Let's face it: Obama and Biden blew the best opportunity the US has had in the past 40 years to get healthcare for everyone and pass fair taxation and immigration reform.
Obama's greatest midtake was chosing Joe Biden to teach Oabama the "ropes" of Washington politics!
Biden's abilities are truly illusory - he's a shill for industry and a fop of the right, masquerading as everyone's old uncle with hands that are too friendly.
Time for Old Geezer Biden to exit Stage Right. We'll lost more than enough following him and most young people have better sense. And many old people with good memories have beeter sense.
Joe is a product of Russian intelligence pushing another loser Democatic candidate. He wouldn't be in the top 3 Democratic contenders without Russian intelligence.
I hope he's fade fast before he prevents a capable promising younger person with real Democratic and democratic values from winning the Democratic nomination for 2020!
Good-by, Joe! I'm sure all those corporations you larded with favors will honor you in retirement - not!
46
Joe and Bernie are the Hillary Clinton of 2020. After their long service they believe they are owed recompense. here's the problem: they are yesterday's paper or I should say tweet.
It's not the democratic socialism policy wonking or the back rubbing (Me 2...careful), baby kissing (antivax...careful), good-old-boy, ward healer writ large that worked so well in days gone by. It's the days gone by that have gone by, finished, over the hill, dead and buried. Joe and Bernie are now more in the resurrectiuon as opposed to the election business and as we all know, Jesus will be ringing our collective I-Phones any day now. Just ask Rev. Trump.
But wait. What about the dastardly opposition. What about our being out-Foxed, supremely courted, attorney generaled into submission--we the people. There's nothing really new here in our precious kleptocapitalistic shining city on a hill except the Snapchat view.
Excuse me, I need to check my phone.
Folks, welcome to the Swamp Zuckerberg. It was always there, but he people who pulled the strings managed the props But no more.
18
You wrote this in 2015. You are going to be wrong. Again. But you have been wrong about a lot of things.
https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/07/27/the-donald-and-the-delusional/
11
What's more elitist than carefully researched and proven facts?
6
I truly think that Trump is too low to accomplish anything gracefully. However, a lot of problems that Trump emphasizes are real problems. Yes, Trump could not really solve those problems. However, Democrats should not be, and could not afford pretending that those are NOT problems. Remember Hillary's answer to "Make American Great Again"? "American is already great". I was shocked to hear Biden saying "China is not competition for us". Wake up, Democrats!!! Unless the new candidate provide a better solution to those problems, including but not limited to, illegal immigration, drugs, rust belt, unfair trade practices from other countries, and the threats to the western civilization from the uprising Nazi-like actions by the dictators, he/she would lose to Trump again!
21
Well, let's all watch how much the corporate owned media pushes the white males on us.
22
Bernie and Joe are great guys who feel it’s their turn because they were some how cheated out of their chance to be President and because of their age, this may be their last chance so give one of then a break. No, we need a woman to be President not another old white guy, enough is enough, just stop.
32
Summer of 2019 might be less than romantic; sales of republican racism, divisiveness, sexism, hope?—no just grope!—may not sell as well as the West is on fire and everything burns down.
“Government is the problem” gets a little tiresome as the gas companies continue setting the country on fire.
Who you gonna call?
8
End-of-week analysis from a man with a Ph.D. and Nobel in political science.
Oh wait, Krugman's an economist, and there is no such thing as a Ph. D. in political science.
Stay in your lane, professor. Remember your foolish stock market prediction.
6
Krugman says it.
I believe it.
That settles it.
2
I am tired of Biden and Sanders. Where is all the press and talk about Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris and the many talented, intelligent women who have tossed their hats in? Give me a break!
Also, done and done with white men in their seventies. Can we get someone from a new generation?
41
I'll take an impotent Biden over a corrupt Trump anyday -- and twice on Sundays.
9
Biden has one advantage with the Republicans that Obama didn’t. He’s white. That’s the 800 lb. gorilla in the room no one is willing to acknowledge or confront. But it’s there.
42
In comparing Obama's lack of success with a racist Republican majority in Congress to Biden's likely similar lack of success is that you forget Biden is not black. Extending my argument; If a female, gay, or minority candidate wins, they will face a similar lack of results due to the racist makeup of our electorate and Congress.
23
So...if Warren is now polling in a position tied for second place, in spite of the fact that she is not taking money from corporate donors and has received scant coverage in the press, will the NYT finally write an article about her rising popularity and her substantive policy proposals? An article that doesn't focus on her "electability" or "likability"?? I will be here holding my breath......
47
Yeah, but Joe and Bernie are better, in terms of maturity and experience, than the other snowflakes running. Thank you.
3
Economy is doing real well lately.
Krugman needs to sidestep that news.
4
Great. Torpedo both Democratic candidates with the only possible chance of winning an election. Also, criticize the idea of trying to work with Republicans at any level - they're just too sub-human to even hope for that.
Divide, polarize, and lead Democrats off a cliff....Nice job Paul. Stick to Economics, Puuulleeeeeeze.
9
Where is Rahm Emanual ?
I don't know if Biden would suffer as much opposition as Obama, because he's white and his middle name doesn't sound Middle Eastern. Lets be honest about why Obama suffered such opposition.
26
retired federal attorney F/70 FL voter
Indivisible's 2020 Democrats' Pledge?
Reading these comments, including Times' Picks, I see "junkyard-dog" to "big tent" advocates, but zip nada nunc on this really good and plain-English pledge? For candidates AND for voters.
First of three pledges: Keep the messaging positive.
Last of three pledges: We all vote for whomever is the Democrat's nominee. ALL-IN! Texas hold 'em style voters!
Can't include a NYT link here because I can't find one?? Try MSNBC.
May be our best way to avoid our historic pattern of circular firing squad?
8
You also wrote this a few years back. Remember?
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/21/opinion/why-hillary-wins.html
4
Biden is just “old news”. When he speaks he rambles and drones on until he says something stupid or people just stop listening. Ineffectual and not what the country needs now. His time has past.
7
Elizabeth Warren is a "middle of the road" candidate and the press (like you, sir) are dismissive of her ideas.
We need a woman in the White House. We need her reasonable, aimed-at-the-average-person ideas. She is old enough to be savvy but not without vigor and energy.
Come on, Dr. K, help her but paying attention to her, and the rest of the women. It's time.
21
if "most people" don't consider the American health care model irredeemably broken, "most people" are wrong, and are in serious need of enlightening.
16
Biden should certainly have deromanticized his view of bipartisanship since the biggest fiasco of his career, the Thomas nomination process, ended with 11 Ds crossing over to get Thomas confirmed. It's so obvious that after the Obama years and the last 2 years that "bipartisanship" to the Rs means We dictate it, you vote for it. How does he not see that? If he's somehow the nominee and during the campaign, endorses one or more Rs for Congress, yikes.
9
The problem isn't the Democrat candidates. It's the U.S. electorate, the huge number of voters with dubious knowledge about reality and seriousness, under the most massive news manipulation ever seen, and... the U.S. Electoral College. If you like to play the game of 'manipulation' you're lost, well, U.S. looks like already 'lost in translation' at every level.
11
The CNN poll that claims Biden is far ahead is based on polling that excluded all people under 50, because the polling agency was unable to collect enough responses from its 1000-plus respondent survey to get statistically significant results for those age groups.
I'm 33. It was frustrating when I was 18 and my opinion was ignored. It's especially frustrating when I realize people who are nearly 50 are ignored, and that those polls are used to depress voter turnout and discourage younger participation. Shame, Paul Krugman, shame.
I made $23,000 last year on my taxes and am on the mark to do only a bit better this year, and I've given $300 to Sanders so far. There's a reason Sanders has gotten twice as many donations as his nearest competitor. God help me, if I have to sell some of my belongings, Bernie will get more money from me before it's over.
It's also not true that Sanders isn't bipartisan. Is passing the most sweeping rebuke to U.S. foreign policy (the Yemen War Powers Resolution) not bipartisan? Is reflecting the views of Brent Scowcroft on Iraq before it was popular not bipartisan?
Sanders has in fact said in CNN interviews that he would accept middle ground proposals if needed, but that he is advocating for the full reach of what he thinks is needed on Medicare for All.
Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris are also fine candidates I would support, even though they're not my favorites. Biden is trash. I wouldn't vote for him any more than I'd vote for Trump.
14
Moreover, they're both TOO OLD. I should know. I'm even older.
7
retired federal attorney worked Congress too F/70 FL voter
I could support a D candidate who meets two criteria: (1) has actually been accountable for running an important and complex organization, and (2) has lived long enough to have basic life skills tested. I'd prefer a better plain-English communicator for daily life than former President Obama.
Right now, how about Kamala Harris, JD, who ran the State of California's Attorney General's Office before her Senate disemboweling of Mr. Barr, with Joe Biden as her VP? Lunch bucket Joe has too much ugly baggage, including Anita Hill, for top of ticket for me. But he could be a great one-term VP and D old-people vote getter.
5
I still cannot understand Krugman's love affair with the Republican conceived Obamacare. It was specifically designed by a Republican think tank to protect private insurance companies and their obscene profits by using taxpayer money to add a few million more "insured" while preventing the rising tide demanding single payer. It was never intended as an incremental step toward single payer and reduced costs, nor was it designed to provide actual "health care" as opposed to "insurance coverage."
Without seeing the actual wording of the poll questions that Krugman says that show support for single payer drops off when people are told that even though there would be increases in the government taxes, the elimination of the onerous "insurance company taxes" would be more than offsetting and actual leave them with more money in their pocket and better health care, it is very hard to believe that people are that stupid and actually agree.
7
Stop saying Medicare for All would eliminate Private insurance. First of all Medicare is by choice, you don't have to get on Medicare. There is also private insurance called Medicare Plus that covers what Medicare does not cover. There is also a partly privatized form of Medicare called Medicare Advantage that costs the USA an additional 15%. Lastly, drop the stupid assumption that Medicare for All would be put in place overnight. Lower the age to be eligible a few years at a time, keep the payroll tax in place and raise the cap for the payroll tax a little at a time then let Medicare bargain drug prices a step at a time. Do not worry that PHRMA will stop doing research. NIH already pays for almost all the research and our taxes have paid for it all along.
23
Is it possible biden really believes this bipartisan junk. We need a fighter who will be low down and mean and get even meaner after winning.
3
He’s right. We are in a war. A real war. It’s going to take a warrior to survive. I don’t think either one of these Democrats is up to the task. Maybe Kamala Harris or the gay mayor. But the rest of them? I don’t think so.
4
Bernie is simply poison for the Democrats. He is like Ralph Nader is his idealism, intransigence and ego-mania. Bernie only believes in Bernie. As a Senator he never supported any bill that passed. All he did was make grandstand against the Democrats because nothing they did was sweepingly radical enough for him.
Bernie doesn't care if what he promises his supporters will never happen in reality. Like Trump he recklessly promises his supporters whatever they want to hear and could care less if it is plausible. Bernie needs to be swept aside for a candidate who can beat Trump and it sure isn't Bernie.
7
Donald Trump has demonstrated (and continues to demonstrate) that once you ignore the norms, you can then ignore the laws. He has proved that a president who is ruthless & merciless can publicly stride towards autocracy and no typical politician can stop him.
Joe Biden & Bernie Sanders, despite their differing temperaments and ideologies, are typical politicians. Both are shrewd, ambitious and acceptably corrupt. Neither is ruthless & merciless. And the only person who can destroy Trump & Trumpism is somebody as ruthless & merciless as he is.
6
I read the opinion written by Dr. Krugman thoroughly.
This time, I disagree with him, almost completely.
However, in the zone of medical care and medical benefits, medical economics, I have to state that Dr. Krugman is off on this single interpretation and his opposition to the two front running male-Democratic Presidential Candidates.
California has a very imperfect but wholly up and running Medicad for all known as Medical. It is serving all of California and many many millions of new comers, also known as refugees, as illegal aliens, or persons without documentation.
At times, the California Medical system is clumsy.
There can be for specific groups of patients a huge discontinuity of service, of which service, there are attorneys in the State, who are working for those patients to keep their care providers and insurance providers in place.
But the idea that the U.S. as a whole cannot transition to single payer medical care or medical care for all is false.
Dr. Krugman does not visit California often to have a real time view of data in action, such as this data point.
This past eight days have been a complete roller coaster for me, medically. And with persistence, and the annoyance of many medical personnel, I came out on top.
What happened to the man with pancreatic cancer would not happen here in California. The State would have provided his care, regardless of his economic status.
9
I love the continued characterization by the dems (yes Krugman included) that republicans met Obama with a scorched earth policy. However, they will tell you that their opposition to Trump, in many ways more vicious, is “principled opposition”.
I’m not a trumpster, but really.
2
'Medicare for All" needs the right kind of implementation, and it will work with voters. We're already spending the money, one way or another. If my employer is providing my health insurance, they are spending money that could be added to my income, and then taxed for the "Medicare for All" coverage. I might come out ahead on that... and the net impact to the economy would be the same.
We could transition to "Medicare for All" and require that employers pay the full amount now being devoted to employer-provided coverage as either tax payment, or increased salary to the employee if in excess of the new Medicare tax amount (the employee then pays taxes on it as ordinary income).
If the overall new tax rate were less than the percentage of the employee's "total compensation" pay now being used to fund the employer-provided insurance, the difference would be a 'raise' for the employee (more accurately, it would now be going into their pocket instead of the corporation's health insurer's pockets). This might not be such a hard sell for voters.
10
The current hodgepodge health care system has got to go. Employees don't like their current coverage, but desperately accept it due to lack of choice. Any rational consumer would prefer Medicare, and polls show they do. Also the current system is wasteful and delivers poor outcomes, an excellent reason to dismantle it.
10
As an independent observer, the polling data at this time does not matter because things can change. But if democrats want to have even a fighting chance to beat Trump, they need a candidate who knows how to fight like a mixed martial arts fighter in a cage and score a knock out . The policies and so called bipartisanship discussed by Mr. Krugman in this article should be a minor and secondary consideration in the upcoming elections. Donald Trump with all his faults and his his brand of politics has the charisma to fill up sports stadiums during even even past mid night, while Hillary had to employ Hollywood surrogates to gather even respectable crowds.
4
As for Sanders, if by some miracle he gets elected, he'll find himself on an island no matter the makeup of Congress. I worked on banking legislation in the 90s. During hearings on what became Gramm-Leach-Bliley, he spent his time in hearings trying to get Greenspan to agree that all of the country's financial issues would be resolved by going back on the gold standard. Even if he was right, it simply wasn't on the table.
5
The only reason people can even talk about a "gradual" move to Medicare for All today is because of Bernie's (and others on the left) leadership on the issue and pushing for Medicare for All in a straightforward, unadulterated way.
This centrist, don't push too hard or you'll alienate the Republicans, approach does not work. They will oppose the democratic president no matter how "centrist" and willing to reach across the aisle she/he may be. They called Obama a socialist and gave him no support whatsoever even when he adopted a Republican's (Mitt Romney's) healthcare plan.
So please, let's stop pretending there's a way of compromising with the right. Except Paul Krugman knows this very well. So if you oppose Medicare for All then just come out and say it Paul.
14
No thank you.
I believe the only way to beat Trump in the General Election is through authenticity, thoughtfulness and knowledge of how government processes work; everything Trump doesn’t have and can’t do.
The author suggests we need someone to sink to Trump’s level, or try to beat him at his own game, but that is how Hillary lost. She got down and rolled around in the mud with him, but it just made them both dirty. We need a candidate like Bernie or Biden to refuse to go to his swamp and instead draw him out into the open.
Bernie nor Biden will play Trump’s game and sling attacks and make this about which side is the maddest and loudest. Bernie and Biden are the ONLY two candidates that can look Trump supporters in the eyes and honestly tell them they care about them too.
We shouldn’t be asking ourselves if Bernie or Biden can behave like Trump, we should ask the other Democratic candidates if they can keep from it.
5
It’s distressing, at this late date, after so much has been written on the subject, in The Times and elsewhere, that many readers are still in denial of what it will take for the Democrats to win the Electoral College.
These readers are liberal Democrats who believe deeply that only a left-leaning candidate like Sanders can beat Trump. That belief is built on several faulty premises:
1. The Democrats can win the Electoral College with big turnouts in reliably blue states. That’s simply not true; the election will be decided in the battleground states. That’s why they're called "battleground."
2. Voters in these key states care about the same issues, with the same intensity, as urban liberals do. That may be true for some economic issues, but certainly not for the cultural issues that are so important on the left. In fact, many voters are turned off by those cultural issues. Typically, regardless of policy concerns, most people vote for candidates they feel comfortable with.
3. Sanders beat Clinton handily in the "rust belt," according to polls at the time. I find that a dubious claim because no one can cite those polls for me. Whatever his poll numbers are now, however, once the Republicans wheel out their well-oiled smear machine, and attack him relentlessly on his socialist leanings, past and present, his poll numbers will drop precipitously.
The reality of presidential politics is simply not what these liberal Democrats claim it to be, and want it to be.
10
Professor Krugman is correct about Joe Biden's inability to face reality. His notion of bipartisanship is not in accord with reality and he seems to be trying for a reenactment of Obama's futile attempts at working with Republicans. But his assessment of Bernie Sanders is perhaps a little less charitable. Sanders, after all, did lead the effort to repudiate the was in Yemen which passed congress although it was, not surprisingly, vetoed by Trump. Not exactly the ineffective--or hopelessly stubborn--person portrayed by Professor Krugman.
10
It's a truism that the Democrats need to nominate the candidate with the highest probability of defeating Trump. This statement, however, comprises several non-trivial corollaries.
(1) Who can return Trump's fire most effectively?
(2) Who carries the least baggage (real or imagined) that the GOP can attack?
(3) Who can generate high voter turnout among (a) progressive Democrats, including (b) the youngest voting cohorts, while (c) winning the greatest number of purple districts, whose voters may prefer a centrist to a progressive (let alone a progressive absolutist)?
I have no idea which of the 21 candidates best meets these criteria, and I can only hope that the primary process will yield the answer.
11
I wonder how P.K. and/or any of the commentators would estimate how effective Sanders political leadership of Congressional Democrats might be, should he win the Presidency in 2020? Given his occasional and sometimes tangential relationship with the national party would the party lifers go to the mat for Sanders? There will always be politically painful close votes. What cards will Bernie be able to call in?
Then there is the question of age combining generational impatience as well as medical concerns. Even with a large anti-Trump victory would Biden or Sanders try for a second term? The Vice-Presidential candidate might have a special significance for the Democrats next year.
One solution might be a Biden-Sanders ticket (with the fields of income-inequality and Medical Care placed under Sanders supervision.) Both leaders could pledge not to run in 2024 leaving a clear path and time-line for the next generation of Democratic Party candidates.
Lots of new faces and progressive thoughts--or at least slogans--in the 2020 field. But ambition needs to be balanced by duty. This needs to be the anti-Trump election. Let's not make that mistake again. Which means a win of more than two million and possibly a Supreme Court recusal. Remember that Trump has been running for re-election since day one, and has a 30 million dollar head start.
If you are inclined towards democracy, vote in 2020. Might be your last chance.
7
Krugman has written a vivid - and voracious (in terms of grasping political realities) opinion.
Now - what about Pete Buttigieg? He is young (Joe and Bernie are not) He is energetic (comes with his age; the calendar can't lie for Joe and Bernie).
Most of us have great respect for Joe Biden (with kindest regards, part of this is because of his family tragedies.) And we have robust acknowledgement and gratitude for the principles of Bernie Sanders.
Yet - with optical clarity - one has to acknowledge that effective time for Joe and Bernie is ebbing. Buttiegieg embraces the best of their values as well as the ability (energy, energy, energy) to 'knit together' (a Pete Buttigieg phrase) disparate and opposing elements (mainly Congress and sadly, the Supreme Court) to move forward with repairing and strengthening America's foundations.
Buttigieg is an optimist without living in a fantasy. As Krugman wrote, Obama had a "total scorched-earth opposition" in the Republican Congress. Obama would have had a much stronger chance of overriding the Mitched-up
members had he shared more openly and clearly to his fellow Americans. Buttigieg possesses and nurtures his gift of communication (a rare art for anyone, especially politicians). Imagine him doing a weekly fireside chat like FDR did.
11
Bipartisanship with a party that regards the views of Eisenhower as socialist is impossible. The current version of the GOP has to be destroyed at the polls for bipartisanship to again be possible.
12
The democratic house, with a very narrow margin, superimposed Obamacare on the American people, with unfortunate consequences for many.
That was a willingness to compromise?
7
The big trouble with these two is they are same old, same old. o new ideas, messages or appeal.
Neither comes across as possessing any real passion for the job. it is as if they're running because that is what they do.
2
Medicare for all would replace premiums with taxes. Sounds like a fair trade, but most employee premiums are paid by their employers. Employers would no longer pay, but employees would have to pay the increased taxes. It would be a wash if salaries increased by the amount of premiums employers previously paid, now taken from the employees in taxes.
Do you really think that will happen?
6
so far: Biden learns from his mistakes (or perhaps from history), Sanders does not. If after the Obama presidency - where I don't remember Biden pushing the president to the right - Biden doesn't see the strategic choice we face, he won't win the primary. Sanders may have a one-note minority support = primary majorities strategy, which I believe voters will tire of before they vote. But let them get out there and campaign! No candidate has my vote, yet.
4
Since Krugman was hilariously incorrect in predicting Wall Street's reaction to Trump's election, I'm wondering how this self-described economist views the stock market's likely reaction to a Sanders or Biden presidency.
6
“I’m going to take away the insurance you have and replace it with a government program. Also, you’re going to pay a lot more in taxes. But trust me, the program will be better than what you have now, and the new taxes will be less than you currently pay in premiums.”
I see that Krugman's still shilling for the insurance companies - by spreading myths. Only 54% of people with insurance get it through their employer. And of those 54%, those who can't afford COBRA coverage, dread the loss of their job, because it means the loss of their health insurance. Become ill > can't work > lose your job > lose your health insurance.
Then you get to find out just how substandard Medicaid coverage is.
And let's face it, there is a very good reason health insurance companies are despised even more than Wall Street. Although an elitist like Krugman wouldn't be expected to have any qualms concerning a health care system with costly deductibles and copays, most of us find these to be a heavy burden.
I'd like to see Trump's tax returns - but I'd also like to see Krugman's portfolio. He sure goes to bat for the private insurers a lot, and always swings for the fence.
12
In which we see how the Russian Revolution ended up with Zinoviev, Republican Spain ended up with the POUM, China ended up with self-criticism sessions, North Korea ended up with Stalinism, and Cambodia ended up with Pol Pot.
Not even kidding. You let power into the hands of this much ignorance, this much intolerance of other views, this much arrogance about being on a historical mission from God, and this much contempt for more than half their compatriots, and it’s off to the races.
2
Bernie & Joe, like the incumbent, whose name shall not be invoked, are two old white guys. I'm sorry, but it's largely old white guys whose world views are encapsulated & antique, who've gotten us into this situation.
I have all the respect in the world for Biden & Sanders, but it's time for new blood: progressive, forward-thinking, & reality-embracing. I'm for Kamala Harris! The facts that she is under 70, female and a person of color are irrelevant for me, though I like those things, too. What's important is that she's smart & tough & she knows when to "go to the matresses".
10
Krugman’s concerns are valid enough. If Biden gets elected, though, I don’t think it will take very long before he realizes that he’s not going to have any more success getting Republicans on board than Obama did. Republicans will tell their constituents that they will not cooperate with a Biden White House. Then they’ll visibly not cooperate. Their need to be seen not cooperating will present Biden with a clear indicator of what the future holds. He could prove dim enough or deluded enough not to see the obvious, of course. Is it reasonable for us to expect Biden to be that dim or that deluded?
It took Obama 4 years and Biden has stronger personal ties to Senate Republicans than Obama did.
2
This is based on pure speculation that Biden would have learned nothing at all from the past. Why would he repeat Obama's early mistakes simply because he speaks of the possibility of bipartisanship? Why would these candidates be unprepared for the "harsh political reality" that anyone paying attention can understand? This is overly simplistic, based on a false premise, and paints these candidates as two-dimensional caricatures of themselves. We desperately need intelligent coverage of this election. You can do better.
6
Neither is ready for "harsh political reality????"
The harsh reality is that if trump is not defeated next year (or is not removed before), the US is over. OVER. Biden's announcement speech addressed that head on. Everything else is secondary. Let's keep our eye on the ball.
14
Yes, but Biden's speech also made clear that he thinks Trump is an anomaly. His failure to recognize that the Republican party has become a neo-fascist party that is openly hostile to even the idea of liberal democracy suggests that he is not prepared to confront political reality.
8
Who said this?
"If Medicare is so much better than private insurance, why didn’t the Affordable Care Act simply extend Medicare to cover everyone? The answer, of course, was interest-group politics: realistically, given the insurance industry’s power, Medicare for all wasn’t going to pass, so advocates of universal coverage, myself included, were willing to settle for half a loaf."
Answer: Prof. Krugman, back in 2011
Now though, he attacks Senator Sanders for promoting Medicare for All as, "supporting sweeping policy changes that would try to fix things most people don’t consider broken".
Why?
9
Paul,
You may be right in what you state about Biden and Sanders. However, you forget to mention the problem with their age. They are both very old and old people tend to stick to what they are comfortable with. Add to that for Biden, he is a traditional moderate Democrat and Trump and the GOP has brought the country so far astray that only fairly drastic progressive action will help; a moderate in the White House will just make things worse simply through inaction. What we need is a person who can think outside the box, embrace practical solutions that can unite the Democrats and pass progressive legislation with or without Republican support. It will take a younger person to do that. I am not sure that Warren because of her age is the solution, either.
4
Just finished "Fault Lines", US politics from 1974 to the present. Well, the Democrats added every Republican amendment to Obamacare, and the Republicans on the committee vetoed all the Democratic ones. And still, not a single Republican voted for it. So, we got nothing, not single payer, etc, and they got all that they wanted without having to vote for it. Something wrong there.
7
Democrats need to have a candidate under 55. Plain and simple. If they do not energize the youth they will lose. Biden and Sanders had their chance and should allow the next generation lead.
10
Sorry, I have to disagree-- so far as Bernie. Joe is clueless so no need to bother. Bernie has said that the only way to advance the programs and policies he has advocated forever is to have strong public support.
As a case in point, my very right-wing brother in-law said he would have voted for Bernie if he had the chance. Bernie has nothing to do with partisan politics and everything to do with goals that most Americans already believe in, and desperately need. Bernie was at a Fox get together and most audience members raised their hands in support.
Bernie has been involved in many pieces of legislation that have become law, and with Republican support.
A recent poll has Bernie as defeating Trump easily.
Running against liberal candidates may only help Bernie as they reinforce what he has said all along. He may in fact been the inspiration for some of them.
The Democratic Party is still stuck in the elite, corporate politics that have driven so many to the right. The Party is a dead weight to leave behind.
13
The Democrats need a "junkyard dog" to go toe-to-toe with Trump and peel the bark off of him.
That would be Kamala Harris.....
She showed her mettle by messing up Bill Barr this week.
314
@George Baldwin
Kamala can be a bit too cadgy for my taste on occasion.
But she is the only one who convicingly suggests she can deal with Republican lies and nonsense as it should be done. In a war, you need a warrier. A smart, tactical warrier to be sure, but one who has no qualms about the fight or what she is fighting against, and who she is fighting for.
Yes, use Elisebeth Warren to get good policies and ideas but with Kamala Harris leading the fight.
Democrats may have a "big tent", but in a hurricane, everyone needs to help pull on the mooring ropes or everyone loses. Going outside to discuss a "compromise" with the raging winds is not likely to help.
45
@Mark Johnson
I'm all for Kamala, and agree we need to start fighting and not being polite about it.
But California's electoral votes will already go Democratic, we need the Midwest and she is a double minority. Maybe Warren and Kamala as VP.
26
@George Baldwin
The last thing we need is a “junkyard dog.” Hillary already lost trying to beat Trump at his own game. Attacking him makes him feel at home.
Bernie and Biden are the best choices because they don’t sink to the level that Trump does. This election isn’t about Trump; it’s about the nation and going forward. There are two people that can stick to policy amid all the smears and they are Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden.
We don’t need an adversarial figure to keep driving partisan divides. We need to be able to look at Trump supporters and say “hey, won’t you come back over here with sanity, and get yourself a plate of barbecue. We’re all in this together.”
24
As between Bernie and Joe, give Bernie the job and title and give Joe a waive goodbye-- to him and all of Obama's crew. As 0 famously said, we need to look forward. It's amazing that one keeps getting requests to choose between 0's legacy and Trump. As far as 0 is concerned, he's gone about as "fer as he can go".So has Joe. If the democratic leadership is telling Americans we cannot afford the Green New Deal or Medicare For All while they continue to vote for massive increases in military spending and helping Israel thwart the rights of the Palestinian people, they have gone as far as they can go too.
13
Preach!
2
Of course a wealth tax polls well. Most people aren’t wealthy, so a wealth tax would only effect about 2-5 % of the people. Sure, tax the wealthy, it doesn’t effect me. It’s other people’s money.
3
Whether Joe or Bernie are fit for the Presidency in today's climate is a bit acadmic if Democracy in the U.S. is at threat. This is what the Professor said in the prior Editorial. The serious issue is what can the public and others do to prevent our acknowledged authoritarian President from becoming dictator. Let's hope it doesn't come to this.
140
Biden to me is also a Clinton center left person.
And with that there are always 3 sides to all ideas.
We need a "winner take all" approach from the left.
Because Mitch and the gang have taken no prisoners since
Obama took office and his quote "That I want Obama to be a one term president" still stings.
6
An excellent summation by Mr. Krugman as to why anyone wanting to replace private insurance with Medicare for All will lose a Presidential election.
2
You are correct about Bernie, he voted down gun control when Republicans added "something Bad" but not as bad as his vote.
1
Speaking of not grounded in reality. Mr. Krugman shows that he has a solution in search of a problem.
Both Boden and Sanders have been on the presidential campaign trail before and have been tested by fire. They have each served for a long time in Congress and are on top of the issues.
The incumbent president is the one who breaks things that are not broken and then claims to fix them.
Biden has learned from Obama's mistakes in his early months and it is doubtful he will repeat them in the name of bipartisanship.
In fact, if both of them have been paying attention, the best way to run government with a single party is to run roughshod over the minority as the Republicans have done for many years now.
No, Mr. Krugman, there is nothing wrong with experience in politics. We know this from the current president's amateur follies.
2
As usual I agree with Dr. Krugman, with whom I share a similar political and cultural background, although not the intellectual power. I think, however, one critical aspect of the 2020 race is being ignored and that is senatorial and congressional races. Charles Schumer can’t get any Democrats to run for these vitally important positions in 2020. Why not? And even if the Democratic Party somehow can find a way to win both houses and the presidency as they did in 2010 will there be the financial solvency in the federal government after the republicans have “ starved the beast” as has been their plan for forty years a la Grover Norquist? It wasn’t there when Obama had both houses for two years after Republican economists allowed the criminal destruction and wholesale fleecing of the economy under Clinton and Bush and Cheney deregulation and a criminal genocidal war in Iraq which most democrats as well as republicans and newspapers were in favor of. How many trillions of dollars in government wealth did Obama have to gift to the one percent of the United States and Europe to “ save the economy”.The economic and political and environmental future is bleak no matter how much power the democrats win. It has been ten years since 2008 and this economy is still only capable of “ creating” mostly low paying jobs. If any democrat wins the presidency they will need both houses of Congress.
