Krugman: Time for Sanders to start acting responsibly

[°Leprechaun]

Neither Sanders nor Clinton can do certain things without Congress, so obviously the Congressional races are important. This fact alone is not the whole story. The POTUS, rightly or wrongly has a lot of power without Congress.

The races for Congress will be determined, at least in part by what the Republicans do.

Sanders at least can change the dialogue by offering new solutions. Whether or not he has "gone too far" as some would say, is open to debate, but he is the only alternative Democrats have to Clinton, who from all I can see offers, at best, a continuation of Obama, and at worst, something more "conservative" at least in foreign policy. I have no idea how effective either one of them would be in actually accomplishing anything as long as the party in opposition continues to oppose. I think either one of them would do their best to move the country in the direction that Obama has, in trying to fix all the problems created by the previous administration. Clinton's foreign policy is my biggest concern and as I have said numerous times,and  the main reason that I prefer Sanders. If either of them can improve on the current status quo, fine, but at least they can block some of the extreme policies that the opposing party will try to get through. I am leery of Clinton, and think that Sanders would be more cautious in getting us entangled in the kind of disasters in foreign policy that the last Republican (Bush) got us into.

[Lief 🗽]

So the idea that Sanders should only stay in the contest if he respects some omertà-like code of silence is ludicrous. His critique of corruption and political influence is as much at the heart of his campaign as his concerns about poverty and inequality. Thank God someone in the Democratic Party takes it seriously enough not to give Clinton a pass.

It's one thing talking about corruption in politics in general and another pushing specious arguments about Clinton taking money from Big Oil, implying that she is beholden to them.
Sanders himself has accepted money from fossil fuel employees.
Sanders also conveniently forgets that 97% of fossil fuel industries contributions have gone to Republicans, showing how ridiculous is his attempt to convince the voters that Hillary is somehow a darling of them.

In the case of energy policy, I'm less concerned by Greenpeaces shouts of "follow the money!" than I am by concrete policy differences, such as Clinton's equivocating with regard to a federal ban on hydraulic fracturing.* I think that this this piece from Vox mostly gets it right, although it is overly dismissive of the importance of direct contributions to the Clinton campaign from lobbyists and the $3M that her SuperPAC has raised from people who are "connected with" the fossil fuel industry.


*Cue "b-b-b-but what about the jobs!" concern trolling from people who could live the remainder of their adult lives without going within one hundred miles of a fracking well if they wanted to.

It's one thing for Sanders to attack Clinton on fracking or because her Wall Street plan doesn't go far enough. It's a totally different thing for him to attack her for being a corrupt shill who has been bribed by oil/gas companies and the financial industry into doing their bidding without any evidence and then feign that he's running a positive, issues-based campaign.

[IceSpear]

I think the most salient point in the article was the bit also mentioned by other recent opinion pieces, that Sanders should be doing more to actualize the 'revolution' by trying to help the Dems downballot. He has the attention of a large group of young engaged citizens who care about politics and are willing to send in donations. Obviously if he wins he needs help in Congress but even if he doesn't, shouldn't he be doing what he can to bring more like minded people into Congress to help him push his agenda. He has a great opportunity here.

I'm not really convinced that many of these people would give a damn about Congress even if Bernie asked them to. Many of them operate under "president is a dictator" mode and would likely sit out 2018 even if Bernie won. Due to our poor education system, there are tens of millions of Americans who think only the presidency is relevant enough to actually get up and vote.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

There are good points and I'll certainly be disappointed if Sanders refused to help the nominee and downballot candidates after the primary, but remember he's still in, the primary season is not over and we can't except candidates just being all warm and fuzzy toward each other (no, I'm not suggesting there should be a full-blown negative campaign going on, but candidates are always going to point out differences between each other and criticize). Let's wait until the season concludes, because I'm getting an idea that Krugman is somewhat hinting Bernie should drop out now and I disagree.

