Krugman: Sanders campaign needs to stop feeding the right-wing disinformation machine

[bigtree]

Paul Krugman @paulkrugman
Feel the Math http://nyti.ms/21X4Dbb

...at this point it’s something like a 90 percent probability that Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee. Anyone denying that arithmetic is basically pulling a con job on Sanders supporters...

First, the Sanders campaign needs to stop feeding the right-wing disinformation machine. Engaging in innuendo suggesting, without evidence, that Clinton is corrupt is, at this point, basically campaigning on behalf of the RNC. If Sanders really believes, as he says, that it’s all-important to keep the White House out of Republican hands, he should stop all that – and tell his staff to stop it too.

Second, it’s time for Sanders to engage in some citizenship. The presidency isn’t the only office on the line; down-ballot races for the Senate and even the House are going to be crucial. Clinton has been raising money for other races; Sanders hasn’t, and is still being evasive on whether he will ever do so. Not acceptable.

Oh, and the Sanders campaign is saying that it will try to flip superdelegates even if it loses the unpledged delegates and the popular vote. Remember when evil Hillary was going to use superdelegates to steal the nomination? Double standards aside, what makes the campaign think that he will get any backing from a party he refuses to lift a finger to help?

It’s important to realize that there are some real conflicts of interest here. For Sanders campaign staff, and also for anyone who has been backing his insurgency, it’s been one heck of a ride, and they would understandably like it to go on as long as possible. But we’ve now reached the point where what’s fun for the campaign isn’t at all the same as what’s good for America.

Sanders doesn’t need to drop out, but he needs to start acting responsibly.


read more: http://nyti.ms/21X4Dbb

[DCBob]

1. I can hear Trump right now during a debate...

Last edited Sat Apr 2, 2016, 07:55 AM - Edit history (1)

"Even people in your own party called you corrupt and a liar!"

Thanks Bernie.

[peacebird]

6. She was being called a liar long before Bernie. Because she gets caught LYING so often perhaps?

And the corruption is also on HER for engaging in practices that look and smell corrupt, and even if they ultimately are found to be legal, like accepting huge donations for the Clinton foundation from foreign govts who were then awarded weapons purchases from her State Dept.

[Gomez163]

9. The state department doesn't award weapons purchases. Stop lying.

[rachacha]

14. Oh really? Better tell these guys.

Mother Jones, May 2015: Hillary Clinton Oversaw US Arms Deals to Clinton Foundation Donors

BBC, November 2015: US State Department approves Saudi Arabia arms sale

United States Defense Security Cooperation Agency: List of Major Arms Sales

[dragonfly301]

20. +1 you beat me to it

Just went searching for the links - really should bookmark because it comes up often.

[Sunlei]

45. Our Congress has the final approval of all those sales.

[beedle]

59. Is that the same congress

that Clinton raises money for?

Special interests -> Clinton -> other politicians: legal money laundering.

The establishment just doesn't get it. They look at people who are not corrupt, and are seen not to be corrupt, as 'the problem'.

[Sunlei]

61. That's our Federal Gov., elected by the American people. Tearing them down like a Republican does no

nothing.

[beedle]

76. Tearing them down?

Stop propping them up.

[kristopher]

132. "the opinions of lower-income groups ... have little or no independent impact on policy"

Easy to read popular press coverage:
APRIL 18, 2014
Is America an Oligarchy?
BY JOHN CASSIDY

From the Dept. of Academics Confirming Something You Already Suspected comes a new study concluding that rich people and organizations representing business interests have a powerful grip on U.S. government policy. After examining differences in public opinion across income groups on a wide variety of issues, the political scientists Martin Gilens, of Princeton, and Benjamin Page, of Northwestern, found that the preferences of rich people had a much bigger impact on subsequent policy decisions than the views of middle-income and poor Americans. Indeed, the opinions of lower-income groups, and the interest groups that represent them, appear to have little or no independent impact on policy...

