Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

mhatrw

(10,786 posts)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 07:47 PM Jan 2016

Krugman 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-president

How 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?
205 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Krugman Desperately Invokes Bloomberg Doomsday Scenario to Scare Us into Backing Hillary (Original Post) mhatrw Jan 2016 OP
I'm not afraid of voting for Hillary. I'm looking forward to it! LuvLoogie Jan 2016 #1
+1 Metric System Jan 2016 #3
Hill yes! SunSeeker Jan 2016 #15
I would consider Jenny_92808 Jan 2016 #36
Careful Jenny. draa Jan 2016 #60
Difficult To Disagree With This Assertion... CorporatistNation Jan 2016 #111
Hillaburton on the warpath! mhatrw Jan 2016 #37
I am happy to support Hillary Clinton Gothmog Jan 2016 #196
Cop out non-answer mhatrw Jan 2016 #198
I will support and vote for the Democratic candidate Gothmog Jan 2016 #203
Krugman is right. Bury your head in the sand at our peril. Metric System Jan 2016 #2
Krugman is right about what? About Third Way corpocrats willing to draft Bloomberg mhatrw Jan 2016 #47
Exactly! n/t Got it Jan 2016 #87
That's exactly right. And they're all friends CoffeeCat Jan 2016 #137
Right on the money, as Hillary would say. It's Bernie's time... go Bernie go! InAbLuEsTaTe Jan 2016 #152
Excuse me Lage Nom Ai Jan 2016 #109
Would you vote for Bloomberg if Sanders gets the nomination? starroute Jan 2016 #110
BE- If another Billionaire Oligarch runs he pulls votes from Hillary and Trump - Bernie Wins! Ferd Berfel Jan 2016 #204
Oh what a pile. I hereby happily throw Paul under the bus. cali Jan 2016 #4
According to MSNBC, Bloomberg is waiting until March 2 Gothmog Jan 2016 #10
Agreed. That blog post removes any respect for him. last1standing Jan 2016 #52
Wouldn't be surprised. PyaarRevolution Jan 2016 #92
Make sure its a big bus.... Segami Jan 2016 #82
No Need To... Paul Voluntarily Stepped Out In Front oF Da Bus! CorporatistNation Jan 2016 #114
Right there with you, cali! tex-wyo-dem Jan 2016 #136
Go Bernie Go! nt nc4bo Jan 2016 #5
False logic!! highprincipleswork Jan 2016 #6
OOGA BOOGA! A VOTE FOR BERNIE = PRESIDENT TRUMP!!! beam me up scottie Jan 2016 #7
havent we seen this movie before? nt restorefreedom Jan 2016 #40
Why do Bernie supporters hate America? beam me up scottie Jan 2016 #44
snort! sooooo glad i was not eating cheerios restorefreedom Jan 2016 #51
See the people in this train?: beam me up scottie Jan 2016 #53
excellent godzilla retro moment! restorefreedom Jan 2016 #57
Thanks! beam me up scottie Jan 2016 #63
me too! nt restorefreedom Jan 2016 #66
MST3k elljay Jan 2016 #112
Oh I have, they are the absolute best! beam me up scottie Jan 2016 #160
omg, you get my vote for post of the day... seriously laughed out loud... good one! InAbLuEsTaTe Jan 2016 #153
Thanks! beam me up scottie Jan 2016 #164
Yes, definitely... keep it up! I'll hafta remember not to be drinking anything while reading your posts... InAbLuEsTaTe Jan 2016 #190
Vote for DLCer/Clintonite Gore in the primary or Bush will win!! merrily Jan 2016 #182
Well smearing Bernie wasn't working so they needed to escalate. beam me up scottie Jan 2016 #183
Fscking with ballots next. merrily Jan 2016 #184
Hey, that's the way to get "change". Try and make people afraid to actually vote for anything newthinking Jan 2016 #95
Well said! beam me up scottie Jan 2016 #157
Report: Bloomberg Considering Independent Presidential Bid Gothmog Jan 2016 #8
He has to declare by March to be in the ballot in every state. Gman Jan 2016 #14
The primary contest will be over after Super Tuesday Gothmog Jan 2016 #26
Correct. For Clinton, it'll be all over Stoolbend Jan 2016 #83
Sanders is still polling very poorly with African American and Latino voters Gothmog Jan 2016 #100
