Sat Jan 23, 2016, 06:47 PM
mhatrw (10,786 posts)
Krugman Desperately Invokes Bloomberg Doomsday Scenario to Scare Us into Backing HillaryLast edited Sun Jan 24, 2016, 02:36 AM - Edit history (2)
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/01/23/how-to-make-donald-trump-president
How To Make Donald Trump President Step 1: Democrats nominate Bernie Sanders. ... Step 2: Michael Bloomberg decides to save the country by entering the race ... Step 3: Some Democrats defect to Bloomberg, because they actually listen to those centrist pundits. Hardly any Republicans do ... Step 4: Trump wins a yuuuuge victory. This has got to be the most desperate bit of political troma pornography any establishment Democrat has unleashed upon us to date. You must vote for Hillary, not because you agree with her policies but because then the big bad Bloombogeyman won't feel the need to run as third party candidate since Bloomberg is basically Hillary Clinton dressed in stag. The desperation of the Democratic establishment to cajole, scare, scream, attack, fantasize, whine, patronize, and berate us into voting for more corporate business as usual is truly shocking. When will it dawn on them that only they (and certainly not we) would benefit from more of the same?
|
205 replies, 11111 views
![]() |
Author | Time | Post |
![]() |
mhatrw | Jan 2016 | OP |
LuvLoogie | Jan 2016 | #1 | |
Metric System | Jan 2016 | #3 | |
SunSeeker | Jan 2016 | #15 | |
Jenny_92808 | Jan 2016 | #36 | |
draa | Jan 2016 | #60 | |
CorporatistNation | Jan 2016 | #111 | |
mhatrw | Jan 2016 | #37 | |
Gothmog | Jan 2016 | #196 | |
mhatrw | Jan 2016 | #198 | |
Gothmog | Jan 2016 | #203 | |
Metric System | Jan 2016 | #2 | |
mhatrw | Jan 2016 | #47 | |
Got it | Jan 2016 | #87 | |
CoffeeCat | Jan 2016 | #137 | |
InAbLuEsTaTe | Jan 2016 | #152 | |
Lage Nom Ai | Jan 2016 | #109 | |
starroute | Jan 2016 | #110 | |
Ferd Berfel | Jan 2016 | #204 | |
cali | Jan 2016 | #4 | |
Gothmog | Jan 2016 | #10 | |
last1standing | Jan 2016 | #52 | |
PyaarRevolution | Jan 2016 | #92 | |
Segami | Jan 2016 | #82 | |
CorporatistNation | Jan 2016 | #114 | |
tex-wyo-dem | Jan 2016 | #136 | |
nc4bo | Jan 2016 | #5 | |
highprincipleswork | Jan 2016 | #6 | |
beam me up scottie | Jan 2016 | #7 | |
restorefreedom | Jan 2016 | #40 | |
beam me up scottie | Jan 2016 | #44 | |
restorefreedom | Jan 2016 | #51 | |
beam me up scottie | Jan 2016 | #53 | |
restorefreedom | Jan 2016 | #57 | |
beam me up scottie | Jan 2016 | #63 | |
restorefreedom | Jan 2016 | #66 | |
elljay | Jan 2016 | #112 | |
beam me up scottie | Jan 2016 | #160 | |
InAbLuEsTaTe | Jan 2016 | #153 | |
beam me up scottie | Jan 2016 | #164 | |
InAbLuEsTaTe | Jan 2016 | #190 | |
merrily | Jan 2016 | #182 | |
beam me up scottie | Jan 2016 | #183 | |
merrily | Jan 2016 | #184 | |
newthinking | Jan 2016 | #95 | |
beam me up scottie | Jan 2016 | #157 | |
Gothmog | Jan 2016 | #8 | |
Gman | Jan 2016 | #14 | |
Gothmog | Jan 2016 | #26 | |
Stoolbend | Jan 2016 | #83 | |
Gothmog | Jan 2016 | #100 | |
Stoolbend | Jan 2016 | #130 | |
Gothmog | Jan 2016 | #197 | |
questionseverything | Jan 2016 | #24 | |
restorefreedom | Jan 2016 | #41 | |
CorporatistNation | Jan 2016 | #117 | |
hedda_foil | Jan 2016 | #165 | |
senz | Jan 2016 | #166 | |
GoneFishin | Jan 2016 | #138 | |
senz | Jan 2016 | #167 | |
mhatrw | Jan 2016 | #59 | |
7962 | Jan 2016 | #124 | |
99th_Monkey | Jan 2016 | #9 | |
Gothmog | Jan 2016 | #13 | |
99th_Monkey | Jan 2016 | #32 | |
hopemountain | Jan 2016 | #73 | |
ejbr | Jan 2016 | #90 | |
99th_Monkey | Jan 2016 | #131 | |
kristopher | Jan 2016 | #94 | |
NJCher | Jan 2016 | #144 | |
senz | Jan 2016 | #170 | |
99th_Monkey | Jan 2016 | #174 | |
merrily | Jan 2016 | #181 | |
hopemountain | Jan 2016 | #33 | |
SwampG8r | Jan 2016 | #69 | |
hopemountain | Jan 2016 | #72 | |
Duval | Jan 2016 | #93 | |
SwampG8r | Jan 2016 | #113 | |
mountain grammy | Jan 2016 | #140 | |
senz | Jan 2016 | #168 | |
lob1 | Jan 2016 | #134 | |
Broward | Jan 2016 | #16 | |
Gman | Jan 2016 | #11 | |
questionseverything | Jan 2016 | #27 | |
restorefreedom | Jan 2016 | #45 | |
PoliticAverse | Jan 2016 | #46 | |
Gman | Jan 2016 | #50 | |
PoliticAverse | Jan 2016 | #58 | |
litlbilly | Jan 2016 | #88 | |
jeff47 | Jan 2016 | #62 | |
Gman | Jan 2016 | #159 | |
jeff47 | Jan 2016 | #195 | |
mhatrw | Jan 2016 | #68 | |
Autumn | Jan 2016 | #126 | |
Gman | Jan 2016 | #162 | |
senz | Jan 2016 | #171 | |
merrily | Jan 2016 | #180 | |
Autumn | Jan 2016 | #194 | |
Rosa Luxemburg | Jan 2016 | #12 | |
Odin2005 | Jan 2016 | #23 | |
Metric System | Jan 2016 | #31 | |
mhatrw | Jan 2016 | #71 | |
7962 | Jan 2016 | #127 | |
Autumn | Jan 2016 | #128 | |
cherokeeprogressive | Jan 2016 | #143 | |
global1 | Jan 2016 | #17 | |
Thinkingabout | Jan 2016 | #18 | |
questionseverything | Jan 2016 | #64 | |
Thinkingabout | Jan 2016 | #108 | |
senz | Jan 2016 | #173 | |
SunSeeker | Jan 2016 | #19 | |
Gothmog | Jan 2016 | #28 | |
madokie | Jan 2016 | #20 | |
Odin2005 | Jan 2016 | #21 | |
mhatrw | Jan 2016 | #75 | |
mountain grammy | Jan 2016 | #141 | |
CharlotteVale | Jan 2016 | #22 | |
Thenewire | Jan 2016 | #30 | |
CharlotteVale | Jan 2016 | #54 | |
DanTex | Jan 2016 | #25 | |
RichVRichV | Jan 2016 | #123 | |
farleftlib | Jan 2016 | #139 | |
cherokeeprogressive | Jan 2016 | #146 | |
Jenny_92808 | Jan 2016 | #29 | |
Thenewire | Jan 2016 | #39 | |
mhatrw | Jan 2016 | #78 | |
Thenewire | Jan 2016 | #85 | |
mhatrw | Jan 2016 | #104 | |
Old Codger | Jan 2016 | #129 | |
Bobbie Jo | Jan 2016 | #34 | |
djean111 | Jan 2016 | #35 | |
hopemountain | Jan 2016 | #38 | |
immoderate | Jan 2016 | #42 | |
Bread and Circus | Jan 2016 | #43 | |
restorefreedom | Jan 2016 | #48 | |
Duval | Jan 2016 | #97 | |
KittyWampus | Jan 2016 | #49 | |
mhatrw | Jan 2016 | #79 | |
Beacool | Jan 2016 | #161 | |
mhatrw | Jan 2016 | #172 | |
lumberjack_jeff | Jan 2016 | #55 | |
emulatorloo | Jan 2016 | #56 | |
peacebird | Jan 2016 | #61 | |
jeff47 | Jan 2016 | #65 | |
kristopher | Jan 2016 | #67 | |
JRLeft | Jan 2016 | #70 | |
Duval | Jan 2016 | #99 | |
SwampG8r | Jan 2016 | #74 | |
mhatrw | Jan 2016 | #81 | |
MisterP | Jan 2016 | #76 | |
HereSince1628 | Jan 2016 | #77 | |
mcar | Jan 2016 | #80 | |
jfern | Jan 2016 | #84 | |
Duval | Jan 2016 | #86 | |
JRLeft | Jan 2016 | #89 | |
passiveporcupine | Jan 2016 | #91 | |
Loudestlib | Jan 2016 | #96 | |
Chathamization | Jan 2016 | #98 | |
Chathamization | Jan 2016 | #103 | |
retrowire | Jan 2016 | #101 | |
jwirr | Jan 2016 | #102 | |
mikehiggins | Jan 2016 | #105 | |
pnwmom | Jan 2016 | #106 | |
mhatrw | Jan 2016 | #116 | |
pnwmom | Jan 2016 | #118 | |
mhatrw | Jan 2016 | #121 | |
thesquanderer | Jan 2016 | #107 | |
mhatrw | Jan 2016 | #119 | |
A Simple Game | Jan 2016 | #149 | |
thesquanderer | Jan 2016 | #189 | |
A Simple Game | Jan 2016 | #192 | |
neverforget | Jan 2016 | #115 | |
Warren DeMontague | Jan 2016 | #120 | |
Autumn | Jan 2016 | #122 | |
Tierra_y_Libertad | Jan 2016 | #125 | |
PatrickforO | Jan 2016 | #132 | |
Jarqui | Jan 2016 | #133 | |
Spitfire of ATJ | Jan 2016 | #135 | |
raindaddy | Jan 2016 | #142 | |
Iggo | Jan 2016 | #145 | |
NCTraveler | Jan 2016 | #147 | |
mhatrw | Jan 2016 | #175 | |
NCTraveler | Jan 2016 | #191 | |
mhatrw | Jan 2016 | #199 | |