.
http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/is-america-an-oligarchy


And a copy of the original study:

Sept 2014 journal "Perspectives on Politics"
Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens
Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page

ABSTRACT
Each of four theoretical traditions in the study of American politics—which can be characterized as theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy, Economic-Elite Domination, and two types of interest-group pluralism, Majoritarian Pluralism and Biased Pluralism—offers different predictions about which sets of actors have how much influence over public policy: average citizens; economic elites; and organized interest groups, mass-based or business-oriented.
A great deal of empirical research speaks to the policy influence of one or another set of actors, but until recently it has not been possible to test these contrasting theoretical predictions against each other within a single statistical model. We report on an effort to do so, using a unique data set that includes measures of the key variables for 1,779 policy issues.
Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence. The results provide substantial support for theories of Economic-Elite Domination and for theories of Biased Pluralism, but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy or Majoritarian Pluralism.

In case anyone doesn't want to read the entire thing, here's the last paragraph of their findings:

Despite the seemingly strong empirical support in previous studies for theories of majoritarian democracy, our analyses suggest that majorities of the American public actually have little influence over the policies our government adopts. Americans do enjoy many features central to democratic governance, such as regular elections, freedom of speech and association, and a wide-spread (if still contested) franchise. But we believe that if policymaking is dominated by powerful business organizations and a small number of affluent Americans, then America’s claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened.

https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf

"...America’s claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened."

[Sunlei]

71. Yes,our Diplomats & our Federal Gov. are supposted to work in concert when we deal w/other countries

much harder when so many of our 'elected' are oath signers and obstructionists.

[Gomez163]

83. Along with other departments and people. To say Hillary alone

gets to decide who gets these contracts is a smear and a deliberate distortion.

[DCBob]

16. She is not corrupt or a liar.

She has been a target by RW media for decades and they have created this perception and its totally unfair. What's unfortunate is that Bernie has now joined them in the bogus attacks. Its sickening.

[Herman4747]

23. Okay, then was it the Bernie Campaign that produced this:

Do explain how everything in the video is "bogus." Go on, I dare you.

As to corruption, do consider the following:



As we know, Hillary told Goldman Sachs something that Goldman Sachs thought was worth $675,000. Hillary refuses to let us know what she told Goldman Sachs.

SHE HAS SOMETHING TO HIDE!!!

[DCBob]

31. Hillary has made a few mistakes in her 4 decades in public service.

Those who are perfect may cast stones.

[bahrbearian]

36. Iraq War, Honduras, Libya ,Syria, .... Those are big mistakes, I mean Stones.

Who else could throw stones like that? I can only think of one person.

[DCBob]

102. All of those situations are complex and have no clear cut right or wrong answer.

For example most Senators voted with Hillary on Iraq including John Kerry, Joe Biden and John Edwards. It was wrong but it was not a clear yes or no situation back then.

[bahrbearian]

103. I thought it pretty clear that we were being lied to. So did Millions protesting.

To a Hammer everything is a nail, loose the hammer and we won't have the blow-back.

[DCBob]

104. I was one of those millions protesting..

but I do understand that for many Senate Democrats it was a difficult decision.

[Jennylynn]

96. Oh for Cripes sake!

No one can believe a freakin' word that comes out of her mouth! How can we? Isn't something like this a 'syndrome'?

I knew Obama gave her the SoS position to enable her to achieve some Foreign Policy experience and she can't even do THAT w/o having to lie about something. WTH?

[liberalmike27]

27. F__K Paul Krugmann

Here is a guy who wrote articles for years acting as if he was concerned with the wealth disparity, then when he had a chance to support someone, who was actually going to do something about it? Who did he endorse.

I'm proud to say, I've not read a single word he's written, since he endorsed the neo-liberal, near-republican, Third Way, republicanized Democrat, Hillary Clinton.

I can't read a guy who pretends to be concerned, then when he has a chance, stabs everything he's written about in the back. Or maybe it was just a mistaken perception of mine, that I assumed from him writing about it, that he actually cared. If that's the case, then my bad.

Still...the guy is dead to me.

[DCBob]

30. Another good Democrat thrown under the bus.

Its getting ridiculous.. like no one is good enough for you people.

[pangaia]

63. Oh stop with the bus shit.

Krugman is doing exactly what Liberal Mike says..

Dr. Paul had me fooled as well.

[Nonhlanhla]

70. Has it ever occurred to you folks that Bernie has feet of clay?

And that many good progressives can see it, even while y'all are blinded by admiration for him?

If you need to throw so many good progressives on the bus to defend just ONE man, then perhaps the fault lies with the one man, and not with the many?

