Obamacare was not primarily paid for by taxes on the rich! It was primarily paid for by hiking premiums on the middle class. I realize that the people getting the free stuff could care less where it comes from. But the middle class people being hammered to pay for this (while the Pelosis and Obamas let themselves off with a slap on the wrist) are furious and we're going to send your stinking Wall Street stooge puppet party packing in November.
56
The "Wrath of Khan", vs "Wrath of the Conned", I like it, I like it, I like it. Very good for old purist Trekkies who grew up on great TV drama with great acting! OMG, could that ever happen in this day? !
Oh, yes, the article is a great one too Krugman. You wrote:
"Apparatchiks who have spent their whole careers inside the bubble of right-wing think tanks and partisan media may suffer from the delusion that their ideology is actually popular with real people."
You got it right totally on this ! Both you and Brooks have written articles today and outdone yourselves. Keep up the great work dudes ! :)
Oh, yes, the article is a great one too Krugman. You wrote:
"Apparatchiks who have spent their whole careers inside the bubble of right-wing think tanks and partisan media may suffer from the delusion that their ideology is actually popular with real people."
You got it right totally on this ! Both you and Brooks have written articles today and outdone yourselves. Keep up the great work dudes ! :)
60
I will say this, sir. You are consistent. In each of your last commentaries, you manage to include such an outrageous statement, early on, that both causes my mouth to open in amazement and stops me cold from further consideration of your remarks.
Hillary Clinton and the most negative media coverage of any candidate in this cycle. Are you mad?
Hillary Clinton and the most negative media coverage of any candidate in this cycle. Are you mad?
98
Not a word about Bernie Sanders. Not a word about his incredible campaign and his long-term and deep commitment to social justice and the interests of the working class and the poor. Not a word about the way he ran his campaign - the most grass-roots, clean and ethical major campaign in my life time. Not a word about how he has inspired young voters.
Obviously, Paul Krugman could care less about all of this. He is no progressive, nor is he particularly liberal. Just another ivory tower academic angling for a big power job in a Presidential administration. Just another sell out.
Obviously, Paul Krugman could care less about all of this. He is no progressive, nor is he particularly liberal. Just another ivory tower academic angling for a big power job in a Presidential administration. Just another sell out.
98
Today in the NYT we have three opinions by Brooks, Egan and Krugman about how bad Trump and the Republicans are.
In the 1960s Herman Kahn wrote a book called Thinking About the Unthinkable. It was about nuclear war.
I think it is possible that Trump will be elected. What will happen then?
In the 1960s Herman Kahn wrote a book called Thinking About the Unthinkable. It was about nuclear war.
I think it is possible that Trump will be elected. What will happen then?
24
I used to read all of Krugman's columns, but now that I have seen his true character, I ignore everything about him, as well as his littermates, Blow, Cohen, et al.
The NYT is one big CON.
The NYT is one big CON.
63
The fundamental truth is that Republicans don't deliver and never have delivered to their base, which at best gets some rancid red meat. Democrats don't deliver everything but they deliver more.
74
If there had been more democratic contenders that where establishment candidates like Hillary than there is a good change Bernie would be the nominee. I see that as the main difference. Because out here I do not see the democrats doing anymore for people like me than the republicans. Hillary will have to cut a deal with Bernie's supporters if she want their votes. Otherwise they will vote for Trump.
47
It backfired for Republicans on the presidential level, but in Congress and the states it seems to have helped elect people with the Republican label. I'm not sure why the con hasn't been exposed there too. Big time.
The great thing that Trump's candidacy has shown is that Republican voters aren't so fixed on the actual policy. They seem to be going for anger and they are happy to direct that anger wherever they are encouraged to direct it.
The great thing that Trump's candidacy has shown is that Republican voters aren't so fixed on the actual policy. They seem to be going for anger and they are happy to direct that anger wherever they are encouraged to direct it.
28
HRC is a moderate (GOP??) except on Social Issues. She said so she before Bernie moved all the issues to the Left. What does that mean?
Well, like 99% of Congress HRC is beholden to her donors and special interests. To return the favor, that means she will line her cabinet with Wall St shills and cronies. Trump is self-funding his Primary campaign, but will accept Super Pacs and other private funding during the General so he isn’t an angel either.
It goes without saying HRC is an ardent Wall St supporter from her time in the Senate to the present, accepting at least $15 million dollars and speaking fees from them. HRC is more hawkish at her core (Iraq, Iran, Libya, coup in Honduras) than Trump, so expect more budget busting Defense under her initiatives.
Make no mistake, both HRC and Trump will offer Voodoo Economics as another way to transfer wealth upwards. That’s have establishment politics is played. HRC is a master at playing that game and it has served her political career well. The email scandal should be a road block, but with her and Obama’s connections, it will be a speed bump.
Read this article on HRC and learn that she's no different than her GOP counterparts.
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/11/19/clinton-sheds-progressive-fa...
Well, like 99% of Congress HRC is beholden to her donors and special interests. To return the favor, that means she will line her cabinet with Wall St shills and cronies. Trump is self-funding his Primary campaign, but will accept Super Pacs and other private funding during the General so he isn’t an angel either.
It goes without saying HRC is an ardent Wall St supporter from her time in the Senate to the present, accepting at least $15 million dollars and speaking fees from them. HRC is more hawkish at her core (Iraq, Iran, Libya, coup in Honduras) than Trump, so expect more budget busting Defense under her initiatives.
Make no mistake, both HRC and Trump will offer Voodoo Economics as another way to transfer wealth upwards. That’s have establishment politics is played. HRC is a master at playing that game and it has served her political career well. The email scandal should be a road block, but with her and Obama’s connections, it will be a speed bump.
Read this article on HRC and learn that she's no different than her GOP counterparts.
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/11/19/clinton-sheds-progressive-fa...
37
To Paul Krugman, Bernie Sanders is no longer worthy of mention by name. He is now Hillary Clinton's "challenger," who, according to Krugman, didn't get the memo that he was supposed to genuflect at the feet of ObamaCare and not question its very real drawbacks (and its successes, which Sanders acknowledged). I've lost complete respect for both Krugman and Charles Blow, whose belated kudos to Sanders came after unrelenting attacks on both him and his supporters. The idea that Hillary Clinton got the "most" negative media criticism is patently absurd. If anything, she was trumpeted nightly on CNN and other media outlets, while Sanders was treated to a Charlie Rose interview in which he was disrespectfully and unrelentingly grilled as if he were part of the Manson gang. Krugman is the one, finally, who doesn't get it. The Sanders campaign, far more than the vicious, ignorant clamor of the Trump disgrace, touches where America is right now, at this moment, especially for younger voters. They do not see anything worth admiring in Hillary Clinton, whose tattered record doesn't seem distinguished by anything more than making sure she was well tethered to the status quo. Sanders brought up real issues, and, without a doubt, THE most important one: the disgraceful, shattering inequality of wealth in this country which affects every other issue. You need proof of that? Read David Brooks today - he admits he's been sealed off in his rich man's haven and has finally found religion.
102
Thanks for the Spinal Tap reference
5
"The Republican establishment has been routed because it has been playing a con game on its supporters all along, and they’ve finally had enough." i rarely agree with Professor Krugman because he is often wrong and his views are determined by his politics rather than by his 'science' but in this case he is absolutely correct. The Republican Party has long promised small government and not delivered or even tried to deliver. The Democrat Party, on the other hand, promises increasing government intervention into our lives and always tries, often with success, its best to deliver.
4
Mr. Krugman, it is most assuredly NOT over for the Democrats. Bernie Sanders, who has always retained his personal and political integrity, is the best candidate the party can field. See you in Cleveland, sir.
39
Excellent Star Trek reference in the title. Thanks for the chuckle.
11
Well the Times has never had a critical word for Clinton and all references to Trump start with "vile", "repugnant", “hater”, etc... His supporters are ignorant white racist males. Over at the Journal Clinton is less popular but Trump is equally despised. Actually it is Trump who has shown the most grace under pressure (with a little flare here and there). Clinton has been shrill and dismissive from the start. No candidate in the history of US elections has faced as such a wide spread and near universal onslaught of attack through the media as Trump. The Times has had a different angle every week for months. Nazi, Mussolini etc...
Also, thank you professor for confirming that the Democratic party is the party of handouts and the party of minorities. That should alleviate the concerns of the doubters.
Also, thank you professor for confirming that the Democratic party is the party of handouts and the party of minorities. That should alleviate the concerns of the doubters.
12
On the Democrats, Krugman concedes: "Does it fall short of fulfilling this mission much of the time? Are its leaders sometimes too close to big-money donors? Of course."
About Republicans, Krugman states: its actual policy agenda is dedicated to serving the interests of the 1 percent
Question - with inequality at the highest levels in all of our lifetimes and government viewed as "the problem"- whose beat whom?
Quit applauding mediocrity! The Democrats don't deserve any trophies. Yes the Republicans are a mess - but they current have been very SUCCESSFUL while on their destructive death march. Ask the state governments how this GOP-DEM battle has been going - that's where a lot of the action is, ask Kansas!
About Republicans, Krugman states: its actual policy agenda is dedicated to serving the interests of the 1 percent
Question - with inequality at the highest levels in all of our lifetimes and government viewed as "the problem"- whose beat whom?
Quit applauding mediocrity! The Democrats don't deserve any trophies. Yes the Republicans are a mess - but they current have been very SUCCESSFUL while on their destructive death march. Ask the state governments how this GOP-DEM battle has been going - that's where a lot of the action is, ask Kansas!
23
I've read the comments both in NYT columns (and elsewhere) and to this article, and am feeling badly. I have lived in countries where all of Bernie's policies are in force -- high minimum wage, strong unions, universal health care, free college education (and add excellent transportation systems, clean cities, plentiful recreation areas, vibrant opera houses, theatre and orchestras supported in part by public funds) and yet am being called a stupid, ignorant dreamer for supporting Bernie. I am the one who has lived in these countries, seen their systems at work, and Americans look at me as if I were spinning tales. I'm not. Citizens in these progressive countries pay high taxes, but the quality of their food is high, they have six weeks a year to spend with their families, they household appliances, computers, second cars, homes, and nice clothes, just as we do. (They also complain as constantly as we do.) If you added all levels of tax, plus sales taxes, to the amount Americans pay for our children's education and our health care, our burdens would be similar.
We are accepting standards not worthy of us. Bernie has asked us to look higher. He's not the perfect messenger, but I predict that a worthy successor to him will appear shortly -- the public support for a more just and humane country is too great for this not to happen.
We are accepting standards not worthy of us. Bernie has asked us to look higher. He's not the perfect messenger, but I predict that a worthy successor to him will appear shortly -- the public support for a more just and humane country is too great for this not to happen.
113
Paul, it ain't over. For all of you on the Clinton side, its time to pull your pantywaists on. The Democratic party has split. Whether you like it or not, there are fundamental differences in the foundations of the democratic candidates policies that are essentially irreconcilable. The real con is the corporate con that has been going on for more than a few decades and that is you can have it both ways. Well low and behold, the people are waking up. It is typical for those that lack conviction to think that those that do will just roll over, just brush it off, you know, like the Iraq war.
31
I don't bemoan the fact that it won't help the GOP party establishment. The Trump rise is the actual and to be expected outcome of what the GOP has sown. The discontent that has been cultivated during the Obama administration, fueled by Trump himself as a mouthpiece of the 'birther' movement lead them to this moment. Their assault of the legitimacy of this presidency, fueled by the unrelenting propaganda foisted upon on their 'base' voters by Fox News, created a fire that is now out of their control.
Though I fear for this country, I take a unhealthy pleasure in seeing the 'GOP elite(?)' hoist by their own petard.
Though I fear for this country, I take a unhealthy pleasure in seeing the 'GOP elite(?)' hoist by their own petard.
17
This has to be in the record books for most analyzed election of all time. Along with capping campaign money spent let's pass a law limiting the campaign season itself. Half a year or so is enough to get the message out for any person running. Anything beyond that is overkill to the point of insanity and the electorate are the victims. But because elections are good for media business especially TV I know I'm fantasizing.
6
"And yes, Mr. Trump is playing a con game of his own, and they’ll eventually figure that out, too."
I believe that many of Trump's supporters know that he is most likely playing a con game, but they have no better alternative. If Trump delivers, great, and if Trump is playing a con game at least they have the gratification of putting a thumb in the eye of the people that were conning them for decades. It seems perfectly rational to me.
Whichever party figures out a way to address the problems that these folks are facing without at the same time lecturing them about all the ways in which they are benighted idiots has the potential to do very well. For that party to be the Democrats, we will have to do some soul-searching about how to deal with our attachment to smug self-righteousness. Shockingly, people find it unattractive.
I believe that many of Trump's supporters know that he is most likely playing a con game, but they have no better alternative. If Trump delivers, great, and if Trump is playing a con game at least they have the gratification of putting a thumb in the eye of the people that were conning them for decades. It seems perfectly rational to me.
Whichever party figures out a way to address the problems that these folks are facing without at the same time lecturing them about all the ways in which they are benighted idiots has the potential to do very well. For that party to be the Democrats, we will have to do some soul-searching about how to deal with our attachment to smug self-righteousness. Shockingly, people find it unattractive.
8
Mr. "Conscience of a Liberal" doesn't even know it when he sees the real thing, revealing himself to be neither "conscientious" nor "liberal", nor perhaps very trustworthy as a commentator.
The ACA will, in a few years, be utterly discredited as a scheme to force junk insurance on the american people. Access to junk insurance is not healthcare.
The ACA will, in a few years, be utterly discredited as a scheme to force junk insurance on the american people. Access to junk insurance is not healthcare.
26
You piece is right on the money. However, I believe that, as the base of the right wing never cared that the Party was not serving its interests as much as it's hatreds and biases, the base will not care about Trump's lies and false promises either. They only want power. Power to control the "others" that are stealing "their" Country. IF Trump wins, that's enough for them, policy and results be damned.
14
It ain't over until, its over. All of the States have not yet voted in the primaries. I am grateful and impressed that Senator Sanders put his progressive ideas on the table for the country to consider and the party platforms to take up at the convention.
There is a difference between what the voters of the country and the "establishments" of the two parties take to the polls for the General Election in November 2016.
I am pleased that the current front runners, Mr. Trump and Mrs. Clinton have adopted many of the Sander's ideas. Mrs. Clinton, assuming she sticks to her positions adapted during the "too rare" debates with Mr. Sanders will essentially take the Sander's progressive ideas to the country because they are needed.
I frequently note that the popular polls show that Mr. Sanders ideas for K-16 public education opportunity are well received and is a good step in making the future American society more egalitarian, more meritocratic and more productive in the future.
And the future is what it is all about. We have huge challenges ahead in energy as the World economy adapts to the realities of global warming and we must lead the World in inventing a new economy based on non-fossil energy sources. Mr. Sanders gave this his #1 priority, where it should be for all.
I certainly hope he continues to take the global warming message to the West Coast and to the convention. Reality is reality and we must give priority to new ideas. Like those in "Silent Earth".
There is a difference between what the voters of the country and the "establishments" of the two parties take to the polls for the General Election in November 2016.
I am pleased that the current front runners, Mr. Trump and Mrs. Clinton have adopted many of the Sander's ideas. Mrs. Clinton, assuming she sticks to her positions adapted during the "too rare" debates with Mr. Sanders will essentially take the Sander's progressive ideas to the country because they are needed.
I frequently note that the popular polls show that Mr. Sanders ideas for K-16 public education opportunity are well received and is a good step in making the future American society more egalitarian, more meritocratic and more productive in the future.
And the future is what it is all about. We have huge challenges ahead in energy as the World economy adapts to the realities of global warming and we must lead the World in inventing a new economy based on non-fossil energy sources. Mr. Sanders gave this his #1 priority, where it should be for all.
I certainly hope he continues to take the global warming message to the West Coast and to the convention. Reality is reality and we must give priority to new ideas. Like those in "Silent Earth".
25
Paul, I am about to give up reading you, after having done so religiously for at least a decade. Really, "why did Mrs. Clinton, despite the most negative media coverage of any candidate in this cycle ..." You have to be kidding. The NY Times hardly mentioned Sanders for 6 months it was so busy extolling the virtues of Hillary and then when they did mention him it was always in some belittling fashion - old, loud, socialist, etc. You yourself completely sold out contradicting everything you ever said about the banking collapse to support Hillary. I am not sure I can even finish reading this column after such a ridiculous assertion in the third paragraph. What happened to you?
25
I see a lot of comments from people saying "Sure Trump is crazy, but he'll shake things up. That's worth a try, because things couldn't worse." I have an answer for that in 3 words, or rather 2 words and a letter. : George W. Bush. We know things could be worse under the Republicans, because they were.
16
Obamacare was just a way to keep Pharma and MeD overcharging. We are still at forever war, banksters are untouchable, torture is ok even if we are not doing it, free trade of american jobs to slave workers, guantanamo guilty w/o trial, the surveillance state as 'good', the war on terror continues and continues to inspire more terror, and robotic collateral killings.
Obama did like GWB jr. instead of 'change you can believe in'. He lied.
Hillary is more of the same as evidenced by her willingness to take industry money. She is a bought and paid for Liar.
Bernie was a revolt too, for the same reasons as Trump. Bait and Switch. That revolution will play on in another round.
Why don't you comment on all the broken promises and Obama corporate politics?
Obama did like GWB jr. instead of 'change you can believe in'. He lied.
Hillary is more of the same as evidenced by her willingness to take industry money. She is a bought and paid for Liar.
Bernie was a revolt too, for the same reasons as Trump. Bait and Switch. That revolution will play on in another round.
Why don't you comment on all the broken promises and Obama corporate politics?
5
Mary Shelley would be fascinated... her monster had the "abby normal" brain... but the insane RepubliKlowns have inoculated "their" monster with racism, economic masochism, and a virulent strain of willful ignorance. Fortunately, it appears the "body" is a puny (35-45%?) weakling.
I look forward to the in-depth post-2016 "autopsy"... or... they might simply refer to Pogo's famous words: "We have met the enemy and he is us."
As a progressive conservative* (or conservative progressive?), I look forward to the reformation of the Republican Party as a rational center-right party... in 2020? 2024? 2030??
: ) L
* there is nothing "conservative" about today's Republican party... "supply-side" economic twaddle and neocon military fantasies are among the most radical (and thoroughly disproven) theories of the last century.
I look forward to the in-depth post-2016 "autopsy"... or... they might simply refer to Pogo's famous words: "We have met the enemy and he is us."
As a progressive conservative* (or conservative progressive?), I look forward to the reformation of the Republican Party as a rational center-right party... in 2020? 2024? 2030??
: ) L
* there is nothing "conservative" about today's Republican party... "supply-side" economic twaddle and neocon military fantasies are among the most radical (and thoroughly disproven) theories of the last century.
4
Mr. Krugman, the Democratic party via the DNC serves its puppet masters and its think-tank pundits as much and as well as does the decadent GOP. It has failed the white working class in fact as deeply as the GOP, but by ignoring them instead of the bait and switch employed by the GOP. HRC's coming nomination is not a high mark for the Dems but instead an indication of THEIR decadence.
12
A more accurate term for "think tanks" that promote supply-side economics is propaganda mills.
8
"But why did Mrs. Clinton, despite the most negative media coverage of any candidate in this cycle — yes, worse than Donald Trump’s..."
Has anybody up there at the Times read the Washington Post in the last year? They have gone out of their way to lambaste Sanders at every possible opportunity, while singing the praises of the Clintons--both of them. Not just one or two columnists, but it seems the entire editorial department has been programmed that way. I think that alone belies the assumption made above. If the Post isn't mainstream media, I don't know what is.
Not that I'm a great fan of Clinton. But that's another story entirely.
Has anybody up there at the Times read the Washington Post in the last year? They have gone out of their way to lambaste Sanders at every possible opportunity, while singing the praises of the Clintons--both of them. Not just one or two columnists, but it seems the entire editorial department has been programmed that way. I think that alone belies the assumption made above. If the Post isn't mainstream media, I don't know what is.
Not that I'm a great fan of Clinton. But that's another story entirely.
10
I am guessing that a factory worker losing his or her job in Indiana doesn't care so much what a "Constitutional Originalist" is.
5
The promotion of Hillary Clinton in the Times is reminiscent of the lead up to the Iraq war.
It was scary then , and it's scary now.
That turned out well, didn't it?
I am not that anti-Hillary, but this cheerleading is awful. I'm embarrassed for you.
It was scary then , and it's scary now.
That turned out well, didn't it?
I am not that anti-Hillary, but this cheerleading is awful. I'm embarrassed for you.
17
Bernie Sanders might not be a Billionaire, but I hear that he is also not accepting campaign contributions in exchange for Pay to Play government contracts, U. S. Government Military Secrets, MFN or PNTR trade statuses, Environmental Damage Liability Limits, more U.S. foreign aid, Alaskan drilling permits, and other US government legislation and benefits for sale to US citizens and to foreigners as the “Established Mainstream Democratic" politicians are doing.
Maybe Donald Trump is the sole person seeking the Republican Party nomination for the office of POTUS that has not taken donations from people in exchange for new legislation or some new "PAY TO PLAY" U. S. Government "NO-BID" contract.
Maybe Donald Trump is the sole person seeking the Republican Party nomination for the office of POTUS that has not taken donations from people in exchange for new legislation or some new "PAY TO PLAY" U. S. Government "NO-BID" contract.
8
One of the best titles I've ever seen.
3
Perhaps this enmity could be curtailed if left leaning voters voted in all election cycles and not just the presidential. Have you not seen what has happened at the state level? The right artfully took control of many statehouses the last few years and we have seen the tragic results (Kansas, Indiana, North Carolina, etc) but this regressive spiteful behavior will not be stopped till people use their voting rights to the fullest. Don't complain about VoterID, get an ID! Help your friends get to the polling place if that is the hangup. Losing to the GOP in 2016 will not bear well for the progress made the last 8 years, so get over HRC and just vote. Bernie's plans are a fantasy and Congress will NEVER, EVER approve them as currently constituted. Stop being victims!
20
Paul, you and others keep putting forth the idea that Trump is supported almost exclusively by angry white men. If that is so, how did he win Detroit handily, which is 70% black??
6
Simple solution. Next election, vote against every Republican, for every office, at every level. Be patriotic. Save the country.
15
I think you should stop whining about the MSM and how it treats Secretary Clinton badly, at least while you are a major part of that MSM; It's just silly. Clinton supporters have plenty to complain about, as do Sanders supporters, but the idea that her unfavorables are due to some MSM cabal is just silly. You sound like a Fox News anchor.
She has earned her unfavorables in large measure. The email thing may not, in the end, be very important, but it was certainly, incredibly, unbelievably stupid. How could you not imagine your enemies making all kinds of hay over something like that? C'mon, this is as stupidly obvious as the Iraq war vote should have been (and you very eloquently explained just how stupid that vote was at the time). Also, she's been at this a long time, and there's been alot of divisiveness over that time. That's why it may not be the best policy to just keep running the same people for president over and over again until they get the nomination.
The most interesting thing about the Vox article you linked to were:
1. How unbelievably negative the coverage of ALL the candidates was
2. How small the differences were relative to the huuuge pos/neg ratio.
3. That Teddy C., arguably the most unpleasant and dangerous guy on the list had the least amount of negative coverage.
She has earned her unfavorables in large measure. The email thing may not, in the end, be very important, but it was certainly, incredibly, unbelievably stupid. How could you not imagine your enemies making all kinds of hay over something like that? C'mon, this is as stupidly obvious as the Iraq war vote should have been (and you very eloquently explained just how stupid that vote was at the time). Also, she's been at this a long time, and there's been alot of divisiveness over that time. That's why it may not be the best policy to just keep running the same people for president over and over again until they get the nomination.
The most interesting thing about the Vox article you linked to were:
1. How unbelievably negative the coverage of ALL the candidates was
2. How small the differences were relative to the huuuge pos/neg ratio.
3. That Teddy C., arguably the most unpleasant and dangerous guy on the list had the least amount of negative coverage.
5
I hope the Bernie delusional realize that you have cost him the primary. I love Bernie and fully support his candidacy, but when I voted on Tuesday, it came down to who was actually qualified for this job: Hillary. The Bernie delusionals have sabotaged Bernie in the past few weeks. It's an appeal to unreason unlike anything I've seen short of Tea Party or Trump rallies. The same tired refrain that Bernie's polling better against Trump (an absolute complete lie, unverified and unsupported, delusional in its scope). The same tired refrains about Hillary's "unrelatability" (whatever code that is for "she's a woman so I don't get her") which almost completely comes from the dominant Republican and media narrative about her for the past 30 years. I'm so tired of it. If "Bernie or Bust" gets Trump elected, I hope you know you'll have the blood on your hands of whatever xenophobic violence may occur, and whatever crazy wars we'll be sucked into.
19
first...the dem establishment hasn't won yet. Two...it's been shocked to find that a huge portion of the party, and even more surprising, of the more numerous independents...are far to the left of themselves, a truth they were blithely unaware of before the primaries. A lot of those Independents would be registered Democrats if the Democrats had actually paid it's debt to its electorate. If those Independents had been able to vote with the Democrat Leftists who have toughed it out inside the Party of Disappointment, it would have been Bernie getting ready to face Trump, not Hillary. It's true we got one not entirely rotten delivery from the dems...but most of the bill has come back from our elected Democrat representation marked "Unredeemable."
7
So basically you're saying republicans are idiots susceptible to getting conned, while democrats are honest and noble? I like that. Got it.
5
Conned, yes, by republicans through their political propaganda using “the big lie” tactic.
I suspect many republican voters have understood they were being conned but could not accept the republican story until Trump spelled it out for them.
So now republicans are faced with the nomination outcome; Trump or Clinton? And the same decision faces a piece of the Democratic party who can buy into Trump's "big guy" style of political talk.
Everyone had better listen to what Bill Clinton has said: Trump is the biggest threat to a Democratic victory in November. And act accordingly.
I suspect many republican voters have understood they were being conned but could not accept the republican story until Trump spelled it out for them.
So now republicans are faced with the nomination outcome; Trump or Clinton? And the same decision faces a piece of the Democratic party who can buy into Trump's "big guy" style of political talk.
Everyone had better listen to what Bill Clinton has said: Trump is the biggest threat to a Democratic victory in November. And act accordingly.
7
I am in a vast minority. I support either Clinton or Sanders wholeheartedly with all their flaws. I see the fascist streak in Trump and Cruz. It's plain fact, that Clinton has more ad wominem, spurious and anti-fact media attacks than Sanders (but Krugman wasn't talking about Sanders, whose supporters can't hear ANYTHING positive about Clinton. A juvenile, dangerous attitude.) Also a fact that Clinton is an opportunistic panderer. As is Sanders - with his weird pro-Corp gun stance and his weirdly mistaken pro-Big Diabetes Corp; reeks of white-savior condescension and Tea-Party like anti-Nanny State. Clinton has a longer record and has been attacked more. I would love for Sanders to win, but he's not a team player, as no Revolutionary has ever been. How many of you Sanderites had the same glowing enthusiasm for Obama? Remember the Revolution, "the next Bobby Kennedy" - still hanging on to that now? I see you're blaming Clinton for Obama's mistakes! I could see Obama was centrist, proven even Conservative in some ways. Sanders cannot do what he promises - even if, yes, why can't we be like Sweden or Germany? I see NO reason why not. Except Our populace is poorly educated and entrenched and the Republicans hold much power. Besides, Trump would shred Sanders. Clinton has proven her - slick, slime, twisting, if Sander's supporters want - resilience. Sander's seems more and more chip-on-shoulder angry and committed to his dream than what is good, possible for people.
14
Why does Paul even go there?
Yes Bernie may well be out. Possibly not.
Why belittle and mock those who believe in him?
Besides, it's not about Bernie.
It's about his vision.
And like it or not, his vision of a country that works for all it's citizens, not just the well connected, will not go away.
The attitude of much of the priveleged at the NYT seems to be "I'm doing really well. Let's keep the status quo !", and that is a problem.
Yes Bernie may well be out. Possibly not.
Why belittle and mock those who believe in him?
Besides, it's not about Bernie.
It's about his vision.
And like it or not, his vision of a country that works for all it's citizens, not just the well connected, will not go away.
The attitude of much of the priveleged at the NYT seems to be "I'm doing really well. Let's keep the status quo !", and that is a problem.
20
Spot on. The GOP has been plowing the road for the corporate oligarchy for years. Now that road is finally is cutting through the nice, well-cut lawns of America's white conservative middle class - and they are angry and concerned.
They should have noticed those little flags planted on the ground that indicate it's about to get torn up.
They should have noticed those little flags planted on the ground that indicate it's about to get torn up.
5
Greed, avarice and egomania finally did the Republican party in. It's bee 35 or so years in the making.
Regarding coverage. I read the NYT. Its coverage of Bernie and Hillary is a joke. seldom if ever has there been an article that mentioned Bernie Sanders that was not a personal attack. Even those few that were some what fair had snide backhanded remarks.
I have always known that Economics was not Science, but I see now that it is actually a science of SPIN, or sophistry to use the old term, and in that arena, you certainly stand out.
Regarding coverage. I read the NYT. Its coverage of Bernie and Hillary is a joke. seldom if ever has there been an article that mentioned Bernie Sanders that was not a personal attack. Even those few that were some what fair had snide backhanded remarks.
I have always known that Economics was not Science, but I see now that it is actually a science of SPIN, or sophistry to use the old term, and in that arena, you certainly stand out.
15
How can Mr. Krugman complain about the negative media treatment of Mrs. Clinton given his own biased treatment of Mr. Sanders? Mr. Krugman epitomized the "ignore, then denigrate, then shame" attitude of the media toward Mr. Sanders. In my opinion Sanders has a good chance of defeating Trump--he can sway more independents than Clinton.
Mr. Sanders name does not appear one time in this article--strange in an story about voter discontent. I hope that Mr. Krugman's strategy to promote Mrs. Clinton does not backfire. By ignoring Bernie he might be writing a lot more than he wishes about the Donald.
Mr. Sanders name does not appear one time in this article--strange in an story about voter discontent. I hope that Mr. Krugman's strategy to promote Mrs. Clinton does not backfire. By ignoring Bernie he might be writing a lot more than he wishes about the Donald.
18
We have Krugman, shameless enabler of faux progressive Hillary Clinton, talking about the "wrath of the conned"? What a delicious irony! Time to retire, Dr. Krugman. Your tripe is completely irrelevant as you have no reputation to save. Not to worry though - I'm sure Goldman Sachs will provide ample compensation for you as their keynote speaker at "How To Manage The Mass Media's Influence". You've earned it!
18
Good grief..."say what you like (or dislike) about Mrs. Clinton, but she’s resilient ...But basically it comes down to fundamental differences between the parties and how they serve their...Are its leaders sometimes too close to big-money donors? Of course. Still, if you look at the record of the Obama years, you see real action.." Oh dear! you got me at "too close to big-money donors?," how about attached at the hip?
An example, in the case of the ACA, great as a catastrophic health plan, but as a plan that helps keep me healthy? not so much. As an individual, I discovered to my shock the same provider who covered me fully when I was employed at a large company is now nickel and diming me to death. I hazily knew that healthcare costs were rising, but did not pay much attention to it. Now I count virtually every dollar and rail against the Hospital, Insurer, and the Pharma industry (they are an industry) for sticking it to me. At over $12k a year, its more an Unaffordable Care Act. Then the other shoe drops, the industry is consolidating at a rapid rate, how will this will be good for the consumer. So I won't support Hillary even if I am a Progressive (mostly.) Its Bernie all the way or I will help "burn down" the Establishment by voting Trump. Yes, as a minority citizen it goes deeply against my grain but I blame you all, the cheerleaders and supporters of the Establishment (i.e the people with money who are behaving badly, blah, blah..you know what I mean.)
An example, in the case of the ACA, great as a catastrophic health plan, but as a plan that helps keep me healthy? not so much. As an individual, I discovered to my shock the same provider who covered me fully when I was employed at a large company is now nickel and diming me to death. I hazily knew that healthcare costs were rising, but did not pay much attention to it. Now I count virtually every dollar and rail against the Hospital, Insurer, and the Pharma industry (they are an industry) for sticking it to me. At over $12k a year, its more an Unaffordable Care Act. Then the other shoe drops, the industry is consolidating at a rapid rate, how will this will be good for the consumer. So I won't support Hillary even if I am a Progressive (mostly.) Its Bernie all the way or I will help "burn down" the Establishment by voting Trump. Yes, as a minority citizen it goes deeply against my grain but I blame you all, the cheerleaders and supporters of the Establishment (i.e the people with money who are behaving badly, blah, blah..you know what I mean.)
14
Paul -- You don't understand the healthcare problem in America today and the gross deficiencies of Obamacare, but Bernie understands. You say that Obamacare helped poor people the most, but that's only if they can afford the copays after they've paid for the insurance. People have coverage, but they can't afford to use it because they can't handle the copays and deductibles. From CBS Evening News last night, a physician providing free treatment in Los Angeles noted:
"I expected to see a lot more homeless people and people with no insurance at all, and to find out that the majority had insurance but couldn't afford their co-payment or deductible, that was surprising"
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/free-medical-clinic-in-los-angeles-draws-tho...
"I expected to see a lot more homeless people and people with no insurance at all, and to find out that the majority had insurance but couldn't afford their co-payment or deductible, that was surprising"
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/free-medical-clinic-in-los-angeles-draws-tho...
19
Another reason Clinton survived? Outlets like the NYTimes and CNN helped her greatly.... even when Bernie Sanders had a large winning streak, they never gave it attention, and certainly never let the idea that he could win show up in print or on air. Unbiased? Hardly. I hope Hillary send you guys a big thank you gift. (While I like Hillary well enough, I like fairness most, so I certainly won't be thanking you. Find it pathetic.)
18
"Above all, you have the Affordable Care Act, which has given about 20 million Americans health insurance, with the gains biggest for the poor, minorities and low-wage workers. That’s what you call delivering for the base — and it’s surely one reason nonwhite voters have overwhelmingly favored Mrs. Clinton over a challenger who sometimes seemed to dismiss that achievement."
The ACA is catastrophic health care...it's not going to help them with regular care.
And that challenger...who got virtually no coverage of his policies...wanted to give them Medicare for all...which would be so much more helpful as well as less costly for we citizens!!
Do you think the African-American voters yet know that the candidate they voted against had stood up and acted on their behalf against segregation and civil rights 50 years ago? I didn't see that in the NYT...did you?
Krugman...your rhetoric is repulsive.
The ACA is catastrophic health care...it's not going to help them with regular care.
And that challenger...who got virtually no coverage of his policies...wanted to give them Medicare for all...which would be so much more helpful as well as less costly for we citizens!!
Do you think the African-American voters yet know that the candidate they voted against had stood up and acted on their behalf against segregation and civil rights 50 years ago? I didn't see that in the NYT...did you?
Krugman...your rhetoric is repulsive.
18
How can you say it's definitely over for the Dems, but only high probability for the Reps. Seems to me like you need to take a statistics class or two. Baring death or imprisonment Trump will be the Republican nominee, because he will have the most delegates and if he doesn't win he'll run third party and if he does the Republicans will lose horribly and they know it. End of story. On the Dem side there is still a chance that Bernie will have the most delegates and also a much higher probability of Clinton going to jail (or at least being indicted).
The thing about media coverage is it doesn't really mater that much if it's negative or positive very few people trust you guys anyway so it just increases name recognition, which helps a lot with undecided/uninformed voters. Also, there is no way Hillary's coverage was more negative than Trump's I don't think I've seen a single positive article about Trump since he started running and Hilary was showered with endorsements early on.
The thing about media coverage is it doesn't really mater that much if it's negative or positive very few people trust you guys anyway so it just increases name recognition, which helps a lot with undecided/uninformed voters. Also, there is no way Hillary's coverage was more negative than Trump's I don't think I've seen a single positive article about Trump since he started running and Hilary was showered with endorsements early on.
7
I believe some basic psychology may be relevant here. Is it possible that Trump voters' primal flight/fight/freeze mechanisms have been so overstimulated for so many years, by GOP/FOX/ETC. verbal abuse, that they just no longer capable of engaging their prefontal cortex?
Poisonous rhetoric arouses potent basic biochemicals in the brain, including the repeated use of the empty adjective, 'great' (dopamine) and 'I love you people' (oxytocin).
The tools of the duper are basic and effective, and a man without a conscience doesn't hesitate to stimulate his own dopamine by using them on vast numbers of targets.
Poisonous rhetoric arouses potent basic biochemicals in the brain, including the repeated use of the empty adjective, 'great' (dopamine) and 'I love you people' (oxytocin).
The tools of the duper are basic and effective, and a man without a conscience doesn't hesitate to stimulate his own dopamine by using them on vast numbers of targets.
3
Does Krugman view NAFTA, TPP, and bank deregulation as examples of how the Democratic party does its best to serve its supporters and act in the national interest?
13
The GOP has played a pretty good Shell Game. Diverting the real issues plaguing poor conservatives. That immigrants are why they can't find a job or can't get financially ahead. That social issues like a women's right to choose or birth control are the real problems. What bathroom can someone use or who can you marry and god forbid, having to register you fire arm. I do believe the Democrats could do better towards a progressive agenda however, seeing how the GOP has failed at theirs, I can't complain.
1
With a wink and a nod, we get it.
Hillary takes millions from Wall Street Banks but isn't influenced by it, we get it.
Hillary hates Fracking but led the charge around the globe promoting it, we get it.
Hillary hates seeing our kids come home from 15 years of war broken in mind and body but is strong in foreign affairs, we get it.
At least Big oil , Big Pharma and the Neo Cons are getting the president they wanted.
Hillary takes millions from Wall Street Banks but isn't influenced by it, we get it.
Hillary hates Fracking but led the charge around the globe promoting it, we get it.
Hillary hates seeing our kids come home from 15 years of war broken in mind and body but is strong in foreign affairs, we get it.
At least Big oil , Big Pharma and the Neo Cons are getting the president they wanted.
16
Rima Regas? Who is still taking her seriously? Ever since she became the inofficial spokes person for those who feel the Bern she has been hurling barrages of half truths at the gullible portion of her readers, has cranked up the hate machine to hurt HRC’s chances to win the nomination and has fed her own inscrutable agenda to be a relevant voice in the often shrill climate of hillary assaults.
Ms. Regas must surely know that her anti-Clinton narrative has streaks of falsehood meant to pull the wool over the eyes of those who did not want to internalize that HRC is winning. If Hillary were synonymous with the portrait RR is painting of her she would not be ahead by millions of votes. In short, the person Ms. Regas describes has little to do with the reality of Hillary Clinton.
One can only hope that the petulance and anger of the Sanders adherents gives way to a more measured approach that leads to a decision to vote for HRC instead of staying home or worse vote for Mr. Trump.
Ms. Regas must surely know that her anti-Clinton narrative has streaks of falsehood meant to pull the wool over the eyes of those who did not want to internalize that HRC is winning. If Hillary were synonymous with the portrait RR is painting of her she would not be ahead by millions of votes. In short, the person Ms. Regas describes has little to do with the reality of Hillary Clinton.
One can only hope that the petulance and anger of the Sanders adherents gives way to a more measured approach that leads to a decision to vote for HRC instead of staying home or worse vote for Mr. Trump.
10
The decadence of the GOP is at the national level; the GOP at the state and local level is stronger than at any times since 1930.
The GOP at the national level has become something like Imperial Spain of the late 17th century or the Ottoman Empire of the 19th century: a large organism that is more valuable immobilized to feed parasites than it is to become vital. The parasites here are the infotainment, national-security, incarceration-state and policy-lobbying industries.
The GOP at the national level has become something like Imperial Spain of the late 17th century or the Ottoman Empire of the 19th century: a large organism that is more valuable immobilized to feed parasites than it is to become vital. The parasites here are the infotainment, national-security, incarceration-state and policy-lobbying industries.
3
"But why did Mrs. Clinton, despite the most negative media coverage of any candidate in this cycle — yes, worse than Donald Trump’s — go the distance, while the G.O.P. establishment went down to humiliating defeat?"
Most negative? Not from the NY Times (which used up most of its 'negative' on Sanders), distinguishing itself as the leading cheerleader for the Clinton candidacy. Surely Mr. Krugman doesn't consider Faux Noise to be the dominant figure in the media, for hardly anything else (of the real - which is to say not the bloggers - media) spoke ill of Sen. Clinton.
Most negative? Not from the NY Times (which used up most of its 'negative' on Sanders), distinguishing itself as the leading cheerleader for the Clinton candidacy. Surely Mr. Krugman doesn't consider Faux Noise to be the dominant figure in the media, for hardly anything else (of the real - which is to say not the bloggers - media) spoke ill of Sen. Clinton.
14
The party elites are in different situations for one reason: Hillary lovcked up the donors and machinery two years ago. there appears to be less division and more kumbaya agreement on the Dems side because of that, and that fact only. The success of Snaders is a reflection fo the fact that the actual voters are dissatisfied with the results prduced by both parties ( a pox on both houses!) but HRC skillfully closing the doors so early has created the appearance of agreement but papers over the problem, Trump benefitted from the fractured early GOP field that precluded anyone on that side from doing what Clinton did on the left. the unanticipated consequence though, may be Hillary being the absolute wrong candidate for the mood of the country, the epitome of an establishment connected pol in the year of the outsider. Sapo rather than crow about appearances and party elite problem, Mr. Krugman, consider that the Dems may be winning a battle but badly losing the war.
12
Oh, Krugman the Triumphant! Don't you see the writing on the wall? I know you are not paid to see it, but I have a nagging suspicion that in your delusion you are really oblivious.
I have read three op-eds today and each one is worse than the other. But Krugman’s is the worst. If the two others reveal total disorientation, Krugman’s triumphalism is simply blind. His brand of triumphalism is different from the celebratory triumphalism of 1991. It's triumphalism of “good enough.” It does not envision a bright future, but one that is "good enough." He celebrates incrementalism, but not the one that inches slowly ahead; his is the one that tries to retain the status quo and grudgingly retreats inch by inch. His ballyhooed Affordable Care Act simply forces poor Americans to buy insurance. Now they can end up in jail if they do not have one.
If the Republicans are going through soul searching now, the Democratic moment is still ahead. The Democratic establishment has won, but it is a Pyrrhic victory. Trump is not winning just because of his appeal to voters, to whom NYT contemptuously refers as “mob”; he is winning BECAUSE he is anti-establishment. Ordinary voters, many of whom are new, are sending a powerful message: they are against the status quo, on either side—Democratic or Republican. This will be the dominant attitude in the November elections. And this attitude will deliver the Democratic Party its defeat. Then it will be its turn to do some real soul searching.
I have read three op-eds today and each one is worse than the other. But Krugman’s is the worst. If the two others reveal total disorientation, Krugman’s triumphalism is simply blind. His brand of triumphalism is different from the celebratory triumphalism of 1991. It's triumphalism of “good enough.” It does not envision a bright future, but one that is "good enough." He celebrates incrementalism, but not the one that inches slowly ahead; his is the one that tries to retain the status quo and grudgingly retreats inch by inch. His ballyhooed Affordable Care Act simply forces poor Americans to buy insurance. Now they can end up in jail if they do not have one.
If the Republicans are going through soul searching now, the Democratic moment is still ahead. The Democratic establishment has won, but it is a Pyrrhic victory. Trump is not winning just because of his appeal to voters, to whom NYT contemptuously refers as “mob”; he is winning BECAUSE he is anti-establishment. Ordinary voters, many of whom are new, are sending a powerful message: they are against the status quo, on either side—Democratic or Republican. This will be the dominant attitude in the November elections. And this attitude will deliver the Democratic Party its defeat. Then it will be its turn to do some real soul searching.
9
Mr. Trump is playing an old con game, in fact. Most politicians play it. They treat the public like idiots and hope to get elected by promising something they can't deliver. It is the game. Trump is just more indecent than others.
4
The true believers that have been poisoned by Sen. Sanders so that they ignore the real achievements of Sec. Clinton are lost in some ideological wilderness. Her voting record is close to identical to his, and most of her causes are the same, just broader. Demonizing her was playing by the Republican playbook.
10
A friend, just returned from being abroad for six years bought her ACA medical insurance the other day. So being that the only job she could get is low paying she now has health insurance with an affordable monthly payment and an unaffordable deductible. The insurance is worthless except if she suffers a catastrophic health crises Mr. Krugman.
In the future would it not serve us all better if you were honest about what Obama care has done for the poor. Forced them to pay for insurance they can't use? Her deductible is 7K !
In the future would it not serve us all better if you were honest about what Obama care has done for the poor. Forced them to pay for insurance they can't use? Her deductible is 7K !
14
It looks like the general campaign this fall will be a contest between two widely disliked candidates, Trump and Clinton. This time, there will be no uplifting "Morning Again In America", no stirring "Ask not what your country can do for you". Instead it will be a contest to see who wins because she or he is the least disliked. This makes the outcome unpredictable. The swing voters this time may be voters who stay home.
6
Paul, your analysis is very appealing, and I want to believe it. However, it does not explain how the Republican party has managed to wrest control of both houses of Congress. How can a party whose elite is so out of touch (has "been playing a con game") be so successful at the congressional level? Has the con game really been that good? If your analysis is correct, then, since the con game has been revealed for all to see, Republicans ought to be facing a catastrophe at the Congressional level in the November elections. I doubt this will happen, but maybe, hopefully, I will be wrong. In the meantime, I'm still curious to understand how a party that's been running a con game can control both the House and the Senate.
4
The disaffected Republican base voter complains that the establishment lied to them. They are only half right. The establishment said that they would cut taxes on the rich and that would create jobs and benefit everyone, including the base voters. This promise included two things; an action and a result. The establishment performed on the action, they cut taxes on the rich. Where they failed to perform is on the result. The rising tide never raised most boats.
The problem is that the base does not understand where the failure lay and insists that the promise was a lie. The offer now is to double down on the failed premise underlying the problem. The thought that the Republican base voters will ever figure this out on their own is misguided. They will cling to the core premise bestowed on them by the sainted Reagan because it sounds and feels good. It is a something for nothing promise like the ones they abhor when made to the poor but they won't see it until someone points it out to them in clear simple and irrefutable terms. This needs to be translated into a parable and presented to them as such. The lie was not the promise of action, it was the promise of a result.
The problem is that the base does not understand where the failure lay and insists that the promise was a lie. The offer now is to double down on the failed premise underlying the problem. The thought that the Republican base voters will ever figure this out on their own is misguided. They will cling to the core premise bestowed on them by the sainted Reagan because it sounds and feels good. It is a something for nothing promise like the ones they abhor when made to the poor but they won't see it until someone points it out to them in clear simple and irrefutable terms. This needs to be translated into a parable and presented to them as such. The lie was not the promise of action, it was the promise of a result.
1
One can easily argue that it is Krugman's hyperkinetic, never-ending Keynesian stimuli that most pad the wallets of the 1%.
Krugman, you clever courtier for the 1%, always finding the speck in others' eyes.
Krugman, you clever courtier for the 1%, always finding the speck in others' eyes.
9
Both Bernie and Trump draw support from people with lower educationals and income levels. But it's the Bernie voters who understand that the grotesque unfairness come from an economy entirely rigged for a plutocracy that betrays every democratic tradition from the American Revolution onwards.
According to Thomas Piketty, inequality will grow relentlessly worse with r greater thans g, the rate of return to capital greater than economic growth. This plutcrat parasitism will continue until there is something like Bernie's revolution, not Hillary's status quo.
According to Thomas Piketty, inequality will grow relentlessly worse with r greater thans g, the rate of return to capital greater than economic growth. This plutcrat parasitism will continue until there is something like Bernie's revolution, not Hillary's status quo.
9
It's not just about ideology.
"Apparatchiks who have spent their whole careers inside the bubble of right-wing think tanks and partisan media may suffer from the delusion that their ideology is actually popular with real people" [and has an empirical foundation, which is the opposite of the truth.]
It's not just about advocacy.
"Maybe you think Democrats could and should have done more." Did you mean more stridently advocated or actually figured out how to get more done? Looking back at the obstruction encountered, violating the spirit of and arguably the literal words of the Constitution, it's unlikely more could have been done.
"Apparatchiks who have spent their whole careers inside the bubble of right-wing think tanks and partisan media may suffer from the delusion that their ideology is actually popular with real people" [and has an empirical foundation, which is the opposite of the truth.]
It's not just about advocacy.
"Maybe you think Democrats could and should have done more." Did you mean more stridently advocated or actually figured out how to get more done? Looking back at the obstruction encountered, violating the spirit of and arguably the literal words of the Constitution, it's unlikely more could have been done.
2
Professor Krugman - Your insights are always valuable, and this is one of the most thoughtful explorations of the dysfunction of Republican leadership, and the relative preservation of the Democratic status quo that I have read.
Perhaps, if we are fortunate, this insane election cycle will draw the Republican party to a more moderate stance, with less reliance on social policy "litmus" tests of leadership, and ultimately, positions that could be used to actually govern this complex and diverse country. In the interim, a relatively centrist-leaning democrat will likely work just fine. Thank you again.
Perhaps, if we are fortunate, this insane election cycle will draw the Republican party to a more moderate stance, with less reliance on social policy "litmus" tests of leadership, and ultimately, positions that could be used to actually govern this complex and diverse country. In the interim, a relatively centrist-leaning democrat will likely work just fine. Thank you again.
4
TE cannot bring new converts to his cause if he is blatantly partisan, and if his op ed says more about him and his biases than about,in this case, Mr. TRUMP.Both parties have been conning the public, which explains the popularity of DT, and his appeal to the disinherited, all of whom r not just angry white men. While conducting research on surviving family members of murderers of Emmittt Till,Roy Bryant and JW Elam, in towns around Money, Mississippi,I interviewed the 90 year old brother of Medgar Evers, who told me he was for Trump because DT, if elected, would have a catfish processing plant built in state,and Miss. would no longer have to send its catfish to China to be processed..Mr. Egan, who,lives in an exclusive,,virtually all white suburb of Seattle,surrounded by neighbors who r graduates of posh colleges like himself, and is very safe,should spend less time tending his orchards, and more time getting to know Trump's supporters who r more enlightened and tolerant than he gives them credit for being.Egan makes a nice living pandering to the extreme left wing of the Democratic Party, following the "ligne de conduite"of the paper and its shareholders, but is it honest, fair and balanced journalism?Most objective observers would reply in the negative.
4
Krugman is usually brilliant at economics, but his Dem establishment blinders make his political comments ridiculous. Obamacare was the greatest giveaway to the insurance and drug companies ever and at taxpayer expense. Yes, a little swetener of giving semi- worthless coverage to some of the poor was thrwn in to make it palatable, but the main point was saving the insurance companies from single payer. This is typical Dem establishment trickery from Bill Clinton to Obama to Hillary.
There is a reason that Wall Street gave $20,000,000 to Hillary's campaign and put another $2,000,000 in her pocket for. "speaking fees". Star struck pundits like Krugman want to just gloss over the fact that Hillary will say anything but govern like a moderate Republican, just like Bill and Barack.
There is a reason that Wall Street gave $20,000,000 to Hillary's campaign and put another $2,000,000 in her pocket for. "speaking fees". Star struck pundits like Krugman want to just gloss over the fact that Hillary will say anything but govern like a moderate Republican, just like Bill and Barack.
14
Fine. This is all quite correct, but the other side of things is how can we function when 30-50% of the population is ok with a Trump. Even in parliamentary systems, candidates like him run in the single digits or the system shuts down. Now we have a truly historic crisis in our Democracy. He won't be elected, but we now know the risk. It's not just that Repubs have misled their voters, it's that the country hasn't invested in education, that religion trumps science for many, and that facts don't matter. We are an illiterate, uneducated mess. It's worse in TN, but it's bad everywhere. The majority of our "college" grads come from for profit diploma mills. We can't run our university labs without a majority of foreign workers. I've never been on a faculty search committee where the best candidate was American born. We've stopped learning and stopped thinking.
4
Mr.K., do you suppose that the absence of a Barak Obama in the next election will diffuse the vitriolic anti black venom that has so polluted the last few elections? Thereby, minimizing one of the Republican's strongest cards.
1
What the Conservatives failed to take into account are "Legion" in breadth & scope. Even if this year's primary candidate's race didn't have a "Carnival Barker" or apparently "Lucifer in the Flesh", the republican message was (and is still) stuck in the eighties. Over 35 years have passed and the "Tax breaks for the wealthy, trickle down economics, build up the military, cut every social program, and Privatization of essential services & eliminate any backstop that keeps the economy from transcending into a free-fall of complete disaster.
This is and remains the difference between the two parties. As Dr. Krugman has been pointing out for the past seven plus years now the philosophies couldn't be more opposite. Yet all we hear throughout the campaign is that there is really no differences essentially when discussing the Democrats. Yes there are as the false equivalency ploy is finally being put out of its misery. All one has to do is listen, watch the outcomes, and realize that Republicanism' has constantly punished its base and made everyone's life less comfortable, less enjoyable, in short, less livable.
This is and remains the difference between the two parties. As Dr. Krugman has been pointing out for the past seven plus years now the philosophies couldn't be more opposite. Yet all we hear throughout the campaign is that there is really no differences essentially when discussing the Democrats. Yes there are as the false equivalency ploy is finally being put out of its misery. All one has to do is listen, watch the outcomes, and realize that Republicanism' has constantly punished its base and made everyone's life less comfortable, less enjoyable, in short, less livable.
2
The wrath of the conned white European Americans is the root rage beneath the rise of Donald John Trump and Bernard Sanders. Two political parties divided by physically differently colored "races".
Black African Americans can choose which ancient white person and family that they want to replace the black family currently occupying their White House. Mrs. William Jefferson Clinton and Mr. Melania Knauss Trump are both corrupt crony capitalist crooked criminal corporate plutocrat oligarch welfare royalty with colored phony hair. Neither the Donald nor the Hillary know the truth nor empathy nor humility nor principle nor honor nor courage.
Black African Americans can choose which ancient white person and family that they want to replace the black family currently occupying their White House. Mrs. William Jefferson Clinton and Mr. Melania Knauss Trump are both corrupt crony capitalist crooked criminal corporate plutocrat oligarch welfare royalty with colored phony hair. Neither the Donald nor the Hillary know the truth nor empathy nor humility nor principle nor honor nor courage.
8
Paul Krugman, the Greeeeat Liberal. supports the greatest supporter of the Free The Corporation Agreements in America. Somehow Mr. Krugman never seems to mention his own previous support of NAFTA, and the many columns he wrote telling us it was a good thing. Now of course, he knows that these trade agreements benefit only the Plutocrats - But that doesn't stop him from backing the leading proponent of these agreements.
Sure, the Democrats are for the poor and the Middle Class, as long as that Democratic Support doesn't mess around with Corporate Profits, and long as dealing with Climate Change doesn't stop fracking.
And now Polls show that a quarter of Americans aren't going to vote this year. Which makes the plans of the Democrats to retake the Senate, toast.
