Mrs. Clinton and her ilk are beholden to Wall Street because of all the money they get. Witness her refusal to release her speech + Mr. Clinton signing the repeal of the Glass-Steagalll act. Both parties are of the rich, by the rich, and for the rich.
50
Here's a theory: if you want to hammer the final nail into the coffin of the GOP as a national party of consequence, elect Donald Trump. Once his four-year term is completed (barring an attempt to impeach before that), no Republican will get anywhere near the White House for generations. However, if that is a nightmare too repulsive to contemplate, and you feel you must vote for the actual better candidate, understand that this just might allow the Republican party to apply the brakes and stop just short of tumbling over the cliff. They will have just enough resources and just enough of a still-extant base to go back to the woodshed and re-tool themselves into a more subtle and better groomed group who, while still advocates of the wealthy who are tone deaf to most of the rest of American humanity, will be able to do so in a much more cosmetically pleasing manner. This will take time (they will probably offer up a placeholder for the 2020 presidential contest, with no hope of gaining anything). They will likely return in 2024 (if not in the midterms of 2022), a slicker, more polished, more urbane-seeming party. Perhaps they will finally shake themselves loose of the holy-roller Southern-Evangelical aesthetic, and refashion themselves as a simulacrum of their old Boston-Brahmin past: a bunch of tweed blazers interested in fiscal prudence (balanced budgets, small government), a vigorous national defense, and largely unconcerned with social issues.
22
This is of course to say that that a good part of middle class is not hurting. They are, and to at least some extent this fed Trump's support. Both parties (the Reps for sure much more than the Dems) need to begin to address this issue, otherwise the long run prospects for this great country are worrisome. A strong middle class built the country; a strong one is needed to keep it moving forward
17
If the democrat leadership was not dead then why did they extend the Bush/Republican tax to to all but 1 in 50 Americans?
18
This sort of whining from the Times is absurd. Orwellian even.
This paper does nothing but treat Clinton with kid gloves, failing to cover stories that reflect badly on Hillary, and often replete with anti-Trump hit pieces some of which seem to depart from reasoned analysis.
Dr. Krugman, whose economic thinking will be treated harshly by future historians, is very good at spotting negatives in people not on his "team" but not so hot at objective assessment.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-06-13/hillary-closer-mussolini-trump-...
Mrs. Clinton may not insult illegal immigrants and obese women - but she is a warmongering fascist who is likely more dangerous.
This paper does nothing but treat Clinton with kid gloves, failing to cover stories that reflect badly on Hillary, and often replete with anti-Trump hit pieces some of which seem to depart from reasoned analysis.
Dr. Krugman, whose economic thinking will be treated harshly by future historians, is very good at spotting negatives in people not on his "team" but not so hot at objective assessment.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-06-13/hillary-closer-mussolini-trump-...
Mrs. Clinton may not insult illegal immigrants and obese women - but she is a warmongering fascist who is likely more dangerous.
27
Judging by many of the BernieBot comments here, the GOP ain't the only hollow man, stuffed with straw.
1. Where are the numbers on health and college, boys? Real numbers. Don't forget the Big Plan to flip Cingress.
2. Where's the Answer on any foreign policy question? I mean, it cannot ALWAYS be that the solution to every global issue is "Hillary for for the War in 2004," especially since strictly speaking, she didn't. And please: explain the diff between your isolationism and Trump's.
3. If Money In Politics Is Bad, why'd y'all brag so much about how much Bernie collected and spent? Did you not expect the old quid pro quo?
4. Bernie's a superdelegate? huh?
5. Wazzup with "she just won because Southern blacks whose votes don't count anyway?"
6. Wazzup with promising wins, then getting clobbered in Ny, NJ, and some little joint called "California?"
7. Wazzup with claiming victory on the basis of 26, 000 Washington caucusgoers, while you lost among 660, 000 popular voters?
8. Hey, where's that tsunami of progressive voters? i mean, your numbers kinda stunk.
1. Where are the numbers on health and college, boys? Real numbers. Don't forget the Big Plan to flip Cingress.
2. Where's the Answer on any foreign policy question? I mean, it cannot ALWAYS be that the solution to every global issue is "Hillary for for the War in 2004," especially since strictly speaking, she didn't. And please: explain the diff between your isolationism and Trump's.
3. If Money In Politics Is Bad, why'd y'all brag so much about how much Bernie collected and spent? Did you not expect the old quid pro quo?
4. Bernie's a superdelegate? huh?
5. Wazzup with "she just won because Southern blacks whose votes don't count anyway?"
6. Wazzup with promising wins, then getting clobbered in Ny, NJ, and some little joint called "California?"
7. Wazzup with claiming victory on the basis of 26, 000 Washington caucusgoers, while you lost among 660, 000 popular voters?
8. Hey, where's that tsunami of progressive voters? i mean, your numbers kinda stunk.
82
There is a reason Donald Trump is the presumptive GOP nominee - despite his mixed messages he has said what our middle-class and blue-collar families wanted to hear - that he will Make America Great Again by bringing back our jobs, ushering out illegal aliens and keeping them out with a giant border wall. While he likely will not win the general election, the question is what is Hillary going to do for our country in which real wages for all but the very rich have stagnated since the start of the millennium? Bernie promised free college education and healthcare for everyone. What is Hillary going to do or what can she do to reverse our declining standard-of-living?
17
Paul, there's a huge amount of rage against the Democratic establishment, as you'd find out if you read the anti-Hillary and anti-establishment Facebook comments of Bernie supporters. These people are convinced that the primaries were rigged in favor of Hillar, and that the media were out to give Bernie short shrift. They are dead set against voting for Hillary, even if that means making Trump president. There's no reasoning with them.
30
The Republicans now have the candidate they deserve - Mrs. Clinton.
19
Fore most and above any other negative character aspect Trump carries and he carries plenty he is this first: A corrupt user of the capitalistic economy that he has used to out maneuver those in his way, his workers, women employees, immigrant workers, trumped up non-get rich quick schemes'
He's acting the same way in his campaign making up the reality he can best maneuver to his advantage.
I think it is Peter's Principal that states a person rises to his point incompetency.
Unlike Hillary, he has law suits that expose his detestable moral character or lack of one.
Trump has been incompetent for decades and he still managed to get to this point.
Is America so used to living and abetting corruption that they fail to rise to the streets to protest this non-democracy hooligan?
He's acting the same way in his campaign making up the reality he can best maneuver to his advantage.
I think it is Peter's Principal that states a person rises to his point incompetency.
Unlike Hillary, he has law suits that expose his detestable moral character or lack of one.
Trump has been incompetent for decades and he still managed to get to this point.
Is America so used to living and abetting corruption that they fail to rise to the streets to protest this non-democracy hooligan?
27
I consider myself to be paying attention but can't fathom obvious ant-Hillary bent of many. It seems to be highly asymmetric with passes being given freely to her opponents while attempting to bury her with shallow repetition of her supposedly
dishonesty. Words matter and must be balanced to be fair. The daily dose of this stuff is sickening.
dishonesty. Words matter and must be balanced to be fair. The daily dose of this stuff is sickening.
78
I may not like Hillary Clinton, but I still respect her which is more than I can say for anyone in the GOP.
65
It is great to watch the Trump trainwreck, but it is premature to say the GOP has imploded. They control both the Senate and the House as well as majority of state legislatures. While I supported Bernie, I do think we need to unite behind Hillary (as distasteful as it is) in order to deliver a blow to the GOP this election cycle. This is our chance to make them the minority party they deserve to be. Southern White Men have no business dictating the policy, much less the direction of our country.
25
That Clinton is tougher than anyone on the other side, PK's reference to the Benghazi hearings, is exactly why Republicans are throwing everything they have at her, whether legitimate political differences or mere smear. Once elected, she'll be having Republicans for lunch, but, sadly, only metaphorically.
36
Yes, Hillary doesn't say what the Koch Brothers pay her to say, she says what AIPAC and Goldman Sachs pay her to say. Warrior Queen Hillary is from the Corporate Democrat wing of the Party so we will see more senseless oil wars and more 1% friendly trade deals to pay off her debt to Wall Street.
The Clintons have both been as masterful with the Bait and Switch tactics that severed the Republican Elite for so long, now they are just using it against Democrats.
The Clintons have both been as masterful with the Bait and Switch tactics that severed the Republican Elite for so long, now they are just using it against Democrats.
19
Watching this election has been an exercise in disbelief and borderline fear that our country could produce a viable politician like Trump. Until recently. For some reason, I now believe that "we are better than that," and I have trust in my fellow Americans to see us through. I don't know what changed my perception, but the fear is gone...
10
The Republican party is actually also a coalition. It consists largely of groups that tend to be hierarchical or dominated by a few leaders - churches, chambers of commerce and similar business organizations, the social structure of small towns. Large numbers of Republican voters are people who simply look for a strong leader to follow. They are more interested in personality than policy.
This mechanism has served the GOP well. It dominates the organizations (other than unions) that Americans most often join. It is effective at mobilizing voters at the local and state level. It enjoys a vast structure of well-financed think tanks and other organizations that build strategies, promote positions, and organize action at every level of government.
There are two fatal flaws in the Republican model. One is the vast disconnect between the main goals of its leadership (lower taxes, less government) and the interests and concerns of the mass of their trusting followers. The second is that the party left itself open to the appeal of a leader who was more bombastic, more uninhibited, and therefore seemingly stronger than any of his rivals. The Republican base, left in the lurch by an elite who rendered government dysfunctional, have blindly turned to a new - but equally disingenuous - leader.
Are the Democrats really stronger? They are mostly organized only for Presidential elections. Future leaders (under 60) have not been brought forward. There is much work to do.
This mechanism has served the GOP well. It dominates the organizations (other than unions) that Americans most often join. It is effective at mobilizing voters at the local and state level. It enjoys a vast structure of well-financed think tanks and other organizations that build strategies, promote positions, and organize action at every level of government.
There are two fatal flaws in the Republican model. One is the vast disconnect between the main goals of its leadership (lower taxes, less government) and the interests and concerns of the mass of their trusting followers. The second is that the party left itself open to the appeal of a leader who was more bombastic, more uninhibited, and therefore seemingly stronger than any of his rivals. The Republican base, left in the lurch by an elite who rendered government dysfunctional, have blindly turned to a new - but equally disingenuous - leader.
Are the Democrats really stronger? They are mostly organized only for Presidential elections. Future leaders (under 60) have not been brought forward. There is much work to do.
18
Fine, Democrats believe in government, Republicans don't, true enough. But if Democrats again don't go out and vote, and let angry Republicans fill Congress, it really doesn't matter. Government will still lose. We have known all along that Hillary will probably win, but if we don't get out the vote for Congress, she faces four years of the same anti-government non-governance that Barack Obama has had to deal with the whole time.
66
One bit of evidence that supports this col.: McCain, whom most people once thought was a Republican with a moral core, selecting someone as ignorant as S.P. to be his VP; then, in this election, eating the dirt Trump dumps on him. There's obviously 'no there there' in McCain, and he seems to be the best of the GOP.
40
Sanders fans can go down with his campaign if they want to, but it would be much better to remain engaged and help elect liberal candidates to Congress and the state houses. The presidential contest is the most glamorous and exciting, but unless the other races end with a Democratic majority, the new president won't be able to do anything but stand on the soapbox and scold.
26
Thank you again Mr Krugman for your pointed insight. Always appreciated to have someone pass on simple truths to the pre occupied masses. If the media world took your approach we would be back to the national news every evening at 6pm and local news at 11pm. But where would that leave that thriving Talk Industry. Quick, someone go take a poll.
8
Please leave this topic, and try to explain what the fed i doing
11
You have purposely left out the huge problem with the Democratic party. They are no longer the party of the people. They have abandoned the people and focus on quite rich graduates from mostly Ivy League schools. No more support for unions. The result we can see is destruction of the one tool workers had to fight against cruel and greedy bosses - there are many of more cruel bosses now than ever before.
Obama was a huge disappointment for the poor, the working class and the bottom middle class. Washington keeps announcing Obama's job record but no one talks about the jobs available. Service jobs for people who used to be managers hardly earn enough to support themselves no less a whole family. There is more serious poverty in this country than every before. Poverty for millions means no cash at all. None and we can thank Bill Clinton and his advisor wife for that.
But your cheering for HiIlary is embarrassing. It makes you look like you have lost your wits. You know she has done very wrong things with dire results but never mention her itchy trigger finger. Immediately after the shootings in Orlando she was calling for bombs. She obviously did not care who she bombed guilty or innocent she just wanted to bomb some place. I fear Hillary will have us in a never ending war like the one we have been fighting since 2011 but bigger inducing more attack on the US. Mateen was not a jihadist but a sick and hyped on steroids man with never ending anger. How stable is Hillary?
Obama was a huge disappointment for the poor, the working class and the bottom middle class. Washington keeps announcing Obama's job record but no one talks about the jobs available. Service jobs for people who used to be managers hardly earn enough to support themselves no less a whole family. There is more serious poverty in this country than every before. Poverty for millions means no cash at all. None and we can thank Bill Clinton and his advisor wife for that.
But your cheering for HiIlary is embarrassing. It makes you look like you have lost your wits. You know she has done very wrong things with dire results but never mention her itchy trigger finger. Immediately after the shootings in Orlando she was calling for bombs. She obviously did not care who she bombed guilty or innocent she just wanted to bomb some place. I fear Hillary will have us in a never ending war like the one we have been fighting since 2011 but bigger inducing more attack on the US. Mateen was not a jihadist but a sick and hyped on steroids man with never ending anger. How stable is Hillary?
18
The problems with GOP are self-inflicted:
At the very first opportunity, they gerrymandered the congressional districts in an effort to build permanent majority.
This led to so many safe GOP districts that the battle has been only in the primaries, not in general elections. In those intra-party battles, the person that catered to lowest common denominator won and eventually elected to the house.
These GOP congressmen and congresswomen, didn't care about being civil and serve the entire constituency but for their own ilk. This automatically led to belligerence and shortsightedness.
Democracy depends on compromise but the GOP created a situation that does not require compromise to get re-elected to the Congress and they don't.
Fortunately, the Presidency and Senate are not amenable to such gerrymandering and that's where they are shooting themselves in the foot.
Unfortunately, this situation continues to the detriment of our society. That's how great nation states fell by the wayside in history, if GOP cares to read!
At the very first opportunity, they gerrymandered the congressional districts in an effort to build permanent majority.
This led to so many safe GOP districts that the battle has been only in the primaries, not in general elections. In those intra-party battles, the person that catered to lowest common denominator won and eventually elected to the house.
These GOP congressmen and congresswomen, didn't care about being civil and serve the entire constituency but for their own ilk. This automatically led to belligerence and shortsightedness.
Democracy depends on compromise but the GOP created a situation that does not require compromise to get re-elected to the Congress and they don't.
Fortunately, the Presidency and Senate are not amenable to such gerrymandering and that's where they are shooting themselves in the foot.
Unfortunately, this situation continues to the detriment of our society. That's how great nation states fell by the wayside in history, if GOP cares to read!
16
Dr. K's is too obviously a party partisan. Dr. K. is not seeing the log in his own eye. Hillary is going to mostly take care of Wall Street, corporate America and the U.S. military while paying lip service to the remainder of the Democratic party coalition, just as Bush and others mostly took care of Wall Street, corporate America and the U.S. military while paying lip service to the remainder of their coalition (nativists, evangelicals and the like). The right wing of the establishment is getting their comeuppance. I hope the centrist wing of the establishment soon gets theirs.
19
Great piece, thank you. I appreciate the assessment of the current situation and I do actually hope it leads to a 2-party system that is more symmetric. I'm a lifelong Democrat so am enjoying the GOP implosion for now but I actually would ultimately appreciate a GOP that had the integrity to make substantive points so that issues could be debated in a way that were edifying for everyone. And I do feel bad for Republicans who will dislike voting for Clinton but will do it because their values are in the right place, history will reward them for doing so. Those that stand behind Trump will be remembered for little else and bring shame upon their families and communities. This is quite a year.
14
It seems to me that the Republican Party is also a coalition of social groups: anti-abortion activists, NRA activists, home schoolers, tax dodgers, Big Tobacco, Big Pharma, foreign affairs hawks, and the list goes on. I think the big difference is that most groups in the Democratic Party respect each other and are sincerely respected by their party leadership. Within the Republican Party, I'm not so sure how much respect there is for another coalition member's issues, and clearly the party leadership considers the members to be gullible shills. This is why the shabby con-artist is a strangely fitting choice to represent the grand old party.
11
Ummmmm....yeah. Buuuuut.
Do you remember 1968? How about '72? (Can you believe that idiot perpetrated a felony against McGOVERN? Idiot.) Then came '76, salad days almost. Then came '80.
The knock against the Demos is this: they are a collection of disparate constituencies who EXPECT to get paid off. Can you say DiBlasio?
And soon the wheel will turn. And the worm. That is what we are given to believe, anyway.
Do you remember 1968? How about '72? (Can you believe that idiot perpetrated a felony against McGOVERN? Idiot.) Then came '76, salad days almost. Then came '80.
The knock against the Demos is this: they are a collection of disparate constituencies who EXPECT to get paid off. Can you say DiBlasio?
And soon the wheel will turn. And the worm. That is what we are given to believe, anyway.
2
For goodness's sake, vote Johnson/Weld! Progressives will get a lot of what they want, without having to vote for the kleptocrat; conservatives get some of what they want, without having to vote for Cheeto Jesus; we all get some competent, common-sense government.
4
I wonder, if Mr. Krugman is correct about the Republican Party, why the Republicans own the Senate and the Congress?
10
I am already thinking ahead - to when Hillary Clinton becomes president - and can only imagine the obstructionism she is going to face from the republicans. If they vowed to make Obama a "one term president", can you just imagine what they are going to do to her? It will be four years of getting nowhere on issues that are of tremendous importance to the people. That is why it is vital that we have a democratic congress. Otherwise, we are doomed to more of what we have experienced for the last eight years. Bipartisan? You've got to be kidding.
14
The Republican establishment under Paul Ryan and the Donald Trump candidacy show no progress of building a common unified Republican agenda. In light of the well-organized Democrat Campaign behind HRC, we could even declare the Republican campaign for the 2016 Presidential Election already defunct.
5
"Even when reports focused on issues, 84 percent of her coverage was negative — twice as high as for Mr. Trump.”
This is the way it has been for at least the last 55 years (the length of my political experience). The press loves a fight; it makes for BIG BUSINESS. Wait and see: If Trump, who threatens to sabotage America, starts losing in the polls by bigger margins, the press will attack Hillary more and more in order to make it a closer fight.
This is the way it has been for at least the last 55 years (the length of my political experience). The press loves a fight; it makes for BIG BUSINESS. Wait and see: If Trump, who threatens to sabotage America, starts losing in the polls by bigger margins, the press will attack Hillary more and more in order to make it a closer fight.
65
Gosh Professor, I never realized until now what an underdog HRC was in this primary season. Outspent by a guy who averaged $27 per donation, belittled by the lame stream media (except for the entire Times op-ed staff, whew!) and carrying a burden of pre-pledged delegates on her back the entire way. When you put it that way it seems incredible that she could have prevailed over a Democratic Socialist (not even a Party member!) from a tiny New England state that isn't New York ( I never could figure out why a nice Illinois Arkansan like HRC would want to be a senator from the financial power center of the nation). Oh well, thanks for spinning the story straight for us.
23
"... belittled by the lame stream media (except for the entire Times op-ed staff..." With the glaring exception of Maureen Dowd.
6
The GOP establishment is in for an even greater shock. They may view Trump as the barbarian at the gates, but Trump is really the harbinger of things to come. He has shown how to win the nomination. His problem is that he has no idea as to how to win the presidential election. The next Republican nominee in 2020 will. He (the GOP is tilted toward male nominees) will be just like Trump during the fight for the nomination, but will have enough self-control to move closer to presidential behavior for the eleciton, not that that will change the result. The GOP will be out of the White House until it changes its ways and develops real policies instead of simply dispersing anger and fear.
3
The Republican Party is the Zombie Party, dead inside but walking barely.
9
Aside from the inescapable fact that one of the two individuals who will run for President has manifest competence for the job, and one very much does not have a scintilla of qualification and is actually a global menace, Mr. Krugman is telling us something much more important than all the the noise about these individuals: IT'S THE PARTIES!
Good lord, if there were ever a time to vote the Republican obstructionists out of Congress, it is now. The Republican party's ideological scamming is a threat to the entire globe, not just us. It's not Trump at all, really. Trump is just the big bad wolf who, as Mr. Krugman notes, blew the straw house down.
Good lord, if there were ever a time to vote the Republican obstructionists out of Congress, it is now. The Republican party's ideological scamming is a threat to the entire globe, not just us. It's not Trump at all, really. Trump is just the big bad wolf who, as Mr. Krugman notes, blew the straw house down.
14
Paul Krugman's shilling for Hillary Clinton against Bernie Sanders, has harmed Hillary's general election campaign, without benefiting her.
Krugman is correct that his shilling (and that of the entire NYT) for Hillary did benefit Clinton's primary campaign, but it was at the cost of turning off Bernie's many supporters to Hillary regarding the general election.
Paul, everyone realizes you are overly-strident, because you are hoping to become Hillary's chief economic adviser, Sec of the Treasury or Chair of the Federal Reserve. And all your fans would like to see you achieve greater economic influence on the Presidency and the USA economy.
But most of your fans preferred Bernie to Hillary, and are highly annoyed with your shilling. And, that's because your ranting against Bernie and his supporters, make it less likely that Hillary will be elected, which would also reduce your potential influence on our economy.
Most of Bernie's supporters will vote for Hillary, and very few will vote for Donald. But your constant criticism of Bernie and his supporters, to the extent it influences Bernie's many supporters, will have a tendency to cause some to not vote for President, or to vote for a third party candidate, to the detriment of Hillary.
Will you please stop hurting Hillary and the Democratic Party?
You should be trying to influence Hillary to say and do things that will help her, not hurt her. Push her to advocate a $15 min wage, and to eliminate super delegates.
Krugman is correct that his shilling (and that of the entire NYT) for Hillary did benefit Clinton's primary campaign, but it was at the cost of turning off Bernie's many supporters to Hillary regarding the general election.
Paul, everyone realizes you are overly-strident, because you are hoping to become Hillary's chief economic adviser, Sec of the Treasury or Chair of the Federal Reserve. And all your fans would like to see you achieve greater economic influence on the Presidency and the USA economy.
But most of your fans preferred Bernie to Hillary, and are highly annoyed with your shilling. And, that's because your ranting against Bernie and his supporters, make it less likely that Hillary will be elected, which would also reduce your potential influence on our economy.
Most of Bernie's supporters will vote for Hillary, and very few will vote for Donald. But your constant criticism of Bernie and his supporters, to the extent it influences Bernie's many supporters, will have a tendency to cause some to not vote for President, or to vote for a third party candidate, to the detriment of Hillary.
Will you please stop hurting Hillary and the Democratic Party?
You should be trying to influence Hillary to say and do things that will help her, not hurt her. Push her to advocate a $15 min wage, and to eliminate super delegates.
23
A bit too rosy an assessment of the shape of the Dem party, doc. You ignore the undemocratic nature of the primary. You state that HRC won with as many as 4X what Barack Obama had. Sure, if you trust the vote tallies.
Barring anything drastic, the Dems will win this election. But it will be with historically low Dem turnout. And comparatively small coat-tails. And it will only be because the repubs insist on running a living, breathing train-wreck. The repubs, if they had their stuff together, and had nominated a more mainstream - and, frankly, sane - candidate, would have taken it in a walk. But, hey, one in the win column for HRC is all that matters, hey doc?
Barring anything drastic, the Dems will win this election. But it will be with historically low Dem turnout. And comparatively small coat-tails. And it will only be because the repubs insist on running a living, breathing train-wreck. The repubs, if they had their stuff together, and had nominated a more mainstream - and, frankly, sane - candidate, would have taken it in a walk. But, hey, one in the win column for HRC is all that matters, hey doc?
6
What Krugman ignores is the anti establishment undercurrent in both Trump's and Bernie's campaigns. He dismisses out right the frustrations of millions of voters with establishment politics and thinks Hillary will have a cake walk because the Bernie or Busters will shrivel up at the strength of commanding delegate lead. It won't be the first time in recent years that the hubris of strength has proven an effervescent mirage to the powerful. Underestimate the dissatisfaction of the American public at your own risk.
13
Do voters vote their interest, or their fears? Karl Rove shows that bring out your base by a stupid wedge issue wins.
If people voted their financial interest, It would be 80% would vote Dem.
It matters nothing if those .1% can get their people in State by State, with Gerrymandered districts and campaigns to stoke fear (they are comming in black helicopters to git your guns).
The is reason to the Koch brothers Evil plans, and that the .1% keep getting so much of the country's wealth.
If people voted their financial interest, It would be 80% would vote Dem.
It matters nothing if those .1% can get their people in State by State, with Gerrymandered districts and campaigns to stoke fear (they are comming in black helicopters to git your guns).
The is reason to the Koch brothers Evil plans, and that the .1% keep getting so much of the country's wealth.
6
I still wonder when I am going to see the stabilization of the Republican Party or the emergence of a center right party. I am a Democrat but its not as if I don't see the merits in some Republican policies. While I don't often agree with the opposition stance I due try to keep an open mind when it comes to the opinions, values and beliefs of others, the exception being those that are fueled by hate and bigotry. However the Republican Party has an 'our way or the highway' mentality. Their footing is so unbalanced that anyone who seems to comprise gets called a RINO and drummed out of the party. Anyone who doesn't toe the party line gets unseated by a stuffed shirt willing to another mouthpiece for the 1% powerclass using demagoguery and hate to keep the masses filled with fear and piety.
7
Hillary is Status Quo. The people demand change. But the parties resist change.
12
You seem to forget "The people" who voted...for Clinton....over 4+ million of them.
15
Krugman is and has always been a shill for Hillary. However, he is (mostly) right. I am a lifelong Republican who feels deserted by the Party as it exists today. Many of my friends feel the same way. My choice is between an ignorant, narcissist thug who does not represent my values in any way or a morally corrupt, disconnected, animatronic Establishment Democrat who just wants to tax me to death and govern through increasing the rules and regulations of an already kleptocratic, incompetent and gargantuan government. Neither one appears to understand anything about finance or business, unless either cheating the system or collecting ill-gotten spoils. Alas.
4
Well they all can't be the professional journalists we see 24 hours a day 7 days a week 365 days a year over at Fox-Kids but wr are trying sir.
Bill O'Sexualdeviant, Sean Hannitler and the rest of the crack team over at Fox-Kids must be your news source of choice huh?
So discerning.
Bill O'Sexualdeviant, Sean Hannitler and the rest of the crack team over at Fox-Kids must be your news source of choice huh?
So discerning.
10
I agree the Democratic Party is more resilient than the Republicans and Hillary Clinton is not only smarter but tougher than Trump.
But, and it's a big but, the numbers Krugman cites are derived from a partially rigged system, in which super-delegates and closed primaries (caucuses, too, although they are fun and resemble the old New England town meeting) make the Democrats into Tammany Hall without cigars.
I suppose it is due to what theologians call "invincible ignorance" but it is hard to understand "Democrats" who want to commit party suicide by insisting on closed primaries, when open primaries are far more responsive to demographics, a sure fire way, as Bernie Sanders has demonstrated, of attracting new voters, particularly the young, to vote for Democrats.
If, at the convention, the Democratic party makes changes in the party rules Sanders and his movement want, it will augur well for the party's future as a big tent for progressives. If party stalwarts insist on keeping in place the Democrats rather anti-democratic nominating system, it will swell the ranks of Bernie supporters who won't vote for Clinton.
Wouldn't hurt if Clinton took inspiration from her New Deal roots and incorporated in her program some of Sanders', about which she earlier expressed skepticism. Examples: 1) add to her banking and tax reforms the reinstitution of Glass-Steagall and 2) nearly free tuition for students at public universities, paid for by eliminating carried interest.
But, and it's a big but, the numbers Krugman cites are derived from a partially rigged system, in which super-delegates and closed primaries (caucuses, too, although they are fun and resemble the old New England town meeting) make the Democrats into Tammany Hall without cigars.
I suppose it is due to what theologians call "invincible ignorance" but it is hard to understand "Democrats" who want to commit party suicide by insisting on closed primaries, when open primaries are far more responsive to demographics, a sure fire way, as Bernie Sanders has demonstrated, of attracting new voters, particularly the young, to vote for Democrats.
If, at the convention, the Democratic party makes changes in the party rules Sanders and his movement want, it will augur well for the party's future as a big tent for progressives. If party stalwarts insist on keeping in place the Democrats rather anti-democratic nominating system, it will swell the ranks of Bernie supporters who won't vote for Clinton.
Wouldn't hurt if Clinton took inspiration from her New Deal roots and incorporated in her program some of Sanders', about which she earlier expressed skepticism. Examples: 1) add to her banking and tax reforms the reinstitution of Glass-Steagall and 2) nearly free tuition for students at public universities, paid for by eliminating carried interest.
6
Remove all Superdelegates from Secretary Clinton's collumn and she still beats Senator Sanders soundly...soundly.
Yes, yes, yes..if Ifs and Buts were candy and nuts we'd all have a wonderful christmas.
Senator Sanders lost so stop whining...it ain't that cute anymore.
Yes, yes, yes..if Ifs and Buts were candy and nuts we'd all have a wonderful christmas.
Senator Sanders lost so stop whining...it ain't that cute anymore.
20
If a stamp came off of a Christmas card that Hillary Clinton mailed, the next morning would see headlines of how she desecrated Christmas and attempted fraud against the US post office. Educated people must see through these various charades of scandal, and instead realize we really have a highly qualified person ready to step into the Oval Office.
The Republican party couldn't find a single qualified candidate to run against Hillary, that is how well they respect her. The result was the catastrophe they call a campaign. Donald Trump isn't qualified to be President.
The Republican party couldn't find a single qualified candidate to run against Hillary, that is how well they respect her. The result was the catastrophe they call a campaign. Donald Trump isn't qualified to be President.
23
The Democratic Party remains as strong as it has been since the Southern Democrats became Republicans and it has moved to the center while the Republicans have moved steadily to the right, driving out moderates and failing to serve the economic needs of the cultural conservatives in their party who are neither rich nor free of dependency upon the continuing expansion of mass markets for their economic prosperity. The Republican Party is about to break up into three incompatible factions cultural conservative populists, affluent libertarians who are not dependent upon corporations for their wealth, and pro-business types whose interests are not the same as the cultural conservatives nor the independent affluent libertarians because they depend upon mass markets for their wealth. Trump offers an alpha dominant leadership persona with absolutely certainty about what he can and will do to the authoritarians in the populace but not to anyone else. To everyone else, he's just an old fashioned snake-oil medicine con artist who should never be President. If the Republican Party confirms him as their nominee, they will lose big in November. If they do not, they will lose big in November. Trump's supporters will not remain a force in the Party like the Tea Party because they are loyal to Trump and nothing else.
4
Dr. Krugman, which of your children do you most wish to see fighting Hillary's next war?
There are THREE parties running in this election. The Libertarian candidate, Gov. Gary Johnson, is the only one who's sane.
There are THREE parties running in this election. The Libertarian candidate, Gov. Gary Johnson, is the only one who's sane.
9
Hillary's next war?
What was her first war?
Iraq is The Cocaine Cowboy's war.
Granted HRC voted for it but her President, you know the texass deserter, assured her and the world that Iraq had stores of anthrax, mobile chemical weapons labs and weapons grade yellow cake Uranium.
In fact act AWOL Boy said it was "A SLAM DUNK"!
Remember now?
Trying to pawn off AWOL Bush's war on HRC is low even for a rightist.
What was her first war?
Iraq is The Cocaine Cowboy's war.
Granted HRC voted for it but her President, you know the texass deserter, assured her and the world that Iraq had stores of anthrax, mobile chemical weapons labs and weapons grade yellow cake Uranium.
In fact act AWOL Boy said it was "A SLAM DUNK"!
Remember now?
Trying to pawn off AWOL Bush's war on HRC is low even for a rightist.
26
" Mrs. Clinton faced immense, bizarre hostility from the news media."
That is one of the funniest of the many comic lines Krugman has supplied us with these last months. His relentless and often mendacious attacks on Sanders were published twice weekly; the Times itself used every section of the paper --news, oped, business, even travel-- to diminish or deride not Clinton but Sanders.
Yes, there is a lot of hostility toward Clinton. I suppose Krugman will show us how it's Sanders's fault that so many people think so little of her.
As for his paen to the Democratic Coalition, and especially all those nonwhite voters he has suddenly put at the center of the Party (yes, the same ones it consistently abandons after the election), they are either in states the Dems will lose anyway (the Confederacy) or in states the Dems couldn't lose no matter what (CA, MD, NJ).
Krugman has burned all the legitimacy he has built up over the years. What a shame. He could be a bigger man, like Robert Reich, for example.
That is one of the funniest of the many comic lines Krugman has supplied us with these last months. His relentless and often mendacious attacks on Sanders were published twice weekly; the Times itself used every section of the paper --news, oped, business, even travel-- to diminish or deride not Clinton but Sanders.
Yes, there is a lot of hostility toward Clinton. I suppose Krugman will show us how it's Sanders's fault that so many people think so little of her.
As for his paen to the Democratic Coalition, and especially all those nonwhite voters he has suddenly put at the center of the Party (yes, the same ones it consistently abandons after the election), they are either in states the Dems will lose anyway (the Confederacy) or in states the Dems couldn't lose no matter what (CA, MD, NJ).
Krugman has burned all the legitimacy he has built up over the years. What a shame. He could be a bigger man, like Robert Reich, for example.
14
"The Republican establishment was easily overthrown because it was already hollow at the core."
So long as GOP controls at least House of Reps, & a majority of governorships & statehouses, by virtue of REDMAP gerrymandering & support of candidates in targeted districts, as noted in Jane Mayer's "Dark Money" to any who were not previously informed, the Republican establishment has NOT been overthrown, in fact remains in firm control through 2016/18/20 election cycles especially at state & local levels.
UNLESS or UNTIL your "fairly robust" Dems get up off that self-congratulatory dais and implement a counter strategy at these lower levels, GOP will be able to celebrate GRIDLOCK for the entire foreseeable future.
If and as destruction of government is the GOP goal, mission remains successful, accomplished and proceeding apace despite the annoyance of these biennial swarms of short-lived Dem pests.
So long as GOP controls at least House of Reps, & a majority of governorships & statehouses, by virtue of REDMAP gerrymandering & support of candidates in targeted districts, as noted in Jane Mayer's "Dark Money" to any who were not previously informed, the Republican establishment has NOT been overthrown, in fact remains in firm control through 2016/18/20 election cycles especially at state & local levels.
UNLESS or UNTIL your "fairly robust" Dems get up off that self-congratulatory dais and implement a counter strategy at these lower levels, GOP will be able to celebrate GRIDLOCK for the entire foreseeable future.
If and as destruction of government is the GOP goal, mission remains successful, accomplished and proceeding apace despite the annoyance of these biennial swarms of short-lived Dem pests.
12
Gerrymandering.
" When President Obama won re-election in 2012 and a Democratic tide gave the party a big majority in the Senate, why did the House of Representatives remain firmly in Republican hands? The result was even more striking since voters cast 1.3 million more ballots for Democratic House candidates than Republican ones."
http://www.npr.org/2016/06/15/482150951/understanding-congressional-gerr...
" When President Obama won re-election in 2012 and a Democratic tide gave the party a big majority in the Senate, why did the House of Representatives remain firmly in Republican hands? The result was even more striking since voters cast 1.3 million more ballots for Democratic House candidates than Republican ones."
http://www.npr.org/2016/06/15/482150951/understanding-congressional-gerr...
6
Consider also the effect of asymmetric effect of Citizens United. On the GOP side it turned the primary into a non ideological cash dash, where numerous candidates who otherwise had no business running were able to line up billionaire sponsors completely bypassing the GOP leadership. And as these surrogates battled it out in the public domain on behalf of their big ego mastrs, the influx of citizens United cash from so many disparate sources on the right basically cancelled its influence out leaving the door open for the most outrageous candidate to succeed in the survivor island type knock game that ensued. On the left side side however, the party established and maintained discipline so that Citizens United contributions didn't up-end the nomination process and undercut the position that Hillary had proactively established. This still allowed Bernie to run a very effective small donation based campaign, which we may find has ultimately strengthened the party going into the November vote. So for the conservatives, Trump might be A particulRy rich case of unintended consequences of CU, and the GOP might find itself hoisted on its own petard in November, aided by his tiny hands.
13
Obama brought all those racists, evangelicals, libertarians, coal barons, industrialists, and militarists together. Now that Obama is not on the ticket, the GOP's coalition is falling apart, left to be dominated by the enduring hatred of the racist/xenophobe/misogynists who also happen to like Social Security and Medicare. HRC will likely be able to keep the industrialists, militarists, and liberal base together this election, and if turnout is sufficient, win the Presidency.
1
It may seem trite to say, but a political party based on hate, fear, greed, racism and character assassination just does not seem to be in sync with the overall arc of American history, which has always included a large portion of optimism and hope and an inexorable movement (slow at times) toward forming a more perfect union for all.
We're better than what the Republican party has been trying to sell us for decades now. Abraham Lincoln was right: " You can't fool all of the people all of the time". The current Republican party, its ideology, policies and methods, does not at all represent the overall American Spirit, which may be beleaguered, but is still strong.
We're better than what the Republican party has been trying to sell us for decades now. Abraham Lincoln was right: " You can't fool all of the people all of the time". The current Republican party, its ideology, policies and methods, does not at all represent the overall American Spirit, which may be beleaguered, but is still strong.
12
HRC is the candidate of the minorities, Teamsters and conservative, pro-Wall Street Democrats (DINOs). Her reign will be the epitome of hard-nosed favoritism and wheeling-dealing.
I am looking forward to reading Krugman's Op-Eds in 2018. He will be singing a different song then.
I am looking forward to reading Krugman's Op-Eds in 2018. He will be singing a different song then.
8
Wow...Senator Sanders has really become an embarrassment.
Maybe he's going to change his party again.
Maybe he'll become a Tea Partier.
His staff really has to have a heart to heart with the good Senator before he becomes a global punchline.
Maybe he's going to change his party again.
Maybe he'll become a Tea Partier.
His staff really has to have a heart to heart with the good Senator before he becomes a global punchline.
12
It's about jobs. The rest is noise.
4
A president has very little influence to change the economy and create more jobs, in case you don't know.
With our Republicans still running on a platform of lower taxes for the ultrarich, the job market - one that has improved during the Obama administration after W. put it in the tank - would improve exponentially if taxes would be raised for the 1% and that money would be invested in our crumbling third-country like infrastructure.
Our family got a generous tax break courtesy of W., one we didn't need, and which didn't create even half a job, due to the fact that we didn't change our spending habits one iota.
With our Republicans still running on a platform of lower taxes for the ultrarich, the job market - one that has improved during the Obama administration after W. put it in the tank - would improve exponentially if taxes would be raised for the 1% and that money would be invested in our crumbling third-country like infrastructure.
Our family got a generous tax break courtesy of W., one we didn't need, and which didn't create even half a job, due to the fact that we didn't change our spending habits one iota.
10
Your column speaks to the strength I see in HRC that I did not see in 2008. The attacks on Clinton Global Initiative are the most loathsome in my view. In your paper today a story ran about potential VP candidates. Elizabeth Warren was dismissed for being a woman. Politico reports that Wall Street will revolt if she is the pick. Really? The Oklahoma raised consumer advocate scares them that much? Odd that the American people identify with her very well. The party nominates the VP and Hillary already has a husband. Run Elizabeth run!
4
Trump destroyed the GOP and now that the spotlight is solely on him the ugliness has been exposed. HOWEVER please don't make the mistake of saying Hillary is a better candidate. The DNC pushed her through a primary that saw Sanders actually excited the base. Hillary had the established career politicians already lined up before the first vote was cast. It is easy to win a race when you have a 400 plus delegate head start.. Paul clearly reads the DNC and Clinton talking points memo. Perhaps he is bucking for Treasury Secretary. Once the dust settles around Trump being the GOP candidate the spotlight will swing back to Hillary and it will be much harder for her to defend her record.
5
Hillary won the popular vote by 3,775,437 votes, or 56.8% to 43.2%. Most of the states Bernie won were undemocratic caucus states, which neither he nor his supporters whine about. Hillary won the pledged delegates 2219 to 1832. If there were no super-delegates, Hillary would still have won. It's not talking points, it's reality. Republicans never criticized Bernie during the campaign, and if he had gotten the nomination, the Republican propaganda machine that has been at work on Hillary for 30 years would have turned their fire on him.
By the way, where are the prior year tax returns Bernie has promised we would see as soon as his wife could copy them? What has he been hiding?
By the way, where are the prior year tax returns Bernie has promised we would see as soon as his wife could copy them? What has he been hiding?
16
The only thing wrong with this column is the word "intelligience" has never been mentioned, and it should have been. It's in play and always has been from guns to butter.
3
I would also suggest all this "hate" against Hillary is basically coming from the deep Red, Republican States. Maybe the hate is 80% in the South, Texas, and the mountain states. Probably the rest of the country is close to 25-30 unfavorable and they are all Repubs. The truth is the 11 tossup states are the only ones that matter and Hillary stands a good chance of being rated at the 40% or less on unfavorables.
10
Dean,
When Hillary was Secretary of State, her positives never went below 60% and were as high as 68%. The right-wing propaganda machine has been demonizing her for more than 30 years, so the 33% that are right-wing haters never liked her. When the Republicans saw that she might run, they decided to attack her with the Benghazi "investigations" and the email nonsense to drive her numbers down. A few of them even admitted as much. Some of the dirt stuck with moderates. Then Bernie and his busters demonized her enough to convince some of them that she is the enemy, so her numbers fell even more. Some Bernie supports will be smart enough to support Hillary, so her positives should tick up some, especially against Trump. But you are right about much of the negativity coming from the Republican states.
When Hillary was Secretary of State, her positives never went below 60% and were as high as 68%. The right-wing propaganda machine has been demonizing her for more than 30 years, so the 33% that are right-wing haters never liked her. When the Republicans saw that she might run, they decided to attack her with the Benghazi "investigations" and the email nonsense to drive her numbers down. A few of them even admitted as much. Some of the dirt stuck with moderates. Then Bernie and his busters demonized her enough to convince some of them that she is the enemy, so her numbers fell even more. Some Bernie supports will be smart enough to support Hillary, so her positives should tick up some, especially against Trump. But you are right about much of the negativity coming from the Republican states.
13
The Democratic Party is Blind and Deaf and Dumb. It is a relic, an empty shell and has been for some time. The party is starting to remind me of Karl Rove and Mitt Romney. They are really buying their hype. Their propaganda has somehow brainwashed them to the truth. If Hillary is dependent upon Blacks and Hispanics to win the election, she will not win because those are the groups most disenfranchised in this country.
4
The Libertarians are the most clyeoess voters I have ever had the displeasure of dealing with.
They have lived here their whole lives but are still too clueless to know who gutted the labor unions, who bailed out wall street, who gutted the workijg class and threw in completely with the vile leisure classy.
Yet Libbies somehow still blane Democrats.
The more I learned about libbies during this primary season the more I realize they are just Tea Partiers...uneducated idiots who are perpetually angry at the wrong team.
They have lived here their whole lives but are still too clueless to know who gutted the labor unions, who bailed out wall street, who gutted the workijg class and threw in completely with the vile leisure classy.
Yet Libbies somehow still blane Democrats.
The more I learned about libbies during this primary season the more I realize they are just Tea Partiers...uneducated idiots who are perpetually angry at the wrong team.
11
I've lost a ton of respect for Mr. Krugman during this election cycle. Clinton won "fairly easily"? She was bested in 20+ states against a 74 year old Democratic Socialist Senator from the state of Vermont, who was running at about 2% in the polls a little over a year ago. His supporters DEFINED this campaign and they will be an important part of this election. Clinton was "outspent"? Sanders raised millions on $27 donations. Clinton raised millions more on Super Pac's. Her "Super Delegates" were already pledged before the contest began. She was given "negative media coverage"? While Sanders was giving an important speech after one primary, CNN showed an empty podium where Trump was about to speak. At least she was given coverage! I don't disagree with his assessment of the Republican Party and all it has come to stand for (the !% in totality), but this facile overview of what we just came through lacks not only objectivity, but facts. And, without even a mention of Clinton's high negatives (and for some good reasons), it is dangerous to assume that a slick con artist could not still overcome her. I was hoping to read what most Americans who identify themselves as Democrats deserve to read: an honest thanks to the Sanders campaign for bringing some needed depth and clarity to this campaign, instead of a cheap hosanna to Clinton, who, in her own way, represents some of the same establishment status quo as Trump does. Mr. Krugman's secluded privilege has never read so false.
17
Now that we've all heard the vile messages Sanders supporters left for Secretary Cluntin on her voice mail we Democrats are only grateful for one thing, Secretary Clintin's grit.
So accept defeat Sanders and grow up...or change parties again like you always do.
Changing parties...the political equivalent of a temper tantrum.
No wonder libertarians love Sanders.
So accept defeat Sanders and grow up...or change parties again like you always do.
Changing parties...the political equivalent of a temper tantrum.
No wonder libertarians love Sanders.
12
Good compendium of alibis for why your guy got whupped.
11
There are so many aspects of this election that defy convention. I just read where conservative Christians are now organizing to rally behind Mr. Trump. Somehow they have rationalized a thrice married, arrogant, once pro-choice, wealthy man fits their idea of what a president should be.
11
“Clinton’s negative coverage can be equated to millions of dollars in attack ads, with her on the receiving end.”
Or maybe she's just not a good candidate and the media should stop trying to prop her up.
Or maybe she's just not a good candidate and the media should stop trying to prop her up.
8
Yes...the media is propping her up.
I guess the Rose Colored Glasses sporting Sanders camp t'ain't never heard of Benghazi and the email server.
Because I can't open any newspaper or flick on TV without having to watch Darrell Issa's pathetic media inspired witch hunt over Benghazi (12 such loss of life attacks happened when Mr. Bush was President...not one hearing for any of the 12...not one) or the ninissue that is Email Gate.
The liberal media talking point usurped by Senator Sanders' spoiled brat suppotters smacks of Palinesque desperation and she ia now a laughing stock so try again Sanders supporters because if Putin wasn't eniugh to make HRC blink no tie dye tshirt wearing whiner will.
Liberal Media is what losers whine about.
Winners are too busy winning to worry about such junior hugh school crapolla.
I guess the Rose Colored Glasses sporting Sanders camp t'ain't never heard of Benghazi and the email server.
Because I can't open any newspaper or flick on TV without having to watch Darrell Issa's pathetic media inspired witch hunt over Benghazi (12 such loss of life attacks happened when Mr. Bush was President...not one hearing for any of the 12...not one) or the ninissue that is Email Gate.
The liberal media talking point usurped by Senator Sanders' spoiled brat suppotters smacks of Palinesque desperation and she ia now a laughing stock so try again Sanders supporters because if Putin wasn't eniugh to make HRC blink no tie dye tshirt wearing whiner will.
Liberal Media is what losers whine about.
Winners are too busy winning to worry about such junior hugh school crapolla.
14
So the media was propping Hillary up by giving her more negative coverage? Hmm.
14
might be true... but premature. Editorials like this breed complacency among Democrats. If people don't turn out to vote (because they think Trump is finished), then the country will suffer. Premature gloating isn't helpful. It might make you seem like a great prognosticator if you turn out to be correct (and I hope so). But your ego isn't at risk here, the country is.
7
Of course, the Sanders supporters are once again lining up to label Mr. Krugman a Clinton surrogate/booster and once again missing the point: this is a democracy-like it or not.
The reason Mr. Sanders did not win is because his message did not resonate with enough voters. It's the simple truth- even if it stings his supporters- but the tone of some of his support has not helped his campaign. Some responses to this column exemplify my point: it is counterproductive to relentlessly insult those whose opinions differ from yours. It serves no purpose to label every HRC supporter either unintelligent, corrupt, ignorant, or all three.
I have consistently maintained that I respect Mr. Sanders even if I disagree with him, but some of Mr. Sanders supporters would rather spread half-truths, distortions, and outright lies to achieve their goal. They purport that there is some Grand Conspiracy to "suppress the vote". That claim that Mrs. Clinton "sold weapons" to various governments, so she is responsible for "thousands of deaths". They cling to the hope that the email scandal is an "indictable offense" and that she will be forced to drop out of the election. They claim that Mrs. Clinton's paid speaking engagements prove that she's made secret deals with Wall Street.
Sanders said initially he would run an issue-based campaign and avoid personal ad hominem attacks; for whatever reason he was unable to maintain that tone. Embracing distraction is what derailed his campaign.
The reason Mr. Sanders did not win is because his message did not resonate with enough voters. It's the simple truth- even if it stings his supporters- but the tone of some of his support has not helped his campaign. Some responses to this column exemplify my point: it is counterproductive to relentlessly insult those whose opinions differ from yours. It serves no purpose to label every HRC supporter either unintelligent, corrupt, ignorant, or all three.
I have consistently maintained that I respect Mr. Sanders even if I disagree with him, but some of Mr. Sanders supporters would rather spread half-truths, distortions, and outright lies to achieve their goal. They purport that there is some Grand Conspiracy to "suppress the vote". That claim that Mrs. Clinton "sold weapons" to various governments, so she is responsible for "thousands of deaths". They cling to the hope that the email scandal is an "indictable offense" and that she will be forced to drop out of the election. They claim that Mrs. Clinton's paid speaking engagements prove that she's made secret deals with Wall Street.
Sanders said initially he would run an issue-based campaign and avoid personal ad hominem attacks; for whatever reason he was unable to maintain that tone. Embracing distraction is what derailed his campaign.
27
" ...media treatment of the candidates during 2015, showing that Mrs. Clinton received by far the most unfavorable coverage."
The media, in all of its various permutations and combinations, are Big Business and Big Money. Big Business and Big Money, despite Trump's allure of and by bigots and haters, are the REAL core of the Republican Party. If the presumptive candidate were Bernie Sanders, the media coverage would be essentially the same.
The Oligarchy will not lose quietly or gracefully.
The media, in all of its various permutations and combinations, are Big Business and Big Money. Big Business and Big Money, despite Trump's allure of and by bigots and haters, are the REAL core of the Republican Party. If the presumptive candidate were Bernie Sanders, the media coverage would be essentially the same.
The Oligarchy will not lose quietly or gracefully.
10
While I am firmly in the Clinton and Democratic camps, I have to take issue with Dr. Krugman's depiction of the GOP as a "top-down hierarchical structure".
The defeat in the primaries of top position holders like Eric Cantor by unknown challengers suggests that there has been a revolt brewing from the bottom for a while. Initially the conventional wisdom was that the purists were leading the revolt with support from like minded voters. But the support for Trump suggests it is nihilistic anger, not any ideology that is fomenting this revolt against the GOP leadership.
The defeat in the primaries of top position holders like Eric Cantor by unknown challengers suggests that there has been a revolt brewing from the bottom for a while. Initially the conventional wisdom was that the purists were leading the revolt with support from like minded voters. But the support for Trump suggests it is nihilistic anger, not any ideology that is fomenting this revolt against the GOP leadership.
8
Ah, the clamor for unity. Fear mongering and insults, sure to win the day...NOT. True unity results from coming together in pursuit of a common goal. For me, that goal isn't simply "Elect Hillary because she isn't Donald Trump". Given the moderating constraints of our political system and his shape shifting over the years, even Donald Trump is unlikely to be Donald Trump.
To HRC and the Democratic Party:
Between now and November
• Show commitment to eliminating private money from the political arena. It's time. Imagine a Congress free to do its work without an eye on campaign financing and a system free of political advertising filled with lies, half-truths and spin. A good start would be a framework for a Constitutional Amendment eliminating the concept that "money talks" from the American political system. Wealth, like water, seeks the path of least resistance. Closing one loophole simply opens up another. Don't rely on an unpredictable Supreme Court.
• Seriously address the hollowing out of the middle class and the economic inequality that, historically, has led to the collapse of empires.
• Commit to military intervention as the absolute last consideration when dealing with international affairs. I understand that when you carry the biggest stick, it's tempting to bash heads, but "We came, we saw, he died, heh heh heh" should not be our national slogan.
For starters, address those three items and you just may bring me into the fold.
To HRC and the Democratic Party:
Between now and November
• Show commitment to eliminating private money from the political arena. It's time. Imagine a Congress free to do its work without an eye on campaign financing and a system free of political advertising filled with lies, half-truths and spin. A good start would be a framework for a Constitutional Amendment eliminating the concept that "money talks" from the American political system. Wealth, like water, seeks the path of least resistance. Closing one loophole simply opens up another. Don't rely on an unpredictable Supreme Court.
• Seriously address the hollowing out of the middle class and the economic inequality that, historically, has led to the collapse of empires.
• Commit to military intervention as the absolute last consideration when dealing with international affairs. I understand that when you carry the biggest stick, it's tempting to bash heads, but "We came, we saw, he died, heh heh heh" should not be our national slogan.
For starters, address those three items and you just may bring me into the fold.
9
First, perhaps you moght favor us with ONE thing that Bernie Sanders addressed seriously.
You know: with a genuine, practicable plan for reaching a doable goal.
No yelling about how we need hope and high aspirations, now. No fudging the numbers and then yelling if anybody notices. No mentions of zhillary did this, Hillary did that, in the same language Trump's people use.
Just a plan. One that could work. With numbers. For ONE goal.
Thanks.
You know: with a genuine, practicable plan for reaching a doable goal.
No yelling about how we need hope and high aspirations, now. No fudging the numbers and then yelling if anybody notices. No mentions of zhillary did this, Hillary did that, in the same language Trump's people use.
Just a plan. One that could work. With numbers. For ONE goal.
Thanks.
10
I can't emphasize enough that we must stop obsessing about the Supreme Court every election. Stop expecting SCOTUS to do the heavy lifting. Getting money out of politics is every bit as important as abolishing slavery or giving women the vote. Those were accomplished through Constitutional amendment and the buying of our democracy can be stopped in the same way, if the people want it. The Supreme Court would, and could, have nothing to say about it.
4
"Mrs. Clinton faced immense, bizarre hostility from the news media." I think your average person also feels immense hostility toward HC. Why? She makes poor decisions based on the temperature of the populace, not on her own values and convictions. It's next to impossible to get behind and be inspired by someone without courage. She is smart, no doubt. But is she wise?
8
Yes.
Next question.
Next question.
12
The election of Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton would represent a great victory for the US taxpayers over the “DONOR CLASS” access to the US treasury’s taxpayer money VIA the “PAY TO PLAY” no-bid US government contracts and the control of US foreign policy granted to these “DONOR CLASS” campaign contributors including the PACs that represent foreign nations.
4
The Republican party is also a coalition of various groups who strongly believe in their positions. Evangelical Christians, for instance, are dead set against abortion and their elected officials have made it very hard if not impossible to find an abortion provider in the Bible Belt. Also American nationalists are deeply invested in the idea of American exceptionalism and hate Democrats for what they perceive as apologizing for being American.
The problem with the current GOP leadership is that the base doesn't believe in the conservatism of a Bill Kristol or a Paul Ryan, which is supported by wealthy donors like the Koch brothers. Trump told the base that they could have Republican-style nationalism without bowing down to the interests of Wall Street and Big Business. Unsurprisingly, his only serious opposition came from a bona fide evangelical radical, but in the end the Republican party turned out to be more defined by white nationalism than by evangelical Christianity, which are by no means mutually exclusive.
So yes, we saw the death of the Ayn Rand faction, but not of the GOP as a socially conservative movement for white nationalists and evangelical Christians.
The problem with the current GOP leadership is that the base doesn't believe in the conservatism of a Bill Kristol or a Paul Ryan, which is supported by wealthy donors like the Koch brothers. Trump told the base that they could have Republican-style nationalism without bowing down to the interests of Wall Street and Big Business. Unsurprisingly, his only serious opposition came from a bona fide evangelical radical, but in the end the Republican party turned out to be more defined by white nationalism than by evangelical Christianity, which are by no means mutually exclusive.
So yes, we saw the death of the Ayn Rand faction, but not of the GOP as a socially conservative movement for white nationalists and evangelical Christians.
5
I don't believe Trump and any new campaign manager and any others on board will be able to turn his run from the bigoted non-thinker he is.
It is too late. His campaign will essentially remain greatly unchanged.
He is a nativists, a bigot to almost all outside the traditional white supremacy band of muggers that have been parading as the GOP, filled with lies and outright hatred of blacks, now LGBT, now Muslims, now women, now the continued deprivation of the middle class on down.
He has no constructive policies to unite this country in acceptance of each other and a true renewal of the middle class and a program to reduce poverty.
He offers a continued disregard to women's right to privacy.
He likes to build walls not just physically but also psychologically and emotionally.
He is so unstable now that he continues to try to be in complete control of his campaign as if it were Trump Enterprises, where he is the king of his domain, that he cannot keep a campaign manager to his liking.
I can see no redeemable social aspect to Trump. He is a hater, a destroyer and a user of other people to gain his own selfish maintenance of his thinking he is an all powerful mover and shaker. He is that, but he shakes and uses his power to promote himself and offers no solace to normal Americans.
Just as Germany was in a state of devastation when Hitler took power, the GOP is in a similar devastation that has allowed a monster such as Trump to jump up and scare everyone.
It is too late. His campaign will essentially remain greatly unchanged.
He is a nativists, a bigot to almost all outside the traditional white supremacy band of muggers that have been parading as the GOP, filled with lies and outright hatred of blacks, now LGBT, now Muslims, now women, now the continued deprivation of the middle class on down.
He has no constructive policies to unite this country in acceptance of each other and a true renewal of the middle class and a program to reduce poverty.
He offers a continued disregard to women's right to privacy.
He likes to build walls not just physically but also psychologically and emotionally.
He is so unstable now that he continues to try to be in complete control of his campaign as if it were Trump Enterprises, where he is the king of his domain, that he cannot keep a campaign manager to his liking.
I can see no redeemable social aspect to Trump. He is a hater, a destroyer and a user of other people to gain his own selfish maintenance of his thinking he is an all powerful mover and shaker. He is that, but he shakes and uses his power to promote himself and offers no solace to normal Americans.
Just as Germany was in a state of devastation when Hitler took power, the GOP is in a similar devastation that has allowed a monster such as Trump to jump up and scare everyone.