Jack Rabbit | Jan 2016 | #148 | |
Bernblu | Jan 2016 | #150 | |
Agony | Jan 2016 | #155 | |
Truprogressive85 | Jan 2016 | #151 | |
Nanjeanne | Jan 2016 | #154 | |
Hekate | Jan 2016 | #156 | |
R. Daneel Olivaw | Jan 2016 | #158 | |
hedda_foil | Jan 2016 | #163 | |
senz | Jan 2016 | #169 | |
mhatrw | Jan 2016 | #177 | |
rjsquirrel | Jan 2016 | #176 | |
mhatrw | Jan 2016 | #178 | |
rjsquirrel | Jan 2016 | #185 | |
merrily | Jan 2016 | #179 | |
CanonRay | Jan 2016 | #186 | |
99Forever | Jan 2016 | #187 | |
Vinca | Jan 2016 | #188 | |
Zen Democrat | Jan 2016 | #193 | |
spooky3 | Jan 2016 | #200 | |
hollowdweller | Jan 2016 | #201 | |
Bjornsdotter | Jan 2016 | #202 | |
CobaltBlue | Jun 2016 | #205 |
Response to mhatrw (Original post)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 06:49 PM
LuvLoogie (5,515 posts)
1. I'm not afraid of voting for Hillary. I'm looking forward to it!
Response to LuvLoogie (Reply #1)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 07:10 PM
Jenny_92808 (1,342 posts)
36. I would consider
doing the same, but H is a republican lite. I want a progressive president.
|
Response to Jenny_92808 (Reply #36)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 07:22 PM
draa (975 posts)
60. Careful Jenny.
They'll set you up with a TOS violation. They have itchy trigger fingers so be warned.
|
Response to Jenny_92808 (Reply #36)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 08:46 PM
CorporatistNation (2,546 posts)
111. Difficult To Disagree With This Assertion...
Hillary is supported by 1%ers because her election/selection ensures continuation of THE STATUS QUO!
She is supported by these criminals on Wall Street merely to DO NOTHING while BULLSHITTING us to death... Think "Bipartisanship.. Remember that one? We ain't all morons Krugster... Not by a long shot... Krugman is ABUSING his standing as something from a long time ago as a progressive who has now crossed to the "Dark Side." He has done up and gone PATHETIC! Any speaking fees on Wall Street lately Pauly? |
Response to LuvLoogie (Reply #1)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 07:10 PM
mhatrw (10,786 posts)
37. Hillaburton on the warpath!
![]() |
Response to LuvLoogie (Reply #1)
Sun Jan 24, 2016, 12:25 PM
Gothmog (92,301 posts)
196. I am happy to support Hillary Clinton
HRC will be the nominee and so this will not be an issue
This is the DU member formerly known as Gothmog.
|
Response to Gothmog (Reply #196)
Sun Jan 24, 2016, 02:33 PM
mhatrw (10,786 posts)
198. Cop out non-answer
Where have I heard something like this before? Will you or will you not support Sanders if he wins the Democratic Presidential nomination?
|
Response to mhatrw (Reply #198)
Sun Jan 24, 2016, 04:03 PM
Gothmog (92,301 posts)
203. I will support and vote for the Democratic candidate
Will you make the same commitment?
This is the DU member formerly known as Gothmog.
|
Response to mhatrw (Original post)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 06:51 PM
Metric System (6,048 posts)
2. Krugman is right. Bury your head in the sand at our peril.
Response to Metric System (Reply #2)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 07:14 PM
mhatrw (10,786 posts)
47. Krugman is right about what? About Third Way corpocrats willing to draft Bloomberg
because their primary concern is keeping our economy completely rigged for the top 1%?
|
Response to mhatrw (Reply #47)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 09:38 PM
CoffeeCat (24,411 posts)
137. That's exactly right. And they're all friends
All of these mucky mucks attend the same parties in the Hamptons--the politicos and the corporate magnates are all in bed together.
This is a concerted effort. Why would anyone possibly think otherwise? |
Response to mhatrw (Reply #47)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 10:44 PM
InAbLuEsTaTe (23,141 posts)
152. Right on the money, as Hillary would say. It's Bernie's time... go Bernie go!
Bernie & Elizabeth 2016!!!
![]() |
Response to Metric System (Reply #2)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 08:42 PM
Lage Nom Ai (74 posts)
109. Excuse me
Do you think just once one of your post could contain some substance?
|
Response to Metric System (Reply #2)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 08:43 PM
starroute (12,977 posts)
110. Would you vote for Bloomberg if Sanders gets the nomination?
Would any of the other Hillary supporters on this thread?
I know you couldn't admit to it without violating the TOS. But think about it very carefully. Are you endorsing this Sanders > Trump scenario because it reflects your own intentions? Do you have Hillary-supporting friends outside of DU who you know for sure would vote for Bloomberg even if it meant a Trump victory? Or are you just using this as a club to beat up on Sanders? |
Response to Metric System (Reply #2)
Sun Jan 24, 2016, 04:20 PM
Ferd Berfel (3,687 posts)
204. BE- If another Billionaire Oligarch runs he pulls votes from Hillary and Trump - Bernie Wins!
![]() |
Response to mhatrw (Original post)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 06:52 PM
cali (114,904 posts)
4. Oh what a pile. I hereby happily throw Paul under the bus.
Response to cali (Reply #4)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 06:54 PM
Gothmog (92,301 posts)
10. According to MSNBC, Bloomberg is waiting until March 2
If the Super Tuesday primaries go as expected, Bloomberg will not get into the race.
This is the DU member formerly known as Gothmog.
|
Response to cali (Reply #4)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 07:18 PM
last1standing (11,709 posts)
52. Agreed. That blog post removes any respect for him.
He's changed from when he used to honestly support universal healthcare and common sense regulations. This Krugman can go under the bus with every other corporate sellout.
|
Response to last1standing (Reply #52)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 08:07 PM
PyaarRevolution (814 posts)
92. Wouldn't be surprised.
If his stance on Universal Healthcare was a con job. From what I've noticed about Bloomberg he's taken few to NO stances on anything that's truly controversial.
|
Response to cali (Reply #4)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 07:43 PM
Segami (14,923 posts)
82. Make sure its a big bus....
......a BIG ANGRY BUS WITH FLAMES.......
![]() ![]() |
Response to cali (Reply #4)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 08:50 PM
CorporatistNation (2,546 posts)
114. No Need To... Paul Voluntarily Stepped Out In Front oF Da Bus!
Krugster is ... "One of THEM!!!!"
![]() |
Response to cali (Reply #4)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 09:38 PM
tex-wyo-dem (3,190 posts)
136. Right there with you, cali!
Don't know what has gotten into PK.
|
Response to mhatrw (Original post)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 06:52 PM
nc4bo (17,651 posts)
5. Go Bernie Go! nt
Response to mhatrw (Original post)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 06:52 PM
highprincipleswork (3,111 posts)
6. False logic!!
False logic is everywhere these days, fueled by decades of rightwing propaganda and the submission to it by cowardly Dems as well.