[Virginiá]

Sanders is in a fight with Clinton for the nomination. Right now he needs to focus all his time, money, and energy on getting as close to winning as possible for reasons that are obvious.

That's not a valid excuse, though. A serious presidential contender needs to consider raising money/supporting downballot candidates as vital to his or her campaign as ad buys or GOTV efforts. It's simply a requirement if you want to implement your agenda. And starting early is crucial if you want to get liberals elected, as you need to get involved in the primaries. Clinton was raising money even before voting started and has continued to do so as best as she can while Sanders hasn't raised a dime, even when he's raising far more money than her! There is no excuse for his bs behavior on this!

Sanders just sort of joined the Democratic party to take advantage of its organization and party name, while he has done nothing for the party itself, save for possibly creating internal generational divisions. If Sanders can outraise Clinton by, what, 20 million dollars in March? He should be raising quite a bit for other races.

As I said before - There is no excuse for this. He is selfishly using the party while doing nothing to help bring in a Democratic Congress that will be needed to implement any of his policy ideas.

Honestly, I don't know if Sanders or his campaign has any idea what they are doing. They are so narrowly-focused that they are failing to see that, at least for Democrats who don't have numerous billionaire donor groups fully bankrolling state/Congressional races, a presidential race isn't just about winning your own race.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Yawn, Krugman said the same sh**t about Obama 8 years ago.

[Virginiá]

Yawn, Krugman said the same sh**t about Obama 8 years ago.

Unrelated your comment, but I'm curious, have you ever criticized Sanders for anything? Is there anything you think he's done wrong? What is your opinion on him not raising money for downballot candidates?

[izixs]

Sanders is in a fight with Clinton for the nomination. Right now he needs to focus all his time, money, and energy on getting as close to winning as possible for reasons that are obvious.

That's not a valid excuse, though. A serious presidential contender needs to consider raising money/supporting downballot candidates as vital to his or her campaign as ad buys or GOTV efforts. It's simply a requirement if you want to implement your agenda. And starting early is crucial if you want to get liberals elected, as you need to get involved in the primaries. Clinton was raising money even before voting started and has continued to do so as best as she can while Sanders hasn't raised a dime, even when he's raising far more money than her! There is no excuse for his bs behavior on this!

Sanders just sort of joined the Democratic party to take advantage of its organization and party name, while he has done nothing for the party itself, save for possibly creating internal generational divisions. If Sanders can outraise Clinton by, what, 20 million dollars in March? He should be raising quite a bit for other races.

As I said before - There is no excuse for this. He is selfishly using the party while doing nothing to help bring in a Democratic Congress that will be needed to implement any of his policy ideas.

Honestly, I don't know if Sanders or his campaign has any idea what they are doing. They are so narrowly-focused that they are failing to see that, at least for Democrats who don't have numerous billionaire donor groups fully bankrolling state/Congressional races, a presidential race isn't just about winning your own race.

I'd argue that the fact that he's involved in a competitive primary race is the only valid reason for focusing on his presidential run at this time. I know a lot of folks are pushing the narrative that its already over, but from the Sanders camp perspective, it isn't. And thus calls for them to spend time supporting other candidates doesn't make sense right now, especially as they're presently behind. If they didn't see a shot at winning this, then you might see them still 'running' but sharing the wealth a bit more actively and dialing back their presidential efforts. But as its kind of obvious they are at that point, its kind of silly to get upset at the Sanders campaign for not wanting to divide their time and resources. You may disagree with their assessment of the state of the race, but getting upset over their difference of view here is in effect demanding that they surrender. Which is a tad silly.

There is of course the other side of things, the possibility that Sanders might not necessarily be welcomed if he wanted to help more. The fact that at this point, as is pointed out over and over again by the media, that Clinton has a wide majority of super delegates at this point. That means, elected officials across the country are supporting her, some of whom are in tough races this year. And its not too much of a stretch of the imagination to realize that many Democratic candidates are also backing Clinton in some fashion. And thus it would be excessively awkward to try to swoop in and raise money for someone that's in opposition to you. It would be basically, 'Hey, I like this candidate! Despite them not thinking I'm qualified to be president!' Aka, kind of a stupid move.