5
Regardless of the organizational structures which the two parties use to establish support, the next president should work on a bipartisan basis. No Labels has offered up a great political launching pad which could boost either candidate's numbers in the polls: http://fortune.com/no-labels-policy-agenda/
I'm tired about exclusively discussing the two party system. Let's work on a bipartisan basis to get things done. The No Labels platform is unequivocally the best place for either Mr. Trump or Mrs. Clinton to start.
I'm tired about exclusively discussing the two party system. Let's work on a bipartisan basis to get things done. The No Labels platform is unequivocally the best place for either Mr. Trump or Mrs. Clinton to start.
1
As our outgoing president painfully learned, bipartisanship requires two groups each willing to forego its ideal course of action in order to gain the support of the other. The Republican Party adopted a policy of refusing to support any proposal that was not its own, and the rest is sad history.
There is certainly nothing that was said by any of the candidates for the GOP presidential nomination that would indicate any intention to cooperate, concede, bargain, or compromise. It is not the label that defines a group of people, it is rather a set of values, principles, and prescriptions. The two parties diverge on all three counts. They are not going to sit around the fire toasting marshmallows and singing Kumbaya.
The best of them are going to argue why Americans will be better off with their policy proposals; the worst of them will call people names and rely on fear and loathing. Americans will make their choices, good or bad.
Don't waste time worrying about labels--worry about the wisdom of the American voter.
There is certainly nothing that was said by any of the candidates for the GOP presidential nomination that would indicate any intention to cooperate, concede, bargain, or compromise. It is not the label that defines a group of people, it is rather a set of values, principles, and prescriptions. The two parties diverge on all three counts. They are not going to sit around the fire toasting marshmallows and singing Kumbaya.
The best of them are going to argue why Americans will be better off with their policy proposals; the worst of them will call people names and rely on fear and loathing. Americans will make their choices, good or bad.
Don't waste time worrying about labels--worry about the wisdom of the American voter.
4
The best emphasize Krugman's point about the Clinton Bernie race not being that close:
http://2zflh133zbp5116bt01wv589.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploa...
http://2zflh133zbp5116bt01wv589.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploa...
2
Mitch McConnell said it best
- that the Democratic Party is the party of Big Government,
and the Republican Party is the party of Free Enterprise*.
And that is exactly why I am a Democrat.
There are three words "We the People ..." that start our Constitution. They state who our government is answerable to. The remaining 49 words of the Preamble state very simply and basically why it exists.
Well - increasingly complex & fraught times, and a greater & more diverse people - do demand a larger (role for) Government. It is not nearly as effective as I'd like, and is as unwieldy & afflicted with the perversities of human nature as any other large institution (corporate, religious, union, social, etc). But it is the only institution answerable to every one of us, and the only institution capable of unifying us all in addressing the big issues we are faced with.
Let's consider that Republican party, standing for Free Enterprise. Just two words - "Bottom Line". Those placing Free Enterprise above Government by definition are not concerned at bottom with what is best for any but themselves. Any follow-on verbiage can only reflect all the many different objectives of those interested primarily in their own well-being. Free Enterprise may motivate individuals & even groups to great achievements, but it can not truly address the issues of today's world.
- that the Democratic Party is the party of Big Government,
and the Republican Party is the party of Free Enterprise*.
And that is exactly why I am a Democrat.
There are three words "We the People ..." that start our Constitution. They state who our government is answerable to. The remaining 49 words of the Preamble state very simply and basically why it exists.
Well - increasingly complex & fraught times, and a greater & more diverse people - do demand a larger (role for) Government. It is not nearly as effective as I'd like, and is as unwieldy & afflicted with the perversities of human nature as any other large institution (corporate, religious, union, social, etc). But it is the only institution answerable to every one of us, and the only institution capable of unifying us all in addressing the big issues we are faced with.
Let's consider that Republican party, standing for Free Enterprise. Just two words - "Bottom Line". Those placing Free Enterprise above Government by definition are not concerned at bottom with what is best for any but themselves. Any follow-on verbiage can only reflect all the many different objectives of those interested primarily in their own well-being. Free Enterprise may motivate individuals & even groups to great achievements, but it can not truly address the issues of today's world.
13
Another fair and honest column that will be received by the Sandernistas like pulling the scab off a deep wound that hasn't healed. Whatever.
As maddening as it can seem to be a Democratic at times since we are frequently at each others ideological throats and don't all drink the same progressive Kool-aid like Republicans, I am proud nonetheless that the Democratic party is as close to pure democracy as possible in this current political environment. Where are all those Red Dog Republicans in contrast to the Blue Dog Democrats? They don't exist because of ideological purity which is rotting the Republican party from the inside out.
As maddening as it can seem to be a Democratic at times since we are frequently at each others ideological throats and don't all drink the same progressive Kool-aid like Republicans, I am proud nonetheless that the Democratic party is as close to pure democracy as possible in this current political environment. Where are all those Red Dog Republicans in contrast to the Blue Dog Democrats? They don't exist because of ideological purity which is rotting the Republican party from the inside out.
10
Here comes the judge!
The Clintons have so much money in their coffers it's scary. Wall Street, Walmart, Fossil Fuels, Pharma. In no way does this mean that she won a big victory. The SuperPac and the Democrats general fund was raided to pay for her campaign, that should have been for Congressional races. The Clintons are no walk in the park. Hillary is dangerous for the country.
9
Did you read the article and its supporting information? Bernie spent MORE than Clinton did in the primaries (and gave far less to down-ticket candidates). Both sides are awash in money. That's the system we have. I suggest you read Jane Mayer's "Dark Money" to see where the real danger is. I also have this odd memory of Bill Clinton's presidency as the most peaceful, prosperous years of my adult life, the only years when I was financially secure. May not have been a walk in the park, but at least it wasn't a climb over steep, rocky boulders like the Bush years before and after...
11
Hillary is holding up well because she has people like you cover for her. She does things that another person, a republican, would be daily blasted in the press but she gets a total pass. Ok the NYTimes is a paper of the democrats and she is your candidate so that explains a lot. Imagine if the republican candidate had given 21 million in speeches and refused to release any transcripts? Imagine if the republican candidate had been Secretary of State and used an unsecured server. This paper would have nonstop front page coverage. Imagine if, as Secretary of State, the republican had advised a disastrous invasion of Libya and the country became a haven for terrorists. The press would have been relentless. It is really a tale of how much this paper and people like you will cover up for a democrat candidate even one who has been incompetent in many ways.
12
You are factually incorrect and you are setting a double standard. Trump earned $1.5 million PER SPEECH and has been looking at a presidential run for over a decade as he made those speeches. Where are HIS transcripts? Where are ANY of his tax returns so we can find out about those speeches? Where are the financial records of HIS foundation (yes, he has one).
Clinton's tax returns and the (separate) Clinton Foundation financial information are all publicly available, but she is the one being criticized? Are we living in backwards universe now?
And who is the candidate advocating torture, murderous reprisals against terrorists' families, and singling out a religious minority for special treatment? Who is the candidate that speaks admiringly of despots Putin and Kim Jong Un? I'm supposed to think HE'LL make brilliant foreign policy moves? The mind reels.
Clinton's tax returns and the (separate) Clinton Foundation financial information are all publicly available, but she is the one being criticized? Are we living in backwards universe now?
And who is the candidate advocating torture, murderous reprisals against terrorists' families, and singling out a religious minority for special treatment? Who is the candidate that speaks admiringly of despots Putin and Kim Jong Un? I'm supposed to think HE'LL make brilliant foreign policy moves? The mind reels.
125
The Clintons peddle influence. The speeches themselves are just not that interesting. Speeches are a way of giving money to the Clintons. One thing you say is that the Clintons have evolved from their cattle future days. They are much more sophisticated now.
1
Krugman needs to talk to some of the people in my neighborhood of working class white people who are mostly jobless or working at minimal wage jobs, now that all of the industry that sustained the area for a century has gone abroad, The men, almost to a one, will be voting for Trump. The women, not so much. But almost to a one, they think very poorly of Hillary, and will probably not vote. Bourgeois democrats don't have a clue how the working class of this country lives and thinks. (I still remember with disgust Hillary trying to win over Scranton in 2008 by chugging down alcohol in a bar and waxing lyrical about hunting with her grandfather. Gun-toting Grannie when it is convenient), Bernie won my impoverished county in the primary. Trump will win it in November, if the Republicans don't dump him at the convention.
12
These men likely did not vote for Obama either. And he won.
6
The Democratic Party from 2008 to 2016 has had one purpose in relation to Hillary Clinton, to groom her and support her in her personal career goal of becoming President.
Obama made her Secretary of State in 2008 to give her international experience. It's too bad she was a poor one: a military adventurist in Libya leaving Libya a failed state, a blatant Israeli apologist pushing a possible peace between Israelis and Palestinians farther apart, a strong advocate of the TPP which she later felt the need to repudiate, the State Dept head who either didn't know or care about the document security and record keeping rules of the department she headed.
But none of that matters to the Democratic establishment. She gained the title of "Secretary of State" to add to her resume in her climb up the Democrat Party's career ladder, a ladder held steady for Hillary by the Democratic establishment -- including her husband and, starting in 2008, Obama -- so that she can achieve her personal lifetime career goal of becoming President.
Hillary is the embodiment of a privileged careerist.
Obama made her Secretary of State in 2008 to give her international experience. It's too bad she was a poor one: a military adventurist in Libya leaving Libya a failed state, a blatant Israeli apologist pushing a possible peace between Israelis and Palestinians farther apart, a strong advocate of the TPP which she later felt the need to repudiate, the State Dept head who either didn't know or care about the document security and record keeping rules of the department she headed.
But none of that matters to the Democratic establishment. She gained the title of "Secretary of State" to add to her resume in her climb up the Democrat Party's career ladder, a ladder held steady for Hillary by the Democratic establishment -- including her husband and, starting in 2008, Obama -- so that she can achieve her personal lifetime career goal of becoming President.
Hillary is the embodiment of a privileged careerist.
11
No, the privileged careerists would be the Bushes, born to wealth a.d power, as was Trump. Both Clintons worked their way up. If Hillary could "ride Bill's coattails," it's because SHE made the coat and helped him put it on. Her young lawyer husband didn't start winning elections until she started managing his campaigns.
Newsflash! Everyone who runs for President is an ambitious careerist. The biggest difference between Clinton and EVERY presidential candidate before her is her gender, and a society that approves of ambition, confidence, leadership and strength in men, but harbors deep suspicions of women with those traits, women who actually stand on the threshold of real power and do not defer to men, but compete at thrir level and win.
Newsflash! Everyone who runs for President is an ambitious careerist. The biggest difference between Clinton and EVERY presidential candidate before her is her gender, and a society that approves of ambition, confidence, leadership and strength in men, but harbors deep suspicions of women with those traits, women who actually stand on the threshold of real power and do not defer to men, but compete at thrir level and win.
11
As a former resident of West Berlin I watched the fall of the Berlin Wall on TV from my Arlington residence without getting much sleep.
I always thought it would happen, but probably not during my lifetime
On the other hand, I also did not believe that a man with overt authoritarian and fascist tendencies and tactics could ever become the nominee of one the two parties in my adopted country., and far too many of his party's careerist kissing his ring.
That fact alone robs me of sleep, and won't stop until the nightmare is hopefully over once all the election returns are in on election night.
The outcome of Hillary probably winning the presidency will finally send the grandiosity complex suffering vulgarian-in-chief back to his gaudy penthouse. And may he take many of the careerist Republicans, the onces who created this monster in the first place with their hate-mongering with him to the wake.
I always thought it would happen, but probably not during my lifetime
On the other hand, I also did not believe that a man with overt authoritarian and fascist tendencies and tactics could ever become the nominee of one the two parties in my adopted country., and far too many of his party's careerist kissing his ring.
That fact alone robs me of sleep, and won't stop until the nightmare is hopefully over once all the election returns are in on election night.
The outcome of Hillary probably winning the presidency will finally send the grandiosity complex suffering vulgarian-in-chief back to his gaudy penthouse. And may he take many of the careerist Republicans, the onces who created this monster in the first place with their hate-mongering with him to the wake.
8
Mr. Krugman is a brilliant economist who has had very insightful things to say about the complexity of American politics. Sadly, the latter has been replaced by a simple mantra: Clinton good, Sanders bad. The bigger they are, the harder they fall.
8
When Paul's whole life is buried in envelop jottings it is not that hard to understand the tremendous rush he must get every time he thinks of that glorious time that Hillary said with such glee about Quaddafi "We came, we saw, he's dead."
6
Hillary Clinton won the Democratic nomination fairly easily?! Uh, a middle school kid could look at the NY Times primary map and see that Hillary barely won anywhere outside the Deep South and the upper middle class suburbs of US coastal cities. Bernie pretty much trounced her everywhere else. Her coalition during the primaries? Blacks and comfortable whites (like Mr. Krugman) worried about Bernie taking their money.
11
"Her coalition during the primaries? Blacks and comfortable whites (like Mr. Krugman) worried about Bernie taking their money"
Your comment here implies: 1. That you are neither Black or comfortably White and 2. There is something dishonorable or illegitimate about the "Black and comfortable whites" vote.
I've repeatedly seen Sanders supporters denigrate and insult voters whose only discernible flaw is that they prefer HRC. Your response, which may well be sincere and well-meaning, illustrates my point.
I respect your choice, sir, even if we disagree: that's democracy.
You disrespect mine.
A smart person knows not to burn a bridge you may need to cross later.
Your comment here implies: 1. That you are neither Black or comfortably White and 2. There is something dishonorable or illegitimate about the "Black and comfortable whites" vote.
I've repeatedly seen Sanders supporters denigrate and insult voters whose only discernible flaw is that they prefer HRC. Your response, which may well be sincere and well-meaning, illustrates my point.
I respect your choice, sir, even if we disagree: that's democracy.
You disrespect mine.
A smart person knows not to burn a bridge you may need to cross later.
6
Nope, also financially strapped midfle-aged women like me, with no money to take, and very good reasons to believe that Sanders would be easy to beat in a general election. It was the messenger I rejected, not the message. If Bernie were that scary, the Republicans would have gone after him. They never did, and now they never will. He is no threat to them, and they know it.
7
"Uh, a middle school kid could look at the NY Times primary map and see that Hillary barely won anywhere outside the Deep South and the upper middle class suburbs of US coastal cities. Bernie pretty much trounced her everywhere else."
Michael J.... It would take a middle school kid. I lived in VT for a long time and I love Bernie, but he won states with big areas and small populations, many by caucus rather than true voting. Hillary won it by the votes. And... what's wrong with black votes? It does bother me that Bernie's support was so so white.
Michael J.... It would take a middle school kid. I lived in VT for a long time and I love Bernie, but he won states with big areas and small populations, many by caucus rather than true voting. Hillary won it by the votes. And... what's wrong with black votes? It does bother me that Bernie's support was so so white.
6
Economic elites who’re unpopular fear any popular sentiment as a rule, and it’s in their interest to categorize and then denounce any such sentiment as well as to surround themselves with groups that can serve as stalking horses for other groups to “go after” all the while claiming to protect the former from the latter. In that sense, the Democratic establishment did a better job this year so far.
3
I have heard enough of these Republicans bad Democrats good story. If the Republicans are so bad and us so good, why did we lose the House then the Senate? Following that trend, I would not be too surprised if we lose the White House also, as reality defying as it may be. Instead of talking about American exceptionalism, we should be talking about American stupidity.
2
Doodle, read Jane Mayer's exceklent and well-researched book "Dark Money" if you really want some answers to your questions.
2
Nailed it!
6
Hillary arranged to have unelected delegates in place to appoint her against the popular vote. Trump will win the election because of it.
4
Huh? That certainly isn't how it worked out in 2008, when Obama did the same thing as Bernie. The difference? Obama ran a much better campaign than Clinton's, and won more pledged delegates, whereupon the superdelegates switched to him. Clinton took responsibility for her 2008 loss, learned from it, and changed the way she campaigned. In 2016, she ran an excellent campaign while Bernie was late to the race, disorganized, and wrote off the deep south. This time she won far more pledged delegates than her rival, despite the anti-Clinton press Krugman wrote about here.
Bernie Sanders has seemed incapable of acknowledging his own failures and learning from them; he blames anyone but himself. Clinton will win the general election as she won the primary -- because she worked for it, conducted a strong campaign and earned the votes. I know it's frustrating when the facts don't fit your narrative, Laughingdragon, but the facts are obstinate things.
Bernie Sanders has seemed incapable of acknowledging his own failures and learning from them; he blames anyone but himself. Clinton will win the general election as she won the primary -- because she worked for it, conducted a strong campaign and earned the votes. I know it's frustrating when the facts don't fit your narrative, Laughingdragon, but the facts are obstinate things.
8
Do the editors of the NYT ever get sick and tired of you writing the same thing over and over again? The election starts in September, maybe you could write something with legitimate references regarding something you are supposed to know about, like trade. Otherwise, you have become a tired old man and have become quite boring.
7
Actually, Mr. Krugman, she barely beat Bernie. The pledged delegate differences between Hillary and Obama, over time, versus Hillary and Bernie are equivalent. The graphic analysis that NYT has linked to probably twenty articles is statistical fraud. The greater spread between Hillary and Bernie can be mostly attributed to her higher level of super delegate support, compared to the situation in 2008. The fine lines are meaningful in this chart - not the bold ones that NYT wants us to focus on. This shouldn't even be a two-parameter graph, since the X-axis contains no candidate-specific data. It only represents the time between the contests, which increases over the nomination process producing the appearance of an increasing spread between the two candidates' levels of support. This is scientifically irresponsible and, in fact, manipulative.
Concerning the popular vole, the 3 million plus votes that separate Hillary and Bernie (which excludes a number of caucus states) is fairly insignificant when one considers that the voting population of the country is over 235 million. This represents only 1.6 percent of that number (or around 3% of the typical, actual voting population). Part of the reason we use delegates is because the sample size for the nomination, here over 27 million, is too small and non-representative for the country's voting population. If these primaries and caucuses were all "open", i.e. no voter suppression, then Bernie would have likely won.
Concerning the popular vole, the 3 million plus votes that separate Hillary and Bernie (which excludes a number of caucus states) is fairly insignificant when one considers that the voting population of the country is over 235 million. This represents only 1.6 percent of that number (or around 3% of the typical, actual voting population). Part of the reason we use delegates is because the sample size for the nomination, here over 27 million, is too small and non-representative for the country's voting population. If these primaries and caucuses were all "open", i.e. no voter suppression, then Bernie would have likely won.
9
My parents had a proverb from the old country that applies here: "...and if your grandma had wheels, she'd be a bicycle."
4
Paul Krugman, whose macro economics insight, I almost always agree with, has developed a very bad habit lately of trying to publicly shame Bernie Sanders because he ran a very effective campaign against Mrs. Clinton. Today, he tries to minimize the significance of the number of votes cast in Sanders' favor in his run against Mrs. Clinton, implying as he has for weeks, that Sanders was nothing more than a nuisance whose presence required Clinton--who would have been ordained President at the high mass of a nominating convention had it not been for Sander's effective campaigning--to spend a lot of time and money forcing to work to show why she deserved to be President of the United States.
Besides giving Sanders a little respect--he deserves that at least--I suggest his publicly pronounced attitude toward Sanders is akin to the unctious, sanctimonious attitude Krugman today says has destroyed the GOP as an institution of American politics.
Unless the Democratic Party can show that it is willing to reform itself at the top and the mid-level, get rid of "super delegates" who the party insiders use as a back of the track way to get an parly their position on the horserace, the Democrats will be unable to exercise its powers in a way that benefit both the insiders and the outsiders together, and then the nation.
Just a little respect for Sanders and his legions is all that's required.
Besides giving Sanders a little respect--he deserves that at least--I suggest his publicly pronounced attitude toward Sanders is akin to the unctious, sanctimonious attitude Krugman today says has destroyed the GOP as an institution of American politics.
Unless the Democratic Party can show that it is willing to reform itself at the top and the mid-level, get rid of "super delegates" who the party insiders use as a back of the track way to get an parly their position on the horserace, the Democrats will be unable to exercise its powers in a way that benefit both the insiders and the outsiders together, and then the nation.
Just a little respect for Sanders and his legions is all that's required.
7
Trump won the Republican nomination because of three things. First, he ran against a large field of candidates and so was able to win with far less than a majority of votes. Second, many states have set their races so that the winner takes all or most, allowing Trump to pull even further ahead, even faster. But, (third!), he won because they media both fixated on him and refused to take his chances of winning the nomination seriously until it was too late.
The first two factors won't matter in a general election. It simply doesn't work that way. But the third could still happen. Trump remains a threat until the votes are counted and someone else has won.
The first two factors won't matter in a general election. It simply doesn't work that way. But the third could still happen. Trump remains a threat until the votes are counted and someone else has won.
2
Democrats didn't show up at the polls in the years when there was not a vote for President. We lost the majority in the Senate and the House. We're electing a President this year, and the Republican Party is floundering.
Let's hope we can retake not only the Senate but the House. Then, go Hillary! Go Democrats!!!! In the absence of that, why would it be reasonable to believe we won't have 4 or 8 years of "we won't back anything Hillary wants"? I see less a Republican Party and a Democratic Party at the national level than special interests and the rich versus the rest of us.
Let's hope we can retake not only the Senate but the House. Then, go Hillary! Go Democrats!!!! In the absence of that, why would it be reasonable to believe we won't have 4 or 8 years of "we won't back anything Hillary wants"? I see less a Republican Party and a Democratic Party at the national level than special interests and the rich versus the rest of us.
5
"Also, Mrs. Clinton faced immense, bizarre hostility from the news media."
Hilarious.
A. NY Times endorsed Hillary Clinton and blatantly skewed its coverage in her favor, including the infamous stealth-editing of what was originally a pro-Sanders article.
B. CNN is owned by Time Warner, which is one of Hillary Clinton's biggest campaign donors.
C. MSNBC has continuously pimped Hillary's super-delegate lead to hammer down any sense that Bernie Sanders was a serious contender.
D. The Washington Post infamously published 16 negative stories about Sanders in 16 hours.
E. NOBODY in the mainstream liberal media has investigated the arms deals under Clinton's State Department to authoritarian regimes that donated to the Clinton Foundation.
F. NOBODY in the mainstream liberal media has investigated how deep the ties run between noxious lobbyists and the Clinton campaign.
G. NOBODY in the mainstream liberal media has investigated how deep the ties run between Clinton operatives and the Panama papers.
If 84 percent of Clinton coverage was negative, it's because most of her much-ballyhooed experience produced negative results.
And if the mainstream liberal media were doing its job objectively, that number would be a heck of a lot higher.
Krugman remains intellectually dishonest to his core.
Hilarious.
A. NY Times endorsed Hillary Clinton and blatantly skewed its coverage in her favor, including the infamous stealth-editing of what was originally a pro-Sanders article.
B. CNN is owned by Time Warner, which is one of Hillary Clinton's biggest campaign donors.
C. MSNBC has continuously pimped Hillary's super-delegate lead to hammer down any sense that Bernie Sanders was a serious contender.
D. The Washington Post infamously published 16 negative stories about Sanders in 16 hours.
E. NOBODY in the mainstream liberal media has investigated the arms deals under Clinton's State Department to authoritarian regimes that donated to the Clinton Foundation.
F. NOBODY in the mainstream liberal media has investigated how deep the ties run between noxious lobbyists and the Clinton campaign.
G. NOBODY in the mainstream liberal media has investigated how deep the ties run between Clinton operatives and the Panama papers.
If 84 percent of Clinton coverage was negative, it's because most of her much-ballyhooed experience produced negative results.
And if the mainstream liberal media were doing its job objectively, that number would be a heck of a lot higher.
Krugman remains intellectually dishonest to his core.
16
Well if Senator Sanders had actually accomplished anything in his decades long stretch in office maybe The New York Times would have endorsed him.
As it stands The New Yoek Times perfers candidates who have actuaopu accomplished something.
I'm not saying Senator Sanders renaming that Vermont Post Office wasn't important it just pales in comparison to what Secretary Clinton has accomplished in her career.
But, after watching how pathetic Senator Sanders has become after losing the nomination The New York Times was clearly correct in backing HRC.
As it stands The New Yoek Times perfers candidates who have actuaopu accomplished something.
I'm not saying Senator Sanders renaming that Vermont Post Office wasn't important it just pales in comparison to what Secretary Clinton has accomplished in her career.
But, after watching how pathetic Senator Sanders has become after losing the nomination The New York Times was clearly correct in backing HRC.
12
Funny Bob from R.I. that you mentioned accomplishments. Please list Hillary's for me. I know she has an impressive resume but can't think of more accomplishments than failures. Help out.
1
If HRC becomes POTUS it will be with a broken wing. And not because of her email server. She represents and dutifully supports wholeheartedly the failed foreign policy blunders of GWB and BHO in the ME. Look for more bloodletting there and an ever widening gap in our troubled relationship with Russia. Her neocon approach to foreign policy and neoliberal economic beliefs, if not reconsidered, will be disastrous for this nation and the world.
9
Oh that's not fair.
Yes, Secretary Clinton voted to invade Iraq.
She did so because her President and his cabinet assured her and the American People that Iraq having WMD was a, say it with me, "SLAM DUNK"!
And she was wrong.
But the good thing is that nobody on Earth trusts anything the right says these days.
But, in her drfense, if I was told by my W that Iraq had WMD including weaponized Uranium I'd have voted to invade as well and I can't stand George W. AWOL.
Yes, Secretary Clinton voted to invade Iraq.
She did so because her President and his cabinet assured her and the American People that Iraq having WMD was a, say it with me, "SLAM DUNK"!
And she was wrong.
But the good thing is that nobody on Earth trusts anything the right says these days.
But, in her drfense, if I was told by my W that Iraq had WMD including weaponized Uranium I'd have voted to invade as well and I can't stand George W. AWOL.
7
We can see that you're in love, Bob. Do you believe Obama was wrong for not supporting the war? Again, some accomplished successes from your girlfriend please.
Politics, politics, politics … a power struggle on the surface of society, demanding our attention and participation. Truthfully, politics is a sideshow. Much like words are not the “things itself” but merely representative of what they attempt to define, we should acknowledge the limitations of politics.
This society needs enlightened responses, good decisions and workable solutions, regardless of their political party of origin.
This society needs enlightened responses, good decisions and workable solutions, regardless of their political party of origin.
1
The national discussion about fundamental challenges in the USA and “a future to be believe in” is leading to a progressive movement that may end up into a viable third party of progressives for 2020 depending how well the Clinton administration will respond to the justified demand raised by the Sanders campaign.
I believe that the 1912 platform of the National Progressive Party of Theodore Roosevelt (TR) could be a starting point for the construction of the 2016 Democratic platform, including its statement on credit or money creation. That plank would reclaim the sole right of the public authorities to create money from the privately owned banking systems which would become utitlies.
I would like to see a powerful third party in the US by 2020 that would adopt public banking as one of its main planks. It would draw progressives in the Green, Liberal, Socialist and Working Family Parties and get at least 15% of the voting population. This third party that may be called the US National Progressive Party would be an outgrowth of the Sanders campaign beyond its breaking up big banks.
In final instance, the challenge of transforming the international monetary system is the international extension of such US third party. The conceptual, institutional, ethical and strategic dimensions of such transformed system are presented in Verhagen 2012 "The Tierra Solution: Resolving the climate crisis through monetary transformation" and updated at www.timun.net .
I believe that the 1912 platform of the National Progressive Party of Theodore Roosevelt (TR) could be a starting point for the construction of the 2016 Democratic platform, including its statement on credit or money creation. That plank would reclaim the sole right of the public authorities to create money from the privately owned banking systems which would become utitlies.
I would like to see a powerful third party in the US by 2020 that would adopt public banking as one of its main planks. It would draw progressives in the Green, Liberal, Socialist and Working Family Parties and get at least 15% of the voting population. This third party that may be called the US National Progressive Party would be an outgrowth of the Sanders campaign beyond its breaking up big banks.
In final instance, the challenge of transforming the international monetary system is the international extension of such US third party. The conceptual, institutional, ethical and strategic dimensions of such transformed system are presented in Verhagen 2012 "The Tierra Solution: Resolving the climate crisis through monetary transformation" and updated at www.timun.net .
3
There is a new three-show TV project on Trump. The major papers run 16 articles a day on Trump. Cable TV is all Trump all the time.
The only time Hillary Clinton can likely get a headline is when she wins the election in November.
As for the Republicans, if they can't run an election, they can't run the country.
The only time Hillary Clinton can likely get a headline is when she wins the election in November.
As for the Republicans, if they can't run an election, they can't run the country.
3
We are watching the death of the Republican party. The same way that it came into modern existence with Lincoln, this will be its end.
Nixon was the beginning of the end when he helped to flip the south on the race issue.
The Republicans lost their populist way and turned toward taking care of the one percent. They had people voting against their own interests by linking devastating economic decimation of the working class with social conservative causes like abortion and LGBT rights. There is only so long you can treat your base with such utter disdain.
Though today I am a democrat, in reality I am a 1950's 60's Republican. Here is what I want. Good roads. Good Public Schools. Real opportunity for economic advancement. Keep an eye on the military industrial complex. Top tax bracket 90%. As long as it doesn't involve children, keep you nose out of my life.
I'm looking forward to the next iteration.
Nixon was the beginning of the end when he helped to flip the south on the race issue.
The Republicans lost their populist way and turned toward taking care of the one percent. They had people voting against their own interests by linking devastating economic decimation of the working class with social conservative causes like abortion and LGBT rights. There is only so long you can treat your base with such utter disdain.
Though today I am a democrat, in reality I am a 1950's 60's Republican. Here is what I want. Good roads. Good Public Schools. Real opportunity for economic advancement. Keep an eye on the military industrial complex. Top tax bracket 90%. As long as it doesn't involve children, keep you nose out of my life.
I'm looking forward to the next iteration.
5
I hope Ms Clinton will not be as loathe to deliver knockout punches as Pres Obama. This apparent policy of tolerance for the intolerant, the propagandists, liars, demagogues, the predators, the plunderers, people who think it's OK to treat prisoners as the Evil North Koreans apparently treated American soldiers (not to mention their own population, naturally) and especially those who believe it is their privilege to not have to detoxify their waste products before dumping them in public waters, on public lands, and in places where they merge with our aquifers (a privilege denied the rest of us). That policy of tolerance for major offenses to American ideals had better end right now.
And Dems had better learn to promote their successes (and place the blame for obstruction of further success) squarely where it belongs, rather than run away from successes because they have generated controversy.
Krugman is right that Obama and the Dems have delivered very significant advances against scorched earth opposition. But in this area the Dems, Obama in particular, have been dismal.
Let's hope Sanders shook up the spineless and clueless who retreat into a kind of helplessness in the face of the GOP Propaganda and Slime Machine.
California had enough of GOP fraud and intransigence some time ago, and we're doing OK on the whole. Kansas, not so well. If the situation were reversed the GOP would make sure that the American Independent Party and the Greens would both out-poll Dems.
And Dems had better learn to promote their successes (and place the blame for obstruction of further success) squarely where it belongs, rather than run away from successes because they have generated controversy.
Krugman is right that Obama and the Dems have delivered very significant advances against scorched earth opposition. But in this area the Dems, Obama in particular, have been dismal.
Let's hope Sanders shook up the spineless and clueless who retreat into a kind of helplessness in the face of the GOP Propaganda and Slime Machine.
California had enough of GOP fraud and intransigence some time ago, and we're doing OK on the whole. Kansas, not so well. If the situation were reversed the GOP would make sure that the American Independent Party and the Greens would both out-poll Dems.
4
Unfortunately the triumphalism of Paul Krugman has little to sustain it; far better he stick to economics. The Republican narrative for Trump's defeat is already written; a charlatan, taking advantage of the country's many woes and grievous circumstances, mocked our pain. A real Republican would have mopped the floor with the Democrats so we must mobilize our forces at all levels for 2018 and 2020. The organizational resources and messaging systems are in place so it is merely a matter of purging false prophets. Indeed were I a senior Republican strategist I would be helping this narrative along. The party has a roadmap for frustrating progressive efforts and knows it can through some sops to Clinton in the form of concessions on culture wars (since all real Republicans care about are tax cuts and deregulation). She will weaken controls over banking and financial manipulation in turn for some feel-good triumphs to offer her sympathizers. In the name of comity she will appoint a moderate to the Supreme Court. She will look to muzzle the progressive side of the Democratic Party.....a strong reason to DISCOURAGE Elizabeth Warren from seeking the Vice Presidency.....and lament the need to spend heavily on weapons systems impotent against ISIL and similar adversaries. Long-game Republicans understand this very well and are willing to risk a Trump loss because there is no serious downside for them. Some might seek to nominate the strongest Republican of them all = Hillary Clinton.
8
It's the pomposity that shows ya what's up.
1
Karl? Karl Rove? is that you?
You little scamp, you never change
You little scamp, you never change
4
usa999: Said like a real Bernie Buster.
3
>>she won the popular vote by double digits.
So, she won by 99 votes at the most? Pretty sloppy writing there Paul (rest of the article is great).
So, she won by 99 votes at the most? Pretty sloppy writing there Paul (rest of the article is great).
1
I believe Paul was referring to the % not the actual number.
1
No. By 10% or more.
1
Err..double digits means double digits in percentage terms. Like 10% or more.
1
Hillary against Trump. Death by hanging or by drowning. Voter turnout will be by far the lowest in history, something like 40-50%, and Trump will win.
8
Actually it won't He won't
1
Actually Hillary won by quite a large margin. Most other opponents would have dropped out right after the New York primary Bernie Sanders being the egotists he is could not take no for an answer.
He thinks his message and his followers are special. So special that he's willing to risk Hillary losing to Donald Trump. He then will take no responsibility and will be blaming Hillary. He has poisoned the water for her And made it harder for her to win. I have absolutely no respect for Bernie. It's a much smaller man that he pretends to be.
He thinks his message and his followers are special. So special that he's willing to risk Hillary losing to Donald Trump. He then will take no responsibility and will be blaming Hillary. He has poisoned the water for her And made it harder for her to win. I have absolutely no respect for Bernie. It's a much smaller man that he pretends to be.
30
Very tired logic.
16
Amazing. He has helped set the agenda and has energized the Democrat base. The effect of his candidacy is just the opposite of what you post.
Amongst all the candidates both Republicsn and Democrat he is an outlier in that he is not narcissistic. He has taken up a cause larger than himself. And he is not a roadie to the corporations.
Amongst all the candidates both Republicsn and Democrat he is an outlier in that he is not narcissistic. He has taken up a cause larger than himself. And he is not a roadie to the corporations.
4
Ridiculous. He has made her and the party stronger. Any Dem hold outs for Sanders will be like children holding their breath to get their way. No way a Sanders supporter will let Trump win. And I am a Sanders supporter.
1
Could the campaign of Trump, long a Democrat, be a stealth vehicle to euthanize the Republican Party? Its economic policies have degraded the economic well-being of the country for several decades, and the party deludes itself that it has respectable principles. Trump has peeled off the veneer of pretense pedaled by Republican elites.
5
Yes. You got it. I have posted this analysis many times but I assume you came up with this thought independently.
could the campaign of Hillary, long a closet Republican, be a stealth vehicle to euthanize the Democratic Party?
1
"But the various groups making up the party’s coalition really care about and believe in their positions — they’re not just saying what the Koch brothers pay them to say."
this comment hits at the exact core of Democrats vs Republicans. No sane person could possibly back the NRA unless they were being paid to do so. Nor could anyone realistically argue that less, not more, regulation on the financial/banking industry would be good for our economy. Anyone who was alive in 2008 would know better.
No, the only reason Republicans walk in lock step is they have been paid to do so.
this comment hits at the exact core of Democrats vs Republicans. No sane person could possibly back the NRA unless they were being paid to do so. Nor could anyone realistically argue that less, not more, regulation on the financial/banking industry would be good for our economy. Anyone who was alive in 2008 would know better.
No, the only reason Republicans walk in lock step is they have been paid to do so.
15
One can speak of alleged crimes but not "alleged scandals". Especially when Clinton still has a chance to be indicted for her trashing of the nation's secrecy laws. Trump is a fairly ridiculous candidate but Hillary is more a criminal than Nixon ever was. Hold your nose and take your pick.
12
So your argument is that everything just alleged, but Clinton's a criminal?
Ha ha Robert. Ridiculous is how you sound. Far fetched is you prediction. And far from reality is your comments about Hillary. She could eat you alive. Too bad they didn't add you to the Benghazi hearings. She could have added you to the clown car. You don't need a ticket just get on board. lol
5
Trump is a liar, a fool, arrogant, and incredibly self-centered. He is far more dangerous than Clinton.
2
Trump has already named his price to get out of the race - $5 Billion. I say that is cheap! Indeed, if we doubled that amount to ensure he shuts-up (including taking away his Twitter account), that would be an even greater bargain. It would only cost each one of us about what Bernie received from each donor - $27.00. How about if, America? It is cheaper to pay him off now before he truly costs us Trillions in damage to this country.
As for the GOP, nothing can save them. I just hope we do not need to be saved from them again.
As for the GOP, nothing can save them. I just hope we do not need to be saved from them again.
8
When one strips all this right wing anti-Clinton propaganda, all what remains is a capable and competent politician who can more than carry Obama's legacy. One major difference between Trump and Clinton is, that almost all the crazy stuff we know about Trump is true.
I firmly believe in gradual progress and hope more liberals will realize this and support it. We have achieved a lot last 7 years and can achieve much more next 8 years. One thing for sure, whether we achieve more or less will depend on the composition of Congress, and let's not forget the lesson of 2010.
I firmly believe in gradual progress and hope more liberals will realize this and support it. We have achieved a lot last 7 years and can achieve much more next 8 years. One thing for sure, whether we achieve more or less will depend on the composition of Congress, and let's not forget the lesson of 2010.
30
She is the most qualified candidate in our lifetime.
Bernie and all his pods are such poor losers they can't even congratulate her for the momentous achievement. there is no other woman in the world that could do this. She has now opened the door to woman forever.
Young women in the Bernie campaign don't know how lucky the are.
This is a woman for the ages.
Bernie and all his pods are such poor losers they can't even congratulate her for the momentous achievement. there is no other woman in the world that could do this. She has now opened the door to woman forever.
Young women in the Bernie campaign don't know how lucky the are.
This is a woman for the ages.
11
GOP leaders and big donors deserve to get Trump. But people dont.. Democrats must sincerely consider ways which are pragmatic and yet workable for those who are very much hit by recent developments (eg coal miners, students and retirees). So they can see lights at the end of the tunnel and can get rid of Trump..
5
"I’m not saying that its members are angels, which they aren’t. Some, no doubt, are personally corrupt"
You have to look no farther than Illinois to see how corruption and cronyism can ruin the live of many citizens. Your belief that the liberal agenda cannot be corrupted or carries no risks to the population is seriously questionable when you see the suffering middle class workers in Illinois that have believed all of the hollow promises of the Democrats and Unions over the past 20 years. A healthy opposition is critical to long term success and when it is absent bad things will happen and they have here. Our nation cannot afford to make these same mistakes.
You have to look no farther than Illinois to see how corruption and cronyism can ruin the live of many citizens. Your belief that the liberal agenda cannot be corrupted or carries no risks to the population is seriously questionable when you see the suffering middle class workers in Illinois that have believed all of the hollow promises of the Democrats and Unions over the past 20 years. A healthy opposition is critical to long term success and when it is absent bad things will happen and they have here. Our nation cannot afford to make these same mistakes.
5
Could you 'splain how in the world you managed to get a statement that "some...are personally corrupt," to say "none have ever done a thing wrong?"
he believes they cant be corrupted and you quote him saying the opposite? You're a real republican
Many of us want to think the Republican Party has no future thanks to the artificial divide of the culture wars and trickle-down economics started by Ronald Reagan and defended and promoted all these years by the right-wing think tanks and right-wing media.
But a lot of state legislatures will remain in the hands of Republicans. Gerrymandering will continue to give them a disproportionate number in the US House and the number of small Republican states will continue to give them 40 US Senate votes to filibuster.
Most of those Republican politicians and their Tea Party and Evangelical voters have no need to change just because Republicans can't win the presidency.
But a lot of state legislatures will remain in the hands of Republicans. Gerrymandering will continue to give them a disproportionate number in the US House and the number of small Republican states will continue to give them 40 US Senate votes to filibuster.
Most of those Republican politicians and their Tea Party and Evangelical voters have no need to change just because Republicans can't win the presidency.
5
The system is rigged and the fix was in from the start. How else could he lose?
This is believed by many who supported Bernie Sanders and he continues to exploit their cynicism and use it as leverage. This is his swan song.
The only threat from his candidacy was that he would split the vote by running as an Independent. There's unwarranted concern about his supporters sitting it out. If they do they will have made themselves irrelevant and their negative rants are laughable.
This is believed by many who supported Bernie Sanders and he continues to exploit their cynicism and use it as leverage. This is his swan song.
The only threat from his candidacy was that he would split the vote by running as an Independent. There's unwarranted concern about his supporters sitting it out. If they do they will have made themselves irrelevant and their negative rants are laughable.
8
Their rants are already laughable.
2
Any "news" involving Donald Trump should be labeled "For Entertainment Purposes Only!"
2
Why are you and the NYT so blind? Trump gained two points in national polls after Orlando. No, I don't like it, but it's true. You count your chickens too soon.
You, and Clinton, should be much more afraid of Trump.
And instead of spitting on us Sanders supporters, try inviting us in. Clinton came out in favor of expanding Social Security recently, but ignored the key point to such an expansion, viz. raising benefits for the poorest recipients.
If she keeps making mistakes like this, she will lose us, those of us who are undecided. We demand that the Democratic Party move leftward to where it was before Bill Clinton.
And your suggestion that Clinton, of all the candidates, received the most unfavorable press is ludicrous. The NYT, when it has deigned to cover Senator Sanders, has twice weekly Bernie bashing fests. And you NEVER allow comments on articles or editorials about Sanders.
We seem to be in an economic slowdown that will surely benefit Trump.
It is Clinton and you who need to unite the party. Fail to do so at your peril.
You, and Clinton, should be much more afraid of Trump.
And instead of spitting on us Sanders supporters, try inviting us in. Clinton came out in favor of expanding Social Security recently, but ignored the key point to such an expansion, viz. raising benefits for the poorest recipients.
If she keeps making mistakes like this, she will lose us, those of us who are undecided. We demand that the Democratic Party move leftward to where it was before Bill Clinton.
And your suggestion that Clinton, of all the candidates, received the most unfavorable press is ludicrous. The NYT, when it has deigned to cover Senator Sanders, has twice weekly Bernie bashing fests. And you NEVER allow comments on articles or editorials about Sanders.
We seem to be in an economic slowdown that will surely benefit Trump.
It is Clinton and you who need to unite the party. Fail to do so at your peril.
13
Bernie Sanders people have inferiority complexes.
A fish rots from the head down. Their whole campaign is rotted through and through. All there's left is empty threats.
What can you think of people who will cut off their noses to spite their face.
A fish rots from the head down. Their whole campaign is rotted through and through. All there's left is empty threats.
What can you think of people who will cut off their noses to spite their face.
13
First, not true. And I mean all of it.
Here're the voting averages after Orlando.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/pres_general/
See the blue letters and numbers?
Second, you're ON a comment thread that discusses Sanders. And it's silly to say that comments are never allowed on them: what's happening is, you "know," so you don't go look.
Good grief.
Here're the voting averages after Orlando.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/pres_general/
See the blue letters and numbers?
Second, you're ON a comment thread that discusses Sanders. And it's silly to say that comments are never allowed on them: what's happening is, you "know," so you don't go look.
Good grief.
6
you need to join the party and register as democratic member to have a voice. you don't make the commitment to join and work for the party, yet you complain. well , maybe this isn't for you.
7
As is so often the case, the most outlandish comments and actions (and apparently, candidate) receive the most attention.
Unfortunately, we have a populace that has been sedated by "reality T.V."
and do not see the harm in a snake oil salesman like Trump.
Unfortunately, we have a populace that has been sedated by "reality T.V."
and do not see the harm in a snake oil salesman like Trump.
3
Hmmm...another trip to Krugman's alternative universe. Party dysfunction at the grassroots level is almost a mirror image. Ask Bernie.
6
If there was negative coverage of Clinton, it sure didn't flow through The New York Times. Negative coverage of Sanders, on the other hand, was on the daily menu here. When a slightly positive story about Sanders was accidentally published, the editorial staff here quickly revised it to make it negative.
To the extent that the respective "establishment" of the two major parties are at all different, how they are the same is all that really matters. The establishment of both parties is unified in their dependence and service to corporate cash. No op-ed space is given here at the Times for this viewpoint. Robert Reich is lucky if the Times will publish his "Letter to the Editor", which only happened for the first time last week.
Yes, the vast majority of the 45% of Democratic Primary Voters who did not vote for Clinton will get in line to support her for another 8 years of status-quo corporate-managed government. This is because, as Bill Clinton asked some 20 years ago, "Where else are they gonna go"?
To the extent that the respective "establishment" of the two major parties are at all different, how they are the same is all that really matters. The establishment of both parties is unified in their dependence and service to corporate cash. No op-ed space is given here at the Times for this viewpoint. Robert Reich is lucky if the Times will publish his "Letter to the Editor", which only happened for the first time last week.
Yes, the vast majority of the 45% of Democratic Primary Voters who did not vote for Clinton will get in line to support her for another 8 years of status-quo corporate-managed government. This is because, as Bill Clinton asked some 20 years ago, "Where else are they gonna go"?
13
My bet is they will stay home (or the equivalent voting downticket only) and the Green party will see a bump.
4
Like true trump fans Bernie people have a hard time with facts.
10
"alleged scandals"? Clinton is the subject of a criminal investigation by the FBI (NYT) "allegedly" for:
1. Espionage Act violations - gross negligence in handling classified info
2. Racketeering - Clinton foundation donations beget favors from State Department, see Rajiv Fernando and ISAB, many others
3. Obstruction of Justice - destroying emails to cover #1 and #2 above.
I've been a Democrat activist for over 20 years, the overt pressure on Super Delegates and party functionaries to support Clinton totally contradicts this column.
1. Espionage Act violations - gross negligence in handling classified info
2. Racketeering - Clinton foundation donations beget favors from State Department, see Rajiv Fernando and ISAB, many others
3. Obstruction of Justice - destroying emails to cover #1 and #2 above.
I've been a Democrat activist for over 20 years, the overt pressure on Super Delegates and party functionaries to support Clinton totally contradicts this column.
13
The Bern's and the Donald's stands on gun control, all by themselves, convince me we need the Hillz in the White House...only she is tough enough, boys and girls!
8
I don't understand why so many columnists (and Facebook friends) find release in painting Hillary as a victim. Do we want a president we need to feel sorry for? Really?
Another thing I can't understand is how Bernie's self-funding accomplishment is skipped over as insignificant or even as amusing. He put the lie to those who claim that those billionaires are necessary if you want to win. We overturned Citizens United all by ourselves. For this achievement, Bernie supporters are ridiculed. What is achieved by that?
Another thing I can't understand is how Bernie's self-funding accomplishment is skipped over as insignificant or even as amusing. He put the lie to those who claim that those billionaires are necessary if you want to win. We overturned Citizens United all by ourselves. For this achievement, Bernie supporters are ridiculed. What is achieved by that?
12
Oh yes lets feel sorry for the strongest and smartest woman in the universe.
She beat every man in the world for this job. My sympathies indeed.
She beat every man in the world for this job. My sympathies indeed.
4
Ain't love grand, Mick? The strongest and smartest woman? And in the entire universe?
1
Most rot is from the inside out and when detected it is too late.
3
Paul Krugman, could you and people like you PLEASE stop with this partisan nonsense? This country is in trouble, and it somehow always seems that its more important to score points against the other party than talk about the issues as they are. This partisanship is the same garbage that Republicans were spewing during the first clinton era and I certainly believe that both sides are equally "to blame". The gerrymandering is obviously radicalizing both sides. I would hazard to guess that the majority of americans care for neither party and are aghast and horrified that a few hardcore radicals are fighting each other for control of this sinking ship.
I would propose the following -
1) no more gerrymandering - districts should be divided up by grids by population only.
2) We need to expand the number of parties in this country. PLEASE could some wealthy individuals put a few hundred million into founding one or two new parties (blindly -- put it into a "democracy fund" that new parties can dip into to) that can compete on the national level.
3) Or alternatively, ban all money from all politics, create a national democracy fund that all parties have to apply for funding from.
4) Consider a change (or additional seats) for proportional representation so that votes are not wasted -- right now, if your party loses, you complete lose. In a proportional representative setting, the minority still gets representatives (just less) in every district.
I would propose the following -
1) no more gerrymandering - districts should be divided up by grids by population only.
2) We need to expand the number of parties in this country. PLEASE could some wealthy individuals put a few hundred million into founding one or two new parties (blindly -- put it into a "democracy fund" that new parties can dip into to) that can compete on the national level.
3) Or alternatively, ban all money from all politics, create a national democracy fund that all parties have to apply for funding from.
4) Consider a change (or additional seats) for proportional representation so that votes are not wasted -- right now, if your party loses, you complete lose. In a proportional representative setting, the minority still gets representatives (just less) in every district.
7
The still somewhat unresolved question is who is pulling the strings in conservative movement. These 10-20 millions of Trump supporters in primaries, who also were the core of the Republican Party and conservative movement, have been conditioned for this very occasion. They were fed lies and prepped for voting GOP when, at the same time, the GOP platform was hurting them immensely. It is somewhat surprising that these voters started to direct their hatred also against GOP establishment, particularly that these same voters supported all those toxic congressional antics last 7 years, which have hurt them economically. As much as we know the usual anti-liberal and anti-progressive hatred of these folks was partially organic and amplified by right wing radio/internet/Fox, is this new anti-GOP establishment hatred purely organic? Have this folks realized that GOP is not representing them and the emergence of Trump was the perfect vehicle to express those sentiments? If so what is the role of right wing radio/internet/fox in all this? Are they directing this shift, or are just as surprised as the GOP establishment, and try to ride it?
It will be interesting to see this phenomenon evolving, particularly that the protest sentiment is still based in large part on racism, bigotry and xenophobia on one hand, and on economic grievances on the other. They still seem to embrace at least part of the GOP economic platform, however, the cracks are showing as we speak.
It will be interesting to see this phenomenon evolving, particularly that the protest sentiment is still based in large part on racism, bigotry and xenophobia on one hand, and on economic grievances on the other. They still seem to embrace at least part of the GOP economic platform, however, the cracks are showing as we speak.
2
I don't think the Democrat establishment should become too comfortable. After the surge of Sanders, clearly cracks are starting to show. The younger voters should start moving in a different direction and not just settle for incrementalism.
8
They'll grow up soon. They don't know how easy they have it.
Trump would teach them a lesson or two.
Trump would teach them a lesson or two.
4
Trump's success so far hinges, oddly enough, on Obama's successes as president and the way that Republicans's have ramped up hatred among white voters in response. The Rpublican establishment really had no way to fight Trump because he has, after all, just preempted their own policies. They have been conning their bad for years; they just ran up against a better grifter. our hope, to paraphrase Lincoln, is that he cannot fool enough people for long enough to win the general election.
1
This column contains propaganda: Did Sanders outspend Clinton? *Only* if you ignore the super PACs supporting Clinton.
Trump gets the most free media ($1,898,000) when compared to Clinton ($746,000) and Sanders ($321,000). So Hillary gets more than double the free media (and Trump get six times more) than Sanders, and Sanders still manages to get a respectable showing! (source: http://www.idafrica.ng/9-marketing-lessons-for-brands-from-donald-trumps...
Clinton's "victory" includes vote suppression and media collusion. It's one thing to cover a candidate's scandals and potential illegal behavior, and another to ignore the candidate entirely, which is what happened to Sanders (see free media above).
As for active vote suppression: AP announces Clinton has won (by one delegate) the nomination on the eve of California's primary.
The two major parties differ about whether we should be an inclusive society or not, but agree substantially that it's fine if 1% of the population controls 90% of the stuff in the economy.
Bernie's real victory is keeping focus on the injustice of inequality in American society. Obama talked about cutting Social Security. Now he's saying we must expand Social Security benefits.
Given how little money and name recognition Bernie had when he began, yes Hillary *did* barely turn back the insurgency. I wouldn't get too smug if I were a Democrat.
Trump gets the most free media ($1,898,000) when compared to Clinton ($746,000) and Sanders ($321,000). So Hillary gets more than double the free media (and Trump get six times more) than Sanders, and Sanders still manages to get a respectable showing! (source: http://www.idafrica.ng/9-marketing-lessons-for-brands-from-donald-trumps...
Clinton's "victory" includes vote suppression and media collusion. It's one thing to cover a candidate's scandals and potential illegal behavior, and another to ignore the candidate entirely, which is what happened to Sanders (see free media above).
As for active vote suppression: AP announces Clinton has won (by one delegate) the nomination on the eve of California's primary.
The two major parties differ about whether we should be an inclusive society or not, but agree substantially that it's fine if 1% of the population controls 90% of the stuff in the economy.
Bernie's real victory is keeping focus on the injustice of inequality in American society. Obama talked about cutting Social Security. Now he's saying we must expand Social Security benefits.
Given how little money and name recognition Bernie had when he began, yes Hillary *did* barely turn back the insurgency. I wouldn't get too smug if I were a Democrat.
13
Yes, Hillary did get more popular votes than Bernie. But remember, much of that (maybe all? I don't have the numbers to check) came very early in the campaign, when she had all the name recognition and he had none. And by focusing on the horse race rather than on issues of economic inequality, the media did nothing to make the race about the issues.
10
Not to mention down south where African voters would ask who is Bernie, does he even believe in Jesus?
1
And not to mention how she blew out Bernie in California and DC. The last two contest. Let's not mention that. Along with the 4 million more votes. And a plurality of voters across racial lines.
8
After Obama was elected with the promise of hope and change only to see very little of that real change happen even in the first two years of a democrat senate/congressional majority, there is no guarantee of anything even with the GOP in disarray. After all, Republican governors and administrations STILL control the bulk of the states, STILL have the most money to spend and STILL have the power to initiate stiff regulations suppressing voter turnout. Less than 30 percent of the registered voter voted in the last congressional election which is unacceptable and falls right in to the hands of re-electing Republicans.
I would submit unless Hillary Clinton offers some real progressive policies which will actually register with and excite the voters and NOT just the usual rhetoric of carrying on with Obamas policies, when it comes to the Senate and Congress and Republican influence going forward, all bets are off.
I would submit unless Hillary Clinton offers some real progressive policies which will actually register with and excite the voters and NOT just the usual rhetoric of carrying on with Obamas policies, when it comes to the Senate and Congress and Republican influence going forward, all bets are off.
6
When Mr. Krugman chooses to beat the drum (mostly), rather than be his lovable wonky self, you wish he made it a Tweet rather than an article.
I wish the Rep. Party were as hollowed-out as Mr. Krugman says it is! ... But make no mistake - "angry white men" got some headlines, but Corey L's firing today is proof for anybody who needed it that at least some Trump backers - those Wall St guys who actually boasted about supporting him last week ? - are still playing to win. (And given their deep pockets - as compared to 99.99% of the Afr.-Americans who put Hillary where she is - this is no replay of Obama vs. M or R!)
And I'm not "Why can't we vote with pride for Bernie or Liz?" Far from it - I've come to accept that Mr. K. was RIGHT when he questioned both Bernie's math and his electability.
But check who won the NBA Finals. Nothing like enough people being all kinds of smug to have a 1948-type moment.
Again, I wince when I say it, but there are millions of suburbanites who will hold their nose as they vote for Trump, but they, too, understand how interest group politics works. Remember, the phrase "Giuliani time?!" People who would call themselves fiscally conservative just can't make sense out of why Hillary wants to tax them more highly because we still haven't (not even close) repaired the ravages of slavery in this country.
The GOP is also a weird amalgam & the pieces may total 50% of those voting in 2016. Count on HRC to say or do something idiotic in the months ahead.
I wish the Rep. Party were as hollowed-out as Mr. Krugman says it is! ... But make no mistake - "angry white men" got some headlines, but Corey L's firing today is proof for anybody who needed it that at least some Trump backers - those Wall St guys who actually boasted about supporting him last week ? - are still playing to win. (And given their deep pockets - as compared to 99.99% of the Afr.-Americans who put Hillary where she is - this is no replay of Obama vs. M or R!)
And I'm not "Why can't we vote with pride for Bernie or Liz?" Far from it - I've come to accept that Mr. K. was RIGHT when he questioned both Bernie's math and his electability.
But check who won the NBA Finals. Nothing like enough people being all kinds of smug to have a 1948-type moment.
Again, I wince when I say it, but there are millions of suburbanites who will hold their nose as they vote for Trump, but they, too, understand how interest group politics works. Remember, the phrase "Giuliani time?!" People who would call themselves fiscally conservative just can't make sense out of why Hillary wants to tax them more highly because we still haven't (not even close) repaired the ravages of slavery in this country.
The GOP is also a weird amalgam & the pieces may total 50% of those voting in 2016. Count on HRC to say or do something idiotic in the months ahead.
1
Again, PK failed to proofread his own writing or get someone to do so:
"Mrs. Clinton won pledged delegates by almost four times Barack Obama’s margin in 2008; she won the popular vote by double digits." he wrote.
She won which popular vote? In 2008 or 2016? Did she win it by 99 votes or 10? What is he trying to say?
"Mrs. Clinton won pledged delegates by almost four times Barack Obama’s margin in 2008; she won the popular vote by double digits." he wrote.
She won which popular vote? In 2008 or 2016? Did she win it by 99 votes or 10? What is he trying to say?
2
No, Joe, it's either you who can't read ... or you'd like Mr. Krugman to provide footnotes and a piece twice as long.
It's wins for HRC over Bernie in several big states - NY & Calif. come to mind - where SHE got 56%, say, and he got 44%.
That's a margin of 12 points, and we can agree that's a 2-digit number.
That paragraph was equally obviously comparing HRC vs. B.O. in 2008 and saying that maybe THAT one was "a real horse race...." This year, per P.K., it wasn't really close, no matter how you define "close."
And since - leaving aside super-delegates - the rules in terms of big states counting more are in line with the general election, getting whomped in NY really DOES matter more than a Bernie win in Montana.