Krugman has provided excellent reasons why he does not think Bernie offers a viable forward for the progressive cause. Many exemplary leaders of minority communities in this country, the very communities that have always been the vanguard of progressivism in this country's history, people like Dolores Huerta and John Lewis; and people like Rachel Maddow, one of the few truly progressive people in the media; and people like Paul Krugman, one of the outstanding thinkers of the left. All discarded by so-called progressives because they do not share in Bernie fandom.

That should make you think...

[mythology]

89. That's unfair

It's just those who don't fawn over Bernie Sanders that aren't good enough for some Sanders supporters.

[BirdieSanders]

51. +11111101010101010

[pangaia]

60. No. her lies are all over , oh how about YOU-YUBE!!

[2pooped2pop]

78. I'm still waiting for her to get caught telling the truth.

[Armstead]

85. And I can hear Trump in a debate with Bernie....

"Even people in your own party said you support repressive communist dictatorships and your goals are financially irresponsible and not realistic."

Thanks Hillary

[DCBob]

90. When did Hillary say he supported repressive communist dictatorships?

Regardless you won't need to worry about your scenario ever happening.

[Armstead]

95. You cute little end dig not withstanding....

Watch (or read) her responses in the Florida debate. Also listen to her surrogate, Miami Beach Mayor, who repeated it at least twice.

These were NOT unambiguous hints, they were outright accusations based on lies and distortions.

Along with her misleading claims that sanders wants to trash Obamacare instantly and put states in charge of healthcare.

Shall I continue with the lies she and her supporters have made to provide fodder? Naw, not enough time.

It's called "sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander."

[DCBob]

100. No dig.. just a reality check.

[Armstead]

101. Reality does not stop at the nomination

[CorporatistNation]

108. As We Well Know TRUTH Especially When It Comes To The History of Hillary Is A FOUR Lettter Word!

Krugman needs to go sit in his office and decide WHO he wants to be remembered as...

Two videos where that nasty Four letter word of TRUTH is being spoken with clarity...

[DCBob]

111. Good grief, the "predator" nonsense again.

[whatchamacallit]

2. Krugman can piss off

[Cali_Democrat]

5. What a powerful, articulate, and well-thought-out post.

How do you do it?

I wish DUers were more like you.

DU would be a much better place.

[liberalmike27]

28. See

My post above--it is a more wordy version of what he said.

[Jitter65]

3. Children don't like to be admonished.

[Hortensis]

4. Krugman also feels Sanders's finance and healthcare

plans are fundamentally severely flawed. As he says, Sanders has had a good run and done the nation real service, but now he needs to pivot to focus on the good of the nation.

Krugman on finance: Sanders has made restoring Glass-Steagal and breaking up the big banks the be-all and end-all of his program. That sounds good, but it’s nowhere near solving the real problems. The core of what went wrong in 2008 was the rise of shadow banking; too big to fail was at best marginal, and as Mike Konczal notes, pushing the big banks out of shadow banking, on its own, could make the problem worse by causing the risky stuff to “migrate elsewhere, often to places where there is less regulatory infrastructure.”

What I and most of my wonk friends would like to see is what the late Robert Heilbroner used to call Slightly Imaginary Sweden — or these days, maybe Diversified Denmark. That is, a strong social safety net that protects everyone against avoidable misery, workers with substantial bargaining power, strong environmental policy; not an equalized society, not a Utopia, but someplace where basic decency is a fundamental principle.

But nothing like that is going to happen in America any time soon.

... the radical changes Bernie Sanders is proposing wouldn’t happen even if Democrats retook the House. O’Brien says that the Democratic primary is “like arguing what’s more real: a magical unicorn or a regular unicorn. In either case, you’re still running on a unicorn platform.”

[Armstead]

15. Krugman rewrites history and echoes the "give up, nothing can improve" argument.

"Sanders has made restoring Glass-Steagal and breaking up the big banks the be-all and end-all of his program."

No it is one part of his program.


"too big to fail was at best marginal,"

Gee I seem to remember economists, and officials and bankers and analysts and bankers of all stripes saying that the crux of the collapse and bailout om 2008-2009 was the fact that we had to prop up these big financial institutions BECAUSE they were "too biog to fail" and would take the economy down with them.

