“...not a monolithic entity answering to a handful of billionaires allied with white nationalists.”
Don’t forget the Bible-thumping evangelicals.
Would you would have had this insight five years ago, rather than cheerleading for Hillary Clinton.
1
Oh look, yet another "hold your nose and vote for the lesser of the two evils" essay.
Anyone else waiting for the DNC to sabotage Sanders, Warren, and anyone else who threatens to interfere with Biden's "turn"?
Smells like a set up for 2016 on repeat.
3
I don’t care who or what is nominated... I’ll vote for a chinchilla over the republican clown and I’ll allow him or her or it to undo at least some of the despicable things that the clown and his minions have done
7
as to med care...jumping over the cost now -$3.7 2019-, and that a good bit of ACA at origin was tax $$$, and that tax cash has only increased in years (particularly since the Supremes dictated that no one could be forced to pay for private insurance) the real Q is: what happens as block grants replace Medicaid and the SC soon enough judges the whole shebang void?
& if the fraudsters see the jig is up as their Prez cover goes byebye, much like in Sept 2008, jump from the Titanic and crash the casinos?
Well, UK health care, the real red commie thing, will look very good, no?
Dems need to check their choices, consider the wisdom of someone who scripts a debate ambush for a hot mike, deploys the BIGGEST wedge bomb. Beyond that, particularly now in IA-
Is someone who proves they can not be trusted to keep confidential conversations sub rosa really qualified? Anyone in the highest office will have to have many conversations/negotiations.
Maybe your second should be first Monday.
Thanks Krugman for a little simple common sense.
3
I am surprised that anyone is surprised that over the past weeks the so called establishment, to which the NYT belongs, is increasing their crack down on Sanders. Was totally predictable, once he became a front runner. Will be interesting to see what effect this all has.
1
Totally agree.
2
You're correct. No anger here.
The presidency, senate, and congress, (the lower house) must be won — by a lot!
Vote Blue no matter Who!
No more yowling sessions.
4
Maybe they should nominate Mitt Romney.
1
No matter who is the Democratic nominee, ‘the orange chosen one’ will be victorious. Just look at all the foreign assistance he
will be getting, plus all his lying and insulting comments he will be
making, which republicans love. They, republicans, will do anything for the leader of their cult and themselves to keep their offices.
1
This nuanced and balanced article from Krugman I can get behind...
1
ggggggggrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.............. - angry?, well no - actually thanks for pointing out what has seemed obvious for a year!!!!!!!!
1
It shouldn’t if we just vote. Tired of the moral cancer masquerading as leadership? Then vote!
2
From your column to voters pens.
What Krugman says is true.
2
Wow Paul continues to lie for Biden. Biden said in plain English “Paul Ryan whom I happen to agree with...you have to make adjustments, you have to, (in a creepy whispering voice) because that’s the only way to pay for these programs.”
Thoughtless article.
We need a female heavy administration in federal chambers of congress and our President.
As a former republican for 28 years I left trumps coup and caucus.
I will vote straight Democratic Party .
I haven’t ever voted for a Republican President. Always a democrat !!!!!
I do wish billionaires would step aside in the race and support female candidates.
The real republicans are no longer associating with this 40 year old Reagan inspired hack of a congress. And their leader is a dictator.
Americans do not want dictators. Or kings. Or courts that bow down to elites.
3
Pick any democrat candidates, their key policies are the same -- open borders, free welfare to illegals, and sanctuary cities -- all surefire to reelect Trump.
Does it matter who you choose to lose to Trump?
Unless you are fastidious about who will give the best concession speech.
1
"Si vous permettez,"allow me to correct the authors grammar. It should be "...whom the Democrats choose!"Whom is an objective pronoun, and is appropriate in this case. There is a case to be made for ungrammatical English, double negatives--"I can't take you no place--"and deliberate lack of concordance of subject and verb, as in Jimmy Breslin's response to an interviewer who asked him how he would like to be remembered, and Breslin's logical reply:"It don't matter cause I won't be here!""Vous voyez,Maitre Krugman,"certain folks can get away with ungrammatical English, which has a punch, but do not believe, no disrespect there, it does not suit you. Does it make whom a difference whom Democrats nominate? Affirmative! Sanders's aficionados will walk rather than vote for anyone but their candidate!Their general philosophy: "Fool me once; shame on you!Fool me twice:Shame on me!"Sanders's supporters are the TRUE BELIEVERS whom Eric Hoffer wrote about. They will not allow themselves to be taken for chumps a second time by the Dem. Party establishment:"Une fois on nous a eu!La deuxieme fois, on reste a la maison!"
Nice!
The media vs. Bernie Sanders and other commentary
By Post Editorial Board - January 31, 2020 - NY Post
Race to the White House: The Media vs. Bernie
Bernie Sanders’ recent rise in the Democratic polls to become “a co-frontrunner” with Joe Biden has sparked a change in the mainstream media, notes Conor Lynch at The Week: They’ve gone from “ignoring” Sanders to “treating him like an existential threat.” The New York Times, for example, portrayed the Vermont socialist as “a kind of mirror image of the reactionary president,” while CNN moderators “ganged up on Sanders at the last Democratic debate.” Even “flagship liberal” network MSNBC has been “openly hostile” to Bernie, all of which helps “explain why the majority of Americans don’t trust the media.” Nor is the anti-Sanders campaign done, predicts Lynch. Over the next few months it’ll only “intensify.”
For Corporate Media, Bernie Sanders Is Bigger Threat Than - Donald Trump
Tarring Sanders with the same brush as Trump on any grounds is a tactic clearly intended to discredit Sanders among the anti-Trump public. byJulie Hollar
‘They let him get away with murder’: Dems tormented over how to stop Bernie - The party establishment is caught in a catch-22. By NATASHA KORECKI (Politico)
2
The nominee doesn't matter much to me.
I would vote for an actual donkey if it was running against Donald Trump.
2
Paul: You and the East and Left Coast luminaries still don’t get it! The people who elected Trump are the overlooked “deplorables” who make up a vast cross section of people. People you and your ilk turn their noses up to.
1
Today we told a President who has no moral fabric, he can do what ever he chooses. The house can prove it illegal and the Senate will refuse even to even consider the matter. Independents in a relatively few states are the deciding factor, they are going to want a moderate. I think This is going up be a dogfight, I mean ridiculously ugly. It will be incumbent upon our candidate to go “there” with DT. So 1) Bidens a moderate, Indys are not going to go for a Progressive 2)Biden is our best choice for Penn, Ohio and the South 3) Bidens “The world is laughing at you, DT” Really got under his skin. Our choice is going to have really irritate him.
DT has gone after Biden like a rapid animal, unlike any other candidate. DT is doing the same thing he has always done, looking out for himself. He sees Biden as the one that beat him. Oh and by the way, did any notice that he is past banning the brown people, he is on to black. And it took place 3 3yrs after the first ban without some Nigerian blowing up a building .... the timing means something. “Look here, don’t get distracted by my illegal stuff, see I just got rid of lot of black people.
The Dems have self-imploded. If they can't impeach Trump based on all the existing and damning evidence, they are not fit to run the country. Congratulations, America, you've got a two-party system and both are a disgrace.
after your article saying Bernie lied about Biden wanting to cut Social Secuity. Come to find out he did say it on tape four times . Then when he was VP he offered it up a fifth time.
You would think you would mention that here but no . Today you say Biden will not cut Social Security.
I think you just wanted to smear Bernie in your last piece and give Biden cover in this piece. What ahack.
2
The author should get out more often. We are far left of his imaginary party. And we're motivated peeved off voters.
16
God bless you, Dr. Krugman!
All Democrats should read this. The good news, we are diverse. The bad news we are diverse. Getting Democrats to agree on too much of anything is like herding cats. We must come together. At this point I'd almost vote for Charles Manson if he could dislodge the current occupant of the White House.
1
“... not a monolithic entity answering to a handful of billionaires allied with white nationalists.” Krugman’s blindness demonstrated by this statement reflects why the Democrats will lose.
1
As typical, you have verbalized that which was inchoate in me. And what about this "electability" bogey man? How much hooey is that? Literally, every candidate is electable. I urge you to vote your hopes, now knowing (per Paul) that an aggressively progressive agenda will be tempered. Vote your hopes, vote for your country's ideals, vote so that others may participate in and enjoy the benefits (like reading the NYT...online at that!) that you do. Vote.
2
What about Biden. The fact that his son has taken a big bribe from Burisma, (and he was not able /willing to put an end to it) makes him totally unfit for any representative function.
1
Paul, perfectly stated and I just pray others will see the "light" as you pointed out. Can you get on to MSNBC and let more people hear your thoughts& CNN??
1
“If you’re a progressive worried that Biden might govern like a Republican, you should also calm down, because he wouldn’t.”
Biden has announced his intention to “work with Republicans” - words that should make every working person tremble. Every time the two Parties agree on something, usually the need for austerity or more money for war, working people take one on the chin.
And then there’s Biden’s sudden change of heart on Social Security after three long decades of support for Social Security cuts (amply documented on YouTube).
The elite see no problem with returning to the Obama status quo, for good reason - they ne
1
No...after today...America, please vote blue no matter who. The differences are so marginal, the consequences so much more important....
2
Bernie Sanders is a demagogue.
What else is new?
Good advice from Mr. Krugman.
If the Dems don’t defeat Trump on Election Day, they will have shown themselves to be a dead and rotting corpse of a political party that must be burned to the ground and totally rebuilt from the ground up.
1
Bernie Sanders has the strongest record of all candidates of standing up for Social Security. Whether if Biden will or will not cut SS makes no difference. That's the same thing as saying you will vote for the candidate that has repeatedly slapped you in the face for years over the one that's been nice. Regardless if people want to call them Bro's or Bust's it doesn't matter. No one can deny the lack of appeal Joe Biden has and the fact he can only lose votes from now until the election. This is just because he is not very good. Sorry.
Simultaneously, a barrage of hysterical, fear-mongering op-ed and "news" columns from Krugman and the Times and the claim that their policies are all the same, so we don't need to fear voting for the "moderates." Well, which is it? Choose.
Vote Blue,
No matter who.
Hopefully not someone in their late 70s, particularly not post MI.
Good advice.
". . .a monolithic entity answering to a handful of billionaires allied with white nationalists."
Best and most witheringly exact definition of the Republican party I've even seen.
1
A real difference between a Biden presidency and Sanders one would be their cabinet secretaries and other professional advisors. With Biden, we’ll again see hordes of Wall Street lobbyists (hi Larry!) and the band of bozos who gave us Obamacare trying to worm their way back into positions of influence. Nominating Bernie would at least finesse this problem. So, a Jewish socialist from Brooklyn with a minority woman as his running mate, running on a platform that will raise taxes on the middle-class. Sounds like a winner to me!
1
Excellent points. I would guess Biden has a lot less affection for his former senate colleagues these days after having had them trash him and his son during the impeachment “trial”.
1
Vote for someone who will listen to science.
Or say goodbye to human civilization as the seas drown most of our large cities and agriculture fails to fill your supermarket.
2
Did you mention Bloomberg?
1
As long as non-graduate white american males continue to guarantee republican dominance in the US senate it won't matter what democrats do or think at all. The US will remain the most sophisticated Banana Republic in the world.
1
Wittgenstein contented that the meaning of words is determined by their use. In this context, Dr. Krugman seems determined to draw a false equivalence between B. Sanders and J. Biden regarding their views on Social Security and by extension, the social safety net. To do this is to engage in casuistry. The fact is that throughout his career Sanders has been one of the most vociferous opponents of cuts to the social safety net. He has also consistently woven this critique into his opposition to our regime-change military interventions. Joe Biden, on the other hand, has been a consistent player in the co-opting of the Democratic Party by Financial and Corporate interests, to the detriment of all but the top quintile.
I have watched this play out since the 1970s. And I’ll cite J. Biden’s sponsorship of the 2005 bankruptcy bill as a typical example.
My real concern (“outrage” would be better), is that the mainstream Dems and never-Trumpers are stuck in a cul-de-sac of their own making. Human language is an organic construct situated within a community context. To stick your finger to the wind and post a different position on a campaign website just doesn’t cut it. Kind of reminds me of H. Clinton’s mea culpa over her Iraq war vote. We saw how that worked out with her policies as Secretary and her Presidential quest.
Looks like it’ll be”Don the con” till Jan. 2025.
Job #1 is Dump Trump. Period. Whatever happens after that - no matter what it is - can't help but be a better place/direction than the current place/direction. If the hoped for tidal wave flushes Trump and his toadies away, then the rest of this stuff will all come out in the wash.
2
Krugman needs to send this to the nervous Bret Stephens.
2
I still can’t figure out why Sherod Brown senator from Ohio did not run. Younger then this bunch, progressive and has the chops. Would have won hands down.
1
— monolithic entity answering to a handful of billionaires allied with white nationalists.
An eloquent description if ever there was one
If you are a Democrat who backs a candidate and you say why should I vote if my choice is not the eventual candidate you should take a few minutes and listen to a Trump rally performance.
That’s all you need to see and hear to realize just how dumb you are if you don’t vote Democratic no matter who the candidate is.
1
Whomever the nominee ends up being, please choose an African American from the South as your VP. I can’t tell you how many shocked and appalled black voters I’ve talked to during the impeachment process. It is time to grab this white nationalist racism by the horns and wrestle it into the dirt once and for all.
We are 55 years removed from the Civil Rights Movement and we are still fighting the same battles with education and housing in the South. I have looked at ample data suggesting that Georgia is ripe to turn blue, and North Carolina and Florida will go with it if Democrats run a black Southerner. It’s time.
There will never be a one size fits all perfect candidate. However, the only way that we will be able to rid ourselves of the compromised, corrupt and incompetent orange man currently soiling the White House is to unite, support and vote for the eventual Democratic nominee. As much as I hate this expression it will take "baby steps" to begin reclaiming this country back for ALL of "we the people".
I’m reminded of George Wallace’s quote in the 1968 presidential race between Nixon and Humphrey:
“There’s not a dimes worth of difference between them. “
Speaking if only for myself I absolutely & utterly refuse the whole you must vote for whatever the Democrats put up irregardless of my personal feelings or opinions. Never mind the track record of Candidates I must vote for them. NO I REFUSE. If they want to run the candidate from Wallstreet (I'm looking at Mr. Biden & Mr. Bloomberg) that's their privilege I will not be coerced into voting for them. Pick someone who can honestly win my vote not someone who will be 4 more years of unethical but legal corruption has they did last time (I'm looking at you Mrs. Clinton) Legal probably, unethical no doubt, corrupt probably, and your planning to do it again. At this point my inclination is stay home I doubt I'm unique.
This was the most discouraging and disheartening article I have ever read from Mr. Krugman. We have a climate crisis. We have the worst healthcare system in the world. I speak from experience after 4 trips to the ER to deal with high blood pressure and an allergy reaction to medication, not to mention a persistent cough from one dose of said medication. I am insured with Medicare and have a very generous and comprehensive Medigap plan. And parents fear sending their children to school lest someone decides that day to commit mass murder.
Dear Paul, the country needs a reboot. Perhaps you take comfort in the status quo, where the concerns of billionaires are paramount while the issues which concern the other millions of us are ignored, the chief justice of the SCOTUS, whose job it is to protect the Constitution, didn't bat an eye when a debased lawyer at the impeachment trial said the POTUS can do anything at all if he thinks it is in the best interest of the country and no one can stop him for whatever crime he commits and said chief justice did not think evidence was part of the trial format. I do not know if you actually believe what you wrote from your Ivory Tower, but it does not cut it in my humble abode.
Thank you Mr. Krugman your column is the breath of sane fresh air that all D’s need to read.
Must be a landslide victory or Trump will refuse to accept defeat and force a painful months long after election fight
This column doesn’t make me angry. It says exactly what I think.
"It matters hugely whether a Democrat wins, it matters much less which Democrat wins."
This. This says it all.
1
No. They don't stand a chance, given the fact that (with Dr. Krugman's help), it is the Democratic party that is fractured beyond functionality. The efforts of the moderate (slightly right-of-center by traditional measures) to undermine Bernie through the DNC, the establishment power structure, and the SuperDelegate system so enraged progressives that many simply sat out the election in protest to establishment manipulation against progressivism. 20% of Bernie supporters voted for Trump in protest of the divide moderates created in the Democratic party. In one of the 3 swing states, 80,000 voters cast straight down-the-line votes for Democrats, but left the presidency line empty in protest. Trump won that state by fewer than 1 vote per precinct. The neoliberal Democratic establishment elite are doing the same thing today. Bill Clinton won on his magnetic personality. Barack Obama won because, despite his lack of progressive policies, progressives saw a chance to elect at least a half-black president as a progressive step forward, though he did little or nothing to advance the progressive agenda of the base. Dems should have beaten Bush like a rented mule, but Gore & Kerry played it the DLC moderate triangulation way. Dems should have creamed Trump (even in the Electoral College), but their war against Bernie & the progressives alienated too much of their voters. Now, they are trying to force Hillary v2.0 on us with Biden or Klobuchar, & Trump is gloating as they'll fail again
To those who advocate just a few tweaks to Obamacare rather than a single payer system, I say, where is your room for compromise? You never get everything you want, so try starting out for the ideal.
1
Democrats elected Trump by NOT voting. Did they learn a lesson?
By not voting you are casting a vote for the other party. Be smart and vote or you will get the party you deserve.
1
For poor people and homeless people our society has already collapsed. Open your eyes! Sander’s Health Care and Education platforms are what this country sorely needs!
This from a man who treasured his apprenticeship under William Nordhaus, the Yale climate economist. Yet the climate crisis is the crucial area that Prof. Krugman leaves out in his argument that it wouldn't matter who wins the Democratic nomination. Sanders is much less likely to trade off major climate initiatives than other candidates--certainly less likely than Biden. It's weird and amazing that even after the Australian holocaust this imminent catastrophe keeps getting flickers out of the brightest bulbs. But wait--Nordhaus was the one who recommended saving money now by letting climate carnage go on for a bit longer in the future.
No kidding. Why didn't I think of that?
The Times, now including Krugman x2 articles that I've seen, continues on their anti-Sanders crusade. Remember when Donald Trump could never become POTUS, and Hillary Clinton was swiftly endorsed as the grand savior of us all, with the aid of the DNC, who not only gave her the crown in exchange for her financial bailout, but also rigged the debates, which didn't much help since Sanders's brain wiped the floor with her and her lack of substance?
As Kathy Bates fondly said to her costar in the movie "Misery":
"Oh Paul (sigh)".
The difference between the most moderate & most progressive Democrat (Trump/Putin fifth columnist Tulsi Gabbard aside) is like the difference between people who like vanilla ice cream & those who like chocolate. The difference between ANY Democrat and Trump is like the difference between ice cream and a locomotive. Get real, Dems. Congress is going to have the final say on legislation, not the president - once we tame Trump's dictatorial law-making through Presidential Signings instead of Congressional legislation
Thank you, Paul. I agree.
I’ll vote for any D they throw at me.
Turn PA Blue!
1
I am a Sanders supporters and I'm not as stupid as Mr. Krugman appears to think I am.
I know it may take time, perhaps a long time, to get his proposals to become law but we have to begin somewhere. We can keep going back to the past as Biden promises to do, a past which has resulted in a major climate crisis and growing economic disparity, or look to the future and at least begin to try to address the challenges we face.
Yes, any of the Dems is infinitely better than Trump but that probably could be said about a vast majority of American citizens.
Totally agree with Paul K's analysis BUT : according to your biased electoral system, Democrats MUST, and it is their duty to the whole world, choose any candidate who will win in the swing states. All the rest is theory and literature
I would like to see more consideration given to Mike Bloomberg as a candidate. Literate, smart, comfortable in his own skin, humorous, a pragmatist, a uniter, and a candidate who can absolutely beat Trump. I believe it would be a more powerful message to have not only Democrats but also Independents, and Republicans vote to remove Trump. And many are wanting to do just that. Just give all an option of a reasonable man who has put his own money for years behind the causes he believes in, sensible gun safety laws and improving the environment to stop climate change. And this is a man who can easily stand up to Trump in a debate or in any kind of comparison. Take a moment and google his interviews from before and after he announced his candidacy, and you will find a man worth considering and voting for.
4
Dems have to be so careful? But the GOP isn't careful.
It's one of the worst effects of Trump/GOP --they keep us stuck, blocked, lagging other democracies in the support we deserve from our elected govt.
We don't have the luxury of making crucial progress, to free up our politics from what's really a right wing corporate aligned party that's dominating our senate and court.
Most other democracies have had true HC for all for GENERATIONS already. And low cost college tuition. Candidates trying to make true progress are put down for
"intra-party fighting." But why are we fighting? Because we object to how our politics is dissing American citizens.
How about 2024 or 28 maybe? To 'pie in the sky'?
For multi millions of citizens, our high profit medical care system can affect our life and death, our being disabled with loss of job, reduction in family income, and even medical bankruptcy. We're told to shut up about reforms we need that show respect for the citizen majority.
The RW GOP have got us where they want us. Profit rules. Keep Dems on the defensive, so they'll cooperate, but with slight 'improvements'. Then get lauded for being just better than Trump.
One important thing is that Trump must go! We are dependent on clear voices and a free press to help protect our democracy. These are dangerous times! I feel that not enough brave people came forward to denounce Mr. Trump. All the news is not fair and balanced making it extremely important that the evils of the current administration are examined carefully and presented so the average person can be informed. America is depending on you Mr. Krugman.
1
In this election it is vital to have a strongly committed, unified party with a clear agenda and vision. It has to articulate its messages clearly, show it can deliver, and it has to be super-motivated to win.
Oh wait. There already is one.
Mr. Krugman - after what happened in the Senate three nights ago it’s somewhat irrelevant who wins the Democratic candidacy.
I am from Puerto Rico living in PR - I can’t vote - we belong to USA - we are not part of USA.
But we do feel the consequences of Trump’s decisions.
I am sooo disappointed with USA politics. I believed that there were some senators with dignity. But after reading senator Murkowski’s vote and the explanation of her vote my mind simply collapsed.
The world is in some serious trouble - that’s besides climate change.
5
The issue is get rid of Tyrant Trump. Period. "It matters hugely that a Democrat wins. It matters much less which Democrat wins." No one candidate will solve all of our problems. Krugman is right, we'll essentially get the same thing with each: a path to better government. We have a mini-monarchy now. We need to take over the Senate as well. It's all about evening the odds -- taking power away from the moneyed class and giving it to regular folks. Come November we need to save our country. We need to rise up and vote Democratic.
5
Regarding “electability” - if every Democrat, after introspectively considering who best represents their own personal, family, and community interests voted accordingly, then, by definition, the MOST electable candidate will win the primary.
Then simply repeat the same analysis comparing the Democrats and Republicans in the general, deciding which of the two options in each race are most closely aligned with your personal, family and community interests, and vote with those values in mind.
But this year, there is one important caveat: if you are capable of doing so, you MUST turn out for the election and vote for whichever Democratic option is on the ballot in EVERY single race.
Primaries are a way to express your specific choice; generals are by definition GENERAL. None of us will get everything we want, but if we stick together, we can get rid of what none of us wants: 4 more years of Trump.
3
I agree with this take, and it should be obvious to anyone paying attention.
I do have a quibble with Mr. Krugman’s take on health care. Medical for All would be a radical change, but, overall, the middle class should fare the same or better as now. There is already a large tax on the middle class (either directly or indirectly) in the way of hefty health insurance premiums. Payment for premiums would shift over to taxes paid to the federal government in a M for A system.
Presumably many people employed by the health insurance industry now would get jobs with the government, which obviously would have to significantly increase its payroll in order to administer the plan.
The bottom line is that universal health care works well in most other wealthy countries, which all spend less on health care than we do. So Medicare for All is ultimately the direction in which we should go.
2
I disagree. I think Bernie can convince centralists that we could get healthcare by cutting the bloated and corrupt military budget and without raising taxes on the middle class. I think fiscal responsibility is a more important issue and there are conservative studies that prove that Universal Healthcare is more efficient than we have now. Its just a matter getting that info out and fighting the socialist label it has
2
Trump must be defeated, or we all lose. This is the moment for the democratic candidates to put politics aside, and pull together toward a unified position. What is the point of arguing over details, like how to pay for better healthcare when all agree that moving in that direction is what matters? Especially when it’s obvious, as Mr. Krugman says, that progress in this direction will be incremental. I would like to see the entire democratic field put politics and individual ambition aside and coalesce on a unified platform to save the country. Waiting until the convention may well be too late.
6
numbers people:more than half the electorate doesn't belong to any political party. only a little more than half of registered voters voted in 2016. young people historically don't turnout to vote while older people do so religiously. people care about jobs first, health second, and everything else a distant third. DJTs victory came down to fewer than 25,000 voters in 3 states. whoever the Dem nominee is has to be laser focussed on these realities.
3
If Mr. Krugman is right that either progressive or moderate will be constrained or pushed respectively with their plans, why not opt for the progressive for a change? Sanders brings a lot of energy, new constituents, diverse in age ethnicity and plans for radical solutions on climate change that will also create millions of jobs. Perhaps through the ‘power of persuasion‘ he can actually lead and expand the Democratic base for the common good.
3
Good points Paul. One area, though, where Biden and Sanders could sharply diverge is on climate policy.
Sanders takes the threat much more seriously and may be our last chance before it's simply too late to arrest a crisis that is rapidly spiraling out of control. Biden's climate policies would be much, MUCH better than Trump's (whose policies are actually worse than doing nothing), but they still may not be good enough, given that we are at such a late stage of the climate emergency. It is almost too late. Only immediate, aggressive and deep cuts to carbon emissions will give us any hope of staying under 2 degrees C of warming.
2
The focus of the 2020 election -- and to a somewhat lesser extent the caucases and primaries leading up to it -- must be to get rid of trump. It is important that Democratic voters turn out in droves to vote.
I will vote for whoever the Democratic party nominates for President. In the 2020 election, voting for anyone other than the Democratic nominee will split the vote and allow trump to win.
7
Unfortunately it is well known that Krugman is a centrist. Furthermore he makes no mention of reeling in the huge military budget, manufactured wars and militarism that has become part of the Profiteering American Way, mushrooming since Reagan's ill-fated presidency. Add to that, that he continuously calls Sanders, radical, praises Biden, as mature, while downplaying populist support of the type that put trump in office, you realize this article is just another thin veiled attempt to maintain Predatory Capitalism's status quo. If we don't vote for true leadership and change, not only will it be a long time coming, we will be rewarded with another trump victory...just like last time.
2
@Terry Tinkle
You live in a swing state. You must vote for the eventual Democratic nominee and persuade others — that ANY Democrat running would be far better for equitable healthcare, job retraining and supports for jobless among working class, and a sane environmental policy, and increasing the taxes on wealthy and currently tax free mega-corporations to help pay for needed safety services and job creating infrastructure repairs.
I love Bernie Sanders, both for who he is and for what his example has made possible within the Democratic Party -- its more progressive office-holders and their supporters. I agree that if he wins the nomination and the presidency, he would be more pragmatic than he sounds today. But his own personality and entrenched interests within the Party might make for bad chemistry and dysfunction, another single term like Jimmy Carter's. I look for Elizabeth Warren to persist and prevail.
6
It matters who the Democrats choose, because a centrist will have a much higher chance of winning the presidency. As much as I like Elizabeth Warren, I just cannot see her survive the barrage of misinformation that will be thrown her way by the Trump campaign (and by his Russian proxies) - which will basically paint her like Joseph Stalin in a skirt, making her victory at national level de facto impossible. And don't even let me get started on Sanders...
The reality is, it matters a LOT who the Democrats choose to go against Trump. Biden does not excite me in the least, but he's got the best chances of beating Trump on a national level. And if he chooses Warren as running mate, he might draw in many of the left-wing voters who might otherwise feel apathetic and decide not to turn up at the ballots.
11
@Andy The unexciting person _never_ has the best chance of winning.
@Andy I agree with you on so many levels.
Sanders understands that you enter negotiations from where you’d like to end up, not where you’re willing to end up. Obama always started from his compromise position and gave up the store on too many critical issues. Sanders would indeed not end up with Medicare for All, but by pushing hard for this, we’d end up with a *much better* compromise - perhaps German or Swiss in style - that aggressively controls costs, expands access, and ensures affordable coverage for all. It’s a true shame that so many Democrats (voters and politicians alike) appear not to understand basic principles of negotiation.
