Krugman: Time for Sanders to start acting responsibly

[Landslide Lyndon]

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?

[°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.

[Oakvale]

Great article, particularly the point about the Sanders campaign's legion of bros regurgitating 25 years of Republican propaganda as gospel.

[Lief 🗽]

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.

What are you talking about? I know it's hard for the Bernie fanatics to believe, but Clinton is OVERWHELMINGLY crushing him, in the popular vote and in pledged delegates. Nothing wrong with the superdelegates supporting her as well.

[°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.

[Antonio the Sixth]

[°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.

[This account no longer in use.]

lol krugman

[°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:

[Admiral Kizaru]

He's not wrong here.

[Illiniwek]

Way to go Krugs! 100% right. Go ahead and keep pressing your issues to try to influence the convention, but clean up on your anti-Hillary rhetoric.

[Averroës Nix]

Most of Krugman's points are good ones. The Sanders camp needs to have a better response to the process crap that spinning implausible and undemocratic scenarios regarding superdelegates, and downballot Democrats would benefit from his help during the general election. (I'm not sure that most downballot Democrats want his help but that's another discussion.)

Regarding corruption, though... come on. Republican conspiracy theories about e-mails and Benghazi aside, the Clintons are corrupt and have been throughout their entire careers as national politicians and leaders of a Democratic Party faction. They've built a massive private fortune off of their political careers, and everyone knows this. They've surrounded themselves with grifters and con artists, and everyone knows this. Democratic leaders have collectively tolerated this for decades, for the sake of the party and their own careers. If they had not, maybe we would have had a stronger, broader field of candidates to choose from in this election.

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.

[Landslide Lyndon]

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.

[°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.

[RaphaelDLG]

Sanders definitely cannot be all about himself but he doesn't have to sell out his principles/is allowed to also continue to shape the party how he wants.

What Sanders has a responsibility to do is to raise money for House and Senate Democrats that are in the Progressive Caucus or somehow get his progressive stamp of approval, like Warren (not that she needs the money), Brown, Ellison, etc etc as well as new candidates like Tim Canova etc.

[Averroës Nix]

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.

[ProgressiveCanadian]

Watch your tone! Act responsible! These kind of comments are not going to help Clinton at ALL with the voters.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

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.

What people fail to understand is that it's not "politics as usual." It's frankly just "politics." Obama was something new and radical and different. Someone who promised to bring change to the system. And look what happened. The system works the way it works for a reason, and it's not going to turn on its head just because a raving naive politician wills it to.

There's no indication whatsoever that Bernie offers anything that has any chance of actually changing the way things are done. You may say that we'll never know unless we try, but trying for something when there's an overwhelming risk of it becoming a devastating belly flop is irresponsible, and it speaks to the reasons why Bernie is drawing support from relatively secure white folks who can afford to take the risk. I mean, what I'm saying is pessimistic because it implies that there's never any sense in trying, but... there's not. The American political system was always intended to be a system that facilitated incremental changes, so the best choice is a politician who knows how to work within that system to get positive things done. Bernie has been in the system shouting about his brand of radical politics forever with very little to show for it. His becoming president is not going to magically change things, especially when his fiery base gets disillusioned and runs out of patience after the first 100 days of nothing seeming to change. If by some stretch of bad fortune he wins the presidency, it will frankly be the worst thing for the left that I could possibly dream up. He has raised the bar so impossibly high that he will be unable to score any kind of win at all. Surrounded by the context of government and not high-flying speeches or 10,000-person crowds, he will be like a balloon that keeps spewing air from its blowhole in a slow leak. Flailing and desperate, he will be cast aside almost at once. Good luck Democrats.

Of course, Bernie doesn't actually care about that. He's convinced that his fantasy is bulletproof.

[Ebsy]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/04/02/fact-checking-the-clinton-sanders-spat-over-big-oil-contributions/

The Washington Post awarded 3 Pinocchios to Sanders' campaign smear of Clinton.

[RaphaelDLG]

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.

What people fail to understand is that it's not "politics as usual." It's frankly just "politics." Obama was something new and radical and different. Someone who promised to bring change to the system. And look what happened. The system works the way it works for a reason, and it's not going to turn on its head just because a raving naive politician wills it to.