Enjoy your "victory" Stoolbend Jan 2016 #130
Really? Gothmog Jan 2016 #197
to me it says the 1% will not relinquish their power questionseverything Jan 2016 #24
nailed it. nt restorefreedom Jan 2016 #41
In The End... Bernie Must... CorporatistNation Jan 2016 #117
Remember Wellstone and be safe, Bernie. hedda_foil Jan 2016 #165
I've been thinking about Warren for his VP. She's looking better all the time. senz Jan 2016 #166
... and that the DLC, DNC, and Turd Way concern for the 99% is pure kabuki. GoneFishin Jan 2016 #138
This is true. nt senz Jan 2016 #167
Amazing how little integrity corpocrats have. mhatrw Jan 2016 #59
Why would he think anyone would support him? nt 7962 Jan 2016 #124
Krugman has clearly been promised a cabinet position by Hillary. 99th_Monkey Jan 2016 #9
It is not just Krugman Gothmog Jan 2016 #13
Bloomberg must be secretly supporting Bernie 99th_Monkey Jan 2016 #32
hmmm. all plausible. hopemountain Jan 2016 #73
If anything ejbr Jan 2016 #90
Someone said under another OP that polls show exactly that 99th_Monkey Jan 2016 #131
100% truth. kristopher Jan 2016 #94
never thought of it that way NJCher Jan 2016 #144
I think the Hill supporters on DU might senz Jan 2016 #170
Yah but it's kinda mutual, and many of us would hold our noses .. don't ya think? nt 99th_Monkey Jan 2016 #174
Surely all 45 of them don't dislike us? merrily Jan 2016 #181
pffft. chuck todd. hopemountain Jan 2016 #33
Cough cough SwampG8r Jan 2016 #69
bravo, swampg8r! hopemountain Jan 2016 #72
Did you just come up with this from the top of your head? If so, congrats! Duval Jan 2016 #93
I did but it wrote itself SwampG8r Jan 2016 #113
Very good! mountain grammy Jan 2016 #140
Wow. That is good on all kinds of levels. senz Jan 2016 #168
Todd and fraud kind of rhyme. lob1 Jan 2016 #134
That's how I see it too. Broward Jan 2016 #16
No, sorry. Krugman as usual nails it. You want Trump Gman Jan 2016 #11
then that will be on bloomberg questionseverything Jan 2016 #27
nailed it again! nt restorefreedom Jan 2016 #45
So you'd vote for Bloomberg rather than the Democratic nominee? n/t PoliticAverse Jan 2016 #46
WTF????? Did I say that?? Gman Jan 2016 #50
So then who are these Democrats you implied would be choosing Bloomberg instead? PoliticAverse Jan 2016 #58
Notice how he disapeared as soon as you ask a legitamate question? these hillbots are too damm litlbilly Jan 2016 #88
So Sanders supporters will vote for Sanders jeff47 Jan 2016 #62
Why are you assuming absolutes? Gman Jan 2016 #159
Absolutes like if Bloomberg runs, Trump wins? jeff47 Jan 2016 #195
Yeah, everybody in the top 5% will rush to support the establishment candidate! mhatrw Jan 2016 #68
Then Trumps win lies on Bloomberg. Nobody else, just Bloomberg. Autumn Jan 2016 #126
LOL! But the far left says It wasn't on Nader that Gore lost Gman Jan 2016 #162
He's not the kind of guy who "melts." senz Jan 2016 #171
LOL yourself. The "far left" is communist and communists never concerned themselves with Nader. merrily Jan 2016 #180
Nader didn't jump in because the candidate he liked lost the nomination. Autumn Jan 2016 #194
Krugman is unhinged Rosa Luxemburg Jan 2016 #12
Hillary promised him a cabinet position is my guess. Odin2005 Jan 2016 #23
Isn't Krugman exactly the kind of economic progressive Sanders supporters would want in a cabinet? Metric System Jan 2016 #31
No. We want single payer and glass steagall, not establishment shills. nt mhatrw Jan 2016 #71
No. He's an idiot. And a horrible interview 7962 Jan 2016 #127
No. Autumn Jan 2016 #128
NO. I want someone who's worked IN the field rather than merely written about it. cherokeeprogressive Jan 2016 #143
Bloomberg Will Have To Shoulder The Full Blame... global1 Jan 2016 #17