Actually, it's even worse, because while there were some caucuses and proportional allocation of delegates, the general is winner-take-all and next to no chance on election day to "win people over." That is, if the delegates were awarded using Nov.-type rules, it would be Hillary by 500+ delegates WITHOUT even considering the super-dels!
Say what you will about Mr. Krugman, he probably dreams in well-formed paragraphs. With his readership, the chance of your finding a "typo" in one of his columns is about the same as Bernie being the Dem. standard-bearer.
It's wins for HRC over Bernie in several big states - NY & Calif. come to mind - where SHE got 56%, say, and he got 44%.
That's a margin of 12 points, and we can agree that's a 2-digit number.
That paragraph was equally obviously comparing HRC vs. B.O. in 2008 and saying that maybe THAT one was "a real horse race...." This year, per P.K., it wasn't really close, no matter how you define "close."
And since - leaving aside super-delegates - the rules in terms of big states counting more are in line with the general election, getting whomped in NY really DOES matter more than a Bernie win in Montana.
Actually, it's even worse, because while there were some caucuses and proportional allocation of delegates, the general is winner-take-all and next to no chance on election day to "win people over." That is, if the delegates were awarded using Nov.-type rules, it would be Hillary by 500+ delegates WITHOUT even considering the super-dels!
Say what you will about Mr. Krugman, he probably dreams in well-formed paragraphs. With his readership, the chance of your finding a "typo" in one of his columns is about the same as Bernie being the Dem. standard-bearer.
3
Trump succeeded in the laughably easy task of making his opponents look bad. Now he faces the impossible task of making himself look good.
8
Speaking of hollowness, let's take a sec to contemplate Bernie's supporters, aince apparently once again Krugman has driven them to frothing fury by talking mostly about something else.
First off, Bernie...Just. Plain. Lost. He lost the popular votes. He lost the biggest states.
And no, he disn't lose because he got outspent: he spent more. He didn't lose because he didn't get coverage: you kids just didn't read it.
Nor did he lose because the elction was rigged, despite this badly-written, iffy math from a couple of grad students:
http://www.snopes.com/stanford-study-proves-election-fraud-through-exit-...
Sanders lost because he didn't get the votes. Because YOU didn't show up and vote. Oh, you showed at caucuses--like Washington's, where you claimed victory and took the delegates because a rigged caucus system of 26, 000 overrode a popular vote among 660, 000. But in general--nope.
That's intellectual, and in fact moral, hollowness: you're being as dishonest with yourselves as any Trump voter.
And speaking of hollowness: free college, free health care? really? Even though the numbers are absurd, and none of you seem to know much about either topic? At least not enough to know that that stuff--which we should have--comes with two things: MUCH higher taxes, and rationing. News flash: if we had a system like Germany's, a lot of Sanders' supporters wouldn't be at a fancy college at all.
It's only a loss, folks. Now, go work for better.
First off, Bernie...Just. Plain. Lost. He lost the popular votes. He lost the biggest states.
And no, he disn't lose because he got outspent: he spent more. He didn't lose because he didn't get coverage: you kids just didn't read it.
Nor did he lose because the elction was rigged, despite this badly-written, iffy math from a couple of grad students:
http://www.snopes.com/stanford-study-proves-election-fraud-through-exit-...
Sanders lost because he didn't get the votes. Because YOU didn't show up and vote. Oh, you showed at caucuses--like Washington's, where you claimed victory and took the delegates because a rigged caucus system of 26, 000 overrode a popular vote among 660, 000. But in general--nope.
That's intellectual, and in fact moral, hollowness: you're being as dishonest with yourselves as any Trump voter.
And speaking of hollowness: free college, free health care? really? Even though the numbers are absurd, and none of you seem to know much about either topic? At least not enough to know that that stuff--which we should have--comes with two things: MUCH higher taxes, and rationing. News flash: if we had a system like Germany's, a lot of Sanders' supporters wouldn't be at a fancy college at all.
It's only a loss, folks. Now, go work for better.
11
You don't get it, it's not the loss that's bothersome to the Sanders supporters. it's the fury at the krugman distortions and 1/2 truths.
5
as I have said previously, the GOP has become a cult.
It has all the characteristics of a cult. It has rigid rules, it keeps on making the same arguments despite them being shown wrong.
Its ideology is from the 19th century, it argues against scientific fact, it promotes religious beliefs ahead of good social policy, it rewards those who are actually taking money out of the system for their personal aggrandizement, such as activist investors and hedge fund managers.
It has what is probably the most despicable candidate in its history and is treating him with reverence. It has become the laughing stock of reasonable people. Its supporters are delusional continuing to repeat obvious false tales of public policy, it is in its death throes.
It has all the characteristics of a cult. It has rigid rules, it keeps on making the same arguments despite them being shown wrong.
Its ideology is from the 19th century, it argues against scientific fact, it promotes religious beliefs ahead of good social policy, it rewards those who are actually taking money out of the system for their personal aggrandizement, such as activist investors and hedge fund managers.
It has what is probably the most despicable candidate in its history and is treating him with reverence. It has become the laughing stock of reasonable people. Its supporters are delusional continuing to repeat obvious false tales of public policy, it is in its death throes.
9
Whoa there! Before we start claiming HRC did this own her own, let’s examine why?
HRC had so much fire-power behind her, how could she blow it? With the Dem Party, Super delegates (400+), DLC and DSCC all behind her on day one. HRC was the anointed one. C'mon this was HRC's second rodeo, plus Bill.
• Media - Bernie had a total media blackout from the Corporate Conservative media for 8 months from May to December 2015. It was long enough to bury all her opponents.
• Meanwhile, HRC had all the trimming of celebrity status. For example, in 2015, ABC News devoted 261 minutes to the 2016 campaign. Donald Trump got 81 minutes. Bernie Sanders got a measly 20 seconds. Out-of-sight, out-of-mind…
• Can you imagine if Bernie had the same coverage HRC had? The media gave HRC a lead she never relinquished.
As for the GOP, Trump was ahead in the polls just 3 weeks ago. He needs to take his foot out of his mouth and stop digging himself a hole. HRC is winning this race because the GOP are stubborn, ignorant, sexist, racist, xenophobic, narcissistic bullies. But they always been this way and they still control both Houses and the Supreme Ct before Scalia died. They obviously know how to win!
The summer battles between candidates hasn’t started. So, before we crown HRC the victor, let’s wait and see if the GOP stop imploding with self-inflicted wounds. For the Dems to totally discount the GOP when their own candidate has high unfavorables and “issues”, would be premature at best.
HRC had so much fire-power behind her, how could she blow it? With the Dem Party, Super delegates (400+), DLC and DSCC all behind her on day one. HRC was the anointed one. C'mon this was HRC's second rodeo, plus Bill.
• Media - Bernie had a total media blackout from the Corporate Conservative media for 8 months from May to December 2015. It was long enough to bury all her opponents.
• Meanwhile, HRC had all the trimming of celebrity status. For example, in 2015, ABC News devoted 261 minutes to the 2016 campaign. Donald Trump got 81 minutes. Bernie Sanders got a measly 20 seconds. Out-of-sight, out-of-mind…
• Can you imagine if Bernie had the same coverage HRC had? The media gave HRC a lead she never relinquished.
As for the GOP, Trump was ahead in the polls just 3 weeks ago. He needs to take his foot out of his mouth and stop digging himself a hole. HRC is winning this race because the GOP are stubborn, ignorant, sexist, racist, xenophobic, narcissistic bullies. But they always been this way and they still control both Houses and the Supreme Ct before Scalia died. They obviously know how to win!
The summer battles between candidates hasn’t started. So, before we crown HRC the victor, let’s wait and see if the GOP stop imploding with self-inflicted wounds. For the Dems to totally discount the GOP when their own candidate has high unfavorables and “issues”, would be premature at best.
5
Clinton had strikingly negative coverage, at least through 2015, whereas Sanders coverage was mostly positive.
5
Your ignorance of, and arrogance toward, the former U.S.S.R. is matched only by your enthrallment of clinton. You are still her shill!
2
As someone who has been deeply connected to the former USSR for nearly a quarter century and has lived there for most of that time, I would say that the first paragraph of Dr Krugman's column is spot on. That is why most of the country's leaders were able to pivot suddenly from being "communists" to being "capitalists," and why many leaders of the Komsomol (the Communist Youth League) became the successful "biznesmen." Indeed, in the late Soviet era, "Komsomol Leader" was a derogatory term in many circles.
3
Didn't the DNC and their friends in the press help Trump gain the nomination? Read the emails.
If you want confirmation of media bias, just read the first comment in the NYT Picks tab. Doesn't correspond to Readers' Picks, but rather is another diatribe against Hillary. If Krugman wants to cite examples of the anti-Clinton bias in the media, he needs only to read his own newspaper.
4
Well at least the title is correct:
A "Tale" of Two Parties
A "Tale" of Two Parties
2
I will not vote for President or Congress is the America that overthrew the U.S. irreparably in 2010. It has never mattered when ANYONE voted in about 100 years. The same corporate oligarchy will rule.
3
UGH! Paul...you are such a MAJOR disappointment! What matters is NOT the reaction of the people to the candidates...but rather the reaction of the zeitgeist to the leader we choose once we choose him or her. I am not feeling rosy about HC having what it takes to stand up to inequality of wealth, climate change or plutocracy. She has shown an inability to lead. The Clintons instead are the embodiment of Washington being Hollywood for UGHly people. After years of working as an activist I pray I am wrong...but after witnessing HC play the key issues as political footballs rather than very serious issues to work on...I highly doubt I am. UGH
7
"One thing you can't hide, is when you're crippled inside."
--John Lennon
The GOP is crippled inside.
--John Lennon
The GOP is crippled inside.
5
"....... what the Koch brothers pay them to say."
Funny that the columnist left this out gem out:
Charles Koch said on ABC: 'It's possible' Clinton is preferable to a Republican for president.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=coDah675iLs
Better for whom ? The Koch brothers ?
Hillary for all her rhetoric is the candidate of the financial elite, Koch industries included.
Funny that the columnist left this out gem out:
Charles Koch said on ABC: 'It's possible' Clinton is preferable to a Republican for president.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=coDah675iLs
Better for whom ? The Koch brothers ?
Hillary for all her rhetoric is the candidate of the financial elite, Koch industries included.
10
The Democratic party is about to nominate a pro-trade, pro-bank war hawk who supported DOMA and mandatory minimums--are you sure there wasn't a coup in the Democratic party too, but everyone just chose to look the other way?
8
I would have Bernie over Hillary.
But there is no comparison of Hillary to Trump or any of the Republicans.
Just go look at the latest budget proposal from Paul Ryan.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/19/opinion/sunday/mr-ryans-plan-to-revert...
But there is no comparison of Hillary to Trump or any of the Republicans.
Just go look at the latest budget proposal from Paul Ryan.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/19/opinion/sunday/mr-ryans-plan-to-revert...
3
Ah this little gem, again from the NYT recommended section: "It must be hard to be an intellectual in the know nothing party, running around and denying climate change and evolution." Just...just...let me be frank. If this is truly how you view conservatives in this country, I pity you. I pity you because you have become a hollow shell of whatever empathy you espouse, a bitter reflection of the enmity you claim to despise. I pity you because you have betrayed the ideals that founded your party, betrayed the open mind and intellectual drive of intellect and reason, betrayed the very fundamental concepts of fair, calm and considered thought and debate. You have decided, made a conscious choice, to ignore the moral precepts you preach in favor of easy bigotry and hate. And I can hear your first thoughts on reading this "but republicans do it worse," to which my response is that you are a coward for refusing to acknowledge there may be truth in my words and instead shunt blame onto those you have already decided are guilty. It distresses me that the NYT would endorse such intellectually lazy ideas
3
Dear Jesse,
I'm still not clear on this. Do you, or do you not, deny climate change and evolution? Your answer is important.
I'm still not clear on this. Do you, or do you not, deny climate change and evolution? Your answer is important.
5
So drop the AGW denial and rid biblical themes from Science textbooks and we can have a conversation. By the way, a conservative who is still comfortable at Trump rally is rotten to the bone, period. You are not comfortable? Then look in the mirror and ask how this could happen?
2
It's not just that Trump is the GOP nominee, but the fact that Reince Priebus is the Party Chair, in lieu of Michael Steele, Paul Ryan is Speaker and Mitch McConnell is Majority Leader in the Senate, that proves the GOP is the Party of Zombies.
3
Thank you for the link to the Shorenstein Center report. It confirms what I was thinking during the primary - Clinton's coverage was indeed 84% negative and largely ignored issues. Sanders was not covered enough by the media and his coverage was 84% positive, no vetting of his issues. Trump events were and still are covered for free by cable news stations.
This is not an attack on BS. It's fact.
I hope the Democrats prove stronger than the Republicans, but there are angry white guys on the left too. Glancing over the comments, there are Bernie supporters pleading to have their positions fulfilled. But I think the time to concede gracefully is past, concessions like opening the Democratic primaries to Socialists, dumping Wasserman Schulz, Frank, Malloy, super delegates arent necessary. There are Republicans who aren't crazy enough to back Donald who will support the Democrats and put country above party, let's not drive them away by becoming the Socialist party, because they lost the primaries.
This is not an attack on BS. It's fact.
I hope the Democrats prove stronger than the Republicans, but there are angry white guys on the left too. Glancing over the comments, there are Bernie supporters pleading to have their positions fulfilled. But I think the time to concede gracefully is past, concessions like opening the Democratic primaries to Socialists, dumping Wasserman Schulz, Frank, Malloy, super delegates arent necessary. There are Republicans who aren't crazy enough to back Donald who will support the Democrats and put country above party, let's not drive them away by becoming the Socialist party, because they lost the primaries.
6
Sure. You're going to need closet-Dem-voting Republicans, those who can still reason, to vote for Clinton. I believe you are correct to give up on most Sanders voters. The Democrats are center right, the Republicans are plumb crazy and the Progressives are still disorganized without a media outlet.
5
Well there goes Paul again. Stick to the economy Paul, your shilling for Hillary detracts from your credibility. Leading in "pledged delegates"? you are talking about the lobbyists and elected officials who were committed because of the DNC practice of pairing Hillary with DNC fundraisers for down ticket Dems, i.e. legal bribes. Had more votes? sure in states that will go republican in the fall and wont help hillary.
9
Mr Krugman, All I see are lies we exist in a capitalist society of lies upon lies within lies yours is one of them. Reading this article of yours we are treated to your rhetorical dogma that supported Hillary Clinton warding off a Sanders insurgency that by socialist standards was lacking.
Sanders was not the rightful expression of any permanently organized force though many supported him. Like FDR Democrats are attempting to save capitalism from itself on the backs of the working class by stiffing revolutionary change you substitute your fraud.
Clinton and Obama Lite version of modern politics fueled by big contributors cliques spin doctors and those like you, conversely I question your integrity and regard your capitalist system as devoid of substance.
In contravention of what you say, everything in our society of a social nature is one great big artificially constructed LIE in a police state controlling friends as well as enemies you create such as Trump, Obama, Clinton Sanders, and ISIS. Like the Roman Empire you are corrupt the Democrats are a few steps removed from Republican decadence where they are not that much better. I have no faith in you, and bored with your pathetic Flavian apologies for the state of the empire.
I dislike ISIS TRUMP immensely, Obama, Clinton, and Sanders too as you all to some degree or another undermine the working class reactionary oppressive, tyrannical abusive hollow shallow and devoid of progressive substance in your own times.
Sanders was not the rightful expression of any permanently organized force though many supported him. Like FDR Democrats are attempting to save capitalism from itself on the backs of the working class by stiffing revolutionary change you substitute your fraud.
Clinton and Obama Lite version of modern politics fueled by big contributors cliques spin doctors and those like you, conversely I question your integrity and regard your capitalist system as devoid of substance.
In contravention of what you say, everything in our society of a social nature is one great big artificially constructed LIE in a police state controlling friends as well as enemies you create such as Trump, Obama, Clinton Sanders, and ISIS. Like the Roman Empire you are corrupt the Democrats are a few steps removed from Republican decadence where they are not that much better. I have no faith in you, and bored with your pathetic Flavian apologies for the state of the empire.
I dislike ISIS TRUMP immensely, Obama, Clinton, and Sanders too as you all to some degree or another undermine the working class reactionary oppressive, tyrannical abusive hollow shallow and devoid of progressive substance in your own times.
3
It's not that simple. Trump could send Bush & Rubio packing, mostly because they're weak candidates. Trump is quite strong but too unrestrained and impulsive. Remember once he boasted, if he shot someone in Manhattan, he wouldn't lose support.
There's something about Trump that GENERALLY attracts people & draw them towards him. Mrs. Clinton is about the opposite
Then again, anything novel loses its charm after awhile; his core supporters seem to be fading. Still Republicans & his supporters hanging in there HOPING against hope he would change and BECOME less irritating, less offensive but he's incapable it seems. HE'S HYPOMANIC: “euphoric mood, increased activity, decreased need for sleep, grandiosity,” narcissism, inflated confidence, arrogance & impulsivity, together are destined to fail.
Still, if Trumps tones down consistently & enough, he would regain his attractiveness & I fear he may win in November.
He’s a combination of Hitler & Mussolini, but minor & unfocused, NOR EVIL or callous. Hitler’s initial success led to his failure; his inflated confidence led to invading Russia. His callousness led him to let millions of his own perish, along with exterminating his real & instinctively imagined enemies, mainly Jews.
Mrs. Clinton is amazingly capable. Also sincere but she evokes animosity. And people seem to be LOOKING for her FLAWS. When they find any, as she's human, they blow it out of proportion.
She would be a GOOD PRESIDENT, if we elect her.
There's something about Trump that GENERALLY attracts people & draw them towards him. Mrs. Clinton is about the opposite
Then again, anything novel loses its charm after awhile; his core supporters seem to be fading. Still Republicans & his supporters hanging in there HOPING against hope he would change and BECOME less irritating, less offensive but he's incapable it seems. HE'S HYPOMANIC: “euphoric mood, increased activity, decreased need for sleep, grandiosity,” narcissism, inflated confidence, arrogance & impulsivity, together are destined to fail.
Still, if Trumps tones down consistently & enough, he would regain his attractiveness & I fear he may win in November.
He’s a combination of Hitler & Mussolini, but minor & unfocused, NOR EVIL or callous. Hitler’s initial success led to his failure; his inflated confidence led to invading Russia. His callousness led him to let millions of his own perish, along with exterminating his real & instinctively imagined enemies, mainly Jews.
Mrs. Clinton is amazingly capable. Also sincere but she evokes animosity. And people seem to be LOOKING for her FLAWS. When they find any, as she's human, they blow it out of proportion.
She would be a GOOD PRESIDENT, if we elect her.
9
So where does Speaker Paul Ryan (R, WI) fit in today's idealistically hollowed-out GOP? He still seems to believe his own talking points...
I would say that the career GOP Congress and all their coattail synchophants..
are not just collapsing into the "looking glass" they are diving through the
looking glass and trying to hide in all sorts of dark corners....because the
Queen of Trumps is chasing them into their separate hide outs....
As the saying goes....Congress ..."you can ...run but you cannot hide"...
It does my heart good to hear the broken glass falling as these know nothings
seek shelter from the throes of Donald J. Trump....who looks the part ...
always looks like a drag queen and acts like one...the GOP deserves this
backlash....and one would almost think DT was a drag queen...he acts like one.
are not just collapsing into the "looking glass" they are diving through the
looking glass and trying to hide in all sorts of dark corners....because the
Queen of Trumps is chasing them into their separate hide outs....
As the saying goes....Congress ..."you can ...run but you cannot hide"...
It does my heart good to hear the broken glass falling as these know nothings
seek shelter from the throes of Donald J. Trump....who looks the part ...
always looks like a drag queen and acts like one...the GOP deserves this
backlash....and one would almost think DT was a drag queen...he acts like one.
This weekend La Pierre was commenting on Trumps desire to have guns in bars. La Pierre said the NRA doesn't support fire arms where alcohol is being consumed. No beautiful boom boom in bars? Who would have thought from the NRA? La Pierre, also went on to say the FBI is dropping the ball for what I would call Operation Fast and Furious the Terrorist version. Trump said the FBI had a bad day. In the last 12 years has anyone has any party criticised law enforcement's handling of terrorism?
One dead party and one to go because at this point saying if Bush didn't go into Iraq none of the would be happening doesn't make any sense.
One dead party and one to go because at this point saying if Bush didn't go into Iraq none of the would be happening doesn't make any sense.
1
Surely you jest. Hillary only looks good vis-a-vis Trump because Trump looks so bad on his own. Even her campaign's web site provides the same raison d'etre, yet another variation on "At least we're not not as bad as THAT guy." What we are witnessing is an indictment of the two-party system, when we stand at the precipice of calamity and the two major parties offer ... this. One candidate already in court for fraud and the other under FBI investigation for possible breaches in national security.
8
Paul taught a lot of us faithful readers how to tell the lies from the truth, and he's demonstrating again what a con man he has become. Hillary has four times the lead Obama had over Hillary in 2008? Yes, but these were two establishment candidates, while grassroots Bernie gained nearly 2,000 delegates with Krugman, the Times and the establishment media ignoring and minimizing and belittling him and his supporters the whole time. And Bernie outspent Hillary? Not if you include the PAC money on Hillary's behalf. Paul has become cheap, transparent, trite, laughable and pathetic. Bernie isn't following your neoliberal narrative, and neither are his supporters. Not when Hillary hasn't embraced a 15 dollar minimum wage, or when 10 supposed Democrats voted recently in a House committee to cut the hedge fund industry some slack (no, not covered in the NYT). Don't bury us yet, Paul, we're not going away.
6
Imagine T rump in front of an openly hostile Congress for 12 hours.
7
I am not convinced. Nobody shows up at the Hillary rallies. She had to bus volunteers in from Washington, DC just to have a smattering at her Roosevelt Island announcements.
She's not leading a movement to change anything, really. She's a shopworn candidate shambling toward the White House with a purse full of paid speeches she can't disclose and a list of unfavorables that is only rivaled by those of Trump.
If the Republican Party wakes up and nominates practically anyone else, Hillary's campaign is in serious trouble IMMEDIATELY. So, this Krugman column has him looking straight ahead, but along the way I sense some serious neck pain as he looked back over his shoulder the whole while he was writing it.
She's not leading a movement to change anything, really. She's a shopworn candidate shambling toward the White House with a purse full of paid speeches she can't disclose and a list of unfavorables that is only rivaled by those of Trump.
If the Republican Party wakes up and nominates practically anyone else, Hillary's campaign is in serious trouble IMMEDIATELY. So, this Krugman column has him looking straight ahead, but along the way I sense some serious neck pain as he looked back over his shoulder the whole while he was writing it.
5
Hillary is a shoo in, one wonders why Paul has to pitch her so badly.
2
'But wait: Didn’t Hillary Clinton face her own insurgency in the person of Bernie Sanders .....'
Hillary had a few 'strings' to pull, as well
As to the seemingly-inexplicable dominance of the Republican party in today's political-arena, a large part of it is a result of the mastery of the Republican-Party of the arts of 'the Gerrymander' and 'Redistricting' (and, Oh Yes, the skillful use of the concept of 'Voter-Fraud' in the determination of Who Gets to Vote, and Who Doesn't)
Maybe, if the NYT editorial-staff would devote a bit more ink to the illumination of these subterfuges, American-Voters would become a bit more sentient on election-day....
Maybe not.
Hillary had a few 'strings' to pull, as well
As to the seemingly-inexplicable dominance of the Republican party in today's political-arena, a large part of it is a result of the mastery of the Republican-Party of the arts of 'the Gerrymander' and 'Redistricting' (and, Oh Yes, the skillful use of the concept of 'Voter-Fraud' in the determination of Who Gets to Vote, and Who Doesn't)
Maybe, if the NYT editorial-staff would devote a bit more ink to the illumination of these subterfuges, American-Voters would become a bit more sentient on election-day....
Maybe not.
Odds Hillary Won Without Widespread Fraud: 1 in 77 Billion Says Berkeley, Stanford Studies
http://alexanderhiggins.com/stanford-berkley-study-1-77-billion-chance-h...
http://alexanderhiggins.com/stanford-berkley-study-1-77-billion-chance-h...
5
It's astounding how many devastated Bernie people keep citing this "study" as if it were high-level research, peer-reviewed and fully vetted, with the full imprimatur of these top universities.
In fact, Barragan isn't on the faculty of any university – – he is merely a psychology grad student (specializing in autism). He has no expertise in political science, polling, or any other topic related to the wild claims he is making in his Internet "publication."
(I hold degrees from Harvard University and New York University. If I decide to post some speculative, non-peer-reviewed nonsense on the Internet, can I call it "research out of Harvard and NYU"?)
"A one in 77 billion chance Hillary didn't steal the election from Bernie"? Oh, boy. This is just getting sadder and sadder.
Bernies lost by every metric. He just did. Conspiracy theories aren't going to make that not true.
Sanders people, now is the time to let go of the past and turn your attention to building something new for the future.
In fact, Barragan isn't on the faculty of any university – – he is merely a psychology grad student (specializing in autism). He has no expertise in political science, polling, or any other topic related to the wild claims he is making in his Internet "publication."
(I hold degrees from Harvard University and New York University. If I decide to post some speculative, non-peer-reviewed nonsense on the Internet, can I call it "research out of Harvard and NYU"?)
"A one in 77 billion chance Hillary didn't steal the election from Bernie"? Oh, boy. This is just getting sadder and sadder.
Bernies lost by every metric. He just did. Conspiracy theories aren't going to make that not true.
Sanders people, now is the time to let go of the past and turn your attention to building something new for the future.
7
That is what they were trying to do because Hillary will not.
For reasons still unknown, a United States government owned and operated media outlet, Voice of America, published a hit piece on Democratic presidential candidate Senator Bernie Sanders.
The story, titled “Does Bernie Sanders Believe in Democracy?,” was written by Jamie Kirchick, who has elsewhere openly advocated for the election of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as president.
http://www.mintpressnews.com/us-state-media-runs-hit-piece-bernie-sander...
But the nytimes would never do such a thing. LOL
The story, titled “Does Bernie Sanders Believe in Democracy?,” was written by Jamie Kirchick, who has elsewhere openly advocated for the election of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as president.
http://www.mintpressnews.com/us-state-media-runs-hit-piece-bernie-sander...
But the nytimes would never do such a thing. LOL
7
When Dubya is considered an insurance policy for GOP Congressional seats, you know the GOP is in deeper trouble than ever before. What next, Cheney doing stump speeches? Palin? Berlusconi?
4
The fact that Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell support Donald Trump in their mealy mouthed way is proof enough that the GOP lacks any moral fiber.
John McCain is just a pathetic disgrace.
John McCain is just a pathetic disgrace.
12
CANNIBALISM AND MULLIGAN STEW
Trump's tanking numbers and his fan base have a mutually cannibalistic relationship. His tanking numbers devour his fans and vice versa.
Without a winning amount of both, Trump has no reason for running—except this: If he is in the toilet, his brand is in the toilet.
So he is treating the Republican Party the way he treats his failing casinos: He is making sure he wins even as they lose.
Or to put it euphemistically, he is hedging his bets. The skuttlebutt is that he is exploring a—what else?—Trump Network to capitalize—literally—(on) his loyal—or so he thinks—fan base.
I believe a plan for a pre-convention face-saving exit for Trump is in the works. Hillary and her machine appear to have made the fatal mistake of not exercising restraint.
If there is any justice left in this once great republic, the Clintons are on their merry way to the slammer. At a minimum.
It is entirely possible, therefore, that neither presumptive will ever actualize.
If this country ever needed a mulligan, it is now.
5
I know why you people think Hillary belongs in jail.
Could you remind me why Bill belongs in jail also? It's been a while since he has enjoyed your full attention, so I don't remember why he should be in an orange jumpsuit.
How about Chelsea? Is she indictable, and, if so, for what? And if not, why not?
So easy to lose track....
Could you remind me why Bill belongs in jail also? It's been a while since he has enjoyed your full attention, so I don't remember why he should be in an orange jumpsuit.
How about Chelsea? Is she indictable, and, if so, for what? And if not, why not?
So easy to lose track....
4
Enjoyable article, Dr. K explaining why "The Donald" will never make it to the next level, "The Wizard".
Today Trump fired Corey Lewandowski.
Someday very soon Trump will have to look in the mirror and say "You're fired!"
Today Trump fired Corey Lewandowski.
Someday very soon Trump will have to look in the mirror and say "You're fired!"
4
Weather wittingly or no Mr. Trump still qualifies, for me, as a trojan horse within the walls of the Republican party.
1
It is hopefully the worst of times for the down ballot GOP, and Madame deFarge is not amused by the deliberate bad faith of the majority obstructionist McConnell.
Shall I look forward to the liberation of her wine inventory come this November?
Not unless the Congress really does change too, because it is probable that
Hillary haters won't be any less destructive than the Obama is an abomination foolish radical reactionary tools.
It is very important that the next President not be shut-down by Congress, and our deliberately semi dysfunctional federal government be authorized to do more than be semi dysfunctional by way of penury budget gaming of Ryanism.
Shall I look forward to the liberation of her wine inventory come this November?
Not unless the Congress really does change too, because it is probable that
Hillary haters won't be any less destructive than the Obama is an abomination foolish radical reactionary tools.
It is very important that the next President not be shut-down by Congress, and our deliberately semi dysfunctional federal government be authorized to do more than be semi dysfunctional by way of penury budget gaming of Ryanism.
2
The GOP is not going away. Older adults continue to be more conservative than liberal according to Gallup polls last year. Conservatives have a +14% advantage. So even given the current disarray in the GOP the majority of voters remain conservative and will likely stick to their guns (pun intended). There will continue to be a somewhat even split between conservatives and liberals so don't expect the GOP to self destruct. There are just too many conservatives in America.
I believe 45% of the country who actually go to pull a lever would pull the lever for a rutabaga, if it were a Republican rutabaga.
3
we can only hope and pray :)
3
Bernie won 22 States and nearly 1,800 delegates Mr. Krugman despite the NYT and nearly all major media writing him off as you are. Subtract the party super-delegates and Bernie gave HRC a strong challenge. To paint it as anything else is disingenuous.
8
No one is writing Sanders off, as you think.
In the end, it's all about the math -- even WITHOUT the Delegates, Clinton is 4mil+ ahead....No painting involved.
In the end, it's all about the math -- even WITHOUT the Delegates, Clinton is 4mil+ ahead....No painting involved.
2
Counting states is meaningful? Under our system? As in, California or New York versus one of those rectangles in the Midwest that have about 10 people and 100 cows in them? That one doesn't even pass the chuckle test.
Subtract the party superdelegates?
A: OK; and Bernie still loses.
B: But why would you subtract the superdelegates, who have existed for years under long-established party rules, known to all? If Bernie had been a Democrat, he could have influenced those rules at the right time, instead of waiting to cry foul when, as a Johnny-come-lately to the party, those rules didn't happen to favor him.
Desperate and silly.
You can't spin this story. It came out like it came out.
Subtract the party superdelegates?
A: OK; and Bernie still loses.
B: But why would you subtract the superdelegates, who have existed for years under long-established party rules, known to all? If Bernie had been a Democrat, he could have influenced those rules at the right time, instead of waiting to cry foul when, as a Johnny-come-lately to the party, those rules didn't happen to favor him.
Desperate and silly.
You can't spin this story. It came out like it came out.
3
Dear Senator Sanders supporters,
Grow up.
Sincerely,
Actual Democrats.
Ps
The Ralph Nader impersonation is flawless...bravo.
Grow up.
Sincerely,
Actual Democrats.
Ps
The Ralph Nader impersonation is flawless...bravo.
11
Growing up means developing more tolerance for other viewpoints. "President Barack Obama asked parents Saturday to teach their children to love, not hate, and to appreciate differences as something to cherish, not fear."
Hillary supporters need to let Bernie supporters be, let them have their viewpoint. Let them co exist. Let not the Hillary supporters dictate, speak in patronizing, condescending manner, talking down to Bernie supporters who like venerable Larry Eisenberg, are well into their ninth decades.
Hillary supporters need to let Bernie supporters be, let them have their viewpoint. Let them co exist. Let not the Hillary supporters dictate, speak in patronizing, condescending manner, talking down to Bernie supporters who like venerable Larry Eisenberg, are well into their ninth decades.
4
It is extremely difficult for the supporters of Hillary Clinton and the repetitive outmoded belief in conventional wisdom that times are a changing and it is time for the democratic party to change back to what it really should be and always has stood for , the people, NOT corporate donors.
1
Dear HRC supporters,
Grow up.
Sincerely,
Lots of Democrats, most independents.
PS HRC does not have a chance without us. Stop with the insults.
Grow up.
Sincerely,
Lots of Democrats, most independents.
PS HRC does not have a chance without us. Stop with the insults.
1
As a NY registered blank, none of this matters and I won't care or vote till there is a party I can vaguely relate to. So go ahead republicrat do what u do best: blame each other for whatnot.
6
Congratulations on neglecting your minimum civic duty.
6
Glad to see the Koch brother's call out. I think their new, cynical, propaganda campaign called "end the divide" needs your light shone on it, Dr. K.
4
Nailed it, thank you. But, we can't stop working. We need a lot more nails to win Congress, some governors and state legislatures. Let's get going!
8
whee.
Paul, could you please pass on to the business marketing section to cancel my on line subscription to New York Times. I do not find real news here and/or honest purveyors of information. Journalists/economists you are not.
6
It would be hard to make it more obvious that you have no intention of canceling your subscription.
Besides, if you did, how could you vent your spleen as needed?
Besides, if you did, how could you vent your spleen as needed?
2
A very partisan analysis. Using Krugman's own theory, the reason why Hillary isn't polling well despite having a school yard rival, is because her kind of message and her kind of Democrat has been hollowed out as well (see Bill CLinton and Black Lives Matter). And the Democrats are stronger according to Krugman because rather having a central message, they have a collection of aggrieved special interest groups. Yeah, that makes them stronger. All of those aggreived special interest groups that don't give a crap about the country as a whole, but rather their own special interest group. That's apparently the recipe for a strong national party according to Krugman. A central message for all Americans doesn't appear to be important in his analysis.
4
I remember when both parties used to need middle class, middle of the road votes. Candidates used to pivot to the center for the general election. Now we can't find 'the center' with both hands and a flashlight.
2
Interesting point. But do you also remember when there actually was a Middle-class???
3
Comparing today's GOP to the old Soviet Union is 100% accurate. Matter of fact, remember the Politburo? The media arm in Russia spouted nothing but lies on a daily basis touting how great the Soviet system was which was all proven false when it collapsed. That is today's Fox News and Rush Limbaugh - chronic liars out to brainwash the public into thinking Republicans are always right and everyone else is just out to get them. Being a liberal, I haven't watched a Republican convention in decades, but this one can't be missed. As Trump rails against everyone other than himself, remember the Soviet dictators doing the same. And that is who Trump strives to be - our dictator.
5
Bernie or bust die hards need to ask themselves this. If the most liberal states in the country have become unable to provide free college the way they did years ago, what makes them think the country would be able to? Why does this condition exist? It's because the cost side has spiraled completely out of control. Bernie has never addressed or admitted this in any speech. Heaven forbid a bad professor's tenure be taken away or salary reduced to better match performance. Just pour more tax dollars down the throat of a cost sink and it will all fix itself. Really? Bernie lost because his policies fundamentally ignore the laws of economics. They are worthy goals that we all need to move towards. They also can't be achieved instantaneously with the magical snap of an extreme left-wing finger. Hillary understands that students need help. She also understands that colleges need reform. Like far right-wing republicans, do or die Bernie fans who refuse to support the party will only damage their own cause in the long run. They endlessly deceive themselves into believing that the purity of their dogma is the only truth possible. If you compromise, that makes you a sellout. If you attempt to mount an economic argument, that makes you a tool of the system. If you are a democrat, you're a "corporatist". Here's one truth you can count on. Any vote that's not for a democrat, directly hands more power to the extreme right. Like economic facts, political facts are stubborn things.
12
@ Andy,
I've been trying to get any of these people to discuss any of these "policies" for as long as the primary campaign has been going on.
Crickets.
While there are many "old school lefties" and some smart young people that supported the Sanders run, they do not need convincing about sticking with the Democrats. Polling shows at least 70% of Bernie supporters will vote for Hillary.
The others, if they are sincere and not Republican trolls commenting here, may just not be the brightest bulbs in the pack. Rather, they represent a mostly male privileged economic (but not intellectual) elite.
A little research shows that any bright student whose parents are in the median household income range can get a 4-year degree with zero to manageable debt. Beyond that, too bad-- parents are supposed to make sacrifices for their children.
Of course you are correct about costs and so on-- same problem with healthcare; they talk about Europe but have obviously not done any reading on how those systems function.
I've been trying to get any of these people to discuss any of these "policies" for as long as the primary campaign has been going on.
Crickets.
While there are many "old school lefties" and some smart young people that supported the Sanders run, they do not need convincing about sticking with the Democrats. Polling shows at least 70% of Bernie supporters will vote for Hillary.
The others, if they are sincere and not Republican trolls commenting here, may just not be the brightest bulbs in the pack. Rather, they represent a mostly male privileged economic (but not intellectual) elite.
A little research shows that any bright student whose parents are in the median household income range can get a 4-year degree with zero to manageable debt. Beyond that, too bad-- parents are supposed to make sacrifices for their children.
Of course you are correct about costs and so on-- same problem with healthcare; they talk about Europe but have obviously not done any reading on how those systems function.
2
And where do you get your information from about Europe or any other country that employs universal health care, Fox News? I would suggest you look at various non/political/ideological sources like the WHO and others who show quite unequivocally that the U.S. has the worst outcomes and spends the most money of any other industrialized country in the world. America also has an infant mortality rate on par with third world countries. Those are the facts, bottom line.
@ Deus02
Classic response. We know all those facts. That's the point; Sanders just repeats the problem and offers no solution.
Please, enlighten us on the platform he would run on in the general elections-- specifics, not finger waving generalities.
He is going to tell people they must give up their existing employer based insurance, pay more taxes, and accept reduced compensation, right?
Sure winner. (sarcasm alert)
Classic response. We know all those facts. That's the point; Sanders just repeats the problem and offers no solution.
Please, enlighten us on the platform he would run on in the general elections-- specifics, not finger waving generalities.
He is going to tell people they must give up their existing employer based insurance, pay more taxes, and accept reduced compensation, right?
Sure winner. (sarcasm alert)
1
No truer words were ever spoken than these, Mr. Krugman, "The Republican establishment was easily overthrown because it was already hollow at the core." When money and power are all you care about you are doomed. Great news for those of us who believe in true democracy for all.
3
Spot on analysis
3
Yup it will be the same old, same old, under Clinton
6
Unfortunately by saying that, you almost invalidate the thrust of Sanders' message to go beyond its own echo chamber -- And if that's the case, why did he run as a Democrat?
1
Don't forget, Dr. Krugman, that this Wednesday we get the new republican plan to replace Obamacare. I wonder if the outline will run 5 or 6 pages!!! The suspense is unbearable!
5
Still can't believe it's been two weeks since the California primary and the nomination was clearly decided but we're still waiting for . . . Bernie to concede and endorse? Really? Are we? I voted for him in NY but this is embarrassing now.
9
Paul you really do need to get out more. The Democratic party has moved to a gated community and you're in it. The rest of us life long democrats, the ones who couldn't afford the mortgage and have read the fine print have moved on. Bernie who? It doesn't matter. You're now a spokesman for the corporate democrats and the relevance of your opinion is beginning to look like the 2008 Dow Jones line graph.
10
"..I’m not saying that its [Democratic establishment] members are angels, which they aren’t. Some, no doubt, are personally corrupt."
I'll be voting for her, but under no illusions that Mrs. Clinton may not be among the most corrupt of all of them.
I'll be voting for her, but under no illusions that Mrs. Clinton may not be among the most corrupt of all of them.
2
It's problematic to argue that the Democratic Party is more robust when it has been kicked six ways from Sunday at the level of state politics by the "crumbling" GOP. I wish it weren't so, but fact is, the Dems have serious weaknesses.
5
Yep, when Barney Frank, totally blind to voters attitudes, now honestly believes in his mind that rather than divest themselves of the lobbyists money and the influence it demands, the democratic party should try to get as much as possible of that piece of the corporate donor action, it is quite obvious the democratic party has some serious weaknesses, otherwise Bernie Sanders would have been an afterthought.
When the republican party admits that it is not the package, but the message itself is the problem it would have taken the first step on a path to reinventing itself. And as President Obama stated that would strengthen democracy itself. In its current dilapidated state there is an opportunity for the republicans if only they are wise enough to seize it.
I usually disagree strongly with Krugman. But even though I'm a conservative, some of what he says here rings true.
Dems - "The Democrats, by contrast, are a “coalition of social groups,” from teachers’ unions to Planned Parenthood, seeking specific benefits from government action." What has changed is that all of these groups have moved sharply left and Hillary has been trying to play catch-up. Few seem to remember Bill Clinton who passed Welfare Reform, the Crime Bill and balanced the budget.
-GOP - The GOP does foster a fairly consistent set of beliefs - though I wouldn't call it a "top-down hierarchical structure". There's always been a populist segment of the party - think Huckabee. Trump simply plays that better. And he's learned from Dems that the fastest way to rouse the base is to blame someone else for their failings. Dems blame the rich and big corporations. Trump blames immigrants and Muslims.
Does it really matter who the scapegoat is ? Trump's recent fall in the polls suggests simply that fewer Repubs are willing to blame a scapegoat whereas for Dems, that's all they have.
Dems - "The Democrats, by contrast, are a “coalition of social groups,” from teachers’ unions to Planned Parenthood, seeking specific benefits from government action." What has changed is that all of these groups have moved sharply left and Hillary has been trying to play catch-up. Few seem to remember Bill Clinton who passed Welfare Reform, the Crime Bill and balanced the budget.
-GOP - The GOP does foster a fairly consistent set of beliefs - though I wouldn't call it a "top-down hierarchical structure". There's always been a populist segment of the party - think Huckabee. Trump simply plays that better. And he's learned from Dems that the fastest way to rouse the base is to blame someone else for their failings. Dems blame the rich and big corporations. Trump blames immigrants and Muslims.
Does it really matter who the scapegoat is ? Trump's recent fall in the polls suggests simply that fewer Repubs are willing to blame a scapegoat whereas for Dems, that's all they have.
3
Trump's recent fall in the polls doesn't say anything regarding the GOP's willingness to blame scapegoats. He called for mass deportation and a Muslim ban all through the primaries, and the GOP voted for him as their standard bearer! What it does say--and what krugman is arguing here--is that the general electorate is a vastly different beast from republican primary voters. Your insistence on false equivalance here is very much a part of why the GOP is in the situation it is in.
2
That's some impressive pretzel-bending there plus faulty analysis. Trump's recent fall in the polls actually suggests that even Republicans find his extreme racism abhorrent and that, apart from that, he's a con man, a total fraud. Says nothing, knows nothing, is nothing.
Trumps most effective ploy in vanquishing his Republican primary competitors was an outright fraudulent position, a claim that he, unlike all of the others, would self finance "his campaign." To all it meant the campaign for the Presidency, not the primary.
He then beat up everyone else on the stage by proclaiming that taking money from special interests means they are getting something for the payment. He dramatized this by saying he did it himself, even "buying" the Clintons with his political contributions.
By the time he backed away from this, and asked all of those corporations for funding the competition had been wiped out. He been so bizarre in his false claims, that the public, even the media, were overwhelmed. So this was just part of the long list of distortions, along with such biggies as his opposing our initiating the 2003 war on Iraq.
P.K. is right about the Republicans being cliched voices of the tea party themed mantras, including massive spending appropriations and then defaulting when the obligations came due. So, Trump was, and this is the key, still is in many ways preferable to any of the other Republican candidates, except perhaps Kasich.
The R.N.C. should hold Trump to his verbal contract to fund his campaign, and present him with the bill. The ensuing law suit, if televised, could finance the party for years.
He then beat up everyone else on the stage by proclaiming that taking money from special interests means they are getting something for the payment. He dramatized this by saying he did it himself, even "buying" the Clintons with his political contributions.
By the time he backed away from this, and asked all of those corporations for funding the competition had been wiped out. He been so bizarre in his false claims, that the public, even the media, were overwhelmed. So this was just part of the long list of distortions, along with such biggies as his opposing our initiating the 2003 war on Iraq.
P.K. is right about the Republicans being cliched voices of the tea party themed mantras, including massive spending appropriations and then defaulting when the obligations came due. So, Trump was, and this is the key, still is in many ways preferable to any of the other Republican candidates, except perhaps Kasich.
The R.N.C. should hold Trump to his verbal contract to fund his campaign, and present him with the bill. The ensuing law suit, if televised, could finance the party for years.
2
"Also, Mrs. Clinton faced immense, bizarre hostility from the news media. "
Good one, Krugman. At least Hillary got coverage. The media consciously blacked out the Sanders campaign. The NYT was among the most biased pro-Hillary media outlets.
I want Hillary to wipe the floor with Trump, but let's not rewrite what really happened during the Democratic primaries this past year. That would be a disservice to the profession of journalism and democracy itself.
Good one, Krugman. At least Hillary got coverage. The media consciously blacked out the Sanders campaign. The NYT was among the most biased pro-Hillary media outlets.
I want Hillary to wipe the floor with Trump, but let's not rewrite what really happened during the Democratic primaries this past year. That would be a disservice to the profession of journalism and democracy itself.
6
I could vote for Clinton if I could believe the party learned anything from their near miss against Sanders. But they haven't, she hasn't and they won't. Don't vote; it only encourages them.
3
@Blue State
Your comment here has unmasked you as a republican Troll. Don't vote!?
Your comment here has unmasked you as a republican Troll. Don't vote!?
3
Unless you are clairvoyant -- How do you KNOW what Clinton (or Democrats, for that matter) has or hasn't learned???.....
Might be best to wait for the actual Convention.
Might be best to wait for the actual Convention.
1
As they say, from your mouth to god's ear. I continue to worry about some surprise (hit) to turn the "not-so-committed" into "maybe-Trump/GOP-is correct" campers.
1
Trump has not yet been nominated and the Democrats better keep their powder dry. The GOP , even dead inside, can't be so dead that a zombie won't rise from their ashes.
5
Yeah, I'm sure Clinton going back to Wall Street and telling them to, "Cut it out," will be of great help to those voting for her.
5
When the Democratic Party is a triangle and the Republican Party has become an inverted triangle is it any wonder the Republic Party has become unstable?
2
Sheer coincidence that Paul's column appears in realclearpolitics, right above Cal Thomas's http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/15/hillary-clinton-most-bou...
Everyone knows about the Hillary Victory Fund and how the Clintons went about buying the loyalties of state democratic parties. They OWN the party. Hillary's fundraising now leaves very little for the states http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/clinton-fundraising-leaves-little-...
The Black congressional caucus, the same folks who denied Bernie's (white Jew) historic role in the civil rights movement, now obstruct him, resisting any change in the ridiculous superdelegate system of the democratic party. http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/bernie-sanders-black-caucus-superd...
To this day, in 2016, its tough being a Jew trying to reach out to African Americans who are convinced the Clintons are their only saviors, post Obama.
Everyone knows about the Hillary Victory Fund and how the Clintons went about buying the loyalties of state democratic parties. They OWN the party. Hillary's fundraising now leaves very little for the states http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/clinton-fundraising-leaves-little-...
The Black congressional caucus, the same folks who denied Bernie's (white Jew) historic role in the civil rights movement, now obstruct him, resisting any change in the ridiculous superdelegate system of the democratic party. http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/bernie-sanders-black-caucus-superd...
To this day, in 2016, its tough being a Jew trying to reach out to African Americans who are convinced the Clintons are their only saviors, post Obama.
5
Bernie should take his voters lists and work downticket for Dems. Maybe we can turn the Senate against the mighty money seeking to preserve it for Republicans. The money that is not going to Trump. This is going to be a record spending election (aren't they all?) with the lowest turnout ever.
Super Delegates did not win the primary for Hillary. The regular voters did. Just look at the numbers. I agree that the tragic divide between the African American community and American Jews is one of the greatest blunders and misunderstandings of modern society.
3
As long as the GOP can continue to suppress the vote and gerrymander Congressional districts, they will remain a party to contend with. Personally I am hoping that the working-class whites who have stayed Republican so long will finally wake up and realize that they have been played like a fiddle by the GOP, the Kochs, and all of these other zealots who insist that the Democrats want to "take away your freedom."
Yes, the freedom from want, the freedom from fear that someone in a public place has an assault weapon and the freedom from worrying about paying for medical bills.
A vote against the Republican party as it currently stands is a vote for humanity.
Yes, the freedom from want, the freedom from fear that someone in a public place has an assault weapon and the freedom from worrying about paying for medical bills.
A vote against the Republican party as it currently stands is a vote for humanity.
8
The DNC herds the elites of the special interests to win the presidency, but loses at the congressional and state levels.
Identity politics appears not to be effective at the local level, where gimme cuz I'm special doesn't fly.
Oh well, another 4 or 8 years of federal stalemate - we're used to it.
Identity politics appears not to be effective at the local level, where gimme cuz I'm special doesn't fly.
Oh well, another 4 or 8 years of federal stalemate - we're used to it.
3
This is why Trump is even vaguely tempting. Wouldn't be four more years exactly the same as the last eight.
In reading these comments, and countless others during the past primary season, I have come to the conclusion, perhaps unfairly, that Clinton haters are not much different than Trump lovers: both groups pick and choose what they want to believe, selecting those "facts" that resonate with their already set opinions. They blithely accept (and inflate) every negative thing they see about Secretary Clinton, just as the Trump-ites seem to believe every lie and exaggeration he tells them. In short, I sometimes feel that some of these people (haters or lovers) don't really care about the "truth," just in having their own biases confirmed. Maybe that's just a reflection of human nature...or perhaps it's a symptom of a deeper, more disturbing, trend in our society: the inability to gather information from various sources, analyze it, and come to our own conclusions. In the age of Google, Twitter, and that smart phone leading us around by the nose maybe thinking for ourselves is no longer possible.
5
I believe some people just think Sanders is a policywise better candidate than Clinton. That's fine and I'm more or less confident that it won't be too difficult for them to vote for Clinton in the General Election. But some of the die-hard Sanders supporters do have legitimate reason to hate Clinton and will never get over with it, because they are ideologically the radical left to begin with.
1
When Krugman say's Republicans are just "saying what the Koch brothers pay them to say" is an unthinking cliche to hollow out Democrats. For example Bernie Sanders uses Nordic Socialism as a goal, one with the characteristic of free market capitalism milked by the state to provide social services. It's curious that a Nobel Laureate economist has missed the principle reason for the G.O.P.'s going off message which is its rural monopoly has converted the party of business to one that is bad for business. A recent example is the careless showing of political power in North Carolina with a bathroom law that drives away business. Indiana's Governor Mike Pence did the same for Indianapolis thriving economy last year. Its gotten so that the Koch brothers are so exasperated with their anti-business party that they are considering voting for Hillary because she would be good for business and provide real profit for the state to milk.
When Krugman would vote for OJ Simpson for President if he were the Democratic nominee rather than any Republican, is reading his Opinion enlightening to anyone?
5
Great article from a wise man.
Donald Trump didn't earn anything; he inherited it.
Donald Trump didn't earn anything; he inherited it.
4
Krugman' s world is upside down, black is white, war is peace, lies are truth, and the Democrats are strong, democratic and just. Please.
Like your leader Clinton, you think that if you keep lying, enough of the great unwashed will vote for her to put the first and only candidate under active criminal investigation by the FBI into office. Well, the resolve of those who have been denied democracy by the Democrat Party is strengthening, and we will NOT vote for the criminal Clinton. But keep preaching to the choir. It's more pathetic by the day, but won't sway those who are not seeking to be cogs in the worldwide Clinton influence and payola spree like you Krugman.
Like your leader Clinton, you think that if you keep lying, enough of the great unwashed will vote for her to put the first and only candidate under active criminal investigation by the FBI into office. Well, the resolve of those who have been denied democracy by the Democrat Party is strengthening, and we will NOT vote for the criminal Clinton. But keep preaching to the choir. It's more pathetic by the day, but won't sway those who are not seeking to be cogs in the worldwide Clinton influence and payola spree like you Krugman.
7
clinton falls down twice and gets up three times. trump falls down and files for chapter 11.
9
Hillary wants it so so bad that she only wants to be President of America, nothing short of that.
1
We'll see. November is a long way off.
2
Donald Trump is the human equivalent of quicksand.
1
Every time Krugman rails about those "angry white men" I look at Krugman's picture, I think about Bernie Sanders and I think of Bill Clinton.
Krugman's discussion about all of Hillary's negative media makes me wonder whether Krugman reads The New York Times, and its op-ed columnists, such as Krugman and Blow. The Times, and Krugman and Blow, should have registered as arms of the Clinton campaign.
Krugman's discussion about all of Hillary's negative media makes me wonder whether Krugman reads The New York Times, and its op-ed columnists, such as Krugman and Blow. The Times, and Krugman and Blow, should have registered as arms of the Clinton campaign.
9
is it possible that the American electorate consists of a majority of pragmatists and adults? People who are actually interested in having a competent, pragmatic government, one which understands the concepts of 'give a little, get a little,' and 'a good solution is usually one that leaves everyone a little unhappy,' and 'you can build castles in the air, but only a crazy person thinks he can live in them'?
I've spent so much of this election cycle - when dealing with either Trump or Sanders supporters, as there is not much to choose between them - feeling like Captain Kirk in the classic Star Trek episode 'Miri', being beaten to the floor by filthy feral children chanting 'blah blah blah, bonk bonk on the head!' as I plead, 'I'm a grup (grown-up) ... and I want to help.'
Maybe there is a grup in the room. And she wants to help. Will we let her?
I've spent so much of this election cycle - when dealing with either Trump or Sanders supporters, as there is not much to choose between them - feeling like Captain Kirk in the classic Star Trek episode 'Miri', being beaten to the floor by filthy feral children chanting 'blah blah blah, bonk bonk on the head!' as I plead, 'I'm a grup (grown-up) ... and I want to help.'
Maybe there is a grup in the room. And she wants to help. Will we let her?
4
I can't wait for Trump to be hit with a creme pie, or show up with a Pinocchio nose, but maybe that already happened.
3
Great column.
We've been sold hokum, bunkum, weird ideology and disasters.
Now what we have to do is follow through.
We've been sold hokum, bunkum, weird ideology and disasters.
Now what we have to do is follow through.
1
Once again Krugman refuses to see the tears in the fabric of the Democratic Party. If he were on a sinking ship he'd be plugging up the holes and telling us everything was fine. You really need to consider that just because you say these things does not mean we're stupid enough to fall for them Paul. And, no Clinton did not win "fairly and easily." Look at Guccifer2's leaked emails - she was coronated while O'Malley and Sanders had entered the race wich doesn't seem like a fair fight from the start to me. Even if she wins this fall, which seems pretty likely now, she's going to have two thorns in her side: one on the left, and one on the right. And no amount of pandering to her or talking down to us is going to change that. We've all watched the Wizard of Oz, we know you're just a small man behind a curtain.
9
I really wish the name-calling were set aside and there could be writing on actual issues on actual policy proposals. The name-calling leaves me close to not caring about the coming election.
3
Dear Mr. Krugman,
1. You under estimate Trump, again.
2. Hillary's Koch bros are wall street stooges
3. No one likes groomed Presidents
4. After the Rep. party implodes do you really think the Democratic party isn't next?
5. I loved Bill but all Hillary seems to inspire in me is malaise.
6. Baby boomers need to go.
Love, Tom
1. You under estimate Trump, again.
2. Hillary's Koch bros are wall street stooges
3. No one likes groomed Presidents
4. After the Rep. party implodes do you really think the Democratic party isn't next?
5. I loved Bill but all Hillary seems to inspire in me is malaise.
6. Baby boomers need to go.
Love, Tom
2
Thank Joe Biden for the Democrats picking normal, mainstream Hillary.
Had Biden decided to run, he probably would have split the "normal," Obama-loving Democratic vote with Hillary, and we could have wound up with each getting 20-30% of the vote and Bernie getting 30-40% of the vote, namely the hard-core liberal wing Bernie actually got. We could very easily have wound up with Bernie as the nominee. The story would have been the crazy GOP nominating Trump and the crazy Democrats nominating Bernie.
There but for the grace of Joe Biden go the Democrats.
Had Biden decided to run, he probably would have split the "normal," Obama-loving Democratic vote with Hillary, and we could have wound up with each getting 20-30% of the vote and Bernie getting 30-40% of the vote, namely the hard-core liberal wing Bernie actually got. We could very easily have wound up with Bernie as the nominee. The story would have been the crazy GOP nominating Trump and the crazy Democrats nominating Bernie.
There but for the grace of Joe Biden go the Democrats.
3
And Bernie would have not only lost the general, but scared the daylights out the mainstream Electorate to keep republicans firmly in control of Congress. How does a Socialist win the fear vote in the USA and inspire confidence in throwing out the down ticket republicans?
1
The GOP, unlike the world according to T.S. Eliot, will end with a bang not a wimper.
but it will be yuuuge.
1
I feel compelled to retort Mr. Krugman here. Partly because I believe he has been a ideological shill for Hillary. Not necessarily a sinister reason. The premise is good one, Republicans hollowed out, while Democrats largely built on a diverse set of social and or economic collations, is more coherent. What I feel this diagnosis ignores is the matter of corruption. As reported elsewhere in the NY Times is how government is failing in Venezuela where corruption is a major issue. As it stands the Republican party is more faithful to the issue of democracy- allowing a pretty failed candidate to go forward even though he will probably loose-The problem here is on the ideology of it, the ethics as it relates to democracy - to bottom up government, the Democrats are more corrupt. They are corrupt in an arrogant self denial way. Hillary is more like a dynasty not a social accomplishment of win women’s rights. Her ideological views are completely against liberal values so she is conflicted or corrupt or both. If she "rules" this way, she will be the hollowed out core of what remains; of a non progressive party. Hallowed out is not actually a political spectrum issue. Its more about what is right, ethical, and able to evolve. The Democrat Party has moved so far to the right its made spectrum a non issue- but corruption is yet another story. To the degree Democrats will renege on values ( like acceptance of government eavesdropping for instance) they are way more corrupt.
