the only viable presidential candidate who has the courage to stand against it, Senator Bernie Sanders.
That is why I am supporting Senator Sanders for President. I will vote for the Democratic nominee but I have no time or money for another establishment candidate who will support deregulation and free trade and wink at banking fraud. I will not support those policies if such a president is elected, even if he or she is punitively a Democrat, but will dedicate myself for my remaining years to the termination the worldwide power of oligarchs and their political stooges.
Power to the People; this land belongs to you and me.
Bernblu
(441 posts)He must be angling for a job.
Agony
(2,605 posts)this is one of the slides from his Nobel prize presentation
"My rules for research:
1. Listen to the Gentiles
2. Question the question
3. Dare to be silly
4. Simplify, simplify"
Truprogressive85
(900 posts)Any Democrats that supports Bloomberg is anti black simple
And supports his racist policies while he was in office
Tell Bloomberg he can sit his stop and frisk butt in the sideline
Nanjeanne
(4,850 posts)Haven't Hillary supporters been saying all along that if Sanders doesn't win the nomination then his supporters should vote for Hillary so that we ensure a Dem in the White House? Now Krugman is saying that Hillary supporters will do exactly what they have been asking us not to do?
How about this scenario Paul?
Hillary wins nomination
Sanders supporters write in Bernie's name
Trump wins.
Hekate
(89,977 posts)So is he evil or is he not? So confused.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)one of the billionaire class will save the day?
These guys are fucking cracked.
hedda_foil
(16,362 posts)Bloomberg is much more likely to appeal to disaffected establishment Republicans who are repelled by Trump. Can you imagine a debate with the (99.98 percenter) Donald and (99.99 percenter) Bloomie on either side of Bernie? Talk about "optics"... Bernie would win in a landslide!!!
senz
(11,945 posts)What the hell is so attractive about Michael Bloomberg that everyone, including Krugman, thinks the guy could be an election wrecker??
I can't see it. The man has no appeal. What does he stand for? Who would place their hopes in him? Where on earth would he take us? I don't think he'd take us anywhere. Does he have leadership qualities (Hill folk, I'm not talking about "positions held" ? Does he have vision? Does he care about people -- ALL people? Does he evince an inkling of where America is at today?
Krugman and various commenters (mainly the Hill folk) speak of him as if there were something irresistible about him.
One final question: What the hell happened to Paul Krugman? He should visit his doctor. Something's definitely not right.
mhatrw
(10,786 posts)rjsquirrel
(4,762 posts)For reals?
mhatrw
(10,786 posts)rjsquirrel
(4,762 posts)Noam Chomsky.
merrily
(45,251 posts)what he was saying at the moment.
That has nothing to do with this primary or with Bernie Sanders, as my feelings about Krugman long pre-dated both. It was just a gut feeling that he was a self-serving shill, not someone who spoke out publicly of conviction or principle.
I do not like thee, Dr. Fell.
The reason why, I cannot tell.
But, this I know and know full well......
I do not like thee, Dr. Fell.
CanonRay
(14,013 posts)it is completely backfiring.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)Vinca
(50,150 posts)when they were talking about Bloomberg. True, it came out of the mouth of a GOP candidate, but it's an indication of things to come. The comment was about Republicans not liking Trump and Hillary having federal charges hanging over her head. That's going to be the new talking point: Hillary and federal charges.
Zen Democrat
(5,901 posts)I see what's happening in my crystal ball, and the anti-establishment candidates are going to win the nominations -- Trump and Sanders. Trump will run with Rubio. Sanders will run with Warren.
Sanders & Warren WIN in a LANDSLIDE against the Billionnaire. The Senate will become solid Democratic. The House will be a toss-up, with Republicans having an gerrymandered advantage, but ..... the Republican Party may be split asunder and go the way of the Whigs. The Third-Way will die on the vine, or the Democratic Party may be in danger of a split also.
Could 2016 be the year that the extant parties for the last 150 years evolve into new realities with a reshuffling of the deck, or, in other words, an actual new deal? It's a possibility. The current liberal/conservative paradigm may have run its course.
spooky3
(34,231 posts)Bloomberg would pull more votes from Dems than Republicans. I think he's right. Bloomberg's positions are more similar to Dems' than to Repubs' in most parts of the country.
hollowdweller
(4,229 posts)Bjornsdotter
(6,123 posts)...however he chooses. I really don't care how he votes.
Now I expect him to extend the same courtesy to me and my vote.