10
Whereas the repubs willingly sell their souls for money, the dems all too often sell theirs for a better soapbox.
We would all benefit from the emergence of the pragmatist arm of the Democratic Party. We could benefit a great deal from reviving the concept of the art of the possible as opposed to our current morass of the "art of the deal"
Our goal should be to win the presidency and the Congress, then to gather the best--and the ethical-- to understand and benefit from the global changes as well as our domestic challenges, starting with the crippling gaps in income and access to education and health care.
We have to talk about these goals; talk about hopes for all. Health care will naturally evolve from the mind set that cares about us and less about money.
4
Have tried the idea to choose a centrist that doesn't plan to change idea as a way to get millions of people excited to vote? Well hardly ever, unless count Hillary, John Kerry, Gore, Mondale, Dukakis, a real winning formula. Only 40% of voters have a positive view of Democrats, with Republicans only slightly worse. We don't know that a real progressive who promises to try to address the deep difficulties huge swaths of our population can win. But we do know that running a generic Democrat is a losing strategy. Obama, also a centrist, was able to break the pattern by running a populist campaign that in the end delivered little and leaving an even deeper anger among many with the Democratic party. Trump created a weak coalition of stressed lower middle class voters, evangelicals, and alt-right extremists that continues to be enough to beat a generic democrat. The Democrat must adjust to this reality and choose a left-popuilist approach that offers the hope and change that Obama promised but did not deliver. Otherwise we are sure to lose.
4
@Michael Whitehead
Let’s see what those active in the party’s primaries through out the country decide.
If Sanders or Biden, etc., cannot convince them — they cannot bear Trump.
We not only need to win the Senate; the filibuster is still present for legislation that isn't "reconciliation" and requires 60 votes to overcome the obligatory GOP filibuster.
The chance of winning 60 Senate seats is near-impossible, so the Dems would be forced to nuke it. And they'd be very hesitant to do that if there was a chance of the GOP regaining the Senate in the future.
1
Medicare for All would result in lower medical spending per capita than our present system, like Canada, Britain, Germany or France. What about that would be inflationary? No premiums, taxes instead. Even if per capita costs stayed the same, wouldn't it simply be a wash?
4
Congress is key. I prefer Biden with Amy or Kamala as VP. But anybody is better than Trump. The main thing is dump Trump. The rest is not that important.
Perhaps Bloomberg is the answer. The Dems must unite behind the nominees and win Congress or else bad things will happen. Who is not that important, as Paul aptly argues. We need Dems to oust GOP pols.
3
Michael Bloomberg will be a pill too hard to swallow by progressive Democrats. The shenanigans at the Democratic Convention it would take to make him the nominee flies in the face of democracy.
Why does everyone assume Bernie’s health plan will be more expensive? Every other Western democracy has figured out how to make socialized medicine work for about 40% less than what we are paying and with better health outcomes (5 year longer health spans). Our current system is the expensive disaster.
The comparison that we should be making is:
MFA tax = 0.60 * ( copays+premiums+out of pocket+current tax spending on healthcare)
4
Krugman fails in his op-ed for not including Mike Bloomberg and what is really at stake: defeating Trump. This notion is more paramount than discounting or approving of a Bernie Sanders or a Joe Biden and whether you are a moderate, progressive or liberal thinking leftist. We need to have our country be taken back to civility and its proper place on the domestic and international stages, and the next candidate must have the best chops to do this! This is particularly crucial in light of the farce and scam called the senate impeachment trial.
Bloomberg is a New Yorker with more money than Trump could ever dream about. Bloomberg is also a New Yorker that Trump loathes because of his genuine success and financial resources. The only other realistic alternative is Biden, baggage and all, given his overwhelming federal legislative experience. He can start work running the day after inauguration.
Recently, I was at an event with Andrew Yang at the U. of Chicago hosted by David Axelrod and his CNN's Axe Files. I was amazed at the gaga support for him among those attending, I suppose young American voters, including college-age students. I thought either I was out of touch given my age or experience or these type supporters haven't lived long enough to know the realities of having Trump remain in office. Yang's $1,000/month stipend for all surely is not going to cut it with reality. So, too, is a message for the Bernie supporters: we want a prez. to take down King Trump!
3
Thanks for describing the political realities that will moderate any major political differences among the Democratic nominees. The Democrats must not only decisively win the Presidency, but most win back the Senate and hold the House just to succeed with a moderate progressive political agenda and protect social security, and Medicare from cuts, improve ACA, raise taxes on the wealthy, and address climate change and infrastructure crises. The structure of our Republic makes it almost impossible to do any thing more since in the Senate it favors the numerous small less populated states that favor the Republicans at this time and the Citizens United Decision gives a big advantage to the rich and powerful Republican Party donors. Majority rule is blocked significantly in our Republic and faces serious obstacles including the unfortunate Electoral College that also favors the Republicans. Progressive policies are rarely enacted in our history! Rarely!
2
Nope. Possibly aside from Biden, they’re all hopeless socialists.
6
No, Sanders is the main “Socialist”, and the point of this column is that even if Sanders is elected, he will be moderated by a largely centrist house and senate.
Sanders could pay for some of his very popular initiatives by large cuts in defense spending. That is something that is long overdue. Higher taxes on the wealthy and on corporations are also overdue and would be extremely popular. The transaction tax ideas of Andrew Yang are excellent, for example.
370
@SalinasPhil I agree. Look at all the winning coming Putin's way with much lower defense outlays in Russia. A million F-35's will not increase our security, but may well bankrupt us. Time to insist on value for our tax dollars.
44
@SalinasPhil
And get rid of carried interest and have a transaction fee for every financial instrument traded.
45
@SalinasPhil
"Cut defense spending" is easier said than done: what's your alternative mass welfare program?
1
It sounds as though Mr. Krugman has resigned himself to Sanders being the nominee. Or perhaps it's the realization that every time a prominent pundit or PAC attacks Bernie and gaslights progressives, another torrent of small donor dollars floods his already ample campaign coffers.
To say that Biden and Sanders would accomplish the same things is a stretch. For starters, Biden has never been just "swept along" by the last 40 years of neoliberal austerity. He was one of the architects of the Democratic Leadership Council, now known as the New Democrats, and also one of its original presidential recruits.
He might currently be playing a liberal on TV, but his shtick still is trying to find common ground between what's left of the New Deal and reactionary Republicanism. His first assigned task as VP was to "eliminate waste, fraud and abuse" in government programs. Right in the middle of the financial meltdown!
From the DLC Manifesto:
"We will seek out and eliminate fraud, waste, and abuse. We will provide the resources to prosecute those taking advantage of government benefits to which they are not entitled, whether wealthy tax evaders, illegal monopolies or participants in welfare fraud."
The centrist trope broadcast by Biden is that the poor are just as culpable as the rich. But ask yourself how many wealthy criminals have gone to jail while the US prison population has exploded under Biden's championship of the Crime Bill.
The Democratic choice matters. Big time.
251
@Karen Garcia
And Bernie put the cobosh on studying gun deaths and voted against gun regulation.
Speaking as someone who is not supporting Biden at all, you completely miss PK's point -- and that is Biden will be a lot closer to Bernie than to Trump. And that is all that matters.
Fight for you preferred candidate -- but Bernie is no saint and my eyes have been opened -- it is most unfortunate that most Bernie supporters can not see him for what he is -- a politician who has managed to be returned to his seat by making the kinds of compromises politicians make to win elections -- including supporting massive military spending when it is in his backyard of Vermont- I happen to agree with many of Bernie's positions but that does not mean I am blind to his YUGE weaknesses as a general election candidate - Expose Biden's many weaknesses. All good.
But all of us must support the Democratic candidate once that person has been selected, however unenthusiastic they may be about them.
Right now I am totally unenthusiastic about the two front runners, Biden and Bernie. Hope someone much better wins the nomination. But if I have to hold my nose and pull for either, I will be doing that.
72
@Karen Garcia - Karen, I just tried to submit a comment noting that two former verifieds, you and Rima Regas, speak so well for me that I really do not need to file my own thoughts.
But I wrote a bit more using my knowledge of the birth experience of women giving birth in Sweden and my familiarity with the record for a certain subset of women in America.
I clicked on SUBMIT and saw in a microsecond that my submission was blocked, happens often.
So I record that here in reply and also at Rima Regas.
Thanks for your comment.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Citizen US SE
8
@Karen Garcia
And it’s because of comments like yours who indicate choosing a nominee and declining to support another in the election, that that is fine, is why we have Donald Trump as president right now.
29
Coincidentally, I just commented similarly as Paul on one of his colleague's Times' pieces. I look at all our top candidates and see more unity in their policies than not. Their goals are the same, and they have shown a willingness to listen and to tweak their policies according to our common concerns and challenges. It, of course, almost goes without saying that each of their moral compasses, smarts, political experience, and downright wisdom is light years ahead of Trump's inherent character flaws and defects. So the problem is not really with our candidates. The onus of being successful in trumping Trump falls squarely on our shoulders. We absolutely can not split hairs over who our final candidate is vs who we wanted. It is crucial that we fight to take the presidency and also, God willing, the Senate. Think about the consequences of another four years of Trump: Our personal health and that of our environment's will deteriorate; our safety nets like Social Security and Medicare will be threatened. The egregious greed of our oligarchs will continue to be insatiable, and bigotry and racism will continue its ugly and lethal metastasis. Think big. We have no other choice. This guy in the Oval Office is beyond awful.
470
@Kathy Lollock I wish there were a Facebook-type reaction button here, so I could "love" your comment! You've consolidated Krugman's broader points superbly. Congrats.
42
@Lynn Thank you, Lynn! I am finding writing comments and tearing into my front and back yards are great therapy for this depressing state of affairs. Boy...I can not believe what Trump and his comrades are getting away with.
42
Hogwash!
In terms of policy, aside from reversing every last thing Trump and his GOP did in the last three years, there is still the matter of neoliberal policy that has cost this nation's middle and working classes their futures and their children's.
There is the matter of the environment. Not all candidates are equally or even committed to doing everything and more to reverse the catastrophic conditions that are about to hit us here in the US, never mind Australia. One candidate was part of an administration whose last act was to brutally treat a Native American tribe just so fracking can take place. That is unacceptable. That same candidate was reported by the NYT as telling wealthy donors that nothing much will change if he wins. Unacceptable, again.
Healthcare.
Housing.
Higher education.
Good jobs and regulating the gig economy.
Regulations for everything, including what goes into our food that is making us all sick. Water. Air. Money in politics. Social media and privacy. Our national treasures.
Rewriting the constitution. This one's been gamed to death. Listen to Prof. Sanford Levinson.
Business as usual and triangulation, what Biden calls bipartisanship with a party of traitors, can't do.
So, yeah, who matters a great deal.
110
@Rima Regas Yes, "who" matters a great deal, I agree.
If the "who" is a Democrat, any of them, it's one thing. Could be not great, but survivable and something to build on.
If it's Trump, it's a guaranteed unmitigated disaster. In all respects.
I'll voting for my preferred candidate (Warren) in my state's primary. But I'll vote against Trump in November, no matter who the Dems put up.
My priority about "who" is that "who" ≠ Trump. Ever.
33
@Rima Regas - Rima this is a copy of a reply filed at Karen Garcia.
"Karen, I just tried to submit a comment noting that two former verifieds, you and Rima Regas, speak so well for me that I really do not need to file my own thoughts.
But I wrote a bit more using my knowledge of the birth experience of women giving birth in Sweden and my familiarity with the record for a certain subset of women in America.
I clicked on SUBMIT and saw in a microsecond that my submission was blocked, happens often.
So I record that here in reply and also at Rima Regas.
Thanks for your comment."
Thanks also, Rima
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Citizen US SE
3
@Rima Regas I was keeping an open mind until you said “regulations for everything”.
Biden, from his collegial years in the Senate, is inclined to follow the Obama model of strenuously negotiating with yourself first, until you've whittled your opening gambit down to a raw stub. Bernie would start at the opposite end of the spectrum, ask for the world and compromise from there. To argue that the two approaches will end up in the same place is wishful thinking.
255
@stan continople
"To argue that the two approaches will end up in the same place is wishful thinking."
Maybe, but I know for sure that both approaches will result in a better outcome than another 4 years of the Trump presidency. And I am guessing that it won't take too many "Bernie or Bust" types in the midwest to give us another 4 years of Trump.
147
@stan continople His Economic Advisor was Jared Bernstein, very much a labor oriented and progressive.
https://www.cbpp.org/jared-bernstein
19
@Dan
They did it before and they will do it again. I think it is as impossible to bring them to reason as it is deplorables or Greens. I don't know any deplorables (for certain) but I know plenty of Greens and have given up talking to them. They won't move. Nader gave us Bush II but they have no ability to learn from their mistakes.
I supported Anderson against Reagan (switched my registration to vote in PA Republican primary) and then supported his independent run when he lost to Reagan. I was very young and I learned my lesson, fortunately I was not burdened with the remorse I would have carried for the rest of my life if my vote for Anderson had in any way even effected PA's final vote. Some of the Nader folks learned and the next time Nader ran, they purposefully ran only in states where it did not matter because they were so blue or so red. But I see no learning on the part of the present day Greens or the Bernie or Bust folks.
56
I'm less worried about a Never Bernie movement than I am about the Bernie Bros refusing to support anyone but Bernie. That's part of why we have President Trump.
1533
@Don I have seen this said a million times but have never seen it vindicated by any evidence...
154
@Don
If that's the case, don't you have a moral responsibility to vote for Bernie to make sure we don't lose those Bernie Bro votes and get another Trump term?
90
@NickD
No, Don has a moral responsibility to vote for the best Dem candidate, not to give into political blackmailers as you seem to be.
If Bernie wins the Dem primary, despite the deplorable behavior of 10% of his supporters in electing Trump, I will be voting for him in the general. Not enthusiastically, because I believe we have a lot better candidates, but Lord knows I will not throw a self importance, self centered hissy fit and vote for Trump just to make sure Bernie loses.
208
The 1% growth economy that even compromised policies would produce will be the device that forces cuts to social security.
In 1980, it was forecast for bankruptcy in 1990.
Krugman knows that higher tax rates produce lower growth, a death knell for current SS benefits.
4
When the house is on fire, it's no time to be shopping for curtains.
Let's focus on putting out this 300-alarm fire before it takes down the entire country in its wake.
After the fire is extinguished, we can argue about plaid or paisley.
258
I'm not a progressive - sorry. I'm very much a centrist. But if Bernie gets the nod I'll vote for him on the theory that Job #1 is to oust the current occupant of the White House, who is a clear and present danger to the country. Bernie hasn't shown a great willingness to compromise, but I think he'll learn.
1350
@Kay Bee He will do whatever he can to advance the wellbeing of the American people. If that means a public option instead of Medicare for all, he will do it. Same for other "compromises."
120
That is exactly why I can’t stand the guy—his unwillingness to compromise. I appreciate that he hasn’t compromised his principles since the 1970s and I love his policies, but I can’t stand his curmudgeonly personality. I feel like he’s always just barely holding it in underneath the grandpa exterior, like he could snap into a Trump-esque, rage at any moment.
That prospect of fiery anger all the time? I want the policies he has proposed, just not from him.
112
@Kay Bee
Since his days as an effective and business-friendly Mayor of Burlington, Bernie has shown that willingness to compromise is his most important executive tool.
The theme followed him into the Senate, from executive to advocate.
5
It doesn’t matter at all - the odds of anyone other than Warren, Sanders, or Biden winning the nomination are minuscule.
Any one of the three will be raw meat for the GOP/FOX/Koch/Adelson onslaught of mudslinging lies, innuendos, and smears. They’ll be chewed up and spit out just like Hillary, and Trump will be re-elected.
11
As long as the Democrats keep arguing with each other over who is the bigger racist, sexist, homophobe, etc., and as long as they keep denigrating Trump supporters (many of whom voted for Obama) as hopeless, clueless deplorables, they cannot beat Trump. Democrats have built their party around divisiveness, and will pay the price for the foreseeable future.
121
@Greg
Agree, but I have a particle of hope that they will see the folly of their "exclusionary diversity" and move on to policy positions that will help 90% of the population. But they better hurry. Otherwise we're looking at a full generation of far right governments.
2
@Greg
You mean you weren’t seduced by Joe Rogan’s celebrated endorsement of Sanders?
@Greg
Unlike the Republican candidates in 2016 none of whom had a single bad thing to say about Trump when they were running against him.
1
As you say, it may not make a difference, not because of the different candidates, but because of the massive corruption in the American political system, symbolized by Trump and McConnell. Until Congress overturns Citizens United, and provides for publicly paid elections, there is very little that can be really accomplished. The Republicans are the backbone of a corrupted Senate and presidency. It stinks like the swamp it is, full of ambitious, avaricious sychophants who put party before country. At some point there will be massive payback against this administration and political party.
45
I think this article is well argued. There are constant ‘straw men’ arguments being erected by all sides, and there is an hysterical and exaggerated discourse in reaction. This is occurring between the parties, and within the Democratic Party. This all supports a bogus corrupt president and GOP, who take victory laps when they succeed in totally obscuring the facts. Talk about smoke and mirrors. The Democrats need to be united as one, and ruthlessly factual, honest and direct with the voting public. This would make a stark contrast with the rubbish being peddled by Trumps congressional flunkies. The voters are owed a clear choice ie recycled rubbish (GOP) or the truth.
47
I have little doubt that the mess left by the incompetence of the current administration, including the ballooning deficit will be blamed on any Democrat elected. Business as usual for the last 40 years. Nixon, Carter was the scapegoat. Reagan/Bush, Clinton was the scapegoat. Bush 2, Obama. And now Trump/whoever.
16
Sorry, I don't want the old men. I would love to see Klobuchar catch fire - I want to see a lot more blue in the interior states. Whichever Dem wins, I want A. Schiff as AG so he can continue to investigate and hold Trump's swamp accountable for their corruption and obstruction.
71
A pollster called this afternoon asking questions about which democrat I'd prefer versus Trump. My response was as long as the D candidate is breathing, I will vote for whoever runs against Trump.
This impeachment trial of "no witnesses or evidence" was the final straw for me. The next time I rob a bank, I will instruct the police not to look at the video tape which has me yelling "stick-em-up". When tax time comes, I will double my deductions and tell the IRS they can't look at my W2s or bank statements.
If Trump can do it, so can I.
84
Democrats aren't likely to take the Senate, so change will be even more modest than what Krugman envisions. Still a win in the presidential race is crucial. The country can't take 4 more years of the current maniac.
33
You actually make a very good case for supporting none of these deeply flawed Dem candidates. Your strongest argument is that reasonable people will stop them from actually accomplishing the implicitly destructive agendas they are running on. That is quite an endorsement. Give me Trump. Crass and flawed, but with hopeful, realistic policies that are making life better for millions of Americans.
11
Realistic policies, huh? Like shutting down the entire southern border? Demanding American businesses stop doing business with China? Partially shutting down the government to force Congress to fund his racist, ineffective wall? Taking away the licenses of media outlets who expose his cruelty and lies like the authoritarian leader he is?
What universe do you live in? The rest of us live in what's called REALITY.
Krugman might be right about how Sanders would govern were he elected, but that won't mollify those who are voting not for or against how he would have to govern once in office but how he promises he would govern.
And that might be enough to dissuade even moderate Democrats from supporting him. Forget about Republican sick of Trump or Independents who feel the same.
Just because a candidate running against Trump is a sane adult isn't enough to defeat him.
6
Are you opposed to Trump and his Republican enablers? If so, then act like it.
Vote for every Democrat down your ballot in November.
You must vote.
Don't waste your vote.
Opting out is not an option.
68
Only a conservative Neil liberal Centrist Democrat who is in a position of power or has power or like the status quo could possibly even ask such a question. It's ridiculous
2
Put it this way: If Bernie won, would you feel more of a hangover or less of a hangover this November 4th than you did the morning after the last presidential election? This is no time to indulge in the luxury of choosing the perfect candidate. Just the one who can defeat the incumbent IMPOTUS.
36
I just want a policy passed by that politicians that lies are worthy of immediate dismissal. I never heard such crazy lies from republicans as I have heard these past 20 years. Its outrageous and destroys anyone's life they are lying about all too often. Why is this tolerated? Are we less than any living creature created and the lowest of the low of humans that we walk around lying all the time and its acceptable and especially in the highest position of a statesman of this country.
11
Wow. Paul is really sticking his neck out when he says it doesn’t really matter who the nominee is as long as they win and capture the Senate as well.
How bold and inspiring ! Not
I think we are starting to see the Dems realization that their coalition based party is just too divided to win.
5
Medicare For All is absolute nonsense. Sanders plan costs $6T/year, our entire national budget for 2019 was $4.4T...and our revenues were $3.5T, so we have a $900B budget gap. Where is money coming from to fund M4A?
9
Sanders voters and Trump voters are two sides of the same coin. It’s all grievance against those who made a life for themselves in this country. One side is nativist, the other is retrograde Trotskyite. Neither person can deliver on their ridiculous campaign promises. This whole thing is a mess
12
The young Bernie supporters aren't old enough to know about the failed candace of George McGovern, the peace loving, socialistic candidate. It's an all too familiar pattern.
19
Agreed, dump Trump is all that matters. Americans must stop Trump and turn the Senate from red to blue. Vote for the Democratic candidates. The GOP has created more inequality, taken away safeguards for workers, safe drinking water and food and they are threatening social security and medicare. The GOP is using their racist, phony religious stance to divide the country. Trump, McConnell and the rest of the corrupt, greedy Republicans must go. This Impeachment has shown just how bought they are.
31
The Republican Party is not subservient to him at all.
They’re actually insubordinate. They just love the distraction he provides and the rubber stamp while they ruin the country.
14
this is a cynical and dismissive piece of writing. it accepts the broken congress of bought-out politicians as our future. We can't accept this - our planet and very existence depends on not accepting this story. what is the point of this article anyway? It in no way gives voters important information, nor inspires them to vote.
6
I have immense respect for Senator Sanders because of his authenticity and because he speaks for those not members of a board room. But, I worry that if he does not get the nomination, we again might be seeing millions of Bernie followers staying home and pouting. In that event, I would hope Bernie kicks their butts and gets them to the voting booths.
12
Please, why no mention of climate change and environmental legislation? I am trying to understand which candidate will matter most on that. This is where orange head has done some of the most extreme damage to the world.
12
Good points made by Mr. Krugman.
However, like the impeachment trial it is all moot and pie in the sky.
Sadly no Democrat is going to win. The Electoral College has made that impossible.
I would like to add it wasn't just a "handful of billionaires allied with white nationalists". It was also all those goofy religious right "Christians" that think abortion and gay marriage is the only thing Jesus cares about. Trump gave them the justices they wanted and they will NOT be happy until they get 9 Supreme Court Justices.
8
Yes indeed, I agree with you whole heartedly. We Dems simply need to pick someone and really get support going. Right now we are looking pretty rag tag.
7
....Oh, and don't forget the Supreme Court pick after Justice Ginsburg retires on Jan 21st 2021. This should not be overlooked.
12
Our future is in the hands of two Mayors. In 2020, Mayor Mike will be our next president, and Mayor Pete will be his vice president. In 2024 mayor Pete will be elected president.
7
Bottom line: our Democrat has to tackle the climate emergency. Has to. Therefore has to enter office with a mandate to do it.
6
Yes--The differences between the Democratic candidates are insignificant compared with their differences with the Trump party. But Trump plays dirtier. He can and will use FB to spread word that Biden is a sellout or that Bernie is a Commie. It's quite possible that just enough airheads will believe Trump and Putin's propaganda and will withhold their vote from the Democratic candidate based on that nonsense.
1
Does it matter! It shouldn’t, but probably will. Four more years of this, whatever it is? Really?
Let's just say you are right about Sanders not getting Medicare for all trough (you aren't, but lets pretend)
There would be a tremendous difference between Biden and Sanders in foreign policy. Biden would operate like Obama did -- drone wars, regime change in places like Lybia, hard line on Syria, hand wringing but no real pressure on Israel.
3
"Moderates worried about a radical presidency should cool it. A President Sanders wouldn’t be especially radical in practice."
Moderate buyers beware of this Krugman piece. It's got a singular agenda, to whitewash the ever growing possibility of a Sanders nomination into something softer, warmer and fuzzier than the hard left upheaving revolution that it is. Make no mistake. Democratic Socialist Bernie Sanders has EVERY intention of doing every last thing he's promising on the campaign trail. Just ask him. He'll be happy to tell you.
3
It he can’t do it without cooperation of the moderate house and senate, which he won’t get. That is the point of this OpEd.
This is why I’m leaning towards a Warren/Yang ticket, come on everyone let’s think about our children for once.
4
A column written almost four years too late?
If Krugman (and others) had written a piece with the same general unifying message for Democrats ( hey Sanders supporters! vote Hillary or look out! ) in the fall of 2016 Trump might not be president.
4
Would it have mattered whether Al Smith or FDR had won the 1932 nomination?
So...vote for Democrats if you love the status quo and want nothing to actually change, but LOVE big fancy campaign promises that vanish after Inauguration Day.
4
In the primaries vote for the best policies for the people.
In the election vote for the best policies for the people.
1
Yes, yes and yes.
And one other thing that needs mentioning:
The Supreme Court.
Ruth Bader Ginsberg is 86. Anyone who stays home and harrumphs on election day because their favorite candidate did not get the nomination is assuring an extreme right-wing court. You can kiss Roe V Wade goodbye.
Frankly, staying home is not only dumb, it is misogynistic.
13
According to today's Real Clear Politics poll Biden is the only one leading Trump.
Shouldn't that be the number one criteria?
6
It is simple to me. Put it down as a number of wealth distribution.
Let's say, the US was fine in 1980, it had a GINI-Index of 35.
US is not so fine in 2020, and it has a GINI-Index of 41.
Countries like Norway (27), Denmark (29), or my own Country Germany (29) have an even lower GINI-Index, and we have not become a socialistic hellhole. America was great when it was a fair country, for opportunities for everyone, and it had this simple number to prove it.
There is no special policy to lower the GINI, but whatever policies are on the agenda, in the case of America, a little bit is not enough. So whatever loose coalition of politicians you chose, do not be afraid of some left wing orthodoxie.
In fact i do believe, if you are not radical enough, the raising wealth inequality will just slow down, and that will not be enough.
So my recommendation, vote left, and not just lukewarm left. After all you have to undo 40 years to make america great again.
7
In 2016 I was told by Bernie bro’s that Trump and Hillary were the same and they couldn’t support anyone but Bernie. So, I have now learned that unless the nominee meets my exacting standards I will have to “Bernie bro” them.
3
“...it probably doesn’t matter much who the Democrats nominate — as long as he or she wins, and Democrats take the Senate too.”
Mr. Krugman, I followed your line of reasoning throughout this op-ed. It makes sense to me, but you don’t seem to have taken into consideration the complete lack of ethics exhibited by Trump, his base and 21st century Republicans in general.
After being given a pass on impeachment by the Republican senators, the president will be unconstrained. Any scheme Trump can imagine in his devious little brain is likely to be set in motion to gain him reelection.
A desperate sociopath should never be underestimated. Trump and his cronies are neither clever nor good at hiding their misdeeds, but they are absolutely shameless. Don has uttered more than fifteen thousand lies. No matter how often he’s caught, he just keeps lying.
What will he do to stay in office?
Who knows?
Hang onto your hat. The Democratic candidate will play by the rules. Trump won’t. He doesn’t even know what the rules are.
14
Wow! 'Enhanced' ACA, if Dems win? But what should ‘enhanced' include? Medicare for All-- ' not so much'? Too much?
We wouldn't want Excessive Health Care for America, would we? Not enough profit for the Medical Industry.
So, UnAmerican.
PK, how do all these nations pay for HC, that's impossible here?