6
Clinton won more votes for seven reasons: 1) The DNC wanted her from the beginning before any votes were cast. 2) Corporate controlled mass media wants corporate controlled Clinton, so they ignored, demeaned and dismissed Sanders. 3) Much of her votes came from the red South where uninformed people routinely vote against their own best interests. 4) She is a woman, so many women vote for her just because of that, her record be damned. 5) Closed primaries excluded the largest single block of voters, Independents. 6) Voter suppression in places like Arizona made it difficult to even vote. 7) This is still controversial but if you put any credence into the impossible disparity of election results and exit polls in about eleven states, votes were either flipped in favor of Clinton, discarded or invalidated when those votes were for Sanders. This is what a political machine like Clinton's can do to corrupt a very fragile political and supposedly democratic nation. Now, all of these reasons have nothing to do with what is good for the vast majority (90%) of US citizens and everything to do with power and corporate money. If Clinton is elected, you can be sure that nothing will change. The wars will continue, the rich will get richer, the poor will get poorer and the US will sink further into the state of militaristic oligarchy.
7
Party ideology or makeup is not the problem. The problem is allowing parties to control our governmental process. Everyone has a base ideology through which they view their environment and approach problems and the solution to those problems. But these ideologies cannot control the process of problem solution. In other words the parties are the problem not the solution. Our government will remain polarized and dysfunctional as long as parties are allowed to control the process.
4
Prof. Krugman likes rules, so here is one for Donald Trump:
1) Donald Trump is always right.
2) If Donald Trump is wrong, see Rule 1)
Yes, we need opinions, not just Donald Trump's opinions. As Thomas Paine said:
"When opinions are free, in matters of government and religion, truth will finally and powerfully prevail." (Age of Reason)
1) Donald Trump is always right.
2) If Donald Trump is wrong, see Rule 1)
Yes, we need opinions, not just Donald Trump's opinions. As Thomas Paine said:
"When opinions are free, in matters of government and religion, truth will finally and powerfully prevail." (Age of Reason)
2
I would like to see the Democrats become the new right-wing of American politics, and Sander's group the left: a coalition, until the GOP disappears completely.
4
A great party is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself from within.
1
The Fat-Cat in the Tacky Hat has pulled off another Great Bamboozle. But he takes over a party that is already bankrupt.
2
"Some no doubt are personally corrupt". A really stupid statement thrown in for what purpose krugman.
1
Only thing worse than a sore loser is an arrogant winner. Krugman can't resist taking cheap shots at Sanders.
3
Sanders lied to his supporters in May that they still could win. Clinton has easily thrown this fantasy into the trash can. Now, Sanders has cornered himself and don't know how to deal with it.
1
"Also, Mrs. Clinton faced immense, bizarre hostility from the news media."
The rarefied air Dr. Krugman operates in seems to have finally gotten to him.
If only Bernie could have gotten some of that hostility. He got nothin'.
The rarefied air Dr. Krugman operates in seems to have finally gotten to him.
If only Bernie could have gotten some of that hostility. He got nothin'.
7
NYT stayed faithful to Hillary from day one. Krugman and his band of loyalists. From top to bottom, NYT was sold on Hillary, she seemed the only viable candidate to them, along with Kasich on the Republican side (however they did nothing, zero, to assist or help sane Kasich).
3
The base of the GOP has been on the yellow brick road seeking their wise and wonderful Wizard, and Tot just pulled back the curtain, and nobody makes a better Wizard than The Donald
2
Hillary Clinton had the endorsement of almost every newspaper in America, including the NY Times. Not "hostility" from the media.
Clinton is the first Democratic nominee to lose 22 states since the start of the modern primary system in 1972. Whether she won "fairly easily" is debatable.
Clinton is the first Democratic nominee to lose 22 states since the start of the modern primary system in 1972. Whether she won "fairly easily" is debatable.
4
As recently as the CA primary, LA Times announced endorsing Hillary right before the election. Talk about media bias, blatant. CA was Hillary's to lose, with rich wealthy powerful celebrities from Hollywood backing her in SoCal, to Silicon Valley billionaires, Indians and Chinese, in the Bay area. The farm workers were too scared to be come out to vote.
3
To all of Bernie's supporters: please do not either sit out the election or vote for Trump. While it would send a message, do you really want to wake up November 9th to President Donald Trump? Do you really want this vile egomaniac entrusted with the nuclear codes? Do you really want this man nominating a Supreme Court Justice? If Congress remains under the control of the Republicans do you want to see the ACA repealed? Do you want a return to the days of the 1950's when women and blacks knew their place, and did not dare to hope for a better place at the table? Do you want immigrants deported or not allowed into our country? Do you really want the blood, sweat, and tears of all those who sacrificed for Civil Rights, Women's Rights, and social progress all to have been for nothing?
I understand wanting more liberal progress, but it doesn't come overnight with the election of one individual. Until our Congress is made up of more liberal Congressmen and women, all that can be hoped for is the status quo. If you really want more progressive change, start working to elect more liberal Congressmen and women to support a liberal President, but this time, this election please vote with your brain, and not your heart.
I understand wanting more liberal progress, but it doesn't come overnight with the election of one individual. Until our Congress is made up of more liberal Congressmen and women, all that can be hoped for is the status quo. If you really want more progressive change, start working to elect more liberal Congressmen and women to support a liberal President, but this time, this election please vote with your brain, and not your heart.
7
Points for being pleasant and trying to be persuasive. You lost some points for mere fear mongering again though.
1
Sometimes truth is scary. That is not "fear mongering".
6
You're missing the point. The Republican elites may see themselves as presiding over some idealogical movement, but that is not what their party is. It is an almost perfectly homogenous party of white people in a pretty diverse country. That is the real reason it was so easily overcome by a racist megalomaniac. That is why the Democratic party is immune to this particular problem. They have their own problems (getting whooped in every midterm election for example).
I'm a white guy. Like most white guys I hate to think of things in terms of race. But hey, when the evidence stares you in the face so obviously in the guise of Donald Trump, a complete and total racist by any definition you can come up with, you just have to sit back, sigh, and say, yep this is about race. It's gross but it's true. It's not about less government, low taxes on rich people, christian conservatism. etc. It's white identity politics and it's scary and horrifying. it must be fought and resisted for the evil that it is. You can't sugar coat this. Trump ain't no George Bush. He ain't no Mitt Romney. I hated those guys, but there is no comparison with Donald Trump.
If you're a political party that only appeals to white people, sooner or later you'll get your Donald. It's physics.
I'm a white guy. Like most white guys I hate to think of things in terms of race. But hey, when the evidence stares you in the face so obviously in the guise of Donald Trump, a complete and total racist by any definition you can come up with, you just have to sit back, sigh, and say, yep this is about race. It's gross but it's true. It's not about less government, low taxes on rich people, christian conservatism. etc. It's white identity politics and it's scary and horrifying. it must be fought and resisted for the evil that it is. You can't sugar coat this. Trump ain't no George Bush. He ain't no Mitt Romney. I hated those guys, but there is no comparison with Donald Trump.
If you're a political party that only appeals to white people, sooner or later you'll get your Donald. It's physics.
3
I love all this condemnation of "angry white men." Off hand, just saying, that kinda sounds a bit like you, too, Mr. Krugman. Why doesn't NYT dump your column for a more female-centered, home-and-family-centered take on the day's economic issues, written by a prominent woman economist? I readily imagine Hillary Clinton applauding the change. Oh, by the way, what is it you propose doing with that sizable contingent of white men growing steadily more frustrated and enraged as they correctly see themselves paying the price for everybody else's revolution? When the black community, from Watts to Baltimore, becomes inflamed it burns down it's own neighborhoods. Women take their men to cour and the gay community stages parades with face paint and balloons. How do you suppose angry white men with a strong sense of personal agency and a garage full of guns will act out their inflammation, Mr. Reality?
1
@OlderThanDirt
"How do you suppose angry white men with a strong sense of personal agency and a garage full of guns will act out their inflammation, Mr. Reality?"
By opening another can of Chickenhawk Beer, mostly?
White guys in the US are nowhere near "oppressed" in the way women and minorities have been in the past-- which is what made for real "revolutions".
The ones who violently act out, as in Orlando, do it because of their defective personality, not some actual injustice.
"How do you suppose angry white men with a strong sense of personal agency and a garage full of guns will act out their inflammation, Mr. Reality?"
By opening another can of Chickenhawk Beer, mostly?
White guys in the US are nowhere near "oppressed" in the way women and minorities have been in the past-- which is what made for real "revolutions".
The ones who violently act out, as in Orlando, do it because of their defective personality, not some actual injustice.
1
Arty,
What REAL revolutions?
What REAL revolutions?
Neither party functions. My kidney also does not function as I go to dialysis three times a week. Likely disease was caused by statin drug which is used for heart. And our economy is a mixed bag with almost no growth. And this with a decrease of 12 million jobs. Obama on the other hand claims things were never better. The Fed on the other hand does not know what to do as it lost its power to do anything. The real losers are the American people that keeps losing as the government each year increases its debt. It turns out that there is no free money and printing money does not make things better. Nothing like going downhill because we are not going up hill. So vote for your party of choose. This as things no longer function.
1
We actually need to reform the political system in this country so that these "groups" Mr. Krugman referenced can actually influence policy. Arguing about social issues that should have been settled decades ago is how the two party system preserves the rule of corporations and neoliberalism. We are to believe that the "Koch brothers" are the only ones corrupting our government because the Democratic establishment's groups "really care about...their positions."
Hillary was not supposed to lose any states. This was supposed to be Gore (HRC) vs. Bradley (O'Malley) and Bernie messed up the plan. The Dem establishment should be rejoicing over The Fear of Trump. I'm not sure if being more popular than fascism is a reason to give a pat on the back.
Hillary was not supposed to lose any states. This was supposed to be Gore (HRC) vs. Bradley (O'Malley) and Bernie messed up the plan. The Dem establishment should be rejoicing over The Fear of Trump. I'm not sure if being more popular than fascism is a reason to give a pat on the back.
5
The description of the differences between the parties puts me in mind of one of Jane Jacob's reflection on the nature of economies. She noted that the metaphor for reflection should be something like an ecology - rain forest and desert being more or less the polls of the spectrum. And in the description of the GOP, Dr Krugman describers her idea of the desert - orderly, efficient, little diversity. While the mess of the Dems is more like the rain forest - light touches a million organisms before it reaches the ground. I've always loved Ms Jacob's writings and increasingly think we ignore her at our peril.
2
To borrow a turn of phrase from the esteemed Denny Green, Mr. Krugman is who we thought he was. Namely, a bourgeois economist with a mild redistributionist tilt. There's nothing wrong with this in and of itself, but it has made his columns over the last year or so sound plainly conservative against the genuinely progressive economic agenda of the Sanders movement. As a loyal reader of Krugman's columns, I've been somewhat surprised by (and, yes, disappointed in) his steadfast support of Hillary and the Democratic centrist economic vision. During the tea party takeover years, Mr. Krugman was a voice of economic and ethical sanity, illuminating (and skewering) the shams, platitudes, and irrational contradictions of the GOP ideologues. He was that rarest of all creatures: a mainstream (American!) economist who didn't worship at the altar of Adam Smith and the Chicago boys. He was a people's economist who seemed to believe that capitalism, if it is going to endure, ought to enrich the lives of the multitude.
So when a presidential candidate comes around with a legitimately progressive and potentially emancipatory economic agenda that seems to align perfectly with nearly every economic principle Krugman has championed over the years, why does one of the most prominent liberal economists default to a decidedly centrist economic vision? I imagine I'm not the only one confused by this inconsistency.
So when a presidential candidate comes around with a legitimately progressive and potentially emancipatory economic agenda that seems to align perfectly with nearly every economic principle Krugman has championed over the years, why does one of the most prominent liberal economists default to a decidedly centrist economic vision? I imagine I'm not the only one confused by this inconsistency.
4
Krugman: "The Republican establishment was easily overthrown (by Trump) because it was already hollow at the core."
The "Republican establishment" may be "hollow at the core," but Republicans having control of both the House and Senate, unfortunately. One of my biggest fears is that Republicans will continue to maintain control in the House and Senate, as well as in many state legislatures.
Am hoping for a collapse of the Republican dominance on the federal and state levels, a collapse analogous to the burnout of "decadent Communism"; however, I am not that optimistic, in light of all the gerrymandering that has brought them to power.
If Clinton is elected in November, we will likely continue to have the same do-nothing, deadbeat party in control of the House and Senate that will continue to obstruct any efforts to advance the public/common good.
Democrats need to take control of both houses of Congress, as well as state legislatures, in order to advance the ideals regarding what our government is all about, as so clearly stated in the Preamble to our Constitution -- " to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..."
None of this can happen by only putting a Democrat in the White House and keeping Congress controlled by Republican slugs.
The "Republican establishment" may be "hollow at the core," but Republicans having control of both the House and Senate, unfortunately. One of my biggest fears is that Republicans will continue to maintain control in the House and Senate, as well as in many state legislatures.
Am hoping for a collapse of the Republican dominance on the federal and state levels, a collapse analogous to the burnout of "decadent Communism"; however, I am not that optimistic, in light of all the gerrymandering that has brought them to power.
If Clinton is elected in November, we will likely continue to have the same do-nothing, deadbeat party in control of the House and Senate that will continue to obstruct any efforts to advance the public/common good.
Democrats need to take control of both houses of Congress, as well as state legislatures, in order to advance the ideals regarding what our government is all about, as so clearly stated in the Preamble to our Constitution -- " to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..."
None of this can happen by only putting a Democrat in the White House and keeping Congress controlled by Republican slugs.
4
There certainly wasn't any hostile press towards Mrs. Clinton here in the pages of the New York Times, which crowned her early in the primaries and set about disparaging and dismissing Bernie Sanders from the start.
The Democratic Party may be, as you say, a "coalition of social groups", but it doesn't seem to include anyone who wants it to be like its original self - the party of FDR, the party of the working man. Income inequality a problem? Not if you listen to Dems.
The Democratic Party may be, as you say, a "coalition of social groups", but it doesn't seem to include anyone who wants it to be like its original self - the party of FDR, the party of the working man. Income inequality a problem? Not if you listen to Dems.
5
No, it wants to get elected in 2016. This would be the first time we would have back to back Democrats ever. The only other times were FDR-Truman from illness death, and JFK-Johnson from assassination. This would finally get the Court back since the 60's.
1
I got a hoot out of this. I don't know how Krugman continues to delude himself into thinking Clinton's success in the primaries is some kind of underdog story. She had the entire system at her disposal from the beginning.
5
Democrats are addressing the real world not in terms of dreams and hopes and fears but in terms of real solutions to real problems. This has hurt them when times are tough because they cannot offer magical solutions with great confidence as have the Republicans but it has helped them appreciate reality a whole lot better. The Republicans have used cultural conservatism to hold onto middle class and blue collar voters whose economic circumstances stagnated under Republican economic policies and promoted supply side economics to provide pro-business voters with never ending tax cuts and deregulation. The reward to the middle class and blue collar people have been eroding opportunities and stagnating income, and they are feeling it, now. The business community has basically stopped investing in job producing industrial facilities in the U.S. to chase lax regulations and low income labor around the world, betraying all those Americans who were assured that slashing their collective means to greater opportunity and financial security would be picked up by the private sector. In a perfect storm, G.W. Bush's Administrations saw the worst outcomes from Republican policies of supply side economics and unresponsive government to the needs of the people in this country. The Republicans have refused to accept reality for too long, hoping that somehow their dreams will displace reality, and now they must address the consequences, Trump.
3
"Democrats are addressing the real world not in terms of dreams and hopes and fears but in terms of real solutions to real problems." - only if the DNC incorporates most if not all of the progressive plans brought up by Sen. Sanders' campaign. If the DNC repeats the strategy of the Obama administration - hold to the status quo - not quite avaricious corporate capitalism - then the DNC, like a top heavy ice burg, will need to flip.
When the corporate rulers are driving society over the cliff, telling them to change their hand position on the steering wheel isn't going to avoid the coming plunge.
When the corporate rulers are driving society over the cliff, telling them to change their hand position on the steering wheel isn't going to avoid the coming plunge.
1
Clinton is no angel. The good news is Trump comes close to resembling a devil with no attributes that would make him a good president. We are paying the price of Citizens United and a generation of voters who lack a foundation of understanding of what America once stood for.
The nation needs to look in the mirror and understand what has caused Trump's rise in popularity. The nation is facing a new reality and it has not adjusted.
A significant portion of our present population does not remember Vietnam, let alone World War II. The Depression of the 1930’s is a small chapter in our history books as is the race riots of the 1960’s/1970’s. The majority of eligible voters never had to worry about being drafted into the military. We have been at war in the Middle East since 2001 with very few complaints. If we still had the draft we would have been out of the Middle East long ago.
Our world dominance is being challenged by China and others. We are used to being king-of-the-hill and we don't like the sinking feeling.
Citizen's United has added to frustrations as the average citizen recognizes the "voter purchasing power” of the super rich is stripping him of his influence. This voter purchasing power has been fed by the significant shift in income tax rates paid by wealthier Americans since 1968 as shown here. … https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9iDa-wpjajBdWFLUmRNMlBHckE/view?usp=dr....
These same frustrations contributed to the rise of Bernie Sanders.
The nation needs to look in the mirror and understand what has caused Trump's rise in popularity. The nation is facing a new reality and it has not adjusted.
A significant portion of our present population does not remember Vietnam, let alone World War II. The Depression of the 1930’s is a small chapter in our history books as is the race riots of the 1960’s/1970’s. The majority of eligible voters never had to worry about being drafted into the military. We have been at war in the Middle East since 2001 with very few complaints. If we still had the draft we would have been out of the Middle East long ago.
Our world dominance is being challenged by China and others. We are used to being king-of-the-hill and we don't like the sinking feeling.
Citizen's United has added to frustrations as the average citizen recognizes the "voter purchasing power” of the super rich is stripping him of his influence. This voter purchasing power has been fed by the significant shift in income tax rates paid by wealthier Americans since 1968 as shown here. … https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9iDa-wpjajBdWFLUmRNMlBHckE/view?usp=dr....
These same frustrations contributed to the rise of Bernie Sanders.
3
Well said. Crooked lying Trump is caving his own tomb by his tone-deaf stupid remarks, insulting everybody dumb enough to be at ear's distance, now with the expected added nausea when he spews anger and hate... or else. It is a sad picture not even Joseph McCarthy could envision, when shamed by his vile behavior seeking destruction of others. Trump is destined to fall, now that his shenanigans and cheats in his business and personal dealings come out. Though still flailing, the end is near...even though not soon enough to avoid poisoning the well. Good riddance to a vulgar demagogue, a self-adoring bully who knows no shame.
8
Any Democrat alive knows that Will Rogers was right, at the deepest level possible. That's the strength of the party, why it can comfortably absorb Bernie Sanders and George McGovern and Hillary Clinton and Frances Perkins. It's not perfect, but it will survive.
5
1) It will survive. How unfortunate. 2) It can comfortably absorb... It threw up Sanders, as an indigestible socialist daring to thwart Her will.
1
@Blue State
Once more you give yourself away as a republican Troll. Go back to the Heritage Foundation to cry in your beer! Saying "How unfortunate" in reference to the Democrats surviving is a dead giveaway!
Once more you give yourself away as a republican Troll. Go back to the Heritage Foundation to cry in your beer! Saying "How unfortunate" in reference to the Democrats surviving is a dead giveaway!
2
Bernie or Bust is ta dangerous notion. If Bernie really wants to defeat Trump, he and has supporters should recognize the high stakes game they are playing. Join the party that will listen and most likely adopt a lot of their provisions, or do nothing, and stay home and see how little power they have under a Trump regime. Is that really what Bernie thinks is preferable? He lost fair and square-Hillary received more delegates and votes-isn't that what a Democratic nation stands for-by the people for the people. Please Bernie-listen to your better angels and lose your egotistic self serving rant. Endorse Hillary and be the Democratic candidate you chose to run as. The Democratic Party embraced you as a democrat after 40 years as a Socialist, Bernie or Bust leads to only one outcome-President Donald-really is that preferable to Hillary in the White House? I think not by a long shot. Now is the time to be a good sport and work as hard as you ran your campaign to defeat dangerous, thin skinned Donald.
5
Hope that the Progressive Party does become a viable Party.
It certainly pushed HRC to the left. Now. If it can only keep her there.
Just read though Harvard’s Shorenstein Center's report.
However, reading between the lines and based on my own take on Media coverage from 08 and 16.
What helped Trump rise to the top was Angry White Men. Duh.
What helped HRC rise to the top was Angry White, Black, Hispanic, and Asian Women.
As much as the Media helped Trump with positive ratings grabbing coverage, the negative coverage by the Media of HRC helped enrage and engage HRC voters like myself to support her even more.
Sanders, also has a lot of Angry White Men. They just have a more liberal bent.
Unfortunately, The Bernie Bros have a lot in common with the Trump Bros.
Yes. I agree. What Sanders has to say is important and necessary.
However, I personally felt the brunt of the Bernie Bros. hostility during the course of the campaign
How was I and my other older women demographic voters I knew supposed to support Sanders when we were personally being attacked and intimidated by the Bernie Bros?
This was just another example of our being subjugated, like we and our Mothers have been our entire lives.
This is more then just a discussion about two parties or a third.
This is about more than just a double standard. This is about a triple standard.
Misogyny. Misogyny. Misogyny.
"Women's Rights Are Human Rights" –HRC
In response to Rima Regas So Ca
It certainly pushed HRC to the left. Now. If it can only keep her there.
Just read though Harvard’s Shorenstein Center's report.
However, reading between the lines and based on my own take on Media coverage from 08 and 16.
What helped Trump rise to the top was Angry White Men. Duh.
What helped HRC rise to the top was Angry White, Black, Hispanic, and Asian Women.
As much as the Media helped Trump with positive ratings grabbing coverage, the negative coverage by the Media of HRC helped enrage and engage HRC voters like myself to support her even more.
Sanders, also has a lot of Angry White Men. They just have a more liberal bent.
Unfortunately, The Bernie Bros have a lot in common with the Trump Bros.
Yes. I agree. What Sanders has to say is important and necessary.
However, I personally felt the brunt of the Bernie Bros. hostility during the course of the campaign
How was I and my other older women demographic voters I knew supposed to support Sanders when we were personally being attacked and intimidated by the Bernie Bros?
This was just another example of our being subjugated, like we and our Mothers have been our entire lives.
This is more then just a discussion about two parties or a third.
This is about more than just a double standard. This is about a triple standard.
Misogyny. Misogyny. Misogyny.
"Women's Rights Are Human Rights" –HRC
In response to Rima Regas So Ca
4
As a older Boomer male, my feelings are very similar to yours in how the Berniacs were being total Bullies. Thankfully you and most of the rest of us had each other's back as the primaries finished out. We will hold the torch until Hell freezes over. See you at the polls this November.
2
There are some people who still b believe that Donald Trump is a successful businessman. If you read the long story about his mis-adventures in Atlantic City--taking his casinos public--you will see what a crook D.J.T. is. He had the Board in his pocket, sold his failing casinos, and even non-casino NYC properties, to the corporation.
The shareholders literally lost everything they had (invested in it), while Trump milked it for all that he could get--pay, bonuses, consulting fees, and many assorted perks. YOU did well, Trumpet! (The story came out over the weekend.)
Trump is one of those people who are only famous for being famous--and nothing else! Nobody with a right mind, however, would trust him, or even want to associate with him. Just like-minded snake-oil salesmen!
I'm not a golfer; however, I will definitely watch that golf tournament--the one that used to be played at Trump Doral--which will now be played in Mexico City. How fitting!
https://thetruthoncommonsense.com
The shareholders literally lost everything they had (invested in it), while Trump milked it for all that he could get--pay, bonuses, consulting fees, and many assorted perks. YOU did well, Trumpet! (The story came out over the weekend.)
Trump is one of those people who are only famous for being famous--and nothing else! Nobody with a right mind, however, would trust him, or even want to associate with him. Just like-minded snake-oil salesmen!
I'm not a golfer; however, I will definitely watch that golf tournament--the one that used to be played at Trump Doral--which will now be played in Mexico City. How fitting!
https://thetruthoncommonsense.com
3
PK describes media hostility to HRC as immense and bizarre. It is also oddly personal. When pundits are forced to recognize that there is no "there" there in her e-mails, they invariably recite a list of negative personality characteristics, like "she is so secretive" or "makes her own rules" or "conniving".
You would think they are describing ex-wives who ran over their dog!
You would think they are describing ex-wives who ran over their dog!
2
If you would talk to me, a white haired almost 70 guy, you would think I was a Bernie supporter but I'm not. I fully support HRC. The many reasons why have been enumerated by many people elsewhere. I do not, and no HRC supporters that I know, have a beef with Bernie or his supporters and are respectful and commentors who say the opposite I find suspicious. However, what does frustrate me about Bernie supporters is the notion that he somehow lost unfairly. Get over it. Build a resume and help the Democratic Party and maybe next time you (we) will win. Bernie joined the Democratic Party so that he could use it as a structure for his campaign. I would say that the Party has served him well so join us and together we can get it done.
5
Party before country and people, eh Ernest? That's how republicans behave, party first party first is their mantra. Democrats have started chanting it too, especially Hillary supporters terrified that Bernie supporters won't come to her.
1
Rot from within before destruction from without. An empty shell pushes over easy,
3
While Clinton won millions of votes so did Bernie Sanders. Clinton won the south; hardly Clinton territory in a general election. Actually given the political background of Sanders and the political machine of Clinton she should have won every state! That she lost virtually half the country shows she is indeed a very weak candidate. Also while the media is America is little more than tabloid gossip sprinkled with a few facts, Clinton's ocean of illegal bribes (Wall Street, Corporate America and the Clinton Foundation), deceit and an ongoing series of catastrophic policy failures (Iraq, Libya, TPP, NAFTA, etc.,) shows even our media sometimes gets it right about how wrong Clinton has showed herself to be.
4
Wrong, Clinton won all the swing states, and in some liberals states where caucuses were applied and lost initially to Bernie, she won the popular vote with larger voter participation.
The rest of your anti-Clinton rant is all right wing propaganda nonsense. Remember, one of the biggest differences between Trump and Clinton is that most of the crazy stuff we know about Trump is true.
The rest of your anti-Clinton rant is all right wing propaganda nonsense. Remember, one of the biggest differences between Trump and Clinton is that most of the crazy stuff we know about Trump is true.
3
Carolinajoe,
You are entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts. Clinton - like Trump - is an amazingly flawed candidate. Your "right wing propaganda" remark only means you drank the Clinton Kool-Aid. While a $100 contribution supports a candidate, a $250,000 contribution like those given to Clinton buys one. Sorry but those are the facts. Clinton is Republican-Lite nothing more.
You are entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts. Clinton - like Trump - is an amazingly flawed candidate. Your "right wing propaganda" remark only means you drank the Clinton Kool-Aid. While a $100 contribution supports a candidate, a $250,000 contribution like those given to Clinton buys one. Sorry but those are the facts. Clinton is Republican-Lite nothing more.
1
You are not the one teaching about fact and opinion. Whether she was bought by large contributions is your opinion, not fact. I judge Clinton by her platform, which is progressive enough and doable. How much doable will depend on the composition of Congress.
Stop buying right wing garbage!
Stop buying right wing garbage!
2
The article makes mention of Mrs. Clinton's negative news coverage as though it wasn't earned. There is no assumption that everyone, regardless of merit, should receive the same favorable news coverage. Mrs. Clinton has brought the bad press to her.
3
How was the 4th-9th House Benghazi investigation earned? Weren't they exactly initiated to drag her polls down, as GOP repeatedly admitted?
4
@carolinajoe
Great comebacks. Keep it going. Time to set the record straight!
Great comebacks. Keep it going. Time to set the record straight!
2
Paul Krugman needs to stick to writing about economics.
He clearly doesn't read the detailed political coverage by NYT reporters that have detailed how the Republicans have taken over a majority of state governments and have built up a team of younger politicians recruited from the grassroots of their party. Given that the demographics of the electorate are so completely stacked against them, this should be considered a sign of complete and total faliure of the Democratic Party's establishment.
In fact, almost every point that Krugman makes here has been refuted by actual coverage in this very paper. He clearly doesn't even read it.
Paul Krugman's column is lazy and tired. Time for some new blood on the op-ed pages of the NYT.
He clearly doesn't read the detailed political coverage by NYT reporters that have detailed how the Republicans have taken over a majority of state governments and have built up a team of younger politicians recruited from the grassroots of their party. Given that the demographics of the electorate are so completely stacked against them, this should be considered a sign of complete and total faliure of the Democratic Party's establishment.
In fact, almost every point that Krugman makes here has been refuted by actual coverage in this very paper. He clearly doesn't even read it.
Paul Krugman's column is lazy and tired. Time for some new blood on the op-ed pages of the NYT.
3
@Paul
Totally republican trolling as have the rest of your comments. No coherence except to trash Hillary, Dr. Krugman.
Totally republican trolling as have the rest of your comments. No coherence except to trash Hillary, Dr. Krugman.
2
In your humble opinion, Coffey.
Let's not kid ourselves. Hilary is only looking like a good candidate because a plurality of Republicans picked Donald Trump. I am not a fan of Trump or the Republican Establishment, but to be fair, when the Democrats picked a mean, self-serving and corrupt Clinton, they slapped the faces of several of their own who believed, and rightfully so, that they could do better. In the end, both parties gave us the worst they had to offer. We will see who wins out of these two embarrassments.
4
As Clinton learned in 08, there are no guarantees.
She would be wise to select Warren for VP; someone who brings the energy, enthusiasm and Sander's voters.
The risk of Warren outshining her is worth the potential down ballot reward.
She would be wise to select Warren for VP; someone who brings the energy, enthusiasm and Sander's voters.
The risk of Warren outshining her is worth the potential down ballot reward.
3
Word has it Hillary already has a plan in the works, to win millennials, stay tuned...
1
Mr. Krugman,
If, as you claim, the Republican Party, as a “top-down hierarchical structure enforcing a strict, ideologically pure party line” is already dead inside, what place is there left in the body politic for social and fiscal conservatives with a genuine sense of conviction?
Clearly, the “asymmetry” you identify is not very constructive in a system featuring two parties.
If, as you claim, the Republican Party, as a “top-down hierarchical structure enforcing a strict, ideologically pure party line” is already dead inside, what place is there left in the body politic for social and fiscal conservatives with a genuine sense of conviction?
Clearly, the “asymmetry” you identify is not very constructive in a system featuring two parties.
Dr. Krugman, you've been one of my favorite columnists for a long time, but your dismissive tone toward the Sanders campaign during this primary season has been exceedingly off-putting, and I'm bewildered by the fact that you continue to take unnecessary digs at it now that Hillary has clinched the nomination. Whatever issues you may have with Bernie Sanders as a candidate, his campaign has ignited a passionate liberal base and created a powerful push-back against decades of rightward creep in our political discourse. It baffles me that you seem incapable of appreciating its impact on the Democratic party in this election cycle.
6
Sanders lied to his supporters in May that they still could win. Pure fantasy and Clinton has proved that rather easily. Now Sanders don't know how to get out of this corner with straight face. He knows he needs to support Clinton, and he knows his supporters need to support Clinton, but once entrenched, it is not easy for him to change tack now.
2
"The G.O.P. is, or was until Mr. Trump arrived, a top-down hierarchical structure enforcing a strict, ideologically pure party line."
While I agree that the Democrats are more together than Republicans, this description of the GOP strikes me as wrong. It was the far-right "Freedom Caucus" that forced the establishment John Boehner out of the Speakership and they are the ones who are holding out on passing a budget against the new establishment Speaker Paul Ryan. Not exactly a top-down organization. Dr. Krugman is correct that many of the Republicans, like Mr. Bush and Mr. Rubio, seem to lack true conviction, but there is a significant group of Republicans, exemplified by Mr. Cruz, who are "true believers" and the gulf between the phony establishment talking heads and the true believers is the chasm that Mr. Trump revealed and exploited.
While I agree that the Democrats are more together than Republicans, this description of the GOP strikes me as wrong. It was the far-right "Freedom Caucus" that forced the establishment John Boehner out of the Speakership and they are the ones who are holding out on passing a budget against the new establishment Speaker Paul Ryan. Not exactly a top-down organization. Dr. Krugman is correct that many of the Republicans, like Mr. Bush and Mr. Rubio, seem to lack true conviction, but there is a significant group of Republicans, exemplified by Mr. Cruz, who are "true believers" and the gulf between the phony establishment talking heads and the true believers is the chasm that Mr. Trump revealed and exploited.
While I agree that the GOP is rotten and hollowed out at its core, the Democratic Party isn't that much better. We had a moment a few years ago when Howard Dean, as party chair in 2005, ran a 50-state strategy. Of course the Democratic establishment, tied as it was and is to Wall Street, big corporations, etc., did not like his approach. Remember how he clashed with Rahm Emanuel (who is setting new lows as the mayor of Chicago)?
Yet Dean's approach turned out to be the right one. The Democrats took back the Senate in 2006, and helped pave the way for Barack Obama's election in 2008. Instead of building upon this approach, the Democratic establishment, including you, Professor Krugman, is attacking the party's progressive core, and in particular Senator Bernie Sanders. Instead of criticizing Wall Street, we cannot even get Mrs. Clinton to release her highly paid speeches to them!
The Democratic Party remains viable because it gives the semblance of progressive politics, which this country badly needs, if surveys and polls are to be believed. Yet what we elect are Republican-lite politicians. Something's got to give, especially if the GOP is no longer a real party any more. Where do most voters go from here?
Yet Dean's approach turned out to be the right one. The Democrats took back the Senate in 2006, and helped pave the way for Barack Obama's election in 2008. Instead of building upon this approach, the Democratic establishment, including you, Professor Krugman, is attacking the party's progressive core, and in particular Senator Bernie Sanders. Instead of criticizing Wall Street, we cannot even get Mrs. Clinton to release her highly paid speeches to them!
The Democratic Party remains viable because it gives the semblance of progressive politics, which this country badly needs, if surveys and polls are to be believed. Yet what we elect are Republican-lite politicians. Something's got to give, especially if the GOP is no longer a real party any more. Where do most voters go from here?
2
Democratic Party has made some tactical errors but I don't think they had much choice. The quite substantial turn of the country to the right during Reagan presidency and diminished weight of Unions has forced Dems to embrace corporate donors, which in my opinion was intentionally engineered by conservatives. The real damage to progressive ideals was a function of these two plus lack of liberal media, that would, like right wing media, propagate the liberal ideals.
Bottom line is that American voter has not been vigilant enough to recognize the toxicity of conservative movement. We are paying the price right now.
Bottom line is that American voter has not been vigilant enough to recognize the toxicity of conservative movement. We are paying the price right now.
2
If you don't like climate change, criticize and defund all research. If you don't like gun control, forbid the CDC from doing any statistical analysis. If you don't like the way minorities and students vote, manipulate voting laws to stop them. If your opponent's approval numbers drift too high, exaggerate and fabricate the trivial into a tawdry scandal of epic proportions. The Republican Party has devolved into an institution wholly incapable of making an intellectually based argument in support of its positions. Why? What used to be a philosophy forming a base for discussion has been replaced with indisputable dogma. Compromise is now considered treason. All reasonable republicans have been forced out and replaced with talk radio friendly, dogma drones. Right-wing media and political operatives have spent thirty years honing the art of turning half-truths and full-on lies into political weapons. They have conditioned republican candidates and base voters to believe that winning at all costs is far more important than ethics, integrity or truth itself. Joseph McCarthy would be considered a lightweight by today's standards of republican muckraking chicanery. Like McCarthy, the house of cards eventually collapses upon its own weight of deceit and manipulation. Donald J. Trump just happened to come along at just the right time to push it all off the cliff. It has been teetering there for years.
3
Paul is an ideologue without a soul. He will say and do anything to further his agenda. He as lost all credibility as an economist or a political pundit. I only read him for comic relief. Maureen O'Dowd is more thoughtful and honest.
This election is about two awful choices. A women that is only in politics because of her husbands accomplishments, that she stayed married to because of political expediency. A conniving, dishonest shill. Her opponent is a neophyte politician that has no experience and is the equal of Obama, all theater and no substance.
Unfortunately the country gets the President they deserve. We have become a country of people that do not understand that decisions have consequences and leaders that are dishonest and care more about themselves than the country.
This became obvious when the country chose Obama over a qualified, competent and moral Romney, and now it has become the absurd choice we know face.
This election is about two awful choices. A women that is only in politics because of her husbands accomplishments, that she stayed married to because of political expediency. A conniving, dishonest shill. Her opponent is a neophyte politician that has no experience and is the equal of Obama, all theater and no substance.
Unfortunately the country gets the President they deserve. We have become a country of people that do not understand that decisions have consequences and leaders that are dishonest and care more about themselves than the country.
This became obvious when the country chose Obama over a qualified, competent and moral Romney, and now it has become the absurd choice we know face.
2
I'd like to believe this latest report from Dr. Krugman but I suspect the Democrats will face their own Trump situation in 2020. That is because an up and coming generation of younger voters has just rejected the traditional Democrat candidate going instead, rather steadily, for her opponent Bernie Sanders. In 2020, the GOP will reconstitute itself and being a census year, will have another chance at going even deeper with gerrymandering than they did in 2010 , something they are already planning, known as Redstate 2020. Hillary has had a good run, having had an opponent who is just plain silly, uninformed, and outstandingly obnoxious at times. But as president, she'll have to face the other party that holds itself above all other priorities and will do anything to subvert her while her own establishment is aging out and holding back perhaps its last challenge in Sanders and the steady loss of state houses. Triumphalism is imprudent at the very least
1
"GOP is hollow at the core."
Trump took away their most faithful voters and we are finding that they represent neither the voters nor the interests of this country. So how they were able to dupe the public for so long?
These 30-40 millions of potential Trump supporters, who also were the core of the Republican Party and conservative movement, and were exploiting the way our government works by essentially, if not outright running the Congress and the country, preventing any improvement in governance and blaming Dems for the chaos. They hold every GOP Congressman in their grip. McCain is one recent victim their influence and was exposed, at his core, as a weak senile pawn who, as in Mafia or in Nazi Party, had to participate in the crime by throwing lies at Obama or Dems to retain the membership of the gang. But who is pulling the strings and maintaining the ignorant masses aroused in this madness? There seems to be the symbiosis of several forces: on one hand it is the right wing media who found this a very lucrative way of making money, plutocracy (Kochs and many others) who make sure that in this political chaos taxes stay low and loopholes are many, and Military Industry that is making the killing since 9/11. The rest of the country is paying for this chaos dearly.
Trump took away their most faithful voters and we are finding that they represent neither the voters nor the interests of this country. So how they were able to dupe the public for so long?
These 30-40 millions of potential Trump supporters, who also were the core of the Republican Party and conservative movement, and were exploiting the way our government works by essentially, if not outright running the Congress and the country, preventing any improvement in governance and blaming Dems for the chaos. They hold every GOP Congressman in their grip. McCain is one recent victim their influence and was exposed, at his core, as a weak senile pawn who, as in Mafia or in Nazi Party, had to participate in the crime by throwing lies at Obama or Dems to retain the membership of the gang. But who is pulling the strings and maintaining the ignorant masses aroused in this madness? There seems to be the symbiosis of several forces: on one hand it is the right wing media who found this a very lucrative way of making money, plutocracy (Kochs and many others) who make sure that in this political chaos taxes stay low and loopholes are many, and Military Industry that is making the killing since 9/11. The rest of the country is paying for this chaos dearly.
1
Trump is doing to the Republican Party what no Democrat could do to it in the post-WWII period – destroy the party from bottom-up! Only another GOP presidential candidate came close – Barry Goldwater – and we all know how that ended. It did however recast the GOP into its new conservative mold that we have seen emerge since then. In more recent times, the Tea Party (a GOP fringe group) came close to shaking up the GOP from the bottom-up but the GOP establishment survived. Now Trump has taken this bottom-up revolution to a new high – it looks unlikely that the GOP establishment will survive the Trump onslaught?
As I write this the NYT is reporting that Trump has fired his campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski. Most will see this as a victory for the GOP establishment, which Corey did not care about. However, Trump’s ruthless treatment of Corey, the man responsible for his political rise – slam, bam, thank you, man – shows what lies ahead. The Republican National Convention will still witness a clash between the GOP establishment and Trump. It will result in either Trump being confirmed as the GOP presidential nominee and hence the end of the GOP as we know it or Trump exit (Trexit) and the resurrection of the old GOP.
Fasten your seatbelts; it’s going to be a bumpy ride!
As I write this the NYT is reporting that Trump has fired his campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski. Most will see this as a victory for the GOP establishment, which Corey did not care about. However, Trump’s ruthless treatment of Corey, the man responsible for his political rise – slam, bam, thank you, man – shows what lies ahead. The Republican National Convention will still witness a clash between the GOP establishment and Trump. It will result in either Trump being confirmed as the GOP presidential nominee and hence the end of the GOP as we know it or Trump exit (Trexit) and the resurrection of the old GOP.
Fasten your seatbelts; it’s going to be a bumpy ride!
2
Let's not exclude the NYT story out today that Trump was mentored by non other than Roy Cohn. Yes, that Roy, the lead counsel to Joe McCarthy. He's credited with teaching Donald all anyone needs to know in trashing people and scapegoating. Not really a big surprise once these two are linked.
1
Trump has tried everything humanly possible except shooting someone on the streets of New York to get out of this race. The man does not want to be president. If I was walking the streets of New York between now and the Republican convention I'd be looking out for an orange man with a gun.
3
Is Hillary Clinton the ideal candidate? No. There is no such thing as an ideal candidate. Is she a competent, experienced candidate? Yes. I'll take that any day over the Donald Trumps, Ben Carsons, Michele Bachmanns, Carly Fiorinas, Sarah Palins, et al of the Republican party. Has she taken money from Wall Street? So have the Republicans. Did her husband have an unseemly affair? So have many Republicans. Benghazi? Not even comparable to lying about WMD in order to invade Iraq and sacrifice the lives of thousands of Americans. Presidents are limited in their authority to enact their ideology or platform. What's more important is the knowledge, temperament, stability, intelligence, and experience needed to manage a country in the 21st century. All of which were in short supply (with maybe the exception of Jeb Bush) in the GOP race this year.
6
JEB! was a top down 1%er who decimated our education programs from Pre K through our 4yr universities. Costs skyrocketed without teachers benefiting. Take it from a Floridian. It's just way better that Trump blew him and all of the so-called moderates out of contention. It's time that the "Hollow Shell" of the Republican Party gets popped now so that a less racist, hard right organization might emerge.
Mrs. Clinton faces immense, totally rationale, hostility from progressive democrats.
4
Just for the record, there are MANY long-standing progressive Democratic voters.
It is incorrect to surmise that Mr. Sanders has a lock on them all.
It is incorrect to surmise that Mr. Sanders has a lock on them all.
4
Sensible, reality-based centrists always have to fight a two-front war. Nothing new there.
3
Simply put, the Republican Party's problems are twofold: they've run out of soul to sell and devils to whom to sell it.
4
An excellent summary of our current political situation and the mass media's failures.
2
Interesting that Dr. Krugman describes the Democratic Party as a coalition of 'groups", not of like-mined individuals. He is right about that, of course. But it does not make the Democratic Party or its candidate, Hillary Clinton, any more appealing to struggling, alienated individuals.
4
If Bernie Sanders can use his momentum to construct a viable third party, his political legacy will outweigh that of either Trump or Clinton. Maybe his loss is our gain.
2
I'd rather he shaddap about his little crusade, endorsed Clinton, got his tailfeathers out on the road and did the speechifyin'--and then, went back to the Senate, rolled his sleeves up, got over hisself, and got something real done on gun cintrol.
2
What signs of that have you seen? I've seen none.
1
You kidding us, Dr. K?
The Democratic Party is every bit as corroded as the GOP. Every bit!
I am going to the DMV today to get new plates made by Shelly Silver and his Democratic prison gang who on the Outside were members of the NY State Assembly. Yes they have Dean Skelos, a Republican, in their midst but the preponderance of the gangstas are Dems.
The Democratic Party is every bit as corroded as the GOP. Every bit!
I am going to the DMV today to get new plates made by Shelly Silver and his Democratic prison gang who on the Outside were members of the NY State Assembly. Yes they have Dean Skelos, a Republican, in their midst but the preponderance of the gangstas are Dems.
4
Oh, please, Mr. Krugman. I find it hard to believe a Nobel Laureate is this...I guess 'naive' is the most polite word I can think of. So is this intentional propaganda?
Firstly, I'm not only going to vote for Hillary, I am going to campaign for her. I never, ever thought I would say that. Trump is not only the worst candidate, he is one of the worst people in America.
But how can you claim that Hillary is any different from the Republican establishment? That she believes is anything but her own ascendancy? Bernie may not have come close to beating Ms. Clinton, but he has amply demonstrated the existence in the Democratic Party of exactly the same disgust, anger, and sense of betrayal that exists in the Republican Party. She's a chameleon and a weasel, but fortunately she's also mostly rational, so as President she won't actually hurt the country. Much.
Your mindless cheerleading of the democrats, and equally mindless vilification of the republicans, does nothing but whip up the frothy anger of your minions, and does nothing good for our nation.
Firstly, I'm not only going to vote for Hillary, I am going to campaign for her. I never, ever thought I would say that. Trump is not only the worst candidate, he is one of the worst people in America.
But how can you claim that Hillary is any different from the Republican establishment? That she believes is anything but her own ascendancy? Bernie may not have come close to beating Ms. Clinton, but he has amply demonstrated the existence in the Democratic Party of exactly the same disgust, anger, and sense of betrayal that exists in the Republican Party. She's a chameleon and a weasel, but fortunately she's also mostly rational, so as President she won't actually hurt the country. Much.
Your mindless cheerleading of the democrats, and equally mindless vilification of the republicans, does nothing but whip up the frothy anger of your minions, and does nothing good for our nation.
4
DPR, most of Krugman's minions -- er, readers -- are in fact calmly appreciative of his perspective. Like Krigman himself, they tend to be reasonable members of the reality-based community. There is very little frothing going on in this comment board.
And "mindless"? Really? That's certainly a novel take on the professor.
And "mindless"? Really? That's certainly a novel take on the professor.
1
It might be good if you actually read Krugman's columns, not to mention looked into Clinton's actual career.
Sorry, but she's been pretty much as consistent as Bernie since the 1960s, and she's gotten more done. Might wanna find out about that world women's convention outside Beijing, not to mention what CHIP is.
Vertainly not saying the woman's without sin, but this ignorant yelling is just tiresome.
Sorry, but she's been pretty much as consistent as Bernie since the 1960s, and she's gotten more done. Might wanna find out about that world women's convention outside Beijing, not to mention what CHIP is.
Vertainly not saying the woman's without sin, but this ignorant yelling is just tiresome.
3
Better strategy in dependably red or blue (non-swing) states: vote Greens. It puts the Democratic establishment on notice they can't take your vote for granted and may even give some money to the Greens.
It does all this without an impact on SCOTUS.
It does all this without an impact on SCOTUS.
I'm going to print out this article and reread it whenever I start to despair that we might indeed have a President Trump. Thanks for this shot of optimism!
2
While progressive, I've never been a big HIllary fan - not really warm and fuzzy about her - but amazingly she is winning me over with her pure resilience and strength over literally decades of concerted attacks. The latest labeling of the 'b-word' should be taken more of a compliment - the toughness required to deal with the obstructionists in the R-word party. May she may Maggie Thatcher look like a wallflower!
7
I must say Mr. Krugman, on this one you lost me.
The Republicans are very passionate and they have a hard as rock central kernel which is to funnel as much money and power to the wealthy as they can manage. Sure they are regressive and lost in the 19th Century but that doesn't change their values or their tenacity.
The Democrats have this same kernel but they are "our" wealthy so we've convinced ourselves it's okay. I mean how can you hate people who are getting filthy rich off clean energy, right? Or people who write a useless app then let it go on the open market for people who just have to have the latest thing even if they don't have a clue what it does. Or maybe you think Finding Dory is a social statement for the betterment of mankind?
You have stars in your eyes Mr. Krugman if you believe this. Our side is not universally good and their side universally rotten and corrupt. No matter how you slice it, the problem is the greed of the 1%. And that exists in both parties, Trump or Sanders, Carly or Clinton, Republican or Democrat.
The Republicans are very passionate and they have a hard as rock central kernel which is to funnel as much money and power to the wealthy as they can manage. Sure they are regressive and lost in the 19th Century but that doesn't change their values or their tenacity.
The Democrats have this same kernel but they are "our" wealthy so we've convinced ourselves it's okay. I mean how can you hate people who are getting filthy rich off clean energy, right? Or people who write a useless app then let it go on the open market for people who just have to have the latest thing even if they don't have a clue what it does. Or maybe you think Finding Dory is a social statement for the betterment of mankind?
You have stars in your eyes Mr. Krugman if you believe this. Our side is not universally good and their side universally rotten and corrupt. No matter how you slice it, the problem is the greed of the 1%. And that exists in both parties, Trump or Sanders, Carly or Clinton, Republican or Democrat.
5
you want to reduce everything to a simple either/or. this is not useful.
1
"Didn’t Hillary Clinton face her own insurgency in the person of Bernie Sanders, which she barely turned back? Actually, no."
Indeed: she probably didn't turn it back at all.
http://alexanderhiggins.com/stanford-berkley-study-1-77-billion-chance-h...
Indeed: she probably didn't turn it back at all.
http://alexanderhiggins.com/stanford-berkley-study-1-77-billion-chance-h...
4
Bush and Rubio are as hollow as any of the slick, dark suit liars in their party. If Little Marco decides to run again, I will send a donation to his Democratic opponent, and I hope other out-of-staters will do the same. We can't have creeps like this in our Congress.
5
Establishment is establishment Mr. Krugman. One, with heavy names in it, got obliterated by Trump. The other fell quickly in line behind the ur-establismentarian Clintons this time before the primaries even started. In 2008 it happened the other way round.
Remember how that election turned out? I hope you are right that what happens in the primaries stays in the primaries.
Remember how that election turned out? I hope you are right that what happens in the primaries stays in the primaries.
3
This is a message to all the supporters of Bernie Sanders who have posted comments below demanding more attention and respect and castigating Hillary Clinton once again.
Listen darlins', you should understand that Hillary's supporters are angry too. We're not just a bunch of nice old ladies living off our equities. We're sick and tired of hearing our candidate demeaned and insulted, and we're not that interested in accommodating your shrill demands that Bernie's (unrealistic, uncompromising, self-righteous, pseudo-"revolutionary") proposals be immediately adopted. We trust that Hillary has worked in the wide world, understands what negotiation means, and would make a far better president than Bernie Sanders, who over decades has earned a reputation as a lifelong curmudgeon who is incapable of compromise and treats his staff badly.
You don't want to vote for Hillary. Ok. Don't. Jeez, I feel like I'm writing to teenagers.
Hillary isn't responsible to pander to you. She won. That's how the machinery works. She won thanks in large part to her reliable history as an advocate of minorities and women. Bernie...what's he been up to? Oh yeah, voted against background checks for gun sales. He ain't no saint.
A refusal to vote for Hillary is effectively a vote for Donald Trump. Then we will all have to live in a country ruled by the Stay-Puft marshmallow man for four years. Four years. Four years. Four years.
Those are the options now. You choose.
Listen darlins', you should understand that Hillary's supporters are angry too. We're not just a bunch of nice old ladies living off our equities. We're sick and tired of hearing our candidate demeaned and insulted, and we're not that interested in accommodating your shrill demands that Bernie's (unrealistic, uncompromising, self-righteous, pseudo-"revolutionary") proposals be immediately adopted. We trust that Hillary has worked in the wide world, understands what negotiation means, and would make a far better president than Bernie Sanders, who over decades has earned a reputation as a lifelong curmudgeon who is incapable of compromise and treats his staff badly.
You don't want to vote for Hillary. Ok. Don't. Jeez, I feel like I'm writing to teenagers.
Hillary isn't responsible to pander to you. She won. That's how the machinery works. She won thanks in large part to her reliable history as an advocate of minorities and women. Bernie...what's he been up to? Oh yeah, voted against background checks for gun sales. He ain't no saint.
A refusal to vote for Hillary is effectively a vote for Donald Trump. Then we will all have to live in a country ruled by the Stay-Puft marshmallow man for four years. Four years. Four years. Four years.
Those are the options now. You choose.
17
Right on!!
3
Sorry, Hillary won at least in part because of money, media collusion, and voter fraud. Krugman may believe Sanders outspent her, but that's only true if you ignore super PAC spending and the corporate media in the tank for her.
Google "Odds Hillary Won Without Widespread Fraud: 1 in 77 Billion Says Berkeley, Stanford Studies" for one factual examination of this phenomenon.
Trump gets the most free media ($1,898,000) when compared to Clinton ($746,000) and Sanders ($321,000). So Hillary gets more than double the free media (and Trump get six times more) than Sanders, and Sanders still manages to get a respectable showing! [source: http://www.idafrica.ng/9-marketing-lessons-for-brands-from-donald-trumps...]
As for the "vote for Hillary or get Trump" meme, that's not true either. In reliably red or blue states, one can vote for Jill Stein, Greens without having an impact on the outcome, or the SCOTUS. Such a vote empowers the Greens (they may get money) and puts corporate D's on notice they can't take their left flank for granted.
Finally, the condescention in which you couch your comment is consistent with Hillary's arrogance. I'd urge a trip to the mirror, and revised tactics of persuasion.
It took a Democrat to say it: "I don't care who people vote for as long as I pick the candidates" -- Boss Tweed... That's what's happening now, but it doesn't mean economic inequality isn't a real issue. It's not going away.
Google "Odds Hillary Won Without Widespread Fraud: 1 in 77 Billion Says Berkeley, Stanford Studies" for one factual examination of this phenomenon.
Trump gets the most free media ($1,898,000) when compared to Clinton ($746,000) and Sanders ($321,000). So Hillary gets more than double the free media (and Trump get six times more) than Sanders, and Sanders still manages to get a respectable showing! [source: http://www.idafrica.ng/9-marketing-lessons-for-brands-from-donald-trumps...]
As for the "vote for Hillary or get Trump" meme, that's not true either. In reliably red or blue states, one can vote for Jill Stein, Greens without having an impact on the outcome, or the SCOTUS. Such a vote empowers the Greens (they may get money) and puts corporate D's on notice they can't take their left flank for granted.
Finally, the condescention in which you couch your comment is consistent with Hillary's arrogance. I'd urge a trip to the mirror, and revised tactics of persuasion.
It took a Democrat to say it: "I don't care who people vote for as long as I pick the candidates" -- Boss Tweed... That's what's happening now, but it doesn't mean economic inequality isn't a real issue. It's not going away.
1
Demockracy, just stop it, please! You have done enough damage to this country by voting for Nader in 2000.
1
An interesting article in today's NYT about Trump's connection with Roy Cohn. The art of smear was passed to Trump. Hillary Clinton is certainly vulnerable. The problem for Trump is that his big mouth has moved him right out of contention for the presidency. Clinton is the last corporatist establishment person standing. The Democrats will probably rue the day they let the Clinton's back into power.
2
And any SANE American will rue the day that Trump gets any more power -- Have you seriously considered the outcome of a Republican President, Congress, and Supreme Court???
2
Gee, as much as they rue they elected Obama???
3
Trump has lifted the thin veil of racism that is the GOP. When I ask my Republican friends why they are Republican, the answers usually point to someone of the lower class beating the system (Welfare cheats). Now it is extended to illegals who work, but don't pay taxes. You know those who cannot get hired, go into to business cutting your lawn, cleaning your house and a host of entrepreneurships available to them. Like the "Americans," who do the same thing (cut corners on income tax because they can). Wouldn't you love to see Trump's tax returns. I understand that there was a year when he paid NOTHING. Class distinction is offered up as a weak disguise for racism. As I have listened to Trump, it seems he has disdain for women, African Americans, Mexicans, and Muslims to name a few. The line from Shakespeare rings true. "Methinks the lady doth protest too much." He shouts out that he is liked by many Mexicans, Muslims etc., etc. Wouldn't Hillary sound ridiculous saying exactly the same thing? I would like my Republican friends to prove to me how much better off I would be without Medicare, Social Security, and my pension. The great fear that Republicans have is that the young among us are not quite as bigoted as they are.
You will not need any proof, if you just try to understand that you pension, social security and medicare does not grow on trees. Even understanding the meaning of trade-off will do you lot of good.
I sure hope that you are not advocating that
1) cheating on your taxes is okay, because you are running your small business
2) Illegally crossing the border is okay to avail of the social benefits
As for you social security, medicare, and pension. How about doing some calculations and calculating your nest egg if the government was not deducting social security tax, medicare tax, and cutting your salary for future pension and you had invested it in stock market at a long term rate of return of 10%. You will get all the benefits without the middleman and cronies taking a cut from you hard earned money.
Also understand that social security won't be guaranteed after 2035. You favorite government has spent that money that it was supposed to be saving for your retirement.
I sure hope that you are not advocating that
1) cheating on your taxes is okay, because you are running your small business
2) Illegally crossing the border is okay to avail of the social benefits
As for you social security, medicare, and pension. How about doing some calculations and calculating your nest egg if the government was not deducting social security tax, medicare tax, and cutting your salary for future pension and you had invested it in stock market at a long term rate of return of 10%. You will get all the benefits without the middleman and cronies taking a cut from you hard earned money.
Also understand that social security won't be guaranteed after 2035. You favorite government has spent that money that it was supposed to be saving for your retirement.
In typical fashion, your comment assumes a great deal. I never said that illegally crossing anything was ok. And you have misread the intent of my comment on taxes. It is obviously not ok for either Trump or anyone to cheat. The point I was making is that there are those who think that it is ok for Trump, but not the poor guy. The 10% you speak of hides behind smoke and mirrors. Anyone who can get that kind of return consistently and legally would have everyone in the world trying to join in. Medicare covered my wife's illnesses in the last 4 years of her life and no trust fund that I could have established would have enabled me to pay for her treatment and sustain my own life. Everything I owned including my house and car and a my life's saving would have been spent. I did not mind paying into Social Security and my pension. When I paid in, it was to cover those senior citizens who, like me now, needed some help to survive. The problem with illegals is so enormous that no rhetoric is going to solve it. And certainly, Trump's ideas of walls and deportation is a burden we can ill afford. Somehow, I expect a sane person to come up with a workable solution that will probably please no one, but will work. I invested in the market in very conservative stuff and still lost a small fortune when the bottom fell out. But hey, you must be invincible with your 10%!!!