It's almost as if the American public has no spirit anymore. But still, to think that more Democrats would default to Bloomberg than would Republicans? I simply don't believe it. Bloomberg enters, Bernie wins even more convincingly. |
Response to mhatrw (Original post)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 06:53 PM
beam me up scottie (57,349 posts)
7. OOGA BOOGA! A VOTE FOR BERNIE = PRESIDENT TRUMP!!!
![]() |
Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #7)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 07:12 PM
restorefreedom (12,655 posts)
40. havent we seen this movie before? nt
Response to restorefreedom (Reply #40)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 07:13 PM
beam me up scottie (57,349 posts)
44. Why do Bernie supporters hate America?
Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #44)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 07:16 PM
restorefreedom (12,655 posts)
51. snort! sooooo glad i was not eating cheerios
thems get messy coming out of the nose
![]() |
Response to restorefreedom (Reply #51)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 07:18 PM
beam me up scottie (57,349 posts)
53. See the people in this train?:
![]() That's what will happen to us if we vote for Bernie. ![]() |
Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #53)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 07:21 PM
restorefreedom (12,655 posts)
57. excellent godzilla retro moment!
well done
![]() |
Response to restorefreedom (Reply #57)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 07:23 PM
beam me up scottie (57,349 posts)
63. Thanks!
When we were kids we lived watching the old Godzilla movies, still do - they're cult classics.
![]() |
Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #63)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 07:25 PM
restorefreedom (12,655 posts)
66. me too! nt
Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #63)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 08:46 PM
elljay (1,178 posts)
112. MST3k
Then you gotta watch the MST3k versions, if you haven't already!
|
Response to elljay (Reply #112)
Sun Jan 24, 2016, 12:27 AM
beam me up scottie (57,349 posts)
160. Oh I have, they are the absolute best!
For you:
![]() |
Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #53)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 10:46 PM
InAbLuEsTaTe (23,141 posts)
153. omg, you get my vote for post of the day... seriously laughed out loud... good one!
Bernie & Elizabeth 2016!!!
![]() |
Response to InAbLuEsTaTe (Reply #153)
Sun Jan 24, 2016, 12:53 AM
beam me up scottie (57,349 posts)
164. Thanks!
I do what I can, this forum needs more humour.
![]() |
Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #164)
Sun Jan 24, 2016, 08:45 AM
InAbLuEsTaTe (23,141 posts)
190. Yes, definitely... keep it up! I'll hafta remember not to be drinking anything while reading your posts...
outta fear it'll go up my nose.
And yes, this place could use a little more humor. Unfortunately, some people here don't know how to take a joke... need to lighten up. |
Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #53)
Sun Jan 24, 2016, 03:15 AM
merrily (45,251 posts)
182. Vote for DLCer/Clintonite Gore in the primary or Bush will win!!
I call statements like that terrrorist politics. We used to do carrot and stick. Then we skipped the carrot.
Ugly stuff. |
Response to merrily (Reply #182)
Sun Jan 24, 2016, 03:24 AM
beam me up scottie (57,349 posts)
183. Well smearing Bernie wasn't working so they needed to escalate.
This will backfire too.
|
Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #183)
Sun Jan 24, 2016, 03:27 AM
merrily (45,251 posts)
184. Fscking with ballots next.
Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #7)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 08:10 PM
newthinking (3,982 posts)
95. Hey, that's the way to get "change". Try and make people afraid to actually vote for anything
outside the status quo!
The trouble with this thinking is that those who are fearful of "losing" actually stop progressive change from happening. Real change has to grow as a movement accompanied by the spread of new ideas and confidence. That may sometimes mean some losses. But there is no way to get there otherwise. In this case I think the risk of loss is very low, because there are far more who would vote for Bernie than for Trump. There are far more on the left side of the spectrum that would go to the poles than the right that might be energized. Bernie would energize NEW voters. Trump will mostly energize the rightward that **already* would vote and most from the right. |
Response to newthinking (Reply #95)
Sun Jan 24, 2016, 12:22 AM
beam me up scottie (57,349 posts)
157. Well said!
A tried but hopefully not so true scare tactic.
It's not working on me either. ![]() |
Response to mhatrw (Original post)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 06:53 PM
Gothmog (92,301 posts)
8. Report: Bloomberg Considering Independent Presidential Bid
Bloomberg is evidently only planning on running if Sanders is the Democratic nominee http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/michael-bloomberg-considering-presidential-bid
He has said he's likely to launch a bid if Republicans nominate either Donald Trump or Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Democrats nominate Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), according to the Times. To me this says a great deal about how electable Sanders is This is the DU member formerly known as Gothmog.
|
Response to Gothmog (Reply #8)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 06:56 PM
Gman (24,780 posts)
14. He has to declare by March to be in the ballot in every state.
Response to Gman (Reply #14)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 07:03 PM
Gothmog (92,301 posts)
26. The primary contest will be over after Super Tuesday
This is the DU member formerly known as Gothmog.
|
Response to Gothmog (Reply #26)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 07:45 PM
Stoolbend (23 posts)
83. Correct. For Clinton, it'll be all over
because her superdelegates will decide she's not worth their effort and the Clinton Machine is already damaged beyond belief.
|
Response to Stoolbend (Reply #83)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 08:19 PM
Gothmog (92,301 posts)
100. Sanders is still polling very poorly with African American and Latino voters
Sanders is only polling well in four states with 90+% white voting populations. These four states have approximately half the number of delegates as the state of Texas by itself. Sanders will not be the nominee unless he broadens his base of support beyond the current narrow demographic supporting him.
The primary will be over on Super Tuesday and Hillary Clinton will be the presumptive nominee of the party This is the DU member formerly known as Gothmog.
|
Response to Gothmog (Reply #100)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 09:22 PM
Stoolbend (23 posts)
130. Enjoy your "victory"
Where there is none.
Bernie has already made inroads with the PoC community, and polling do not reflect well on those key demographics who have not voted before.. You are in for a ride of your life, and it will end up in a downhill motion for Clinton. |
Response to Stoolbend (Reply #130)
Sun Jan 24, 2016, 12:27 PM
Gothmog (92,301 posts)
197. Really?
Sanders is still not polling well with African American or Latino voters and so maybe he needs to change what he is doing http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/01/poll-sanders-gains-stop-short-of-minorities.html#
Team Sanders is certainly focused on the problem, with a variety of campaign efforts focused on minority voters in the works. The talking points they are putting out there, however, are less than convincing, as I learned as a guest on the public radio show "To the Point" yesterday, when I heard a Sanders supporter argue that an Iowa win would greatly boost Bernie's African-American support just like it did for Obama in South Carolina in 2008. The idea that Sanders's potential to win the black vote in South Carolina is analogous to that of the first African-American president does not pass the laugh test. Still, any early-state win for Sanders, even in exceptionally honkified Iowa and New Hampshire, will likely create some sort of generalized bounce. The question is how high, and how loyal minority voters prove to be to Hillary Clinton, her husband, and her implicit ally Barack Obama. It's worth remembering that she defeated Barack Obama handily among Latinos in 2008, and that Bill Clinton enjoyed robust support in both communities. Monmouth University has a new national poll out that casts some fascinating, if very preliminary, light on this subject. Compared to its poll in December, Monmouth shows Sanders making pretty big gains: Clinton was up 59-to-26 last month, and only 52-to-37 now. But among black and Latino voters, Clinton has actually expanded her lead from 61-to-18 to 71-to-21. In other words, a legitimate "Sanders surge" nationally has coincided with a deterioration of his standing with the voters he will most need for a breakthrough after the first two contests of the primary season. Sanders is actually losing ground with African American voters and Sanders' current tactics are not evidently working. Sanders will not be the nominee unless he can expand his base of supporters. Super Tuesday will be a long day for Sanders. Vermont is one of the last states with 90+% white voting populations This is the DU member formerly known as Gothmog.
|
Response to Gothmog (Reply #8)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 07:02 PM
questionseverything (6,822 posts)
24. to me it says the 1% will not relinquish their power
Response to questionseverything (Reply #24)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 07:12 PM
restorefreedom (12,655 posts)
41. nailed it. nt
Response to questionseverything (Reply #24)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 08:53 PM
CorporatistNation (2,546 posts)
117. In The End... Bernie Must...
Fly Commercial ONLY!
Wear a Ballistic Vest and surround himself with trusted hulkster Body Guards willing to make the ultimate sacrifice for their country. These people on WallS treet ...ARE TAHT BAD! Remember Wellstone! |
Response to CorporatistNation (Reply #117)
Sun Jan 24, 2016, 01:02 AM
hedda_foil (15,203 posts)
165. Remember Wellstone and be safe, Bernie.
It seems to me that the only way to keep him safe is by choosing Elizabeth Warren as his running mate. TPTB would think twice about Wellstoning Bernie if they knew they were going to get Warren for their troubles.
|
Response to hedda_foil (Reply #165)
Sun Jan 24, 2016, 01:34 AM
senz (11,945 posts)
166. I've been thinking about Warren for his VP. She's looking better all the time.
You just added another reason.
|
Response to questionseverything (Reply #24)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 09:40 PM
GoneFishin (5,217 posts)
138. ... and that the DLC, DNC, and Turd Way concern for the 99% is pure kabuki.