Dates when countries started universal health care-- from True Cost Blog:
Norway 1912 Single Payer
New Zealand 1938 Two Tier
Japan 1938 Single Payer
Germany 1941 Insurance Mandate
Belgium 1945 Insurance Mandate
U.K. 1948 Single Payer
Kuwait 1950 Single Payer
Sweden 1955 Single Payer
Bahrain 1957 Single Payer
Brunei 1958 Single Payer
Canada 1966 Single Payer
Netherlands 1966 Two-Tier
Austria 1967 Insurance Mandate
United Arab Emirates 1971 Single Payer
Finland 1972 Single Payer
Slovenia 1972 Single Payer
Denmark 1973 Two-Tier
Luxembourg 1973 Insurance Mandate
France 1974 Two-Tier
Australia 1975 Two Tier
Ireland 1977 Two-Tier
Italy 1978 Single Payer
Portugal 1979 Single Payer
Greece 1983 Insurance Mandate
Spain 1986 Single Payer
South Korea 1988 Insurance Mandate
Iceland 1990 Single Payer
Hong Kong 1993 Two-Tier
Singapore 1993 Two-Tier
Switzerland 1994 Insurance Mandate
Israel 1995 Two-Tier
13
Stages of Liberal Grief:
Last week: Anger [at Bernie Sanders].
Today: Denial [that Sanders could make a difference].
Next week [projected]|: Bargaining [to get a job in the Sanders Administration].
6
"It matters hugely whether a Democrat wins, it matters much less which Democrat wins."
Yes. That's the most clear and concise observation in all of The NY Times since day one of campaign coverage.
5
Thank you, finally some words of wisdom! Quit the in-fighting Dems, and keep the eye on the prize. After today’s senate vote, we are reminded to get to work and win this thing:
Operation Dump Trump 2020.
8
Capitalism is the most successful thing America has going. Business is booming, stocks are flying, unemployment is as low as it's been in a long time. So, what are Democrats attacking? Capitalism! They want government control of the economy and vast redistributionist giveaway social programs to reward the unmotivated unproductives for being, well I guess, unproductive, paid for by new confiscatory taxes on the motivated, hard-working and successful. The real reason it doesn't much matter who the Democratic nominee is is because they can't get elected; the voters know enough not to vote for someone who wants to kill the golden goose, roast it and feed it to eager layabouts. It says something meaningful about the Democratic Party these days that their most popular candidate, the one with the most fervent following, is essentially a crypto-commie. Mr. Krugman has to defend him by saying it would be OK if he were elected because he wouldn't really be able to get away with doing the destructive, cuckoo things he's proposing. What an endorsement!
6
All good points;seems very plausible
1
If the Dems don't take the Senate, this discussion is moot.
2
The constitution is a failure as we have witnessed.
We wouldn't be having any of this discussion if there wasn't an electoral college nor the minority favoritism of republicans blocking policy in the senate.
Republicans would have to move to the left where the majority of the country is. This is why you have so much conflict in the democratic party is because we are being ignored and our voices silenced by corrupt republicans who want absolute authority.
The problem is the majority of this country are liberal and ignored and now assaulted by gas-lighting corrupt thugs.
4
Krugman is right: the only relevant question is who beats Trump?
What happens next -- without Trump and with a Democratic Senate -- is contingent on imponderables: war in the Middle East with Iraq, a desperate Palestinian lunge at Israel, a "Lone Gunman" replays both Kennedys and Reagan, Putin's hyper-sonic nuke accidentally takes out Kentucky, Russia takes Finland and Latvia, China sinks a US destroyer near HK, Modi triggers a nuke exchange with Pakistan (or ISIS hijacks a Pakistani nuke), white supremacists seize a US military base and start a race war. Not to forget economic volcanoes bubbling lava.
That's job 1 for the next POTUS -- navigating the next global crisis with minimum collateral damage and casualties.
Apres Trump, our agenda will be damage assessment, repair, restore, rebuild. Trust, shared values, honor, moral integrity, equality, ecological stewardship. Power to the people and eat the rich don't make the top 100.
America isn't a zero sum proposition. It ain't etch-a-sketch -- we can't just lift the cover post-Trump and start with a blank slate. There's at least 4 years of Augean stable clearing ahead and minus 1 trillion dollars in the public account.
Plus we're still a nation that's half-full, half-empty and wholly hateful. Newton's Third Law still applies: For every action there's an equal and opposite reaction. There's no blue tsunami on the radar to change that.
Sanders wants to be an architect. The job description says janitor.
8
At a deeper level there is an additional factor in which Biden is likely to fall short, Warren seems the most alert --- it's hard to know about the others. In retrospect, Obama's big error was to "look ahead"; Clinton did the same. No accountability for Iran-Contra (Clinton) nor Wall Street and Iraq (Obama). Both chose GOP Defense Secretaries, continuing the fiction that Republicans are the serious people on military matters, same with taxes. Biden DID choose a very good economist for his team, but Geithner, Bill Cohen (now a "defense" lobbyist)...??? Those choices do make a real difference
I will vote for a fire plug before I will ever vote for Trump or, for that matter, any Republican, and so should anyone with a moral compass.
Please folks, don’t waste your time trying to change Republicans’ minds. They are out of reach. Just help get out the Democratic vote in 2020. The damage Trump and his lickspittles have done to our nation may be too late to fix (the environment and the federal courts being the most important), but we have to at least TRY. And the only way the damage will ever get reversed is if Democrats take back the Senate and the White House.
If you know a Millennial, make sure they’re registered to vote and know where their polling place is. Drag them bodily to the polls if you have to.
12
In a crucial football game, don't you love it when the razzle-dazzle play works like a charm? All that is missing from the Democratic presidential possibilities is that one person who will unite all Democrats and invite all Republicans to join the party of pure sanity. Therefore, I suggest a brokered convention that ends with Michelle Obama in the top slot and a feisty white male as VP. No debates with Trump and Pence. No interviews with media talking heads. Think of the service ace on the tennis court. It's all over in one second.
2
Nothing here about foreign policy. But that isn’t surprising. Krugman brushed off Clinton’s support for the Iraq War back in 2016.
5
"...it’s unclear whether the nominee will be a centrist like Joe Biden or Amy Klobuchar..."
It's not gonna be Amy Klobuchar. You can take that to the bank.
2
No it wouldn't matter. Any one of them would lose to Trump.
2
And someone, high up in the Democratic Party needs to tell Hillary Clinton to simply shut up and stop fracturing the party by complaining about Bernie Sanders. We have had enough of her!
8
" it’s unclear whether the nominee will be a centrist like Joe Biden or Amy Klobuchar, or a representative of the party’s left like Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren."
Let me stop you right there. Joe Biden and everyone except for Sanders and Warren is to the right of ronald reagan. Remember him, the Ultra ultra ultra ultra ultra ultra ultra ultra ad infinitum right wing nutjob?
So no Biden is not centrist in any way and he is a corporate stooge to boot.
You want the center? Then its Sanders or Warren. That is the real Center of America. The America where the New Deal those two propose to bring back is missed every minute of every day. The New Deal was the center and it gave us the best 5 decades this nation ever saw.
5
In the awful event that Bernie dies, do the Bernie Bros still vote or will they stay home and pout?
6
I was recently visiting Austin Texas and saw a lawn sign that said "Any Functional Adult 2020" I believe that says it all!
8
Paul is correct for once, the media has been doing its horserace coverage to get you to click and comment on articles. The fact is any democrat president is going to be stonewalled by the senate and utterly loathed by about 40 percent of the voting public. The progressives this paper wants you to fear including Warren who is actually the real compromise party unity candidate if anyone was behaving like the deal makers they claim to be, would be further stonewalled by Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer. Lastly, isn't it about time we curtailed the power of the President anyway?
3
I can see, it is happening again. As it did before only this time it will be the worst. The whole I won’t vote except for Bernie/Nader/ Jill Stein thing...who needs the Russians when we do it to ourselves. Folks, we are onthe verge of losing our precariously teetering freedoms, because of people on the far left, and the far right, who say my way or the highway. Whoever comes out to be the nominee of the Democrats, we must vote for! Vote Blue! Clear Vision 2020
6
We spend far too much on the military and far too little arresting climate change.
2
One thing we yet need to hear from American pundits, Krugman included, is answer to Bernie’s question “why all developed countries can have what US can’t?” Is it that hard to answer? I guess it is, even when you have Nobel in economics, when ideology clouds your reasoning.
5
Translation: Paul Krugman wants to reassure you that nothing will really change. So let’s just continue to enjoy this climate emergency and the ever shrinking middle class.
2
They’re now starting to warm up Bernie in the microwave as if he was that TV-Dinner at the bottom of the freezer no one wanted except in an emergency.
What’s the dish called? Box-o-Soggy-Communism? They say if you add 70% Capitalist Bread to it (Biden or Klobuchar as President), the consistency becomes palatable.
1
Does it matter?
Are you kidding?!
One candidate guarantees trump’s reelection; that candidate is Bernie Sanders.
5
Interesting, to say the least
Four years ago, this columnist published
" Sanders over the Edge"
"From the beginning, many and probably most liberal policy wonks were skeptical about Bernie Sanders. On many major issues — including the signature issues of his campaign, especially financial reform — he seemed to go for easy slogans over hard thinking. "
Paul Krugman NYT April 8, 2016
So no "to go for easy slogans over hard thinking" no longer seem to matter - anything to defeat Trump will do?
Whose economic policy, this columnist endorsed four year ago
"Trump is Right on Economics:
Paul Krugman, NYT Sept 7, 2015
"When circumstances change, I change my opinion, what do you do Sir ?"
Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin and the Democrat Left all want Bernie Sanders to be the nominee. All I know for sure is that someone is very, very wrong.
3
"Cake or death" Life of Brian, Monty Python. The decision in 2020 has come down to cake or death. It might be pineapple upside down cake, angel food cake, chocolate cake. If you're a pie person, buck up. Yes, you don't like cake, but cake won't kill you. We have to stop needing to fall in love and instead to fall in line - ironically, let's use their ironic language 'choose life'.
2
Oh, I see, Mr. Krugman. All you know about politics and government you have learned from Donald Trump and the Republicans in the last 3 years. Very enlightening -- about you, actually -- not about them-- or about what could happen in an administration attuned and responsible to a broad democracy movement. But some of us can see a little farther ahead than you can.
2
It does not matter. Trump will prevail no matter what. Dark days and dark years ahead. Buckle up!
Fantasy. Biden has told the wealthy that "Fundamentally, nothing will change." He's toyed with the idea of a Republican running mate. He's said "the world needs the republican party." He shoves people and intimidates people who disagree with him. He's a horrendous candidate that will stifle the incredible energy that Bernie has brought to the party. Bernie's evil twisted Bernie Bros (actually a broad coalition of many different types of people, though this paper is fond of isolating and invisibilizing them) are literally the army you'll need to defeat Trump's. Trying to passive-aggressive us away is not working and ill advised in terms of winning in November.
42
Also, Democrats abide the the principle that a trial should have witnesses.while Republicans don’t.
22
In all the gloom and despair produced by the cowardly senate Republicans, thanks for this forward looking article. Our future depends on electing Democrats in November. Forget another impeachment attempt. And raise money. Wherever the Democrats can get it. The candidates will need it to defeat the Republicans. And hire some political operatives with brutal cunning to mastermind the campaigns against Senators like Mitch McConnell and the vulnerable Republican senators from swing states. If McConnell retains the Senate, we will not have any Democratic reforms.
57
Mirror, mirror on the wall, who is the fairest of them all, Dr. Krugman? The answer is, anyone of the Democratic candidates. But if you ask, who does Trump fear the most, the answer would be: Joe Biden! Trump even asked the Russians and the Ukranians and the Chinese to provide dirt on Biden!
What a sigh of relief Trump will make if the rival turns out to be anyone else.
23
"Oh, and all the Democrats believe in democracy and rule of law, which is kind of important these days."
The president has called the free press the "enemy of the people." I believe in protecting the rights of the free press in a free country.
I believe I will vote Democrat all the way down my ballot this time around.
61
The worst-case Democrat by any standard will be far less damaging to the country and the world than Donald Trump and today's Republican Party. Most importantly, every Democrat takes the climate crisis seriously, while Republicans will do whatever it takes to prop up the market value of oil, gas, and coal producers. No Democrat's agenda includes destroying protections for the water we drink and the air we breathe. And no democrat wants to take anyone's medical coverage away from then, or undermine our safeguards against infectious disease.
68
I would take Ronald Reagan. Anyone will be a vast improvement.
5
While Mr Krugman is certainly correct that any Democratic president would be rather constrained in his/her ability to enact radical change, he is too sanguine about the secondary effects of Sanders as the party's nominee. Mr Krugman points out that none of the so-called progressives defeated incumbent Republicans in the mid-terms. But the reasoning that caused moderates in the suburbs to vote for Democrats in 2018 would very likely cause them to vote for Trump in 2020. (That is, GOP candidates were seen as radical imbeciles in 2018, and Sanders would be seen the same way.)
So in terms of what a Democrat would be able to do in the White House, Mr Krugman is spot-on, but to conclude it really doesn't matter who the nominee is too simplistic.
10
I don't think Biden supporters will have to accept Sanders nor will Sanders supporters need to accept Biden. I think that both Biden supporters and Sanders supporters will have to swallow hard and accept billionaire Mike Bloomberg who would be a formidable candidate if he paired with a centrist female like Klobucher.
24
Senator Sanders honeymooned in the former Soviet Union and was pro Sandinista - this will attach to him in ads in the general and he’ll loose the election just as John Kerry did. There’s a great expression- if you’re not a socialist when you’re young you don’t have a heart but if your not a capitalist when you get older you don’t have a brain. Somebody with an authoritative voice is going to have to persuade the younger folks that like Bernie to accelerate their maturity and move on to a candidate that can win.
5
Paul Krugman, yes it does matter, and I refer you to two comments written by two women who once upon a time were Verifieds.
Look in Reader Picks and you will find, Karen Garcia and Rima Regas. They speak so well for me that I could with good conscience just stop here. I do not stop here.
First, we must vote for the person finally chosen, and there must be no 3d party candidate.
Joe Biden offers no 21st century thinking, no deep understanding that an America as usual minus Trump will be a 20th even 19th century country facing a 21st century China and even Europe.
I see in my Swedish newspaper today a long article about Biden, the voice of the sufferer, surrounded by people seen in America as belonging to a black "race". In America, pregnant women assigned to this group are represented by dismal statistics as concerns giving birth. This group includes many Somali born seen as black by the census bureau, one of them Ilhan Omar.
I just finished a translation for a Swedish researcher who proposes to study the peri and post natal record for a population of Somali-born mothers to be here in Sweden. These women do very well here, but the researcher wants to learn how they can do even better - match the record for all births in any year, almost best in the world.
Next, why not compare them with American Somalis who perhaps do not have equally good statistics. Biden will not help them, Sanders may.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Citizen US SE
6
I would concur with Paul Krugman,as regards the "rule of law".Especially in light of the U.S. Senate vote today,no witnesses.
5
Paul, you don't have to be concerned about who gets the Democrat nomination because Trump will win in a landslide in November. The Trump impeachment scam will cost the democrats any chance of winning in 2020. I watch the Rasmussen Trump approval ratings on a daily basis. Today it was at 50% which is very near the high seen since his election. Your minions will laugh at my reliance on Rasmussen and I remind them in advance that Rasmussen had Trump leading Hillary for most of the 2016 campaign and had the race a toss up on election day. It was one of only 2 polls that gave Trump a chance for victory.
9
Mr. Krugman - centrists do not wail and gnash teeth if they don’t get what they want. They stay home or vote for a third party in the election. The wailing and gnashing of teeth is strictly a liberal tactic, along with attacking anyone who dares to criticize them.
7
"...Does It Matter Who the Democrats Choose?
In terms of actual policy, probably not very much..."
This is exactly what's wrong with the Democrat Party, and its wholly fictional collection of entertainment personalities.
If, there are no substantive policy differences embodied in these nameless, meaningless, fictional personalities. It makes no sense to choose any of them. And none of them can legitimately argue about the value of their election/selection. What are each of them promising to work on if and/or when they are elected?
How are we, the Democrat primary electorate (at this stage in the process), to get the individual, and later, the combination of two individuals; who have a specific programmatic agenda, that we can hold them accountable for, when they win the office?
Electability? What the heck does that mean? Does it mean a candidate who is a skilled liar, a man or woman who is best capable of fooling their constituents into voting for him or her? Is that what it means?
Mr. Krugman is succinctly stating a profoundly important characteristic about the Democrat Party, and, its candidates. Democrat candidates have precisely zero (0) novel or distinctive ideas. That will allow the voter to differentiate the candidates, one from the other.
And this manifests itself in the fact, that in terms of actual policy difference. There is probably not much policy difference between any of them.
3
We spend far too much on the military and far too little counteracting climate change.
11
I can tell you why it doesn’t matter...because Trump will win no matter what the Democrats do. We have waited until a few months before the election and still have no candidate and in my view, let candidates lapse who could have won. The Republicans are incompetent at governing for the good (look at the flight of scientists, look at the damage to the environment, look at the changes in HID, ....) but very competent at governing for evil. FB will not edit for lies. 3 million people more people favored the Dems over the Republicans and we still got Trump and his minions.
I despair.
10
Paul,
It is crystal clear that all leadership should be directed at taking over the Senate, maintaining the House and winning the Oval Office. Please do what you can to stir minority leaders and angry progressives to back Democratic candidates in all elections. Overlooking the obligation to vote for change now is immoral. How can this country sleep at night with the likes of Lindsey, Mitch and Donald in seats of power. Disgraceful.
16
If the Dems can hold the House and capture the Senate, but fail to unseat Trump, the next four years will be nothing but confrontation and demagoguery, with little being enacted.
This will be a buffer from the Trump regime to a new era in 2024 when the Dems hold all the levers of power and the GOP disappears into righteous ruin.
5
I'm sticking to my original prediction that the Democrats are facing a brokered convention this summer. None of these candidates are going to have enough delegates to win the nomination on the first ballot. It's going to be ugly that's for sure.
124
I’ve been saying this for a while, especially since it’s likely Congress will still be split after the election. So in spite of how outlandish or liberal Bernie’s stated goals are, almost none will see the light of day. Here’s the rub though, just like we saw congress swing to the right after Obama forced Obamacare through, the effect will be even more pronounced with Bernie and, as we all hopefully understand by now, it’s who controls Congress that determines what the President can ultimately accomplish.
40
Mr. Krugman forgets that competent activists, such as Bernie Sanders, often rely on unconventional routes to accomplish their policy objectives. Yes, legislation is the most familiar and most visible route to policy implementation. But history has shown us that it is not necessarily the most reliable route. Some great changes have been agreed upon voluntarily by the private sector. This occurs when private companies determine that they are facing a large government mandate and they decide to assume control of their own fate by taking preemptive action on the initiative. Think of the history of co-determination in Germany. Many executives decided to beat the government to the punch and negotiate more manageable forms of co-determination with labor rather than have the government shove an unpalatable form down their throats. Remember Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos’s capitulation to Sanders a few years ago when he was pressured into raising his company’s minimum hourly wage to $15? Bezos would not have feared a moderate because he knows a moderate lacks the commitment to living wages that Sanders and Elizabeth Warren have demonstrated.
20
Let me do the evaluation myself. Not one of the 3 leading contenders today can win. Second tier has a chance as does the third tier. So presidency is probably lost. The house is safe. The senate is very possible. Complete gridlock for 4 years. But understand this, TRUMP is capable of anything. Anything is on the table for him to win. AG is his boy with the power of the federal government behind him. I see some serious investigations being announced shortly. Possibly Bloomberg
35
As usual, I agree with Krugman wholeheartedly, but this time with one exception: the puzzling statement "....the sweeping Democratic victory came entirely from moderates running conventional campaigns." Did he forget about AOC and the Squad? They weren't the only progressives to win House seats in 2018. What am I missing here?
13
Wonderful. Thanks Paul! Time to rally around ANY Democrat.
22
Paul, no mention of climate change? Look, we are facing an existential crisis, and the next president had better think in terms of ten years, not 20-40 years. The doomsday clock is ticking, and Bernie is the only one with a serious agenda in passing the Green New Deal. Don't act like this doesn't matter, Paul.
17
Warren and Sanders are the least electable Democratic candidates. They will attract fewer independents and crossover Republicans. Of the moderate Democrats, Mayor Pete’s window of opportunity is not yet open, Joe Biden’s is closing. Klobuchar is clearly the most electable.
In addition to a mild expansion of the social safety net Democrats should embark on reforms to defense policy. We spend far too much defending America, far too little fixing what is broken. Some of that $1:2 trillion we spend every year on our military should be applied to the urgent need for clean energy transition.
25
This is a great analysis for the party faithful. What about the other 70% of the electorate?
10
Absolutely spot on Paul!!! When the Democrats take the Presidency and Congress, the first three immediate measures: restore ACA/provide a Medicare option, roll back the 2017 Welfare for the Rich Tax Law/eliminate the tax ceilings in Social Security and Medicare, and reopen the Budget Process to restrain the Military Industrial Welfare Complex.
18
Thank you. At a time when I’m feeling pretty sad and scared, this gives me hope. This message, and changing the composition of the Senate, is what we need to focus on now.
16
2020 will see a Democratic president, house, and senate. "Trump's Cover Up," aka known as the impeachment trial, will now probably elicit revelations capable of ending Trump and imprisoning or disbarring nearly everyone associated with him.
However, whoever becomes the new president must show a new breed of leadership to restore all that Trump's one term presidency has damaged as well as illegally harvested.
Americans need to mature under a new Democratic leadership with their eyes wide open. We can't afford anything else but political maturity. Leadership in the G.O.P. died, today, on national television. The Democrats really did a wonderful job, but now, it is time to re-evaluate the pure evil of the G.O.P. and to build a new political reality at home.
29
In terms of casting a broad net to attract voters, conventional wisdom would seem to dictate that Biden is the safer choice than Bernie, in that he could presumably pull in some Republican voters and a wide swath of middle of the road democrats. However, Bernie is a singularly unique candidate who has been able to bring together a broad coalition of supporters who represent both the diversity of the democratic party and of our country. He has been wise enough to focus attention on healthcare costs, an issue that affects many millions of uninsured and insured voters alike, and this has forced the other candidates to weigh in on the issue. Possibly because of his history as an independent, he has also won the somewhat surprising support of at least a few conservative and independent voters. (I have talked to them myself.) Perhaps it is because he has chosen issues that affect middle class America, and not just the poor, like the cost of healthcare and education, and also because he openly recognizes the fact that middle class America is no longer financially secure. (Maybe the middle class and the poor are no longer distinguishable?) While retaining his status as a champion of civil rights, Bernie makes it clear that anyone working full time should be able to afford housing, food, and education, while asserting that financial security is itself a kind of civil right. As for nationalized healthcare? He just might pull it off if enough Americans have had enough.
23
for the most part you're right. the only caveat being that Bernie will act in an obstructionist manner and slow any Democratic agenda.
the only person we can afford for the nomination is the one guy who cannot work with the party.
3
This makes eminent sense. But the big problem is not only winning the presidency AND the senate. That seems like a dream given what's going on this week.
With a tyrant who will do and say anything to get elected--and now has carte blanche permission to continue cheating--Democrats will be lucky to win the presidency.
Unless and until the vast middle of America gets angry enough to rise up against Trump, all these Democratic positions and policies mean absolutely nothing.
36
If you want to all but guaranty another four years of Trump, nominate Sanders or Warren. If you think otherwise you’re as much a siloed echo-chamber dweller as the Fox News crowd surely is on the opposite political spectrum. You have either have no idea or perhaps just don’t care what the voters who will actually decide the next election want. I’ve heard the counter- arguments such as a hard left progressive will more energize the base. But if the base isn’t hyper-energized to defeat Trump, then the party really doesn’t have a true voting base. To Sanders and Warren purists: vote your conscience, insist on Bernie or bust, and then watch as your choice ushers in another four years of Trump.
25
@DPM Yes indeed. I was going to write a post, but I tend to be verbose, and DPM was dead on point and succinct. Especially as to the need to 'energize'. Trump does that for us. If the Democratic goal is to add a few million energized votes to California and thereby win the popular vote by five million while losing the electoral college, then go for it. If it is to restore decency and democracy, let's pick a winner.
14
It is said that no plan of battle survives contact with the enemy. Its political equivalent that no executive branch plan survives contact with Congress is certainly true.
4
There is going to be compromises on policy regardless of who is elected but I'd rather have a compromise starting from the left rather than from the center.
789
@Nick
And I rather have compromise starting from the center than the far, far, far right, which is what we have now, to the extent we have any compromise.
Left is fine with me to, but that is not the position of the Bernie or Bust folks, who are determined to get Trump back in office rather than anyone but Bernie
70
@Nick
The idea is to get to the point where that choice can be made, and that point is when the democrat takes the oath of office.
@White Buffalo I'm a Bernie supporter. I was in 2016, too. I voted for Clinton. maybe that was a mistake. Perhaps if she'd lost by more, the comfortable establishment Democrats wouldn't have so easily ignored the lesson of that election.
I'll vote for many of the candidates we have now, but not all. I won't vote for Bloomberg. I won't watch my Democratic party turn into the new GOP, a party for the wealthy by the wealthy, which happens to be ok with abortion and gay marriage.
I won't vote for Biden. I won't let Democrats bury their head in the sand and think everything was just hunky dory for everyone before Trump came along, because that's a fantasy. We have Trump specifically because the Democrats and Republicans have too much abandoned the working class (of every race, creed, religion, orientation, and sex). I won't vote for the guy who has no concept that young people today face a world very different from the one he grew up in, largely because of the policies of his generation.
2
This is one of the least hostile columns regarding Bernie that you have written, Dr. Krugman. I wouldn't ask you to negotiate for me, however. Starting where Joe Biden is going to start, and then compromising with Republicans from there (Biden is looking to the right to compromise, not to the Progressives), we'll get next to nothing. Will Sanders ideas be tempered by congress and budget realities. Of course. But lets vote for what will really help America, not what we think we can get from Republicans. I think Bernie's political philosophy is right: the people will drive the policy. And only Bernie (maybe Warren to some extent - a fine 2nd choice) is going to mobilize new Democratic voters.
11
This must be pile on Bernie day at the NYT.
I think that Andrew Yang has it right we are already in such deep trouble in this country that we cannot afford 4 years of relative moderation. Dr. Krugman there are many of us out here who are just plain flat broke. We have to decide between food or medications. A dear friend just required surgery under her modest Obamacare plan. Her surgery was $18,000 and the insurance carrier is telling here that her out of pockets are $11,000. For this she has been paying $700 a month in premiums.
We must act now to radically change things or we will get to a tipping point where our government and society collapse.
1250
@Steve, please go back and reread this column. All Krugman is saying is that a Democratic president can do only so much with a Democratic congress since the party covers a broad range that includes both moderates and progressives. He never trashes Bernie--or Biden for that matter. He's just being realistic. And he knows how government works in this country.
340
@Steve Have your friend look at Medical 'tourism.' I researched a hip replacement- $35,000 locally with lots of copays and rehab an expensive extra, vs. $7,000 in Czech, including a week of inpatient rehab.
Thailand, Singapore, Poland, India, Costa Rica, Mexico, & Dominican Republic all offer compelling deals.
Oops, sounds like she didn't get an option to plan her surgery, just "Your money or your life!"
If she contests the bill with the hospital (there are outfits that do this for patients) she should be able to get her out-of pocket down to about $5000. Involve your state representatives, call NPR for their outrageous bills stories.
160
@Steve
Yes, Yang has a great idea. Let's distribute $1,000 to everyone so that the price of surgery will go up by exactly the same amount to $19,000. "Radical" is change is more money for suppliers of products Democrats like.
Have you ever wondered why college price keeps going up? All the "help" is captured by the education industry (why the professors contribute to and vote overwhelmingly Democrat); the students are just the conduits.
35
Completely agreed. Whether you are a moderate or a progressive, the Democratic base should come to the sober realization that all this intra-party fighting about the policy minutiae in healthcare proposals is ultimately a luxury that was frittered away in 2016 for an indefinite amount of time and that the only thing that matters at the moment is a full-scale halt of the far-right infiltration of the judiciary. With that in mind, "electability" is not just a media buzzword, it is most definitely real and the all-consuming thing we should concern ourselves with. I don't have any answers on whether that candidate is Biden, Bernie, Warren, etc. I do know that whoever we pick, the entire base needs to get on board in November or live with the guilt that while they may have stuck it to the side who's healthcare plan they did not like, they did it while bearing witness to the end of our democracy.
1908
@Chirag
In terms of policy, aside from reversing every last thing Trump and his GOP did in the last three years, there is still the matter of neoliberal policy that has cost this nation's middle and working classes their futures and their children's.