1
Great column. This is why I read Paul Krugman, not just for intelligent journalism, but for wise thinking. His points about Biden and Sanders are spot-on. If Dems want to win, they need to be both aspirational and careful about bringing in a majority of Americans susceptible to Republican propaganda, esp about cost of programs.
1
Krugman says it's premature to speculate at how the general election will play out.
So instead he speculates about the how the first term of the candidates will play out if they were to win the campaign.
It's all a wild guess.
1
Bernie and Joe believe they have "unique powers of persuasion; so does the current occupant of the White House and look where that's gotten us.
Let's eliminate the geriatric ward and listen to the younger candidates. Surely someone will emerge from the Democratic pack if these 2 old folks got out of the way.
By the way, I'm approaching Medicare age, so please don't accuse me of ageism.
4
OK then, so let's talk about Warren, Buttigieg, or whoever else you think might 1.) Defeat Trump 2.) Do something good.
Wasn't Jeb once the front runner in similar circumstances? So what? Why are we pretending that either one of these guys will go on to defeat Trump in 2020?
5
"...Sanders has conspicuously refused to support measures that would enhance Obamacare..." That is a mistake. In fact, it's wrong-headed for Democrats in congress not to be pushing for that now. Reportedly, the healthcare issue won for Dems. in 2018.
3
I agree on many points.
The challenge for Progressives will be choosing whom 'they really want' as President vs who is the 'most likely to win' as they may not be one and the same. Bernie makes a great case for Medicare for All, but I have a hard time seeing that happen considering our existing healthcare and political systems.
I like they way Mayor Pete approaches it: offer Medicare as a buy-in option and then let's see if private insurers can prove their mettle. He doesn't get too bogged down in hyper-detailed policies.
Krugman makes some good points, as usual. But I think the overarching issue for most of us is that we need assurance that our candidate can beat Trump, and it looks like Biden would be our best choice in that regard, while at the same time we’re concerned that none of the candidates in the next generation of candidates is “ready”, although this is a terrific group in the on-deck circle.
The solution to this seems fairly straight forward, a Biden plus fill-in-the-blank TICKET. I’ll admit this hasn’t overtly been tried before, but Americans seem endlessly innovative in its political evolution, so why not try this strategy?
Let’s consider a Biden-Harris ticket, for example. We’d have a seasoned, center-left candidate who can beat Trump at the top of the ticket, complemented by a charismatic, intelligent, thoughtful woman who could appeal to a host of constituencies that we would also like to capture, especially the younger generation of voters.
There’s an implicit assumption here that Biden would “retire” after four years, but he would be best at restoring calm and stability to our governance, while Harris would be best suited to championing the Progressive agenda we so desperately need at this point in our history.
1
America installed, with a push from Putin, a con man, scam artist, and ignoramus as a (fake) president in 2016. That could only happen because the GOP has become a conspiracy of the rich against the middle-class and poor in America, a party which wages war to expand brutally the power and wealth of its true owners, the billionaires, gun and oil lobbies. Biden and Sanders are not only misguided in their belief in cooperation from the Republicans or regarding support by the broader public for Medicare for All. They just don't speak to the main political problem of the day. How will they free America from the mafia of crooks and money-launderers which is now running it under Trump? Sanders comes through as an angry and self-important old man, Biden as a solid, colorless Democrat of the type who would get out the union vote in the 1970s. Nothing wrong with that in itself, but these are times that try men's souls. Where is the iron in the spirit, the determination to ensure that justice prevails in America against the tremendous odds of an Executive, Senate, and part of the judiciary (including much of the Supreme Court) determined to bring down the rule of law? Do they even recognize the nature of the problem?
4
The sell-by date is fast approaching on the Biden and Sanders candidacies. Get your columns in now, post haste. (And I voted for Sanders.)
1
Mr. Krugman has the right headline but misses the boat. Biden is all about himself. f When Biden was questioning someone at a committee, a network counted the times he used the words "I" or "Me". There were more times than minutes in the questioning period. After the election he was soon on TV saying that he could have beat Trump. When he announced his run, his speech was all about himself. He calls Hill to apologize but states that he doesn’t think he did anything wrong. He seems to think he is entitled to rub noses, snuggle, kiss hair, hug, etc. etc. women without permission etc. I suspect Trump dreams of Biden being the opponent. He knows that Biden will campaign on the same slogan as Hilary. "Now it's my turn." In the meantime, Trump will say to the people, "I made sure this time is now your time. Don’t let them take it away from you. Bernie is just another carrier politician. Most of his adult life has been paid for out of tax payers wallets. He came to prominence in the democratic party because he ran against the same person Trump did, Hillary. As Obama says, she lost because she ran a "soulless campaign” and that Trump beat her for the same reason he did. But this time Biden and Bernie won’t be running against Hillary. They will run against a bunch of new and very vocal candidates and they will shred them to pieces.
2
I think the reason we're not seeing the big "but how will they get it done" answer from any candidate is simple--without a Democratic Senate, House and Presidency, nothing will get done. Nothing. Whatever Biden thinks of his bipartisanship and whatever Bernie thinks of his grassroots appeal, all those messages do are play to their appeal to independents in the presidential race. I don't think either candidate is suggesting those views are evidence of how things will get done, it's the message they think is going to get them the nomination. That's all.
So right now we need to pick the candidate with the best platform. And then we need to clean house in Congress because that platform only gets implemented if WE do our jobs, not them. Biden/Bernie can't help that. WE must give them solid democratic majorities in both chambers. That is the political reality. That is the only answer. WE must kick Republicans into the minority, at this point by hook or by crook in my view.
So go get our candidate what he or she needs. Set Lindsey Graham up with a rent boy. Put cocaine in Mitch McConnell's shoe. I don't care. Get rid of these traitors now before they destroy us all.
3
The problem with unimpressive Joe Biden: he is a follower, career politician, follower, etc. He has never initiated jobs, signed checks, etc. He is not the brightest bulb on Broadway and he is not representative of the energy of the socialist democratic party which is moving radical left. Plus he is too old!
7
Excellent piece by Mr. Krugman! I would only hope that all the starry-eyed Bernie supporters would read it and return to reality. Mr. 'free everything' Sanders is a con man but not a very good one. He is part of the reason we now have a criminal enterprise running our government. As for, Mr. Biden he has attempted twice to win the presidency and been rejected both times. For him the third time would not be a charm, as noted in this fine critique. We do not need two dawdling old coots in the race. I say this being a 79-year-old myself.
2
I have to say that this opinion is written in privilege bubble-speak and serves no one. I don't know anyone who's happy with their health insurance. None of my friends own homes. None of us earn middle income or above. I've never asked for government help in any way. This opinion piece, providing no solutions, is part of the problem.
7
@J Allen..... your attitude is part of the problem. It is not evil to ask the government for help. Government is there to serve all of us.
1
Both men, when you come down to it, are too old to be president--especially a two term president which is what the necessary policy initiatives are to require. Mr. Krugman is I believe accurate as to the slugfest we're in for when any Democrat takes office. I like Ms. Warren's wealth tax, it carries a lot of policy water that I don't see from Sanders, who seems to have drunk his own kool aid wiht respect to the battles to come. Not as sure that Mr. Biden is as blind to the perils of "bi-partisanship." After all he and Obama endured every one of the last administration's policy frustrations. Unless the Senate becomes Democratic we can expect more of the same from McConnell. I have to believe that Biden understands this. The fact that his outward display is genial and at least overtly bi-partisan is not necessarily as sign that he lacks the stomach for the fight he will have.
2
Just as long as Trump and Russia are defeated in 2020! However, is there a progressive with a grip on reality about the Republicans? Republicans only policy is tax cuts for the 1% and fear/hatred for the GOP base, as usual since Reagan to Trump!
3
Comparing Warren to Sanders: she's a little bit younger, a little bit smarter, a little bit nicer, a little bit more nuanced when she speaks, a little bit more up on policy, and she represents a state that is a little more important.
But somehow the media - including the Times - thinks he's much more important to cover. And coverage of Warren is so often just about Trump's latest deplorable insult.
13
Dr. Krugman, pelase forgive me for going a little off-topic here. But what I would honestly like do read is your analysis on how the NYT headlines of incomes starting to improve and "booming jobs and low inflation" may or may not impact Trumps plans for reelection. Is it possible that those economic good news could turn out to be devastating political bad news for the US? There is no doubt The Trump will capitalize on those news.
2
I do love thinking about how wonderful it will be to get rid of Trump next year. But Sanders is the Trump of the left. We can look forward to four years of hot air and not much getting done.
Or we can have Biden. He's so......reasonable. I could use a large dose of reasonable. The right wing is not going to cooperate with any Democratic president, regardless of where that person sits on the spectrum, so I don't see how it matters that neither Joe nor Bernie is ready. Ready or not, who cares? But then ask yourself which of the two is more likely to hold the Democrats together in the face of constant right wing onslaughts: a seasoned insider who knows how to get along with people and get things done, or an overgrown child who gets along with nobody and doesn't even care whether he gets anything done.
Trump supporters and Sanders supporters are very similar. They all think the system is rigged and they are being done dirty by the "elites" or the "bosses" or the "big corporations." And they all think that electing this or that demagogue is going to change it all. You want delusional? You got it.
The only question that matters now is which man or woman is most likely to rid us of Trump. The bulk of the Democratic party think it is Biden, and I agree. He may be white, he may be male, he may have voted wrong, he may have insulted Anita Hill. None of that matters now.
Great campaign slogan for Joe: "Put an adult in the White House."
3
I think this is a little too far of a reach. I am sure both of them, probably Joe more than Bernie, are both ready to deal with that reality. Both of been in Congress before and know exactly what it is like. I understand some will say "Bernie's legislation record is trash!" Well of course it is. He's one of the leftist leaning candidates we've had, especially throughout the right leaning shift we had in the after the 70's (which I would argue has to do with the demise of the Dem party in the 70's during the Southern Dems really switching over to the Rep party). But he has still been reelected time and time again, even if that doesn't really follow any voting behavior theory. Both understand what they are getting themselves into more than you assume.
2
I see some folks need to take a good hard look at the way St. Bernie’s polls dropped like a stone the last week or so.
Be nice, also, if they found out the diff between universal coverage and medicare for all, not to mention that telling folks, “Hey, we’re gonna take that fifteen grand a year you get from your employer, at least double your FICA tax, and give you a government plan we’re really not gonna give you details for,” isn’t exactly going to be met with a Happy Fizzies Party.
2
Whatever happened to the ideal of growing old gracefully?
54
Middle men got to go. We need competition among the real healthcare providers not these paper pushers. It will happen in time. I envision healthcare to become more like the public school system - "free" public schools with the option of fancy private schools.
5
Mr. Krugman,
Why venture into political economics at this point? Please just go back to macroeconomics - you're wrong enough about that to last the rest of a lifetime.
4
Thanks to PK for pointing out several key issues undermining Sanders and Biden. The real problem is that both men seem to have no clear understanding of the state of current political practice, and do not see their own manifest limitations in dealing with the gigantic political problems they would face. Both men should be satisfied with being fighters from the sidelines, where Sanders could be very effective and Biden a valuable calming influence.
1
I agree with Krugman. To me, the most important issue is a candidate's willingness to do away with the Senate filibuster. I will only support candidates who want to do this, and neither Biden nor Sanders are for it. Pass.
2
@Adam
That would require a constitutional amendment as Senate has the right of unlimited debate. The current Senate rules could be amended to allow cloture votes of 50% +1 which would end most filibusters. A better idea would be to get rid of the Senate entirely and add 100 more seats to the House.
4
Krugman is usually more insightful but I have to disagree with these characterizations Sanders. Sanders is an outsider but a long-time public servant. He wants to dramatically alter the status quo of the Democratic Party to something closer to what it purports to stand for. Biden represent the corporate arm of the Democratic party that has allowed it to stray far from its mission.
Sanders is one of the few candidates (there are good women) who places an ethical standard on policy making decisions. Look at his voting record in Congress and you'll see that he's been on target far more often than other Democrats. His predictions have largely been true - over a 30 year period. And he HAS sponsored many bipartisan bills when they meet his high standards - Krugman s wrong on this account.
The reality is folks are tired on the gross neglect and outright thievery of the Republican Party and their enabler - the Democratic Party. People want a major structural change to the way politics is run, a return to the fundamentals of good governance. Yes Single Payer / Medicare For All represents a profound structural change in how healthcare is delivered in this country, but the current system is broken and the ACA was nothing more than a bandaid with too many corporate concessions.
9
Yeah, and he’s also a patronizing jerk who gets booed half off the stage because when asked about civil rights he brags on 1963, and who says things like, “(and there are good women)”
As Krugman intimated, the persuasion for universal health insurance has essentially won over the populace, now we wait for for the Republican leadership to concede or lose the Senate. The Dem candidates may dance around the issue but the only way to afford health care is to be all in. This half in and half out is too expensive. (Health insur isn't going anywhere. See other western country health systems. They all have insur and the insur business is still gong strong.)
How the Congress will find its bipartisanship is if a Republican wins the election who isn't a madman like the one in the office now. If the dems take both houses, his person would have to build concensus with them, a much more reasonable group as a whole.
So support Bill Wells or other reasonable Rep candidates for president - give them a boost to run against Trump in the primaries. Start the media machine working to raise the name recognition of Rep challengers.
Anyone but Trump.
3
More thoughts on your column.
First, I think the country would be better off with Medicare for All health insurance. I have been on Medicare insurance coverage for a very long time and believe the actuarial science law that the larger the risk pool the less it will cost to provide protection to any of its members.
2nd, during the Clinton-Sanders debate Senator Sanders responded to a question from the moderator that he would ELIMINATE THE CAP ON PAYROLL TAX, he wasn't ask but would anyone be willing to push for apply the flat tax for Medicare and Social Security on ALL INCOME earned. I don't know for certain but I think a flat 15% on all income for heath care and social security would put the Trust Funds in much better shape until we learn how the universal health insurance would affect the market.
3rd, can we get a better handle on the cost of clinical, hospital, and expert medical costs with Medicare for All? I think we could just because we will have much better data to compare the cost for procedures, geography, age and gender data on the costs submitted for Medicare payment. it could also be useful in riding herd on pharmaceutical pricing.
I think data monitoring and analysis of the data will improve the private health care service and possible cause the development of medical services in rural areas.
I see a doctor from time to time for check-ups that they want. I am 82 & still work and know that it is a rare privilege. Many of my friends are dead, or ill.
4
In other words,myou think St. Bernie’d get ‘lected by promising to more than double the FICA tax.
Hoo, boy.
Good luck.
Inevitable Republican smear campaign? How about the Democrats start running their own smear campaign against Trump. Only in his case it won't be a smear campaign, it will be a campaign of truths.
3
Sander would never beat trump. In fact, trump ids practically supporting Sanders, he wants him as the dem candidate so badly.
2
I don't mind Biden, but his decision to run for 2020 was irresponsible on his part.
I'm ready for someone fresh, someone new, someone with their eye on the future of this country.
This millennial woman is singing about Mayor Pete from the rooftops.
4
"Seems," is a big word. Clinton "seemed" ready for the Presidency. The harsh reality of politics is that the national discourse is hijacked by wealthy special interests who take advantage of media deregulation, and loose campaign finance laws.
Any democrat who can follow a vision and survive through that minefield will pass out of the realm of, "seems," into the world of, "is."
What is obvious from this column is that no matter how hard Mr. Paul Krugman tries to cover himself with the wrappings of liberalism, deep in his heart lie the beatings of a Clintonian apostate Democrat. Let Biden be Biden, and Let Bernie be Bernie. In the end it is up to us "enlightened" voters to make the final decision. As for the unconvinced masses and the political Establishment, if the majority should put either of these two men in office, it would then become their responsibility to follow through as expected.
4
I agree, as usual, with your very insightful analysis. My comments are: what has Bernie really accomplished these past decades? the answer is nothing. He is a hanger on, a mooch and very deceitful. What happened to all the support he was going to give Hillary or the money left over from his failed campaign last time? Bernie is a schemer while Joe Biden is just who he is, surprisingly nieve after all these years and so forthright that he actually shoots himself in the foot from time to time. He has the experience, honesty of character and leadership qualities to be president albeit not a great one but considering the Trump travesty, he might be just what we need to repair the damage heaped upon this nation and our democracy because of Trump.
1
The fact that Sanders supports violent prisoners voting is enough to sink him immediately. He is done.
4
I hate to say this, but I finally see why Nassim Nicholas Taleb, author of "Fooled By Randomness" and "The Black Swan" has been so dismissive of Paul Krugman as out-of-touch. His upbeat statements about the state of the US healthcare system clinch Taleb's argument.
7
@PMN
I believe Mr. Krugman has stated he would prefer a single-payer health insurance for the US. However, a large majority of those with private (read employer) health insurance are happy with it. That being true, having a government-run single-payer health system that eliminates private health insurance would be a very hard sell.
There is a difference between wanting it all now and doing the possible now. It's not as exciting, but it's more likely to get results. In Great Britain, those who wanted the possible social programs now and the ideal social programs later were called Fabians (and no, there were not a fan club for the pop singer of the late 1950's).
2
It is the DNC, and apparently a few columnists who seem unable to face harsh political realities. Actual liberals, the ones who care about universal healthcare, stopping war, educating our children, reducing income inequality, eliminating domestic surveillance etc, are disgusted with the mainstream Democratic party. We're not voting for a Biden, or any other lesser-of-two-evils candidate. Get that through your heads or you're facing a second Hillary surprise. It looks like the Democratic party is going to require yet another spectacular failure before they learn that the old centrist lies are not selling any more.
8
@Jim K, I agree. I will never vote for another corporate Democrat again just because they're not quite as sociopathic as the Republican.
2
Krugman put his thumb on why I won't vote for Bernie. I like that Bernie is all in for Medicare for All. But it ticks me off when he won't support incremental change for Obamacare. Reminds me of his supporters who refused to vote for Hillary in the general election. They didn't get exactly what they wanted, so they took their ball and went home. And look what we got with that kind of selfish, myopic behavior.
3
How true is it that moderate voters are waiting around for good, ol' fashioned common sense when many of them voted for Trump during the period when he was exposed as a rapist? Obviously, they were not voting for common sense. They were voting for dreams.
Bernie represents an inevitable dream. We cannot continue to let our people die like we are now. Republicans kill more Americans through blocking real medical solutions than any bin Laden has ever done or ever will.
The Republican Party is going through a moral crisis right now. Criminals have taken it over at the wish of every Archie Bunker type we have in this country. This is called nihilism. "Kill the government" is the mantra. What happens when it is dead? I guess we are then a lot like Mexico or any other third world country.
The big money criminals are very smart, but we must be smarter. Our candidate must stand for right and like the Green New Deal must look at Medicare for All as a goal. Bernie is just very upfront about this goal. I'm sure he is aware that there will be resistance, but the only alternative is death.
If we really want to make America great then we better stop killing our people. Oh, but corporations, our masters, wouldn't like that! You can see our predicament. We are slaves to big money. Now they want us to worship them when before all they asked of us is to die for them.
Our candidate must grapple with this corporate beast and like the civics teacher most Americans didn't have: educate.
4
It’s very interesting to see the guy who shilled for AOC and Hillary claim to understand where people are at.
The guy lives in an ivory tower where you get nobel prices for calling AOC a tax genious.
A view from the bottom for those who live in gilded cages.
The people who will vote for Trump, already have their minds made up.
The people who chant ‘any one but him’, are dumb enough to vote for Stalin if he was running for the Democrats.
That leaves the few of us not set on Trump and not dumb enough to elect Godzila if he wore blue.
We are the ones you have to convince.
So far, Sanders is popular in the far loony left fringe. No way he appeals to any one in the middle. His all or nothing approach, his policies, we can see what they really mean: more taxes because (insert excuse here).
Bidden is not exactly a champion either, but we long for some one who can bridge both sides and come up with some grown up guidance. Unfortunately he lacks the support of the Democrat voters.
At the end the DNC will gift the super delegates to their anointed guy, Bidden. So let’s just go with him.
The rest is just bread and circus.
1
Professor Krugman's prize is in economics, not in politics. Who was he so sure was going to be President in 2006?
3
Paul is pretty glossy on this one. I thought he was smarter than that but maybe I was the silly one to thinking that. Maybe next time he'll choose one person and one topic? One can hope, or not.
At this point, I would vote for any democrat. Period. But I yearn for a leader who truly inspires. Bernie yells too much. He foams at the mouth. Joe Biden seems so recycled somehow. A place holder. Elizabeth Warren is just too anxious. And on and on. There’s gotta be someone out there...
1
@Emc
Take a look at Eric Swalwell. The NYT is ignoring him, but he's there, and he has some very solid ideas.
You are so right. Krugman’s “negotiate with yourself” approach is what Obama did. Start out asking for half a loaf and end up with a couple of slices (OCA).
Go hard fast, right out of the gate. Push single payer (your campaign promise) you might just get it, albeit with a second tier private option.
5
Nothing will get done if a Democrat becomes President unless we can take control of both houses of Congress. As long as there is a GOP majority in the Senate it will be four more years of paid off GOP Senators throwing monkey wrenches into everything. The Democrats entire purpose of life should be the total destruction of the Republican party. The GOP has shown their utter disregard for the Constitution and the rule of law and their total devotion to their corporate masters.
3
Elizabeth Warren is the only candidate in either party with significant new proposals and realistic ideas to implement them. The only question is whether she (or any democrat) can withstand the withering smears and insults from Trump and his gutless minions that will surely come if she is perceived as a threat. The republicans have poisoned the nation's politics so completely that I am not sure intelligence and genuine decency can ever win again. I hope I'm wrong.
6
You're talking about men in their 70's...I don't mean to be age-ist here, but it shouldn't surprise anyone if they're "stuck in the past."
2
With current economic news Trump's re-election looks very strong and Trump even gave a wink and nod to Putin today to help re-elect him again. Barr will get his supreme court seat if he gets to put Hillary in jail and purge the Justice dept of democrats who are disloyal to TRump and cannot be trusted. An oligarchy Putin style is coming in 2020 and there is not much to stop it except how long can TRump hang on to power.
Biden is not the clear front runner among all likely voters. Only those over 60. CNN is to blame for spreading misrepresentation.
3
Paul, you forgot to mention how old they are. Beliefs aside, do we really want a President that is going to be 82 or 83 at the end of his first term? Think about that. 82 or 83 years old.
They would have been good candidates if they were running against W. Let's move on.
2
So Biden and Sanders don't "seem ready for harsh political reality"?
And what's your recommended alternative path, Dr Krugman? Somehow that seems to have fallen out of your piece here, no?
And what IS the alternative to the two approaches you map out for Biden and Sanders? Is there any other path for us? Please explain...
"The trouble with both Biden and Sanders is that each, in his own way, seems to believe that he has unique powers of persuasion that will let him defy the harsh reality of today’s tribal politics. And this lack of realism could set either of them up for failure."
1
I'm not satisfied with my employer sponsored healthcare insurance.
According to NPR, neither is most of the American public.
7
Obama gave away the Public Option which would have allowed people to go off their private insurance, or not, to essentially get Medicare at any age. The private health insurers rightly saw this as the greatest existential threat they were going to face and swore to fight it to their corporate graves. Krugman is right to question how we get to a Medicare for all system. Maybe bringing back the Public Option will achieve that goal, albeit over many years, but eventually a Public Option will drain off the private insurers and eventually replace them.
1
Bernie was HRC's Ross Perot and will be for any Democrat running for election. For those of you too young to know who Ross Perot was, he was in and out of the race several times during the season. In the end, he stole enough Republican votes that President G.H.W. Bush narrowly lost to Bill Clinton who defiled the office of the presidency as surely as Trump is doing now. Bernie should drop his pretence and quit now. Likewise, I believe most of the Democratic runners should also drop out immediately or change their messages. So many of them are using rhetoric and attitudes that are further inflaming racial and inter-social tensions across the board. If they can't campaign to heal the societal damage caused by Trump, they'll never get my vote no matter what other good ideas they have. Biden? Well, he might survive the process if everyone else goes away and he can win a good VP candidate to pull in young and other borderline voters. He might even win the Presidency that way. Just be sure his partner can pick up the reins if he falters under the immense pressures he will face as President.
Professor Krugman's non-arguments against Sanders and Biden suggest only one thing: That he's backing another horse in this race.
3
Thanks to the Republicans behaving like the hordes of Genghis Khan in the halls of Congress and the Democrats abandoning the working class to suck up for a Wall Street payday, the system is irretrievably broken. Making America great again, assuming it ever was, will require more than a red baseball cap or the ridiculous nostalgic whining of Joe Biden.
3
Paul: I agree with you. We need a candidate with broader knowledge of the world we are facing. Neither Biden nor Sanders seems to understand the full range of our problems. Climate change is certainly the #1 issue and Inslee is one of my favorites. The Green New Deal is clearly a top approach to starting in January 2021. Tackling the corporate power of "neoliberal economics" also ties in with that (especially the oil and gas oligopoly).
Neither Biden or Sanders give me any hope of creating a safe and better world for my children and grandchildren.
1
I contributed to Bernie's campaign in the last election, but there are more alternatives this time. I am concerned that a 74 year old, Socialist, jewish candidate is going to be vulnerable, no matter how appealing he may be in other ways.
Biden is a flawed candidate as well. There are some unimpressive things in his record and I didn't think it was a good idea to kick off his campaign with an apology to Anita Hill, whether or not an apology would be appropriate at some point.
But, Biden has an opportunity to win moderate Republican votes in way that Sander, Harris, Warren and Mayor Pete do not.
And, I'll offer a suggestion. When Trump starts the inevitable name calling, Biden should respond with something like "Of course he wants this campaign to be about name-calling. He doesn't know anything about any of the issues. He doesn't read, he can't pay attention at a briefing and he can barely remember the bumper sticker slogans his aides prepare for him. He's intellectual deficient and a criminal beside. Why would you expect him to do anything but throw mud? You'll hear it in the debates when he avoids detail on any subject."
3
Yeah, I pretty much agree. Harris seems to have the chops for some serious butt kicking.
1
Krugman is an Establishment Democrat, that said, he nonetheless recognizes that centrist Biden is out-of-touch (in my opinion, too out of touch to be electable). As for Sanders, again, Krugman is an Establish Democrat who doesn't get Sanders and what he is offering this county. Unlike Biden, Sanders is electable, as demonstrated by his ability to raise huge amounts of money from small donors again and again, his list of a million volunteers who are activists who'll walk barefoot over broken glass for him, and the positions on issues he's running on, which Americans are clamoring for. And he's a shrewd, veteran politician. Sometimes insiders such as Krugman are just too close to the inside to see the bigger picture. Maybe MSM pundits with their skewed polls and their inside-the-box worldview have him hornswoggeled.
6
Oh, Paul. You paint such a stilted picture of Bernie Sanders, though it's not a surprise. We all know where you stand ideologically. Poll after poll after poll consistently speaks to Americans' desire for Medicare for All. Your example of the trope that Americans' desire for it diminishes when they realize that they will have to pay higher taxes tells half the picture. Though you know this - you choose to withhold the second part of that economic story. Medicare for all would eliminate premiums and co-pays that individuals would pay, and even with higher taxes (that would be paid by both employers and citizens), everyone would be saving money. It's basic economics. Obamacare is an abysmal failure. I pay twice what I use to pay, for less coverage and higher deductibles - all for the pleasure of supporting other Americans to get healthcare through private insurance companies whose C-suite employees enjoy enormous salaries and bonuses, and whose stockholders get paid with dividents. All that money should be going to Americans' healthcare. We tried it, it's time to jettison it and adopt what the rest of the western world is doing. For the benefit of humanity.
6
Which polls say that please? Do they mention paying for it?
No, most European countries do not have medicare for all systems.
@Robert--All developed countries have a non-profit health care system that the government administers and controls prices, thus ensuring comprehensive coverage for all. In some countries like Germany they have insurance companies that insure working people, but those companies are non-profit and closely regulated by the government. Krugman is for "capitalism" and the "free market" which doesn't work for health care if we view it as a moral imperative and a right. Krugman had more hit pieces against Sanders in last election and never mentions Jared Bernstein ( a well-respected economist) who developed Sanders's single payer plan.
4
Whether what Mr. Krugman says here is true or not (and he makes some convincing points) what matters here is electability, period. I personally favor Elizabeth Warren for president, but until her standing dramatically changes I'm not voting for her, not even in the primaries. Democrats need to learn one cold hard rule of American electoral politics, agreeing with the loser gets you ZERO. Biden might not be the president Democrats want at this point in time, and perhaps you want to see a woman president, but all Americans will be far better off with him than Trump. It's a binary choice, get used to it and live to vote another day.
2
Thank you for the work you did on Moore. Maybe the word is that he was too nasty to be on the Fed but underlying it all was also the facts that you have pounded on about his competence to do his multiplication tables.
3
Not saying that Sanders doesn't have issues, but Krugman's analysis of Sanders is way oversimplified. Matt Yglesias wrote a recent article that is good rebuttal which shows that Sanders has a good track record of working with others to get things done. https://www.vox.com/.../bernie-sanders-2020-democrats...
5
The issue I see with most of the Democratic candidates is a distinct lack of bipartisan projects that have achieved success.
How many bipartisan bills have Sanders, Harris, or Warren gotten passed through the Senate (include Biden in this too, even though it's been years since he's been a Senator)?
The only candidate who has a proven track record of getting a significant amount of bipartisan legislation passed is Amy Klobuchar. She's done this on both 'big' legislation and on smaller, incremental advancements in legislation.
Totally agree with the analysis. And Dr Krugman doesn't even mention that they are both too old, which may be fatal in the election.
The one factor coming out of the 2016 election is that partisanship is dead in the water. Their will be no partisanship now or in the near future. Possibly if we get 40 women elected to the Senate and 160 in the House and maybe a woman president we might have a glimmer of hope. But with the legislative still peopled by white men, many of whom are really dim, don't look for any bipartisanship. It's not in the cards. Country means little to them, as party and their own skins mean everything.
The millennial generation and the generation Z following them will pay a stiff price in the next decade or two, unless those two generations vote and change the existing culture in Washington.
1
I'm not too concerned about how effectively a candidate will govern. Electability is really the only thing that matters. The risk is too great to think any other way.
That said, consider for a second what happens if a popular candidate wins the election and has some coat tails? (Or skirt tails, as Harris is the best of the field). Doesn't this look like a clean sweep? Democratic House, Senate, and President?
Just how important is working with McConnel then? And if that doesn't happen, is working with McConnel ever going to be possible if he has a majority?
Really???? Paul? I thought, at least, you would use the language that would help us move on to the totally necessary universal, single-payer health care. Instead of phrasing it as 'people find out they'll lose their current plan and have to pay higher taxes" which you just wrote would be less than their current premiums, why don't you just support Bernie and encourage him to say " Single payer health care will replace your current plan and you will pay less in higher taxes than you currently do in premiums".