I have confidence Hillary will be the DNC nominee so sounds like Thinkingabout Jan 2016 #18
if hc is the nominee (god forbid) questionseverything Jan 2016 #64
Maybe Bloomberg does not think Bernie is up to the task of president. Thinkingabout Jan 2016 #108
I think you may be projecting. senz Jan 2016 #173
Krugman is spot on, again. SunSeeker Jan 2016 #19
I love that meme Gothmog Jan 2016 #28
Screw him madokie Jan 2016 #20
Not surprising, for all of Krugman's posturing as being on the left... Odin2005 Jan 2016 #21
Exactly. He works for Judith Miller's NY Times. He knows who butters his bread. nt mhatrw Jan 2016 #75
+1 mountain grammy Jan 2016 #141
Why does this asshole think constantly insulting Sanders supporters is CharlotteVale Jan 2016 #22
And what gives Sanders supporter the right to insult other Democrats? Thenewire Jan 2016 #30
When did I tell him who he should vote for or blame him for another CharlotteVale Jan 2016 #54
Krugman is right, as he usually is. DanTex Jan 2016 #25
So you're voting for Bloomberg if Bernie is the nominee? RichVRichV Jan 2016 #123
Yup, that's what he's saying farleftlib Jan 2016 #139
If his economic theories are right, why aren't they being implemented all over the world? cherokeeprogressive Jan 2016 #146
Go F yourself krugman! Jenny_92808 Jan 2016 #29
Is this what Sanders supporters resort to now? Thenewire Jan 2016 #39
Where does this say he doesn't align with Sanders ideas? mhatrw Jan 2016 #78
Isn't Sanders and his supporters doing the same thing then... Thenewire Jan 2016 #85
LOL. So Sanders supporters are trying to "frighten" Clinton supporters into what? mhatrw Jan 2016 #104
If they were Old Codger Jan 2016 #129
Desperately, even! Bobbie Jo Jan 2016 #34
Not going to work. At all. NEXT! :-) djean111 Jan 2016 #35
krugman??? hopemountain Jan 2016 #38
Bunk! immoderate Jan 2016 #42
Krugman must have read my thread about him this morning. Bread and Circus Jan 2016 #43
sorry, but fuck bloomberg. restorefreedom Jan 2016 #48
Agree! Duval Jan 2016 #97
LOLZ! Now Krugman is the Democratic Establishment. It's like listening to 9 year olds KittyWampus Jan 2016 #49
or Judith Miller or Hillary Clinton or Micheal Bloomberg. Right? mhatrw Jan 2016 #79
Don't you know? Anyone who doesn't support Sanders is part of the "establishment". Beacool Jan 2016 #161
What are you going to do if Sanders wins the nomination? mhatrw Jan 2016 #172
Stick to economics, Paul. n/t lumberjack_jeff Jan 2016 #55
So? Ignore him and vote for Bernie in your primary emulatorloo Jan 2016 #56
I'm not afraid of voting for Bernie! In fact, I look forward to it! peacebird Jan 2016 #61
Golly...who knew that an economist isn't a political scientist. (nt) jeff47 Jan 2016 #65
It's worse than Krugs' flopped flip-flop on single payer. nt kristopher Jan 2016 #67
There was an alert in this thread I voted to leave it alone. JRLeft Jan 2016 #70
Yep! Duval Jan 2016 #99
So hillary supporters SwampG8r Jan 2016 #74
Loyalty oaths for Sanders' supporters. mhatrw Jan 2016 #81
they're afraid of BLOOMBERG! sing it to the mountains! they think that the party's MisterP Jan 2016 #76
Sounds to me that Krugman doesn't trust 'centrist'/third-way democrats to be faithful HereSince1628 Jan 2016 #77
What is "political troma pornography?" mcar Jan 2016 #80
I can't believe I used to like this hack jfern Jan 2016 #84
Not going to work with me. K&R Duval Jan 2016 #86
These people are trying to make me vote 3rd party in the GE. JRLeft Jan 2016 #89
Krugman lost any cred he ever had with me long ago passiveporcupine Jan 2016 #91
So Loudestlib Jan 2016 #96
I guess Krugman's call to hold those who got us into Iraq accountable was all a sham Chathamization Jan 2016 #98
Also, Krugman saying that it's wrong to say that a Democratic presidential rival has no chance: Chathamization Jan 2016 #103
not happening. Feel the BERN! nt retrowire Jan 2016 #101