Paul Krugman sounds more and more like he is looking for a job in the Clinton administration.
And he fails to see that a Clinton win, far from restoring the credibility of the Democratic party, will instead make it look even more like the GOP.
And he fails to see that a Clinton win, far from restoring the credibility of the Democratic party, will instead make it look even more like the GOP.
5
Paul Krugman spoke recently at the 92nd Street Y. When asked a similar question there, he evoked the messy state of his work office as an indicator of his lack of administrative abilities or inclinations. He asserted that he prefers to do the things for which he has better capabilities. I'm sure he would be pleased if a Clinton administration took his advice when offered - either through his column or by meetings in D.C.
1
To Krugman, many of the republican candidates had no conviction.
The Democrats nominate as their candidate a crook that will likely soon receive one.
The Democrats nominate as their candidate a crook that will likely soon receive one.
4
Yawn. Hillary Clinton is not facing conviction, or prison, no matter how desperately Republicans wish it to be true. I suggest a refresher course at Trump University to learn what genuine fraud looks like.
4
In this country one is still innocent until PROVEN guilty -- careful, your 'Schadenfreude' is showing.
2
The Amateur Hour will soon be over. Then then the pros take over. Republicans with Big Money, backed by Big Banks and Big Companies, will pour more than a billion dollars into attack ads against Hillary and love songs about the Donald. We'll get to see his family until we feel we're one of them. They're just hardworking folks like us, trying to get along, engulfed by the disastrous political and economic climate created by eight years of Democratic rule. It's time for a change. We need to free Free Enterprise from the shackles of government. The answer isn't government. Government is the problem. We'll be saying it in our sleep. Like zombies, we'll go to the polls in November, after the summer heat has ended, and vote for the Trumpticket. That's the Republican Revenge. Watch for it.
1
Yes absolutely.
Except for the real data, but who cares about facts. This is a progressive forum.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/election-2016-campa...
Except for the real data, but who cares about facts. This is a progressive forum.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/election-2016-campa...
Worse than being hollow, the GOP has become the party of deception. Dismantle Social Security to save it. Lower taxes on the wealthy for trickle down benefits to the middle class and poor.
People who did not depend on Fox News and Rush Limbaugh for their news and analysis could see through this GOP deception.
People who did not depend on Fox News and Rush Limbaugh for their news and analysis could see through this GOP deception.
4
Already the Republican narrative of Hillary Clinton as "crooked" is well established, aided by a complicit media. Will Republicans and the media use this fabrication to de-legitimize Clinton's election in the same way they fabricated Barack Obama's Muslim faith and foreign birth? Further, when Clinton is the sitting president, will the Republican party and its no-nothing followers use this phony narrative as a rationale to sabotage her presidency as they tried (but failed) to do with Obama's?
5
Its been a long time since things felt so good...
A warm feeling accompanied the words, or is it just relief?
Its structural, not organic. Its not the people, but how they're organized. Its not their ideas, but what, for party purity, they HAVE TO think.
A real elephant replaced by a "YUGE" paper weight over time. Each new commandment of Thou Shalt and Shalt Not, pumping out life giving fluids, replaced with formaldehyde. Eyes glass, fixed gaze, blind to winding roads stretching to horizon. Brain slowly pulled out its trunk after it shrank from lack of needed exercise. A stuffed pachyderm...
Is it that party, or any vibrant political entity, is in conversation mixed with struggle and fisticuffs to reach consensus, not "you WILL believe this!"? Acting a role, but with weak, or no, conviction.
The show has played a long time, the cast repeating dry lines sans flare or spark. Now, with letters fallen from marque, lights missing, sign flickering, the crowds gather around the wagon of a flimflam man, baggy trousers, patched coat, plaid vest, gold teeth, orange hair, with hand painted cloth sign, big letters saying "Uncle Donald's Cure All Remedy". Its just snake oil, but at least the act is "real", alive, entertaining. What he's selling is not.
Keeping the Donkey. The noise and smell from the stall means its still kicking.
A warm feeling accompanied the words, or is it just relief?
Its structural, not organic. Its not the people, but how they're organized. Its not their ideas, but what, for party purity, they HAVE TO think.
A real elephant replaced by a "YUGE" paper weight over time. Each new commandment of Thou Shalt and Shalt Not, pumping out life giving fluids, replaced with formaldehyde. Eyes glass, fixed gaze, blind to winding roads stretching to horizon. Brain slowly pulled out its trunk after it shrank from lack of needed exercise. A stuffed pachyderm...
Is it that party, or any vibrant political entity, is in conversation mixed with struggle and fisticuffs to reach consensus, not "you WILL believe this!"? Acting a role, but with weak, or no, conviction.
The show has played a long time, the cast repeating dry lines sans flare or spark. Now, with letters fallen from marque, lights missing, sign flickering, the crowds gather around the wagon of a flimflam man, baggy trousers, patched coat, plaid vest, gold teeth, orange hair, with hand painted cloth sign, big letters saying "Uncle Donald's Cure All Remedy". Its just snake oil, but at least the act is "real", alive, entertaining. What he's selling is not.
Keeping the Donkey. The noise and smell from the stall means its still kicking.
The Democratic party is almost as "top down", rigidly managed by its won elite establishment as the REpublicans. Clinto nand the DNC essentially decided this primary tow years ago, the committee constantly hobbled Sanders and favored HRC. they are just more complicated and messy, with all of the aformentione coalitions and interest groups vying for attention. But make no mistake this is a party that also controls the outcome to favor the insiders.
4
PK's article and many comments fail to get it: the people they criticize are all Americans. The Communist USSR was run by dictators backed by a huge military. America is run by complexes of oligarchs backed by many layers of "law-enforcement." It always has been so. ALWAYS! But good political leaders have managed from time to time to extract concessions from them.
Now, whether it's Trump supporters or Sanders supporters, they all know everything and they all know best, and they all know the bitter language of partisan hatred. They represent the chaos of ultimate individualism. An in-between slice of more experienced people know that life is complex and that change comes slowly, unless people want blood and guts in the streets. The blood is bad enough, but I assure you, the guts are revolting. And it is always the weak who suffer most. I am not hopeful for the future of the USA unless more people find their experienced voices. But they've had eight years to do that. So, I'm not hopeful.
Now, whether it's Trump supporters or Sanders supporters, they all know everything and they all know best, and they all know the bitter language of partisan hatred. They represent the chaos of ultimate individualism. An in-between slice of more experienced people know that life is complex and that change comes slowly, unless people want blood and guts in the streets. The blood is bad enough, but I assure you, the guts are revolting. And it is always the weak who suffer most. I am not hopeful for the future of the USA unless more people find their experienced voices. But they've had eight years to do that. So, I'm not hopeful.
1
I would tend to agree with the article's sentiment. But beware of an "October Surprise".
1
It's the economy, stupid.
Is the economy great? Or does it need to be made great again? Will Americans settle for less than great economy due for other considerations?
How the next month or two plays out will determine the results, barring a crisis as in 2008. Historically though, the presidency changes parties every 8 years since Truman, except for Carter (4) and Reagan Bush (12) which also averages to 8.
Is the economy great? Or does it need to be made great again? Will Americans settle for less than great economy due for other considerations?
How the next month or two plays out will determine the results, barring a crisis as in 2008. Historically though, the presidency changes parties every 8 years since Truman, except for Carter (4) and Reagan Bush (12) which also averages to 8.
2
In 1994, Canadian General Romeo Dallaire pleaded for Americans to jam Radio Milles Collines which was coordinating the genocide of the Tutsi people at a rate of 10,000 murders daily, mainly by machete.
The Clinton administration did nothing. They were triangulating the implications of using the word "genocide."
In 1945 the American prosecutor at the Nuremberg prosecutor said that civilization could not stand the repetition of genocide. Somehow the Clintons endured the 800,000 deaths. Bill even said sorry.
In 1996 the Clintons ended "welfare as we know it". And now three million children grow up in extreme poverty with household cash income of less than $2/day. And then the Clintons swept up all the black fathers and put them in privatized prisons where slave labour had been restored.
Hillary was "dead broke" when she left the White House and now the couple is worth well north of $100 million and, no, Hillary is not going to share her in camera words with the banksters. They have a foundation that confounds major charity trackers but employs armies of Clintonistas.
Otherwise, Dr Krugman is totally correct: people who don't worship the Clintons are mad devils who want child poverty and privation ended.
The Clinton administration did nothing. They were triangulating the implications of using the word "genocide."
In 1945 the American prosecutor at the Nuremberg prosecutor said that civilization could not stand the repetition of genocide. Somehow the Clintons endured the 800,000 deaths. Bill even said sorry.
In 1996 the Clintons ended "welfare as we know it". And now three million children grow up in extreme poverty with household cash income of less than $2/day. And then the Clintons swept up all the black fathers and put them in privatized prisons where slave labour had been restored.
Hillary was "dead broke" when she left the White House and now the couple is worth well north of $100 million and, no, Hillary is not going to share her in camera words with the banksters. They have a foundation that confounds major charity trackers but employs armies of Clintonistas.
Otherwise, Dr Krugman is totally correct: people who don't worship the Clintons are mad devils who want child poverty and privation ended.
5
The Party of the Corporations is an arm of the private corporate sector, there is no difference between the political bosses and the corporate bosses -- one does not genuflect to the other -- they are all part of the same crime family. It's wrong to say the politicians work for the corporations, rather they all work together.
This distinction is important because Prof. Krugman's claim that the Republican Party is dead is not the way to describe the revelation that the bosses are hollow. The politicians (and frankly many Democrats are included in this republican cohort) have a unitary constituency to represent, which is the <1% elite corporate bosses, and that monogamy is a one-dimensional, thin and hollow structure. Like a paid army who gets carted off to war some far place to attack, they don't have their hearts in the fight like the defenders do, and it is the republican politicians and their cowardly democrat sympathizers who are easy to scare into retreat when we the people, the 99% stand up for our lives, defend ourselves and fight back.
The rapacious political bosses are in it for the money, and we're in it for our lives, and we will win the war at some point. Trump did expose the cave in their hearts, and they have shown themselves to be easily knocked off their position since their footing was never on solid moral ground, but upon the shifting foundation of their ethical system that is to empower the wealthy corporate bosses over their herd of farm animals.
This distinction is important because Prof. Krugman's claim that the Republican Party is dead is not the way to describe the revelation that the bosses are hollow. The politicians (and frankly many Democrats are included in this republican cohort) have a unitary constituency to represent, which is the <1% elite corporate bosses, and that monogamy is a one-dimensional, thin and hollow structure. Like a paid army who gets carted off to war some far place to attack, they don't have their hearts in the fight like the defenders do, and it is the republican politicians and their cowardly democrat sympathizers who are easy to scare into retreat when we the people, the 99% stand up for our lives, defend ourselves and fight back.
The rapacious political bosses are in it for the money, and we're in it for our lives, and we will win the war at some point. Trump did expose the cave in their hearts, and they have shown themselves to be easily knocked off their position since their footing was never on solid moral ground, but upon the shifting foundation of their ethical system that is to empower the wealthy corporate bosses over their herd of farm animals.
According to professional forecasters, it looks like the Dems. have the spread and momentum: http://pollyvote.com. 5% ahead as of today. So, it looks like Hil. is in. Even if Brexit proves to be a shock to the economy, Trump is not the candidate to take advantage of it politically.
So, aside from Bernie & bros. bashing, the good professor can turn to the matter of the erstwhile Republican Party, not your grandfather's Republican Party, not the party of Eisenhower or even Nixon.
The lesson? It's what happens when hate trumps all. Around 1996 Republican feeling (the ones who hadn't been kicked out) turned the entire panoply of their hatred into one single focus: Democrats. Or, at least that's the way I see it. That doomed them. They couldn't govern without the Democrats. Ergo, no platform for governance at all.
The question is, how could they possibly miss the fact that abandoning the single reason for the existence of government, governance, would not be bad for them in the end?
So, aside from Bernie & bros. bashing, the good professor can turn to the matter of the erstwhile Republican Party, not your grandfather's Republican Party, not the party of Eisenhower or even Nixon.
The lesson? It's what happens when hate trumps all. Around 1996 Republican feeling (the ones who hadn't been kicked out) turned the entire panoply of their hatred into one single focus: Democrats. Or, at least that's the way I see it. That doomed them. They couldn't govern without the Democrats. Ergo, no platform for governance at all.
The question is, how could they possibly miss the fact that abandoning the single reason for the existence of government, governance, would not be bad for them in the end?
1
I hope your economic writing is not as slanted as your characterization of the Democratic Primary process this year.
There were significant voting irregularities in a list of states where exit polling varied significantly from the reported vote count and these happened to all be states where Hillary won and desperately needed to win. Comparing reported vote count and exit polling is exactly how voting integrity monitors detect election fraud. There are pending lawsuits by respected individuals and groups that have not been reported in the pages of most corporate media.
Next, Hillary depended heavily upon closed Primaries in a party that casts itself as the people's party. Where independent voters were allowed to participate her margins largely evaporated. She also racked up many delegates in The Old Confederacy which are as likely to vote Republican in November as the sun is likely to rise in the East tomorrow.
Then there are states like New York, where voter purges took over 160,000 out of eligibility in Kings County (Brooklyn) alone. Massive numbers of Democrats found their registrations curiously listed as something other as well & the cut off for changing this was late last year. The fix was in in New York and the media's response was "who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?"
Hillary had almost every advantage imaginable and yet will need Super Delegates as she lacks the pledged delegates for a 1st ballot nomination. Does not line up with your story.
There were significant voting irregularities in a list of states where exit polling varied significantly from the reported vote count and these happened to all be states where Hillary won and desperately needed to win. Comparing reported vote count and exit polling is exactly how voting integrity monitors detect election fraud. There are pending lawsuits by respected individuals and groups that have not been reported in the pages of most corporate media.
Next, Hillary depended heavily upon closed Primaries in a party that casts itself as the people's party. Where independent voters were allowed to participate her margins largely evaporated. She also racked up many delegates in The Old Confederacy which are as likely to vote Republican in November as the sun is likely to rise in the East tomorrow.
Then there are states like New York, where voter purges took over 160,000 out of eligibility in Kings County (Brooklyn) alone. Massive numbers of Democrats found their registrations curiously listed as something other as well & the cut off for changing this was late last year. The fix was in in New York and the media's response was "who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?"
Hillary had almost every advantage imaginable and yet will need Super Delegates as she lacks the pledged delegates for a 1st ballot nomination. Does not line up with your story.
4
Krugman is right. Just finished work as delegate in Texas Democratic convention. It was chaos - hundreds of groups and their agendas. In the end, we all realized that we had a common goal - in democracy, inclusiveness, kindness, and leaving a better future for our children. This trumps all divisions. Trump and the empty Republicans better watch out this November - people are finally waking up to the empty suits and the Koch brothers pulling the strings.
4
Trump has shown the GOP to be what it is -- a ship of fools driven by a colossal failure -- the Mitch McConnell Political Party Doctrine. Boehner finally saw this and abandoned the ship.
It is with high glee that most political junkies tune in every night to watch and listen to the convolutions within the GOP and by pundits both left and right. No one knows how this will turn out except we are at an inflection point.
Maybe the bottom line is that the hapless GOP engine thought it could once again crank up the same machine as it did with McCain-Palin and Romney-Ryan and finally make a breakthrough never thinking once that its machine was filled with leaky gaskets and hot air. The slate of 17 GOP candidates was proof.
What we do know is that the man with the Acacia Tortilis hairdo has destroyed the GOP business model which is built upon a coalition of single-issue voters who do not want someone else to have something.
Can anyone describe what conservative principals mean when it comes to sorting through complex situations and picking the best path which most of us try to do in our daily lives? For some reason the GOP leadership romanticizes that this method does not apply to the GOP leadership and its caucus in Congress. These have produced no bench. No capable or worthwhile progeny. That is why it is going “poof.”
It is with high glee that most political junkies tune in every night to watch and listen to the convolutions within the GOP and by pundits both left and right. No one knows how this will turn out except we are at an inflection point.
Maybe the bottom line is that the hapless GOP engine thought it could once again crank up the same machine as it did with McCain-Palin and Romney-Ryan and finally make a breakthrough never thinking once that its machine was filled with leaky gaskets and hot air. The slate of 17 GOP candidates was proof.
What we do know is that the man with the Acacia Tortilis hairdo has destroyed the GOP business model which is built upon a coalition of single-issue voters who do not want someone else to have something.
Can anyone describe what conservative principals mean when it comes to sorting through complex situations and picking the best path which most of us try to do in our daily lives? For some reason the GOP leadership romanticizes that this method does not apply to the GOP leadership and its caucus in Congress. These have produced no bench. No capable or worthwhile progeny. That is why it is going “poof.”
3
Why is the Media not talking about this?
"Are we witnessing a dishonest election? Our first analysis showed that states wherein the voting outcomes are difficult to verify show far greater support for Secretary Clinton. Second, our examination of exit polling suggested large differences between the respondents that took the exit polls and the claimed voters in the final tally. Beyond these points, these irregular patterns of results did not exist in 2008. As such, as a whole, these data suggest that election fraud is occurring in the 2016 Democratic Party Presidential Primary election. This fraud has overwhelmingly benefited Secretary Clinton at the expense of Senator Sanders.
Quicklink: Stanford University Confirms Democratic Election Fraud | OpEdNews
http://www.opednews.com/Quicklink/Stanford-University-Confir-in-General_...
"Are we witnessing a dishonest election? Our first analysis showed that states wherein the voting outcomes are difficult to verify show far greater support for Secretary Clinton. Second, our examination of exit polling suggested large differences between the respondents that took the exit polls and the claimed voters in the final tally. Beyond these points, these irregular patterns of results did not exist in 2008. As such, as a whole, these data suggest that election fraud is occurring in the 2016 Democratic Party Presidential Primary election. This fraud has overwhelmingly benefited Secretary Clinton at the expense of Senator Sanders.
Quicklink: Stanford University Confirms Democratic Election Fraud | OpEdNews
http://www.opednews.com/Quicklink/Stanford-University-Confir-in-General_...
1
The mainstream media isn't mentioning it because they want to keep repeating the mantra that Clinton won 4 million more voters than Sanders and he should just throw in the towel already and endorse her. The media also doesn't mention how the announcement that Clinton "won" the day before the California primary maybe suppressed voter turnout and also how 2 million votes in California have yet to be counted. I won't hold my breathe that you'll read much if anything about his in a paper like the NY Times. Their advertisers etc wouldn't stand for it.
1
Not just what the Koch brothers pay them to say, but increasingly what Sheldon Adelson wants them to say or even what Rupert Murdoch wanted them to say. Even the so called moderate elements of the Republican party, Ryan / Romney and the like, were, and are, far enough away from the center of sense to scare a vast section of the electorate. It is Adelson and Murdoch who through their openly racist attacks on Obama, have helped build and enforce a brooding sense of fear within the right wing elements of the party. And because the party has no adhesive or intellectual center, it moves around like a flock of sheep to wherever the next sound bit lies without due recognition of the repugnancy of the statements its leadership continually seems to create and embellish. As the saying goes, if you say something long enough and loud enough it has a tendency to become the implicit truth.
1
Professor Krug,
You have a large following and we know Hillary will find economists who know and believe your words to lead her economic team.
I think 50 years of failure should be ample to prove that neoliberalism and globalism does not work. The Republican Party is not the disease it is just a very bad symptom. I worry that another 4 years of failed economic theory will see the next election feature a much more malevolent incarnation of a GOP presidential nominee.
We cannot repair the system it is broken beyond repair. Here is historian, author, philosopher and public intellectual John Ralston Saul giving a lecture at the Sydney Opera House telling us what we need to do about the system.
Titled It's Broke, How can we Fix It?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNjwt9syPCE
In a more perfect world John Ralston Saul would lead the the opposition party but in a society featuring Republicans and Democrats Saul remains a prophet in the wilderness.
Speaking for myself I can think of no better economist than Paul Krugman to lead the conservative forces but I think conservative economists are a clear and present danger. We need 21st century economics.
You have a large following and we know Hillary will find economists who know and believe your words to lead her economic team.
I think 50 years of failure should be ample to prove that neoliberalism and globalism does not work. The Republican Party is not the disease it is just a very bad symptom. I worry that another 4 years of failed economic theory will see the next election feature a much more malevolent incarnation of a GOP presidential nominee.
We cannot repair the system it is broken beyond repair. Here is historian, author, philosopher and public intellectual John Ralston Saul giving a lecture at the Sydney Opera House telling us what we need to do about the system.
Titled It's Broke, How can we Fix It?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNjwt9syPCE
In a more perfect world John Ralston Saul would lead the the opposition party but in a society featuring Republicans and Democrats Saul remains a prophet in the wilderness.
Speaking for myself I can think of no better economist than Paul Krugman to lead the conservative forces but I think conservative economists are a clear and present danger. We need 21st century economics.
3
Many pro Sanders fans here today spewing hate towards Hillary, even promoting a write in or 3rd party alternative. Sanders is an old fashion radical, period. By his silence he is encouraging them and will do his best to disrupt the convention. The media talking heads participate in this silly charade for ratings. She is "disliked", she is a "criminal", she is a woman for Gods sake.
Millions of us disagree with these haters. I rant daily against them as do others.
Hillary is our best hope for a rational government especially if we can give her a congress that is rational. She alone spends time downstream to support Democrats while Sanders sulks and complains.
Who you gonna call? I know where my vote and support will go.
Millions of us disagree with these haters. I rant daily against them as do others.
Hillary is our best hope for a rational government especially if we can give her a congress that is rational. She alone spends time downstream to support Democrats while Sanders sulks and complains.
Who you gonna call? I know where my vote and support will go.
8
Heaven forbid the Republican party disappears. Necessary to have counter to Democrats.
One party states are even worse than party of No.
One party states are even worse than party of No.
Can we at least give a passing smack to Hillary's media operation? It's not just bad, it's awful. OK, she doesn't like journalists, but does that mean her media people should let her retreat inside of a bunker except for rare, carefully stage-managed interviews? A decent media operative would tell her she has to be herself and talk directly and honestly to people, as much as possible, even on days when her hair looks like hell. Then there wouldn't be this void in the public consciousness that the Republicans (and Bernie supporters) fill with this demon-Hillary they have conjured up.
2
I will vote for Hillary Clinton only because Trump is basically a liar and a fool. Having a reputed billion dollars may mean you are smart or just a lucky trust fund baby. However, Hillary is an unattractive candidate because of her long history of caring for no one except for Hillary. I was appalled by her "move" to New York so she could get from the Democratic establishment a safe seat. She has been ineffective both as a senator and as a secretary of state. Again, she has no principle except wanting to be president. At least she's smart and for a change we can have a REAL madame president.
If most NYers didn't have a problem with her representing NY, why should you as a Californian? Like California, NY has a long tradition of welcoming people from other states and countries. It's not a big deal; Hillary represented the state well.
1
Trump's early mentoring by Roy Cohn is very telling - a direct line from McCarthy to Trump. The same behavior - it makes so much sense now, doesn't it? And Trump's true nature was evident back then, too - the diamond cufflinks given to Cohn for his friendship and loyalty were fake. Of course they were.
3
Yes, the diamond cufflinks given to Cohn for his friendship and loyalty were fake -- but either Cohn never knew, or (being a mentor and a [closeted] fake himself) he didn't care. He lives on, in the homage to him represented by the Trump campaign, and in the homage paid by Trump's supporters. For that matter, Trump knew Cohn was gay (as were plenty of his other New York buddies), and he gave money to fight AIDS: so much for Trump's homophobia.
It makes sense, all right -- but only when one realizes the depth of the cynicism involved.
It makes sense, all right -- but only when one realizes the depth of the cynicism involved.
1
I saw the NYT email alert to this story. How am I not surprised?! This closes a very serious and important gap in how Trump became "The Donald". He does one of the best " Tail Gunner Joe" impersonation's I've ever seen. I think that this mentoring business may hold a few other secrets in the closet.
1
"So pay no attention to anyone claiming that Trumpism reflects either the magical powers of the candidate or some broad, bipartisan upsurge of rage against the establishment".
Wrong Mr Krugman. Those two dynamics you claim are not taking place - the strange emotional appeal Trump has to certain voters and more importantly, the rage that really is out there against the establishment, should be paid attention too. They are real, and they are not going to change or go away before this election.
Wrong Mr Krugman. Those two dynamics you claim are not taking place - the strange emotional appeal Trump has to certain voters and more importantly, the rage that really is out there against the establishment, should be paid attention too. They are real, and they are not going to change or go away before this election.
2
One thing is certain about the GOP. They are far more beholden to their Party and wealthy contributors than to the country they profess to serve. It's a myth that the GOP is better for the economy. If you're already super wealthy, that might be true, but not for the rest of us. Burning issues for me are guns and women's reproductive rights. The same angry white men who believe background checks and banning assault weapons an affront to the 2nd amendment and our freedom don't mind taking away women's rights to choose when it comes to their own bodies. They've already passed numerous laws throughout the country making abortions almost impossible to get and shut down clinics that provide vital healthcare services. Meanwhile gun violence has reached epidemic proportions and getting worse (30K+ a year AND all the injuries that we don't even talk about) I've supported the second amendment until now. Pro gun groups distort and hide behind it using it to justify a mentality that "anything goes" when it comes to guns. I'm angry, fed up, and completely frustrated.
2
A tale of two thieving and selectively ignorant parties controlled by psychopathic greed is all part of their plan.
5
They walk and talk and keep repeating the same old lies. The GOP has become a party of zombies. Brains rotted, heartless and hungry for power. Conservatism is now Trumpamania and fortunately their new leader is headed for the edge of a high cliff with rocks below. There are things that all Republicans have in common, contempt for the public, hatred of democracy and the rule of law and lust for power for power as a means of self enrichment. .
1
The Republicans are a top-down hierarchical structure enforcing a strict, ideologically pure party line but not the Democrats?
Ever hear of Super Delegates? How "democratic" is that policy. And, quite frankly, a lot of the liberal media ignored Bernie and didn't give him the coverage he deserved.
Democratic voters are as unhappy with their status quo as Republican voters are.
Ever hear of Super Delegates? How "democratic" is that policy. And, quite frankly, a lot of the liberal media ignored Bernie and didn't give him the coverage he deserved.
Democratic voters are as unhappy with their status quo as Republican voters are.
1
..."she (HRC) had the solid support of key elements of the Democratic coalition, especially nonwhite voters". Speaking of coalitions, don't overlook us white folk approaching our 9th decade of life and our 7th decade voting. We look out over our generation, many of last voted for a Republican when he was Dwight Eisenhower. Perhaps we remain the most dedicated Democratic coalition of all and we have never voted for fools.
8
If Mr. Trump is the smart, shrewd business man he claims he is, with foresight and prescience, he should quit now. Why would he want to pursue a negative return in the investment of his time and resources over the upcoming months?
3
I am comforted because I am a member of the choir. Everything you say may well be true, but you do not account for the large numbers of people who voted for the man. I am not sure what populism (other than LaFollette) means, but a lot of people got fired up, not many of them were paid to attend big rallies, and they liked what they heard. So we are relly fortunate that Mr. T is so truly repelling once the facts ooze out. All of this is elegantly and graphically shown in my daughter's faavorite mvie, The Wizard of Ox. A tornado (wage stagnation, closings, drugs, wars) followed by a fantastic trip along a - yes - yellow brick road (I'm rich follow me land yuu will be too), until Toto tugs away the curtain and shows Hans Kanreid cranking the fantasy projector. then Dorothy wakes up in the comforting presence of a not very attractive but caring Auntie Em. See you in November.
2
You got it wrong: in the American ethos, Tom Sawyer is a more appealing figure than Aunt Sally. That's populism in a nutshell -- and that's what stidiver doesn't understand.
1
No hans about it - Henry Morgan
@Mitchell
Picky, picky. Tom was the clever, low profile hero who perhaps is the real role model ol' Sam the Mark Twain was trying to teach us about.
Picky, picky. Tom was the clever, low profile hero who perhaps is the real role model ol' Sam the Mark Twain was trying to teach us about.
Re-Post
Krugman must have been getting ready to go off on vacation. This column reads like a rush job. Both incoherent and contradictory. The Democrat party is made up of diversified groups that are all part of an extended family. Except for the Sanders supporters who, in Krugman's view, were a subversive insertion. On the contrary, the most Democrat like Democrats were (and are) Sanders supporters. I do appreciate the moments of honesty that appear in Krugman's columns. Such as "The Democrats, by contrast, are a “coalition of social groups,” from teachers’ unions to Planned Parenthood, seeking specific benefits from government action." Yes, Democrats are a coalition of special interest groups all looking to advance their agenda. Now how exactly is that different from the groups that turn to Republican representation for the same purpose?
9:52 0620
Krugman must have been getting ready to go off on vacation. This column reads like a rush job. Both incoherent and contradictory. The Democrat party is made up of diversified groups that are all part of an extended family. Except for the Sanders supporters who, in Krugman's view, were a subversive insertion. On the contrary, the most Democrat like Democrats were (and are) Sanders supporters. I do appreciate the moments of honesty that appear in Krugman's columns. Such as "The Democrats, by contrast, are a “coalition of social groups,” from teachers’ unions to Planned Parenthood, seeking specific benefits from government action." Yes, Democrats are a coalition of special interest groups all looking to advance their agenda. Now how exactly is that different from the groups that turn to Republican representation for the same purpose?
9:52 0620
4
Whatever we say about the Republican Party, let's remember to apply it to the Republican voters - which are not all angry white men. The fear that struck deep to my heart was not Trump'so words obscene though they were, but the cheers that those words received.
Whatever the GOP or media might have done, the American people don't have to accept it, but we did, at least 47% of us, that was the percentage of votes Mittal Romney received.
Instead of endless salvaging of Trump and the Republican Party, we might do better to spend more time reflecting on ourselves.
Whatever the GOP or media might have done, the American people don't have to accept it, but we did, at least 47% of us, that was the percentage of votes Mittal Romney received.
Instead of endless salvaging of Trump and the Republican Party, we might do better to spend more time reflecting on ourselves.
3
Trump has succeeded not only in breaking the strict Republican party line but also in breaking the Republican party. It's comical how establishment types such as Ryan are dancing around Trump, trying to distance themselves from Trump's constant barrage of toxic remarks yet supporting his candidacy in the name of anyone but Hillary. The Republican motto should read: Our candidate is a bigoted, narcissistic ignoramus, and we are behind him! Hillary has had her share of hiccups with Bernie, but that is small change compared to the major agita (Italianl for severe indigestion) the GOP is suffering from with Trump.
4
Unlike the Republicans, the Democrats have not been a holier than thou Party for the last 50 years.
Republicans claim to be the Party of Small Government but continuously have the government intrude on women's rights concerning all aspects of birth control and abortion. They intrude on same sex couples desires to be married. The Republicans throw the Religious Right's version of Christianity into everyone's face to the denial of all other religions. They work non stop to gutting everyone's right to vote.
Add to that, their cheerleader Newt Gingrich who developed the Republican talking point of instructing Republican House Members to deliberately slime their opposition with lies like adultery, embezzlement, "foreign agent" etc.
No wonder the Republicans are folding like a deck of cards.
Republicans claim to be the Party of Small Government but continuously have the government intrude on women's rights concerning all aspects of birth control and abortion. They intrude on same sex couples desires to be married. The Republicans throw the Religious Right's version of Christianity into everyone's face to the denial of all other religions. They work non stop to gutting everyone's right to vote.
Add to that, their cheerleader Newt Gingrich who developed the Republican talking point of instructing Republican House Members to deliberately slime their opposition with lies like adultery, embezzlement, "foreign agent" etc.
No wonder the Republicans are folding like a deck of cards.
2
Krugman bashing Trump and encouraging us all to whistle his tune past the graveyard.
I'm sorry, but Krugman comes across as the ultimate Democratic establishment shill.
Hillary may win this election, and Krugman may continue to pound out empty columns, but they are on their way out. Either by retirement or being forced to the side by a Democratic majority that is much more progressive than either of them.
I'm sorry, but Krugman comes across as the ultimate Democratic establishment shill.
Hillary may win this election, and Krugman may continue to pound out empty columns, but they are on their way out. Either by retirement or being forced to the side by a Democratic majority that is much more progressive than either of them.
5
Hillary Clinton is very lucky to have drawn such a loser as Trump for an opponent. She should win easily in November. But I wonder if she will choose trade away much of her windfall advantage by pandering to Wall Street, healthcare, the defense industry and other Washington constituencies? She conceded very little to all the young individuals who overwhelmingly supported Sanders. My comment sounds cynical of course but her husband was famous for "triangulation".
7
Clinton didn't need a "loser" like Trump to win -- Or, maybe you didn't notice how well she did against Mr. Sanders with ordinary everyday voters...and NOT the Delegates or Super Delegates everyone likes to complain about.
But bringing Bill into your equation doesn't show "cynicism", as much as it shows a certain degree of desperation.
But bringing Bill into your equation doesn't show "cynicism", as much as it shows a certain degree of desperation.
1
Ready today's Trump/Roy Cohn article.
I am an enthusiastic supporter of HRC. But to be absolutely clear, if she went on television tomorrow and told the nation she fully intended to hand the national treasury over to Goldman Sachs for management and invade every single Middle East nation promptly at noon on January 20, 2017, I would still walk through a wall of fire to vote for her this November.
The Republican Party, and especially its likely presidential candidate, is a whole big global nightmare that we might not survive.
I am an enthusiastic supporter of HRC. But to be absolutely clear, if she went on television tomorrow and told the nation she fully intended to hand the national treasury over to Goldman Sachs for management and invade every single Middle East nation promptly at noon on January 20, 2017, I would still walk through a wall of fire to vote for her this November.
The Republican Party, and especially its likely presidential candidate, is a whole big global nightmare that we might not survive.
3
The increasing rate of change in societal values and the structural dislocations of globalization will continue to create reactionary responses that drive various social groups toward the right wing reactionary policies of the Tea Party Republicans. It's the "Lexus vs. the Olive Tree" thing that Thomas Friedman wrote about decades ago. The long term challenge for the Democrats is to ensure that there are enough winners across the broad slices of the various progressive coalitions to hold the line against the growing numbers of disaffected. Ideally the best plan would be to address the real economic concerns of the disaffected as well, but even that is unlikely to win them back from their tribally rooted passions that are based on ethnicity, religion and privilege.
1
In the days of the Soviet Union, a lot of people supported communism even though there was nothing to support any claim it did them any good. Now a lot of working people support the republicans with the same lack of evidence that "ism" provides any benefit to working folks.
But a lot of the Republican's problems spring from simply outliving their usefulness. Remember the early days of Reagan when the monster of double digit inflation was vanquished? Also, there was the end of the cold war and the rebuilding of our military, which had still been suffering the ill effects of the Vietnam war.
I remember when the FDR liberal era died during the 70's. Even though I mourned its passing, it was evident that it was no longer producing good results. It major achievements were behind it. The depression had been recovered from, WWII had been won, and the once solid working class Democrats had done so well that they began to turn into Republicans.
But a lot of the Republican's problems spring from simply outliving their usefulness. Remember the early days of Reagan when the monster of double digit inflation was vanquished? Also, there was the end of the cold war and the rebuilding of our military, which had still been suffering the ill effects of the Vietnam war.
I remember when the FDR liberal era died during the 70's. Even though I mourned its passing, it was evident that it was no longer producing good results. It major achievements were behind it. The depression had been recovered from, WWII had been won, and the once solid working class Democrats had done so well that they began to turn into Republicans.
1
"In the days of the Soviet Union, a lot of people supported communism" -- and now many are supporting Putin, for much the same reason.
And on the other side? How about all those Hillary supporters who've been decrying Sanders for his failure to perform loyal service to the Party?
The entire system is rotten to the core.
And on the other side? How about all those Hillary supporters who've been decrying Sanders for his failure to perform loyal service to the Party?
The entire system is rotten to the core.
1
In the days of the Soviet Union, people supported Communisim because they HAD to -- there was no choice.
Another thing. Most working-class Black people ran to, and remained part of the Democratic Party, because there was NO place for them amongst the Republicans.
Another thing. Most working-class Black people ran to, and remained part of the Democratic Party, because there was NO place for them amongst the Republicans.
1
Prof. Krugman is getting at something essential here:
The impulse to groupthink is something Republicans love to lampoon about Democrats. They've been telling each other since Reagan was president that Democrats stand for nothing, wilt under pressure, and are more than slightly ridiculous. What they've missed during all these decades of mockery is how much they talk almost exclusively to themselves. They really believe "nobody" is voting for Hillary Clinton because they themselves don't know anybody who is. Thus, they are shocked to find a candidate who has no national infrastructure, hasn't raised enough money to run, and hasn't bothered to master even a USA Today level of understanding of the issues is...whaddya know...losing!
The impulse to groupthink is something Republicans love to lampoon about Democrats. They've been telling each other since Reagan was president that Democrats stand for nothing, wilt under pressure, and are more than slightly ridiculous. What they've missed during all these decades of mockery is how much they talk almost exclusively to themselves. They really believe "nobody" is voting for Hillary Clinton because they themselves don't know anybody who is. Thus, they are shocked to find a candidate who has no national infrastructure, hasn't raised enough money to run, and hasn't bothered to master even a USA Today level of understanding of the issues is...whaddya know...losing!
2
Non-representational government… or parties… only work when the masses are ignorant of the abuse of power. Today, keeping anything under wraps is nearly impossible. That’s why democracy… messy as it is… is the only form of government with a chance of lasting. That’s why a political party built mostly on abuse of power doesn’t stand much of a chance of lasting.
Jumping through hoops to please the Koch brothers and the NRA has finally been exposed for the sham and corruption that it is, and Republican voters want anything but the same old same old. Democrats may not love the party or the candidates, but at least it’s a party that doesn’t just continue delivering goodies to a select few.
Jumping through hoops to please the Koch brothers and the NRA has finally been exposed for the sham and corruption that it is, and Republican voters want anything but the same old same old. Democrats may not love the party or the candidates, but at least it’s a party that doesn’t just continue delivering goodies to a select few.
2
"but at least it’s a party that doesn’t just continue delivering goodies to a select few".
Real data disagrees with you. Under Obama, poor are poorer and rich are richer. His policies has favored big businesses at the expense of small ones.
Real data disagrees with you. Under Obama, poor are poorer and rich are richer. His policies has favored big businesses at the expense of small ones.
1
Which is why I have been saying for almost a year: next election, vote against every Republican, for every office, at every level. Be patriotic. Save the country.
3
Having survived raising three adolescent boys, it's obvious the GOP has morphed into a gang of angry adolescent deadbeats. Our nation is not prepared to raise another adolescent scamp president. We did a lousy job trying to raise W.
2
We need a responsible second party in the US. The GOP controls the Senate, House, the Supreme Court, and most State Houses. The Tea Party is not going to disappear just because Trump loses.
Somebody with some brains and backbone needs to pick up the pieces and make the GOP respectable again. This is a sad mess that really hurts our country.
Somebody with some brains and backbone needs to pick up the pieces and make the GOP respectable again. This is a sad mess that really hurts our country.
1
More accurately the GOP has become, under Trump, a party of exclusively under employed and under educated white males. This is a direct result of years of political campaigns directed at people's fear and resentment instead of "hope" (for which President Obama was ridiculed by Sarah Palin and her posse.)
Karl Rove: take a look in the mirror and face up to it like a man--Trump is the monster that YOU created.
Karl Rove: take a look in the mirror and face up to it like a man--Trump is the monster that YOU created.
3
This rings true for the US Presidential Election. However, what's to be done about gerrymandering and the fact that without equal representation the GOP has established a lock on the US House through 2020!?
2
Let's face it: Obama represents a long oppressed group. Clinton represents a long oppressed group. And because neither are white males, there are groups who continue to oppress them.
1
Just for the record. President Obama represents EVERY American who voted for him -- and not just one "long oppressed" group.
The blinders need to come off.
The blinders need to come off.
1
Well take them off genius, the President represents every single person in the country, not just those who voted for him. True testimony to the failure of what was an educational system but is now a propaganda spewing haven for ill-educated buffoons.
The most effective way of destroying a candidate or an issue by a political opponent is to get people to laugh at the candidate or at changes proposed. Game over. Trump, rising like a hot air balloon, will likely wind up as a laughing stock, inspiring giggles and giant guffaws coast to coast. Even many of his current supporters will look at each other and say, "Why did we ever take this guy seriously?" The carnival will leave town and he will be left, standing all alone, muttering to himself.
3
"The Republican establishment was easily overthrown because it was already hollow at the core."
If anybody doubts this, they should dial up Chuck's Todd's interview with Paul Ryan aired Sunday on Meet the Press. Basically, Ryan said three things: I don't respect Trump or share many of his positions but I support him. I would never tell a delegate not to vote his or her conscience at the GOP convention. I have better ideas which, if one looks at them, are really the same old Republican ideology.
The leadership of the GOP knows neither how to support their candidate or how to depose him.
If anybody doubts this, they should dial up Chuck's Todd's interview with Paul Ryan aired Sunday on Meet the Press. Basically, Ryan said three things: I don't respect Trump or share many of his positions but I support him. I would never tell a delegate not to vote his or her conscience at the GOP convention. I have better ideas which, if one looks at them, are really the same old Republican ideology.
The leadership of the GOP knows neither how to support their candidate or how to depose him.
2
"The leadership of the GOP knows neither how to support their candidate or how to depose him." This is called fairness and agreeing with positions rather than individuals. Unlike democrat sheeps who unanimously agree and disagree on everything.
1
The supporters of Clinton and Sander unanimously agree and disagree on everything? This is news to me.
In the maze and mess of Media confusion, I choose to follow certain "favorites" in my "gathering". One of my "chronicle" is Dr. Jpaul Krugman. I chose to Trust, in all of this chaos, a few Voices. His is One. The Bluster of the bellowing Mouth may go on for 5 more ridiculous months. Hillary Clinton has been and still is more dedicated Human than Trumpf.
1
Also, the Democrats are not like Trump's opponents in business and Republican politics. The Democrats are not looking forward to other 'deals' or positions on his cabinet. The Democrats do not look forward to a future with Trump. They do not want to be on his team or have him on their team. The general election is a new experience for Mr. Trump.
1
So, what DO "the Democrats" want?? -- You haven't made any mention of that...But you can be sure of this, most Democrats DO NOT want Donald Trump.
1
Krugman: It is hard to believe, but you will not waste any opportunity to try to minimize, even destroy, the profound good effect that Bernie Sanders has had on the Democratic Party and the country. What you do show, however, is how much Clintonism is out to not merely keep the status quo but turn back the clock to the "good old days." After all that has happened with our economy and the suffering of so many people, Clintonism might be too charitably described as indifference to what Americans really want and to the facts.
6
A lot of dems esp the sanders supporters realize now that emperor krugman wears no clothes when it comes to his analyses. He's more loyal supporter of clinton than a truth teller. Sorry PK, you destroyed your own credibility this election season, you got your candidate nominated. Of course the corporate controlled media will continue to put you out there as pundit. But many now see what is going on
2
Yet, as others point out, the Republican Party has consistently won state legislatures and governorships--not to mention municipal entities and school boards. In these categories it is the Democratic Party that seems clueless. The columnist has not explored this phenomenon.
1
I believe it's called gerrymandering.
Columnist is a democrat mouthpiece. He has a narrow expertise in a specialized field of economics, but he has opinions (paid) on everything political.
For those who are interested I recommend reading "The Tyranny of Experts". Paul Krugman exemplifies the experts referred to in the book. Thank god he has not been in a position of making policies.
For those who are interested I recommend reading "The Tyranny of Experts". Paul Krugman exemplifies the experts referred to in the book. Thank god he has not been in a position of making policies.
1
Summarizing the candidates:
Mr. Trump, the outsider representing the changes people want. He promises to be entertaining, but comes across as a mouth without a brain behind it.
As for Mrs. Clinton, another Washington insider who represents the “ideology” people are tired of.
Not much of a choice either way. This looks like an election that makes you want to stay home and hope neither wins.
Mr. Trump, the outsider representing the changes people want. He promises to be entertaining, but comes across as a mouth without a brain behind it.
As for Mrs. Clinton, another Washington insider who represents the “ideology” people are tired of.
Not much of a choice either way. This looks like an election that makes you want to stay home and hope neither wins.
3
Do that. Then my vote counts more! In fact, if everyone does that I get to run the country. Bwaaaahaha.
I think of the end of the story The Tortoise and the Hare from my college German textbook when I think (joyfully) of the ascendance of Hillary Clinton:
"ha ha ha, Ich bin schon da".
(Gee I've been wanting to use that ending for 40 plus years!)
"ha ha ha, Ich bin schon da".
(Gee I've been wanting to use that ending for 40 plus years!)
2
The Republicans, as terrible as they may be, call it like they see it. The Democrats play the people for the ignorants that they are, pandering and lying, especially to the minorities. Hillary Clinton was in my city recently, playing to a black church, and she told them, in the usual Democratic code-speak, that they should vote for her because she'll do everything to make their lives better, at the same time using words that identified them as "ignorant".
1
I wonder whether Donald Trump really, really wants to be president. Perhaps his campaign is just another publicity stunt. The more publicity he gets, the more fame he gets and the more money he may be able to make, after the election.
Trump does not represent the Republican Party. He only represents himself. But he will go down in history as a critic of the political establishment and we may all benefit from this, for years to come...
Trump does not represent the Republican Party. He only represents himself. But he will go down in history as a critic of the political establishment and we may all benefit from this, for years to come...
2
What is helping Hillary is Trump. This was true during the primaries when voters were choosing between Bernie and Hillary, with an eye on who would be best to defeat Trump. It is doubly true in the general election. Hillary's biggest asset is something she can't control, but can absolutely count on . . . Trump's mouth.
Chances are Hillary will be our next president, because the alternative is a disaster. All those voting for her are doing so knowing that she/they, will find a way to gin up another scandal. It seems to be in their blood.
Chances are Hillary will be our next president, because the alternative is a disaster. All those voting for her are doing so knowing that she/they, will find a way to gin up another scandal. It seems to be in their blood.
1
"Mrs. Clinton received by far the most unfavorable coverage."
And she deserved far more than she got.
She created her problems, with her poor decisions regarding email, and the hundereds of millions she and Bill took from banks and special interests.
And she deserved far more than she got.
She created her problems, with her poor decisions regarding email, and the hundereds of millions she and Bill took from banks and special interests.
4
To use two old sayings: The (former) leaders of the Republican Party endorsed The Donald thinking they could get away with parading the Emperor (in his) New Clothes but are realizing they literally have an Elephant in the living room.
Much damage to follow.
Much damage to follow.
3
This is silly analysis. Since 2008 the Democrats have lost 69 House seats, 13 senate seats, 12 governors and 30 state legislative chambers. They now control the Governor and both legislative bodies in 6 out of 50 states. All this to a party with no ideas other than they are not Democrats.
5
It was the best of times; it was the worst of times.
We have the knowledge, the expertise, the technology to do wonderful, amazing things that will make this country, this planet a better, safer, cleaner place for man. Then we have the Republican party and its cotton candy-haired and -brained leader.
We have the knowledge, the expertise, the technology to do wonderful, amazing things that will make this country, this planet a better, safer, cleaner place for man. Then we have the Republican party and its cotton candy-haired and -brained leader.
4
Well said, but don't pop those Champaign corks just yet. I suggest reprinting this on November 9th. Until then, this article should have been placed in a "wait and see" file. Things are looking good at the moment, but benedictions at this time are premature. It ain't over until it's over, and my friend, it ain't over yet.
1
After this November's election, I would like to see a new major political party of progressive "Bernie-leaning" liberals form to replace the GOP. This preserves our two-party system of politics; any hardcore Republicans left would be free to carry on their paleontological as a fringe 3rd party.
3
"But the various groups making up the party’s coalition really care about and believe in their positions — "
Democrats, with all of their faults, at their core have a genuine desire to help others. Republicans have a genuine desire to help themselves at the expense of others.
Democrats, with all of their faults, at their core have a genuine desire to help others. Republicans have a genuine desire to help themselves at the expense of others.
5
The Republican establishment may be collapsing but, like the Empire in the Star Wars saga, it is not out. It still controls both sides of Congress, most of the state governments, and half of the Supreme Court. It is not going away anytime soon.
3
Actually, one person who never stopped believing in the Communist ideology was, appropriately enough, Bernie Sanders. Even as Soviet Communism was on its last legs, he continued to rave about Communist revolutionaries like Fidel Castro, while extolling bread lines as signs of economic success.
Needless to say, Bernie hasn't changed.
Democrats dodged a bullet.
Needless to say, Bernie hasn't changed.
Democrats dodged a bullet.
3
That is an untruth. I have never heard Bernie Sanders describe himself as a communist.
You are probably not old enough to remember Castro's rants and promises of reform that fooled the CIA and every other government official and agency. -The real reason for the embargo.
Castro did not come out of the communist closet until after he took power.
Some folks should learn history before quoting Limbaugh and Rove.
You are probably not old enough to remember Castro's rants and promises of reform that fooled the CIA and every other government official and agency. -The real reason for the embargo.
Castro did not come out of the communist closet until after he took power.
Some folks should learn history before quoting Limbaugh and Rove.
2
Just for the record. Sanders never described himself as a Democrat, either...
1
Right. The New Dem's have one pole they dance around and its called Wall Street. Slavery ended in 1865 but we're the world's most incarcerated nation and our three largest employers are Walmart, Yum Brands, and McDonalds. The revolving door of Ivy League plutocrats and Dem backed appointments have done as much to rob America of mobility than the scorched earth Repubs Krugman proclaims to be dead. The ability of the machine to control the flock on the Republican side has faltered because Trump knows how to tap the vein of anger and hatred. Without the "Bernie or Bust" coalition, will Clinton defeat white rage? Does it really matter?
2
The "Bernie or Bust coalition" isn't the only key to defeating Donald Trump, and the air of self-importance exuding from this type of thinking is far more divisive than good -- Just like "white rage" isn't the ONLY rage in America.
1
The Republican leadership has morphed into Chance the Gardener. All it does is spew out vague, empty platitudes that appeal only to people looking for simple answers to complex questions. And it's why Trump had such an easy time blowing away all of his GOP primary opponents. He took all the elements of Chance and bundled them into a package that the GOP voter base found, and still finds, wildly entertaining and emotionally satisfying. It's so sad that, no matter what November's election outcome is, at least 40% of American voters will cast their ballots for this buffoon and his enablers. So much for American exceptionalism!
4
Wow--such blindness. The Democrats just had a primary. One candidate was an immensely powerful insider from the most powerful political dynasty in Democratic politics. She had the near-unanimous support of the Democratic establishment, including--as was obvious all along, and has now been confirmed--the DNC, which, while supposedly a "neutral" arbiter, was working behind the scenes all along to strengthen the Clinton campaign and undermine her opponent. She ran against an elderly self-proclaimed socialist who only joined the Democratic party to run in the primary. Yet he won 46% of the vote, and 22 states.
Most rational observers would look at this and see it as an indication that the Democratic electorate--particularly, the young Democratic electorate, among whom Hillary was trounced--has shifted significantly to the left, and is rejecting the centrist neo-liberals that the establishment is offering up. But the establishment media does not want to recognize this fact, so they come up with all sorts of tenuous, pseudo-psychological justifications for Sanders's success: it was just a bunch of angry white guys (not true); "they don't support his policies; it is just about identity" (also not true); "these Sanders voters are just looking for an alternative to Hillary" (if that were true, then why did Martin O'Malley do so poorly).
Most rational observers would look at this and see it as an indication that the Democratic electorate--particularly, the young Democratic electorate, among whom Hillary was trounced--has shifted significantly to the left, and is rejecting the centrist neo-liberals that the establishment is offering up. But the establishment media does not want to recognize this fact, so they come up with all sorts of tenuous, pseudo-psychological justifications for Sanders's success: it was just a bunch of angry white guys (not true); "they don't support his policies; it is just about identity" (also not true); "these Sanders voters are just looking for an alternative to Hillary" (if that were true, then why did Martin O'Malley do so poorly).
6
RC
Here's a little known secret for you friend in the UK. Almost all Democrats want to move much farther to the left. This is something that most people, besides ourselves have praying for in my case since before McGovern. We have been charged time and again, literally to tears over the setbacks over and over. We all knew that Bill Clinton was too centrist, but he was able to turn the agenda towards the left. Al Gore would carry the ball further down the left field lines. That 2000 unconstitutional ruling appointing the disgusting neo cons to run the country was a last straw. Obama's Presidency has returned us to the humanitarian left once again. While I personally want to see most all of Bernie's agenda, there is no possibility of even 5% getting through. He would be one term at best and revive the reactionary nightmares back into power. Hillary is the only choice, the only politician that can possibly not only win the top job, but bring about a return of the Senate and has a very good chance in getting a slim majority of the House back. This is Hardball, reality politics. It is the only way forward. Anything else is a pipedream. Respectively,
C. Coffey
Here's a little known secret for you friend in the UK. Almost all Democrats want to move much farther to the left. This is something that most people, besides ourselves have praying for in my case since before McGovern. We have been charged time and again, literally to tears over the setbacks over and over. We all knew that Bill Clinton was too centrist, but he was able to turn the agenda towards the left. Al Gore would carry the ball further down the left field lines. That 2000 unconstitutional ruling appointing the disgusting neo cons to run the country was a last straw. Obama's Presidency has returned us to the humanitarian left once again. While I personally want to see most all of Bernie's agenda, there is no possibility of even 5% getting through. He would be one term at best and revive the reactionary nightmares back into power. Hillary is the only choice, the only politician that can possibly not only win the top job, but bring about a return of the Senate and has a very good chance in getting a slim majority of the House back. This is Hardball, reality politics. It is the only way forward. Anything else is a pipedream. Respectively,
C. Coffey
1
You note that Clinton got bad press but fail to point out that there was a virtual blackout on Bernie Sanders for the first 3/4 of his campaign. I remember in the last campaign when Jake Tapper announced-"If I'm going to cover this election, I'm not going to vote." Perhaps the most ethical statement ever made by a journalist. Everyone knows that the New York Times has endorsed Clinton and has the positive coverage to prove it. From a point of view of reporting the news one has to wonder why the release of content from the DNC from Guccifer2 has not been covered more in depth- especially since it is an ongoing story. The FBI criminal investigation (They DON'T do security reviews!) has been down played over time. The hackers will be holding the FBI's feet to the fire if they "cook" that investigation- as apparently they have been in her computer as well as the DNC's. It is entirely possible that neither Trump or Clinton will end up in the final version of the campaign. It is also possible that main stream media will not survive as the principle source of news for the American public. Trump and Clinton both are repellent and divisive to much of the American electorate and yet the single choice of one or the other continues its Orwellian primacy. As the election fraud suits proceed and the recount in California continues to show Sanders winning where he previously lost, one has to wonder. Which main stream reporter will ignore their publisher and dig out the truth ?
2
It might do you good to remember that until barely over a year ago, practically NO ONE ever heard of Bernie Sanders...not on a National scale, anyway.
So, don't be so quick to blame the Media and everyone else for the fact that he didn't get as much coverage at first -- simply because at first, he had to make himself known.
So, don't be so quick to blame the Media and everyone else for the fact that he didn't get as much coverage at first -- simply because at first, he had to make himself known.
1
The Republican party has lost the mandate of the working classes while catering to the wealthy. The growing media coverage and access to information have illuminated the GOP's tactics and support and we have become aware of the party's disconnect with the majority of persons who elect government leaders with their votes. Money from the wealthy can buy and produce distorted stories and messaging, but it cannot buy real concern and legislation to improve living conditions for the majority of Americans. This applies to Republicans and Democrats. But with nothing else to show other than Donald Trump, the Republican Party is not liking what it sees in the mirror. Working Americans who chose Trump as the Republican nominee sent a message to the party leaders. Now those who voted for Trump in the primary will see that he, too, is not the way forward to a better life and a better world.
2
OK Paul, but awfully one sided.
Especially in the face of this Hatefest presidential election. Both Clinton and Trump have historic negative numbers. It sort of comes down to who is the most least offensive.
Granted the GOP is teetering on implosion. Nothing more dangerous than a wounded animal.
The Dems have their own issues. Hillary is establishment in spades with a dash of the progressive to placate the Bernie faction. If Philadelphia (The Wells Fargo Center -- reeks of Wall Street) is a Clinton rubber stamp much of the energy that radiated from the Sanders valiant run may become runoff.
Especially in the face of this Hatefest presidential election. Both Clinton and Trump have historic negative numbers. It sort of comes down to who is the most least offensive.
Granted the GOP is teetering on implosion. Nothing more dangerous than a wounded animal.
The Dems have their own issues. Hillary is establishment in spades with a dash of the progressive to placate the Bernie faction. If Philadelphia (The Wells Fargo Center -- reeks of Wall Street) is a Clinton rubber stamp much of the energy that radiated from the Sanders valiant run may become runoff.
5
Hillary Clinton's "negatives" are the result of tens of millions of dollars spent in concerted attacks on her since the 1990s -- late in the past century. Much of that money was tax dollars spent on spurious investigations that turned up ... nothing. Certainly nothing serious, and nothing whatsoever in comparison to the war crimes of the W administration.
Donald Trump has managed to out-negative Clinton in just a year, all on his own, not with money, but with his foul mouth and ill-considered remarks and attitudes.
I have my reservations about Clinton as a leader and her instincts for secrecy, but I actually don't see any fire under the smoke.
She's tough, she won it fair and square and she needs to incorporate income inequality into the Democratic platform with actual programs in support. And Sanders' people need to work for the betterment of our nation, not cling to a personality cult or idealism for its own sake.
We've got work to do.
Donald Trump has managed to out-negative Clinton in just a year, all on his own, not with money, but with his foul mouth and ill-considered remarks and attitudes.
I have my reservations about Clinton as a leader and her instincts for secrecy, but I actually don't see any fire under the smoke.
She's tough, she won it fair and square and she needs to incorporate income inequality into the Democratic platform with actual programs in support. And Sanders' people need to work for the betterment of our nation, not cling to a personality cult or idealism for its own sake.
We've got work to do.
5
"she won it fair and square"
Do you think the IOG's report on Clinton's mishandling and hiding of emails was a government funded investigation that proved nothing?
There are multiple law suits being filed under RICO that vote fraud on a massive scale was done by the Democrats. The media is in collusion with the Dem Party to keep it quiet. The organization filing the suits is non-partisan and successfully sued Karl Rove in 2004 rigging of the Ohio vote against Obama. The FBI was with them in the Secretary of State's office on election night to stop the fraud.