Response to GoneFishin (Reply #138)
Sun Jan 24, 2016, 01:38 AM
senz (11,945 posts)
167. This is true. nt
Response to Gothmog (Reply #8)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 07:21 PM
mhatrw (10,786 posts)
59. Amazing how little integrity corpocrats have.
They will seemingly do whatever it takes to keep their rigged economy by hook or by crook.
Bloomberg will ride to the rescue to save the establishment! The one thing they cannot get through their thick skulls is that nobody but them wants the establishment. |
Response to Gothmog (Reply #8)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 09:03 PM
7962 (11,841 posts)
124. Why would he think anyone would support him? nt
Response to mhatrw (Original post)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 06:53 PM
99th_Monkey (19,326 posts)
9. Krugman has clearly been promised a cabinet position by Hillary.
That much is becoming increasingly clear. It's the ONLY possible explanation
for how he's churning out these uncharacteristically over-reaching & bombastic articles full of spin and distortions aimed to dissuade voter from supporting Bernie Sanders. Mark my words. Problem is, we probably will never find out, because Hillary's chances of winning the Primary are waning, and she's got no chances of beating Trump or Cruz or any other GOP challenger in the GE. Not after she decimates the Democratic party and alienates millions of Independents. |
Response to 99th_Monkey (Reply #9)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 06:56 PM
Gothmog (92,301 posts)
13. It is not just Krugman
This was just discussed on MSNBC. According to Chuck Todd, Bloomberg will only get in if Sanders is the nominee and has until March 2 to make his decision
This is the DU member formerly known as Gothmog.
|
Response to Gothmog (Reply #13)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 07:06 PM
99th_Monkey (19,326 posts)
32. Bloomberg must be secretly supporting Bernie
Bernie would walk-away with a three-way GE against 2 Billionaires, hands-down.
Or do you think Hillary supporters would flock en mass to Bloomberg, just to spite Bernie? |
Response to 99th_Monkey (Reply #32)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 07:34 PM
hopemountain (3,919 posts)
73. hmmm. all plausible.
good thinking, 99thmonkey. definitely going to puzzle this, too.
|
Response to 99th_Monkey (Reply #32)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 08:04 PM
ejbr (5,695 posts)
90. If anything
Bloomberg would draw more voters from Trump as he would be the sane Billionaire.
|
Response to ejbr (Reply #90)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 09:23 PM
99th_Monkey (19,326 posts)
131. Someone said under another OP that polls show exactly that
Bloomberg draws way more from Trump than Bernie.
|
Response to 99th_Monkey (Reply #32)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 08:10 PM
kristopher (29,797 posts)
94. 100% truth.
Response to 99th_Monkey (Reply #32)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 10:01 PM
NJCher (25,546 posts)
144. never thought of it that way
makes a lot of sense.
I also think you are right. No, Hillary supporters would not flock to Bloomberg. ![]() Cher |
Response to 99th_Monkey (Reply #32)
Sun Jan 24, 2016, 02:12 AM
senz (11,945 posts)
170. I think the Hill supporters on DU might
because they seem to, ahem, dislike us.
|
Response to senz (Reply #170)
Sun Jan 24, 2016, 02:24 AM
99th_Monkey (19,326 posts)
174. Yah but it's kinda mutual, and many of us would hold our noses .. don't ya think? nt
Response to senz (Reply #170)
Sun Jan 24, 2016, 03:11 AM
merrily (45,251 posts)
181. Surely all 45 of them don't dislike us?
Response to Gothmog (Reply #13)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 07:06 PM
hopemountain (3,919 posts)
33. pffft. chuck todd.
there's a limerick in there somewhere.
|
Response to hopemountain (Reply #33)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 07:29 PM
SwampG8r (10,287 posts)
69. Cough cough
There once was a pundit named todd
Who's views were conveniently odd They would hand out his pay Tell him just what to say And then laugh cause they thought him a clod |
Response to SwampG8r (Reply #69)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 07:32 PM
hopemountain (3,919 posts)
72. bravo, swampg8r!
![]() ![]() |
Response to SwampG8r (Reply #69)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 08:07 PM
Duval (4,280 posts)
93. Did you just come up with this from the top of your head? If so, congrats!
Since Comcast took over, the talking heads at MSNBC have been too cautious. I understand about keeping a job, of course, but I would be concerned with journalistic integrity. It's sad.
|
Response to Duval (Reply #93)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 08:49 PM
SwampG8r (10,287 posts)
113. I did but it wrote itself
Response to SwampG8r (Reply #69)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 09:49 PM
mountain grammy (22,725 posts)
140. Very good!
![]() |
Response to SwampG8r (Reply #69)
Sun Jan 24, 2016, 01:48 AM
senz (11,945 posts)
168. Wow. That is good on all kinds of levels.
![]() Never thought I'd find this sort of thing on DU. Makes up for wading through several hundred Hill supporter comments. |
Response to hopemountain (Reply #33)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 09:33 PM
lob1 (3,820 posts)
134. Todd and fraud kind of rhyme.
Response to 99th_Monkey (Reply #9)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 06:57 PM
Broward (1,976 posts)
16. That's how I see it too.
Response to mhatrw (Original post)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 06:55 PM
Gman (24,780 posts)
11. No, sorry. Krugman as usual nails it. You want Trump
You get him if Bloomberg gets in. Pretty much the way it is. Any suggestion otherwise is denial.
|
Response to Gman (Reply #11)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 07:04 PM
questionseverything (6,822 posts)
27. then that will be on bloomberg
Response to questionseverything (Reply #27)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 07:13 PM
restorefreedom (12,655 posts)
45. nailed it again! nt
Response to Gman (Reply #11)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 07:14 PM
PoliticAverse (22,626 posts)
46. So you'd vote for Bloomberg rather than the Democratic nominee? n/t
Response to PoliticAverse (Reply #46)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 07:16 PM
Gman (24,780 posts)
50. WTF????? Did I say that??
That's effing getting desperate.
|
Response to Gman (Reply #50)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 07:21 PM
PoliticAverse (22,626 posts)
58. So then who are these Democrats you implied would be choosing Bloomberg instead?
And you didn't answer the question.
|
Response to PoliticAverse (Reply #58)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 08:02 PM
litlbilly (2,227 posts)
88. Notice how he disapeared as soon as you ask a legitamate question? these hillbots are too damm
funny. So predictable.
|
Response to Gman (Reply #50)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 07:22 PM
jeff47 (26,549 posts)
62. So Sanders supporters will vote for Sanders
And Clinton supporters will vote for Sanders.....so who exactly is it that votes for Bloomberg, thus splitting the vote and letting Trump win?
|
Response to jeff47 (Reply #62)
Sun Jan 24, 2016, 12:26 AM
Gman (24,780 posts)
159. Why are you assuming absolutes?
Response to Gman (Reply #159)
Sun Jan 24, 2016, 12:03 PM
jeff47 (26,549 posts)
195. Absolutes like if Bloomberg runs, Trump wins?
They really need to do a better job of training you before sending out to troll.
|
Response to Gman (Reply #11)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 07:28 PM
mhatrw (10,786 posts)
68. Yeah, everybody in the top 5% will rush to support the establishment candidate!
And that's it.
Bloomberg = establishment Nobody but about half the top 5% wants the establishment, despite everyone in the establishment assuring us that we all do. |
Response to Gman (Reply #11)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 09:05 PM
Autumn (40,161 posts)
126. Then Trumps win lies on Bloomberg. Nobody else, just Bloomberg.
Response to Autumn (Reply #126)
Sun Jan 24, 2016, 12:32 AM
Gman (24,780 posts)
162. LOL! But the far left says It wasn't on Nader that Gore lost
Which is it?
What Sanders folks deny is the Right wing has been beating up the Clintons for over 20 years and she is STILL the favorite to win the general election. They haven't even started on Sanders and they WILL reduce him to mush. He can't stand the heat. He will melt immediately. In other words, Hillary can win. Sanders cannot. |
Response to Gman (Reply #162)
Sun Jan 24, 2016, 02:17 AM
senz (11,945 posts)
171. He's not the kind of guy who "melts."
Response to Gman (Reply #162)
Sun Jan 24, 2016, 03:05 AM
merrily (45,251 posts)
180. LOL yourself. The "far left" is communist and communists never concerned themselves with Nader.
The left of the Democratic Party is not the far left. It's also not a monolith. Everyone to Hillary's left does not "say" the same thing, no matter how hard the right of the Democratic Party pretends we do.