I have always liked Krugman - he claims he is an FDR economist. jwirr Jan 2016 #102
How much will it cost Bloomberg to learn he hasn't a snowballs chance in hell? mikehiggins Jan 2016 #105
Yeah, right. All the Bernie-skeptics are either "desperate" or part of the "establishment." pnwmom Jan 2016 #106
He's not a Bernie-skeptic in this blog post. He is fearmongering about Bernie's coming nomination. mhatrw Jan 2016 #116
No, he's just being realistic, unlike the Bernie fan club. n/t pnwmom Jan 2016 #118
So you agree that it is realistic that most Clinton supporters will abandon the mhatrw Jan 2016 #121
Most Democrats won't defect from Sanders to Bloomberg thesquanderer Jan 2016 #107
Really? Are you sure? I think we need to gauge that with some TOS loyalty oath polls. nt mhatrw Jan 2016 #119
I have my doubts that Hillary would support Bernie if he wins. This is her last dance A Simple Game Jan 2016 #149
I'm pretty sure either of them would support the other if s/he won... thesquanderer Jan 2016 #189
The plot thickens, it always thickens when a Clinton is involved. n/t A Simple Game Jan 2016 #192
A billionaire will save us from Bernie..... neverforget Jan 2016 #115
I bet you can't say "Bloomberg Doomsday" ten times fast. Warren DeMontague Jan 2016 #120
Not. Gonna. Work. Bloomberg, you have every right to run. Do it. Autumn Jan 2016 #122
Memo to Paul: No Sale Tierra_y_Libertad Jan 2016 #125
I'm kind of disappointed in Krugman for spouting such bullshit. PatrickforO Jan 2016 #132
There's an awful big rush to put Bernie away Jarqui Jan 2016 #133
The Beltway LOVES this narrative.... Spitfire of ATJ Jan 2016 #135
If you don't vote for neoliberal Hillary Clinton the plutocrats will shove Trump down your throat! raindaddy Jan 2016 #142
So...vote for Clinton or her supporters will vote for Bloomberg? Iggo Jan 2016 #145
Why isn't it.... NCTraveler Jan 2016 #147
Good question mhatrw Jan 2016 #175
Personal instincts, more often than not. NCTraveler Jan 2016 #191
I think it was billionaires before their millionaire minions. mhatrw Jan 2016 #199
I will not let the establishment terrorize me into supporting Hillary Clinton Jack Rabbit Jan 2016 #148
Krugman can't be this stupid Bernblu Jan 2016 #150
I wonder... Agony Jan 2016 #155
No coating Truprogressive85 Jan 2016 #151
I'm confused Nanjeanne Jan 2016 #154
But wait! I just read at DU: "Breaking: Krugman endorses Single Payer and Medicare for All!!!" Hekate Jan 2016 #156
Wow. The establishment is crapping themselves so much that the believe that brining in a R. Daneel Olivaw Jan 2016 #158
I think Krugman's logic is way off. hedda_foil Jan 2016 #163
Okay I tried to finish the comments (all of which were good) but cannot stand it any longer. senz Jan 2016 #169
The Old Gray Lady likes things just as they are. nt mhatrw Jan 2016 #177
Now Krugman is "the establishment!" rjsquirrel Jan 2016 #176
All Hail Trump, Bloomberg, Clinton and Establishment Pundits! nt mhatrw Jan 2016 #178
As opposed to rjsquirrel Jan 2016 #185
I don't think I have ever made a postive post about Krugman, even if I agreed with merrily Jan 2016 #179
If this is supposed to scare me into voting for Hillary CanonRay Jan 2016 #186
The smell of Coronation Express Desperation is stronger every day. 99Forever Jan 2016 #187
Well, here's another Doomsday scenario I heard this morning on CNN Vinca Jan 2016 #188
Another billionnaire against Bernie. I'm SHOCKED, I tell you, SHOCKED. Zen Democrat Jan 2016 #193
I think he's just describing what he thinks would happen. spooky3 Jan 2016 #200
I like Krugman way better as an economist than as a political pundit. hollowdweller Jan 2016 #201
Krugman can vote Bjornsdotter Jan 2016 #202
mhatrw—Paul Krugman proved not only is he not a “liberal”…he is an enemy to those who are. CobaltBlue Jun 2016 #205