If you tell people they'll pay less and everyone will have coverage, which is the truth, how can they not be on board?
It's the same crazy-making argument that the economy is doing better when minimum wage across the country is still $7.25, a rate no one could possibly exist on, and personal debt is out of control.
The double speak that's used to keep the status quo intact only supports the rich getting richer.
If the media would use plain language regarding Bernie, and stop jumping on the fear-mongering band wagon, we could actually have a president that would help to change policy so that it benefits the working poor and helps to re-create a middle class.
5
Where is the citation for this quote, “I’m going to take away the insurance you have and replace it with a government program. Also, you’re going to pay a lot more in taxes. But trust me, the program will be better than what you have now, and the new taxes will be less than you currently pay in premiums.” Did Bernie actually say that?
1
Biden has shown a directness and tough quality that undermine your argument, and one hopes that with a Democratic White House win comes some improvement in the Democratic Senate position as well. Despite Trump's bullying style, it's Congress that moves policy: the GOP Tax Bill—their one claim to infamy—was brought to us by the likes of Ryan and McConnell, not the Donald. A winning ticket for the Dems will also mean a more functional Congress, and that's where the rubber meets the road.
1
Maybe believing in partisanship is "naive" or "romantic" as Krugman brands it here, but it is at least as irrational to think the Democrats will even get a majority -- let alone 60 seats! -- in the Senate in 2020, or in 2022 if there is a Democratic President (the presidential party usually fares worse in midterms).
So if bipartisanship is naive, and successful partisanship is extremely improbable, what are we supposed to do, Mr. Krugman, just throw our hands up and give up even trying? Talk to us about possible ALTERNATIVES, don't merely tear down what others are trying to do!
2
Odd thing about Dr Krugman: Between elections his policy presecriptions tend to the social democratic but during campaigns he goes squishy, forgetting that the American poor are uniquely poor among all advanced countries. Americans pay about double the health costs of other wealthy countries for which they get shorter sicker lives.
Anatole France summarized American equality: "The law in its majestic equality forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."
In the relative peacetime of non-election years, our good professor abounds in essentially social democratic policy recommendations. However, when the bugles blow for policy battle our good doctor lacks all conviction, urging "Beware the mouse!" as the U.S. further degrades, becoming the worst country for social programs.
5
The political transformation that Sanders advocates, and the country desperately needs, is going to be difficult to achieve. Sanders knows that, and constantly reminds voters of the fact. He doesn't make grand promises, he articulates grand aspirations. The only reason we're even talking about universal health care, free college tuition, attacking runaway income inequality, and the rest, is because of Bernie. He's the most influential politician of our time. He's the inspiration of the new generation of brash, impatient progressives that have the established Democratic Party in such a snit. Unlike Obama, who was the personal embodiment of hope, Sanders offers ideas, and an agenda that is hopeful. He's the real deal.
7
Well, Paul, go for Bennet, then. He gets it that bipartisanship was killed by the Freedom Caucus, and that the Democrats need to win a Congressional majority sufficient to go it alone.
The more I hear from him, the more I like him. He has a very solid perspective, and knows what needs to be done to get this country back on track.
1
Barack Obama took office with a message of unity and bipartisan outreach, and took power with a message of Do It My Way Or Hit The Highway.
3
I have to disagree with Krugman's central point that both Biden and Sanders are too old school to believe in working in a bipartisanship fashion to accomplish goals. A true leader should always attempt to cooperate with all members of the government, including those in the opposition party, in order to best serve Americans and get things done. Both sides need to realize that negotiation and compromise is the best path to take achieve legislative goals. That's why I respect President Obama who behaved in this way. I believe a candidate who espouses the belief that he/she can't or won't work members in the opposing party will be unattractive to many Americans.
Mr. Krugman, your economic insights are invaluable, and I am grateful for your contributions to the NYT. Your political insights, however, are misinformed. Bernie Sanders does not propose to overwhelm the political system with his own personal charisma; he represents a growing Progressive base that will continue to work with him on advancing the Progressive agenda that may just still have time to save our environment, economy, democracy, judiciary, society, etc.... We look to the future while, and in this you are spot on, Biden and the DNC look to the past trying to Make America Great Again just like it supposedly was in the Neo-liberal Clinton and Obama years. Please join us and help us advance your own economic policies!
8
I prefer Bernie Sanders. He wisely spoke on even Fox news. All kinds of people in Vermont, some who in the past would not vote Democratic, and including Independents and Republicans and non voters, voted for him. He clearly says what he means. I see most of the younger candidates as Bernie lite. They got their ideas from him. He is the one with the will, originality, creativity and courage. Starting a negotiation on health care with a clear position works well.
I also support Elizabeth Warren. She is the intellectual powerhouse of the Democratic party, and pro women. She would be a wonderful president as well. .
Other countries have health care, why can't we. I love my Medicare. I hear constant complaints about outrageous premiums for families. Outrageous student loans, I believe we have thrown our money away on wars. NOT like China who has had no wars at all for decades Jimmy Carter is right. .
7
I'm retired and turning 65 and thus Medicare B eligible in 18 months. Currently my healthcare premium is $140 monthly with $10 copay and $10 for meds which I don't need. At 65 my retirement benefits will cover my Medicare B payments and my HMO/Kaiser insurance will cost me $25/month. I worked in a union job for 33 years for my salary and benefits which include my pensions, SS, and health care. I am entitled to them. I have budgeted based on these costs and I will not stand for having my costs raised more than a minimal amount. I'd be willing to pay $50/month.
I am also in favor of single payer. You're not feeling well--go to the local clinic and see a nurse practitioner. More tests needed? Go to a doctor at the clinic who if necessary refers you to specialist. Tests show you need further care--you get it---within 48 hours. Start to finish from original appointment to higher level of care if needed should be no longer than 2 weeks.
As for bipartisanship--that ship sailed in 2009. Now, IF we get new members of Congress from the GOP who are willing to put country before party and work with a Democratic president, absolutely. But to think for one moment that bipartisanship will work is to be delusional. As much as I thought Obama was a solid president I was very disappointed he did not pursue a more people friendly agenda. As Jane Fonda said in her podcast with Marc Maron, we don't need no more neo-liberals.
8
Come on Paul. Keep fighting against Bernie the way you did in 2016. Paul, we're counting on you to destroy Bernie's candidacy, again.
5
The problem for ANYONE who gets elected is what you describe as tribal politics, which date back in their present form to the beginning of the Obama presidency.
Neither party is really interested in governing, nor in addressing our nations worsening problems. It appears instead that the primary goal of both parties is to make absolutely sure that anything of substance proposed by the opposing party MUST be blocked.
We’re currently stuck in the age of congressional gridlock and neither party is showing any inclination to end it. As long as “compromise” is the equivalent of a political death sentence there won’t be any improvement. Unfortunately the party base on both sides seems entirely content to continue this state of affairs. And so Nero fiddles as Rome burns.
1
@George Shaeffer: Both sides barrage the public with desperate pleas to send more money because the other side has raised more. The business of US politics is fundraising, and that means deadlocks are worth more to leave festering than they are to resolve.
2
Medicare for All in Canada still allows for enhanced private insurance such as dental, prescriptions, private rooms in hospitals, etc. What it doesn't do is bankrupt you.
10
@thezaz
Good thing Canadians can come to the United States for medical treatment and procedures when the Canadian system does not work in a timely manner. But I don't hear of Americans going to Canada for medical treatments or procedures (except for cheaper drugs).
1
@Tony
Sorry Tony, Americans come to Canada all the time, for starters, just ask Rand Paul.
3
@Tony
Sorry to burst your bubble, but, the amount of Canadians going to America for procedures is highly exaggerated(it is way too expensive). On the other hand, Americans come to Canada all the time, just ask Rand Paul. He actually had his procedure done by "slaves" and paid around SEVEN GRAND for it.
2
In 1993 Bernie voted against the Brady bill, requiring background checks. He voted against it 5 times. No leader can afford to ignore compromise. If he hadn't run for President in the last election Hillary would have won. What was he thinking? He is no joiner. He might do it again despite his promises. Pres. Trump will be forever greatful to him and complements his energy repeatedly, mainly negative.
1
Bernie would have won if Hilary hadn’t run. It’s not a question of who runs; it is who the people agree with and vote for.
6
Here's the thing: employer-based insurance is increasingly irrelevant as the "gig economy" continues to grow in importance. With everyone working as either self-employed or as a contract employee--not to mention a good chunk of restaurant and retail workers who don't work enough hours to qualify for benefits--huge swaths of the American public either can't get insurance or can't afford to get insurance. And while I'd normally favor of a phased approach to single-payer, the truth is that we tried that with ACA and it's not great. We probably have to rip off the band-aid and do it all at once, rather than piecemeal it together making it even more complicated and more expensive than necessary.
Yes, this will be a political feat requiring great skill and persuasion. But if the Democrats can flip both the Presidency and the Senate in 2020, to heck with bi-partisanship. Full steam ahead.
7
For the life of me, I do not understand at all the misinformed ideas that continue to permeate the minds of so many Americans when discussing universal/single payer healthcare and how it works. Well folks, as Bernie Sanders states , America is the only country in the western industrialized world that does NOT have some form of universal/single payer healthcare and believe it is a right for all of its citizens. Is America really that exceptional and are the rest of these countries that naive? I don't think so and it happened because their politicians ultimately had the commitment and political will to make the necessary changes because, aside from the enormous savings, it was the right thing to do for the country!
The answers are out there, instead of believing the continuous propaganda and fear mongering tactics spewing out of the healthcare industry itself and those in the political corporate/establishment/media who wish to maintain the "status quo" at the expense of everyone, else, do a little investigation, get the facts, find out how it works in other countries and how much it costs, it is really not that difficult.
One thing is for sure is if that you ask anyone in any of these countries that have universal healthcare if they would be interested at all in exchanging their type of healthcare for what exists in America today, the first thing you will have to do is help the individual you asked off the floor after they finish rolling around in laughter.
12
Mr Krugman
A Biden candidacy in 2020 would be bis repetita of the 2016 US presidential election. I see no reason to hand another victory to Trump on a silver platter because the Democratic Party is capable of aiming for the centre even with a flawed candidate who is definitely not the man of the hour.
4
Mr Krugman offers no evidence that Biden's would govern through "bipartisanship": is there any? Did Mr Biden say he would govern that way? Yeah sure, we all heard some recent Biden aside about past bipartisan successes, but these are not statements about a future Biden presidency. Are we really supposed to believe with Mr Krugman that after 8 years of watching Republicans stonewall Obama, Biden just can't get enough, that nothing has changed? That makes no sense. More likely he is sending a signal to conservative working class and swing voters; "I'm in the middle, I even talk the conservative guy you just put up in your district. Cross back over". Foundational work if you want to beat Trump in swing districts where it hurts. Bernie has neither the resume nor political chops to try it.
5
@Gregory Adair
Sorry Gregory, polling says differently.
Sanders runs well with key subgroups of voters whom Trump won in 2016 and with whom Democrats must improve their performance with in order to win these crucial states. Specifically, Sanders leads Trump by wide margins among independent voters (MI: Sanders 55% to Trump 33%, Sanders +22; WI: Sanders 54% to Trump 36%, Sanders +18; PA: Sanders 48% to Trump 37%, Sanders +11) and proves competitive with white voters without a four year college degree in both Wisconsin (Sanders 50% to Trump 45%, Sanders +5) and Michigan (Sanders 47% to Trump 47%) and does better with this cohort in Pennsylvania than Democrats did in 2016.
https://tulchinresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Tulchin-Research-Memo-Sanders-Defeating-Trump-in-Industrial-Battleground-States-4-19-final.pdf
As the Fox Townhall showed, Sanders is listened too and believed across the aisle. Establishment Dems...not so much.
6
The system works fine for Mr. Krugman. Why would anyone want to change it?
Here are some reasons: Stagnant working class wages for decades. The once powerful American labor movement almost destroyed. Life expectancy now below Cuba's and dropping. Record high rates of youth suicide and deaths from drug overdose. Homeless in New York City alone, more than 66,000, many of them children. While one tycoon paid $238 million for a penthouse palace! Mr. Krugman may see nothing that needs fixing in this system. But the young American workers who are turning to Socialism certainly do . . .
6
My strong impression is that Joe Biden talks a lot about bipartisanship, and he’s right to, but if passing his legislative agenda calls for a fight, he’s ready for one.
4
Those commenters singing the praises of "Medicare for all" , particularly in comparison to employer-provided health insurance, obviously are not on Medicare. I suggest you go to Medicare.gov and do a deep dive to see what it does and does not cover. For instance, Medicare provides NO prescription drug coverage. For any rx coverage, Medicare requires you to purchase what it calls a "Part D" policy, all of which are private for-profit insurers. Most of these are a joke. Most cover very little or your "copay" is higher than the retail price of the drug, even for common drugs like asthma inhalers. In sum, be careful what you wish for.
3
I retained my BC/BS coverage on retirement from the DoD just for the prescription coverage although I expected my medical coverage to remain intact also. Medicare immediately notified BC/BS it was now the primary care provider without first telling me so. The result, neither have paid an outstanding $500 medical bill now in collection. BC/BS is still primary for medications and my wife who is four years younger than I am. The costs of medications alone far outweigh the costs of premiums not to mention that the private insurance still covers most of my wife's medical bills. If single payer coverage is enacted, there must be an addendum that covers medications or mortality rates will increase dramatically since few retirees can afford $5000 - $15000 in monthly prescription costs.
@Bokmal I am on Medicare and like it very much. Since before you reach 65 Medicare costs seem suspiciously hidden, people might like to know for example in my case blood pressure and thyroid meds are $2 each for 90 days while my osteoporosis med is $17 for three months. This is because my $15 a month Part D pays the rest. I simply called the state agency for aging and shopped around for the best Vermont Part D. Medicare, about $105 can be deducted from your Social Security payment each month. Total $120 per month. All very affordable. I was disappointed to realize when I turned 65 how complicated Medicare is, there are many plans to chose from. Too complicated in fact.
2
@Bokmal
Seems that suggestion works both ways Bokmal.
Do a deep dive to see what M4A does and doesn't cover.
You are not understanding M4A very well it seems.
M4A is for name recognition. It goes well beyond Medicare.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/1804/text
2
"Scorched earth" precisely describes the Republicans' approach to politics. It's not that Democrats are pure as the driven snow. It's that the Republicans engage in dirty politics virtually all of the time: adding the Census question guaranteed to reduce the number of Democratic voters; purging voting rolls; sending out robo calls with false information about voting places and dates; reducing the number of polling places in Democratic areas; gerrymandering, etc.
And in Congress, they snookered naive Obama into believing there was a snowball's chance that at least a few Republicans would support the ACA bill. If a Democrat does beat Trump in 2020, he or she must, if the Democrats control both the Senate and the House, push through as much legislation as possible, because the window in which to do so is sure to rapidly disappear.
As for Joe and Bernie, it's not that they're "romantics." It's that they've fallen in love with themselves to an unhealthy degree.
And Bernie is going to do to Biden what he did to Hillary: keep his campaign going to the bitter end, even after it's clear he doesn't have enough votes to win the nomination, then drag his feet when it comes to endorsing the victor and getting his troops to fall in line.
Finally, just wait until the Republicans point out that single-payer health care insurance recently failed in Vermont. "Medicare for All," much as we'd like to have it, will not happen in our lifetimes. You can bet on it.
2
@ALB: The Republican objective is simply abolition of any supervision of states by Washington.
In 2016 Sanders would have beaten Trump. If Trump is not impeached and we survive another 1 1/2 years, the scorn and dismay he continues to bring will destroy the Republican Party. We will not need to worry about bipartisanship with an overwhelming Democratic majority in the Senate and House. Whoever becomes the Democratic candidate, and currently we have an excellent roster to decide upon, the ideas that Sanders espoused will be adopted with modifications by the front runner and the electorate will be educated to realize how those ideas will improve our economy and the quality of life for all, not just the top 1% .
5
Had to laugh at Krugman thinking Biden might not be ready for the tough attacks from the G.O.P.
Right now it seems to me that the 'tough attacks' are coming from his own party.
If Biden survives the primaries he'll be plenty ready.
4
There are important unanswered (and perhaps unasked) questions that I wish Dr. Krugman would address. I invest at reasonable levels with realistic expectations. The health care sector makes up 16% of our economy. So does Medicare for all mean that mutual funds will get whacked if Bernie wins? How about the hundreds of thousands of people who work at the healthcare companies such as Blue Cross/Blue Shield?
2
@Mike M
Status quo means 45000 die ea. yr.
Status quo means 1 million declare Med. Bankruptcy ea. yr.
Status quo means 100 million afraid to use, much less pay for HC.
Adding everyone to the HC system will keep many of those paper pushers busy, while increasing the numbers needing care.
As for the vampire squids making money off of the sick and dying....yeah...what a shame huh.
2
Pretty funny that Krugman leads off decrying the likelihood that the media will help Republicans torpedo the Democratic nominee, as they did in 2016, and then plunges right in to help them damage either or both of the leading Democrats himself. Here's an idea: instead of assuming that Joe Biden is stuck in 2008 (or 1978) and doesn't realize his Party has been inching left, why not give the old war horse some credit for having helped his party put across many of its greatest achievements (up to and including Obamacare, which had to clear the Senate, too). As for Joe being somehow too nice to go to to toe with Trump, I beg to differ. Few pols in my lifetime have had a steeler spine.
2
Please stick to econ - your interventions in the 2016 race were counterproductive, and you admitted after the election that you know nothing about politics.
3
"What he [Obama] faced instead was total scorched-earth opposition."
He faced the backlash of the KKK and it's "politically correct" affiliates, like the NRA. Trump wouldn't have happened if Obama hadn't been Black. This country revolt against England was precipitated by Parliament's talks of ending slavery. Colonists were here to make money and that would have been a disaster. Same thing after the Civil War when the KKK found its way into the Wilson White House.
Biden and Sanders are both strong because they are "White Like Me" candidates who are both perfectly capable of the schmooze: Biden because he's a schmoozer and Sanders because he's from Brooklyn and has a Yiddish affection for the old fashioned values of Socialism.
2
Folks, it is very early still!!! Ugh! All this hand-wringing about Joe, Bernie.....good grief! Democrats have 21 candidates, ALL of them brilliant, nice people, with good experience! How about we WAIT until the debates, and campaigning and caucuses take place?!
I for one, am very happy Democrats have a diverse and brilliant group of Americans running for the nomination!!!
Vote Blue no matter who....and vote Blue for healthcare, equality, unity, truth and justice!!! Save the Earth vote Blue!
8
The characterization of the passing of Obamacare is laughable. Obama had to bend to get the Democratic votes he needed to pass. No Republicans voted for it.
1
Journalist and commentator Norman Salomon cuts to the chase regarding Sanders and Biden:
https://www.normansolomon.com/norman_solomon/2019/05/why-so-many-journalists-are-clueless-about-the-bernie-2020-campaign.html
4
@Al M that is an excellent link, the sentences quoted from Bernie’s speech are exactly why he should be the next President of the United States. Mainstream media pundits like Krugman are clueless, and keep pushing the corporate party line. Biden is not even worth mentioning.
3
@Al M
Nice Link.
Agreed!
1
It is because views like this that I stopped reading Mr. Krugman's column 3 years back.
6
Instead of worrying about trench warfare, why not outvote—and vote out—the ones who force such trench war by standing in the way of Sane reforms to stop the climate attack and Deliberate Opioid Attack, stop the NRA-GOP's gun terrorism, legitimizing neo-Nazis, harassing women who seek abortions, and committing voter suppression?
Then we can have an unobstructed party who'd at least listen to us when we demand ranked choice voting, so we can safely vote for an actual left wing like Greens and actual Democrats that "center"-right establishment Democrats can engage in actual bipartisan debate with.
No need to stalemate with an enemy who's had to retreat.
1
It should be pointed out that Bernie has no experience in actually building a governing coalition. Where is the signature bill he has passed after decades in the Senate?
He is literally a party of one. He is nominally a democrat only once every 4 years. The rest of the time he can't be bothered.
Biden is far from perfect, but he has done more on the national stage than just give speeches.
6
@Sparky
Pretty funny as yesterday congress voted, once again to end the war in Yemen. One that passed previously, Trump vetoed it. This time it was almost over ruled again.
That happened BECAUSE of Sen. Sanders.
Not from mealy mouthed conservadems. The same ones that voted to increase MIC beyond what the DoD asked for.
Not passing good/needed legislature says more about our corrupt, bought and paid gov. than it does Sen. Sanders. Better to look at his No votes, as much as his Yes votes.
Read up on WHY he is known as The Amendment King.
Done by the way under heavily partisan Republican controlled Gov.
Mr. Sanders’s most notable partnership with a Republican was also one of his greatest successes. In '14, Mr. Sanders, as chairman of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, worked out an accord with Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, on a bill to expand veterans’ access to health care after a scandal involving veterans’ hospitals across the country. “Given how liberal he is, it made the work hard,” Mr. McCain recalled. “But he was an honest liberal. I’ve worked with people who tell you they are going to do one thing and then do another, and Bernie did what he said. And he was very effective.”
You say Biden has done more....well...what has he done?
3
you stopped me when you decided to lump Bernie and Biden together, because what they share most immediately is age. I love each man in a different way and for different reasons, but they're both past their sell-by date.
"[People with]...private insurance, many of whom are satisfied with their coverage..." The funny thing is, according to a recent Kaiser survey, the AVERAGE deductible for employer plans is about the same as ACA plans, if not higher. This doesn't include co-pays and premiums (some of which is reflected in lower salaries). So it's more a matter of perception, or "mis-perception," as usual.
And, although I agree with this article and am not especially a Bernie fan, he's absolutely right when he says "the program will be better than what you have now, and the new taxes will be less than you currently pay in premiums.” (Well, total costs, anyway.) I did a spreadsheet comparing my employees' total costs--I was a benefit manager at the time--to the average Canadian and they came out way ahead. Sigh.
2
@goodtogo
My deductible is 500.00/yr. I don't think Medicare for All can beat that price. My premium is 1200.00/yr.
1
@Driven my total Medicare expense is $1500 a year, lower than your total.
1
@Driven--What about the 30 million who have no insurance, the thousands who die due to lack of insurance, the 18 million in health care debt people are saddled with and the fact the health care costs are the no. 1 cause of bankruptcy. We spend two to three times what other countries do and have some of the worst outcomes. We have a moral imperative to have a not for profit system.
Paul -- I generally find your column among the most informative and useful. But here is a telling line.
"Could those claims be true? Yes. Will voters believe them? Probably not."
In other words, Bernie may be telling the truth, just that the American people may not buy it. Well, if that is the problem, try helping him get the message out! Paul -- you talk healthcare economics all the time, and very sensibly.
Let's for once give the public (not the pundits) weigh in on these candidates. You are at your most effective when you dissect policies. Let the voters deal with the personalities. And as you rightly say, no one knows anything about how the voters will react.
4
Elizabeth Warren.
7
Essentially, Bernie is an agitator with a number of sound reformist ideas. But no one can accuse him of being an accommodating person. After caucusing with Dems for years, he refuses to be one of them and the Dems, on their part, do not seem too eager to have him in their fold. It's an unholy alliance of convenience, on both sides.
Biden, on the other hand, has all the qualities that Bernie conspicuously lacks, but to an excessive degree. The tendency on his part to please everyone would not in all likelihood win him friends among Republicans, but it could cause frictions and infighting among his staff and supporters. After all, it is not in the interest of Repubs to see a Democratic president - even of the persona and nature of Biden - succeed, let alone leave footprints on the future course of the country. A party that to this day has not reconciled with the idea of social security would hardly go along with any new Dem ideas on the economy or safety-net programs and policies.
That brings me to the possibility of a Biden-Harris ticket with the prior, clear understanding that Biden would be the team captain and Harris the quarterback. The captain can on rare occasions overrule the QB, but he would not be involved in regular playcalling. Who knows how things would shape in the future, but this ticket and arrangement may be worth considering. The floating of this idea may even diminish the worst of wrangling and infighting in the coming primaries.
Like his tactics or not, the last president we had who knew the "art of the deal" was LBJ.
3
The fatal flaw that each of the septuagenarians in the 2020 race, Donnie, Bernie and Joe is that they all see themselves as brilliant, well informed leaders. None of the the three have ever really demonstrated that ability.
We don't need another 'hold your nose' and vote election. Surely each party can find, among its numbers a better, more worthy candidate.
2
I will never vote for Bernie Sanders. I cannot forgive his nasty campaign against Hillary Clinton, nor his pouting as she accepted the nomination, nor his failure to persuade his fans to back her against Trump. To me it’s a toss-up whether Bernie or the Russians were more responsible for Trump’s win.
That is all to preface what I see Bernie doing again. He is going after Joe Biden with the same kind of nastiness that he used against Clinton. His purist approach to everything may be heartfelt, but he has to learn how to bring moderates along with him. He doesn’t seem to understand that in his pursuit of perfection he opens the door to much worse by tearing down to less than perfect. It would be nice if he didn’t destroy any other Democrat in what doubtless will be a fruitless quest.
Krugman is right that Biden would face the same difficult challenges as did President Obama, but so would any Democrat. I haven’t seen evidence that Biden thinks he can persuade Republicans in Congress to work with him. I think Congressional Republicans in general started with a racist view of Obama that led to their pledge to make him a one-term president. By now, Mitch McConnell is so drunk with power that he will continue to obstruct anything Democrats try to accomplish. That will be as true for any Democrat as for Biden.
2
@Susan Piper, Sanders refused to run attack ads in the 2016 campaign, and he endorsed Clinton when he lost.
The attacks tend to be on Sanders, not from him.
6
If I take charge, I'll be the alpha. I am the alpha of the world, but can you deal with it? Can you deal with me barking orders and taking control?
I can deal with it. Can you?
Mr Krugman, as a member of the media you have already provided the answer, "The answer to this question depends, in turn, on whether news organizations will cooperate with those smears as gleefully as they did in 2016.". That is because you have already reported that Medicare for all is dead because of tax increases, as opposed to alive because of elimination of premiums. Yes, you do present the latter later on, but the marquee paragraph is already set up so that the focus is on the potential tax increases. A smart politician supporting Medicare for all will laser focus on the savings and simplification for those with employer-provided health insurance. That is because complexity and expense are the two bridges too far for many people with that insurance, as clearly stated in another Times article today. Instead you parrot the Republican talking point of choice, taxes, taxes, taxes. I expected better from you, but your recent articles clearly show that you have taken the lazy intellectual route and allowed others, particularly the Republican/Conservative/Evangelical Axis, to provide you with your analysis. Sad.
3
I am not sure if Biden is a romantic. After all, he witnessed Obama's struggles with the Republicans. A question that's off topic: I read that the new $2 trillion infrastructure deal would include a gas tax to pay for it. Why not tax the wealthy to pay for this? This gas tax is a tax on the middle and lower income classes. Do we want to end up like France with "yellow vests" in the streets?
3
@VoxAndreas
Wealthy people don't drive anymore than anyone else so it is only fair that we all pay the gas tax. There are more middle class people than wealthy so..........
Why is it always tax the wealthy--support yourself.
Spot on, as always, Mr. Krugman. Sanders is the current version of John Brown (compare their photos), Biden is the current version of himself...
Bottom line, the dems dont have the spine to do what it takes to win. the republicans have no issue working with a foreign govt to win, something the dems would never do.
Let's face it, Jesus Christ couldn't make bipartisan deals with our current leadership. What we need is someone who's willing to start working toward changing that atmosphere. Which of these 2 would be more likely to foster that? (I'll give you 1 hint, it's not Bernie).
1
This is one of the most dispiriting columns I've read in a long time ....I only hope that politicians such as Joe Biden continue to believe in the possibility of bipartisanship, and follow in the footsteps of John McCain, Pat Moynihan and all the other leaders of both parties who have genuinely believed in the power of the American political system and the spirit of the American people....and Mr. Krugman, please check your cynicism and defeatism at the door....
The problem with both Joe and Bernie is that they're older than dirt.
3
As sad as I am to have to point this out, Dr. K misses a crucial point in comparing a hypothetical Biden presidency to the presidency of Barack Obama: the latter was black. So much of his appalling, indefensible treatment at the hands of unrepentant white southerners like Mitch McConnell was rooted in their bald racism. Biden won't have that to contend with, however virulent GOP hatred of all things Democratic might be. Sad but true. But that's America for ya.
3
Unfortunately neither will accomplish much of anything. Everything now is acontest of debating where more time gets wasted as they are trying to pursuie the right way to go. We are now witnessing when a government is run by a cadfre of lawyers. Paid to argue and keep the meter runnung with no incentive to settle because your job is over then.
" ... the inevitable Republican smear campaign ... total scorched-earth opposition ... the G.O.P.’s total intransigence ... " Indeed, Misters Trump, McConnell, Cruz are the poster boys for this Republican strategy. And of course the reformed Mr. Lindsay Graham who just accused a fellow Senator of "slandering" Mr. Barr, meanwhile defending a POTUS who slanders people on a daily basis. So also a poster boy for chutzpah.
1
Hate to bring this up, but the difference between Biden and Obama is race. Obama faced "scorched earth" opposition mainly because of his color. The right wing could simply not handle the idea of a black man with an African name in the White House. It was always plain to see that Mr. Obama's politics was far closer to center than left, so what else would have prompted Mitch McConnell and John Boehner to express unconditional defiance?
1
If Mickey Mouse or Minnie Mouse runs on the Democratic ticket, I would vote for him or her. What we need are people willing to tell the truth by addressing the realities of life in America, no matter how uncomfortable.
Get the right chronic disease & yours & your family's life goes down the tubes. I don't care how wonderful you may believe your employment provided health, long term disability or other programs designed to assist you or your family might be. Remember, all of those employment provided programs are contingent upon the 'providence & finances' of that employer.
Absent some type of national insurance for all or the protections provided by 'Obamacare', you & your family are bankrupt. That's the truth that many Americans refuse to accept because they mistakenly believe that won't happen to them until it does.
And just so then you know, it doesn't have to be a chronic disease, an on or off the job accident, giving birth or a sick or injured family member can send you & your family down the road to perdition. Here I'm even talking to those folks making up to $250,000 per year. The question all Americans must answer is how long will your savings last if faced with some continuing medical issue once you lose your job, the provider of your medical, etc., benefits? That's reality and freedom has absolutely nothing to do with it!
1
Krugman: This is not an opinion piece about electability
*Proceeds to write an opinion piece about electability*
Way to go Paul!
2
Please stop! I am truly sick of the picking apart of people for the sake of a story. The press did incalculable damage to this last election by running after every new story on "he who shall not be named", giving him the most free press coverage in the history of elections, thus contributing to his election. Now you are going after every democratic candidate to dissect and try to find fault with everyone. I don't care if Pete is gay or Biden is a hugger. Give me policy issues.
If you do not realize that this country is in a battle for its existence, you are blind. Any of the Democratic candidates is far better than the man in the white house. No one is perfect, but we need to get the country moving in the right direction. All the candidates will have their flaws, however, none that I know of are con-men, pathological liars or would be dictators.
Biden is intelligent, compassionate and has years of experience.