There is the matter of the environment. Not all candidates are equally or even committed to doing everything and more to reverse the catastrophic conditions that are about to hit us here in the US, never mind Australia. One candidate was part of an administration whose last act was to brutally treat a Native American tribe just so fracking can take place. That is unacceptable. That same candidate was reported by the NYT as telling wealthy donors that nothing much will change if he wins. Unacceptable, again.
Healthcare.
Housing.
Higher education.
Good jobs and regulating the gig economy.
Regulations for everything, including what goes into our food that is making us all sick. Water. Air. Money in politics. Social media and privacy. Our national treasures.
Rewriting the constitution. This one's been gamed to death. Listen to Prof. Sanford Levinson.
Business as usual and triangulation, what Biden calls bipartisanship with a party of traitors, can't do.
So, yeah, who matters a great deal.
76
@Rima Regas I think the point of the argument focused on what could conceivably be accomplished by any of the nominees should they become president, and assuming the Democrats take the Senate as well. Dr. Krugman is right - Bernie's platform will never be enacted as promised, although the heavily watered down version is still pretty good. Rewriting the constitution and shutting out Republicans at every turn is only going to hasten this country's decline, which is already well underway.
78
@Susan
What any future president can accomplish greatly depends on who else is elected at the same time they are. Progressive presidents need a left of center Congress.
As of right now, there is a contingent of Democrats who have regularly voted with Republicans in the Senate, including on judicial nominees. Did you know that Klobuchar voted for Trump judges 67% of the time? She's not the only one.
We all have a duty to pay attention to our representatives' votes.
98
Even if by some miracle a Democrat succeeds in defeating Trump count on vengeful Republicans to begin impeachment proceedings even before he/she is inaugurated. Impeachment has now become the ultimate tool in political revenge.
6
Krugman is mostly right; but also largely wrong. The election is also about what happens five years from now, ten years from now, twenty years from now. And in that sense Bernie or Biden does make a difference. It's about the pace of progress, how fast we get to where we need to go.
8
@PNBlanco
Maybe. The Senate will still be the Senate in five or ten years and neither party will likely have sixty-plus seats and it will still not be inclined to rapid radical change -- because it is extremely rare the American people as a majority to embrace radical rapid change.
It took over eighty years and the Civil War to end slavery and another century to ensure voting rights (which are again under constant attack).
It took nearly a century to get the ACA ('Obamacare') passed. In the 230 or so years since the ratification of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, only seventeen additional Amendments have passed.
The US does not hurry and almost never takes 360° turns.
6
PNBlanco -
I disagree. Congress and society tend to temper anyone too radical, in either direction on the political spectrum, here in America. Republicans have been running, in part, on getting rid of Obamacare for 10 years, and have they succeeded? Obama, in part, ran on a platform of restricting foreign wars like the ones Bush/Chaney started, did he? I am far from certain he did. Trump claimed trade wars are easy to win, has he? Even Bill Clinton’s fixes to the economy didn’t stick, the next president put two wars on credit by taking them off budget, and then the sub-prime crisis hit (based, in part, on changes Clinton made). Going even farther back, even the Civil War did not make all the changes it was supposed to make with Jim Crow laws taking effect as soon as the real Reconstruction efforts stopped, and with sharecropping replacing slavery with much the same effect.
I have been saying what Mr. Krugman is saying for years. I am not saying that presidents do not have an impact, but that they operate in a system that has sufficient inertia to moderate what happens. This changes in times of great emergency, such as a Great Depression, followed immediately by WWII. Those two combined mega events allowed for major change. But even so, we are starting to get back to the Gilded Age in our economy.
8
I will proudly stand with any of the Democratic candidates - they are all light years ahead of the Flat Earth Society. All will move the country in a more progressive direction and all will begin restoring balance to the federal courts. All are experienced, credible and moral leaders. Once we have a nominee we must, must, detatch from our personal favorite and rally around the nominee for the greater good.
In NJ we've seen Michael Bloomberg up close and personal for many years. He was an outstanding mayor of NYC and is intelligent, driven, and highly experienced in politics and business. He is incredibly devoted on the progressive issues of climate change and gun control. He is the least vulnerable of the major candidates to the Fox Propaganda smear machine. Look at his TV ads and imagine them running constantly in 50 states for the next 10 months. I want to win and Bloomberg is the best chance (with Klobuchar, Harris or Abrams as VP).
13
Did progressives lose because they didn't have Bloomberg money? 100 million so far.
Doesn't this trail show us what happens when the 51% doesn't care what the 49% wants? The assumption in a two party system any congressman must go along party lines and the President all the time is dangerous. Could Pelosi and McConnel be part the problem?
Bernie and Warren won't become president. Either one should, just to push the country in the right direction. If they want to get elected, Centrist Democrats shouldn't be expected to vote for or run on socialist and woke policies.
Hopefully, except in emergencies, people realize executive orders are something to be ignored. Trump and Obama abused the power . A president should know he shouldn't get to far ahead of his constituency.
1
Thank you, Mr. Krugman
Maybe in a future column you can tackle the Electability of Biden vs. Sanders: Even though their polling numbers may appear comparable, there is an important difference:
Biden has already been the target of massive character attacks--including wild conspiracy stories by Trump and the Right. As you noted, Sanders has also attacked Biden with false narratives on Social Security from the Left.
Meanwhile, Republicans have been soft on Sanders -- WHY? because they want him to win! Indeed, when running against Hillary Clinton, Republican PACS actually gave Sanders $millions in free advertising. (Sanders was happy to accept this. He viewed this as their loss.)
So why do Republicans LOVE Sanders right now?
As you noted: Sander's program would require new (and potentially substantial) TAX INCREASES on the Middle Class. The reality is Sander's aggressive social programs would almost certainly fail in Congress, (just as Obama failed when he initially pushed for Medicare for All in Congress.)
But this doesn't matter. During the election, if Sanders is the Democratic candidate, Republicans will start a massive attack advertising campaign how Sander's plan will increase even MIDDLE CLASS TAXES by a LOT!!
This would make Sanders lose disastrously on election day -- with Trump the BIG winner!!
That's why SMART Republican strategists are aiming their guns today at Biden, giving Sanders pretty much a pass.
Democrats need to recognize this.
19
It’s all over. This 2020 election might not even take place let alone count. The GOP just told Trump that he can do whatever he wants so long as it’s deemed a national security issue. He’s already claiming this election will be fraudulent. The writing is on the wall.
19
Next week, the GOP Senate will anoint DT dictator. That is not an exaggeration. He will be completely unaccountable. Ah, but the 2020 election will "right" the "ship." Really. Already in his rallys, DT is floating the idea of election "fraud" for 2020. So, given that there is the slightest chance that he may lose in his mind, and the GOP just endorsed that if DT thinks it's in the best interest of the country for him to stay in office, most likely for "national security," of course, he suspends the election so it can be "investigated." He can't do that? It's not legal? Really? Who will stop him?
41
@Ken come on! He’ll try to stay in office after losing an election.?! If anything Dems have demonstrated a much higher likelihood of attempting to overthrow an elected government. You’re stressing yourself out over nothing. I’m sure Don Lemon and Chris Cuomo are contributing to your fear.
Let's hope that the Democrats learned some lessons from Obama's first term, when they initially controlled both houses of Congress. Republicans eventually came to control Congress in the middle of his term, and worked to do nothing but obstruct any of his decent goals. But in 2009 the country was in the midst of a huge economic crisis. Tens of millions of Americans were in dire need of aggressive policy assistance to get them back on their feet, and the Democrats seemed to have forgotten that with full control of the executive and legislative branch you can pass bills. While Obamacare was an important step, so much more was needed. And that negligence only helped create the working class resentment that led to Trump's victory.
15
Bernie Sanders is not a capitalist Democrat. He is a Socialist Democrat. The other candidates are funded by the rich and will support policies that benefit them. Sanders is funded by millions of working people (over the internet) and will, instead, fight for policies that favor them. There could not be a starker contrast. As to enacting this program: Sanders has stated over and over again (without, apparently being heard or understood by Mr. Krugman) that he is leading a Movement, not just a candidacy and that he understands normal methods cannot enact it. . . . That is precisely why the Sanders Socialist Movement will bring hundreds of thousands of youthful demonstrators to Washington who will not leave until his long overdue reforms are put into law.
13
@Red Allover
Krugman noted in his column about Dark Money going for Sanders. You can see it now in the Iowa contest. The last minute push for Sanders is Dark Money. Most likely from Republicans.
3
All that matters in November: “Oh, and all the Democrats believe in democracy and rule of law, which is kind of important these days.”
Stop criticizing our democratic candidates, it does not Matter what they look like, talk or sleep with. ANYONE WOULD BE BETTER than trump. No more bad mouthing ANY CANDIDATE, we stick together.the Republicans have showed us HOW.
30
@Carol Yes, a dead dog floating down the Potomac would be better than Trump. (Seriously). Any sane Democrat is a Dead Dog Democrat. (I repeat, no sarcasm here).
As important as who rules the Oval roost is the crucial head count in both chambers of congress. Enough of that. It's time to change the rules so that all citizens are represented in both legislative bodies no matter who is President. As long as we're stuck with 2 parties, we need equal representation in House + Senate. These 2 warring factions will be forced to work together. And a 2 term limit will do away with career politicians.
7
The question will be, is the fear and loathing of Donald Trump great enough to overcome the disdain and antipathy among the Democrats any disparate parts? When asked whom I will vote for in November, my answer is “the Democrat”. Those who regard the perfect as the enemy of the good will end up with a Trump second term, and heaven help us.
Oh, there will be plenty of voter suppression, Russian shenanigans, Fox propaganda, and evil deeds by oligarchs to boost a Trump victory, but I think a solid majority of the country loathes Trump and if they vote, he will be defeated and even the Senate can be taken.
29
I think it is heartening to see Dr. Krugman take such a sensible, moderate stance. I guess that this is a fancy way of saying that I personally agree with most of what he said. Having lived in Vermont in the past for a number of years, I think he is right about Bernie. Vermonters tend to be very plain-spoken about their personal views, but on actual implementation they usually tend toward consensus and practicality. Being an older person myself, my greatest concern is his age. Were he to be the nominee, it would be vital for him to choose someone as VP who was younger, competent, and representative of at least a large segment of Democratic voters. Many of the other Democratic Presidential candidates would do just fine. Several of them would benefit from a few years of being on the inside and watching how campaign promises do or do not turn into effective national policy.
Since Krugman is being so polite and centrist today, let me point out that the central battle this year is between democratic values, the rule of law, and legal accountability on the one hand and a Russian-style sham democracy on the other. It's no coincidence that the GOP, especially the President, features red hats, red ties, and openly admires Vladimir Putin and his cadre of supporting oligarchs. Apparently this week, virtually all GOP Senators will endorse the idea that a President cannot be held legally responsible for anything that he himself considers in the public interest.
22
This is terrific column should be essential reading for anyone that is even THINKING about either voting for Trump (or sitting out the next election) because their one and only favorite candidate was not the one nominated.
For all the reasons Krugman cites, the reality is that there is only one candidate that can operate with the kind of impunity needed to override built-in checks on policy extremism -- and he's already in the WH.
Winning the WH and Senate isn't everything. It's the only thing.
40
Very shrewd analysis. The points made are also quite obvious to anyone who understands politics and the American system of government.
8
"and also have strong enough coattails to produce a Democratic Senate, because otherwise nothing will happen."
That seems to me to be critical.How to achieve it will determine whether whoever wins is confronted like Obama with an obstructionist Senate or is able to achieve something worthwhile. Target the key Senate seats in November.
12
Bernie I fear is not electable. For every new young person he attracts to the polls, there will be at least one or more moderate who will either not vote or vote for someone else. He could also provoke rural voters in key states to go even more heavily for Trump. He's the candidate (not a Democrat) who is most likely to put the Supreme Court into further jeopardy and give the GOP a hold on the Senate.
12
I agree with Mr. Krugman's very commonsense column. Any Democrat candidate is better than trump and will beat him if Dems unite behind that candidate enthusiastically. One factor he alludes to that is often overlooked is that no matter which Democrat candidate wins, he or she will need the support of the legislature to accomplish their goals. No matter how centrist, progressive or leftist a candidate appeared during the campaign, his or her policies would be substantially tempered by the legislative process. No matter how "progressive" or "radical" the campaign promises sounded, the resulting legislation would almost inevitably be more centrist.
This brings up another point that Mr. Krugman briefly mentions; even if a Dem is elected, the Dems will have to win the Senate (and keep the House) to have any chance of implementing the policies the candidates are pushing. Even then, the legislative process will more than likely make any resulting legislation more centrist.
For these reasons, as Mr. Krugman argues, it is really a waste of time for Dems to attack each other's policies at this stage of the game. But attacks on policies are survivable if the political relationship does not devolve into a Hillary-Bernie-style feud.
9
As a longtime advocate for the radical middle, we concur. We believe we have won 23 of the last 25 presidential elections (Roosevelt and Trump being the exceptions). Obama is the archetype of our candidates. He ran left of center and then governed as primarily a centrist (disappointing progressives who had mapped THEIR aspirations onto his candidacy).
4
Ronald Reagan was a candidate of the moderate middle? George W Bush in 2004?Please.
Come to that, LBJ was pretty uncompromisingly liberal in 1964.
10
"But it was all a lie."
It strikes me that this simple sentence could serve as a valid description of Trump's life. That will be his primary legacy. What historians are likely to struggle to answer is how so many repeatedly believed him.
57
While this may be true for social programs, I’m not convinced that the line of thought holds true for broader economic changes.
I’m concerned that the attack on corporations, which may be well intentioned and grounded in capitalism, would decay our already weak GDP. Attacking multinational corporations and enabling an overly aggressive justice department to do the same may not play out well.
1
I think Klobuchar needs serious consideration. Would prefer Mayor Pete, but willing to consider Amy. Need a smart center/left person who is not pushing 80.
26
The beginning of this article is a bit disingenuous. It is not "unclear whether the nominee will be a centrist like Joe Biden or Amy Klobuchar, or a representative of the party's left like Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren." It is clear that the nominee will either be the centrist Joe Biden, or it will be the representative of the party's left known as Bernie Sanders.
Warren is history and Klobuchar never had a chance. The media wants to inject some new life into this story with speculation about Bloomberg, but it didn't work for Yang and it won't work for Mike either. All the bots and astroturfing in the world won't change the fact that this race was never about anybody but Bernie and Biden.
Every Democrat seems to think one of them can beat Trump and the other can't. But the truth is both of them have their weaknesses and both will face an uphill battle. For either of them to have a chance, Democrats will have to be willing to unite behind a candidate who isn't exactly what they wanted. Republicans had no problem doing this for their guy.
20
@Frank Very good, thoughtful/truthful post, but beating Trump is not about policies, priorities or progressiveness; it's about turnout. I've thought same as Krugman on this from the outset, and am still not sure who will best GOTV... but I think THAT should be the Dem's #1 consideration.
6
After the way the GOP has conducted itself in the impeachment trial, I think we need to be prepared for the possibility there won't be an election.
16
@Katie Taylor You may be right. If it looks like Trump will be beat, he'll just cheat, beg, rob, plunder, steal... and annihilate and conflagrate if needed. And even if he loses, he'll latch onto (or create) some wacky conspiracy theory that he was "couped" and not leave.
Who will force him out? Bill Barr? Esper? John Roberts (LOL)? Pelosi may try but I think we're probably screwed.
3
"Electability" is not the only distinguishing consideration left even if you disregard legislative agendas, which admittedly will probably turn out to have similar outcomes. As Trump has shown us, the style of leadership of the Executive Branch is also very important.
4
I vividly remember the Mac Govern candidacy. The Vietnam war was extremely unpopular, the economy was faltering and Nixon seemed utterly unpopular. Progressivism was as widespread or even more so than now. There were endless demonstrations of every sort. It was a high water mark for liberal democrats.They dominated the party and the convention and made George McGovern their candidate. Nixon carried 49 out of 50 states. The country is not more radical now than it was then but Nixon carried 49 states. The democrats are going to do that again. The result then was endless mean spirited conservatism. Before we engage in meaningless rationalizations for running a progressive (energy in the base; America is ready; they would be running against a reactionary un-American rump party etc etc) we must remember that we have heard this before and we have seen this film. It does not end well-- 49 out of 50 states.
15
@WJH- different times, different eras, That was when Richard Nixon signed into law the Tax Reform Act of 1969, which raised the capital gains tax rate from 25 percent to 35 percent and created a minimum tax to ensure that the rich could not escape taxation through the use of tax loopholes. Healthcare & drug costs were reasonable & the tuition fees for colleges were negligible. A family of four could live on one person's income & still hope for a chance to upward mobility.
4
@WJH I remember too. The Democratic Party machine is its own worst enemy. And will be so again.
2
@WJH did you say "49 out of 50 states "?
Even if Mr Krugman is correct that the actual policies of a Democratic administration and Congress would be nearly identical the person nominated does indeed matter. The nominee must be able to bring along independent voters as well as Democrats in order to win. A Democratic victory in this year’s election must be decisive.
8
I love how Krugman keeps telling us in column after column that the Democrats have moved left without ever acknowledging that Bernie is the reason why.
20
@Brian
What a bizarre perspective. No movement to the left without Bernie? Warren doesn't count. McGovern didn't exist? Bernie is popular with about 1 in 10 Americans and he isn't going to be president.
9
@Skillethead - strictly your opinion, based on 0 facts on the ground & on reality. If we were to listen to the corporate servant pundits of cable TV & of this newspaper (who got everything wrong 4 years ago), then sure, go ahead, let us all repeat the corporatist mantra: Bernie "isn't popular & no one likes him"
1
2016, now 2020. Why does the democratic machine hate Bernie?
He would have won in 2016.
Democrats will win the two coasts and many of the states that border on Canada. But to beat Trump, they also need to win some central states, and to do that, they need Biden, Bloomberg, or Klobuchar.
25
@Kevin Cahill - so in your opinion, residents in "central states" have no need for free healthcare & cheaper drugs? Biden, Bloomberg & Klobuchar are subservient to the health care & pharmaceutical industry. All you have to do is point out to people that they have been corrupted & they are toast. Trump was able to win lying to people he was "already rich & didn't need to be bought".
1
As usual, Dr. Krugman, you are right on target.
I am expecting to see my taxes go up if Democrats win the White House and Senate and I will do everything I can to make that happen. I am happy to pay more if it means improving the lives of millions of Americans, preserving democracy and the rule of law, protecting our environment, re-establishing US leadership in the world, and beginning to repair the damage done during the Trump misadventure.
Biden has the best chance of winning the key states of PA, MI and WI and that is the most important consideration in our choice of candidate.
35
Prof K, I admire you more than I can say, and you almost always choose your words with great precision -- but I'm taking you to task for "a significant increase in taxes on the wealthy," which is is inaccurate and problematic.
A Dem prez and Congress would undo the massive, undeserved, and democracy-thwarting tax cuts that the wealthy have been getting for years. That's not a tax increase.
Please avoid using GOP-type, potentially incendiary language. Thanks.
81
@JJ
A tax correction it would be, given that mostly the rich have benefitted from cuts.
21
Might as well simply write Anyone but Trump and leave it at that. When about two percent of the voters nationally are really at stake in those handful of states Democrats need to be even more to attuned to electability. Since primaries, as is evident, are really too blunt of an instrument to slate the best candidate under these circumstances perhaps some Milwaukee tavern might bring back the smoke-filled room for the occasion.
7
David Brooks adeptly pointed out: Events don't matter any more. You can add policies to that as well. Trump can cut Medicare and Social Security and his base will vote for him, and the GOP will bring back Dershowitz to tell everyone how it's in the best interests of the country.
20
Krugman's main point is correct,even if his supporting analysis is a little wrong. Medicare for All will substantially lower medical costs and expenditures according to some government analyses, so catering to fear-mongering about "can we afford to go to the doctor" when that is exactly what the policy addresses is a little lazy. and caters to the 'disillusionment of the '. There is so much waste in the current private insurance system, not to mention the delivery system and the service itself, that it is a very good target for change. But, even if Krugman is a kvetching worry-wart on this point, he got the main idea right, which is anyone from Sanders through Biden inclusive would be a moderately successful president at the very least. In fact if you keep veering left you would find that remains true of Green Party and other progressive party candidates. The idea that socially progressive policy mostly dumps money into a hole is and always has been the perspective of people too well off to believe that benefits will ever reach them, even though they typically do. The biggest challenge in a wealthy human society is managing waste, not because it is expensive, but because it is inefficient. Overuse of energy is not problematic because it costs a lot of money, but because it destroys the natural environment. Similarly, our wealth is elsewhere poorly confirmed and hazardously distributed, but the problems associated are not principally cost.
5
In 2016, the Democrats chose as their candidate the only person who could possibly lose to Putin’s Puppet. It’ll happen again this year if they choose Sanders,
16
There's SOME truth to Krugman's argument, but it DOES makes a difference which Democrat wins, especially if there's a GOP Senate. I'll vote for and Democratic nominee, but here's why I hope it's not Biden:
Biden doesn't recognize that the GOP is not the same cross- ideological party that it was when he was in the Senate. Videos show him encouraging Republicans to vote for him, but to vote GOP down ballot (to improve the GOP, he says). Biden states that Trump--the man himself-- is the problem, and that he'll be able to "break the fever" when Trump is gone. He says he'll make " bi-partisan deals" with a GOP Senate that agreed to nothing when he was VP--not even holding a hearing on Merrick Garland. His delusions are disturbing, as it means he's apparently having difficulty understanding and analysing reality.
The unfortunate truth is that Biden WILL attempt to make deals with a GOP Senate, even if that means giving up hard won gains for Democrats. His highest priority seems to be to restore the Senate to the supportive "collegiality" it held for him throughout his career there. That's bad news for Americans who value what we won in the New Deal and the Great Society. And it means that the Democratic Party would again lose its way, likely restoring a smarter Trump-like Republican in 2024.
47
@Kraig so glad you can see the future by remembering the past. The new deal was really new and also unconstitutional. But the SCOTUS fixed that
2
@Kraig If there is a GOP Senate, Moscow Mitch and his henchmen will stonewall any and all Democratic initiatives, just like they did during Obama's second term. So, once again, vote blue no matter who and that includes for the House and Senate. Anything else, you're fiddling while Rome burns.
3
I support Sanders. I will vote for the Democratic nominee whoever that turns out to be. I see far more anti-Sanders commenters on these message boards who state that they will not vote for him if he is the nominee than I do Sanders supporters who say they will not vote for a Democratic nominee other than Sanders.
33
@Steve: Don’t agree. Bernie supporters cost Hillary the election by staying home. Bernie is not a Democrat and never has been. He is not a “uniter,” and his most rabid supporters (the “Bernie or Bust” crew) aren’t either. I will not vote for him as there are better choices before the general.
2
Is it too much to expect for the Dems to reform our high profit health care? I just saw on TV Dr. Otis Brawley of the American Cancer Society who wrote a book about excessive patient tests by our medical industry.
In 2012 Brawley wrote an essay for Kaiser Health News …. “About $8,000 per man, woman and child is what health care costs in the United States today. The number two country, which is Switzerland, is a little less than $4,000. Switzerland is fourth among UN countries in life expectancy and we’re 50th."
What does Krugman the economist have to say about medical spending that doesn’t benefit citizens, but brings profits to corporations?
And has Krugman heard about an organization called Physicians for Single Payer?
US TV is swamped with elaborate commercials for all kinds of pharma drugs. Many countries ban these ads on their media. They think medicine shouldn't be marketed to the public like any consumer product, but should be recommended by doctors to patients.
These countries with universal health care show more respect for their voters, than does American politics to its voters.
36
@Meredith
Your view may be correct. The fact is that it us unpopular with most voters. Insistence on medicare for all is not worth losing to Trump.
2
Sanders M4A plan is $6T/year...our revenues in 2019 were $3.5T...where are you making up the rest of this money?
1
@Meredith fine post.
Dr Krugman,
As a very progressive Democrat, I have supported Bernie Sanders ever since he announced he would challenge Hillary Clinton in 2016. And while I have been tempted to switch to Liz Warren, I think I will stick with Bernie as long as he is a viable candidate for the nomination.
However, you are right that it's false to claim Biden supported Paul Ryan's calls for cutting social security in his 2018 speech to the Brookings Institute. I watched (twice!) the video of the entire speech, and it is very good speech and is, in fact, critical of Ryan's proposals for S.S. spending cuts. However, there is a passage in which Biden's meaning is in his tone and demeanor - ironic - and the exact words are easily cherry-picked by someone looking for evidence of something he is already sure to be true.
I assume (and hope) that the "someone" is an overzealous staffer, and that this sort of misrepresentation will not become a habit in Bernie's campaign.
That said, I detect a note of realism regarding both Sanders and Biden in this column, and I appreciate the possibility that you may have ceased your more or less open opposition to a possible Sanders presidency.
The changes Bernie wants and has always wanted will surely come slowly, given the obstacles he and we face, but at least he has the courage to stake out a position and go for it. He has changed the conversation, folks are listening and imagining him as president, so vote blue, no matter who, even you too, Paul Krugman.
18
@David in Le Marche oh yeah, Feel the Bern
It does matter a great deal who the Democrats choose. If they nominate Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren, Pres Trump may be reelected. On the other hand, if they nominate, say Pete Buttigieg or Amy Klobuchar, they have a fairly good chance to defeat Trump in November.
As for policy-wise, there may not be that much difference, whether Elizabeth Warren or Joe Biden becomes the president. All candidates who have been and are running put forward broad progressive policies. Sanders/Warren policies won't fly. The Congress would not pass them.
9
@A.G.
I will offer other views.
Politics & Policy
Bernie Can Win. So Can His Revolution.
A President Sanders wouldn't get his agenda passed, but he'd change everything.
By Ramesh Ponnuru
January 26, 2020, 5:00 AM PST
Leftism Isn’t Very Appealing to Nonvoters. But Bernie Sanders Is. - By Eric Levitz
Wise words from Krugman. The current political climate renders the office of the POTUS more powerful, even as it unifies what is politically possible via its authority. Whether Biden, Sanders, or whoever, the political reality of this country severely limits the difference between actual policy outcomes. It's a point worth considering when voting.
7
I couldn't agree more with Dr. Krugman that all Democrats should rally around the nominee, whoever he or she is. But I'll beg to differ with him on the policy front. Bernie and Warren would appoint far different people to hundreds of key positions and pursue far different regulatory policies than, say, Biden or Bloomberg would. They also would set far different tones as leaders in terms of shaping public discourse and debate. All of this would play out in very significant ways in terms of issues such as the environment, Wall Street, housing, etc. And on one very specific policy, social security, I wouldn't put it past Biden to compromise with Republicans in ways that cut benefits or at least slow their growth below the inflation rate.
Having said all that, I agree that on some issues there wouldn't be big differences, given not just the nature of the Democratic Party but the constraint called the Supreme Court, with its Federalist Society veto power. And I certainly agree that electability is the most crucial consideration, to the extent we can even figure out who's most electable. But that still leaves considerable differences between what a moderate and a progressive would do as president.
9
Where Biden and Sanders differ, in my opinion, is in the area of foreign policy. Biden has a clear advantage when it comes to foreign policy experience. We are going to need to recreate an entirely new, moderate foreign policy. We are also going to have to re-staff State, parts of Defense, the NSA, et al.
Biden can do that. Bernie does not have experience at that level. This is something that is probably the highest priority, in my opinion. By the way, I would like to see Adam Schiff as VP. A star was born out of this impeachment debacle. Talk about the law of unintended consequences.
8
Might as well support a candidate who will outspend Trump and won't waste money, or time, tilting at windmills. That candidate is Bloomberg. Klobuchar for vice president.
6
So why don't the Dems just draw straws. Save lots of money, time and angst (& carbon emissions). According to you the results will be the same.
Won't make a difference whether Sanders or Biden or whomever is the nominee and maybe President?
Beg to differ but that's not how politics works.
The potus remains the most powerful position on the planet, without exception nothing comes close.
The character, image and policies of that person matter not just to the US, as we've seen, but also to the world, as we've seen. Their leadership, philosophy and stability is pretty vital. A P Sanders or P Biden would be acutely different, as would a P Anyone else.