draa

(975 posts)
60. Careful Jenny.
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 08:22 PM
Jan 2016

They'll set you up with a TOS violation. They have itchy trigger fingers so be warned.

CorporatistNation

(2,546 posts)
111. Difficult To Disagree With This Assertion...
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 09:46 PM
Jan 2016

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)
198. Cop out non-answer
Sun Jan 24, 2016, 03:33 PM
Jan 2016

Where have I heard something like this before? Will you or will you not support Sanders if he wins the Democratic Presidential nomination?

mhatrw

(10,786 posts)
47. Krugman is right about what? About Third Way corpocrats willing to draft Bloomberg
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 08:14 PM
Jan 2016

because their primary concern is keeping our economy completely rigged for the top 1%?

CoffeeCat

(24,411 posts)
137. That's exactly right. And they're all friends
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 10:38 PM
Jan 2016

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)
152. Right on the money, as Hillary would say. It's Bernie's time... go Bernie go!
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 11:44 PM
Jan 2016

Bernie & Elizabeth 2016!!!

starroute

(12,977 posts)
110. Would you vote for Bloomberg if Sanders gets the nomination?
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 09:43 PM
Jan 2016

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?

Gothmog

(143,654 posts)
10. According to MSNBC, Bloomberg is waiting until March 2
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 07:54 PM
Jan 2016

If the Super Tuesday primaries go as expected, Bloomberg will not get into the race.

last1standing

(11,709 posts)
52. Agreed. That blog post removes any respect for him.
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 08:18 PM
Jan 2016

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)
92. Wouldn't be surprised.
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 09:07 PM
Jan 2016

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.

 

highprincipleswork

(3,111 posts)
6. False logic!!
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 07:52 PM
Jan 2016

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.

InAbLuEsTaTe

(24,103 posts)
153. omg, you get my vote for post of the day... seriously laughed out loud... good one!
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 11:46 PM
Jan 2016

Bernie & Elizabeth 2016!!!

InAbLuEsTaTe

(24,103 posts)
190. Yes, definitely... keep it up! I'll hafta remember not to be drinking anything while reading your posts...
Sun Jan 24, 2016, 09:45 AM
Jan 2016

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)
182. Vote for DLCer/Clintonite Gore in the primary or Bush will win!!
Sun Jan 24, 2016, 04:15 AM
Jan 2016

I call statements like that terrrorist politics. We used to do carrot and stick. Then we skipped the carrot.

Ugly stuff.

newthinking

(3,982 posts)
95. Hey, that's the way to get "change". Try and make people afraid to actually vote for anything
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 09:10 PM
Jan 2016

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.

Gothmog

(143,654 posts)
8. Report: Bloomberg Considering Independent Presidential Bid
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 07:53 PM
Jan 2016

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
 

Stoolbend

(23 posts)
83. Correct. For Clinton, it'll be all over
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 08:45 PM
Jan 2016

because her superdelegates will decide she's not worth their effort and the Clinton Machine is already damaged beyond belief.

Gothmog

(143,654 posts)
100. Sanders is still polling very poorly with African American and Latino voters
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 09:19 PM
Jan 2016

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)
130. Enjoy your "victory"
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 10:22 PM
Jan 2016

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)
197. Really?
Sun Jan 24, 2016, 01:27 PM
Jan 2016

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

CorporatistNation

(2,546 posts)
117. In The End... Bernie Must...
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 09:53 PM
Jan 2016

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)
165. Remember Wellstone and be safe, Bernie.
Sun Jan 24, 2016, 02:02 AM
Jan 2016

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)
166. I've been thinking about Warren for his VP. She's looking better all the time.
Sun Jan 24, 2016, 02:34 AM
Jan 2016

You just added another reason.

mhatrw

(10,786 posts)
59. Amazing how little integrity corpocrats have.
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 08:21 PM
Jan 2016

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.

 

99th_Monkey

(19,326 posts)
9. Krugman has clearly been promised a cabinet position by Hillary.
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 07:53 PM
Jan 2016

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)
13. It is not just Krugman
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 07:56 PM
Jan 2016

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)
32. Bloomberg must be secretly supporting Bernie
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 08:06 PM
Jan 2016

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?