The outcome of the lawsuits, plural, could well be that she didn't win it and certainly not "fair and square". Stay tuned.
Do you think the IOG's report on Clinton's mishandling and hiding of emails was a government funded investigation that proved nothing?
There are multiple law suits being filed under RICO that vote fraud on a massive scale was done by the Democrats. The media is in collusion with the Dem Party to keep it quiet. The organization filing the suits is non-partisan and successfully sued Karl Rove in 2004 rigging of the Ohio vote against Obama. The FBI was with them in the Secretary of State's office on election night to stop the fraud.
The outcome of the lawsuits, plural, could well be that she didn't win it and certainly not "fair and square". Stay tuned.
2
Your comment, especially your last sentence, sums it up perfectly. We have a lot work to do, from now until November, and onward from there.
I wonder what would have happened if Donald Trump had decided to run as a Democrat (as he easily could have, with different positions). Would he have been as successful as he was as a Republican? He was very adept at using the media, and Hillary was and is by no means a perfect candidate. While it is certainly true that some Democrats are motivated by deeply held convictions, and communicate that sincerity well -- Senator Warren, for example -- many do not. I don't think we should be so sanguine and assume the difference in outcomes is entirely due to the difference in the parties; the Democrats were simply not tested in the way the Republicans were.
4
I don't think you watched the same GOP debates. There was no "testing;" the other candidates were simply awful. Ben Carson? Carly Fiorina? Really? One of the GOP's attack on Obama lo these many years was his lack of political experience. And yet one of the serious GOP candidates was the immature Rubio. To your average voter, a creep like Cruz is totally scary. I think their weak fleet of candidates really proved their moral bankruptcy.
I did watch some of the GOP debates. There were some candidates who would have passed any reasonable test for a Presidential candidate, and who could have beaten Clinton -- Bush, Kasich, Rubio (Rubio's youth would have played well against Clinton's age). But Trump media management just blew the whole thing apart.
For Democrats, it is the best of times. For Republicans, it is the worst of times. The reason for this are the candidates on top of the ticket. Hillary is one of the most well-prepared persons ever to run for the presidency, Trump is one of the least-prepared, most unqualified dolts ever to have the unmitigated gall to seek the most powerful office in the world.
Of all the possible persons who sought the nomination this year, Trump is simply one of the worse specimens of human flesh to ever seek office. Republicans hate the oleaginous Cruz yet some toward the end of the primary season even found him preferable to Trump. But the Lumpen Proles could not be stopped. They kept voting for Trump. The GOP had no super delegates like the Dems did. The Republicans are stuck with Trump unless they can get up enough gumption to stop him at the convention and deny him the nomination in Cleveland.
The GOP will be viewed as the party who nominated a bona fide disaster for the highest office in the land. Republicans will carry the stain of Trump for the next few elections to come. They will enjoy laughingstock status for quite some time to come.
DD
Manhattan
Of all the possible persons who sought the nomination this year, Trump is simply one of the worse specimens of human flesh to ever seek office. Republicans hate the oleaginous Cruz yet some toward the end of the primary season even found him preferable to Trump. But the Lumpen Proles could not be stopped. They kept voting for Trump. The GOP had no super delegates like the Dems did. The Republicans are stuck with Trump unless they can get up enough gumption to stop him at the convention and deny him the nomination in Cleveland.
The GOP will be viewed as the party who nominated a bona fide disaster for the highest office in the land. Republicans will carry the stain of Trump for the next few elections to come. They will enjoy laughingstock status for quite some time to come.
DD
Manhattan
3
it would be nice if the republican party would become a party of real ideas and goals so that the democratic party could be a party of the left instead of a party of the center.
3
Polling over the years has repeatedly shown that while voters have very low opinions of Congress, they typically like their representative and Senators. This is precisely where the Democratic Party has struggled; the GOP has lackluster buffoons like our own Rep. Steve Chabot of Ohio's 1st District (western Cincinnati), but the Dems have no one who could beat Chabot, who is wildly popular for essentially doing zilch year after year. Ditto for the 2nd District, and John Boehner's 8th, where a single digit turnout in a special election elected a fire breathing blunderbuss who will remain in office for years to come.
Incumbency, gerrymandering, and familiarity have left the Democrats at a serious disadvantage in House races ((outside the major urban areas). Right now, it appears that the GOP will survive the Trump illness and retain House control.
Incumbency, gerrymandering, and familiarity have left the Democrats at a serious disadvantage in House races ((outside the major urban areas). Right now, it appears that the GOP will survive the Trump illness and retain House control.
3
Krugman must have been getting ready to go off on vacation. This column reads like a rush job. Incoherent and contradictory. The Democrat party is made up of diversified groups that are all part of an extended family. Except for the Sanders supporters who, in Krugman's view, were a subversive insertion. On the contrary, the most Democrat like Democrats were (and are) Sanders supporters. I do appreciate the moments of honesty that appear in Krugman's columns. Such as "The Democrats, by contrast, are a “coalition of social groups,” from teachers’ unions to Planned Parenthood, seeking specific benefits from government action." Yes, Democrats are a coalition of special interest groups all looking to advance their agenda. Now how exactly is that different from the groups that turn to Republican representation for the same purpose?
1
For everybody decrying that unless Hillary and the Dems win the House, they will continue to be blocked, I might point out that Hillary will be appointing 2 or 3 Supreme Court Justices. That will go a long way towards undoing such appalling rulings as Citizens United and will limit dark money once more, which will be a good thing for America. It will also get rid, once and for all, I hope, of Scalia's "Constitutionalism" which was in itself a parody and a farce.
2
Right. And if we stand by and let the crazies elect Trump to make those appointments, it will be 30 years of even more appalling rulings that we have a chance to stop right now. Not getting your way in the primary is a horrible reason to let that happen.
Ideologues pontificate, like Cruz and Rubio and Bush. But populists often seize the moment of discontent and win the hearts of the discontented, and no one does it better than Donald Trump. Huff and puff til I blow your house down, and that is exactly what he did. And who were the Three Little Pigs? Cruz, Bush, Rubio. Up til the moment Trump announced his candidacy, they were the only currency the Republican Party had. Once the Donald got that Motor Mouth moving, all they had were wooden nickels. Not even.
1
There's still Speechgate. It amazes me that the content of Clinton's Wall St speeches have not leaked out. Conspiracy theory: Trump has copies and is waiting for the right instance to release them. To paraphrase, are we waiting for an "I did not have sex with that company" moment.
No matter what, I will vote for Clinton. But I hope that in choosing her cabinet she picks a bunch of thick skinned, tough progressives. (Does Elizabeth Warren have any sisters?) No reaching across the aisle this time. And, in spite of being a Bernie fan, I hope PK gets a big job in the administration.
No matter what, I will vote for Clinton. But I hope that in choosing her cabinet she picks a bunch of thick skinned, tough progressives. (Does Elizabeth Warren have any sisters?) No reaching across the aisle this time. And, in spite of being a Bernie fan, I hope PK gets a big job in the administration.
1
Such a great point-- I hope HRC will be hard as nails, and not be sucked into the garbage fantasy "team of rivals" that the naive Obama allowed himself to be drawn into.
Dr. Krugman's piece has nuggets of truth, but to suggest that the Dems are strong defies logic. In the three little pigs story, the GOP is the equivalent of the straw house was not stable. However, HRC is not the equivalent of the brick house. She is at best a house made of sticks, however the mud holding the stick house together could easily dry and fall apart, if the candidate was anyone but Trump.
The better analogy for HRC is the Titanic. Even the best constructed, which she is not, is susceptible to disaster around every corner
The better analogy for HRC is the Titanic. Even the best constructed, which she is not, is susceptible to disaster around every corner
2
Talk about telling it like it is. Truer words were never spoken. Long before Donald Trump announced his candidacy, I was describing the Republican Party/conservative movement as a burnt-out case, overdue for the ash heap of history. I confidently said when Trump did announce that, far from being some interloping outlier, Donald Trump represented the heart and soul of the Republican Party. Every day since--literally, every one--has shown how right I was. The fact that Donald Trump became the Republican presidential candidate proved the bankruptcy of the whole Republican philosophy that government of the rich, by the rich, and for the rich should be America's guiding light. The idea that cutting rich people's taxes and getting government off their backs will bring affluence to all nakedly revealed as the biggest Big Lie of all.
But riddle me this. Why aren't the Democrats, especially Hillary, running on that platform of an all-out assault on the busted Republican program? Why are they only attacking Trump? The Democrats ought to wrap Trump around the necks of Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell and every other Republican and squeeze, squeeze, squeeze. Trump's lying demagoguery, in fact, allows the Democrats to make a rational, provable case that Trump and his Republican supporters have revived McCarthyism. Why are they holding back?
But riddle me this. Why aren't the Democrats, especially Hillary, running on that platform of an all-out assault on the busted Republican program? Why are they only attacking Trump? The Democrats ought to wrap Trump around the necks of Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell and every other Republican and squeeze, squeeze, squeeze. Trump's lying demagoguery, in fact, allows the Democrats to make a rational, provable case that Trump and his Republican supporters have revived McCarthyism. Why are they holding back?
1
The GOP Fog
We must never stop mentioning the reason for the hole we are in. It's due to a poor statesman, Mitch McConnell -- the former chairman of the RNC, who for 25 years has worked to design and build the conservative right-wing propaganda system. He has continued in his role as strategist even as his role of majority leader of the Senate demands that he negotiate and legislate. He meets the definition of a political sociopath. He has no empathy for his victims and the damage he has inflicted on progress in our country. He wraps the flag around his incompetence.
His fingerprints are on Citizen's United, CPAC, ALEC, the Federalist Society, the Tea Party, the Heritage Foundation, the NRA, and Roger Ailes.
There's more. FOX News continues to be the right-wing broadcast network of record that feeds its fog of information to the GOP network of policy shops, talk radio, and right wing minions who daily feed at the GOP trough. It is at the heart of one of the most powerful propaganda systems in modern times.
The rise of Donald Trump is testimony to how bad the GOP has screwed up our legislative system. The simple men and women at the typical Trump rally, who adulate him, have no idea what this system is, how it’s funded, and the danger it poses to Democracy. These live in the alternate universe of the GOP fog.
The core reason for this is the fact that “the mind tends to an organized universe." A good propaganda system does this and FOX and McConnell get the Emmy.
We must never stop mentioning the reason for the hole we are in. It's due to a poor statesman, Mitch McConnell -- the former chairman of the RNC, who for 25 years has worked to design and build the conservative right-wing propaganda system. He has continued in his role as strategist even as his role of majority leader of the Senate demands that he negotiate and legislate. He meets the definition of a political sociopath. He has no empathy for his victims and the damage he has inflicted on progress in our country. He wraps the flag around his incompetence.
His fingerprints are on Citizen's United, CPAC, ALEC, the Federalist Society, the Tea Party, the Heritage Foundation, the NRA, and Roger Ailes.
There's more. FOX News continues to be the right-wing broadcast network of record that feeds its fog of information to the GOP network of policy shops, talk radio, and right wing minions who daily feed at the GOP trough. It is at the heart of one of the most powerful propaganda systems in modern times.
The rise of Donald Trump is testimony to how bad the GOP has screwed up our legislative system. The simple men and women at the typical Trump rally, who adulate him, have no idea what this system is, how it’s funded, and the danger it poses to Democracy. These live in the alternate universe of the GOP fog.
The core reason for this is the fact that “the mind tends to an organized universe." A good propaganda system does this and FOX and McConnell get the Emmy.
3
Professor Krugman, I buy most of it, but not the brush off of Bernie. It was a lot closer than you indicate and it quite possibly could have gone the other way with a little more organization on Bernie's part. More importantly, he pushed Hillary left and laid out an agenda most of us have been waiting for. He helped the Democratic party find its backbone and what it stands for, while raising important issues establishment Democrats were more than happy to ignore. In many ways he may have saved Hillary's chances for the White House. He gave meaning to what it means to be a Democrat.
3
As a Berliner, I remember very well what happened when the Wall fell -- however what I don't understand is this analogy between it, and the downfall of the G.O.P.
To my mind, the only thing they might have had in common, is that they were both outdated, and had outlived their usefulness -- Change had come. They had to go.
But in many ways the G.O.P. has yet to learn this. They still run the same ideological platform, built on the same old political contrivances. except that now, by choosing Donald Trump to represent tnem, they have upped the ante by falling deeper into the abyss.
And one can only expect that he will do the same to this country.
To my mind, the only thing they might have had in common, is that they were both outdated, and had outlived their usefulness -- Change had come. They had to go.
But in many ways the G.O.P. has yet to learn this. They still run the same ideological platform, built on the same old political contrivances. except that now, by choosing Donald Trump to represent tnem, they have upped the ante by falling deeper into the abyss.
And one can only expect that he will do the same to this country.
2
The Republicans still control both Houses of Congress, most state governments, and have blocked the Supreme Court nominee. The Democrats won a couple of possibly anomalous Presidential elections. They need to be a lot better organized.
5
My guess,and I was doubtful before, ks the Trump will lose because his appeal is only to a handful, thousands yes, but only a fraction of registered voters, who follow him like groupies from one venue to the next, to hear the same sermon repeated. He hasn't and won't change his message and like preachers of old, will conjure more frightening demons to scare the congregation. Eventually, he'll end up a small town lunatic raging at the apocalypse in his own mind with a handful of faithful still believing his fantasies.
1
Support for D. Trump is support for the unreasonably and unnecessarily moneyed and wealthy upper class, composed of people who will do all they can to keep things the way they are, who believe they are - - the entitled ones. They do this by paying low wages to the white working class in the USA; and they do this by eliminating low playing working class jobs;; and do this by putting some jobs back in play for some of the white working class to have so that this working class is beholden to them, controlled by them, and afraid of them.
The wealthy direct the white working class to turn against the poor and to turn against people of color, therein, black people; black people who the wealthy enslaved and tortured, and otherwise abused, using them for free labor, while using ancestors of the white working class to brutalize black slaves.
Yes, today, the white working class supporting D. Trump, the symbol of obnoxious wealth, are carrying forth the suppression of Blacks, the poor, and immigrants, and their own marginalized condition, justifying that it is OK to do this, thus justifying the existence of the condition of poverty and the suppression of new immigrants as "just the way it is and can only be." This is done by D. Trump and his kind so that they can remain unnecessarily and unreasonably wealthy while pulling the strings of their white working class puppets whose livelihoods they control in order to exert pain and use them to "police" and otherwise control "the others”.
The wealthy direct the white working class to turn against the poor and to turn against people of color, therein, black people; black people who the wealthy enslaved and tortured, and otherwise abused, using them for free labor, while using ancestors of the white working class to brutalize black slaves.
Yes, today, the white working class supporting D. Trump, the symbol of obnoxious wealth, are carrying forth the suppression of Blacks, the poor, and immigrants, and their own marginalized condition, justifying that it is OK to do this, thus justifying the existence of the condition of poverty and the suppression of new immigrants as "just the way it is and can only be." This is done by D. Trump and his kind so that they can remain unnecessarily and unreasonably wealthy while pulling the strings of their white working class puppets whose livelihoods they control in order to exert pain and use them to "police" and otherwise control "the others”.
I just want somebody in power to do the right things, consistently. Not sometimes. End the war on terror and the war on cannabis. Give us a single payor option for health care. And please fix our infrastructure instead of nation building in corrupt third world backwaters.
4
This piece is as confusing as seeing a slow-driving ambulance with lights flashing and sirens blaring.
Because one does not agree with the coalitions that make up a party, that does not mean those coalitions can be blown away by huffing and puffing in a column.
Mr. Trump, the Democrat masquerading as a Republican, has prevailed because Democrats voted for him in an attempt to sully the GOP. That must have worked, because it could help explain Mr. Krugman's piece.
Because one does not agree with the coalitions that make up a party, that does not mean those coalitions can be blown away by huffing and puffing in a column.
Mr. Trump, the Democrat masquerading as a Republican, has prevailed because Democrats voted for him in an attempt to sully the GOP. That must have worked, because it could help explain Mr. Krugman's piece.
The Republican Party has effectively destroyed itself with its own hubristic mix of gleeful obstructionism (we block everything Obama wants to do, and then complain that he has gotten nothing done) , mindless grievances ("persecution" of religious freedom) and outright lies ( PP sales of fetal body parts, "massive" voter fraud, high crime rates among immigrants.)
It's already over, they are the walking dead. And their candidate will scare the Democratic voters to a Hillary stampede. No one wants to say that for fear of seeming complacent and fear of being branded as trash-talking, over-confident elitists. And it doesn't help raise money for the Dems either.
They had a chance to become relevant again after the "autopsy" Reince Preibus and party elders performed.
A cremation would have been the better bet: lose the racists, conspiracy nuts, Koch brother-ventriloquism, and anti-gay religious masqueraders --push them out of your "big tent" and watch the 5 million replaced by 10 million.
It's already over, they are the walking dead. And their candidate will scare the Democratic voters to a Hillary stampede. No one wants to say that for fear of seeming complacent and fear of being branded as trash-talking, over-confident elitists. And it doesn't help raise money for the Dems either.
They had a chance to become relevant again after the "autopsy" Reince Preibus and party elders performed.
A cremation would have been the better bet: lose the racists, conspiracy nuts, Koch brother-ventriloquism, and anti-gay religious masqueraders --push them out of your "big tent" and watch the 5 million replaced by 10 million.
2
"a big factor, I’d argue, is that the Democratic establishment in general is fairly robust." - Says a member of the Democratic establishment (who sold out his life long keynesianism to be part of that establishment).
"For one thing, it wasn’t all that close. She won...because she had support... especially nonwhite voters."
Rebuttal:
Oh Please, she won almost for the exact same reason Trump won, better name recognition (a 23 year head start over her adversary), especially among non-white voters who in voting for her voted against their own interest & vote for someone who sold them out in the 1990s, over someone who has stood with them since the 1960s, & had even been arrested on their behalf.
Having said all that, I agree in part with the way this post starts out. The GOP ideas, SUPPLY SIDE ECONOMICS are bunk IN THE CURRENT CONTEXT. Back in 1980 during stagflation, supply side policies arguably had some merit in that context (flimsy &/or limited for reasons I lack space to explain) & they had some efficacy in that context of too much demand and too little supply. But since 1998 we've had lowflation i.e. the context is reversed. Their core idea can't work, its inefficable. So they resort to electoral & propaganda tricks. As time goes by their policy ideas, their tricks & their propaganda becomes more absurd.
Unfortunately Clinton isn't committed to Demand: wealth is still concentrating. As long as that goes on Great Recession Phase 2 stalks the economy. That'll bring riots.
"For one thing, it wasn’t all that close. She won...because she had support... especially nonwhite voters."
Rebuttal:
Oh Please, she won almost for the exact same reason Trump won, better name recognition (a 23 year head start over her adversary), especially among non-white voters who in voting for her voted against their own interest & vote for someone who sold them out in the 1990s, over someone who has stood with them since the 1960s, & had even been arrested on their behalf.
Having said all that, I agree in part with the way this post starts out. The GOP ideas, SUPPLY SIDE ECONOMICS are bunk IN THE CURRENT CONTEXT. Back in 1980 during stagflation, supply side policies arguably had some merit in that context (flimsy &/or limited for reasons I lack space to explain) & they had some efficacy in that context of too much demand and too little supply. But since 1998 we've had lowflation i.e. the context is reversed. Their core idea can't work, its inefficable. So they resort to electoral & propaganda tricks. As time goes by their policy ideas, their tricks & their propaganda becomes more absurd.
Unfortunately Clinton isn't committed to Demand: wealth is still concentrating. As long as that goes on Great Recession Phase 2 stalks the economy. That'll bring riots.
1
riots with guns and massive ammo.
1
I have started door to door campaigning for HRC. There's more enthusiasm out there than meets the eye and has been missed totally by the press. I'm tired of Hillary haters, including Bernie. He had one stump speech, one vague solution (revolution), one friend in the senate, and one overly simplistic view of anything that stands in his way (it's rigged). Each day that he wallows in self pity is another day lost in beating Trump. What a disappointment!!
14
There is one thing that Donald Trump can't stand and that is being a Loser And that is why he will either walk away from the race or decline the nomination at the convention Trump is not stupid and he reads the polls He will not bite off a race that requires him to poney up half a billion dollars He will not engage with Hillary Clinton if she remains un indicted And without having the support of a wide swath of his own party he has to recognize that remaining in the race is a fools errand
3
What kind of Democrats are "Progressives" when they refuse to support their nominee Hillary Clinton I wonder.
Bernie Sanders at this stage can only " Ask", not "Demand" anything from Mrs. Clinton.
The arrogance of Bernie Sanders has no end as a matter of fact as I have read 75 percent of Sanders supporters will vote for Hillary Clinton.
At least Donald Trump has votes Bernie Sanders at this point needs to go back to the Senate floor for which we are paying for. We have enough of him.
Bernie Sanders at this stage can only " Ask", not "Demand" anything from Mrs. Clinton.
The arrogance of Bernie Sanders has no end as a matter of fact as I have read 75 percent of Sanders supporters will vote for Hillary Clinton.
At least Donald Trump has votes Bernie Sanders at this point needs to go back to the Senate floor for which we are paying for. We have enough of him.
11
What kind of Democrat is so willing to ignore Clinton hawkish record, her ties to Wall Street and the pay to play so called contributions from nefarious dictators while she was secretary of state in exchange for arm deals. Apparently none of this bothers you and some other Democrats, but how arrogant you are to try to take the moral high ground regarding Sanders and his supporters when you yourself are too lazy or uninformed to care about any of these issues. Just because YOU have had enough of Sanders, it doesn't mean the 12 million people who voted for Sanders agree with you.
2
This is another one of those Krugman columns that I've come to dread, full of half-truths at best when discussing Mrs. Clinton, Senator Sanders, and the Democratic Party as a whole.
What he says about Mrs. Clinton's toughness is certainly true. She has to be tough, because unlike Trump she knew exactly what she was getting into when she entered this year's presidential race. Yes, her background and experience qualifies her for the office. Yes, she got a lot of votes from non-white voters. So far so good.
But now we get to a lie by omission. Nowhere does this column mention the corrupt support of the Democratic Party establishment. Mrs. Clinton was more or less anointed as the candidate at the start of the process, and then came Senator Sanders to spoil the party. At that point, D. Wasserman Schultz and her merry crew swung into action. Debates were scheduled to minimize the size of the audience, delegates were hijacked in Nevada, superdelegates - a corrupt idea to start with - lined up behind Mrs. Clinton, and she was still unable to end Sanders' candidacy.
Barring an unforeseen circumstance, our next president will be Mrs. Clinton, but Sen. Sanders has exposed the rotten core of the Democratic Party. If it doesn't change, look for a progressive third party to establish itself in the next two years.
What he says about Mrs. Clinton's toughness is certainly true. She has to be tough, because unlike Trump she knew exactly what she was getting into when she entered this year's presidential race. Yes, her background and experience qualifies her for the office. Yes, she got a lot of votes from non-white voters. So far so good.
But now we get to a lie by omission. Nowhere does this column mention the corrupt support of the Democratic Party establishment. Mrs. Clinton was more or less anointed as the candidate at the start of the process, and then came Senator Sanders to spoil the party. At that point, D. Wasserman Schultz and her merry crew swung into action. Debates were scheduled to minimize the size of the audience, delegates were hijacked in Nevada, superdelegates - a corrupt idea to start with - lined up behind Mrs. Clinton, and she was still unable to end Sanders' candidacy.
Barring an unforeseen circumstance, our next president will be Mrs. Clinton, but Sen. Sanders has exposed the rotten core of the Democratic Party. If it doesn't change, look for a progressive third party to establish itself in the next two years.
4
But, other than that, Prof. Krugman says, she won quite easily.
3
I'll tell you one thing I find rotten: the way self-styled "progressives," sneer at Hillary Clinton, "because she got a lot of non-white votes."
This just in: that's racist as all hell. Oh, and minor technical detail: not the only reason she got several million more votes.
This just in: that's racist as all hell. Oh, and minor technical detail: not the only reason she got several million more votes.
1
Hi, Robert -
I'm not a "progressive" and I don't care who voted for Hillary. The portion of my comment regarding non-white voters was directed at Krugman's column.
Cheers.
I'm not a "progressive" and I don't care who voted for Hillary. The portion of my comment regarding non-white voters was directed at Krugman's column.
Cheers.
Krugman is right- GOP leaders are in total dissaray and Convention will either be a free for all or a farce run by the Donald exclusively along with a few other GOP losers and grifters like Palin and Gingrich.
Republican party is in shambles with no clear agenda other than hatred of the President and Hillary. Trump saw an opportunity to buy a major US political party on the cheap, rob its base and reimburse himself with party's contributions as the nominee. Same plan as he had in plundering many failed real estate ventures. If the GOP fails to fund and reimburse Donald he will merely find other investors with some new sales pitch of false promises that will totally con GOP's do nothing, racist,moralistic and corrupt conservative base. Donald is the master of the sales pitch and knows how to arouse the masses with virulent rhetoric and false promises just like that guy in Germany, the communist revolutionaries and some of the radical jihadi leaders who recruit over the internet. Hillary needs to overcome her massive smelly baggage and act presidential to win. There is a lot of smelly stuff in that baggage for ther con man to exploit.
Republican party is in shambles with no clear agenda other than hatred of the President and Hillary. Trump saw an opportunity to buy a major US political party on the cheap, rob its base and reimburse himself with party's contributions as the nominee. Same plan as he had in plundering many failed real estate ventures. If the GOP fails to fund and reimburse Donald he will merely find other investors with some new sales pitch of false promises that will totally con GOP's do nothing, racist,moralistic and corrupt conservative base. Donald is the master of the sales pitch and knows how to arouse the masses with virulent rhetoric and false promises just like that guy in Germany, the communist revolutionaries and some of the radical jihadi leaders who recruit over the internet. Hillary needs to overcome her massive smelly baggage and act presidential to win. There is a lot of smelly stuff in that baggage for ther con man to exploit.
The elephant in the room (no pun intended) is Hillary's email scandal. The FBI is now calling it a "criminal" investigation. She refused to be interviewed by them despite saying she would cooperate "in any way possible" with the investigation.
She clearly sent and received classified information through her home server on a regular basis; it appears she's even responsible for exposing the identities of several CIA agents.
And yet, the media pooh-poohs this as a non-story. And let's not even get in to the pay-to-play Clinton "Foundation".
She clearly sent and received classified information through her home server on a regular basis; it appears she's even responsible for exposing the identities of several CIA agents.
And yet, the media pooh-poohs this as a non-story. And let's not even get in to the pay-to-play Clinton "Foundation".
4
Nothing, zero, it's all just a whisper of gossip to keep Hillary's name in the news, the more she is in the news the more recognition of her brand name.
The election of President Obama has revealed that racism and white supremacist sentiment still prevails among certain groups in this country. Those white people vote and some party will always be looking to capture that voting block. The Republican Party has used code words to woo this group for years, but now that racism is in the open. It looks ugly in daylight.
The Republicans will hopefully take a thrashing this year, but they will probably find new code words and regroup around the same coalitions. The racist right can be beaten back, but it isn't going away.
The Republicans will hopefully take a thrashing this year, but they will probably find new code words and regroup around the same coalitions. The racist right can be beaten back, but it isn't going away.
1
The top-down structure of the GOP versus the coalition formation of the Democrats is not inherently a disadvantage. The GOP problem is that the leadership is deaf and blind, fixated upon the welfare of the wealthy. The Democratic coalition, on the other hand, has to appeal to disparate groups, sometimes leading to a lack of backbone and common sense. In principle, the top-down approach should have more freedom to choose the sensible path but, of course, the GOP has not benefitted in the presidential race, due to its venal and hypocritical "leadership".
1
What one of the Republican candidates should have done, is turn the tables on the party: offer a series of neo-liberal policies on health care, on education, on prison reform, on same sex marriage, that would have strayed from the tired supply side/trickle down mantra. Trump kind of did that, along with his peculiar brand of self-love and at least in the primaries, Republicans, I feel, were looking for someone who felt their pain, instead of listing the accomplishments of Reagan.
1
Those commenters who suggest the republican party are like a hollowed out tree ready to topple are deluding themselves. Sure, most of us can see that Trump is a fool, but plenty of people I know believe that most of his policies are the absolute truth. They aren't gonna suddenly give up on voting republican when there are still immigrants and takers and socialists to blame for all of their problems. They like their answers easy, wrapped in a nice bow, presented in 10 second sound-bites.
1
I would have preferred a more progressive Democratic candidate like Bernie Sanders but I can support Hillary. Her performance before the Benghazi committee was amazing and a big turning point for me in terms of how I regarded her! That day of inquisition resulted in her looking presidential while her inquisitors looked like vindictive idiots flailing to try to find some weakness they could exploit. The Republicans did Hillary a major service with that spectacle!
4
The Soviet Union is a fascinating parallel, but the GOP has also been uniformly crying to have an outsider blow up Washington for ages now; hence, many conservative voters recognized their savior when they saw him. So yes, certainly the party has become hollowed out. But it's also true that Trump just does demagogy better than Bush or Cruz. The corporate greed/populist rage Janus- faced mask of the Republican party is better worn by an actor. (Reagan?!)
2
Dr. K, you are spot on about the GOP's establishment, but the "strength" of the Democratic establishment is an illusion, disguising the fact that no all is is well at the grass roots. True, Hillary won quite handily in the end, after being in the public eye for decades, against a candidate who was was blacked out by the media for his entire congressional career and well into the presidential campaign. His 8-plus hour Senate speech on the economy in 2010 was ignored by media that fell over themselves later covering the "breaking news" of filibusters by Cruz and Paul.
You can't brush aside the 40 or so percent of the vote that Bernie earned, and the long term health of the Democratic Party depends on Hillary and the Democratic establishment paying attention to this long-neglected Democratic constituency.
You can't brush aside the 40 or so percent of the vote that Bernie earned, and the long term health of the Democratic Party depends on Hillary and the Democratic establishment paying attention to this long-neglected Democratic constituency.
2
The speech was in fact covered extensively.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/10/sanders-rails-against-tax-...
By the way, who in their right mind would want to listen to an eight-plus hour speech on the economy? And minor technical detail...what good, exactly, did that speech do?
Here's a little something I learned from Venezuela, not that Cuba didn't teach it aforetimes: any time a leftist starts giving eight-hour speeches, run screaming.
It's the only good thing I can come up with regarding fascists: with the possible exception of Kim Il Whatever, and least they keep the crazy shortish and to the point.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/10/sanders-rails-against-tax-...
By the way, who in their right mind would want to listen to an eight-plus hour speech on the economy? And minor technical detail...what good, exactly, did that speech do?
Here's a little something I learned from Venezuela, not that Cuba didn't teach it aforetimes: any time a leftist starts giving eight-hour speeches, run screaming.
It's the only good thing I can come up with regarding fascists: with the possible exception of Kim Il Whatever, and least they keep the crazy shortish and to the point.
Donald Trump's gleeful, self-satisfied, ignorant, opportunistic response to the Orlando tragedy not only showed how Presidential Hillary Clinton acted to it, but also reminded us of the high caliber man sitting in the White House, who focused on the victims and how to prevent more madness from happening. Trump arbitrarily asked President Obama and Hillary Clinton to step aside over this, but the reality showed the exact opposite.
3
What you refuse to acknowledge is that massive numbers of voters in both parties no longer trust either party to represent their interests. Gallup has shown that more voters are leaving the Democratic Party recently than the Republican Party. Independents are now the largest voting block (43%). Both major parties are offering unfit candidates: Silvio Berlusconi iTrump) vs. Vladimir Putin (Clinton). Many voters are begging for a none-of-the-above option. This is the year to make a third party viable. Dr. Jill Stein is my choice: intelligent, articulate, and possessing the integrity and good judgment sorely lacking in both Trump and Clinton.
2
While there is something to be made of the lack of performance by the Republican establishment, the 'hollow core' argument Krugman advances more properly belongs to the Democratic Party. Losses at the Congressional and state levels throughout the last eight years have cost the party opportunities to grow new leaders. The advancing age of party 'leaders' is witness to this void of young talent.
Republicans have a core of talent among Senators and Governors. At the start of the Presidential campaign, the group pursuing the Presidential nomination looked strong. But, party leaders allowed the Trump train to roll over its young.
So, maybe not a Republican 'hollow core.' More appropriately, a flattened core that now needs to brush itself off, shake out the Trump-delivered whuppin', and find itself again. The message is there; the messengers need to find their voices.
Republicans have a core of talent among Senators and Governors. At the start of the Presidential campaign, the group pursuing the Presidential nomination looked strong. But, party leaders allowed the Trump train to roll over its young.
So, maybe not a Republican 'hollow core.' More appropriately, a flattened core that now needs to brush itself off, shake out the Trump-delivered whuppin', and find itself again. The message is there; the messengers need to find their voices.
1
Yeah, because the Republican primary really showed the depth, knowledge, intelligence and just plain guts of that there deep bench.
Good grief.
Good grief.
I'm an angry white man. I'm angry that millions of Americans are ready to cast their vote for a vile, bigoted ignoramus who makes "business as usual" seem like Heaven on earth.
4
Still, check how Clintons do business too, it's all business as usual, they put their palms out and millions ours into their outstretched palms.
Relax, Hillary has a thick skin, your insults won't bother her on the way to the bank. When she deposited the 675k for three hours work she knew she had found heaven on earth.
If the Democratic Party is in such great shape, how come it can't win elections at the state level? And don't blame gerrymandering ... or the concentration of Dems in urban areas. Dems are increasingly non-competitive in gubernatorial and senatorial elections.( And gerrymandering, to some degree, is a function of having lost statehouses, which has allowed the Republicans to dominate districting.) And let's treat California as an exception. So, why do the Republicans control 30 statehouses full sweep?
2
Because their voters don't show up, any more than Bernie Sanders' alleged taunami did.
Once again, a Times pundit writes dismissively, even scornfully, about the candidacy of Bernie Sanders. I'm no Sanders supporter, but I deeply admire the passion behind his progressive ideas, including his inspirational remarks the other day, urging young and working people to get involved in the political process at the local and state level, where right-wing Republicans predominate over Democrats. This passion - and his deeply sensible goals, difficult as they may be to achieve - is what distinguishes the Sandars campaign from the Clinton juggernaut. That the Times, both in its editorial and news pages, has skewed so much of its political coverage to the Trump and Clinton candidacies, to the virtual exclusion of Sanders, is an indelible black mark (and a short-sighted one) on their usually superb handling of the nation's business.
2
The popular vote in the last election was very much in favor of the Democrats, yet through gerrymandering a GOP-dominated congress prevailed precipitating a deliberate paralysis of government, where a rump is holding the whole place to ransom. It doesn't really jibe with the notion of the US as a global leader with a bunch of gleeful stalwart obstructionists holding court whose sole aim is to thwart Obama's governance with political impunity because their seats are safe. This is an insidious form of plutocracy. It's a sinister development where elements of a ruinous anarchy have emerged into a GOP party of "NO" where the extreme acrimony of the current absurd political theatre has taken root.
2
Václav Havel talked about a dynamic under communism, in which people would repeat official political positions without believing them. They did that because it was necessary to get along in society. An organization might have enough power to enforce that kind of behavior for a while, but it's a fundamentally brittle position.
That's where the GOP is now. Politicians, who are usually accomplished, well educated people, have to deny evolution and climate change science, and defend discredited economic positions and childish political tactics. We always talk as if this is all sincere, as if they're idiots. But what if deep down they know? What if they do it because it's necessary to get along?
The whole thing will implode very quickly. When W's policies collapsed, we saw something similar. For a long time, the administration's power propped up their arguments -- surrogates stood up for them, pundits on tv defended the policies. But once it was over, they stopped, because they didn't have to, and because they didn't believe themselves.
My memory of that time is that Woodward came out with his book "State of Denial", and somehow it gave official Washington permission to stop pretending things were going well. That one book seemed to shatter the illusion, and events started to snowball -- Dems scored big in the midterms, then started running hearings, etc.
I feel like people are waiting for the catastrophic loss to figure out where to go next.
That's where the GOP is now. Politicians, who are usually accomplished, well educated people, have to deny evolution and climate change science, and defend discredited economic positions and childish political tactics. We always talk as if this is all sincere, as if they're idiots. But what if deep down they know? What if they do it because it's necessary to get along?
The whole thing will implode very quickly. When W's policies collapsed, we saw something similar. For a long time, the administration's power propped up their arguments -- surrogates stood up for them, pundits on tv defended the policies. But once it was over, they stopped, because they didn't have to, and because they didn't believe themselves.
My memory of that time is that Woodward came out with his book "State of Denial", and somehow it gave official Washington permission to stop pretending things were going well. That one book seemed to shatter the illusion, and events started to snowball -- Dems scored big in the midterms, then started running hearings, etc.
I feel like people are waiting for the catastrophic loss to figure out where to go next.
4
Hillary Clinton does not yet have enough committed delegates to secure the nomination, so it is premature to crown her just yet. As for her numbers, she actually beat Obama in New York by a larger percentage than she beat Sanders, so a vaunted economist, steeped in statistics, is being a bit disingenuous here. As for Hillary's large majority of votes - a large number of them were piled up in the Republican South, home of Trump's angry white men, which are not likely to give her a single Electoral College vote. Don't mistake a purely party vote for a general election vote. You'll be falling into the same trap the Founding Fathers warned against when they opposed the creation of parties (establishment gatekeepers).
Hillary IS tough - but, Thatcher was tough, too, after all. In one cartoon I saw a woman was saying to her friend "I'm thrilled to have a chance to vote for a woman for President. I just wish I agreed with her policies."
Trump's election will lead to chaos, authoritarianism, overt psychopathic behavior, and the possible collapse of not just the GOP, but the country as well.
Hillary is a poster child for the right-leaning, corporate/Wall Street friendly, current Democratic Elite as personified by Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. At best, like Obama, she will tweak around the edges of our social policy and turn our foreign policy more hawkish.
Bernie is the forerunner of healthy change. And the youth movement he sparked will grow
Hillary IS tough - but, Thatcher was tough, too, after all. In one cartoon I saw a woman was saying to her friend "I'm thrilled to have a chance to vote for a woman for President. I just wish I agreed with her policies."
Trump's election will lead to chaos, authoritarianism, overt psychopathic behavior, and the possible collapse of not just the GOP, but the country as well.
Hillary is a poster child for the right-leaning, corporate/Wall Street friendly, current Democratic Elite as personified by Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. At best, like Obama, she will tweak around the edges of our social policy and turn our foreign policy more hawkish.
Bernie is the forerunner of healthy change. And the youth movement he sparked will grow
3
I hope for all of us, that Bernie's influence surpasses his own Achilles heel - he is clueless about womens issues, minorities, foreign policy, and the very sinister encroachment of religious bigotry onto the public stage, with "religious freedom" legislation. I also hope that the descendents of Bernie's "Bros" will be able to tolerate seeing and hearing an accomplished and confident woman in power, instead of acting out against the teacher/mother/sister/wife in his own guilty conscience.
1
As most sensible Republicans understand, Trump has almost no chance at the White House. The more critical questions this fall will be the races for House and Senate. I'll generously say that most Republican House and Senate candidates aren't bloviating idiots like Trump, and therefore their chances at winning are much more dependent on local factors. How well are they known? Can they relate to local issues? Will their constituencies believe their ability to fight for them in Congress? Perhaps the Republican ideology has fallen apart and Trump is the proof, but does that fact really influence each and every Congressional race? Therein lies the key question for the U.S. in November.
2
It's rare that Dr. Krugman shoots wide of the mark, but today he does.
Politics is about the exercise of power. It doesn't lie with either party. It lies with the 1000 - 1500 families that make up the core of the .1%. Their money talks. And the politicians who they fund, like Secretary Clinton, listen.
The .1%'s stranglehold on power is centered in Congress, where they have used their money in statehouse races to gerrymander a majority out as far as the eye can see. Who is president matters, but executive orders only go so far. The power to tax lies with Congress. It's what the .1% care about most. Hence their investment in the statehouse races.
The Trump phenomenon can be filed under Unintended Consequences. The .1%ers found a political gift that just kept on giving. The less educated white voter. The irony of course was that these were the very people who the .1% were screwing - taking their manufacturing jobs and sending them to slave wage labor countries while pocketing the labor cost savings difference.
Astonishingly, this core Republican group finally stood up and said "Enough!" Trump stumbled onto their pain, and has been holding on for dear life ever since.
It has nothing to do with a hollow Republican party and everything to do with the economic exercise of power by our .1% masters.
In a further irony, Secretary Clinton is now the .1%'s candidate. They know gridlock is their friend, and with her, they'll get exactly that.
On to November!
Politics is about the exercise of power. It doesn't lie with either party. It lies with the 1000 - 1500 families that make up the core of the .1%. Their money talks. And the politicians who they fund, like Secretary Clinton, listen.
The .1%'s stranglehold on power is centered in Congress, where they have used their money in statehouse races to gerrymander a majority out as far as the eye can see. Who is president matters, but executive orders only go so far. The power to tax lies with Congress. It's what the .1% care about most. Hence their investment in the statehouse races.
The Trump phenomenon can be filed under Unintended Consequences. The .1%ers found a political gift that just kept on giving. The less educated white voter. The irony of course was that these were the very people who the .1% were screwing - taking their manufacturing jobs and sending them to slave wage labor countries while pocketing the labor cost savings difference.
Astonishingly, this core Republican group finally stood up and said "Enough!" Trump stumbled onto their pain, and has been holding on for dear life ever since.
It has nothing to do with a hollow Republican party and everything to do with the economic exercise of power by our .1% masters.
In a further irony, Secretary Clinton is now the .1%'s candidate. They know gridlock is their friend, and with her, they'll get exactly that.
On to November!
3
The Republican party ran out of gas...not hot air, but the rocket fuel of politics and the future, ideas.
Each election cycle, they have proposed...nothing. The full extent of their wish list could not be made public because if they did so, 1/3 to 1/2 of their supporters would go running for the exits. Destroy Social Security? Ravage Medicare for the elderly? More tax cuts for the people who need them to least?
Only Paul Ryan, the "intellectual leader of the Republicans" (yeah?) dared to lay out specific programs. His latest, on analysis, was seen for exactly what underlies it: a big fat wet kiss to the wealthiest, a dream list for millionaires and billionaires consisting of tax cuts, destroying regulations and environmental protections, with the removal of all restrains on predatory lending like payday loans and other nifty schemes that help push the the poor down. What's not to like?
Extremism is the final retreat of Republicanism before the collapse. There is nowhere else to go and they must devise new promises to keep the campaign contributions flowing.
Elsewhere, the Democrats also look like a dying party because of the age of the leadership class and the lack of younger people rising through the ranks. We are in a dramatic new era while old battles are being fought all around us. For several decades, the Dems have withdrawn into their shells, afraid to stand up for much of anything. This horrid, strange year might be the inflection point of real change.
Each election cycle, they have proposed...nothing. The full extent of their wish list could not be made public because if they did so, 1/3 to 1/2 of their supporters would go running for the exits. Destroy Social Security? Ravage Medicare for the elderly? More tax cuts for the people who need them to least?
Only Paul Ryan, the "intellectual leader of the Republicans" (yeah?) dared to lay out specific programs. His latest, on analysis, was seen for exactly what underlies it: a big fat wet kiss to the wealthiest, a dream list for millionaires and billionaires consisting of tax cuts, destroying regulations and environmental protections, with the removal of all restrains on predatory lending like payday loans and other nifty schemes that help push the the poor down. What's not to like?
Extremism is the final retreat of Republicanism before the collapse. There is nowhere else to go and they must devise new promises to keep the campaign contributions flowing.
Elsewhere, the Democrats also look like a dying party because of the age of the leadership class and the lack of younger people rising through the ranks. We are in a dramatic new era while old battles are being fought all around us. For several decades, the Dems have withdrawn into their shells, afraid to stand up for much of anything. This horrid, strange year might be the inflection point of real change.
3
I cannot believe that we are even having these stupid conversations. No other western world country does this. The issues for their people are jobs, prosperity, education, immigration. economic growth. Not LGBT. Not abortion, Not religion. Not guns. Not healthcare, because health care is a right and is provided mostly for free. Education is almost free for the people. Guns are not available to most of the people. Abortion is available to women since the healthcare of women falls under the rubric of routine medical care. Immigration policies are in place, but the problems are accepting refugees, and migrants. LGBT is also a nonissue because everyone accepts the diversity of all population groups. The democratic party's policies most closely resemble those of the Western world countries. Bernie Sanders has thankfully finally addressed the issues that are the real concerns of the American people, young and old. I do however have faith in most of the American voters that come November, we will do the right thing and resoundingly reject Trump and the Republican party, which is now obsolete, and vote for Hillary.
7
Healthcare is not a right in the USA and it is certainly not free. Healthcare represents $3 trillion of spending in the US economy. Those who do not have health insurance -- and there were 60 million when Obama became president -- either die more quickly or are forced into bankruptcy if they get a higher cost condition. Most cancers, heart attacks and many other conditions cost between $100K and $500K and no one making $50K can afford that kind of cost out-of-pocket.
1
Hillary got bad press because she is such a spectacularly flawed candidate with the baggage of Bill Clinton lurking in the background. Bad press is better than no press (which Bernie got) and why spend money when the result is predetermined by insiders (super delegates). What I don't get is that for years now Mr. Krugman has explained how the policies of Bill Clinton did more than anything to lead to the great recession (repeal of Glass/Steagal et. al. and now is in the tank for Hillary who actually floated the dead balloon of putting bozo Bill in charge of the economy. I sure hope your position in the Clinton administration works out for you, Paul, because for the rest of us, not so much.
4
All republicans I talk to, agree that the problem is not Trump but the lack of a clear Republican political platform that will drive the party. The only agreement within is Reagan, let us do the same Reagan did. They do not realize though, that Reagan's platform, however successful, became exhausted during the nineties as proven in 2007. Yes, Prof the party is hollow!
5
Mr. Krugman's claims notwithstanding, neither major party is serving the needs of working American men and women. Dismissing the enthusiasm for either Mr. Sanders or Donald Trump does not make the problem go away. We have seen the beginnings of a major change in American politics, and "business as usual" by both parties has been rejected (by a majority of voters in the GOP, and by a slight minority of voters in the Democratic primaries). Failure to heed the will of the voters by both parties will render both parties irrelevant in the near future.
2
This, I fear, is a little optimistic. The Republican party is a front organization for very wealthy elites who are willing to pay huge amounts of money to politicians to buy special status. These "investments" pay off in tax advantages, various insider power advantages and (they hope) relief from environmental regulations.
Of course, the Republican party cannot admit to the electorate that it exists as a pay system for politicians to cash in on making the 1% richer, so it cloaks itself in all sorts of PR subterfuge including dog whistle racist appeals. And, it has aligned with the religious right for convenience -- a dalliance that costs nothing.
What the oligarchs HAVE figured out -- and the Democrats have NOT figured out -- is that positions mean little, messaging means a lot. The Republicans have invested hundreds and hundreds of million dollars in Frank Luntz polling and various other vehicles to package their poison well. What the Democrats face is a better organized, better funded, better packaged opposition. Donald Trump was an anomaly -- he ripped the packaging off. But the packagers won't go quietly into that dark good night and Hillary has yet to show that she is very good at messaging at all.
Of course, the Republican party cannot admit to the electorate that it exists as a pay system for politicians to cash in on making the 1% richer, so it cloaks itself in all sorts of PR subterfuge including dog whistle racist appeals. And, it has aligned with the religious right for convenience -- a dalliance that costs nothing.
What the oligarchs HAVE figured out -- and the Democrats have NOT figured out -- is that positions mean little, messaging means a lot. The Republicans have invested hundreds and hundreds of million dollars in Frank Luntz polling and various other vehicles to package their poison well. What the Democrats face is a better organized, better funded, better packaged opposition. Donald Trump was an anomaly -- he ripped the packaging off. But the packagers won't go quietly into that dark good night and Hillary has yet to show that she is very good at messaging at all.
4
Trump is where he is now because of all the enablers in the Republican Party, the so-called party of Lincoln, but a party that reflects none of the virtues of Lincoln or the principles articulated at Gettysburg that guided him in making it possible "that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."
4
Joseph Huben: "The victor must be conciliatory to assure her opponent and his passionate followers that they are respected and welcomed.
In the context of the Clinton/Sanders contest, this sentiment, which is normally a truism, reads like farce. When did Sanders and especially his followers ever show the least sign of respect to Clinton, unless the constant references to her as a "corrupt tool of Wall Street" is now considered a term of endearment. And It's workaday for the Sanders supporters to claim her victory was "rigged", which I guess is supposed to be an indication of the spirit of fair play and of the "let's all get along" sentiment rampant in the Sanders camp.
The wail of the Sanders camp: treat us with the respect that we withhold from any candidate who isn't a proclaimed anti-Brady gun legislation, "democratic socialist", just like us.
In the context of the Clinton/Sanders contest, this sentiment, which is normally a truism, reads like farce. When did Sanders and especially his followers ever show the least sign of respect to Clinton, unless the constant references to her as a "corrupt tool of Wall Street" is now considered a term of endearment. And It's workaday for the Sanders supporters to claim her victory was "rigged", which I guess is supposed to be an indication of the spirit of fair play and of the "let's all get along" sentiment rampant in the Sanders camp.
The wail of the Sanders camp: treat us with the respect that we withhold from any candidate who isn't a proclaimed anti-Brady gun legislation, "democratic socialist", just like us.
7
The Republican Party is about to nominate a fraud and a buffoon as their candidate for president. But let us Democrats refrain from celebrating too early. There is still work to be done, not only to win the presidential election, but to win down ballot races that will enable President Hillary Clinton to govern effectively.
7
Interesting that Krugman has been completely silent on the Orlando massacre. Another disaster brought on my the incompetent globalist idiocy that passes as Obama's foreign policy. Hillary will be nothing more than a continuation of the horrid foreign policy of the Obama Administration, which has left America, weaker, and our enemies stronger.
Actually it is too early to say what will happen to the Democratic party as many Sanders supporters will either stay home or vote for Jill Stein. It is very unlikely that Clintn will get the majority of them especially if it turns out that Trump will go for an independent run. I think a 4 party system would be in order if we really want to have a real democracy at this point in history... something the ruling elites and corporatists fear.
2
Thanks, Paul, good insights. Perhaps another way to say it is: too many Republicans are "against" stuff and people, while plenty of Democrats are "for" stuff and people. The difference is not subtle, but the essence of it escapes public notice. Which brings me to the media. I've stopped calling it "news media" because the content---on paper, on TV, online---isn't about news anymore, it's about entertainment for the narrowly defined audience of each of those media channels. The media enabled Trump's success. I don't say the media "caused" Trump to win, but without the gazillions of dollars' worth of free coverage, I think he would have had a much more difficult time. Needless to say, I don't watch TV anymore.
2
No one's really listening to Bernie at this point. He had his pop cultural moment, and now it's over. Hillary's got the party behind her, and it counts for all the reasons that Paul suggests. I think it's ironic that so-called progressives, like Sanders, are so individualistic. It's hard to imagine that a European social democrat, the kind that Sanders types claim admiration for, would run a campaign organized around a single great savior. European social democracy is more party-centric than the U.S. But the Bernie bros don't seem to know much about the history or traditions of social democratic politics. They only know that they love Bernie and his rhetoric, which is why they will fade.
4
"The G.O.P. is, or was until Mr. Trump arrived, a top-down hierarchical structure enforcing a strict, ideologically pure party line. The Democrats, by contrast, are a “coalition of social groups,” from teachers’ unions to Planned Parenthood, seeking specific benefits from government action."
Of course, this is only the case until Bernie gets his hands on the party platform and does what he has said he is going to do and how he is going to do it. Dogma is not simply a Republican phenomena, and quite frankly it's getting exhausting pointing this out
Of course, this is only the case until Bernie gets his hands on the party platform and does what he has said he is going to do and how he is going to do it. Dogma is not simply a Republican phenomena, and quite frankly it's getting exhausting pointing this out
2
Bernie is welcome to concern himself with the platform. He'll be occupied and happy whilst the elections are won and the House and Senate return to Democratic control.
1
Mr. Krugman should review Hotelling's paper on ice cream sellers on the beach, spacial competition, and how it relates to political parties.
The real question for the left is has the country moved to the left. I don't think so, and I don't think Obama and the most democrats do either. When the democrats raised taxes, they let 49 of 50 Americans keep the Bush/Republican tax cut. If the last 8 years in anyway transformed politics, then the democrats would have sold higher taxes and shared sacrifice. Their failure indicates to me that they are working with handcuffs on, and they are not as popular as their public assessment of their popularity.
The real question for the left is has the country moved to the left. I don't think so, and I don't think Obama and the most democrats do either. When the democrats raised taxes, they let 49 of 50 Americans keep the Bush/Republican tax cut. If the last 8 years in anyway transformed politics, then the democrats would have sold higher taxes and shared sacrifice. Their failure indicates to me that they are working with handcuffs on, and they are not as popular as their public assessment of their popularity.
Yes,the two parties are not symmetrical. Republican primary voters have been fed their own "facts" from Rush Limbaugh and Fox News for decades now. Of course they were primed for Trump. The question is whether the Democrats will be organized enough to get back both Houses of Congress. Bernie's goals require a compliant Congress. Likewise, Hillary Clinton will be as liberal or conservative as the Congress allows her to be. Now that she has the nomination clinched, I hope the Bernie Sanders movement turns their attention and grass-roots energy to getting a Congress elected that can pass progressive legislation.
5
I think the analogy of practiced communism and it's inevitable decline & collapse does parallel the GOP since Reagan.
At the core of parties faux philosophy is 'government is the problem', but, let us run it. Imagine that dynamic in any other pursuit, it's inherently scurrilous and demands contortional rationales, usually exercised by those who receive the most from the US 'problematic government'.
At the core of parties faux philosophy is 'government is the problem', but, let us run it. Imagine that dynamic in any other pursuit, it's inherently scurrilous and demands contortional rationales, usually exercised by those who receive the most from the US 'problematic government'.
3
Mrs. Clinton is without a doubt the most qualified candidate remaining. Unfortunately, if and when she becomes president she will face the same mindlessly vehement opposition that has faced President Obama. In my conversations with people who HATE Hillary (and Obama), I've found that the hatred is mostly based on lies, innuendos, and vitriol that floats in the giant cesspool of the internet. People believe what they want to believe, facts be damned. I just wish that the same standards were applied equally to all candidates, past, present and future. Many of the worst Obama haters never paid any attention to politics until a black man became president, so they are ignorant of W's many failings. After all, they tell me, "he kept us safe!"
7
The republican party was hollowed out from the inside. Sadly, they have also hollowed out much of the regulatory function of the federal government, and they have taken a real chainsaw to the mechanisms of government in many many states. My own state is a poster child, sadly, for the harm that hollow republican governance can do (by people who do not fully appreciate what governance is, though they are learning-- the hard way.)
2
Let's hope that PK is right about this. Certainly the GOP has long since become an empty trove of talking points. All party members are beholden to spout them but they carry neither any meaning nor any vision for a better America.
This might work well for a voter base that years to return to an America that never was. but not for a broader population that recognizes and strives to adapt to the immutable realities of the 21st Century. Rather than the circular firing squad that often characterizes the Democratic Party, the GOP has lined itself up against a cement wall and given the machine gun to Donald Trump.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
This might work well for a voter base that years to return to an America that never was. but not for a broader population that recognizes and strives to adapt to the immutable realities of the 21st Century. Rather than the circular firing squad that often characterizes the Democratic Party, the GOP has lined itself up against a cement wall and given the machine gun to Donald Trump.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
2
Excellent column. Assuming he doesn't become President, I am grateful to Trump. He has shown the Republicans to be a bunch of empty suits, whose main goals are fighting for the rich and powerful interests and ensuring their own reelection. Bernie attempted to come from outside and take command of the Democratic party, but it didn't work, because the Democrats actually believe in their policies and have the gumption to resist a hostile takeover by Bernie and his followers, many of whom are not Democrats and have no interest in the Party.
2
I only disagree in one respect. Trump's primary success is because he's a bully and fits well in the Republican Party, which is, despite all the power it holds in Congress and in state government, a minority party. It maintains its power despite its diminutive size because it has perfected bullying tactics, like voter suppression, being anti-women, and demonizing minorities. Trump just out- bullied the band of bullies known as the GOP.
7
Clinton benefitted from the super delegates which were not elected. Bernie would be beating her now had the Democrat Party bosses not have thrown the election. Hillary is a weak corrupt candidate who excites nobody and has taken millions from countries which are anti-gay and anti-women. She has taken money for selling influence and deals involving governmental favors. She has demonstrated extremely poor judgement in her foreign policy with disastrous results in every single country she dealt with. If she looks presidential, then we are in big trouble.
1
Even if the super delegates votes are excluded, Mrs. Clinton would still win, since she won the popular vote. I am frightened by the suggestion that the minority candidate should win because his/her voters desire that outcome. We have an honest disagreement about two candidates, and after many months of campaigning, more people chose Hillary Clinton. In a democracy that is the winner. Any other outcome would be rigged.
2
No, Bernie lost because he didn't have the support of the majority of Democrats. We saw through his lies and deception. We saw that he was a one issue candidate, an egotist, and too old. He lost fair and square. He isn't a big enough man to admit it.
2
Trump has exposed the GOP as the empty, intellectually and morally bankrupt organization that it is. For decades it has consisted of unnatural alliances among incompatible interest groups that were united only by their contempt for other Americans. Hopefully its disintegration will follow the November elections.
5
The map showing how Clinton and Sanders did in New York shows the weakness of the Democrats, as they've become primarily a party of urban eastern Rust Belt and coastal western liberals. This is why the Democrats in part lost the House, and if they continue to pursue gun control leading into the election they may lose more. A gun control agenda based upon an assault weapon ban also highlights not just the hypocrisy of the Democrats but also what can be called nothing other than just racism, considering how many blacks and Hispanics are murdered with handguns each year and how few are murdered with rifles of any kind, much less assault weapons. In spite of the carnage each year Democrats have essentially proposed nothing to address the almost 75% of firearm homicides that occur in low income urban neighborhoods each year.
It is an issue that they will not let go of, like moths drawn to a flame.
http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/new-york
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/sunday-review/the-assault-weapon-myth....
It is an issue that they will not let go of, like moths drawn to a flame.
http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/new-york
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/sunday-review/the-assault-weapon-myth....