Theory would have it that Trump doesn't stand a chance but right now his chances seem to remain just under 50% which as it turned out was 2016. While I appreciate that things may change post the nomination battle, the field doesn't look great.
3
I usually agree with Krugman, but not today. First, onee cannot ignore the question of electabiity. Sanders is simply too far left for a majority of Americans. Do not forget the debacle of George McGovern. Bt second, as Trump has tragically demonstrated, a President who fills his administratin with loyalsts can accomplish a great deal through administrative action- I foreign policy, even his words have meaning. Thus, it matters a great deal whether Sanders of Biden or Warren is elected. And Sanders is by far the worst choice.
8
@John Nash
Maybe all true, but the point of the article was to argue that any nominee would be constrained to more moderate positions after taking office, regardless of campaign rhetoric. Therefore not to worry about voting for the eventual nominee. And also to think about the effects of not voting.
4
Electability is indeed paramount. And our fractured country now needs leaders with cool heads, steady hands, and plenty of experience. A centrist ticket of Biden/Klobuchar has broad appeal to voters; including, most importantly, rust belt working-class whites who held their noses and voted for Trump in 2016.
9
@KMJ I bet enough progressives will stay home if that happens so that it is Trump 2020. This is because the progressive camp is strong enough to have some demands if they don't win outright but a VP pick that is not Sanders/Warren is a recipe for disaster. Look at Trump's own words about this. HRC/Sanders should've been 2016.
There's also no guarantee that Biden isn't as tainted as HRC was...
As I like to say, America deserves the President it elects.
3
Sanders is just as divisive as Trump and I’d bet that a substantial amount of more moderate Democrats will stay home if Sanders is the nominee, with the same effect of Trump winning a second term so what’s the solution?
1
Totally agree with you on the policy side, but electability is where the differences are important. Many GOPers I know have been whipped into a panic by Fox news by the prospect of a Sanders win. They claim that they would vote for Biden, but would be forced to vote for Trump to protect their 401ks.
3
@HCM
Of course, Fox News will dig up reasons to whip their loyal viewers into a panic about any candidate selected by the Democrats.
@HCM They claimed they'd vote for Hillary in 16. Republicans lie. Consider supporting the most vivacious segment of your party.
Many commenters miss the point of the Professor’s column. He’s saying that the achievements of any Democrat who wins the Presidency will be subject to the will of the Congress, assuming the Dems win Congress. So in the end, the potential of Bernie or Biden is nearly the same.
I ruefully accept this logic. I wish a President Sanders could do more. But even he has no real explanation for how he’ll do it. He simply says that when we’ve all had enough of the status quo, the country will rise up and change. Obama roared in with a big electoral majority and both houses of Congress, and barely accomplished the mediocre thing called Obamacare. Just how do Bernie fans believe he will do better?
12
@Joseph Newfield The approach proposed by Sanders is different and hasn't been tried. Obama behaved intellectually and didn't try to rally the crowd. Sanders claim he would. It may not work but there is a different approach being tried here.
2
@RamS What will Sanders approach be that would be more successful than Obama's? Close down FOX? Censor all right wing media? Shut down Facebook?
45% of America idolizes Trump. GOP Senators refuse to hear witnesses because they don't want more confirmation that Trump is guilty of exactly what he was impeached for, because they are afraid of the Trumpers.
1
You need 60 votes in the senate, so what is this “new approach” pray tell?
Even if the Democrats hold the House, win the Presidency and the Senate. they will still have to deal with Republican filibusters - and they will filibuster everything, just as they did for most of Obama's terms in office. The kinds of legislation Krugman talks about simply will not get the 60 votes that will be needed.
2
They can eliminate the filibuster.
1
@WZ Change the voting to simple majority. Easily doable.
1
"So I’d like to offer an opinion that will probably anger everyone ..."
You haven't made me angry at all, Paul. I think you're right. And I'm all in. I will vote for the nominee, no matter who it is, enthusiastically.
18
Krugman is right. This year, at this time in history, the party matters, not the person. Any one of the Democrats could be a good president and all of them are superior to the present holder of that office. Democrats need to adopt the practice that Republicans have followed for countless years. Show up and support your party's nominees. Bring a friend along with you.
16
It's not Bernie Sanders's policy proposals which concern me, but the toxic culture of a significant segment of his angry supporters and his tolerance of their abusiveness. The answer to Trumpism is not some kind of liberal mirror image.
27
@Peter Aretin I am concerned about the cult of personality as well. But I do believe that Bernie Sanders has more respect for Democratic principals than Trump. Sanders has those tendencies, but nowhere near what Trump demonstrates.
3
I totally agree with you. Thanks for laying it out for all to see.
Dump Trump. Actually, winning the Senate and the House is much more important than the presidency in 2020. Whatever Democrat wins will be better than Trump/Drumpf, however.
The GOP is now an extremist party and a Fifth Column.
8
Even if Dems win 2020, that's only the 1st stage in restoring our democracy. We have to hope for progress in 2024, and 28.
Our ‘moderate progressivism’ would be conservative in most other modern democracies & and shows the US lagging in govt’s duty to the citizens that elect it.
That duty means HC for all as a right, no matter income--because it's a life & death matter, so should not be subject to profit. Here that’s still radical.
So in 2020 will we just go from atrocious politics to mediocre politics and think how lucky we are? And be counseled that’s the best we can do?
That may be one of Trump/GOP's worst lasting effects. To elect any Dem ‘better than Trump' ---what a huge relief as we step back from the cliff.
So the Dems can get away with mediocre policies that don’t give Americans what we deserve, while they stay within the policy confines set by their mega donors. Our media will report the interpersonal drama/ reality show, but not explain the issues that affect our lives.
We the People will get what we can---but still will lack Representation for Our Taxation. That’s what the colonists demanded when they overthrew king George.
How does Krugman define Representation in a democracy?
"Sanders has a hugely ambitious agenda; Medicare for All is just part of it. Paying for that agenda would be difficult — no, Modern Monetary Theory wouldn’t actually do away with the fiscal constraint."
First, by reorganizing our spending priorities away from the military and corporate welfare, we would have ample money to spend on things that would help most Americans: MFA, free public college/trade school tuition, free childcare, the GND, etc. If - and that's a BIG IF - taxes had to increase on some middle class people, they would likely be the upper middle class, and even then their NET expenses would be drastically lower.
But what is always left out when these "accepted facts" of Sanders and Warren's plans being "unaffordable" is this: How much does staying with the Status Quo cost? And by that, I mean including the reduced life expectancy of Americans for the first time in generations, and the increased health problems due to stress and a lower standard of living? Not to mention the ACTUAL cost of our defense spending, including the "black budget" that's top secret so that we can't know how many trillions we're pouring into an abyss. By not adopting a Sanders-like agenda, and keeping the Status Quo - as Obama did and Hilary would have, and Biden certainly will - how much will THAT cost? I wager far more.
When will you and the Establishment pundits start telling BOTH sides of the story, instead of just the one you prefer?
11
There is always a fantastical side of Bernie’s arguments, the idea that there will be such large savings in personal expenses that they offset massive tax increases to create governmental solutions to a variety of problems. A second improbable assumption is that there is actually a path from here to there that allows us to jump over intermediate conditions and arrive instantly in Denmark. I think for anybody to take Bernie’s policy prescriptions seriously there needs to be a clear-eyed acknowledgement that tens of millions of people like certain aspects of the status quo insofar as they are personally affected and they aren’t interested in doing something radically different without a really good explanation of how their personal circumstances will be improved. The idea that their situations will get worse so that the average condition improves is a really difficult proposition. And in the real world of getting things done, we need to expect that systems improvements come in steps and we need to find ways to make the intermediate conditions function even as we try to get to some more ambitious objectives.
So why don’t we think in FDR terms and create real value for tens of millions of people and lasting improvements that extend for generations by implementing changes in steps that can be accomplished. We can do that, maybe, with lots a hard work and an eye on bigger and better things to come. And let’s start out by winning the presidency and flipping the Senate in 2020.
2
@Kingfish52 Had the Bernie people voted for Hillary instead of not voting or voted for Stein as a revenge, we would not be in this mess today.
The truth is Bernie is the lite side of Trump on the Democratic side. he stirs up anger and hostility, and can be vengeful. He does not back up his plans with reality and basically scares many Americans.
3
Perhaps, as you say, actual policy in a Democratic government wouldn't depend much on which candidate gets the nomination. But turning the question around: does the choice of candidate have much effect on the chances of a Democratic victory?
I have my doubts about that. Trump is an intensely polarizing candidate, love him or hate him. The implication is that the election will be between Trump and not-Trump.
5
Prof. Krugman is probably right about where we will wind up no matter which Democrat becomes president. But that is beside the point. No, Really.
The issue isn't who will be president in 2020. It's not what legislation will get through Congress in the next few years. It is what direction we will be taking over the next to years.
Between 1932 and maybe 1974, F. D. R. and the New Deal defined our zeitgeist: the framework within which the country decided what policies it would follow. The New Deal ran out of gas -- literally in the 1970's and Reaganism became the new framework. All presidents, including Democrats, operated within that framework.
It matters who becomes president in 2020 because he or she may establish the new framework for the next 50 years. Sanders may not get Medicare for All in 4 or 8 years but he will set the direction. He may not radically change our gini index, but he can start to bend the curve. He may not end corporate control of the government, but he can begin to weaken its grip.
Biden will just coninue on the path within the framework established by Reagan. That's the difference.
24
I fully agree with Professor Krugman that policy outcomes won't differ much regardless of which Democratic candidate becomes president. So beating Trump is my number #1 priority, and I will support enthusiastically whoever the Democratic candidate is.
Unfortunately, the polls aren't yet giving us much clarity on which candidate is most likely to beat Trump. Biden seems to outperform Sanders and Warren in all the battleground states except Michigan (NYT poll, Nov. 4, 2019) but admittedly it's early and the margins are close. What is clear, however, is that claims that Sanders has the best chance of beating Trump, or that he has the worst chance, are not supported by the polling data. Moreover, the assertion that only Sanders can re-convert Obama-to-Trump working class voters is not validated. The Times' poll found that Sanders has no advantage over Biden among white voters with no college education and only a slight advantage over Warren.
In general, it seems if the Democrats nominate Sanders over Biden they will lose some college-educated white voters and black voters, and will hope to offset that by drawing more young voters to the polls.
But the Democrats should prioritize GOTV efforts among young people no matter who the candidate is. Emphasizing issues that young people really care about, like the environment, could help a lot.
6
@fbraconi I don't see Sanders losing college-educated white voters and black voters - or anyone except hardcore Bernie haters. The two groups you mentioned desperately want Trump out of office and will stay motivated...
I largely agree with your analysis on domestic policy.
But, on foreign policy, there are great differences, and to those of us who care about that, it would matter a lot.
Also, in terms of tone and polarization, I believe Bernie would be an anti-Trump, which would not be much better than the man himself.
8
In 2016 I watched and noted how the Establishment media ignored Bernie Sanders, until his rallies were so huge and enthusiastic he could not be ignored, and then he got some media coverage, most of it disparaging and snarky.
The media gave most coverage to Trump, because elections,after all, are big business and Trump was good for media's bottom line... much the same as impeachment now...
A 2016 Harper's article by Thomas Franks, after having meticulously examined Washington Post reporting on Bernie Sanders. "As we shall see, for the sort of people who write and edit the opinion pages of the Post, there was something deeply threatening about Sanders and his political views. He seems to have represented something horrifying, something that could not be spoken of directly but that clearly needed to be suppressed."
..."Think of all the grand ideas that flicker in the background of the Sanders-denouncing stories I have just recounted. There is the admiration for consensus, the worship of pragmatism and bipartisanship, the contempt for populist outcry, the repeated equating of dissent with partisan disloyalty."
During this primary season, the reporting by the NYT and other Establishment media on Sanders and his ideas, is no better, mostly horror, that he and his ideas are have enthusiastic support.
I'd wager that Nancy Pelosi purposely held back sending impeachment papers to the Senate in order to keep Sanders out of Iowa.
This makes me an Only Bernie voter...
9
@Lucy Cooke You basically voted for Trump by what you did. This is why so many democrats have trouble supporting Bernie. As a result, in 3 years we have lost our reputation as a democracy in the international community. Trump has pulled out of the Paris climate agreement. Trump is destroying the EPA, and loosening regulations in many areas just to start with. All good things built by both parties.Nixon started the EPA for example
There are many issues to complain about regarding newspapers and the media, but the extremes in both parties are destroying our democracy. Whitewashing everything as the establishment caused all of our problems is unfair. There are too may uninformed voters, and zealots today the have contributed to the problem.
5
@Phyliss Kirk OTOH you say that an only Sanders vote is a supporter of Trump. Fair enough but then you're not willing to say that Ds will support Sanders no matter what. Why does it have to be a one way street?
I mean I don't like it if any supporter doesn't take an ABT attitude but we have to live with the reality. Even if Sanders' supporters won't support ABT, everyone else should. Otherwise, say hello to Trump 2020.
@Lucy Cooke I understand why you reached your conclusion but you must also understand that if your particular candidate does not win the nomination and you and others refrain from voting you will actually be voting for trump! there is a saying you should consider...."not to decide (read -vote) IS to decide (vote)" a negative action which supports the other option.
1
As with the majority here, "Any candidate will do" is a reflexive act of desperate desire you have effectively expounded on. I do however have a remark about Elizabeth Warren. She came from Oklahoma, a very conservative Republican state likely controlled by fossil fuels, i.e., a former attorney general scandal there, but Warren being a Republican, has evolved into a progressive expert Democrat having lived the injustices of greedy domination of the nation, has taught at the highest level, and is now driven to succeed as fervently motivated by current corruption. I don't know if she would win or not, but we should all understand she is the most expert to be President in a nation in need of extraordinary justice. Even Senator Alexander remarked at the prospect, warning about a President Warren. That is a good indicator that she would be, and they preemptively scorned her out of a knowledge of her competitive advantage. I don't know who I will vote for but I will view Republican attacks on the candidates and the reactions of strength from those attacked as a good sign of electibility.
After three years plus of a big money takeover, Warren is expert in how it happened and what to do to rebalance economic conditions so we can all prosper. The last election, I fervently supported Hillary Clinton and she lost, so my desire for a woman to win is hesitant for fear of losing the next absolutely vital election, but she does fight much harder than Clinton did, so maybe she will win.
10
It is actually quite sad that the lives of many could not be improved because of the stale political system. They say that the power of capitalism is in flexibility, in ability to change according to demands. Clearly, it is a lie, the strength of capitalism is in inability to response to the popular demands.
3
On Wednesday Senate Republicans will officially turn over control of Congress to Trump and anoint him king.
November may be the last chance to save our constitutional democracy. Americans who don't want to live in a monarchy better turn out and vote for democracy.
Unless Democrats win the presidency and control of the Senate, there will be no chance to undo the damage by Trump and implement liberal or centrist policies. Democrats need to coalesce behind the candidate with the best chance to beat Trump.
27
My hope Bloomberg throws money in the direction of McConnell's opponent. If Graham has one same action plan. The cover up twins due to take election hits with the public hugely in favor of more documents and witnesses. As more bad news for them surfaces could be a bad November.
5
Yes! And as Bernie Sanders supporter I have now been contributing to Democratic Senate races in Arizona, Kentucky, and South Carolina. So long as they are respectful of Sanders, I will continue to do so. It's not very much, but many of us together can help fill a campaign's coffers. Oh, and the "Bernie or Bust" thing...that was 2016. The DNC appears to have made change to level the playing field. Other than the bending of the Debate rules to allow for Bloomberg at this late date, the DNC seems to be making an effort to be fair across the board. I am hoping for Sanders/Klobuchar ticket. Whoever the prevailing Democratic nominee is, this Bernie Sanders supporter will vote Democratic.
29
@Cliff I applaud your strategy, but as to the DNC, i'm afraid you are being far too optimistic. They will fight tooth and nail to drop Bernie off a cliff. They are already moving in
that direction.
2
Yes, with this election we MUST get rid of the rule of Trump and the GOP majority. In addition to saying "no" to witnesses (which 75% of Americans want), Alexander said he was supporting Trump's re-election because the economy was good, many conservative judges have been appointed and many regulations eliminated. The economy is good for investors. Many conservative judges some with no law review approval have been appointed - for life. And some of the regulations being overturned allow more methane from fracking and shooting of wolves and bears in our national parks and increased mercury and ...etc. Four more years means we do little as a nation for health care or the environment / climate change or child care costs or the infrastructure, etc.
Whoever the Democratic candidate all Democrats have a responsibility to vote for him/her. The DNC has a responsibility to provide electronic security, social media ads, etc that protect and compete with Trump and his foreign help (the Senate has just given Trump freedom to enlist any sources). The DNC needs to hire better hackers then the other side to insure confidentiality of our giving and a legitimate vote count.
15
Spot on. Sadly, every time I make these points in the company of BBs, you'd think that I just received a paycheck from a "bankster" or "big pharma". We've been hearing from the holiest of the holy that we should pay no mind to electability, but the closer we get, I'm starting to believe that it's the only thing we should consider. Once a Dem is in office, the actual policy accomplishments will be remarkably similar to what the others would have done, given congressional constraints.
17
If the Democrats are to unify no matter who wins the primary, the DNC has to put money into making sure the voices of all the candidates continue to he heard, so that their supporters will unify behind the candidate. Feature them in ads pointing out their areas of agreement and the importance of voting. All of them are electable if all of them convince their current supporters to continue the fight.
39
Wow, a Krugman column I can agree with wholeheartedly, except for his imputing an inflationary effect of eliminating private insurance premiums and replacing them with payments from taxes.
This would be a wash, probably spending less overall by removing the impetus for insurance companies to increase profits (a % of total by increasing total costs and getting rate increases.)
Thus no inflation from changing the medical payer from the employer to the government.
Otherwise, it's a question of which direction are we headed, and anywhere away from the GOP would be progress. Whether that would be greater under the Amendment King or a Senator with more corporate ties is hard to know.
Was this column to calm the Captains of Industry and Plutocrats of Austerity or to lull the enraged masses? Again, hard to know.
4
I disagree that electability should be considered. As soon as a voter considers that question, they are letting others dictate their vote. And the others are pundits and pollsters, amplified by the news media hungry for the latest story about the horse race. They know nothing more about the candidate's suitability than anyone else. Pundits and pollsters can make huge mistakes (see Clinton v. Trump).
For me, the most important criterion is which candidate will champion critical political reforms, like fixing voter suppression, gerrymandering, corruption via money, and Supreme Court nomination process. Until we elect a government that truly represents and is accountable to the people, we won't get any progressive policies on health care, immigration and so forth. We have to repair the republic first.
37
@Ken L
I agree that the republic must be repaired in the ways you mention. As long as Trump and his toadies are in power, however, there is no chance that we will get any progressive policies implemented. If we don't elect the Democratic nominee, we will have the king that our founders feared we
might elect. And what a sorry king he'll be!
11
@Katherine McNeill agree! Let's get the nominee to elevate reform. I think it's a winning issue against Trump and Republicans in Congress.
5
Paul Krugman, I will accept what you wrote but stop with getting into the policy weeds. We need a column from you on how to make fundamental changes to our political and judicial structure.
The Senate is no longer a Democratic institution, it is an open festering wound on the country. The Judiciary reinvented by an illegitimate Majority leader ( in my opinion,) will be another open sore on the country. How do we effect a change we our politicians in Washington represent all the people?
Term limits, adding more judges to the federal judiciary, rethinking what Statehood is? give it a column or two.
11
The only thing that Biden and Bernie have in common is that they are nearing 80 and have significant health issues. Bernie just had a heart attack and has really aged in the last two years. While Biden looks fine, he is obviously having issues with cognitive decline.
And sorry, there is a huge difference between a hardcore true-believing socialist, and an insider who has been in the Senate for almost 50 years.
7
@Erik, there may be a huge difference between the individual men, but the argument is that the results of their presidencies would not be nearly as different, because of what gets through Congress.
7
What I find interesting is that Krugman has come around to the Dick Cheney view that deficits don't matter. I would like Krugman to explain why Cheney was right all those years ago and why Krugman was wrong for so many years. I mean, he's mocking Biden for caring about deficits in the past when Krugman himself also cared about deficits.
Social Security and Medicare trust funds will be exhausted over the coming years, we already have trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see, and Krugman blithely ignores these things and says that democrats will raise taxes on the rich--not to fund Social Security and Medicare shortfalls or to cut the deficit--but to introduce new social programs.
I mean, is Krugman a modern monetary economist now? What has changed so drastically?
1
@tanstaafl Study Japan. It has 2.35+ times the debt to GDP ratio of the U.S. runs constant large deficits and does fine. Cheney was indeed right on this point substantially.
1
@tanstaafl I think you are mistaken about Krugman's past stance om deficits. I believe he has long pointed out that Republicans only raise the issue when Dems are in power, as a cudgel.
6
Perhaps persuaded by this argument, what concerns me the most is that whoever is nominated will be supported in every way by all who weren't.
7
“Democrats believe in Democracy”. I suppose that’s why in preparing their Articles of Impeachment they prevented Republican House members from securing their own witnesses nor providing their own Counsel. And rushed to secure the articles after just a few weeks to make it home to the Holidays before Christmas. Even long time Democrats had hoped for a more carefully and more thoroughly presented effort.
What Democrats have really achieved is to boost the President’s poll numbers by significant amounts. Had they followed proper protocols and done their homework the outcome might well have been to their (and the nation’s) favor.
If Democrats really believed in Democracy they would have moved heaven and earth to make sure nothing interfered with their candidates ability to appear at forums and properly campaign across the nation. Rather than be bored to death sitting in a Senate chamber knowing in advance the ultimate outcome.
3
Thanks, Prof. Krugman, you've just written what I've been saying- only with a good deal more eloquence and far fewer invectives. The operative question is, why scare off the members of the white working class whose votes in 2016 made the Trump klepto-kakistocracy possible? And why bring in a Sanders administration that would end up gravely disappointing his supporters because he'd never be able to get his agenda through a closely-divided congress? For heaven's sake, let's nominate someone who can win a national election AND give us most of what we want. That's Joe Biden.
7
Another conventional thought from Dr. Krugman that shows he did not bother to read the Editorial Board’s interview with Sanders where Bernie labors to make the point t that body he was not intending to be another conventional president but would labor to take the fight right into the regions of opposition (skirting about the opposing media one might add) and let the people tell their representatives what they wish.
The Board looking for a reference called up Trump populism and Bernie laughed or smiled.
The outcome may not be as similar as Krugman proposes.
7
@wsmrer Right. And I'm sure that approach will work brilliantly. At least it is now, in his head, and as he's been fantasizing about for 50 years.
Even if all of this where 100% true about domestic policy, we can't overlook foreign policy. In that regard, there are serious differences these candidates have and their decision making will undoubtedly affect millions of people across the globe.
7
Yep. If progressives want progress, they must work persistently at the precinct, county, district, and state level. Neither the fervor of Sanders/Warren nor the moderation of Biden matter in the face of a Republican Senate. Moreover, major progressive changes such as MfA cannot come without a reliable 60-member Senatorial majority. Until that time, the absolute best we can get will be a holding action against the Trumpism that will endure even if Trump loses. And if we do not unite behind whoever is nominated, we won’t even have that. Get real, everyone.
11
What about foreign policy? Certainly one thing the president can have a large say over. Bernie is not an interventionist whereas the centrists and even Warren have a history of supporting interventionism and costly, destructive wars. By your rational--any Dem president will have mostly the same effect on healthcare, climate change, economy, education etc.--you should be voting for Bernie based off his past stances on wars and US interventionism (unless you like war and bombing civilians).
I agree that both the left and centrists should rally behind the eventual candidate but it is simply not true that all presidents will be basically the same. For the primary, voters should vote their conscience.
7
I agree with Paul's observations and advice to progressives and moderates. Taking the Senate and keeping the House is essential if the Democratic nominee hopes to pass any significant legislation. I don't hear much about the Senate races, which concerns me.
The column was obviously written before the GOP prevailed against calling witnesses in the impeachment trial (despite what I think was an excellent job arguing their case by the Dem impeachment managers). The lock-step loyalty for Trump, who will soon be on another gloating victory tour, is a warning sign for the steep challenge Democrats face.
Republicans have so effectively gerrymandered districts that we could very well have another Trump electoral victory while losing the popular vote by millions to the Democrat.
5
@Steven Dunn
Please explain how Republicans have gerrymandered states? Last I checked you win states and its electoral votes. Not "gerrymandered" districts at which Democrats and Republicans equally excel when they control a state!
1
@SG Wisconsin is a case in point. Under Scott Walker and GOP majorities, the congressional districts have been redrawn in a way that ensure Republican dominance, and hence, the allocation of our state's electoral votes. Interestingly, in the state legislative races, more people voted democratic yet the GOP maintains a hold on both houses. Something is wrong with this picture.
8
Actually I find these words comforting. Just keep repeating them as we get closer to the election.
12
Once again Krugman shows that he's the sanest voice among the entire stable of Times op-ed columnists. I'm for Warren, but the differences between her and Bernie and Biden absolutely pale in significance between the chasm that exists between any of them (or any of the other Democrats) and Trump.
Four little words: 200 more Brett Kavanaughs.
Which is why "Vote Blue No Matter Who" should be the cry of every rational person, be they progressive or moderate.
203
Any Democrat will be better than Trump. And any Democrat will be unable to accomplish -anything- unless the Senate is taken away from McConnell. That's the reality of this election.
It's hard to imagine how -any- Democratic candidate running (or any of those who dropped out already) could possibly do worse than Trump.
I do have a strong preference in the candidates: my preferred Democrat is "Anybody But Trump". But the very most important thing is to show up, and vote. Even if the Democratic nominee is not your personal favorite - show up and vote!
Republicans have decided that 'the voters should decide' -- so we must. Show up and vote!
82
@Jim Brokaw it's hard to imagine how republicans keep the Senate after today.
2
Krugman's arguments remind us that being able to move an agenda is a very different thing than putting forward bold ideas on the campaign trail. I think the bold ideas matter, though, to move the dime, and to inspire people to get involved in the process of advocating for progressive policies. I would be delighted if a Democratic Congress and Administration could get it together and get any of the initiatives done. There are 2 big 'ifs' here, of course. Winning back the White House and winning the Senate. And perhaps there's another 'if,' which is, even if Democrats take back the Senate, the President will have to play a role in creating a consensus and holding it together when the going gets tough. Which candidate can build that kind of consensus?
4
I was in agreement with much of Mr. Krugman's assertions, until near the end of his piece. That is, I disagree with the argument that it doesn't matter who the next Democratic president will be. (1) The success of the next president in passing meaningful legislation will depend on whether the new president will be able to build consensus with multiple factions in Congress, from progressive Democrats to moderate Republicans, while at the same time ensuring that new legislation will stand the test of time, or be quickly repealed by the following administration. I'm not implying that I prefer Mr. Biden. I haven't decided yet whom I will vote for, but in this regard, I would guess that Mr. Biden would have a better chance of working productively with Congress than Mr. Sanders. (2) The other major concern I have pertains to the reaction of the conservative right-wing. My guess is that the election of Mr. Sanders or Ms. Warren (especially the former) would be much more likely to provoke a strong right-wing reaction, and a resurgence of the Tea Party, than would Mr. Biden or Ms. Klobuchar. A resurgent right-wing reaction to a Sanders presidency could be much stronger than that against Mr. Obama, leading to continued chaos and strife. There's much more I could say, but allotted space doesn't permit. In short, Mr. Krugman's opinion piece, though consoling, was woefully shallow.
1
You’re deluded if you think Republicans will work with anybody in the White House who isn’t one of them. They’ve made that perfectly clear.
"The point is that even though Trump commands humiliating personal subservience from his party, he hasn’t caused any significant shift in its policy priorities."
Except immigration policy. (Mainstream Republicans may have wanted it in their hearts, but were not so cruelly radical in their words and actions). Closer to the beginning of Trump's term, there was a bipartisan immigration bill ready for his signature- which he then refused to sign- to great base rousing fanfare. Things got much more awful after that- although it was after the "Muslim ban".
Same with environmental policy.
9
While I agree with what Dr. Krugman is saying here, I think the nomination matters.
The electoral college matters, and in the swing states we need the support of the independents and the never-Trump conservatives to win. As Bret Stephens has demonstrated here in the Times, there are enough of those voters who view Bernie through a lens of their preconceptions to that Bernie is likely to lose against Trump if he’s the nominee.