And I know exactly who narcissists like Mr. Krugman and Ms. Clinton will blame. It's All Bernie's Fault. Never mind that long before Sanders entered the race, Ms. Clinton was viewed with horror by half of Americans. Never mind that Sanders never Once mentioned what will be the Republican Talking Points. Naah. It's all the fault of those people who think FDR is the proper model for the Democratic Party. FDR is sooooo last century...
Sure, the Democrats are for the poor and the Middle Class, as long as that Democratic Support doesn't mess around with Corporate Profits, and long as dealing with Climate Change doesn't stop fracking.
And now Polls show that a quarter of Americans aren't going to vote this year. Which makes the plans of the Democrats to retake the Senate, toast.
And I know exactly who narcissists like Mr. Krugman and Ms. Clinton will blame. It's All Bernie's Fault. Never mind that long before Sanders entered the race, Ms. Clinton was viewed with horror by half of Americans. Never mind that Sanders never Once mentioned what will be the Republican Talking Points. Naah. It's all the fault of those people who think FDR is the proper model for the Democratic Party. FDR is sooooo last century...
12
My take on Trump and the Republicans is a bit different. I think Trump is stepping into a vacuum. On the personal level, he's beating the most unlikable guy in the country and the guy with the least charisma. The same sort of thing is true on the level of policy. The simple fact is that there's no such thing as a Republican policy agenda. They've finally achieved control of both houses of Congress, and, like the dog who caught the car, have no idea what to do with it. Nothing has been enacted; no hearings have been scheduled; nothing is even being proposed. They may as well adjourn. You can't beat something--even something as half-witted and nasty as Trump--with nothing.
1
"[Y]ou have the [achievement of the] Affordable Care Act" that "deliver[ed] for the base...surely one reason nonwhite voters have overwhelmingly favored Mrs. Clinton over a challenger who sometimes seemed to dismiss that achievement."
Highly misleading:
1) Sanders has regularly spoken out against Republican attacks on the Affordable Care Act; criticizing its limitations and arguing for single payer (a view held by many) does not "dismiss" it.
2) African American support for Clinton is due to factors greater than the Act:
On the one hand, the Clintons have long cultivated a relationship w/black community; and the Act was, of course, passed by an African American President - making the relentless right wing attacks on the Act attacks on Obama. To support the Act is to be pro-Obama.
On the other hand, the institutional machinery of the Democratic Party and its elite African American representatives were effectively used to barnstorm the south, making the Bill Clinton - Obama - Hillary Clinton connection.
Highly misleading:
1) Sanders has regularly spoken out against Republican attacks on the Affordable Care Act; criticizing its limitations and arguing for single payer (a view held by many) does not "dismiss" it.
2) African American support for Clinton is due to factors greater than the Act:
On the one hand, the Clintons have long cultivated a relationship w/black community; and the Act was, of course, passed by an African American President - making the relentless right wing attacks on the Act attacks on Obama. To support the Act is to be pro-Obama.
On the other hand, the institutional machinery of the Democratic Party and its elite African American representatives were effectively used to barnstorm the south, making the Bill Clinton - Obama - Hillary Clinton connection.
4
The mainstream media has failed to inform even the low information voter how two-faced Trump is in his exploitation of their anger. Why is there not steady drum beat in the news clearly spelling out how he hires foreign workers instead of Americans and cheated retirees who invested in his Mexican condos? He stole millions from hopeful students. Why are they not told in plain English that his tax plan will hurt them by creating huge deficits, undermining social services while cutting trillions for the super-rich?
Voters need to know that he has sold himself to scores of big banks and major investors over and over again - he is not against the "establishment", he is a part of it. The Trump supporters are enthralled by the extensive media coverage of his vulgarity, his rhetorical violence, his disrespect for women. The media does not paint the real picture of Trump as a man who has nothing but contempt for the poor working people that flock to him in droves.
Voters need to know that he has sold himself to scores of big banks and major investors over and over again - he is not against the "establishment", he is a part of it. The Trump supporters are enthralled by the extensive media coverage of his vulgarity, his rhetorical violence, his disrespect for women. The media does not paint the real picture of Trump as a man who has nothing but contempt for the poor working people that flock to him in droves.
25
Is there some reason that Professor Krugman and others seldom mention the role of the mainstream media, including this paper, when criticizing the political con games voters endure election cycle after election cycle?
We're seeing it again with Trump. He makes comments that would have sunk a Democrat months ago, and yet he's on TV all the time, in the papers all the time, often with breathless, analysis-free hysteria, by the media. MSNBC, the supposedly "liberal" channel, is one of the worst. It's wall-to-wall Trumpomania there, even worse than CNN or Fox News!
Why do you think voters are so confused about what the GOP candidates believe and plan to do once in office? I've heard Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton grilled, by journalists, by Black Lives Matter activists, etc., and I know now what they'd do. (And I support both, particularly Sanders.) But Trump? He is STILL phoning in to major TV programs, eluding tough questions, offering a mulligatawny of conflicting policies, and getting away with it.
Why? And it's not just him. This happens with every election. It's maddening. Why do the media go so easily on GOP candidates? Didn't they learn anything from the disastrous presidency of George W. Bush, whom they obsessed about "having a beer with"? When will critics like Professor Krugman ever call them out on this dangerous nonsense!?
We're seeing it again with Trump. He makes comments that would have sunk a Democrat months ago, and yet he's on TV all the time, in the papers all the time, often with breathless, analysis-free hysteria, by the media. MSNBC, the supposedly "liberal" channel, is one of the worst. It's wall-to-wall Trumpomania there, even worse than CNN or Fox News!
Why do you think voters are so confused about what the GOP candidates believe and plan to do once in office? I've heard Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton grilled, by journalists, by Black Lives Matter activists, etc., and I know now what they'd do. (And I support both, particularly Sanders.) But Trump? He is STILL phoning in to major TV programs, eluding tough questions, offering a mulligatawny of conflicting policies, and getting away with it.
Why? And it's not just him. This happens with every election. It's maddening. Why do the media go so easily on GOP candidates? Didn't they learn anything from the disastrous presidency of George W. Bush, whom they obsessed about "having a beer with"? When will critics like Professor Krugman ever call them out on this dangerous nonsense!?
24
The sad things is that the true and much larger con, is being leveled by the Democrats. But it's a long con game, more destructive, more subtle, and has smart sounding spokespeople like Krugman cheering for it.
It's the long term goal of transitioning people away from self-sufficiency, and onto dependency. Decreasing the power of individuals, and increasing the power of government. Loading up people's personal lives with masterminds who tell them what to do under penalty of law. It makes everyone poorer, less able to care for themselves, less optimistic, more hateful and distrustful of one another, and subservient to political elites.
I don't know why we take prof Krugman seriously, the guy who claimed the internet would make about as much impact as the fax machine, and that the reason stimulus spending was a huge failure in Japan (despite predicting it would help) was because they had a 'bad culture'. He is a person who cannot admit he was wrong. But his supporters don't care, he serves the goal of moving the story along.
It's the long term goal of transitioning people away from self-sufficiency, and onto dependency. Decreasing the power of individuals, and increasing the power of government. Loading up people's personal lives with masterminds who tell them what to do under penalty of law. It makes everyone poorer, less able to care for themselves, less optimistic, more hateful and distrustful of one another, and subservient to political elites.
I don't know why we take prof Krugman seriously, the guy who claimed the internet would make about as much impact as the fax machine, and that the reason stimulus spending was a huge failure in Japan (despite predicting it would help) was because they had a 'bad culture'. He is a person who cannot admit he was wrong. But his supporters don't care, he serves the goal of moving the story along.
8
Once upon a time in America a valid election result meant that the winner and their platform would be implemented and the opposition would come to terms with the result and perhaps strive for some compromises in the winners' agenda.
But not so today. Mrs. Clinton has won with an overwhelming majority of delegates and actual votes in the primary so far. And immediately there are people who call themselves progressive who savage their own party's candidate for not being sufficiently "pure".
Why are so many folks unable to accept the result of a vote? Why are so many willing to tear apart their own party because they are not getting all that they want?
Lots of folks posting here need to learn how to compromise and work with the winners rather than try and overturn the election on the day after the results. It is gracious of winners to be conciliatory. But it is the duty of we American citizens to accept and respect the will of the people. Quite frankly I am amazed at how childish people sound when they complain so bitterly. And that is just from us Democrats!
But not so today. Mrs. Clinton has won with an overwhelming majority of delegates and actual votes in the primary so far. And immediately there are people who call themselves progressive who savage their own party's candidate for not being sufficiently "pure".
Why are so many folks unable to accept the result of a vote? Why are so many willing to tear apart their own party because they are not getting all that they want?
Lots of folks posting here need to learn how to compromise and work with the winners rather than try and overturn the election on the day after the results. It is gracious of winners to be conciliatory. But it is the duty of we American citizens to accept and respect the will of the people. Quite frankly I am amazed at how childish people sound when they complain so bitterly. And that is just from us Democrats!
16
The GOP brought this upon themselves. They spent decades (since Nixon, at least) ginning up anxiety based upon racist animosities, misogyny, homophobia, xenophobia, and "hot button" issues like abortion, gay marriage, gun control, etc.
Funny thing, those voters in their hatemonger base actually thought the GOP was going to do something about those things. They became apoplectic when voters gave the highest office in the land to a man of color. They bridled at the stubborn refusal of educated, talented women to go back to the fifties and live in their kitchens. They became furious that the GLBT community didn't just shut up and go back into the closet to live hidden, miserable lives. They couldn't understand why fundamentalist Christianity wasn't shoehorned into every part of our society and legal framework. How upsetting for them!
The reality is, the GOP base never cared that much about the wealthy, or "trickle down", other than to further their delusion that, they too, would someday be a part of the wealthy elite. Steinbeck's "temporarily embarrassed millionaires" are now just an embarrassment.
Self-immolation couldn't happen to a more richly deserving group.
Funny thing, those voters in their hatemonger base actually thought the GOP was going to do something about those things. They became apoplectic when voters gave the highest office in the land to a man of color. They bridled at the stubborn refusal of educated, talented women to go back to the fifties and live in their kitchens. They became furious that the GLBT community didn't just shut up and go back into the closet to live hidden, miserable lives. They couldn't understand why fundamentalist Christianity wasn't shoehorned into every part of our society and legal framework. How upsetting for them!
The reality is, the GOP base never cared that much about the wealthy, or "trickle down", other than to further their delusion that, they too, would someday be a part of the wealthy elite. Steinbeck's "temporarily embarrassed millionaires" are now just an embarrassment.
Self-immolation couldn't happen to a more richly deserving group.
16
I cannot in good conscience vote for Hillary Clinton, largely because of her hawkish stance on foreign policy, which the Times has chronicled at length. I cannot in good conscience vote for the race-baiting, misogynist Donald Trump either. So, for President I will either write in Sanders or vote for a third party candidate. I will, however, show up and vote in support of down ballot Democratic and/or Progressive candidates. I think if large numbers of Sanders supporters do the same, even if Trump gets elected (which I think unlikely but not impossible), his impact will be blunted by Congress much as Obama's impact was limited by the Tea Party led Republican Congress. We voters need to learn that who sits in our State legislature, and who sits in the Senate and House of Representatives, is at least as important as who sits in the Oval Office, if not more so. I implore fellow supporters of Senator Sanders, even if for whatever reason you do not wish to vote for Secretary Clinton, to go to the polls and vote for down ballot candidates who support a progressive agenda. Do not stay home, or we may get the Greedy Oligarch Party in both the White House and the Congress, which would indeed be a disaster of epic proportions.
18
The subtle art of deterrence is even more difficult for a woman than it is for a man, but I am confident that Hillary will not take the US into war while the UN is demonstrating, as an objective third party, that a nation has in fact done what it had formally agreed to do with respect to disarmament.
7
I like to read Paul's articles partly to test my own convictions as a Republican. In this instance, I agree very much with his assessment that the Republican bosses have lost masses of their followers who "truly loathe" the elite ideologies like free trade, and privatizing social security and medicare. But I think Paul tends to conflates Plutocrats with Tea Party members. In my opinion the former outsourced rabble rousing of the electorate to the latter, and now both are dismayed to find that the congregation has left the church, and is out in the Big Tent cheering the The Donald.
7
Hillary Clinton camp now paying online trolls to attack anyone who disparages her online Many moons ago, David Brock, now the head of a Hillary Clinton Super PAC, used every resource available to ruin the life of Anita Hill and anyone who supported her. He would lie, cheat, and blatantly misrepresent facts if it meant getting Clarence Thomas through the Supreme Court nomination process..Brock openly admitted it. Now, it appears Brock, who is no doubt great at what he does, is using his same old tools.
All of this comes after the revelation from POLITICO that "NBCUniversal, News Corporation, Turner Broadcasting and Thomson Reuters are among more than a dozen media organizations that have made charitable contributions to the Clinton Foundation in recent years, the foundation's records show. The donations range from the low-thousands to the millions."
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/king-hillary-clinton-paying-tro...
All of this comes after the revelation from POLITICO that "NBCUniversal, News Corporation, Turner Broadcasting and Thomson Reuters are among more than a dozen media organizations that have made charitable contributions to the Clinton Foundation in recent years, the foundation's records show. The donations range from the low-thousands to the millions."
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/king-hillary-clinton-paying-tro...
When it comes to the media, the constant assertions of Sanders supporters that every media outlet was biased against Sanders places them in alignment with those Fox Viewing conservatives, who Democrats have always considered "right wing nut jobs."
Never mind that Sanders didn't receive the same level of critical scrutiny as Clinton, and when he did sit down with the Daily News editorial board, Sanders glaring lack of depth as a candidate were exposed. That happens too when the media turns a spotlight on your candidacy and policy ideas. As much as Sanders supporters would like to believe that interview wasn't so bad or that it was merely a one time issue, the fact that it could happen one year into Sanders' campaign really belies such wishful thinking.
Never mind that Sanders didn't receive the same level of critical scrutiny as Clinton, and when he did sit down with the Daily News editorial board, Sanders glaring lack of depth as a candidate were exposed. That happens too when the media turns a spotlight on your candidacy and policy ideas. As much as Sanders supporters would like to believe that interview wasn't so bad or that it was merely a one time issue, the fact that it could happen one year into Sanders' campaign really belies such wishful thinking.
10
"What the Clinton campaign now is looking towards in a general election is Republican suburban women -- those are the target voters."
--Andrea Mitchell, Meet the Press, March 29, 2016
But what about courting the Sanders progressives who want to end big money in politics, make all public colleges tuition free, remove the income cap on payroll tax, provide health care for all, establish a $15 national minimum wage and have the billionaire class to pay their fair share of taxes? Will the Republican suburban women be up for all that? Is Hillary going to kick one of her constituencies to the curb in the general election?
--Andrea Mitchell, Meet the Press, March 29, 2016
But what about courting the Sanders progressives who want to end big money in politics, make all public colleges tuition free, remove the income cap on payroll tax, provide health care for all, establish a $15 national minimum wage and have the billionaire class to pay their fair share of taxes? Will the Republican suburban women be up for all that? Is Hillary going to kick one of her constituencies to the curb in the general election?
15
I understand “the wrath.” I just don’t understand “the con.”
Did “the conned” really expect the Republican-controlled Congress to have the government do something for THEM? But surely everyone knows that basic Conservative ideology is NOT to have the government get involved with helping the people. For example: The country (and I believe this is generally understood) needs to invest in the massive and expensive job of rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure. The private sector can't do it; no profit in their making the investments. But the Federal government, by raising taxes, can then put in play the private sector to pay American workers (in the USA) to do the job. One way to get Americans to be paid good wages over an extended length of time (and mitigate some of the wrath).
But the Conservative Congress is not allowed to raise taxes. At all. In fact, I believe many Republican Congressmen signed such a "no-tax" pledge to a man named (I believe) Groper Nyquil (something like that). In all fairness to the Republican establishment, they made it clear to their base that their main job in the Congress is to never raise taxes on the non-job-creating super wealthy, and to block anything our first born-in-Hawaii, Christian, BLACK President (who was elected twice by a comfortable majority of American voters) wants — especially if what the President wants will help the individual American human being worker. So, again, I see the wrath; not the con.
Did “the conned” really expect the Republican-controlled Congress to have the government do something for THEM? But surely everyone knows that basic Conservative ideology is NOT to have the government get involved with helping the people. For example: The country (and I believe this is generally understood) needs to invest in the massive and expensive job of rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure. The private sector can't do it; no profit in their making the investments. But the Federal government, by raising taxes, can then put in play the private sector to pay American workers (in the USA) to do the job. One way to get Americans to be paid good wages over an extended length of time (and mitigate some of the wrath).
But the Conservative Congress is not allowed to raise taxes. At all. In fact, I believe many Republican Congressmen signed such a "no-tax" pledge to a man named (I believe) Groper Nyquil (something like that). In all fairness to the Republican establishment, they made it clear to their base that their main job in the Congress is to never raise taxes on the non-job-creating super wealthy, and to block anything our first born-in-Hawaii, Christian, BLACK President (who was elected twice by a comfortable majority of American voters) wants — especially if what the President wants will help the individual American human being worker. So, again, I see the wrath; not the con.
10
Seems to me that many of the Bernie-type supporters responding to your article refuse to take off their rose colored glasses. Wouldn't it have been great if the Clinton and Obama administrations had produced universal healthcare, a fully equitable tax structure, independence from green house gases today, living wages for all, etc., etc? Don't these people realize that the problem with obtaining these goals, is low voter turnouts? Because of low voter turnouts and GOP efforts to restrict voting we got George W in 2000 and the tea party extremists in 2010.
Just imagine America today without the Iraq invasion and the massive tax cuts for rich. Likewise a Gore presidency would have moved us more quickly to addressing climate change. What about the makeup of the Supreme Court today with Gore nominations instead of Bush? Imagine the accomplishments of an Obama administration not blocked by an extreme wing of the GOP.
I vote Democratic because I believe in these possibilities. I also know that I am really throwing away all hope for America's future if I cast a vote for some impossible-to-elect third party candidate.
Just imagine America today without the Iraq invasion and the massive tax cuts for rich. Likewise a Gore presidency would have moved us more quickly to addressing climate change. What about the makeup of the Supreme Court today with Gore nominations instead of Bush? Imagine the accomplishments of an Obama administration not blocked by an extreme wing of the GOP.
I vote Democratic because I believe in these possibilities. I also know that I am really throwing away all hope for America's future if I cast a vote for some impossible-to-elect third party candidate.
12
And now these voters are being conned by the biggest con man around. They will never learn.
6
I'm not so sure the Democratic Party is sitting in such a sweet spot this election cycle. And, I certainly would disagree with the idea Hillary Clinton was subjected to the most "negative media coverage" - certainly not in the NY Times. Are we talking about Fox News?
The Democratic Party establishment was fully behind Ms. Clinton from day one of the campaign and did its best to subvert Bernie Sanders. That's why so many Sanders supporters, like myself, are feeling this primary season was anything but "democratic".
Yes, Mr. Krugman is right, the Party and President Obama have delivered to the new core coalition Mr. Obama assembled in 2008.
But, they have also not delivered for or have actually hurt some traditional members of the Democratic base - working class white Americans, middle-income Americans, and seniors.
Citing healthcare as Mr. Krugman did, changes in tax policy affecting the deductibility of health insurance and medical expenses and the cost of health insurance on the individual market post ACA for middle-income Americans without subsidies have been anything but beneficial. Implementation of the Cadillac Tax would have been disastrous for union members, a former core base.
The Democratic Party has moved away from inclusive New Deal social programs like Social Security and everything is now means tested - the differing proposals on college affordability by Mr. Sanders and Ms. Clinton are a good example. Maybe it's a reflection of the times.
The Democratic Party establishment was fully behind Ms. Clinton from day one of the campaign and did its best to subvert Bernie Sanders. That's why so many Sanders supporters, like myself, are feeling this primary season was anything but "democratic".
Yes, Mr. Krugman is right, the Party and President Obama have delivered to the new core coalition Mr. Obama assembled in 2008.
But, they have also not delivered for or have actually hurt some traditional members of the Democratic base - working class white Americans, middle-income Americans, and seniors.
Citing healthcare as Mr. Krugman did, changes in tax policy affecting the deductibility of health insurance and medical expenses and the cost of health insurance on the individual market post ACA for middle-income Americans without subsidies have been anything but beneficial. Implementation of the Cadillac Tax would have been disastrous for union members, a former core base.
The Democratic Party has moved away from inclusive New Deal social programs like Social Security and everything is now means tested - the differing proposals on college affordability by Mr. Sanders and Ms. Clinton are a good example. Maybe it's a reflection of the times.
18
I'm coming around to Clinton, but I want to say two things to you Mr. Dr. Professor Paul Krugman:
1) Sanders has surged among voters who are young, who have hope and idealism, and among older liberals who are every bit as sick and tired of what their party has done as the Tea Party types are with Mitch McConnell and his ilk. Every bit! Clinton needs to give real thought to that.
2) I'll tell you why I picked Obama over Clinton in 2008: In a word, Iraq. I have second thoughts about that now, but the same concerns that Mrs. Clinton seems to think that armed intervention by the U.S. is the answer. She is going to pay for Libya in the general election, and she's going to have to answer for it. War ain't the answer.
1) Sanders has surged among voters who are young, who have hope and idealism, and among older liberals who are every bit as sick and tired of what their party has done as the Tea Party types are with Mitch McConnell and his ilk. Every bit! Clinton needs to give real thought to that.
2) I'll tell you why I picked Obama over Clinton in 2008: In a word, Iraq. I have second thoughts about that now, but the same concerns that Mrs. Clinton seems to think that armed intervention by the U.S. is the answer. She is going to pay for Libya in the general election, and she's going to have to answer for it. War ain't the answer.
18
Negative media coverage of Clinton? She symbolizes this systematic corruption is US politics and in turn the corporate corruption of the media. It is rather obvious to many Americans (why are so many independents now?) that the main stream media has been told to tow the Democrat party line and support thier chosen candidate. I would call this the "Wrath of the Conned": those who buy what the main stream media says, which some of us know the editorial is told what to say by its corporate owners. It is too bad that Dr. Krugman and many others have say what thier employers tell them to. For anyone who thinks anyone of these people speak with thier own minds are duped.
13
HRC went the distance by adapting once again; this time shifting to Sander's lifetime of unshakable worker's values AFTER seeing the massive crowds and support from his message - from the DNC, from the Clinton Foundation and fund-raising machine. HRC possesses experience and capability, if she can be clear on who she represents.
7
Paul, you got so much of this right. But I wonder if this is the year the Repub faithful just give up and allow the Dems to take the whole enchilada, House, Senate, Presidency. Hopefully it happens. We then have to get a $15 minimum wage, cap off the social security tax. half FICA tax for non payroll income, transaction tax on stocks and bonds. allow deduction on only half of corporate gross income for starters, use VA on drugs. With the money start the following: medicaid all paid by Feds, increase in SS payouts, huge infrastructure projects, medicare drug benefit part of regular fee, huge Pell Grant increase. That's for starters. Maybe all those disenfranchised Repubs will see the light.
4
The good news, It's Friday! The not so good news, Paul Krugman is still trolling for Hillary in hopes of earning a cabinet seat or to become Hillary's nobel prize winning "economic advisor". Yup, Paul wants to feed at a Hillary's Clinton Administration's trough for money, prestige, future six-figure speaking fees and lucrative book deals.
Exactly who is being conned Paul?
Exactly who is being conned Paul?
17
Regarding the Democratic nominee: it ain't over 'til it's over, Paul.
14
Apr 21, 2016 - A Super PAC headed by a longtime Clinton operative is spending $1 million to hire online trolls to “correct” Bernie Sanders’ supporters on social media. http://usuncut.com/politics/clinton-super-pac-busted/
18
"The Democratic establishment has won". Famous last words?
Sure the Republican establishment are frauds, but Krugman doesn't concede enough about the Democratic establishment frauds with their hands out to Goldman Sachs, Wall Street and hedge funds, completely unable to cobble together a lasting majority even from the 2008 mandate.
Why didn't Democrats come out to support the party in 2010? Because they felt hoodwinked by all the promises. Promises that Democrats didn't even attempt to fulfill, especially on the issue of holding criminals responsible on Wall Street. Obama and the Democratic Party balked. They protected Obama's biggest 2008 donors, Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street banks.
After that, Democrats lost their base and is only beginning to win some of them back now. Bernie Sanders would probably be winning the nomination if a larger-than-life competitor, Clinton, wasn't running.
It's way too early for Krugman to spike the football about the "Democratic establishment". If the Democrats didn't have Hilary Clinton to hold the line Sanders would likely be in the same position as Trump and both establishments would be firing up their jets for foreign islands.
Sure the Republican establishment are frauds, but Krugman doesn't concede enough about the Democratic establishment frauds with their hands out to Goldman Sachs, Wall Street and hedge funds, completely unable to cobble together a lasting majority even from the 2008 mandate.
Why didn't Democrats come out to support the party in 2010? Because they felt hoodwinked by all the promises. Promises that Democrats didn't even attempt to fulfill, especially on the issue of holding criminals responsible on Wall Street. Obama and the Democratic Party balked. They protected Obama's biggest 2008 donors, Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street banks.
After that, Democrats lost their base and is only beginning to win some of them back now. Bernie Sanders would probably be winning the nomination if a larger-than-life competitor, Clinton, wasn't running.
It's way too early for Krugman to spike the football about the "Democratic establishment". If the Democrats didn't have Hilary Clinton to hold the line Sanders would likely be in the same position as Trump and both establishments would be firing up their jets for foreign islands.
10
No matter how you spin it P.K., once a Goldwater Girl, always one. You've been pnwed, sir.
19
What Krugman is explaining is the Trump phenomena. The news of the unravelling of the Republican party might be a bit premature. With the congress still in their hand for the foreseeable future we can expect more of the same regardless of what the 2016 elections will spring on us. We can only expect a retrenchment of the GOP to the so called core value, remembering that conservatism is not about change
well, first let's (warp) jump to a different Star Trek hyperlink---the show with the three brains in glass betting on gladiators (the brains a meta4 for the 3 networks that existed...but I digress). Let's say that, essentially, you get two gladiators after the primaries and they make their pitch to the brains...the 1%, and the brains then pick the winner and have their media make it so.
Like with Bush I.
Hillary a contractor, Trump one of the club...
More seriously, what if 1) economic crash or 2) BOOM! intrude on the big stage? A downward blip, at least in stocks, likely as gov contracts are in play and things seem iffy. & ISIS hitting US is always in play. Either case the "weak Obamacista" loses, large if economy TANKS, YUGE if terror.
Then the Woman CARD...must be true, she's doubling down with an offer to sent them out. Trump could not expect to do better that McCain or Romney there. So painted into a corner he muct go for men.
The natural counter....Men's Lives Matter bumper snickers based on- the Liberal Project is to undercut men at every turn, destroy earnings to lead to divorce, take away kids, burden with "support" (is custody EQUAL 50-50?), Give 1/3rd career women half the jobs (work it out), build cells for men as you throw them homeless to the street to choose between crime and slow death.
The kicker: this has worked on Black men, and now being done to whites and Hispanics.
Up Shot is right, usual matrix all wrong!
Like with Bush I.
Hillary a contractor, Trump one of the club...
More seriously, what if 1) economic crash or 2) BOOM! intrude on the big stage? A downward blip, at least in stocks, likely as gov contracts are in play and things seem iffy. & ISIS hitting US is always in play. Either case the "weak Obamacista" loses, large if economy TANKS, YUGE if terror.
Then the Woman CARD...must be true, she's doubling down with an offer to sent them out. Trump could not expect to do better that McCain or Romney there. So painted into a corner he muct go for men.
The natural counter....Men's Lives Matter bumper snickers based on- the Liberal Project is to undercut men at every turn, destroy earnings to lead to divorce, take away kids, burden with "support" (is custody EQUAL 50-50?), Give 1/3rd career women half the jobs (work it out), build cells for men as you throw them homeless to the street to choose between crime and slow death.
The kicker: this has worked on Black men, and now being done to whites and Hispanics.
Up Shot is right, usual matrix all wrong!
3
Who's been fooled again? The ACA was a conservative idea, meant to keep insurers as the gatekeepers to health care. I work, but lost my HMO in the process and now have medical payment plans that stretch for decades.
President Obama would make his grandmother, a banker, proud. Technology is creatively destroying the world our ancestors left us, while those who just want an honest day's work for a reasonable wage are ignored. Arbitrage carries no risk, but only the wealthy can play that game.
So I see Trump supporters as making a last stand, with their lives at stake. Dismiss the analysis of Lorenz, who associated social stability with lower income inequality at your peril.
I've watched Mrs Clinton for decades now. She's following the Robert Kennedy route and deserves credit for educating herself. I can only hope she survives to implement improvements and I trust a Methodist to know what she's doing.
I volunteered for her senatorial campaign and donated to her first run and to help pay her campaign debt. We are the reason she's the leading candidate - and I'm a registered Republican.
President Obama would make his grandmother, a banker, proud. Technology is creatively destroying the world our ancestors left us, while those who just want an honest day's work for a reasonable wage are ignored. Arbitrage carries no risk, but only the wealthy can play that game.
So I see Trump supporters as making a last stand, with their lives at stake. Dismiss the analysis of Lorenz, who associated social stability with lower income inequality at your peril.
I've watched Mrs Clinton for decades now. She's following the Robert Kennedy route and deserves credit for educating herself. I can only hope she survives to implement improvements and I trust a Methodist to know what she's doing.
I volunteered for her senatorial campaign and donated to her first run and to help pay her campaign debt. We are the reason she's the leading candidate - and I'm a registered Republican.
7
i think i have learned something from this primary season...... i have felt for a long time that the only real debate about the issues happens almost completely inside the democratic party these days. i just never realized what that would look like real time in a real election.
1.the republicans on one side either wallowing in worn out doctrine or taking incredibly cheap shots at each other.
2. the issues being discussed in a realistic more our less positive way on the democratic side.
3. democrats with a real decision and republicans trying too pick the best of the worst..... when they should be admitting that they are screwed and vote for hillary..... after all she is a republican.
1.the republicans on one side either wallowing in worn out doctrine or taking incredibly cheap shots at each other.
2. the issues being discussed in a realistic more our less positive way on the democratic side.
3. democrats with a real decision and republicans trying too pick the best of the worst..... when they should be admitting that they are screwed and vote for hillary..... after all she is a republican.
6
First the two parties primarily cater to the wealthiest. The Democrats sometimes help the middle class and try to keep the social safety net from coming completely undone. Hillary Clinton (and Bill) is from the corporatist wing of the party. As much as I like President Obama that is the same wing he is from. The ACA is a perfect example of a corporatist solution to health care: pay off the health insurance companies while at the same time making them play by a set of rules that makes them more responsive to the needs of patients. Obama lurched toward the austerity wave sweeping Washington after he found out the Democrats in Congress were disunited about stimulus. He and Boehner jockeyed for position and the sequester beast was unleashed. Donald Trump is amorphous and he takes many forms. I liked the way he took down Jeb Bush. He is a demagogue who whips up the basest instincts of his supporters.
7
Again in reviewing the comments it is clear that people are always looking for excuses for Bernie. Sander's fought a valiant fight and brought the spotlight to some of the darkest elements of our society - all of this is true. But the reason he is not winning a majority of votes is simply that his base is too narrow and he has not taken the right steps to broaden it. However, don't demean what he has accomplished by finger pointing and whining. Think instead about the next battle and how to win it.
6
Here's the thing. I hear from various pundits and critics that voters speak from their hearts not their heads. Well, time to have someone tell the hearts that it's the heads that figure out how to get the hearts to feel better. I'm so tired of the back and forth. It's just a waste of time. I thank Paul Krugman for the articles he's posted that get me to think about how to accomplish progressive goals in a pragmatic, practical way. Educating oneself is the best way to see paths forward.
3
I think this column has provoked a record number of delusional comments of ALL stripes.
4
Donald Trump- "Conman the Barbarian."
5
"The Republican establishment has been routed because it has been playing a con game on its supporters all along..."
Agreed!
"...and they have finally had enough". Disagree. The Republicans have touched on a nativist strain in their aging, white, poorer and less educated supporters and the party establishment has reaped the whirlwind. They do not know what to do but we are all going to find out in November with potentially tragic results.
A game is being played on the entire population of the US as well as the world at large and racism is front and center. Touching the limbic system of your support group is not a strategy that any reputable (hahahahaha) political party should openly encourage...but the R's have and we are in for interesting times.
Agreed!
"...and they have finally had enough". Disagree. The Republicans have touched on a nativist strain in their aging, white, poorer and less educated supporters and the party establishment has reaped the whirlwind. They do not know what to do but we are all going to find out in November with potentially tragic results.
A game is being played on the entire population of the US as well as the world at large and racism is front and center. Touching the limbic system of your support group is not a strategy that any reputable (hahahahaha) political party should openly encourage...but the R's have and we are in for interesting times.
2
The Times' decision in both its editorial and news pages to deny Bernie Sanders and his followers the serious coverage they deserve indicates how out of touch the liberal intelligentsia is with millions of Americans who also feel they've been given a raw deal by the Democratic political establishment. Sure, Obama talked a good game about college debt, gun control, immigration reform, infrastructure rebuilding, etc., but when push came to shove he backed down. In term of giving medical insurance to millions of Americans who never had it before, the ACA has been a "success." But for millions in the middle class, who still face rising healthcare costs and in many cases higher insurance premiums, the "success" that Dr Krugman likes to trumpet is not so much. Whether you liked Sanders' sweeping style or not, his vision for a more economically just society represents where the Democratic party is going - or should be going if it doesn't want to fall into the irrelevance of their Republican counterparts.
19
Well said, Charles.
1
Mic drop... sound of footsteps receding.
3
"the Republican establishment has essentially been playing bait-and-switch for decades. And voters finally rebelled against the con."
Krugman gives the GOP far too much credit. Playing "bait and switch" implies that the GOP ever had a real plan about anything. Their only plan was to loot the economy, and they did a fine job of that. They also wanted to rid the country of government altogether, and they have done a good job at that, too.
Maybe that's what happens if you perform an autopsy on yourself: removing and weighing what was left of its brain left the GOP establishment not simply clueless but altogether headless. There is no leadership, no unifying anything to bind people to the GOP's obsolescence. Trump is the just the underbelly of the party, simply mouthing what the right believes, trading on fear, racism and hatred. But if the currently conned and angry think that Trump can deliver anything, they are in for even more rigors of anger and outrage. Because the GOP offers the people nothing, does nothing, and wants to take the country back to pre-civil war times and Trump is incapable of doing anything to change that.
Krugman gives the GOP far too much credit. Playing "bait and switch" implies that the GOP ever had a real plan about anything. Their only plan was to loot the economy, and they did a fine job of that. They also wanted to rid the country of government altogether, and they have done a good job at that, too.
Maybe that's what happens if you perform an autopsy on yourself: removing and weighing what was left of its brain left the GOP establishment not simply clueless but altogether headless. There is no leadership, no unifying anything to bind people to the GOP's obsolescence. Trump is the just the underbelly of the party, simply mouthing what the right believes, trading on fear, racism and hatred. But if the currently conned and angry think that Trump can deliver anything, they are in for even more rigors of anger and outrage. Because the GOP offers the people nothing, does nothing, and wants to take the country back to pre-civil war times and Trump is incapable of doing anything to change that.
6
One thing we have learned, this election, is how bigoted folks really are. I believe the repulsives have actually had an opportunity to show us who they really are. Hopefully this may change some repulsive voters minds. A travesty but definitely a learning experience, if we can possibly learn anything.
8
Mr Krugman writes that the Republicans have 'historically won elections by appealing to racial enmity', and that their 'hostility amped up to 11 after seven years of an African-American president'.
Since 1968, when I started paying attention, I am not aware of any racist appeals made by a Republican nominee for President. If nominated, Mr Trump would be the first exception.
Since 1968, when I started paying attention, I am not aware of any racist appeals made by a Republican nominee for President. If nominated, Mr Trump would be the first exception.
3
Sounds like the Republican base has overthrown its corrupt establishment while the Democratic base hasn't. Which party is more democratic when all is said and done?
7
Tired of politicians who sell them out to the billionaire class, the GOP base has decided to eliminate the middle man.
12
I am a one issue voter this time. That issue is gun safety. So adios republicans & Bernie.
5
Here's my 2nd follow-up posting after initial comments as a rejoinder to Krugman's exposition >>> maybe John Kasich can be nominated on the Nth ballot - most experienced, most pragmatic, most electable & only one - all polls, Real Clear Politics, Morning Consult, etc. who can beat Clinton - and a moderate centrist basic conservative, and best prepared to be President for the good of the GOP but more importantly for America. I'm apoplectic about the voters who want to win the nominee "battle" but lose the "war" to Hillary ("legacy") Clinton - barring civil or criminal developments - and then a problematic "contested" Convention elevates Kasich as the very "long-shot" but not unfeasible nominee. Check out terrific American Film Institute's List of Top 100 Movie Quotations. Kasich would like #14 (1941 The Maltese Falcon) - "the stuff that dreams are made of" - or #88 (1981 On Golden Pond) "listen to me mister, you're my Knight in shining armor, we're gonna go go go". Gee, maybe the ticket can be Paul Ryan & John Kasich. Cruz shuts down the Govt, Trump invites a preemptive nuclear strike from Russia or China, and the DEMs are worse. I'll write-in Kasich in the Presidential - considered comic characters Donald or Daffy Duck or Goofy but that would be a vote for Trump. As a senior citizen, I worry greatly for America - but more for my children & grand-daughter, rather than myself or wife of 50 years. Good luck to all of us.
1
"Conservatives" have not been conservative for a long, long time....
6
Dr Krugman,
I'm lost, trying to comprehend your positive take on the ACA.
I know people who are having to decide between a medical procedure and paying their other costs.
What is the percent of our GDP spent on healthcare?
Has it improved?
Has the drug industry made any sacrifices?
I also think the title of your piece quite smug and dismissive.
If Trump enters the White House, the NYTimes and the New Democrats shall share a good part of the blame.
For economic theory Thomas Piketty's views seem far more realistic than your cherry-picked, pollyannaish interpretations.
These articles say a lot in response:
http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/03/08/468892489/medical-bi...
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/04/47-percent-americans-cannot-even-...
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/09/us/politics/e-mails-reveal-extent-of-o...
I'm lost, trying to comprehend your positive take on the ACA.
I know people who are having to decide between a medical procedure and paying their other costs.
What is the percent of our GDP spent on healthcare?
Has it improved?
Has the drug industry made any sacrifices?
I also think the title of your piece quite smug and dismissive.
If Trump enters the White House, the NYTimes and the New Democrats shall share a good part of the blame.
For economic theory Thomas Piketty's views seem far more realistic than your cherry-picked, pollyannaish interpretations.
These articles say a lot in response:
http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/03/08/468892489/medical-bi...
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/04/47-percent-americans-cannot-even-...
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/09/us/politics/e-mails-reveal-extent-of-o...
9
I thought when people reached the age of Trump and Cruz, they grew up. I am sadly mistaken.
4
The best fun is yet to come. Reading the NYT editorial pages after Trump wins the election will be a special treat. The apoplectic rantings of Krugman and his cohorts will reach a crescendo unlike anything seen before. You will think that they are all being threatened with deportation to Guantanamo Bay and waterboarding. Come to think of it...
6
No surprise with the Krug man's enamorment of the DEMs and the incessant, vitriolic, often-irrational "blast" of the GOP -- nary a word on Hillary Clinton (or the "hill-billy" team of Hillary and Bill), stemming back to Whitewater when Hillary claimed her success in the commodities market due to her research (until she 'fessed up, not under oath, to Bill's crony handling the commodities), to her involvement in the Arab Spring debacle, as she convinced the reluctant Obama & Biden & military chiefs to get involved and create the abyss & ISIS expansion in the Middle East, to her "convenient" (read counter-policy or criminal) use of her private email system (under FBI investigation), or Benghazi, or her idiotic rambling of the proverbial "101" platforms from "A to Z" (Afghanistan to zoology?), for an equal "101" constituents in the U.S. and around the world from "A to Z" (African-Americans to Zionists) - listen to her speeches! - My final comments in my next rejoinder to this article.
5
What's really sad is that we do not have a mass Socialist movement dedicated to nationalizing the banks and insurance companies.
And to limiting incomes to one million dollars per year.
What's even worse is that so many people making $35,000 per year defend the very capitalist system that impoverishes them and enriches the Waltons.
And to limiting incomes to one million dollars per year.
What's even worse is that so many people making $35,000 per year defend the very capitalist system that impoverishes them and enriches the Waltons.
8
Yes, think how wonderfully it worked in Eastern Europe, Russia, Cambodia...and what an economic success Venezuela is right now! Interestingly, Sanders' socialists no longer bring up Scandinavia since they finally learned that the Nordic countries are, in face, free market economies.
"... the Republican establishment has essentially been playing bait-and-switch for decades. And voters finally rebelled against the con.”
“First, about the Democrats: Their party defines itself as the protector of the poor and the middle class, and especially of nonwhite voters. Does it fall short of fulfilling this mission much of the time? Are its leaders sometimes too close to big-money donors? Of course.
Response: Sometimes you have to “bait-and-switch” but in reverse. A concept executed differently by the D’s. They take the 1%’s donations and use those funds to help their campaigns that enable them to win elections and introduce bills that support the poor, working and middle class . The difference between the R’s and the D’s especially the Clinton’s, Hillary in particular is that they are willing to hobnob with the aristocracy to get those campaign funds and to influence federal/state law and policy. However the difference between them and the R’s is they turn around and put their agenda to good use by trying to pass legislation and set an agenda that tries to maintain a quality of life that is healthy and financially supportive remember the Clinton years? Or do we forget so soon. Didn’t Bill leave Bush will a huge surplus. Oh how easily we forget. The 99% in this country keep this country afloat. This country was built by the poor, working and middle class, who worked for the 1%, let’s not forget that, check your history books folks.
“First, about the Democrats: Their party defines itself as the protector of the poor and the middle class, and especially of nonwhite voters. Does it fall short of fulfilling this mission much of the time? Are its leaders sometimes too close to big-money donors? Of course.
Response: Sometimes you have to “bait-and-switch” but in reverse. A concept executed differently by the D’s. They take the 1%’s donations and use those funds to help their campaigns that enable them to win elections and introduce bills that support the poor, working and middle class . The difference between the R’s and the D’s especially the Clinton’s, Hillary in particular is that they are willing to hobnob with the aristocracy to get those campaign funds and to influence federal/state law and policy. However the difference between them and the R’s is they turn around and put their agenda to good use by trying to pass legislation and set an agenda that tries to maintain a quality of life that is healthy and financially supportive remember the Clinton years? Or do we forget so soon. Didn’t Bill leave Bush will a huge surplus. Oh how easily we forget. The 99% in this country keep this country afloat. This country was built by the poor, working and middle class, who worked for the 1%, let’s not forget that, check your history books folks.
4
Let me apologize in advance for any misspellings in my posts: I correct them when I see them, but for some reason my device reverts back to the original letter strike. Mea culpa. Mea electronic culpa.
3
PK can't help himself. The contradiction between illusion and reality in the statement "But why did Mrs. Clinton, despite the most negative media coverage..." reminds me of French Absurdest Drama. Waiting for Godot perhaps.
Expecting her to make her Goldman Sacks speeches public is "negative media coverage", turns reality on its head. Bill Clinton has been called "Slick Willie." She is worse.
Expecting her to make her Goldman Sacks speeches public is "negative media coverage", turns reality on its head. Bill Clinton has been called "Slick Willie." She is worse.
11
It is not just a coincidence that tax cuts for the rich have preceded both the 1929 and 2007 depressions. The Revenue acts of 1926 and 1928 worked exactly as the Republican Congresses that pushed them through promised. The dramatic reductions in taxes on the upper income brackets and estates of the wealthy did indeed result in increases in savings and investment. However, overinvestment (by 1929 there were over 600 automobile manufacturing companies in the USA) caused the depression that made the rich, and most everyone else, ultimately much poorer.
Since 1969 there has been a tremendous shift in the tax burdens away from the rich on onto the middle class. Corporate income tax receipts, whose incidence falls entirely on the owners of corporations, were 4% of GDP then and are now less than 1%. During that same period, payroll tax rates as percent of GDP have increased dramatically. The overinvestment problem caused by the reduction in taxes on the wealthy is exacerbated by the increased tax burden on the middle class. While overinvestment creates more factories, housing and shopping centers; higher payroll taxes reduces the purchasing power of middle-class consumers. ..."
http://seekingalpha.com/article/1543642
Since 1969 there has been a tremendous shift in the tax burdens away from the rich on onto the middle class. Corporate income tax receipts, whose incidence falls entirely on the owners of corporations, were 4% of GDP then and are now less than 1%. During that same period, payroll tax rates as percent of GDP have increased dramatically. The overinvestment problem caused by the reduction in taxes on the wealthy is exacerbated by the increased tax burden on the middle class. While overinvestment creates more factories, housing and shopping centers; higher payroll taxes reduces the purchasing power of middle-class consumers. ..."
http://seekingalpha.com/article/1543642
4
Cry me a river Krugman, poor, poor Hillary everyone is always picking on her all the while she is loading her bank account with money from banksters, fraudsters i.e. pharma and fossil fuel industry to mention a few. This is what the republicans do, however, your non mentioning of Bernie and then demonizing of Bernie and now non mentioning of Bernie even though he is still in the race and will continue to be there to keep poor Hillary feet to the fire. Shameful of you and all the pundits of NYT but I guess you got your marching orders from the conglomerate billionaires. I know you need to keep your job and status. I would expect it coming from Washington Post now owned by billionaire and Wall Street Journal but from NYT?
Hillary would be history if Bernie would of been covered in 2015 when he was getting 20,000 plus people at his rallies early on. If the Times would not of demonized socialism like we don't have socialism now for the rich i.e. subsidies and tax loopholes and legal off shoring and legal hide your money so you don't have to pay taxes.
Why are you not following up on Panama Papers. It has went dead? Be a journalist Paul and give us some real scoops.
Hillary would be history if Bernie would of been covered in 2015 when he was getting 20,000 plus people at his rallies early on. If the Times would not of demonized socialism like we don't have socialism now for the rich i.e. subsidies and tax loopholes and legal off shoring and legal hide your money so you don't have to pay taxes.
Why are you not following up on Panama Papers. It has went dead? Be a journalist Paul and give us some real scoops.
11
Speaking of the media and its relationship with popular "knowledge," how is it that how is it a majority (or a loud minority) of adult Americans believe that Hillary Clinton is a crook, a liar and possibly a murderer? I mean, doesn't anyone who owns a printing press or a TV station care to publish the fact that she's been "investigated" a bazillion times by people who would love to send her to Leavenworth, and no one has found anything that even the most zealous prosecutor could take to court?
To quote Ruben Blades "Use your brain or someone will use it for you."
To quote Ruben Blades "Use your brain or someone will use it for you."
3
My late mother, who graduated High School at the height of the Great Depression, told me every 4 years that the only difference between The Democrats and the Republicans is that the Democrats leave a few crumbs on the table for the rest of us...
6
The American electorate, born to be conned. It is what all politics is always about.
3
".......Mrs. Clinton, despite the most negative media coverage of any candidate in this cycle ....."
This is laughable to anyone who subscribes to the NYT or the Washington Post and has witnessed the daily and weekly anti-Sanders screeds, from not only the Opinion and Commentary sections but the after-the-fact editing of news pieces on Page A1 that are slightly favorable to Sanders.
Your link to the VOX page is bogus as it begins its press sample on 01/01/15 six months before Sanders announced and opened himself up to the Clinton attack machine... Krugman, Blow, Marcus, et al.
This is laughable to anyone who subscribes to the NYT or the Washington Post and has witnessed the daily and weekly anti-Sanders screeds, from not only the Opinion and Commentary sections but the after-the-fact editing of news pieces on Page A1 that are slightly favorable to Sanders.
Your link to the VOX page is bogus as it begins its press sample on 01/01/15 six months before Sanders announced and opened himself up to the Clinton attack machine... Krugman, Blow, Marcus, et al.
10
It's impossible to underrate the role of the media in delaying the awakening of Republican voters to the perfidy of their party. Since Reagan, the media have fawned over Republican presidents, failed to examine and critique Republican economic, social and political policies, failed even to put Fox News under a microscope and show its bias and dishonesty. The media have dismissed Democratic and especially progressive opposition to Republican policies.
Maybe the most notorious example of this favoritism toward Republicans was the lead-up to the Iraq War, but the media gave the Bush tax cuts and the refusal of the Republican congressional majority to participate in governing an equally uncritical treatment.
And so it's natural for conservative voters to believe the decades-long steady drumbeat of falsehoods and misrepresentations that has characterized Republican leadership.
And American journalism has also failed to examine and critique itself for its role in promoting destructive Republican policies. In this way, the media have played a major role in polarizing the nation, harming the citizens in too many ways to count, and contributing to the inability of the government to actually govern.
If any institution needs reform in this country, it's the news media.
Maybe the most notorious example of this favoritism toward Republicans was the lead-up to the Iraq War, but the media gave the Bush tax cuts and the refusal of the Republican congressional majority to participate in governing an equally uncritical treatment.
And so it's natural for conservative voters to believe the decades-long steady drumbeat of falsehoods and misrepresentations that has characterized Republican leadership.
And American journalism has also failed to examine and critique itself for its role in promoting destructive Republican policies. In this way, the media have played a major role in polarizing the nation, harming the citizens in too many ways to count, and contributing to the inability of the government to actually govern.
If any institution needs reform in this country, it's the news media.
7
I am afraid Republicans will meet in November to discuss making Hillary a one-term president, after failing to make Benghazi her Waterloo.
6
In US politics there has been always a very palpable anti-Clinton Movement and their believers.
Some certain aspects this anti-Clinton movement expose some truths about the Clinton machine. We all know it what they are.
What Anti -Clinton movement misses is , Clintons Bill and Hill are adept and shrewd politicians, They are not politician because their fate lead them to this direction.
They are truly deep to bone talented politicians among the very few and may be the last 50 years.
This cannot be ignored, That is why Hillary has strong support in Democratic party and independents. As Krugman depicted clearly, Clinton's are not con-politicians.
What ever throw them at so far Their negatives relatively much less than their positives.
I am extremely eager to see, Hillary as a president and Bill is his special envoy for very strategic deals in allover the world and in USA.
We will not miss this opportunity.
Some certain aspects this anti-Clinton movement expose some truths about the Clinton machine. We all know it what they are.
What Anti -Clinton movement misses is , Clintons Bill and Hill are adept and shrewd politicians, They are not politician because their fate lead them to this direction.
They are truly deep to bone talented politicians among the very few and may be the last 50 years.
This cannot be ignored, That is why Hillary has strong support in Democratic party and independents. As Krugman depicted clearly, Clinton's are not con-politicians.
What ever throw them at so far Their negatives relatively much less than their positives.
I am extremely eager to see, Hillary as a president and Bill is his special envoy for very strategic deals in allover the world and in USA.
We will not miss this opportunity.
6
Exactly right!
Republican establishment has been conning its base for decades.
Base finally revolted.
Trump capitalized.
But Trump's game is a con of its own, with no feasible way to achieve "plans."
Poor Republicans. More so, POOR AMERICA! Why do we have to so suffer with these fakes who claim they are "patriots," but have never seen an American war they are NOT eager to run away from? Or in recent years, an economic initiative that's good for their country but, because "it's Democratic," their only interest is in shooting down? Save us!
Republican establishment has been conning its base for decades.
Base finally revolted.
Trump capitalized.
But Trump's game is a con of its own, with no feasible way to achieve "plans."
Poor Republicans. More so, POOR AMERICA! Why do we have to so suffer with these fakes who claim they are "patriots," but have never seen an American war they are NOT eager to run away from? Or in recent years, an economic initiative that's good for their country but, because "it's Democratic," their only interest is in shooting down? Save us!
5
An arrogant party served by an even more arrogant establishment did lip service to it own 2013 post-mortem. The GOP was so blinded by its mid-term victories in 2010 and 2014 that it did not foresee the Trump phenomenon. Talk radio and the GOP’s Tea Party wing helped bring down the Republican Party establishment by forcing it to adhere to a Goldwater-ish principle, “extremism in the defense of conservatism is no vice.”
The new Republican Party under Trump (RPUT) will be akin to a startup – whether it thrives on or buckles under chaos is unpredictable, much like it’s presumptive new leader. But it is pretty obvious that RPUT will no longer be a conservative party in the mold of Buckley, Goldwater and Reagan. The irony is that the disgruntled base of the party has selected yet another arrogant leader to represent it – this does not bode well for the future of the new RPUT.
The new Republican Party under Trump (RPUT) will be akin to a startup – whether it thrives on or buckles under chaos is unpredictable, much like it’s presumptive new leader. But it is pretty obvious that RPUT will no longer be a conservative party in the mold of Buckley, Goldwater and Reagan. The irony is that the disgruntled base of the party has selected yet another arrogant leader to represent it – this does not bode well for the future of the new RPUT.
3
Wait until all these Trump supporters find out that climate change is real (which is coming to a town near you soon!) All these decades of lies by the Republican elites may actually result in them getting torn apart, limb from limb, as these people with pitchforks realize that they destroyed their own planet.
3
Trump is winning because of the 'wrath of the conned' by Obama who Clinton promises to emulate.
2
And the Self serving Republican and Democratic Parties.
Can it be any more apparent Krugman is lobbying for Treasury Secretary? Same lack of integrity as Clinton. Disgusting.
7
The Democratic establishment has won. In spite of running a baggage laden rightward leaning uber-establishment candidate that candidate is going to win. This cycle also proves that while Democrats are more leftward leaning and far less hawkish than their Party nominee, their nominee is palatable enough, and infinitely more palatable than the Republican nominee, or Republican Party more importantly. Trump and Cruz are not only distasteful but are truly grotesque individuals, but they are simply cartoonish manifestations of what has become a distasteful, grotesque party. Their once was a time when the Republican Party and the Conservative movement had a soul and their was real humanity in the Party, and really big ideas to help people. Remember, Obamacare aka Romney care was a Heritage Foundation proposal. They invented it. Richard Nixon proposed a national healthcare plan to Ted Kennedy that was far more comprehensive than today's ACA. Nixon declared war on cancer and got Congress to approve in 1970 the unthinkable and enormous amount of then 100 billion for research to a cure, and the Party supported it. The interstate highway system was Dwight Eisenhower. What in the blazes has happened to this once great Party?
9
Paul you should just come out and say what job you want in Hillary's cabinet.
11
Thank you for eloquently verbalising what I could not express adequately the same thoughts I had for some years and clarifying why it took so long. What remains to be explained is the congress and senate still in their hands. Is America that bigot ? Are we seeing some hopeful sign of change?
2
"But while the Democratic establishment more or less tries to make good on those promises..."