We have actual numbers from 2000. It was not Nader and it's debatable that Gore even lost. Whether you want to say it was on Gore, on rightist Democrats who voted for Bush, as did many more in Florida than voted for Nader, or on Nader is moot at this point. What running Bloomberg might do to the 2016 general, however, is not moot. You might try focusing on that, rather than using something that happened 15 years ago as an excuse for attacking the left wing of your own Party. |
Response to Gman (Reply #162)
Sun Jan 24, 2016, 10:30 AM
Autumn (40,161 posts)
194. Nader didn't jump in because the candidate he liked lost the nomination.
Last edited Sun Jan 24, 2016, 11:06 AM - Edit history (1) That is what Bloomberg is talking about doing. Melt?
![]() |
Response to mhatrw (Original post)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 06:56 PM
Rosa Luxemburg (28,627 posts)
12. Krugman is unhinged
what's wrong with him?
|
Response to Rosa Luxemburg (Reply #12)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 07:02 PM
Odin2005 (53,521 posts)
23. Hillary promised him a cabinet position is my guess.
![]() |
Response to Odin2005 (Reply #23)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 07:05 PM
Metric System (6,048 posts)
31. Isn't Krugman exactly the kind of economic progressive Sanders supporters would want in a cabinet?
Response to Metric System (Reply #31)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 07:31 PM
mhatrw (10,786 posts)
71. No. We want single payer and glass steagall, not establishment shills. nt
Response to Metric System (Reply #31)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 09:05 PM
7962 (11,841 posts)
127. No. He's an idiot. And a horrible interview
Most of his articles on economics are written with a condescending "know it all" tone. And he's wrong as often as he's right
|
Response to Metric System (Reply #31)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 10:00 PM
cherokeeprogressive (24,853 posts)
143. NO. I want someone who's worked IN the field rather than merely written about it.
I do not see academia as work experience.
|
Response to mhatrw (Original post)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 06:59 PM
global1 (22,364 posts)
17. Bloomberg Will Have To Shoulder The Full Blame...
if he throws his hat in the race cause Trump will be our next president. I don't know if Bloomberg will take that chance.
|
Response to mhatrw (Original post)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 06:59 PM
Thinkingabout (30,058 posts)
18. I have confidence Hillary will be the DNC nominee so sounds like
Bloomberg is going to make a third party run if Cruz or Trump is the GOP nominee. Might be interesting.
|
Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #18)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 07:23 PM
questionseverything (6,822 posts)
64. if hc is the nominee (god forbid)
bloomberg will not get in since she will protect his 1%ers interest
he is only willing to throw the country under the bus if bernie is the nominee |
Response to questionseverything (Reply #64)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 08:39 PM
Thinkingabout (30,058 posts)
108. Maybe Bloomberg does not think Bernie is up to the task of president.
Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #108)
Sun Jan 24, 2016, 02:23 AM
senz (11,945 posts)
173. I think you may be projecting.
Response to mhatrw (Original post)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 07:00 PM
SunSeeker (44,158 posts)
19. Krugman is spot on, again.
![]() |
Response to SunSeeker (Reply #19)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 07:04 PM
Gothmog (92,301 posts)
28. I love that meme
This is the DU member formerly known as Gothmog.
|
Response to mhatrw (Original post)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 07:00 PM
madokie (51,076 posts)
20. Screw him
my sig line gives some insight into where I am and where I'll go.
In the mean time I feel the Bern. |
Response to mhatrw (Original post)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 07:00 PM
Odin2005 (53,521 posts)
21. Not surprising, for all of Krugman's posturing as being on the left...
...he got his Not-A-Real-Nobel prize defending Free Trade bullshit. He is just another centrist Neo-Keynesian who sides with Capital when push comes to shove.
|
Response to Odin2005 (Reply #21)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 07:35 PM
mhatrw (10,786 posts)
75. Exactly. He works for Judith Miller's NY Times. He knows who butters his bread. nt
Response to mhatrw (Original post)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 07:00 PM
CharlotteVale (2,717 posts)
22. Why does this asshole think constantly insulting Sanders supporters is
going to make us do his bidding?
It just makes me more disgusted with Clinton than ever. |
Response to CharlotteVale (Reply #22)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 07:05 PM
Thenewire (130 posts)
30. And what gives Sanders supporter the right to insult other Democrats?
Response to Thenewire (Reply #30)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 07:19 PM
CharlotteVale (2,717 posts)
54. When did I tell him who he should vote for or blame him for another
candidate getting into the race? He's pulling that arrogant shit on Bernie supporters and I have every right to call him on it. You should be concerned that he's just turning off more people about voting for Hillary with his nonstop nasty attacks.
|
Response to mhatrw (Original post)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 07:02 PM
DanTex (20,706 posts)
25. Krugman is right, as he usually is.
Response to DanTex (Reply #25)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 09:01 PM
RichVRichV (885 posts)
123. So you're voting for Bloomberg if Bernie is the nominee?
I recall Hillary supporters swearing they would vote for the Democratic nominee and demanding the same from Bernie supporters over and over. So who does that leave for Bloomberg?
He's sure not going to win over the indepedents. They're called independents because they have rejected the establishment. |
Response to RichVRichV (Reply #123)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 09:43 PM
farleftlib (2,125 posts)
139. Yup, that's what he's saying
They all are.
|
Response to DanTex (Reply #25)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 10:05 PM
cherokeeprogressive (24,853 posts)
146. If his economic theories are right, why aren't they being implemented all over the world?
Why isn't the world a better place, with a unicorn in every garage?
People who merely WRITE about things don't impress me at all. |
Response to mhatrw (Original post)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 07:05 PM
Jenny_92808 (1,342 posts)
29. Go F yourself krugman!
Go away, little man.
|
Response to Jenny_92808 (Reply #29)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 07:10 PM
Thenewire (130 posts)
39. Is this what Sanders supporters resort to now?
Throwing progressives who have been with us for decades under the bus just because they don't align with Sanders ideas?
|
Response to Thenewire (Reply #39)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 07:38 PM
mhatrw (10,786 posts)
78. Where does this say he doesn't align with Sanders ideas?
He is desperately trying to frighten his readers into voting for Clinton no matter whose ideas they support.
|
Response to mhatrw (Reply #78)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 07:59 PM
Thenewire (130 posts)
85. Isn't Sanders and his supporters doing the same thing then...
Trying to frighten the democratic party into voting for Sanders because to his fans he is the only hope. You might have the numbers behind you on this website but I' certain that you are in for a rude awakening once Sanders goes on and loses states where whites aren't in the majority in the democratic caucus.
|
Response to Thenewire (Reply #85)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 08:26 PM
mhatrw (10,786 posts)
104. LOL. So Sanders supporters are trying to "frighten" Clinton supporters into what?
Into realizing that Democrats could literally not nominate a worse candidate than Hillary Clinton in terms of rallying the Republican base to vote while leaving Democrats cold and independents distrustful?
Into realizing that Democrats could literally not nominate a worse candidate than Hillary Clinton in terms of tapping into the anti-establishment zeitgeist that has characterized this entire election cycle? Into realizing that if Hillary Clinton is nominated as the Democratic candidate, the most likely result will be complete Republican control of the Presidency, Senate, House, and Supreme Court? The basic problem with your suggestion that Sanders supporters are trying to "scare" anyone in this manner is that supporters of the establishment are far more afraid of a Sanders Presidency than they are of total Republican control of all branches of our rigged system. |
Response to Thenewire (Reply #85)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 09:17 PM
Old Codger (4,205 posts)
129. If they were
True Dems they should already be frightened of her....
|
Response to mhatrw (Original post)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 07:08 PM
Bobbie Jo (14,341 posts)
34. Desperately, even!
![]() |
Response to mhatrw (Original post)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 07:10 PM
djean111 (14,255 posts)
35. Not going to work. At all. NEXT! :-)
Response to mhatrw (Original post)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 07:10 PM
hopemountain (3,919 posts)
38. krugman???
bwhahaha. oogiebooie. the peasants have awakened to their power, paul. whether bernie or hillary wins the primary, trump will still loose in the general.
|
Response to mhatrw (Original post)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 07:13 PM
immoderate (20,885 posts)
42. Bunk!
![]() --imm |
Response to mhatrw (Original post)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 07:13 PM
Bread and Circus (9,454 posts)
43. Krugman must have read my thread about him this morning.
![]() |
Response to mhatrw (Original post)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 07:15 PM
restorefreedom (12,655 posts)
48. sorry, but fuck bloomberg.
let the dems figure out who they want, let the repubs figure out who they want, and let the two go at it
this lions eating peasants watching by the 1% is revolting stay the fuck out of it, bloomberg |
Response to mhatrw (Original post)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 07:16 PM
KittyWampus (55,894 posts)
49. LOLZ! Now Krugman is the Democratic Establishment. It's like listening to 9 year olds
edit- Krugman is as much Establishment as Sanders, I suppose.