"That is, a strong social safety net that protects everyone against avoidable misery, workers with substantial bargaining power, strong environmental policy; not an equalized society, not a Utopia, but someplace where basic decency is a fundamental principle. But nothing like that is going to happen in America any time soon. "

It sure as hell isn't going to happen if everyone says it will never happen, as though we are a nation of chained whipped dogs with no opportunity for escape. If we as a society don't demand better we'll continue to get worse.

[Hortensis]

41. NOT drop out. Run the clean, positive campaign

he promised in the first place. That is appropriate. It is also appropriate for his supporters. Not a single Hillary supporter has been converted to Sanders by insulting them, so maybe switch to insulting GOP CANDIDATES and see what you can do there. Leave GOP voters alone, tho.

[dchill]

56. "Run the clean, positive campaign..."

And Hillary will do that, when?

More projection.

[pinebox]

62. Define "clean positive campaign" please

Because calling out Hillary on her record with facts isn't being dirty, sorry.
You want dirt, look across to the other side. That's dirty.

[Hortensis]

66. It is counterproductive, however, to pretend working

legally within a corrupt system has to mean she is guilty of gross corruption herself. If you want to elect Republicans, you should take yourself elsewhere. You won't convert anyone who isn't already with you here.

[pinebox]

68. Erm

Who said anything about Republicans? You eluded to Bernie not running a positive campaign so I imquired. Not sure what you're talking about.

[Nay]

47. "someplace where basic decency is a fundamental principle." Well, the

country we are in will NEVER be a place where that happens as long as predatory capitalism is allowed to decimate the population. That's the problem. And once predatory capitalism is as entrenched as it is, only massive dislocations will shake it loose. You can't expect the population to be nice while they are fighting for scraps to stay alive.

[Hortensis]

64. You forget, our liberal and moderate-conservative

progressive grandparents did it the old-fashioned democratic way - they voted it for themselves at the polls by putting people like them in office, FDR the one in the Oval Office. The only "massive dislocations" were of so few wealthy people no one else noticed their pain - once their yelling stopped. Only gain for the people, and, for better or worse, even the rich stayed relatively wealthy, most of them, but definitely leashed.

[Nay]

84. Oh, I haven't forgotten. But people back then put the fear of God into

rich people with violent strikes, union activism, and, frankly, a fairly active American socialist contingent, and fiery speakers who spread those socialist ideas. Now we not only have none of that, we also have a massive surveillance state supported by both Dems and Pubs. Add to that the voter suppression, computer voting machines that flip votes, and an uninformed populace (thanks to the news orgs who are all bought off), we have little power in this situation. It's a very different situation that will need a different response. I just don't know what that would be yet.

[chervilant]

7. Yawn...

I used to like Krugman...

[livetohike]

8. Sanders could care less as long as his

ego is being stroked. Once that stops, he will go back to being that grumpy guy in the Senate.

[Gomez163]

10. BUT HE HAS YUUUUGE CROWDS!!#!#!#!

[Sunlei]

72. I think it's a huge positive for Ds, Sanders has engaged a group where 80% typically don't vote.

[Herman4747]

19. Hillary's the one with the big ego...

...she's got you saying, "I'm with her!", right?
It's all about her.

[livetohike]

21. Interesting take. I see it as I support her. Bernie told the crowd that

The bird landing on his podium was a SIGN. He is delusional.

[Herman4747]

26. The emphasis is on: you supporting her...

rather than her supporting you and the rest of the country.

Again, it's all about her.

[liberalmike27]

29. Sanders, with the "Ego?"

This is spot-on Hillary. It is exactly the opposite of the truth, much like Hillary having more experience, Hillary people being the kind ones, Hillary being the ones who are not sexist are racist, all the opposite of the truth.

But that's a classic strategy isn't it? Accuse your opponent of your own shortcomings before they can? Then when they do it just sounds like a "no you are," childlike response.

Classic Clinton--and as Thom Hartmann says "I think she does herself harm, to keep using scorched Earth policy and accusations on Sanders, and his followers."

[pinebox]

65. Yes because that is what this is all about, Bernie's ego

Seems like an ego moment to me.




It's hilarious that you and your ilk try to slam Bernie while he represents what Dems are supposed to be; compassionate and caring about their fellow man. He's fought long and hard for the average Joe. Think about it.