Even worse than thinking Paul Krugman is some sort of Shill for Hill is trying to wrap your head around the possibility Krugman believes that introductory phrase (as his segue to asserting the easy fact that Republicans are garbage). But Krugman's Senior Citizen Mean Girl act is born of little more than his attempt to salvage his own brand of failed neo-liberal economics. He must pretend the Democrats really have the marginalized in mind instead of doing what they really do: implement policies approved by Krugman's own 1%-er economics to marginalize them even more than they already were. "Free" trade, financial de-regulation, market solutions to AGW, ...,
It isn't the American right that is destroying the opportunity to solve problems. It's the fake progressives like Krugman and the establishment Democrats who prevent the war from being waged so they don't discomfit the 1%, their true constituency. And for Krugman, it's all about Krugman and rescuing his economics from the death it deserves.
Even worse than thinking Paul Krugman is some sort of Shill for Hill is trying to wrap your head around the possibility Krugman believes that introductory phrase (as his segue to asserting the easy fact that Republicans are garbage). But Krugman's Senior Citizen Mean Girl act is born of little more than his attempt to salvage his own brand of failed neo-liberal economics. He must pretend the Democrats really have the marginalized in mind instead of doing what they really do: implement policies approved by Krugman's own 1%-er economics to marginalize them even more than they already were. "Free" trade, financial de-regulation, market solutions to AGW, ...,
It isn't the American right that is destroying the opportunity to solve problems. It's the fake progressives like Krugman and the establishment Democrats who prevent the war from being waged so they don't discomfit the 1%, their true constituency. And for Krugman, it's all about Krugman and rescuing his economics from the death it deserves.
8
Economists still don't seem to understand the need for regulating the quantity of money with monetary policy separately from the rate at which money changes hands (money velocity) with fiscal policy, to achieve the objectives of the "dual mandate" the Fed Reserve Bank can't fulfill on its own with monetary policy alone, to maintain stable prices and full employment simultaneously.
The Republican party's relationship to voters is similar to that of Las Vegas and gamblers. A con works because the mark's self-delusion is equal to his greed.
But casinos go bankrupt, too.
But casinos go bankrupt, too.
3
The demonization of the Democratic party is a lot older than 7 years. The GOP has been drunk with AM talk radio ever since the fairness doctrine was torched and the rise of the Rush Limbaugh. Vitriolic monologs make money.
7
Why do the loud obnoxious Bernie supporters always have to smear their opinions numerous times all over other readers and the author of this piece? The fact that you have indoctrinated yourselves with a fervent new religion doesn't concern the rest of us and your hateful, boorish rudeness delivers nothing but your irrational bile and spite simply because you lost. You should all move to the Vatican and name yourselves Popes. How about growing up and stop the nasty tirades multiple times trying to dominate everyone else? This level of viciousness and sanctimoniousness is just plain gross and beneath how democrats operate so please go start your radical party and attack each other over who can be most holy and ask for $100 an hour minimum wage Rima, but the rest of us will vote on what we think is fair and reasonable despite your nasty attacks. It just never ends with some of these loud demanding moral police.
6
Prof. Krugman, in calling out the "decadence" of the GOP establishment, is clearly calling out his colleagues, Mr. Douthat and Mr. Brooks, who confesses his sin of elitism in his column today. And perhaps the baby steps toward reform by the Clinton Democrats are the best we can hope for in the face of the full-throttle drive toward oligarchy of the Bush-Cruz Republicans. But perhaps Prof. Krugman can spare a few moments of self-reflection over cigars and single-malt at the Princeton Club to acknowledge that Clintonian noblesse oblige may not be the ideal answer either.
6
On the New York Time's Op/Ed Page, just two days ago Thomas Edsall, penned an article that suggest that the Democrats too are involved in bait and switch. While the party makes claims that it works for the poor and middle class too, its decision making and policies in truth represent the upper Middle class and well to do
6
Sanders was not running to become treasury secretary but to break
with the choice between the enlightened and the unenlightened part of the power elite whose system is in crisis. It can no longer provide for the
needs of the middle and working classes. The secular stagnation which is
awaiting us will not be prevented by the elite of the democratic party which
may win the next elections
with the choice between the enlightened and the unenlightened part of the power elite whose system is in crisis. It can no longer provide for the
needs of the middle and working classes. The secular stagnation which is
awaiting us will not be prevented by the elite of the democratic party which
may win the next elections
1
I am a FDR Democrat and I cannot stand Clinton Democrats.
20
Is it Krugman's shift to do damage control for the Democratic Party?
The supposed party for the poor, the working class, and minorities seem to have done as much (maybe even more) to hurt the people that vote for them. The Clinton's middle of the way politics to appeal to a "broader base" or, in other words. appeasing popular feelings and assumptions passed the disastrous crime bill that has destroyed communities and created a permanent underclass. Not all the blame should just be on the Clintons though. They may have pulled their party further right, but the party went right along with it. Obama is a product of the Reagan and Clinton years. We are now required to be insured; no insurance can turn anyone away. But it remains so expensive that many people opt out of care and end up underusing their insurance. It still also sees such things as dental care as an option.
A lot can be said about the Democrats and the selling of their souls, but ultimately, as a voter, instead of expecting to drag and twist the arms of Republicans to cut deals for Americans, I now I have to worry about the Democrats as well.
The supposed party for the poor, the working class, and minorities seem to have done as much (maybe even more) to hurt the people that vote for them. The Clinton's middle of the way politics to appeal to a "broader base" or, in other words. appeasing popular feelings and assumptions passed the disastrous crime bill that has destroyed communities and created a permanent underclass. Not all the blame should just be on the Clintons though. They may have pulled their party further right, but the party went right along with it. Obama is a product of the Reagan and Clinton years. We are now required to be insured; no insurance can turn anyone away. But it remains so expensive that many people opt out of care and end up underusing their insurance. It still also sees such things as dental care as an option.
A lot can be said about the Democrats and the selling of their souls, but ultimately, as a voter, instead of expecting to drag and twist the arms of Republicans to cut deals for Americans, I now I have to worry about the Democrats as well.
12
Paul, I wasted 26 years as a Democrat. Thank you for helping to open my eyes so that I could finally see what a corrupt political organization I used to belong to. I'm really going to enjoy tearing down Hillary until November, and making sure that the snake charmer never gets back to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
You didn't do it alone, but you were surely a driving force to help make it possible Dr Krugman.
For the Hillbots who will accuse me of being a Republican: I voted for Bill twice. I voted for (and knocked on doors for) Obama twice. The Democratic party left me, so I left the party (now Independent). Since write-in candidates don't count in CA, I guess Jill Stein of the Green Party will be getting my vote this year.
You didn't do it alone, but you were surely a driving force to help make it possible Dr Krugman.
For the Hillbots who will accuse me of being a Republican: I voted for Bill twice. I voted for (and knocked on doors for) Obama twice. The Democratic party left me, so I left the party (now Independent). Since write-in candidates don't count in CA, I guess Jill Stein of the Green Party will be getting my vote this year.
14
Jeremy - you voted for Bill twice, you voted for Obama twice. "The Democratic party left me, so I left the party" you say.
When Mitch McConnell made his #1 focus to obstruct Obama in anything, even Republican-ish concessions, so that Obama couldn't accomplish anything in his Presidency, I never believed that this would work for them.
But look at you. Unless the real reason is you fear a woman candidate with a real chance (and Jill Stein doesn't have a chance).
The GOP voters feel the same anger against nothing being accomplished, but they are taking it out on the Republican leaders like McConnell.
We aren't a parliamentary democracy, we need to make alliances with our allies, then vote as one. We can't vote for multiple parties who vote purely according to their individualistic taste. If we have 3 parties in November, the plurality wins. Then President Fascist.
When Mitch McConnell made his #1 focus to obstruct Obama in anything, even Republican-ish concessions, so that Obama couldn't accomplish anything in his Presidency, I never believed that this would work for them.
But look at you. Unless the real reason is you fear a woman candidate with a real chance (and Jill Stein doesn't have a chance).
The GOP voters feel the same anger against nothing being accomplished, but they are taking it out on the Republican leaders like McConnell.
We aren't a parliamentary democracy, we need to make alliances with our allies, then vote as one. We can't vote for multiple parties who vote purely according to their individualistic taste. If we have 3 parties in November, the plurality wins. Then President Fascist.
3
First, Mr Krugman, we have something called a convention to attend, We Democrats. Lets do the math: This is What Will Happen at the Democratic Convention
by John LauritsApril 28, 2016
https://johnlaurits.com/2016/04/28/this-is-what-will-happen-at-the-democ...
Can Sanders do it? Or is Clinton truly inevitable?
Bernie Sanders has vowed to fight relentlessly for the 2016 Democratic Party’s nomination up to the convention and, despite the apparent consensus of the media’s talking heads that the campaign is a lost cause, he has held fast to his claim that there is a “narrow path to victory.” I am reminded of Galadriel’s ominous words of advice, in the Fellowship of the Ring: The quest stands upon the edge of a knife — stray but a little, and it will fail… ÷
It has even become something of a weekly occurrence for Hillary Clinton and her Wallstreet-backed campaign to imply, insinuate, or flat-out demand that Sanders withdraw his bid for the nomination — they are growing increasingly indignant about the fact that Sanders is trying to win. Which brings us to the heart of the issue — can Bernie Sanders–can we–win the delegates needed for the nomination?
†I have not counted the so-called “super-delegates” because they do not vote until the convention, which you might not know because of the media’s disgustingly corrupt attempt to warp the public’s perception of the election.
by John LauritsApril 28, 2016
https://johnlaurits.com/2016/04/28/this-is-what-will-happen-at-the-democ...
Can Sanders do it? Or is Clinton truly inevitable?
Bernie Sanders has vowed to fight relentlessly for the 2016 Democratic Party’s nomination up to the convention and, despite the apparent consensus of the media’s talking heads that the campaign is a lost cause, he has held fast to his claim that there is a “narrow path to victory.” I am reminded of Galadriel’s ominous words of advice, in the Fellowship of the Ring: The quest stands upon the edge of a knife — stray but a little, and it will fail… ÷
It has even become something of a weekly occurrence for Hillary Clinton and her Wallstreet-backed campaign to imply, insinuate, or flat-out demand that Sanders withdraw his bid for the nomination — they are growing increasingly indignant about the fact that Sanders is trying to win. Which brings us to the heart of the issue — can Bernie Sanders–can we–win the delegates needed for the nomination?
†I have not counted the so-called “super-delegates” because they do not vote until the convention, which you might not know because of the media’s disgustingly corrupt attempt to warp the public’s perception of the election.
8
Krugman,
Hallelujah!!!
A Sander's, just enough of a perfumed whiff of democracy, wafting over the body politic, together with the unending stench of plutocracy emanating from the right wing, appears to address the maniacal self flagellation of the flipped, Reaganesque democrats who sold-out to their inner demons of racism and hoped-for, unearned privilege.
Yes indeed, the fat lady has sung the siren song of her party's self destruction.
Hallelujah!!!
A Sander's, just enough of a perfumed whiff of democracy, wafting over the body politic, together with the unending stench of plutocracy emanating from the right wing, appears to address the maniacal self flagellation of the flipped, Reaganesque democrats who sold-out to their inner demons of racism and hoped-for, unearned privilege.
Yes indeed, the fat lady has sung the siren song of her party's self destruction.
5
You are too charitable to the Dems. The ACA improved health insurance access, but not nearly enough. Obama first said he was in favor of universal single-payer insurance, but then ruled it out as too hard to implement (though the other advanced countries had managed it). Instead, he proposed the "Public Option," which would at least have given Americans an alternative to the for-profits. Yet, he and a supposedly veto-proof 60-seat Dem Congress didn't have the spine and compromised away the Public Option in favor of the Heritage Foundations 1989 Individual Mandate. This guaranteed the for-profits a monopoly and gave them tax-payer money in subsidies. Millions still remain uninsured.
Obama's financial reforms left the shadow banking world basically untouched. Derivatives are still not monitored by the SEC and a new crisis is brewing - perhaps worse than 2008.
Obama extended Bush's claim to be able to assassinate foreign "enemy combatants" to include Americans. His only act on gun control was to PERMIT carrying guns in National Parks. He expanded Bush's military engagements in the Middle East and increased murder by drone. He expanded deportations and never did close Gitmo.
The Dems are ruled by an elite, though different than the GOP's, and neither shows real care for workers and unions.
The Dems have failed to protect abortion rights or voter access.
And Hillary is still militaristic and awash in corporate donations. Hillary will simply maintain the Dem's status quo.
Obama's financial reforms left the shadow banking world basically untouched. Derivatives are still not monitored by the SEC and a new crisis is brewing - perhaps worse than 2008.
Obama extended Bush's claim to be able to assassinate foreign "enemy combatants" to include Americans. His only act on gun control was to PERMIT carrying guns in National Parks. He expanded Bush's military engagements in the Middle East and increased murder by drone. He expanded deportations and never did close Gitmo.
The Dems are ruled by an elite, though different than the GOP's, and neither shows real care for workers and unions.
The Dems have failed to protect abortion rights or voter access.
And Hillary is still militaristic and awash in corporate donations. Hillary will simply maintain the Dem's status quo.
10
The zero lower bound of interest rates is a trap that nobody yet knows how to escape. It leaves zero margin for error.
1
Mr. Krugman,
Wouldn't it be nice if, in this report, you didn't have to use words like "imperfectly", "could and should have done more", "But while the Democratic establishment "more or less" "tries" to make good on those "promises"", "Does it "fall short" of fulfilling this mission much of the time? Are its leaders sometimes "too close to big-money donors"? "Of course"".
A litany of outright failures, and imperfections, built into the Democratic agenda, defined in Hillarys' campaign as "pragmatic", and "incrementalism", the words that allow the Democratic establishment to maintain the status quo, to retain ownership of the nations' wealth, to continue the age-old system of economic slavery, hoping to keep the people from resorting to the pitchforks, buying time, circling the wagons, knowing the inevitable realignment is coming down the pike, with a vengeance.
Sanders was a way out, but even he seems to have been co-opted, too willingly stepping aside.
Trump is a real and present danger, with a better than average chance of being our 45th President.
I place the blame squarely on our weak and ineffectual Democratic party.
To the victor go the spoils.
Wouldn't it be nice if, in this report, you didn't have to use words like "imperfectly", "could and should have done more", "But while the Democratic establishment "more or less" "tries" to make good on those "promises"", "Does it "fall short" of fulfilling this mission much of the time? Are its leaders sometimes "too close to big-money donors"? "Of course"".
A litany of outright failures, and imperfections, built into the Democratic agenda, defined in Hillarys' campaign as "pragmatic", and "incrementalism", the words that allow the Democratic establishment to maintain the status quo, to retain ownership of the nations' wealth, to continue the age-old system of economic slavery, hoping to keep the people from resorting to the pitchforks, buying time, circling the wagons, knowing the inevitable realignment is coming down the pike, with a vengeance.
Sanders was a way out, but even he seems to have been co-opted, too willingly stepping aside.
Trump is a real and present danger, with a better than average chance of being our 45th President.
I place the blame squarely on our weak and ineffectual Democratic party.
To the victor go the spoils.
7
The Democratic Party sure made deals with the Devil when it started giving respect to faith based belief like the rationale the NRA gives to make guns a daily part of our lives.
1
Says Paul, "The Democratic establishment has won because it has, however imperfectly, tried to serve its supporters."
So what about 2008? Hillary was running as the establishment candidate back then, too. And then a funny thing happened: the new "rock star" of the party decided to run for President and pulled the rug out from under Hiilary. In 2016 the "rock star" is retiring and there is no one to take his place, so the Dems are either going to get Hillary or the socialist.
Presidential elections are not about who the establishment wants or not. It is all about the situation in the country at the time. 2008 was the right time for the rock star. 2016 is the right time for anyone to crucify the establishment. In the Republican's case, that means they get a Trump. The Dems are satisfied enough where a Bernie Sanders insurgency will fail.
So what about 2008? Hillary was running as the establishment candidate back then, too. And then a funny thing happened: the new "rock star" of the party decided to run for President and pulled the rug out from under Hiilary. In 2016 the "rock star" is retiring and there is no one to take his place, so the Dems are either going to get Hillary or the socialist.
Presidential elections are not about who the establishment wants or not. It is all about the situation in the country at the time. 2008 was the right time for the rock star. 2016 is the right time for anyone to crucify the establishment. In the Republican's case, that means they get a Trump. The Dems are satisfied enough where a Bernie Sanders insurgency will fail.
2
With the decision to make Clinton the candidate we essentailly end up remaining a one party system when it comes to the economic issues that really matter. All candidates are corrupt corporatists! There is no real choice for many people to vote according to their conscience and ideas for justice. It does not bode well for the near future of the official government of this country as their surely will be a lot of political activity in the years to come that is no longer represented in Washington.
3
Prof. Krugman, the people who really lost out in the Affordable Care Act are young people, which is one of the reasons they are supporting Bernie Sanders.
Yes, supposedly they can be on their parents' insurance until 26. But a recent graduate of Swarthmore (who got a full ride) got a job without real health insurance. She could go on her parents' insurance, right? No, because that would add her meager income to theirs and kick the whole family out of Medicaid.
So she had to go on the Affordable Care Act. According to her, that meant paying $200 a month for health insurance a 23 year old would almost certainly never use. And if she did have to use it, she'd pay the first $6000 in bills before the ACA would kick in (her figures).
So the ACA, like a lot of health insurance that employees are being forced into by their employers, demands a huge amount up front, which discourages people from going to the doctor.
Now a woman who feels a lump in her breast, or a young man who fears he has testicular cancer, are extremely reluctant to go to the doctor because they know they will be paying a great deal of money that they do not have, before they get any insurance. They hope it's a cyst.
The result, I fear, is that we will see skyrocketing cases of deaths from cancer which could have been prevented if treated in time.
The ACA should have addressed this. It did not. You have written that we all knew that young people would be carrying a heavy load. We did?
Yes, supposedly they can be on their parents' insurance until 26. But a recent graduate of Swarthmore (who got a full ride) got a job without real health insurance. She could go on her parents' insurance, right? No, because that would add her meager income to theirs and kick the whole family out of Medicaid.
So she had to go on the Affordable Care Act. According to her, that meant paying $200 a month for health insurance a 23 year old would almost certainly never use. And if she did have to use it, she'd pay the first $6000 in bills before the ACA would kick in (her figures).
So the ACA, like a lot of health insurance that employees are being forced into by their employers, demands a huge amount up front, which discourages people from going to the doctor.
Now a woman who feels a lump in her breast, or a young man who fears he has testicular cancer, are extremely reluctant to go to the doctor because they know they will be paying a great deal of money that they do not have, before they get any insurance. They hope it's a cyst.
The result, I fear, is that we will see skyrocketing cases of deaths from cancer which could have been prevented if treated in time.
The ACA should have addressed this. It did not. You have written that we all knew that young people would be carrying a heavy load. We did?
6
Third time of asking after a couple of failed attempts that I'm trying to post here. What gives?
Paul, ask yourself this: If the Republicans are incurring the wrath of their voters time after time and yet those voters stick with them, doesn't that show the the Dems haven't done their job to earn them? It's not as if there's a Berlin Wall or a Trump Wall to stop them.
In truth, the Democrats have over the past 25 or more years been tone deaf to the concerns of a middle class that has shrunk because its livelihood disappear. Well-paying jobs have gone and been replaced, if at all, by one that pay insultingly low incomes. Yes, technology is partly to blame and the social safety net should have taken care of that; but the Dems have acquiesced in selling as "trade deals" agreements that are nothing of the sort, they are of capital, by capital and for capital so it can go after the fastest buck, in the process underlining entire communities and families. That's Bernie's message and neither Hillary not the party managers seem to be receptive. If by some miracle Hillary were to be elected along with a supportive House and Senate, and she and the party don't take take heed, we are in for another status quo period when the nation needs systematic change.
Paul, ask yourself this: If the Republicans are incurring the wrath of their voters time after time and yet those voters stick with them, doesn't that show the the Dems haven't done their job to earn them? It's not as if there's a Berlin Wall or a Trump Wall to stop them.
In truth, the Democrats have over the past 25 or more years been tone deaf to the concerns of a middle class that has shrunk because its livelihood disappear. Well-paying jobs have gone and been replaced, if at all, by one that pay insultingly low incomes. Yes, technology is partly to blame and the social safety net should have taken care of that; but the Dems have acquiesced in selling as "trade deals" agreements that are nothing of the sort, they are of capital, by capital and for capital so it can go after the fastest buck, in the process underlining entire communities and families. That's Bernie's message and neither Hillary not the party managers seem to be receptive. If by some miracle Hillary were to be elected along with a supportive House and Senate, and she and the party don't take take heed, we are in for another status quo period when the nation needs systematic change.
10
David Brooks should read this essay several times. Mr. Friedman does an excellent job of debunking the GOP.
2
Sanders is down by 20% in pledged delegates, and virtually all of the DNC's Super-Duper-Hedgefund-Hi-Five Delegates (who are theoretically capable of becoming rational at the convention in Philadelphia), yet the TImes continues its fait accompli slant reserved for the pas-encore-fini bete noire representing the non-corporate personhood of non-corporate people.
Next time you're at a Yankees - Red Sox game, Paul, and the Yankees are down 9-6 in the 8th: tell Yankees fans the game is over, you might as well go home. You'd be leaving Yankee Stadium on a stretcher.
Next time you're at a Yankees - Red Sox game, Paul, and the Yankees are down 9-6 in the 8th: tell Yankees fans the game is over, you might as well go home. You'd be leaving Yankee Stadium on a stretcher.
9
It is fascinating that Krugman's perspective on the GOP electoral dynamics is pretty dead-on, while the Democrats, not so much. The notion that establishment Democrats don't do "bait and switch" is only plausible if one ignores the histories of the last two Democratic Presidencies: in each case,
they campaigned channeling Franklin Roosevelt and went on to govern
channeling Calvin Coolidge. NAFTA, workfare, ect. anyone?
It is also entirely plausible to conclude that the revolt in one party succeeded
while the other failed simply because of the difference in the number of candidates in the field. If Sanders had been running against a slew of
establishment candidates rather than one, while Trump found himself doing a one-on-one against a consensus establishment candidate, the revolts might have gone a different way.
they campaigned channeling Franklin Roosevelt and went on to govern
channeling Calvin Coolidge. NAFTA, workfare, ect. anyone?
It is also entirely plausible to conclude that the revolt in one party succeeded
while the other failed simply because of the difference in the number of candidates in the field. If Sanders had been running against a slew of
establishment candidates rather than one, while Trump found himself doing a one-on-one against a consensus establishment candidate, the revolts might have gone a different way.
11
It is very sad to read so many comments saying that both parties are the same. Many democrats have feared that, after all this intransigence of GOP Congress last 7 years, and blocking anything that would help economy, the right wing propaganda would convince the public that the mess is because of both parties, because of "establishment", etc. Yes, I pity liberals/democrats for buying into this manufactured narrative that unfortunately spilled over into MSM. Furthermore, this right wing narrative is now focused on Hillary Clinton, and has been used even by Sander's supporters against Clinton. We truly are living in a parallel reality if people can't see for themselves. Hillary Clinton is far from being perfect but she is not as nearly as bad as the media try to portray her.
8
Taxes raised to fund the ACA moved money to the large health care insurance companies. The coverage deductibles are high and the access is poor. Not really a great gain for lower class working people.
I wonder if we actually rebuilt the country's infrastructure with the taxes raised if we might have had real wage growth for working class people along with a better infrastructure that might have a long term reduction in the cost of living for working class people. It's not just about taxes, it's about taxes and spending.
The ACA, does a poor job of offering real insurance for people who actually get sick. The relatively small benefit of pre-emptive tests and birth control comes at a very high cost. If you actually get sick and need treatment your extremely limited by poor in network providers and the cost of high deductibles is unaffordable for all except the upper class and rich.
I wonder if we actually rebuilt the country's infrastructure with the taxes raised if we might have had real wage growth for working class people along with a better infrastructure that might have a long term reduction in the cost of living for working class people. It's not just about taxes, it's about taxes and spending.
The ACA, does a poor job of offering real insurance for people who actually get sick. The relatively small benefit of pre-emptive tests and birth control comes at a very high cost. If you actually get sick and need treatment your extremely limited by poor in network providers and the cost of high deductibles is unaffordable for all except the upper class and rich.
9
Contraception one doesn't have to think about should be free because nothing else reduces medical costs and environmental destruction over the long haul more effectively.
6
Nonesense.
1
Only if it's used
Hello Paul,
Yes, I get it, and really If I hadn't come to the same conclusion long ago...wouldn't that say something about me. Yet, help us look down the road here. The Republicans have been absolutely ridiculous and an easy target....They truly have gone over the edge. Where can we move that is sane, healthy, robust, nurturing for our children and restorative for our planet.
How do we get our business and political leaders learning more philosophy, arts and ecology and our philosophers and ecologists learning more about business, finance and politics.
I know you like to throw stones at the Republican's (and they deserve it!), yet very soon now I'd like us sharing a meal together and talking about the preferences, values we'll need to build a better whole. Or does that only come after the "truth and reconciliation commission hearings".
Yes, I get it, and really If I hadn't come to the same conclusion long ago...wouldn't that say something about me. Yet, help us look down the road here. The Republicans have been absolutely ridiculous and an easy target....They truly have gone over the edge. Where can we move that is sane, healthy, robust, nurturing for our children and restorative for our planet.
How do we get our business and political leaders learning more philosophy, arts and ecology and our philosophers and ecologists learning more about business, finance and politics.
I know you like to throw stones at the Republican's (and they deserve it!), yet very soon now I'd like us sharing a meal together and talking about the preferences, values we'll need to build a better whole. Or does that only come after the "truth and reconciliation commission hearings".
1
Quiver,
You act as though Democrats haven't been begging the GOP to grow up so that we can move into the future as one nation.
You act as though the GOP controlled Congress hasn't been obstructionist knobs who put their stunted ideology before their country and duty to Americans.
Nope.
We ain't buying it.
Democrats are not perfect but they are completely blameless when it comes to the divisiveness we've seen since Bush/Cheney stunk up the White House.
Time and time again Democrats have been snubbed by the ideologues in the right who simply refuse to compromise which is the very essence of Democracy.
I'm sure you recall speaker Boehner's absolute refusal to even utter the word 'compromise' during his tear filled 60 Minutes Interview.
Couple that with the utter lack of respect President Obama received from the likes of Trump (Birthetism), Joe Wilson (YOU LIE!), Newt Gingrich (Anticolonial Kenyan) and the list goes on and on and on.
Sorry but the first step to healing GOP is to admit you have a problem.
You act as though Democrats haven't been begging the GOP to grow up so that we can move into the future as one nation.
You act as though the GOP controlled Congress hasn't been obstructionist knobs who put their stunted ideology before their country and duty to Americans.
Nope.
We ain't buying it.
Democrats are not perfect but they are completely blameless when it comes to the divisiveness we've seen since Bush/Cheney stunk up the White House.
Time and time again Democrats have been snubbed by the ideologues in the right who simply refuse to compromise which is the very essence of Democracy.
I'm sure you recall speaker Boehner's absolute refusal to even utter the word 'compromise' during his tear filled 60 Minutes Interview.
Couple that with the utter lack of respect President Obama received from the likes of Trump (Birthetism), Joe Wilson (YOU LIE!), Newt Gingrich (Anticolonial Kenyan) and the list goes on and on and on.
Sorry but the first step to healing GOP is to admit you have a problem.
1
If you really believe the Democratic Party elite really serves its supporters, please re-read Thomas Edsall's recent NYT column, How the Other Fifth Lives, which documents how the top 20% of high income Democrats have taken over the party to promote a socially liberal agenda of LGBT rights and global warming. Many of them remain fiscal conservatives and care less about expanding the social safety net or raising the minimum wage...and more about tax cuts. Like their fellow Republican high earners, the live socially and physically isolated from middle and low income voters, and rarely, if ever, have interactions with people living in poverty or people of color. Sad!
11
So Nan, are you saying LGBT Americans shouldn't be granted equal rights?
And are you saying Global Climate Change isn't a pressing issue that threatens the very existence of this planet?
Lemme guess...you like Trump huh?
And are you saying Global Climate Change isn't a pressing issue that threatens the very existence of this planet?
Lemme guess...you like Trump huh?
1
So it has come down to choosing the lesser of two evils.
What else has changed?
What else has changed?
6
Hillary and Bill had "Don't Stop thinking About Tomorrow', Fleetwood Mac, for their theme music, well, how about "You Ain't Seen Nothing Yet," Bachman Turner Overdrive for Hillary's theme right now?
YouTube You Ain't Seen Nothing Yet Bachman Turner Overdrive
YouTube You Ain't Seen Nothing Yet Bachman Turner Overdrive
1
"What Donald Trump has been doing is telling the base that it can order à la carte. He has, in effect, been telling aggrieved white men that they can feed their anger without being forced to swallow supply-side economics, too. "
Democracy means that ultimately it is the majority, not the most enlightened, not those who have an idea what "supply-side" or any economic theory means who get to choose the leader.
Among Republicans this has spread so their base denies not only Climate Change, but the central unchallenged principle of life - evolution. Other candidates have played lip service to that minority who has this "advanced understanding" but Trump, and in a different way, Cruz, has vilified people who read this newspaper.
They are the majority. It only took one charismatic ruthless man to tap this reality.
AlRodbell.com
Democracy means that ultimately it is the majority, not the most enlightened, not those who have an idea what "supply-side" or any economic theory means who get to choose the leader.
Among Republicans this has spread so their base denies not only Climate Change, but the central unchallenged principle of life - evolution. Other candidates have played lip service to that minority who has this "advanced understanding" but Trump, and in a different way, Cruz, has vilified people who read this newspaper.
They are the majority. It only took one charismatic ruthless man to tap this reality.
AlRodbell.com
2
2016 is not over yet..the fat lady has not yet sung ! What is true this year is that the middle class is still in evidence and in a rather foul mood. The working classes are beyond angry and are fired up politically ! We do not really yet know who will represent the republican party in the coming elections and as certain as it looks like Hilary will win it is not clear that her establishment standing is what will appeal to voters that voted for anti-establishment Sanders.
Whoever wins the coming presidential election will probably be whichever candidate masters best a domestic populist rhetoric. The exportation of jobs, the loss of retirement benefits, of homes, taxation, income inequality ,unemployment and a feeling that the middle class has been taken for forgranted at the polls will dominate the speeches of whoever really wants to win the presidency.
Is Ryan studying the problem , does Biden understand the populism ? My guess is they do and before 2016 is history we should not presume to know who will actually be running in either party. Sorry but my crystal ball shows much more uncertainty than Krugman's on these issues !
Whoever wins the coming presidential election will probably be whichever candidate masters best a domestic populist rhetoric. The exportation of jobs, the loss of retirement benefits, of homes, taxation, income inequality ,unemployment and a feeling that the middle class has been taken for forgranted at the polls will dominate the speeches of whoever really wants to win the presidency.
Is Ryan studying the problem , does Biden understand the populism ? My guess is they do and before 2016 is history we should not presume to know who will actually be running in either party. Sorry but my crystal ball shows much more uncertainty than Krugman's on these issues !
3
More bunk, we'll see. It's a fraction of the right. They are getting bigger. That's cause their candidate sells fear with a side of blaming Bush to all the confession.
Any rational look at what's going on it much worse than any of these politicians including Trump have put forth. Especially, economics.
The American people cheered W when he lowered taxes and went to war. When has that ever worked? The Fed and with Obama's blessing are using a " carry trade" to keep things going. Borrowing short and lending long has brought 700 billion to Treasury since QE began. This is not borrowed but essentially is pulling grower forward.
Obsequious grab from all but the other rent seekers who are doing same.
We are the fools, the pols the tools.
Any rational look at what's going on it much worse than any of these politicians including Trump have put forth. Especially, economics.
The American people cheered W when he lowered taxes and went to war. When has that ever worked? The Fed and with Obama's blessing are using a " carry trade" to keep things going. Borrowing short and lending long has brought 700 billion to Treasury since QE began. This is not borrowed but essentially is pulling grower forward.
Obsequious grab from all but the other rent seekers who are doing same.
We are the fools, the pols the tools.
Mr. Krugman -- you are dismissing the possibility that Trump is elected President. At every stage of the primary, he has been underestimated. He can pivot quickly. His spontaneity and star power are greater forces than his lack of policy depth. You are in a state of denial, overconfident that voting has anything to do with what you say about the economy or Obamacare.
Alternate scenario: Trump pivots to the center (already done on LGBT rights). At the same time, he goes negative on Hillary in ways that make her appear to have the persona of Carly Fiorina. Hillary's negatives climb. Hillary is already not liked by most Americans (yes, most give her high negatives), even if she is knowledgable and sane. Voting is not cerebral. It's impressions and feelings that drive voters. Then in October, a verdict is rendered on Hillary's legal violation regarding imprudent security of her emails. Let's say that verdict is a misdemeanor violation. Technically, this would not disqualify her from the race, but politically it would. With one month of the campaign remaining, Trump pounces on Hillary as a naive, technically incompetent, violator of Federal law -- a legal decision sanctioned by the FBI in a Democrat administration. Hillary's negative ratings climb and she is 100% on the defensive. Women view her in a negative light. They refuse to vote (for her). Trump's hatchet man, perhaps Christi, goes to work on Hillary. Trump drives home his resonating messages. Welcome President Trump!
Alternate scenario: Trump pivots to the center (already done on LGBT rights). At the same time, he goes negative on Hillary in ways that make her appear to have the persona of Carly Fiorina. Hillary's negatives climb. Hillary is already not liked by most Americans (yes, most give her high negatives), even if she is knowledgable and sane. Voting is not cerebral. It's impressions and feelings that drive voters. Then in October, a verdict is rendered on Hillary's legal violation regarding imprudent security of her emails. Let's say that verdict is a misdemeanor violation. Technically, this would not disqualify her from the race, but politically it would. With one month of the campaign remaining, Trump pounces on Hillary as a naive, technically incompetent, violator of Federal law -- a legal decision sanctioned by the FBI in a Democrat administration. Hillary's negative ratings climb and she is 100% on the defensive. Women view her in a negative light. They refuse to vote (for her). Trump's hatchet man, perhaps Christi, goes to work on Hillary. Trump drives home his resonating messages. Welcome President Trump!
3
Although I am not rooting for that outcome, I think you are absolutely right. The GOP underestimated the appeal and abilities of Trump to connect with their (his now) masses, and look what happened! The GOP simply refused to believe it could happen to them. The DEMs better have a game plan infinitely better than the GOPs anti-Trump game plan.
2
What Trump and Sanders have in common are that they are two angry white males appealing to the discontented in their Parties. Trump is a buffoon who would tear at the soul of this country were he to be elected, Sanders is offering utopian liberal promises,that could not possibly become a reality with a Republican controlled Congress.
If we as Democrats want a President who is more like Trudeau in Canada, we will have to start at the city level of elections and work our way up. Canada was already more socially progressive than we when Trudeau was elected. It already had and kept single-payer health care even when conservatives were in charge of the country. Just getting the ACA passed, was a Herculean task, Sanders would have zero chance of getting single-payer passed in a Republican controlled Congress. Free college tuition? Not going to happen, as long as Republicans remain in control. That is the unpleasant truth. Sanders knows this. That is an unpleasant truth.
Hillary Clinton is the realistic choice for President. She is well qualified. She is not the liberal ideal. If as a liberal you stay home and refuse to vote for her, you will hand the Republicans a victory, and years of social progress will start to become history.
If we as Democrats want a President who is more like Trudeau in Canada, we will have to start at the city level of elections and work our way up. Canada was already more socially progressive than we when Trudeau was elected. It already had and kept single-payer health care even when conservatives were in charge of the country. Just getting the ACA passed, was a Herculean task, Sanders would have zero chance of getting single-payer passed in a Republican controlled Congress. Free college tuition? Not going to happen, as long as Republicans remain in control. That is the unpleasant truth. Sanders knows this. That is an unpleasant truth.
Hillary Clinton is the realistic choice for President. She is well qualified. She is not the liberal ideal. If as a liberal you stay home and refuse to vote for her, you will hand the Republicans a victory, and years of social progress will start to become history.
2
Reading Dr. Krugman and all of the other political op-eds in the Times is like watching little children at the beach building castles of sand and then using teaspoons to remove puddles of water. They frolic and play, only concerned about a puddle here and there while a tsunami just below the horizon threatens to wash all of their castles, and them with their petty problems, away. The coming climate catastrophe will do the same to the human race unless immediate action is taken, action to save the planet as a habitat for civilization. Political incrementalism will not stop the tsunami. One candidate recognizes the threat and Dr. Krugman dissed and dismissed him. Future generations will likely label us as guilty of crimes against humanity for our inaction, for our ignorance, for our petty politics. They will not have a future because of our sin of incrementalism, our ignorance of how bad the climate catastrophe really is.
10
Don't be so sure that Hillary will beat Trump. I know Trump voters. They are racist, sexist, for the most part uneducated and. too often, stupid. Trump talks like every tough working class guy or lower-middle class woman in Nassau County. He's one of them. They don't know anything about economics or foreign policy, either. He is the King of the Know-Nothings - their boy.
These people are screaming about Obama's supposed ineptitude, echoing what they hear on Fox TV; yet if you told them that Obama has reduced the deficit by two thirds, and added more jobs to the market than any other modern President - and that healthcare costs have gone down, not up, since the ACA was passed - they will tell you that these statistics can't be correct. They simply do not recognize facts that do not comport with their fantasies and prejudices.
And yes, they were cheated by Republicans. Yet they kept voting for them, and still do. The Constitution's framers, who feared the mob, were right. I struggled free of that mob 50 years ago, and can tell you that it is ruthless, tenacious and insensible to reason.
This election is not going to be decided in Williamsburg or on the upper West side. Nor is it going to be decided in Nassau County. Hillary will win New York. The election is going to be decided in the working class strongholds of Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida.
Good luck to that. If the working-class proves true to form, we will be looking at President Trump next year.
These people are screaming about Obama's supposed ineptitude, echoing what they hear on Fox TV; yet if you told them that Obama has reduced the deficit by two thirds, and added more jobs to the market than any other modern President - and that healthcare costs have gone down, not up, since the ACA was passed - they will tell you that these statistics can't be correct. They simply do not recognize facts that do not comport with their fantasies and prejudices.
And yes, they were cheated by Republicans. Yet they kept voting for them, and still do. The Constitution's framers, who feared the mob, were right. I struggled free of that mob 50 years ago, and can tell you that it is ruthless, tenacious and insensible to reason.
This election is not going to be decided in Williamsburg or on the upper West side. Nor is it going to be decided in Nassau County. Hillary will win New York. The election is going to be decided in the working class strongholds of Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida.
Good luck to that. If the working-class proves true to form, we will be looking at President Trump next year.
2
As with all recent elections the Independents are the key.
So, if Trump thinks a head to head debate with Secretary Clinton is going to resemble the lightweight debates he had with little boys like Scott Walker, Marco Rubio or Jebby then The Haircut is in for a rude awakening.
Secretary Clinton is a lot tougher than any soft doughy born to privlege 1% Little Lord Fauntleroy the GOP can muster.
Independents will see that too and will vote accordingly.
So, if Trump thinks a head to head debate with Secretary Clinton is going to resemble the lightweight debates he had with little boys like Scott Walker, Marco Rubio or Jebby then The Haircut is in for a rude awakening.
Secretary Clinton is a lot tougher than any soft doughy born to privlege 1% Little Lord Fauntleroy the GOP can muster.
Independents will see that too and will vote accordingly.
I would quibble with the statement that Clinton has been treated the most harshly, though I agree with the main thesis.
Both Trump and Sanders were immediately dismissed as "not going to be elected" and/or "completely unfit to be President" by almost all media.
I suppose you could make the argument that some of the meanest attacks were directed at Senator Clinton (as seems almost a reflexive behavior by GOP commentators) but overall I'd say she was treated better. She was surely treated to some love, repeatedly, on the NYT editorial pages.
Both Trump and Sanders were immediately dismissed as "not going to be elected" and/or "completely unfit to be President" by almost all media.
I suppose you could make the argument that some of the meanest attacks were directed at Senator Clinton (as seems almost a reflexive behavior by GOP commentators) but overall I'd say she was treated better. She was surely treated to some love, repeatedly, on the NYT editorial pages.
5
The great and all powerful Wizard of Oz once said "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain."
The extremist right wing Republican billionaires, their 24/7 AM "hate radio", Faux news, "think tanks," secret ALEC meetings would like us all to believe that their "bubble reality" is real.
Their Federalist Society Supreme Court Justices would like us to believe that "Corporations are people", "Money is free speech," "Religion is under attack," "Voting is a privilege and not a right," "Lifetime imprisonment for growing one's own marijuana is not cruel and unusual punishment," and enforcement provisions of the Voting Rights Act were unconstitutional. Chief Justice Roberts wrote, “Our country has changed, While any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions.” Using the same thinking about "current" conditions, without oversight Chief Justice Roberts appoints Judges to the secret FISA Court which enacts its own laws and the protections of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution are nullified.
Has the recovery since 2008 helped everyone equally? Top 0.1%, yes. Banks and corporations are flush. Not workers, the unemployed and under employed. Not 50+ year old people looking for work. Not communities where manufacturing paid for education, hospitals, infrastructure.
If you "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain' you just might find yourself in Kansas after all.
The extremist right wing Republican billionaires, their 24/7 AM "hate radio", Faux news, "think tanks," secret ALEC meetings would like us all to believe that their "bubble reality" is real.
Their Federalist Society Supreme Court Justices would like us to believe that "Corporations are people", "Money is free speech," "Religion is under attack," "Voting is a privilege and not a right," "Lifetime imprisonment for growing one's own marijuana is not cruel and unusual punishment," and enforcement provisions of the Voting Rights Act were unconstitutional. Chief Justice Roberts wrote, “Our country has changed, While any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions.” Using the same thinking about "current" conditions, without oversight Chief Justice Roberts appoints Judges to the secret FISA Court which enacts its own laws and the protections of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution are nullified.
Has the recovery since 2008 helped everyone equally? Top 0.1%, yes. Banks and corporations are flush. Not workers, the unemployed and under employed. Not 50+ year old people looking for work. Not communities where manufacturing paid for education, hospitals, infrastructure.
If you "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain' you just might find yourself in Kansas after all.
16
In short, they have dyslexified the whole English Language just as George Orwell imagines in his magnum opus, "1984".
These clowns have read every word of Saul Alinski too.
These clowns have read every word of Saul Alinski too.
1
The narrative that had the NYT provided earlier and more favorable coverage of Sanders, he'd surely beat Clinton in the primaries is a false narrative. Clinton obviously has held back on her attacks on Bernie for fear of his supporters staying home in November or, worse yet, voting a for a Cruz or Trump presidency. And she was smart to do so. Bernie has not been "vetted" as he would be in a general election. He has done a great job and he has moved Hillary to the left. And for his supporters, a (close) defeat will be heart-breaking. But I wish folks would stop this "Hillary must earn their votes" mantra. If we weren't facing the prospect of a Trump or Cruz candidacy, I might agree. But refusing to vote for Clinton if she wins the nomination is foolish beyond belief. The change that Sanders' supporters want will be pushed backs by decades if A republican takes offices and we wind up with an Alito clone (and likely 2) on the Supreme Court. Decades of forward progress will be eliminated in the blink of an eye. Please, please Sanders' supporters - don't let that happen just because your candidate lost.
19
If Hillary is holding back on attacks of Sanders, it's only because she can't afford to alienate such a large pool of possible support.
1
I'm proud to have a Democratic candidate in Hillary who is playing to win; its been a while since we've had this strong a leader in our party. She and her team understand the game and what it takes. You can't change the game if you loose the election, as Bernie Sanders' supporters are discovering. I'm very disappointed in the comments here which denigrate Hillary Clinton's trustworthiness or commitment based on speculation, conspiracy theories and Republican seeding of falsehoods.
19
So what will the Democratic Party do when the Republicans regroup and finally turn into providers (as they must, since after November it will become obvious that otherwise they'll go extinct), while the Democrats pursue symbolic incrementalism under Hillary?
Decades of Democratic control eventually led to a Republican rebound, the Southern Strategy, and Reagan, which together ended up pulling the whole country (Democratic Party included!) to the right.
Another such rebound and the Democrats will turn into a moderate conservative party. (Instead of the center-right party it is now.)
Remember: Republicans now control more states than Democrats and they're poised to retain control of Congress due to Hillary's uninspiring candidacy. If they can get their act together, there's no doubt they'll have the political force to unseat Hillary in 2020.
We've chosen the moderate Republican in our primary. In 4 years we'll get an actual moderate Republican in the White House.
Decades of Democratic control eventually led to a Republican rebound, the Southern Strategy, and Reagan, which together ended up pulling the whole country (Democratic Party included!) to the right.
Another such rebound and the Democrats will turn into a moderate conservative party. (Instead of the center-right party it is now.)
Remember: Republicans now control more states than Democrats and they're poised to retain control of Congress due to Hillary's uninspiring candidacy. If they can get their act together, there's no doubt they'll have the political force to unseat Hillary in 2020.
We've chosen the moderate Republican in our primary. In 4 years we'll get an actual moderate Republican in the White House.
2
What Prof. Krugman writes is generally true. But to say the Democratic party "defines itself as the protector of the poor and the middle class, and especially of nonwhite voters" is something of a rosy understatement, especially when it comes to the Clinton "Establishment" wing. In progressively abandoning the labor movement to its fate under the long-term GOP and corporate anti-labor agenda, the Democratic party has more or less written off white men as if they were an endangered species facing extinction. Demographically, their share of the population is and has been declining, but they are not nor will they ever be gone. To hand them over without a fight to Trump and his like with a campaign centered so exclusively on "breaking down barriers" is a politically dangerous course. It is also something of a con, akin to that of the GOP. Where the GOP serves the economic powers that be, garnering votes by promising to alleviate the racial and cultural anxieties of its base, the Democratic party establishment frees itself to serve the same masters by promising to "break down barriers" to participation in an economy that remains comfortably "rigged" for Wall Street and the wealthy. The major firms coming out for transgender rights recently only goes to show how little corporate power is affected by "breaking down barriers." Neither party touches the fundamental inequities that disadvantage 90% of the population regardless their race, gender or social-religious belief.
5
Why I love reading Krugman: He is so predictably wrong, that you always know what is right.
7
Mitt Romney Will Win In A Landslide!
You were saying???
You were saying???
1
"And yes, Mr. Trump is playing a con game of his own"...
and so does Mrs. Clinton, assisted by her legions of wealthy backers. Heck, even one of the Koch brothers is willing to endorse her. And we, the electorate, are the suckers.
and so does Mrs. Clinton, assisted by her legions of wealthy backers. Heck, even one of the Koch brothers is willing to endorse her. And we, the electorate, are the suckers.
5
When the Kochs buy rightists like Walker, Rubio, Cruz etc. they do so because they commanded these twits to NEVER raise their taxes and they know those weanlings will do as their told.
When Secretary Clinton gets donations from billionaires who know full well she plans on increasing their taxes, it speaks volumes about her effectiveness as a leader.
And, if you think John Birch Society members like the Koch brothers would EVER vote for Secretary Clinton, in spite of what they say, you really shouldn't be allowed to operate heavy machinery.
When Secretary Clinton gets donations from billionaires who know full well she plans on increasing their taxes, it speaks volumes about her effectiveness as a leader.
And, if you think John Birch Society members like the Koch brothers would EVER vote for Secretary Clinton, in spite of what they say, you really shouldn't be allowed to operate heavy machinery.
1
I recall that the conclusion of the GOP post mortem of the 2012 election was by and large rejected by the party. The base has been fed red meat for years which is why Congress and many states are controlled by extremist Republicans. The GOP "elite" as you call them should have seen a Trump and Cruz coming.
2
I think Bernie's rise is a cry out for even more progress- all the rest of the things we wanted Obama to do. All the things progressives have talked about for years. You could say the right is always moving the goal posts but in reality the Trump show is the goal posts. Years and years of using racial and sexual scare tactics to bring in that base. Plus....with the constant drone of Fox/Limbaugh etc. the base said "They are implying it...why can't we just say these things out loud". Voila!- DJ Trump!!! What I love about politics - the need to learn about geography, economics, history, health care, poverty, education...to name a few - they seem to abhor. A sound bite on Hannity will do - thank-you very much. Sad......
2
"But why did Mrs. Clinton, despite the most negative media coverage of any candidate in this cycle — yes, worse than Donald Trump’s — go the distance?"
Give yourself and the other propagandists at the Times some credit! The democratic establishment drove HRC toward the finish line despite very clear shortcomings.
Give yourself and the other propagandists at the Times some credit! The democratic establishment drove HRC toward the finish line despite very clear shortcomings.
11
Shortcomings?
Like multiple divorces and multiple bankruptcies?
Sorry, that's the guy from The Party Of Traditional America. Values.
Like multiple divorces and multiple bankruptcies?
Sorry, that's the guy from The Party Of Traditional America. Values.
1
This Krugman guy - my late father used to say that people like him were educated beyond their intelligence. And the fact that Mr. Krugman is a 'Nobel laureate' tells you everything you need to know about the value of a Nobel Prize nowadays.
3
As an independent of the progressive sort, I found the Sanders campaign inspiring for months. Not so much as the direction became so clearly decisive and slipped away from him.
But where Bernie did not lose his dignity, a not insignificant number of his supporters, I.e. The BernieBots, have tarnished his image, something more than just sore losers.
I don't vote in primaries. If you want to vote in a closed primary, you should know the rules and enrol as a Democrat or republican. I voted many years ago in open primaries in the South.
So did hordes of lunatics and Republicans. The result of open primaries can be seen in the South where open primaries guaranteed the Democrats would lose because the open primaries picked the candidates wanted to run against.
The vitriol keeps getting worse from the BeenieBots - not the majority for sure of Sanders supporters.
I can't stand the hysteria. If he were somehow nominated I'd vote for him or Hillary.
The BernieBots hope to sabotage the nomination of Clinton now that there is no viable path for him.
Go ahead and fools or of yourself and Bernie. I don't expect to be around for the conclusion of Trump's second term if the angry disappointed losers in a fair fight. Go ahead, be destructive.
But where Bernie did not lose his dignity, a not insignificant number of his supporters, I.e. The BernieBots, have tarnished his image, something more than just sore losers.
I don't vote in primaries. If you want to vote in a closed primary, you should know the rules and enrol as a Democrat or republican. I voted many years ago in open primaries in the South.
So did hordes of lunatics and Republicans. The result of open primaries can be seen in the South where open primaries guaranteed the Democrats would lose because the open primaries picked the candidates wanted to run against.
The vitriol keeps getting worse from the BeenieBots - not the majority for sure of Sanders supporters.
I can't stand the hysteria. If he were somehow nominated I'd vote for him or Hillary.
The BernieBots hope to sabotage the nomination of Clinton now that there is no viable path for him.
Go ahead and fools or of yourself and Bernie. I don't expect to be around for the conclusion of Trump's second term if the angry disappointed losers in a fair fight. Go ahead, be destructive.
4
If nothing else it is crystal clear that unless they are slighted either professionally or personally, the Times columnist will not utter more than a squeak of criticism of a Clinton presidency (Dowd could be the one exception. She will continue to be nasty towards no particular end unless she gets a nice note and an invitation to the White House).
3
I am very upset. This is among the first articles that make a lot of sense from Krugman. The democratic party has a clear set of goals. They only disagree on how far they are going to go without wrecking the economy, overshooting constitutional authority, and hurting their cause. That is the central debate between Clinton and Saunders.
The Republican side though has been running and I think inadvertently on causes that clearly do not align with their base. The party makes the fundamental case that a country with light regulation, freeish trade, low taxes, and a strong dollar makes the country stronger and helps lift all boats. Clearly 40% of the party does not support these goals in the slightest.
The Republican side though has been running and I think inadvertently on causes that clearly do not align with their base. The party makes the fundamental case that a country with light regulation, freeish trade, low taxes, and a strong dollar makes the country stronger and helps lift all boats. Clearly 40% of the party does not support these goals in the slightest.
2
For me, there are two reasons to love the Trump candidacy.
1) He is destroying the Republican Party from the inside out. Who else could have gotten the base to question the "business as usual" politics that they have offered for decades, but a rich, white (narcissistic) dude.
2) His woman hating instincts have awoken the sleeping tiger of feminism in America. I am not sure that we would have ever elected a female president, but with Trump on the ticket... we can't lose. Against Trump, Hillary has become the savior and not the dud.
1) He is destroying the Republican Party from the inside out. Who else could have gotten the base to question the "business as usual" politics that they have offered for decades, but a rich, white (narcissistic) dude.
2) His woman hating instincts have awoken the sleeping tiger of feminism in America. I am not sure that we would have ever elected a female president, but with Trump on the ticket... we can't lose. Against Trump, Hillary has become the savior and not the dud.
3
So let me get this straight Paul. In your columns you personally have said Sanders is a demogogue, a Bernie Bro, over the edge, and a racist, among other things, and imply over and over that he had no grasp of reality and all his policies would be dead on arrival. Yet you still on trying to say that your darling Clinton is the one who gets the majority of the negative press. Give me a break!
12
I am an independent write-in candidate for president.
My Lev Care program covers the whole country—access to medical care for all— in six weeks flat. My Wall Street plan gives every home owner a break, without breaking up the too big to fail banks.
Every bank held mortgage is going to be rewritten with better payments, foreclosure protection and 2-3% out of 51 million monthly payments shall go to drawing down public debt. My plan is worth a Nobel!
The reel issue is world peace and food chain harmony. I also bring to the political table a prophetic hand lettered Television Scripture to perform on all channels for all the world's peoples at once, every line a delicate sensible rhyme, as old blind Homer, dusk until dawn.
I plan to be elected. Scarcity of bandwidth, for political speech does not exist. All voices can be heard. Anyone who wants to run can declare, then apply to any TV station for 30-60 minutes airtime for a speech which will be paid for by advertisers lined up, seeking to reach the viewers.
Advertising during a political speech does not mean you support the candidate—only his or her right to speak. So every seat in the House can be challenged and you don't need to grovel for money.
However, FBI has been visiting every TV station to name check the managers. They tell them to stonewall any request from outsiders aa they FBI have big influence in FCC so licenses won't be challenged.
FBI has made us unsafe. I'm going to fix that.
http://michaelslevinson.com
My Lev Care program covers the whole country—access to medical care for all— in six weeks flat. My Wall Street plan gives every home owner a break, without breaking up the too big to fail banks.
Every bank held mortgage is going to be rewritten with better payments, foreclosure protection and 2-3% out of 51 million monthly payments shall go to drawing down public debt. My plan is worth a Nobel!
The reel issue is world peace and food chain harmony. I also bring to the political table a prophetic hand lettered Television Scripture to perform on all channels for all the world's peoples at once, every line a delicate sensible rhyme, as old blind Homer, dusk until dawn.
I plan to be elected. Scarcity of bandwidth, for political speech does not exist. All voices can be heard. Anyone who wants to run can declare, then apply to any TV station for 30-60 minutes airtime for a speech which will be paid for by advertisers lined up, seeking to reach the viewers.