 

99th_Monkey

(19,326 posts)
131. Someone said under another OP that polls show exactly that
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 10:23 PM
Jan 2016

Bloomberg draws way more from Trump than Bernie.

NJCher

(35,342 posts)
144. never thought of it that way
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 11:01 PM
Jan 2016

makes a lot of sense.

I also think you are right.

No, Hillary supporters would not flock to Bloomberg.


Cher

SwampG8r

(10,287 posts)
69. Cough cough
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 08:29 PM
Jan 2016

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

 

Duval

(4,280 posts)
93. Did you just come up with this from the top of your head? If so, congrats!
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 09:07 PM
Jan 2016

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.

 

senz

(11,945 posts)
168. Wow. That is good on all kinds of levels.
Sun Jan 24, 2016, 02:48 AM
Jan 2016


Never thought I'd find this sort of thing on DU. Makes up for wading through several hundred Hill supporter comments.

Gman

(24,780 posts)
11. No, sorry. Krugman as usual nails it. You want Trump
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 07:55 PM
Jan 2016

You get him if Bloomberg gets in. Pretty much the way it is. Any suggestion otherwise is denial.

PoliticAverse

(26,366 posts)
58. So then who are these Democrats you implied would be choosing Bloomberg instead?
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 08:21 PM
Jan 2016

And you didn't answer the question.

 

litlbilly

(2,227 posts)
88. Notice how he disapeared as soon as you ask a legitamate question? these hillbots are too damm
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 09:02 PM
Jan 2016

funny. So predictable.

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
62. So Sanders supporters will vote for Sanders
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 08:22 PM
Jan 2016

And Clinton supporters will vote for Sanders.....so who exactly is it that votes for Bloomberg, thus splitting the vote and letting Trump win?

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
195. Absolutes like if Bloomberg runs, Trump wins?
Sun Jan 24, 2016, 01:03 PM
Jan 2016

They really need to do a better job of training you before sending out to troll.

mhatrw

(10,786 posts)
68. Yeah, everybody in the top 5% will rush to support the establishment candidate!
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 08:28 PM
Jan 2016

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.

Gman

(24,780 posts)
162. LOL! But the far left says It wasn't on Nader that Gore lost
Sun Jan 24, 2016, 01:32 AM
Jan 2016

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.

merrily

(45,251 posts)
180. LOL yourself. The "far left" is communist and communists never concerned themselves with Nader.
Sun Jan 24, 2016, 04:05 AM
Jan 2016

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)
194. Nader didn't jump in because the candidate he liked lost the nomination.
Sun Jan 24, 2016, 11:30 AM
Jan 2016

Last edited Sun Jan 24, 2016, 12:06 PM - Edit history (1)

That is what Bloomberg is talking about doing. Melt?

 

7962

(11,841 posts)
127. No. He's an idiot. And a horrible interview
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 10:05 PM
Jan 2016

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

 

cherokeeprogressive

(24,853 posts)
143. NO. I want someone who's worked IN the field rather than merely written about it.
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 11:00 PM
Jan 2016

I do not see academia as work experience.

global1

(25,143 posts)
17. Bloomberg Will Have To Shoulder The Full Blame...
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 07:59 PM
Jan 2016

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)
18. I have confidence Hillary will be the DNC nominee so sounds like
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 07:59 PM
Jan 2016

Bloomberg is going to make a third party run if Cruz or Trump is the GOP nominee. Might be interesting.

questionseverything

(9,631 posts)
64. if hc is the nominee (god forbid)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 08:23 PM
Jan 2016

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

madokie

(51,076 posts)
20. Screw him
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 08:00 PM
Jan 2016

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)
21. Not surprising, for all of Krugman's posturing as being on the left...
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 08:00 PM
Jan 2016

...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.

CharlotteVale

(2,717 posts)
22. Why does this asshole think constantly insulting Sanders supporters is
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 08:00 PM
Jan 2016

going to make us do his bidding?

It just makes me more disgusted with Clinton than ever.

CharlotteVale

(2,717 posts)
54. When did I tell him who he should vote for or blame him for another
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 08:19 PM
Jan 2016

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.

RichVRichV

(885 posts)
123. So you're voting for Bloomberg if Bernie is the nominee?
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 10:01 PM
Jan 2016

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.