Sanders is intelligent, compassionate and has years of experience.
Warren is brilliant, a policy genius and has years of experience.
Harris is brilliant and brings much needed new ideas into government.
Booker is kind, caring, intelligent and brings new ideas.
Buttigieg is brilliant, of the new generation to bring this country into the 21st century.
I could go on, but you get my drift. Quit doing the oppositions work for them. I know you want to sell papers, but the corporate greed of this country is part of what has gotten us into this mess.
7
Biden and Sanders are too old. My choice is Michael Bennet, a Senator from Colorado. I heard him speak last night. He may be the man on the white horse who's come to save us!!
1
The economic side of the Medicare for All argument seems simplistic at best - higher taxes, no private insurance. The part of the story that is not being told is the huge insurance company profits. The money that goes to the shareholders of these companies (and the CEO, CFO, etc) can then go into the funding of Medicare for All and thereby reduce the tax/premium burden for everyone.
A more sellable approach is the single payer option that allows Medicare to compete directly with private insurance. With no profit margin it should be able to attract a sizable chunk of private insurance customers by offering such things as low deductibles and no co-pay - very appealing to anyone needing health care during their lives. It also gives time for HHS to scale up their operation without the years-long snafus of a sudden switch to Medicare for All.
3
I long for a world where we focus on what people have to offer and start from there. Krugman seems to like Warren. Okay. Start there. Krugman thinks Bernie and Biden "lack realism" while Harris "has no illusion." Argh! I am less interested in Krugman's psychologizing of B & B and more interested in what he has to say about the wisdom of Warren and Harris. I guess highlighting "the trouble" sells papers, but didn't we disenchant many voters last time around? Do we really want to do this again?
1
Medicare for all need not eliminate private insurance completely as Krugman states. Some countries offer a basic plan for all citizens and a premium plan for those who desire better coverage. Generally, that extra coverage comes at a very low cost. Additional costs that would be present during a transition might be wrenching. However, they could be eased in part by amortizing present costs paid by private industry with a decreasing tax paid over, say, 15 years.
2
Both of these men would be steamrolled by this Republican senate, if it doesn't change composition. Flipping the Senate is what the Democrats should be prioritizing; whoever controls the Senate controls the Presidency by limiting its ability. Not to mention the Supreme Court, which can change the political landscape for decades. If the Senate isn't flipped it won't matter if a Democrat wins the Presidency.
1
Both men are pushing the age limits. I say this as a person who normally respects that an older candidate brings a lifetime of experiences with them. I think there can be a great risk for either of them in the White House. Presindents age quickly in the White House. You can see on every man as they leave office. Assuming both candidates would actually work during their time on the office there are a lot of pitfalls. There are many other candidates to look at beyond theses two men.
1
Here's how Krugman is distorting Sanders and his positions:
1. "Sanders, by contrast, doesn’t do bipartisanship."
Sanders has a long history of working across the aisle, starting way back when he was mayor of Burlington. Think Sanders is too far left? Back in Burlington, he gained more votes from centrists and blue-collar Republicans with each election. He had support from Republican businessmen, too. He's not "unipartisan": he's multipartisan.
2. "Neither man seems ready for the tough fights that will follow even if he wins."
During his first term as mayor, bureaucrats around Sanders only allowed him a skeleton staff and fought him constantly. Some (e.g. Randy Kamerbeek) wanted to undermine him so he'd be a one-term mayor. Sanders didn't give in, and oversaw the revitalization of Burlington's economy.
I could go on.
Krugman uses the same fearmongering dog whistle tactics used by Republicans to persuade people to vote against their own best interests.
It's fine to disagree with a candidate's positions, but it's not okay to distort them. What appalls me the most here is that Krugman has written many columns on how Medicare is more efficient and less costly than private health insurance, yet uses this one to undermine that position while sort-of kind-of admitting that Sanders is right.
And while I don't think we need to abolish private health insurance as part of Medicare for all, I would very much like to see those same companies simply shrink away.
4
Oh, Sanders can be bipartisan, just not in the way you would want. Sanders voted with Republicans to give gun manufacturers total protection again lawsuits for damage caused by their products. He also voted against an immigration bill in the senate that contained provisions of a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. Not my kind of progressive, thank you very much.
5
I would like to have medicare for all. I am 62 and pay over $6000/mo. for "health" care, but do to get any care until I spend over $6000+ and after that it has to be approved and still I have to pay 40% of any bill. I have not had health care since 1993 when I was no longer a student. i was denied. I may go ahead and cancel and wait out three more years until medicare. I am willing to pay the taxes for health care and reform the system. I would also like to see Elizabeth Warren for president.
6
Please explain how we can solve our ecological and social crises without sweeping changes.
4
There is an additional problem. To govern effectively, the candidate has to be able to build a national coalition to support his or her initiatives. It is not just a matter of being personally tough enough to withstand Trump's attacks and attacks by the Trumpistas on Fox News and elsewhere.
1
Bernie is unique among Democratic candidates in that he makes an ideological pitch, and Americans supposedly do not like ideology. Republicans, too, make an ideological pitch (small government libertarianism that pretends big business power does not exist), but it is not their main sales pitch; they also deal in racism, racial fear, and the rapture (which is a religious ideology).
Bernie's ideology makes sense and puts many of our problems in perspective. It describes the powers that be and says that their hegemony must be broken before they can be bargained and negotiated with. The Republican ideology says that government is the problem and that its power must be broken to free business to do its thing. It treats the power of money as benign.
3
Wondering why Dr. Krugman thinks he's smart enough to see that Sanders' Health Care plan will work but ordinary Americans are not. Sanders' Fox town hall showed a Trump supporting audience approve his plan overwhelmingly. Admittedly a small sample, but that audience polls consistently right. He answered the question of changing insurance plans. People do that all the time--they move or change employment.
Sanders has been working in building momentum for about 4 years now. That's hard work, a real fight, not romanticism.
Biden with his high name recognition has attended a couple of fundraisers. Therein lies one difference between the two.
Another difference is that Sanders has inspired an entire generation of younger progressives to become engaged and to run for office. That is movement building, a grind, a fight in todays "tribal politics"--not "living in an imaginary future, where a popular tidal wave washes away all political obstacles."
With the second tier candidates we fine choices for running mates and a ready made cabinet.
Nominating one of them in the strength of one stellar trait, rather than overall fitness is wasteful. Time will tell.
5
Both are past their 'sell by' date. Biden has experience, which could be invaluable ... if he were willing to take second place on the ticket again, and it could also help with a certain sector of the populace. However, I doubt that he is willing to do that. If all else were equal, I would like a Warren/Buttigieg or Warren/Harris ticket, however I'm not sure how well either of these would go over with that segment that Biden appeals to. Hard choices.
3
Why in a field of twenty candidates and out of the media's choice of front runners we can't find a viable candidate. Are there any reluctant Democrats for the sake of the party who would make a good candidate that could be forced to run?
No one who has great medical benefits are going to give them up for those that don't. They will not pay higher taxes for the privilege either.
I have two and half years to go to be eligible for medicare. I better not have any major issues until then. Why all the fuss anyway, I understand marijuana, CBD oil and anti-depressants cure everything and they're relatively cheap. Right?
Isn’t it a bit early to be asking your question? May 2019! Let’s allow all the candidates to debate, make their case, and see who really ends up as #1! Until then....chill out.
@JoeG My husband and I are both on Medicare, with a supplemental plan. We both contributed to the medicare system for 45 years. We now are using the Medicare benefits that we paid for all of our lives. Why should we want to support a Medicare for All plan for people who have not contributed to the system? Why should we pay the huge increase in taxes, with subsequent reduction in benefits, required to pay for it? We have already paid for it for most of our working lives.
There certainly should be some changes made to help those with private insurance. Perhaps a Medicare buy in opportunity is a good idea for those who are not yet Medicare eligible. But this should exist outside of the current Medicare system. We certainly would not support giving up what we have earned for those who have not earned it.
Why? Because Medicare is funded in good part by people who are currently working, by retirees, and not by the contributions you made in the past.
2
Right now the economy is doing very well, which could change of course, but for some, as long as they are doing well, other issues go by the wayside. There is no longer any bi-partisanship. That went by the wayside with the election of President Obama. Once the Republicans regained control of the Presidency and for awhile both Houses of Congress, we were in for a no holds barred corruption of power the likes of which we have never seen, and from which it will be difficult to recover as long as the Republicans maintain their base, and keep winning elections. The Constitution is now a piece of paper which has become a suggestion. There is no longer any balance of power, the Executive Branch has fully taken charge. The Democrats may have the House, but they are being ignored by the Senate and by Trump. They have very little actual power. Which brings me to 2020.
If Joe Biden can gain the endorsements of unions and win over the voters in key states for a win, then I will back him any way I can. I will back any Democratic candidate that has the drawing power to win over the voting public. This is no longer about politics, it is about the survival of our Republic.
6
Obama, while very smart, was an intellectual, and had no interest in the nitty-gritty of negotiations that had been the hallmark of bipartisan legislation over the last 200 years. His very short time in the Senate was no advantage, and his "my way or the highway" approach was off-putting to Republican Congressional leaders - I won, and elections have consequences.
Biden, on the other hand, has lived and breathed negotiations over his 30 years in the Senate, and is much more likely to be met halfway by Republicans.
Biden is exactly the kind of guy who can back pedal on the harshness that is Washington politics now.
"Resistance" Democrats may not want to hear this in the era of Trump, but compromise means you don't get everything you want, but you do get something done.
5
The problem is that the President has only the tool of persuasion with Congress. They don't write the law and today that would be VERY good news. Obama had the idea but he didn't write the law.
Bernie gets along with the people that agree with him very well. He really does not want to be a Democrat. Medicare for all does not excite me as a real solution. It gets made to sound like a free lunch and that ticks off Republicans even as some Democrats get excited. It's not a real plan. Not even anything you could study.
I have Medicare and you have to pay for it and you really need a supplement plan you pay for too. My younger wife of 62 has an ACA plan and I pay a tad more for mine and we both get really good coverage.
You have to pay somebody. The argument of how is not that important until you know what you'll get. The ACA kicks me out at 65 and so that is the way we end up. It's all pretty goofy paperwork. All these plans are empty promises with no details. Why care?
1
"Polling shows that support for Medicare for All falls off drastically when people are informed that it would eliminate private insurance and require higher taxes."
I think that Paul is right when he says that people with private insurance are not anxious to give it up. It's fear of the unknown, and I speak for myself. It's frightening to think of giving up what you know is taking care of you now. Politicians who don't understand that fear are not looking at reality. But it's also true that too many Americans are shocked when they learn that universal, government-run health care would require higher taxes. How do they think the countries that already have such systems pay for them? The Republican party has done too good a job on us. Too many of us have been taught to believe that taxes are always bad and not to consider what taxes buy us. It's not just about health care. Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are paid for with taxes. And so are roads, bridges, airports, dams, firefighting, teaching, law enforcement, and so many other things we need as a society. How do people think all those things are paid for?
1
I may be naive, but I like to think that Democratic candidates and especially their strategists, have learned from 2016. Not just the outcome, but everything leading up to it. The electorate, I believe as well, is now facing a very different scenario - Trump the reality vs. Trump the hypothetical.
Besides, we're Democrats - we won't make the same mistakes, we'll make all new ones!
2
While I haven't seen recent polling around how satisfied 180 million Americans are about their health insurance, as Paul Krugman cites, I seriously doubt that is the case. More and more, you run into doctors who don't take health insurance or your company has dropped your provider from their in-network roster. Not to mention the rising cost of co-pays while a diminution of benefits and customer service reps at health insurance companies trained to say no. Should I continue?
4
Amy Klobuchar's idea of having a public option still seems to be the most likely to succeed at this time. It would appeal to those who prefer and can afford to retain their existing private insurance, while making an attractive alternative to the rest. It is the most palatable to the average Democrat and the independent voter, as well as the Republican who realizes that reverting to the pre-ACA (which appears to be the only Republican proposal) cannot be an option at all.
3
@hdrummond Reading comments & pleased to see first one to mention a WOMAN. Media sexist once again, do not accept how angry we are about Repub pushback on 20th century women's progress. Only hope for the democracy is woman president. My choice is Elizabeth Warren.
1
Leaving aside Biden, Krugman seems to miss the . . urgency of the moment. Our political system has been captured by institutional and corporate interests who have don't really care about anything except their own bottom line.
This makes substantive change of any kind—environmental, political-economic—almost impossible. You can argue about the best way to break the vise on our polity but one thing is certain: an everyday get along to go along politician will not be able to be do it and probably won't want to. That knocks out of 9/10's of the Democratic field, leaving only Bernie and Elizabeth Warren.
Warren believes that reinstating a strict financial regulatory regime along with more democracy in corporate governance and social democratic sops to the working class and shrinking middle class will do the trick and break the power of the oligarchy. I doubt it but it sure couldn't hurt.
Bernie is not a standard candidate for President, not this time, not last time. He says that we don't need a political campaign for President, we need a political revolution; a movement to yes, save our civilization from the oligarchy, but also from our complacency in the face of imminent disaster.
If people don't feel the problem, they are going to look at Bernie and think he's a nut. If they do feel it, they probably will back him. The assumption being, this is how change really happens, from the bottom up. The politics, as Bernie's 2016 campaign demonstrates, will follow.
3
Good column Mr. Krugman. Now we need to hear more from Warren and Harris on foreign policy.
2
Ugh...so now anyone who bothers to work for substantive change is "living in an imaginary future". I think Paul Krugman must know that many people want a President who has a vision for the future, even if many small steps and compromises are needed in order to get there. It's not true that Bernie Sanders never works with Republicans and never makes compromises. This piece sounds flat-out ageist, and many of the commenters are agreeing with it on that basis.
5
I read Krugman's columns and nod in assent for the most part. Except the ones he writes about Sanders. Remember, a little over 2 years ago, he was calling Sanders' call for Medicare for All "happy dreams" and lecturing on how change occurs -- which, according to him is incrementally. Now, of course, MFA is popular -- even when people are told they will pay more in taxes if they're also told they'll pay less overall).
Within the last four or five years, we've seen acceptance of gay marriage, marijuana legalization, calls for an increase in minimum wage, a call for campaign finance reform and a wholesale and massive rejection of trickle down economics.
In short, change can come about dramatically and quickly when the time is right.
One of the things Dr. Krugman doesn't get is that the people are ready for change. and if a leader appears, they'll follow him or her. So far, Sanders is the only one leading.
I'd recommend the good Doctor purchase and read "The Black Swan" by Nassim Talib.
3
I honestly don't know how we are to get to a better place in our politics, if tribalism [the new pet political term of the year] is in full swing. How does that get reversed? How would electing one of the many newcomers in the Democratic progressive wing go any better against the scorchers of the earth? Unless they win supermajorities in both houses to go along with such a president, how would any progressive agenda progress? If Trump were to lose, the GOP members would come out from behind the furniture and heave a sigh of relief and start to repair the damage? Fox News would become fair and balanced?
I'm a lifelong Democrat, and not much younger than Biden, so I feel more comfortable with him as a candidate. I remember back to 2008 in the primary debates, when I was impressed with his agility on the stage, and his evident decency feels good for me [I find it hard to lay the blame for the Clarence Thomas hearings solely on his doorstep].
I admit I feel a little unhappy at being considered a relic of the past, as my faculties are as sharp as ever, and I keep up with current events pretty regularly. In fact I consider that age goes pretty well with wisdom. Experience used to be seen as a plus in public life.
I don't want Biden to fall into what I recognize Obama did, all those efforts to get even one Republican vote so there could be bipartisanship. I hope that's where the lessons of experience will come in.
2
@Fletcher
The blame definitely goes to Biden. He was the committee chairman. If he couldn't control the Senate Judiciary Committee, why should he be entrusted with controlling the COUNTRY? He's too old and too weak and too eager to forgive himself for the travesty that seated Clarence Thomas on the SCOTUS for life.
http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/04/guide-joe-biden-anita-hill-controversy.html
I'm certain that the Democratic candidate will win the election, so it is very important who the Dems pick. It isn't about beating Trump - the Democratic party machine is now in full gear recruiting new voters, there will be millions, maybe ten million more voters in November next year, and they will nearly all vote against whoever the GOP puts up (I don't think Trump will last long enough for another election).
So instead of making calculations about who could beat Trump - which are all based on a delusional misreading of the American political situation at the moment, no president in history has had such constantly low approval ratings as Trump, nowhere near - people need to seriously think though who is going to be the best president, because there is a lot to be done.
I'm with Kamala Harris, 100%. I think she is the most capable presidential candidate in American history - she is streets ahead of Obama or Clinton or Kennedy. What could radically change the outcome of the next election is for the Democratic candidates to pledge to run as a party - so when Harris is nominated, all the other candidates stay active in the race and take positions in a prospective administration - Sanders in Health, Biden in Labor, Warren in Education - and so on.
America under Trump has been sent reeling into uncharted territory. What we need now is a genuine political party all committed to pulling together to get America back on track, to get back to leading the free world in prosperity.
2
I remain mystified that Joe Biden is seen by so many as the man most likely to win.
But in order to say something new here in response to this column I would like Paul Krugman to find a way to tell me what a sample of the 180 million Americans said to be satisfied with their private insurance program find so satisfactory.
We three - A, A, L - have been served by Swedish Universal Health Care for 22 years and were I to lay out the complete medical histories for all three of us and show you that no paper work is involved, you might not believe it.
What I would be unable to show you is exactly how much we have paid in taxes or better yet how much each of the multi-child families around me on Apple Street pay in the part of their tax bills that pay for their medical care.
Is there a reader who is one of those 180 million who can explain the private insurance preference?
By the way, it is possible for me to see a private physician, and have done so several times.
I do not want either Sanders or Biden as my next president. I prefer Elizabeth Warren believing that she is best qualified to be able to think through a transformation of public health in the USA.
I understand that she cannot be the miracle worker who can teach all those who consistently vote against their own best interests the UHC is best for all.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
For a glimpse of SE health care visit this hidden article read only by me!
https://nyti.ms/2VFoFie
Thank you, Dr. Krugman! Bipartisanship is for the birds. I knew as soon as Obama got into office and started trying to appease the right by going on and on about bipartisanship that his presidency was going to be a failure (in terms of implementing left wing policies that would help Americans. As noted here, it was only bc of Pelosi that we even got the very messy ACA.)
There is no middle ground whatsoever between Republican and Democratic positions on healthcare, education, taxes, abortion, the military, etc. If you're going to bother trying to find it, you are doomed to fail. All we'll get is another four years of business as usual: the rich getting richer, the poor getting poorer, and the environment getting filthier.
5
John Kennedy would not win the nomination of the Democratic Party if he ran today. He would be considered too moderate. Trump stole Kennedy’s policy of tax reduction for all and has gotten the same results as in the 60’s.
Higher wages for all ( including African Americans and women), a booming economy, reinvestment in America, and lower unemployment. What’s not to like?
1
What's not to like? To start with, I don't like your crediting Trump for a number of things he had zero effect upon, with respect to the economy. But beyond that, I don't like Trump's degrading of American political discourse, the office of the presidency, or his attacks on the Constitution. I don't like his servile attitude toward Putin and his refusal to permit even his own officials or the US military know what he discussed or agreed to secretly with that murderous dictator. I don't like his inability to tell the truth, or to read, or to take in information in any manner besides watchin Fox, or his complete lack of empathy for anyone besides himself. I could go on ad infinitum, but just like Trump in the Oval Office, it would be a waste of space.
@vebiltdervan
Did you read the report? No collusion after two years of intense scrutiny. Deals with Putin? What deals? If he had deals, don’t you think it would have been discovered in the inquiry?
At this point, policy be damned. I just want someone who can defeat Trump. IMO, Trump represents a clear and present danger to the USA. Four more years of Trump's graft, corruption and incompetence would be devastating. Biden may be old, but he recognizes that his style of politics appeals to Trump's base, and his experience can serve as a touchstone to a past era of productive bipartisanship. Team Biden with a much younger democrat, and the ticket can simultaneously look to the past and the future.
Works for me.
3
The news media elected Trump
3
Paul Krugman probably still thinks that Hillary can win too. For an economist, he makes many (intentional) mistakes, and has no credibility after being a shill for someone who announced that there would never be free health care for all in America.
The current health care mess in the US is inhumane. It is based upon profits for the higher ups and stockholders. That should be enough to tell all of us how good it is.
I'll not waste my breath on Krugman though. As I said, he thoroughly discredited himself (I was once a fan) and is to be ignored in a serious debate.
6
This is why I seldom read columns like this. Apparently, Biden and Bernie can't do the job because neither stands a chance against the Republican onslaught. Of curse, he doesn't say who CAN handle the Republicans. He suggests that Warren has good ideas, but Warren is not up to dealing with the tough Republican onslaught either. Kamala Harris is tough, but hyperpartisanship won't work either. All that will happen is she will demand action and the Republicans will yawn.
So, as of today, according to Dr. Krugman, it is hopeless. We might as well not even bother....
2
The question of whether Biden or Bernie has what it takes to be a half-decent President pales into insignificance when you consider the fact that the worst leader and worst person to hold the position sits in the WH at this moment. Either one of these guys is light years ahead of Trump in every way. Personally, I think either of Bernie or Biden would make an excellent President. Imagine a normal human being in the WH again instead of the world's greatest authority on everything. Bliss.
4
Joe Biden would not have been elected in a vacuum. "Democratic candidates in the next tier of the current race" will be present and accounted for both prior to and after the election. Their supporters will be necessary to any effort to rid ourselves of the horrible embarrassment currently in office.
I am a 70 year old white progressive living in the South. Few people, even conservative Southern Republicans, remain capable of stomaching Trump's paranoid, hated-filled politics. Joe Biden belongs to a generation of American politicians for whom collegiality, compromise and consensus were normal. I think a YUGE majority of Americans long for the return of simple decency to our politics (including large numbers of white men of my generation seduced in 2016 by Trump's phony machismo).
I can't think of a better contrast to everything that makes Trump so revolting as a person, than the decency of Joe Biden. With a tough, brilliant law and order Black woman as his running mate to keep him from being too nice, we've got a winning team!
3
Very insightful argument, as usual, from Krugman. Not only is Biden embedded in a Senate bargaining environment of the past, but Trump can easily smear him with his Obama demonization. Don't like Russian interference? Why didn't Biden do anything about it? Didn't like Benghazi? Biden was a decision maker there. Didn't like the Obama economy? Biden will return us to the no-growth Obama years. Everything about Biden smacks of a moldy past era. The Americans who have that nostalgia and want to return to the 50s are already voting for Trump, as he tries to recreate the Jim Crow barriers to opportunity for people of color. Biden will be a total disaster.
And Bernie will never succeed against Trump. He didn't beat Hillary in 2016 not because of cheating but because voters had already perceived him as curmudgeonly. His stump speech has been the same for fifty years. Bernie is not capable of carrying the Senate in his coattails. It takes the whole democratic party, well organized, and having the same message to take the Senate. The campaign spending, strategic character assassination, and focus on state elections of the GOP will be formidable.
1
@Debra
Bernie is the only candidate who can beat Trump.
The polls indicated that he would have done better against Trump in 2016.
Obama voters, voting for Trump gave Trump his win.
3
Krugman suggests the obvious. The moment a Democrat wins back the White House the Republican party instantly becomes the new resistance, blocking every move the new president makes. And this is because our political system is broken. The real damage began with Newt Gingrich and his Contract on America. Newt introduced politics as war. It ended any form of collegiality, compromise, any working together for the greater good of all. Political ends justified any means to achieve them. And worst of all your political opponent became the enemy. He no longer just disagreed with you, now he was evil in intent. This destroyed our political system as it introduced the concept of party over country, a cancer that eats away at any advancement in our quality of life. Progress in America has come to a halt under Trump.
The only way out of this trap is via compromise. Conservatives and liberals will never agree to how to improve conditions in our country. It stems from education, or a lack of it. It has reached a low point whereby science is rejected and facts are no longer accepted as facts. There are now Republican "facts" and Democratic "facts."
Joe and Bernie's biggest problem is that they are too old to defeat Trump. Trump will look young and vibrant compared to these two. And Krugman is right in that today's Republican party cannot be worked with. It will take a very tough Democratic politician to stand up to the attacks and sabotage thrown at them. Someone like Kamala Harris.
1
Mr. Krugman, how exactly is the problem of Republican intransigence a problem exclusive to Biden and Sanders?
You fail to make your case here. A Warren, Buttigieg, Harris presidency will face the exact same opposition.
Are you putting forth the position that these Democrats have an advantage over Biden and Sanders? If so what is it.
Ignorance of a candidate's governing strategy is not a plan for success.
1
Look, at this point, I say vote your heart out in the primaries when they come folks. But then we MUST unite around anyone but Trump. It is the ONLY solution. I will vote for either of these old men; I will vote for someone new; honestly people--just get us someone electable and dynamic and healthy. Let's not form a circular firing squad while Trump sits back and laughs, sends out another profane tweet, lies and colludes some more and completely destroys this nation.
2
Yep. As they say, in the primary, vote your heart; in the election, vote your head. ABT: Anybody But Trump!
I think people are more excited by new. Trump was new, and advantage over Clinton.
I didn't think much of Swalwell at first, but he is sounding more presidential of late.
My personal favorite is the professor - Warren. But, too physically diminutive and a woman.
Gotta win AND gotta CHANGE America.
3
People with employer-sponsored health plans like their health care, but TRUST - they don't like their health care being dependent upon their employment, and they don't like their high deductibles, and they don't like the ever-increasing share of their compensation that goes into the health care plan.
People aren't all stupid and unable to tell the difference.
4
Also, their employers are tired of paying those ever-increasing premiums which make them less competitive in the global marketplace.
3
Not that either is otherwise 'blessed' -- but, if Biden has a clue, it's not enough of one ... and Bernie has none.
In any case, each is "too old" for me -- and I 'have' 70 years.
(Since all of trump's 'clues' are malevolent, his age is beyond irrelevant.)
2
Sanders and Biden are opposites. Sanders is a New Deal progressive with a consistent record of standing up for citizen interests. Biden never met a corporation he didn't love. He is a corrupt corporate politician with a record of racism. sexism and lying -- a record that is no secret and which will ultimately work against him.
6
I strongly disagree with your cynical assessment. Sanders and Biden have been around the block man times and in the trenches long enough to have witnessed and dealt with the dirt tricks. I consider this a strength not a weakness.
3
Ten years since "You Lie!" and people still think that the two-party system can still yield results if we can just get Democrats elected. Here's the reality.
Today - With tRump as President nearly half the country couldn't be happier. Economy is chugging along, Conservatives are on the Supreme Court, immigrants are being blocked and thrown out and taxes are cut. Nothing else matters - climate change, wealth inequality, crumbling infrastructure, .....
2020 - tRump or a Republican elected, more of exactly the same. A Democrat elected? He or She will get the same treatment Obama got, "If he's for it, we're against it."
I've spent the last ten years trying to figure out how this cycle will be broken and I see no end in sight. Where do we go from here?
1
@JPZiller
Do you mean the same treatment that Trump is now receiving from the Democrats?
1
C’mon, one is a bomb thrower who doesn’t want to join your treehouse club, and the other is the affable neighbor you know will return your borrowed garden hose. Sanders has no party to back him in Congress, and as for promising to raise taxes, ask Walter Mondale how well that worked for him in 1984. Both are just too old.
Against any Democrat is the snarling right-wing which has handed America to a bloated real estate developer who spends his time tweeting insults like a 7th grader and dog-whistling to the basest elements of the right. When Republicans and the NRA are seen as taking Russian money, they are dead to many of us.
Trump has to go, but I haven’t seen any Democrat who can carry the day, yet.
1
The election will need to sweep in Democratic progressive wins at all levels in order for any Democratic Presidential candidate to be effective.
Yet, for reasons I am unclear, candidates run in pretend isolation. I haven't heard any Democratic Presidential hopefuls address grass roots strategies to win in Congressional and Senate races. It's like they are running for School President: Vote for me because I am... The DNC helps raise money- but what else?
To me the open question is- can American voters make the right choices for the right reasons. Do they have the political sophistication to understand the root causes of corruption and dysfunction- and then to act- in and out of the voter booth. Or will they continue to allow themselves to be manipulated by forces they barely understand. And worse, fall pray to racism that will in the end destroy them.
Even Krugman's superficial analysis begs the question, for example, Bernie may be right...but will he lose the voters. It assumes that voters can't make the right distinctions. Some may calls this presumption elitest- but it certainly is pessimistic.
When does reality face dysfunction in the face and say No more. Times up. Ignorance, deliberate or not will be the arbiter of your fate. Sorry guys...No more second chances.
And the economy is booming and the gas flows cheaply....,until it doesn't: Then what?
1
The problem with columns written by Paul Krugman is his analysis is always muddied by his own elitism. Sure, he has useful facts to share, but they're lost in his assumptions about everyday voters and how we think about candidates. He is way out of touch with our day-to-day reality of having to operate with tight paycheck-to-paycheck budgets and how we view candidates through that lens (that's regardless if you a college degree or not). So Krugman might think he can decide what's good for the rest of us while he sits in his ivory tower, his personal elitism causes him to miss the mark every single time, and especially when he tries to analyze candidates for us.
2
"Elitism" is the insult people toss around when they are incapable of arguing on the actual details and merits of the issues under debate.
Well at least the Democrats will not make utter fools of themselves in the mad search for dirt on Trump. Its there for all too see. The problem is that the country is in the midst of a full grown boom. Whether Trump is responsible for it or not the public is for letting the good times roll. Even with Trump in his usual role of being utterly ridicules he will be very difficult to beat. His big mouth racist tirades. His total indifference to the environment or people's health care is priced into the Trump package by voters. Plus the disadvantages the Democrats in constructing a winning electoral college strategy. The primary issue for the Democrats will be to hold onto the House. With the total embarrassing crash of the Mueller investigation and the Keystone cop FBI prat falls the Democrats need to focus on governance.
1
The Trouble With Joe and Bernie?
Combined age: 153
1
Let’s win first.
Go Kamala!
1
Medicare for All will work. The amount saved from premiums and deductibles not paid should under equilibrium conditions match once you take out the unbelievable profits of the healthcare industry. Disruption here is totally justified because it is going to benefit an enormously larger population than the people who will lose out. No tears for the price gauging hospitals, pharma (including the murderous sort like Perdue), many doctors and of course the horrid healthcare insurers.
Krugman says that people are happy with their employer provided insurance. I found that dubious. Almost everyone I know does not think that. Making unbacked blanket statements like he does is shameful for an academic.
Finally, doctors have to be part of the Medicare network. If they opt out, tax them heavily. Don’t tell me that is unfair and that it limits their freedom guaranteed in a capitalist system we live in. One that allows Jeff Bezos, the richest American, to pay 0 taxes and people like Dalio making $2 Billion in 2018 and benefiting from the pathetically unfair “carried interest” rule.
Bernie is the man who will deliver us from the misery we are in with Trump.
Biden is not.
It is that simple. I don’t have a Nobel Prize (just a PhD from Harvard and a little more money than Dr K) but you don’t even need a high school diploma to figure this one out.
Let’s see if the Times will let my voice be heard.
4
People are happy with their insurance? Who? I don’t know a single person who is.