[Broward]

11. Krugman is in the tank for a right-winger.

[redstateblues]

134. that's uninformed ignorant statement

Hillary was one of the most liberal senators in Congress. You don't know what you are talking about

[Armstead]

12. Krugman needs to stop feeding the right wing disinformation machine

[joeybee12]

13. Big KNR

But the echo chamber will chime in with their altered view of reality.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

17. Krugman needs to read his books about the Great Compression and The Conscience of a Liberal.

Great stuff!

[Surya Gayatri]

18. Enormous K & R. Thanks for posting.

[ibegurpard]

22. Krugman,

Along with many politicians and pundits I used to respect, has thrown his own reputation under the bus with his obstinate support for a candidate whose own record does not line up with much of Krugman's past opinions.

[Gothmog]

24. Prof Krugman is right once again

[Armstead]

25. right wing

[DCBob]

33. Good grief.. now Krugman is right wing??

That's just complete nonsense.

[Armstead]

35. I'll admit it was a cheap shot in response to Krufgman's cheap shot.

Professor Krugman has every right to prefer and endorse Clinton if he wants to.

But his conservative attacks on sanders and his supporters is deserving of critical response.

I say conservative because he is among those who are batting down an attempt to bring truly liberal reform on issues of the economy and concentration of power. He his condescension reflects the same "let's not ever rock the boat" tone of the entrenched elites and their attacks on ponies and rainbows. He has become very disappointing in his shallowness.

And it's now "Okay Bernie. Now it's time for you and your cute little supporters to come inside and eat your broccoli" as if there is no primary left.

Naw Sanders and "the kids" and his many older followers are going to keep pointing out what's wrong, instead of prematurely "falling in line" and blindly endorsing things we disagree with.

[redstateblues]

135. You should be embarrassed making that statement

[Armstead]

137. Not om the least, considering the needlessly nasty things Krugman's been saying

[Depaysement]

32. Stick to economics Professor

Nothing the campaign is doing is "right-wing" or "disinformation." What bullshit. And I'm tired of the "race is over" meme. It is undemocratic and is tantamount to an attempt to disenfranchise voters.

The call for "citizenship" and "what's good for America" is laughable. As an aside, we are the United States not "America." That makes Krugman sound like an old imperialist tool.

It is his candidate who should exercise some citizenship and stop shilling for the rich and powerful, pay to play under the guise of charity, raking in tens of millions doing their bidding.

It is his candidate who should exercise some citizenship and stop shilling for the neo-con elite who look to invade everywhere, killing thousands while their kith and kin are ensconced comfortably in their pretty homes.

This article is Krugman honking for Hillary. What a disgrace.

[uponit7771]

39. Yeap it is and the race is over. Bern Victims (tm) will realize they've been duped when Tads Reddit

... account is exposed

[Depaysement]

40. So "expose" it

What are you waiting for?

[uponit7771]

42. Timing is everything

[Depaysement]

46. What bullshit

You got nothin' but a hacked Hillary email server and a troll account.

[frylock]

124. Sounds super serial

[Bluenorthwest]

34. Here is a misinformation machine running at full speed in praise of the right wing:

Camp Clinton does not want to discuss that. What it says about the candidate and what it says about themselves. Hard to blame them really. It's brutal stuff.

[uponit7771]

38. No worse than Sanders lobbying for Wall Street money funnelling it through the DCCC for his

... campaigns

[Bluenorthwest]

74. Give it a rest. You are making things up, I'm quoting your candidate's highly detailed set of lies

about the role of the Reagans in the early days of the AIDS crisis. She lavishly praises them for doing the exact things they are hated for not doing. She denies their villainy and erases the true history of the times.
In reality by the time Reagan even said the word AIDS out loud about 40,000 Americans had died.

What she falsely claimed:

"It may be hard for your viewers to remember how difficult it was for people to talk about HIV/AIDS back in the 1980s and because of both president and Mrs. Reagan — in particular Mrs. Reagan — we started a national conversation, when before nobody would talk about it, nobody wanted to do anything about it, and that too is something I really appreciate with her very effective low-key advocacy. It penetrated the public conscience and people began to say, hey, we have to do something about this too."

The fact that Hillary is so unaware of the basic history of her own lifetime along with the fact that her supporters do not seem to mind such horrific demonstrations of ignorance needs to be discussed.

Note the extravagant way she gilds that lily for Reagan. Others don't remember correctly she claims she does, she uses specific words about these actions they never took, makes exacting claims that are expressly false. Millions of Americans were in the streets calling for action, Hillary claims nobody but Ron and Nancy wanted to talk about it. Obscene. Obscene.