 

cherokeeprogressive

(24,853 posts)
146. If his economic theories are right, why aren't they being implemented all over the world?
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 11:05 PM
Jan 2016

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.

Thenewire

(130 posts)
39. Is this what Sanders supporters resort to now?
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 08:10 PM
Jan 2016

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)
78. Where does this say he doesn't align with Sanders ideas?
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 08:38 PM
Jan 2016

He is desperately trying to frighten his readers into voting for Clinton no matter whose ideas they support.

Thenewire

(130 posts)
85. Isn't Sanders and his supporters doing the same thing then...
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 08:59 PM
Jan 2016

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)
104. LOL. So Sanders supporters are trying to "frighten" Clinton supporters into what?
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 09:26 PM
Jan 2016

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.

hopemountain

(3,919 posts)
38. krugman???
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 08:10 PM
Jan 2016

bwhahaha. oogiebooie. the peasants have awakened to their power, paul. whether bernie or hillary wins the primary, trump will still loose in the general.

restorefreedom

(12,655 posts)
48. sorry, but fuck bloomberg.
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 08:15 PM
Jan 2016

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

 

KittyWampus

(55,894 posts)
49. LOLZ! Now Krugman is the Democratic Establishment. It's like listening to 9 year olds
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 08:16 PM
Jan 2016

edit- Krugman is as much Establishment as Sanders, I suppose.

LOLZ

Beacool

(30,243 posts)
161. Don't you know? Anyone who doesn't support Sanders is part of the "establishment".
Sun Jan 24, 2016, 01:31 AM
Jan 2016

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)
172. What are you going to do if Sanders wins the nomination?
Sun Jan 24, 2016, 03:22 AM
Jan 2016

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?

SwampG8r

(10,287 posts)
74. So hillary supporters
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 08:34 PM
Jan 2016

Are ok with a nader scenario?
One more piece of moral high ground given up by the conservadems in support of hillary.

MisterP

(23,730 posts)
76. they're afraid of BLOOMBERG! sing it to the mountains! they think that the party's
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 08:37 PM
Jan 2016

so feeble that BLOOMBERG would calve off enough "centrist" votes and make Sanders lose

THEY'RE AFRAID OF BLOOMBERG

HereSince1628

(36,063 posts)
77. Sounds to me that Krugman doesn't trust 'centrist'/third-way democrats to be faithful
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 08:37 PM
Jan 2016

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)
80. What is "political troma pornography?"
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 08:41 PM
Jan 2016

And please supply a current list of good liberals that DU now hates. I'm having a hard time keeping up. Thanks.

Loudestlib

(980 posts)
96. So
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 09:11 PM
Jan 2016

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)
98. I guess Krugman's call to hold those who got us into Iraq accountable was all a sham
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 09:12 PM
Jan 2016
Less than a year ago:

But many influential people — not just Mr. Bush — would prefer that we not have that discussion. There’s a palpable sense right now of the political and media elite trying to draw a line under the subject. Yes, the narrative goes, we now know that invading Iraq was a terrible mistake, and it’s about time that everyone admits it. Now let’s move on.
...
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 doesn’t 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 it’s 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)
103. Also, Krugman saying that it's wrong to say that a Democratic presidential rival has no chance:
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 09:25 PM
Jan 2016
From 2004:

It's true that if Mr. Dean gets the nomination, the Republicans will attack him as a wild-eyed liberal who is weak on national security. But they would do the same to any Democrat -- even Joseph Lieberman. Facts, or the lack thereof, will prove no obstacle: remember the successful attacks on the patriotism of Max Cleland, who lost three limbs in Vietnam, or the Saddam-Daschle ads.

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?

jwirr

(39,215 posts)
102. I have always liked Krugman - he claims he is an FDR economist.
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 09:25 PM
Jan 2016

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)
105. How much will it cost Bloomberg to learn he hasn't a snowballs chance in hell?
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 09:26 PM
Jan 2016

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.

mhatrw

(10,786 posts)
116. He's not a Bernie-skeptic in this blog post. He is fearmongering about Bernie's coming nomination.
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 09:52 PM
Jan 2016

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.

mhatrw

(10,786 posts)
121. So you agree that it is realistic that most Clinton supporters will abandon the
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 09:58 PM
Jan 2016

Democratic party to vote for a financial empire multibillionaire if Clinton is not the nominee?

thesquanderer

(11,937 posts)
107. Most Democrats won't defect from Sanders to Bloomberg
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 09:31 PM
Jan 2016

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.