They might not vote for Trump, but they have enough irrational fear of Bernie to stay home. Which will give us a repeat of 2016.
7
Oddly, Prof. Krugman did not bring up climate change, etc. Presumably, any elected Democrat would start by rolling back every single change to environmental policy made in the last four years, though there would probably be some variance in green new deal initiatives.
26
What Krugman is saying is that no matter who the Democratic nominee is, we'll get moderation, if that nominee wins the general election. He's very wrong.
The Sanders backers know that we've run out of time -- in healthcare, for the environment and climate, for wealth disparity, for the well being of anybody who's going to live longer than the next 20 years. Sanders backers, if they're strong enough to get Sanders elected, won't settle for suicidal moderation.
As an avid Sanders supporter, it's not Sanders I support but the policies and issues he's been advocating. If he backs away from them once elected, he would create an uproar among his supporters. He knows that, and he knows he has to follow through. The whole direction of his life has been to create true change, benefiting the poor, the working and middle class, and not just by a little bit.
We're not getting moderation under Sanders. That won't help the country with its pressing problems, and Sanders knows that.
6
@Steve C It's not that Sanders' policies are not great – they are. But it's getting Congress to go along with them. I see no indication that any Republican-controlled branch, including SCOTUS, would allow Sanders' policies to be implemented as he envisions them. Same for numerous centrist democrats in Congress. How is he going to get his proposals accepted without moderating them? Through the sheer force of his personality? I very much doubt it.
14
@Steve C: What puzzles me is the belief that Sanders — or any President — can single-handedly deliver on campaign promises. A president does not write legislation. More importantly, there is Congress to convince of any of the aspirations of a president Sanders; and even if Dems were able to carry the House and flip the Senate, there would be many moderate centrists unwilling to support a radical left agenda. The only reason FDR was able to get the Nee Deal passed was the extraordinary times. My generation thought we could change the world (sixties/seventies), and it hasn’t happened yet. Be patient, please.
12
Master Steve, When Obama won in 2008 he had a 60-40
Dem majority in the senate. It still took 3 years to get a watered down version of the ACA passed. Right now the dems are at 47-53! MFA is not popular in the senate.
Many senate dems will vote against it.
Bernie’s policy preferences have little to do with what is actually do-able. The betting odds on The dems losing the senate has been right around 7 to 3 for the last year.
1
Bernie's hardcore supporters may be a tough sell - it seems they pretty much sat out the 2016 election when Bernie wasn't the nominee. (Significant contribution to election of trump)
9
Agree with Krugman that it's less about the individual Democratic candidates, than about defeating the demagogue in the White House. But should past history and party affiliation influence voters' choice?
4
Is there any space for Republicans in the conversation? Where are the TR Republicans or Eisenhower Republicans or (may the gods forbid) Reagan Republicans? What are thoughtful Republicans thinking? Is there not a optimal third path beyond Mr Sanders (78 years old) and Mr Biden (77 years old) or all the others , including Warren (70 years old)? As one sits in the middle of Iowa tonight one can only pray for competent leadership from either party. Where have you gone, Mr Roosevelt (TR or FDR), while our nation turns its eyes to you?
10
@tom barloon
The current Republican party is a lost cause (pretty much everyone left in the party). Conservatives who are not part of the current GOP need to figure out what to do (form a new party, etc.).
But no Conservative outside the current shameless bunch in the GOP has any chance of getting elected under the GOP umbrella. So , it is Democrats for now or more of Trump.
Sorry to disappoint, but competent from "either party" is not realistic at the moment.
One problem with Joe Biden or any other centrist is that wing's regrettable tic of first negotiating with itself before even beginning to engage the opposition. A second problem is that once a semi-coherent policy proposal is eventually arrived at, there's little or no commitment to the fight to make it law. Consider Barack Obama's presidency. Following passage of the weak tea of Obamacare, he all but disappeared for the middle four years of his presidency, emerging from the golf course only to occasionally pitch a "grand bargain" with a much more savvy Mitch McConnell.
Bernie isn't going to negotiate with himself as president. He will set a marker for the future and push relentlessly to get us there. He will of course fall somewhat short. That's just politics. But ideologically lazy centrists will resort to their usual habit of bringing a butter knife to a gun fight, and we'll be lucky to accomplish anything at all. Joe Biden might well sign the same bill that Bernie Sanders would sign, but he'll do little or nothing from the bully pulpit to make that day more likely. I'd say this matters.
7
One of our best reforming Prime Ministers, Gough Whitlam, declared: "Only the impotent can afford to be pure".
An core asset in politics, the possibility of compromise is essential in any democracy; to believe otherwise, results in the dystopia which is Trump's America (as noted elsewhere in the NYT, Senator McConnell completely rejects any bipartisanship), and regrettably in Australia, a lost decade of any effective action on climate change, because the conservatives in our govt have been intransigent in compromising on the primacy of fossil fuels over sustainable renewable technology - and the consequences are being seared into our souls forevermore. We are reaping the results of that decade of apathy ... how will it play out in the US of A?
8
Another commonality: anyone who gets the Democratic nomination will be described by the Republicans and Fox News as a socialist. Of course they would say this about Bernie or Liz; they would also say this about Amy Klobuchar or Joe Biden. So the idea that we can't have somebody from the progressive wing of the party because of what the Republicans would say about him or her is nonsense. They will carry on about socialism no matter who the candidate is. So we should choose our own candidate, not let the Republicans choose one for us.
25
@Kathleen Martin
Everyone seems to forget that unlike in 2016, Trump now has a record AND baggage. He certainly can sell whatever he wants to his base, however, when it comes to actual policies and how he has continually lied about the dozens of promises he made in the primaries, Sanders will have no problem. He can just start with the failures and lies about healthcare, record debt and deficits, fighting never ending wars and their mammoth costs and when its over, they will have forgotten about the label "socialist".
Trump has already warned he might not show up to any debates, of course, because he thinks they would be rigged in favor of his opponent. If Sanders is the nominee, Trump will mot be there.
7
@Deus
I don’t think his base cares about his baggage.
And, I’m not sure anyone who is somehow “undecided” when it comes to Trump cares either. Hope I’m wrong though ;)
Part of the reason the left didn't do well in the 2018 midterms was the Democratic leadership recruited candidates for the districts they thought they could win. The left was left with the remaining, harder, districts.
Yes, the party isn't going to magically transform itself if say Sanders gets elected. But we shouldn't assume Trump's incompetence and fecklessness have anything to do with what might happen under a progressive President who comes into office having thought through hope to get things done.
An inspiring President can indeed lead our country in a new direction, for better or worse. We are at a turning point inn our history. Let's hope we make a good decision.
4
I agree with Krugman that it does not matter that much which Democratic candidate gets elected, the policies actually enacted will be fairly similar. Although with Bernie I am not sure how willing he is to compromise with Congress. He may end up vetoing legislation hoping for a more aggressive one and end up gumming up legislation and slow down any progress. What is really important is to get rid of Trump, and there I must say I think Bernie will win the popular vote but is less likely to win the electoral college than others. The arithmetic is simple: his promises may appeal to Trump fans but they are not going to abandon Trump, while more moderate former Trump voters who could shift are likely to fall for the socialist bugaboo. If some Bernie supporters are such that they will not vote for anyone but Bernie they become the equivalent of Trump supporters. I hope they are more open minded than that, otherwise we are doomed to live with Trump for another 4 years.
9
I'm surprised that Dr. Krugman of all people would throw out the middle-class tax increase for Medicare-for-All without acknowledging that premiums would disappear. Whatever people pay for private insurance is likely more than the tax replacing them. I say this as someone who doesn't think Americans can handle single payer, politically. Too many vested private interests.
I agree with basically the entire rest of the article.
5
@Roarke I agree also. The reasoning on medicare for all does, however, have the fatal flaw of ignoring that healthcare is much cheaper in other countries (including Canada while providing better health outcomes and longevity for those countries.)
7
Thank you, Professor Krugman! Thanks for reminding us that electing a Democratic president is JOB ONE this November. Let’s forget about the political purity tests: like, for example, this candidate is too much of a socialist, or that candidate is Old School, much too moderate, and tied to the past. Political purity is a luxury we can’t afford right now; the downside risk is just too awful. So let’s back the Democratic nominee: anyone or anything would be better than a Trump victory. I really, really wanted Cory Booker, but I’ll vote for whoever is on the menu in November. Professor Krugman and I recommend that you do the same.
12
I don’t think anybody really knows who has the best chance of defeating Trump, so people might as well vote for their favorite candidate. I mean that it would be just as well if people put less energy into trying to guess who is the most “electable” and more into finding out about the relevant issues and where the candidates stand on them and make their decision on that basis. I am getting the impression that the voters are driving themselves nuts over this issue of who is the most electable, when that is a question nobody can answer.
12
So I agree but...
Exactly was the same was true of Corbyn and the arguments were made: he could only govern in a tempering coalition . Result, a Tory landslide. Bernie just can’t win. All he will do is re-elect Trump.
9
Seriously, all the plausible Democratic candidates sound so intelligent, articulate, and mostly civil by comparison with any of the Republicans that I would be thrilled with any one of them.
108
I take this as an excellent response to a recent column by Brett Stephens, in which he had explained why he couldn’t vote for Sanders.
10
"[I]t probably doesn’t matter much who the Democrats nominate — as long as he or she wins, and Democrats take the Senate too." This is exactly what we need to fight for: Trump's defeat and a Democratic Senate and House.
108
Any of these Ds are pretty much guaranteed to lose, it’s about preserving your chance to run again in a more open contest, not against an incumbent President.
Pete and Amy might get another chance in 2024.
Bernie, Liz and Biden not so much as all may be deceased by then.
It likely won’t be Pense, but rather Nikki Haley or Tim Scott.
Accepting a second slot on a likely D losing ticket is a move to retirement like Paul Ryan or retired in place like The Senator in VA who has become so irrelevant that I can’t recall his name
2
Whoever wins will need to do a lot of backtracking just to get our government agencies functioning again.
Even so:
The environment won’t wait.
Universal healthcare has to be a priority.
And for god’s sake give women equal rights.
Taxes on corporations and high incomes have to increase.
Military spending has to decrease.
Who wins the Presidency matters a lot less than voting out every single Republican we possibly can. All of them.
The only good Republican Congressman is an unemployed Republican Congressman.
137
If America wants to have a future, it must come to grips with the reality that Trump was just not a blip on the screen of American politics but, actually forty years in the making started by the Reagan Presidency and his obsession with limiting government in the everyday lives of Americans. Of course, what he really meant was that weakening government was done to benefit major corporations like Exxon/Mobile and Goldman Sachs, NOT the average American who looked to government to help with securing decent healthcare, social security, medicare and medicaid and all those institutions that protect Americans.
Fast forward to today where the 20 yr. Princeton/Northwestern study confirming that almost ALL public policy decisions have been made in favor of corporations and/or lobbyists, that is, despite overwhelming public support for the contrary. Trump came along and told them what they wanted to hear and the system was rigged, they were desperate and bought into it, of course, he lied.
In order to have the best chance of preventing other demagogues from emerging from the scrap pile, the major issues that ultimately elected Trump, must be seriously and concretely dealt with, no more tinkering around the edges, which ultimately solves nothing and will just create another Trump down the road. Moderate/centrist candidates like Joe Biden are definitely not the answer nor the solution, history confirms, they are the problem.
58
Professor Krugman, along with many others I cannot thank you sufficiently for the clarity, information, guidance and wisdom you have provided since the buildup to the Iraq War back in the grim days of the early 2000s. You have been an authentic hero and source of necessary for analysis during our era.
68
It matters who the Dems choose because if they pick Bernie, we will get Trump's policies after Trump defeats Bernie. So it makes an enormous difference in policy.
18
Sigh. It doesn’t matter whom the Democrats choose because trump is likely headed for a second term, especially now that the Republican-controlled Senate is poised to give him free rein to invite every country on the planet to meddle in the 2020 election on his behalf. That and the number of Democrats who, in a fit of pique, are already threatening to sit out this election, vote for a third-party candidate, or vote for trump if their favorite candidate doesn’t win the nomination.
12
The economic and financial market experience during the past three years suggests that markets can survive and even thrive despite political leadership that may be incompetent, corrupt and/or ignorant of some basic economic principles. That same resiliency should be taken into account by those who fear the possibility of a radical left-ward swing resulting from the 2020 election.
The biggest problem with Warren and Sanders is that they do not seem to be willing to learn from mistakes made in other countries. The head of a group called "Democratic Socialists of America" was interviewed after his group's membership increased to 50,000 from 5,000 after Bernie Sanders candidacy. He was asked if there was any place and time in history that was closest to where your view of democratic socialism flourished. His honest answer was: "Sweden in the 1960s." Sweden remained capitalist throughout that period and has since rejected many of the things that were tried in the 1960s. Today the student loan issue is a bigger problem in Sweden than in the USA. Of course, those who think that the USA can retain market-priced healthcare indefinitely are also unwilling to learn from other countries.
In any case, in a county with extensive checks and balances, such as America, regardless of the election results, changes resulting from legislation occur very slowly, if ever..."
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4315039
2
If the name of the game is Realpolitik, then the name of the candidate should be Bloomberg. He (and his money) are best positioned to endure and eventually prevail in what is going to be the dirtiest campaign in American history.
19
But if the GOP holds onto the Senate, it will just be continuing more resolutions on the budget and executive orders.
1
I'm pulling for Bernie. Why? Two reasons.
First, once the public would actually start paying attention, his anti capitalist, everyone deserves to make exactly the same amount regardless of results or effort idealism will start to scare hard working people.
Second, in the event the electorate actually likes the concept of a free lunch, it won't really matter if he is elected. How old is he? 110? Not likely he would serve long under the pressures of the position before his VP, AOC steps in. What a cluster this would be.
@Guy Thompto
Hate to break it to you but AOC at age 30 will be too young to be VP next time around.
Sanders or Warren are the only two candidates that are going to be able to turn out a significant number of younger people to pull the proverbial vote lever for them. Youth votes are going to be the key the for the Dems winning this election and saving the world by disposing wannbe King Trump before he can do further damage.
And it is my contention that a lot of older voters, like myself, are also going to come down on Sanders/Warren's sides when all is said and done.
We need big change and Biden/Klobuchar cannot bring it.
30
@Joseph I think some younger voters are enthusiastic about Buttigieg.
@Joseph Socialists will never win the center, the mid west or the south. Get ready for 4 more year of trump.
The things is, Bernie is way ahead of you, Mr. Krugman. As the new ad Killer Mike dropped for Bernie -- the best political ad since the 2016 "America" ad (I encourage you all to google it) -- we are all in this together. Unless you are in that 1%, really that .01%, who has been soaking up all the material wealth of the planet, we are being denied basic dignities and a planet to continue to inhabit. Bernie doesn't punch down and he is the most popular politician in the U.S. There are no scandals, no record of flipflopping, so people trust him. For these reasons, not just for his policy agenda, he is the candidate that can and will pull this off. As the ad says, everyone is welcome. And if you are comfortable, you might be a little bit afflicted -- but that is far better than being totally cooked by climate change.
12
@Parapraxis if only he were a Democrat!
@Parapraxis Too bad he can't beat Trump. The idiot calls himself a "socialist" and Trump will bash him into oblivion with that label. And ironically he isn't even a socialist. He is a "Nordic Capitalist."
It would appear logical to anyone in the country that Mr. Krugman is correct. President Obama, who claimed he wanted to alter many more policies then he did, and it appears political opposition was the main reason he did not do more, obviously did not find it easy to enact legislation. If anything is to be done about this someone should come up with a way to hold presidential candidates to their pre-election claims. The policy of allowing someone 4 years per election to prove their worthlessness is ridiculous. If people (voters), are so inclined to vote for whoever promises them the most future benefit without the consideration of ability to carry through with the promises. In this regard President Trump might actually be a highly successful president. While he has not made everyone happy he has at least done and tried to do what he promised.
2
@David
Obama wanted a “ Grand Bargain” with the Republicans. That is, he wanted to cut Social Security and Medicare. Fortunately he failed, because Republicans didn’t want to give Obama what centrists would see as a great victory.
2
Finally a realistic view without a preferred candidate endorsement of what life without Trump will be like. Refreshing and encouraging and realistic. I expect that when Trump is finally gone the country and the world will be almost as excited as when President Obama was elected.
Now all we have to do is vote !
36
Krugman is spot on and could easily add the fact that there is likely to be at least one Supreme Court nomination during the term and any Democrat would provide a huge role in maintaining a balanced court.
103
People are far too dismissive of how toxic Bernie would be as a nominee.
Expanding the social safety net at the expense of our economy with higher taxes isn’t going to get suburbanites running to the ballot box.
They have healthcare, making ends meet on 175k a year dual income household, already struggling with high taxes, and halfway home to saving enough for college for their kids.
His platform will hurt them more than help them.
It’s not what he will be able to do legislatively, it’s what he says he would do if he could, that will scare away voters.
17
@Rob
If your hypothetical suburbanites are halfway home to saving enough for college for their kids, why wouldn't they be HELPED by a Sanders presidency. They can sock some of that cash away for retirement.
We paid for our kids to attend college and grad school using money we could use for retirement. We funded IRAs as soon as they were working summer jobs in high school, again with money we could have used for retirement. We did this out of fear for their futures in a country that refuses not just to guarantee health care but which refuses to rein in the high cost of that care, just so that the very richest can become richer.
So by your reckoning, since we won't directly benefit from free tuition, we should just throw future generations under the bus. That's not the way we were raised. Bernie or Elizabeth are our first choices for the nomination. I hope to see a sane, intelligent person in the White House who will address income inequality and also our #1 threat, climate change.
6
@SCL
I don’t want for my 3 children a world of government guarantees of healthcare and education in exchange for oppressive taxes and reliance on government.
That sounds like an awful future to me. We simply want different things.
1
@Rob
Sadly I believe you are quite correct.
The big question is - who are the rich? After all, Donald Trump raised taxes on the top 5% in income by eliminating the deductibility of state and local income taxes, but that doesn't seem to have thrilled the Democrats - quite to the contrary.
Now the Democrats may just try to tax people with incomes over $1 million a year, but if they do that they will discover how few of them there are and how little money they would take in. In order to raised substantial amounts of money, they would have to tax the large number of people with incomes between $100K and $500K. Unfortunately, these people are the Democrats' most reliable voters and supporters, and if they hit them hard, they will forget about global warming and gay rights and start voting for their economic interest.
In fact, I think this is why Bernie Sanders would be defeated, and not by a small margin. He cannot conceal that to fully enact his program would require much higher taxes on everyone, not just a few billionaires. The Trump campaign would pound on this point, and quite correctly.
11
@Jonathan
This is spot on. My wife is as reliable democrat voter as they come, and she wouldn’t vote for Bernie for exactly this reason.
She sees him as a clear and present danger to our current standard of living.
Simply “removing the cap” on social security taxes alone, as Bernie proposes, would be the single biggest tax increase in history by a large margin.
6
@Rob hmmmm. please share with us how your wife thinks we're going to pay for social security in the future if we don't raise the cap.
The Democratic Party is in reality two political parties under a single roof. The part with Biden, Buttigieg, and Klobuchar is more like the liberal parties of Canada and Australia. Sanders and Warren are like the social Democrats of Germany. Both camps may agree broadly on ends, but differ sharply in priorities. We see that across the country, In Virginia, the Dems passed the Equal Rights Amendment and several gun control laws. This reflected the priorities of the liberal wing. But there is no movement on repealing the right-to-work law, which the social democratic wing wants.
5
For the progressives to succeed in the eyes of their fervent supporters they need a super majority (60) in the Senate and retaining a solid majority in the House, whose Democratic center is not overly enthusiastic about some of Sander's or Warren's more radical proposals. Even getting a mere Senate majority in 2020 will be challenging, as both will not have the necessary coattails to assure a nearly universal straight ballot vote. Moderate and independent voters, as well as centrist Republicans, who are loath of Trump, but quite suspect of the left wing policies of Sander and Warren, will most likely split their vote with the expectation of keeping Congress near center. The result of such a scenario will be a nearly deadlocked Congress unlikely to advance the promises presented by the progressives. And it may get worse if the traditional gains by the out-of-power party are realized in the next midterm elections of 2022.
6
I agree with the woman on TV a few months ago who stated she’d vote for a ham sandwich over Trump - speaking of women, that demographic is crucial in producing another blue wave in December, and I think, generally speaking, women are more comfortable with the avuncular Joe Biden.
7
@the doctor Almost every woman I know is going to vote for Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders, and I know a lot of women, in every age group imaginable.Some were interested in Harris, but she has dropped out (and a very small number like Amy Klobuchar). You underestimate women mightily, I fear.
4
I disagree with the Professor. Policy does matter. Fiscal policies, social policies, environmental policies, trade policies, industrial policies. This country has tilted extremely to the right, to what some call Savage Capitalism, but the answer cannot be moving to the other extreme, to the destruction of Capitalism and the revival of Sovietism in our land.
So it can not be Sanders, old Marxist Leninist that he is. It can't be either more of the same with Biden, if I ever understood what he stands for.
We badly need to preserve Capitalism, but not this version of Capitalism that is inhumane, which seeks zero investment in people, in their health, their education, their well being. We need Capitalism in order to make the pie grow, but a version of it that will give a bigger share to the people, to the Middle Class, to the workers, to the sick , to the old and to the young.
The only ones who seem poised to deliver policies that make sense and seek the center, based on their statements and past history are Steyer, and maybe Warren and Bloomberg.
So it cannot be just anybody, because just anybody will lose.
2
@Leon Bernie Sanders is no Marxist Leninist. To say something like that only makes people realize you don't know what you are talking about. When you call for a version of capitalism "that will give a bigger share to the people, to the Middle Class, to the workers, to the sick, to the old and to the young", you are describing democratic socialism; Bernie is a self-described democratic socialist. If you are serious about what you want, vote for Bernie.
If either Elizabeth Warren (my favorite) or Bernie Sanders win the nomination. Republicans will use the old "S" word relentlessly. But that is okay because then Republicans will have to explain that they don't consider Social Security or Medicare as socialism and have no plans to cut them even though Trump recently said that he was thinking about it.
Another thing: After the Senate's farce of an impeachment
proceeding, a non-trial and cover-up, Republicans are going to be on the defensive until election day. Thinking Americans and Democrats are furious about the Republicans' failure to allow witnesses and that will rally Democrats, independents and anybody who cares about the Constitution, Democratic principles and decency. It's going to be a slugfest.
7
@Whole Grains
Be realistic, the Republicans. especially Trump, will say anything to get votes and deny everything they said previously that would cost them votes. They will say it repeatedly ad nauseam. Neither will they be on the defensive, they will celebrate Trump's acquittal as a sign of the Democrat's sore looser status and out of touch with the American electorate- never mind the polls or anything to the contrary. They do not speak to the likes of you and I or most of the NYT readers, their targets are the casually informed and those who feel victimized by being left behind- never mind that it is the consequence of the very Republican policies. It worked before in 2016.
5
@Rudy Ludeke
Bear in mind that Trump will campaign as an impeached president, not exactly a plus. Also, polls show that 75 per cent of the public, including Trump supporters, wanted witnesses
in the Senate impeachment cover-up and Republicans thumbed their noses at them.
Trump will need more than his base to win - independents will be the deciding factor. And according to the polls, independents are moving away from Trump. I don't think that most NYT readers are giddy with unreal expectations as you imply but a defeatist attitude won't help defeat Trump.
@Whole Grains I don't think the Senate GOP did a cover up. They basically stated flat out that they didn't think Trump was wrong in using his power as President to go after a political rival. He feels being re-elected is in the country's best interest, therefore he is correct in using any means to that end. A few GOP Senators are uncomfortable with his actions, but they know Trump has complete support from GOP voters. They don't want culture wars.
Most important criterion: who can carry the Senate on his/her coattails.
McConnell is destroying our democracy singlehandedly. He has done more damage than Trump.
570
@Satter
Yes. This may be true. But it's the citizens waking up and realizing how important it is to take back Congress completely.
Krugman is right: the Democratic Party has shifted so far to the left that regardless of which one wins the presidency we will be faced with crippling tax increases, massive and burdensome new regulations, and a further erosion in individual freedom.
5
@Ken M. Yes crippling tax cuts and the elimination of all environmental regulation for air and water is just what we need. Also,just how has your freedom been "eroded"?
4
Krugman is right that a realistic Democratic policy package post-election victory will look basically the same no matter who the candidate is. Congress is Congress, and its close split will determine the parameters of what is possible. This is not shaping up as a landslide election. Victory by a leftish candidate will meaningful long term to the extent that it shapes the party's future vision.
The left versus center argument is mainly consequential in terms of how it affects the candidates' ability to appeal to people on the fringes. If Bernie loses the nomination and his young supporters blame manipulation by party elites, they will stay at home in November. And even if the process appears objectively fair, many of his newly activated supporters will be beyond consolation in their disappointment.
On the other end of the spectrum, centrist independents and a few principled Republicans will struggle to vote for Sanders and his socialist rhetoric -- even if they understand that his election is unlikely to bring any of it to quick fruition. The key to Sanders' success here probably lies with the perception of his impeccable integrity. After bathing for three plus years in the sewer of Trumpism, some conservatives will vote for Sanders' honesty and ignore the rest.
The wild card here is that dealing with the immediate crisis of climate change and environmental collapse poses a radical challenge. There is no effective moderate answer. Can people unite around this reality?
6
But the question Paul isn't able to answer is this: will Trump, if he loses, leave the White House voluntarily? And that leads to the next question: will the GOP force Trump to obey the law or back him up and agree that the election is fake? I'm not an alarmist but I can see these two things happening. Our founding fathers gave us a republic/democracy if we could keep it. Putting Trump in office and watching the GOP enable, abet, and support him gives this reader serious pause about the alleged impossibility of these things. They are quite possible especially with Trump's willingness to defy anything and everything.
The GOP is not composed of patriotic citizens. No patriot could allow the farce of an impeachment that the GOP dominated senate just put us through. Democrats may not be a solid wall but there's a huge benefit for all of us in that. They are willing, on occasion, to listen to the people. A government that doesn't listen to it citizens is not a democracy or a government: it's a dictatorship.
1/31/2020 9:58pm first submit
41
@hen3ry
Well, actually, as we have already seen, it is Oligarchy that destroys democracy by buying politicians and the government who strictly serves their interests at the expense of everyone else, hence, politicians ignore their constituents on important policy like healthcare even though the majority of people want it.
9
@hen3ry
The electoral college determines the winner. If it isn't Trump, his term ends on Jan. 20, 2021. He may contest the electoral college vote, and if that is not resolved by Jan. 20 he is still out. It is not clear who would become president pro-tempore, the constitution has a procedure in case of electoral college ties, which if unresolved by Jan. 20 would put the Speaker of the House as the interim president.
3
@hen3ry So, you can't sleep either? And for the same reason. Already I can see his tweets on November 4, "Fake election".
1
As we saw today, fear drives the stock market in only one direction: down. If Sanders wins, fear will drive it far down. In fact, a Sanders win in Iowa next week will give a short preview. That result isn't as likely if Biden wins and any drop will be less steep.
2
When did the stock market become THE defining charcateristic of our economic well-being? It's time we worried about people more than the inexplicable and irrational fluctuations of a stock market that is only one part of the economic picture.
16
@blgreenie Not fear of US politics, in this case, fear of a global epidemic.
Will Bernie mess it up again is the question I ask myself? I would have voted for him had he won the primary in 2016, but I know many-and I mean many, of his supporters who did not vote for Hillary when Bernie lost the primary, and I fear they will do that yet again if he fails to win the primary this time. I am very concerned about his ego driving this...this is not a man who compromises, which is one reason I won't support him.
11
@Eva Lockhart
OR, perhaps, unlike the rest of the politicians who serve their corporate "masters" and NOT their constituents, the man who doesn't compromise as you claim is the one that actually sticks to his principles and won't waver on the issues, something other "corrupt" politicians have continually been doing in America for decades because their corporate donors told them to.
6
@Deus That is right. Why should we vote for corporate democrats who line their own pockets and pass legislation to benefit their donors at the expense of the American people. Your "moderate" candidates may be for sale, but our vote is not.