So yeah, tactically it doesn't make sense and getting all upset at a candidate in Sanders' position at this point in the race on something like this is kind of silly.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Yawn, Krugman said the same sh**t about Obama 8 years ago.

Unrelated your comment, but I'm curious, have you ever criticized Sanders for anything? Is there anything you think he's done wrong? What is your opinion on him not raising money for downballot candidates?

He's given money to Democrats before. As for this election, barely any of his money is from maxed out donors, while Hillary got the majority of her money from maxed out donors. So there's not much of a elite maxed out donor pool to draw on. Also, I think it's pretty obvious that Bernie supporters aren't in the mood to give more money to DWS.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Sanders is in a fight with Clinton for the nomination. Right now he needs to focus all his time, money, and energy on getting as close to winning as possible for reasons that are obvious.

That's not a valid excuse, though. A serious presidential contender needs to consider raising money/supporting downballot candidates as vital to his or her campaign as ad buys or GOTV efforts. It's simply a requirement if you want to implement your agenda. And starting early is crucial if you want to get liberals elected, as you need to get involved in the primaries. Clinton was raising money even before voting started and has continued to do so as best as she can while Sanders hasn't raised a dime, even when he's raising far more money than her! There is no excuse for his bs behavior on this!

Sanders just sort of joined the Democratic party to take advantage of its organization and party name, while he has done nothing for the party itself, save for possibly creating internal generational divisions. If Sanders can outraise Clinton by, what, 20 million dollars in March? He should be raising quite a bit for other races.

As I said before - There is no excuse for this. He is selfishly using the party while doing nothing to help bring in a Democratic Congress that will be needed to implement any of his policy ideas.

Honestly, I don't know if Sanders or his campaign has any idea what they are doing. They are so narrowly-focused that they are failing to see that, at least for Democrats who don't have numerous billionaire donor groups fully bankrolling state/Congressional races, a presidential race isn't just about winning your own race.

I'd argue that the fact that he's involved in a competitive primary race is the only valid reason for focusing on his presidential run at this time. I know a lot of folks are pushing the narrative that its already over, but from the Sanders camp perspective, it isn't. And thus calls for them to spend time supporting other candidates doesn't make sense right now, especially as they're presently behind. If they didn't see a shot at winning this, then you might see them still 'running' but sharing the wealth a bit more actively and dialing back their presidential efforts. But as its kind of obvious they are at that point, its kind of silly to get upset at the Sanders campaign for not wanting to divide their time and resources. You may disagree with their assessment of the state of the race, but getting upset over their difference of view here is in effect demanding that they surrender. Which is a tad silly.

Clinton too is in a competitive primary but she never stopped fundraising for the party.
But Sanders isn't just sitting on his hands, he actually attacks her for fundraising to help the national party and congressional candidates.
He is either dumb or a hypocrite, no other way to explain it.

[Virginiá]

Yawn, Krugman said the same sh**t about Obama 8 years ago.

Unrelated your comment, but I'm curious, have you ever criticized Sanders for anything? Is there anything you think he's done wrong? What is your opinion on him not raising money for downballot candidates?

He's given money to Democrats before. As for this election, barely any of his money is from maxed out donors, while Hillary got the majority of her money from maxed out donors. So there's not much of a elite maxed out donor pool to draw on. Also, I think it's pretty obvious that Bernie supporters aren't in the mood to give more money to DWS.

Then give directly to individual races. Bernie can work it out that way himself if need be. I said it before and I'll say it again: Liberals don't have the same level of wealthy backers/financing that Republicans do, so they depend on the presidential candidates to use their fundraising abilities and exposure to support other races critical to getting their agenda enacted. Even worse now is that as wealthy GOP donors increasingly see the White House as a lost cause, they are pouring their resources into Congressional/state races. That makes it even more imperative that Bernie help other races now, not later.