5
Perhaps we need a real "romantic" to break the stalemate.
1
Yes, they're both relics of the past; a time when Democrats need not be factual, nor even truthful, to win elections. While in this information age, the inability to be lie with a smile could mean the end of the Democrat Party.
I have been following Kamala Harris career since she worked in the San Francisco DA's office. For me her stock went up dramatically with her questioning of AG Barr who started tap dancing to avoid answering her questions. She cut him off by saying,"You don't know." She is no Pollyanna.
4
Her stock went up for me when she questioned Jeff Sessions. Then with Kavanaugh, an this week with Barr.
She is brilliant! She’s been right every time.
1
Whereas the DNC think that voters will follow “someone” who has a decent voting record and espouses the ideal platform, voters actually follow charismatic leaders whose principles are at least compatible with their own. Think JFK and RR.
Maybe the DNC will offer courses in Charisma 1A to their preselected favorites?
2
The “coming Republican smear campaign”? Is this going to be something like the two years and on-going Democrat smear campaign against the current President? That’s politics and so what?
By the way I am awaiting you economic prediction assuming a Dem wins. Then I will trade assuming the opposite. Sure worked last time.
Democrats need to make sure that the first thing greeting a President Biden, or pretty much any winning Democrat, is not the stated objective to guarantee he or she is a one-term president. Put bluntly, Mitch McConnell and his minions need to get the boot.
1
I think the best ticket for dealing with trench warfare would be:
Kamala Harris/Seth Moulton
Harris showed her chops with Barr, Moulton in Iraq.
1
@Scott
Kamala Harris is political expediency wrapped in demographic allure.
She has no core values.
Maybe she can become a decent senator.
1
Bernie Sanders is the last person to suggest he alone can fix everything. He only makes one speech, which he repeats tirelessly. It calls not just for his election, but revolution: electing a congress that will enact Medicare for All.
Krugman has no particular political expertise. As he himself says, electability is an unknown quantity at this point. He might also admit no one knows how Medicare for All will fare in the campaign.
It seems to me Democrats fear Republican lies more than they believe in their own ability to convey the truth. Why? Because, say I, for too long Democrats have offered half-measures and crafted targeted and (necessarily) complex programs for particular populations. This feeds the impression that Democrats are just a bunch of elitist interest groups.
What make Bernie Sanders different is his full-throated, open-faced support of what we used to call the common man. He bats away “socialism” and other political cant by talking about the reality of the situation. He gives the voter a chance to say, well, if that’s socialism, I’m a socialist.
I wish Krugman would spend less time second guessing the electorate and more time on the nuts and bolts of economic and tax policy. He’s barely dipped his toe in the healthcare debate except to warn about its potential pitfalls as an election platform. What about the trillions in potential savings and thousands of lives saved? Where is the moral outrage of the conscience of a liberal?
3
Now here's a phoned-in column if ever there was one.
Nobody can have a doubt in the world that Mr. Krugman would much prefer EITHER Bernie or Joe to Donald.... If asked, Mr. K. would have to admit that if there are 51 Republican Senators after next year's election (AND ANY!! Democrat Pres.), the likelihood of co-operation is very low. I'll admit that maybe Joe would have a non-zero chance to reach across the aisle to someone like Romney on ... maybe, some legislation re "climate change."
But - bad as Trump is - another 4 or 8 years of gridlock is certainly un-alluring.
I admit that there are greater risks in connection with a possible Pres. Sanders.... But if the country is ready to throw the rascally bum out and elect someone with Bernie's profile, I think it's more likely that the Dems WOULD flip the Senate and have a robust majority in the House.
And THEN, some big changes re higher education funding would all but sail through. Plus, a 2021 version of RBG (or 2 or 3) might grace the Supreme Court.
JOE *would* - as likely as not - settle for much less (I'm not sure he sees income inequality as a problem, nor continuing racial segregation, nor women having to watch their backs & fronts in most workplaces) ... and have even less success than Obama, since he'd be a lame duck on 1/21/21 if he's lucky enough to be sworn in.
The BIGGEST danger is - as Mr. Krugman notes - the media and Russia reprising 2016. That includes what the NYTimes did - bash Bernie early & often!
3
The biggest problem is going to be arguing with Trump.
Would you rather have a hot fudge sundae, banana split or apple pie? Any of them is better than the arsenic on moldy bread that we have now. My first choice is Elizabeth Warren but I will vote for Biden, Sanders, Harris, Booker or any Democrat with or without a pulse if they are running against any Republican I can think of. I will even hold my nose and vote for Beto O'Rourke if it comes to that.
2
Krugman does another hit piece on Bernie. To be expected. Corporate news outlet, corporate hit pieces. Everything Bernie supports is achievable, it’s just propaganda like this article that will set the agenda backwards decades. All those people that are now paying taxes (read that as premiums, co-pays, deductibles, etc.) to the insurance companies believe this kind of propaganda. What dissemination of a big lie! BTW, Biden is not even worth mentioning.
2
Mitch McConnell needs to go.
2
The trouble with Paul Krugman's article is that it falls victim to his exact criticism of Biden & Bernie: Krugman is too focused on both the past and the future, and writes as if the 2018 midterm elections did not signal a sea change in electoral politics in the era of Trump, particularly the support for bold policies that are labeled "progressive" but actually speak to everyday people across the ideological spectrum. The "imaginary future" in which Krugman imagines Bernie lives ignores the present reality: Medicare for All is increasingly recognized as a bipartisan proposal that will improve our health care system for all Americans. Krugman ignores the "urgency of now" of the Medicare for All movement, including the persuasive, common sense, family friendly advocacy of Rep. Pramila Jayapal for the Medicare For All bill she is sponsoring in the House and Ady Barkan's recent testimony, which was informative, poignant, and in touch with the experience most Americans have in dealing with the reality of private insurance. Who can argue with an expert cautioning against "pie in the sky" policies? We the people who have experienced the devastating impact of medical problems, chronic illness, and the need for a more comprehensive and affordable health care system that will deliver better outcomes. America can and should do better, and we can reach beyond the limited horizon of Mr. Krugman's vision.
1
So which candidate does Mr. Krugman think is going to be ready for tough political fights? How is all this conjecturing that the current Democratic party frontrunners are woefully ill-equipped to undertake a successful presidency helpful in any way? Perhaps Mr. Krugman should get in the race himself since he seems to have so much insight into what a new president needs in order to implement change for the good of the country.
Dr. Krugman: my thoughts exactly. Thank-you for writing these truths.
The best team to deal with the damage:
Elizabeth Warren to make the money people heel.
Jay Inslee, as vice president, to focus on his area of expertise--Global Warming.
Joe Biden, as secretary of state, to repair our international friendships and reinstate international agreements.
4
The Times recently ran an article that included payroll deductions for employer provided health insurance as a big part of the unrecognized amount people are already paying for their insurance.
Please use those amounts when analyzing the individual cost of our current system versus an increase in taxes to fund Medicare for All. Most employed people would have a significant decrease in their overall cost of healthcare.
Furthermore, people struggle with very large out of pocket expenses when they use their commercial insurance. Medicare out of pocket is significantly lower.
Finally in theory employers would have significant savings to redirect toward wages if they did not have to provide health insurance. Getting companies to put it toward wages instead of pocketing the savings is a possible obstacle but certainly some employers would do it.
You would do a major public service to introduce these economic facts into the public discussion.
4
What sense does it make to lump Sanders and Biden together other than their age and long government service. It's like some commentators lumped Sanders and Trump together because of their "populist" appeal. (Trump is an old man, too BTW). Sanders changed the national conversation in his 2016 campaign, which was a great achievement in any event and especially since he got so little coverage of his agenda. He took it straight to the people and millions liked what they heard. All he needs to do now is change up how he frames his proposals. He has not done a good job of explaining how Medicare for All would benefit working people who now get their insurance through employment. Nor has he brought home how tuition-free public college and vocational school would benefit American businesses and stimulate the overall economy. His repetition of big statistics doesn't connect with people where they live. I pray he starts selling his important progressive agenda more effectively soon.
2
Regarding Bernie:
His multi-decade history as mayor, Congressman, and Senator shows that he is very willing to negotiate and compromise to get things done. His strength (in my opinion) is that he bargains starting from a strong position, giving himself plenty of room to compromise and still achieve his goals. Bernie does not begin by asking for half a loaf.
The time for half a loaf negotiation is over. We need to demand the whole thing.
4
I will vote for ANY Democratic candidate over Trump but I hope it is not Biden or Sanders. They are too old. When a President has an illness such as a heart attack it is pretty easy to decide when to hand the reins over to the VP, but when there is a gradual decline such as with dementia it would be much harder. The risk of dementia grows greater as you age.
We can see that Trump has declined mentally. Why do we want to risk it with another elderly President?
1
Maybe Krugman should talk to Bernie because what he states in his opinion does not appear to be accurate. And I for one would love to see that televised.
2
Although she is not widely known outside of the state of New York, I think Kirsten Gillibrand has the skills, guts and temperament to be a great president. I was not enamored of her "Al Franken" action, because he was the only Democrat standing up to the Republicans, but, I'm over it. I believe that Kirsten can defend our rights and our democracy against the Republican onslaught. She has the political acumen, she is able to articulate, willing to listen, has been a defender of women's rights, and understands the needs of the country and the people. I also think she is the only woman candidate who could win over the white working class males who may have voted for Trump because she is non-threatening in her public demeanor. She doesn't seem too smart, which puts off the white male, but she seems smart enough, and she probably likes baseball and football. I think she could beat Trump if she could become known on the national stage. How can that happen? Someone who has the stage should stand behind her and support her candidacy.
There are simply too many Democrats (myself included) who will not forgive Bernie's petulant behavior in 2016. But I'm curious to see if Sanders ends up becoming another Nader and runs as a 3rd party candidate. He definitely has the ego for it.
Many pundits think a 3rd party would ensure a Trump victory, but I don't think that's true. Sanders appeals to much of Trump's base. Sanders would pull Trump's votes down and we'd end up with a similar situation as Ross Perot and H W Bush, where a Democrat wins with less than a majority of the overall vote.
2
@Andy Buitron
What petulance? He campaigned for Hillary. Is trying to win the nomination somehow illegitimate?
The logic here seems to be that Biden would be too conciliatory and Sanders is too focused on his specific agenda. What exactly is your solution here? Because your criticism of both implies that both are the opposite of the other. The inference to make here would for Biden to be more like Bernie, or for Bernie to be more like Biden, which it seems like is not the point you are trying to make. So what is your conclusion? If both pragmatism and idealism are romanticism, what isn't romanticism?
3
I believe that Mr. Krugman is underestimating Mr. Biden - anyone with an IQ over 70 who witnessed what happened to Mr. Obama's futile attempts at approaching Republicans knows that they will continue their scorched earth policy should a Democrat win the presidency; however, the fantasy "wish" for more cooperation is a good campaign tactic as a very significant percentage of voters finds the current vitriolic obfuscation despicable and yearns for more bipartisanship. Of course, the first goal of any presidential campaign is to get elected, so I doubt that if elected Mr. Biden would give anything other than lip service to a bipartisan strategy with no chance of success.
1
The Democrat party needs the trench warfare. They need to decide who they want to be. Being the party of free healthcare, free this and that, will not cut it, unless the voters agree to increase their payment of taxes. We, as a nation, have been fiscally irresponsible for decades. Elected representatives abdicated to the President decades ago. The people in the House these days are generally less willing to do the people's work because they are shuffling it off to federal agencies, which keep growing. Dems might shoot themselves if they stick to ID politics. It won't last.
Enough with the false labels and charges of “identity politics”.
In case you haven't noticed, it's the Republicans and Trump who have played the identity card — the White Nationalist, xenophobic, misogynist card.
The many identity issues that the Democrats have brought up are counters to the Republicans' White Supremacy, patriarchal agenda.
But, beyond that, the identity issues they promote cross directly into economic and social policy ones: job discrimination, educational inequality, massive racial wage gaps, paid family leave and day care to help women help their families, women's reproductive rights and freedom from sexual harassment so that they — not Republican white men — can decide their futures, and gender rights so that everyone can fully participate in this country's economy, military, and social life.
So, please stop with this misguided, uninformed assault on basic human rights!
Warren is the candidate who squares the circle as far as anyone can.
It would be truly wonderful to have a female candidate. Maybe run with Stacey Abrams.
She has the policy chops and political experience. She can be trusted as far as ties to big money goes. She's a Roosevelt (Teddy and FDR) Democrat who can appeal to small business owners (i.e. sane Republicans). She has very little baggage (the Pocahontas matter is actually minimal compared with anyone else's including Bernie's -for the record I think she should embrace it, say it was a family folklore in Oklahama and NOT run away from it. The media is the media. Throw it back at trump on HER terms). I think the point about proposing feasible change is good one, big bold ideas that are relatively simple for voters to embrace and popular but not too shocking. I fear that what Krugman says about Bernie's health care plan is correct. Too many Americans will not buy it.
2
Why does Medicare for all mean you can't get private insurance on the side? In Spain, for example, everyone one has excellent government provided universal healthcare; in addition, many also keep different forms of private insurance-- which is not necessaroly better but will pay you a cash amount outright if you get sick, also cash amounts for say an MRI or surgery according to a set schedule , without cutting in to your basic universal benefits, but rather acts as a cash supplement . They are called "mutuas" and are usually connected to professional/workers/trade associations who charge affordable rates. Why is " Medicare for all" then thought of as incompatible with private insurance for those who chose to keep it? Granted the current health organizations and insurance companies would cease to enrich themselves the way they have traditionally done while providing care of dubious quality, way behind in terms of outcomes and cost of those in most the world's industrial democracies. It should not be an "Either-Or issue, but rather " Medicare for all +" , if you chose to.
4
Krugman is correct that Biden likely will pursue bipartisanship and likely will be stymied by partisanship. However, he may not face the virulent opposition Obama did. A significant portion of Obama hatred seems to have arisen from racism and racial concerns, not simply political polarization. Given Trump’s abilities to fuel the fires of racism (and anti-semitism despite support for Israel) in America, we should not underestimate its impact on the Obama presidency.
3
@Alan, as a country we cannot function divided. Yes there is tug and pull from both conservatives and liberals but we are just wheels in the democracy wagon and we ought to be steady.
Yes, racism undergirded much of what the Republicans did during Obama's terms, but sheer intransigence and, especially, kowtowing to their billionaire corporate masters are the ongoing, far greater spurs. They will resist any Democratic President.
We need someone, not Biden, who knows how to fight... who knows how to galvanize the country, restore voting rights, get corporate and secret money out of politics, etc.
Krugman, alas, reveals himself, once again, to be the master incrementalism. But, guess what?! You won't get the incremental changes if you start with them. There will be no Medicare plus, or public option, if the Democrat President isn't pushing Medicare for All. The liberal moderates who Krugman wants will fall prey to Republican machinations and end up with another discouraging, limited, non-universal, broken compromise with Big Interests — and no public option at all.
1
This may all be correct and true. And it may also come to pass that the winning Democrat will "fail" to make much progress on their initiatives. Yet I continue to believe that they still need to fight a good, fair minded, lawful fight to gain the Whitehouse, and keep it. Turning this ship of American Democracy around will take decades of decency and strength. Our culture needs time to outgrow it's current narcissistic behavior. It will be helpful to have leaders that are able and willing to comport themselves with reality based behavior. Even if they don't succeed on every issue.
I've come to think, in my snobby kind of way, that Bernie is an informed person's demagogue. He says all the right things but does little to convince me that he could actually accomplish them. And Joe, another great guy that you can't help but like but we don't really know what his plan is. Time to move on. I'm thinking Elizabeth Warren.
4
"The big concern about a Biden presidency is that he would repeat all of Obama’s early mistakes, squandering any momentum from electoral victory in pursuit of a bipartisan dream that should have died long ago."
No, we don't need a Biden for President! Sanders or Warren could bring about change, Biden is stuck in the past and will make the same mistake Obama made trying to play nice with Republicans.
4
It seems to me that perhaps, beyond the name recognition, many Dems want the person who has the best chance of beating our dear and fearless POTUS. With the overall economy strong (at least from the thin facade of info pushed to the public), it’s no great surprise that either Bernie or Biden could swing back the Rust Belt states, which could make the difference. ABT!
1
@John Arent
Biden
1
At least this time I agree with Krugman. Warren has a plan, and has the best ideas to incrementally improve the system.
4
When JFK was elected President, he was 43 years old.
I certainly believe he had the credentials and ability to lead this country well right from the start.
His main attribute was a deep love and knowledge of HISTORY.
3
@JPG
Agree! Kennedy (like Truman) knew and loved our country's history.
1
If Krugman is right, and I think he is, then it isn't fair to say Republicans opposed everything Obama did out of racism. It was blind partisanship, yes, but would have been the same even if he was 'white.'
And Trump's hatred might be more from being made fun of by Obama in a comedy routine (a good comedy routine by the way) than because he is 'black.' Trump has no sense of humor, a boundless (no boundaries) sense of self-importance, and a frail ego. Thus revenge is his second greatest motivator (after his mazophilia and ephobephilia).
1
@priceofcivilization
It wasn't entirely out of racism, but racism did play a significant part in Republican opposition to Obama! Obama won in spite of it because he appealed hugely to non-Republicans!
1
One should be careful of received-wisdom assumptions, in this instance the current, never-ending, much-headlined case that "people of color" support younger and/or non-Northern European origin and/or verbally flame-throwing, and/or female candidates. A significant part of the reason Trump won in 2016 was because Clinton made the mistake of making unwarranted assumptions.
My essential support of Biden is that he may be the only candidate that can bring back Obama/Trump voters, who are the people likely to make the difference in the few states that are electorally relevant in 2020 and, thus, the only candidate who can beat Trump as things now stand. Of course one should keep in mind that someone unanticipated might yet show up, much as Bill Clinton did when he ran for President.
Are there legitimate questions regarding past actions by Biden? Sure. But we are going to vote for President in 2020, not God, and if the Democrat's choice doesn't win, it's more Trump.
Those who say we should elect an "identity" are essentially doing Trump's work for him. Trump is not hugely popular. He can only be re-elected by the Democrats, something they are helping along by engaging in one of their favorite activities, the circular firing squad.
In any case, I can't help but wonder how many of the anti-Biden comments and Recommends are from Republicans who think he poses the biggest threat to Trump or from other countries and businesses, which stand to profit from maintaining Trump in power.
4
@Steve Fankuchen Exactly who will benefit from infusion of Obama/Trump voters for Biden? Not women, not people of color, not Dreamers. This woman wants her democracy back...bring on Elizabeth Warren for that task.
I find much to admire about Sanders, but his great trust in Gerald Friedman's economic analyses is not admirable. Friedman is an ideologue, in some ways the mirror image of Stephen Moore. Just look at today's WaPo piece about Sanders' 1988 trip to the USSR and his 1985 trip to Nicaragua, where he pronounced himself very impressed with Daniel Ortega. If he were the nominee, we'd be seeing these videos every day. Biden can't win the female and nonwhite vote. So we need someone else because four more years of Trump will be an absolute disaster.
I don't know who is most electable but we don't need any more Democratic candidates.
3
@Bob Snodgrass
Biden will win more women votes than imagined! I will be one of the ones that will!
1
I believe that the era of one person being the president may have to be revisited and I do not pretend that what I am hinting at is easy.
In the meantime, perhaps, as the primaries unfold, it could be a good idea for each worthy candidate to start "putting out there" a whole administrative slate of people who will be at the "top".
Use this to convince as many voters as possible that every major decision that will have to be taken will be brought to fruition, once in office, by a person who will have shown his/her mettle on the road to the presidency.
Give a sense that the personel and the ideas are in full readiness for implementation as the new presidency starts with commitment on many fronts. If we are then lucky to have Senate and House also in democratic hands, we may be able to move into the 21th century, and BEYOND, while sending the whole ideas expounded upon by the "republican old and arrogant men" and their attending "base" into the bins of history.
If Krugman is right, and I think he is, then it isn't fair to say Republicans opposed everything Obama did out of racism. It was blind partisanship, yes, but would have been the same even if he was 'white.'
And Trump's hatred might be more from being made fun of by Obama in a comedy routine (a good comedy routine by the way) than because he is 'black.' Trump has no sense of humor, a boundless (no boundaries) sense of self-importance, and a frail ego. Thus revenge is his second greatest motivator (after his mazophilia and ephobephilia).
@priceofcivilization
Twice commented, twice replied with a little added precision!
It wasn't entirely out of racism, but racism did play a significant part in Republican opposition to Obama! And Trump's racist hatred and animosity! Obama won in spite of it because he appealed hugely to non-Republicans!
1
As usual, Mr. Krugman makes many good points about both candidates. I am more hopeful than some that both Mr. Biden and Mr.Sanders are savvy enough on crucial issues, such as health care, to adapt to the current political climate and create policies that are achievable and work to improve the lives of Americans of all political persuasions. What the Democrats must not do is eat their own. No candidate is likely to satisfy progressives, moderates, and everyone else. Whoever the nominee is, get behind him or her and vote! Consider the alternative. Four more years of Trump and our democracy will be destroyed.
1
Krugman attempts to dismiss the issue of electability from the outset, sweeping it aside as unknowable. However, nothing matters unless a Democrat is elected to replace Trump, not to mention the need for Democrats to retake the Senate. I am not sure anyone other than Biden is electable. Warren's Indian ancestry issue has become her Hillary email server wart -- I have the same reaction to both, which is what in the world was she thinking? How could anyone with common sense do what she did? And, Harris to me is a lightweight and too new and inexperienced to assume the helm of the most powerful nation on Earth. Like Obama, she lacks the gravitas to be in charge. She hasn't been around long enough for us to know what she truly believes, and based on her answers to key issues in the campaign, even she doesn't know what she believes. To be sure, Biden worries me, but the continuing nightmare of a Trump presidency worries me a lot more.
3
I find myself agreeing and disagreeing with the astute Krugman. He is correct IMO about the fiercely tribal nature of our political environment, and Bernie’s simplistic crusade for a blanket single-pay, but, on the other hand, I don’t think Biden is a “romantic” who believes some sort of charm offensive will turn a GOP that has surrendered wholesale to Trump’s “base”. Joe is savvier than that, and as a Pennsylvanian I’m confident he would carry this state, along with other industrial states HRC lost. I do wish he’d promise to serve one term, however, and open the WH to the rich field of younger candidates. But this next cycle, electability and relatability are crucial and - though I’ll support any Democratic nominee - I prefer Joe at this very early moment in time.
3
The "two old white guys" are about as different as you can get. Biden doesn't have a platform--he's just there to stop Bernie from upsetting the applecart of his rich donors.
Bernie on the other hand has the same platform he's had forever--make those wealthy individuals and corporations pay their fair share, so we can afford the same things other developed countries provide to their citizens. And invest in clean energy to replace fossil fuels for the sake of our children.
Old, young, gender shouldn't even enter the discussion. What is this a reality show? Are we so used to hype that we can't see through it to vote in our best interests?
Then we relinquish our right to a democracy.
5
Neither Biden nor Sanders can build an energized coalition necessary to counteract the enthusiasm of Trump's minions. Sanders has been valuable for making good policy that was once considered too radical appear possible again. But he's incapable of creating the alliances necessary to get them through Congress. Biden has staked his campaign on being the anti-Trump-but-still-old-white-guy with no coherent vision for America's future. He's a 76 year old man who doesn't even believe in the legalization of marijuana. Do we really think he'll generate the enthusiasm necessary to get bodies to the ballot box beyond those who already dream daily of their next chance to vote Trump out? It's not just about broad polling numbers...it's about who is energized to actually vote. Neither of these old men (and I hope to be one someday), will do that. For every on-the-fence uneducated Midwestern white guy Biden lures away, he'll lose two or three energetic young people who might volunteer with GOTV efforts, a couple of women or women and men of color who might not always vote and don't see how Biden makes their lives much better. We're always re-playing the last election in the one we're running now, but what we fail to notice is that a lack of energy and enthusiasm in Midwestern states among Democrats (especially African American Democrats) in the last election had more to with Clinton's losses there than a surge of uneducated white guys in those states did. We need energy!
3
One particular misconstrued aspect of any national healthcare plan, especially 'Medicare for All', is that Private Insurance plans will still be part of the whole concept. Medicare only covers 80%, private insurance covers the 20% leftover. Even in the Social Democracies that do cover the whole part of the population private insurance still exists. So we need to stop thinking that we would see the last of private insurance plans. We Democrats need to bring out this issue to reassure those voters who falsely believe that they would solely be at the mercy of the government bureaucracy.
These private plans allow for 100% coverage in any gaps that might exist. And they are inexpensive in countries such as France. And yes, the premiums, copays and deductable are replaced by higher taxes. But all these private pay insurance plans are nothing more than a 'hidden tax'.
Spread across the entire nation of policy holders, the Medicare for all or other public plans would be far cheaper to families and individuals.
5
By taking the stands that Sanders takes, he is a strong older pony for the younger racehorses (to use the metaphor). This is his value to progressives -- pulling the field to the left, as he did in 2016 with Hillary Clinton. This is why we have the candidates we now have, such as Harris and Warren running. And, why we have Medicare For America as a bill proposal by Representatives DeLauro and Schakowsky -- an incrementalist approach to something better than the the employer-administered system -- which not only doesn't make healthcare more affordable, also gives employers the opportunity to violate the right of conscience of their employees (by claiming 'religious liberty' for themselves).
Without the solid pull of Medicare For All or something very similar, this bill wouldn't have a vision to gravitate towards. Democrats have allowed Republicans to frame everything -- including where *they want the center to appear to be. Progressives and leftward moderates have discovered through polling that the center resides with them and not moderate conservatives. This angle needs to be worked because it is a serious energizer. Progressive populism, anyone? It's *the path. Where is Biden on that?
3
Good points made, and that is what should highlight the importance of taking back the Senate and retaining the House. There will be no perfect presidential candidate!
2
@Global Strategist
Right you are, but first and foremost the donald must go. We have to have the most "Electible" candidate. Almost nothing else matters. If we do elect the Democrat, then the Senate may be recaptured as the House was in 2018.
NO MORE trump!
I've always thought Elizabeth Warren is the best of the bunch... but to the barely interested, it will probably play like HC II. I am gloomy about the Dem's prospects with the economy doing well. Usually, if the economy is in good shape, the electorate will stick with the incumbent. Anyway, we must stay positive... the future of the planet depends on it!
1
@Mark Crozier
The economy has simply carried on from President Obama's legacy. Let's also give credit to the American people for pulling the nation out of the 'Great Recession', too! The republicans tried their very best to keep the economy crippled. Don't forget McConnell's famous last words in "Making sure that Obama has only one term."
2
I’m usually on board with Professor Krugman’s arguments, but I violently disagree with the idea that most people are satisfied with their employer provided healthcare. I personally have an excellent employer healthcare package. I have a very low deductible, no premiums, and my employer contributes to an HSA account on my behalf every year. My healthcare is gold-plated, but I’d drop it in a second for a national healthcare system. An end to hunting for “in-network” doctors, an end to calculating and arguing over which expenses go toward meeting my deductible, and end to all the frustrating busy work and phone calls involved in coordinating between the insurance company and your doctor, yes please.
6
Age worries me. I am 75 and know I don't have the energy (anywhere near it) that I had as a younger person. A word I am about to speak slips into darkness. And where did I put it, I just had it in my hand!
BUT I think clearly if more slowly. I think more slowly is a good thing. I'm nowhere near as quick to jump on something I disagree with. My husband, my older friends and I, are avid readers and thinkers and discussers of important topics, and we are not stuck in the mud. I think our pasts enrich our presents. Biden has shown himself flexible, adaptable, maybe because he can be slick. But this isn't so bad, is it? Yes, he should pick a younger vice president. A woman of color? Unfortunately I favor Pete Buddigieg. But he made a good team with Obama. He can do i again. I would vote for anyone against Trump and I'm not really,really sure I want Biden, but I don't think his age should be held against him as long as he agrees to make his health status public, agrees to mental fitness evaluations and has a younger vice president from the left (ish).
2
This perfectly sums up why neither oBiden nor Bernie is my choice. But I think you’re off-track on health insurance. Across the board, people hate health insurance companies and drug plan providers too. The poll questions need to be re-phrased. Add up all the costs of private insurance ( employer portion, employee contribution, deductibles and co-pays, out-of-network restrictions and higher costs), come up with an average cost per privately insured person (fully burdened) and then figure out what the average tax amount would be to provide the same coverage (most studies I’ve seen indicate it would be lower) per person, add in the fact that the entire concept of networks would go away which would mean no change in providers, don’t label it Medicare for All, just describe it, and then ask people which they would prefer. I’ll bet hands-down the answer is Medicare for All.
5
Professor Krugman may have some good points. But he fails to mention the main issue: Get rid of Trump! Whoever has the greatest chance of doing that gets my vote. Squabbling over policy details on health insurance, etc, can come later.
5
While Medicare for All or some other variant of single payer would raise taxes, it would also eliminate the high deductibles (unlike 30 years ago, almost everyone has burdensome high deductibles) and ever-increasing premiums that make health care literally unaffordable for many who are too "rich" to qualify for subsidies but not rich enough to afford the full price.
Twenty-five years ago as a free-lancer, I paid $110 a month for an HMO policy with no deductibles and $10 co-pays for office visits and tests, $100 per day co-pays for hospitalization. Try and find that now!
I understand that medical advances have been made since then, but most people don't use them. If that policy had just kept up with inflation, it would be possible to get it for $180 a month and have $17 co-pays.
What has changed? Perhaps the increasing demands, seen across all industries and even in higher education, for the top executives to vote one another enormous compensation packages, stated in the hundreds of millions, as they sit on one another's boards, even as they hire more worker bees to figure out reasons to deny claims from those the people who pay those exorbitant premiums and deductibles.
The mainstream press seems loath to mention this fact. Perhaps because they accept advertising from insurance companies?
5
"All indications are that he believes that these good personal relations will translate into an ability to make bipartisan deals on policy."
I don't see any evidence for this assertion. One would assume that having been Obama's vice-president, the opposite would be true.
1
What's left to write? I agree. with pretty much all the points made. I'm also POed that the women - with workable ideas and a very good idea of what change will require -- are so far sidelined in the news by the old guy show.
I like where Sanders' ideas tak eus -- but whathas he been able to accomplish legislatively where he has been? How will he suddenly become a skilled pol with the craft of a Pelosi ( or the whip of an LBJ) to get bills passed?
2
The real "trouble with Joe and Bernie" is the "harsh political reality" they create for the Democratic Party. Joe is at one extreme as a centrist, establishment, Wall Street candidate with an immense amount of baggage as his recent dust up with Anita Hill demonstrates. Bernie is at the opposite extreme as a non-Democrat Socialist running for the Democratic nomination with his equally extreme, and politically toxic, "Medicare for All," which frightens even moderate, center-left Democrats. Once again the vast middle of the party overflowing with way too many marginal candidates makes it likely that the center-left, progressive wing will be frozen out thus leaving the party disunited as in 2016 and vulnerable to Trump. This is the very "harsh political reality" posed by Joe and Bernie to the nation as in heads into the pivotal election between democracy and autocracy in 2020.