2
@Eva Lockhart
Spot-on analysis!
I suspect Dr. Krugman has hit the nail on the head. I support Elizabeth Warren and hope she wins the nomination, but whoever becomes the standard bearer for the Dems will have my support. My enthusiastic support.
What a difference it will be for millions of Americans and for American democracy if ANY of the Dems wins the White House and Democrats win the Senate. The stakes have probably never been higher.
Thank you Dr. Krugman for giving us the "view from 50,000 feet". Hopefully it will temper some of our inclination towards sectarianism (mine included).
184
@Gary A.
Neither Democrats nor Republicans decide who the winner is. It is the independents.
Right on!
Just give me a sane, adult Democratic nominee and he or she will have my vote, my money, and my active participation in working for their election.
The stakes are too high for dissension, the alternative too horrific to contemplate.
127
What matters most is vigilance over Republican dirty tricks, foreign involvement, voter suppression, bogus complaints, and, unless a Democrat wins in a landslide, demands for recounts, allegations of "stealing the election", and appeals to the Republican Supreme Court. The possibility exists also of a Trumpist October surprise, a fake crisis, and even declaration of a national emergency. The result of the impeachment "trial" shows we have moved from the republic to the imperium, and anything goes.
13
What "gigantic spending increases Sanders has proposed"?
American families are drowning in college debt. So you think creating free public university tuition, exactly what most of Europe and Asia enjoys, and helping American families, would be a gigantic spending increase? You don't see how desperately America needs this?
And Medicare for all is a "gigantic spending increase", Paul? Are you truly unaware that America spends double per person on health care compared with every other developed country on the planet? You don't get that a public healthcare system that covers everyone is desperately needed?
This is precisely the sort of distortion and dishonesty that the Hillary campaign spewed out that so infuriated Democrats and independents alike. And this is the continuation of the anti-Sanders campaign by The Times that is inexcusable.
15
Read what he is writing. He is not anti Bernie or anti anyone candidate. Thats the whole point. Bernies supporters should come out and say that they will wholeheartedly support any of the dem candidates if Bernie is not the nominee. That would be a win for Bernies candidacy and it would creaty unity between left and centre. Biden, Bernie,, Bennet, Bloomberg, KloBuchar - all willbe better for America and the world - Dont you agree?
8
@Sean
TRILLION AND A HALF DOLLAR tax cut to the wealthy and corporations, a record 768 BILLION DOLLAR gift to the military industrial complex, BILLIONS in tax subsidies to the fossil fuel industry every year, but to Paul Krugman that is OK and yet, he claims Sanders is going to be involved in gigantic spending increases?
Of course, they claim the country cannot afford medicare for all, a better minimum wage or free public college.
This attitude just confirms the total disconnect between the corporate/establishment of Paul Krugman's world and the REAL people, they just don't get it and wonder why a clown like Donald Trump got elected in the first place?
5
@Simon - Certainly everyone should say what the public wants to hear.
Trump is very good at this. Look at all things he said he would do but yet backtracked on almost everything he promised.
Or how about all the voters who said "No way, no how" will we vote for Trump to the pollsters but then when they got behind the curtain, pulled the lever for him.
1
I am as ABT as anyone. The reason I hope Biden is not the nominee is this: I read some of the conservative social media and there is one meme time and again (I know, redundant). They all accuse Biden and Hunter of being corrupt. They’re actually not anymore problematic than Hillary’s emails or Benghazi. But the republicans will hammer corruption home time and again and again and....
8
@pbilsky, President Trump will go after the Democrats' nominee whoever it is with both fists.
The fact that we are worried about the chance of Trump getting elected again says a lot about the miserable state of education in the US which has failed to instill in people the ability to think critically.
We have left the gentle, farming friendly Holocene period and entering what? the Anthropocene, the Plasticene, or the Idiocene.
Take your pick.
8
At this point in the campaigns the absolute purists are in a paroxysm of outrage that You People don't understand that they and only they can save us. Blech.
We have several entirely serious people at the top of the ticket. We also have sone entirely serious people, with perhaps less experience, at the second level. Sadly, in my view, we also have Bloomberg but hey... Dr. Krugman is absolutely spot on. Look at what cadet bonespur and the boys have done so far, and imagine what another term would be like. Time to get serious folks.
3
We have a problem. When liberal columnists say things like:
"So turning Sanders’s vision into reality would require large tax increases, not just on the wealthy, but on the middle class..."
Ohmigod--higher taxes!... while failing to mention that a 5K tax hike might also mean a 10K savings in insurance premiums and copays. As long as this reasoning, or lack thereof, is promoted both by FOX and the NYT editorial page, we Americans will always be stuck with "health care" which costs twice as much, delivers poor results, excludes 10% of the population altogether, and promotes medical bankruptcy, a bizarre phenomenon known only in the world's richest country.
74
You are so right! The average Joe needs to have this explained! If they don’t understand that it’s still a net gain of money in your pocket they are not going to vote for it! The media has been sadly lacking in making that clear.
In case you haven't noticed, the real reason it doesn't matter who the Democrats choose is because we no longer have a democracy. If the Democrats actually pull off a majority of electoral votes in November, Trump won't budge and the Senate, the Supreme Court and the Attorney General will back him up.
The Republican party represents the gravest threat to life that the Earth and history have every faced.
100
@David R The republican organization is the most dangerous in human history.
An outrageous statement? Consider that through just one of their policies, that on climate, they are uniquely dedicated to the destruction of organized human life. Think about it.
Their policies will take our climate beyond human experience and adaptive capacity, this century.
19
@David R
Very accurate David … only when Democrats are in power the country is a democracy. Not when Republicans are in power.
5
In case you haven't noticed, the real reason it doesn't matter who the Democrats choose is because we no longer have a democracy. If the Democrats actually pull off a majority of electoral votes in November, Trump won't budge and the Senate, the Supreme Court and the Attorney General will back him up.
The Republican party represents the gravest threat to life that the Earth and history have every faced.
5
No
2
@Suzy Sandor Is that really your best shot?
Maybe I should begin by disposing of the deceptions in the article first.
1) When Sanders talked about adjustments in Social Security. he was referring to increased taxes on the wealthy. He has a history of supporting SS expansion for decades.
He was never a member of the Beltway consensus. Unlike Biden, Because Krugman regards Biden as a " Very Serious Person" his proposals for SS cuts in the past are forgivable. If Sanders proposals for SS expansion in the past were adopted, millions of elderly would not be impoverished today. If Biden concession to the Beltway consensus were enacted, there would be more impoverished elderly. Yeah, Biden now has some modest proposal for SS expansion. It is election season.
2) Progressive candidates in deep red districts were given limited support by the DCCC and one who lost in West Virginia gained on Clinton's vote count by 25%
Margin of victory is crucial. Biden's message is I am not Trump. Sanders is also not Trump and he has a populist agenda. If he wins by a large margin, Democrats will embrace Sanders as Republicans currently embrace Trump. They will have no choice but to embrace his populist agenda. which, unlike Biden, is significant.
You are right that with a Republican Senate , any change from either is unlikely. However, Sanders will change the political culture, vigorously oppose accommodation to Republicans, like Medicare and Social Security, and will have a giant megaphone that he will use passionately.
22
@mbaris1 and he won't be able to get anything done. But that's okay because he won't be Trump. Which is the point of this article.
2
I just want the most electable candidate to win, and I want the candidates who don't get the nomination - and their supporters - to rally enthusiastically...unlike what happened in 2016. We need this man out of office and we need a changing of the guard in the Senate. Republicans are well aware their time is winding down and they're trying to push through as much legislation as possible and all the judicial appointees they can cram through on their way out the door. It's a mistake to think what happens now goes away in 4 years - what they're doing will have lasting effect on our country and on the gains we've made in the last several years. I truly believe Sanders would be a polarizing figure and hope he does not win for that reason, but I will support him if he does.
20
@Sky - I keep hearing from those who don’t like Bernie that they’ll still vote for him if he wins. I don’t remember hearing Bernie supporters saying they’ll vote blue no matter who, if Bernie loses. One more reason I really dislike Bernie and his supporters.
2
@A Dot , I acknowledge your fear, but if you haven't heard the Bernie supporters saying—again—that they will support the nominee, you aren't listening. I think your last sentence is telling.
@Sky
Well said!
Mr. Krugman,
Does it ever really matter whomever either party chooses when it comes to actual policy? I mean, really, do you think presidents determine policy? Or do factions supporting, or nor supporting, candidates, determine candidates, and then determine policy?
I think you agree that factions e.g. where a candidate lies on the political spectrum "help" determine policy...not so much candidates.
But maybe that is old-timey American politics. Policy now seems to be shifting to who the candidate is very much, irrespective of "fancy" policy considerations. Given that the current incumbent could probably have run for either party and won the nomination last go round, and defeating that style looks to be pretty difficult this next go-round. Thereby inviting imitators (no shortage), who will surely have an easier time of it next next go-round.
You have met the enemy, and it is you all. I don't have much hope for your future.
2
We can be sure Sanders and Warren would lead and prioritize real reform in Healthcare and Washington Corruption for which they would win a strong broadly based mandate and coattails. Biden is not even seeking that, so to expect significant outcomes from Biden, significant in relation to the scale of the problems, is simply wishful thinking or delusion.
7
@Prad - It’s wishful thinking to think that Warren or Sanders can get even a tenth of their ideas made into law. Republicans won’t vanish if Warren or Sanders is president. And it’s wishful thinking to think either of them will win the presidency to begin with.
The 2020 election will be owned by Trump who just got the green light from the U.S. Senate to invite Russia, China, Iran and any other agreeable foreign power to get him elected in November. Trump’s already collaborating with Zuckerberg. Does anyone think the two of them will not facilitate another “corrupt Hillary” job on whoever the Democratic candidate is?
11
@fishergal
I totally agree. For those who love their country, the question has to be not how the Democratic candidate will govern, but whether they can defeat our corrupt and treasonous current head of state.
You can be assured that Putin is working to support Bernie as nominee as much as assisting the Republicans in weakening the US economically and militarily.
1
@fishergal Yeah, you're right. Let's just throw in the towel. The American voter is simply too stupid and easily led to make election of a Democrat possible. Our electoral system too irreversibly vulnerable to allow for an honest vote tally. Thank you for saving everyone all that wasted time and expense. I'll just watch TV and eat Doritos from this point forward. Thanks again.
I agree with the thrust of this column in so far as it pertains to policy. But I beg to differ with the argument in so far as politics are concerned. Keep in mind that pendulum swings in the political realm are much more violent than pendulum swings in policy. A sharp swing to the left occasioned by a Sander’s victory would generate a much more violent surge of conservative reaction than would either a Bloomberg or Biden win.
4
@carl mosk
Sorry, doesn't equate. Obama governed like a moderate. The Trump result is the farthest Right in recent history.
5
@carl mosk
Or, you can have a Trump Dictatorship and be the pariahs of the world, by 2025, if not sooner.
Your theory of pendulum swings in politics predicts a President Bernie Sanders.
1
Once again we have the corporate/establishment sounding more and more like Fox News and Trump himself, create the narrative you already fully believe in, add in some "alternative facts" and keep repeating it over and over again hoping that some will believe you and this Krugman column is no exception and we have seen it all before with others in the NYT like Timothy Egan, elsewhere today in this publication and there certainly are "distinct" differences between the candidates. Is there any wonder why different super pacs are throwing everything against the wall with negative ads in primary states aimed solely at Sanders while stacking the DNC with anti-Sanders lobbyists and political hacks? It has nothing to do with the idea that he can't possibly win, they are very worried he CAN.
It ALL comes back to the fact that regardless of the different narratives, the "establishment" cannot come to grips with the "horror" that Sanders could actually be the nominee and regardless of what is claimed, poll after poll confirms he has the BEST chance of beating Trump and by the widest margin, not Biden not Warren not anyone else.
8
@Deus It is true. And when you consider that incumbent presidents usually win a second term, especially popular ones with great economic numbers, you realize that not just any candidate will do. We are looking for a miracle-worker, someone with extraordinary skills in inspiring large numbers of people to vote because that is what will be required to unseat Mr. Trump.
Question. It's my understanding that Social Security can't be changed through the Reconciliation process becuase of the Byrd Amendment. Which means there has to be 60 votes to make any changes, not 51. So, don't any changed to Social Securuity require - either bipartisan support or ending the legislative filibuster which even McConnell didn't want to do.
1
If Biden wins, nothing will be done about endless wars, nothing will be done about income inequality, nothing will be done about raising corporate taxes, nothing will be done about climate. Meanwhile, Democrats will be congratulating themselves about the return of civility and decency to our fair land.
21
@PeterC That is so funny and so true.
Thanks Paul. Now explain this to Bret Stephens, to Tim Evans and the others on the NO BERNIE fence. It will be THEIR fault, if Trump comes back. Not Bernie's.
15
Regarding electability, remember what happened the last time we ran a centrist democrat against Trump?
A lot of Trump supporters are those left behind by the US economy. Consider that if we adjusted 1970s' national minimum wage for inflation it would now be $22 per hour instead of the current $7.25 per hour.
Sanders is the only one who can believably speak to their concerns. And remember the polls, Sanders performs best of all against Trump.
9
@Erik Frederiksen I remember talking Bernie up to my Dem friends, there response was “There’s no way Sanders can beat Trump that’s why I’m voting for Hillary because she’ll squash Trump”.
6
@Erik Frederiksen Yes, and where were all of the centrist democrats these past forty years when wages continued to slip into the gutter? Did they advocate for living wages like Bernie Sanders? Or did they accept money from large donors to suppress wages while closing factories and sending middle-class jobs out of the country?
@Lou - And she did. And how can anyone believe that Bernie could beat Trump when he couldn’t even beat Hillary in the primary? Maybe those who still insist that Bernie could’ve beaten Trump believe that because Bernie is a man and Hillary is a woman. They seem to forget that Hillary actually DID beat Trump.
Well a good question , now it has become a yo yo game with the Democratic presidential candidates.
Biden, Sanders , Buttigieg going up and down, then Amy Klobuchar moving up and Elizabeth Warren down a bit. Then Michael Bloomberg is getting on trump nerves , who knows.
I know for certain that I will vote for the Democratic nominees whoever that person might be.
As of today republicans have lost their identity have become trump’s puppet with the exception of Senator Romney and Susan Collins.
5
There might be big differences in foreign policy and national security, where the president has more freedom to act.
5
I agree. It doesn't matter which Democrat wins the nomination. None of the candidates making grand pie in the sky proposals have answered two questions. First of all, how are you going to pay for it? Secondly, how are you going to get it past the Senate filibuster and a hostile Supreme Court? All campaign promises are nonsense. How many of his campaign promises did Obama fulfill?
6
Bernie's attacks on Biden are deeply dishonest. They aren't out-and-out Trumpian inventions, but they are tiny slices of reality so shorn of context that they are simply untrue. He did this to Hillary in 2016.
I've had enough of dishonesty in the White House, especially dishonesty in "blunt truth-teller" drag.
But I'll vote for Bernie if he's the Democratic nominee. Hope he picks a good VP.
4
@NFC - As a woman, I’ll find it very difficult to vote for Bernie, whom I consider a sexist as well as a con artist. However, in the end, I’ll have to vote for him in the general election. I’m hoping he loses to any of the Democrats running.
Under Obama the US became the world's largest producer of fossil fuels.
If we don't light a fire under our actions to slow global warming the planet will light one under us.
Is Biden the man to do this or Sanders?
You can decide, but now that the planet is responding faster than scientists have predicted it is not for your grandchildren, or your children, but for yourself.
8
@Erik Frederiksen
Biden says that doing something meaningful about climate change could damage the economy. That isn't true and he won't do anything anyway.
6
@Deus Talk about damage to the economy, from the Nobel Laureate Yale economist William Nordhaus:
"the expected loss from certain risks such as climate change is infinite, and standard economic analysis cannot be applied."
https://cowles.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/pub/d16/d1686.pdf
If you held an election today between Trump and an unknown Democrat, then held the same election in November between Trump and the actual nominee, the numbers wouldn't move much. The people in his camp aren't budging and the people repulsed by him would vote for a cream cheese bagel if the Democrats so chose. Whatever is said or done in the campaign only matters for the sake of sparking turnout. There aren't enough minds left undecided to make a difference either way.
6
@StuAtl How about some evidence for this assertion.
"...from its political center of gravity, which is currently one of moderate progressivism..."
Mr Krugman, I know progressives. I am to the left of them.
The center of gravity of the Democratic Party ... until there is an election that ordains it otherwise ... is nowhere near moderate progressivism. It's Republican Lite, well to the right of Richard Nixon's Republican Party.
11
@unreceivedogma
This.
You are at least largely right in what you say. However, the problem with saying that electability is very important (because policy differences are not) is that primary/caucus voters are ill-equipped to evaluate it.
First, there is the problem of objectivity; many voters tend to think that the candidate they like best is the most electable. Beyond that, even if you can maintain objectivity, how can you know, at this early stage, who is really electable, who isn't?
An alternative is to evaluate the candidates in terms of your assessment of their character, their qualities, their humanity, as opposed to the policies they advocate or oppose. Who provides the best example? Who is the most leader-ly? Who can do the most to restore comity, to get Americans to feel better about each other, and themselves? Who do you look up to the most?
This is of course touchy-feely, and also difficult to assess, but if we are not to distinguish among them on the basis of policy, it might be the best means for doing so.
Dr. Krugman's position seems reasonable. I do think there are some different long-term implication. in the long term a Sander's presidency may drive the party to the left while Biden will keep the party firmly just to the left of the Republicans. Mr. Krugman does overlook foreign policy differences however. Biden will be much more likely to start a war somewhere than Mr. Sanders.
6
@Keitr I think Biden's foreign policy experience would be more likely to avoid a war than electing yet another neophyte who really isn't interested in geopolitics.
@Keitr I'm curious - on what facts do you base your last statement? "Much more likely" is a pretty bold thing to say. Why do you think so?
Unlike most Krugman columns, this is poorly reasoned. Biden has little understanding of or concern about the extent to which corporate dominance of our politics has corrupted both parties, and he would initiate nothing significant to begin to correct the balance of political power. He will do little to address the inequities and resulting resentments that led so much of the population to support Trumpism in the first place, thus paving the way for the next Demagogue. Bernie, on the other hand, has no history of interest in the Democratic Party and is unlikely to work on strengthening it. But parties are vital to American democracy, and it is vital to reconstitute at least one of them if we are to have any buffer from raw populism and demagoguery on the one hand and raw economic power on the other.
2
I'm ahead of the curve on this question Mr. Krugman raises in his title. I already have a bumper sticker on my car that reads, "ANYONE BUT TRUMP 2020."
A bit off the topic but still related to the upcoming election is my complaint about Trump's more-than-likely acquittal. If Trump were impeached, do you realize that he would immediately be removed from office? That. Very. Moment. I doubt he'd even be allowed to clean out his desk (so much for the extra boxes of KFC in there).
On the other hand, if we have to wait until November 2020 and defeat him at the ballot box, he'll still have until January 20th, 2021, to commit mischief and mayhem as our president. How much mischief and mayhem could Trump commit in those 78 days?
Chills the soul, doesn't it? And that's only one reason why impeachment of DJT would be better than defeating him in the election.
11
Likely longevity is the most important qualification for the next Democratic presidential candidate I will vote for in the primaries. I want a candidate who will be alive, healthy and capable of a vigorous second term campaign. Whatever amazing progress a president might make in his first two years in office becomes ephemeral if Congress changes from one party's dominance to the other. Look at how Obama care has become shamefully vitiated by the Republicans.
Otherwise, I agree with the views expressed in the column.
In the general election, I'll vote blue no matter who just to be rid of you know who.
1
Here is why it matters.
Joe Biden: Republicans who are exhausted and sick of Trump will flock to Biden. He can win all of the democratic states and spike the ball in the swing states.
Bernie Sanders: An actual socialist running will finally be the warning the GOP has been giving voters since Obama took office, even before. It will not only rally the base but it will draw out people who would never have bothered voting for Trump just to stop Bernie. It is a disaster in the making. Landslide win for Trump.
Elizabeth Warren: She struggles even now in match-up polls with Trump. Her question to John Roberts during impeachment was an example of how her poor judgment gets in the way. She called for impeachment too early, rousted out Al Franken too early and just doesn't seem to really have the kind of steady hand needed. Landslide vote for Trump.
Bloomberg: Who can say.
5
@Sasha Stone
You might being overstating that republican crowd...the Senate has confirmed 192 judge picks by Trump..25% of total fed judges..overturning liberal lean in 2-3-11th circuits and 4 from overturning the 9th circuit. I think Trump won over republicans who didn’t vote last time. Trump is two people...the rally comedian...but also a worker who is part judicial goldmine for many republicans.
@Sasha Stone
"Republicans who are exhausted and sick of Trump will flock to Biden."
Both of them? Quite a flock.
“Here’s why it matters: I like Biden” -Sasha in Hollywood
Who the Democratic candidate is doesn’t matter. The self-imposed purity tests of the party faithful will ensure that a significant number of Democratic voters will stay home and sulk on election day.
Add voter suppression, help from Putin and his minions and the financial power of his wealthy backers - and if all this is not enough, the shambles of the Electoral College, and it’s a cinch that Trump will be back for a second term.
Too bad, really.
5
If Mr. Krugman is right, and I think and hope he is, it's just another argument for the Democratic Party to go for a moderate nominee. The end results won't matter much, so go with a candidate that has a better chance of beating Trump with the all important Mid-Western moderates/independents.
Of course, I'm biased as a moderate myself. Go Bloomberg!
4
@EMH Dr. Krugman, please do your analysis with Mike Bloomberg as the Democratic nominee?
Of course, the real problem is that we are no longer a representative democracy. That is the real problem. If our elected officials were actually proportionally representative of our total population's views we would probably be a center-left country.
But the hold on the country by states of the old South, the fact that the House is no longer representative as well as the un-proportional nature of the Senate means that all policies are skewed far right.
In addition, we are now a true plutocracy where money drives policy and elections. Just look at Mike Bloomberg. He will get on the stage at the next debate purely because he is a billionaire oligarch. Unlike Trump, he is likely to be a benevolent oligarch, but he is still an oligarch.
Our country will not emerge from our current polity unless these fundamental issue are addressed.
5
I wish Krugman had also weighed in on what difference a Biden or Sanders Presidency would mean for Climate Change---a not insignificant topic right now.
13
The consolidated Trump base controls so much sheer territory that he will either capture the Electoral College or contort the results sufficiently to simply refuse to vacate the Oval Office.
Several Democrats appeal to specific constituencies, but both fatally segment the vote and disappoint essential groups, such as African-Americans. Turnout may favor GOP. Then, if the Senate stays Red, the historical trauma will be irreversible.
Dr Krugman, this systemic concern threatens our democracy itself. The political, economic, climate debacle could blow up a tottering system. Beware.
2
Amen, Mr. Krugman.
My favorite is Warren, not because of her more ambitious proposals but in spite of them.
I find her passion, brilliance, and energy inspirational.
I will vote for her in my state's primary, which most likely will go to Bernie. Then, in November, I will vote for whichever Dem candidate makes the final cut.
I also will do so without even a thought of holding my nose or any other part of my body as I check the box. Everyone running is smarter, more accomplished, more driven, and more diligent than I am; unless many other voters, apparently superior beings, I feel no need to view any Dem candidate with disdain.
11
Will Rogers described one aspect of this subject well: "I don't belong to any organized political party. I'm a Democrat."
Herding cats is not a sufficient metaphor. The herd has leftist cats, many of which don't like one another, but also a similar number of wildly various moderate dogs and the occasional other animal.
By this analogy, Bernie Sanders, who is not a member of the party until every four years when it's primary season, would certainly be neither cat not dog.
5
Thank you Dr. Krugman. This makes sense. We absolutely need progressives and centrists to be in the same team in November.
Let's also not forget that Bernie has voted for Obamacare at every single occasion. If it's the best he can achieve, I trust he will not squander the rare opportunity of two trifecta years to let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
But it doesn't hurt to aim higher as a starting position, too many times Democrats start from the center and end up right of it.
I do believe that Trump might reveal a replacement of the ACA between now and the election, as he's vulnerable with the workers after the free trade deals and now he's chipping away at Obamacare and Medicaid. And of course it's also Obama's signature legacy, the highest value target to dismantle out of spite.
If my suspicions are correct, it will be a big challenge for Pelosi to take a smart position on Trumpcare that doesn't undermine our chances.
5
NO. Any Single one of the Nominees would be exponentially better than the current Occupant.
Period.
11
@Phyliss Dalmatian Right on!
I appreciate this opinion because I have been debating these thoughts with myself. I came to the conclusion that I can feel good about voting for whoever wins.
I fear that the Trump campaign (not to mention the Russians) will try to damage to the Democratic unity and we must remain steadfast.
Turnout is the key.
18
While I agree with you in general about big policies. I think the ability to govern through regulatory changes is key. I'm not supporting Elizabeth Warren because I don't think she can win, but do I think she will be able to harness the power of the regulatory process to make change better than Biden: Yes. And do I think Biden will do more to bring our standing back to where it was in the world community better than anyone else: Yes.
So, big picture, you are right, but not on the edges which in this case has a big impact.
Still confused on who to vote for. I just want to beat Trump.
3
If you’re right Paul, it’s time for Bernie and Joe to take one for the team for the sake of unity and to win in November.
They should announce they are teaming up for the primary contest and pool resources and supporters and win this thing since it doesn’t really matter who is the candidate.
They could probably decide who will be president with the flip of a coin or maybe two out of three.
5
Whoever wins the Democratic nomination will be eviscerated by the republicans and their leadership at Fox News. What does electability mean today? It is going to be very very nasty and beyond a doubt criminal. We are now at war. I agree with the Professor. It is nearly impossible to move the “football” completely down the field. We need a strong and consistent ground game to incrementally move forward. I desperately want Medicare for All but I agree it will take more foundational blocks before that will happen. What, do you think we live in a democracy? The scales have fallen from my eyes, and no doubt from the rest of the world’s. We must elect Democrats everywhere. That is are sole objective. We are at war now for democracy.
405
I think Obama was right to give bipartisanship a real chance, from Obamacare (built on conservative Heritage Foundation ideas) to going to Congress for the authorization to use force in Syria.
But we saw how that worked out, just as we saw how Newt Gingrich responded to the Clinton presidency.
So because of that I don’t think the D candidates are more or less interchangeable. When Mitch McConnell or his successor acts like a big meanie and won’t schedule bills the public wants for action or abuses the filibuster like nobody ever did before (except McConnell during the early Obama presidency), we need a president who will persistently and effectively take the case to the voters.
To me, Sanders looks like the champ on this score and Biden seems the least likely to do what’s necessary to call out intransigence. (I think Biden might do just fine when it comes to calling out misrepresentation.) I’m open to Biden and the other candidates convincing the voters that they’d do what’s necessary in this regard.
6
I am disappointed by all the objections. For one’s candidate to get the nomination is nice, but worthless if the person doesn’t win the election. What Dr Krugman is saying in effect, list all the candidates for President in order and almost all, if not all, Democrats are going to list Trump last. Let’s make sure we hang together so the last on the list doesn’t win. Further, when you look at the changes that will come, the direction will all be the same and different from Trump’s.
Further, I volunteered in college for McGovern, and he was blown away. So I understand the desire to be pure. But after too many losses, Nixon, Reagan,Bush, Bush it became clear we need winners. I think Dr. Krugman’s hit it out the park. Let’s debate and campaign and then unite and Win.
163
@Elliot Rosenthal
The worst thing about Dem wannabes is they will abandon the winning candidate the moment they lose instead of campaigning for the winner candidate with all heart and soul. May be they are exhausted, and go back to their pre-campaign business, but they can at least minimally go about campaigning for the dem nominee to win. This rarely happens. I hope they go vote. As regards, respectable and sincere Sanders, my fear is he may not have all the energies needed of an effective and robust US President that can galvanize the nation like say Roosevelt. And did he get a clean chit from his cardiologist?
7
1. There are so many D Presidential candidates there won't be a enough dissafecteds from any single losing candidate to make a difference. Besides, Ds are already united behind the idea that any candidate is better than Trump.