Of course such bigoted views go a long way in explaining her opposition to marriage equality.

[uponit7771]

105. Sanders DID lobby banks to give money to DCC which he took for his campaigns

...this is a known known.

[uponit7771]

37. That's 90% of what they got!!!

[Jefferson23]

43. lol Look in the mirror Krugman before you have the balls to ask anyone to act responsibly.

Krugman and the Gang of Four Need to Apologize for Smearing Gerald Friedman
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-k-black/krugman-and-the-gang-of-4_b_9286520.html

Bill Black: Krugman Triples Down on His Smear of Friedman and Bernie
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/02/bill-black-krugman-triples-down-on-his-smear-of-friedman-and-bernie.html


Too bad for you, Krugman..it's not over yet and your candidate is responsible for her
conduct..he thinks no one knew her record before Bernie ran? LOL

[beedle]

79. ^^^This

If someone wants to talk about Krugman's criticism of Sanders and haven't read the articles at those links, then they are doing exactly what Krugman has done ... ignore Krugman's own economic models in favor of emotional baffle-gab.

[kristopher]

133. +1 and a thank you.

[Autumn]

44. Love the smell of desperation in the morning

It's so invigorating.

[bigtree]

48. Krugman's desperate?

...really?

[Autumn]

49. Yeah, him too

[bigtree]

52. he doesn't sound desperate

...he sounds pretty confident here:

...at this point it’s something like a 90 percent probability that Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee. Anyone denying that arithmetic is basically pulling a con job on Sanders supporters.

[Autumn]

58. Guess it all depends on your perspective and who you are looking at.

[Demsrule86]

126. He is desperately afraid...

That Sanders will help a GOP win with his nonsense...he needs to stop...losing all respect for him.

[Autumn]

128. Well you don't need to be afraid. Bernie will win and you can't lose what you never had.

[ucrdem]

50. Paul gets it.

Unfortunately Bernie doesn't.

[cosmicone]

53. He is running a sleazy campaign and it needs to stop. n/t

[noretreatnosurrender]

54. Krugman

Listen everyone...Paul Krugman is wagging his finger...Listen.

[whirlygigspin]

55. Law of Projection

poor Paul, he's so misunderstood

[RazBerryBeret]

57. forget Bernie

just go back to 2008, there's enough real information there to feed the right wing throughout her campaign.
Just check youtube, it's all there. the young folks have all found it.

[katsy]

67. I don't remember an election where the candidates

didn't tear one another apart.

Yea... Remember the pix of Obama dressed in, I can't remember which country's traditional costume... Thanks to Hillary's henchmen.

Get over it. Rise above it. Show some strength you fucking babies!!!!

And fuck you krugman. You know damn well this election cycle between Hillary and Bernie is almost too fucking boring given the fireworks on the other side.

[bigtree]

75. this is where the Sanders revolution fails most Democrats

...and it's reflected at the polls.

Voters grow weary of primary campaigns which do little but focus their message against their Democratic rival. There's a disconnect in the cutthroat strategy the Sanders campaign is waging as they struggle to regain their net loss of delegates between their zeal to discredit Hillary and the appetite of most Democrats for that sort of political cannibalism.

It's not a winning strategy, as their own negatives rise with each point they imagine they've scored. Moreover, it does nothing to assuage the anxiety voters feel about their own interests which are obligingly overshadowed in coverage by these petty political attacks. They are not going to allow Sanders to gain the ground he needs and they are counterproductive to any effort which is serious about defeating the republican nominee in the fall.

[katsy]

80. It's typical primary season. No it's more

subdued than any ither primary season I've experienced.

Finger wagging at either of our candidates is not something I engage in. Neither is cutting the democratic process short.

All the rest is partisan bullshit.

I enjoy our candidates. I enjoy democracy in action. Even the messiness.

Voters aren't fucking babies. They'll get on with business. I hate fucking "safe zones" and the ignorant infantalizing (if that's a word) of our voters. This is election season. Our candidates aren't fucking cowards. Let them defend their fucking records. If there's something there that dooms one of them TOUGH SHIT. Deal with it. Better to get it all out now because the republicans got all the dirt anyway.

Pundits that call for less scrutiny are cowardly, manipulative, fucking assholes.