Advertising during a political speech does not mean you support the candidate—only his or her right to speak. So every seat in the House can be challenged and you don't need to grovel for money.
However, FBI has been visiting every TV station to name check the managers. They tell them to stonewall any request from outsiders aa they FBI have big influence in FCC so licenses won't be challenged.
FBI has made us unsafe. I'm going to fix that.
http://michaelslevinson.com
NERO VS CALIGULA Is the choice on offer from the GOP in its 2 front runners, one who fiddle while Rome burns and the other who is insane. Or maybe both have some of the worst within them. And I don't know whether either can play the the violin, though clearly both can fiddle while the US and the planet burn. I've been going on about the con jobs of the GOP since Reagan took office. Great Communicator, though he may have been, he was, at bottom, an actor, who constructed a fictive character as dictated by the script of the playwright or puppet master. We stand at a crossroads in the US, whether we will continue buying the cons of the GOP or switch to the imperfect, flawed goals of the Democrats, on the theory that half a loaf is better than Marie Antionette's, Let them eat cake. We must keep focus on the fact that it is Walmart, the most profitable corporation, that exploits not only its workers, but the nation's taxpayers. Because of inadequate pay and benefits, employees of Walmart require the most help from social programs such as welfare, food stamps and Medicaid of any corporate employees group. How dare the owners of Walmart take advantage of those of hte 99% just because they can, as members of the 1%! That the GOP fails to denounce such exploitation of the 99% is more than justification for their decline and fall. It's coming. And it's going to be a tsunami of overwhelming power and proportions. Let's just hope that it cleans out the GOP corruption & greed.
2
A pox on both their houses.
The one thing we could hope will come from the accelerating technical revolution is the end of political parties. It just never seems to happen.
And for all those who really think the Bernie Sanders represents a post political future, get real. He is perhaps the most politically calculating individual in the 2016 race.
We are all still left with the task of voting for the lesser of many weevils.
True, in this cycle that is going to be Hillary. But that is no great accomplishment.
The one thing we could hope will come from the accelerating technical revolution is the end of political parties. It just never seems to happen.
And for all those who really think the Bernie Sanders represents a post political future, get real. He is perhaps the most politically calculating individual in the 2016 race.
We are all still left with the task of voting for the lesser of many weevils.
True, in this cycle that is going to be Hillary. But that is no great accomplishment.
2
"Both parties make promises to their bases. But while the Democratic establishment more or less tries to make good on those promises, the Republican establishment has essentially been playing bait-and-switch for decades."
This is laughable. The Democrats have no interest in helping the poor achieve the middle class. They have every interest in keeping the ppor right where they are, dependent on government. If the Democrats were truly interested in helping the poor, the poor would be better educated. Yet the poor are worst educated precisely where Democrats run schools on their own, in the inner cities. You would see reform ideas (besides throwing money at the problem). You would see teachers paid based on performance. You would poor performing teachers fired, period. You would see longer school days and years (most developed countries don't take summer off, maybe just a month). You'd see teachers needing to finish near the top of their college classes, not the middle. Yes some of these ideas are expensive, but behind all of the ideas is reform and holding schools (admin, teachers) accountable. The Democrats want nothing to do with that. They simply want to spend more on the same broken system. They like the poor dependent on government. It's great for their own job security.
This is laughable. The Democrats have no interest in helping the poor achieve the middle class. They have every interest in keeping the ppor right where they are, dependent on government. If the Democrats were truly interested in helping the poor, the poor would be better educated. Yet the poor are worst educated precisely where Democrats run schools on their own, in the inner cities. You would see reform ideas (besides throwing money at the problem). You would see teachers paid based on performance. You would poor performing teachers fired, period. You would see longer school days and years (most developed countries don't take summer off, maybe just a month). You'd see teachers needing to finish near the top of their college classes, not the middle. Yes some of these ideas are expensive, but behind all of the ideas is reform and holding schools (admin, teachers) accountable. The Democrats want nothing to do with that. They simply want to spend more on the same broken system. They like the poor dependent on government. It's great for their own job security.
2
I find it amusing, and frightening at the same time that the Republican voters have finally figured out that they've been conned, but will still go into that voting booth and vote for anyone with an "R" after their name, well maybe not Arthur Brooks, but he has a brain.
The Republican establishment has pandered to misogyny to get the old and poorly educated white guys votes, told them that if they make the rich richer, everyone will be rich, and on and on, and they vote for them every time, when the Republican machine is only interested in representing the 1%. The Republican voters know that now, but they'll still vote for in insanely rich Republican that will screw them again, and maybe start WWIII. Watch for it.
The Republican establishment has pandered to misogyny to get the old and poorly educated white guys votes, told them that if they make the rich richer, everyone will be rich, and on and on, and they vote for them every time, when the Republican machine is only interested in representing the 1%. The Republican voters know that now, but they'll still vote for in insanely rich Republican that will screw them again, and maybe start WWIII. Watch for it.
1
Hillary Clinton and the Democratic establishment can hardly be viewed as winning much here, unless its a booby prize. If Sanders had had more exposure sooner, he may well have caught Hillary, even given her enormous head start.
I'm amazed at how tone deaf Prof Krugman is to the issue of corruption in the US political system.
Both parties historically entrenched routine of taking money from donors to fund their campaigns, and then engaging in nuances of corruption, is what the public has finally rejected in both parties and across the country.
It's not about Hillary, Bernie, or Trump. Its about taking back our government from the corruption of the status quo.
The democratic party is marginally better than the GOP, ok fine. So congratulations for being slightly less corrupt than the crazy party? pfft!
I'm amazed at how tone deaf Prof Krugman is to the issue of corruption in the US political system.
Both parties historically entrenched routine of taking money from donors to fund their campaigns, and then engaging in nuances of corruption, is what the public has finally rejected in both parties and across the country.
It's not about Hillary, Bernie, or Trump. Its about taking back our government from the corruption of the status quo.
The democratic party is marginally better than the GOP, ok fine. So congratulations for being slightly less corrupt than the crazy party? pfft!
5
The study linked in this Op-Ed about the negative media coverage received by poor, beleaguered Hillary Clinton is deceptive on many levels. She has been the anointed nominee since Day 1. That anointment is the most positive news a candidate can receive and it has been relentlessly trumpeted by all of the news media outlets. The negative media coverage she has received has a lot to do with her own long record, full of mistakes, including one that has led to an ongoing F.B.I. investigation, as well as the throne she was placed on, in particular by the NY Times. While the Republican battle has been covered ad-nauseum, the issues that separate Hillary and her opponent, Bernie Sanders, have been ignored. Her negative coverage also pales in importance when one considers the media blackout of Sanders, despite his popularity. In 2015, ABC News devoted 81 minutes of coverage to Trump and 20 seconds to Sanders. The ugly fact is that virtually every little, infrequent news moment or story on Sanders was a negative one.
6
“Above all, you have the Affordable Care Act, which has given about 20 million Americans health insurance, with the gains biggest for the poor, minorities and low-wage workers. That’s what you call delivering for the base — and it’s surely one reason nonwhite voters have overwhelmingly favored Mrs. Clinton over a challenger who sometimes seemed to dismiss that achievement.”
But Paul, over 30 million Americans remain uninsured. Bernie didn’t “dismiss” the achievements of the ACA, in fact he repeatedly noted that it was a vast improvement over what he had before…but he has been righteously, and rightfully, indignant that so many remain uncovered.
Perhaps nothing better illustrates the difference between Hillary and her supporters (like you) and Bernie and his supporters. You identify with the party and it’s leadership, and clearly have taken his critiques personally. Whereas Bernie and his supporters identifies with our country’s most vulnerable. And we take their suffering personally.
But Paul, over 30 million Americans remain uninsured. Bernie didn’t “dismiss” the achievements of the ACA, in fact he repeatedly noted that it was a vast improvement over what he had before…but he has been righteously, and rightfully, indignant that so many remain uncovered.
Perhaps nothing better illustrates the difference between Hillary and her supporters (like you) and Bernie and his supporters. You identify with the party and it’s leadership, and clearly have taken his critiques personally. Whereas Bernie and his supporters identifies with our country’s most vulnerable. And we take their suffering personally.
7
I just think Democrats are better and more sophisticated con artists. An that this society is rich enough that 1%-ters may allow some crumbs fall off the table into the mouths of hungry masses, which is precisely what I see is the Democrat policy. Republican establishment is we to its Randian supply-side ideology, and thus not flexible enough to pull a good con. Also, I think majority is afraid of change, any change, even change that may be good for them, anything revolutionary, because they are so afraid of risk, that they would rather forego benefits, i.e. if someone comes around saying things that sound almost too good, like Sanders, the first instinct the beleaguered, battered majority will be to run for cover, in the safety of the rhetoric of a more incremental candidate. Which is perhaps a reaction of being conned too many times. In the end Hillary will win by promising the least.
4
Dr. Krugman likes to fashion his facts to his taste, but the answers to his self-posed questions are now as he proposes. Clinton wins the nomination because her only opponent is truly s mo-hope option, and the Democrats have the large number of delegates not chosen by election to allow the establishment more control of the nomination. Plus minorities have nostalgia for Bill and like Obama.
Republicans have no such fail-safe mechanism, and given the lack of incumbency had too many hopefuls in for too long. Negative press was helpful to Trump since it's perceived as coming mainly from liberals,
The argument about negative coverage is weak, given that all the candidates get much more negative than positive press. Compliments do not make for increased readership.
Republicans have no such fail-safe mechanism, and given the lack of incumbency had too many hopefuls in for too long. Negative press was helpful to Trump since it's perceived as coming mainly from liberals,
The argument about negative coverage is weak, given that all the candidates get much more negative than positive press. Compliments do not make for increased readership.
1
I always think back to something I heard once about fortune tellers: they tell you things that sound like unique insights about yourself but are in fact believed by most people. e.g. "you're a very intuitive person, aren't you?" Or "something is bothering you." That's how the Republicans play their game too. Who doesn't feel, on April 15th, like they just can't believe how friggin' much they pay in taxes? Who doesn't feel like the game is "rigged" and the "deck stacked" against them. Who doesn't need some other to hate and demonize? But in the end, what all this get you? About the same place a visit to a fortune teller gets you.
1
That the con artists (read, republicans) are having trouble recognizing themselves for what they are, in spite of the evidence, is a self-inflicted wound by creating a huge social distance between the people electing them...and the 'rich and powerful' elitist that keeps them in power. Prostitution may have a bad reputation but it seems to work for some; ditto for politician prostitutes able and willing to sell themselves to the highest bidder. And the electorate is waking up to that reality, and acting accordingly. As the famous saying goes: you can fool some people all the time, others some of the time, but not all all the time. Its about time.
2
If Trump were running a leftist campaign like Bernie Sanders, the Democrats would be nominating Trump. The real difference is media exposure. The media, much to their chagrin, couldn't stop themselves from covering Trump who is a proven ratings magnet. But they had zero interest in covering an angry old guy from Vermont.
The issues that brought Trump to the top of the Republican party are the same in the Democratic party. What we are really seeing is the disruption of traditional campaign organizations from upstarts that are more readily able to mobilize the masses. That's why Obama beat Hillary and that is why Bernie gave it a good run and that is what made Trump possible. The policy proposals and wonky details had a lot less to do with it than you think.
The issues that brought Trump to the top of the Republican party are the same in the Democratic party. What we are really seeing is the disruption of traditional campaign organizations from upstarts that are more readily able to mobilize the masses. That's why Obama beat Hillary and that is why Bernie gave it a good run and that is what made Trump possible. The policy proposals and wonky details had a lot less to do with it than you think.
3
The lower middle and the middle class of the GOP is being implored to support things like lower taxes on inheritances over five million dollars and it is just irrelevant to them. They've finally decided to say so
3
That remains to be seen. They may be saying no but what they will get under Trump is lower taxes on the rich and elimination of the inheritance tax and increased spending on the military. Just more of the big con. They will have wasted 4 or 8 more years getting nothing. More likely less than nothing, as in another economic collapse.
1
"...Mrs. Clinton, despite the most negative media coverage of any candidate in this cycle — yes, worse than Donald Trump’s..."
Oh come on Paul. You make some good points, but the above statement is patently absurd.
Oh come on Paul. You make some good points, but the above statement is patently absurd.
6
"Resilient under pressure" might be understood as 'oblivious to one's own character defects'. Ms. Teachout's Op-Ed today highlights the long history of the necessity of avoiding the mere appearance of quid pro quo. When one candidate pockets more for a 20 minute Ted talk than the other makes in a year, is one a chump and the other a shill? Mr. Krugman, your benighted conviction the aggregate of health care consumers have been better served than the insurance-pharmaceutical complex is simply sad.
4
The wrath of conned people is coming down on the hired liars running the Democratic Party from former Democrat voters, who were told that this audaciously empty soul of a president was going to get jobs for workers and lower the sea levels for all the devout liberals signed up for the climate
change catechism.
As the reality of Obama's doubling the national debt hits home in the minds of former liberal True Believers, Hillary will see firsthand what happens when voters make up their minds. People really don't like being lied to.
change catechism.
As the reality of Obama's doubling the national debt hits home in the minds of former liberal True Believers, Hillary will see firsthand what happens when voters make up their minds. People really don't like being lied to.
2
Perfectly put.
And the saddest part of all is that the disenfranchised, white, middle class republicans (especially those angry men) just cannot seem to grasp where their best interests lie. They are so tied up in knots over the 'browning of America' as someone (Mr Krugman?) recently observed that they are literally ruining their futures via cognitive dissonance. These are voters who would have been part of the FDR revolution in another generation. It would be sad if they were not so darned scary.
And the saddest part of all is that the disenfranchised, white, middle class republicans (especially those angry men) just cannot seem to grasp where their best interests lie. They are so tied up in knots over the 'browning of America' as someone (Mr Krugman?) recently observed that they are literally ruining their futures via cognitive dissonance. These are voters who would have been part of the FDR revolution in another generation. It would be sad if they were not so darned scary.
1
Dr. Krugman may remember George Wallace campaigning on the motto that "There's not a dime's worth of difference between the Republican and Democratic Parties!" it seems to me that the good doctor is laboring mightily to put the lie to that statement, by demonstrating that there is at least .11 worth of difference. Hillary has pulled ahead only because she has an "incumbent's" advantage, and that lies mostly in owing the Party and the Primary rules excluding Independents, who would be voting Democrat if the party was actually democratic.
3
My favorite 'conned' man was Joe the Plumber. Remember him? His name wasn't Joe and he wasn't really a plumber, but he argued with President (then Candidate) Obama that low taxes on the rich were really important to people like himself. Of course he was not rich, and never would be, but he had bought the whole scam.
A big part of the scam is the appeal to racism; the fiction that there are millions of unemployed minorities out there who get large welfare checks to sit around and smoke pot all day. Trump is selling his snake oil with the con that it is immigrants who are not only getting government checks, but your job. Oh, and you can keep your Medicare and Social Security but those parasites on Obamacare (all minorities and immigrants) will be cut off. A smart con artist knows his mark.
A big part of the scam is the appeal to racism; the fiction that there are millions of unemployed minorities out there who get large welfare checks to sit around and smoke pot all day. Trump is selling his snake oil with the con that it is immigrants who are not only getting government checks, but your job. Oh, and you can keep your Medicare and Social Security but those parasites on Obamacare (all minorities and immigrants) will be cut off. A smart con artist knows his mark.
11
The greed engendered by Citizens United has killed the GOP.....
so...the Roberts Court decision to allow .01 percent of US citizens
dictate who runs this country...elect a President...well ....this death knell
this infamous law based on the insatiable GREED of oligarchs...has
produced an adversary from their own camp...let us say it is the battle
of.
.......KOCH...vs..TRUMP......two greedy monsters.
and let
us now hope that the battle decimates both ...because they are just the
same caliber of persona....vile and miserable entities...just alike...
The alternative....is the only political party left standing since the GOP is
a dead ELEPHANT....in a red baseball cap...and that folks is Hillary..
so...the Roberts Court decision to allow .01 percent of US citizens
dictate who runs this country...elect a President...well ....this death knell
this infamous law based on the insatiable GREED of oligarchs...has
produced an adversary from their own camp...let us say it is the battle
of.
.......KOCH...vs..TRUMP......two greedy monsters.
and let
us now hope that the battle decimates both ...because they are just the
same caliber of persona....vile and miserable entities...just alike...
The alternative....is the only political party left standing since the GOP is
a dead ELEPHANT....in a red baseball cap...and that folks is Hillary..
2
The corruption of Hillary Clinton and the corruption of Paul Krugman was only recognized by the moonbat partisans when a backdrop of Bernie Sanders exposed it.
5
surely Mr Krugman is smart enough to know that the Democratic Party is just one electoral cycle behind. The US is entering a period of a protracted political crisis because both parties conned and created an economic arrangement which is intrinsically unstable. It was a bipartisan affair. It took 30 years to get here, it might take 30 to get out, and getting out might fail. Examples abound south of the border.
1
You reap what you sow.
2
The fact that we may have 2 of the most unfavorable individuals as the nominees for their respective Party's, reminded me that Romney quoted John Adams, our 2nd president, in his anti-Trump speech. Romney claimed Adams was wrong, when Adams questioned the sustainability of a true democracy, which is highly debatable.
However, since the GOP's party line is "Original Intent" by our nation's founders, I thought the following quotes from John Adams and George Washington on the evils of a two-party system were quite prescient and demonstrate, at least in part, how far off the GOP is from the Founders "Original Intent"
George Washington:
"It serves always to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.
John Adams:
"There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution."
However, since the GOP's party line is "Original Intent" by our nation's founders, I thought the following quotes from John Adams and George Washington on the evils of a two-party system were quite prescient and demonstrate, at least in part, how far off the GOP is from the Founders "Original Intent"
George Washington:
"It serves always to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.
John Adams:
"There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution."
4
I think that the conned are really the American public, who over the years, have hardly ever been served by honesty or fiscal responsibility. The Social Security Trust Fund has been borrowed from, that in 2035, is set to run out of money to pay full benefits, and the Federal Gasoline Tax has been borrowed from, so the only way to fix roads and bridges is to tax. Having taken a recent trip out west of over 4000 miles, I can tell you that as soon as we hit the border between South Dakota and Minnesota, the roads in Minnesota all the way up to Minneapolis are in horrible condition, and I would only give a 4 on a scale of 1-10. The public and the politicians have both been conned into believing that no one is an adult, so no adult communication, policies, or sacrifice are in order to tax people for both needed and wanted policies. You want a Cold War and missiles, tax for it, you want foreign aid, tax for it, you want more laws and regulations, tax for it, you want more aid for students, tax for it, you want more aid for welfare, tax for it, you want more aid for farmers, tax for it, you want more aid for corporations, tax for it, you want more aid for teachers and police persons, tax for it, you want added health care programs, tax for it, etc. That is not how things go at the federal or state level. The few states that balance their budget each year, and have solid pensions are really the only adults in the room. Who becomes President or who is running is irrelevant.
4
I like Paul Krugman, and I appreciate him on economics. On politics not at all. He seems to me woefully out of touch with reality. His bubble is secure and affluent, certainly well off.. and his view from inside this bubble is distorted. The Democrats are no longer Democrats. And Hillary Clinton on her best day is a Nelson Rockefeller Republican. We should simply call her a Repubocrat and Obama too. His health care law is a good example of saying one thing and providing something else. If Obama Care is so good, and so many have health care, then why were there thousands in LA yesterday showing up for free care because the could not afford their deductibles.. This is the reality of the law. It looks good on paper because it shows that people are insured. Our nation, and our Repubocrats ( Hillary) rely on such slight of hand to paint their pictures. In reality- A vote for Hillary is a vote for the loss of hope! And also a vote for a warmonger!
6
Again I note a number of Bernie supporters engaged in blaming the Clintons for numerous perceived inadequacies and assorted evils. To them I offer a few comments, but first my brief, singular, but spectacular credential: I've supported the essence of Bernieism since before many of his present supporters were embyros.
That said, the Clintons, and of course Hillary, are much less "progressive" than I would like. But many current and disappointed Bernie followers need a history reminder. There are in the US two dominant parties, and Republicans/Conservatives have opposed all elements of progressivism for generations, a fact that Bernie clearly understands even if some of his followers do not. The former undoubtedly will continue to oppose. What this means is that whatever Democratic President, yes Hillary, should prevail in November, he/she likely will be far more "progressive" than the opposition, who then, as now, will be profoundly anti-progressive.
In short, currently ANY Democratic President -- yes, even a Clinton -- can be viewed as at least a step in a "progressive" direction, however tentative or limited. And ANY current Republican candidate will do everything he can to set progressivism back, perhaps even fatally.
That's the real and pending choice (a la Naderites) for Bernie followers. Get over the Hillary bashing -- the enemy of The Cause is elsewhere, conspicuously, and for all to see.
That said, the Clintons, and of course Hillary, are much less "progressive" than I would like. But many current and disappointed Bernie followers need a history reminder. There are in the US two dominant parties, and Republicans/Conservatives have opposed all elements of progressivism for generations, a fact that Bernie clearly understands even if some of his followers do not. The former undoubtedly will continue to oppose. What this means is that whatever Democratic President, yes Hillary, should prevail in November, he/she likely will be far more "progressive" than the opposition, who then, as now, will be profoundly anti-progressive.
In short, currently ANY Democratic President -- yes, even a Clinton -- can be viewed as at least a step in a "progressive" direction, however tentative or limited. And ANY current Republican candidate will do everything he can to set progressivism back, perhaps even fatally.
That's the real and pending choice (a la Naderites) for Bernie followers. Get over the Hillary bashing -- the enemy of The Cause is elsewhere, conspicuously, and for all to see.
1
I admire your willingness, Professor, to undergo the wrath of the Bernie cult. When reason isn't on their side, they just repeat the same list of the Senator's tired, old (they date back to the late 19th century), faulty or unrealistic economic remedies. Not to mention his unfounded slurs.
You have reason; they have faith. All they can do now is helplessly repeat the Gospel of St. Bernard. You're lucky, Mr. Krugman, that they don't Bern people at the stake for heresy any more.
You have reason; they have faith. All they can do now is helplessly repeat the Gospel of St. Bernard. You're lucky, Mr. Krugman, that they don't Bern people at the stake for heresy any more.
2
People have finally realized that there will always be people who think they deserve more of OUR natural resources and taxpayer treasure - and the wealth it brings. That has been okay until up to recent times when wealth accumulation by a few is only matched by that kings hoarded in the middle ages. It WILL NOT STAND in America. To follow is a link to the most graphic description I've ever seen on the obscenity of wealth disparity in America today. No tears for the republican party that sold out to BIG democracy-destroying money people. None.
http://mashable.com/2013/03/02/wealth-inequality/
http://mashable.com/2013/03/02/wealth-inequality/
3
The Republican Party is a dystopian world in which an elite corps of privileged overseers try to manage and contain the hordes in order to maintain their own elite entitlements. By honing the racial animosity, religious absolutism and zero sum paranoia of their mostly white underclass, they are able to distract while they pillage, even their own supporters. Give them some guns, some folks and ideas to hate, and they are distracted. Right? Alas; it seems that Trump has upset the strategy. He stumbled onto rhetoric that draws blood from the eyes of many in these herded masses, and like the creatures from Aliens, that blood burns right through the floor. Feels a bit China Syndrome-ish.
2
When Reagan was sworn into office, I was a product manager of capital semiconductor processing equipment. When Reagan left office, I was selling empty factories. I experienced the whole evolution in just eight years.
4
Most people aren't aware that we've lost 6.4 million manufacturing jobs under the last three Republican administrations and have gained more than 900,000 manufacturing jobs under the last three Democratic administrations. Republican voters think the GOP cares about them, but the party really exists to benefit global business interests, no matter the consequences for the American people.
1
To paraphrase, "You're all idiots who have been conned"
Your contempt for the American people is, as ever, just below the surface. But the elite of the Democratic party is just as out of touch and lacking in answers as that of the Republicans.
The really frightening point to consider, PK, is that if Donald Trump had run for the presidential nomination as a Democrat, there's a very good chance that he would have won. Trump is taking the Republicans down this year, but it could just as easily have been Trump as the Democratic nominee losing to Bush or Rubio. Consider that before asking whether the Democratic party is A-OK in 2016.
Your contempt for the American people is, as ever, just below the surface. But the elite of the Democratic party is just as out of touch and lacking in answers as that of the Republicans.
The really frightening point to consider, PK, is that if Donald Trump had run for the presidential nomination as a Democrat, there's a very good chance that he would have won. Trump is taking the Republicans down this year, but it could just as easily have been Trump as the Democratic nominee losing to Bush or Rubio. Consider that before asking whether the Democratic party is A-OK in 2016.
2
The GOP base has conned themselves. Sure they are very mad we have a black president, very mad he thumbs his nose at them and goes around the congress they control, very mad that evangelism isn't a state religion and they want this fixed NOW! However they believe Trump is a political outsider and one of them. Do they really think he made a fortune in the NYC realestate market by being one of them??
2
Somebody used to say that:
"Bill Clinton is well-liked by stupid people because he makes them feel smart.
Hillary Clinton is hated by stupid people because she makes them feel stupid. "
New observations from this election cycle:
Donald Trump is loved by stupid people because he gives them another way to fool themselves.
Bernie Sanders is worshiped by stupid people because he makes them feel holier than all those smart people.
Paul Krugman? He simply breaks their hearts (“I used to love this column”, “you disappointed me so much”, “I’m losing my respect for you”,……, anybody?)
Of course, stupidity does not need to be a chronic condition. It can be cured by reading with thinking and reasoning, and getting a healthy dose of facts and logic into the brain to drive out empty slogans.
"Bill Clinton is well-liked by stupid people because he makes them feel smart.
Hillary Clinton is hated by stupid people because she makes them feel stupid. "
New observations from this election cycle:
Donald Trump is loved by stupid people because he gives them another way to fool themselves.
Bernie Sanders is worshiped by stupid people because he makes them feel holier than all those smart people.
Paul Krugman? He simply breaks their hearts (“I used to love this column”, “you disappointed me so much”, “I’m losing my respect for you”,……, anybody?)
Of course, stupidity does not need to be a chronic condition. It can be cured by reading with thinking and reasoning, and getting a healthy dose of facts and logic into the brain to drive out empty slogans.
2
I'm a disappointed Republican who voted for President Obama's second term and will vote for Secretary of State, Clinton. Voting Democratic for me is virtually on the same level as converting to a different religion. The Republican party has been so disjointed and so poorly tuned to the masses that it's a far cry from the ideals upon which the party was founded. I keep reading about conservative ideals yet I'm not certain if they're understood by today's Republican leadership. There's nothing wrong in desiring lean government as long as the people's needs are met. There's nothing wrong in making certain that tax revenues aren't wasted and as little as possible of those revenues are spent to achieve the goals mandated by the tax. There's nothing wrong with passing a tax if there's a determined need for the tax and that transparency exists in how that tax revenue is spent. Allowing the Highway Trust Fund to go broke, shutting off funding for the government to function without a thought as to how each government worker will pay their mortgages and run their households, to try to defeat and then repeal the Affordable Care Act without expending the effort to rally the Republican troops to craft an alternative. To blatantly state that there will be no vote on Merrick Garland, President Obama's nominee for the Supreme Court. The Republicans have shot themselves in both feet and that's exceedingly hard to do when they're stuck up their behinds.
5
@ Rima
If we had more than just two parties, and a true Social Democrat party, I would consider myself as being a member of that party.
My problem with Bernie - who for decades wore the mantle of a capital I in front of his name - was his all of a sudden switch to D in order to run for president, knowing that if he would form his own party he would only be another Nader. Now that is what I call opportunism.
Your beloved Bernie was also the one that insisted President Obama should be primaried during the 2012 election. Was he suggesting he was willing to jump into that game already then?
To anyone who grew up in Europe with universal healthcare and free higher education such as I, Bernie's promises are a pipe dream that can never come to fruition in our deeply divided two party system, a system where every single legislation needs the support of a supermajority in the Senate to even come to a vote on the floor.
Your constant attacks on Hillary really get tiring, at a time when Sanders without having a chance for the nomination marches while spending the milk-money of his very young and idealistic supporters, the ones that often have as little clues about reality of governing as the supporters of Il Trumpolini.
If we had more than just two parties, and a true Social Democrat party, I would consider myself as being a member of that party.
My problem with Bernie - who for decades wore the mantle of a capital I in front of his name - was his all of a sudden switch to D in order to run for president, knowing that if he would form his own party he would only be another Nader. Now that is what I call opportunism.
Your beloved Bernie was also the one that insisted President Obama should be primaried during the 2012 election. Was he suggesting he was willing to jump into that game already then?
To anyone who grew up in Europe with universal healthcare and free higher education such as I, Bernie's promises are a pipe dream that can never come to fruition in our deeply divided two party system, a system where every single legislation needs the support of a supermajority in the Senate to even come to a vote on the floor.
Your constant attacks on Hillary really get tiring, at a time when Sanders without having a chance for the nomination marches while spending the milk-money of his very young and idealistic supporters, the ones that often have as little clues about reality of governing as the supporters of Il Trumpolini.
5
Among the things that bother me about this election cycle are:
Neither party actually is in touch with the feelings of the vast majority of Americans. Trump and Sanders are tapping into opposite ends of the spectrum of the same phenomena, the economic insecurity of more than half of the populace, which extends well about the median income level in the US.
Neither party has been able to put forth a candidate who could actually lead and inspire the American people. Both parties appear to represent small power elites, and US Incorporated, rather than the populace. The DNC only supported a single candidate, which the "liberal" press dutifully endorsed. The Republicans have lived in their own echo chambers too long. Both parties have been caught unawares by the strength of populist feeling.
The Republicans have tried to suppress voter turnout through legislation. It appears the Democratic Party has tried to suppress Sanders support at the local level in the caucus and primary processes, there have been too many reports of this to ignore.
My hope for Bernie Sanders was that he would push HRC into making promises on populist issues that she would be unable to back away from, which to some extent he has done. I have been surprised by Professor Krugman's support of Hillary Clinton and his dismissal of Bernie Sanders, which seem at odds with his longstanding social views. Perhaps he's been sounded out about a cabinet post?
Neither party actually is in touch with the feelings of the vast majority of Americans. Trump and Sanders are tapping into opposite ends of the spectrum of the same phenomena, the economic insecurity of more than half of the populace, which extends well about the median income level in the US.
Neither party has been able to put forth a candidate who could actually lead and inspire the American people. Both parties appear to represent small power elites, and US Incorporated, rather than the populace. The DNC only supported a single candidate, which the "liberal" press dutifully endorsed. The Republicans have lived in their own echo chambers too long. Both parties have been caught unawares by the strength of populist feeling.
The Republicans have tried to suppress voter turnout through legislation. It appears the Democratic Party has tried to suppress Sanders support at the local level in the caucus and primary processes, there have been too many reports of this to ignore.
My hope for Bernie Sanders was that he would push HRC into making promises on populist issues that she would be unable to back away from, which to some extent he has done. I have been surprised by Professor Krugman's support of Hillary Clinton and his dismissal of Bernie Sanders, which seem at odds with his longstanding social views. Perhaps he's been sounded out about a cabinet post?
3
I am very disappointed I have to post this again minus the humor about forgetting that maybe the reason my previous post was not posted (I am avoiding the term censored for good measure.)
Mr Krugman you write in 2016:
"voters have overwhelmingly favored Mrs. Clinton over a challenger who sometimes seemed to dismiss that achievement."
But in 2008 you were equally dismissive or Obamacare as Bernie Sanders is today. You wrote back then:
"If Mrs. Clinton gets the Democratic nomination, there is some chance — nobody knows how big — that we’ll get universal health care in the next administration. If Mr. Obama gets the nomination, it just won’t happen."
Back then you did not think "universal health care" was a socialist pipe dream but back then you thought it is the reason we should have chosen Hillary over Barack.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/04/opinion/04krugman.html
Now you think Obamacare is the reason we should choose Hillary over Bernie.
Mr Krugman you write in 2016:
"voters have overwhelmingly favored Mrs. Clinton over a challenger who sometimes seemed to dismiss that achievement."
But in 2008 you were equally dismissive or Obamacare as Bernie Sanders is today. You wrote back then:
"If Mrs. Clinton gets the Democratic nomination, there is some chance — nobody knows how big — that we’ll get universal health care in the next administration. If Mr. Obama gets the nomination, it just won’t happen."
Back then you did not think "universal health care" was a socialist pipe dream but back then you thought it is the reason we should have chosen Hillary over Barack.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/04/opinion/04krugman.html
Now you think Obamacare is the reason we should choose Hillary over Bernie.
9
My comments to NYT Op-Eds are usually published but two weeks ago I called the Republican party "not a legitimate political party, but rather a criminal racket" and it was not published. Mr. Krugman is essentially saying politely what Mann and Ornstein said in "It's Even Worse Than It Looks" and Jane Mayer in "Dark Money", namely that the very rich are systematically colluding to force the average American to work for next to nothing while being denied any chance at the American Dream (bad schools, student debt, no health insurance, etc.). Legislators in Congress and Statehouses pass laws making all this legal, but any serious analysis reveals at bottom what Krugman is saying (Trump is just the latest, absurd twist). How on Earth is what the GOP has been doing "legally" for forty years not completely immoral, if not criminal?
2
Over 20 years the richest 10% have increased their share of U.S. wealth to 75%. If both parties are behind the middle class (defined as the next 40% of the population), why has their share of family wealth shrunk from 27% to 24% over the last 20 years? The lower class (defined as the poorest 50% - 62 million families) now share just 1% of family wealth (down by 70%). The poor no longer have wealth to spare for the rich or middle class (except for a possible reduction in their future Social Security). The political focus is on the battle between rich versus middle class. For each percentage gain in share of wealth for the rich (with 75%) there must be a percentage decline for the middle class (with 24%).
Donald Trump intends to make America great again so his supporters think he intends to let the middle class keep more of their earnings perhaps by doing away with regressive payroll taxes. Actually Ted Cruz favors that reform (although his 16% VAT is way too high). Trump wants to help just the rich keep more by lowering the top income rate to 25% and eliminating estate taxes – (his legacy achievement). This will increase wealth of the rich and continue to reduce the middle class share. It is only a matter of time before it is cut to 12% - the global middle class average.
With the support of the grateful rich, Trump will be the most powerful president in our history. I blame the economic professors, Krugman included.
Donald Trump intends to make America great again so his supporters think he intends to let the middle class keep more of their earnings perhaps by doing away with regressive payroll taxes. Actually Ted Cruz favors that reform (although his 16% VAT is way too high). Trump wants to help just the rich keep more by lowering the top income rate to 25% and eliminating estate taxes – (his legacy achievement). This will increase wealth of the rich and continue to reduce the middle class share. It is only a matter of time before it is cut to 12% - the global middle class average.
With the support of the grateful rich, Trump will be the most powerful president in our history. I blame the economic professors, Krugman included.
1
Actually, the only thing important now is that the American electorate does not fall for the con and elect Mr. Trump. He might be the choice of 20% of the Republican voters (that many showed at the polls), but shame on us (and US) if he be the choice of the majority of Americans.
2
During the Cold War, the strategy was deterrence through the mutually assured destruction of the arms race. Much of progress secured by the civil rights movement of the 60's was accomplished through nonviolence where passive action was used to counter the strengths of a violent oppressor.
The reason the Sanders Revolution didn't quite take hold is that a party cannot win an election in the USA by unilaterally disarming itself entirely from moneyed interests. Let's face reality, the two major parties in this nation are, in essence, locked in a cold war of sorts. Bernie could do it for just himself independently but he did little to nothing to support like-minded individuals down the ticket. In essence, nonviolence might work for one position, the presidency, but not for an entire party without changing the rules first. It is only through mutually assured political party destruction that our nation has any hope of transcending the money apocalypse of Citizens United.
The reason the Sanders Revolution didn't quite take hold is that a party cannot win an election in the USA by unilaterally disarming itself entirely from moneyed interests. Let's face reality, the two major parties in this nation are, in essence, locked in a cold war of sorts. Bernie could do it for just himself independently but he did little to nothing to support like-minded individuals down the ticket. In essence, nonviolence might work for one position, the presidency, but not for an entire party without changing the rules first. It is only through mutually assured political party destruction that our nation has any hope of transcending the money apocalypse of Citizens United.
Well, Mr. Krugman, your party establishment has given us Mrs. Clinton, and we cannot vote for her. She is corrupt and we do not want more years of the Clintons in the White House.
2
The statement that Hillary received the most negative coverage is misleading. Looking at the VOX article you referenced we see that she received the greatest percentage of negative coverage and that
"Of course, these numbers are just one way of looking at media bias in the presidential campaign. For instance, while the press has hit Clinton more frequently, Crimson Hexagon also found that it's paid much more attention to her than to Bernie Sanders. And, by design, this kind of analysis may overlook other ways the press can hurt a candidate — like Sanders — by downplaying or dismissing his or her chances."
I would remind you that Hillary would have been the Democratic nominee in 2008 had not Florida held their primary earlier than allowed. Her name recognition next to an unknown Obama gave her an insurmountable advantage.
Similarly, the virtual blackout of Sanders last Fall, when voters needed to register in NY for example, virtually ensured losses in the South as well.
The real question that we should be asking ourselves is not about coverage, however, but what has fundamentally gone wrong to give a demagogue traction with voters?
"Of course, these numbers are just one way of looking at media bias in the presidential campaign. For instance, while the press has hit Clinton more frequently, Crimson Hexagon also found that it's paid much more attention to her than to Bernie Sanders. And, by design, this kind of analysis may overlook other ways the press can hurt a candidate — like Sanders — by downplaying or dismissing his or her chances."
I would remind you that Hillary would have been the Democratic nominee in 2008 had not Florida held their primary earlier than allowed. Her name recognition next to an unknown Obama gave her an insurmountable advantage.
Similarly, the virtual blackout of Sanders last Fall, when voters needed to register in NY for example, virtually ensured losses in the South as well.
The real question that we should be asking ourselves is not about coverage, however, but what has fundamentally gone wrong to give a demagogue traction with voters?
2
Absolute certitude is a foolish and dangerous thing. Remember, "It ain't over till it's over" a wise Yogi once said. Politics is a game.
1
It is completely bonkers to argue that the reasons the primary has gone the way it has is that Hillary Clinton only got "softball questions," from the media, that Bernie Sanders got not coverage at all, that the elections were rigged--something, anything, to "prove," that it wasn't a pretty simple matter of voters made their choices, Sanders' supporters didn't turn out in anything like the numbers that he's said were needed, and the guy just plain decently lost.
And, I'd add, something that some of the Left share with a lot of the Right--I'm sorry to say--is a propensity for sneering at plain folks who just disagree with them, as well a tendency to turn real ugly when things don't go their way.
Personally, I blame Plato's "Republic," pretty much the origins of the idea that in a democracy, some animals' votes ought to count more than others. That, and an entrenched willingness to make up elaborate excuses rather than rethink.
And, I'd add, something that some of the Left share with a lot of the Right--I'm sorry to say--is a propensity for sneering at plain folks who just disagree with them, as well a tendency to turn real ugly when things don't go their way.
Personally, I blame Plato's "Republic," pretty much the origins of the idea that in a democracy, some animals' votes ought to count more than others. That, and an entrenched willingness to make up elaborate excuses rather than rethink.
1
Electing POTUS S/B serious business. Starting with Reagan - the movie star and now Trump - the class clown, the whole election process is a bleeping farce .
No standards, no accountability, and no shame, the USA has become the laughing stock of the world. The preeminent Democracy in the world is filled liars, ideologues, crooks, Wall St shills, and spineless followers.
Before we get all gushy with HRC, the fact is the GOP still control both Houses, many state legislatures and governorships, the Supreme Court through February and the Corporate Conservative media. In fact, the Judiciary was the only branch of government that was working on all cylinders – for the GOP. The GOP shut down all the other branches long ago.
If HRC/Trump is elected, expect another 8 years of a "Do Nothing" Congress filled with more wealth transferred to the wealthy elites and budget busting Defense black holes.
Our government is seen as a big pot of gold for corporations, Plutocracy and politicians to fleece and exploit for their own purposes. And who is going to stop them?
We have no checks- and-balances. We have no trustworthy media. The Plutocracy control all the rules/laws. They can and will do whatever it takes to get what they want behind our backs.
All we can do is influence the people around us and hope they understand the gravity of the situation and purge all Conservatives (GOP/Dems). Our future and our children's future can't take another 4 years of political moral morass/chaos.
No standards, no accountability, and no shame, the USA has become the laughing stock of the world. The preeminent Democracy in the world is filled liars, ideologues, crooks, Wall St shills, and spineless followers.
Before we get all gushy with HRC, the fact is the GOP still control both Houses, many state legislatures and governorships, the Supreme Court through February and the Corporate Conservative media. In fact, the Judiciary was the only branch of government that was working on all cylinders – for the GOP. The GOP shut down all the other branches long ago.
If HRC/Trump is elected, expect another 8 years of a "Do Nothing" Congress filled with more wealth transferred to the wealthy elites and budget busting Defense black holes.
Our government is seen as a big pot of gold for corporations, Plutocracy and politicians to fleece and exploit for their own purposes. And who is going to stop them?
We have no checks- and-balances. We have no trustworthy media. The Plutocracy control all the rules/laws. They can and will do whatever it takes to get what they want behind our backs.
All we can do is influence the people around us and hope they understand the gravity of the situation and purge all Conservatives (GOP/Dems). Our future and our children's future can't take another 4 years of political moral morass/chaos.
5
How differently I see things from PK. "negative media coverage? for Hillary? She has been slathered with support, especially from the NYT, while Bernie was marginalized. Lack of coverage is also "media coverage." Trump has gotten the most negative coverage by far -- he is treated like a buffoon.
I am uneasy about a potential Hillary presidency. She has frequently flirted with illegality, though never quite crossing the line. History is full of populists who helped themselves to riches with a Hillary-style sense of entitlement, rationalized and balanced by their good works. Throughout the Clinton years precious time and resources were spent following scandals which were partly manufactured and partly true. That show will surely go on. The Democrats could have done much better, and I hope they will next time.
I am uneasy about a potential Hillary presidency. She has frequently flirted with illegality, though never quite crossing the line. History is full of populists who helped themselves to riches with a Hillary-style sense of entitlement, rationalized and balanced by their good works. Throughout the Clinton years precious time and resources were spent following scandals which were partly manufactured and partly true. That show will surely go on. The Democrats could have done much better, and I hope they will next time.
3
Negative media coverage for Hil? Not from the Times.
5
One reason the Republican establishment has been able to play the long con on their rank and file is that they've succeeded in portraying their pro-rich policies as "sticking it to the liberals"—a tribal appeal that conceals their true nature and purpose. Even if blue-collar Republicans realize they're voting against their own best interests, the theory of altruistic punishment tells us that they're willing to incur this cost if they can thereby punish someone they perceive as unfair or evil (as in "evil liberals").
I know many Republicans who will privately share with you that they cannot, in good conscience, vote for either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton. This is due, they explain, to Mr. Trump's awful nativism and Mrs. Clinton's pro-choice sentiments. Right or not, these voters are conservatives because they are principled, not because they are conned, racist victims of their own fear. Most liberals, I would point out, also hold their political views due to noble principles. The oft-lamented decline of civility in American political discourse is not the product merely of the cable news commentariat or the Donald Trumps of the world. It is the product of Americans who have forgotten how to respect one another, how to see the good in one another, and would rather fix blame than find solutions. If we could foster respect across party aisles-- I think of the sort of magnanimity and class of, for example, the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, or the bipartisan friendship between Justice Ginsburg and the late Justice Scalia-- that, and not the grandstanding of a Trump or the petty scoffings of an opinion journalist, would make America great again. Please, Mr. Krugman, do not be a part of the problem-- think (at least) twice before you label half of Americans racists simply because of an R after their names.
4
Note that Obama was the only one in the White House who wanted to make any kind of national health a priority. Kudos to him, but he had to drag the party as a whole behind him, and it studiously kept its distance from him in the two years after when he was unpopular. The Dems in Congress and the Senate actually made Obama something of a pariah.
The Democratic Party's main mission is to survive; nothing else. Communications with the people are nil. I live in Leon Panetta's old district; his successor, Sam Farr, is retiring. The party has nominated -- with complete endorsements from every Democratic officeholder in the area -- Leon Panetta's son. Who has no background in politics, but boy does he have that name. And I'm sure he'll follow party orders.
The Democratic Party's main mission is to survive; nothing else. Communications with the people are nil. I live in Leon Panetta's old district; his successor, Sam Farr, is retiring. The party has nominated -- with complete endorsements from every Democratic officeholder in the area -- Leon Panetta's son. Who has no background in politics, but boy does he have that name. And I'm sure he'll follow party orders.
1
Trump crashed the Tea Party and hijacked the Koch brothers' takeover of the Republican Party. I guess a reality TV candidacy with a truly narcissist star has more appeal than shadowy hired operatives operating under organizations like "Americans for Prosperity." Likewise, Cruz hijacked the religious right with his smarmy imitation of a tent revival preacher on the campaign soapbox. It's truly a contrast that the progressive portion of the electorate coalesced with Sanders, who came in from the outside to run as a Democrat (a compelling political move), to set down a marker that there is a strong constituency for ideas and policies well to the left of Bill and Hilary's tendencies. As long as Bernie caps it off with a spirited tour of the country speaking out against Trump and praising Hilary for her (presupposed) support of an agenda that leans towards that solid left constituency, we'll be good.
1
More and more, the party of Abraham Lincoln is becoming a regional power, primarily in the states of the confederacy. Meanwhile, the party of the KKK and Tammany Hall dominates in most of the rest of the country because of its focus on diversity. How ironic is that! Hopefully, a Trump disaster will restore some balance and we can begin to all row in the same direction.
1
Because the GOP has done quite well in elections to Congress and state legislatures, the Dems will continue to struggle to implement liberal policies and the GOP will continue to rally around conservative positions. Millennials will determine whether and how quickly this stalemate changes as the conservative Silent Generation (those now over 70 years old) passes.
Watching from afar it looks like Clinton won thanks to overwhelming media bias. Black people voted for her despite that she labeled them "super-predators" and lobbied for laws rolling back their safety net and throwing them into prison en masse. In the general election she'll need those "Bernie Bros" - a group that includes an overwhelming majority of women under 35 - and they're deeply unhappy with her right now.
As an American expat in Europe I'm often asked about Trump by terrified Europeans. I explain the only thing his supporters are really focused on is his promise to renegotiate unfair trade deals with low-wage countries and support social security and Medicare; they understand why that message would resonate. Somebody asked me the other day why Americans like Trump and, before I could answer, my ten year-old daughter answered "because he's funny." As the saying goes, from the mouth of babes (no - we don't support Trump).
If anything this election cycle has shown that the ability of the mainstream media to shape public opinion is weakening. The NYT could not have been more biased towards Clinton. Sure she won, but barely. Same with Trump but his supporters don't really care what the NYT has to say about him: the attacks might actually have helped him.
In much the same way that the Internet decimated the traditional news business model it's now doing the same to the influence of newspapers. I'm not so sure that's a bad thing given what we've seen.
As an American expat in Europe I'm often asked about Trump by terrified Europeans. I explain the only thing his supporters are really focused on is his promise to renegotiate unfair trade deals with low-wage countries and support social security and Medicare; they understand why that message would resonate. Somebody asked me the other day why Americans like Trump and, before I could answer, my ten year-old daughter answered "because he's funny." As the saying goes, from the mouth of babes (no - we don't support Trump).
If anything this election cycle has shown that the ability of the mainstream media to shape public opinion is weakening. The NYT could not have been more biased towards Clinton. Sure she won, but barely. Same with Trump but his supporters don't really care what the NYT has to say about him: the attacks might actually have helped him.
In much the same way that the Internet decimated the traditional news business model it's now doing the same to the influence of newspapers. I'm not so sure that's a bad thing given what we've seen.
2
Paul, I never thought that I would write these words, but "you are way off." As always, the logic and precision of your thinking is exactly correct. I only say that you are way off, because you underestimate the profound effect that Republican hate-based delusions have had beyond the bait-and-switch tactics that they have employed. For example, just peruse the comments that you have received in response to some of your articles over this election season.
Facts no longer matter to a large segment, if not a majority of the voting population. Hillary Clinton is the anti-Christ regardless of what her real legislative and policy positions have been. Donald Trump gets facts and truthfulness, correct about 25% of the time, and promises to use unconstitutional power to enforce unconstitutional policies. The nation is prepared for a ruthless and ignorant demagogue to possibly take the White House. Ignorant mob members punch and kick protesters at his rallies, while his campaign manager is arrested for assault. He denigrates people based upon gender, religion, ethnicity and country of origin. Strong arm supporters claim that people who protest the Donald are suppressing HIS freedom of speech!
If he continues to garner support based upon ugly behavior, imagine what he may do with real power, as President. People are running on emotion, and a dangerous demagogue is winning the nomination of a major political party. That is a recipe for disaster for the US, and for the world.
Facts no longer matter to a large segment, if not a majority of the voting population. Hillary Clinton is the anti-Christ regardless of what her real legislative and policy positions have been. Donald Trump gets facts and truthfulness, correct about 25% of the time, and promises to use unconstitutional power to enforce unconstitutional policies. The nation is prepared for a ruthless and ignorant demagogue to possibly take the White House. Ignorant mob members punch and kick protesters at his rallies, while his campaign manager is arrested for assault. He denigrates people based upon gender, religion, ethnicity and country of origin. Strong arm supporters claim that people who protest the Donald are suppressing HIS freedom of speech!
If he continues to garner support based upon ugly behavior, imagine what he may do with real power, as President. People are running on emotion, and a dangerous demagogue is winning the nomination of a major political party. That is a recipe for disaster for the US, and for the world.
10
I apologize for an important oversight: Donald Trump has also denigrated people with disabilities. His mocking tone is dangerous.
Neither party or candidate has the answer to the fundamental problem: Businesses have rightly developed their model around using the minimum amount of minimally skilled and paid workers. It started with Ray Kroc who designed a fool proof system for burgers so that a min wage worker could replace a short order cook, and turn out many more 'burgers to boot. Then retail followed where big box stores have little or no skilled labor replacing small retailers with, for example , an expert in fitting shoes.
This has resulted in many many people without high level skills working hard with wages that hardly pay living expenses, let alone retirement, college for the kids, or buying any sort of house. No wonder they're mad.
This has resulted in many many people without high level skills working hard with wages that hardly pay living expenses, let alone retirement, college for the kids, or buying any sort of house. No wonder they're mad.
1
Every Republican office holder should read this, and learn. But they won't. As Mr. Krugman says. . .how sad.
The Republican establishment will blame Trump for their impending defeat and convince themselves that if only Jeb had been the nominee it would have been different.
Now for the people getting conned by Trump hard to say who they will turn to next. Most of them hold positions closer to a Sanders supporter than they can bring themselves to admit. But after 40 years of non-stop propaganda from the right wing media machine they simply have knee jerk negative visceral reaction to anyone or thing not described as conservative. Much like the famous keep the governments hands off my Medicare! I wonder if Mitch will say his number one priority is to insure Hillary is a one term President on the day she is sworn into office?
Now for the people getting conned by Trump hard to say who they will turn to next. Most of them hold positions closer to a Sanders supporter than they can bring themselves to admit. But after 40 years of non-stop propaganda from the right wing media machine they simply have knee jerk negative visceral reaction to anyone or thing not described as conservative. Much like the famous keep the governments hands off my Medicare! I wonder if Mitch will say his number one priority is to insure Hillary is a one term President on the day she is sworn into office?
1
Shouldn't it be considered a conflict of interest for a multi-Billionaire President to push tax cuts for his financial elite class?
I differ with Mr. Krugman's assertion that the GOP does not fulfill many of its platform promises, in addition to protecting ever-increasing wealth of the few which is a con - like their assault on women's health issues, promoting bigotry and discrimination under the guise of religious freedom, pushing fraudulent science, voter suppression, etc.
As for Trump, he is the definition of a successful conman with the millions of gullible followers and tenants to prove it.
I differ with Mr. Krugman's assertion that the GOP does not fulfill many of its platform promises, in addition to protecting ever-increasing wealth of the few which is a con - like their assault on women's health issues, promoting bigotry and discrimination under the guise of religious freedom, pushing fraudulent science, voter suppression, etc.
As for Trump, he is the definition of a successful conman with the millions of gullible followers and tenants to prove it.
Sanders has served his purpose--to motivate the progressive ranks of the Democratic Party--bolstering a Clinton victory in November.
Trump is the real surprise. The GOP did not take him seriously until it became apparent that he was more populist than Sanders. They are more afraid of Trump winning than Clinton at this point.
Trump is the real surprise. The GOP did not take him seriously until it became apparent that he was more populist than Sanders. They are more afraid of Trump winning than Clinton at this point.
The Democratic dream is a small elite of white, black, hispanic, latino, and asian oligarchs ruling the land while the Party sells out everyone else by allowing the dismantling of labor rights, the freedom to assert our civil rights against corporations via a trial by one's peers, and the like. Party apparatchiks will still get their cut of the spoils needless to say. That is not much of an advancement from the status quo white oligarchial status quo.
4
Since President Reagan's reign, the Republicans have been using a Chinese water torture method of slowly stripping away the rights and benefits belonging to the poor and working people. It has taken forty years for them to realize what has happened. What they don't yet understand is that Mr. Trump will do the same.
1
As a nation we have lost our moral compass. When Reagan won the presidency by using southern racism, the decline began. When he added trickle down economics, it was sealed, particularly as voters have fed into Republican hegemy. Now we have a reduced SCOTUS, Donald Trump (and Ted Cruz and Carly Fiorina), a ravaged educational system (to educate future voters), Citizens United, a major attempt to destroy Planned Parenthood (how many slaves do coroporations need?), and both Congress and the electorate divided into venomous tribes.
And we need to lead the world to a better place. We need to put all our energy to fighting climate change to "make America great again." It's our only route to continue as a world for 7 billion people (I won't go into shrinking instead of growing here). Although I believe both Democratic candidates understand this, when Donald Trump made fun of Bernie Sanders for stating the obvious, the measure of the former was totally apparent.
If I may quote Paul Krugman (again): "be very, very afraid." And vote.
And we need to lead the world to a better place. We need to put all our energy to fighting climate change to "make America great again." It's our only route to continue as a world for 7 billion people (I won't go into shrinking instead of growing here). Although I believe both Democratic candidates understand this, when Donald Trump made fun of Bernie Sanders for stating the obvious, the measure of the former was totally apparent.
If I may quote Paul Krugman (again): "be very, very afraid." And vote.
It is a complete fabrication for Mr. Krugman to say Hillary has received more negative media coverage during the 2016 presidential campaign. In the last nine months, since Donald Trump announced his bid for the White House, there have been 17 anti-Trump attack/namecalling items published in the NYT for every article portraying Hillary Clinton negatively.
Which is also misleading because the NY Times hasn't published a sentence written by anyone that works at the newspaper comparing Hillary to Mussolini or ridiculing her hairstyle.