2. Big difference between Sanders & Biden on executive orders.
3. Sanders could finance his reforms by freezing defense spending for one year.
4, Biden's problem is that he's an establishment candidate in a reform cycle, same problem Hillary had that lost her labor's vote. Sanders doesn't have that problem; hes running against his Party's establishment: Biden, Hillary, Obama. Sanders would have more trouble with a D congress that Biden because he isn't part of that establishment.
6. The idea that Sanders will ever be tempered is as unlikely as the idea that Trump will ever be tempered.
3
@Skezix
I have a hard time seeing African Americans and union hands coming out in force for Elizabeth Warren. I don’t think your party is nearly united as you think it is.
It may not make much difference to you, Mr. Krugman, but to those of us who live on the razor’s edge of the poverty line, it matters a great deal.
We will never be allowed, after the forty year disenfranchisement of the promises of the American Dream: a life with a living wage, a modest home and Social Security upon retirement that would allow us to live our elderly years with a modicum of dignity, will not happen if a centrist Democratic just tweaks the existing system.
We live in a time with the highest division of wealth since the Great Depression.
For those of us who, now, live in constant fear of poverty or illness, big changes are needed.
Take everything regarding wealth distribution that has happened since Reagan and reverse it.
We, the children of the generation who won WWll were promised the world, but all we want is to be able to live a life without fear and with dignity.
269
@Dr B It's not the boomers, it's the GOP. What matters is not the total debt but debt as a percentage of GDP. Debt per GDP was fairly constant until the 1980s, when it turned up sharply, leveling off in the early 90s. It rose again (more modestly) in the 2000s and jumped sharply with the great recession in 2009. After a small dip it is increasing again. Except for the crash in 2009, the periods of increase are all around tax cutting periods. Check out the 50 year trend on https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/government-debt-to-gdp
56
@Viroquan "Take everything regarding wealth distribution that has happened since Reagan and reverse it." That is a great idea - how do you think it is going to happen? Even if Sanders is elected, the Democrats obtain a Senate majority and increase their majority in the House, the Republicans will have a solid 40+ votes in the Senate to filibuster almost everything. .
11
@Dr B Reagan, who lead this country into unprecedented debt, was a member of The Greatest Generation.
7
If you ask for the stars you might get the moon. With that in mind I support Sen Warren because she has the ability to get things done in DC. As you point out Dr, she would not get everything but she would get farther along than Joe or Bernie and what she gets would work. I can settle for a few moons. For the same reason I can support Sen Klobuchar too.
20
@John Smith So much depends upon whether a Senate majority is wangled or not.
1
While I agree with your premise, I think its disingenuous to suggest that the Democrats are not a monolithic entity answering to a handful of billionaires. Granted they're not aligned with white nationalists, but are still disinclined to insert themselves between climate science and profit.
I'm inspired and still hopeful that Sen. Warren will break into the lead, but I am also very turned on by Yang's slogan: not left or right, but forward.
Small steps may be all that's possible, but that doesn't mean that giant steps shouldn't be fought for.
11
How is it all you Democratic establishment economists are always preaching that the USG budget is not like a household. Then when you get down to basics all you talk about is the impossibility of running the government like anything but a household!
Taxes in, spending out, deficits bad. Balance the budget. As long as you are trapped in this box the real problems of this country can't be addressed. Joe Biden and the other centrists are trapped with you and you are right they won't make any difference. They'll just find bankers like Geithner to run the economy and keep Wall Street in the drivers seat.
Bernie or Warren may not be able to make a lot of change but at least they might get us on the right track for meaningful change. Perhaps they can postpone the Climate Catastrophe long enough to get a grip on fixing things.
49
@L F File Mr Krugman is certainly not the type of economist you cite as his policies are well known regarding the insignificance of deficits in and of themselves (as opposed to the policies that have given rise to the deficits, like a major tax cut to corporations that results only in increased shareholder value).
The column simply recognizes the restraining role that Congress will play; the first term may be unlikely to see a Democratic Senate majority (and perhaps even less likely with Bernie (or Warren) running. But even with a majority Democratic Senate, the most extreme measures advocated by Warren and Sanders will not pass at this stage.
9
We don't have to look too far back for an example of the Democrats running both chambers and the White House. President Obama, no radical progressive, could barely rally his party to support his signature accomplishment, the Affordable Care Act. Despite years of policy planning by all manner of think tanks and politicians, there was no consensus or even a modicum of agreement as to how health insurance reform should work. The legislation itself was so bloated and contorted to conform to a whole host of special interests that it was minimally effective, expensive, and didn't include the magic bullet -- a public option/medicare available to all. There is no way President Warren or Sanders will achieve anything close to their pie-in-the-sky goals. So, really, what is the point? We need to elect a moderate who can actually reach across the aisle and horse trade for realistic accomplishments. I don't see Bernie working it like Bill Clinton did.
3
@HowieBsd
Yes and like clinton they would be more like republicans and keep hurting the country. The income inequality increased. Welfare was cut, harsh penalties were given to blacks for drug possession, while penalties for whites didn't change.
That resulting in a large increase in arrests and prisons for black, while whites got off lightly.
No, we don't need to have moderates who support the republicans. We have had enough of them.
6
I care less about which Democrat wins the nomination, and more that all of those who DON'T will campaign vigorously for the nominee.
Democrats have been painted as disorganized and disunified because the party boasts both centrists and progressives, but that's not necessarily true. Sure, candidates don't all land in the same place on the spectrum, but at least the Democrats HAVE a spectrum. Better than the monocultural Republicans.
Democrats have always touted themselves as the big-tent party. No matter who wins the nod, 2020, is the year to prove it.
50
Why are media mentions of Warren and Klobuchar so consistently curtailed? It was disappointing to see it in your column too. You begin "At this point, the Democratic presidential nomination is very much up in the air." and then mention the four current top candidates. However, your analysis of progressive vs. centrist drifts off to repeated name Biden and Sanders and sometimes use he or she. Name awareness is key to being nominated and elected. Language matters and choosing to lump the two women candidates under ideology categories headlined by the names of male candidates unfairly diminishes Senator Elizabeth Warren and Senator Amy Klobuchar.
25
The vote to have witnesses is just over with the expected acquittal soon. Every Republican Senator that holds a contestable seat needs to be defeated and the energies of the Democrat party should be as robust in that effort as well as the effort to replace Trump. The House should expand its majority. That's the country I wish to sit down to next Thanksgiving.
51
Democratic.
Democratic party, Democratic candidate, Democratic nominee, Democratic senator, and so on and so forth.
Some republican, probably Rush Limbaugh, started the “Democrat” nonsense.
Republican is a noun and an adjective. Democrat is a noun. Democratic is the correct (and proper) adjective.
This is fine but I can't help but think Biden will be a serious friend of the financial industry. Look what he did to Delaware. Biden will not be aggressive enough in turning back trump's devastating environmental edicts. The Democratic president elect needs to hit the ground running to make a dent in Trump's destructive policies. I just don't see nice guy Mr. Biden being up to the task.
41
@Suzanne Wheat Suzanne: fine, then vote your choice in the primaries, but whoever wins the primaries, support them in the general election against trump. Biden is my least favorite candidate, but if he wins the white house, every Democrat will have a seat at the table. Four more years of trump and the door remains slammed in our collective faces. And vote to turn the Senate blue and dump all GOP senators: it's essential.
4
I had this very conversation with my brother this afternoon. He is a Bernie devotee, I a pragmatic progressive.
To me, Bernie is an idealist pursuing an utopian vision. Joe is a realist pursing what is possible given Republican opposition with their white male "Christian" nativist ideology.
The changing American demographics AND enlightenment will soon make Republicans the Irrelevant Party, in the meantime let's put the brakes on Trumpian corruption and Republican collusion, stop the hemorrhaging of the Constitution, and
put America back on the path of righteousness...leading ultimately to making Sanders' utopian vision a reality.
7
@JABarry Interesting. The GOP before Reagan were great deficit scolds thought Supply Side econ with its tax cuts would balloon the deficit and light inflation. But Reagan pursued his "utopian" vision and sold the GOP on the daft economics and the Republicans and their rich supporters thrived for 30 years till the Great Recession. Their economics were bunk but it got them what they wanted.
Get on board and let MMT rule for the next 30. And maybe it is not even bunk!
4
I would have thought you’d get out of the prediction business after 2016. You’re sounding a lot like the “Very Serious People” you excoriated not so long ago. And you’re also inconsistent: Sanders’ polcies would merely catch US up with almost every modern democratic society. You never described these policies as radical when you praised the virtues of France and Scandinavia. But I shouldn’t be surprised because Inconsistency has become a hallmark of yours ever since Bernie came on the scene.
We’ve seen it many times before in modern history: it seems inconceivable - until it’s not.
11
Boy I hope you’re right Paul. There has been so much gnashing of teeth by Democrats this time around. They’ve found reasons why none of them can win against a guy who threaded an electoral college needle last time, has not expanded his base one iota, and turned millions of undecideds into never Trumpers. Yet they say Bernie and Warren are too far left, Biden is past his prime and is so shaky Trump will obliterate him in the debates, and do the same to Mayor Pete, who is too young and gay to boot. And of course, Warren and Amy are women, so they’re out. So how does all this gibe with the fact that the last time around the supposed most unelectable nominee ever won?
4
Some of the Democratic contenders are more progressive, some more moderate. Some are more experienced, some less. And, yes, actuaries might conclude some would live to fulfill a first term, or even a second, statistically speaking, and others probably not. But all are patriotic, honest, and smart.
And then, we have President Trump, the impeached putative incumbent.
After next November, unless Trump wins and burns down the Reichstag, we will also still have Congress.
So, support the candidate you think is best for America. But in the end, listen to the Professor. Anyone running for the Democratic nomination would be a game changing improvement over Trump and - who knows? - we might be able to pull back from the brink and save America from self-immolation.
220
@Pottree I certainly will be voting for whoever is the nominee.
4
Thank you, Mr Krugman! You are absolutely right. We have to unite behind the nominee; whoever it is will be a vast improvement over the other option.
12
Not only do we need to raise taxes on the rich and corporation, we need to divert military funding to things that actually benefit the country, like healthcare, education an infrastructure.
216
Biden's a decent, if occasionally confused, guy... but he holds very little appeal to anyone under 45. His poll numbers among the younger crowd might as well be zero. His platform of "Let's go back to the way things were in 2012" is not inspiring. The constant references to the 1970s and 1980s (record player, bussing, etc) mean literally nothing to anyone under 45, and reveal an old man slowly regressing back in time. He knows next to nothing about the American experience of anyone under 45. Frankly, I doubt he even understands the struggles of many Americans his *own* age.
For once, instead of the young being dragged along to support their AARP-member relatives' desired candidate, I would like the opposite to be true. The under-50 crowd now has the demographic majority. I pray they use it.
19
This is an ageist comment. You have no basis for your position except that for some reason experienced, accomplished old people do not excite you. You know what, Trump is very exciting, I am tired of exciting.
I definitely would vote for a great young Democrat, but the older ones are also great and worlds better than what we have.
3
"Even if he has a lingering desire to strike a Grand Bargain with Republicans — which I doubt"
I agree with Paul Krugman's basic thesis but this claim is utterly dishonest. Biden has repeatedly and recently stated his desire to strike grand bargains with Republicans, and made it clear that he thinks that given half a chance they'd be completely reasonable.
This is a replay of the most infuriating and disappointing aspect of the Obama/BIden Administration, with Barack Obama widely lampooned by progressives like Tom Tomorrow/Dan Perkins in his strip "This Modern World" which Obama in an ongoing gag as "Middle Man", constantly being played by Republicans and each time learning the lesson that darn it we just have to compromise more with Republicans.
Yes, Bernie Sanders won't be able to unilaterally enact his most progressive agenda, he'll have a Congress and judiciary to contend with. And yes, Joe Biden won't be able to be as conservative as he was 20 years ago, times have changed.
On the other hand there are other dangers to Joe Biden's openly and often stated belief that Republicans just need someone to compromise, most notably that acting this way in the past enabled Republicans to feel that they could become as extreme as they wanted and weak Democrats would help enable it by living in denial.
So yes, all in for whoever becomes the nominee but until then, choose wisely and when seeing advice as dishonest as this column is, beware of letting it influence your choice.
9
@Jeo
Compromise with the GOP? I'm hoping that whoever the Dem president is starts the equivalent of a truth and reconciliation tribunal. The GOP members of the Senate just told the American public, who probably weren't listening, that their party is more important than the country.
84
@Jeo
Obama had to compromise because the Republicans controlled the House for six of his eight years in office and held both the Senate and House for the last two. That's the way our system works and no amount of "commitment" or "determination" to progressive goals on Obama's part would have changed that.
3
There are tens of millions of voters under 35 that don't normally vote. Bernie will get them to the polls. Come on Dems, you don't need Trump voters to win but you'll get many because 12%of Bernie voters went for Trump in 2016. If Dems get the Obama coalition plus tons of young voters, Bernie or maybe Liz would win in a landslide!
12
@Bosox rule Be cautious. Like you said, they don't normally vote. They are unreliable.
2
@Disgusted
The age group in question increased their voting participation in the 2018 mid-terms by 18%, that was pivotal in the dems taking back the house.
2
And worth pointing out that since we will get the same policies if a Dem wins, regardless of who, it would be a great advancement for our society and an added bonus to finally have a female president.
Girls would have a great leader-role model and would finally be assured, even in their subconscious, that they can do anything they want to in life. They need it and they deserve it.
17
Despite the fact that I'm a millionaire, I believe strongly in the type of social welfare state that's working so well in advanced industrial nations as different culturally as Japan, Taiwan and Germany. Notwithstanding, I think that Bernie Sanders winning the Democratic nomination for POTUS would be a disaster. No one wants to say this out loud because it's so ugly, but in this country a left wing borderline atheist Jewish candidate would loss every state between the Appalachians and Rockies. Trump and his people, and by that I mean the entire political leadership of the GOP, will have a field day pushing out anti-Semitic and anti secular memes on Facebook and Twitter targeted squarely at Mr. Sanders - Putin probably is already helping them with their designs. So a Trump vs. Sanders battle will probably be the ugliest U.S. presidential campaign since John Q. Adams and Andrew Jackson squared off in 1826 - actually, it will probably be worse. I don't really think that the rightness of Sander's positions on the issues I care about can overcome that degree of hatred.
33
I so hate to agree, but I do.
And the same anti-Semitic hatefulness would come out if the candidate were Bloomberg, or any Jew. Not only Trump supporters, but a big segment of the electorate believes America is a Christian nation, doesn’t believe Jews are patriotic Americans and owe their first loyalty to Israel, and as it stands, our government and especially the Republican Party are already in the grasp of Opus Dei Catholics and Evangelical Christians who count accepting Christ as first on any list of positives.
1
"Now, the Democratic Party is very different from the G.O.P. — it’s a loose coalition of interest groups, not a monolithic entity answering to a handful of billionaires allied with white nationalists. But this if anything makes it even harder for a Democratic president to lead his or her party very far from its political center of gravity, which is currently one of moderate progressivism."
This paragraph is definitely a leading contender for most cogent political statement of the year.
But beyond that, Krugman is right that given the constraints of the diverse coalition and of our, ahem, elected legislators, there's very likely to be little de facto difference, except perhaps in rhetoric, among any of the Democratic contenders if they make it to the Oval Office. And yes, what the circular firing squad needs to learn is that the big difference involves getting anybody Blue into that Office.
The odds of having a brokered convention are high--it's hard to see any one hopeful getting a majority of delegates right now. And then, of course, the superdelegates and the horse trading will come into play, meaning there'll likely be hurt feelings whoever eventually comes out with the nomination. (You know Bloomberg is betting on this.) But if any of the disappointed stay home or vote third party this time, they will just wear that stubbornness like a mark of Cain (which only makes one easier to identify when the brown shirts come).
5
It’s an important point. Which candidate can best motivate the party (and the states!) to work together on achievable goals? Which one can best form a consensus on priorities? Which one has the perspective to articulate the needs and goals of the times, whatever these turn out to be by 2021? Pet projects that can’t get the votes won’t be helpful in the long run. Imagine if we could find a president of all the people.
2
While I appreciate that you focus your commentary on your areas of expertise, it's worth noting that your article makes literally no mention of foreign policy, which is, of course, the area in which the US president has the most independent authority to act without Congressional involvement.
There are real differences between the democratic candidates in regards to foreign policy, and they're differences that could have life-and-death consequences for millions of people. It makes sense that you, an authority in economics, don't take it on yourself to analyze the details of these consequences. But your conclusion there's no meaningful difference in actual implementable policy is severely limited, has a major qualification that has to be attached to it—one that the reader should be aware of—when your analysis is ignoring this core function of the presidency, as reasonable as it might be for you to ignore it.
11
@Bryan Yes! There is a wide range between Obama's regime change in Libya, and Biden's similar attitude, and Sander's attitude towards endless war, and since Congress has abrogated its responsibility to rein in the Executive, this area is wide open.
7
"It’s true that Sanders enthusiasts believe that they can rally a hidden majority of Americans around an aggressively populist agenda, and in so doing also push Congress into going along."
For Mr. Sanders to win, his supporters will have to swarm to the polls. That means a lot of younger voters, many of them first-time voters. This is the only way to gain control of the Senate: pick off two or three Senate seats in 2020, and a couple more in 2022. Without control of the Senate, nothing significant will happen. If RBG, bless her heart, can't make it until then, McConnell & Company will likely refuse to vote on a replacement.
3
I don't care who gets the nomination. Any of them are better than what we have now by an order of magnitude. What's important is that the Dems win both houses of Congress. Without that it will Obama's second term again, with the GOP blocking everything. This election has to be pivotal in our history. If the liberals of America don't put their phones down and vote, America will keep sliding into mediocrity and stagnation.
417
@markd
Neither Democrats nor Republicans will decide the final vote no matter how of many of them put their phones down and vote blindly for their party. It will the independents who will decide.
6
It’s hard to say which is more detrimental to the likelihood of a Democrat victory: a Bernie Sanders win, or a non-Bernie Sanders win.
Truthfully, knowing a bit about the DNC myself, I fear that Sanders’ momentum will be undermined in a insidious way. And that will turn off far more undecided voters than we could ever imagine.
We are seeing both scenarios playing out in a terrifying way, and I certainly hope that the candidates’ respective supporters follow the lead of those they support in showing solidarity when necessary despite differences of opinion on certain topics.
8
@Matt I'm very concerned that what the DNC did to Bernie in 2016 appears to have started again.
It seems not to have learned yet that, just as it is our responsibility as the electorate to vote for the most electable candidate, its own responsibility is to nominate the most electable candidate. Advocating for a particular candidate during the primary phase (thereby devaluing the others) dissuades far too many voters (and potential voters) from voting at all, and, thus, isn't in anyone's best interests but the competition's.
5
Cynical take: the DNC cares more about the stability of the stock market and the ability of its corporate donors to retain their riches than it does about a Democrat winning any particular election.
Hogwash!
In terms of policy, aside from reversing every last thing Trump and his GOP did in the last three years, there is still the matter of neoliberal policy that has cost this nation's middle and working classes their futures and their children's.
There is the matter of the environment. Not all candidates are equally or even committed to doing everything and more to reverse the catastrophic conditions that are about to hit us here in the US, never mind Australia. One candidate was part of an administration whose last act was to brutally treat a Native American tribe just so fracking can take place. That is unacceptable. That same candidate was reported by the NYT as telling wealthy donors that nothing much will change if he wins. Unacceptable, again.
Healthcare.
Housing.
Higher education.
Good jobs and regulating the gig economy.
Regulations for everything, including what goes into our food that is making us all sick. Water. Air. Money in politics. Social media and privacy. Our national treasures.
Rewriting the constitution. This one's been gamed to death. Listen to Prof. Sanford Levinson.
Business as usual and triangulation, what Biden calls bipartisanship with a party of traitors, can't do.
So, yeah, who matters a great deal.
---
1/31 9:35 am PST
8
@Rima Regas yes. The “who” should first be anyone not named Donald Trump, and then we’ll go from there.
5
@Matt
That is not how it works. The who is decided at the same time as all the others. We don't go from there until the next election when, again, we are told we will go from there. Rinse, lather, repeat - and then there is an election in which so many are disaffected that evil wins.
Here and now is what matters. What does this nation need? Whose vision closely fits that? Who seems the steadiest, most honest choice?
Vote accordingly.
3
@Rima Regas
What does this nation need? Whose vision closely fits that? Who seems the steadiest, most honest choice?
If those are the criteria, I will not be voting for Bernie in the primary.
2
Thank you, I calmed down quite a bit after reading this.
4
As every sensible Democrat says, "Vote Blue No Matter Who."
1196
@Leading Edge Boomer
If that's the goal, then why not move all the Democratic primaries up to February and March, and hold the convention in April? Who cares if you don't get all the napkins, cups and hats printed in time? The sooner you unite the party, the better your chances.
Letting the early primary states dominate the nomination has an impact not unlike that of the Electoral College which Democrats claim to detest.
31
@Leading Edge Boomer
Let's see how Democrats will vote blue for Bernie Sanders who sided with the mullahs of Iran on hostage taking in 1979. As for Biden, he is basically the one who will be indicted in the Trump impeachment with Hunter stuck to his neck before every independent voter. Democrats may ALL vote blue (and Republicans vote all red) but it is the independents who decide the final outcome.
4
@Leading Edge Boomer ….what an original, persuasive, impressive comment--- 'vote blue no matter who' ---if I hadn't read it, I might vote for Trump.
Thanks so much. Repeat the comment to future columns, in case I forget.
3
Biden has established a solid record of siding with Republicans for their objectives such as cutting Social Security and reducing bankruptcy rights. More recently he has said that he could work with Republicans - but the only way he could do that is by again working for their objectives since they don't compromise. His proposals are now more to the left, but why would anyone trust him of all the Democratic candidates to keep his promises on those things rather than his promise to work with Republicans? Anyone would be better than Trump and electability is an important consideration, but it is totally unjustified to claim that Biden would turn out to be equivalent to Sanders or Warren on economic issues. Big-money influence is not going to vanish instantly from Congress, whatever the result of the 2020 election, and it is not obvious that there would be a "backlash" if Biden did not fulfill all his promises on economic policy.
4
Much needed clear-eyed analysis, thankfully; if Dems take the Senate as well as the White House, not only will there be the rule of law, there will be Infrastructure!
678
@R. Law
Yes, lots of infrastructure after first 2 years of Obama when Democrats had supermajorities. Apparently, the public was not impressed by all the bridges and roads.
1
@SG 1) The Democratic supermajority in the Senate under Obama lasted exactly 1 year and two weeks, ending when Scott Brown won the special election to replace the deceased Ted Kennedy.
2) There was a meaningful amount of infrastructure created by the funding of projects designed to both raise counter-cyclical spending in the midst of the deep recession and replace aging structures. New York State has never been a recipient of lavish federal disbursements, but
examples of this infrastructure spending in New York City alone include the shoring up of major portions of the FDR Drive and the ceilings above it, as well as the complete replacement of three crumbling 80-year-old bridges on the Belt Parkway in Brooklyn, one of which was a drawbridge (This eliminated a frequent source of 30-45 minute standstills as the bridge was raised and lowered to enable ships to pass into and out of Mill Basin.).
17
@SG 1) The Democratic supermajority in the Senate under Obama lasted exactly 1 year and two weeks, ending when Scott Brown won the special election to replace the deceased Ted Kennedy.
2) There was a meaningful amount of infrastructure created by the funding of projects designed to both raise counter-cyclical spending in the midst of the deep recession and replace aging structures. New York State has never been a recipient of lavish federal disbursements, but
examples of this infrastructure spending in New York City alone include a) the shoring up of major portions of the FDR Drive and the ceilings above it, b) the complete replacement of three crumbling 80-year-old bridges on the Belt Parkway in Brooklyn, one of which was a drawbridge (This eliminated a frequent source of 30-45 minute standstills as the bridge was raised and lowered to enable ships to pass into and out of Mill Basin.) and c) the complete replacement and lane expansion of the crumbling 80-year-old Kosciuszko Bridge between Brooklyn and Queens. Many New Yorkers are very impressed.
2
I used to agree with this but have changed my mind. Warren, for example, has a very expansive view of executive power. She has said that she will ban fracking and cancel almost all student debt by executive order, which would both be highly consequential. Warren also seems to have a more robust view of antitrust enforcement in areas ranging from tech to agriculture. Finally, any Democratic president will probably have to rely on executive power for climate policy, including setting emissions targets for cars and power plants. Their targets vary from very ambitious (Klobuchar and Biden) to straining plausibility (Sanders and Warren).
2
@Andrew Clark
Agree. Warren’s policy platform is diverse with the largest number of new and novel ideas among the Dem candidates. Bernie and Yang are focused on “one big thing,” Medicare for All and a universal basic income, respectively.
It’s most likely a Democratic president can introduce a lot of small changes to improve people’s lives that aren’t individually too controversial. That’s right up Warren’s alley. Bloomberg was a similar kind of guy when he was NY mayor.
3
True but some of the absolutist positions that Sanders has taken do worry me-- like on expanding the ACA vs Single Payer Medicare for All. While I don't endorse Hilary's petulance, she does have a point-- about him alienating many-- needlessly. On the other hand he has been right about many things for years and now's when the country is catching up to him. I would think it better if he joined the Democratic Party for real and also if he didn't inflame his supporters to the point of them wanting to take their ball and go home like many of them did in 2016 for the General.
12
@ecclect-obsvr
The ACA continues the inequality of private healthcare. By not removing inequality from the equation you not only continue to keep millions uninsured or underinsured (those who have insurance but can't make copays, coinsurance, deductibles), but a large portion of the money spent on healthcare goes straight to private corporations as billions in profit. Why?
Under Medicare for All not only is everyone covered, but doctors get paid to do what they trained for. No more you can only see these doctors or go to this hospital because your insurance isn't good enough. No more getting denied needed treatment.
Everyone would get exactly the same: complete coverage for everything they'll ever need.
40
@TR
Doing it incrementally means more deaths, more suffering, and more obscene profits for an industry whose sole purpose is to deny care.
Whatever for?
8
@Rima Regas You miss my point, Its fine to argue that Medicare for all is superior, but he has said he would oppose expanding the ACA-- which is suggesting that unless he gets his way, he will not support an improvement over the current position. http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/03/bernie-sanders-wont-back-house-democrats-obamacare-bill.html
4
I feel that it is a patriotic duty to vote whichever of the candidates wins the primary. And I plan to do so wholeheartedly and inspire others to do the same.
803
Thank you! Please askyour friends in Michigan to do the same!!
I have finally decided who my top choice is for the Democratic nomination and his name is Michael Bloomberg. He can beat Trump. Bernie can not because he is too far left.
24
@Julie As an Independent, I tend to agree. Here in Texas, the only ads we're seeing are for Mr. Bloomberg, whose policies I agree with. Especially the one about removing Mr. Trump, which Mr. Bloomberg will support even if he is not the nominee.
Mr. Bloomberg is not active in Iowa because he entered too late, and he's not in the debates because there is a certain minimum amount of donations required. But he is not accepting donations. (!!!) He is concentrating on the big states that vote after the four small states, e.g. Texas - 38 electoral votes vs. Iowa's six, and with a highly diverse population. Yes, he has had controversies, but compared to Mr. Trump they are miniscule.
Overall, pretty refreshing.
19
@Steve Kennedy "As an Independent, I tend to agree. Here in Texas, the only ads we're seeing are for Mr. Bloomberg, whose policies I agree with."
Here in Texas, it's doubtful that the likes of the anti-2nd Amendment Bloomberg will find any footing here (and this comes from not only an Independent Texan, but one who originally hails from NY). Also, he's been attacked here in the pages of the NYT for his anti-Due Process "Stop and Frisk" policies, so I can't imagine him succeeding when attacked from both left and right. For these reasons, he just doesn't come across as viable to me.
2
@Steve Kennedy : Steve: As a NYC native, I can attest to the fact that Mike Bloomberg, a three term NYC Mayor is the only person who can defeat Donald Trump - and he will do so by a landslide. Bloomberg was an excellent Mayor and will be an excellent President. He is the other end of the Trump spectrum - honest, no scandals, a self-made billionaire who is so concerned about the direction Trump has taken this country, that he is personally funding his own campaign without outside contributions. A true patriot who is willing to put his own money on the line to end this Trump nightmare. Bloomberg can't move into the Oval Office fast enough!
11