I have FREE healthcare for life due to my former job as a public school teacher (than you, unions). I am one of the people you talk about "liking their healthcare insurance". Sure I love having great healthcare. I just think EVERYONE should have great healthcare and am willing to pay more in taxes to see that achieved. I'm not a greedy person who has to have more than the next guy to feel good about myself. I am a civil person who realizes one's health is paramount to reaching full potential.
5
Krugman thinks Sanders’ vision for our future is “imaginary”, because of course he, Paul Krugman, understands what the future will bring. And one of those things will be a resounding rejection of Medicare for All when people realize it will replace their beloved private health insurance plans. Because people love high deductibles, exorbitant premiums and narrow networks of providers - it’s what stops them from leaving jobs they loathe.
I wonder how much more mileage Krugman thinks he can get out of that bogus Kaiser poll?
7
Perfectly said, again. Thanks for your clear-eyed realism Professor.
Also, don't forget Mayor Pete. You wait and see: he will draw more votes than Sen. Warren.
Barack Obama was a fine, dignified and skilled President, but started his tenure with the hope that compromise with the opposition was possible. He wasted a great deal of time and spent a great deal of political capital trying that approach.
It is also important to remember that members of his own party, plus the unanimous opposition of the Republicans, refused to even consider single payer or even a public insurance option to private insurance. He needed every Democrat in the Senate to get the Affordable Care Act and had to compromise with his own Party to get there. Recall Senator Lleberman's opposition to a public option for example.
Sanders and Warren are right in going for the big picture with a single payer system for universal health care. They are also right in calling for real action to reduce income and opportunity inequality, by taxing extreme wealth and providing working class individuals with free education from preschool to college for those who are academically qualified.
Those who support such reforms must recognize that a solid Democratic victory in the House, Senate and the Presidency is necessary for such progress. The Republican Party of McConnell and Trump are beyond compromise and will remain obstacles to any progressive reforms unless they are reduced significantly by voters in their numbers.
3
Yes, Mr. Krugman, Bernie Sanders is living in an imaginary future. All futures are imaginary until they become the present.
"If you have built castles in the air, your work need not be lost; that is where they should be. Now put the foundations under them."
1
Dear Paul, once again you skirt the central issue. The problem with the Democratic Party and the Republican Party isn’t bipartisanship or “ unpartisan-ship” . The problem is money, the flood of special interest money into our political campaigns. Not only has big money destroyed our democracy, it’s also destroyed our media with the flood of advertising dollars. I’ll be backing the candidate who takes the least amount of corporate dollars. I will do my due diligence, despite the trickery of the press and those who hold power, to support the candidate who has the interest of the people at heart. You remember us, right Paul? We’re the ones who buy your newspapers and the cars that advertise in your newspapers. Not only will I vote for the most progressive candidates I will also make phone calls and knock doors. I will donate my time and money to help elect the candidates that will actually represent we the people. We the people have had enough of corporate rule.
6
@Joseph Taylor-- if your position rolls out on a national level instead of just the nice progressive bubble in which we Californians live, we are doomed to 4 more years of true evil, plus a GOP opportunistic senate. Thanks!
@Joseph Taylor Do you include Union dollars in your count? If not, why not? Big money buys politicians away from the people and into the pockets of the buyers, no matter what the source of it.
What has been most obvious since Joe Biden announced his candidacy for the presidency in 2020 is that Donald Trump is scared boule movement-less by the prospect of facing Biden in the General election. One of the main reasons for that is Biden gives off an aurora of being bipartisan.
That is well I agree with Professor Krugman's comments on the disaster that was Obama's first two years when the Democrats controlled the entire Government and Obama instead of pushing Democratic policies made bipartisanship his number one priority that allowed the Republicans to frustrate everything that needed to be accomplished leading to the Tea Party wave, when running for the presidency it is good politics to claim that if elected you will be bipartisan.
That is many low information voters are not God, guns, gays, race and abortion voters. These low information voters when asked put bipartisanship as being important to how they vote. George W Bush won these voters in 2000 as did Trump in 2016.
So I agree it would be bad policy if elected to repeat the Obama mistake, that Biden gives an appearance of being able to "reach across the isle" makes him more likely to win the election.
In conclusion, in my view the fact that Joe Biden is perceived as a person who will be bipartisan by low information voters makes him a more formidable general election candidate, I agree with Professor Krugman that it would be a disaster if Biden fails to learn the lessons of Obama's first two years in office.
2
Print my views. Diversity is not just what you want to let through and censor the rest.
Medicare for All will work. The amount saved from premiums and deductibles not paid should under equilibrium conditions match once you take out the unbelievable profits of the healthcare industry. Disruption here is totally justified because it is going to benefit an enormously larger population than the people who will lose out. No tears for the price gauging hospitals, pharma (including the murderous sort like Perdue), many doctors and of course the horrid healthcare insurers.
Krugman says that people are happy with their employer provided insurance. I found that dubious. Almost everyone I know does not think that. Making unbacked blanket statements like he does is shameful for an academic.
Finally, doctors have to be part of the Medicare network. If they opt out, tax them heavily. Don’t tell me that is unfair and that it limits their freedom guaranteed in a capitalist system we live in. One that allows Jeff Bezos, the richest American, to pay 0 taxes and people like Dalio making $2 Billion in 2018 and benefiting from the pathetically unfair “carried interest” rule.
Bernie is the man who will deliver us from the misery we are in with Trump.
Biden is not.
It is that simple. I don’t have a Nobel Prize (just a PhD from Harvard and a little more money than Dr K) but you don’t even need a high school diploma to figure this one out.
7
Many people may be satisfied with their employer-provided coverage, but in order to keep it they need to pay premiums that increase every year in excess of inflation and most people's income increases. More importantly, they have to keep their jobs. Even if that means foregoing pursuit of a more rewarding career in self-employment or entrepreneurship, or farming, teaching, etc. Or moving to another geographic region. I am not an economist, but I would like to see an economist weigh in on how a single-payer system could make labor markets more adaptable and encourage the development of small businesses, innovation, and cultural pursuits (as well as increase personal happiness). How many people stay in jobs they don't like and are less productive in, so they can keep their families covered? How many ideas and works of art are we missing out on as a society because creative people stay in unfulfilling day jobs for medical insurance? Not to mention other people who may want to have those same jobs, but are shut out because they are taken.
7
My two cents. I think that Trump and the Republicans' biggest potential weakness is that they are not dealing with the business opportunities and social problems of Artificial Intelligence, algorithms, blockchain, decentralized trusted networks and autonomous institutions, 3D printer additive manufacturing, and other technologies of the "Fourth Industrial Revolution" (Klaus Schwab's term) which are coming. And Silicon Valley doesn't seem to be prepared either to approach these technologies with morality and social concern. This is the future, and this is where China is truly way ahead, they invest heavily in AI, although they, disappointingly and not surprisingly, want to design a total surveillance society based on it. The only candidates who are discussing these topics at all are Andrew Yang and William Weld (although sadly both seem to be "right libertarians"). It's a pity that moral candidates who rightly criticize America's terrible income inequality like Sanders and Warren are not interested in this. However, Warren is more likely than Sanders to become interested in these issues in the future. She is highly intellectual and open-minded and moral. I am therefore supporting Warren. I don't care that she seems to be not "electable" and that Trump calls her Pocahontas. We should do what is directly right, and not out-clever ourselves. Maybe swing voters in the midwest can be won over with intelligent understanding of the future, rather than Biden's "I'm a union guy."
4
It will take Kamala or Elizabeth to understand that working with the GOP is an antiquated concept: the GOP's very existence is anathema to the American ideal. By the time we fully experience the havoc wrought by their policies, they will be "Conveniently Dead."
2
The only time there is major change in social legislation (aka entitlements) is when the President has a substantial majority in both the the House and the Senate (FDR, LBJ). It doesn't matter which party has the Presidency.
4
Biden's comments on China are bizarre and disqualifying. Has he ever heard of 5G? When asked in 2016 for specific details on his proposed economic plan, Sanders could not articulate exactly what the elements of it was and how they would work without massive tax increases.
Both men are too old for the job, coming from a political paradigm that is quickly disappearing. If Dems don't sink themselves with socialist talk, and unite behind a progressive candidate at least by the convention, they should win. But they have a lot of time, so don't underestimate them to screw this up--I think that's what Wall Street is betting on.
1
Great news! Incredible job report today!
Bad news! Krugman has been wrong about everything!
4
And this advice, from a Hilary pusher in 2016, falls flat. We need LARGE change, Biden will never deliver, but Bernie might. Paul, you seem to be progressive, but when it comes to act you support has beens or never wases like Hilary, Biden and the corporate Dems. No thanks.
7
Thank you, thank you, thank you.
Most progressive voters live in the same lalaland. They were so upset that Obama didn't do [insert your favorite progressive dream] or that ObamaCare didn't do [insert another pie-in-the-sky]. As a result they didn't go vote in 2012 and any progress from there on had to be doable by executive power on not get done at all.
1
But for vaporware like "giving people their dignity", Biden hasn't offered a single concrete idea. Yet he is the front-runner. What does that say about the state of the country? He looks like an establishment suck-up to me. Ok, a convivial one.
Sanders is eccentric and irascible. But at least you know his speech is not fork-tongued. He says what he means.
3
The solution to GOP intransigence is to vote them out of office. That is particularly true in the Senate. The challenge, however, is obvious. The Constitution established a system where smaller, more rural states wield disproportionate political power through Senatorial representation and by extension the electoral college. So the Democrats will need to not just win, but win big enough that some currently Red States are turned Blue. The GOP obviously know that and will fight like hell to turn their states into theocracies, the better to appeal to their base voters; to suppress voting and limit voting rights, the better to empower their base voters; and to gerrymander like their political lives depend on it, to assure that even their minority of base voters can dominate.
I think it is a terrifying likelihood that the GOP will again win the presidency with a minority of the national vote and control the Senate with a minority of the aggregate national vote. Should that occur, not only will the USA be firmly shifted in a relentlessly rightward direction (with the help of an increasingly partisan judiciary), the Democratic national majority will come to question if the grand experiment of American democracy has, in fact, failed. Should that occur, taxation without representation will be the least of our worries.
1
Paul,
Headlines like this are not helpful. The points you make are no more true of Biden or Bernie than the are of Pete or Kamala.
This article could be framed as “what the winner will face...how ready are they?”
Your headline sets a tone...foe how many people??? Just stop it!!
2
On what planet do you live in where people don't think private insurance is broken?
5
I wonder who still reads Krugman's columns after his ridiculous and humiliating predictions of "worst economic and financial doomsday" when Trump won in 2016 !!
2
The definition of insanity is repeatedly doing the same thing and expecting different results. With only one singular exception (oh how the world misses you Barack Obama) Americans keep electing old white guys. Unhappy with the current state of government? Try something different. Vote for women and people of colour. The world will thank you.
A stark reminder that Republicans never compromise so approaching new policies should always envisage that they will have zero support from the other side. Like trying to appease Hitler in 1938-39. On another note I am struck by these gentlemen's enormous egos. Really they are both too old for this time and this place. The upcoming election will be monumental in history and hopefully represent a turning point where younger Americans are heard, climate change is taken on and hopefully, a woman can be elected. They should remain in the background and provide wise counsel to younger candidates. Take a long walk in the park with their grand children.
Polls show, polls show, polls show... this mantra from both Democrats and the media gets it all wrong. Do Republicans care what the polls show, on healthcare, gun control, or anything else? They plow ahead with their agenda, polls be damned. The rest of us need to learn to make our case, to turn the polls around instead being turned around by them.
2
You are once again correct. Any democrat who gets into this race and espouses bipartisanship is dead-on-arrival. That is not a vocabulary word for Republicans and it cannot be for Democrats. The blood sport of 2016 —everyone kick Hillary because she is going to win, we hate her, and she is a woman—has to stop. That means you NYTImes and Washington Post. No more false equivalency, like both sides do it. Give me a break. You are the top news organizations in the world. Figure it out - when you are sucking down and regurgitating Republican and Russian propaganda. The Russian-Republican political strategic and financial alliance is dangerous to the free press and to democracy. We are living in very dangerous times.
4
One can count on the Democratic Party to play it safe all the way to catatonia.
2
@Steve BolgerI can see the book title now: Homage to Catatonia.
Electability 'trumps' everything up and down the Democrats' pipeline. What you wrote herein about the party's progressive embrace is the significant change, Dr. K. It is the real bottom line in this election cycle. But we all know that unless we take the Senate the feasibility of enacting anything meaningful is fairly doomed.
As far as Biden and Sanders goes the former may not as delusional over bipartisan cooperation as you suggest. The latter obliviously has continued on the generalities of his social democratic platform where he left off with Hillary in 2016. In fact when recently speaking to a minority audience of women, most of his answers to tough questions resulted in large-scale disappointment, evidenced by showers 'Boo's' for having no specificity. Platitudes won't cut it.
But we do need to take complete stock of reality before anything else: removing trump from the White House.
Joe Biden's main message is exactly that. He's running at the outset to defeat trump, period. This resonates very well with all Democrats, along with moderate Republicans and Independents.
Joe has a huge advantage in that he captures a significant part off white union members. The Firefighters' national organization has already endorsed the former Vice President. And, he was a direct witness to the ugly non- bipartisanship of the entire republican party during his eight years in this role.
He gets it as do the voters.
3
My AI is smarter than your doctor! ...is the future of healthcare.
As Paul laments the baseness of political humanity he also probes for 'healthiness' through insurance billing reform.
There runs a belief (among the kids who did well in school) in the solubility of societal disorder.
Life expectancy declines as bodies swell and oratory drowns out the logic of it all. When faced with complex systems, we reach instead for the tranquility of wine and Bernie also calls out, "give them cake".
When I was a kid, I stuck my nose in books. They were my video game and far exceeded the modern video games at taking the pulse of reality. And now my mind begs for coffee.
Hear, hear! Excellent piece—thank you.
So you like Modern Economic Theory?
I could see myself supporting Biden...as long as Warren was his running mate and heir apparent....the only way I see getting a Progressive and a woman into the White House.
3
NYT: Please stop pushing your agenda - Biden is more of the same and everyone knows it. The DNC stole Bernie's spot and look at the mess we're in now. Thank you, Hillary.
Healthcare reform: lower medicare enrollment age by 9 years every year. Soon enough everyone's covered, plenty of time to work out the bugs, and let the pharma/healthcare industry make it's last cash grab of the American people.
4
"Are they ready for the political trench warfare... ?
The trouble with both Biden and Sanders is that each, in his own way, seems to believe that he has unique powers of persuasion that will let him defy the harsh reality of today’s tribal politics."
My Goodness! Where is this hyperbolic mashup coming from?
It appears the good Professor is running out of steam trying to find cogency in this time of political implosion; and it shows.
Don't all candidates believe they have the magic elixir to cure what ails the nation; or at least try to find some common ground for a myriad of disparate interests?
Where are all of those opinion pieces the NYT ran in 2016 from Krugman pondering the same questions about the 15 (or so) Republican presidential candidates; where is that piece talking about "The Trouble With Trump?"
Is this really what voters will face over the next 18 months: Part One- Bernie & Biden; Part Two- Cory & Kamala...?
1
"Obama’s signature achievement happened only because Nancy Pelosi’s heroic efforts dragged the Affordable Care Act across the finish line."
This, eleventy zillion times.
2
On another note: given today's economic news, how's that collapse thingy working out, Paul?
1
@Sumner Madison
The "collapse thingy" is that millions of people have had to take jobs at burger king to survive. There are no good paying jobs because we have horrid capitalism. And because safety nets are being cut and cut, many people must take two jobs to survive or support a family. Close to 80% of workers live paycheck to paycheck. The horrid wealth disparity, due to corrupt politicians, are the main culprits in all of this. That's the "collapse thingy."
1
Also, one of the reasons that Obama chose Biden to be his VP was for impeachment insurance.
medicare for those over 65, 64,63,62,61,60, 50,58,57,56,55,44,53,52,51,50,49,48,47,46,45,44,43,42,41,40, 39,38,37,36,35,34,33,32,31,30,29,28,27,26,25,24,23,22,21 ..
not so hard at all
3
Professor Krugman says that “all indications” are that Joe Biden will try to be a bipartisan President yet offers not one shred of concrete evidence. Sorry Professor, I won’t give you an F grade but just ask you to rewrite your essay with facts supporting the central premise of your thought process.
1
@AW
In the sense that both parties serve corporate interests at the expense of the rest of us, Biden would certainly be bipartisan if he could win an election.
@AW, Biden has stated this in numerous speeches. He talks about his friendships with Republicans. IF true, that is nothing to brag about. Used to be, no more.
Your point that both Biden and Obama are bipartisan politicians and that this movie has already been seen and we already know the ending, fails to recognize one important point: Obama failed and Mitch and the boys didn't agree to not cooperate with him because he is a Democrat. They did it because he is black. Period. Full Stop. If Republicans work with a black (or female) president, they will be handing the reigns of power over to minorities and/or women. They simply can't have that. But I got news for Trump and the boys. Obama was a nice guy. Talk about policy all you want. What democrats want is someone to stick their middle finger in Trump's face and make it stick. Kamala Harris has shown she is not only willing to do that, she is adept at it as well. If you think African Americans came out to support Obama, you ain't seen nothing yet. This will be like a boxing match: Harris in her corner throwing punches in the air, loosening up. Trump in his corner looking all flabby yelling across the ring "Yo. Your mama".
Fortunately Paul knows more than anyone else, and following his tuition will save us effort that, Paul says, will be wasted. Paul says, replacing private insurance with a single payer government system, that will provide better healthcare and save people money, is something people will reject. Paul doesn't explain why these people are so stupid, but that is ok because Paul is so smart he must be correct! This is probably why Paul so often, in true Clintonian fashion, offers up half-loaf solutions. No sense in trying, eh Paul?
1
This is why Trump will win again.
1
@Sadie
Exactly! The Dems do not offer the worker anything. So the worker, in all his/her frustration, looked to someone who pretended to be like them and who promised them hope. Trump was his name.
Do that again and you get Trump again. It's that simple.
1
At 82, long-retired Licensed Family Therapist, Lutheran pastor, and publisher....I agree that Biden and Bernie are “beyond it”
and “ out of it”, partly because of Age and partly because of
their inability to deal with a “ President” who is, psychologically,
out of and “beyond” Truth. Trump is pathologically Absent,
personally, from the Need for the use and expression of Truth.
Thereby, his devoted disciples are, as well, beyond the Reach of
the burden of Truth. For me, this malady also puts them out
of the Reach of my Trust. I will not Vote Republican, though that
Used to be my Loyalty. Sadly, I also will Not avoid the Polling
Place. Trump’s Selfish Deviousity leaves me in the Quandry.
I long for a President who is in Office to Serve. Trump, lives,
In his Sociopathic Personality Disorder, to “Serve” only
Himself.
1
Shouldn't Krugman focus on today's economic news?
2
@JQGALT
As I've said here in another place, people have had to take the simplest, poor paying jobs, often two or three of them, to survive. Wages are horrid for the worker and benefits and security are heading down also. Medical costs, premiums, copays, coinsurance, etc. are out of sight. We are the last major wealth country to not have national insurance. The costs can be handled. USA should be able to do this easily; it is the wealthiest country in the world; not the wisest and too much corruption. Take the premium one pays one's employer for health care an pay it directly in taxes. This solves the problem. And everyone must have insurance -- so everyone working pays regardless of age. That's how insurance works. And medical care should not be "for profit." That is absurd. So adjustments there save billions of dollars. The system gets standardized and saves billions there. We pay almost twice as much per person for health care and that is a waste there where we can save more billions. We have a wasteful system that give poorer outcomes than other countries. It can be done. We could even phase it in by periodically pulling a certain age group into regular medicare. It can be done. Krugman has gone off the deep end I'm afraid -- or been forced there by ??????
1
Two thoughts:
(1) I fear Bernie Sanders. Just a bit. He reminds me of the "career government official" endlessly, vigorously caricatured by the GOP. "I'm from the government--and I'm here to HELP you."
Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!
Oh the Republicans would have a FIELD day with Mr. Sanders and his health care plan. And other things. Say what you will, Americans bristle at the word "socialist." Just a little. Even now.
And the GOP has got paint buckets and brushes. Ready to daub that damning word on Mr. Sanders' back the moment the campaign begins in earnest.
(2) On the other hand--
--I still remember (with burning anger) the partisan tactics of the GOP when Mr. Obama took office.
Do nothing. Stall. Stall. Do nothing. Stall. Do nothing.
Chip away--slowly, ineluctably--at those huge approval ratings.
He'll OWN the failure, they told one another. Chortling. Rubbing their hands. Those ghastly approval ratings--they'll melt away. Trust me! They will.
I do think, Mr. Krugman: the memory of those pitiful tactics sank deep into the mind of Democrats. Even Mr. Biden and Mr. Sanders. Affable, likeable as they are.
And today's GOP--that's all they can do.
They have no vision, no heart for the needs of 21st century America.
Mr. Biden? Mr. Sanders?
They got plenty.
All power to them! AND--those other Democrats now running. May the best man--or woman--win!
And carry the country along with him--
-or her--
--and get stuff done.
1
Yes, agree with this analysis---but, for me the bar for 2020 is quite low---I just someone who can replace this wannabe Mussolini out of the Oval Office. No matter what the political calculus might be, just having a adult sitting in that office is enough for me.
2
I just can't help remembering what Paul Krugman and Andrew Rosenthal did to Senator Sanders last election cycle. If not for people like them and several hundred brain dead Democratic insiders we might have a REAL President right now.
5
I'd add that if republicans hold the senate in 2020,
and sell-your-soul-to-the-devil, mitch McDevil runs the senate, nothing will happen no matter which dem becomes president.
2
Much as I loved Barack Obama and the dignity and intelligence he brought to the White House (in such stark contrast to the current occupant), he was a very standoff-ish guy. Schmoozing with Republicans (and Democrats!) made him uncomfortable, and he avoided it whenever he could.
Tip O'Neill and Ronald Reagan were in opposite political parties, sure, but they frequently socialized together over a few beers. In the world of tribal politics, it is much easier to compromise on a bill or a policy if the two parties actually LIKE each other as people.
Barack Obama was above it all, and it cost us the Senate and the House in 2010.
If we fast forward to a Biden or Sanders presidency, or any of the other Democratic candidates should they win in 2020, that piece will be crucial to getting things done.
(Of course, if the Dems take majority in the Senate and hold onto the majority in the House in 2020 that will be a plus.)
1
Political strategizing is the real problem. For Trump and many on the right, the idea is to win for the sake of winning only. Case in point, the Republicans are the party of healthcare but have no actual ideas about healthcare. We constantly hear about winning and being winners-this is all Trumpism and Trump vocabulary. Most of the appeal for Trump is the veil of not being political and standing for something, which people contrive to be whatever they want and it's a real problem. However, he won based on the notion that he was not going to play political games or be influenced by Washington and that he had core values (even if they are all rotten). People ate it up. I think there is something to learn from here. People, maybe I just mean me, are tired of listening to political strategies to win. Of course, it's crucial that democrats overthrow our current dictator, but please let us think and learn something in the process. I want a democrat to win based on policies that fit with our times and mirror what is most important in the world. Finding a centrist, like Biden, to do it, just for the sake of wining misses the point. This article is well intentioned but I think it focuses too much on what it means to be in the trenches to win for the sake of winning just like the republicans. Whoever is best to be in the trenches isn't necessarily the best leader. Bernie has the best policy ideas for today and tomorrow. period.
Sanders may be “too old,” but he has the ear of the youth. This should not be discounted—this is the future (and present) of the country. Neither should his 2016 grassroots campaign, having nearly broken the 100-plus-year pattern of corporate control of elections, be taken for granted. Every major progressive accomplishment in this country’s history has come as a result of significant public pressure. Protests and sustained outrage. Demands for action. Civil rights, women’s suffrage, and labor movements weren’t born of metered hopes and cautioning against too much, too soon, and neither will free healthcare. We’ll get enough “too much, too soon” from the private insurance industry to ensure nothing ever gets done—we don’t need more of this from so-called progressive leaders. I’m prepared to vote for Biden if he is the nominee, but I’m afraid electing him is asking for another decade of “long view” Obama-style politics, and an executive branch just as vulnerable to Republican attacks as Obama’s was. There’s little reason to be optimistic about any meaningful legislation from him.
1
Why not stop telling people what to think, who to like, who to vote for? It seems lots of people LIKE Joe Biden. So let him run, and maybe let him win.
"But what Sanders appears to believe is that he can convince voters not just to support progressive policies, but to support sweeping policy changes that would try to fix things most people don’t consider broken."
Aside from the questionable followup to this statement that most people don't believe that our healthcare system is broken, regardless of whether they have private insurance, if Sanders wins he will have already succeeded in getting voters to support progressive policies. Krugman continues the same circular reasoning that has always dogged Sanders that his proposals are not politically viable. And yet he has never been anything but up front about what his campaign stands for. As a Bernie backer I support these policy positions and firmly believe that in a democratic society if enough people, adding up to a majority, want something then they should get it.
2
Krugman's comparison of Biden to Obama falls short in leaving out their relative experiences. Biden has had decades in Congress. He certainly knows how to twist arms and count the players. Obama was too young and inexperienced when he became president. He peaked too soon and rode a wave of Bainbridge Island-racial support that took him past Clinton and on into the campaign and ultimately the office. But had he sat that cycle out, Clinton would have become president, then Obama would have made mince meat of Trump.
Nevertheless... my only hope is that a Democrat, any Democrat, will beat the current occupant. I would like to see someone in the office who can rally the entire country. Or, at the very least, not antagonize the part that don't vote for them.
1
Agree on Biden -- romantic and, lest we forget, totally dedicated to pursuing a donor-driven agenda. But Bernie was a highly successful, eminently practical mayor of Burlington, VT, for many years. He is not a pie-in-the-sky socialist. He works with the materials at hand, the personnel available, the laws that are on the books.
Bernie actually has considerable executive experience. He is not even close to being similar to Biden.
1
I hope that Mr. Biden and Senator Sanders poll well now only because of name recognition. If Mr. Biden actually won the nomination, certainly we'd be treated to the fascinating, if horrifying experience of seeing Republicans, of all people, going after Mr. Biden for his unfair treatment of Anita Hill (I assume there even would be cases of Republican activists pretending to be outraged Democratic feminists). The perfect candidate hasn't shown up, and probably never will, but Senators Harris and Warren already are much better candidates than either Mr. Biden or Senator Sanders ever will be. It'll be interesting to see how Senators Warren and Harris evolve, and to what extent they can deal with what currently seem to be some blind spots.
3
I believe that the main.object here is to eliminate the private health care insurance industry. It is highly profitable for entrepreneurs, but scams the gold mine of a health care industry we have. Let the doctors and other providers make the money and not middle-men who add little value but specialize in rationing medical care and draining off a sizable portion of the health care dollar. This health care pie does not a need greedy business-only non providers eating it away from the inside.
3
Not pulling any punches - we desperately need a to expand Medicare or have a much better market based plan than the ACA gave us, but a 'Medicare for all' or single payer plan that eliminates private insurance is, in a word, idiotic. Some people will want the option to be able to pay out of pocket for private insurance.
What is really needed is to de-couple health insurance from employment. Additionally to eliminate the employee health insurance subsidy tax deduction that large businesses currently have and use that revenue to help fund a single payer plan.
Finally, two words: price controls.
1
Joe is affable; I’ll give him that. He would be better than the Trumpster fire, but so would either one of my two cats. Bernie has an answer for everything but it’s always an answer he’s given two million times before. He’s like Siri with a Brooklyn accent. I wish AOC was 35 years old.
1
I first voted for JFK and continue to vote for Democrats. I predicted early on that Hillary would lose. The vibes were not there. I supported Bernie and blame the DNC for its disregard for his message, Bernie could have carried the day with workers w/o comments from Chris Matthews and John Lewis.
Neither of these old men can win this time, but another front-runner has yet to emerge. Meanwhile President Trump continues his destructive policies like reversing the safety rules after the Deepwater Horizon disaster, and, with disgraced John Bolton and Elliot Abrams, fomenting revolution in oil-rich Venezuela. Are voters asleep or hypnotized? Are we this shallow?
2
Harris for the coasts, Klobuchar for the middle, in either order!
Trump will fail miserably in his misogynistic attacks.
Warren fell into his trap, but Pelosi hasn't and never will. Women know how to defeat Trump, and an all-female ticket can do just that, if they follow Pelosi's model in how to deal with Trump!
Oh, and they're both younger than Trump, Harris a lot younger.
2
A major difference for both Biden and Sanders is that neither has to deal with “race,” the condition that made it easy for Republicans to successfully pursue a “scorched-earth” policy with Obama.
Biden would repeat mistakes similar to Obama’s by believing that middle-income whites will behave like middle-class whites.
And you are right; Sanders not only seeks to fix problems that people don’t consider broken but worse, don’t care if they’re broken.
But more crucial is that Trump is part of the equation. A lying, bottom-feeding, dirty mud-slinging alley fighter that neither Biden nor Sanders have shown any traits of being able to fight that kind of fight. But even if they could for the purposes of winning, trying to govern with that stench on them would defeat the cause for their presidency.
Both of these men would undoubtedly be exponentially better than who occupies the White House now. However either a GOP-dominated House or Senate will halt any and all efforts at propelling the country into the future. We must face the fact that the country cannot do big important things any more. The GOP wants a nation where majorities are struggling and hungry in order to manipulate them. The future belongs to Asia, mainly China with it's one belt one road approach. America is like the death star falling toward earth.
1
Right now, if I had a vote in this, my money would be on Harris. I think Sanders, whose ideas on health insurance, etc, aren't considered at all radical outside the US, only got as far as he did in the last election, because Clinton entered it with most of the party wrapped up and in her corner. The only voice left was the left's. Biden is much more in line with the bulk of his party.
Both men, however, are veterans of the current political environment. And of Washington. Neither have an illusions when it comes to McConnell and the Republicans. Whatever their faults, neither are stupid men. Give them some credit!
1
And the trouble with Paul is that he's a booster for Manhattan's local economy who pretends to be a macro-economist.
2
So tired of white, male baby boomers needing to feel safe with their "moderate" politicians. The world is changing and you need to see that. Women and young people are voting and change is coming whether you like it or not.
“What he faced instead was total scorched-earth opposition.”
Professor Krugman correctly points out that Obama encounter severe opposition. The above sentence could have read:
“What he faced instead was Mitch McConnell’s total opposition”
1
Reality? Voters are greedy. So long as the administration pumps up the numbers no one is going to look at the national debt. They are going to hold their noses and vote for Trump. When women do something for money they are pejoratively referred to, well just apply that same epithet to Trump voters.
An interesting read and dead accurate about the mistakes that Obama made in “...Waiting for Bipartisanship...” That was not just at the beginning either but but throughout his two terms,
Warren is picking up steam and may soon pass Bernie and move into second. harris, also mentioned by Krugman, has obvious talent and toughness. Were she the nominee, she would eviscerate Trump head-to-head. I would love to see that.
However, based on the last CNN poll, the numbers for Bernie + Warren + Harris are still lower than the numbers for Biden. It’s early and some of that was bounce but the numbers are what they are.
