Krugman: Time for Sanders to start acting responsibly

[°Leprechaun]

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/04/01/feel-the-math/?module=BlogPost-Title&version=Blog%20Main&contentCollection=Opinion&action=Click&pgtype=Blogs&region=Body

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?

I remember because 2/3 of them are still backing her. The whole system doesn't make sense, but if it's fair for Clinton, why isn't it fair for Sanders to be doing the same thing? It is really a red herring, unless the candidate who loses the pledged delegates wins the nomination, and until that happens it is useless to speculate. All Sanders is doing is trying to level the playing field to make it fair, but it is a bogus concern. Who here thinks that Sanders can actually win the nomination without a majority of pledged delegates? Few people think that it is likely that he will win the nomination anyway so your concern is not justified.

[°Leprechaun]

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. Whether or not he thinks that he can do that is a moot point. The more delegates he gets the more he can influence the direction that the Democratic Party. People deserve a choice. One person one vote. That is what the process should be about.

Of course, helping other Democrats is important. Remember the Democratic party has been losing in that effort and for decades now it has been controlled by the "moderate" pragmatic wing of the party. So maybe it's time to try something different. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and over again and expecting the same results. If the party captures the Senate, it will be more due to what the Republican party has become than because of what the Democrats do.

[°Leprechaun]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Go back and read my post. If she wins the pledged delegates, then the super delegates will likely support her. There is nothing unfair about that. Your response is totally backwards, by implying that I said something exactly the opposite of what I said. I don't see a need for super delegates in the first place, especially in a two person race.

[°Leprechaun]

Clinton's lead in super delegates is much higher than her lead in pledged delegate percentage wise.
How can people be so closed minded to see that the system is not democratic?
Why should a small number of politicians have the power to overturn the will of the majority?
Sanders decision to work within the system is the best thing for the party? Would you
rather he had decided to go third party in the first place, thus splitting the vote and helping the Republicans? Of course not.
What choice does Sanders have here? If you complain about him trying to get super delegates to switch you are arguing that it is ok for Clinton to use them, but it is not ok for him. If super delegates nominate a candidate that has not gotten a majority of pledged delegates, that candidate won't be Sanders. So
complaining about Sanders trying to cut into Clinton's lead in super delegates is total BS:

[°Leprechaun]

Sanders is running more than anything against a corrupt system. We don't live in a pure democracy, of course, where every issue is decided by referenda. Sanders is a human being and therefore he is going to make strategic mistakes, but his message is positive. He has a bold positive message for the future.

Clinton, to me at least, represents the old thinking of politics as usual which has failed us.

None of this has to be personal. I am glad that both of them have made the campaign about ideas, policies, the direction of the country. There are many things that Clinton supports that are good, like sensible gun control. It represents a campaign about visions for the future. Both candidates are likely to take us in a better direction in general than the Republican alternatives. There remains the concern about whether Clinton can add to and improve on things that Obama has done. My biggest concern is what kind of foreign policy we can expect from President Clinton.

[°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.