"What worked in the primaries won't work in the general election." Which Trump is either unaware of or chooses to ignore because he continues to run a primary type campaign while Hillary began conducting a general election type campaign before she became we Democrats' presumptive nominee.This is a significant reason her lead over Trump is growing.Another factor is a difference between the parties' primary campaigns;Trump faced 16 relatively weak opponents who,often afraid to take Trump picked off each other so that by the time it came down to Trump and Cruz the latter had too much ground to make up. In contrast the Democratic primary campaign was between 2 strong candidates,a result being that Hillary became a stronger better candidate for her battle with Trump,who's not cowering her the way Trump cowers much of the GOP leadership,so that Ryan twists himself into verbal pretzels dissigreeing with most of Trump's positions at the time as trying to explain why he'll vote for Trump.
2
The Obama coalition is Jesse Jackson's rainbow coalition. About 40 percent of white voters are part of it. Including old white men like me. I am not angry but concern with the direction of the GOP and the country at large. People are complicated. I have tended to vote years ago Republican but over the last 8 years Democrat. I am fiscally conservative but socially moderate. Tend progressive in taking care of each other but Libertarian as in live and let live philosophy. Pro business and capitalism but hate the trend of our country drifting towards feudalism. The Republican party has left me. But the Democrat big tent can fit me. And I am not the only one.
10
If the House and the Senate remain in Republican hands, Mrs. Clinton, whether she is elected by a landslide or not, will be unable to effect the changes she so clearly wants to make for all Americans. President Barack Obama, who was handed the most poisoned plateful of Republican obfuscation and obstruction a President has ever received, did wonderfully well in his two Democratic administrations. The sheer meanness of the GOP Senators and Representatives, who outnumbered the Democratic party in Congress, made sure they looked down upon Obama because of his colour and their racism - and the Republican party, now shattered beyond rebuilding, no longer the Grand Old Party, but the Party of Smithereens, will lose its third stab at the Presidency in 8 years. Trump's angry and white followers will be deeply disappointed and angry that their Wolf was unable to eat Little Red Riding Hood Hillary, or blow down the houses of Dem little Piggies. Trump was mutton in wolf's clothing, pulled the wool over his followers' eyes till now. His party is, thanks to his rampages and their demented ethos, amok and asunder.
167
If the Democrats, by some magic, once again become the majority in both houses and prevail in the executive office, they better damn well get their act together this time or we will see a third party take over. Which, in my view, would be a good thing.
1
What changes does she want to make? The Democratic candidate that actually wants to make changes is Bernie Sanders.
Obama had both a Dem senate and a Dem house when he was first elected. But due to inexperience and naive idealism he didn't do much with that advantage. HRC may not get Dem control of congress but she will certainly get an opposition party in disarray. Let's hope she has the sense not to squander the opportunity.
Do not forget, however, that behind both parties is an oligarchic elite that bankroll both of them. Oh sure, the tactics may differ, the groups appealed to may be different, but all one needs to do is see how the ruination of the middle class has happened under both Democratic and Republican administrations alike. If one party were truly champion of the ordinary people, this would not be the case. Instead you have the "destroy the government" Republicans as "the government" is the root of all evil on the one hand, then the coalition of various groups all wanting to suck on the government's teat in the interest of their group or program on the Democratic side. Left with nothing on one hand, self-serving interests on the other, little wonder the middle class is politically angry, feeling like they've been left holding the (now quite empty) bag.
4
Most of the Democrats are not corrupt Corporate Democrats doing the bidding of their plutocratic contributors? Huh? The Democrats are just as responsible for this mess - the dismantling of the middle class, the privatization of everything and giving it over to the vulture Capitalists. It was Bill Clinton who twisted enough Democrat arms to pass NAFTA, Obama is pushing hard for the TPP and has passed other trade agreements offshoring American jobs while Hillary helped write the TPP as Secretary of State, The endless Wars continue for the endless profits of the Merchants of Death destroying one country after another and forcing a huge tide of desperate refugees into Europe stoking the long dormant flames of fascist nationalism.
In 2015 25 hedgefund billionaires made $13 Billion, yes that is Billion, in just one year's income. By doing things like cannibalizing Puerto Rico and after years of struggle extracting billions from Argentina's people for past debts bought at pennies on the dollar. Obama promptly praised Mauricio Macri, corrupt tool of the financial elite whose first act was to send billions of his own people's money to pay off vulture capitalists who refused to accept the terms of 80% of creditors. Millions will not vote for Hillary or Trump, they will be voting for Third Parties like the Greens or Libertarians.
The way the Democratic Establishment and Corporate Media including Krugman treated Bernie is an object lesson in the Democratic Establishments control
In 2015 25 hedgefund billionaires made $13 Billion, yes that is Billion, in just one year's income. By doing things like cannibalizing Puerto Rico and after years of struggle extracting billions from Argentina's people for past debts bought at pennies on the dollar. Obama promptly praised Mauricio Macri, corrupt tool of the financial elite whose first act was to send billions of his own people's money to pay off vulture capitalists who refused to accept the terms of 80% of creditors. Millions will not vote for Hillary or Trump, they will be voting for Third Parties like the Greens or Libertarians.
The way the Democratic Establishment and Corporate Media including Krugman treated Bernie is an object lesson in the Democratic Establishments control
5
The hollowness of American political science is disturbing. Krugman reflects on how decadent "Communism" had become. An -ism became decadent? No, leaders of so-called Communism were decadent. Their -ism was always wrong.
Today's NYT has yet another editorial on the Brexit, and it's Britain, Britain, all the way. Nope, it's the UK, which has implications for peace in Ireland. And the same editorial refers to Britain as "a nation." Recalcitrant Celts, Anglo-Saxons, Norman-English... they were dragooned into a political unit that never really worked as a unit. They had to partition Ireland, and may have to partition more. The Middle East or the Balkans weren’t the only poorly engineered “countries.”
America doesn’t work as a unit now. Greed is supreme but is not new. That kind of greed ran England at the time of the Wars of the Roses and the 100-Years War. That greed formed Britain and then the UK (1536; 1707; and 1801). The warring leaders sometimes found ways to dress up their greed and ambition—with help from Shakespeare, sycophant supreme. Unfortunately, the ambition of America’s greedy seems to be confined to greater greediness. In medieval Europe, nasty princes got around to building great cathedrals and to patronizing great artists. In America today, what do they plan to build? Trump Towers? A wall with Mexico? Perhaps hollow isn’t the word for the GOP. Brittle!
Today's NYT has yet another editorial on the Brexit, and it's Britain, Britain, all the way. Nope, it's the UK, which has implications for peace in Ireland. And the same editorial refers to Britain as "a nation." Recalcitrant Celts, Anglo-Saxons, Norman-English... they were dragooned into a political unit that never really worked as a unit. They had to partition Ireland, and may have to partition more. The Middle East or the Balkans weren’t the only poorly engineered “countries.”
America doesn’t work as a unit now. Greed is supreme but is not new. That kind of greed ran England at the time of the Wars of the Roses and the 100-Years War. That greed formed Britain and then the UK (1536; 1707; and 1801). The warring leaders sometimes found ways to dress up their greed and ambition—with help from Shakespeare, sycophant supreme. Unfortunately, the ambition of America’s greedy seems to be confined to greater greediness. In medieval Europe, nasty princes got around to building great cathedrals and to patronizing great artists. In America today, what do they plan to build? Trump Towers? A wall with Mexico? Perhaps hollow isn’t the word for the GOP. Brittle!
1
I am not a Democrat; I vote for Democrats because they are not Republicans. I think this statement can be made by most Sanders supporters. Senator Sanders has laid out the direction the country should be moving. They should get started. Younger Americans have shown they mean business. Economic, racial, and environmental injustice are cancers that are growing faster than Mrs. Clinton's ideas for solving them. It's going to take a revolution. Simply winning an election against a buffoon like Donald Trump won't be enough.
4
The statement that there is no difference between the parties is frequently uttered by cynical hold outs during election cycles. Thank you, for giving me a foundation to build a reply. I know from my life experiences that it is untrue but have previously stuttered around. Libertarians are often the most disgruntled and also seem to be the best with language. The republicans have benefited by this twisted untruth. Maybe Trump's silver lining will be breaking this spell.
3
I'm sure there are others like me who after Bush-v-Gore in 2000 concluded that the Republican Party will stop at nothing to gain and secure power given that the smartest among them understood that their numbers were declining and any means, no matter how underhanded, must be employed to stay in the game.
They have achieved this through nation wide gerrymandering, concerted efforts to restrict troublesome voter groups, plus putting down the welcome mat for any and all crackpots coming into the party.
As repulsive and repugnant as Trump is to many of their leaders, many who claim to reject him out of principle do so only because they fear he is going to lose. Their tune would change if Trump had a clear path to the presidency, you can be sure.
Instead of principles and ideology, the party is supported, and pays heed to, groups of not always similar interests: the anti-tax folks, anti-abortionists, anti-immigrants,the gun lobby, the homophobic, fundamentalist Christians and that more disparate group of people who live and thrive on hate, outrage and a need to condemn whatever.
The logical unifying force to bring forward some measure of unity is, of course, for a demagogue to step up as Trump has done. He promises a Xmas stocking stuffed with gifts to each of them. We'll know by November if there is a Santa Claus or just a showman in a suit with an orange comb over.
They have achieved this through nation wide gerrymandering, concerted efforts to restrict troublesome voter groups, plus putting down the welcome mat for any and all crackpots coming into the party.
As repulsive and repugnant as Trump is to many of their leaders, many who claim to reject him out of principle do so only because they fear he is going to lose. Their tune would change if Trump had a clear path to the presidency, you can be sure.
Instead of principles and ideology, the party is supported, and pays heed to, groups of not always similar interests: the anti-tax folks, anti-abortionists, anti-immigrants,the gun lobby, the homophobic, fundamentalist Christians and that more disparate group of people who live and thrive on hate, outrage and a need to condemn whatever.
The logical unifying force to bring forward some measure of unity is, of course, for a demagogue to step up as Trump has done. He promises a Xmas stocking stuffed with gifts to each of them. We'll know by November if there is a Santa Claus or just a showman in a suit with an orange comb over.
192
Al Gore should never have repudiated Bill Clinton in 2000! Cheap affairs were not enough to throw away the White House for. Humphrey in 1968 needed to repudiate the Vietnam war and he couldn't or wouldn't. Things for the Democrats were never really right after that. Humphrey was seen in a better light later, even if Carter couldn't quite say his name (Hubert Horatio Hornblower I think he said at a Democratic convention).
Paul Krugman correctly diagnoses the GOP's dysfunction and the chasm between the party's leaders and voters, but his generally flattering depiction of the Democratic Party misses the mark. Anyone who has ever been in the Democratic party, as I have, knows that it is as hierarchical as the Catholic Church or the U.S. Marine Corps. Witness the legions of superdelegates and big fundraisers lined up behind Clinton. Witness the support that Democratic machines in states across the country gave to Clinton in primary elections. Krugman dismisses Sen. Bernie Sanders's challenge to Clinton, but it should be noted that Sanders not only won 10 million votes without the support of the Democratic establishment--he won 10 million votes despite the active opposition of the Democratic establishment. What more evidence do we need that the "party of the people" is also afflicted with plenty of dysfunction?
9
This bankrupcy of ideas in the Republican party is resultant of the short sighted policy of forcing members of Congress to vote as a bloc without facing some form of punishment (loss of position on committees and other projects). It was inevitable that trouble was coming when it began to make the news that centrist Republicans like Senator Snowe might cooperate on certain (few and far between) votes. The GOP doesn't care if the elected officials actually believe in the party line, they just want unity. And because of that adherence, they've lost their way in the battle of ideas because no one actually knows what the constituents want. They've stifled ideas for so long so how could they possibly know? And now they are reaping what they've sewn.
3
I couldn't agree more with the description of the Republican party in this column. We are witnessing the end-stage of a political party which is incapable of governing, having refused and abrogated that duty years ago. Instead, they focused upon enriching a scintilla of the population, while distracting their base with hot-button issues, and doing everything in their power to dismantle our government from within.
I would, however, caution the Democratic party against becoming too secure and self-congratulatory. Bernie Sanders will not be the nominee, there is no doubt about that, but the millions of people who supported his platform did not do so purely out of boredom, or a "stick it to the man" sense of juvenile rebellion.
The middle class is vanishing in our nation, and the younger generations are hit especially hard with a trifecta of a weak and competitive job market, student loan debt, and an exploding cost of living. My worry is that the Democratic party believes either that it has done enough, or that there is little left to do.
For decades, the Democratic leadership has cozied up to corporate and financial power brokers, believing that the best solution to our problems was to unleash the power of the Ivy League and their legions of bubble-bred trust fund babies to solve our problems. And if our fellow Americans fell through the cracks well, sorry folks, you should have "re-invented" yourselves.
It's not 1992 any longer. I hope they realize that.
I would, however, caution the Democratic party against becoming too secure and self-congratulatory. Bernie Sanders will not be the nominee, there is no doubt about that, but the millions of people who supported his platform did not do so purely out of boredom, or a "stick it to the man" sense of juvenile rebellion.
The middle class is vanishing in our nation, and the younger generations are hit especially hard with a trifecta of a weak and competitive job market, student loan debt, and an exploding cost of living. My worry is that the Democratic party believes either that it has done enough, or that there is little left to do.
For decades, the Democratic leadership has cozied up to corporate and financial power brokers, believing that the best solution to our problems was to unleash the power of the Ivy League and their legions of bubble-bred trust fund babies to solve our problems. And if our fellow Americans fell through the cracks well, sorry folks, you should have "re-invented" yourselves.
It's not 1992 any longer. I hope they realize that.
291
The democratic party is nothing but a corrupt husk of its former self. Unfortunately, those in the inner circle keep drinking the Kool Aide and think that they are bullet-proof. They think they can do ANYTHING they want.
They are wrong.
What we are witnessing is the downfall of TWO parties that have become utterly corrupted by the system they seek to govern. Even if the corruption could be weeded out, both parties lost control of the system to corporate interests a long way back.
Pulling power away from said interests and back to where it belongs will indeed require a "revolution". The only question that remains is what kind? I prefer my revolutions to be legislative in nature. But Nick Hanauer is correct, if the "system" continues to fail the middle and working classes, the pitchforks are coming out. If we go into another recession before the middle class has fully recovered (and this "recovery" is now long in the tooth) the consequences of social unrest could be very serious.
Let's hope it doesn't come to that, but I am not optimistic.
They are wrong.
What we are witnessing is the downfall of TWO parties that have become utterly corrupted by the system they seek to govern. Even if the corruption could be weeded out, both parties lost control of the system to corporate interests a long way back.
Pulling power away from said interests and back to where it belongs will indeed require a "revolution". The only question that remains is what kind? I prefer my revolutions to be legislative in nature. But Nick Hanauer is correct, if the "system" continues to fail the middle and working classes, the pitchforks are coming out. If we go into another recession before the middle class has fully recovered (and this "recovery" is now long in the tooth) the consequences of social unrest could be very serious.
Let's hope it doesn't come to that, but I am not optimistic.
There was a good article in the Times a few days ago about how wind and other renewables are replacing coal and oil as power generators in Wyoming, but are only able to create a fraction of the jobs that are being lost in the coal industry. Nobody likes coal other than the people who own it. Not the people who dig it and not the people who burn it. They are the ones who are buried in it when their mines collapse, or die from black lung and other diseases when it ends up in their lungs, or who have to drink it when mine owners dump the garbage from it in their streams and rivers.
But people do need to work and earn a living, and the Democrats are going to have to work on a sustainable economy. This involves health care, transportation, education, so many things! Don't expect the Republicans to have much helpful to say on these things. I remember when someone said that the Soviet Union didn't have a military-industrial complex, it WAS a military-industrial complex. Apartments that collapsed, televisions that blew up but great nuclear missiles. Somebody else said the Russians didn't make the fastest integrated circuits, just the largest. Lysenkoism never died there. Look at Book X of Plato's Republic.
But people do need to work and earn a living, and the Democrats are going to have to work on a sustainable economy. This involves health care, transportation, education, so many things! Don't expect the Republicans to have much helpful to say on these things. I remember when someone said that the Soviet Union didn't have a military-industrial complex, it WAS a military-industrial complex. Apartments that collapsed, televisions that blew up but great nuclear missiles. Somebody else said the Russians didn't make the fastest integrated circuits, just the largest. Lysenkoism never died there. Look at Book X of Plato's Republic.
Right on! Thx for posting.
By this time it should be obvious that Trump will lose in November, though 4+ months is an eternity in an election cycle and there are distinct, yet remote, possibilities that may turn things around.
What I think has to be even more of a concern to the Republican 'establishment', not to mention their ideological puppeteers and bank rollers - the Kochs, Adelson, et. al., is the potential of a major drubbing in down ticket races as well.
The Democrats could very well end up with the White House and majorities in both houses of Congress. Obama had that in '08, but this time around the POTUS won't have to deal with a self inflicted banking system meltdown threatening to deep 6 the entire economy.
This would of course require massive voter turnout which can hopefully be realized despite the efforts of Republican led statehouses to suppress it.
What I think has to be even more of a concern to the Republican 'establishment', not to mention their ideological puppeteers and bank rollers - the Kochs, Adelson, et. al., is the potential of a major drubbing in down ticket races as well.
The Democrats could very well end up with the White House and majorities in both houses of Congress. Obama had that in '08, but this time around the POTUS won't have to deal with a self inflicted banking system meltdown threatening to deep 6 the entire economy.
This would of course require massive voter turnout which can hopefully be realized despite the efforts of Republican led statehouses to suppress it.
2
LOL -- Obama had that, for two full years -- and blew it anyways.
It's never "enough" for Democrats, who want totalitarian-like power to impose social engineering.
It's never "enough" for Democrats, who want totalitarian-like power to impose social engineering.
The Republican Party isn't merely in trouble; it's dying. It's been decades since the party came up with an original idea, and their repetition of the same old tropes--lower taxes, no gun control, no to gay rights--has become so predictable that no one listens anymore.
The only two original ideas to come out in the past decade were the gerrymandering of Congressional districts after the 2010 census, and the current move toward voter suppression in the states. The fact that their only solution to losing elections is to cheat just demonstrates how bankrupt the party really is.
The only two original ideas to come out in the past decade were the gerrymandering of Congressional districts after the 2010 census, and the current move toward voter suppression in the states. The fact that their only solution to losing elections is to cheat just demonstrates how bankrupt the party really is.
7
the wall was a symbol of what might be called bumpersticker or pop communism, was actually in decay from the moment if its ossification by the soviet "vanguard" (which decided, as bureaucracies do, to pursue self-presevation at the expense of its seminal marxist ideology).
the decay of the republican party also stems from a betrayal of founding ideologies, ronald reagan's virulent anti-communism, led to actions which were, in effect, throwbacks to the labor/ownership class-ism that motivated marx...
and so, the notion of republican moderation was abandoned and the drift to the 1% begun with not little amount of force (patco, crushed by it, still rersonates).
agree that "The Republican establishment was easily overthrown because it was already hollow at the core." donald trump’s attacks on the establishment appeal, as did those on his primanry opponents, "because they contained a large element of truth."
the times and its agents, therefore, ought to spend more time parsing the satus quo and less trashing trump and promoting rodham-clinton (which includes trashing sanders)...trump will in fact be proven right but never be president, hrc will not do anything to offend k street, only sanders gave us a shot at restoring the preamble's promise to "promote the general Welfare" over the special interest.
the decay of the republican party also stems from a betrayal of founding ideologies, ronald reagan's virulent anti-communism, led to actions which were, in effect, throwbacks to the labor/ownership class-ism that motivated marx...
and so, the notion of republican moderation was abandoned and the drift to the 1% begun with not little amount of force (patco, crushed by it, still rersonates).
agree that "The Republican establishment was easily overthrown because it was already hollow at the core." donald trump’s attacks on the establishment appeal, as did those on his primanry opponents, "because they contained a large element of truth."
the times and its agents, therefore, ought to spend more time parsing the satus quo and less trashing trump and promoting rodham-clinton (which includes trashing sanders)...trump will in fact be proven right but never be president, hrc will not do anything to offend k street, only sanders gave us a shot at restoring the preamble's promise to "promote the general Welfare" over the special interest.
The Trump and Sanders candicacies are in no meaningful way comparable. I do grow weary of lazy and, more to the point, unsupportable suggestions of equivalence between the two. Just as the two parties are not symmetric, neither are their 'insurgents.' One plays to base emotions through narcicism and demagoguery, the other to our aspirations through a genuine desire for human well-being. One features a buffoon, the other a serious thinker. One is trying to pull a nation into the gutter, the other into the light. One would bring a self-centered adolescent mind (if we can call it that) to the most somber and consequential of jobs, the other considered thought born of genuine empathy forged through a lifetime of practice.
Get it together, Krugman...
Get it together, Krugman...
6
Hillary Clinton was regarded as a great first lady, an experienced secretary of state, with a long history of public service for women's right and minority rights etc and as the most experienced in all fields, to hold the office of the president.
Then suddenly after she decided to run for presidency, the Republican misinformation machine went in full blast with negative campaign. Her supposedly high negatives are a direct result of the millions of dollars that the Republican propaganda machine spent trying to turn her into a person not to be trusted.
Compared to the alternatives, she is by far the most qualified and the best.
Then suddenly after she decided to run for presidency, the Republican misinformation machine went in full blast with negative campaign. Her supposedly high negatives are a direct result of the millions of dollars that the Republican propaganda machine spent trying to turn her into a person not to be trusted.
Compared to the alternatives, she is by far the most qualified and the best.
13
As many other comments note, Mr. Krugman chooses to overlook many things that contradict what he says.
And the Democratic Party might once have been a coalition of social groups but it is becoming more and more, like the Republicans, the party of the hedge fund managers.
Andrew Cuomo and Eva Moskowitz, once a Democratic member of the NYC City Council and who sought the Democratic nomination for mayor, have led the charter school movement which has been funded by hedge fund managers whose sole purpose is to destroy the teachers' unions. Anybody who believes the myth that all the supporters of the movement care about is giving access to quality education to poor children should ask why they don't equally care about the quality of the housing or healthcare those same children receive.
And if the Democrats take back the Senate, we can look forward to their leader being Chuck Schumer, Wall Street's mouthpiece.
Finally,as to negative press coverage, Mr. Krugman and his fellow columnists and reporters at The Times have had the consistent and persistent line that Sanders' plans were always impossible to implement. I'm still waiting for any of them to explain how every other industrialized country can afford guaranteed healthcare to all but the wealthiest country in the history of the world can't.
And finally why did the DNC try to treat Clinton like a fragile piece of china when it tried to limit the number of debates and put them on at a time it figured few would be watching.
And the Democratic Party might once have been a coalition of social groups but it is becoming more and more, like the Republicans, the party of the hedge fund managers.
Andrew Cuomo and Eva Moskowitz, once a Democratic member of the NYC City Council and who sought the Democratic nomination for mayor, have led the charter school movement which has been funded by hedge fund managers whose sole purpose is to destroy the teachers' unions. Anybody who believes the myth that all the supporters of the movement care about is giving access to quality education to poor children should ask why they don't equally care about the quality of the housing or healthcare those same children receive.
And if the Democrats take back the Senate, we can look forward to their leader being Chuck Schumer, Wall Street's mouthpiece.
Finally,as to negative press coverage, Mr. Krugman and his fellow columnists and reporters at The Times have had the consistent and persistent line that Sanders' plans were always impossible to implement. I'm still waiting for any of them to explain how every other industrialized country can afford guaranteed healthcare to all but the wealthiest country in the history of the world can't.
And finally why did the DNC try to treat Clinton like a fragile piece of china when it tried to limit the number of debates and put them on at a time it figured few would be watching.
6
I will explain it, and the free college bit too.
Both essentially boil down to the same thing: much higher taxes, plus rationing. Oh, plus few if any of Sanders' supporters actually know what they're talking about when it comes to health insurance and care.
First off, Europeans are generally in better health: they stuff their faces with garbage less, they exercise more, they are less stressed. Second, they generally don't have simple single payer systems: they have mixed systems, except for England--which is socialized medicine, not exactly single payer.
And they just don't throw the fancy care around as we do. They also cap drug and care costs, as essentially cap doctors' salaries.
Then, taxes. Lots of them.
College? They test like crazy, and most don't go. They go to a trade school, or apprenticeship, or something like one of our community colleges. Oh, and they don't gussy up the college: none of our fancy gyms, health food bars, and so on.
And, taxes. Lots of them.
The complaint about Bernie is that he's less than honest--way less--about the taxes, and about the rationing.
Both essentially boil down to the same thing: much higher taxes, plus rationing. Oh, plus few if any of Sanders' supporters actually know what they're talking about when it comes to health insurance and care.
First off, Europeans are generally in better health: they stuff their faces with garbage less, they exercise more, they are less stressed. Second, they generally don't have simple single payer systems: they have mixed systems, except for England--which is socialized medicine, not exactly single payer.
And they just don't throw the fancy care around as we do. They also cap drug and care costs, as essentially cap doctors' salaries.
Then, taxes. Lots of them.
College? They test like crazy, and most don't go. They go to a trade school, or apprenticeship, or something like one of our community colleges. Oh, and they don't gussy up the college: none of our fancy gyms, health food bars, and so on.
And, taxes. Lots of them.
The complaint about Bernie is that he's less than honest--way less--about the taxes, and about the rationing.
1
Well, you owe the lack of debates to Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
Robert,
Do you really believe that people in Britain eat healthier than we do? Apparently you've never heard of one of those healthy English breakfast loaded with fat and carbohydrates.
And as to rationing healthcare, apparently you don't have much acquaintance with the American medical system if you believe we don't do it here. If you don't have health insurance or can't pay the deductible or co-pay on insurance if you do have it, lots of luck getting anything but emergency care.
And replacing proper mental health care with prisons in order to save money is rationing by any name.
Finally if taxes are so terrible, how was it that this country prospered during the 1950s when the top tax rate was near 90%.
Imagine what this country could do if we went back to anything even close to that.
Do you really believe that people in Britain eat healthier than we do? Apparently you've never heard of one of those healthy English breakfast loaded with fat and carbohydrates.
And as to rationing healthcare, apparently you don't have much acquaintance with the American medical system if you believe we don't do it here. If you don't have health insurance or can't pay the deductible or co-pay on insurance if you do have it, lots of luck getting anything but emergency care.
And replacing proper mental health care with prisons in order to save money is rationing by any name.
Finally if taxes are so terrible, how was it that this country prospered during the 1950s when the top tax rate was near 90%.
Imagine what this country could do if we went back to anything even close to that.
In the 80’s, as a social democrat Venezuelan grad political science student in Houston, my perception was almost the opposite.
It was when Reagan was elected. As part of the international students community, I shared the amazement that somebody lacking so many skills was the President of the US. We exchanged notes of all the things the President said that were made up. It was amusing.
Democrats were always democrats. Republicans could be anything. They could support tax cuts or social programs. The Rockefeller’s initiatives were very close to social democrat parties in Latin America, like “Adecos”. Social Democrat did not mean communism as it does in this now my country.
That Republican party does not exist anymore.
I will vote for Clinton. Not because she is a woman. She is the person that I want in the White House representing all of us versus some of us.
It was when Reagan was elected. As part of the international students community, I shared the amazement that somebody lacking so many skills was the President of the US. We exchanged notes of all the things the President said that were made up. It was amusing.
Democrats were always democrats. Republicans could be anything. They could support tax cuts or social programs. The Rockefeller’s initiatives were very close to social democrat parties in Latin America, like “Adecos”. Social Democrat did not mean communism as it does in this now my country.
That Republican party does not exist anymore.
I will vote for Clinton. Not because she is a woman. She is the person that I want in the White House representing all of us versus some of us.
8
It's always fascinating to watch a particular narrative which serves the interests of the powerful repeated to the point where it gels and becomes the official record of what has occurred. Fascinating, but discouraging when such efforts come from the pens of men and women we have come to trust on many issues. To observe as this article does that Hillary Clinton was ill-served by the press in the course of her campaign is disingenuous at best. Bernie Sanders was the victim of an almost complete press blackout, particularly for reporting on the significance of the amazing amount of support he has received. As for Hillary's numbers. In the early stages of the primaries, run in the states of the old confederacy, the solid South proved to be as solid as ever. Had the primaries been fairly scheduled and Sanders been given a chance to demonstrate his viability as a candidate, the outcome would have been very different. As many have noted, the system was rigged. You haven't given us a tale of two parties, just a white paper for your party of preference.
4
Same old yadayada. It was The Media. it was them ignernt Southern black people. Anyway, Bernie would beat Trump better because Clinton just won Red states--like New Jersey, New York, California. Where she didn't just win: she clobbered him.
Excuses, excuses, excuses. So what if Bernie spent more money. So what if his coverage--which got more and more extensive--was largely positive. So what if nobody was hammering on him.
Bernie lost because his numbers didn't add up. On several levels. Get over it--or better, stop squalling and go do the long, dull, boring work of politics.
Excuses, excuses, excuses. So what if Bernie spent more money. So what if his coverage--which got more and more extensive--was largely positive. So what if nobody was hammering on him.
Bernie lost because his numbers didn't add up. On several levels. Get over it--or better, stop squalling and go do the long, dull, boring work of politics.
Dr. Krugman has abandoned, for some time now, all pretense of either professional or journalistic integrity and impartiality. He is very clear that he is the mouthpiece of the Democratic Party, and uses this "bully pulpit" to promose the Democratic Party and its minions and the Empress Hillary Clinton.
You do have to wonder why someone who insists that Trump will lose in a landslide....is so worried about Trump that literally every column now for months is Trump Trump Trump 24/7.
Clearly he is worried about SOMETHING.
You do have to wonder why someone who insists that Trump will lose in a landslide....is so worried about Trump that literally every column now for months is Trump Trump Trump 24/7.
Clearly he is worried about SOMETHING.
"Until that moment, nobody realized just how decadent Communism had become."
That is not really true. It was evident to a number of observers that the Soviet Union was suffering economically. This point of view was most directly expressed by the Soviet dissident and author Andrei Amalrik in his 1970 book "Will he Soviet Union Survive until 1984". Many in the west were skeptical of Amalrik's analysis, as it was advantageous politically to depict the Soviet Union monochromatically as a looming menace. Amalrik didn't get everything right, but he did recognize the corrosive effects of corruption and the strong centrifugal effects of unequal treatment of the USSR's large ethnic minorities.
That is not really true. It was evident to a number of observers that the Soviet Union was suffering economically. This point of view was most directly expressed by the Soviet dissident and author Andrei Amalrik in his 1970 book "Will he Soviet Union Survive until 1984". Many in the west were skeptical of Amalrik's analysis, as it was advantageous politically to depict the Soviet Union monochromatically as a looming menace. Amalrik didn't get everything right, but he did recognize the corrosive effects of corruption and the strong centrifugal effects of unequal treatment of the USSR's large ethnic minorities.
2
Donald Trump won the GOP primary because he pushed the buttons of a large number of disaffected white men--and likely some of their wives--many of whom had never previously voted in a Republican primary. It was a brilliant strategy. They went to the poles in droves.
They are, however, a minority; and their percentage of the voting population will increasingly become smaller over the coming years. They will go cacophonously into that dark night glued to Fox News, yet that's the trend. Given their high percentage of gun ownership, we should watch them carefully lest they become overly isolated, disaffected, lost souls.
The voting population of the country is diversifying. In states like California, no single broad ethnic group has a majority, and the entire country is moving in this direction. It's interesting to note that Secretary Clinton carried that state by a twelve percentage point margin, despite, as this column notes, being outspent by Bernie Sanders.
This column shows the value of a careful look at the numbers. They will continue to be of value as we move, inexorably, to the first Tuesday in November.
They are, however, a minority; and their percentage of the voting population will increasingly become smaller over the coming years. They will go cacophonously into that dark night glued to Fox News, yet that's the trend. Given their high percentage of gun ownership, we should watch them carefully lest they become overly isolated, disaffected, lost souls.
The voting population of the country is diversifying. In states like California, no single broad ethnic group has a majority, and the entire country is moving in this direction. It's interesting to note that Secretary Clinton carried that state by a twelve percentage point margin, despite, as this column notes, being outspent by Bernie Sanders.
This column shows the value of a careful look at the numbers. They will continue to be of value as we move, inexorably, to the first Tuesday in November.
5
The white population of the US is 77% -- up 2% in the last few years.
That is still a heck of a lot of white people.
California is now majority hispanic/latino. But many are illegal aliens, so technically they should not be voting.
I've seen photos of Trump rallies, and there are plenty of women there. I wouldn't be too sure that Trump does not have significant female support.
That is still a heck of a lot of white people.
California is now majority hispanic/latino. But many are illegal aliens, so technically they should not be voting.
I've seen photos of Trump rallies, and there are plenty of women there. I wouldn't be too sure that Trump does not have significant female support.
1
Good points. Still, according to Census Bureau estimates in 2014, 62% of the population are White. Figure roughly half of those are male and possibly 60% might vote for Trump. That is a lot of people, and a figure to be reckoned with. Yet the Democrats could cobble together a win out of everyone else. And the "everyone else" continues to grow. The White alone population dropped 1.6 percentage points from 63.7% estimated in 2010 to 62.1% estimated in 2014--from the U.S Census bureau.
http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045215/00
http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045215/00
1
The metaphor of the wall is very well chosen. That's pretty much all the Republicans have been doing in the Congress: building walls. Now they want to build some more: between Mexico and the US, with Muslims, and with the whole world in terms of immigration. Feudalists (yes, since 1822 it's been a word) rather than Federalists (a word since 1787), they are better at building and walls and abusing serfs than using the economy to strengthen a unified system of government. The big problem in much of the Middle East is that the countries don't have an economy that strengthens and unifies, which is why they turn to force. The Trumpist, Fedualist, and "Islamic" extremist have much in common on this front. Let them confine themselves to a walled state and let the rest of us to enjoy the earth.
2
This piece is nonsense. 1) had bernie won the nomination against and establishment republican many establishment dems would end up backing a republican and working to sabotage bernie from the inside. Perhaps a 3rd party run. The meme wouldn't be the danger of a racists xenophobe, it would the the danger of a communist/ socialist. Because the goal of the establishments of both parties is to preserve the establishment. It's rather funny because PK reaches a conclusion that is exactly the opposite of mine. In fact what is happening is exatly what I predicted would happen. The single neoliberal corproate party in the united states with two branches (republican and democrat) would sabotage the non neoliberal if any was nominated. It was one of the reasons I prayed for a trump sanders match up. it increased the odds for change. But note, when that prospect came up Bloomberg was going to run. Nope, it's the republican branch of the corporate party making sure that clinton gets elected. Because the corporate party protects itself. Honestly, the same would be happening in china if any "official" really stepped out of the permitted boundaries of the ruling communist party. It just happens to be the case that that person is called Trump and a republican, it could just as easily be "Sanders" and a democrat.
5
You will never get worthwhile change until you learn how to spell words and form coherent statements, a point I raise because Bernie Sanders, regrettably, was every bit as sloppy in his thinking.
I am all for Bernie's principles and goals. i do not want illiterates shoving them down everybody's throats, any more than I want health care and college based on phony numbers.
And above all, I want somebody running the country who did the work, who put in the time to do the long, slow, boring stuff and to learn. The reason Sanders looked worse and worse, to me, was that he and too many of his supporters started sounding way, way too much like Trump: not a big fan of pie in the sky.
I don't like some of Clinton's foreign policy approaches, and I DARN sure dislike the ties to corporations. And I voted for her for the simple reason that she doesn't act like a child who expects a cookie right away.
I am all for Bernie's principles and goals. i do not want illiterates shoving them down everybody's throats, any more than I want health care and college based on phony numbers.
And above all, I want somebody running the country who did the work, who put in the time to do the long, slow, boring stuff and to learn. The reason Sanders looked worse and worse, to me, was that he and too many of his supporters started sounding way, way too much like Trump: not a big fan of pie in the sky.
I don't like some of Clinton's foreign policy approaches, and I DARN sure dislike the ties to corporations. And I voted for her for the simple reason that she doesn't act like a child who expects a cookie right away.
Please note what I describe has already happened in europe multiple times regardless of the opposition to the status qou comes from the left or right . Plus corbyn won and faced a "revolt" in his own party labour from a number of MP's. I fail to understand PK'a analysis when he's watched the script play out in europe already
The typical setup in English-speaking countries was alternation between two neoliberal parties corresponding to the two versions of neoliberalism. Neoliberalism is mostly used to mean one thing in the US (former liberals who have embraced some version of Third Way politics, most notably Bill Clinton) and something related, but different, everywhere else (market liberals dedicated to dismantling the social democratic welfare state, most notably Margaret Thatcher). Here I’m using it to cover both versions, which I’ll call soft and hard. The central theme is the inevitability and desirability of a globalised capitalism, dominated by the financial sector. The difference between the two versions turns essentially on whether this requires destruction of the welfare state or merely “reform”, along the lines undertaken by the Clinton Administration.
http://crookedtimber.org/2016/02/29/the-three-party-system/ the corporate party is the neoliberal party of which we have two branches called republican and democrat
http://crookedtimber.org/2016/02/29/the-three-party-system/ the corporate party is the neoliberal party of which we have two branches called republican and democrat
To me this election is not between Trump and Hillary, or between Democrat and Republican - it is an election about the heart and soul of America. What type of America we like to have - the America that was defined by the founding fathers with 18th century myth of equality that includes slavery, freedom that restricts voting for women and Negroes. Or an America where equality means multiculturalism, freedom means voting rights for all, justice means upholding human rights and happiness includes the protection of environment and other natural spices. It is a defining fight for humanity - and a win of Trump, for force able future, will take America back few hundreds of years. Homo sapiens are a peculiar product of evolution - it's major evolutionary strength comes from its two fundamental capabilities - friendship and gossip. The technology of social media revolution tremendously changed that capability and effect of this change will be reflected in this election.
1
The Soviet Union was an edifice of lies, violence, and fascism that collapsed. It was the handiwork of the Bolsheviks and of Stalin. Today’s Republican Party, the so-called GOP, is an edifice of lies and fascism.
The threat of domestic fascism remains. Our great danger now is the edifice of lies and fascism, independent of the GOP, created by the Kochs and their allies at ALEC. The great Koch fortune substantially began with their work for Stalin. Their fortune comes from extracting our resources, on term favorable to them.
The Kochs and ALEC have built a structure of Astroturf politics that threatens to overtake what little is left of our democracy. They have purchased our political system from the local on up. They have learned how to dominate local elections to school boards and state reps, and on up, so that legitimate indigenous leadership, in each state, is snuffed in the crib.
Specimen A, product A is a brain dead robot, the polbot, polbought Paul Ryan, a Ryand bot. The policies he advocates are a mixture of lies and nonsense.
History Ryan missed: Our economy in the 1700s was largely 1, self-sufficient farmers, and 2, markets dominated by chartered monopolies. Smith described a free market unmanipulated by participants. He advised regulation to prevent collusion by concentrations of wealth. In the 1800s, instead, we got an unregulated industrial state with less self-sufficiency, concentration, instability and inequality. The world Ryan is trying to return us to.
The threat of domestic fascism remains. Our great danger now is the edifice of lies and fascism, independent of the GOP, created by the Kochs and their allies at ALEC. The great Koch fortune substantially began with their work for Stalin. Their fortune comes from extracting our resources, on term favorable to them.
The Kochs and ALEC have built a structure of Astroturf politics that threatens to overtake what little is left of our democracy. They have purchased our political system from the local on up. They have learned how to dominate local elections to school boards and state reps, and on up, so that legitimate indigenous leadership, in each state, is snuffed in the crib.
Specimen A, product A is a brain dead robot, the polbot, polbought Paul Ryan, a Ryand bot. The policies he advocates are a mixture of lies and nonsense.
History Ryan missed: Our economy in the 1700s was largely 1, self-sufficient farmers, and 2, markets dominated by chartered monopolies. Smith described a free market unmanipulated by participants. He advised regulation to prevent collusion by concentrations of wealth. In the 1800s, instead, we got an unregulated industrial state with less self-sufficiency, concentration, instability and inequality. The world Ryan is trying to return us to.
4
Please see the case I make 3 comments prior to this.
Prof. Krugman is making his rounds spinning the reality on behalf of Sec. Clinton. the primaries have shown that polls and media are not the one who will decide the elections in November but we the people of USA in an actual election. The important questions that need to be answered is whether one democrat in the white house will use every means within his power as the president of US to ensure the election of Sec. Clinton who he has endorsed or whether he will expeditiously ensure that a fair and transparent outcome will decide the fate of the cloud of the emails or cover it up until after the election is still to be seen. It is very unfortunate that the current party choices for president are quite difficult assuming that the Americans voters are not going to allow the media pundits like Prof Krugman make up their minds for them and Bernie waiting to determine whether he can let go off the damn emails when he has the best chance of the 3 remains to be seen. The election is too important for the direction in which the nation will move and any relentless propaganda by the new media to favor one over the other will not hold water.
2
The "polls" all said in November 2015 that Trump would barely get 5% of the vote and drop out early.
I guess the polls were wrong. Polls are surprisingly inaccurate and OFTEN wrong. Pollsters ask slanted questions. People tend to answer how they think you WANT them to answer, not how they will actually behave.
Clearly this is not a typical election year, and Trump is not a typical candidate. He's disproven skeptics again and again, and I suspect he will in November.
I guess the polls were wrong. Polls are surprisingly inaccurate and OFTEN wrong. Pollsters ask slanted questions. People tend to answer how they think you WANT them to answer, not how they will actually behave.
Clearly this is not a typical election year, and Trump is not a typical candidate. He's disproven skeptics again and again, and I suspect he will in November.
The primary is over. Bernie lost by millions of votes. He got creamed in New York, New Jersey, California, and so on. He has hundreds fewer pledged delegates. He has vitrually no superdelegates.
So why exactly do you feel that a candidate who got way fewer votes should be the candidate, again? Is this another of those Washington state things--you get the delegates because you won the caucuses among 26, 000 activists, while 660, 000 popular voters went against you?
So why exactly do you feel that a candidate who got way fewer votes should be the candidate, again? Is this another of those Washington state things--you get the delegates because you won the caucuses among 26, 000 activists, while 660, 000 popular voters went against you?
1
If we have learned anything over the last 7 plus years, it takes more than a President to address the problems of society -- social, economic, and the negative impacts of Nature. Our issues requires the cooperation of all branches of Federal and State governments but since the end of WWII, and a brief period after 9/11 we have not been able to achieve a political consensus on many important issues, like affordable healthcare, public education or very importantly, how we are going to organize to reduce and hopefully stop global warming, which will require actions at the international level equivalent to WWII. Leaving fossil fuels in the ground and changing our source of energy alternative energy sources will be the equivalent of the Industrial Revolution and WWII wrapped into one disruptive package.
Already a major political party has denied that the emissions of global warming gasses from the combustion of fossil fuels making for a heck of a political fight between the vested interests in fossil fuels and the common welfare.
Clearly, the American people need to know before the election that we have reached a fork in the road and must insist that Government prepare to eliminate the economic and social stress that can occur if we do not manage this transition well. We must try to elect serious representatives at all levels of government to support a President who can lead us through this challenging maize. The current news coming out of Venezuela is a warning sign.
Already a major political party has denied that the emissions of global warming gasses from the combustion of fossil fuels making for a heck of a political fight between the vested interests in fossil fuels and the common welfare.
Clearly, the American people need to know before the election that we have reached a fork in the road and must insist that Government prepare to eliminate the economic and social stress that can occur if we do not manage this transition well. We must try to elect serious representatives at all levels of government to support a President who can lead us through this challenging maize. The current news coming out of Venezuela is a warning sign.
3
Following my comment about the GOP, the Dems’ error is their failure to listen to Hyman Minsky. Our welfare programs created permanent dependency, a policy no longer supported by most voters. Instead we need structural change: Medicare for all (cost efficient), a much higher minimum wage, or guaranteed employment for $2 less.
More structural change: The two bad states for an economy are inflation and deflation. The Fed easily controls that by controlling the money supply. During recession, print money and spend it on infrastructure, which creates real investment and growth for the economy. Use vast spending on affordable housing at an ultra low mortgage rate, renewable energy and the grid. Collect from fees, highway use (gas) tax, energy sales, and mortgage repayment to return the created dollars to the Fed. Inflation? Volcker showed how to control it. Or control it by a marginal increase in the progressive tax rate.
Stop the disinvestment happening in many nations by their huge, chronic, accumulating trade debts. Allow a limited tariff only for those nations accumulating debt at a certain rate. Many nations would sign on to this new deal. Putin would become our friend instead of our enemy.
A tariff is nothing more than a sales tax that keeps the money locally, for investment, instead of shipping boatloads of money abroad. The mathematical models economists use to defend current policy are silly oversimplifications that only produce the result they were built to produce.
More structural change: The two bad states for an economy are inflation and deflation. The Fed easily controls that by controlling the money supply. During recession, print money and spend it on infrastructure, which creates real investment and growth for the economy. Use vast spending on affordable housing at an ultra low mortgage rate, renewable energy and the grid. Collect from fees, highway use (gas) tax, energy sales, and mortgage repayment to return the created dollars to the Fed. Inflation? Volcker showed how to control it. Or control it by a marginal increase in the progressive tax rate.
Stop the disinvestment happening in many nations by their huge, chronic, accumulating trade debts. Allow a limited tariff only for those nations accumulating debt at a certain rate. Many nations would sign on to this new deal. Putin would become our friend instead of our enemy.
A tariff is nothing more than a sales tax that keeps the money locally, for investment, instead of shipping boatloads of money abroad. The mathematical models economists use to defend current policy are silly oversimplifications that only produce the result they were built to produce.
For crying out loud, welfare reform was passed in 1998, and Bernie Sanders has been yelling about it for the last year. And Volcker handled inflation, all right--through monetary policy that deliberately put the economy into a tailspin.
This kind of stuff is exactly why I didn't vote for Bernie.
This kind of stuff is exactly why I didn't vote for Bernie.
Robert: We had no real welfare “reform.” Just another politico-label. Instead of FDR’s 2nd Bill of Rights guarantee for employment and other basic human needs (day care, affordable housing built, drug treatment, Medicare for all (much more efficient than our current mess)) we now have a vast array of programs for income, food, and housing support that large numbers of voters are tired of paying taxes for.
The lack of employment feeds chronic dependency, our vast prison complex, and the costs and lives lost in the War on Crime and the War on Drugs (more dishonest politico-labels).
For a low income home buyer, we could have a government supplied mortgage at an ultra low interest rate. The Fed could simply create dollars for these mortgages. As the loans are paid back there would be no net cost to taxpayers.
Please see the case I make 3 comments following this one.
The lack of employment feeds chronic dependency, our vast prison complex, and the costs and lives lost in the War on Crime and the War on Drugs (more dishonest politico-labels).
For a low income home buyer, we could have a government supplied mortgage at an ultra low interest rate. The Fed could simply create dollars for these mortgages. As the loans are paid back there would be no net cost to taxpayers.
Please see the case I make 3 comments following this one.
Although the irony of claiming that the Republican party resembles the Soviet Union is tempting, I don't think the comparison is quite accurate. For one thing, an alarmingly high proportion of Republican leaders seem to be true believers in their crazy ideology. For every careerist like Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio, you have people like Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, and Paul Ryan, men blessed with both immense personal ambition and ideologically pure dogmatism.
4
Is there a "broad, bipartisan upsurge of rage against the establishment"? Actually the great majority of votes in the primaries were for the anti-establishment candidates, and a great many people will wind up voting for either Clinton or Trump because no better candidate is available. What exactly do the insurgent voters want on economic issues? This can be confusing because of the reliance of Republicans on racism and the interjection of anti-immigration sentiment, which has both a racial and an economic basis.
But it should be clear by this time that working people of both parties are becoming dissatisfied with the continually growing economic inequality. Neither candidate really proposes anything that would change this trend, and Republican control of Congress would make major change impossible in the short term. The fact that Hillary Clinton won the Democratic primary does not prove that the "centrist" establishment is what people prefer, or that dissatisfaction with both parties will not continue.
But it should be clear by this time that working people of both parties are becoming dissatisfied with the continually growing economic inequality. Neither candidate really proposes anything that would change this trend, and Republican control of Congress would make major change impossible in the short term. The fact that Hillary Clinton won the Democratic primary does not prove that the "centrist" establishment is what people prefer, or that dissatisfaction with both parties will not continue.
4
@ skeptonomist,
"The great majority of votes in the primaries were for the anti-establishment candidates"???
Clinton 57% Sanders 43%
"Other" 56% Trump 44% (until all others suspended)
Could you share with us your definition of "majority"? It clearly isn't what the majority of us learned in school...
"The great majority of votes in the primaries were for the anti-establishment candidates"???
Clinton 57% Sanders 43%
"Other" 56% Trump 44% (until all others suspended)
Could you share with us your definition of "majority"? It clearly isn't what the majority of us learned in school...
4
neither candidate proposes anything to change this trend? That's not true.
How about paid child care? Higher taxes on the wealthiest earners? Expansion of Social Security benefits? Adding the option to "buy in" to Medicare prior to retirement age? Raising the minimum wage? Increasing the power of unions?
These are all proposals intending to reduce income inequality, and some of them are backed by solid empirical research showing that they will be effective. That a Republican congress is likely to block them has little to do with whether the candidate herself is, in fact, proposing them.
How about paid child care? Higher taxes on the wealthiest earners? Expansion of Social Security benefits? Adding the option to "buy in" to Medicare prior to retirement age? Raising the minimum wage? Increasing the power of unions?
These are all proposals intending to reduce income inequality, and some of them are backed by solid empirical research showing that they will be effective. That a Republican congress is likely to block them has little to do with whether the candidate herself is, in fact, proposing them.
Independents were largely not allowed to vote - they make up the majority of voters.
Indeed. Trumpism is, in the end, simply Obama Derangement Syndrome under a new name and leader. The 2016 American National Election Study (ANES) pilot survey found that the best indicator of whether a white person supports Trump is not economic insecurity or rage against establishments or whatever, but simply this: if they believe Obama is a Muslim. That's it. For Trump's core supporters, his candidacy is simply a restoration of racial and cultural order to their world. Needless to say, Trump will not find this kind of support anywhere but in the whitest, more ignorant FoxNews-swilling GOP base.
10
GOP party leaders and members show their lack of morals, ethics and basic decency in supporting Trump the great Trumpeter who's style is All Trump All The Time. Trump has attempted to develop a following by deluding himself by believing that part of his attraction is as personifying a cult of personality. Not even remotely. Trump has violated every principle of responsible ethical deportment by acting like a petulant brat who resorts immediately to name calling when he can't have his way. The last thing we need in the US is to have an infantile, impulsive, ignorant with a finger on the New Kyuh Ler button. Starting WW III far outstrips anything anyone else has ever done to desecrate the office of President. And the GOP Benghazi inquiry lasted longer than those for the JFK assassination, the Cuban missile crisis and the Watergate investigations with no finding of wrongdoing. The GOP train is off the track and hurtling ever faster toward a wreck. The US cannot afford letting the GOP destroy the nation any more than they have done already. Still, I fear that the nominating conventions will become wild melees rivaling or surpassing those of 1968. I also see the possibility of a landslide in November. And it's not going to tilt toward the right. It may have taken since 1980 for people to realize how dangerous and deranged the GOP is. But Trump has awakened the sleeping dragon of the left. And he's no knight in shining armor. OK, so he's got good hair.
3
The "tipping point"has been reached for Donald Trump. He is an absolute embarrassment to this country and points to the absolute oblivious dysfunction of the Republican Party leadership. Every day increasing number of Americans are ready to consign him to the political toxic waste dump where he belongs.
7
Clinton received the majority of unfavorable media coverage? In what country, Mongolia? Because it certainly didn't happen in America. The reason Sanders didn't win the primary is because it was a Clinton media coronation from day one.
9
I see we haven't been reading the Times.
"A Tale of Two Parties"
Puleeeze Paul.
It's a tale of two *kleptocracies*.
That is why there is a Bernie and a Trump.
*Both* parties are an immiscible admixture of discrete subgroups. But the power (and the money) are at the top.
How much more top-down power is there than the Clinton machine's superdelegate rigging and Obama's DOJ fix?
Take a break for a minute from your Hillary sales pitch and contemplate this: What democrat other than a Clinton can be under criminal investigation by the FBI for violations of the Espionage Act, the Federal Records Act, public corruption with national security implications and 120,001+ counts of obstruction of justice with a compelling and massive prima facie case against her, and can be a viable candidate for president, and can, according to her apparent heads up, elude indictment and the slammer?
Hillary's lead is illusory. Her "nomination" bump consisted of—as you, yourself, conceded: "holding up," treading water and Trump "plunging."
Both presumptives have 100% name recognition yet can't break 50 with likely voters. The electorate finds both grotesquely unfit.
If this country ever needed a mulligan, it is now.
Puleeeze Paul.
It's a tale of two *kleptocracies*.
That is why there is a Bernie and a Trump.
*Both* parties are an immiscible admixture of discrete subgroups. But the power (and the money) are at the top.
How much more top-down power is there than the Clinton machine's superdelegate rigging and Obama's DOJ fix?
Take a break for a minute from your Hillary sales pitch and contemplate this: What democrat other than a Clinton can be under criminal investigation by the FBI for violations of the Espionage Act, the Federal Records Act, public corruption with national security implications and 120,001+ counts of obstruction of justice with a compelling and massive prima facie case against her, and can be a viable candidate for president, and can, according to her apparent heads up, elude indictment and the slammer?
Hillary's lead is illusory. Her "nomination" bump consisted of—as you, yourself, conceded: "holding up," treading water and Trump "plunging."
Both presumptives have 100% name recognition yet can't break 50 with likely voters. The electorate finds both grotesquely unfit.
If this country ever needed a mulligan, it is now.
12
Great essay. Love reading some facts about Hillary v. Bernie. My only question is, much as I love reading what Dr. Krugman has to say, why I have to read an "editorial" by him to get the real story.
3
Huh?
Again huh?
Mr. Krugman's characterization of Trump as the big bad wolf and of establishment republicans as one of the three little pigs is particularly apt. The GOP house really is made of straw.
7
For a month or so now, the NYT and much of the rest of the media have been going full-attack-ad against Trump in a way they did not do before. Before, the vast attention he got was amused, now it is outraged.
They are also entirely on board with Hillary. It isn't just urging her support, it is assuming for her. Whatever attacks she got before are gone now. The constant doubts are gone now.
This must have some effect. Krugman does not mention it here.
They are also entirely on board with Hillary. It isn't just urging her support, it is assuming for her. Whatever attacks she got before are gone now. The constant doubts are gone now.
This must have some effect. Krugman does not mention it here.
4
All the better to let the Republicans nominate someone who is so weak as a general election candidate that the Democrats can't lose.
I don't see how you can call her wins in Primaries 'winning the popular vote', don't see how you can call media criticism 'bizarre' (she has a political history). I don't see how Trump's dive (without a parachute, all the while blathering himself) and Sander's stubbornness are connected to her conveyor belt toward becoming president. But I do see a love letter-like non-journalistic, non-critical, euphemistic series of essays praising her for something and that makes for unreadable reading. Would you list some reasons she should be president? She's alone in the room but I don't hear cheering outside.
5
Unfortunately, the systems the Republicans have put in place to guarantee their electoral success are still there. They may be dying but they are doing as much damage as they can on the way out.
6
If the Democrats had kept the Dixiecrats in the party they might be the ones with this crisis on their hands right now. The fact is that the Dixiecrats leaving the Democrats was a gift although it didn't seem that way at the time. The Dixiecrats transplanted their ideas of white racial superiority to the GOP. I don't know what that says about the state of the GOP back in the mid 60s but it does force one to realize that getting what one wishes for can be a curse. The GOP has, in 2016, not put forward a single decent candidate.
Cruz is hated by his colleagues. Rubio is a lightweight. Bush looks worse than his brother W. Carson might have been a neurosurgeon but he ain't a politician. And then there's Trump, the might uncompromising, self proclaimed RHINO who has made it to the top, much to the chagrin of the party. If the GOP had put up decent candidates their current schism might have been concealed long enough to allow the emperor to don some clothes. As it is the clothes are ragged to the point of being worthless. Now we have to hope that the Democrats don't snatch a defeat from their possible victory because of their own divisions and longings for a perfect candidate.
There is no such thing as the perfect candidate. The best thing about Clinton is that she has the experience we need in foreign policy, as a senator, and she is a worker. I'd say that's a pretty powerful combination.
Cruz is hated by his colleagues. Rubio is a lightweight. Bush looks worse than his brother W. Carson might have been a neurosurgeon but he ain't a politician. And then there's Trump, the might uncompromising, self proclaimed RHINO who has made it to the top, much to the chagrin of the party. If the GOP had put up decent candidates their current schism might have been concealed long enough to allow the emperor to don some clothes. As it is the clothes are ragged to the point of being worthless. Now we have to hope that the Democrats don't snatch a defeat from their possible victory because of their own divisions and longings for a perfect candidate.
There is no such thing as the perfect candidate. The best thing about Clinton is that she has the experience we need in foreign policy, as a senator, and she is a worker. I'd say that's a pretty powerful combination.
10
If by experience you mean agressive hawkish behavior?
No, I mean real experience in foreign policy. Maybe she knows a few things we don't and that's why she's willing to be hawkish! Of course the GOP is the party of peace or pieces if you will. They haven't seen a war or an action they don't want to take as long as it's with someone else's relatives.
Krugmans' vision for America 2026; 400 million people, and a one party system.
5
No. A Democratic Party and a Progressive Party.
Goodbye GOP.
Goodbye GOP.
1
Clinton led oligarchy.
1
Good column. Thanks.
4
"Mrs Clinton faced immense, bizarre hostility from the news media."
Thanks for making this point. It needs to be made repeatedly. Even now, with all the scams and cons that Trump refers to as his businesses, the media is keen to create a horserace by somehow making Clinton's admittedly questionable use of a private email server the moral equivalent of the outright fraud and racketeering of Trump.
Thanks for making this point. It needs to be made repeatedly. Even now, with all the scams and cons that Trump refers to as his businesses, the media is keen to create a horserace by somehow making Clinton's admittedly questionable use of a private email server the moral equivalent of the outright fraud and racketeering of Trump.