A Simple Game

(9,214 posts)
149. I have my doubts that Hillary would support Bernie if he wins. This is her last dance
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 11:10 PM
Jan 2016

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)
189. I'm pretty sure either of them would support the other if s/he won...
Sun Jan 24, 2016, 09:34 AM
Jan 2016

...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...

neverforget

(9,433 posts)
115. A billionaire will save us from Bernie.....
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 09:50 PM
Jan 2016


Billionaire Bloomberg.....

The wealthy are definitely afraid.

Go Bernie!

PatrickforO

(14,479 posts)
132. I'm kind of disappointed in Krugman for spouting such bullshit.
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 10:23 PM
Jan 2016

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)
133. There's an awful big rush to put Bernie away
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 10:27 PM
Jan 2016

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)
135. The Beltway LOVES this narrative....
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 10:37 PM
Jan 2016

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)
142. If you don't vote for neoliberal Hillary Clinton the plutocrats will shove Trump down your throat!
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 10:57 PM
Jan 2016

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)
145. So...vote for Clinton or her supporters will vote for Bloomberg?
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 11:03 PM
Jan 2016

How DARE he accuse fine democrats of going PUMA.

The nerve!

 

NCTraveler

(30,481 posts)
147. Why isn't it....
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 11:06 PM
Jan 2016

"Bloomberg is basically Hillary Clinton in a suit?"

Instead of "Hillary Clinton is basically Blookmberg in drag."

 

NCTraveler

(30,481 posts)
191. Personal instincts, more often than not.
Sun Jan 24, 2016, 09:49 AM
Jan 2016

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)
199. I think it was billionaires before their millionaire minions.
Sun Jan 24, 2016, 03:40 PM
Jan 2016

But that was really classist of me.

Jack Rabbit

(45,984 posts)
148. I will not let the establishment terrorize me into supporting Hillary Clinton
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 11:08 PM
Jan 2016

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.

Agony

(2,605 posts)
155. I wonder...
Sun Jan 24, 2016, 12:13 AM
Jan 2016

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)
151. No coating
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 11:41 PM
Jan 2016

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)
154. I'm confused
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 11:49 PM
Jan 2016

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)
156. But wait! I just read at DU: "Breaking: Krugman endorses Single Payer and Medicare for All!!!"
Sun Jan 24, 2016, 12:14 AM
Jan 2016

So is he evil or is he not? So confused.

 

R. Daneel Olivaw

(12,606 posts)
158. Wow. The establishment is crapping themselves so much that the believe that brining in a
Sun Jan 24, 2016, 01:25 AM
Jan 2016

one of the billionaire class will save the day?

These guys are fucking cracked.

hedda_foil

(16,362 posts)
163. I think Krugman's logic is way off.
Sun Jan 24, 2016, 01:49 AM
Jan 2016

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)
169. Okay I tried to finish the comments (all of which were good) but cannot stand it any longer.
Sun Jan 24, 2016, 03:08 AM
Jan 2016

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&quot ? 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.

merrily

(45,251 posts)
179. I don't think I have ever made a postive post about Krugman, even if I agreed with
Sun Jan 24, 2016, 03:46 AM
Jan 2016

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.



Vinca

(50,150 posts)
188. Well, here's another Doomsday scenario I heard this morning on CNN
Sun Jan 24, 2016, 09:31 AM
Jan 2016

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)
193. Another billionnaire against Bernie. I'm SHOCKED, I tell you, SHOCKED.
Sun Jan 24, 2016, 10:36 AM
Jan 2016

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)
200. I think he's just describing what he thinks would happen.
Sun Jan 24, 2016, 04:07 PM
Jan 2016

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.

Bjornsdotter

(6,123 posts)
202. Krugman can vote
Sun Jan 24, 2016, 04:12 PM
Jan 2016

...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.

 

CobaltBlue

(1,122 posts)
205. mhatrw—Paul Krugman proved not only is he not a “liberal”…he is an enemy to those who are.
Sun Jun 5, 2016, 10:10 AM
Jun 2016
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Krugman Desperately Invok...