LOLZ |
Response to KittyWampus (Reply #49)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 07:39 PM
mhatrw (10,786 posts)
79. or Judith Miller or Hillary Clinton or Micheal Bloomberg. Right?
Response to KittyWampus (Reply #49)
Sun Jan 24, 2016, 12:31 AM
Beacool (29,976 posts)
161. Don't you know? Anyone who doesn't support Sanders is part of the "establishment".
I come here for laughs. The over the top and melodramatic posts get worse and worse. What ere they going to do when Sanders doesn't clinch the nomination?
![]() ![]() |
Response to Beacool (Reply #161)
Sun Jan 24, 2016, 02:22 AM
mhatrw (10,786 posts)
172. What are you going to do if Sanders wins the nomination?
Do you and all of the "come here for laughs" Democrats of your ilk promise to work hard for and vote for Sanders over Bloomberg?
|
Response to mhatrw (Original post)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 07:19 PM
lumberjack_jeff (33,224 posts)
55. Stick to economics, Paul. n/t
Response to mhatrw (Original post)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 07:20 PM
emulatorloo (38,000 posts)
56. So? Ignore him and vote for Bernie in your primary
![]() |
Response to mhatrw (Original post)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 07:22 PM
peacebird (14,195 posts)
61. I'm not afraid of voting for Bernie! In fact, I look forward to it!
Response to mhatrw (Original post)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 07:24 PM
jeff47 (26,549 posts)
65. Golly...who knew that an economist isn't a political scientist. (nt)
Response to mhatrw (Original post)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 07:26 PM
kristopher (29,797 posts)
67. It's worse than Krugs' flopped flip-flop on single payer. nt
Response to mhatrw (Original post)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 07:31 PM
JRLeft (7,010 posts)
70. There was an alert in this thread I voted to leave it alone.
A lot of weak alerts on this site.
|
Response to mhatrw (Original post)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 07:34 PM
SwampG8r (10,287 posts)
74. So hillary supporters
Are ok with a nader scenario?
One more piece of moral high ground given up by the conservadems in support of hillary. |
Response to SwampG8r (Reply #74)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 07:42 PM
mhatrw (10,786 posts)
81. Loyalty oaths for Sanders' supporters.
Bloomberg buttons for Third Way Corpocrats.
|
Response to mhatrw (Original post)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 07:37 PM
MisterP (23,730 posts)
76. they're afraid of BLOOMBERG! sing it to the mountains! they think that the party's
so feeble that BLOOMBERG would calve off enough "centrist" votes and make Sanders lose
THEY'RE AFRAID OF BLOOMBERG |
Response to mhatrw (Original post)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 07:37 PM
HereSince1628 (36,063 posts)
77. Sounds to me that Krugman doesn't trust 'centrist'/third-way democrats to be faithful
Sounds to me like Krugman may be channeling 2008.
What's with all the loyalty tests that we've been beaten with for most of a year, if the Hillary supporters who've been pushing them mean Clinton supporters wouldn't be loyal to the party? Really? |
Response to mhatrw (Original post)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 07:41 PM
mcar (35,725 posts)
80. What is "political troma pornography?"
And please supply a current list of good liberals that DU now hates. I'm having a hard time keeping up. Thanks.
|
Response to mhatrw (Original post)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 07:46 PM
jfern (5,204 posts)
84. I can't believe I used to like this hack
This is just pure idiotic hackery.
|
Response to mhatrw (Original post)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 08:01 PM
Duval (4,280 posts)
86. Not going to work with me. K&R
Response to mhatrw (Original post)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 08:04 PM
JRLeft (7,010 posts)
89. These people are trying to make me vote 3rd party in the GE.
Response to mhatrw (Original post)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 08:06 PM
passiveporcupine (8,175 posts)
91. Krugman lost any cred he ever had with me long ago
How he's just embarrassing himself.
|
Response to mhatrw (Original post)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 08:11 PM
Loudestlib (980 posts)
96. So
He's worried about the Democrats that will vote for Bloomberg, when Sanders wins but hes not worried about the Democrats that would never vote for Hillary or those that just won't vote?
It's interesting that he only pick one side of the argument. |
Response to mhatrw (Original post)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 08:12 PM
Chathamization (1,638 posts)
98. I guess Krugman's call to hold those who got us into Iraq accountable was all a sham
Less than a year ago:
But many influential people — not just Mr. Bush — would prefer that we not have that discussion. There’s a palpable sense right now of the political and media elite trying to draw a line under the subject. Yes, the narrative goes, we now know that invading Iraq was a terrible mistake, and it’s about time that everyone admits it. Now let’s move on.
... Now, you can understand why many political and media figures would prefer not to talk about any of this. Some of them, I suppose, may have been duped: may have fallen for the obvious lies, which doesn’t say much about their judgment. More, I suspect, were complicit: they realized that the official case for war was a pretext, but had their own reasons for wanting a war, or, alternatively, allowed themselves to be intimidated into going along. For there was a definite climate of fear among politicians and pundits in 2002 and 2003, one in which criticizing the push for war looked very much like a career killer. ... But truth matters, and not just because those who refuse to learn from history are doomed in some general sense to repeat it. The campaign of lies that took us into Iraq was recent enough that it’s still important to hold the guilty individuals accountable. But I guess that's more that we should hold them theoretically accountable, just like Krugman is theoretically in favor of single-payer until he starts trash talking it (It will lead to rationing!) when someone seriously proposes it, or is theoretically in favor of Glass-Steagall, but then says bring it back would actually make matters worse when a serious presidential candidate proposes it. Eh. You know, I'm actually fine with someone saying "I'm voting for Clinton because she has a better shot" (or saying the same about Sanders, for that matter). But saying "Doing this is how you make Trump president!" is fairly crude scaremongering, especially coming from someone who seems anxious to throw all of their previous positions under the bus for whatever reason (because they prefer Clinton, because they never believed them in the first place, because of some kind of tribalism - I really don't know). |
Response to Chathamization (Reply #98)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 08:25 PM
Chathamization (1,638 posts)
103. Also, Krugman saying that it's wrong to say that a Democratic presidential rival has no chance:
From 2004:
It's true that if Mr. Dean gets the nomination, the Republicans will attack him as a wild-eyed liberal who is weak on national security. But they would do the same to any Democrat -- even Joseph Lieberman. Facts, or the lack thereof, will prove no obstacle: remember the successful attacks on the patriotism of Max Cleland, who lost three limbs in Vietnam, or the Saddam-Daschle ads.
Mr. Dean's character will also come under attack. But this, too, will happen to any Democrat. If we've learned anything in this past decade, it's that the right-wing scandal machine will find a way to smear anyone, and that a lot of the media will play along. A year ago, when John Kerry was the presumptive front-runner, he came under assault -- I am not making this up -- over the supposed price of his haircuts. Sure enough, a CNN host solemnly declared him in ''denial mode.'' That's not to say that a candidate's qualifications don't matter: it would be nice if Mr. Dean were a decorated war hero. But there's nothing in the polling data suggesting that Mr. Dean is less electable than his Democratic rivals, with the possible exception of General Clark. Mr. Dean's rivals may well believe that he will lose the election if he is nominated. But it's inexcusable when they try to turn that belief into a self-fulfilling prophecy. Let me suggest a couple of ground rules. First, while it's O.K. for a candidate to say he's more electable than his rival, someone who really cares about ousting Mr. Bush shouldn't pre-emptively surrender the cause by claiming that his rival has no chance. Yet Mr. Lieberman and Mr. Kerry have done just that. To be fair, Mr. Dean's warning that his ardent supporters might not vote for a ''conventional Washington politician'' was a bit close to the line, but it appeared to be a careless rather than a vindictive remark. More important, a Democrat shouldn't say anything that could be construed as a statement that Mr. Bush is preferable to his rival. Yet after Mr. Dean declared that Saddam's capture hadn't made us safer -- a statement that seems more justified with each passing day -- Mr. Lieberman and, to a lesser extent, Mr. Kerry launched attacks that could, and quite possibly will, be used verbatim in Bush campaign ads. (Mr. Lieberman's remark about Mr. Dean's ''spider hole'' was completely beyond the pale.) The irony is that by seeking to undermine the election prospects of a man who may well be their party's nominee, Mr. Lieberman and Mr. Kerry have reminded us of why their once-promising campaigns imploded. Most Democrats feel, with justification, that we're facing a national crisis -- that the right, ruthlessly exploiting 9/11, is making a grab for total political dominance. The party's rank and file want a candidate who is running, as the Dean slogan puts it, to take our country back. This is no time for a candidate who is running just because he thinks he deserves to be president. Can we have this guy back? |
Response to mhatrw (Original post)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 08:20 PM
retrowire (10,345 posts)
101. not happening. Feel the BERN! nt
Response to mhatrw (Original post)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 08:25 PM
jwirr (39,215 posts)
102. I have always liked Krugman - he claims he is an FDR economist.
But this vote for Bloomberg is anything but an FDR message.