Still curious if you ever criticize or find issues with Bernie. If you do, you surely don't express them to anyone on this forum.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Yawn, Krugman said the same sh**t about Obama 8 years ago.

Unrelated your comment, but I'm curious, have you ever criticized Sanders for anything? Is there anything you think he's done wrong? What is your opinion on him not raising money for downballot candidates?

He's given money to Democrats before. As for this election, barely any of his money is from maxed out donors, while Hillary got the majority of her money from maxed out donors. So there's not much of a elite maxed out donor pool to draw on. Also, I think it's pretty obvious that Bernie supporters aren't in the mood to give more money to DWS.

Then give directly to individual races. Bernie can work it out that way himself if need be. I said it before and I'll say it again: Liberals don't have the same level of wealthy backers/financing that Republicans do, so they depend on the presidential candidates to use their fundraising abilities and exposure to support other races critical to getting their agenda enacted. Even worse now is that as wealthy GOP donors increasingly see the White House as a lost cause, they are pouring their resources into Congressional/state races. That makes it even more imperative that Bernie help other races now, not later.

Still curious if you ever criticize or find issues with Bernie. If you do, you surely don't express them to anyone on this forum.

I don't need to concern troll my own candidate. And plenty of Bernie supporters are giving to Democrats like Teachout.

[Virginiá]

So yeah, tactically it doesn't make sense and getting all upset at a candidate in Sanders' position at this point in the race on something like this is kind of silly.

See, now we're going in circles. I already addressed everything you said. Bernie is clearly operating under the assumption he can still get the nomination, so if he thinks that will happen, he owes it to the cause to help get liberals and others who will support his agenda elected. I don't think a lot of people get this - He needs a Democratic/liberal Congressional majority to get any of his agenda through! It doesn't matter if he dislikes the DNC establishment, DWS, or whatever, because he joined the Democratic party to increase his chances and if he wants to be anything more than a do-nothing president, he has to help get liberals elected. He needs to help the party.

Major GOP donors are already pivoting to state/other federal races as they are accepting the WH is a foregone conclusion. This means Democrats might end up getting badly outspent again. Many candidates need resources now, not later, and Bernie is raising far more money than Clinton even, yet she still helps.

Maybe you're thinking of this race as singular - As in, it's only about Bernie's presidential prospects. But it isn't. Unless the goal is to get Bernie in the White House and nothing more, then he needs to help get allies elected who will push his agenda through. He can't just wait until August to begin fundraising for them should he win the nomination. Those downballot candidates need support before then as the GOP attack machine pours resources into those races.

Democrats simply do not have the level of outside financial support Republicans do, unless Soros wants to dump a few hundred million into races this year. They depend on their presidential candidates supporting the party, and Bernie needs to begin contributing, like, yesterday.

[Virginiá]

I don't need to concern troll my own candidate. And plenty of Bernie supporters are giving to Democrats like Teachout.

Not so much 'concern trolling' as engaging in at least semi-objective discourse, rather than steadfastly defending them on everything no matter what while also regurgitating pro-candidate talking points. Like the difference between wanting to have substantive discussions and wanting to just be a shill.

but whatever

[Ebsy]

It's rather remarkable that Sanders has abandoned the moral high ground and is now willing to lie, cheat and steal his way to the nomination. Luckily the majority of Democrats are smart enough to avoid making the mistake of supporting the scam he is running.

[Ogre Mage]

I'd argue that the fact that he's involved in a competitive primary race is the only valid reason for focusing on his presidential run at this time. I know a lot of folks are pushing the narrative that its already over, but from the Sanders camp perspective, it isn't. And thus calls for them to spend time supporting other candidates doesn't make sense right now, especially as they're presently behind. If they didn't see a shot at winning this, then you might see them still 'running' but sharing the wealth a bit more actively and dialing back their presidential efforts. But as its kind of obvious they are at that point, its kind of silly to get upset at the Sanders campaign for not wanting to divide their time and resources. You may disagree with their assessment of the state of the race, but getting upset over their difference of view here is in effect demanding that they surrender. Which is a tad silly.