18
Bernie faced a virtual press blackout for the first 85% of the campaign and grudging coverage toward the end - as if his defeating Hillary in any state was "not news" rather than a series of stunning upsets. Zero coverage of his unexpectedly very large, enthusiastic, diverse crowds vs. non-stop celebrity coverage of every burp from trump and live coverage of his staged events and rallies. shameful performance by what was once seriously considered to be the Fourth Estate.
4
Indeed, and we can trace the "crooked" appellation back to 1996 in a William Safire article. (Safire was a former Nixon speech writer, no less). Safire died in 2009, but the meme lives on.
1
As a proud Democrat and strong supporter of Hillary Clinton it is a most inspiring time to be a Democrat.
This Presidential race truly shows the stark difference between Democrats and Republicans. With Mr. Trump as their candidate it lifts the last veil of legitimacy of the Republican Party and shows them for what they really are...lying, dishonest, racists with greed at their core.
This Presidential race truly shows the stark difference between Democrats and Republicans. With Mr. Trump as their candidate it lifts the last veil of legitimacy of the Republican Party and shows them for what they really are...lying, dishonest, racists with greed at their core.
15
Oh my gosh, Don. Greed at their core? Fine you are inspired to be a Dem. But greed at the core surely applies to the Clintons as well.
1
It is way too early to run the victory lap facing an unpredictable opponent such as the Donald. The Democratic Party really becomes formidable if and when Bernie adds his broadsides to those from Warren, Obama, Biden and company. More importantly, I hope that Sanders convinces his young followers that each November matters at each and every level to effect real change and get rid of gerrymandering and Citizens United.
8
This is a well thought out piece on the current state of affairs and things are looking good for a Democratic win in November. However I am not so certain about the long term outlook for a President Clinton who will still face a largely hostile House of Representatives who will not cooperate regardless of her mandate. And while at least for the moment it looks Trump's fascist message is not resonating with middle America, this does not mean that fascism will never rear its ugly head in America. It all comes down to whether or not the US can turn around the downward trend employment numbers, wages and income disparity. Fascism thrives when poor immigrants are seen as taking away scarce jobs from the middle class.
5
Hillary Clinton's "high negatives" are such a cliché, and have been for so long that, I think, people dislike her simply to conform to what they see as the conventional wisdom and verdict on her. But, exactly what is she guilty of? Corruption? She has been investigated up and down the country, from sun-up to sun-down, to no avail. Bill Clinton's "moral transgressions"? They were his "transgressions", and nobody's business if she chose to forgive him. Benghazi? The Republicans have looked like prize fools wasting the taxpayers' money running an investigation which even their leadership have admitted is politically motivated. Using a personal email server for government work? Wrong but hardly damning and nothing that previous Secretaries of State, including Republicans have not done. So what is that makes here so unlikeable? Perhaps that she is a strong, supremely qualified successful, ambitious, competent person, who is able to lead by example, but who happens to be a woman running rings around men in a man's world. Maybe I am not as smart as many Americans, but I see somebody who is both likeable and worthy of admiration.
31
Whether one agrees with the impeachment of Bill Clinton or not, he made his "transgressions" the people's business by conducting them in the people's house.
1
It's too early for a victory lap. Let's not get lulled into a false sense of security by the pundits, however accurate or prescient they may (*or may not*) turn out to be.
32
I agree
No decent American should be taking any "victory lap" until all decent Americans have "run to the polls" and cast actual votes against Trump Republicans' racism and proto-fascism.
German Catholics and other conservatives relaxed, confident they could control the little man with the mustache and that did not work out so well for anyone. The only way to defeat fascism is to crush it before it aquires enough power to debauch democracy.
No decent American should be taking any "victory lap" until all decent Americans have "run to the polls" and cast actual votes against Trump Republicans' racism and proto-fascism.
German Catholics and other conservatives relaxed, confident they could control the little man with the mustache and that did not work out so well for anyone. The only way to defeat fascism is to crush it before it aquires enough power to debauch democracy.
2
Is all well in the Democratic Party? The three largest component groups, affluent professionals, unionized government workers, and blacks have sharply opposing interests. They all are opposed to the GOP for different reasons, but otherwise have little in common. The affluent professionals control the party and set the agenda, and they are not going to allow a revolution that would jeopardize their place at the top of society. Eventually, there are going to be desertions down below.
17
Interesting that in your view, affluent professionals and government workers get to be nouns, but black people are reduced to the level of an adjective. I think that's what the folks in Vegas call a "tell."
2
But, here may be the main difference between the parties. Democrats will compromise, Republicans are too ideologically rigid to compromise. Just my humble opinion.
Hopefully, you are correct. The Democratic Party leadership is almost as much a part of the American plutocracy as are the GOP "establishment."
However, as during WWII, progressives and liberals of sorts unified to defeat fascism. Same thing this year, except instead of bullets and bombshells, we will be shooting ballots.
When Trump and his trash are defeated, progressives can resume organizing and demand far greater democracy and equality than the Clintons and the rest of the Democratic Party establishment have offered in the past.
First things first. We have another monster to slay.
However, as during WWII, progressives and liberals of sorts unified to defeat fascism. Same thing this year, except instead of bullets and bombshells, we will be shooting ballots.
When Trump and his trash are defeated, progressives can resume organizing and demand far greater democracy and equality than the Clintons and the rest of the Democratic Party establishment have offered in the past.
First things first. We have another monster to slay.
"Also, Mrs. Clinton faced immense, bizarre hostility from the news media."
Also, Mr Sanders faced immense, bizarre hostility from Mr. Krugman, who used his perch on the NY Times for continuing spurious attacks.
Also, Mr Sanders faced immense, bizarre hostility from Mr. Krugman, who used his perch on the NY Times for continuing spurious attacks.
42
Professor Krugman clearly has been a Clinton supporter and - being a Sanders suppoorter - I disagreed with several of his opinions However, his columns were very rarely "spurious." Indeed, I am a regular reader and can recall only one. Even if I have forgotten a couple or even a half-dozen instances, Paul Krugman's wriing is far more accurate, informed and reasonable that all but a few other columnists in the U.S.A.
Save your insults for the professional liars and propagandists of the GOP, especially their new leader and aspiring fuehrer, Donald "Deadbeat" Trump.
Save your insults for the professional liars and propagandists of the GOP, especially their new leader and aspiring fuehrer, Donald "Deadbeat" Trump.
Actually, the entire NYT coverage of Saunders was hostile. One article in the web edition praised Sanders victory in several primaries. By the time it appeared in the print edition, the editors had changed it so it contemptuously waved away Sanders victories and was decidedly negative (check annals of the Public Editor for a more in-depth examination and debate about this example).
But, then the NYT called for Bill Clinton to step down over the Lewinsky matter, yet did not call for any punishment for George W. Bush's illegal surveillance on American Citizens, or his unprovoked invasion of Iraq based on consciously falsified "intelligence," So draw your own conclusions about the liberal pose of the NYT, which seems less a liberal ideological medium and more intended to draw a professional and well-educated liberal audience to their advertisers. The Daily News reaches the working class, while the NY Post aims at the right wing. The NYT just provides for wider advertising access. Compare the same stories in the NYT and the Guardian (www.theguardian.us) for a hundred examples of NYT self-censorship on liberal or progressive issues.
But, then the NYT called for Bill Clinton to step down over the Lewinsky matter, yet did not call for any punishment for George W. Bush's illegal surveillance on American Citizens, or his unprovoked invasion of Iraq based on consciously falsified "intelligence," So draw your own conclusions about the liberal pose of the NYT, which seems less a liberal ideological medium and more intended to draw a professional and well-educated liberal audience to their advertisers. The Daily News reaches the working class, while the NY Post aims at the right wing. The NYT just provides for wider advertising access. Compare the same stories in the NYT and the Guardian (www.theguardian.us) for a hundred examples of NYT self-censorship on liberal or progressive issues.
The modern Republican Party's modus operandi has always been to shrink-wrap the American IQ and drown it in a bathtub of spite, ignorance, 'Christian' ill will and 0.1% tax cuts.
What's remarkable is that it's taken 35 years for the Grand Old Pyromaniac recipe to burn down their entire party.
It just goes to show you how effective - even in a very modern age - Grand Old Propaganda and Grand Old Prevarication can be.
Remember that it was Ronald Reagan's FCC that repealed the The Fairness Doctrine in 1987, the 1949 policy that required the holders of broadcast licenses to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was honest, equitable, and balanced.
Ever since, the Republicans have piled bigger and bigger logs of right-wing lies and propaganda onto the airwaves in order to organ-harvest American brains for 0.1% profit and public policy nihilism.
Republicans even sponsored the Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2007 that said:
“ The FCC shall not have the authority to prescribe any rule, regulation, policy, doctrine, standard, or other requirement that has the purpose or effect of reinstating or repromulgating the requirement that broadcasters present opposing viewpoints on controversial issues of public importance, commonly referred to as the `Fairness Doctrine'"
It should be no surprise to anyone that Republican brain-death has finally arrived as the GOP remains permanently plugged in to the Fox News-hate radio-Trumpian respirator.
What's remarkable is that it's taken 35 years for the Grand Old Pyromaniac recipe to burn down their entire party.
It just goes to show you how effective - even in a very modern age - Grand Old Propaganda and Grand Old Prevarication can be.
Remember that it was Ronald Reagan's FCC that repealed the The Fairness Doctrine in 1987, the 1949 policy that required the holders of broadcast licenses to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was honest, equitable, and balanced.
Ever since, the Republicans have piled bigger and bigger logs of right-wing lies and propaganda onto the airwaves in order to organ-harvest American brains for 0.1% profit and public policy nihilism.
Republicans even sponsored the Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2007 that said:
“ The FCC shall not have the authority to prescribe any rule, regulation, policy, doctrine, standard, or other requirement that has the purpose or effect of reinstating or repromulgating the requirement that broadcasters present opposing viewpoints on controversial issues of public importance, commonly referred to as the `Fairness Doctrine'"
It should be no surprise to anyone that Republican brain-death has finally arrived as the GOP remains permanently plugged in to the Fox News-hate radio-Trumpian respirator.
705
Many a movement has died because they came to believe in their own propaganda. The GOP is only the latest. But, the Democratic party is approaching that point, too, as Bernie Sanders astonishing campaign showed, and it is only a matter of time before the smug Democratic Elite follow the not-so-smug-anymore Republican Elite into the dustbin of history.
The Dems claim to represent the poor, the working class, the middle class, minorities, as well as the Democratic Elite: the Ivied professionals, and, since Bill Clinton in 1992, the corporations and Wall Street. In the end, it does token reform for everybody except the elite. The GOP was able to fool its base for decades before Trump stripped it bare. Maybe Bernie has started to pull on the loose threads of the Democrats' feeble weave. The next couple of decades should be highly interesting.
The Dems claim to represent the poor, the working class, the middle class, minorities, as well as the Democratic Elite: the Ivied professionals, and, since Bill Clinton in 1992, the corporations and Wall Street. In the end, it does token reform for everybody except the elite. The GOP was able to fool its base for decades before Trump stripped it bare. Maybe Bernie has started to pull on the loose threads of the Democrats' feeble weave. The next couple of decades should be highly interesting.
"Remember that it was Ronald Reagan's FCC that repealed the The Fairness Doctrine in 1987, the 1949 policy that required the holders of broadcast licenses to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was honest, equitable, and balanced."
In your world, who was going to determine what was "honest, equitable, and balanced"?
If you hosted your own hour-long opinion show and you are totally convinced that liberalism is the way to go, should I really expect you to put on any opposing viewpoints? Better still, should I or anyone else use government to compel you to put on an opposing viewpoint? Your answer apparently is "yes".
I am glad that law was repealed, but shows try to give the appearance of "equal time". To name just two examples from cable land that show what a sham that is, look at Chris Matthews and Sean Hannity. If they have two guests with opposing views, I guarantee this is what will happen: the guest who agrees with the host pretty much talks uninterrupted. The guest who disagrees with the host will not get more than 3 seconds' worth of rebuttal before they are interrupted by the host. Every issue, every interview, every time. For partisan viewers this is nirvana and drives up ratings, but it is anything but "fair".
It should be no surprise that the Democrats' "best and brightest" this year is Hillary Clinton...this says a lot about the Democrats.
In your world, who was going to determine what was "honest, equitable, and balanced"?
If you hosted your own hour-long opinion show and you are totally convinced that liberalism is the way to go, should I really expect you to put on any opposing viewpoints? Better still, should I or anyone else use government to compel you to put on an opposing viewpoint? Your answer apparently is "yes".
I am glad that law was repealed, but shows try to give the appearance of "equal time". To name just two examples from cable land that show what a sham that is, look at Chris Matthews and Sean Hannity. If they have two guests with opposing views, I guarantee this is what will happen: the guest who agrees with the host pretty much talks uninterrupted. The guest who disagrees with the host will not get more than 3 seconds' worth of rebuttal before they are interrupted by the host. Every issue, every interview, every time. For partisan viewers this is nirvana and drives up ratings, but it is anything but "fair".
It should be no surprise that the Democrats' "best and brightest" this year is Hillary Clinton...this says a lot about the Democrats.
Absolutely. A fairness doctrine where the FCC decides what is fair.
We should've followed Russia's model.
Calling something fair does not make it fair, just like calling something affordable does not make it affordable. One does not have to go too far back to figure out how affordable ACA is.
We should've followed Russia's model.
Calling something fair does not make it fair, just like calling something affordable does not make it affordable. One does not have to go too far back to figure out how affordable ACA is.
1
There's a lot of truth in this description of the parties. But I think the main reason that Republican candidates weren't able to take down Trump is because they were playing nice, waiting for his campaign to collapse on its own. They figured the candidate who criticized Trump the least would stand a better chance of picking up his supporters after the fall.
Dark Money didn't want to damage Trump either, for the most part, because they read the polls and realized this awful candidate might become the nominee.
As Trump's campaign continued, his Republican opponents turned up the criticism, but they couldn't find an angle that would work. The usual political messaging didn't click with Trump supporters, and personal insults sounded ridiculous.
Democrats don't have such self-imposed constraints on their campaign against Trump, and he gives them lots of material to work with.
Now Republicans are in the worst possible situation: by supporting Trump, the party is assuming his reputation for hatred, racism, misogyny, xenophobia and a basic lack of decency as their own.
Dark Money didn't want to damage Trump either, for the most part, because they read the polls and realized this awful candidate might become the nominee.
As Trump's campaign continued, his Republican opponents turned up the criticism, but they couldn't find an angle that would work. The usual political messaging didn't click with Trump supporters, and personal insults sounded ridiculous.
Democrats don't have such self-imposed constraints on their campaign against Trump, and he gives them lots of material to work with.
Now Republicans are in the worst possible situation: by supporting Trump, the party is assuming his reputation for hatred, racism, misogyny, xenophobia and a basic lack of decency as their own.
303
"Now Republicans are in the worst possible situation: by supporting Trump, the party is assuming his reputation for hatred, racism, misogyny, xenophobia and a basic lack of decency as their own.". DS
The thing is that is their earned reputation because it is their policy. Its baked into the republican cake. Now they want us to "eat cake."
No thanks.
The thing is that is their earned reputation because it is their policy. Its baked into the republican cake. Now they want us to "eat cake."
No thanks.
2
Perhaps one reason the Republicans were unable to mount an effective attack on Trump is that they, themselves, have built up and relied on a hateful, racist, misogynistic, xenophobic, and ever coarser party base. Trump came along and dropped the traditional "dog whistles" and simply came out and said in plain, ugly language what the Republican base has wanted to hear for decades.
Hillary's having to depend on the Democrats' anti-democratic SuperMajority (she STILL does not have enough committed delegates, won through primaries or caucuses to secure the nomination) shows that, in the Democrats' case, the party is vastly out of step with its base and has had nothing to offer the unions (who Bill threw under the bus to court the corporate donations and Obama and Hillary have followed suit - feeding them promises, but never action), or the working class, who have become steadily worse off after both GWB and Obama, and have little or no hope of help from the Queen of Goldman Sachs.
Hillary's having to depend on the Democrats' anti-democratic SuperMajority (she STILL does not have enough committed delegates, won through primaries or caucuses to secure the nomination) shows that, in the Democrats' case, the party is vastly out of step with its base and has had nothing to offer the unions (who Bill threw under the bus to court the corporate donations and Obama and Hillary have followed suit - feeding them promises, but never action), or the working class, who have become steadily worse off after both GWB and Obama, and have little or no hope of help from the Queen of Goldman Sachs.
Much of the Republican Party isn't supporting Drumpf, some of his most dedicated critics are Conservatives like George Will, Charles Krauthammer, and the entire staff at National Review.
Once the Republican Apocalypse reaches its' climax in November let's hope a more decent, honest Conservative party emerges from the ashes.
Once the Republican Apocalypse reaches its' climax in November let's hope a more decent, honest Conservative party emerges from the ashes.
2
I have always taken issue with the description of the Democrats as a collection of interest groups. It may be that but it is a lot more.
Most Democrats I know are unaffiliated. They choose to vote Democratic because of a mindset--believing others deserve a fair chance, unwilling to be afraid of other racial and ethnic groups. They want women to participate fully not shut up and stay home. They understand the need for things they may not like personally, such as regulation, taxes, and government institutions. They are pro-science. They believe religious fanatics do better in monasteries and convents, not in public office.
If you have this sort of mindset, one party is a threat to you and your notions of common sense and civilization, and that is the Reublican party. The other party may disappoint but it's important to keep the other guys out of office. If you doubt this, look at what's happened in those states with republican supermajorities. It's enough to make me feel like Democrats need to stick together. I don't need a union to tell me that.
Most Democrats I know are unaffiliated. They choose to vote Democratic because of a mindset--believing others deserve a fair chance, unwilling to be afraid of other racial and ethnic groups. They want women to participate fully not shut up and stay home. They understand the need for things they may not like personally, such as regulation, taxes, and government institutions. They are pro-science. They believe religious fanatics do better in monasteries and convents, not in public office.
If you have this sort of mindset, one party is a threat to you and your notions of common sense and civilization, and that is the Reublican party. The other party may disappoint but it's important to keep the other guys out of office. If you doubt this, look at what's happened in those states with republican supermajorities. It's enough to make me feel like Democrats need to stick together. I don't need a union to tell me that.
974
@ MaryC,
Best comment so far.
Best comment so far.
26
"Most Democrats I know are unaffiliated."
That's the reality that makes PK's take on the Dem Party off-base. He's also playing into the ignorant "those people just want free stuff" meme that's a favorite of the nutcase party. And, PK's is also a perspective that will keep the Dem Party from becoming a broad majority party like it was in the past - by ignoring the millions who simply want a fair economy and society, not controlled at every step by the corporate class for its own interest, enabled by Third Way/neolib D's.
That's the reality that makes PK's take on the Dem Party off-base. He's also playing into the ignorant "those people just want free stuff" meme that's a favorite of the nutcase party. And, PK's is also a perspective that will keep the Dem Party from becoming a broad majority party like it was in the past - by ignoring the millions who simply want a fair economy and society, not controlled at every step by the corporate class for its own interest, enabled by Third Way/neolib D's.
1
Would that the Democratic Elite was in step with "Most Democrats." I agree with you about the base - but the party leadership is very much an elite, now dependent on big-money superPACs funded by corporations and Wall Street. They still throw tokens to the base, but their overall policies are much more Rockefeller Republican than FDR Democrat. Hillary, for example, the darling of Wall Street, is every bit as hawkish as Chuck Grassley, and, even as Secretary of State, tried to oppose Obama's diplomacy and urge more punitive sanctions, regime change, and covert American military participation - along with her ally, Bush-holdover Secretary of Defense Robert Gates.
Hillary has always been strong on some aspects of women's rights (though she has been strangely detached from the Republican efforts to close down women's Constitutional rights to abortions), but, outside of that, the only thing that has been forcing her to talk even faux-progressively, was to guard her left flank against Sanders. Even now she is beginning her pivot to the right as her campaign has been approaching big-money supporters of former President George W Bush and former candidate Jeb Bush to switch their contributions to her in the general election. She's back to ignoring the progressives and trying to pick off disaffected Republicans.
Hillary has always been strong on some aspects of women's rights (though she has been strangely detached from the Republican efforts to close down women's Constitutional rights to abortions), but, outside of that, the only thing that has been forcing her to talk even faux-progressively, was to guard her left flank against Sanders. Even now she is beginning her pivot to the right as her campaign has been approaching big-money supporters of former President George W Bush and former candidate Jeb Bush to switch their contributions to her in the general election. She's back to ignoring the progressives and trying to pick off disaffected Republicans.
The analysis of Trump's rise within the Republican ranks is accurate, but is Clinton really the best that the Democrats can do? Both candidates are in it for the prestige and potential earning power of the presidency. Neither cares about the public at large, except that even peons are allowed to vote. Trump has finally been exposed for the phony crook he is, and knows everyone wants to rub shoulders with American presidents, past and present. Clinton's fixation on cold, hard cash is as unrelenting as Trump's, although she uses more finesse in her endeavors.
Giving Trump the bashing he deserves doesn't make Clinton an ideal choice.
Giving Trump the bashing he deserves doesn't make Clinton an ideal choice.
25
KJ, that's the difference between us. I do not believe that Hillary Clinton "does not care about the public at large." I do not believe she has "a fixation on cold, hard cash." In fact, I believe the opposite. I am going to vote for her and I believe she will be a great president.
1
Throw enough spaghetti at a wall and some might stick. This is how republicans stick it to Hillary. Your comment takes republican anti-Clinton propaganda at face value and you repeat it as fact.
I see it in every comment section. Otherwise intelligent people have been bombarded by this propaganda for 30 years and now they just accept it.
If only my life could withstand the scrutiny that Hillary's has. This fact alone convinces me that Hillary has a very high ethical compass. (My life is really pretty squeaky clean.) It is also how the Republican Party discourages people who would be fabulous senators or congressmen from participating in our democracy. Why would anyone sign up for what they have put the Clintons through? It's as bad as any witch hunt and every bit is malicious.
I see it in every comment section. Otherwise intelligent people have been bombarded by this propaganda for 30 years and now they just accept it.
If only my life could withstand the scrutiny that Hillary's has. This fact alone convinces me that Hillary has a very high ethical compass. (My life is really pretty squeaky clean.) It is also how the Republican Party discourages people who would be fabulous senators or congressmen from participating in our democracy. Why would anyone sign up for what they have put the Clintons through? It's as bad as any witch hunt and every bit is malicious.
1
I disagree. Hillary has been in public service for a very long time, and wasnot rich until very recently. She was an effective Senator in NY (and I live in NY so I paid attention). She's always been in it to help others, with women and children as a big focus. There is absolutely no equivalency between these two candidates.
1
The establishment Republicans, now more than ever, are so consumed by hatred, fear and anxiety of another Clinton presidency, they'll willingly endorse Trump in a last ditch effort to preserve what little support they can muster from the decimated, muddled middle of America's uneducated, blue collar, guns and religion, meat and potatoes, low brow hoi polloi who are even more disillusioned and disappointed in their Party than Bernie Bros are with establishment Democrats.
HRC, compared to Trump, is easily the lesser of two evils, and fortunately left-of-center supporters (including many Bernie supporters) are intellectually honest and mature enough to understand and acknowledge that as most plan to vote not necessarily for HRC, but against Donald Trump.
HRC, compared to Trump, is easily the lesser of two evils, and fortunately left-of-center supporters (including many Bernie supporters) are intellectually honest and mature enough to understand and acknowledge that as most plan to vote not necessarily for HRC, but against Donald Trump.
17
@Will Adams
" the decimated muddled middle of America's uneducated, blue collar,guns and religion, meat and potatoes, low brow hoi polloi" Are you Mitt Romney or merely someone as bigoted as he is?
" the decimated muddled middle of America's uneducated, blue collar,guns and religion, meat and potatoes, low brow hoi polloi" Are you Mitt Romney or merely someone as bigoted as he is?
1
If you will forgive a bit of history from a geezer, I remember the strong and intelligent Republican Party of the 1950's. Then, manufacturing was king, and good jobs were available. We had a strong military, and the right knew we had to pay our bills so taxes were remarkably high.
Then the opportunist took over government, and ruled from the perspective that the investor class were their masters, and manufacturing ran away to Mexico and China.
America, I am convinced, is just going through a natural cycle of its own, that of a dying empire. It is engaged in insane foreign wars, makes sure its Congress supports mostly the elitist rich, and has a few ego wrapped nincompoops running things. Such is life.
Hugh Massengill, Eugene
Then the opportunist took over government, and ruled from the perspective that the investor class were their masters, and manufacturing ran away to Mexico and China.
America, I am convinced, is just going through a natural cycle of its own, that of a dying empire. It is engaged in insane foreign wars, makes sure its Congress supports mostly the elitist rich, and has a few ego wrapped nincompoops running things. Such is life.
Hugh Massengill, Eugene
33
Hugh from Eugene,
You just described the fall of the Roman empire in a nutshell.
You just described the fall of the Roman empire in a nutshell.
I believe the GOP is resigned to loosing the White House and together with their bankrollers focussed on keeping control of the legislative branches from where they can obstruct HC as they did with President Obama and ensure their litmus test on SCOTUS nominees fulfills their ideological fantasy.
Looking at "Mr. Ryan’s Plan to Revert, Regress and Deregulate" as articulated by the Editorial Board un June 18 one can see that this election cycle, perhaps more than ever before, will determine if America remains a democracy or embarks on an authoritarian path towards plutocracy and ever more inequality.
The crescendo of vileness in the GOP's political discourse over the past seven plus years has reached a point of no return, unfathomable when a senior senator expresses a death wish upon a legitimate sitting president (http://www.vox.com/2016/6/10/11902822/perdue-obama-psalm-days-few)
Looking at "Mr. Ryan’s Plan to Revert, Regress and Deregulate" as articulated by the Editorial Board un June 18 one can see that this election cycle, perhaps more than ever before, will determine if America remains a democracy or embarks on an authoritarian path towards plutocracy and ever more inequality.
The crescendo of vileness in the GOP's political discourse over the past seven plus years has reached a point of no return, unfathomable when a senior senator expresses a death wish upon a legitimate sitting president (http://www.vox.com/2016/6/10/11902822/perdue-obama-psalm-days-few)
19
In reading this op-ed piece from Dr. Krugman, I think it is important that readers keep a few facts in mind.
For starters, the good doctor endorsed Mrs. Clinton quite some time ago--I think it would be fair to say that his support for her has led him to tilt in her direction in this analysis.
Look for example, at his mixing of data points, there was A over here, and B over there, therefore, we can conclude C.
Bernie outspent her + there was hostile coverage of her + Trump = well, actually, I'm not sure? That Will Rodgers was right?
Yes, Bernie outspent her--and still lost.
The fact is that Bernie managed--despite refusing to kowtow to the left-leaning wing of the financial elite that has co-opted BOTH parties--to not just outspend Madame Secretary--he out-raised her.
And his spending was made necessary by the fact that whatever way you wish to characterize the press coverage of Clinton--positive, negative or anywhere in between--the reality is that Senator Sanders was largely studiously ignored by the press--when he was covered, it was consistently slanted to stories portraying him as irrelevant, quixotic, damaging to Clinton's general election prospects and/or a mere speed bump on her path.
The fact of the matter is that the Democratic elite--the Wasserman Wing of the party--is just as much co-opted by Wall Street, just as much mouthing cliches that aren't terribly relevant anymore.
For starters, the good doctor endorsed Mrs. Clinton quite some time ago--I think it would be fair to say that his support for her has led him to tilt in her direction in this analysis.
Look for example, at his mixing of data points, there was A over here, and B over there, therefore, we can conclude C.
Bernie outspent her + there was hostile coverage of her + Trump = well, actually, I'm not sure? That Will Rodgers was right?
Yes, Bernie outspent her--and still lost.
The fact is that Bernie managed--despite refusing to kowtow to the left-leaning wing of the financial elite that has co-opted BOTH parties--to not just outspend Madame Secretary--he out-raised her.
And his spending was made necessary by the fact that whatever way you wish to characterize the press coverage of Clinton--positive, negative or anywhere in between--the reality is that Senator Sanders was largely studiously ignored by the press--when he was covered, it was consistently slanted to stories portraying him as irrelevant, quixotic, damaging to Clinton's general election prospects and/or a mere speed bump on her path.
The fact of the matter is that the Democratic elite--the Wasserman Wing of the party--is just as much co-opted by Wall Street, just as much mouthing cliches that aren't terribly relevant anymore.
52
Newsflash: Sanders lost, fair and square. Btw, I voted for him.
1
I believe that in our two party system, the ability to have two views is healthy. The Democrats and Republicans have alternated views. Once we have an elected president, it would seem that the other side should be willing to honor democracy and let that experiment go to completion and if failed they get a chance. Bill Clinton got the chance to try the Republican strategy. George Bush had a similar chance. That is Democracy!
Now we have a period in which the Republicans, the "loyal" opposition, have failed to let the experiment go to completion, thus weakening our system. Paul Ryan, the responsible Republican, seems to be willing to accept a demagogue because the thought of a Democratic president is so dangerous. This rhetoric is what has brought about a Trump. You don't hate your opposing citizens, you expect to let them try their experiment and help out for the good of the country. The Republican View that the Democratic strategy is more dangerous than an amateur, narcissistic, race bating politician is repugnant. I think Trump is possibly more honorable than the Republican leadership.
Now we have a period in which the Republicans, the "loyal" opposition, have failed to let the experiment go to completion, thus weakening our system. Paul Ryan, the responsible Republican, seems to be willing to accept a demagogue because the thought of a Democratic president is so dangerous. This rhetoric is what has brought about a Trump. You don't hate your opposing citizens, you expect to let them try their experiment and help out for the good of the country. The Republican View that the Democratic strategy is more dangerous than an amateur, narcissistic, race bating politician is repugnant. I think Trump is possibly more honorable than the Republican leadership.
23
The two party system did work well. That was when the Legislature performed their job, they actually listened and compromised. Now, those are two dirty words and it is about raising more and more money for the next election and never doubting the party line.
The media has also deserted their role in asking the necessary questions along with follow thru.
The media has also deserted their role in asking the necessary questions along with follow thru.
1
Why is Ryan the responsible republican?
1
Edit: you mean Ryan the "responsible" republican.
The conservatives have been bankrupt for years. They had nothing of substance for the past 24-40 years, except to skew the offices they held in always favoring the few at the cost to the many. Take any topic you like, education, energy, climate change, criminal justice, social justice, racism, war & peace, infrastructure, women's rights, immigration, the list just continues, with the ill labeled "entitlements" that we working class pay into every paycheck as a backstop to provide some time to retrain, find another job, recovery in general, and old age programs such as Social Security & Medicare: all come under attack as Government give aways or in need of privatization. There are many more issues directly effecting the many to enhance the few time an again.
22
The contest between the major political factions will continue because regardless of the fact that Hillary will be commander in chief because there will still be a Republican House that is being paid by the Koch's to obstruct any change in the status quo which they profit from. Democrats need to go to the polls in higher numbers to elect a House and Senate that will allow the country to heal from 40 years of failed Republican policies that are successfully promoted by wealthy Republicans. Does anyone realize who Rush Limbaugh works for? After all who controls the levers of power at Clear Channel. Maybe Mitt Romney can tell you. But It's not the Democrats is it, and neither are the other showman who are paid to manipulate the angry white men who are unprepared for globalization effects brought upon them by White Republican CEO's who outsource their jobs ay every opportunity. What people need to understand is why that is the case. It's simple really, our tax policies reward that behavior and incentivize corporate leaders to cash in quick while those policies are still in effect. These are the same people that George Bush categorized as the "have mores" group that cares nothing about country or the future of their own children who will have to live in it. We must fight for the society we want against those who sell their integrity everyday for a few pieces of campaign financing silver. Yes we have to elect Hillary but we have to clean the House too, we all have a job to do!
19
Republicans have become terrified that they'll lose the House as well with Donald at the top of the ticket. There remains a very good chance to win it back, or at least cut their majority down to a few votes. Morale over there is significantly down with their Convention in Cleveland about to have almost the worst lineup ever.
Hillary leading your revolution is akin to Bob Kerrey at Fulbright U.
1
As a Sanders supporter I look at the primaries from a different perspective, a more 'political' perspective, not only numerical.
Bernie won the vote of the young, hands down. These are the same voters who are notoriously unreliable and hard to motivate to the ballot box. They are fickle, if *their* candidate is not on the ballot, they tend to stay home on election day.
There is a risk that the Dems may underestimate the relevance of this constituency -- particularly when you consider that on the other side there are lots of vote suppression initiatives meant to exclude the minorities that gave Hillary her victory in many states.
One last observation: the Dem seem pretty hollow at the core too. Obamacare had to be watered down because of the Blue Dogs. Guantanamo is still open because the Dems are terrified to look soft on terrorism -whatever that may mean. And, sin of all sins, they run pacs and superpacs, eating at the same trough with the Reps, fed by the same hand.
Bernie won the vote of the young, hands down. These are the same voters who are notoriously unreliable and hard to motivate to the ballot box. They are fickle, if *their* candidate is not on the ballot, they tend to stay home on election day.
There is a risk that the Dems may underestimate the relevance of this constituency -- particularly when you consider that on the other side there are lots of vote suppression initiatives meant to exclude the minorities that gave Hillary her victory in many states.
One last observation: the Dem seem pretty hollow at the core too. Obamacare had to be watered down because of the Blue Dogs. Guantanamo is still open because the Dems are terrified to look soft on terrorism -whatever that may mean. And, sin of all sins, they run pacs and superpacs, eating at the same trough with the Reps, fed by the same hand.
22
You still know that there is a significant difference between the two Parties, right. We have to be less critical about "having" to play by the ever changing landscape. Otherwise how do the Democrats stay competitive? The philosophies of the two parties couldn't be more different. This has and always will be a "Long Game" process.
If obamacare was watered down by the blue dog dems--well they have been voted out. So instead of complaining about how great Bernie is/was start working to elect dems to congress.
Imagine if Obama had eight years instead of 2 w dems running congress....
Imagine if Obama had eight years instead of 2 w dems running congress....
Farmer Marx: my recollection differs from yours. The ACA, a/k/a Obamacare was 'watered down' because of Republican't sturdy opposition. Many say 'gee, the Dems had a Senate majority' etc. but recall that Sen. Kennedy was incapacitated and died within a few months of President Obama's inauguration. Guantanamo??? The R. Congress and many states vigorously objected/refused to allow closing and, again as I recall, Congress refused to allocate any funds to do so.
Oh well - at 72, I still have a great memory - but short!!
Best regards to all
RCG
Oh well - at 72, I still have a great memory - but short!!
Best regards to all
RCG
Spot-on analysis. The bigger question, and one that is especially important given their track record on this topic - is how will the Democrats capitalize on the internal implosion of the GOP?
Even with someone as cartoonishly terrible as Trump at the top of the opposition's ticket, the past 8 years have given me very little hope that they will be efficient in communicating the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of the Republican Party to voters. They certainly failed to connect voters to the absurdity of other Republican antics during Obama's terms - the government shutdown, the treasonous letters opposing the Iran deal, this Supreme Court nomination refusal, etc. Even without their just-plain-wrong stances on things like climate change and gun control, these shenanigans should be enough to cost the GOP dearly in the next election, right? Wrong. Instead, Democrats lose seats in Congress and do little about it except whining in op-eds and on Sunday talk shows. Moral high ground? Sure. Effective at beating the Republicans? Not in the slightest.
Say what you will about the GOP's policies. Their politics are way, way more effective, to all of our detriment.
Even with someone as cartoonishly terrible as Trump at the top of the opposition's ticket, the past 8 years have given me very little hope that they will be efficient in communicating the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of the Republican Party to voters. They certainly failed to connect voters to the absurdity of other Republican antics during Obama's terms - the government shutdown, the treasonous letters opposing the Iran deal, this Supreme Court nomination refusal, etc. Even without their just-plain-wrong stances on things like climate change and gun control, these shenanigans should be enough to cost the GOP dearly in the next election, right? Wrong. Instead, Democrats lose seats in Congress and do little about it except whining in op-eds and on Sunday talk shows. Moral high ground? Sure. Effective at beating the Republicans? Not in the slightest.
Say what you will about the GOP's policies. Their politics are way, way more effective, to all of our detriment.
15
The GOP policies are "effective" in that they have been implemented, but their effects are awful. The GOP just appeals more than Democrats to people that actually vote. Apparently the concept that voting matters is not persuasive to much of the public.
Not anymore? Obama has played them down to the worst level of integrity, perhaps ever. This business of change is a very "Long Game", but we Democrats are about to win back to back Presidencies. That hasn't happened, ever except for Death(FDR-Truman) or Assassination (JFK-Johnson). This is a giant game changer in getting Hillary into the office. That's actually more exciting than the candidacy itself, except she has proved to be tougher and more resourceful than anyone imagined. Get out and vote and don't forget the midterms!
This makes me uneasy. It's an attractive position that I want to sign on to, but something about it does not meet with the "in my gut" test. An obvious point is a cocky confidence about it that begs hubris to come bite Dems on the keester and other nether regions. No, I think Dems are solid right now precisely because they have experienced a good amount of drubbing that tempers their ambitions to choose battles carefully, something the GOP lost it's ability to do from over-confidence and miss-acquired power. So no, I won't jump on this bandwagon. As someone yet emerged from the Great Recession yet, I am still in full possession of the single best political compass available, a strong connection and awareness of what the majority of American's still need to not thrive but to get their heads above water. Those like Mr. Krugman have been spared and already throw caution to the wind. I ask you, Mr. Krugman, please be more careful and respectful and put a premium on helping the struggle of 1 in 3 adults in this country before counting your chickens. Too many have none at all.
8
Dr. Krugman may be correct about the Republicans, but he is blinded by love of Sec. Clinton when it comes to assessing the Democratic Party.
How else to explain how he blindly ignores that the party is run by elites most comfortable with Big Fundraising Clintons and who fought off as much as possible any suggestion of competition for the nomination, especially from a party outsider like Bernie Sanders? How can he ignore that the probable nominee has the highest negative rating of any Democratic candidate since such surveys began? How can he ignore that while HRC has given much for the media to be negative about (out scored only by Trump), Bernie Sanders was ignored or treated as a joke most of the campaign by reporters proven to be little more than inside the beltway puppets of pols and "experts" who called everything wrong?
How can Dr. Krugman fail to note that Sanders' support was almost entirely from small donors and Clinton's from Wall Street and the corporate world? Finally, Dr. Krugman is blind to the fact that the party's probable nominee is the product of a party that has utterly failed to build and foster attractive and successful candidates at the state legislative, congressional, senatorial and presidential levels while in thrall to a feckless incumbency that is frightened by the more liberal demands of a large part of its membership.
Stick with economics professor. Politics already has plenty of poor analysts blinded by candidate love.
How else to explain how he blindly ignores that the party is run by elites most comfortable with Big Fundraising Clintons and who fought off as much as possible any suggestion of competition for the nomination, especially from a party outsider like Bernie Sanders? How can he ignore that the probable nominee has the highest negative rating of any Democratic candidate since such surveys began? How can he ignore that while HRC has given much for the media to be negative about (out scored only by Trump), Bernie Sanders was ignored or treated as a joke most of the campaign by reporters proven to be little more than inside the beltway puppets of pols and "experts" who called everything wrong?
How can Dr. Krugman fail to note that Sanders' support was almost entirely from small donors and Clinton's from Wall Street and the corporate world? Finally, Dr. Krugman is blind to the fact that the party's probable nominee is the product of a party that has utterly failed to build and foster attractive and successful candidates at the state legislative, congressional, senatorial and presidential levels while in thrall to a feckless incumbency that is frightened by the more liberal demands of a large part of its membership.
Stick with economics professor. Politics already has plenty of poor analysts blinded by candidate love.
35
Krugman's love for Hillary is quite evident in all his articles about her. But in all fairness, he admits that the Dems have their stinkers, too. There's enough of us Democrats who know and admit the truth (unlike the Republican base) that our party is now longer the party that once stuck up for the little guy. Someone the Republican Party once supported.
Both parties are now dominated by rich donors and no one can effectively run for any office anywhere in America without a bunch of money. Question is who's providing all that "Dark Money" like the Koch Bros. and what do they expect from their control of the party that's on their payroll.
Both parties are now dominated by rich donors and no one can effectively run for any office anywhere in America without a bunch of money. Question is who's providing all that "Dark Money" like the Koch Bros. and what do they expect from their control of the party that's on their payroll.
Um, the poorest group of people voted in big enough numbers to beat Bernie's populism, coming in for Hillary despite all the disingenuous, republican hate Hillary talking points. That's why Bernie lost. He kept thinking that using the republicans' propaganda would get him the win. No dice there brother.
1
Reality check: explain how Clinton got more votes from real people.
Contrary to my wishes, the Republican Party is not going away. In fact, to the contrary of much in the media, it may not even be on the ropes.
Conservatives control both houses of Congress and a majority of governorships and state legislators. Will having Donald Trump at the top of the ticket pull votes away in those races? That's the common belief, but will it be large or lasting enough to make a significant difference in the long run?
As we've seen during the Obama administration, it's hard for a president to govern when the Congress chooses not to. Democrats need to consistently win more than the Presidency to put good policy in place and avoid bad policy (or the lack of any). That means broadening their appeal to capture some of the millions and millions of voters who currently disagree with or misunderstand them. Some of those, of course, will not be swayed, but it's easy to sit back and call Trump supporters stupid. It's another to figure out how to win over widespread majorities in order to govern effectively with polices apt for the current century.
Conservatives control both houses of Congress and a majority of governorships and state legislators. Will having Donald Trump at the top of the ticket pull votes away in those races? That's the common belief, but will it be large or lasting enough to make a significant difference in the long run?
As we've seen during the Obama administration, it's hard for a president to govern when the Congress chooses not to. Democrats need to consistently win more than the Presidency to put good policy in place and avoid bad policy (or the lack of any). That means broadening their appeal to capture some of the millions and millions of voters who currently disagree with or misunderstand them. Some of those, of course, will not be swayed, but it's easy to sit back and call Trump supporters stupid. It's another to figure out how to win over widespread majorities in order to govern effectively with polices apt for the current century.
317
Sanders was the only one who had the power to rally the masses to bring the House and Senate back to the Dems. Clinton's wing of the party just doesn't get it. Look at the Sanders campaign message, even as his campaign for President winds down- stay involved, get involved in local and state elections, run for office, volunteer for campaigns. It would have been great to have a leader who encouraged us to do this from the White House.
Gerrymandering plays an outsize role in the reason why the GOP has such a majority in the the House. The deck is stacked before anyone pulls a lever. Gerrymandering must be addressed to reinstate fairness in our elections.
There's truth in what you say, but look what it is built on. Trump is doing the Republicans irreparable harm -- but Cruz would have too.
The Republicans desperately needed a Ronald Reagan ... and they didn't have one and couldn't get one.
Rubio was nothing more than Braman's sock puppet. It was far too evident.
To me the most interesting question is why did Kasich gain so little traction? But the fact that he doddered on with 10% support and couldn't grow it ... is the evidence that the Republican party is dead, at the national level.
Let's see what the congressional elections do this cycle.
The Republicans desperately needed a Ronald Reagan ... and they didn't have one and couldn't get one.
Rubio was nothing more than Braman's sock puppet. It was far too evident.
To me the most interesting question is why did Kasich gain so little traction? But the fact that he doddered on with 10% support and couldn't grow it ... is the evidence that the Republican party is dead, at the national level.
Let's see what the congressional elections do this cycle.
So the republicans may not recover this time with whomever might have be the choice for the simple reason that there has never really been even a thought towards helping the middle and poorer classes. As usual the government remains the enemy of the people with no thought that an organized system of laws, administered by human beings to protect and serve on the grand scale, to ease commerce without allowing for monopolistic price gouging, to oversee raising a national defense, local police, ensuring that those citizens who become ill, disabled, or by circumstance need fundamental help in new opportunities, a free press is guaranteed, that roads, bridges, traffic flow of the various modes of transportation are safe and so many other aspects. Government is a system of organized implementation for the United benefit of all. That's what a government must do and why we must vote.
Republicans demand something quite different: Privatization. In other words, in order that government just stay out of the way. That the buyer beware and decide if a product is healthy enough, if the food we eat is free from diseases, if children's toys are safe, if cars are safe to operate, and the list goes on and on. We apparently need no Government oversight or regulations.
Republicans have no stated desire to ensure for these principles. That's why they now have a booming Carnival Barker to try and bully their agenda into our lives once again. It's time to stop it now.
Republicans demand something quite different: Privatization. In other words, in order that government just stay out of the way. That the buyer beware and decide if a product is healthy enough, if the food we eat is free from diseases, if children's toys are safe, if cars are safe to operate, and the list goes on and on. We apparently need no Government oversight or regulations.
Republicans have no stated desire to ensure for these principles. That's why they now have a booming Carnival Barker to try and bully their agenda into our lives once again. It's time to stop it now.
15
C. Coffey: Well said, thank you! I've often said that 'Government does what corporations can't or won't do'. your comment expands on that to describe what Government does for all of us.
Regards to all,
RCG
Regards to all,
RCG
1
Actually it was apparent the Soviet Union was a basket case long before the wall fell. I visited the country several times in the late 70's and early 80's and it was obvious it was on death watch. However, a lot of constituencies in the US were heavily invested in keeping the myth alive because intelligence and military budgets depended on fear of the bear behind the curtain. Likewise the Republican coalition has been under serious strain ever since the Bush debacle finally destroyed any pretensions they had to competence and the contradictions in Republican policy were revealed by the focus on identity politics as an election winner.
21
Exactly.
Now we can see some of the same in the Hillary right wing of the Democrats. They overcame their own most inspired movement in favor of the lesser evil idea. Obama to Hillary is not going strength to strength, it is caving to what Obama defeated. Serious strain there too.
Now we can see some of the same in the Hillary right wing of the Democrats. They overcame their own most inspired movement in favor of the lesser evil idea. Obama to Hillary is not going strength to strength, it is caving to what Obama defeated. Serious strain there too.
2
@Mark Thomason
Clawson, Mich
There wasn't an inspired movement. Sanders was beaten easily. In fact the fantasies of him and his followers bore more than a passing resemblance to those of the Soviet Union. You personally told lots of porkies about Sanders winning the nomination when it was completely clear they were nonsense.
Clawson, Mich
There wasn't an inspired movement. Sanders was beaten easily. In fact the fantasies of him and his followers bore more than a passing resemblance to those of the Soviet Union. You personally told lots of porkies about Sanders winning the nomination when it was completely clear they were nonsense.
4
Yes, many, Sen. Moynihan for one, saw the fall of the communism coming, and its been apparent to many of us that the Republican party has been on a "death watch" as well for quite some time. The analogy remains valid - it took the sudden appearance of a narcissistic demagogue to put the complete moral bankruptcy of the Republican Party on full display.
4
Tee Hee! I am old enough to remember the misery the GOP inflicted on us when McGovern was our candidate. Ambushing down-ballot candidates with, "Are you going to vote for McGovern?" Need I remind you that Sen. McGovern was an experienced politician and a war hero whose "nutty" position was that we ought to get out of Vietnam ASAP. Compared to him, Trump is less than zero.
32
GOP haas been dying for years. In western history, any Party dominated by its extremists is doomed. GOP has been so dominated for years- first, neocons and religious warriors, the TeaParty anarchists, now Trump nut cases.
Time for a GN(ew)P!!!!- one governed by its middle mass.
We need a responsible Party of the Right- to offset D's- a robust and growing group. All of my lifetime Ohio GOP friends have left the Party or sit on the side. Many are now D's.
Come on GNP!!
Time for a GN(ew)P!!!!- one governed by its middle mass.
We need a responsible Party of the Right- to offset D's- a robust and growing group. All of my lifetime Ohio GOP friends have left the Party or sit on the side. Many are now D's.
Come on GNP!!
5
"In western history, any Party dominated by its extremists is doomed."
Yes. So is one that has entirely sold out. Vigor is needed, and it is not found in either of those.
Yes. So is one that has entirely sold out. Vigor is needed, and it is not found in either of those.
2
This is coming from a Ohio Democrat: I fail to see how you can make the statement that many Republicans here have switched sides. I encounter many Republican minded voters who blindly still support this party that does not have their best interests at stake. Most of these guys are firm Hillary haters thoroughly convinced that she will appoint liberals on the Supreme Court once she's elected and remove their right to bear arms. In addition to this, nonsense they are still swayed by the Benghazi crap that she lied about the situation and is untrustworthy.
The firm conservative extremism and hatred for Hillary and her party is still very much a part of the Republican voter mentality in Ohio no matter how much their party lacks any moral or ethical base and supports someone like Trump and all his incompetent and crazy statements.
The firm conservative extremism and hatred for Hillary and her party is still very much a part of the Republican voter mentality in Ohio no matter how much their party lacks any moral or ethical base and supports someone like Trump and all his incompetent and crazy statements.
So many times in the past, I have agreed with the viewpoints of Dr. Krugman, but today, I am not able to enter "Paul's Parallel Universe."
Are you kidding? The GOP still controls most of the branches, limbs and twigs of our local, state and federal government. Most Americans do not believe that the Democratic Party can deliver a better future. IF it were not for Donald Trump's mass appeal to fear, hatred and anger, Hilary Clinton could and would be trounced by any one of the "low energy" respectable Republican candidates. (Think about how Kasich pulled against Clinton, and how he won his Republican governorship by 30% points in 2014, in the "swing state" of OHIO!)
It IS a long, long, long way to November. (Sports analogy warning.) Just ask the Golden State Warriors what can happen when you are up 3 to 1. (Pun warning.) After last night, I find it a bit eerie that the GOP is meeting this summer along Lake Erie.
If Donald Trump stumbles and gracefully falls, watch out. You might see one of the hugest landslides in American electorate history. And I mean HUGE! VERY HUGE! THE HUGEST OF ALL!!!
Personally, I would like to see Trump's medical team tripled, and a team of janitors making sure their are no slippery stairs in his path. Almost any lumbering "elephant" could pull together the GOP, independent voters, and disaffected progressives to beat a careerist Democrat with a nice resume that shows very little in the way of substantive accomplishments.
Are you kidding? The GOP still controls most of the branches, limbs and twigs of our local, state and federal government. Most Americans do not believe that the Democratic Party can deliver a better future. IF it were not for Donald Trump's mass appeal to fear, hatred and anger, Hilary Clinton could and would be trounced by any one of the "low energy" respectable Republican candidates. (Think about how Kasich pulled against Clinton, and how he won his Republican governorship by 30% points in 2014, in the "swing state" of OHIO!)
It IS a long, long, long way to November. (Sports analogy warning.) Just ask the Golden State Warriors what can happen when you are up 3 to 1. (Pun warning.) After last night, I find it a bit eerie that the GOP is meeting this summer along Lake Erie.
If Donald Trump stumbles and gracefully falls, watch out. You might see one of the hugest landslides in American electorate history. And I mean HUGE! VERY HUGE! THE HUGEST OF ALL!!!
Personally, I would like to see Trump's medical team tripled, and a team of janitors making sure their are no slippery stairs in his path. Almost any lumbering "elephant" could pull together the GOP, independent voters, and disaffected progressives to beat a careerist Democrat with a nice resume that shows very little in the way of substantive accomplishments.
12
Krugman must stop spinning. This is about more than an election. It is a sad & dangerous moment in our history. America is in crisis.
Flashbacks of Lois Lerner: AG Lynch's hollow assurances yesterday that justice would be served did nothing to allay our fears.
Comey will emerge the hero.
He will lay bare a massive RICO conspiracy that threatens the very foundation of the presidency & the country.
It will involve an ex-president, his presidency-lusting wife, the current president, national security, the judicial system, the Constitution.
Like Nixon during Watergate, Obama has major conflicts of interest.
Indictment vs endorsement of Clinton just scratches the surface.
For Obama, conflict of interest, foreshadowed by his extraconstitutional presidency, starts w/ the emails & Benghazi.
Clinton's crimes were ironically/fittingly foreshadowed 42 yrs ago when she was a staffer on the Watergate committee investigating Nixon.
Even as a lowly staffer, she managed to employ her now all-too-familiar corrupt modus operandi—habitual lying, concealment of documents, conspiring to violate the Constitution & the rules of the entities employing her.
Obama must take his thumb off the scale & recuse himself from the election & investigation.
If he fails to do both…& if he refuses to indict Clinton, the inevitable endpoint will be his own impeachment & indictment
This is about more than an election. Our democracy hangs by one frayed thread…that we are all equal before the law.
Flashbacks of Lois Lerner: AG Lynch's hollow assurances yesterday that justice would be served did nothing to allay our fears.
Comey will emerge the hero.
He will lay bare a massive RICO conspiracy that threatens the very foundation of the presidency & the country.
It will involve an ex-president, his presidency-lusting wife, the current president, national security, the judicial system, the Constitution.
Like Nixon during Watergate, Obama has major conflicts of interest.
Indictment vs endorsement of Clinton just scratches the surface.
For Obama, conflict of interest, foreshadowed by his extraconstitutional presidency, starts w/ the emails & Benghazi.
Clinton's crimes were ironically/fittingly foreshadowed 42 yrs ago when she was a staffer on the Watergate committee investigating Nixon.
Even as a lowly staffer, she managed to employ her now all-too-familiar corrupt modus operandi—habitual lying, concealment of documents, conspiring to violate the Constitution & the rules of the entities employing her.
Obama must take his thumb off the scale & recuse himself from the election & investigation.
If he fails to do both…& if he refuses to indict Clinton, the inevitable endpoint will be his own impeachment & indictment
This is about more than an election. Our democracy hangs by one frayed thread…that we are all equal before the law.
6
On the contrary let him spin in the wind all he wants. The "political class" is showing its' slip everyday,each time losing more and more of a vanishing credibility. Krugman's straw men and silly Hillary Shillary logic are falling on deaf ears. The hypocrisy, cynicism, and contradictions of the Clintons will out without having to silence a braying donkey who lusts after power just like they do. Paul you will never be the Sec. of the Treasury!
1
Straight from the Fox TV playback. Real nonsense.
1
Trolling here is waste of your time, pal. Try the Nat'l Review or the Heritage Foundation. There's not a word of truth coming out if this comnent., just like your bully hero, carnival Barker, the Donald. Good luck with that. A Comey intervention would cause a civil war. He's not about to start that. His career would end in the nearest trash bin. Dream on.
2
"The Democrats, by contrast, are a coalition of social groups, ,,seeking specific benefits from government action." The reality is the Republicans are a coalition of business groups which already have enormous benefits from government action. The oil depletion allowance, the tremendous tax breaks for the oil industry, the drug companies are criminals. The Veterans Administration which spends enormous amounts on drugs can not deal with the drug companies for better prices. The way hedge fund managers who make billions pay taxes is a disgrace Look around, the Republicans are not about less government, they are about tremendous tax breaks for the wealthy and any government policy which reduces their expenses at the expense of the middle class.
573
The Republicans are not really against welfare - it's just who's the recipient of it that troubles them. The farm subsidies to farm/factories has been around for generations, for example. Give welfare to the rich, who can grease their way around congress - or simply buy it outright - is the type of welfare the Republicans like. And as for "the people" - well they're just grist for the bottom line worshipers. Don't believe that? Just look at what the gun lobby has been able to do ! They're the real terrorists and there's lots of real blood (and untold agony) on the money they grease the palms of the congressmen/flunkies ( Republicans ) have bought.
2
The VA does negotiate the price of the drugs it buys and dispenses. Medicare cannot because that was specifically written into the Medicare Part D expansion. Also written into that law was that Americans could not reimport less expensive drugs from Canada, Mexico etc. That needs to be changed.
That is the Elephant in the room, isn't it? I feel so nostaligic for the Republican party of my youth, when Dwight Eisenhower was president and Republican thinking was, in general, about what would be good for the country and its citizens. The tax rate on millionaires made possible impressive infrastructure building. Maybe that's why the theme song from the "Lone Ranger" keeps floating through my brain, while the announcer says, "Return w/ us now to those thrilling days of yesteryear".....
The GOP stopped being the party of conservatives when Reagan became POTUS. It became the "we can outspend than Democrats" party. No conservative has declared an intention to phase out Medicare or Social Security or Welfare or any of the umpteen thousand other freedom- and rights-violating programs the mostly Progressive Congress has created since the middle of the 19th century. In these, Conservatives have been excessively "liberal" when tossing your money around.
The Federal Government has no right to take money from you and shower it on someone else - no matter whether the someone else is poor or rich. No more crony corporate welfare, and no more poor downtrodden welfare. Take it all away, and let freedom allow those of us who can produce real value do so, with no interference from the leprous politicians - or NYT pet economists - who produce nothing but hot air.
The Constitution allows that Congress shall promote the general welfare - but there's no way to do so by taking money from one group and giving it to another, because any increase in the recipient's welfare is a decrease in the welfare of those whose earned money was taken. It's zero-sum.
In short, let me be free to produce and earn, and everyone else as well. Otherwise, you're part of the problem.
The Federal Government has no right to take money from you and shower it on someone else - no matter whether the someone else is poor or rich. No more crony corporate welfare, and no more poor downtrodden welfare. Take it all away, and let freedom allow those of us who can produce real value do so, with no interference from the leprous politicians - or NYT pet economists - who produce nothing but hot air.
The Constitution allows that Congress shall promote the general welfare - but there's no way to do so by taking money from one group and giving it to another, because any increase in the recipient's welfare is a decrease in the welfare of those whose earned money was taken. It's zero-sum.
In short, let me be free to produce and earn, and everyone else as well. Otherwise, you're part of the problem.
2
A victory lap around a child born into poverty? A senior? A vet disabled by distant wars?
Taking a victory lap before the victory is won is bad form and bad luck.
During this election season, the Republican Elites have demonstrated that their lust for power trumps their love of country. They know that Trump is not prepared and will not prepare for the responsibility of the Presidency. They also know that he is a loose cannon on the international stage: admiring dictators, like Putin and enemies like North Korea. But because of his inadequacies, they see opportunity for more power for themselves. They want to be the Trump Whisperers. The grise eminences.
So on moral grounds alone, the Republican Party should lose. It has lost it bearings because it seeks power for power's sake.
During this election season, the Republican Elites have demonstrated that their lust for power trumps their love of country. They know that Trump is not prepared and will not prepare for the responsibility of the Presidency. They also know that he is a loose cannon on the international stage: admiring dictators, like Putin and enemies like North Korea. But because of his inadequacies, they see opportunity for more power for themselves. They want to be the Trump Whisperers. The grise eminences.
So on moral grounds alone, the Republican Party should lose. It has lost it bearings because it seeks power for power's sake.
16