There's no indication whatsoever that Bernie offers anything that has any chance of actually changing the way things are done. You may say that we'll never know unless we try, but trying for something when there's an overwhelming risk of it becoming a devastating belly flop is irresponsible, and it speaks to the reasons why Bernie is drawing support from relatively secure white folks who can afford to take the risk. I mean, what I'm saying is pessimistic because it implies that there's never any sense in trying, but... there's not. The American political system was always intended to be a system that facilitated incremental changes, so the best choice is a politician who knows how to work within that system to get positive things done. Bernie has been in the system shouting about his brand of radical politics forever with very little to show for it. His becoming president is not going to magically change things, especially when his fiery base gets disillusioned and runs out of patience after the first 100 days of nothing seeming to change. If by some stretch of bad fortune he wins the presidency, it will frankly be the worst thing for the left that I could possibly dream up. He has raised the bar so impossibly high that he will be unable to score any kind of win at all. Surrounded by the context of government and not high-flying speeches or 10,000-person crowds, he will be like a balloon that keeps spewing air from its blowhole in a slow leak. Flailing and desperate, he will be cast aside almost at once. Good luck Democrats.

Of course, Bernie doesn't actually care about that. He's convinced that his fantasy is bulletproof.

Obama's idea of "changing politics as usual" was MUCH different than Sanders'.

Obama's moronically naive idea was that he would be "post-partisan" and compromise with wolvish Republicans in a system that is, despite his hopes, fundamentally zero-sum.

The "compromises" he got were cuts to social security and extensions on tax cuts for the rich.

[Landslide Lyndon]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/04/02/fact-checking-the-clinton-sanders-spat-over-big-oil-contributions/

The Washington Post awarded 3 Pinocchios to Sanders' campaign smear of Clinton.

Sanders has ran a fact-free campaign for months now. And of course whoever dared to criticize him has been branded a shill, a sellout and an enemy of the people.
No wonder he appeals to the same kind of voter as TRUMP.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

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.

What people fail to understand is that it's not "politics as usual." It's frankly just "politics." Obama was something new and radical and different. Someone who promised to bring change to the system. And look what happened. The system works the way it works for a reason, and it's not going to turn on its head just because a raving naive politician wills it to.

There's no indication whatsoever that Bernie offers anything that has any chance of actually changing the way things are done. You may say that we'll never know unless we try, but trying for something when there's an overwhelming risk of it becoming a devastating belly flop is irresponsible, and it speaks to the reasons why Bernie is drawing support from relatively secure white folks who can afford to take the risk. I mean, what I'm saying is pessimistic because it implies that there's never any sense in trying, but... there's not. The American political system was always intended to be a system that facilitated incremental changes, so the best choice is a politician who knows how to work within that system to get positive things done. Bernie has been in the system shouting about his brand of radical politics forever with very little to show for it. His becoming president is not going to magically change things, especially when his fiery base gets disillusioned and runs out of patience after the first 100 days of nothing seeming to change. If by some stretch of bad fortune he wins the presidency, it will frankly be the worst thing for the left that I could possibly dream up. He has raised the bar so impossibly high that he will be unable to score any kind of win at all. Surrounded by the context of government and not high-flying speeches or 10,000-person crowds, he will be like a balloon that keeps spewing air from its blowhole in a slow leak. Flailing and desperate, he will be cast aside almost at once. Good luck Democrats.

Of course, Bernie doesn't actually care about that. He's convinced that his fantasy is bulletproof.

Obama's idea of "changing politics as usual" was MUCH different than Sanders'.

Obama's moronically naive idea was that he would be "post-partisan" and compromise with wolvish Republicans in a system that is, despite his hopes, fundamentally zero-sum.

The "compromises" he got were cuts to social security and extensions on tax cuts for the rich.

He still channelled people's thirst for change into a movement that was going nowhere. That's no different than what Sanders is doing. You have to follow the rules to change the rules. Instead, he's inciting an angry mob that will help him break down the front door of government. Fine. Maybe he'll make it inside, but then the mob is going to disperse and he'll have no friends to help him with his quest.