Mr. Krugman, maybe you just forgot who your readers are. As a Black lawyer in Washington DC, I think the last time I read something that I didn't understand the first time was when I read Finnegan's Wake at age 7. Nice try bro.
Which is also misleading because the NY Times hasn't published a sentence written by anyone that works at the newspaper comparing Hillary to Mussolini or ridiculing her hairstyle.
Mr. Krugman, maybe you just forgot who your readers are. As a Black lawyer in Washington DC, I think the last time I read something that I didn't understand the first time was when I read Finnegan's Wake at age 7. Nice try bro.
2
Hillary has a low approval rating because she can respond accurately without hesitation on any issue. Our uneducated and uninformed electorate not only have no idea what she is talking about and take umbrage in her sophistry. It gives them the opportunity to disagree because their facts are different albeit inaccurate which empowers them to think that she is unworthy.
Trump, on the other hand, avoids facts and is considered a genius by those very same people. When in Rome!
Trump, on the other hand, avoids facts and is considered a genius by those very same people. When in Rome!
2
Perhaps you should research the definition of sophistry. It is indeed something at which to take umbrage. And I do.
This cycle is just taking the GOPs past pandering to its logical conclusion, where Trump is proposing simple, unworkable, unspecific, unrealistic answers to extremely complex questions that he does not truly understand, and THAT is exactly why the base loves him so much, because he's willing to burst into a room, guns blazing, shoot everything in sight, and then try to figure out what's going on. His disastrous attempt to describe his foreign policy proves that, with at least fifteen major errors and misunderstandings of international situations based entirely upon unsubstantiated claims, that he puts forth as undeniable truths. Everything about him is built on sand, and it will not stand when challenged by serious people, and his delusional base won't be able to protect him in the long run.
"But the base, its hostility amped up to 11 after seven years of an African-American president (who the establishment has done its best to demonize) is having none of it."
I still fail to see why the Left continues to pound the fact that President Obama is not white. Rarely do I hear a conservative comment on the President's race, but I almost hear it daily from Leftists. Who cares? I think we all know that answer. Krug is right about conservatives being taken to the cleaners by promises of one thing and the delivery of another. However, he seems to forget that the American people elected sizable majorities of Republicans to both houses during the Obama years. Presidential elections are as much about personality as they are about policy (maybe more so). This may hurt Clinton more than Trump.
I still fail to see why the Left continues to pound the fact that President Obama is not white. Rarely do I hear a conservative comment on the President's race, but I almost hear it daily from Leftists. Who cares? I think we all know that answer. Krug is right about conservatives being taken to the cleaners by promises of one thing and the delivery of another. However, he seems to forget that the American people elected sizable majorities of Republicans to both houses during the Obama years. Presidential elections are as much about personality as they are about policy (maybe more so). This may hurt Clinton more than Trump.
1
Why sad? The Republican Party is tearing itself apart and their chickens have come home to roost.
1
Orange County, California, a red island in a blue sea may be a bellwether. Usually, GOP candidates would be dropping by the Newport Beach cash machine throughout the primary, but apparently this year, normally reliable funders are mainly sitting on their wallets. My Republican friends are all depressed and don’t know where to turn. This is the Saul on the road to Tarsus moment for the GOP. The 2012 post mortem will need some sharpening this time. Repentance?
Krugman highlights: The disconnect between Republican elites and Republican voters is more present than ever this election; GOP establishment ideology has been conflated/mixed with cultural anxiety to win past elections.
I highlight: The disconnect between Democrat elites and Democrat voters is equally present this election. Mrs. Clinton has gone above and beyond to help those in need, she is more than qualified for President. But in a Presidential race, "We can't think that big -- we ought to really downsize here because it's not realistic" -Biden, is not what mobilizes voters. That message belongs to DNC insiders who have worked in politics too long. Democrats, both voter and party elite, need to look to the future and say, "Yes We Can." That kind of embodiment of Democrat values wins elections.
I highlight: The disconnect between Democrat elites and Democrat voters is equally present this election. Mrs. Clinton has gone above and beyond to help those in need, she is more than qualified for President. But in a Presidential race, "We can't think that big -- we ought to really downsize here because it's not realistic" -Biden, is not what mobilizes voters. That message belongs to DNC insiders who have worked in politics too long. Democrats, both voter and party elite, need to look to the future and say, "Yes We Can." That kind of embodiment of Democrat values wins elections.
Who is conning whom? If the New York Times had covered Trump's campaign in the same curt, dismissive manner that they covered Sanders' campaign, then the Donald would be nowhere. I keep looking for the names of P. T. Barnum and William Randolph Hearst among the members the NY Times Editorial Board.
3
Yes Hilary, in reality a Rockefeller Republican, is a better choice than Trump, a Neofascist; Stalin was a better choice than Hitler; and, cancer is better than a bullet through the brain. Better, yes. Good, no.
Professor, your blogs and columns expounding on Keyensian economics have been of enormous service. But, alas, you seem to suffer from Proffesional Class bias and subscribe to the false meritocracy that has replaced New Deal America. You don't need to be Hari Seldon to see how this turns out
Professor, your blogs and columns expounding on Keyensian economics have been of enormous service. But, alas, you seem to suffer from Proffesional Class bias and subscribe to the false meritocracy that has replaced New Deal America. You don't need to be Hari Seldon to see how this turns out
7
Behold the manipulative power of Television.
For many years the Republican base was inflamed to mob mentality by the pundits of Television with their incessant cliche long attacks on the Democrats. Everyone from TV personalities to Congressmen before the CSPAN cameras manipulated people's emotions of hatred and anger. It was successful in garnering support and votes.
Then along came a major Television personality in the person of Don Trump, trained by the producers to act before the cameras and learned in the art of sensational TV.
Consider the power of flashing pictures Television to mold the national psyche. It's the biggest con I have seen in my sixty odd years of life.
First, you were all conned into worshiping the hatemongers that enthralled you with sacrifices to feel good about hating, and now the "Bait and Switch"...........
The Apprentice starring Don Trump is now the professional ringleader.
Duped once, duped again.........and again and again.
Behold the power of flashing pictures Television.
For many years the Republican base was inflamed to mob mentality by the pundits of Television with their incessant cliche long attacks on the Democrats. Everyone from TV personalities to Congressmen before the CSPAN cameras manipulated people's emotions of hatred and anger. It was successful in garnering support and votes.
Then along came a major Television personality in the person of Don Trump, trained by the producers to act before the cameras and learned in the art of sensational TV.
Consider the power of flashing pictures Television to mold the national psyche. It's the biggest con I have seen in my sixty odd years of life.
First, you were all conned into worshiping the hatemongers that enthralled you with sacrifices to feel good about hating, and now the "Bait and Switch"...........
The Apprentice starring Don Trump is now the professional ringleader.
Duped once, duped again.........and again and again.
Behold the power of flashing pictures Television.
Once upon a time I understood that a Republican got into politics because he or she believes in good government. The objectives of the Democrat, I was told, was to obtain a better-paying job.
I never challenged that thinking, but in 1980 when I started my voting career I threw one away on John Anderson and in '84 I did not vote at all. I was a Republican who could not vote for a man as stupid as Ron Reagan (I knew Reagan from his governor days, funny how no one talks about how bad he did that job)--a great guy, but dumb as heck...
As i realized fellow Republicans would vote for a man who could not walk and chew gum at the same time simply because he told them the things they wanted to hear, I changed parties. And I have never regretted it...
I remember Mondale saying that we had to raise taxes and that he would admit it, but that Bush would not. Bush won by promising not to raise taxes and then he raised taxes.
Bush II gave us the "ownership society," one of the biggest boondoggles in the history of boondoggles, and we still can't get Republicans to admit what a stupid idea that was.
I know we have had our problems on the left, but I have never, ever regretted leaving that la la land known as the Republican party...
I never challenged that thinking, but in 1980 when I started my voting career I threw one away on John Anderson and in '84 I did not vote at all. I was a Republican who could not vote for a man as stupid as Ron Reagan (I knew Reagan from his governor days, funny how no one talks about how bad he did that job)--a great guy, but dumb as heck...
As i realized fellow Republicans would vote for a man who could not walk and chew gum at the same time simply because he told them the things they wanted to hear, I changed parties. And I have never regretted it...
I remember Mondale saying that we had to raise taxes and that he would admit it, but that Bush would not. Bush won by promising not to raise taxes and then he raised taxes.
Bush II gave us the "ownership society," one of the biggest boondoggles in the history of boondoggles, and we still can't get Republicans to admit what a stupid idea that was.
I know we have had our problems on the left, but I have never, ever regretted leaving that la la land known as the Republican party...
16
The only way that Trump can defeat Clinton is with an assist from the economy.
Back when the Trump nomination appeared to be a fantasy, the Federal Reserve was poised to help the Republican nominee by raising interest rates and putting the country into a recession in plenty of time for the fall election. This explains why some board members were chomping at the bit to raise interest rates with very little evidence of price inflation.
However the board members find a Trump presidency as objectionable as most Americans do. Before continuing to raise interest rates, the board members have been waiting to see if Trump's campaign would implode, as has so often been predicted.
Now that Trump is almost certain to be the Republican nominee, expect the Fed to refrain from raising interest rates until the fall.
Back when the Trump nomination appeared to be a fantasy, the Federal Reserve was poised to help the Republican nominee by raising interest rates and putting the country into a recession in plenty of time for the fall election. This explains why some board members were chomping at the bit to raise interest rates with very little evidence of price inflation.
However the board members find a Trump presidency as objectionable as most Americans do. Before continuing to raise interest rates, the board members have been waiting to see if Trump's campaign would implode, as has so often been predicted.
Now that Trump is almost certain to be the Republican nominee, expect the Fed to refrain from raising interest rates until the fall.
'Their party has historically won elections by appealing to racial enmity and cultural anxiety'
And the Democrats haven't? Are you kidding? For half a century, to varying degrees, my party (yes, it is still my party if only by default) has set up a zero-sum game in which any gains to minorities, women, etc. must come at the expense of working- and middle-class white males - who are often the sons and daughters of 'yesterday's underdogs', the immigrants who got off the boat at Ellis Island and in San Francisco. NYT readers love to quote Emma Lazarus' doggerel, but despise the descendants of those she hymmed
BTW: The other paper I read (left to center editorially) says in today's paper that health insurance premiums are set to ratchet up, often to double digits. Aside from the fact that 'health insurance' is not health care ... oh heck. I give up trying to argue with Krugman on this issue; acknowledging the grievous flaws in the ACA would require him to admit he might have been wrong, or Obama and his party might have been wrong (and less than nobly motivated in ramming it through), which is never going to happen.
And the Democrats haven't? Are you kidding? For half a century, to varying degrees, my party (yes, it is still my party if only by default) has set up a zero-sum game in which any gains to minorities, women, etc. must come at the expense of working- and middle-class white males - who are often the sons and daughters of 'yesterday's underdogs', the immigrants who got off the boat at Ellis Island and in San Francisco. NYT readers love to quote Emma Lazarus' doggerel, but despise the descendants of those she hymmed
BTW: The other paper I read (left to center editorially) says in today's paper that health insurance premiums are set to ratchet up, often to double digits. Aside from the fact that 'health insurance' is not health care ... oh heck. I give up trying to argue with Krugman on this issue; acknowledging the grievous flaws in the ACA would require him to admit he might have been wrong, or Obama and his party might have been wrong (and less than nobly motivated in ramming it through), which is never going to happen.
3
"The Democratic establishment has won because it ... serves its supporters. The Republican establishment has been routed because it has been playing a con game on its supporters"
Who is in charge of Congress?
Who is in charge of Congress?
Who has a veto pen ? Who will be blamed by the liberal Press if and when government shuts down because republicans refuse to compromise (meaning give in) to administration ? They have not gotten a great deal done, but I do not condemn them for it.
Dr. K. thinks the PTB within the Dem Party have sort of delivered to the party's supporters and natural allies, but the GOP hasn't. While I more or less agree in general, I and I think many others see it as two pro-corporate, pro-plutocrat cons, with one of them more subtle and less rapacious ... and we're sick of having to vote for less rapacious.
But of course we have to vote neoliberal. Otherwise, we'll get a Supreme Court that'll take us back to about 850 AD, and a drill rig and a Superfund site on every neighborhood corner.
But of course we have to vote neoliberal. Otherwise, we'll get a Supreme Court that'll take us back to about 850 AD, and a drill rig and a Superfund site on every neighborhood corner.
2
Sad, as mr. krugman states about trump supporters' realization that we are being conned, 'it won't happen right away.' I saw the con from day ONE. I don't have my head in the sand, or like trump supporters, in a dark, damp place! I wouldn't wait for trump supporters to see the con for what it is. The trump supporters seem not to realize that trump's campaign is professional wrestling, not legitimate campaigning. trump foments violence and hate. what else does it take for his supporters, after several months of trump's vile speech, hate speech, divisive speech, lynch-mob mentality, to step back from their seemingly total ignorance? Sign me 'sick of it!'
2
I've been really disappointed with your heavy pro-Clinton bias. You used to write great stuff, and I now wonder when you were hired by the Clinton campaign and why it was never publicized.
3
He has always been a faithful liberal. Were you reading with rose colored glasses ?
The good news to take out of this campaign, so far, is Clinton shifting left. Bernie Sanders has ignited a fire in the democratic wing of the Democratic Party and Clinton, proving not to be as tone deaf as most of her detractors would believe, pivoted to listen to that wing.
Most of her negatives result from decades of mongering by the republican establishment who threw everything they could at the wall waiting for something to stick.
She has not countered those impressions well and that is probably what has stuck to the wall; the conception that she must be crooked just because it has been repeated enough and for a long period of time.
I wish she were a better candidate but I am sure she is a better person and will make a better president than any republican I can name anywhere in that party.
Not that I have counted Bernie out, but he is, and always has been, a long shot and democrats need to realize Hillary is not as bad as the republican machine has made her out to be.
Most of her negatives result from decades of mongering by the republican establishment who threw everything they could at the wall waiting for something to stick.
She has not countered those impressions well and that is probably what has stuck to the wall; the conception that she must be crooked just because it has been repeated enough and for a long period of time.
I wish she were a better candidate but I am sure she is a better person and will make a better president than any republican I can name anywhere in that party.
Not that I have counted Bernie out, but he is, and always has been, a long shot and democrats need to realize Hillary is not as bad as the republican machine has made her out to be.
2
Dr. Krugman, would it be asking too much for you to address Senator Bernie Sanders with the respect due his office, rather than simply as "a challenger" to Sec. Clinton? The ongoing lack of respect shown to the man by the NYT and media in general is disgraceful, and I for one, am really tired of it.
5
No one can accuse Paul Krugman of being pollyanish. But when it comes to the Affordable Care Act, he consistently seems to be. "Above all, you have the Affordable Care Act ... That’s what you call delivering for the base ... ."
Umm, well sort of, except that it "delivers" with ridiculously high deductibles that make these policies all but unusable except as catastrophic coverage. It's hard to believe that this severely flawed legislation is much of a reason for HIllary's support by minority voters -- or anybody else. But the flaws are all the more reason to vote for Mrs. Clinton in the hope she can build on what Obama put in place and make this legislation actually deliver usable policies.
Umm, well sort of, except that it "delivers" with ridiculously high deductibles that make these policies all but unusable except as catastrophic coverage. It's hard to believe that this severely flawed legislation is much of a reason for HIllary's support by minority voters -- or anybody else. But the flaws are all the more reason to vote for Mrs. Clinton in the hope she can build on what Obama put in place and make this legislation actually deliver usable policies.
4
Barry,
But ridiculously high deductibles, curtailment of benefits, and establishment of lifetime caps were occurring incrementally over the last four decades, long before the Affordable Care Act. When things come on slowly over a protracted period of time, they may be less noticeable as they occur, but they occur and accumulate all the same. The cost of medical care delivery, pharmaceuticals, and the need to derive profit for the health insurance industry are what has driven the diminution of coverage and skyrocketed premiums.
I mean, I don't disagree healthcare economics is a mess. It just seems to me these other factors have to be contained and the risk must be spread over the entire population. I definitely agree Sec. Clinton will prioritize an attempt to control and mitigate the healthcare negatives and build on the ACA.
But ridiculously high deductibles, curtailment of benefits, and establishment of lifetime caps were occurring incrementally over the last four decades, long before the Affordable Care Act. When things come on slowly over a protracted period of time, they may be less noticeable as they occur, but they occur and accumulate all the same. The cost of medical care delivery, pharmaceuticals, and the need to derive profit for the health insurance industry are what has driven the diminution of coverage and skyrocketed premiums.
I mean, I don't disagree healthcare economics is a mess. It just seems to me these other factors have to be contained and the risk must be spread over the entire population. I definitely agree Sec. Clinton will prioritize an attempt to control and mitigate the healthcare negatives and build on the ACA.
1
I hope Prof. Krugman takes time to consider the damage he is doing to the Clinton campaign. I, for one, am ready to pull the lever for HRC every time I think of the execrable Trump or Trey Gowdy et al. But when I read yet another sneering put down of Bernie Sanders in these pages, I think, "Not so fast."
This apologia for the Democrats may seem adequate from the comfortable perch of Princeton and tenure, but for many who are struggling, who live outside the prospering first quintile, the incremental change promised by the corporate Dems does not do enough, may not be enough to motivate them to vote.
Prof. Krugman's failure as a discussant during this primary season has been a failure of empathetic imagination, a failure to try to understand why many Democrats have sought an alternative to HRC. There are other bubbles besides the echo-chambers of the right-wing think tanks.
This apologia for the Democrats may seem adequate from the comfortable perch of Princeton and tenure, but for many who are struggling, who live outside the prospering first quintile, the incremental change promised by the corporate Dems does not do enough, may not be enough to motivate them to vote.
Prof. Krugman's failure as a discussant during this primary season has been a failure of empathetic imagination, a failure to try to understand why many Democrats have sought an alternative to HRC. There are other bubbles besides the echo-chambers of the right-wing think tanks.
9
This is a very good thumbnail analysis of the campaigning until now, revealing the great stumble of the GOP - not recognizing that playing on racial animus to disguise economic pillaging was finally recognized by the GOP base through the candidacy of snake oil salesman, Trump.
So give "the Donald" some credit for showing up that scam for what it was, and give him still more credit for craftily hanging on to racial hostility by questioning Obama's citizenship. He has also kept the major outline of the old con in play - his tax cuts are straight out of the GOP playbook.
Krugman strikes the right balance describing the two party's differences: the Democrats have been more or less consistent to their history. In contrast, the GOP has has been running a scam for decades and Trump has threaded the needle by picking and choosing aspects of the old scam in order to run a new one.
Sadly, the new scam promises to be even worse than the old one and relies, as usual, on voter ignorance.
So give "the Donald" some credit for showing up that scam for what it was, and give him still more credit for craftily hanging on to racial hostility by questioning Obama's citizenship. He has also kept the major outline of the old con in play - his tax cuts are straight out of the GOP playbook.
Krugman strikes the right balance describing the two party's differences: the Democrats have been more or less consistent to their history. In contrast, the GOP has has been running a scam for decades and Trump has threaded the needle by picking and choosing aspects of the old scam in order to run a new one.
Sadly, the new scam promises to be even worse than the old one and relies, as usual, on voter ignorance.
Another marvelously, dishonest and pandering column by Dr. Gloomy. According to the president, Obamacare was supposed to be "revenue neutral" with subsidies to the poor and minorities paid for by the wealthier members (and white members, by extensions of Krugman's explanation) in the ACA pool.... not by taxpayers, at-large.
While correct in calling out Donald Trump as a total fraud, the author is, as usual, too kind to the Obama administration.
Democrats pay lip service to helping the poor and middle class, but the facts on the ground speak to their failure. After 7.5 years of Obama, poverty and welfare dependence are at record levels. The labor force participation rate is at the lowest rate since 1979. Unemployment is at 5% only because of a massive shift of the workforce into retirement, part-time work, disability, or some other form of permanent welfare. Interest rates have been at depression levels for 8 years. GDP growth is again heading to zero.
Obama has led America into Eurosclerosis.
Democrats pay lip service to helping the poor and middle class, but the facts on the ground speak to their failure. After 7.5 years of Obama, poverty and welfare dependence are at record levels. The labor force participation rate is at the lowest rate since 1979. Unemployment is at 5% only because of a massive shift of the workforce into retirement, part-time work, disability, or some other form of permanent welfare. Interest rates have been at depression levels for 8 years. GDP growth is again heading to zero.
Obama has led America into Eurosclerosis.
1
While the GOP cons the base it is also true that the Democrats seem to only focus on the problems of minorities and the poor. That perception is the reason so many working and middle class people are willing to buy into the GOP scam and vote against their own best interest. Also, Democrats seem to have ceded success at the state level to the GOP and apparently believe winning the Presidency will achieve their goals. The past seven years have shown how well that works.
"The point, in any case, is that the divergent nomination outcomes of 2016 aren’t an accident. The Democratic establishment has won because it has, however imperfectly, tried to serve its supporters."
No, definitely not an accident, Paul. This coronation has been planned for years.
However imperfectly it served supporters? Let me count the ways.
1. Propaganda - NYT, Washington Post, New York Daily News, CNN, MSNBC...
2. Debates on Saturday nights
3. Having surrogates tell women they will go to hell if they do not vote for the woman candidate
4. Setting Bernie up with Mort Zuckerman's editorial board to make him seem the "man without a plan"
I would rather have no plan, but vision and integrity. Thank you very much.
No, definitely not an accident, Paul. This coronation has been planned for years.
However imperfectly it served supporters? Let me count the ways.
1. Propaganda - NYT, Washington Post, New York Daily News, CNN, MSNBC...
2. Debates on Saturday nights
3. Having surrogates tell women they will go to hell if they do not vote for the woman candidate
4. Setting Bernie up with Mort Zuckerman's editorial board to make him seem the "man without a plan"
I would rather have no plan, but vision and integrity. Thank you very much.
There has been a long standing phenomena in this country where in spite of all the alternatives, abused women all to often still go back to or never leave their abusers. Let's see what happens in November and what percentage of the Women's vote still goes to the GOP!
2
While reading and watching Clinton and Trump yesterday, I thought, two monkeys fighting in a box. These two candidates are the consummate corporatist products of a dysfunctional American society. Thank-goodness I can still cast my vote in the primaries for he who will not be named, unless in slander, by the NYT.
Yes, the NYT, faithful defender for women while under lawsuit from two women employees who accuse them of ageist, racist, gender discrimination in the work place. I am glad Margaret, a talented writer and organizer, left when she did.
Yes, the NYT, faithful defender for women while under lawsuit from two women employees who accuse them of ageist, racist, gender discrimination in the work place. I am glad Margaret, a talented writer and organizer, left when she did.
1
As much as I abhor Donald Trump and what he stands for, I'm not ready to call this race case-closed in favor of the Democrats--Hillary Clinton's negatives are not insignificant.
Nonetheless, the odds of Donald Trump becoming the next president are still relatively low. The Republican Party did an "autopsy report" for why they lost in 2012. In the likely event that Donald Trump loses, what will the conclusions be this time: the party lost because they alienated too many people, or did they lose because they weren't "conservative" enough?
I guess time will tell.
Nonetheless, the odds of Donald Trump becoming the next president are still relatively low. The Republican Party did an "autopsy report" for why they lost in 2012. In the likely event that Donald Trump loses, what will the conclusions be this time: the party lost because they alienated too many people, or did they lose because they weren't "conservative" enough?
I guess time will tell.
I think you're giving Republican voters too much credit: I speak with them every single day and - though a few might be quite successful - they are by and large an ignorant lot who seem incapable of understanding the actions of their votes. The chance that they will ever figure out the long con that republicans are pulling seems highly unlikely to me.
3
Part of the reason Sanders was losing was because, like the Republicans (but not so extreme), he wasn't being honest about the benefits he could deliver.
For example, the sane and logical among us realized there never was going to be a "revolution".
The majority of Democratic leaning voters realized that Hillary Clinton, for all her flaws and for all the propaganda against her, has been fighting for her entire political career for benefits that help low and middle income people the most.
Hillary Clinton is rightly cautious in that she doesn't promise what she has no chance of delivering if and when she becomes President.
Not so with Bernie Sanders.
The majority of us who lean Democrat realize who is actually the more "honest" politician. That's why we voted for Hillary Rodham Clinton.
For example, the sane and logical among us realized there never was going to be a "revolution".
The majority of Democratic leaning voters realized that Hillary Clinton, for all her flaws and for all the propaganda against her, has been fighting for her entire political career for benefits that help low and middle income people the most.
Hillary Clinton is rightly cautious in that she doesn't promise what she has no chance of delivering if and when she becomes President.
Not so with Bernie Sanders.
The majority of us who lean Democrat realize who is actually the more "honest" politician. That's why we voted for Hillary Rodham Clinton.
27
Paul, one point here... you say that taxes have gone up on the top .01 percent. While that's true, it's not the whole story. The question is, how much of the income of the very wealthy is affected by this, and the answer is, not much. What is affected is income from wages, and the rich don't have much of that. Instead, their income comes from capital gains. So, to make the system more equitable, capital gains must be changed, too. Treating speculative gains, from things like stock or derivatives trading, including carried interest, as ordinary income would help level the playing field some. Not by enough, but at least that wouldn't be viewed by reasonable people as retribution against the wealthy instead of just being the rational tax strategy that it is.
2
Dr Krugman,
I'm lost, trying to accept your positive take on the ACA.
I know people who are having to decide between a medical procedure and paying their other costs.
What is the percent of our GDP spent on healthcare?
Has it improved?
Has the drug industry made any sacrifices?
I also think the title of your piece quite smug and dismissive.
If Trump enters the White House, the NYTimes and the New Democrats shall share a good part of the blame.
For economic theory Thomas Piketty's views seem far more realistic than your cherry-picked, pollyannaish interpretations.
These articles say a lot in response:
http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/03/08/468892489/medical-bi...
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/04/47-percent-americans-cannot-even-...
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/09/us/politics/e-mails-reveal-extent-of-o...
I'm lost, trying to accept your positive take on the ACA.
I know people who are having to decide between a medical procedure and paying their other costs.
What is the percent of our GDP spent on healthcare?
Has it improved?
Has the drug industry made any sacrifices?
I also think the title of your piece quite smug and dismissive.
If Trump enters the White House, the NYTimes and the New Democrats shall share a good part of the blame.
For economic theory Thomas Piketty's views seem far more realistic than your cherry-picked, pollyannaish interpretations.
These articles say a lot in response:
http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/03/08/468892489/medical-bi...
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/04/47-percent-americans-cannot-even-...
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/09/us/politics/e-mails-reveal-extent-of-o...
2
I'm a huge Bernie supporter. I was one of about 70 people who showed up at his first rally in Lanham, Maryland. I voted for him in our primary last Tuesday. He lost, and Hillary will be our nominee. The reason he will eventually lose is due to one thing: Democratic voters are not revolutionaries.
I hope months or years from now my fellow Bernie supporters will recognize how amazing his candidacy was and how, even in defeat, it changed the Democratic Party and eventually the nation. We showed the party how many voters are fed up with the gridlock in Washington and that we want bolder action. The Republicans have used anger to bottle up Washington. We showed Democrats in Congress that if they fight back hard we have their back. We will be vocal supporters of the actions needed to bust the Republican gridlock.
Bernie made history this year. He may lose the battle but ultimately win the war.
I hope months or years from now my fellow Bernie supporters will recognize how amazing his candidacy was and how, even in defeat, it changed the Democratic Party and eventually the nation. We showed the party how many voters are fed up with the gridlock in Washington and that we want bolder action. The Republicans have used anger to bottle up Washington. We showed Democrats in Congress that if they fight back hard we have their back. We will be vocal supporters of the actions needed to bust the Republican gridlock.
Bernie made history this year. He may lose the battle but ultimately win the war.
140
It was a great effort and rightly has coalesced the Progressives & Liberals for this cycle. But the proof will be in the Midterms.
1
I did not know he started in Lanham - my hometown. Wow. Thanks for being part of it from the beginning!
1
Excellent column. I would add that Cruz running second with Republican voters further demonstrates their disgust with the establishment. As dangerous as either man would be as president, it's hard not to enjoy the spectacle of the Republican establishment being turned on by the voters they have wound up and lied to for decades.
3
"Sad!" says it perfectly.
1
I am not a Republican and will vote for Hillary. That said, I think the Republican party could only be disrupted by someone like Trump who is completely outside of the established base of Republican elected officials - regardless of whether they are conservative, mainstream or libertarian. Whether you like or loathe him, Trump has the confidence and security that comes from not needing the job to say: Screw you. I'm going to do it my way. Whether he is successful for his party is to be seen.
What both parties are missing is that in a global economy, where the United States must compete with low-wage economies, it is going to be very difficult to lift the wages of today's working class - which both sides are promising. Everyone promises a good job at good wages, but the reality is that a good job today has been defined as a manufacturing job down south that pays $11 to $15 an hour before over-time, or $21,000 to $31,000 a year. You simply can't put a roof over your head, pay your health care costs, educate your children for tomorrow's jobs and save for retirement on those wages - or even twice those wages if there are two partners in a family and both are working.
No candidate, from either party, has told us how they will address those issues. Yet, that's what is driving the anger and despair of the working class.
What both parties are missing is that in a global economy, where the United States must compete with low-wage economies, it is going to be very difficult to lift the wages of today's working class - which both sides are promising. Everyone promises a good job at good wages, but the reality is that a good job today has been defined as a manufacturing job down south that pays $11 to $15 an hour before over-time, or $21,000 to $31,000 a year. You simply can't put a roof over your head, pay your health care costs, educate your children for tomorrow's jobs and save for retirement on those wages - or even twice those wages if there are two partners in a family and both are working.
No candidate, from either party, has told us how they will address those issues. Yet, that's what is driving the anger and despair of the working class.
173
Members of the Republican establishment own the robots and get the benefit of their labor. Bernie's suggested reforms are poor bandaids for this problem and his supporters should know that mercantilism as a economic policy was discredited in the 18th century and can do real harm, c.f. the Smoot-Hawley tariff that deepened the 1930's depression. We need to find effective means to distribute broadly the benefits of these and other technological improvements to production efficiency.
2
What overtime? Just last week I read that only 8% of today's workers even get overtime. That's compared to 60% back in the day. What's the difference? Calling people managers who are not, and hiring mostly "independent contractors". So most people only making between $11 and $15/hour aren't even getting overtime.
2
Economic and social class contribute to the disconnect between Republican elites and thei goals and the lives and needs of real Americans. People speak of a "Beltway bubble," but economic stratification is far broader than that. People inhabiting gated communities and executive suites are segregated in very real ways from the majority of people. They of course like their lives very much and don't see how the cost of maintaining them impacts their employees, let alone poor people whose safety nets are shredded to pay for tax cuts.
Finally, people are speaking out against the absurd and cruel promises of Reagonomics.
It's high time.
Yet, conservative pundits are shocked and confused and some blame the voters instead of looking in the mirror.
Maybe the pendulum is swinging back at last. People can't eat ideological purity. Rants about Planned Parenthood don't pay bills - in fact all the GOP does is hurt people who buy into this nonsense.
People are finally seeing through the smokescreen.
Finally, people are speaking out against the absurd and cruel promises of Reagonomics.
It's high time.
Yet, conservative pundits are shocked and confused and some blame the voters instead of looking in the mirror.
Maybe the pendulum is swinging back at last. People can't eat ideological purity. Rants about Planned Parenthood don't pay bills - in fact all the GOP does is hurt people who buy into this nonsense.
People are finally seeing through the smokescreen.
4
A truly on-target column. The basic premises of any Democrat do not change radically between the primaries and the general election. Sure, they might shift a bit, as the candidates are swayed from getting out and speaking with individuals nationwide, rather than just from their own constituency. Also, morality and religion, no matter how important to them personally, are usually not displayed as a primary feature of the candidate's agenda.
But with the Republican candidates, it seems like there are several very different seasons, and with the largest shift to agenda changes occurring between the primaries and the general. More so than anything else, its like each candidate is constantly changing their ideals, in order to appeal to the voters in the various elections and caucuses. And then, for the general, they become warm and fuzzy.
https://thetruthoncommonsense.com
But with the Republican candidates, it seems like there are several very different seasons, and with the largest shift to agenda changes occurring between the primaries and the general. More so than anything else, its like each candidate is constantly changing their ideals, in order to appeal to the voters in the various elections and caucuses. And then, for the general, they become warm and fuzzy.
https://thetruthoncommonsense.com
1
Physiologically, the anger that the GOP sows is very addictive. Many listen to Fox-a-ganda, Coulter, Limbaugh, etc. with regularity to get their "fix." Some of the side effects of this is the necessity of reacting to what seems to be the safest escape coupled with the inability to think clearly. There is also the side effect of compromising overall health and fostering other addictions. Ironically, conservatives may be contributing to the actual decline in the health of their base while leading to decreased life spans. Mr. Krugman, you are right on – if only the GOP only knew the true costs of their con game.
2
Sorry, Dr. Krugman, but I’m not buying it. While I agree that the Republican party and Donald Trump have been running a big con game on their side, I do not for a minute accept that Hillary Clinton’s nomination is a result of the Democratic party trying to “serve its supporters.”
To their credit, at least the Republican party served up something like 15 other candidates besides Donald Trump, many of them of reasonable national caliber and reputation. Like him or not (and I do not), Trump has withstood competition from the best that the Republican party has to offer to emerge as the Republican nominee.
The Democratic party, by contrast, expected a coronation and served up no one besides Hillary Clinton as a national-caliber candidate. Bernie Sanders was a nobody in terms of national recognition at the start of the campaign. Like Trump, he caught his party’s establishment off-guard, and if there had been more formidable competition in the Democratic field to draw votes away from Clinton, Sanders could very well have captured the nomination. Do we really think that Hillary Clinton faced the best competition that the Democratic party had to offer?
How is that serving the Democratic party’s supporters?
To their credit, at least the Republican party served up something like 15 other candidates besides Donald Trump, many of them of reasonable national caliber and reputation. Like him or not (and I do not), Trump has withstood competition from the best that the Republican party has to offer to emerge as the Republican nominee.
The Democratic party, by contrast, expected a coronation and served up no one besides Hillary Clinton as a national-caliber candidate. Bernie Sanders was a nobody in terms of national recognition at the start of the campaign. Like Trump, he caught his party’s establishment off-guard, and if there had been more formidable competition in the Democratic field to draw votes away from Clinton, Sanders could very well have captured the nomination. Do we really think that Hillary Clinton faced the best competition that the Democratic party had to offer?
How is that serving the Democratic party’s supporters?
1
You're confusing quantity with quality. The GOP could have put up 30, and if the all were at or near the mean of the 15 this past season, what difference would it have made?
1
One of the first things Hillary Clinton tried to do as First Lady was deliver single-payer universal health insurance - but the for-profit insurance industry ramped up a media campaign that derailed it. Her current position on this issue may just be a case of once burned twice shy.
2
It's ironic, isn't it? The supposedly hare-brained Democrats are relatively organized, disciplined, while the straight, authoritative Republicans are running in circles, barking at each other.
Many of my friends support Bernie Sanders. I haven't yet confessed to them that I love (love love) super delegates. and approve all the rules and regs that have kept the Democratic Party on track and civil.
Many of my friends support Bernie Sanders. I haven't yet confessed to them that I love (love love) super delegates. and approve all the rules and regs that have kept the Democratic Party on track and civil.
155
The differences that parallel the two parties, while there may be some weight to what you write, has basically described the difference between cottage cheese and low fat cottage cheese. Both parties have left hundreds of thousands of young, new first time voters disenfranchised as well as a lot of old geezers like myself. The two parties are complicit in the rigging of the process. The coronation of someone because of gender and the attempt by the other party to dismiss the will of the parties voters are as anti- american as it can get. I may be gone in a few years, but the young people shall not forget the travesty that was played out in this particular nomination process.
1
The Republicans deliver what they promise. Their problem is that what they promise and deliver is worthless. The problems of this country for most people will not be solved by banning or otherwise restricting abortion, more 'prayer,' lower taxes for the rich, less environmental protection etc.
148
George W. Bush took a thriving economy and drove it into the ditch, creating or worsening many of the problems we wrestle with today. How many of you supported Ralph Nader in 2000? If you want someone to blame for our troubles, look in the mirror. Planning to pout this November because Bernie didn't win? You have learned nothing.
7
Victor,
I have voted straight D from the start.
I am 60 and I cannot vote for a candidate who prays at the alter of American Exceptionalism and touts her mentor Kissinger.
These are not traits of a Democrat.
She screwed the pooch in Libya and Ukraine
Her unjust & lethal works in Honduras is not something that I can simply ignore
(unlike our New Silent Majority)...
I have voted straight D from the start.
I am 60 and I cannot vote for a candidate who prays at the alter of American Exceptionalism and touts her mentor Kissinger.
These are not traits of a Democrat.
She screwed the pooch in Libya and Ukraine
Her unjust & lethal works in Honduras is not something that I can simply ignore
(unlike our New Silent Majority)...
There is real cause for anger about income inequality.
The Democrats must learn to articulate what they offer (and have already accomplished) in addition to revealing the con game that the GOP is running.
The Democrats must learn to articulate what they offer (and have already accomplished) in addition to revealing the con game that the GOP is running.
3
So, when Hillary doesn't get the independent voters to vote, will it be the "wrath of the (un)conned"?
3
As a retired teacher, I have watched with dismay as the GOP has been highly successful in the "bait and switch" game. Many of my friends and former colleagues are staunch conservatives and these dedicated public servants vote the money right out of their pockets in local and national elections.
8
Indeed, the media did play a big part in Donald Trump's success, but not so much for Hillary Clinton.
Morning Joe became morning Donald. What was a day without coffee with Donald? No matter what idiocy Trump was peddling, the media was there giving him air time not available to others. Yes media, you created this monster, but it took voters to buy his act, and they did in huge numbers. These are the voters who cannot name the justices of the Supreme Court, who may not know who occupies the vice-presidential spot. Not exactly an informed electorate.
On the Democratic side, it is disengenuous to say the media covered Hillary while ignoring Bernie...not so. Yes, Hillary won endorsements both from the print media, and from those who worked with her in the Senate. Bernie did not win those endorsements, was that Hillary's fault? The media's fault? Hardly.
The Republican fight was skewed, but the Democratic fight was fair. It's time to stop blaming and back the platform and candidate you think is best.
Morning Joe became morning Donald. What was a day without coffee with Donald? No matter what idiocy Trump was peddling, the media was there giving him air time not available to others. Yes media, you created this monster, but it took voters to buy his act, and they did in huge numbers. These are the voters who cannot name the justices of the Supreme Court, who may not know who occupies the vice-presidential spot. Not exactly an informed electorate.
On the Democratic side, it is disengenuous to say the media covered Hillary while ignoring Bernie...not so. Yes, Hillary won endorsements both from the print media, and from those who worked with her in the Senate. Bernie did not win those endorsements, was that Hillary's fault? The media's fault? Hardly.
The Republican fight was skewed, but the Democratic fight was fair. It's time to stop blaming and back the platform and candidate you think is best.
133
I agree that the Royalists are a conniving party that is primarily interested in short term gain of the few over the many. The very definition of modern day finance. However, I cannot agree that we are seeing eye opening on the part of the base of the Royalist party. If you look at Bernie's support and the Orange One's, it is coming from a general up-swelling of disgust by the American public for the ones who are supposed to be leading us and keeping our society under control. I cannot accept that Democrats are satisfied with their party, just the opposite. People want change. Throw the bums out. Vote in November.
1
Reliably voting registered Democrats may be happy with the Democratic establishment, but the rest of America clearly is not.
In order for Obama to be elected, he needed to run an anti-establishment campaign on Hope & Change. Obama's campaign activated unreliable voters to register and vote for the Democrat. We saw in the mid-terms (twice!) what happens when the unreliable wing of the Democratic coalition isn't sufficiently inspired to bother voting.
What we're seeing this year is that the reliably voting registered Democrats have their preferred nominee, as they did in 1984, 1988, 2000 and 2004. How did those elections turn out? (The Clinton years featured 3-way races with Ross Perot bleeding Trumpian Republicans from the Republican establishment candidates.)
Those who refuse to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them. Absent a 3-way race including a Trumpian (R) and an establishment (R), 2016 is shaping up as a disaster for Western civilization.
In order for Obama to be elected, he needed to run an anti-establishment campaign on Hope & Change. Obama's campaign activated unreliable voters to register and vote for the Democrat. We saw in the mid-terms (twice!) what happens when the unreliable wing of the Democratic coalition isn't sufficiently inspired to bother voting.
What we're seeing this year is that the reliably voting registered Democrats have their preferred nominee, as they did in 1984, 1988, 2000 and 2004. How did those elections turn out? (The Clinton years featured 3-way races with Ross Perot bleeding Trumpian Republicans from the Republican establishment candidates.)
Those who refuse to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them. Absent a 3-way race including a Trumpian (R) and an establishment (R), 2016 is shaping up as a disaster for Western civilization.
1
Mr Krugman,
Hillary Clinton will receive our full support and I hope she can dispel my belief that she was a somewhat less than competent Secretary of State. Meanwhile if you choose to believe that Hillary was savaged by America's lazy and irresponsible media that is your right.
Meanwhile I will continue to read the Guardian to discover that the NYT CEO is sued for racism, sexism and ageism.
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/apr/28/new-york-times-ceo-sued-dis...
Hillary Clinton will receive our full support and I hope she can dispel my belief that she was a somewhat less than competent Secretary of State. Meanwhile if you choose to believe that Hillary was savaged by America's lazy and irresponsible media that is your right.
Meanwhile I will continue to read the Guardian to discover that the NYT CEO is sued for racism, sexism and ageism.
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/apr/28/new-york-times-ceo-sued-dis...
7
You know, Hillary Clinton led the charge for regime change in Libya, and that truly was a disaster that Barack Obama has identified as the worst mistake of his presidency. The resulting media coverage of Secretary Clinton was "negative" in the sense that it accurately described her poor judgement and unwillingness to learn from the lessons of Iraq. But what then is the point of this column -- that open, honest criticism of the Establishment Democrats is to be swept aside as unfair by the Establishment's defenders in the world of punditry and NYT columns? I like the "old" Paul Krugman better -- the one with a muckraker streak who served the public interest by saying things out loud that the Establishment didn't want the public to hear.
7
Trump gives disenchanted republican voters a way to have their cake and eat it too. They were always right to be republicans - the party just didn't have the right leaders to properly support them! When the party pulled the bait and switch and left them behind in favor of the 1%, it wasn't really the party's fault, it was just that somehow the wrong people in the party had hijacked their party. (And in some ways that's actually correct).
So now the Trump supporters can feel good about themselves, for the first time in a long time. There's somebody at the head of their party who feels their pain, who very publicly hates the same people they do, and who doesn't force them to acknowledge their 30 year long mistaken affinity.
What could be better than that?
So now the Trump supporters can feel good about themselves, for the first time in a long time. There's somebody at the head of their party who feels their pain, who very publicly hates the same people they do, and who doesn't force them to acknowledge their 30 year long mistaken affinity.
What could be better than that?
50
The salient fact from all this is that the GOP is racist. And, whether they like it or not, those who support the establishment GOP and still call themselves Republican, are aiding and abetting racism. To paraphrase, "if you talk like a duck and act like a duck...and call yourself Republican, then you are a duck." Are you Republicans indignant? You are what the Party you support is.
4
"If there’s a puzzle here, it’s why this didn’t happen sooner."
My guess, Dr. Krugman, is because the GOP didn't have such a loathsome group of candidates who truly solidify just how out of touch the GOP is with the rest of America. They make Trump look and sound almost normal by comparison.
My guess, Dr. Krugman, is because the GOP didn't have such a loathsome group of candidates who truly solidify just how out of touch the GOP is with the rest of America. They make Trump look and sound almost normal by comparison.
3
I really hope you rabid Sanders supporters do the correct thing come November. Sure I support Sanders´programs and achievements, however its time to rally and try to save the dying USA. Don´t worry about me, I got out in 2004 to a country on the upswing, México. But of course I care and vote as do a high percentage of expats who retain US citizenship.
2
I want to vote for a "Ms." President, not a "Mrs."
2
And especially not a Mrs. who's honeymoon in Haiti was paid for by Citi-bank back in the seventies. The history of the Clintons as corporatist banking spokes-persons and marketing magnates goes back for years. Their participation is literally a their life's blood. I am an old person, long ago, probably thirty years, disengaged from the Clinton machine.
"But why did Mrs. Clinton, despite the most negative media coverage of any candidate in this cycle "
Really? Have you not read your own columns? You have the gall to say this after you and your NYT cohorts only wrote negative pieces on Senator Sanders, or willfully ignored his successes...campaign and otherwise? Except of course for the one factual article on his amendments, which the NYT re-edited into a negative piece after commenters had already written in that they approved of the contents.
And how about all the dismissive comments about Bernie supporters...how we are young, dreamers, unrealistic..etc.? What exactly was so horrible in what Senator Sanders proposed? Have you paid attention to the direction of our country lately? Then we are told to fall in line, and vote Clinton even though we don't trust her because she is the lesser of two evils.
Well, I'm 60 and have voted Democratic my entire life. And I don't want to cast a vote for the lesser of two evils..because that is still a vote for evil. I'm going to vote for all the Dems except for president, which I will not check at all.
This election should be decided by the true believers, not people voting against the worst of two choices. This way any fallout is on you. Then if Clinton has proven us wrong about not being Republican-lite, we will gladly vote for her re-election in 2020.
Caveat Emptor...
Really? Have you not read your own columns? You have the gall to say this after you and your NYT cohorts only wrote negative pieces on Senator Sanders, or willfully ignored his successes...campaign and otherwise? Except of course for the one factual article on his amendments, which the NYT re-edited into a negative piece after commenters had already written in that they approved of the contents.
And how about all the dismissive comments about Bernie supporters...how we are young, dreamers, unrealistic..etc.? What exactly was so horrible in what Senator Sanders proposed? Have you paid attention to the direction of our country lately? Then we are told to fall in line, and vote Clinton even though we don't trust her because she is the lesser of two evils.
Well, I'm 60 and have voted Democratic my entire life. And I don't want to cast a vote for the lesser of two evils..because that is still a vote for evil. I'm going to vote for all the Dems except for president, which I will not check at all.
This election should be decided by the true believers, not people voting against the worst of two choices. This way any fallout is on you. Then if Clinton has proven us wrong about not being Republican-lite, we will gladly vote for her re-election in 2020.
Caveat Emptor...
107
Let the buyer beware indeed.
If enough people are so foolish that they skip voting for Hillary because their preference, Bernie, didn't win the nomination, we might end up with Trump or Cruz as our next President. Then you won't have to judge whether Hillary is "Republican-lite." You'll have the real right-wing nightmare.
Remember 2000? People of "principle" who voted for Nader helped elect G.W. Bush. That led to two unfunded wars and financial catastrophe.
"True believers" scare me almost as much as Trump and Cruz. The perfect is the enemy of the good.
I may be to the left of Hillary, but I am a realist. Hillary is the most prepared and competent person who has sought the presidency in a very long time. She has detailed position papers--look on her website and read them. Hillary has a long and distinguished resume, and she has enough real inner strength to tackle the job.
If enough people are so foolish that they skip voting for Hillary because their preference, Bernie, didn't win the nomination, we might end up with Trump or Cruz as our next President. Then you won't have to judge whether Hillary is "Republican-lite." You'll have the real right-wing nightmare.
Remember 2000? People of "principle" who voted for Nader helped elect G.W. Bush. That led to two unfunded wars and financial catastrophe.
"True believers" scare me almost as much as Trump and Cruz. The perfect is the enemy of the good.
I may be to the left of Hillary, but I am a realist. Hillary is the most prepared and competent person who has sought the presidency in a very long time. She has detailed position papers--look on her website and read them. Hillary has a long and distinguished resume, and she has enough real inner strength to tackle the job.
3
It's called wasting your vote. Voting against a candidate is equally as important as voting for a candidate. Think, for just a moment, about President Trump!
2
You are another peddler of the meme that Hillary is evil, all be it a lesser evil. Would an evil person spend time in the 1960's registering black voters in Mississippi? Would such a person legally represent the nonprofit Children's Defense Fund? Would an evil person dedicate herself to developing Hillarycare, a potentially universal system of medical insurance that failed to become law because of the destructive Harry-and-Louise commercials from insurance companies opposed to the law? Etc., etc., etc.
3
"...right-wing think tanks and partisan media may suffer from the delusion that their ideology is actually popular with real people." These are their intellectuals. They can't be that stupid. It has to be Reaganism. He had widely popular appeal (heck, he was a movie start) and they hope and dream for a return somehow. And, they were successful with the Bushes for awhile. Anyway, they have established a powerful political base of success in Congress and the states and local governments. It's likely they did that by conning the rubes over and over again.
Maybe it's momentum from that. That's been their success. They can't take themselves out of that model and it doesn't work for presidential contests. Also, they can be a little lazy about it. They can block any Democratic president if they keep Congress. They may do so in 2016. If not, they will lose big with a turn in the Supreme Court, but the pattern has been a rebound after 2 years. They'll get Congress back in 2018 if they lose in 2016. The reports are that they are far more diligent politically than Democrats in non-presidential election contests. That's what Democrats need to work on. See this: http://pollyvote.com
Maybe it's momentum from that. That's been their success. They can't take themselves out of that model and it doesn't work for presidential contests. Also, they can be a little lazy about it. They can block any Democratic president if they keep Congress. They may do so in 2016. If not, they will lose big with a turn in the Supreme Court, but the pattern has been a rebound after 2 years. They'll get Congress back in 2018 if they lose in 2016. The reports are that they are far more diligent politically than Democrats in non-presidential election contests. That's what Democrats need to work on. See this: http://pollyvote.com
2
I hate to break this, but NOBODY is stupider than an intellectual who has reasons--especially reasons built into their fundamental worldview--not to see what's going on out in the big, big world.
Folks with fewer smarts and less education often get forced up against the contradictions to their ideas; they may very well get it wrong or be bat-blind, but they're much less creative about their stupidity.
And, right-wing types often get paid to advance stupid ideas, such as the old "tax cuts for the rich stimulate jobs!" Or "there is no global warming!"
Letting their research tell them otherwise....well, you get fired. And NOBODY is more PC than a right-wing multimillionaire.
Folks with fewer smarts and less education often get forced up against the contradictions to their ideas; they may very well get it wrong or be bat-blind, but they're much less creative about their stupidity.
And, right-wing types often get paid to advance stupid ideas, such as the old "tax cuts for the rich stimulate jobs!" Or "there is no global warming!"
Letting their research tell them otherwise....well, you get fired. And NOBODY is more PC than a right-wing multimillionaire.
A big LOL to Paul Krugman for suggesting that Hillary got the most negative media coverage of any candidate. That can only be so if you don't count the media black-out of Bernie Sanders for much of the primary campaign. Add that in to Mr. Krugman's own columns, that attacked Senator Sanders at a level that was shocking, even more over the top than his attacks on Candidate Obama in 2008, and to the dismissive tone of the Times and other major outlets toward toward Senator Sanders' campaign and toward him personally, and I would say they are tied for negative coverage. I subscribe to the Times and have so for several decades -- and used to adore Paul Krugman. But, after 2008 and now the repeat and escalation of attacks against anyone who isn't Hillary Clinton (does he want that job in her administration if she makes it to the top? of course he does.) I just glance at his columns to see how over the top they are. And if he is really wondering why so many have been defeated by the Clinton machine? He should do some serious reporting. Machine is the tag here. Money and machine politics honed over several decades by the Clintons. It won't be long until Paul Krugman will be campaigning against Chelsea's enemies as she runs for office. The dynasty of the Bushes is nothing compared to that of the Clintons Paul and good luck on that job.
8
What was unfair about Prof. Krugman's mild criticism of Sanders' economic platform? Pointing out that it does not make sense? Well, it doesn't. As for the "blackout" of Sanders' campaign: I agree it was unfortunate that the media never talked about Sanders' support for the USSR, his Trotskyist sympathies, his anti-scientific beliefs, his hateful rhetoric, and all the rest of it.
Among the reasons it's hard to take the BernieBros seriously: a) the article's about the reasons that Clinton did better than Bush, b) the argument is that for all the flaws, the promises of Democratic leadership have matched up a lot better with results than the promises of Republican leadership; c) a blackout isn't the same as negative coverage.
Especially when there wasn't a blackout at all--you just didn't like the coverage--and Hillary Clinton's been a regular focus of media criticism and attacks since 1994.
You see a lot of negative civerage of Bernie Sanders back then, didja?
Especially when there wasn't a blackout at all--you just didn't like the coverage--and Hillary Clinton's been a regular focus of media criticism and attacks since 1994.
You see a lot of negative civerage of Bernie Sanders back then, didja?
One sees Sander's supporters repeat the fake charges against Clinton. if you watch MSNBC after the Trump all the time coverage the second person they spend time on is Sander.
I have become weary of the pro-Bernies. While I too am far to the left l do have enough grasp of reality to realize that no way in hell is the US going to elect a 74 year old socialist from Vermont to the presidency; and if they did he would be one term, completely marginalized and ineffectual. Bernie is a vanity candidate for people who are too-cool-for school. We have been so lucky as to have 16 of the last 24 years with Democratic presidents. The needle does move left and progressive with savvy, reasonable Democrats at the top, if not as fast or completely as some would prefer. The alternative in this two party system is simply too awful to contemplate or risk.
371
The needle moves left? It's got a long way to go to get back to 1970. At this rate, we'll get there in another 46 years.
If the anger doesn't boil over before then.
If the anger doesn't boil over before then.
1
One of the reasons the base of the Right has turned to a charlatan like Trump is that been fed a steady diet of hate, bigotry, and rage from fringe Right wing radio and media. They been told to distrust government. Told to hate the president not because of his policies but because of his skin color. They been told that if you are member of the Left then you are a traitor. Finally, they been told anyone who isn't white, straight, or Christian is the source of all our problems in America. The GOP supported this because they knew if they keep their base in a constant state of fear and panic they can be controlled. Because if you can't turn out the vote with hope you can always use fear and hate.
264
And now the chickens have come home to roost. It goes without saying that the Republicans have been using hate and fear over the past 30 plus years. It has now degenerated into what we see
today; Cruz and Trump. Please. One is a con man the other would like to see us become a Theocracy.
today; Cruz and Trump. Please. One is a con man the other would like to see us become a Theocracy.
1
Sixty-two comments as I write. Many critical of the NYT along the way, but a lot of useful argument and discussion. Yet only one NYT Pick -- and it is an ex-pat at that, commenting on the overall problems at "home" after a visit here.
Why do I get the impression that the NYT Picket is trying to protect the paper from involvement in controversy?
Why do I get the impression that the NYT Picket is trying to protect the paper from involvement in controversy?
3
It probably has something to do with theories about corporations and conspiracy that makes it very difficult for you to see what the heck is actually going on.