2
Sanders is not a Democrat - however, he doesn't mind one bit taking money from the democratic establishment. What hypocrisy.
4
@alank, until very recently Liz warren too wasn’t a Democrat. Change is good. We are so tired of your argument. From day before yesterday.
1
Old people aren't real to young people. Old age, as it should be, is too horrible for young people to seriously try to imagine. (Just watch the late-night comics. Joe and Bernie are just an "Old" joke.) It's time for "young" people, themselves in their 40s and fifties, to take over. The BGs (Boomer Geezers) should sit back and advise on policy and help guide the media and its audience away from the horse race and the punditry. It's too late for politics. We need real movement in policy, not symbolic photo ops and ego battles.
Democrats need to go after the 50% of the electorate that doesn't think it's worth the effort to vote.
2
Professor Krugman, please look at the headline in today's NYT.
Unemployment down to 3.6%. Wages rising.
Where is the trump recession you have been predicting for 30 months?
A little humility, please.
Deeply disturbing, Mr Krugman.
So the only solution is for Democrats to careen for the guardrail polls? Simply continuing a campaign of antagonizing the right over identity politics isn't enough - now we're shooting for the no nothing independents too?
Where's the slope going from there? Ability to reach compromise solutions; Politics fails, then what? Open Warfare?
Perhaps the friendly white guy really can reel in the racist Republicans long enough to get some MUCH needed ELECTORAL changes (what our Democracy is starving - certainly not health care!)
"Biden and Sanders, however, come across as romantics."
EXACTLY! And that is why they are the best candidates.
The Trump vote was entirely "romantic" and not "rational." America needs a candidate that can come across as a romantic, and harness the cultural sentiment for the common good.
(Please refer to your history books for understanding German Romanticism as a condition for the rise of fascism. We seriously need to lead the "romantic moment" from the peril that it poses.)
The problem looming is that the media (NYTimes included) are already willing to make the 2020 election look like a choice between "chicken and fish."
2
Fear of the right from the left will decide. If the winner choses the Obama path, Republicans will rule the country from the backyard.
1
paul's cahracterization of Medicare for All is pretty disingenous. People are really missing the most obvious point of the discussion - we are already paying too much for healthcare! If US businesses no longer had to buy healthcare, wages would rise. If there is healthcare that is not tied to your job, people are more free to move to where the jobs are. If you don't have to buy healthcare to start a business, people will start more small companies - the true driver of the economy! It is STUPID to think something done for profit will be more cost effective than something done for a purpose. Medicare for all will free us from the Insurance Overlords who make money on us being sick! It will not be perfect and maybe it is aspirational, but the arguments against it are hollow and incomplete and meant to maintain the status quo of the rich getting richer and the rest of us being told to go pound salt!
2
With the almost incalculable power of the Republican hate machine, fueled by a National Inquirer type of media whose frothing addiction to any sensational story will continue foment discontent and chaos, Krugman's warning is totally on target. Is there a candidate that can withstand this withering onslaught? Is there an "anti-Trump" in the candidate pool? Healing and bringing together is a fantasy. Results, like "cash", will be king. Who can ram through single payer, fund infrastructure, assault climate change, pass an immigration reform bill, make early and K-12 education better and higher education more affordable, and convince America that the rich have had a good 20 year run and need to be "tapped" now to pay a fairer share to save America? The 90% wants their lives improved and they want a leader who can deliver. Obama never got ahead of the hate machine. But it may not just be Joe or Bernie. Who can deliver in this atmosphere of division and mistrust? Maybe it's a Warren-Harris ticket. Two women who can go for the jugular.
1
If you had done your homework, you would not have overlooked the fact that Senator Sanders just led the effort in passing a bipartisan bill with bicameral support that would have ended our support of Saudi Arabia in the Yemen civil war. Yet you claim that Sanders "doesn't do bipartisanship," and "doesn't even do unipartisanship."
You reference many times in this piece the "harsh realities of today's politics," but you never say what those realities are. So why should we buy your argument?
3
I still measure Democratic candidates against FDR and the Bobby Kennedy of 1968.
2
“What will polling look like after the inevitable Republican smear campaign? The answer to this question depends, in turn, on whether news organizations will cooperate with those smears as gleefully as they did in 2016.”
I hope NYT management read and understand this. They are not expected to take a side, but that doesn’t mean they have to print everything the Republican smear machine barfs up. They certainly don’t have to invest in long, deeply researched articles, concluding in the 30th paragraph, long after everyone stopped reading, that there’s no corruption in the Clinton Foundation, or whatever Biden’s equivalent is, after all.
This is why I’d prefer a younger candidate. A long record, no matter how exemplary, simply provides more grist for the mill of the Republican character assassination machine.
1
The primary issue for a democrat is to figure out somehow how to choose the best presidential candidate for her party that would maximize her expected gain. What are the satisfiable logical primitives that claims in Bertrand Russel style that “There Exist” a primitive x which satisfies a social proposition P(x) that an individual voter has in mind, which maximizes the outcome of a zero-sum game we call “Living”?
And the voters need to make up their mind fairly fast. If the democrats cannot expect to win the Senate in 2020, but wins the presidency it means at least 2 years of giving in to GOPs demands returning essentially to Obama’s tied hands mode if Biden or any centrist is chosen. The alternative to this is to focus on a progressive who is expected to deliver, with some GOP support, the main ingredients of this election: Health care, climate change, real-wage producing economy, tax reform in favor of middle-class, immigration and support for farmers.
Could Bernie or Warren or Harris deliver them? If “there exist” at least a possibility that a return to Obama’s tied-hands could be “avoided” even if GOP continues to hold Senate, what is that satisfiable variable that does not hold a voter hostage to an economy destined to run by “middle men”? How fast can democrats see these options in clarity?
Your narrative is not factual concerning bipartisan health care. Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) and Bill Bennett (R-Utah) offered to co-sponsor new health care legislation. Wyden's concerns were incorporated into the ACA. Sen. Bennett was told that the ACA was the Democrat's accomplishment and no Republican help was either needed or wanted. From then on it was partisan warfare. The Democrat's super majority engendered their hubris which morphed into partisan bickering that remains today.
Strongly disagree. Kamala Harris is the John Edwards of this campaign-great on the issues, phony as a three dollar bill.
1
So, what happens when you lose a job, lose your insurance and get sick? What happens when private health insurance denies a claim and you are ill? This essay assumes all is well in private insurance, it is not. I read today that 47% of women say healthcare is the number 1 concern they have in the upcoming presidential election. It would not be a concern if all was working well. It should not be a concern for anyone. And I am not concerned with the ability of either man or any of the leading women to lead in the future. I have my preference for a candidate but reject the premise of this piece that neither man can face the music. I am not sure what it is like in the Princeton world but out here it is not so hot when you have to deal with healthcare insurance. Once medicare kicks in, it gets better but not before.
2
Instead of burying what should have the lead let’s have an op-Ed on why Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris are better suited to the office with their ideas and abilities to stand up to the likes of William Barr. Both seem to have the ability to be progressive straight shooters who understand the current Republican old men hanging on to power and wealth for themselves and the lobbies that pay them. Give the women more press.
3
Why can’t Krugman ever mention that the tax increase would be more than offset by the loss of premiums , copays, and deductibles.we want truth not his faux words. Medicare for All is not an aspiration it is a necessity!
3
The case for Medicare for all and how it's paid for, what it means for private insurance, and how what you pay now vs raised taxes in the future is a complicated formula that hasn't really been presented clearly. If people understood that those raised taxes could offset what people are spending now via high premiums and deductibles, they'd be more open to it.
All that said, I feel like the media has already anointed Biden and I agree with Krugman on Bernie's lack of political practicality, barring democrats winning both the House and Senate. If there's divided government, he (and by extension the rest of us) lose.
Krugman has no use for the old white men in the primary, Biden & Sanders. Biden at least has the experience and the personality to actually accomplish something as president despite his age and quirkiness. So, this column appears to be a hit piece on the two frontrunners to undermine their poll numbers before it becomes a two "man" race.
Biden at least should be given the benefit of the doubt since, if nominated, he may actually get elected. Sanders really has no such hope. The allegation that Biden could get nothing done with the Republicans in Congress overlooks the fact that no other potential Democratic nominee would do as well as Biden in this regard. Does anyone think that Warren or Harris would be able to compromise with the GOP in order to advance any necessary programs?
But Krugman does not want compromise. He blames the Republicans for their intransigence with Obama. What about the stubborn refusal of the Dems to permit any kind of legislative victory for Trump? No matter how much it may benefit the country. Clearly, both sides prefer party policy over national interests as shown by the partisan voting record in Congress.
We moderates want the two parties to compromise on programs in the national interest and stop the partisan war.
2
@JAM
"Does anyone think that Warren or Harris would be able to compromise with the GOP in order to advance any necessary programs?"
Compromise with the GOP?
Clearly what the country needs is more compromising.
Let's compromise on putting children in cages (bigger cages), on tax policy (slightly less $$$ shoveled to the 1%), and on the environment(maybe climate change is fake after all).
In watching the Trump administration and the GOP, I don't think it matters if Bernie or Joe wins. Bipartisan politics doesn't exist anymore and "we the people" consist of a 1% that runs the country while Fox News continues to encourage tribalism over truth and reality.
5
The 2020 election is for keeps. Not only do we need to take out Trump but to reverse the growth in the number of working families who are living without dignity. Anything less will see the destruction of our democracy and economy by oligarchs who leverage the economic stresses on families to bring the monopoly game to its ultimate demise.
A viable candidate must have the policies that will relieve the financial pressure on the masses, the leadership to inspire the masses to demand change and the will to carry it through against the onslaught of the moneyed.
3
Great arguments here for Medicare-for-All, but there is no recognition of how vulnerable the proposal is to Republican lies about: increased taxes; loss of choice of doctors; and even Death Panels.
2
That is why it has to be universal. That is why it as to be simple and comprehensive.
Republicans can’t lie about eligibility and cost if everyone is covered and taxes replace premiums dollar-for-dollar. They can try to scare you with shortages and access to doctors, but we have Medicare as experience. The promise of no deductibles and copays — and no claims denials — stands up pretty well against the lived experience of millions under private health insurance.
Democrats who, like Biden, favor some kind of buy-in make three mistakes. First, they’re implicitly conceding (wrongly) that the private insurance market is good for anyone not profiting from it. Second, they’re ceding monopsony power to control prices. Third, they’re introducing complexity, giving Republicans room to misrepresent the risks and benefits.
That’s Obamacare writ large: it will enable deceitful scaremongering to make the beneficial unpopular, until years go by and people have a chance to see for themselves. And, even then, they’ll blame the system for rising costs, even though it somewhat controlled costs.
Universal comprehensive healthcare: your tax dollars at work. Anything less will fail in the teeth of the maw of the mendacity machine.
2
Krugman may be right. I don't regard either man as naive, yet I'm not sure either has the energy and backbone to do political "hand to hand combat" as it exists today.
We need a candidate that can piece by piece reveal the self interest and shallowness behind the Republican attack machine and keep them on the defensive when they are offensive.
So far, I'm trending towards Kamila Harris on that count. Her performance at the recent Barr hearings impressed me greatly.
Keep questioning the opposition.
2
The rush to find an easy answer to getting past Trump—indeed, to imagine this all as a bad dream we only have to wake from—make “familiar” Democrats comforting to, it seems, to two very different groups of voters, one old and one naive. We need a Democratic candidate who can lead a wave of Democrat voting and victories, and specifically that takes the Senate out of Mitch McConnell’s hands.
2
You have addressed my own concerns with Bernie & Joe. I'm not inclined to vote for either of them in the primaries, for the reasons you mention. I hope neither emerges from the primaries as the candidate, but I'll vote for either, as it's important to beat Trump. But, more important is the turn the senate blue. That would
1
to those who say it's time for Biden and Sanders to step aside and "pass the torch" to the next generation - nice sentiment but we don't have time for that now. Job #1 for our country, not just the Democratic Party but including the Republicans - is to defeat Trump in 2020 and send him packing back to Trump tower. No time for Green Party, Peace & Freedom, Independents or any of the fringe movements in 2020. Biden is the one to get the job done and if he is smart, he will pick Adam Schiff as his running mate. Otherwise, I will have to say in November 2020- 'I told you so".
1
Biden and Sanders are Old White Men of the 20th Century running for President in the early 21st Century where young voters and women voters are the difference between victory and defeat for the Democrats.
Warren and Harris are tough, take-no-prisoners political leaders who are more than capable of rough handling Congressional Republicans and their Wall Street backers. Harris has even promised to prosecute Trump once he is a private citizen for his massive obstruction of justice efforts to hide Russian’s assault on our democracy in 2016.
For me, smart and tough wins over political nostalgia and fanaticism.
1
The Democrats face a virtually impossible task in 2020, coming up with a single electable candidate capable of somehow uniting the 65% of widely diverse Americans who are not part of the Trump personality cult, from Never-trump Republicans and suburban independents on the right to Bernie Sanders and the Green Party on the left.
I fear that the Democratic lifeboat is simply not big enough to accommodate all of these various groups without sinking of its own weight. The anti-Trump coalition is so broad that it is difficult to see what candidate has the skill to motivate these groups to row the Democratic boat in one direction.
Inevitably there will be internal squabbling, which will be exploited by Trump and sadly, as Prof. K notes in this column, by a news media that feeds off conflict and division. Look for some contrived email type of "scandal" to plague the Democratic nominee and dominate the news coverage.
This is the type of harsh, reality-tv style of campaigning that Paul is predicting will occur in 2020 and that the Democrats somehow need to be prepared for.
It is a sad fact of life that our political system has largely been taken over by the entertainment industry, with the former Apprentice star turned American President Donald Trump as Exhibit A.
If they are to win in 2020, Democrats need to be prepared to fight on the cable TV battlefield.
4
Stop seeing a universal healthcare system as a form of 'socialised medicine' and rabid communism and instead see it as a health system that everyone contributes to through their taxes over their lifetime and hence everyone has a right and access to depending on their health needs when their need arise..
It doesn't mean the death of 'private health insurance'.
We have a Medicare, universal healthcare system in Australia.
But we also have private health insurance. The difference is that those who choose to take out private health insurance as well as their compulsory universal Medicare coverage, get their choice of hospital and surgeon (specialist) for treatment.
I suspect that in the USA any change towards a universal healthcare model will require a very big restructuring of how its paid for in terms of taxes. But I can't see Private insurance disappearing if choice of surgeon and hospital is the attraction and would still see a role for employer paid insurance in this direction.
The reality with universal healthcare, however, if we look at Australia is that there are hospital waiting lists if the treatment is not urgent and what we call 'elective surgery'. However, no one suffering from cancer or any other life threatening condition is refused urgent treatment plans and procedures. The Australians health system would consider such an approach highly unethical in terms of the rights of its citizens to healthcare.
2
Love Dr. Krugman, but sometimes it pays to leave the worry about the politicking to the politicians.
1
Should Sanders or Biden win the primaries, I will vote for the the winner. Until that time comes and it certainly has not, Warren, the candidate who knows the numbers forward and backward, knows policies and how to explain them and who, historically and in the present, speaks genuinely, honestly, consistently to the needs of working class and poor people of all races and genders, has my donations and my primary vote. And she does and will, indeed, "persist" in our best interests, as the president of this country, as she has clearly shown she will do throughout her past years in politics.
3
Reading earlier comments, I came across an offering by J Oggia: Warren/Harris ticket. Absolutely visionary ! I would support such a ticket in a minute !
This is probably the best article that I have read recounting history, while also offering a perspective on the future. Dr. Krugman is totally accurate in his description of the Obama years, and if it wasn't for Pelosi the ACA would never have happened. I will not use the term "Obamacare" to refer to it because he really didn't have as much to do with it as did many others. Obama never supported a public option, for example.
Mr. Biden represents an area that was more myth than fact and although I believe he is somewhat progressive, he doesn't seem passionate about it, as do others. For him to succeed, if he should win the Presidency, we would have to see a side of him that we have never seen, so I wouldn't place any bets on him to accomplish anything (unless, of course, the Democrats win majorities in both the House and the Senate, in which case any President could succeed).
Sanders just scares me. It's his way or the highway, and although I like the direction he is headed, ultimately, I still think that he will not be able to attract the kind of agreement/consensus required from the general public to fulfill any of his policies.
What this article does not say explicitly, but needs to be said, is that it is a war, and nothing short of a Churchill will do.
2
Four essential points about the 2020 election have been made by other readers, but bear repeating:
1. The election is not about policies, not even about race; it is about tribe. The moderate voters at the center of American politics voted for Obama and then Trump because they thought the two were on their side, emotionally—that is, a part of their "tribe." They voted against Clinton because they felt she wasn’t.
2. The Electoral College system, which is winner-take-all in all but two states, gives the moderate voters in the battleground states a disproportionate voice in electing the president. If you want to change that, you can try to throw out the EC and substitute the popular vote, but it might be easier, politically, to institute proportional assignment of electoral votes in each state.
3. It's Joe Biden whom Trump fears the most. His tweet storm of some 60 tweets after Biden won endorsement from the firefighters’ union speaks for itself. Whatever you may think of Trump, no one has ever accused him of having poor political instincts.
4. Too much of this reader discussion is about rearranging the desk chairs on the Titanic. We need to win first; that is a categorical imperative. Joe Biden, I believe, has the best shot. Incidentally, for policy wonks, how about a Biden/Warren ticket?
5
@Ron Cohen
Still wrong.
Scroll down and see the 2nd graph at: bit.ly/EPI-study
From 1945 to 1972 GNP went up 100% and the median wage with it. That was the New Deal/Demand side economics. Perhaps that's when America was great.
Since 1972 GNP has gone up another 150% but the median wage has remained flat (supply side economics). 90% of the gains of that 150% has gone to the 0.001% - even though it took the 100% to make those gains. Since some workers pay has gone up (health/tech) we can assume that most workers pay has gradually declined (perhaps more than 100 millon workers and all are vulnerable to layoffs). That's 47 years of declining expectations.
That flat median wage is not sustainable w/out complicity from elites from both sides. That's what Hillary & Joe represent. That's why she lost & he will too.
The flat median wage means the inflection point of 1972 (IP72) is a hard inflection point.
IP72 got us an opioid crisis, proto-fasicsm (i.e. tribalism) & trump & will deliver worse if its not addressed & soon.
Workers had been patient. But by 2016, after 44 years of declining expectations in an otherwise prosperous economy, workers revolted.
Hillary represented a continuation of supply side economics. That's why she failed.
Each candidate has to answer the question: how do they propose to break IP72?
Joe Biden might have more appeal to workers than Hillary but he's more of the same. Beleaguered workers will be throwing up in their mouths as the vote for him.
1
Obama had a "certain" handicap in trying his conciliatory approach to Republicans.That enabled many of the rural and southern republicans to fall in line behind McConnell's threats to make him a one term President. No accomplishments would guarantee that, or so McConnell thought, a man who embodies that "certain" Southern bias. By the way, Biden's nostalgia for a more bi-partisan government is not exclusive to him.
Sanders is a guy who is not prepared, despite what his fans say here, to approach Health Care reform in any way but his "highway." He's said so repeatedly. When Chris Hayes asked him a few weeks ago if he would support Pelosi's efforts to shore up ACA, he said with out a second's hesitation, "NO! I've spent my whole political career fighting for this." He is not the guy whose going to get us the kind of bi-partisan government we need to move forward in this incredibly fractured society.
The health insurance industry is a criminal enterprise. My wife and I are on New York State Cobra insurance after she lost her job 18 months ago. We are paying over $1,400.00 per month with a $5,000.00 deductible for each of us. How this is not gouging, corrupt and immoral in the eyes of our politicians is beyond belief. They are obviously in bed with the health insurance companies and that is why those companies are allowed to rip us off. There is no wonder why our health care is falling to third world standards as people forsake their medications and health care so they can afford to eat. The system needs to be blown up and started over. Little fixes over decades will not do at this point.
11
Bernie is not opposed to incremental improvements in and of themselves. He aims for long-term goals. He will accept incremental benchmarks along the way, but he objects to these benchmarks being treated as goals--something that happens far too often in Washington DC.
I think the writer might want to acquaint himself a little more with Sanders' accomplishments at each of his political jobs, from Mayor to Representative to Senator. Bernie's goals have been to push for the principles in the Preamble of the constitution: ensure Justice, promote the general Welfare, and provide the blessings of Liberty for ourselves and our Posterity.
If that's him being a romantic, then I want a romantic in the White House.
12
It still comes down to beating the occupant of the White House.
All Dems must line up and vote for the Dem presidential nominee in 2020. Not a one of them will be worse than the occupant. Put another way, any of the Dems will be better than the occupant.
The hairsplitting about policy details can be done AFTER the Dems win the WH. The point is to WIN.
6
All people must also vote for a Democratic senate. That is arguably more important regardless of the scale of our hatred of trump.
Bernie just needs to go away. He is completely unrealistic and uncompromising, which would spell disaster to get anything done. I feel better about Biden, but think a fresh face would be a better path forward.
However, unlike Bernie's minions, I will vote in the general election for whoever gets the democratic nomination. My personal feelings about the two older candidates do not compel me to take a stand and allow DJT another 4 years.
6
Paul Krugman makes a very, very important point about Bernie Sanders. Bernie is not Democrat. He is only pretending to be one hoping to get the Democratic Party's nomination. When he does not get it he will again jump ship and run as some other liberal party. Remember how well that worked out in the last Presidential election. I am a fail the left part of the Democratic Party will again be fooled by Sanders, vote for him as a 3rd Party candidate and give us four more years of the Trump/Republican dismantling of America.
1
@Jeff:
And bankster friendly Hillary was a democrat?
Party affiliation is pointless if she's as friendly to bigmoney as the GOP.
1
IMO Republicans, now that they have used Trump to deliver their judges and tax cuts for the wealthy, would be happy if Trump were defeated in 2020 by someone like Sanders, because it would allow them a "tactical retreat" to carry out 4 years of merciless attacks and provide them a path to a come back in 2024 with someone like Pence.
It would mirror the Nixon/Ford-Carter-Reagan sequence, where Ford was rejected, Carter was shown the door after one term, and -- led by the Reagan "revolution" -- Republicans were able to convince Americans over the next 40 years (and counting) all they deserved was a "trickle."
Republicans would take a trade-off like that in 2020 in a heartbeat.
3
Sanders' real problem is that we all live too long by comparison to previous centuries. Without question because of medical costs the later years are very expensive in the modern world.
So now the question becomes--How much of the public weal do we want to set aside for the post-55 years? And should there be a per-person limit without regard to male or female?
1
I think the Professor is falling into one of the traps he warns about early in this piece.
"What will polling look like after the inevitable Republican smear campaign? The answer to this question depends, in turn, on whether news organizations will cooperate with those smears as gleefully as they did in 2016."
This would be a good time to start a trend, Paul. Let's not discuss the horse race, let's discuss the policies being put out there. And we're going to hear a lot of them.
The voices of the candidates should go a long way towards soothing some of the fears American voters will have about "socialism" or "social democracy".
Don't do republicans' jobs for them. Let them talk about the policies the Democrats are putting forth while we talk about the policies republicans are not putting forth.
There is not one candidate on the democratic side that is not a thousand times better than the grifter who squats in our White House.
Bernie will remind some voters of their passions when they were young and Joe will bring a bit of old time values to leaven the swirl of new ideas. Elizabeth will show voters what good ideas look like. Kamala will remind voters what real toughness looks like. Mayor Pete will remind everyone what real intelligence looks like.
And the news media might want to remember that in a fascist autocracy there is very little competition in the news business. In a fascist state reporters are generally out of work. And in prison.
5
I agree, but yet disagree to some extent. Two things are for sure:
1) neither one of those guys is inexperienced politically, so no, they aren't full of illusions, me thinks
2) the only thing that is going to bring back real compromise is strong and left leaning democratic policy proposals from a majority democratic congress, which would counterbalance the hard right swing of republicans.
The neo-fascist approach of republicans, at this point, needs a left balance in our governmental approach. Just as the swing right for republicans pulled the democrats rightward with it, so may a hard left approach from democrats pull many republicans back to moderation. Republicans see any success of government as counter to their zeitgeist, though, and this has become a significant barrier to their productivity or worth as a governing party. The only value of the gop, right now, is as a loud minority. Perhaps that has always been their only real value to governing, from a party perspective, but any democrat worth electing should have a couple of decent republican friends on staff.
1
So, Krugman was pulled or pushed into the circle to kill Medicare for all.
He gives false information. Or intreprets it wrong, or exaggerates. Or does not understand it. Or does not explain it properly. Or does all of that on purpose.
The money people pay their employer now for insurance premiums would be paid to the government as taxes, so of course taxes would go up. But with the efficiency gained from the entire national program, the total paid by any person for health care will likely be less. Krugman does not explain this well. So once this is explained to people, they will see the truth. The lies will start to come out from the Republican side and lots of education will be necessary. If any country can do national health insurance, it is us. Many countries do it and it gives everyone medical coverage. The USA spends about twice as much per person on health care with our current lousy system and leaves out at least 30 million people. Our current "for profit" medical system is a sham and people will come to see this soon. The "incremental" change that Krugman hints at will not work.
I'm surprised that Krugman has been forced into this horrid position; this false position of poor logic, exaggerations and untruths.
6
I suspect Biden would beat Trump. But what's Joe's solution for healthcare? Fix Obamacare? Is that a realistic long term solution?
Sanders has a healthcare solution, a version of which has worked in many countries. But Bernie might be too easy a target for Trump. Likewise Warren.
Seems most candidates in the Dem field have a deficit between electability and a solution for the healthcare issue. Trump doesn't have a healthcare solution either. But he's already been elected without one.
Some are pushing an expanded public option. The problem with that is, if you don't tax everybody, the public option will be unaffordable. So you'll end up with either some people paying for both or 2 tier quality healthcare.
Remember when Obama first started his push for the ACA. Many people said no,no, no! Now most swear by it.
What Democrats should do is flesh out Medicare for All and explain to the people how they'll save money by not having to pay insurance premiums, deductibles and co-pays, despite the tax increase. And their healthcare will be just as good. That's been the experience of pretty much every country that's done it and I refuse to believe Americans can't. Eventually people will come to appreciate it. Just like they do now with Obamacare.
If Democrats can do that, they'll win the election hands down.
4
@JimmySerious
you do understand JimmySerious that the healthcare that is currently available will not be available under MFA? There is no way, we will be able to afford the level of care currently offered.
1
When you cut out the for-profit insurance companies there will be billions of dollars saved. Why can't people see that?
4
@Driven
Are you suggesting the seniors who currently qualify for Medicare are receiving inferior healthcare than the rest of the country?
The reason American healthcare is at least twice as expensive as other industrialized countries is because healthcare in the US is a profit based system. Not because it's better than the UK, France Germany, Canada etc.
Many of whom have longer life expectancy and lower infant mortality than the US.
Don't take my word for it, look it up.
2
The time for both men has passed. Neither is The Man for the Times. It is not simply their ages. They do not have the Right Stuff for the issues that threaten this country and democracy itself. A new generation is called for, one of youth and stamina, bold vision and compelling ideas. I think both men, in some way, know they are not up for the challenge, but they are blinded by hubris and selfishness, which is unconscionable and unforgivable.
3
@NH, I think Bernie is blinded by hubris, just as he was in 2016. To our great loss. Biden I think rolls differently-- he knows he can win over the necessary votes. He believes this is his destiny becasue of what we are facing with trump and the GOP senate. I hope he downplays the bipartisanship shtick, and I hope as a candidate he will help dem senate candidates in swing elections, something Obama did not do, to our great loss in 2010.
Somehow "electable" means wooing white male voters, and ignoring the women of color who are the most reliable Democratic supporters. There's evidence that these voters are losing patience with top-down decision making in the party. It might be time to pay attention to them.
3
In Bernie v. Biden you have the makings of 2016 all over again! With Bernie you have a Socialist non-Democrat Democrat advocating an ultra-extreme health insurance program, "Medicare for All" which is politically infeasible and unworkable and likely to be toxic to moderates and independents. And in Biden, you once again have the "most qualified" centrist, establishment Wall Street candidate in the mold of previous vice-presidents like Walter Mondale and Al Gore. Biden's baggage, like Hillary's, already seems to put him in a precarious position with women of color after non-forgiveness forgiveness encounter with Ania Hill. That leaves the ascendant progressive wing once again looking for a candidate and a party that will be fractured, dispirited, and lack the unity and the huge, blue wave turnout necessary to win. With a dozen candidates claiming the progressive mantle and dividing the political pie, they are only paving the way for Biden and a likely repeat of 2016.
Should either Biden or Sanders win, they would need very large Democratic majorities in BOTH houses to get anything significant done. It would require a national landslide of historic proportions, of a kind the US has not had in decades. With the divisions that exist today, that seems nearly impossible.
1
For a Nobel Prize winner, Professor Krugman certainly seems to have neglected his research here. In Canada we have had Medicare for All since 1961, and despite all that nonsensical propaganda about long waiting times, it works just fine.
My elder brother lives in Washington, D.C., and when we compared notes several years ago on costs, it turned out (not surprisingly) that between his income taxes and his insurance premiums, he pays a lot more than I do.
Nine years ago, my prostate cancer treatment, which would have cost $43,000 at the Grado Clinic in Phoenix, Arizona, cost me exactly $41.60 here in Toronto. That's 26 senior subway tickets at $1.60 each, 25 for my preparatory radiation treatments and the 26th on the day of my radioactive iodine implants. Everything else was covered by my Canadian government health insurance.
I hate to have to say this about someone as eminent as Professor Krugman, but his analysis does make me wonder if he hasn't to some extent absorbed the typically American inability to learn from another country's experience.
Ironic, isn't it, that his Nobel Prize was awarded by a country which has had Medicare for All even longer than Canada has.
12
It is difficult to understand why Krugman thinks we need insurance companies to monitor our health care, and that without them we would do worse. The only fact he cites is the general satisfaction that many have with private insurance. But the whole system as currently implemented requires you to be employed to receive coverage. You can get dumped if you lose your employment.
Additionally, he never really explains why we need bureaucrats to restrict or limit health care in order to make the system work. For every person that "toughs it out" in order to save on visits, co-pays or deductibles, there are stories of people who should have gotten treatment and hastened their illness or even death.
I wish Dr. K. would explain why the current system is the best we can do, or whether he just goes with satisfaction polls in his analysis.
5
I’ll take Biden’s failed bipartisan attempts (similar to Obama) any day over Sanders’ Bust of Medicare or Bust approach. My loyalty is to the republic. The Framers went out of their way to create a framework that would prevent demagogues from rising to power. We currently have one, two in a row might result in things falling apart.
2
Biden or Sanders would be very wise to choose Harris as VP.
Or Warren can choose Harris for a super ticket.
1
Warren would likely be the most effective president but as long as Bernie is in the race her chances are slim. Biden seems the candidate with the best chance of winning the electoral college.
1
Krugman nailed it. A Sanders presidential candidacy would be snuffed out by a massive GOP corporate-fueled marketing campaign. Every conceivable negative ad would be created and run to the point that more than half of the nation would believe health care coverage and death were nearly synonymous.
