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
2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: Krugman Desperately Invokes Bloomberg Doomsday Scenario to Scare Us into Backing Hillary [View all]Chathamization
(1,638 posts)103. Also, Krugman saying that it's wrong to say that a Democratic presidential rival has no chance:
From 2004:
Can we have this guy back?
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.
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?
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
205 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Krugman Desperately Invokes Bloomberg Doomsday Scenario to Scare Us into Backing Hillary [View all]
mhatrw
Jan 2016
OP
Krugman is right about what? About Third Way corpocrats willing to draft Bloomberg
mhatrw
Jan 2016
#47
Right on the money, as Hillary would say. It's Bernie's time... go Bernie go!
InAbLuEsTaTe
Jan 2016
#152
BE- If another Billionaire Oligarch runs he pulls votes from Hillary and Trump - Bernie Wins!
Ferd Berfel
Jan 2016
#204
omg, you get my vote for post of the day... seriously laughed out loud... good one!
InAbLuEsTaTe
Jan 2016
#153
Yes, definitely... keep it up! I'll hafta remember not to be drinking anything while reading your posts...
InAbLuEsTaTe
Jan 2016
#190
Hey, that's the way to get "change". Try and make people afraid to actually vote for anything
newthinking
Jan 2016
#95
... and that the DLC, DNC, and Turd Way concern for the 99% is pure kabuki.
GoneFishin
Jan 2016
#138
Yah but it's kinda mutual, and many of us would hold our noses .. don't ya think? nt
99th_Monkey
Jan 2016
#174
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
LOL yourself. The "far left" is communist and communists never concerned themselves with Nader.
merrily
Jan 2016
#180
Isn't Krugman exactly the kind of economic progressive Sanders supporters would want in a cabinet?
Metric System
Jan 2016
#31
NO. I want someone who's worked IN the field rather than merely written about it.
cherokeeprogressive
Jan 2016
#143
Exactly. He works for Judith Miller's NY Times. He knows who butters his bread. nt
mhatrw
Jan 2016
#75
If his economic theories are right, why aren't they being implemented all over the world?
cherokeeprogressive
Jan 2016
#146
LOL. So Sanders supporters are trying to "frighten" Clinton supporters into what?
mhatrw
Jan 2016
#104
LOLZ! Now Krugman is the Democratic Establishment. It's like listening to 9 year olds
KittyWampus
Jan 2016
#49
Don't you know? Anyone who doesn't support Sanders is part of the "establishment".
Beacool
Jan 2016
#161
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
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
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
So you agree that it is realistic that most Clinton supporters will abandon the
mhatrw
Jan 2016
#121
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
If you don't vote for neoliberal Hillary Clinton the plutocrats will shove Trump down your throat!
raindaddy
Jan 2016
#142
I will not let the establishment terrorize me into supporting Hillary Clinton
Jack Rabbit
Jan 2016
#148
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
Okay I tried to finish the comments (all of which were good) but cannot stand it any longer.
senz
Jan 2016
#169
I don't think I have ever made a postive post about Krugman, even if I agreed with
merrily
Jan 2016
#179
mhatrw—Paul Krugman proved not only is he not a “liberal”…he is an enemy to those who are.
CobaltBlue
Jun 2016
#205