Yes, President Obama, along with many Democratic members of Congress, accomplished a tremendous amount, especially when the Republican obstruction is considered. But, I don't see that transferring to Hillary Clinton, no matter what she may say on the campaign trail and on her website. She was a member of the Obama administration when the ACA was passed, but she cannot honestly take the credit for that achievement. She was involved only in his worst policy mistakes. It does not bode well for a Clinton presidency.
7
"What Donald Trump has been doing is telling the base that it can order à la carte. He has, in effect, been telling aggrieved white men that they can feed their anger without being forced to swallow supply-side economics, too."
Exactly.
By demonstrating that he was "one of them" by his "birther" gambit, Trump bought himself license to freelance not only on economic policy but other previously sacrosanct establishment republican dogma like how the Iraq war was not a mistake. Jeb incompetently sank his candidacy before it got out of the gate by trying to idiotically defend it.
"Pre" Trump, the "haterade" always came bundled with tax and economic policies that provided absolutely no benefit to the base. The base could always be counted on because they never wanted to think of themselves as benefiting from policies that the democratic party proposed (for minorities).
What a "President Trump" would actually end up doing is impossible to predict, but his strategy here, whether accidentally brilliant or just brilliant, is a winner.
Exactly.
By demonstrating that he was "one of them" by his "birther" gambit, Trump bought himself license to freelance not only on economic policy but other previously sacrosanct establishment republican dogma like how the Iraq war was not a mistake. Jeb incompetently sank his candidacy before it got out of the gate by trying to idiotically defend it.
"Pre" Trump, the "haterade" always came bundled with tax and economic policies that provided absolutely no benefit to the base. The base could always be counted on because they never wanted to think of themselves as benefiting from policies that the democratic party proposed (for minorities).
What a "President Trump" would actually end up doing is impossible to predict, but his strategy here, whether accidentally brilliant or just brilliant, is a winner.
3
African-Americans have turned out for Clinton and there are no doubt many reasons for this. One was African-American leaders twisting and outright lying about Sanders' civil rights record. To what should be his shame, John Lewis lied about Sanders' participation in the civil rights movement.
And as to gun control, I will vote for Clinton when she comes out against her home state senator, Kirsten Gillibrand, who when she was a congresswoman from rural NY had a worse gun control record than Sanders. When she was appointed senator she offered the disingenuous excuse that being from a rural district she had no idea gun violence was a major problem. And I also am looking forward to Clinton refusing to campaign with any Democratic candidates for Congress who are against gun control. Once assured of the nomination Clinton will drop the issue faster than a New York minute.
And as to gun control, I will vote for Clinton when she comes out against her home state senator, Kirsten Gillibrand, who when she was a congresswoman from rural NY had a worse gun control record than Sanders. When she was appointed senator she offered the disingenuous excuse that being from a rural district she had no idea gun violence was a major problem. And I also am looking forward to Clinton refusing to campaign with any Democratic candidates for Congress who are against gun control. Once assured of the nomination Clinton will drop the issue faster than a New York minute.
6
John Lewis is one of the most honorable men in Congress, and his Civil Rights record is beyond criticism. Other Civil Rights leaders also support Sec. Clinton. African-Americans and others are not the ones who are misinformed. I had the honor to serve on the board of a local civil rights museum, and hear the personal stories of many of those who fought for Civil Rights. The Sanders supporters don't have a clue or any sense of history. Shame on them.
It takes a lot of gall to attack John Lewis like this.
Interesting Mr. Krugman links to a Vox article about Clinton's negative coverage, when this is the same publication that gave us that faulty "calculator" that double counted and lied about Sanders' tax plan. Not only does this read like an embarrassing brown-nosing love letter to Mrs. Clinton, but you would think that an esteemed economist such as him would have some kind of issue trusting any sort of metrics that Vox would throw our way without some sort of acknowledgement about the blatant lies they've been publishing lately.
I would also disagree that Mrs. Clinton is "resilient under pressure," unless if by that you mean coming across as smug and pointing fingers in the face of our nation's youth and screaming at them for not getting it. Mrs. Clinton may be the better option when compared to Trump, but she's certainly no savvy politician or all that likable (this will be the most unenthusiastic race in decades). But I do hope you get your post and I do hope you come back down to reality because your job interview process is getting tiresome for us.
I would also disagree that Mrs. Clinton is "resilient under pressure," unless if by that you mean coming across as smug and pointing fingers in the face of our nation's youth and screaming at them for not getting it. Mrs. Clinton may be the better option when compared to Trump, but she's certainly no savvy politician or all that likable (this will be the most unenthusiastic race in decades). But I do hope you get your post and I do hope you come back down to reality because your job interview process is getting tiresome for us.
14
One thing Republicans and some of Sanders' supporters share, I am sorry to say, is an intolerance for providing facts, and a fervent (boy, is it fervent!) belief that yelling at people is as good as a bit of research and thought.
Krugman's column has degenerated into nothing different than a paid political advertisement for Clinton and Democrats.
12
Some people will be glad when this election is over because they won't have to hear any more about Donald Trump. I'll be glad when it's over because I won't have to hear any more about Bernie Sanders.
Every comment sections turns into a rant about Bernie Sanders. It's like talking to your best friend in Jr High School with their first crush. Just when you think you've steered the conversation in a different direction you're back on the amazing wonderulness that is new love.
Enough already. I get it. I don't like it when I don't get my way either, but sometimes it isn't all about me.
I know in the Internet age we're all "experts" but please, let's just allow for one second Nobel Prize winner Doctor Krugman might know a few things those of us who can't balance our family checkbook do not.
Every comment sections turns into a rant about Bernie Sanders. It's like talking to your best friend in Jr High School with their first crush. Just when you think you've steered the conversation in a different direction you're back on the amazing wonderulness that is new love.
Enough already. I get it. I don't like it when I don't get my way either, but sometimes it isn't all about me.
I know in the Internet age we're all "experts" but please, let's just allow for one second Nobel Prize winner Doctor Krugman might know a few things those of us who can't balance our family checkbook do not.
9
I could not agree more! The race is over. Time to focus on the real election, the one in November. If you need a reminder of what can happen when you let the perfect become the enemy of the good, think 2000, Bush v Gore, "Chief Justice Roberts" and "Justice Alito", or if you really want to concentrate the mind, think "President Trump"!
Dr. Krugman,
As much as I would love to sit back and watch the GOP (Which, aptly, spells gop) destroy itself, there are dark clouds on the horizon. To use an overworked metaphor, a perfect storm is coming.
From reading other commenters on this page, there is a lot distaste for Sec. Clinton. Come election day, many of the bitter Sanders supporters will sit at home, or worse, vote for the fascist. Throw in a possible Clinton indictment, and you've got the set up of a nightmare of epic proportions.
Hope I'm wrong.
As much as I would love to sit back and watch the GOP (Which, aptly, spells gop) destroy itself, there are dark clouds on the horizon. To use an overworked metaphor, a perfect storm is coming.
From reading other commenters on this page, there is a lot distaste for Sec. Clinton. Come election day, many of the bitter Sanders supporters will sit at home, or worse, vote for the fascist. Throw in a possible Clinton indictment, and you've got the set up of a nightmare of epic proportions.
Hope I'm wrong.
6
Sanders' fans protest, but it's funny how they barely touch Krugman's central contention: that the Obama administration, and by extension the Democratic establishment, has delivered real achievements for working people. For all of Sanders' laudable ideas, this disturbingly illustrates how much of the movement seems to be driven by pure anti-Clinton animus: when Obama and Biden are the face of centrist Democrat achievement, they demure and make carefully measured criticism, when Clinton is the face, the criticism acquires the tenor of a public witch burning. I wish more of his followers would simply have the courage to put Clinton and Obama in the same sentence, for the most plain way of summarize her campaign's promise is to continue Obama's legacy. Sanders' humanity has been a breath of fresh air, but the inability of this movement to see beyond narrow personality politics makes me skeptical that it will be a lasting harbinger of positive change.
8
Obama's will go down as a good president, definitely the best Democrat since Kennedy (although he was probably better than Kennedy to be truthful), but his biggest mistake, and that which will haunt him, will always be that he did almost nothing to fix the banking system. Dodd Frank is essentially worthless and the 1% are continuing to run the country and will wreck the economy again.
Why is it that everyone at the Times appears to have abandoned analyses within their areas of expertise in favor of shallow political punditry? Perhaps you'd like to give Fashion & Style a crack after November, Professor.
11
Fiorina was a terrible, out of touch VP pick that will surely cement Trump's inevitable nomination. She's a failed CEO known for axing American workers. That's about as bad as nominating a wealthy, Wall Street type like Mitt Romney in the middle of a recession. The fact is many CEOs have ruthlessly outsourced and left quite a bit of the population behind. Did they honestly think that would never come back to bite them?
6
For the ever-partisan Paul Krugman it's all about "the wealthy" milking the country for all it can get. That may be true, but doesn't that description fit Hillary Clinton to a tee? Her and her husband's lecture circuit "con" taking huge speaking fees while concurrently securing millions for their Foundation via foreign entities and businesses makes most Republican elites look like pikers. And, this is the person Krugman strongly supports for President?
Regarding Krugman's assertion that the Democratic Party has delivered on its promises, I would say it is true to an extent, but what of the millions of working class men and women that have seen little in the way of economic advancement during the Obama years?
To be sure, the Sanders and Trump ascendancy cuts across party lines and is due primarily to two terms of weak, anxiety producing economic growth under Barack Obama. Perhaps it's time for both parties to re-think their policy positions and create an economic environment whereby everybody wins. The Krugman way of of demonizing GOP wealth creators and laying higher taxes on businesses, like Obamacare does, adds little to the ongoing conversation on how best to solve America's deep-seated economic issues.
Regarding Krugman's assertion that the Democratic Party has delivered on its promises, I would say it is true to an extent, but what of the millions of working class men and women that have seen little in the way of economic advancement during the Obama years?
To be sure, the Sanders and Trump ascendancy cuts across party lines and is due primarily to two terms of weak, anxiety producing economic growth under Barack Obama. Perhaps it's time for both parties to re-think their policy positions and create an economic environment whereby everybody wins. The Krugman way of of demonizing GOP wealth creators and laying higher taxes on businesses, like Obamacare does, adds little to the ongoing conversation on how best to solve America's deep-seated economic issues.
3
If the Clinton's "milked," anybody, it was Goldman, Sachs (you know...where Ted Cruz' wife is an exec, and Trump does business?), and you are simultaneously furious that the President (he is, you know) has milked the rich to pay for Obamacare and other programs while dragging the economy out of the worst crash of my lifetime and furious that he's diverted so much of the country's wealth towards working and poor people.
In other words, you haven't even woken up enough yet to support a crazy like Trump, and are still dreaming away the years with thoughts of Ayn Rand.
In other words, you haven't even woken up enough yet to support a crazy like Trump, and are still dreaming away the years with thoughts of Ayn Rand.
1
Mr. Ruland, Paul Krugman may be "ever partisan" in your ever partisan view. Nevertheless, his observation that "the wealthy" are milking the country for all they can get (your words, not his,) is true. As George Carlin pointed out, "...they want more for themselves and less for everybody else, and now they're coming for your Social Security...so they can give it to their Wall Street buddies."
As for the Clintons making the Republican elites look like pikers, which pikers would that be exactly? Sheldon Adelson? Ken Langone? Charles Koch? Mitt Romney for that matter? Yep, Hillary sure makes them look like pikers!
They rest of your argument is pretty much that often heard talking point, Obama didn't save the nation fast enough. All those hard working Americans would be so much better off if we would just unleash the "wealth creators." If we would just reduce those burdensome taxes and relax those extreme environmental regulations, those "job creators" would better be able to "...solve America's deep-seated economic issues."
The problem, Mr. Ruland, is that you would double down on the exact same con that Krugman is calling out here. It has been perpetrated on the nation for 35+ years now, it is not working, and we marks are finally getting wise to it.
As for the Clintons making the Republican elites look like pikers, which pikers would that be exactly? Sheldon Adelson? Ken Langone? Charles Koch? Mitt Romney for that matter? Yep, Hillary sure makes them look like pikers!
They rest of your argument is pretty much that often heard talking point, Obama didn't save the nation fast enough. All those hard working Americans would be so much better off if we would just unleash the "wealth creators." If we would just reduce those burdensome taxes and relax those extreme environmental regulations, those "job creators" would better be able to "...solve America's deep-seated economic issues."
The problem, Mr. Ruland, is that you would double down on the exact same con that Krugman is calling out here. It has been perpetrated on the nation for 35+ years now, it is not working, and we marks are finally getting wise to it.
1
The big mystery is why an angry Republican base votes for Trump believing that somehow this superrich buffoon is suddenly going to do things that will benefit them if he is elected. It's amazing how many Americans have gone completely insane.
288
They don't care if he benefits them significantly. They just want a bit more bread and bigger circuses.
1
Krugman presents lots of analysis that signifies NOTHING but a rant.
Fact: The media gave Donald Trump about $1.8 Billion in free media coverage.
Fact: The media gave Hillary Clinton about $700 Million in free media coverage.
Fact: The media gave all the other candidates far less free coverage, with the most going to Bernie Sanders with about $350 Million.
Simple analysis. The two candidates that the public knew best (both The Donald and Hillary had enormous name recognition before announcing) and who got the most coverage won the nominations. Wow. YUUUUUGE surprise, right?
Both qualify as the least popular candidate to run for President in each party in many years, possibly forever. Now we get to choose between BAD and WORSE.
All the palaver that Krugman provides adds little to those few facts.
Pay attention to who will nominate people as Justices of the Supreme Court that you would approve of when you vote in November. Both candidates have major personal flaws.
Fact: The media gave Donald Trump about $1.8 Billion in free media coverage.
Fact: The media gave Hillary Clinton about $700 Million in free media coverage.
Fact: The media gave all the other candidates far less free coverage, with the most going to Bernie Sanders with about $350 Million.
Simple analysis. The two candidates that the public knew best (both The Donald and Hillary had enormous name recognition before announcing) and who got the most coverage won the nominations. Wow. YUUUUUGE surprise, right?
Both qualify as the least popular candidate to run for President in each party in many years, possibly forever. Now we get to choose between BAD and WORSE.
All the palaver that Krugman provides adds little to those few facts.
Pay attention to who will nominate people as Justices of the Supreme Court that you would approve of when you vote in November. Both candidates have major personal flaws.
6
Wow! If Hillary Cliton got "The most negative coverage ever" then I suspect we all would have been blinded by the brilliance and deafened by the din of "positive coverage."
Hillary got tossed softball questions by the press and there were thousands of pro-Hillary articles. The fact is Trump got "the most negative coverage ever" of a candidate so far this cycle. The right wing media hates him because he exposes their hypocrisy and the left wing media hates him because... Well... because he's a "rich" Republican.
Hillary got tossed softball questions by the press and there were thousands of pro-Hillary articles. The fact is Trump got "the most negative coverage ever" of a candidate so far this cycle. The right wing media hates him because he exposes their hypocrisy and the left wing media hates him because... Well... because he's a "rich" Republican.
6
I have always read you economic books with interest. However, your references in this article are baffling. You quote the Crimson Hexagon as a source for negative articles, but did you actually read the 'story' as it is so far from educational that is almost fictional. Mr. Krugman, with research like this they may actually take away your Nobel Prize. Leave ranting for other people, and t the editors of the NYT, you should be embarrassed to print this.
4
I will vote for Hillary.
However, the choice for many others is between a billionaire and a person willing to do the bidding of billionaires - at a time when middle women and middlemen are less and less valued.
If Trump is elected, then it might force the middle women and middlemen to implement changes that at least reduce the corruption of your political system by money.
If Hillary is elected, then her Presidency will provide an opportunity to address the causes of Trump's rise - but, this assumes of course that she is not there to do the bidding of billionaires.
However, the choice for many others is between a billionaire and a person willing to do the bidding of billionaires - at a time when middle women and middlemen are less and less valued.
If Trump is elected, then it might force the middle women and middlemen to implement changes that at least reduce the corruption of your political system by money.
If Hillary is elected, then her Presidency will provide an opportunity to address the causes of Trump's rise - but, this assumes of course that she is not there to do the bidding of billionaires.
5
I really wish Mr. Clinton, er... I mean Mr.Krugman would go back to being wrong about economics instead of politics. I could barely make it past the fifth paragraph.
The parties do not serve the supporters; the parties serve their own bloated interests. That is why Trump AND Sanders are being excoriated by their own parties. Because they both come from the outside the loop and if they win, will take over the party with no quid pro quo in place. The real problem with the GOP is they don't have a party lap dog candidate, like the Dems have in the hopefully soon to be indicted Mrs.Krugman... er, Mrs. Clinton. Seriously, does Krugman want a job in her cabinet, or what?
The parties do not serve the supporters; the parties serve their own bloated interests. That is why Trump AND Sanders are being excoriated by their own parties. Because they both come from the outside the loop and if they win, will take over the party with no quid pro quo in place. The real problem with the GOP is they don't have a party lap dog candidate, like the Dems have in the hopefully soon to be indicted Mrs.Krugman... er, Mrs. Clinton. Seriously, does Krugman want a job in her cabinet, or what?
4
Krugman is in such great awe while kneeling at Hillary's feet that he can't even speak the name of the queen's rival. It's Sanders. Sen. Bernie Sanders.
I once thought better of Krugman. Live and learn.
I once thought better of Krugman. Live and learn.
8
You've nailed it, Mr. K.
3
Good analysis PK. One could argue that the electorate is simply stupid but its self inflicted stupidity. They are making decisions based on feelings instead of logic, a good way to allow yourself to me manipulated and conned.
3
The NYTimes just reads like a Clinton fan page. Where can one go for truly balanced commentary? Where is there a voice advocating for the American people and not the nation's elite, the ones who need the help the least? Why would Paul Krugman want change? I'm sure he's very happy with the way things are. I bet he can even afford his healthcare.
10
Why slay the messenger?
We've been conned by both sides. The Democrats do try to help the average American but they have less discipline than the GOP. Why that is I don't know. The GOP seems to consist of robots that have been programmed to say the same set of remarks in slightly different ways while going for the same goals: to completely disenfranchise the average American by depriving him of the right to vote, making sure that he cannot make enough money to support himself and his family, and to leave all of us in poverty.
The Democrats try too hard to be politically correct. It comes across as faint hearted or worse. The truth is that the Democrats do have more people who know what it's like not to be rich. You don't learn to empathize without experiencing hardship. Yes, you learn to help yourself but you also learn to appreciate any timely assistance that comes your way. The GOP doesn't appear to understand how assistance can prevent people from becoming poor, desperate, or even dead. Their version of assistance is to declare that anyone who needs it, unless they are rich or a corporation, is a moocher.
What has impressed me about Clinton is her work ethic. She has done the work to be president of the United States. She was a senator, a secretary of state, and first lady. She's a lawyer and a parent. She has a reputation for rolling up her sleeves and doing the work. Cruz, Rubio, Trump, Fiorina, and the rest of the GOP work only for the rich. We need someone to work for us.
The Democrats try too hard to be politically correct. It comes across as faint hearted or worse. The truth is that the Democrats do have more people who know what it's like not to be rich. You don't learn to empathize without experiencing hardship. Yes, you learn to help yourself but you also learn to appreciate any timely assistance that comes your way. The GOP doesn't appear to understand how assistance can prevent people from becoming poor, desperate, or even dead. Their version of assistance is to declare that anyone who needs it, unless they are rich or a corporation, is a moocher.
What has impressed me about Clinton is her work ethic. She has done the work to be president of the United States. She was a senator, a secretary of state, and first lady. She's a lawyer and a parent. She has a reputation for rolling up her sleeves and doing the work. Cruz, Rubio, Trump, Fiorina, and the rest of the GOP work only for the rich. We need someone to work for us.
13
"The GOP doesn't appear to understand how assistance can prevent people from becoming poor, desperate, or even dead. "
Hen3ry, of course they understand it. They just don't care.
Hen3ry, of course they understand it. They just don't care.
1
People got Obamacare because the rich are paying more?
The cost of my employer-sponsored family health coverage went from ~$3,500 a year to nearly ~$10,000 within the space of two years. And it stayed that way even when I changed jobs, moving to a different industry to a much different type of business entity.
I agree with Obamacare in principle, but as it has been implemented it's yet another social program whose costs fall squarely on the working, middle class. This is why people are disillusioned with establishment politics and politicians.
The cost of my employer-sponsored family health coverage went from ~$3,500 a year to nearly ~$10,000 within the space of two years. And it stayed that way even when I changed jobs, moving to a different industry to a much different type of business entity.
I agree with Obamacare in principle, but as it has been implemented it's yet another social program whose costs fall squarely on the working, middle class. This is why people are disillusioned with establishment politics and politicians.
3
The situation you describe is not due to the Affordable Care Act. It's due to the insatiable greed of health insurance companies. Wall St. gets a lot of flack but no one is talking about the blood sucking insurance companies where executives make obscene amounts of money and bilk the public. These companies have been raising rates every year for decades. The difference now is that they don't raise them incrementally but use the excuse of the ACA to push those rates even higher all at once.
Absolute certitude is a foolish and dangerous thing. Remember, "It ain't over till it's over" a wise Yogi once said. Politics is a game.
2
Love the headline: Wrath of the Conned. Live long and prosper.
5
The defining problem facing this Country today is income inequality . That is the source of the wrath of the lower middle class white male. Rapid social change also contributes to it . Regarding the former point , this angry people should be supporting the Democratic Party and not Donald Trump . Think about increased expenditure in infrastructure , increased minimum wage , student debt , etc. . But instead of facing their problems and looking for a solution , they prefer to look for a scapegoat . This is the reason for the xenophobia and racism that are Mr. Trump`s strongest selling points . They are not that different to Hitler`s supporters in the 20`s and 30`s .Those people also had real grievances . Trump`s supporters are the victims of the con man but also deserve at least part of the blame .
6
The angry people would support the Democratic Party if they had an honest leader who would do their bidding. Hillary Clinton is not that leader.
I think everyone understands the bitterness in both parties over not getting their chosen ones elected. And it is also clear that party politics in America are greatly flawed. But the absolutism from both sides is a bit shocking even though it is characteristic of the polarized electorate. The two parties are polarized across the country and now we have a polarization within each party--the "take the ball and go home" attitude that throws American elections to the wind. The evils of the Repubs are well known. And the dislike for Clinton is without question, though far from without precedent--it equals the dislike for Barack Obama, and has a more understandable basis. And the super delegate process is indefensible. But after all, superdelegates aside, Clinton has a sizable lead in both total votes and primary votes. But the blindness to any flaws in Clinton's opponent, Bernie Sanders does seem astonishing selective. When the primaries started, it was easy to see Bernie as the saint and Hilary as the she-devil. But as the race developed Bernie also took on the traits so vilified by those of us disgusted with American elections: he becomes as bitter, as nasty, as dishonest as the worst of them--as far as campaign dirty tricks are concerned. Lies and distortions were as apparent from his camp as from hers. I hope he rises above the level of the other candidates--as it seems he might--and still does what he can to prevent a Trump victory. Do YOU want a President Trump?
131
This is how I feel too. Does it ever occur to the Bernistas that some commenters here as well as the Editorial Board are NOT working hand in hand with the devil. I resent the nonstop assaults on Clinton supporters who see flaws in Sanders that prevent us from jumping on the Sanders train. That does not make us evil, soulless, corrupt or stupid. We have every right to support the candidate we see as making the best Democratic choice. If you disagree with the New York Times, stop reading it!!!
3
Clinton’s top issues: Climate change; national security; education; women’s health; the economy; foreign policy; immigration reform, voting rights; gun violence and our system of criminal justice; the need to a fair tax code where the rich and corporations pay their fair share and the Supreme Court.
Trump’s issue: Gender. Trump’s phoney issues: Building a wall on the southern border, deporting 11 million undocumented immigrants, being president is like making deals.
The real issue: Have enough American voters actually lost their minds enough to elect a con-artist like Trump, who is both unfit and unqualified for any elective office let alone as president.
Trump’s issue: Gender. Trump’s phoney issues: Building a wall on the southern border, deporting 11 million undocumented immigrants, being president is like making deals.
The real issue: Have enough American voters actually lost their minds enough to elect a con-artist like Trump, who is both unfit and unqualified for any elective office let alone as president.
331
Clinton's website doesn't even mention poverty as an issue. It is time for the 100 million underclass to rise up and strike down the 300,000 plutocratic parasites.
Notwithstanding the ACA and small increases in the marginal tax rates paid by the rich to find it, many Democrats would be shocked to hear that their party delivers on progressive campaign promises.
Indeed, The Least Transparent Administration Ever, the one which declined to prosecute both massive financial fraud and state torturers, has dismayed so a portion of the base, that it's supporting a 74-year old Vermonter from Brooklyn, rather than face another administration which talks progressive but governs center-right.
The word, I believe, is "neo-liberal". And, unfortunately, that's not a "new cliche".
Indeed, The Least Transparent Administration Ever, the one which declined to prosecute both massive financial fraud and state torturers, has dismayed so a portion of the base, that it's supporting a 74-year old Vermonter from Brooklyn, rather than face another administration which talks progressive but governs center-right.
The word, I believe, is "neo-liberal". And, unfortunately, that's not a "new cliche".
6
Abraham Lincoln was quite prescient of this election cycle with his famous quote, "You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time."
The "some of the people" are the poor saps of the GOP who are now rebelling in Trump. "All of the people some of the time" are most of us, who start with the fervor of each new administration to wishfully think that "this time it will be different," only to find out that it isn't. I disagree, however with President Lincoln on the last point. All of the people HAVE been fooled all of the time into thinking that there really is a difference between the Republicans and Democrats. Both have been bought by the 1% oligarchy. The pain of the decline of the US has been the result of bipartisan actions. Clinton and the repeal of Glass-Steagall opening the door to the crash of 2008 on the Democratic side, George W. Bush's illegal and ill fated costly adventure into Iraq on the Republican side, to name two quick examples. In both cases, the 1% came out ahead, and the rest of us suffer. Neither Clinton or Trump are going to do what we really want. Sanders may have come closest, but he is too capable of upsetting the apple cart, hence put the squeeze on him to minimize his chances. As The Temptations sang in "Ball of Confusion," "...and the band played on..."
The "some of the people" are the poor saps of the GOP who are now rebelling in Trump. "All of the people some of the time" are most of us, who start with the fervor of each new administration to wishfully think that "this time it will be different," only to find out that it isn't. I disagree, however with President Lincoln on the last point. All of the people HAVE been fooled all of the time into thinking that there really is a difference between the Republicans and Democrats. Both have been bought by the 1% oligarchy. The pain of the decline of the US has been the result of bipartisan actions. Clinton and the repeal of Glass-Steagall opening the door to the crash of 2008 on the Democratic side, George W. Bush's illegal and ill fated costly adventure into Iraq on the Republican side, to name two quick examples. In both cases, the 1% came out ahead, and the rest of us suffer. Neither Clinton or Trump are going to do what we really want. Sanders may have come closest, but he is too capable of upsetting the apple cart, hence put the squeeze on him to minimize his chances. As The Temptations sang in "Ball of Confusion," "...and the band played on..."
4
Sorry, but there is a huge difference between the 2 parties. Do you think that, had Al Gore been elected in 2000, that we would have invaded Iraq? Do you think we would have Alito and Roberts on the Supreme Court?
Considering the current campaign, do you really want Trump to run our foreign and domestic policy, when he really doesn't have a clue about either. Do you want Trump and the Republicans destroy the PPACA, leaving millions without health insurance. Do you want Trump and the Republicans to walk away from the Paris Agreement, thus ensuring that the effects of climate change will be felt sooner rather than later? Do you want Trump to choose Supreme Court justices?
The list is much longer, but I hope you see the difference between the parties now.
Considering the current campaign, do you really want Trump to run our foreign and domestic policy, when he really doesn't have a clue about either. Do you want Trump and the Republicans destroy the PPACA, leaving millions without health insurance. Do you want Trump and the Republicans to walk away from the Paris Agreement, thus ensuring that the effects of climate change will be felt sooner rather than later? Do you want Trump to choose Supreme Court justices?
The list is much longer, but I hope you see the difference between the parties now.
Concerning Republican "bate and switch" tactics:
Since 1973, Republican politicians have been vowing to overturn Roe v. Wade. During that time Republicans have held the White House most of the time, and appointed most of the Supreme Court justices. Yet they have failed to overturn Roe v. Wade.
Since 1973, Republican politicians have been vowing to overturn Roe v. Wade. During that time Republicans have held the White House most of the time, and appointed most of the Supreme Court justices. Yet they have failed to overturn Roe v. Wade.
Never forget that the Clintons coined the word Triangulation, which may be seen with Hillary suddenly saying the occasional Bernie line. It does not hide the fact she is a moderate Republican. Meanwhile, Donald is totally an opportunist, and probably socially as liberal as Hillary. He, at the very least, isn't controlled by the Party Elite. Even the Kochs, who know how to buy an elected office, prefer Hillary because she is closer to the usual purchase of the .01%.
I don't care what Hillary said to anyone, the sheer number of "speaking fees" speaks for itself.
We have a dem who is really an R with better supreme court choices, and a sorta repub who is probably a D in his heart, but will pull Christie as his VP choice...who should be no where near the oval office.
No good choices, and not even "less bad" ones....
I don't care what Hillary said to anyone, the sheer number of "speaking fees" speaks for itself.
We have a dem who is really an R with better supreme court choices, and a sorta repub who is probably a D in his heart, but will pull Christie as his VP choice...who should be no where near the oval office.
No good choices, and not even "less bad" ones....
11
This Hillary being a moderate republican is such a cliche propagated by right wing media, for so long, that it sunk in many liberal heads. Yes, politically, Clinton tries to appeal to moderate republicans because this election cycle it makes a lot of sense. Policy-wise it will all be dependent on the composition of Congress, she may govern as a liberal if the House is democratic, or govern as centrist because she would have to do so to get anything done.
Agree. This is positively going to be the most depressing election in my lifetime.
For me, the biggest con or coup is that the GOP has been so successful at getting so many people to vote against their own best interest - I could never figure this out until I heard Trump tell a hall full of white voters that when he's president "you guys are going to be so rich..." - this to deafening cheers and flag waving. These people will continue to be blinded by the unattainable dream of riches beyond belief while their party continues to keep the rich happy and even richer. Gullibility should be embarrassing here - but it isn't and Trump knows this. I'd say God help us all but I think it's too late.
6
Barack Obama's approval rating among Black voters has never been less than 90% his entire presidency, despite the fact that the Black Community has suffered more than any other race, every year of the Obama presidency as a whole.
Successful at getting so many people to vote against their own best interest? Maybe Obama gave the GOP a roadmap.
Successful at getting so many people to vote against their own best interest? Maybe Obama gave the GOP a roadmap.
1
Read the Times, and Krugman writes about the "Wrath of the Conned." Egan writes about "Working-Class Fraud." Spielberg writes about "How to Prepare for the Next Recession."
Read about suicide increasing, rising most rapidly for middle-age women. Rad about how most Americans do not have money available to pay for a $400 emergency.
Pick up the Syracuse newspaper where I live (only 3 days a week now--owned by one of those corporate conglomerates) and read about the meth labs being raided in the surrounding bucolic countryside, the poverty rate in the city skyrocketing from 2000-2013. Did I mention how many corporations pulled out of our area to go South or to developing countries for cheap labor. Everybody is worried about jobs.
Fox News is big buzz around here among business types and displaced downward mobile whites--the world according to Fox. Whom to blame is the name of the game--why the government, of course, with all those taxes on the beneficent rich--taxes take away jobs, you know, plus, those pesky regulations that curtail profits but protect safety and health. Never talk about big business and corrupt politicians. Donald the Demagogue ratchets up the blame game to include immigrants and nonwhites.
No policy and planning for the future--the Republicans see to that--that is socialism. The center is not holding. Everybody's mad; even the kids, who seem to be bullying each other at staggering rates.
See what happens when the social bonds break. Ask why?
Read about suicide increasing, rising most rapidly for middle-age women. Rad about how most Americans do not have money available to pay for a $400 emergency.
Pick up the Syracuse newspaper where I live (only 3 days a week now--owned by one of those corporate conglomerates) and read about the meth labs being raided in the surrounding bucolic countryside, the poverty rate in the city skyrocketing from 2000-2013. Did I mention how many corporations pulled out of our area to go South or to developing countries for cheap labor. Everybody is worried about jobs.
Fox News is big buzz around here among business types and displaced downward mobile whites--the world according to Fox. Whom to blame is the name of the game--why the government, of course, with all those taxes on the beneficent rich--taxes take away jobs, you know, plus, those pesky regulations that curtail profits but protect safety and health. Never talk about big business and corrupt politicians. Donald the Demagogue ratchets up the blame game to include immigrants and nonwhites.
No policy and planning for the future--the Republicans see to that--that is socialism. The center is not holding. Everybody's mad; even the kids, who seem to be bullying each other at staggering rates.
See what happens when the social bonds break. Ask why?
9
Excellent overview. And I think you've touched on a key point: everyone is asking why these things are happening, and politicians spin responses that play on emotions and insecurity (but aren't really accurate at all).
Strangely enough, someone has explained why this is happening, but nobody's listening. Thomas Piketty wrote a book called "Capital in the Twenty-First Century." The rich are getting richer, while the rest are worse off, because of changing tax policies (tax cuts for the wealthy) and demographics (declining birth rate).
He also offers a remedy: restore progressive taxation on income, wealth and inheritance.
Why aren't more people talking about this? I don't know. Certainly Paul Krugman could help to spread the word.
Instead, we fritter away any opportunities to fix this mess by demonizing each other, playing on the fear and insecurities of people who don't know where to turn.
(By the way, hello in Syracuse!)
Strangely enough, someone has explained why this is happening, but nobody's listening. Thomas Piketty wrote a book called "Capital in the Twenty-First Century." The rich are getting richer, while the rest are worse off, because of changing tax policies (tax cuts for the wealthy) and demographics (declining birth rate).
He also offers a remedy: restore progressive taxation on income, wealth and inheritance.
Why aren't more people talking about this? I don't know. Certainly Paul Krugman could help to spread the word.
Instead, we fritter away any opportunities to fix this mess by demonizing each other, playing on the fear and insecurities of people who don't know where to turn.
(By the way, hello in Syracuse!)
2
Ah yes the Democrats, the wonderful Democrats who seem to be about to nominate a woman up to her neck in arms sales to Saudi Arabia and ready to embark on more military spending and escapades to enrich her owners. This paper has treated candidate Sanders very poorly. If this all goes down as it looks it may, we will have President who is happy to "nuke" things or a President who will be delighting and creating more sales for our military industrial complex to Saudi Arabia (the country which now appears to have had a fair amount to do with 9/11 - release the 28 redacted pages!). The Democrats has not tried to serve its supporters, instead it has served big pharma, the health insurance corporations it has served the banks, the fossil fuel industry and the war profiteers AGAIN! I hope Bernie Sanders is able to influence the Democratic platform--yes he'll focus on campaign finance..we also need to focus on our addiction to wars and weapons sales. The Democratic platform should include a clause about further wars - if we have any further military actions we must institute a draft of both women and men at age 18 - NO exemptions - that might stop our incessant military escapades for profit.
9
My first reaction to the idea Republicans will figure out the con of Donald Trump but that it won't help the establishment was one of satisfaction. They deserve the disaster they have brought on themselves. That said, the country needs a viable second political party. As a Democrat I find myself hoping for a reasoned, albeit contrary set of views in our political system...a system that accommodates and honors differences. A system that is commonly bound to the concept of the common good.
4
The Blue-Dog democrats have been running just as much of a bait-and-switch since the Clinton era. Welfare to work? Turning AFDC into Disability, more like it. The ACA hasn't "given" people reliable health insurance as much as centrist establishment dems would like to think, but leaves them in a volatile insurance market in which companies go out of business regularly, leading to serious gaps in care, and insurance remains too expensive. Charter schools and computerized curriculum? Turning public education into a cash cow for charter operators and edu-tech companies. Returning student loans to the federal government? Nelnet is taking in over 6percent on loans while the interest rate is below 1. We need a progressive revolution: Medicare for all; forgive student loans; free public universities. We can pay for it, if we're willing to take what we're owed from those who benefited most from the bailout.
12
A simple way of looking at this is that in order to get elected the GOP has become ever less a conservative party and ever more an anti-liberal party. To be liberal is to be "cool". Cool to faith, guns, American exceptionalism, the perfection of capitalism, hatred of enemies, and most centrally, cool to the centrality of being American to your identity. Tolerance, the cornerstone of liberalism is a cool reaction to life. Obama is the coolest president in history. The phrase, "be cool" is over 50 years old and could still be the liberal motto. In response to liberal coolness the GOP has run ever hotter, with Trump being the latest cranking up of the dial. Guns are great, capitalism is perfect but for the cheaters, enemies are there to be hated, America is and always will be the greatest thing in all ways, and tolerance is for losers, pretty much sums up Trumpism/modern GOPism.
In 1992 the Bush campaign put stickers on newspaper boxes saying "annoy a liberal, vote Bush". The anti-liberal trend of the GOP has been ever upwards ever since.
In 1992 the Bush campaign put stickers on newspaper boxes saying "annoy a liberal, vote Bush". The anti-liberal trend of the GOP has been ever upwards ever since.
4
I agree with that, but I resent the fact that Paul can't fathom someone being a social conservative. He himself lives a highly segregated lifestyle but can't imagine why anyone else would want to do that because that is "wrong"
1
This latest Krugman column seems to be trying to sell me on the integrity of the Democratic Party compared to that of the GOP, and I'm not buying. There's an elephant in the Democrats' living room, and it needs to be mentioned.
The DNC did everything in its power to hand the candidacy to Mrs. Clinton. The best example of this is the debate schedule, which appeared to be deliberately calculated to minimize the size of any potential viewing audience. This absolutely favored Mrs. Clinton.
And, while Obamacare did sort of "deliver" a Democratic promise to the party base, it was another one of those wonderful American acts that was partly written by members of the industry most involved rather than by representatives of those it was supposed to serve. And, while the Democratic right hand waved the bright, shiny Obamacare, we weren't supposed to notice the other things Obama never tried to do. Having his Justice Department go after the major players who destroyed the economy in '08 comes to mind.
I get that Paul Krugman is a Clintonista. I just wish he wouldn't try to sell her in columns that look down on his readers' intelligence. He didn't used to do this, and I wish he would stop.
The DNC did everything in its power to hand the candidacy to Mrs. Clinton. The best example of this is the debate schedule, which appeared to be deliberately calculated to minimize the size of any potential viewing audience. This absolutely favored Mrs. Clinton.
And, while Obamacare did sort of "deliver" a Democratic promise to the party base, it was another one of those wonderful American acts that was partly written by members of the industry most involved rather than by representatives of those it was supposed to serve. And, while the Democratic right hand waved the bright, shiny Obamacare, we weren't supposed to notice the other things Obama never tried to do. Having his Justice Department go after the major players who destroyed the economy in '08 comes to mind.
I get that Paul Krugman is a Clintonista. I just wish he wouldn't try to sell her in columns that look down on his readers' intelligence. He didn't used to do this, and I wish he would stop.
13
Nice of Krugman to inform voters in many states that the Democrat POTUS primary is over and they don't need to show up to vote. He's not a Liberal with a conscience he's a Shill for a Neocon candidate, both without shame. But then again, that's what he's paid to be.
16
Has anyone noticed that so many of the comments are critical of Krugman for essentially being insufficiently left while the comments on Brook's article accuse hime of being insufficiently right. Most are seeped in anger and intolerance. I worry about my American friends.
7
"I worry about my American friends."
Aren't you such a sweetie. Trade health care systems? No? I didn't think so. Save your cheap, throwaway, fake sentiments for something closer to home.
Aren't you such a sweetie. Trade health care systems? No? I didn't think so. Save your cheap, throwaway, fake sentiments for something closer to home.
"Apparatchiks who have spent their whole careers inside the bubble of right-wing think tanks and partisan media may suffer from the delusion that their ideology is actually popular with real people."
The gullibility of white voters certainly helped them along. And now those same voters are anointing a selfish billionaire as their populist savior.
The gullibility of white voters certainly helped them along. And now those same voters are anointing a selfish billionaire as their populist savior.
3
Have you read Ben Spielberg's lovely op-ed piece, Dr. Krugman? It's the kind of work you used to do before becoming Hillarys shill. Hopefully, you'll get back to it some day.
5
I was hoping the Bernie Supporters would go quietly into the night after the clobbering Sanders got in the New York primary, but apparently, Sanders has them (hoping against hope?) believing a strong turnout in California can keep him close enough to go on (So please keep those $30 donations coming in so I don't have to cough up six figure allotments of cash to keep the illusion, whoops!, I mean Dream, alive.)
2
The problem is that the GOP, as a party, is despicable group, but Ms Clinton is a despicable individual, without a moral compass.
Hobson's choice to the extreme.
Hobson's choice to the extreme.
4
Excellent analysis. Comments here attacking Hillary and decrying Sanders coverage are predictable and perfunctory. Hillary has always been a policy wonk. She has had bipartisan support and admiration from the politicians who worked with her in the past and who are no longer around. I'm most impressed with her grace under fire and the improvement of her speeches and delivery following electoral wins. Go Hillary! You represent our better half.
3
good insight, but then i am a supporter of both krugman and hillary so i guess im biased, its a good piece though i see krugman catching it both sides in the comments, i see bernies folk still mad at him, i feel for them, many of them friends and colleagues, as they adjust to the reality that bernie is not going to beat hillary, and neither is trump, i would have prefered cruz because trump such a wild card, it wont be easy but im confident hillary can take him, probably only one that could - as for the bernie folk ima be patient, let yall work your way thru the grief stages and try to reassure you that we all still trying to keep the faith, krugman, hillary, bernie, my fellow travelers of the immortal 60s - i will admit im more into evolution over revolution these days and i just was not willing to gamble on bernie with the stakes so high, if i chose wrong i will have to live with that but i would like to reassure you folk we all still trying to make a better world, we might disagree on tactics but i am not your enemy and i can only hope yall dont plan to sit in the corner pouting, we gon need you to throw down in november
189
Dear rickydocflowers,
Let's say your friends heed you and vote (which I suspect most will) and the Clinton administration turns out as bad as they imagine it will be (it could be infinitely worse than that), in what ways are you ready to join them in resisting it?
Let's say your friends heed you and vote (which I suspect most will) and the Clinton administration turns out as bad as they imagine it will be (it could be infinitely worse than that), in what ways are you ready to join them in resisting it?
The Democratic party must be punished for their awful, biased pushing of Hillary above all, and for keeping "Loan Shark" DWS in here seat. There will be no voting for Hillary on my part.
1
Bernie Sanders has proposed to step up the federal minimum wage to $15 per hour.
Hillary Clinton wants to go slower and step it up to $12 per hour.
Bernie Sanders has received no appreciable income from corporate groups, perhaps because he doesn't seek it and/or because they don't like his politics.
Hillary Clinton and her husband rake in ungodly amounts of money from corporate groups.
A person working full time (40 hours per week x 52 weeks per year) at the $12 minimum wage which Mrs. Clinton has proposed would take NINE YEARS to earn what Hillary Clinton is reported to have earned in about 30 minutes from just one of her several speeches to Goldman Sachs alone.
I don't understand how she can look minimum wage workers in the eye, and I don't understand why anyone really believes she is going to do anything to seriously inconvenience, let alone rein in, the concentrations of money in our society.
The "Democratic establishment," in my opinion (and Hillary Clinton is nothing if not part of the Democratic establishment) is mainly about half-hearted measures to address symptoms of disease in our society while doing very little to halt causes.
Hillary Clinton wants to go slower and step it up to $12 per hour.
Bernie Sanders has received no appreciable income from corporate groups, perhaps because he doesn't seek it and/or because they don't like his politics.
Hillary Clinton and her husband rake in ungodly amounts of money from corporate groups.
A person working full time (40 hours per week x 52 weeks per year) at the $12 minimum wage which Mrs. Clinton has proposed would take NINE YEARS to earn what Hillary Clinton is reported to have earned in about 30 minutes from just one of her several speeches to Goldman Sachs alone.
I don't understand how she can look minimum wage workers in the eye, and I don't understand why anyone really believes she is going to do anything to seriously inconvenience, let alone rein in, the concentrations of money in our society.
The "Democratic establishment," in my opinion (and Hillary Clinton is nothing if not part of the Democratic establishment) is mainly about half-hearted measures to address symptoms of disease in our society while doing very little to halt causes.
9
Who are the conned?
Those? who really believed Obama would "change the way things worked in Washington."
Or those? who believe in the religion of global warming?
Or those? who do not take to heart all things written in the New York Times.
Go on, give me the answer.
Those? who really believed Obama would "change the way things worked in Washington."
Or those? who believe in the religion of global warming?
Or those? who do not take to heart all things written in the New York Times.
Go on, give me the answer.
1
I am not sure what any of this means. What are the points of these questions?
Obama ran on a promise of "Change" and, once elected, faced the most inflexible obstructionism from the GOP ever encountered by an American president or American politician. If I promise my spouse-to-be that I am going to buy a certain house if she marries me I may be serious in doing all I can to buy that house but I still need the current owner to sell it to me. It takes two to tango.
About the "religion of global warming". Global warming is actually NOT a religion. It is a scientific conclusion which, almost by definition, is the exact opposite of a religion.
About the New York Times comment, I don't even know what that means so I cannot really respond.
Obama ran on a promise of "Change" and, once elected, faced the most inflexible obstructionism from the GOP ever encountered by an American president or American politician. If I promise my spouse-to-be that I am going to buy a certain house if she marries me I may be serious in doing all I can to buy that house but I still need the current owner to sell it to me. It takes two to tango.
About the "religion of global warming". Global warming is actually NOT a religion. It is a scientific conclusion which, almost by definition, is the exact opposite of a religion.
About the New York Times comment, I don't even know what that means so I cannot really respond.
That is very rare air that Paul is breathing there. I suggest a reading assignment, "Listen, Liberal: Or, What Ever Happened to the Party of the People?"
3
It'll be interesting to see how congressional, senatorial, and state legislative candidates react to the Trump challenge. They are, after all, politicians, and my guess is that many will recalibrate to embrace some version of Trumpism. This could lead to a disconnect between elected Republican officials and the business interests that have traditionally supported them. We already see that the Koch bros are getting skittish. How will this play out over the long run? Even if Trump loses big and disappears from the scene, Trumpism will leave its imprint. There are strong structural forces supporting a two party system in the U.S., but within the Republican Party, things may become increasingly chaotic.
2
The Democratic establishment (Clinton, Schumer) has been financed by Wall Street while claiming to defend the interests of the working class.
They have, thanks to the charm of Bill, done a better job of conning their base, but with less charming Hillary the con is wearing thin .
They have, thanks to the charm of Bill, done a better job of conning their base, but with less charming Hillary the con is wearing thin .
7
It seems to me that the Democratic establishment cons their party's base almost as much as the Replublicans do. Doesn't the depth of the support for Bernie Sanders make this crystal clear?
I would in fact wager that Trump will beat Hillary if Sanders doesn't embrace her candidacy. My hope is that Bernie will drive a very hard bargain for that support.
I would in fact wager that Trump will beat Hillary if Sanders doesn't embrace her candidacy. My hope is that Bernie will drive a very hard bargain for that support.
8
Thanks, Canada, but alas, your opinion doesn't count without US voter ID. And with his announced foreign policy of 'unpredictability,' if Trump beats Hillary, Canada can't be sure it will any longer be a safe place for Real Americans to flee. ;-)
"... the Democrats: Their party defines itself as the protector of the poor and the middle class, and especially of nonwhite voters."
Tasked to find something the Democrats have done "as the protector of the poor and the middle class, ..." Paul Krugmqn can only come up with the ACA, a giveaway to private health insurance companies that further embeds the insurance sector into the broken American health care system. He doesn't mention that the Democrats failed to push for a better single payer system or why. (They can always blame it on the mean Republicans, but they never explain why when the mean Republicans obstruct them, they just drop the subject. They never argue strenuously real solutions to the public and it's clear why: it would discomfit the vested interests.)
There's a reason Paul Krugman *never* -- NEVER -- writes columns explaining just what Democrats have done in the last two generations as "the protector of the poor ..." That's because they have done nothing but roll themselves up in a fetal position and give the plutocrats what they wanted. Krugman has been cool with all of it. "Free" trade; they wanted it, they got it; they even write the agreements. Ending welfare as we know it; they wanted it, they got it. Financial deregulation; they wanted it, they got it. Make Wall Street whole and forget the "poor and middle..."; they wanted it, they got it. And on and on and on ... That's what the Democrats did and Krugman can only mention the ACA.
Tasked to find something the Democrats have done "as the protector of the poor and the middle class, ..." Paul Krugmqn can only come up with the ACA, a giveaway to private health insurance companies that further embeds the insurance sector into the broken American health care system. He doesn't mention that the Democrats failed to push for a better single payer system or why. (They can always blame it on the mean Republicans, but they never explain why when the mean Republicans obstruct them, they just drop the subject. They never argue strenuously real solutions to the public and it's clear why: it would discomfit the vested interests.)
There's a reason Paul Krugman *never* -- NEVER -- writes columns explaining just what Democrats have done in the last two generations as "the protector of the poor ..." That's because they have done nothing but roll themselves up in a fetal position and give the plutocrats what they wanted. Krugman has been cool with all of it. "Free" trade; they wanted it, they got it; they even write the agreements. Ending welfare as we know it; they wanted it, they got it. Financial deregulation; they wanted it, they got it. Make Wall Street whole and forget the "poor and middle..."; they wanted it, they got it. And on and on and on ... That's what the Democrats did and Krugman can only mention the ACA.
11
Paul has got part of the story: the con. However, the more sinister side of things is not Trump, but Congress and state governments. Perhaps due to indifference by the GOP elite and ineptitude by the Democrats, an entire machine of anti-government parochial fanatics controls the elections at all levels with the exception only of the presidential election, the last remaining somewhat unfixed contest, and one the GOP mistakenly thought they had a handle on.
8
“it’s surely one reason nonwhite voters have overwhelmingly favored Mrs. Clinton over a challenger who sometimes seemed to dismiss that achievement.” No accurate assessment of the Sanders campaign can conclude that Sanders “seemed to dismiss” the ACA. Rather he characterized it as a step on the way to universal coverage, a goal HRC unsurprisingly doesn’t plan to pursue. As Dr. Krugman well knows, the spurious idea that Sanders dismissed the ACA was fabricated by the Clinton campaign, just as she fallaciously claimed that Sanders played no supporting role in her own efforts to expand healthcare coverage while she was First Lady:
http://www.mediaite.com/online/hillary-where-was-bernie-during-my-health...
Dr. Krugman, you can cut the spin. You, Henry Kissinger, Charles Koch, and whoever you answer to at the Times are finally getting the nominee you all want.
http://www.mediaite.com/online/hillary-where-was-bernie-during-my-health...
Dr. Krugman, you can cut the spin. You, Henry Kissinger, Charles Koch, and whoever you answer to at the Times are finally getting the nominee you all want.
6
It is curious how Professor Krugman continues to avoid the larger implications of this nominating cycle.
With either front-runner in charge, we will have (1) continuing blindness to our impending ecological doom, (2) continuing endless wars, and (3) continuing mindless consumerism as our economic engine of growth.
Pay equity and immigration reform–even tax rates–are small beer. Ignoring the big picture while arguing over policy details will seal our fate.
With either front-runner in charge, we will have (1) continuing blindness to our impending ecological doom, (2) continuing endless wars, and (3) continuing mindless consumerism as our economic engine of growth.
Pay equity and immigration reform–even tax rates–are small beer. Ignoring the big picture while arguing over policy details will seal our fate.
4
Right you are. As a semi-retired 71 year-old working in retail, I am seeing customers with wallets and purses bulging with credit cards. Along with the plans for car buyers to expand their payments out to 96 months in order to buy/afford the bigger, more expensive cars and trucks, the massive credit card will be the new sub-prime loan crisis. All of these debts, home loans, car loans, and credit cards, were bundled as credit default swaps since about 2005. They were then sold as collatoralized debt obligations (CDO's) and sold as (fraudulently) rated AAA bonds.
So yes, along with ignoring the environment (including underfunding our National Parks), going into wars (for allies willing to hold our coat), consumerism will drive the next economic meltdown and it is just around the corner.
So yes, along with ignoring the environment (including underfunding our National Parks), going into wars (for allies willing to hold our coat), consumerism will drive the next economic meltdown and it is just around the corner.
1
Just wait until people realize what a con-job it is to wipe out the time value of money with zero percent interest rate monetary policy that has no escape.
1
Hillary Clinton's voting record actually lines up well with that of mainline Republicans. That's why progressive Democrats aren't very enthusiastic about her. But if the mainstream Republicans who DO realize that Trump is a con man want a candidate who will work toward goals they embrace, their logical choice should be to vote for Hillary. If they're thinking of this rationally.
4
"Both parties make promises to their bases. But while the Democratic establishment more or less tries to make good on those promises, the Republican establishment has essentially been playing bait-and-switch for decades. And voters finally rebelled against the con."
The only true rebellion for disaffected Republicans is to vote Democratic for a change. Trump has already begun to hire establishment Republican lobbysists, as one could have predicted. Less in the light of day will be the secret indoctrination talks he will receive from Mitch McConnell, Newt Gingrich, Jim DeMint, and other denizens of the Republican star-chamber. Trump will receive such a "what-do-I-do-now" education that it will give true meaning to the phrase "The Celebrity Apprentice."
"The force is strong with you, Donald. Come over to the dark side and be my apprentice. I will complete your education."
The only true rebellion for disaffected Republicans is to vote Democratic for a change. Trump has already begun to hire establishment Republican lobbysists, as one could have predicted. Less in the light of day will be the secret indoctrination talks he will receive from Mitch McConnell, Newt Gingrich, Jim DeMint, and other denizens of the Republican star-chamber. Trump will receive such a "what-do-I-do-now" education that it will give true meaning to the phrase "The Celebrity Apprentice."
"The force is strong with you, Donald. Come over to the dark side and be my apprentice. I will complete your education."
2
I would add many of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's actions under the category of American con jobs. Sure, they aren't as reckless, haphazard and downright impulsive and narcissistic as Donald Trump's proposals, although they definitely seem very dubious when exposed under bright light. First were the lies and treacherous disassembling re-packaged as excellent statesmanship that believed in forging a strange alliance with Saudi Arabia, United Emirates and Qatar, thus enabling ISIS to have free reign within Syria. Second, the leadership that blindly believed that US-Western intervention in Libya would magically bring about a strong solution for the Middle East, but instead caused a failed state and a breeding ground for extremists like ISIS to plan their next attack as well as have easy access to oil and human smuggling enterprises. Third, her unbelievable negligence in not foreseeing the uprising in Libya that brought about the Benghazi tragedy & prompt withdrawal of US personnel even though the embassy personnel including Ambassador Stevens. Fourth, her deliberate lies exposed in the e-mails surrounding the PR campaign to fool the American people into believing that it was a video that caused a spontaneous uprising instead of the real truth that a majority of Libyans were outraged & angry about the US intervention & ousting of Gaddafi. Fifth, her leadership in plotting to overthrown the a democratically elected leader in Ukraine with George Soros & NGO's help.