So yeah, tactically it doesn't make sense and getting all upset at a candidate in Sanders' position at this point in the race on something like this is kind of silly.

At this point in the 2008 cycle there was mass demonization of Clinton and pressure to drop out or at least disarm, both on this board and in the media.  And she was much closer in the delegate race than Sanders is now.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I'd argue that the fact that he's involved in a competitive primary race is the only valid reason for focusing on his presidential run at this time. I know a lot of folks are pushing the narrative that its already over, but from the Sanders camp perspective, it isn't. And thus calls for them to spend time supporting other candidates doesn't make sense right now, especially as they're presently behind. If they didn't see a shot at winning this, then you might see them still 'running' but sharing the wealth a bit more actively and dialing back their presidential efforts. But as its kind of obvious they are at that point, its kind of silly to get upset at the Sanders campaign for not wanting to divide their time and resources. You may disagree with their assessment of the state of the race, but getting upset over their difference of view here is in effect demanding that they surrender. Which is a tad silly.

So yeah, tactically it doesn't make sense and getting all upset at a candidate in Sanders' position at this point in the race on something like this is kind of silly.

At this point in the 2008 cycle there was mass demonization of Clinton and pressure to drop out or at least disarm, both on this board and in the media.  And she was much closer in the delegate race than Sanders is now.

Between March 11 and April 22, there were only 566 delegates left, and Hillary actually won them 305-261, so the percentage of the remaining delegates Hillary needed to win was higher than what Bernie needs today.

And in both cases, it has been Hillary running the more negative campaign.

[Ogre Mage]

I'd argue that the fact that he's involved in a competitive primary race is the only valid reason for focusing on his presidential run at this time. I know a lot of folks are pushing the narrative that its already over, but from the Sanders camp perspective, it isn't. And thus calls for them to spend time supporting other candidates doesn't make sense right now, especially as they're presently behind. If they didn't see a shot at winning this, then you might see them still 'running' but sharing the wealth a bit more actively and dialing back their presidential efforts. But as its kind of obvious they are at that point, its kind of silly to get upset at the Sanders campaign for not wanting to divide their time and resources. You may disagree with their assessment of the state of the race, but getting upset over their difference of view here is in effect demanding that they surrender. Which is a tad silly.

So yeah, tactically it doesn't make sense and getting all upset at a candidate in Sanders' position at this point in the race on something like this is kind of silly.

At this point in the 2008 cycle there was mass demonization of Clinton and pressure to drop out or at least disarm, both on this board and in the media.  And she was much closer in the delegate race than Sanders is now.

Between March 11 and April 22, there were only 566 delegates left, and Hillary actually won them 305-261, so the percentage of the remaining delegates Hillary needed to win was higher than what Bernie needs today.

And in both cases, it has been Hillary running the more negative campaign.

Well, that's a very Sanders-slanted way of looking at it, so let's post the raw pledged delegate numbers just so folks can see them.

In 2008 at this time:

Obama: 1533 pledged delegates
Clinton: 1427 pledged delegates

Obama had a 106 delegate lead.


2016:

Clinton: 1243 pledged delegates
Sanders: 980 pledged delegates

Clinton has a 263 delegate lead.

[This account no longer in use.]

Trying to argue with jfern is futile.
I'm sure that if Sanders was caught molesting an underage girl jfern would say it's all the victim's fault.

[Lexii, harbinger of chaos and sexual anarchy]

Trying to argue with jfern is futile.
I'm sure that if Sanders was caught molesting an underage girl jfern would say it's all the victim's fault.

*cough*you are  total hypocrite*cough*

[This account no longer in use.]

Trying to argue with jfern is futile.
I'm sure that if Sanders was caught molesting an underage girl jfern would say it's all the victim's fault.

*cough*you are  total hypocrite*cough*

He may be a total hypocrite, and I may hate to agree with him on anything, but he's right here.