He has done nothing to help build a friendly Congress, has shown no loyalty to the party he's using to make his pet project a reality (I use the word "reality" lightly), and is only going to create more frustration if he somehow manages to win, because he has exerted no effort thinking about how to actually translate his dreams into real change. If he had thought about it, he almost certainly would have re-evaluated his dreams to bring them down closer to earth (see his plan for free college that relies on the charity of Republican governors... ha!). So as it stands, the whole thing is one big con. And after 2008, I would think people would be a bit wiser to it. Instead they're just digging their heads further into the sand.

[Likely Voter]

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.

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

Yeah, honestly wish he was helping out the progressive primary challengers a little more.

God knows Fetterman could have benefited. Far too late now though.

[RaphaelDLG]

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.

What people fail to understand is that it's not "politics as usual." It's frankly just "politics." Obama was something new and radical and different. Someone who promised to bring change to the system. And look what happened. The system works the way it works for a reason, and it's not going to turn on its head just because a raving naive politician wills it to.

There's no indication whatsoever that Bernie offers anything that has any chance of actually changing the way things are done. You may say that we'll never know unless we try, but trying for something when there's an overwhelming risk of it becoming a devastating belly flop is irresponsible, and it speaks to the reasons why Bernie is drawing support from relatively secure white folks who can afford to take the risk. I mean, what I'm saying is pessimistic because it implies that there's never any sense in trying, but... there's not. The American political system was always intended to be a system that facilitated incremental changes, so the best choice is a politician who knows how to work within that system to get positive things done. Bernie has been in the system shouting about his brand of radical politics forever with very little to show for it. His becoming president is not going to magically change things, especially when his fiery base gets disillusioned and runs out of patience after the first 100 days of nothing seeming to change. If by some stretch of bad fortune he wins the presidency, it will frankly be the worst thing for the left that I could possibly dream up. He has raised the bar so impossibly high that he will be unable to score any kind of win at all. Surrounded by the context of government and not high-flying speeches or 10,000-person crowds, he will be like a balloon that keeps spewing air from its blowhole in a slow leak. Flailing and desperate, he will be cast aside almost at once. Good luck Democrats.

Of course, Bernie doesn't actually care about that. He's convinced that his fantasy is bulletproof.

Obama's idea of "changing politics as usual" was MUCH different than Sanders'.

Obama's moronically naive idea was that he would be "post-partisan" and compromise with wolvish Republicans in a system that is, despite his hopes, fundamentally zero-sum.

The "compromises" he got were cuts to social security and extensions on tax cuts for the rich.

He still channelled people's thirst for change into a movement that was going nowhere. That's no different than what Sanders is doing. You have to follow the rules to change the rules. Instead, he's inciting an angry mob that will help him break down the front door of government. Fine. Maybe he'll make it inside, but then the mob is going to disperse and he'll have no friends to help him with his quest.

He has done nothing to help build a friendly Congress, has shown no loyalty to the party he's using to make his pet project a reality (I use the word "reality" lightly), and is only going to create more frustration if he somehow manages to win, because he has exerted no effort thinking about how to actually translate his dreams into real change. If he had thought about it, he almost certainly would have re-evaluated his dreams to bring them down closer to earth (see his plan for free college that relies on the charity of Republican governors... ha!). So as it stands, the whole thing is one big con. And after 2008, I would think people would be a bit wiser to it. Instead they're just digging their heads further into the sand.

I fundamentally disagree - I don't think you can change the corrupt rules within the corrupt system, you have to develop a groundswell of popular upheaval that forces the system to change.  

A good example would be how the Senate was an extremely corrupt, indirectly elected "millionaire's club" at the turn of the 20th century.  People in congress submitted constitutional amendment proposals to make the senate directly elected and of course the Senate repeatedly shot them down.  Eventually, the public felt outraged enough that other methods for amending the constitution (the convention method) built up enough steam that the Senate was pressured to change itself.

If the system does not change, Bernie is indeed as you say screwed even if he gets elected.  On the small point of the community college thing, I agree that that is a pipe dream put policy proposals are like opening gambits that may be unrealistic but would be really good for the country that you can make concessions to later - you don't start out negotiations by conceding ground.

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.

Yes, very good point