12
Great comments - I posted 2 back to back items - here's my latest >>> maybe John Kasich can be nominated on the Nth ballot - most experienced, most pragmatic, most electable & only one - all polls, Real Clear Politics, Morning Consult, etc. who can beat Clinton - and a moderate centrist basic conservative, and best prepared to be President for the good of the GOP but more importantly for America. I'm apoplectic about the voters who want to win the nominee "battle" but lose the "war" to Hillary ("legacy") Clinton - barring civil or criminal developments - and then a problematic "contested" Convention elevates Kasich as the very "long-shot" but not unfeasible nominee. Check out terrific American Film Institute's List of Top 100 Movie Quotations. Kasich would like #14 (1941 The Maltese Falcon) - "the stuff that dreams are made of" - or #88 (1981 On Golden Pond) "listen to me mister, you're my Knight in shining armor, we're gonna go go go". Gee, maybe the ticket can be Paul Ryan & John Kasich. Cruz shuts down the Govt, Trump invites a preemptive nuclear strike from Russia or China, and the DEMs are worse. I'll write-in Kasich in the Presidential - considered comic characters Donald or Daffy Duck or Goofy but that would be a vote for Trump. As a senior citizen, I worry greatly for America - but more for my children & grand-daughter, rather than myself or wife of 50 years. Good luck to all of us. "ps" the NYTimes had an excellent 2-part series re: Hillary & Arab Spring
PK:'If there’s a puzzle here, it’s why this didn’t happen sooner. " What??! The whole history of Southern politics, first Dixecrat, not GOP, stretching back, what a hundred years and more has *always* been bait and switch, keep the poor whites desperate and "skeered" and believing that "Well, at least the black folk are underneath them". And year after year, election after election, just like Lucy with Charlie Brown and the football, the calculating, greasy politicians (of whom Mitch McConnell is only the latest) have suckered the Southern poor and white middle-class. Oh how they love their chains............
3
If only Republican wrath was as assured as that in the Star Trek version, we migh just see a sea change in our political climate. Until, however, Republican voters see America's greatest problems, I.e. rascism, Ayn Rand delusions and failure to see the mote in their own eye, they will continue to provide us with laughable candidates like Trump, Cruz and Fiorina.
2
While they may not know the history or the details of Reagan's economic program - tax cuts for the "jobs creators," deregulation, free trade, and union busting- they do understand that the GOP has helped the 1% and the corporate CEO's but the party has not helped them.
Some Republicans complain that Trump is not a true conservative. His followers don't care. A panel on NPR's Diane Rehm show observed that Trump's followers are relatively uninterested in the culture war wedge issues. They want economic security. Ross Douthat observed that the GOP is much more heterodox than the leadership.
If nothing else, the conned may have finally burst the bubble created by Fox News, right wing talk radio and blogs and the conservative think tanks. Time will tell.
Some Republicans complain that Trump is not a true conservative. His followers don't care. A panel on NPR's Diane Rehm show observed that Trump's followers are relatively uninterested in the culture war wedge issues. They want economic security. Ross Douthat observed that the GOP is much more heterodox than the leadership.
If nothing else, the conned may have finally burst the bubble created by Fox News, right wing talk radio and blogs and the conservative think tanks. Time will tell.
2
You omit a very significant fact--the number of candidates vying for the nomination. There were 17 candidates originally in the Republican clown car as opposed to four (if you include the ephemeral appearance of Lincoln Chafee). That made it much easier for the Democratic establishment to rally around Hillary Clinton and for her to prevail with the active assistance of super-delegates and behind the scenes maneuvering by DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz.. In fact, I really wonder what the outcome would have been had Joe Biden, whom I'd gladly support over Hillary, had been in the race. In that scenario, Bernie Sanders like Donald Trump might now be basking in the limelight as Biden and Clinton split the establishment vote. There is real anger out here because a near majority of all the voters do feel "conned." They feel conned by "trickle-down economics;" by tax cuts for the rich; by unnecessary wars that have drained our ability to focus on the needs here at home; by pro-corporate trade deals that keep sending our manufacturing infrastructure overseas, by big-brother type government spying on all of us; by a two-tiered criminal justice system that kills innocent Africa-Americans while allowing Wall Street bankers and Washington torturers to go free; and, most importantly, they feel really "conned" by the yawning wealth gap that continues under both Democrats and Republicans to increase "income inequality" by enhancing the rich at the expense of the middle class.
14
I would add that they also "feel conned" by an open immigration system-- both illegal and legal-- which has benefited the very rich and corporate America, but has harmed Americans economically and diminished our sense of cultural cohesion. And borderless immigration has certainly been a non-partisan swindle of the public by the powers that be, as are your other examples.
Another "False Equivalency"? The differences are rather stark up and down the line. Democrats have to fix & repair the republicans' efforts to bring down the Government. The concept of "starving the beast, reducing government in order to drown it in the bathtub, privatization of everything including Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and plain eliminating the already meager safety net for kids, seniors, the disabled, and mentally ill. Take another look at it and the differences are truly stark.
Dr. Krugman speaks of Obama derangement. Perhaps we should also speak of Hillary derangement, and not just that experienced by Republicans.
When will supporters of Bernie Sanders wake up to the reality that we've reached the point in the campaign where their attacks on Hillary Clinton carry water for a Republican Party seeking the power to enforce a policy regime at odds with every facet of Sanders' policy prescriptions?
When will supporters of Bernie Sanders wake up to the reality that we've reached the point in the campaign where their attacks on Hillary Clinton carry water for a Republican Party seeking the power to enforce a policy regime at odds with every facet of Sanders' policy prescriptions?
7
Make a list of attacks on Clinton that are untrue and unwarranted. About the only one I can think of is the e-mail and Benghazi (which has largely been forgotten). Anything else?
"The Republican establishment has been routed because it has been playing a con game on its supporters all along"
The Republican Party and Movement Conservatism is dying. Let them die!
The old conservatism is being replace by the new conservatism alla Trump. So be it. They are both diseased and dying. Emphasis on the Con.
The country is in the process of washing it's hands of Conservatism and moving left. The Progressives stand poised to take the reigns at all levels and will start by re-building the nation. It will not all happen this cycle or the next but progress will start to be made again based on an excellent beginning provided by the President.
Make no mistake. History and commonsense will bring the Clintonites & Sanderites together in the fall. Vote for Democrats at any and all levels in November. There is a Hellish amount of work to do. Let's get going!
The Republican Party and Movement Conservatism is dying. Let them die!
The old conservatism is being replace by the new conservatism alla Trump. So be it. They are both diseased and dying. Emphasis on the Con.
The country is in the process of washing it's hands of Conservatism and moving left. The Progressives stand poised to take the reigns at all levels and will start by re-building the nation. It will not all happen this cycle or the next but progress will start to be made again based on an excellent beginning provided by the President.
Make no mistake. History and commonsense will bring the Clintonites & Sanderites together in the fall. Vote for Democrats at any and all levels in November. There is a Hellish amount of work to do. Let's get going!
6
Your scenario will not happen unless Democrats start turning out in state, local and off-year elections. Republicans control the majority of non-presidential offices in this country, on every level, because they get out and vote in every election. Showing up every four years won't make it happen.
I agree completely with you. As a life-long Democrat/liberal/progressive (same as my parents on their lineage dating back to the early 1800s), my fear is this: our party has a sad history of not showing up at the voting booths in large enough numbers to keep the likes of Bush43 from taking the reins. We need a massive voter drive to keep Trump from taking the White House. And Debbie Wasserman-Schultz has done a terrible job at the helm of the DNC by allowing so many Democratic members of the House and Senate across the country to lose their re-elections to tiny-brained conservatives.
A Clinton victory should translate into down-ballot victories for Democrats everywhere. Will it/can it happen? Only if all Democratic voters turn out in November. Thank you for your cogent thoughts.
A Clinton victory should translate into down-ballot victories for Democrats everywhere. Will it/can it happen? Only if all Democratic voters turn out in November. Thank you for your cogent thoughts.
Paul "Politics" Krugman writes...
"Above all, you have the Affordable Care Act, which has given about 20 million Americans health insurance... and it’s surely one reason nonwhite voters have overwhelmingly favored Mrs. Clinton over a challenger who sometimes seemed to dismiss that achievement."
Wow, afraid to use his name now are we?
What Bernie Sanders consistently has said about the ACA achievement is the same thing everyone who understands the ACA as an end user has consistently said (and even Paul Krugman in this same OpEd space has leveled consistently) that without a single payer system it doesn't really work as advertised or go "far enough".
Fact is that many Americans can still not afford care under the ACA. It's a life preserver, not a boat.
The liberal base hasn't been "conned" as PK suggests and it's a very unfortunate and ugly progression of a shaming narrative the NYTimes has deployed over and over like a belittling parent talking down to a child.
"Above all, you have the Affordable Care Act, which has given about 20 million Americans health insurance... and it’s surely one reason nonwhite voters have overwhelmingly favored Mrs. Clinton over a challenger who sometimes seemed to dismiss that achievement."
Wow, afraid to use his name now are we?
What Bernie Sanders consistently has said about the ACA achievement is the same thing everyone who understands the ACA as an end user has consistently said (and even Paul Krugman in this same OpEd space has leveled consistently) that without a single payer system it doesn't really work as advertised or go "far enough".
Fact is that many Americans can still not afford care under the ACA. It's a life preserver, not a boat.
The liberal base hasn't been "conned" as PK suggests and it's a very unfortunate and ugly progression of a shaming narrative the NYTimes has deployed over and over like a belittling parent talking down to a child.
6
It's supposed to be a life preserver not a boat. That's the insurance concept. That's what people want. Insurance.
PK didn't write about "Liberals being conned". Reread the article.
Perhaps the biggest strategic blunder of the GOP has been enshrining Obama derangement syndrome as the party platform.
It was great for blocking Obama from pushing forward his intitiatives in the past, initiatives that by the way would probably have helped get us out of the recesion even faster. But now that Obama is no longer in the race the one central focus of all GOP policy (stop Obama) has nowhere to hang its hat. As a result the party seems aimless and adrift.
It was great for blocking Obama from pushing forward his intitiatives in the past, initiatives that by the way would probably have helped get us out of the recesion even faster. But now that Obama is no longer in the race the one central focus of all GOP policy (stop Obama) has nowhere to hang its hat. As a result the party seems aimless and adrift.
8
Apparatchiks ( like Krugman) who have spent their whole careers inside the bubble of right-wing (left-wing) think tanks and partisan media (NY Times) may suffer from the delusion that their ideology is actually popular with real people.
And this has left them hapless ( caused the power structure to tremble) in the face of a Trumpian (Sandersian) challenge.
And this has left them hapless ( caused the power structure to tremble) in the face of a Trumpian (Sandersian) challenge.
7
How are they hapless when the Democratic establishment candidate will win the nomination? That's an awfully big bubble.
Dr. Krugman,
It was with great amusement that I read your premise that Democrats are achieving real progress on the party's goals. You then provide evidence with the ACA. A Heritage Foundation plan is progress on the Democratic party's goals? Me thinks not. It is no wonder that Secretary Clinton does not generate the enthusiasm that Senator Sanders does. Republican-lite does not cut it anymore.
It was with great amusement that I read your premise that Democrats are achieving real progress on the party's goals. You then provide evidence with the ACA. A Heritage Foundation plan is progress on the Democratic party's goals? Me thinks not. It is no wonder that Secretary Clinton does not generate the enthusiasm that Senator Sanders does. Republican-lite does not cut it anymore.
13
The last progressive act of the democratic party was medicare in the 1960s. It is popular with every person in the USA-- it has no party lines. GOP plans to eviscerate or privatize or "voucherize" it will NEVER happen if the dems properly fight such nonsense; and it has brought zero harm to our economy, perhaps has helped it. Where has the democratic leadership been since 1965? Heck, they didn't even fight to expand the length of unemployment insurance when the unemployment ate was in the 10% (measurable range) when I was unemployed in 2014! I'm voting for HRC as the alternative is stomach wrenching, but very reluctantly.
The politics of hate is alive and well and living in the USA. With so much to work on and so much to appreciate, we choose to join the 24 hour hate cycle rather than understand that government is necessary, tedious and cannot be blamed for all the ills of the self serving. Mrs. Clinton has emerged as the best qualified to attempt to find a way to apply reason and experience to the complex challenges that our government must face. Having survived the crucible of conservative and now liberal animosity, she's still standing with ears to listen and a resume and policy agenda that has more to do with the general good than Donald Trump could muster in a lifetime of celebrity.
7
And it only took the rightist voter a little over 30 years to catch on to the GOP shell game.
No.
I'm not going to make a Forrest Gump crack.
No.
I'm not going to make a Forrest Gump crack.
7
Yes the Democrats are better than the Republicans. But the Democrats are the Republicans of yesterday. Eisenhower, never thought of as a liberal, held a 92% tax rate on the rich, warned of an alliance between industry and the military, and praised unions. That is more liberal than Bernie or Warren could dream of. This is why people are angry. The 1% controls the economy, the media and congress. Neither Hillary or Donald will change that. Bernie or Warren couldn't change that. The system is rigged. Maybe people in the streets can change that, but not voting. Voting in a Representative Democracy never changed slavery, suffrage or civil rights--but protest did. The only way voting could change the status quo is if we voted on war, taxes, health, education and most importantly, the environment. But the 1% has no intention of letting us govern ourselves---they never have.
10
Eisenhower also supported the greatest (only?) public works project of the post-war era-- the Interstate Highway System. He sent in, albeit reluctantly, the National Guard when the confederate states refused to allow little black kids into their schools. He knew enough of war-- first hand-- to try diplomacy. I think he would be too left wing for many of today's so called democratic/liberal voters.
2
Krugman, I'm not sad. I'm glad. These right wing base voters left their rightful place with the New Deal Democrats, and they coupled themselves to the big business end of a rightwing Republican party. They did this as revenge against civil rights. Until civil rights are overturned, they will always be gullible to anyone that promise them that they will overturn civil rights. The Lord is truly given them what they have sewed. Glad.
6
"When will they ever learn". Unfortunately I do not think the Republican base is smart enough, yet, to see that they have been conned. They are still too much into guns and religion to see it. They have been voting against their economic interests for decades and will continue to do so. What the Republicans are doing in the red states is proof of that.
The demographic swell towards the democratic party will eventually start to take effect and they (Democrats) will enact policy that addresses income inequality over time. And like a rising tide, the Republican base will see some of that benefit. And they will be clueless as they hang on to their guns and religion.
The demographic swell towards the democratic party will eventually start to take effect and they (Democrats) will enact policy that addresses income inequality over time. And like a rising tide, the Republican base will see some of that benefit. And they will be clueless as they hang on to their guns and religion.
4
The USA is, politically, an exceptional country in the sense that it has a huge elephant in the room that other nation don't: a permanent far-right final solution.
Contrary to the rest of the world - which has to weight how the USA may or may not react if it elects this or that leader (president or prime minister), under the risk of suffering a regime change or an economic embargo - the USA doesn't have to care about what the rest of the world thinks.
And the people of the USA, deep down, knows this. Americans know, consciously of unconsciously, that, if things go south with their economy, they can always use, as last resort, it's mlitary supremacy to make the rest of the world to align their economic policies to keep it's high standards of living, i.e. it's high domestic levels of consumption.
That's why, in the USA, a far-right-wing candidate will always have more chance to be president than a socialist candidate: it's the country that most benefited from capitalism in history, the source of it's status as the sole superpower, of all it's prestige. To go with socialism would be a leap in the dark; to go with capitalism - no matter how ugly things get - would be at least to keep it's superpower status.
Contrary to the rest of the world - which has to weight how the USA may or may not react if it elects this or that leader (president or prime minister), under the risk of suffering a regime change or an economic embargo - the USA doesn't have to care about what the rest of the world thinks.
And the people of the USA, deep down, knows this. Americans know, consciously of unconsciously, that, if things go south with their economy, they can always use, as last resort, it's mlitary supremacy to make the rest of the world to align their economic policies to keep it's high standards of living, i.e. it's high domestic levels of consumption.
That's why, in the USA, a far-right-wing candidate will always have more chance to be president than a socialist candidate: it's the country that most benefited from capitalism in history, the source of it's status as the sole superpower, of all it's prestige. To go with socialism would be a leap in the dark; to go with capitalism - no matter how ugly things get - would be at least to keep it's superpower status.
2
Rima, you're giving a very worthy position a very bad name. You certainly do no favor to Bernie with these unrelenting screeds. We hardly need articulate and intelligent people on our side sounding like whacko birds, now do we? And you're not alone in this either.
7
Speaking of "whako birds," you, Jeffrey Waingrow, are perpetrating precisely what establishment democrats declare that they disdain from Sanders supporters, name calling rhetoric that distances voters who might otherwise have considered your candidate as the least of two options, but an option nevertheless, in the general election.
1
It's not just bait and switch, it's out right destruction of the lower 4 quintiles. The only jobs I've been able to find are the same jobs that I started out after graduating from a good college. The pay is the same, UN-adjusted for inflation, about $10 then in 1985 and about $10 now in 2016. What used to be a solidly middle class job, even if on the lower end, is now poverty wages. That job in 1985 came with health insurance, vacation and sick time. The work I have now has none of these. Even more important is that I went on from that first $10 job, first rising up at that first place of employment then branching out to a much more skilled field in law (I was a top notch paralegal managing some of the largest corporate and restructuring cases of the day) then went back to graduate school to emerge as a promising emerging artist in theater design in New York. The restructuring of the economy, the culture, and zeitgeist of the country by radical conservatives has eradicated any place for me in this economy no matter how good, skilled, experienced and talented I am. But I am one of millions of workers of value to the people and economy of this country who have been thrown in the trash bin of ideological idiocy.
To me, this is far worse than "bait and switch"
To me, this is far worse than "bait and switch"
12
I think trump's winning because he says out loud and uncoded what the GOP has been using for years to pull in their majority voter, the angry white male. The good news for democrats and the US altogether is, that's a dwindling breed and minority these days. And I say that even though I'm in that group, minus the angry part.
6
The irony in this essay's title couldn't be greater. After having sandbagged Bernie Sanders for the entire primary season, Dr. Krugman and the NYT now want to deflect the wrath of readers onto the Republicans. "It's the Republicans who have been misleading you, not us."
Nice try. Dr. Krugman lost his credibility as a political commentator when he tried to pass off Hillary Clinton's 2008 "3:0O AM phone call" remake of George H. W. Bush's "Willie Horton" ad as a "mild jab" instead of the below-the-belt, fear-mongering manipulation that it really was. Watch that ad again and tell me if it was a mild jab.
And he lost his credibility as an economic commentator when he tried to argue that it was smaller banks that caused the 2008 economic crisis and not the big Wall Street banks that have contributed so heavily to Hillary Clinton's campaign. If that's true, then why did J.P. Morgan Chase pay out a $13 billion settlement for making "serious misrepresentations" to mortgage investors? Matt Taibbe demolishes Dr. Krugman's argument here: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/why-the-banks-should-be-broken...
No, Dr. Krugman. It is not just the Republicans who have conned us. It is also this paper. You report the news you want us to read. We thought we could trust you, and now we realize we can't. You've misled us and you continue to mislead us. And we're mad as hell about it.
Nice try. Dr. Krugman lost his credibility as a political commentator when he tried to pass off Hillary Clinton's 2008 "3:0O AM phone call" remake of George H. W. Bush's "Willie Horton" ad as a "mild jab" instead of the below-the-belt, fear-mongering manipulation that it really was. Watch that ad again and tell me if it was a mild jab.
And he lost his credibility as an economic commentator when he tried to argue that it was smaller banks that caused the 2008 economic crisis and not the big Wall Street banks that have contributed so heavily to Hillary Clinton's campaign. If that's true, then why did J.P. Morgan Chase pay out a $13 billion settlement for making "serious misrepresentations" to mortgage investors? Matt Taibbe demolishes Dr. Krugman's argument here: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/why-the-banks-should-be-broken...
No, Dr. Krugman. It is not just the Republicans who have conned us. It is also this paper. You report the news you want us to read. We thought we could trust you, and now we realize we can't. You've misled us and you continue to mislead us. And we're mad as hell about it.
25
As much as I am grateful for the ACA, the biggest "thank you" I can personally offer the Democratic Party is for standing up and fighting for LGBT civil rights and protections. God bless you, Democrats.
6
This "blame the media" scenario is tiresome. Media focus on a candidate is a double edged sword. It can either help or hurt, it all depends on the candidate. Remember last year when all the pundits kept predicting Trump would self-immolate? Didn't happen. And Bernie wasn't ignored by the media. In fact the campaign blames itself for not attacking Hillary much earlier. Remember Jeb Bush? He had plenty of media attention, and so did Rubio. Didn't help them. In the end, it comes down to the candidate.
4
Professor Krugman, it's ok to say the name of the Democratic challenger. We'll forgive you. In case you forgot, his name is Bernie Sanders.
As for the relative bases that our two parties support, it's merely about magnitude: The Republican establishment supports the top 1%, the Democratic establishment supports the top 10%, and the bottom 90% are left to choose between a political party in the grip of an establishment that has shrugged off what it considers to be pony chasing purists in order to better pursue neo-liberal policies dictated by its friends on Wall Street and the corporate world, and the other political party being, of course, the Republican Party.
As for the relative bases that our two parties support, it's merely about magnitude: The Republican establishment supports the top 1%, the Democratic establishment supports the top 10%, and the bottom 90% are left to choose between a political party in the grip of an establishment that has shrugged off what it considers to be pony chasing purists in order to better pursue neo-liberal policies dictated by its friends on Wall Street and the corporate world, and the other political party being, of course, the Republican Party.
29
There is the conundrum, and I say that as democrat in the top 10%, but who wishes we had a democratic party that worked more and harder for the 90%. I really knew it was game over when Obama picked the wall street boys as his economic advisors, even thought they caused the crash. I knew it was over when Obama took a public option off the table in the ACA talks, and worshiped at the alter of input from big pharma and the insurance fat cats. I knew it was over when Obama actually allowed the cat food commission to speak about limiting/postponing SS, in his name and during his presidency, with no mitigating input from the left. Not exactly getting in touch with his inner FDR or LBJ. Sadly Hillary is no better, though of course she will get my vote.
Decent article, but the general question you ask, that you summed up in this paragraph, "If there’s a puzzle here, it’s why this didn’t happen sooner. One possible explanation is the decadence of the G.O.P. establishment, which has become ingrown and lost touch. Apparatchiks who have spent their whole careers inside the bubble of right-wing think tanks and partisan media may suffer from the delusion that their ideology is actually popular with real people. And this has left them hapless in the face of a Trumpian challenge." is an easily answerable one. The answer is the media. The media during the 2010 Tea Party takeover didn't question or demand actual facts from the screaming and yelling of the members of the House and Senate that sought to destroy the movement towards the left. The media just let them have their say in the interest of "balance". And it was not just a Fox News phenom. Across the media, we just heard the preposterous claims of the radical right and then a bit about the Kardashians.
It was again especially galling during the run up to "obamacare" that I still think is a terrible insurance plan. The media asked just yes or no during polls and 60% of the populace responded negatively to the plans, so the GOP jumped on that number to force this pathetic health "insurance" as a compromise. When in fact, more than half of those that were opposed were opposed to Obamacare in planning because it didn't go far enough. But that was getting too complicated.
It was again especially galling during the run up to "obamacare" that I still think is a terrible insurance plan. The media asked just yes or no during polls and 60% of the populace responded negatively to the plans, so the GOP jumped on that number to force this pathetic health "insurance" as a compromise. When in fact, more than half of those that were opposed were opposed to Obamacare in planning because it didn't go far enough. But that was getting too complicated.
9
I just hope that Sanders and Clinton supporters can reconcile their differences before the convention. The Trump alternative is a scary train wreck looming and for the good of our country, he needs to take a shellacking that will be felt in enough Senate races to bring back majority control to democrats.
9
Watch Hillary's con game shift at lightning speed if Bernie actually left the race. She'd have an instant Republican makeover and ditch all those pesky positions she copied from Sanders faster than you could say "release the transcripts".
29
It just bears repeating one more time: Hillary ran a campaign in 2008. Look at her positions then, when there was no Bernie Sanders (whose ideas are hardly original; I think I've seen everything he's come up with in the New Yorker and the Atlantic, from which one might infer that he's as casual a policy-expert as I am). She's a Democrat, for real, and while she might not be as far to the left as you are, Cassowary, neither is most of America. So keep working to persuade us, and next time your candidate will surely prevail. In the meantime, calm down, and accept that in 2016 you'll have to accommodate yourself to a situation you find less than perfect.
1
The GOP conservatives deserve to be where they are today - deep in a hole trying to dig their way out of the dirt of denial of climate change, their misogyny re dominion over womens' bodies, their creation of their own Frankenstein, their loathing for President Obama. Donald Trump, who has now amassed red-capped low-info hoi polloi - angry as hell - is ready to take America back from our great first Black President, Barack Hussein Obama. The con game by Trump is no surprise - the man is a deal-maker, buffoon and carney-barker, and promises dreams of inchoate glory that equal key lime pie in the sky. The Republicans deserve every bit of agony they will suffer within the next 7 months and if (which seems more likely than not) Trump is nominated by the RNC, he may well be our next President. Like it or lump it.
Mrs. Clinton has done well considering the decades-long Sisyphean trip up the mountain she's been pushing that ball of her candidacy., weighed down with baggage from her years as First Lady of Arkansas and the US, and two terms as Senator from NY, and, and, and. A clash of the Titans - Hillary and Donald - is in sight. Meanwhile Bernie Sanders honest , progressive, was ignored by the press, social media and all but the very angry young Millennials who saw the truth in his message and wanted to vote for him. Alas, it wasn't Bernie's time in that tide of fortune which taken at the flood led on to victory. "Wrath of the Conned", Dr. K, when will they wise up?
Mrs. Clinton has done well considering the decades-long Sisyphean trip up the mountain she's been pushing that ball of her candidacy., weighed down with baggage from her years as First Lady of Arkansas and the US, and two terms as Senator from NY, and, and, and. A clash of the Titans - Hillary and Donald - is in sight. Meanwhile Bernie Sanders honest , progressive, was ignored by the press, social media and all but the very angry young Millennials who saw the truth in his message and wanted to vote for him. Alas, it wasn't Bernie's time in that tide of fortune which taken at the flood led on to victory. "Wrath of the Conned", Dr. K, when will they wise up?
4
We fixate on the national election. The GOP is unlikely to change if ti continues to win a majority in Congress and statehouses. There has to be much further disenchantment with 'the con' reflected in other elections before the GOP takes note.
7
starting with Kansas, for sure!
2
Actually it is really all Obama's fault.
He humiliated Trump with the masterfully written and delivered 2011 roast at the correspondent's dinner. Trump the birther was twisting slowly in the wind for many minutes over his inane campaign for the birth certificate.
Now Trump is trying to prove that you can be President by being the Anti-Obama:
1. Stupid
2. Crude
3. Rude
4. Disrespectful of women, minorities, anybody with brains
5. Ill-informed about science, geography, economics
6. Ill-coiffed
7. Unfunny with poor delivery
No surprise, the Republicans are going to nominate him. He channels their inner-child. A boon to Saturday night comics, The Donald is a threat to civil society - but only marginally more so than Climate Denier Cruz. (Remember The Adolf was elected with 30% of the vote.)
He humiliated Trump with the masterfully written and delivered 2011 roast at the correspondent's dinner. Trump the birther was twisting slowly in the wind for many minutes over his inane campaign for the birth certificate.
Now Trump is trying to prove that you can be President by being the Anti-Obama:
1. Stupid
2. Crude
3. Rude
4. Disrespectful of women, minorities, anybody with brains
5. Ill-informed about science, geography, economics
6. Ill-coiffed
7. Unfunny with poor delivery
No surprise, the Republicans are going to nominate him. He channels their inner-child. A boon to Saturday night comics, The Donald is a threat to civil society - but only marginally more so than Climate Denier Cruz. (Remember The Adolf was elected with 30% of the vote.)
10
The media (especially Fox News) has been cashing in on firing up the reptilian parts of America, hoping to cobble together an unstoppable political beast.
They obviously never read Shelley's "Frankenstein".
They obviously never read Shelley's "Frankenstein".
4
"...she's resilient under pressure..."
Translation: She makes stuff up, and lies at the drop of a hat, when she needs to. These are tremendous qualities in a POTUS candidate. She learned a lot from her husband.
"Above all, you have the Affordable Care Act..."
...which is only considered a victory by (a) one group getting something for nothing (thieves), and (b) people who want to see everyone else getting nothing and giving up something (victims).
"And this was paid for largely with higher taxes on the rich..."
Spoken like a true thief, whose goal - like Piketty's - is to steal from those who have wealth. Worse, it was also paid for by higher insurance premiums and higher medical costs for the young and the non-poor. But Krugman doesn't like complete truths, he never has.
Translation: She makes stuff up, and lies at the drop of a hat, when she needs to. These are tremendous qualities in a POTUS candidate. She learned a lot from her husband.
"Above all, you have the Affordable Care Act..."
...which is only considered a victory by (a) one group getting something for nothing (thieves), and (b) people who want to see everyone else getting nothing and giving up something (victims).
"And this was paid for largely with higher taxes on the rich..."
Spoken like a true thief, whose goal - like Piketty's - is to steal from those who have wealth. Worse, it was also paid for by higher insurance premiums and higher medical costs for the young and the non-poor. But Krugman doesn't like complete truths, he never has.
5
Are the Democrats as a party perfect? No. But at their core the Democrats are caring and compassionate and act in the best interest for all of us.
But there is something that has bugged me for decades. How blind, stubborn really, the poor and underprivileged, disenfranchised are when it comes to breaking free from their belief that the Democratic Party stands in opposition to their needs, that the Republican Party is where they need to seek shelter from the storm that 'life's squeeze' exerts on them.
All that they hear on Fox News, everything the Republican Congress eschews. And it's all spin. No hards facts. Just notions with tag lines that hit home but are not in any way carved from cold hard truthful ideas. The Democrats will take this away, give you some devilish that, then force this down your throat. They're killing babies and selling their little baby parts. Satan harbors them, disguises their means and ways. And the whole time they get poorer, more ill, and disenfranchised.
If only the Democrats would take these states that are accepting the new Medicaid initiatives and how much they're benefiting from Obama's initiatives, show them the factual evidence. Send them literature showing how Louisiana became the first Southern state to accept the new Medicaid and how it helped 300,000 poor families like themselves. Show them what happens when a Republican State accepts and benefits so measurably when they expand Medicaid. That's it's a good thing. It just may help.
But there is something that has bugged me for decades. How blind, stubborn really, the poor and underprivileged, disenfranchised are when it comes to breaking free from their belief that the Democratic Party stands in opposition to their needs, that the Republican Party is where they need to seek shelter from the storm that 'life's squeeze' exerts on them.
All that they hear on Fox News, everything the Republican Congress eschews. And it's all spin. No hards facts. Just notions with tag lines that hit home but are not in any way carved from cold hard truthful ideas. The Democrats will take this away, give you some devilish that, then force this down your throat. They're killing babies and selling their little baby parts. Satan harbors them, disguises their means and ways. And the whole time they get poorer, more ill, and disenfranchised.
If only the Democrats would take these states that are accepting the new Medicaid initiatives and how much they're benefiting from Obama's initiatives, show them the factual evidence. Send them literature showing how Louisiana became the first Southern state to accept the new Medicaid and how it helped 300,000 poor families like themselves. Show them what happens when a Republican State accepts and benefits so measurably when they expand Medicaid. That's it's a good thing. It just may help.
8
it is truly weird for a Nobel Laurate in economics, someone whose entire's life work is pretty much about examining evidence, to totally disregard Hillary's track record. She is a rabid warmonger, every single time, at whatever position/capacity, she had the option to support or stand against a war, she chose to support it vigorously, and at times she tried to instigate war herself, so much so that Obama had to get to rid of her. She has been paid handsomely by AIPAC, so we can be sure that she will be 100% on Israel's side on any Middle Eastern issue, and that's no way to accomplish peace in the Middle East.
She is blatantly on Wall Street's payroll, she took bribes in the form of Whitewater profits and her Walmart board membership, her million dollar speeches include those to big pharma and big agri-businesses.
She is a neocon. Koch brothers, Adelson, Murdoch and the like have reason to celebrate as now even the Democratic party is fielding a neocon as presidential candidate. A rabid neocon from the GOP, a very sinister one from the democrats, those are your choices America.
She is blatantly on Wall Street's payroll, she took bribes in the form of Whitewater profits and her Walmart board membership, her million dollar speeches include those to big pharma and big agri-businesses.
She is a neocon. Koch brothers, Adelson, Murdoch and the like have reason to celebrate as now even the Democratic party is fielding a neocon as presidential candidate. A rabid neocon from the GOP, a very sinister one from the democrats, those are your choices America.
12
Would you care to support your accusation with factual evidence? War monger? Supporting Israel a country until late 2000 (Mr Clinton's admin) was earnestly working towards 2 state peace deal - Arafat reneged on the 2000 deal and it's been hell there since - this reneging after many many similar situations sent a clear signal Arabs were disinterested in anything except destruction of Israel. Mrs Clinton is akin to the Koch Brothers??? Come-on, get real.
2
Please name the instances -- the "every single times" -- when Hillary supported war "vigorously."
Please give sources for your contention that Obama "had to get rid of her."
Please, please, please help us relive the pointless, inconclusive Whitewater investigation
Why are you so angry? If Obama can get behind Hillary, can't you?
Please give sources for your contention that Obama "had to get rid of her."
Please, please, please help us relive the pointless, inconclusive Whitewater investigation
Why are you so angry? If Obama can get behind Hillary, can't you?
1
http://swampland.time.com/2014/01/14/hillary-clintons-unapologetically-h...
google is your friend. Enter "hillary hawk" for instance. She supported the invasion of Iraq, she supported the Bush surge in Iraq in 2007, she was opposed to Obama's withdrawal of forces from Iraq, and she was influential in starting the air campaign over Libya. She was rooting for air strikes against Syria. She was against diplomacy over the Iran problem.
Show me a recent conflict where brown people are involved and chances are Hillary will be on record for wanting to bomb them.
google is your friend. Enter "hillary hawk" for instance. She supported the invasion of Iraq, she supported the Bush surge in Iraq in 2007, she was opposed to Obama's withdrawal of forces from Iraq, and she was influential in starting the air campaign over Libya. She was rooting for air strikes against Syria. She was against diplomacy over the Iran problem.
Show me a recent conflict where brown people are involved and chances are Hillary will be on record for wanting to bomb them.
I usually I usually find something to question in Paul Krugman's articles, but here I don't - almost. My only quibble is: will taxes really go down on the rich if he's elected? Of course we all know he's claiming to endorse a 5-10-15 aggressive marginal tax system, but when he gets in will he do it? The price for Trump's wall is a moving target - nearly doubling as he talks about it. There's no reason to think his tax proposal would be any different. 5-10-15 could become 20-40-60 and his supporters might not notice.
.
That said, I think Krugman nails it with his overall analysis of the Republican con game.
.
That said, I think Krugman nails it with his overall analysis of the Republican con game.
1
I just read an article about how Bernie Sanders has been spending his campaign money. Because he didn't expect to have so much, he has paid seven figures to consultants and media companies. So his 99% funding source has gone to the 1% winners.
Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/sanders-is-biggest-spender-of-20...
Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/sanders-is-biggest-spender-of-20...
2
I read the article yesterday and sent Sanders a contribution for his efforts. I send his campaign money so that he can compete in the very field that you mention. I also appreciate that he is supporting truly progressive down ticket women for political positions with that money. And, to my further delight, his current and former staffers have begun a group to evaluate and support down ticket progressives for representative positions.
"The most negative news cover...." What? Hillary?
The Irish have a saying professor: "Hate me if you must. Love me if you can, but please don't ignore me." That's what the press did to Bernie Sanders: they ignored him.
I expect more from a Nobel prize winner, even one in economics.
The Irish have a saying professor: "Hate me if you must. Love me if you can, but please don't ignore me." That's what the press did to Bernie Sanders: they ignored him.
I expect more from a Nobel prize winner, even one in economics.
12
I agree with everything that David Le Marche has said.
The negativity on Bernie was total neglect, pòtshots,
inquisitions a la NY Daily News, 700 super delegates, voter suppression a la Brooklyn and deceitful primaries that cut out anyone but Clinton supporters
My prediction - Clinton will not beat Trump. There is too much anger outside the DC/Media/Lobbyists/Political beltway.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PV_PLCC6jeI
The negativity on Bernie was total neglect, pòtshots,
inquisitions a la NY Daily News, 700 super delegates, voter suppression a la Brooklyn and deceitful primaries that cut out anyone but Clinton supporters
My prediction - Clinton will not beat Trump. There is too much anger outside the DC/Media/Lobbyists/Political beltway.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PV_PLCC6jeI
13
Mr. Krugman is in error on the most negative media campaign.
The most negative media campaign of all times was conducted by Mr. Krugman against Mr. Sanders.
He deserves credit himself, here.
The most negative media campaign of all times was conducted by Mr. Krugman against Mr. Sanders.
He deserves credit himself, here.
32
An unmentioned aspect of Hillary Clinton's electoral resilience has been her nearly unanimous support from black primary voters. Some younger African-Americans have gravitated to Sen. Bernie Sanders, but it's fair to say that, absent blacks, Mrs. Clinton's road to the Democratic nomination would have been profoundly imperiled. Prof. Krugman notes that Mrs. Clinton has received by far the most negative media coverage of any candidate in this cycle. But blacks long ago learned that any candidate promoting equal opportunity gets that treatment. They discount it and its purveyors accordingly.
Is it possible that, notwithstanding this cycle's insistent focus on the asserted racial grievance of the white working class, those who would properly predict the outcome of the coming election should look elsewhere?
Is it possible that, notwithstanding this cycle's insistent focus on the asserted racial grievance of the white working class, those who would properly predict the outcome of the coming election should look elsewhere?
1
It is Mr. Sanders who has gotten consistently negative coverage, when at all, from the New York Times, including its most prominent columnist, Paul Krugman. Sec. Clinton has gotten the opposite. Please note the late review of Thomas Frank's latest book, out in mid March, "Listen Liberal" which is focused on the transformation of the Democratic Party to be the second party of business and the upper 20% professionals, not FDR's old party of the working class and middle class. A timely review - it didn't appear until this week - would have helped Sanders, and hurt Clinton. Needless to say, I agree with Frank's assessment.
1
Sure Robert,
Hillary's sidekick Rahm has really come through for the Blacks of Chicago.
His denial of police brutality till it becomes no longer possible to cover up.
His appointment of an investment banker as chief of the school board.
Debutants Penny Pritzker and Leslie Bluhm are deciding charter school policies for the disenfranchised.
Taxes were lowered on corporations while redlight cameras, water, dog licenses (all flat taxes were levied on the poor).
All this while our president stated in 2009: "A rising tide lifts all vessels".
I'm confident that HRC has the "chops" to carry on these "progressive" values.
Hillary's sidekick Rahm has really come through for the Blacks of Chicago.
His denial of police brutality till it becomes no longer possible to cover up.
His appointment of an investment banker as chief of the school board.
Debutants Penny Pritzker and Leslie Bluhm are deciding charter school policies for the disenfranchised.
Taxes were lowered on corporations while redlight cameras, water, dog licenses (all flat taxes were levied on the poor).
All this while our president stated in 2009: "A rising tide lifts all vessels".
I'm confident that HRC has the "chops" to carry on these "progressive" values.
2
Mr. Krugman hits the sweet spot three paragraphs from the end--Obama derangement syndrome. Our nation's first Black president--educated, accomplished, distinguished, handsome-and his beautiful family have brought the long simmering racism in certain segments of our society out in the open where it can be properly appraised and discarded by the wiser majority of the population. Mitch McConnell and the rest of his clan made a gamble that race resentment could be exploited for votes and they lost. Big time.
17
"The Republican establishment has been routed because it has been playing a con game on its supporters all along, and they’ve finally had enough." Dr. Krugman
I'm not so sure the Republican supporters have had enough of the con game. As Dr. Krugman goes on to say, "Mr. Trump is playing a con game of his own...." Yes, a different con game, but the essential truth is Republican supporters are easily conned. They act from their gut, not with their heads. Facts simply don't matter.
I believe the Republican supporters have not revolted from the establishment because they have woken up to the con, instead they have been corralled by a carnival barker who has put lipstick on the Republican pig (con). Trump is a celebrity, he has style, he's brash, he openly says what the establishment would only whisper, he glamorizes being a bigot, he emboldens prejudices. The Republican supporters don't care what his policies are, they don't care that he contradicts himself or that he can't/won't deliver on his promises. The Republican supporters are in love with the public image Trump has created (just being himself).
If Republican supporters had woken up to the establishment con game, they would have swarmed to support Bernie. But these Republican supporters are not thinking people; they are gullible gut actors, they do not want to give up their prejudices, so they swarmed to Trump who defies decency, legitimizes their prejudices and offers them a new delusion.
I'm not so sure the Republican supporters have had enough of the con game. As Dr. Krugman goes on to say, "Mr. Trump is playing a con game of his own...." Yes, a different con game, but the essential truth is Republican supporters are easily conned. They act from their gut, not with their heads. Facts simply don't matter.
I believe the Republican supporters have not revolted from the establishment because they have woken up to the con, instead they have been corralled by a carnival barker who has put lipstick on the Republican pig (con). Trump is a celebrity, he has style, he's brash, he openly says what the establishment would only whisper, he glamorizes being a bigot, he emboldens prejudices. The Republican supporters don't care what his policies are, they don't care that he contradicts himself or that he can't/won't deliver on his promises. The Republican supporters are in love with the public image Trump has created (just being himself).
If Republican supporters had woken up to the establishment con game, they would have swarmed to support Bernie. But these Republican supporters are not thinking people; they are gullible gut actors, they do not want to give up their prejudices, so they swarmed to Trump who defies decency, legitimizes their prejudices and offers them a new delusion.
224
To add an adjective to d'Holbach,"Republican theology is but ignorance of natural causes reduced to a system."
Gosh, the BS folks are out and about, again.
PK has it exactly right. Please let go, people. It's over.
PK has it exactly right. Please let go, people. It's over.
6
Please elaborate on why PK has it "exactly right".
1
Yep. My thoughts exactly. The BS people are as irrational in their own way as the DT people. I believe they BS people have fallen for the negative coverage of Clinton hook, line and sinker. Good enough and better than most is what Obama is and was. Not nearly good enough for Sanders supporters and the Donald's blatant racism hardly needs explaining.
2
Democrats can occasionally deliver something to their base, especially since they actually promise something, rather than promising, as the Reublicans do, to simply thwart government. You might less generously say that the Democrats give their base just enough to keep them in line. And when they don't even do that, there's always the constant, ubiquitous, insane raving of the Republicans, which is apparently enough to scare Democratic voters, but not motivate Republican ones, into voting for the status quo.
10
This column is essentially about propaganda. Political advertising follows a template that dates back to the dawn of the mass media age—strong emotion and suppressed rationality—used to sell an unpopular war to a wary public. Our major political fights are waged with composed advertisements on television and other electronic media. Even a majority of the negative coverage about Clinton referenced here can be attributed to organized and sustained attacks from inside that bubble of Republican think tanks and media tools.
But Trump is something of a blank slate. As he marveled himself, he could shoot someone on 5th avenue in broad daylight and get away with it. Because he arrives on the political scene with a tough guy persona, he appears to redress grievances of all kinds, from the xenophobes to the NAFTA skeptics. He has a unique skill for embedding a nugget of truth-telling within his rambling speeches (the Iraq war was a mistake; hands off social security and Medicare; we can't impose democracy in the Middle East) that can win over factions who have waited too long to hear even a taste of it.
Though this seems like one thing—turning on the establishment— it is really many. Sticking it to the man is a wish everyone feels to some extent, particularly in this economy. Most interviews with attendees to his rallies have their own ideas about who he really is. They vary widely with tough negotiator being about the only common theme. Trump is a modern day Wizard of Oz.
But Trump is something of a blank slate. As he marveled himself, he could shoot someone on 5th avenue in broad daylight and get away with it. Because he arrives on the political scene with a tough guy persona, he appears to redress grievances of all kinds, from the xenophobes to the NAFTA skeptics. He has a unique skill for embedding a nugget of truth-telling within his rambling speeches (the Iraq war was a mistake; hands off social security and Medicare; we can't impose democracy in the Middle East) that can win over factions who have waited too long to hear even a taste of it.
Though this seems like one thing—turning on the establishment— it is really many. Sticking it to the man is a wish everyone feels to some extent, particularly in this economy. Most interviews with attendees to his rallies have their own ideas about who he really is. They vary widely with tough negotiator being about the only common theme. Trump is a modern day Wizard of Oz.
4
Now that Paul Krugman has decided to become the main advocate and PR man for Hillary Clinton we, readers, do not get the balanced and informative columns he is famous for.
The Washington Post apparently published 16 anti-Bernie articles in 16 hours. How is that for "negative media coverage"?
Hillary is the best Republican candidate around. Bill Clinton said he and his team were Eisenhower Republicans & Hillary is more neocons than Ike when it comes to foreign policy.
The only non-millionaire, non-billionaire candidate who genuinely addresses inequality is Sanders. Piketty has kinder words about him than Krugman and he knows a few things about inequality. Krugman praised him when his book came out.
The Democrats are not the party of the poor and middle class any longer and Clinton Bill is one of the architects of this change. AFDC's demise and the end of Glass-Steagall showed the ideological triumph of the right.
Hillary the hawk is now supported by Charles Koch and thanks to Jane Mayer (Dark Money) we know how reactionary the Kochs are. Why would a genuine progressive be supported by a latter day robber baron? Why would a major polluter support a woman of the people?
This column is not serious, it is an insult to the intelligence of NY Times readers and of aficionados of inequality-bashing Krugman.
The Washington Post apparently published 16 anti-Bernie articles in 16 hours. How is that for "negative media coverage"?
Hillary is the best Republican candidate around. Bill Clinton said he and his team were Eisenhower Republicans & Hillary is more neocons than Ike when it comes to foreign policy.
The only non-millionaire, non-billionaire candidate who genuinely addresses inequality is Sanders. Piketty has kinder words about him than Krugman and he knows a few things about inequality. Krugman praised him when his book came out.
The Democrats are not the party of the poor and middle class any longer and Clinton Bill is one of the architects of this change. AFDC's demise and the end of Glass-Steagall showed the ideological triumph of the right.
Hillary the hawk is now supported by Charles Koch and thanks to Jane Mayer (Dark Money) we know how reactionary the Kochs are. Why would a genuine progressive be supported by a latter day robber baron? Why would a major polluter support a woman of the people?
This column is not serious, it is an insult to the intelligence of NY Times readers and of aficionados of inequality-bashing Krugman.
24
What Trump has done to the Republican PARTY is a good thing. He's exposed it and cracked it open and probably destroyed it. The party had become a cesspool and its members have worked only for their own interests instead of the interests of the nation and its people.
Trump isn't the Republican Party or any party. He's Trump. At least he's not a regime-changer. Other than invade other countries there's not much a U.S. president can do these days. I trust that Trump won't do that; I don't trust that Hillary wouldn't.
Trump isn't the Republican Party or any party. He's Trump. At least he's not a regime-changer. Other than invade other countries there's not much a U.S. president can do these days. I trust that Trump won't do that; I don't trust that Hillary wouldn't.
4
Professor Krugman,
You are no longer a pertinent analyst.
You are either deliberately distorting or worse, are still clueless as to what
just transpired.
You and your paper deliberately characterized Sanders statements of fact relative to citizens united as "smear" tactics.
Rest assured, what you now deem as negative campaigning against Hillary will
soon look like a love fest. She is going to be facing a TORNADO of viciousness, the likes of which this country has ever seen.
You are no longer a pertinent analyst.
You are either deliberately distorting or worse, are still clueless as to what
just transpired.
You and your paper deliberately characterized Sanders statements of fact relative to citizens united as "smear" tactics.
Rest assured, what you now deem as negative campaigning against Hillary will
soon look like a love fest. She is going to be facing a TORNADO of viciousness, the likes of which this country has ever seen.
15
The outcome of this election cycle won't be known til November. Then we'll see if those in both parties who have rejected all of the establishment candidates will coalesce to elect the only candidate who addresses their concerns, whether sincerely or not. A large portion of voters are convinced they have already been betrayed by self-serving politicians, who offer them more of the same. Trump, at least, has demonstrated that he's in touch with their concerns and that he's willing to engage them.
2
Counting your chickens before they hatch, Dr. Krugman? We all know how that fable ends. It ain't over until it's over, as Yogi Berra said. And it's not over.
9
Dr. Krugman,
I followed your link to VOX which provided your 'data' re 'Clintons most negative media coverage'. Are you kidding me?????
If you really believe that Twtter and retweets are a way to measure media point of view perhaps you should resign from writing for the NYTimes, publishing books and public speaking. Then you can become truly influential by retweeting your heart out to spread biased, unfounded, social media opinion/rants/lies. Sort of how the NYTImes has covered Clinton already.
I followed your link to VOX which provided your 'data' re 'Clintons most negative media coverage'. Are you kidding me?????
If you really believe that Twtter and retweets are a way to measure media point of view perhaps you should resign from writing for the NYTimes, publishing books and public speaking. Then you can become truly influential by retweeting your heart out to spread biased, unfounded, social media opinion/rants/lies. Sort of how the NYTImes has covered Clinton already.
11
Obamacare has created higher premiums and higher deductibles for the middle class so we will never support Obamacare...and we vote in huge numbers.
4
Dr. Krugman, I will be voting for Hilary because the alternative is infinitely worse.
However, I completely disagree with you in regards to her "negative" coverage at least in this paper. As far as the NYT was concerned, Sanders didn't exist until a few months ago. Before that he was written about in the most biased, dismissive tone I have ever seen in this paper. The NYT only started covering him because he started beating Hilary and it was simply impossible-- even for the editors of this paper-- to ignore him any longer.
Yes, I'll be voting for Hilary, but I'm not giving a dime to the DNC, which orchestrated her coronation, and I now know this paper is as biased as FOX.
However, I completely disagree with you in regards to her "negative" coverage at least in this paper. As far as the NYT was concerned, Sanders didn't exist until a few months ago. Before that he was written about in the most biased, dismissive tone I have ever seen in this paper. The NYT only started covering him because he started beating Hilary and it was simply impossible-- even for the editors of this paper-- to ignore him any longer.
Yes, I'll be voting for Hilary, but I'm not giving a dime to the DNC, which orchestrated her coronation, and I now know this paper is as biased as FOX.
17
It hurts me to say this, but Krugman is in on the con, the one that elevated Clinton and disparaged Sanders. He has sacrificed the greatest quality of a scholar--the pursuit of truth, however complex--in order to take his place beside the gaggle of political hacks on both sides.
23
Same problem, same result. The Republicans supporting Trump in reaction to the bait and switch still exhibit extreme cognitive dissonance by continually reelecting and electing Republican politicians to all the other public offices and expecting a different result and change to their personal situation. Where are the Trump analogues for governor, attorney general, state houses, etc? Not one on the horizon in most states. I look to the awakening of Republicans (particularly Trump supporters) who have been fooled by their own elected officials at the lower levels. Then perhaps we will finally see some change.
2
For the last 30 years or less, con games are played by too many Republican politicians, lately becoming even more confrontational and uncivilized. The extremist-wanna-be-wacko-birds currently within the Republican party continue to do more damage to the process. A moderate Republican like Eisenhower or Abe Lincoln once served for the betterment of the whole country - ALL the people, but now, we have more electoral extremism.
Republican Kay Daly is running for Congress in NC. Yesterday, I was forced to learn more about Kay Daly, after receiving an incomplete, and disturbing robo-call from Kay, left on my answering machine. I looked up the online media.
In my state, moderate Republican candidates have been attacked viciously, by Republican extremists. That con game has become a huge part of the electoral process. The electoral con-logic is, if you are not an extremist – you’re not good for America!! Liberals are evil. Government is bad. etc., etc. Kay Daly is now applying the latest winning con game of electoral Trumpism. More scary than Trump or Cruz, she could slip into our dysfunctional Congress, especially since the latest gerrymandering of my NC congressional district. We need better communicators to solve serious long-term problems. We don’t need more guns and extremist confrontations, but watch Kay kill a RINO with her shotgun.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/424364/rino-hunting-north-carolina-...
Republican Kay Daly is running for Congress in NC. Yesterday, I was forced to learn more about Kay Daly, after receiving an incomplete, and disturbing robo-call from Kay, left on my answering machine. I looked up the online media.
In my state, moderate Republican candidates have been attacked viciously, by Republican extremists. That con game has become a huge part of the electoral process. The electoral con-logic is, if you are not an extremist – you’re not good for America!! Liberals are evil. Government is bad. etc., etc. Kay Daly is now applying the latest winning con game of electoral Trumpism. More scary than Trump or Cruz, she could slip into our dysfunctional Congress, especially since the latest gerrymandering of my NC congressional district. We need better communicators to solve serious long-term problems. We don’t need more guns and extremist confrontations, but watch Kay kill a RINO with her shotgun.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/424364/rino-hunting-north-carolina-...
2
Great perspective, except for the last word (and exclamation point). I cringed. Do we have to act like him, too--even to make a point?
1
I've long wondered how the Greedy Oily Party could get large swaths of their benighted electorate to vote against their own economic interests cycle after election cycle.
It's been obvious for a long time to anyone who can balance a checkbook that Reagan's trickle down economics were truly "voodoo" as Bush the First so aptly put. Or put another way, ain't nothin been tricklin' down to the middle and low income classes.
The 1% ers and above, like the Waltons, have been amassing fortunes rivaling those of the Robber Barons through higher productivity of American worker bees while still paying slave wages of $7.25 an hour, the federal minimum, while only recently grudgingly coming up to the princely sum of $9.00 after intense shaming in the media.
CEO pay vis-a-vis the average worker has risen to obscene levels, again to Robber Baron levels, further evincing the "trickle up" effect of GOP tax cuts for rich corporate mandarins whose greed prevents them from sharing the wealth created by their workers, with their workers.
GOP liars have been reelected time after time in large measure because of uneducated folks being misinformed by the mind numbing daily misinformation campaign of the right wing media through Faux News, Rush, Glenn and other demogauges like the Kochs, during elections.
I'm not at all convinced that the lemmings who have followed the GOP over the economic cliff and now support Trumbo have had an ephinany or are, as per usual, wallowing in their ignorance.
It's been obvious for a long time to anyone who can balance a checkbook that Reagan's trickle down economics were truly "voodoo" as Bush the First so aptly put. Or put another way, ain't nothin been tricklin' down to the middle and low income classes.