Both he and Ed Rendell are pushing the Bloomberg run as a threat to us today. I think they got the talking points straight from Hillary's desk. But both of them have just placed themselves outside of our party. Not because they support Hillary as individuals but because they are party leaders. And when our party falls to pieces it will not be individual Bernie supporters or individual Hillary supporters who are to blame. It will be people like Krugman, Rendell and DWS who used their positions of leadership in the party to make "of the people, by the people, for the people" a laughing stock of the world. They are no different than the Rs. |
Response to mhatrw (Original post)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 08:26 PM
mikehiggins (5,614 posts)
105. How much will it cost Bloomberg to learn he hasn't a snowballs chance in hell?
Will any of his employees dare to tell him that? While drinking a SuperSized cola?
The only thing I like about him is his support for anti-ammosexual policies. As to the rest, well, he's as much establishment as any billionaire. |
Response to mhatrw (Original post)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 08:30 PM
pnwmom (104,093 posts)
106. Yeah, right. All the Bernie-skeptics are either "desperate" or part of the "establishment."
![]() |
Response to pnwmom (Reply #106)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 08:52 PM
mhatrw (10,786 posts)
116. He's not a Bernie-skeptic in this blog post. He is fearmongering about Bernie's coming nomination.
And it's a completely desperate, utterly tone deaf 4 speculative step brand of scare mongering.
1. Sanders needs to triumph because we all support his policies and are all sick of establishment politicians promising us more government of, by, and for the top 1%. 2. Bloomberg has to toss his name into the third party hat because establishment pundits urge him to rescue the establishment from the angry hoi polloi. 3. Then all of your fellow Hillary supporters need to abandon the Democratic Party en masse because loyalty oaths are only for those pesky progressives whose votes establishment Corpocrats love to take for granted. And Republicans need to keep preferring the batshit crazy billionaire to the semi-sane one. 4. Voila! We all get the fascist strongclown the establishment would far prefer to giving up their rigged economy. ![]() |
Response to mhatrw (Reply #116)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 08:53 PM
pnwmom (104,093 posts)
118. No, he's just being realistic, unlike the Bernie fan club. n/t
Response to pnwmom (Reply #118)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 08:58 PM
mhatrw (10,786 posts)
121. So you agree that it is realistic that most Clinton supporters will abandon the
Democratic party to vote for a financial empire multibillionaire if Clinton is not the nominee?
|
Response to mhatrw (Original post)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 08:31 PM
thesquanderer (10,877 posts)
107. Most Democrats won't defect from Sanders to Bloomberg
especially if Hillary backs Sanders, as any "proper" Democrat would support their party's nominee.
The question is more what the Independent voters would do. Those are the ones that Bloomberge would be counting on. |
Response to thesquanderer (Reply #107)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 08:54 PM
mhatrw (10,786 posts)
119. Really? Are you sure? I think we need to gauge that with some TOS loyalty oath polls. nt
Response to thesquanderer (Reply #107)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 10:10 PM
A Simple Game (9,214 posts)
149. I have my doubts that Hillary would support Bernie if he wins. This is her last dance
if she doesn't get to be prom queen this time she has no other options down the road. I think she walks out of the dance and starts looking over her list of enemies.
|
Response to A Simple Game (Reply #149)
Sun Jan 24, 2016, 08:34 AM
thesquanderer (10,877 posts)
189. I'm pretty sure either of them would support the other if s/he won...
...though there would still be a question of just how enthusiastic that support would be.
Not only is that "proper form" within the party, but certainly neither of them would want the Republican nominee to win... and honestly, I kind of doubt that Hillary would even want Bloomberg to win, over her party's nominee. UNLESS... Bloomberg picks Hillary as his VP?? Uh oh, I think I may be on to something... |
Response to thesquanderer (Reply #189)
Sun Jan 24, 2016, 09:31 AM
A Simple Game (9,214 posts)
192. The plot thickens, it always thickens when a Clinton is involved. n/t
Response to mhatrw (Original post)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 08:50 PM
neverforget (9,368 posts)
115. A billionaire will save us from Bernie.....
![]() ![]() Billionaire Bloomberg..... ![]() ![]() ![]() The wealthy are definitely afraid. ![]() ![]() Go Bernie! ![]() |
Response to mhatrw (Original post)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 08:58 PM
Warren DeMontague (80,708 posts)
120. I bet you can't say "Bloomberg Doomsday" ten times fast.
This is the DU member formerly known as Warren DeMontague.
|
Response to mhatrw (Original post)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 08:59 PM
Autumn (40,161 posts)
122. Not. Gonna. Work. Bloomberg, you have every right to run. Do it.
![]() |
Response to mhatrw (Original post)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 09:03 PM
Tierra_y_Libertad (50,414 posts)
125. Memo to Paul: No Sale
Response to mhatrw (Original post)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 09:23 PM
PatrickforO (12,349 posts)
132. I'm kind of disappointed in Krugman for spouting such bullshit.
The reality is that if Bloomberg runs it will hurt the Republicans far more than the Dems.
Bernie would win for sure if Bloomberg gets in. If Clinton is the candidate, Bloomberg will win. Seriously, SO many people outside of here dislike or even hate Clinton it isn't even funny. And it won't be funny if she's the nominee because no matter how many people on here support her, she'll lose. She is a lackluster, boring status-quo campaigner who has so much negative baggage she will be like someone sitting in a dunk tank. Oh, sure, they will call Bernie a socialist, tar him with the hammer and sickle but that won't wash because the stuff he's advocating is favored by a majority of Americans in ALL cases. This is why Bernie will win. This, and the fact that the establishment no longer controls the message. We do. This is the DU member formerly known as PatrickforO.
|
Response to mhatrw (Original post)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 09:27 PM
Jarqui (7,874 posts)
133. There's an awful big rush to put Bernie away
Bernie had to start somewhere so he focused on the early primary states. Without the mainstream media paying attention as they have with Trump and others, a lot of folks haven't heard what he has to offer America. Folks in Iowa and New Hampshire seem to like what he's offering.
So what is wrong with the rest of the country hearing what Bernie has to offer and going to the polls to provide their response? Isn't that what we call democracy? It's the only way we're going to find out how great a candidate Bernie can be. Media that doesn't provide that is doing a disservice to the citizens (but we've seen them flirting with doing that) The reason candidates, particularly Clinton, want to shut Bernie up is that they fear more folks are going to like what he has to offer more than Hillary.If they didn't fear it, they could sit on their hands and just let him burn himself out. The media companies owned by Wall Street would like to milk bunches of that Koch ad money so giving a little attention to Bernie to drain some of Hillary's campaign money into their pockets and bump their ratings during the primaries isn't going to hurt anyone in the media. They can still play king maker in the general election. This seems to be where Krugman is coming from. Bloomberg, Trump and Clinton: are all wealthy 1%ers with their Wall Street corporate connections. Hillary suffers a little in the first poll I've seen on this matchup. Bloomberg, Trump & Sanders: only two are wealthy 1%ers. Sanders is a true alternative to the other two. I think he'd do better in the polls than Hillary when folks hear what he has to offer. |
Response to mhatrw (Original post)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 09:37 PM
Spitfire of ATJ (32,723 posts)
135. The Beltway LOVES this narrative....
They've been hanging onto it just in case something comes up in the FBI investigation of Hillary's forgotten emails forcing her out of the race.
This fantasy predates both Bernie and Trump. Keep in mind this comes from people who really do believe this country has a vast uncounted undecided vote that leans to the right. |
Response to mhatrw (Original post)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 09:57 PM
raindaddy (1,370 posts)
142. If you don't vote for neoliberal Hillary Clinton the plutocrats will shove Trump down your throat!
It's your choice bitches, Hillary or the Donald!!
-Paul Krugman, honest liberal... Trump's a scary prospect alright. So maybe this time around the plutocrats should think twice about running Bloomberg and if we do elect an unfit crazy ass Trump who would screw up the country they can take responsibility. After all THEY have the most to lose.. |
Response to mhatrw (Original post)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 10:03 PM
Iggo (44,002 posts)
145. So...vote for Clinton or her supporters will vote for Bloomberg?
How DARE he accuse fine democrats of going PUMA.
The nerve! |
Response to mhatrw (Original post)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 10:06 PM
NCTraveler (30,481 posts)
147. Why isn't it....
"Bloomberg is basically Hillary Clinton in a suit?"