And, already Biden seems on his way to a repeat performance as gaffe-prone; stating earlier this week that China was nothing to be worried about. Tell that to steel workers in Pennsylvania or to soybean growers in the Midwest. If he can't win in those areas, we have Trump through 2024.
1
"Barack Obama took office with a message of unity and bipartisan outreach, and a sincere belief that he could get many Republicans to back his efforts to revive the economy, reform health care, and more. What he faced instead was total scorched-earth opposition."
This is a myth. While Obama did ENTER office with a message of unity, he quickly GOVERNED in a very partisan way, defined largely by the ACA battle, which Democrats used their Senate supermajority to push through on straight party lines.
Obama also failed to move to the center after the 2010 wave election, despite many opportunities to do so. Indeed, Obama had a great opportunity for bipartisanship when Biden brokered a "Grand Bargain" budget deal, and then Obama himself blew it up by moving the goal posts.
Talking about unity and bipartisanship is different from actual pursuing it with action.
1
This post misses the context of republican sludge that immediately broke governance. Including that context would improve the integrity of thhe post's assertion except then it would be self evidently illogical.
1
@Econ101; Well, you must have been asleep during the last 7 years of Obama's terms as President. The Republican Party under Mitch McConnell publicly stated that it would shut down the government and refuse to consider any Democratic Party legislation as long as Obama was President. The Republicans followed through with that threat.
1
@Jeff The last 7 years of Obama's presidency? Republicans didn't obtain a Senate majority until 2014. Harry Reid ran the Senate for the first 6 years. And he had a supermajority for the first 2.
With the amount of goodwill that Obama had going into office, he could have accomplished a mountain of incremental Democratic reforms and programs with bipartisan support if he wanted to. Instead, he vilified the opposing in a way I had not seen from a president in my lifetime and refused to compromise on any major bills even after a voter backlash in 2010.
I'm 53, and I try not to vote for politicians older than myself. We've seen plenty enough of baby boomer politicians. They have tried and they have failed. I agree that Biden will give us nothing but stasis. Sanders does not have anything like a workable plan, either politically or economically. A Sanders presidency will be full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
.
I like the looks of some of the younger candidates; Buttigieg seems promising. No more boomers.
.
I think it is possible to strike a bargain with the Republicans, particularly some of the younger ones. It would involve devolving a lot of control out of Washington back to the states. While this goes against the Progressive plan to centralize all power for the greater good (a dubious plan), I think Democrats would be well advised to strike that bargain. It is a way forward in a landscape of gridlock. While I agree with Krugman tactically with regards to Biden and Sanders, his approach in unlikely to produce much change either. He is yet another boomer with no new ideas to offer.
1
zzThe diamind in the rough offered here, ignoring the generational dismissal of boomers, is the devokition of power to the states. This would reverse the conservatives success how they have achieved power in the last 50 years.
Is there something wrong with higher taxes and no private insurance companies, in order to receive health care benefits for all? Funny when we lower corporate taxes and the wealthier 1% taxes paid it's perfectly ok. Perhaps Paul you would allow the public to see your tax returns for the last 10 years and all other people's taxes paid (or not). Thinking the trouble's are else where.
3
Leaving aside the dubious claim that most people with private insurance are satisfied with their coverage, the notion that Bernie is too extreme and intransigent to accomplish anything flies directly in the face of the last several decades of political history. The right has dug in and become more and more extreme on virtually every issue and accomplished remarkable success in advancing their agenda and preventing any possibility of progressive change through the usual political processes. The Democrats have by and large continued to propose moderate reforms while attempting to appeal to some middle ground while the Republicans have successfully shifted that middle further and further to the right. Bernie appeals to so many precisely because he represents a counterweight to that trend. Furthermore, the notion that Bernie believes that "he has unique powers of persuasion" that will allow him to accomplish the impossible is directly in contrast to what he says at literally every rally and speech he gives: that the only way anything will change is when there's a mass mobilization of people pushing for it. It's reasonable to be skeptical that such a mobilization will occur, but the idea that change will come about any other way - i.e. through the "incremental," "well polling" proposals of a more moderate Democrat - is the true denial of reality.
3
"The answer to this question depends, in turn, on whether news organizations will cooperate with those smears as gleefully as they did in 2016."
Talk more about that, Dr. Krugman. Surely you and your esteemed fellow columnists have some professional influence with the editors of the news and opinion sections.
How many days did your paper run with the "Pocahantas" smear on Elizabeth Warren and will it come back to life if Trump deploys it again in the campaign? Such smears cannot have much effect unless reputable news media pick them up and run with them. They may thrive on Twitter and FB, but millions of voters have better things to do than tweet and millions more don't even know how to. My own 30-something children don't tweet. They're too busy making a living in a harsh economic environment.
In the highly competitive media market, I understand the need to hook readers and viewers on silly smear-based controversies, but our democracy is in peril at the moment. The traditional news media need to rise to the moment.
3
It is ironic that most voters will claim they want Congress to work together for the common good, but will send partisans who do not wish to compromise to Congress. Some of that has to do with gerrymandering and manipulation of voters by smart, but not particularly principled politicians. But some reflects an all or nothing mentality that seems too prevalent in this age where selfishness seems ascendant.
1
Dead on.
Looking forward to Ms. Warren gaining traction as we move forward.
1
I appreciate Krugman’s analysis of Biden and Sanders as potential nominees and presidents. It is clear to me that attempting a compromise with Republicans because of long-standing and personal relationship with them is likely to fail. We are beyond “nice” and convincing in our politics today.
As for Sanders it is an even more difficult task to enact some of his policies that are to a large degree out of the mainstream at this time. He has a limited history of building alliances and relationships in the Senate with Republicans let alone with fellow Democrats.
I am looking forward to working and voting for an Elizabeth Warren ,Kamala Harris, a Beto O’Rourke as potential candidates that know where they stand on the issues and are under no illusions to make getting along with the Republicans in the Senate or the house a priority. Taking the Senate and keeping the house as well as electing one of these individuals with an agenda that will be consistent with both centrist and progressive Democrats will ensure policies that will be enacted for the benefits of all the people and not just the top 5 percent.
Mr. Krugman's central argument about Bernie misses the mark. He assumes that medicare for all would eliminate private insurance altogether. Sanders is a skilled and very experienced politician who knows we must set our sights so we move in a calculated direction. Equating Sanders with Biden is absurd on its face and an insult to Bernie and his supporters. Many of us realize that private insurance would live on with medicare for all, just as I have a supplemental plan augmenting my medicare coverage. There is also nothing that would prevent employers from offering such coverage which would be far cheaper than what they pay for today!
2
Bernie is skilled? At what? Creating mayhem and division?
Look, IMHO, part of the reason we are in the position we are today is due to the selfishness of Bernie ‘not a Democrat’ Sanders.
2
Perhaps it is too early to ponder pairings of the front runners of the day with VP possibilities. A seasoned, savvy politician (Biden, Bernie, Warren, perhaps others) linked to a fresh upstart (Mayor Pete, Kamala H., etc.) appeals to me...
Biden accepts that politics is the art of compromise. He will propose compromise initiatives. The left will hate him for this.
But he will call out the right if they refuse to compromise.
In doing so, he will hold the center. And as is our history, move us slowly to a more perfect union.
Krugman, for all his sharp intelligence, fails to recognize that Health "Insurance" is a failure of epic proportions and Universal Health care is the only option even if it means a single payer system. He is also wrong to suppose that "Medicare for All" will end all private health insurance. Private Health Insurance exists and is well in every universal health care systems of the world. Krugman also forgets how Ronald Reagan commanded Democrat dominated Congress (both Houses) because of his landslide election. That's what will happen if Sanders wins handily. Obama had the mandate but lacked the Will and Courage to push forward progressive policies and was stymied by his ridiculous belief that he could prod Republicans if he only pandered to their wishes. Sanders doesn't have such expectations of Republicans but has the doggedness to push for his progressive policies because great majority of Americans are with him, especially the working class that includes the middle class. Elizabeth Warren is a good choice to be on the ticket with Sanders, or even Kamala Harris. For all the hopelessness expressed in this column, Krugman doesn't have any recommendations or even suggestions to improve the situation. I am really disappointed.
1
As one man mentioned, the presidential candidates can’t do a thing without a willing Senate. So, may I suggest Iowa get rid of Sen. Grassley, and Kentucky do us a huge favor and get rid of Sen. McConnell, who has held up any meaningful legislation for the 99 percent of us these past 10 years. Both these two men have more than filled their pockets, supported outfits who don’t provide healthcare, sending the bill to the tax-payer, while the companies post enormous profits. And, then if things aren’t lopsided enough, they give them a tax-cut. McConnell denied a good man his opportunity to serve on the highest court, and Grassley threw a beer party for the other, after he accused many of us who are unable to take advantage of the estate tax of wine, women, and song.
4
There are many more issues and reasons for electing a president other than specific economic policy. Sanders represents a progression in values for the most powerful country on earth. Sanders certainly seems to be one of the most honest, not willing to corrupt and compromise principals, person running. Certainly more than Biden. Sanders will change the course of hegemony and military industrialism. Yet he is tough enough to not be a push over.
1
As Gore Vidal implied, the two party system died long ago. There is one party, the corporate one, with two wings, in order to perpetuate the illusion of choice. As long as ‘voters’ continue to watch the shadows in Plato’s cave, the corporate masters will control the narrative.
3
It would be better for the democrats win the Senate and lose the presidency than elect Biden. Unfortunately I don't see how that could happen.
1
I am (further) depressed by, "Polling shows that support for Medicare for All falls off drastically when people are informed that it would eliminate private insurance and require higher taxes."
Does that mean that many of our fellow citizens thought MfA was on top of the current dysfunction?
Come on, folks, keep up. That would be like putting brand new tires on an old car that barely runs. We need a whole new vehicle, one that eliminates "private insurance" that insures only high profits for the insurance companies.
2
The trench warfare - current and looming - should not shock. It is a canard to keep insisting that this country isn’t irreparably divided by class, divided again by education, and again by geography. We’ve been governing by weak pluralities for a long time, and doing a predictably bad job of it. Welcome to Sarajevo 1988.
Contrary to Paul Krugman's article, Bernie Sanders has a remarkable record of bipartisanship as a legislator. There was even an article in this paper 4 years ago about his skill at crafting amendments that would garner fairly wide support and also push policies that he's stood for all along. He's built alliances with Rand Paul to look at the Federal Reserve, and most recently Mike Lee to try to stop the war in Yemen. Back in 2016, John McCain was praising Sanders for their joint work on veterans' affairs.
The claim that Sanders can't work with Republicans has never been pushed by Republicans. It's been pushed by centrist Democrats who want to believe that asking for half a loaf i how you get half a loaf, instead of asking for a full loaf and negotiating to half a loaf.
5
Medicare for All will not necessarily eliminate private insurance. Millions of older Americans are enrolled in private insurance programs for Parts B, D, etc. In most cases, the provider is Anthem, for example, which through an agency agreement with the enrolee and Medicare, collects payments from the government and pays bills on behalf of the enrolee. The giant insurance industry will find a way to operate within Medicare for All, and will prosper as always.
6
I am always bewildered by the assertion that 180 million Americans are happy with their employer provided health insurance. Really? Has there been a poll? I don’t think I’ve spoken w one person in twenty who is happy with health insurance, as it exits. But I sure know a lot of 30 year olds who have no insurance; they can’t pay premiums, student loans and their rent. They can’t pay premiums, student loans and rent.
I think this “happy w employer insurance” is a meme trotted out by those whose fortunes depend upon the insurance empire.
18
My insurance is good but what happens if there is an economic catastrophe and I lose it. What if there is a major life change and I have to move. What if etc. I need consistent medical access not fear of losing access to it then claims by insurance they won’t cover me because I lapsed in coverage dooming me or someone I care about to death or economic assassination by them. The real death panels are the insurance companies and republicans playing god with our lives.
Just think of how medical for all would benefit small business putting them on even footing with major employers. Just think how it would allow people the freedom to leave hostile workplaces without worry of medical lose. Just think of not having the fear your family could end up economically destroyed and everything lost. There is more to this than simply a cost to cost comparison. And we already know we pay more than any other country yet they claim this system is more efficient. It’s not working.
3
@Lisa Calef
I have very good private insurance and so do the other 50,000 people who work where i do. There is no way we have any intention of being in a government run system.
Maybe you should look for a job with benefits.
@Driven
Great idea. Everyone should get a good job with a huge employer who can pool risks and create the spread that makes affordable insurance possible. Wait ... big pool, spreading risk ... hmm sounds like Medicare for all. Yay!
2
I remain a bit shocked and dismayed that so many Dem voters are willing to support a person over 75 yrs old for 4-8 years of one of the toughest jobs in the world, and that so many are willing to support a candidate who is not part of the Dem party, as Krugman notes. Bizarre. Give me candidates under 50 or at most 55. I'm 65 and everybody I know knows of ways that a person simply slows down and/or spaces out a bit during one's 60s, though of course always with exceptions. But everybody paying attention knows that Reagan wasn't quite up to the job in his final presidential years - let's not court that outcome.
5
Of course they're stuck in the past; they're in their seventies. So am I.
Candidates aside, the most important element of the upcoming elections will be for the Democratic Party to retain their slim minority in the Senate, or more hopefully, obtain a majority. If the current senate stands, with their crooked leader, no progressive proposals will ever pass to policy.
2
Dr. Krugman, speaking as a fan, I hope in future columns you will focus your concerns more on what is likely to happen to our country and our democracy under 4 more years of Trump. It shouldn't be too hard to predict, considering the huge amount of wreckage Trump has already left behind in his lumbering wake.
As to electability, you can probably eliminate at most 18 of the democratic candidates right off the bat based on limited name recognition, limited or poor fundraising, lack of major endorsements and not enough national appeal to moderate voters (center-left/center-right), which is where the majority of voters lie. Sanders doesn't cut it (unfortunately) because he represents an extreme swing to the left which the country is not yet ready for. Same, and again unfortunately, for Warren.
That leaves Biden, Klobuchar, Harris, and possibly Bennet.
Should Biden win the nomination, he will surely choose a woman as a running mate. Either Klobuchar (moderate, super sharp, bipartisan, mid-West) or Harris (progressive, professional litigator, West coast excitement, African-American) would be an excellent choice and counter weight to Biden's "elder statesman" status.
Whatever shakes out, Democrats must offer voters a ticket that is a 180 degree polar opposite of the deranged autocrat that is right now sitting in the White House.
4
Your last statement is nonsense. You said they need to offer a polar opposite yet just asked for centrism. Centrism means the republicans get to keep what they won in the last several years. It means giving handshakes to the people who are coming to destroy us and hitting pause for a few years and going hugs to everyone but doing nothing.
What exactly is the policy of a centrist but more republican lite subsidies for the corporations? Can you show me a centrist policy that is popular or people want?
1
@Mathias
Off the top of my head, health insurance coverage for pre-existing conditions is one policy that seems to be both centrist and popular. I'm sure there are many more examples.
By polar opposite, I was alluding more to Trump's dangerous and disrespectful temperament, his criminality, extreme narcissism, pettiness, serial lying and his contempt of the Constitution.
1
Paul, your measured criticism of the two front runners is quite different from the vitriol you unloaded on Sanders and his supporters in 2016.
Could it be that you believe, as I do, that Sanders actually has a good shot at taking the Democratic nomination and then the presidency?
Biden is a likable fellow... but as a campaigner, he’s pretty bad. And his centrist policies are out of step with where the Democratic Party is moving. So if he’s gone, the front runner is... Sanders.
It’s a long campaign season, so who knows what might happen. But you are right to be careful Paul. In 2020, you might be looking at President Sanders.
2
I wholeheartedly endorse this column, but Mr. Krisotff doesn't refer at all to Mayor Pete, who takes a completely different approach to how to solve the stalemate between the parties by his cross-party appeal.
1
This is Mr. Krugman.
As someone who almost regularly agrees with Paul Krugman, there's no way to dispute his argument about both the the appeal of Biden and Sanders, and all the political obstacles they (and this country!) would encounter if either were elected. Especially since Republicans and this president would make it difficult for them upon their departure -- that is, if Trump were ever to depart at all.
Anyone who has been paying attention to the intense and ongoing sociopolitical division of this country knows that these days, the very notion of bipartisanship is nothing more than a pipe dream and yet our very future depends on it.
That's why a lot is going to depend on the selection of presidential cabinet members, and choice of Vice President as well. Since ultimately, that may be the only hope of getting everyone at a table where all sides are served.
1
I like both Sanders and Biden, though I don't think my primary vote will go to either of them. Still, it's important to me that Sanders and other Dems are pushing Medicare for All, my ideal for healthcare provision. I fully realize it is the stuff of pies-in-skies, but it's important to push the boundaries of what is commonplace discussion in our politics.
The GOP knows this, which is why they speak in apocalyptic terms about abortion, immigration, race relations, and voter fraud. When doctors are "executing newborns," an X week restriction on terminating pregnancies seems mild. Caging children seems milquetoast when faced with a civilization-ending "invasion." Voter ID laws are common sense when challenged by Black Panthers voting at every poling place in their city... etc...
So let Dems talk about what they want in an ideal world, and maybe the somehow-still-radical idea of universal coverage (be it Medicare for All or the hybrid systems seen in Canada, Germany, and others) will be more readily accepted. Even Republicans pretend to care about pre-existing conditions now, after all.
1
They only care at face value. Their actions obviously are totally in alignment with what benefits the insurance companies. They aren’t going to help pre-existing conditions unless there are massive handouts to the insurance companies.
2
So, if Krugman is correct, and I'm not sure he is, we have a choice between an electable candidate that will appeal to Trump Democrats and independents, or unelectable candidates some nearly children that would be able to work with Republicans? Dr. Krugman has been very helpful to me in interpreting economics (I'm a geologist by training), but I think he's off on this one, and as he said in the first paragraph: "It's still very early...".
1
The expanding military budget at 30 billion dollars per year needs to be addressed. The fear that has been generated allows this increase with the GOP goal of wiping out all other concerns. By 2025, at this rate, the interest on the debt will equal the military budget. Imperialistic goals of dominating the world will wipe out all but the very wealthy.
5
Well said, Dr. Krugman. The Democrats would be well advised to be as partisan as the Republicans. Should they then win the presidency, senate and house, they will be in a far better position to put their stamp on the programs needed by our nation, as well as placing fair minded judges on the bench. Additionally, their age is a contributing factor, as both will be close to 80 if elected.
Elizabeth Warren is the "man"!
3
Rima, we need you here.
1
Mr Krugman are you kidding?
Which democratic candidate could work with Republicans today?
Truthfully during Obama's presidency I knew we would never get back to working together for the good of the country. Do you remember the "hell no" cry by John Boehner? The Tea Party continued that scream. They were the original obstructionists. Mitch McCollin showed the country how to obstruct Merrick Garland. Unfortunately it all worked.
Now the democrats are called that very name by Trump. In a way he is right but he should know how this started. Trump should also know that no one can trust
him to keep his word. Therefore the "obstructionist democrats" are the reality democrats when dealing with Trump.
Mr. Krugman, now you think that another democratic candidate will be able to work with the original obstructionists (Republicans).
Really?!!!
In my opinion no matter who wins OBSTRUCTION will be in full view.
5
Well said Mr. Krugman. On policy, Warren is brilliant but I am not sure whether she has the political skills necessary to survive. (Notice how she handled the Pochahantas issue-not well).
People need to judge a representatives morality and ethics based on their policy. That’s the only rationale way to see the paths they will take. Her policy is true in that she says it and has also accomplished it in office.
The others speak in terms of identity. Nice guy for example. But a nice guy can also give us the worst Supreme Court judges or play directly into republican hate.
Understand we are dealing with people who cage children. There is no bipartisanship with these people that I can justify. This is a war for our very existence. This is the ugly face of southern bigotry rising from the grave and journalists need to stop the false equivalency and get their act together.
Here is what I saw at the border
https://medium.com/@teamwarren/heres-what-i-saw-at-the-border-ab569d752328
...The stench — body odor and fear — hits the second the door is opened. The first cages are full of men. The chain link is about 12–15 feet high, and the men are tightly packed. I don’t think they could all lie down at the same time. There’s a toilet at the back of the cage behind a half-wall, but no place to shower or wash up. One man kept shouting, “A shower, please. Just a shower.”
Mothers and children may be considered “together” if they’re held in the same gigantic facility, even if they’re locked in separate cages with no access to one another...
Southern bigotry and race hatred is staring down the barrel at us. The republicans are at war! Start treating it like one!
1
What American doesn’t think our system of healthcare insurance isn’t broken?
If anything that’s the one thing people can universally agree about.
And the worst part about it is, despite paying thousands of dollars into premiums each year, there is no assurance of insurance.
Insurance companies will take advantage of any possible loop holes to avoid paying out. Case in point was a friend who’s husband was in a bad car accident with lots of medical expenses: the health insurance said the car insurance company should pay for it, the car insurance said the health insurance company should pay for it, mean while my friend took out a second mortgage to avoid bankruptcy to pay for it.
And Insurance companies are constantly paying lobbyist big dollars to constantly work for more loop holes. The pre-existing condition thing is gone for now, but if they have their way, they’ll bring it back when you aren’t looking.
The only way to be assured of healthcare insurance is medicare for all. Everybody knows that. What’s more everybody knows someone who has it. What’s more every body over 50 is crossing their fingers & can’t wait until they get to 65 when they finally qualify for it.
Medicare for all is not only cheaper but it means assurance of insurance, and not just for yourself but for everyone you know, love or care about, for the entirety of their lives.
This is a no-brained issue for Bernie and whoever takes it up.
Nobody but the Insurance companies like today’s system.
8
"But what Sanders appears to believe is that he can convince voters not just to support progressive policies, but to support sweeping policy changes that would try to fix things most people don’t consider broken"
Here we go again with the elite pundits in their ivory towers telling mainstreet America what it wants...
Its also ironic since Krugman regularly *seems* to support a medicare for all type system...unless its Sanders who is proposing it...for some reason I get the feeling there is a large axe some place which really needs a lot of grinding...
3
One of my issues is which candidates will listen to and work with Nancy Pelosi. I'm not sure of Bernie, but suspect he will be reluctant to follow anyone's advice but his own, but I'm pretty sure Biden will not do this. With Nancy at the helm in the House, it doesn't matter so much who is president, as long as he/she listens to Nancy.
4
This is the perrenial "pragmatic" argument levied against leaders with vision by conservatives and cynics who have none. Leaders from Gandhi to Elon Musk have had to persevere in spite of the naysayers and short sellers, and in so doing habe changed the world as we know it for the better. Furthermore, equating Bernie Sanders with Joe Biden in this context ignores the vast differences between these two men, and the damage to the sociopolitical fabric of this country inflicted by Trump and his allies in a few short years.
Will voters cave to fear baiting "pragmatic" cynics like Krugman and make the "safe" choice, or will they have the courage to make the right choice? The right choice and the safe choice are not always the right thing. Is Krugman inviting the best in us or the worst in us to stand up?
1
I am torn. On the one hand I like any presidential candidate who strikes fear in Trump, and Joe Biden seems to be doing that very well right now. On the other hand I agree with Krugman that the Dems in general and the older ones in particular lack the killer instinct of Trump and his Republical sycophants. The election we are heading into is going to be vicious and ugly, a real street fight not for the faint of heart or the "reasonable." We need someone ready and willing to go for the jugular and permanently destroy the party of Trump.
2
The republicans are at war to insure their white minority controls the country. You don’t shake hands and do bipartisan work with someone locking you up in cages, revoking your voting rights and attempting to kill you. You defend yourself.
Democrats and especially centrists who left the Republican Party need to get real.
"But what Sanders appears to believe is that he can convince voters not just to support progressive policies, but to support sweeping policy changes that would try to fix things most people don’t consider broken.""That, after all, is what his Medicare for All push, which would eliminate private insurance, amounts to."
This is simply wrong. Maybe a rich white guy like Paul here doesn't feel it but Health Care started out broken and went from broken to utterly unworkable for anyone not wealthy. Paul here needs to get out more, he's really bubbled himself in if he can actually make a statement like that. Unbelievable, a lie. I believe he's actually lying. I thought you were better than this.
4
I see quite a bit of scorched Earth opposition towards the current President. And it isn't even over citizens- instead the Democrats are obstructing because Trump is letting lying illegal economic migrants into the country unopposed.
Yet a lying cheating president is totally okay I’m guessing. It’s not really about people crossing illegally is it?
Bernie and Joe are both have the same problems age, race, and hubris. The DNA media seem to be lining up behind Biden Trump would beat Biden because of race. At this point, almost any of the younger candidates would beat Trump, IMO.
1
Once again, the M4A people are ignoring the numbers. Here's a simplified version:
If you have employer-based insurance, you are getting a very large tax subsidy. Say you have a $21K policy, whatever percentage your employer covers. Assume you pay 33% in tax.
Without the tax subsidy, you would get $14K in net wages. So, you would have to take $7K from other parts of your budget, like housing and transportation and food, to pay for health insurance.
Please, please, can someone explain how Bernie is going to convince people--- including, yes, those white Union working-guys--- that they should give up that perk/status and have the same insurance as, you know, those people who look different?
It is just a complete loser politically, once all the vested interests pour money into negative advertising. Forget the Mid-West, and forget any chance for getting back the Senate.
The Obama administration (with Pelosi's help, indeed) made enormous *progress* in changing the conversation. And that, not empty rhetoric, is what it means to be a progressive.
It is utterly essential for Dems to win in 2020. It is equally essential for them to win in 2024, 2028, etc.
2
My support for now goes to Pelosi, who is far and away the most accomplished and realistic person in the Democratic “room.”
Couple her with a younger and more progressive VP with whom she really shares power and we might even have an “Avengers” team to save the world!
2
Inevitable Republican smear campaign? Presumably this will come after the DNC and the Democratic party and media apparatus dispatches the likes of Bernie Sanders or, heaven forfend, Tulsi Gabbard, by any means necessary.
2
Forewarned is forearmed.
Joe can read this op-Ed just like me, and make adjustments accordingly.
And guess who’s going to be on the ticket with Joe? Probably a Progressive pragmatic woman who isn’t afraid to play hardball and fight like - what? a girl? No. Fight like someone who believes in what they are fighting for.
Finally, the Republican’s nastiness is far less likely to get met with stunned acquiescence anymore. The Dems and everyone else has got their vile number, and will be ready. We’re seeing it now with the House going after Barr., and that’s only the beginning.
At least that’s what I hope.
8
Fellow Democrats, be glad that we have such a promising choice of candidates for 2020! And let's agree to support whoever is nominated. I would prefer a younger candidate than Bernie or Biden (especially the Socialist Jew from Brooklyn who will have a good rejoinder to anything Trump or Fox News throws at him, bless him), but either is infinitely preferable to 4 more years of Trump and a Republican Senate.
If the 2016 election taught us anything it should have made clear that you can sell the public anything with simple, consistent messaging. How else could a cheesy second-rate real-estate developer from Queens have gotten elected President? (Oops, I mean chosen by the Electoral College.)
The Republicans know they're demographically doomed and will stoop to anything--lying, racist dog whistles, voter suppression, you name it--to hold on to power. We have the better message so we don't have to lie, cheat, or smear. Is it so hard to convince people that paying more taxes means paying less out of pocket for health care--for everyone?
Share the wealth for better health, free college tuition, affordable housing, clean air & water, stronger infrastructure... So much useful work to be done. Let's roll up our sleeves and get to it.
3
Nah. You're right about Bernie, you're wrong about Biden. Joe's positioning is entirely about being on everybody's Top 3 list of people they could vote for. Middle America wants a collegial atmosphere in Washington, and it's goal that is entirely not Trumpian.
I think I have a better chance of being elected President than Ms. Warren, even though she is a policy genius.
Win PA, MI and WI and don't worry about whether you got 95% of Brooklyn or only 90%.
2
I am not sure what the fact that VP Biden is a clear front runner in the Democrat Party's mad dash to beat the president at any cost means, but surely it cannot be any good. The best the Democrat Party could produce in the year 2019 is a 76 yo career politician? REALLY?
2
Well, Paul can put anyone in the WH he wants. None will succeed. Half the country is convinced that the Dems, the media and the intelligentsia have sabotaged Trump from the jump. It was a failed coup d’etat. So, if you believe the ensuing four years with any Dem will go well, forget it. Even the Obama Trump massive recovery has to end by 2021 or 2022. That alone will create very difficult roblems. And, the Trumpian Counter-Resistance to a new regime will make the Demes temper tantrum look like a walk in the park. And, that’s simply the reality.
1
Fascinating and quite plausible.
Satisfied with my private coverage? Since when? The insurance companies have been jerking us around forever, and in the meantime we die sooner and all our allies who have better government plans are not having to get translators to decipher their medical bills.
5
lots of problems with both, but what will people think when they get reminders of the many many times Bernie applauded and defended the policies (and man) of Hugo Chavez' disastrous policies in Venezuela? any spin to deflect that, Bernie?
Twenty years, from prosperity to starvation. Awful. Be wary of big government even while cloaked in power to the people jingo.
1
Paul,
In 2016 you argued that Medicare for All just wouldn't work because it was a big lift politically and too expensive. Now you acknowledge it is less expensive than private insurance, but the citizens are too stupid to understand. As for the argument that people like their employer provided insurance, let me assure you as someone who "enjoyed" that benefit for 40 years that Medicare is a far more efficient operation. I received health insurance from at least five different carriers during my career and all of them were bandits. You seem to have a personal dislike of Bernie and his policies that override your esteemed intellect. Please don't let your legacy be described as "he was brilliant and even won a Nobel, but then he fell down the rabbit hole of political animus".
4
Let’s be honest. Democrats seem to be saying we have to vote for some old geezer because trump would be worse.
They are lost in fantasy because they are old. One isn’t even a Democrat, and sounds totally authoritarian in his speech patterns. The other, you know apologizing for the Hill hearing, and being grabby with women in no position to say no, only when called on it isn’t that convincing. Bet he has no idea what was wrong with the behavior. Both walk and look like very old men. (Being rather old, I have a pretty good idea what an aging make or female acts like)
Try again.
1
Krugman's real target is and always has been Bernie Sanders.
He only mentions Biden to make him look less biased.
Krugman is a Clintonite Democrat.
And we know where that got us in the last election.
Americans don't want the mainstream Clintonite Democrat vision.
That vision of the world is over.
No one wants it.
5
"The big concern about a Biden presidency is that he would repeat all of Obama’s early mistakes," Actually, Biden's history of correcting his mistakes argues against that being a concern. I don't know if Obama's continued efforts to work with a hateful GOP were with or against Biden's advice, but Biden certainly knows how that turned out--and what a viper McConnell is. He must also know that of all the Republicans fighting against the healthcare bill, the must duplicitous was Susan Collins, who constantly indicated that with just one more adjustment she could vote for the bill--and in the end, after all the adjustments, voted against it. She destroyed a lot of the bill's benefits that way.
1
And another thing...both men are too old to change.
1
I hope to be able to vote for a ticket of Biden and either Kamala Harris, Amy Klobuchar, or Elizabeth Warren.
Or maybe we can rid ourselves of Trump and Pence, and re-elect Nancy Pelosi President of the United States in 2020.
1