[bigtree]

86. I think we could use a lot less confrontational politics from them at this point in the primary

...if that's the way forward, that's going to be the focus of the coverage.

I think voters are looking for leadership, not a food fight. They want to hear how these candidates are going to address their concerns, not the latest political attack.

Besides, the party is going to need to come together at some point to defeat the republican nominee. That's something most Democrats understand and appreciate. At some point the 'fun' for you folks becomes corrosive to that effort.

[katsy]

97. Both our candidates are leaders.

Primary season is the ultimate vetting process.

You can bet the republicans aren't going to be civilized.

Primary season isn't fun. It's disinfecting.

[bigtree]

99. I don't think anyone benefits from encouraging the corrosive brand of politics coming from that side

...and the reaction it generates from the folks these candidates intend to influence and lead, much less from emulating it.

It's always best to not lose sight of what the voters are asking for. Attacking records doesn't rank very high on their list of priorities, especially Democrats feeding on their own.

The Sanders campaign has overestimated most Democrats' appetite for 'revolution,' especially in the ebbing months of a successful, two-term, popular, Democratic presidency.

[katsy]

106. You aren't being honest with yourself.

Bernie has accomplished more than anyone could have imagined. And he speaks to a healthy %-age of democratic voters.

I'm not going all paternalistic on our voters. You are. I don't presume to speak for democratic voters. If they disapprove of Bernie's run... He'll crash. If voters want him to continue his uphill fight... He will.

Be brave bigtree... Democracy will find a way. LOL just look at kasich go with 5% ROFL

[bigtree]

109. lol

...now you're questioning my integrity.

That's how revolution works when it's waged against your own party. Not very inspiring.

[riversedge]

77. Sanders will do or say anything to win and to get his donors to ante up again.

Three Pinnochios for @BernieSanders Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire



https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/04/02/fact-checking-the-clinton-sanders-spat-over-big-oil-contributions/?hpid=hp_hp-cards_hp-card-politics%3Ahomepage%2Fcard

[beedle]

81. Oh yeah, the WP

and another hit piece.

The reason they gave it 3 Pinnochios is because they basically took SuperPACs off the table.

The most important factor in money corrupting politics and WP says' "Meh, ignore it".

If these SuperPACs are so unimportant, so meaningless, then Clinton should do like Sanders has done and refuse to allow them to operate in her name at all.

[bigtree]

93. they're no more relevant than the right-wing pacs spending money against Hillary in this primary

...in every important state, often with identical messages.

In fact, Sanders has outspent Hillary in several of the states where she won in a blowout. Conversely, most of the money Hillary has raised is in reserve to be spent against republicans in the general election.

What Sanders is arguing for is actually for Clinton to unilaterally disarm her campaign against the eventual republican rival. The money is just not going to be as much about Bernie, as it's about the fall campaign.



https://twitter.com/AlwaysThinkHow/status/716290446608244736

[beedle]

110. unilaterally disarm?

You mean like Bernie did?

You mean disarm from allowing elites to monopolize all access to you?

Disarm from spending 40% of your time in congress calling big donors begging for money (and supposedly telling them not to expect anything in return, or ) instead of doing you real job?

Some people have had quite enough of using "the Republicans do it" as a guideline for ethical behavior.

[bigtree]

122. he'd be far short of what he needs in the general

...especially blowing it all on this primary almost as fast as he raises it.

The rest is just puffed-up nonsense out of your biased imagination.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

82. Hillary and Wall Street aren't "Good for America".

[Broward]

98. At least this campaign is exposing the faux liberals from the genuine ones.

Krugman is clearly the former.

[LexVegas]

87. Krugman speaks truth. nt

[SidDithers]

88. They won't...nt

Sid

[mcar]

91. Thank you, Paul Krugman!

[reformist2]

107. Anyone denying Hillary is corrupt, is pulling a con-job on voters...

[baldguy]

115. Anyone claiming Hillary is corrupt is a tool of the fascist VRWC.

Either witting or unwitting.

[CTyankee]

112. I love ya Paul but this is just outrageous. Where do we find confirmation of Bernie

evilly switingching delegates? "what's good for America", Paul? Do you even listen to your rhetoric. What happened to your incisive brain that cuts thru bullshit on economics? You are ruining your reputation by engaging in the jihad against Sanders. "Feeding the right wing disinformation wing"? REALLY?