Instead of "Hillary Clinton is basically Blookmberg in drag." |
Response to NCTraveler (Reply #147)
Sun Jan 24, 2016, 02:34 AM
mhatrw (10,786 posts)
175. Good question
Response to mhatrw (Reply #175)
Sun Jan 24, 2016, 08:49 AM
NCTraveler (30,481 posts)
191. Personal instincts, more often than not.
When some attempt to make an argument based in the negative, they often go into the memory bank and pull out other terms that they personally view as negative, in order to bolster the "feeling" of negativity trying to be promoted in the message. It is often learned behavior and the more nefarious aspects are often not even recognized by the author. For women, it's often an everyday aspect that is very noticeable. The patriarchy runs deep in people's minds as many aspects are instilled since birth.
|
Response to NCTraveler (Reply #191)
Sun Jan 24, 2016, 02:40 PM
mhatrw (10,786 posts)
199. I think it was billionaires before their millionaire minions.
But that was really classist of me.
|
Response to mhatrw (Original post)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 10:08 PM
Jack Rabbit (45,984 posts)
148. I will not let the establishment terrorize me into supporting Hillary Clinton
I don't want blame Krugman for the meme. For one thing, I have too much respect for him and for another, it is a fact that Bloomberg is thinking out loud about running as an independent, regardless of who reports it. It is not Professor Krugman by Mr. Bloomberg himself invoking this scenario. If anyone is a villain in this story, it is Michael Bloomberg.
As far as I am concerned, the difference between Hillary Clinton and a Republican is that Hillary has a better record on matters pertaining to making America a more inclusive society than do racists, misogynists, sectarian bigots and homophobes like Donald Trumo, Ted Cruz, etc., etc. Otherwise, they all favor a social hierarchy that favors the rich over the rest of us and will pursue basically the same policies that for the last 35 years have eroded the American middle class. It is a disastrous, unsustainable program and the only viable presidential candidate who has the courage to stand against it, Senator Bernie Sanders. That is why I am supporting Senator Sanders for President. I will vote for the Democratic nominee but I have no time or money for another establishment candidate who will support deregulation and free trade and wink at banking fraud. I will not support those policies if such a president is elected, even if he or she is punitively a Democrat, but will dedicate myself for my remaining years to the termination the worldwide power of oligarchs and their political stooges. Power to the People; this land belongs to you and me. |
Response to mhatrw (Original post)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 10:38 PM
Bernblu (441 posts)
150. Krugman can't be this stupid
He must be angling for a job.
|
Response to Bernblu (Reply #150)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 11:13 PM
Agony (2,605 posts)
155. I wonder...
this is one of the slides from his Nobel prize presentation…
"My rules for research: 1. Listen to the Gentiles 2. Question the question 3. Dare to be silly 4. Simplify, simplify" |
Response to mhatrw (Original post)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 10:41 PM
Truprogressive85 (900 posts)
151. No coating
Any Democrats that supports Bloomberg is anti black simple
And supports his racist policies while he was in office Tell Bloomberg he can sit his stop and frisk butt in the sideline |
Response to mhatrw (Original post)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 10:49 PM
Nanjeanne (4,017 posts)
154. I'm confused
Haven't Hillary supporters been saying all along that if Sanders doesn't win the nomination then his supporters should vote for Hillary so that we ensure a Dem in the White House? Now Krugman is saying that Hillary supporters will do exactly what they have been asking us not to do?
How about this scenario Paul? Hillary wins nomination Sanders supporters write in Bernie's name Trump wins. |
Response to mhatrw (Original post)
Sat Jan 23, 2016, 11:14 PM
Hekate (67,186 posts)
156. But wait! I just read at DU: "Breaking: Krugman endorses Single Payer and Medicare for All!!!"
So is he evil or is he not? So confused.
|
Response to mhatrw (Original post)
Sun Jan 24, 2016, 12:25 AM
R. Daneel Olivaw (12,606 posts)
158. Wow. The establishment is crapping themselves so much that the believe that brining in a
one of the billionaire class will save the day? These guys are fucking cracked. |
Response to mhatrw (Original post)
Sun Jan 24, 2016, 12:49 AM
hedda_foil (15,203 posts)
163. I think Krugman's logic is way off.
Bloomberg is much more likely to appeal to disaffected establishment Republicans who are repelled by Trump. Can you imagine a debate with the (99.98 percenter) Donald and (99.99 percenter) Bloomie on either side of Bernie? Talk about "optics"... Bernie would win in a landslide!!!
|
Response to mhatrw (Original post)
Sun Jan 24, 2016, 02:08 AM
senz (11,945 posts)
169. Okay I tried to finish the comments (all of which were good) but cannot stand it any longer.
What the hell is so attractive about Michael Bloomberg that everyone, including Krugman, thinks the guy could be an election wrecker??
I can't see it. The man has no appeal. What does he stand for? Who would place their hopes in him? Where on earth would he take us? I don't think he'd take us anywhere. Does he have leadership qualities (Hill folk, I'm not talking about "positions held" ![]() Krugman and various commenters (mainly the Hill folk) speak of him as if there were something irresistible about him. One final question: What the hell happened to Paul Krugman? He should visit his doctor. Something's definitely not right. |
Response to senz (Reply #169)
Sun Jan 24, 2016, 02:41 AM
mhatrw (10,786 posts)
177. The Old Gray Lady likes things just as they are. nt
Response to mhatrw (Original post)
Sun Jan 24, 2016, 02:39 AM
rjsquirrel (4,762 posts)
176. Now Krugman is "the establishment!"
For reals?
|
Response to rjsquirrel (Reply #176)
Sun Jan 24, 2016, 02:43 AM
mhatrw (10,786 posts)
178. All Hail Trump, Bloomberg, Clinton and Establishment Pundits! nt
Response to mhatrw (Reply #178)
Sun Jan 24, 2016, 05:14 AM
rjsquirrel (4,762 posts)
185. As opposed to
Noam Chomsky.
|
Response to mhatrw (Original post)
Sun Jan 24, 2016, 02:46 AM
merrily (45,251 posts)
179. I don't think I have ever made a postive post about Krugman, even if I agreed with
what he was saying at the moment.
That has nothing to do with this primary or with Bernie Sanders, as my feelings about Krugman long pre-dated both. It was just a gut feeling that he was a self-serving shill, not someone who spoke out publicly of conviction or principle. I do not like thee, Dr. Fell. The reason why, I cannot tell. But, this I know and know full well...... I do not like thee, Dr. Fell. |
Response to mhatrw (Original post)
Sun Jan 24, 2016, 08:21 AM
CanonRay (11,611 posts)
186. If this is supposed to scare me into voting for Hillary
it is completely backfiring.
|
Response to mhatrw (Original post)
Sun Jan 24, 2016, 08:24 AM
99Forever (14,524 posts)
187. The smell of Coronation Express Desperation is stronger every day.
![]() |
Response to mhatrw (Original post)
Sun Jan 24, 2016, 08:31 AM
Vinca (45,750 posts)
188. Well, here's another Doomsday scenario I heard this morning on CNN
when they were talking about Bloomberg. True, it came out of the mouth of a GOP candidate, but it's an indication of things to come. The comment was about Republicans not liking Trump and Hillary having federal charges hanging over her head. That's going to be the new talking point: Hillary and federal charges.
|
Response to mhatrw (Original post)
Sun Jan 24, 2016, 09:36 AM
Zen Democrat (5,877 posts)
193. Another billionnaire against Bernie. I'm SHOCKED, I tell you, SHOCKED.
I see what's happening in my crystal ball, and the anti-establishment candidates are going to win the nominations -- Trump and Sanders. Trump will run with Rubio. Sanders will run with Warren.
Sanders & Warren WIN in a LANDSLIDE against the Billionnaire. The Senate will become solid Democratic. The House will be a toss-up, with Republicans having an gerrymandered advantage, but ..... the Republican Party may be split asunder and go the way of the Whigs. The Third-Way will die on the vine, or the Democratic Party may be in danger of a split also. Could 2016 be the year that the extant parties for the last 150 years evolve into new realities with a reshuffling of the deck, or, in other words, an actual new deal? It's a possibility. The current liberal/conservative paradigm may have run its course. |
Response to mhatrw (Original post)
Sun Jan 24, 2016, 03:07 PM
spooky3 (26,850 posts)
200. I think he's just describing what he thinks would happen.
Bloomberg would pull more votes from Dems than Republicans. I think he's right. Bloomberg's positions are more similar to Dems' than to Repubs' in most parts of the country.
|
Response to mhatrw (Original post)
Sun Jan 24, 2016, 03:11 PM
hollowdweller (4,229 posts)
201. I like Krugman way better as an economist than as a political pundit.
Response to mhatrw (Original post)
Sun Jan 24, 2016, 03:12 PM
Bjornsdotter (6,123 posts)
202. Krugman can vote
...however he chooses. I really don't care how he votes.
Now I expect him to extend the same courtesy to me and my vote. |
Response to mhatrw (Original post)
Sun Jun 5, 2016, 09:10 AM
CobaltBlue (1,122 posts)
205. mhatrw—Paul Krugman proved not only is he not a “liberal”…he is an enemy to those who are.