The 1% ers and above, like the Waltons, have been amassing fortunes rivaling those of the Robber Barons through higher productivity of American worker bees while still paying slave wages of $7.25 an hour, the federal minimum, while only recently grudgingly coming up to the princely sum of $9.00 after intense shaming in the media.
CEO pay vis-a-vis the average worker has risen to obscene levels, again to Robber Baron levels, further evincing the "trickle up" effect of GOP tax cuts for rich corporate mandarins whose greed prevents them from sharing the wealth created by their workers, with their workers.
GOP liars have been reelected time after time in large measure because of uneducated folks being misinformed by the mind numbing daily misinformation campaign of the right wing media through Faux News, Rush, Glenn and other demogauges like the Kochs, during elections.
I'm not at all convinced that the lemmings who have followed the GOP over the economic cliff and now support Trumbo have had an ephinany or are, as per usual, wallowing in their ignorance.
5
Oh dear--it looks like Paul Krugman has offended all the Bernie goupies out there who still refuse to believe that their hero is not going to be the Democratic presidential nominee. None of Bernie's devotees can offer up a plausible explanation as why they find dyspeptic professional politician whose face is always contorted with rage so appealing. Even the fact that Senator Sanders had to fire most of his staff a la Donald Trump and is going to concentrate his last ditch effort to keep his campaign relevant in California doesn't seem to faze them at all.
Sanders's supporters are at their hypocritical worst when it comes to media coverage. First they complain that their guy isn't getting his fair share of press and TV time. However they're still not satisfied when the cameras and pundits began to focus more attention to Sanders!! They cry foul and become convinced that the mainstream media is deliberately out to get him because they're too busy swooning over their darling, Hillary Clinton. Come on Bernie zealots. You can't have it both ways!!!
Sanders's supporters are at their hypocritical worst when it comes to media coverage. First they complain that their guy isn't getting his fair share of press and TV time. However they're still not satisfied when the cameras and pundits began to focus more attention to Sanders!! They cry foul and become convinced that the mainstream media is deliberately out to get him because they're too busy swooning over their darling, Hillary Clinton. Come on Bernie zealots. You can't have it both ways!!!
3
Feel the Ralph.
2
The biggest issue all over the world for the last few years has been immigration policy. Trump took an audacious stand on immigration policy in 2015, bravely withstood expensive blackmail by the corporate establishment (even the golf tours!), and is reaping the rewards in 2016.
2
It was audacious all right. He demonized "Mexicans" even as he hired undocumented workers on his job sites and obtained special visas for Eastern Europeans to work in his resorts.
1
We should not label Marco Rubio ‘establishment.” His views are far right wing.
Today's Republican Party has moved far to the right of Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan. Many leading Republicans compete for funding from billionaire industrialists Charles and David Koch, formerly associated with the John Birch Society, whose views are far-right-wing.
Florida Sen. Marco Rubio is one of today's conservatives. He only seems moderate because he is less abrasive than Texas Sen. Ted Cruz. Rubio occasionally recognizes the need to negotiate to legislate and govern, but he clashed with moderate Republicans in Florida and rejected the overwhelming consensus of scientists on climate change.
It demonstrates how extreme Rubio and today's GOP have become that Ohio Gov. John Kasich is now viewed as moderate. He was a leader in conservative Newt Gingrich's Congress in the 1990s.
More facts about Rubio in NYT articles Feb. 4: His tax plan eliminates taxes on capital gains and dividends. He opposed reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, opposed abortion even for rape or incest, and ran ads denouncing Christie for working with Obama during the Hurricane Sandy cleanup. (Hypocrisy check: Rubio’s state Florida had several major hurricanes in 2004 that Bush helped clean up. It boosted Bush’s image for the election that year. http://floridadisaster.org/hurricanes/2004/)
It’s a trick conservatives are using to sell Rubio (debated in letters in Phila. Inquirer Feb. 3 & 8).
Today's Republican Party has moved far to the right of Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan. Many leading Republicans compete for funding from billionaire industrialists Charles and David Koch, formerly associated with the John Birch Society, whose views are far-right-wing.
Florida Sen. Marco Rubio is one of today's conservatives. He only seems moderate because he is less abrasive than Texas Sen. Ted Cruz. Rubio occasionally recognizes the need to negotiate to legislate and govern, but he clashed with moderate Republicans in Florida and rejected the overwhelming consensus of scientists on climate change.
It demonstrates how extreme Rubio and today's GOP have become that Ohio Gov. John Kasich is now viewed as moderate. He was a leader in conservative Newt Gingrich's Congress in the 1990s.
More facts about Rubio in NYT articles Feb. 4: His tax plan eliminates taxes on capital gains and dividends. He opposed reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, opposed abortion even for rape or incest, and ran ads denouncing Christie for working with Obama during the Hurricane Sandy cleanup. (Hypocrisy check: Rubio’s state Florida had several major hurricanes in 2004 that Bush helped clean up. It boosted Bush’s image for the election that year. http://floridadisaster.org/hurricanes/2004/)
It’s a trick conservatives are using to sell Rubio (debated in letters in Phila. Inquirer Feb. 3 & 8).
5
Yes...the reason that DT has won at this game is because he is playing the GOP's game, on their field, by their rules, with their football...he's just better at it than they are.
What makes it possible is that they brainwashed their base to be afraid, be very afraid, hate-truly hate all "others", and mistrust all facts, all analysis, all science, and anyone with education. So, even in their own stable of candidates, they have no respect for those with knowledge, experience, education, intellect...they want a loud-mouth hater who talks at a 2nd grade level. And OBTW, that is precisely why they hate Obama and Clinton...they use big words, cite facts and analysis, and think beyond the moment.
What makes it possible is that they brainwashed their base to be afraid, be very afraid, hate-truly hate all "others", and mistrust all facts, all analysis, all science, and anyone with education. So, even in their own stable of candidates, they have no respect for those with knowledge, experience, education, intellect...they want a loud-mouth hater who talks at a 2nd grade level. And OBTW, that is precisely why they hate Obama and Clinton...they use big words, cite facts and analysis, and think beyond the moment.
18
A really biased editorial. Neither party cares about the middle class or helping the hard pressed out of poverty.
25
It has long puzzled me why ordinary working stiffs voted over and over for a party which offered things like 'trickle down economics,' whereby their own piece of the pie depended upon tax cuts for the rich somehow working down to their level. I have come to a few things:
1) folks who hate and resent government intrusion, who resent paying taxes, any taxes, are more open to the GOP 'small government' messages
2) folks yearning to be rich themselves resent taxing the rich based upon their fantasy that that will one day BE them and resenting the idea that when their ship comes in, government will take a big chunk of what they get;
3) Social issues - GOP voters who are anti-choice or anti-immigration or want gays to go back into the closet etc. Some of those folks, maybe especially the anti-choice group, are single issue voters;
4) Fear of slipping down the economic ladder along with resentment of their taxes going to programs to help those below them.
Maybe some have realized that they likely are actually never going to be part of the 1% after all.
1) folks who hate and resent government intrusion, who resent paying taxes, any taxes, are more open to the GOP 'small government' messages
2) folks yearning to be rich themselves resent taxing the rich based upon their fantasy that that will one day BE them and resenting the idea that when their ship comes in, government will take a big chunk of what they get;
3) Social issues - GOP voters who are anti-choice or anti-immigration or want gays to go back into the closet etc. Some of those folks, maybe especially the anti-choice group, are single issue voters;
4) Fear of slipping down the economic ladder along with resentment of their taxes going to programs to help those below them.
Maybe some have realized that they likely are actually never going to be part of the 1% after all.
309
"It has long puzzled me why ordinary working stiffs voted over and over for a party which offered things like 'trickle down economics, ...'"
Then make yourself a list of all the things Democrats have not only accomplished but seriously, forcefully and irresolutely politically fought for done for "ordinary working stiffs" over the last two generations. Don't make a laundry of trivialities in an attempt to Gish Gallup yourself. When you do this, you'll find your list is empty. Then you'll have your answer.
The parties have divided the nation on cultural issues that the 1% don't seriously care about in order to serve the wishes of the 1%. And that's all you have to know.
Then make yourself a list of all the things Democrats have not only accomplished but seriously, forcefully and irresolutely politically fought for done for "ordinary working stiffs" over the last two generations. Don't make a laundry of trivialities in an attempt to Gish Gallup yourself. When you do this, you'll find your list is empty. Then you'll have your answer.
The parties have divided the nation on cultural issues that the 1% don't seriously care about in order to serve the wishes of the 1%. And that's all you have to know.
You nailed it! But you left out at least one important marker:
5) people who have so little basis for pride in themselves that they require whole ethnic groups to look down upon - viz. blacks, latinos, immigrants, muslims, etc.
5) people who have so little basis for pride in themselves that they require whole ethnic groups to look down upon - viz. blacks, latinos, immigrants, muslims, etc.
3
Good list. To these I would add racism. The Republican party has leveraged racist tendencies of some voters for years, and many of the racists I've seen or know about support Republican candidates.
3
The GOP'er establishment began to believe all the nonsense they broadcast through the 24/7 Faux Noise Machina fog machine, forgetting it was only propaganda - and they mistook the rantings on CNBC of the very privileged Rick Santelli, shouting from the floor of the bailed-out stock exchange, representing the already bailed-out, saying " nothing for anyone else ":
http://www.businessinsider.com/rick-santelli-tea-party-rant-2014-2
Today's GOP is an illustrated example of the silo-ing of news and information.
http://www.businessinsider.com/rick-santelli-tea-party-rant-2014-2
Today's GOP is an illustrated example of the silo-ing of news and information.
9
That article you linked to casually mentions at the end that the software measures only attention paid to a candidate not lack of attention. Thus a candidate covered ad nauseum is going to track more negatively by a mindless piece of software than an opponent who is virtually ignored except by pundits spinning every event as a sign of demise. Your own Ombudsman harpooned your coverage of Bernie Sanders. Stop trying to cover it up.
9
Why is it a cover-up to say, accurately, that Hillary has had the most negative coverage of any candidate (as the cited study states and as you, I notice, so not dispute)?
I understand that you think this other point - that trailing candidates get less overall coverage - is also important, but it doesn't change the fact or merit of his point about the negativity in her case. The amount of coverage is also not really relevant to his column as a whole or to the smaller point he was making about Hillary's success, so why do you bring it up?
Seems to me you just want to change the subject and not engage Krugman in an upfront way on what he is saying. To quote the columnist: "Sad."
I understand that you think this other point - that trailing candidates get less overall coverage - is also important, but it doesn't change the fact or merit of his point about the negativity in her case. The amount of coverage is also not really relevant to his column as a whole or to the smaller point he was making about Hillary's success, so why do you bring it up?
Seems to me you just want to change the subject and not engage Krugman in an upfront way on what he is saying. To quote the columnist: "Sad."
2
"Your own Ombudsman harpooned your coverage of Bernie Sanders. "
Whose coverage of Bernie Sanders? Krugman's? Care to provide a citation or link for that "ombudsman" article? I looked at the Public Editor's articles back to October 2015 and found one Public Editor column dated January 23; it stated that "while his [Sanders] candidacy had not been ignored, it had been played down," but she had "seen improvement in recent weeks, including the assignment of a reporter full time to the Sanders campaign." Nothing about Krugman though.
You realize that columnists like Krugman are supposed to write opinion pieces--- not report news? And that they are given the freedom to write about what they want? They are not required either by contract or by journalistic ethics to give equal time to political candidates.
But maybe you feel that should change and columnists should be directed to give Sanders equal time? I wonder: would you include TV and sports columnists in your brave new world? How about the food columnist? (Mark Bittman mentioned Hillary Clinton in one of his columns, but not Sanders.)
Sanders has been getting lots of coverage in the last 3 months (since January 23), in fact, equal coverage. If you disagree, please provide evidence. Otherwise, please stop this tiresome and irrelevant victimization narrative.
Whose coverage of Bernie Sanders? Krugman's? Care to provide a citation or link for that "ombudsman" article? I looked at the Public Editor's articles back to October 2015 and found one Public Editor column dated January 23; it stated that "while his [Sanders] candidacy had not been ignored, it had been played down," but she had "seen improvement in recent weeks, including the assignment of a reporter full time to the Sanders campaign." Nothing about Krugman though.
You realize that columnists like Krugman are supposed to write opinion pieces--- not report news? And that they are given the freedom to write about what they want? They are not required either by contract or by journalistic ethics to give equal time to political candidates.
But maybe you feel that should change and columnists should be directed to give Sanders equal time? I wonder: would you include TV and sports columnists in your brave new world? How about the food columnist? (Mark Bittman mentioned Hillary Clinton in one of his columns, but not Sanders.)
Sanders has been getting lots of coverage in the last 3 months (since January 23), in fact, equal coverage. If you disagree, please provide evidence. Otherwise, please stop this tiresome and irrelevant victimization narrative.
2
The republicans made it their mission to ensure Obama was a one term president. Talk about not delivering on your promises! I wouldn't reelect someone who failed his sole purpose.
4
"Both parties make promises to their bases. But... the Democratic establishment 'more or less' tries to make good on those promises..."
Be careful what you wish for Mr. Krugman.
Be careful what you wish for Mr. Krugman.
3
No no don't worry Paul, Clinton won't make good on her promises. It will all stay the same in privileged upper middle class land.
1
"Wrath of the Conned" would be readers expecting anything from your column except DNC talking points and Hillary Shillary. Trust me Mr. Krugman what we don't need are anymore tired, I mean DEAD tired clichés from your imaginary world of leftwing utopia. People are sick and tired of being sick and tired. Could you ever imagine that Mrs. Clinton gets negative coverage because she deserves it?! I think Debbie Wasserman Schultz is a fanatic lunatic. In your simpleton, black and white political landscape that makes me a woman hating cultural warrior ready to do battle in an imaginary war on women. The fact is I expect more from women than a Debbie Shultz, mainly being able to think coherently. Because I think Ms. Shultz is an idiot and Hillary Clinton is dishonest it does not follow that I'm in some secret conspiracy to down women. If I feel Anthony Weiner was perverted am I engaged in a war on men? To most people you DNC talking points "opinions" are what they are, applying lipstick to a pig. Have you ever considered one politically incorrect viewpoint declared unorthodox by the Debbie Wasserman Shultz's of your world? I didn't think so.
10
I have twice pledged on these pages that, despite my preference for Senator Sanders, if Mrs. Clinton ends up being the Democratic nominee for the presidency, I intend to vote for her. I hereby reiterate my intention.
I cannot help but fear, however, that Mrs. Clinton by herself may not be electable. Some ratings seem to support this fear.
This is because Mrs. Clinton is bound to be attacked mercilessly by the “presumptive” Republican nominee during this ugly environment, where serious issues of domestic and international significance have been replaced by uncivilized, angry, profane and often ignorant and crude discourse.
It may therefore behoove Mrs. Clinton to give utmost priority to healing the rift that has emerged within the Democratic Party during the past few months by seriously considering sharing the Democratic Presidential ticket with her main rival, Senator Sanders.
Such sharing will no doubt guarantee the participation of millions of young men and women, as well as others, whose flame for participatory democracy Senator Sanders’ message for equality, social and economic justice for all, eternally kindled, in perhaps one of the most important elections in generations.
Such sharing could save America from its worst dreams. It could immeasurably increase the chances of Democratic success in November for electing a Democratic president, for regaining control of the US Senate and Congress, and for appointing enlightened justices for the US Supreme Court.
I cannot help but fear, however, that Mrs. Clinton by herself may not be electable. Some ratings seem to support this fear.
This is because Mrs. Clinton is bound to be attacked mercilessly by the “presumptive” Republican nominee during this ugly environment, where serious issues of domestic and international significance have been replaced by uncivilized, angry, profane and often ignorant and crude discourse.
It may therefore behoove Mrs. Clinton to give utmost priority to healing the rift that has emerged within the Democratic Party during the past few months by seriously considering sharing the Democratic Presidential ticket with her main rival, Senator Sanders.
Such sharing will no doubt guarantee the participation of millions of young men and women, as well as others, whose flame for participatory democracy Senator Sanders’ message for equality, social and economic justice for all, eternally kindled, in perhaps one of the most important elections in generations.
Such sharing could save America from its worst dreams. It could immeasurably increase the chances of Democratic success in November for electing a Democratic president, for regaining control of the US Senate and Congress, and for appointing enlightened justices for the US Supreme Court.
12
I like Sanders too. Unfortunately, a lot of the minority vote refused him. Therefore, has to go to the establishment candidate Clinton.
I dislike Clinton. She fails to navigate through the political streams by other means than sticking her finger in the air. But, she is better than what is offered on the other side of the aisle.
This year, it is simply a matter of who we loathe the least. And when it comes to Trump or Cruz and Fiorina, we are really dragging bottom this election cycle.
I dislike Clinton. She fails to navigate through the political streams by other means than sticking her finger in the air. But, she is better than what is offered on the other side of the aisle.
This year, it is simply a matter of who we loathe the least. And when it comes to Trump or Cruz and Fiorina, we are really dragging bottom this election cycle.
2
Unfortunately that rift can not possibly be repaired by her, because the people that prefer Sanders are too smart to believe her lies and opportunistic promises.
3
And I have repeatedly pledged, despite my preference for Ms. Clinton this time, to whole-heartedly support Mr. Sanders should he achieve the nomination. And I share your concerns that Clinton's victory over Trump is far frm enviable or assured. And for that reason, I deeply oppos the nomination of Sanders as VP.
Clinton needs to choose the running mate who best helps her get over the line. Meaning no disrespect to Sanders, I doubt it is him. Your confidence that bringing him on would "no doubt guarantee the participation of Mullins of young men and women" is at odds with history and a huge amount of social science data.
This is an important election; there is no room for sentimentality or romance. Clinton's choice needs to be made in a calculated, hard-headed, evidence-based, outcome driven fashion. If that analysis says Bernie, I'll be fine with that - but very, very surprised.
Clinton needs to choose the running mate who best helps her get over the line. Meaning no disrespect to Sanders, I doubt it is him. Your confidence that bringing him on would "no doubt guarantee the participation of Mullins of young men and women" is at odds with history and a huge amount of social science data.
This is an important election; there is no room for sentimentality or romance. Clinton's choice needs to be made in a calculated, hard-headed, evidence-based, outcome driven fashion. If that analysis says Bernie, I'll be fine with that - but very, very surprised.
2
Nothing will change with Mrs. Clinton as President and the Republican controlled House. The rich will continue to siphon off all the wealth and ACA will collapse under it's own weight anyway, as insurers pull out of markets and it becomes impossible for the healthy to pay for the sickest among us. This road will be really painful for a long time to come. The best fro can hope for is a SCOTUS which reverses Citizens United, leading to a third party option for Americans with public funded campaigns.
3
I am not sure if Krugman is lying or just delusional when he claims Obamacare is working. The only thing Obamacare has achieved is skyrocketing healthcare costs. Here are some facts; not that Krugman is overly concerned with any facts.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/03/npr-says-obamacare-is-a-co...
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/03/npr-says-obamacare-is-a-co...
5
Poor Hillary! Most negative media coverage of this cycle! But what does this really mean?The Crimson Hexagon study that Krugman links to, scanned 170,000 stories published by several major media sites with their "auto-sentiment" tool looking for "positive or negative language." Could much of the negative language be about her email scandal? Could it be because she is running against a candidate who flipped the public policy script and is forcing her to defend her record? A record that includes voting for the Iraq War and championing the 90's Crime Bill.
According to study authors, the negative media coverage mostly means you are the front runner. So let's stop feeling bad for Poor Hillary. She's not the victim here.
According to study authors, the negative media coverage mostly means you are the front runner. So let's stop feeling bad for Poor Hillary. She's not the victim here.
1
You mean the crime bill Bernie actually voted for (Hillary didn't have a vote at the time)? I have never heard Bernie apologize for that. And if he is the "amendment king" that so many of his supporters like to claim,why didn't he amend the bill to remove the parts that he didn't like?
And how many times did Bernie vote for continued funding for the war in Iraq? I don't see you taking him task for those votes. Why is that?
And how many times did Bernie vote for continued funding for the war in Iraq? I don't see you taking him task for those votes. Why is that?
1
Donald Trump won because the republican nomination process is still more (or less) a democracy. You could argue that Hillary Clinton won because the democratic nomination process is controlled by the party elite through super delegates, which the democratic party created in 1983 to block Jesse Jackson's presidential bid.
6
Hillary has led in regular pledged delegates pretty much all along (I think she was behind briefly after NH), a reflection of the fact that the popular vote has favored her nearly 60%-40% over Bernie. The so-called "superdelegates," (who are, by the way, democratically elected, just not directly on primary day) are a red herring.
2
"You could argue that Hillary Clinton won because the democratic nomination process is controlled by the party elite"
Or you could argue that Hillary Clinton won because she has 3.1 million more votes than Sanders--- a 14.7% plurality. But this is not an argument that appeals to partisans of candidates who are losing.
Or you could argue that Hillary Clinton won because she has 3.1 million more votes than Sanders--- a 14.7% plurality. But this is not an argument that appeals to partisans of candidates who are losing.
1
We can thank the Baby Boomer generation for contributing to this confidence game. A cohort that came of age during the Civil Rights movement and the Vietnam War but chose to leave the field at Woodstock and never return.
Instead, the bought into supply side economics and turned a blind eye to the underlying bigotry. Why?, because they all thought they would make it to the top of whatever ladder they they thought they were climbing.
I guess the good news is that the Great Recession blew apart the delusion. The bad news is that portion of the electorate thinks Donald Trump is the answer.
Instead, the bought into supply side economics and turned a blind eye to the underlying bigotry. Why?, because they all thought they would make it to the top of whatever ladder they they thought they were climbing.
I guess the good news is that the Great Recession blew apart the delusion. The bad news is that portion of the electorate thinks Donald Trump is the answer.
5
Alfred, most of us Baby Boomers never left Woodstock and its ideals behind. We didn't climb the corporate ladder; we worked in hospices, non-profits, and volunteered, sacrificing a big bank account to our belief in peace, love, and brotherhood.
If you want to join us, just look for us at your local branch of the Democratic Party. Because at least half of all Baby Boomers are not responsible for Trump. We're actually hard at work trying to stop him.
If you want to join us, just look for us at your local branch of the Democratic Party. Because at least half of all Baby Boomers are not responsible for Trump. We're actually hard at work trying to stop him.
I disagree on a couple of points. The people who voted for Reagan were baby boomer parents - the Reagan Democrats, who had good union jobs and threw them away for a faded Hollywood star. If you look at who in Congress today is the most extreme, it is not baby boomers. Marco Rubio, the tea party members, they are either at the way end of the boom or in another generation entirely. That, to me, is concerning, because it appears we will never get beyond some of the issues that have been holding us back. The baby boomers, by the way, starting their careers, were hit hard during the 80's with job disruption and hopefully recovered during the Clinton years. Then Bush happened.
I was a supporter of Kasich but that's a lost cause. My positive thought for the day is "Donald Trump, at least he's not a lawyer."
5
The sad part of this scenario would be the voters of average means who support a political party that has no interest in their welfare. When was the last time the Republicans proposed anything of real value for average Americans?
6
None of the electable parties has interest in the wellfare of average people, we have ample evidence and experience to support that by now.
It's always entertaining to watch establishment liberals try to understand things.
One possible explanation why Hillary received the most negative media coverage is that there are the most negative things to say about her. Even more than about Trump and Cruz -- which is quite an achievement. But this thought cannot penetrate into the establishment liberal echo chamber.
Likewise, one explanation why Hillary is still the lead Democratic candidate, is that the Democratic party has far tighter control over who its candidate will be than the Republicans do. (Look for that to change on the Republican side after this election).
As for "delivering for their base" -- yes, its true, the Affordable Care Act did deliver 20 million Americans to the private insurance industry. So, in that sense, it certainly did do a better job of delivering for its base.
One possible explanation why Hillary received the most negative media coverage is that there are the most negative things to say about her. Even more than about Trump and Cruz -- which is quite an achievement. But this thought cannot penetrate into the establishment liberal echo chamber.
Likewise, one explanation why Hillary is still the lead Democratic candidate, is that the Democratic party has far tighter control over who its candidate will be than the Republicans do. (Look for that to change on the Republican side after this election).
As for "delivering for their base" -- yes, its true, the Affordable Care Act did deliver 20 million Americans to the private insurance industry. So, in that sense, it certainly did do a better job of delivering for its base.
6
Yes, Hillary likes 8 years ago the worst negative campaign against Obama, why?
"As for "delivering for their base" -- yes, its true, the Affordable Care Act did deliver 20 million Americans to the private insurance industry. So, in that sense, it certainly did do a better job of delivering for its base."
Amusing. ACA is intended to increase delivery of healthcare to as many uninsured Americans as possible while improving service delivery and managing costs for those who are already insured. In other words, ACA is directed at all Americans, the "base" which the commenter seems to disparage.
ACA does not distinguish between republicans and democrats. In that sense at least, it's probably not what republicans would call good legislation.
Amusing. ACA is intended to increase delivery of healthcare to as many uninsured Americans as possible while improving service delivery and managing costs for those who are already insured. In other words, ACA is directed at all Americans, the "base" which the commenter seems to disparage.
ACA does not distinguish between republicans and democrats. In that sense at least, it's probably not what republicans would call good legislation.
1
All of the Bernie supporters complaining that the media and system treated him unfairly and thus vowing to refuse to vote for HRC (whose election they conclude would be a huge disappointment), unless rethought, will likely lead to a Trump victory ( which would be a disaster for an entirely different reason). That we have created a system where we are faced with choosing among two undesirable options is not something that will be fixed today and certainly not if voters sit out the election.
8
Not sad. Inevitable. If Democrats pull too far left Trump may still pull off his con. And he might morph to more specific pragmatic policies in the general election. A terrorist attack or economic downturn might push things toward Donald as well. If Hillary soundly defeats Trump, perhaps the Republican party will finally evolve.
9
Dr. Krugman continues to spread propaganda as directed by Team Clinton.
22
It's the publishers. Even Brooks is pushing for the Wall St candidate.
I suspect that Obama Derangement is just a warm-up. I hate to think what will happen if Hillary is elected. The orgy of insanity that will follow will go far, far beyond what Obama faced. They've had all the years since Bill was first inaugurated to build up the hate.
8
For all the Sanders supporters who claim there is no difference between Clinton and Trump, and who will stay home in protest this November - time to return to reality. Complain about only having the choice between the lesser of two evils to your heart's content, but there is a significant gap between the two "evils."
Not voting for the lesser is a vote for climate change denial, gutting environmental regulation, increased voter suppression, women's healthcare dictated by old men who have a tenuous grasp of biology, increased deficits and, if history is any guide, an economic downturn.
You never get everything you want in this world, but to reject some of it because you can't get all of it makes no sense.
Not voting for the lesser is a vote for climate change denial, gutting environmental regulation, increased voter suppression, women's healthcare dictated by old men who have a tenuous grasp of biology, increased deficits and, if history is any guide, an economic downturn.
You never get everything you want in this world, but to reject some of it because you can't get all of it makes no sense.
23
"to reject some of it because you can't get all of it makes no sense"
True, but that's been the conservative ideology for years - demanding that they get 100% of the loaf 100% of the time. Need to raise the debt ceiling so we don't default on our debts? Forget it! No way! Let America's credit rating slip. See if we care!
True, but that's been the conservative ideology for years - demanding that they get 100% of the loaf 100% of the time. Need to raise the debt ceiling so we don't default on our debts? Forget it! No way! Let America's credit rating slip. See if we care!
I am somewhat to the left of Bernie Sanders. Let me list some of the ways:
I oppose a balanced budget unless we have a large trade surplus. I think deficits should be large enough to compensate for the trade deficit & support a growing economy.
I support printing money until there are signs of inflation.
I support making the federal government the employer of last resort. If someone wants to work, I propose giving him a decent paying federal job commensurate with his abilities or paid training for a better one.
I support pie in the sky long term projects like space colonies, asteroid mining, etc.
I want to outlaw naked credit default swaps, require future contract buyers to actually take possession of the commodity in question, require both parties in a mortgage contract to have to get permission of the other party or a court order to sell his end of the contract, etc.
And so on.
I have supported Bernie and his proposals throughout the campaign. No matter what, I will vote for him in our meaningless primary, just to send a signal to Hillary. I believe the media has treated him dreadfully.
BUT I AM NEITHER STUPID NOR CRAZY!
I will be overjoyed to be able to vote for Hillary Clinton in the general election. To those who say they will not vote, or write in Bernie, or vote for a minor party candidate, or in a blinding display of idiocy, vote for Donald Trump, I say WISE UP!
We have seen what Bush did to the country & these Republicans make him look like FDR.
THINK!
I oppose a balanced budget unless we have a large trade surplus. I think deficits should be large enough to compensate for the trade deficit & support a growing economy.
I support printing money until there are signs of inflation.
I support making the federal government the employer of last resort. If someone wants to work, I propose giving him a decent paying federal job commensurate with his abilities or paid training for a better one.
I support pie in the sky long term projects like space colonies, asteroid mining, etc.
I want to outlaw naked credit default swaps, require future contract buyers to actually take possession of the commodity in question, require both parties in a mortgage contract to have to get permission of the other party or a court order to sell his end of the contract, etc.
And so on.
I have supported Bernie and his proposals throughout the campaign. No matter what, I will vote for him in our meaningless primary, just to send a signal to Hillary. I believe the media has treated him dreadfully.
BUT I AM NEITHER STUPID NOR CRAZY!
I will be overjoyed to be able to vote for Hillary Clinton in the general election. To those who say they will not vote, or write in Bernie, or vote for a minor party candidate, or in a blinding display of idiocy, vote for Donald Trump, I say WISE UP!
We have seen what Bush did to the country & these Republicans make him look like FDR.
THINK!
1138
Well said. I am a Bernie supporter who has voted for him in my state's primary, and who has donated to him and campaigned for him. I hope that he significantly influences the Democratic platform and is given a significant role at the Democratic convention. But even so, I will vote for Clinton if she is the Democratic nominee. With all her flaws, and they are many, Clinton is preferable to the Republican candidates.
5
Absent nuclear fusion based propulsion there won't be any colonies on Mars. So we can safely defer that project.
1
Amen.
3
The great rumble starts now. Republicans have to deal with Donald Trump form now until November. It will be ugly and hateful. It will be a con game.
3
I'm a 67 year old white male who has stalled retirement to recover from The Great Crash. I've been watching politics since my father brought home the first family black and white television, a Westinghouse, and he and my mother watched Adlai Stevenson and Eisenhower. Not until Eugene McCarthy had the candidacy taken away from him by the Democrat elite did I wake up to how politics works.
The country is in trouble regardless of whether Clinton, yes, is a better choice than Trump, or Cruz, absolutely, if the Republican elite do to Trump what was done to McCarthy.
But you ignore, Paul, that the story about Clinton's negative press points out that Sanders got very little press.
And Sanders on the Democrat side, as Trump on the Republican, tells us that both parties have failed the average American.
Sanders and Trump supporters despite obvious differences also have much in common.
I'm surrounded by them in the work place, young workers who, yes, are employed, but have little chance at the American dream because of income and wealth inequality created by both parties.
Clinton's husband Bill signed deregulation into law.
Both parties practiced the politics of pleasing the 1%.
There's a lot of anger down here Paul and you're side stepping it. I'm not sure you're even capable as a Boomer of recognizing it and that a lot of voters don't trust our political parties' chosen ones to do one d_ _ n thing to fix it.
The country is in trouble regardless of whether Clinton, yes, is a better choice than Trump, or Cruz, absolutely, if the Republican elite do to Trump what was done to McCarthy.
But you ignore, Paul, that the story about Clinton's negative press points out that Sanders got very little press.
And Sanders on the Democrat side, as Trump on the Republican, tells us that both parties have failed the average American.
Sanders and Trump supporters despite obvious differences also have much in common.
I'm surrounded by them in the work place, young workers who, yes, are employed, but have little chance at the American dream because of income and wealth inequality created by both parties.
Clinton's husband Bill signed deregulation into law.
Both parties practiced the politics of pleasing the 1%.
There's a lot of anger down here Paul and you're side stepping it. I'm not sure you're even capable as a Boomer of recognizing it and that a lot of voters don't trust our political parties' chosen ones to do one d_ _ n thing to fix it.
37
So, the takeaway here is: Women (like Hillary) are to evaluated on their husband's records, not their own? What?!
If you want a more fair-minded America, you might start with the man in the mirror.
If you want a more fair-minded America, you might start with the man in the mirror.
1
The Democratic establishment, including major media outlets, has been united behind Clinton for many years. Sanders has received little coverage in the media. On the other hand there was no single anointed Republican candidate, and Trump has received far more coverage than anyone as soon as he entered. Sanders' support like Trump's has grown until now his poll preference is 44% as opposed to Clinton's 50% - Trump is at 49% (preference within parties).
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster
While there is considerable truth in Krugman's assertion that the Republican party has been conning its voters, the primary results are hardly a ringing endorsement of the Democratic establishment. It can easily be imagined that with a younger, better known candidate - who actually belonged to the Democratic party - the insurgents on the left might well have prevailed. The negatives of both winning candidates as well as the abysmal ratings of the parties and Congress show that there is dissatisfaction with the parties across the board.
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster
While there is considerable truth in Krugman's assertion that the Republican party has been conning its voters, the primary results are hardly a ringing endorsement of the Democratic establishment. It can easily be imagined that with a younger, better known candidate - who actually belonged to the Democratic party - the insurgents on the left might well have prevailed. The negatives of both winning candidates as well as the abysmal ratings of the parties and Congress show that there is dissatisfaction with the parties across the board.
10
I think what you're glossing over is that the Democrats are facing a similar revolt, albeit this one probably unsuccessful, because there's a lot that they claim to stand for that they seem all to willing to compromise away.
Some examples of where the establishment Democrats are demonstrably falling short and show no signs of changing their ways:
- Creating any kind of serious disincentive for banks to commit the same sorts of frauds that led to the 2008 financial crisis.
- Closing Gitmo, and more to the point either trying or releasing everybody there as required by the Constitution. These guys have now been locked up for well over a decade without ever having a chance to confront or refute the evidence against them.
- Raising the minimum wage, something that the George W Bush administration(!) was able to do that the Obama administration never did.
The impression one gets is that the basic plan of the Democratic Party is to throw the masses a few crumbs so that the elite can continue going to the bank.
Some examples of where the establishment Democrats are demonstrably falling short and show no signs of changing their ways:
- Creating any kind of serious disincentive for banks to commit the same sorts of frauds that led to the 2008 financial crisis.
- Closing Gitmo, and more to the point either trying or releasing everybody there as required by the Constitution. These guys have now been locked up for well over a decade without ever having a chance to confront or refute the evidence against them.
- Raising the minimum wage, something that the George W Bush administration(!) was able to do that the Obama administration never did.
The impression one gets is that the basic plan of the Democratic Party is to throw the masses a few crumbs so that the elite can continue going to the bank.
12
He's not glossing over the coming Democrat revolt, he's pulling a "republican" (i.e. sticking his head in the sand over the issue).
1
I for one am not going to accept the crumbs from the Democratic party's favorite candidate. I will vote independent and hold my head up high amongst the scorn of many democrats who will succumb to vote for Hillary.
1
"The Democratic establishment has won because it has, however imperfectly, tried to serve its supporters." --- Paul Krugman
Is Mr. Krugman referring to the fact that nobody on Wall Street has gone to jail because of their engineering of the besets bank heist in history? Will Hillary Clinton try even harder?
Is Mr. Krugman referring to the fact that nobody on Wall Street has gone to jail because of their engineering of the besets bank heist in history? Will Hillary Clinton try even harder?
13
Professor Krugman, essentially alone among the commentariat, gets it. And expresses it better than anyone else. To those, like me, who have turned to him faithfully ever since GWB, he has rewarded our faith. If The New York Times did nothing except publish his columns and blog, it would be the best newspaper out there. And when reading the Times' coverage of such things as Russia, perhaps it should stick with Krugman.
That said, he comes close but does not give credit where credit is due. Not at all.
Think where the United States would be if it were not for Donald Trump. Probably facing the very real risk of President Rubio or President Bush. In either case, the so-called Republican Party would control the three branches of government, the next Supreme Court Justice would be vomited from the bowels of Hell by Roger Ailes, and our adventurism in Afghanistan, etc. would never end.
One man. One man has prevented that. One man has sent the "deep Republican bench" back to Satan's spawning ground. One man has single-handedly (not single-handedly? puhleeese) changed the game of American politics. Ridicule him. Mock him. Despair about him. Print not a single positive word about him. On and on. It will not take away from history's judgment that he is a great American. He may never make America great again, but he is a great American.
That said, he comes close but does not give credit where credit is due. Not at all.
Think where the United States would be if it were not for Donald Trump. Probably facing the very real risk of President Rubio or President Bush. In either case, the so-called Republican Party would control the three branches of government, the next Supreme Court Justice would be vomited from the bowels of Hell by Roger Ailes, and our adventurism in Afghanistan, etc. would never end.
One man. One man has prevented that. One man has sent the "deep Republican bench" back to Satan's spawning ground. One man has single-handedly (not single-handedly? puhleeese) changed the game of American politics. Ridicule him. Mock him. Despair about him. Print not a single positive word about him. On and on. It will not take away from history's judgment that he is a great American. He may never make America great again, but he is a great American.
11
Don't be too sanguine. Trump could still defeat Clinton. Max Cleland, who lost his arms and legs in combat was defeated by a chicken-hawk on the grounds of insufficient patriotism. John Kerry's indisputable war heroism was questioned. Al Gore was prevented from talking about hs role in establishing the World Wide Web and th economic transformation it brought about (arguably the most important achieve the of any politician of his generation).
Facts and truth have little to do with elections.
Facts and truth have little to do with elections.
2
This piece is subject to the criticism that it misperceives the reality narrative in an effort to anoint prematurely Hilary Clinton as both the essence of the Democratic Party and the rational choice over a near- deranged opponent. I don't buy it, and neither should anyone else without closer examination. Another more compelling narrative is that special interests have captured the Democratic Party and have driven out the folks who do not see the party working for them. The only new folks coming into the party are the young, who vote by ridiculously large margins for Bernie Sanders. Similarly, Trump is the pragmatic choice for the majority of Republicans who have had their fill of nutty ideology. There is much more going on that PK's oversimplification. Clinton might not win even if she were the only candidate in this environment. I remember that Walter Ulbricht once effectively lost in East Germany under the campaign banner of "more work, less pay." The similarities in the Clinton message of gradualism are striking to this voter.
10
I am not sure that Trump is playing a con per say. He wants to win because it will satiate his need for public validation, but, I doubt he has any plans to pull a bait and switch on his supporters. In fact, I doubt he has any interest in actually BEING the president at all. He just wants to 'win'.
9
Hillary will be the last Republican President (Obama would be 2nd to last). The
Democrats will have four years to take their party back from "the incrementalists". Then, we'll trade HIL in for LIZ.
Democrats will have four years to take their party back from "the incrementalists". Then, we'll trade HIL in for LIZ.
7
Nahh. There is a huge gap between the centrist tendencies of Hillary and the dogmatic hateful lunacy of the modern GOP. I do think that a shift to the left is possible, but nothing happens that fast in this country. BHO and Hillary may be transitional leaders, and that's ok.
2
Hillary must put Elizabeth Warren for vicepresident just in case.
Take it back? When was this mythical period when the Democrats were not incrementalists? I recall that being an incrementalist was exactly the charge flung by the left at FDR, LBJ, JFK, Wilson, Clinton, Carter, Truman and (especially in office) Obama.
Incrementalism is endemic to the Democatic party and American Liberalism.
Incrementalism is endemic to the Democatic party and American Liberalism.
1
Haven't you heard Paul? "There is no such thing as bad publicity." When I put up my Bernie 2016 lawn sign, each of the two "supervising" neighbors asked, "Who's Bernie Sanders?" And I live less than a mile from the campus of the biggest university in the state.
8
Correct, as usual, King Friday -- the Democrats helped their base more than Republicans did theirs.
But not correct, as not usual, King Friday -- that the conning of the Republican base by the Republican leadership is merely a Republican problem -- it is everyone's problem.
The Democrats may, or may not, have succeeded in cobbling together a coalition of poorer, minority, and older women voters, using nod and wink funding from the super-rich like the Koch's and Goldman Sachs -- who were told in the secret speeches that welfare-state programs like Obamacare will not be funded by taxing the upper 0.1 percent (as rich as they are, there still not enough of them to justify re-engineering the capitalist economy), but rather, on the upper 60 to 95 percent. The two-parent, two-job families, who combine their middle class wages, just enough to pay their mortgage and send two kids to college without getting any financial aid, just more student debt that their kids will spend another 30 years paying off. The ones who are paying $10,000 more a year for health insurance under Obamacare.
The Democrat calculus combines the welfare class with the investment class -- but ignores, at its peril, the real working class.
You, just as the Democrat leadership does, dismiss and demonize this group of working Americans, as being most fundamentally driven by bigotry and hatred. That may work, if one merely wants to eke out an electoral edge, and even exult in the victory. But when you win, you lose.
But not correct, as not usual, King Friday -- that the conning of the Republican base by the Republican leadership is merely a Republican problem -- it is everyone's problem.
The Democrats may, or may not, have succeeded in cobbling together a coalition of poorer, minority, and older women voters, using nod and wink funding from the super-rich like the Koch's and Goldman Sachs -- who were told in the secret speeches that welfare-state programs like Obamacare will not be funded by taxing the upper 0.1 percent (as rich as they are, there still not enough of them to justify re-engineering the capitalist economy), but rather, on the upper 60 to 95 percent. The two-parent, two-job families, who combine their middle class wages, just enough to pay their mortgage and send two kids to college without getting any financial aid, just more student debt that their kids will spend another 30 years paying off. The ones who are paying $10,000 more a year for health insurance under Obamacare.
The Democrat calculus combines the welfare class with the investment class -- but ignores, at its peril, the real working class.
You, just as the Democrat leadership does, dismiss and demonize this group of working Americans, as being most fundamentally driven by bigotry and hatred. That may work, if one merely wants to eke out an electoral edge, and even exult in the victory. But when you win, you lose.
14
A truly great comment. Religious certainty stokes our fear, divides us from each other. For the love of......!
You're ignoring how rich the rich really are when stating that paying for the welfare state will fall entirely on the middle. Sanders points out in nearly every speech how rich they really are. The only way the cost of welfare falls on the middle class is if the politicians fail to carry through with their promises to tax the rich or, following a long period in which the politicians actually succeed in diminishing inequality, middle class wages then wealth rise to the point where the median ends up near the average.
Republicans have had their fringe candidates before. None of them were Northerners, nor were any of them media stars. A very large segment of the Republican base is made up by people who instinctively allow fear to drive their ideology. The Party itself has always relied on these people to vote in their favor. It hasn't always been a loosing strategy. In fact it's worked very well. Just look at how many governors are Republicans.
Very rich people know well enough how to play on people's fears indirectly so as to accomplish their goals. Appealing to voters' basest instincts allows campaigns to pretty much ignore all other issues, knowing full well that once that has been accomplished, the details are no longer necessary. It's human nature to address a threat first, then worry about other problems once the threat has been defeated. But to those who see everything, every behavior and everyone, unlike themselves, there's always going to be unlimited threats that need to be defeated.
Very rich people know well enough how to play on people's fears indirectly so as to accomplish their goals. Appealing to voters' basest instincts allows campaigns to pretty much ignore all other issues, knowing full well that once that has been accomplished, the details are no longer necessary. It's human nature to address a threat first, then worry about other problems once the threat has been defeated. But to those who see everything, every behavior and everyone, unlike themselves, there's always going to be unlimited threats that need to be defeated.
4
Jett,
Welcome to the South, and I hope you enjoy your visit. The Democrats have sold fear into their voters ever since the election following the passage of the Social Security act when everyone with a grandparent was lectured to ceaselessly that the Eevile wascally wepublicans were going to take Granny's social security away. You still hear this from the lips of the most fervent liberal followers today, seven decades later.
Welcome to the South, and I hope you enjoy your visit. The Democrats have sold fear into their voters ever since the election following the passage of the Social Security act when everyone with a grandparent was lectured to ceaselessly that the Eevile wascally wepublicans were going to take Granny's social security away. You still hear this from the lips of the most fervent liberal followers today, seven decades later.
The Republicans behave as any articulate Latin Country Right Party behaves: appealing to the basest sentiments, promising the moon, betraying the electorate. Take a look at Italy, Spain, and Latin America generally, to know what is in store if Trump wins: more public debt, less public services.
3
Mr. Krugman's comparisons of the Democratic and Republican parties are accurate in so far as they go. However, he ignores the fact that Hillary Clinton came close to being defeated by a 74 year old Jew with little national recognition whose campaign was predicated on overthrowing the old boy network. The differences between the Democratic and Republican races are overshadowed by this one similarity.
Hillary Clinton was simply lucky that Bernie Sanders didn't start his campaign a few months earlier or that she didn't face other rogue candidates outside of Sanders. Otherwise, I suspect she would have ended up just like Jeb Bush.
I don't view her likely win as a big bonus for Democrats. In fact, I fear a lot of Democrats may yet express their discontent by simply staying home when November rolls around. Trump, if he gets the nomination, may end up being the lucky one by virtue of his being perceived as the only "outsider" in the race.
Even if Hillary wins in November, I fear her administration will make Obama's battles look like skirmishes and we'll end up with an even more radical response to the old boy network that we're now seeing.
Hillary has her work cut out for her but, if she thinks she can administer this country effectively by sticking to her methods of the past, she (and we) may be in for a much rougher ride than I suspect we can imagine.
I hope I'm wrong on this, but I don't hear a lot of comforting words coming from Hillary to make me think otherwise.
Hillary Clinton was simply lucky that Bernie Sanders didn't start his campaign a few months earlier or that she didn't face other rogue candidates outside of Sanders. Otherwise, I suspect she would have ended up just like Jeb Bush.
I don't view her likely win as a big bonus for Democrats. In fact, I fear a lot of Democrats may yet express their discontent by simply staying home when November rolls around. Trump, if he gets the nomination, may end up being the lucky one by virtue of his being perceived as the only "outsider" in the race.
Even if Hillary wins in November, I fear her administration will make Obama's battles look like skirmishes and we'll end up with an even more radical response to the old boy network that we're now seeing.
Hillary has her work cut out for her but, if she thinks she can administer this country effectively by sticking to her methods of the past, she (and we) may be in for a much rougher ride than I suspect we can imagine.
I hope I'm wrong on this, but I don't hear a lot of comforting words coming from Hillary to make me think otherwise.
9
The curious part to me, is the "ordinary" Republican voters are dissatisfied only with their leaders. Trump may change the face of leadership, but his ideology is pretty much the same old failed policies. When will the ordinary Republicans realize, the problem is not with the leaders per se, it's that their economic policies only benefit the largest and wealthiest corporations and individuals?
3
Prof Krugman should re-read Max Webber's analysis of the usefulness or radical candidates to centrist governments. If he integrated that perspective into his analysis, winning or loosing would not be end games. Whomever, gets into the White House will have to live with the forces radicalising America. Elections only shape the forms these ongoing debates will manifest themselves in the political process...
3
Watching both the Democratic and Republican races has been both encouraging(Bernie Sanders and the return of the "Democratic Wing" of the party) and horrifying (the rise of Trump/authoritarianism). There have been so many twists and turns in the process that one can't hope fervently for another: a Democratic ticket of Joe Biden with Elizabeth Warren as VP. HRC has truly serious electability issues, and Joe Biden could eat Trump's lunch in debates by laughing at him while eviscerating his proposals(Remember the VP debate against Ryan). Well, this is probably a pipe dream, so time to prepare for President Trump. If I were Justin Trudeau, I'd start building the wall right quick.
8
I've long said the GOP likes their constituents to be ignorant, gullible and naive so they can be easily manipulated and scared into voting against their best interests. Then, once ensconced in the GOP media bubble they can be spoon fed all the propaganda they need to keep them in the Party Line.
It's been working very well, I read the comment sections of many Daily newspapers from around the Country, it's astounding how divergent the views of those drinking the GOP Kool-Aid are from reality. Listening to them America never recovered from the recession, Obamacare is an abysmal failure destined to destroy the American medical system and the US is the World's punching bag, and now, Donald Trump is here to save the day.
Why do "They" say? The overriding answer seems to be that he's "not PC," and "tells it like it is" and the concurrent theme is the GOP elite has sold-out trying to appeal to those who aren't "real Americans" just to get their vote, and to them Trump doesn't care about wooing "The Blacks," "The Hispanics," "The Gays" or any other group Trump clearly defines as being outside of what the GOP base considers "real Americans." He's speaking their language.
The GOP never expected the Pied Piper to roll into town mesmerize their base and then take them for a ride. How long will it be before the base realizes they've been lied to again, and what will be the repercussions? The only thing worse for American than the demise of the GOP would be a Donald Trump presidency.
It's been working very well, I read the comment sections of many Daily newspapers from around the Country, it's astounding how divergent the views of those drinking the GOP Kool-Aid are from reality. Listening to them America never recovered from the recession, Obamacare is an abysmal failure destined to destroy the American medical system and the US is the World's punching bag, and now, Donald Trump is here to save the day.
Why do "They" say? The overriding answer seems to be that he's "not PC," and "tells it like it is" and the concurrent theme is the GOP elite has sold-out trying to appeal to those who aren't "real Americans" just to get their vote, and to them Trump doesn't care about wooing "The Blacks," "The Hispanics," "The Gays" or any other group Trump clearly defines as being outside of what the GOP base considers "real Americans." He's speaking their language.
The GOP never expected the Pied Piper to roll into town mesmerize their base and then take them for a ride. How long will it be before the base realizes they've been lied to again, and what will be the repercussions? The only thing worse for American than the demise of the GOP would be a Donald Trump presidency.
8
Great article, and a good way to frame what's happening.
As to why Republican voters hadn't rebelled against the bait-and-switch sooner, I don't think it's because the GOP establishment has become ingrown and lost touch. I've been reading Jane Mayer's book, Dark Money, and I'd offer a counter argument: maybe they are a victim of their own success.
The book tells how the "Tea Party" movement wasn't really a grass roots movement. It was an astroturf campaign organized by political operatives and funded by the wealthy establishment's dark money.
And it worked. The House flipped to Republican control, with a bunch of newly-minted "Tea Party" conservatives in office who were supposed to shake things up.
But their overwhelming presence made it only too obvious that they was a huge gap between what the Tea Partiers were supposed to do versus what their benefactors wanted. Republican voters finally noticed. The spell was finally broken.
As to why Republican voters hadn't rebelled against the bait-and-switch sooner, I don't think it's because the GOP establishment has become ingrown and lost touch. I've been reading Jane Mayer's book, Dark Money, and I'd offer a counter argument: maybe they are a victim of their own success.
The book tells how the "Tea Party" movement wasn't really a grass roots movement. It was an astroturf campaign organized by political operatives and funded by the wealthy establishment's dark money.
And it worked. The House flipped to Republican control, with a bunch of newly-minted "Tea Party" conservatives in office who were supposed to shake things up.
But their overwhelming presence made it only too obvious that they was a huge gap between what the Tea Partiers were supposed to do versus what their benefactors wanted. Republican voters finally noticed. The spell was finally broken.
6
Yes, but. Democrats -- and only Democrats -- under President Obama's leadership expanded health care access. But Obamacare is now equated to original sin by Republicans of all stripes. And yes, Obamacare is being paid for by a combination of new Medicare taxes on investment income and higher income tax rates. But those tax increases were part of Obamacare, which 100% of congressional Republicans opposed. There are still gaping tax loopholes available to those who don't need them but like having that extra mansion, limo, yacht -- and eight years of Democratic control of the White House hasn't dented let alone deleted them.
When we watch Hillary's speeches, we keep seeing the windup (income inequality) and waiting for the pitch (higher taxes) that's never thrown.
When we watch Hillary's speeches, we keep seeing the windup (income inequality) and waiting for the pitch (higher taxes) that's never thrown.
5
Trump rightly figured out what the GOP base wants and feeds it to them with one bombastic line after another. Unfortunately for him and the GOP, it doesn't appeal as much to the broader electorate.
4
Since Nixon (accellerated under Reagan, and pedal to the metal under Dubya), the Republican party has consciously built a base inculcated with paranoia, conspiracy-obsession, hatred, fear, and rage against the elite, the establishment, and the Federal Government - especially when Clinton and Obama were in the White House and when the Dems had majorities in either the House or Senate or both. They were Frankenstein, creating a monster for a base and now they discovered - who'da thunk it LOL? - that their monster has included them along with the rest of the establishment and sees them in the same terms they have taught it to view the Democrats.
Hoist on their own petard...Et tu, Brute!
Hoist on their own petard...Et tu, Brute!
1
Mr. Krugman, I’m beginning to think that you are delusional. Both parties are corrupt enterprises that pretend to be interested in their voters, but in reality are in the pockets of their big funders. As Thomas Frank points out, the Democrats are beholden to Wall Street and the professional class. Neither party is interested in the working class and the poor. And both parties have set up road blocks that make it difficult, if not impossible, for non-establishment candidates to gain the nomination.
Look at what Ms. Clinton has done. Most notable may be the Hillary Victory Fund which skirted campaign rules to fill Hillary’s coffers and “bribe” state super delegates into supporting her. (Russ and Pam Martens wrote all about this in their Wall Street on Parade article: http://wallstreetonparade.com/2016/04/are-hillary-clinton-and-the-dnc-sk...
If there had been a level playing field Bernie Sanders – with millions of independents and millennials – would have had a real chance of becoming the Democratic Party’s nominee. Both parties have “rigged” systems and the voters know it.
And yes, we did get Obamacare, but millions are still facing bankruptcy due to medical bills. And look at the state of our financial system thanks to Obama who has taken millions from Wall Street.
26
Excuse me for asking, but do you have any evidence that Mr. Obama has "taken millions from Wall Street"? Any at all?
9
Agree with what you say 100%
1
His "Foundation" is expected to raise a billion dollars and has already surpassed early Clinton donations. See this article, http://dailycaller.com/2015/08/13/private-equity-and-hedge-fund-donors-d...
Headline: Private-Equity And Hedge-Fund Donors Dominate New Barack Obama Foundation. I don't know who is most conned and duped, the Dems or the Repubs, but both are ignoring a very rigged system that only suits the 1%.
Headline: Private-Equity And Hedge-Fund Donors Dominate New Barack Obama Foundation. I don't know who is most conned and duped, the Dems or the Repubs, but both are ignoring a very rigged system that only suits the 1%.
1
this is all very interesting, but this column assigns a little too much blame for the republican party's misfortunes to the party 'elite,' otherwise known as the 'establishment.'
to which i say, fine. now how about we turn some of the blame on to the g.o.p. voters themselves? you know, the ones otherwise known as 'ignorant racists?'
to which i say, fine. now how about we turn some of the blame on to the g.o.p. voters themselves? you know, the ones otherwise known as 'ignorant racists?'
11
Mr. Trump is not a racist, and neither are his supporters. He has a broad cross section of America, both rich and college educated and educated by life.