I am so disappointed in Paul Krugman, a man whose column and blog I have faithfully followed for years. I think it's time for a pause on that...

[baldguy]

114. Where do we find confirmation of Bernie evilly switching delegates?

From the Sanders campaign.

Sanders pressures Clinton superdelegates to jump ship

...

Sanders broached the topic of capturing superdelegates on Sunday’s CNN “State of the Union,” where he claimed that “the momentum is with us” and “a lot of these superdelegates may rethink their positions with Secretary Clinton."

The Sanders camp continued its pressure on Monday, contending in a conference call to reporters that Clinton’s campaign is in trouble and that superdelegates will start to side with Sanders’s campaign.

[CTyankee]

117. I don't see that so bad. He went to reporters with it and he believes in his cause.

It isn't underhanded. It is just persuasion with fact based argument and not personal attacks, which Bernie would not ever do. He earnestly believes in his message. That is not a crime.

[baldguy]

118. And denial ain't just a river in Egypt.

If Clinton was trolling for superdelegates to switch, you'd up in arms calling her a wannabe fascist dictator. But when BERNIE!!! engages in such undemocratic, underhanded behavior, you're A-OK with it.

[CTyankee]

119. did I say that?

If superdelegates want to switch to Hillary, that's their right...

[baldguy]

120. Don't play games. You know you did.

Asking "Where do we find confirmation of Bernie evilly switingching (sic) delegates?" and characterizing Krugman as "outrageous" simply for pointing out that it's not all right, is a clear attempt by you to insinuate that Krugman is doing something nefarious. When, in fact it's Sanders & his campaign that's doing something nefarious.

[CTyankee]

121. I just don't see what you obviously do see. But I guess that's politics...

I think we'll all come together at the end of this...

[baldguy]

113. K&R

[Lucinda]

116. knr

[eridani]

123. Really? I keep telling them to support single payer, and they keep ignoring me n/t

[Demsrule86]

125. Krugman is correct

He is not acting responsibly but i think he should drop out.

[Rex]

127. AH the ever popular canard - ''I am holier then thou...just ignore all those videos and audio

files that contradict that claim!!!'' I am surprised that one still works at all.

[SusanCalvin]

129. Food for thought.

Although, without more research than I'm going to do right now, I don't know how much is fact-based. For example, I am sceptical that the Bernie campaign said it would try to flip supers if it lost the primaries/caucuses. I am open to correction.

[Armstead]

139. Flipping the Supers is not automatically nefarious

They are not pledged delegates with an obligation.

They have free will to make choices. Their choices can be based on any number of factors. Ideally they would agree to reflect the opinions of the voters in the geographic reaas they represent. However, they also might do it on the basis of their own preferred candidate. or they might be pragmatic and go with who seems the most viable candidate in the General at the time of the convention.

Most of them cast their lot with Clinton early on. However, since then Sanders has shown surprising strength. If that continues, then Sanders would have a valid case to make to try to convince them o support him instead of Clinton.

It is not the most democratic way to run the process. But trying to convince them to support one's candidacy is totally legitimate if circumstances justify it after the primaries.

[terrencebone]

130. Krugman is wrong about his second point

I can't be the only person here who received a letter from Senator Sanders last fall soliciting contributions to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. That Krugman would pass along a claim that Sanders doesn't support other Democrats just shows how blinded by partisanship he is.

Ironically, I came to support Bernie as a result of first supporting Elizabeth Warren based on reading of Krugman's blog. Because Krugman's columns were the only sane place in my daily newspaper during the build up to Bush's Iraq war and later, during Bush's second term attempt to cash in his "mandate" in order to privatize social security, I started reading his blog in 2009. I find his writing on economics enlightening and much of his political commentary (on the delusions of "bipartisanship" for instance) insightful. But when it comes to candidates, he has a preference for policy wonks over transformational figures that is practically a monomania. Remember that in 2008 his first choice was John Edwards and his last choice was Obama.

The possibility of politically revolutionary downticket effects is, in fact, one of the strongest arguments for Bernie Sanders.

[Number23]

131. K&R

[redstateblues]

136. Krugman nails it again.The Republicans hate him.

Apparently BSS do too. That ought to tell you something

[pantsonfire]

138. No, he should drop out for his negative and irresponsible behavior n/t