Fascinating lines from that Krugman editorial:

[lovemydog]

The last two paragraphs:

"If a Democrat does win, does it matter much which one it is? Probably not. Any Democrat is likely to retain the financial reforms of 2010, and seek to stiffen them where possible. But major new reforms will be blocked until and unless Democrats regain control of both houses of Congress, which isn’t likely to happen for a long time.

In other words, while there are some differences in financial policy between Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Sanders, as a practical matter they’re trivial compared with the yawning gulf with Republicans."

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/10/16/opinion/democrats-republicans-and-wall-street-tycoons.html

I agree with him by and large on this.

What do you think?

[joshcryer]

1. This is what every pragmatist* has said forever.

*ie, those who have common damn sense.

Without Congress the next Democrat's presidency will be very similar to Obama's presidency after 2010, with one caveat, the SCOTUS is going to need people picked, and I'd rather it be done by a Democrat given Clinton and Obama's picks.

[Agschmid]

4. Yup.

We need to do more to impact house and senate races.

[daybranch]

21. Is your statement satire?

Or did you just give up?

[stevenleser]

34. It's reality. Read up on redistricting and the House of Representatives.

We are checkmated on that point until Jan 2023 at the earliest.

Your opponent outflanking you can have fairly lengthy consequences that in this case can't be dismissed by wishful thinking.

[joshcryer]

53. Read the constitution for once.

[fasttense]

54. And they use to say the same thing about the difference between

RepubliCONS and Democratic Politicians.

Now a days you don't hear it as much that RepubliCONS and Democrats are alike and it makes no difference who you vote for...so vote for my party/candidate.

In fact I think the Supremes made a comment about both parties being alike right before they selected the bushes for our president. How nice of them to do away with all the hassle of citizens voting and counting those useless votes that you have NO right to anyway.

[cantbeserious]

2. Disagree Completely - Krugman Seeks To Minimize The Differences Between HRC And Sanders

eom

[lovemydog]

3. In what way do you think there are big differences

between them in terms of what they would accomplish as President?

[cantbeserious]

5. Easy - See The Six Questions

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251812060

[lovemydog]

6. That's rhetoric.

Do you think Sanders would accomplish any of those things, apart from talking about them?

[cantbeserious]

7. Yes - The Buly Pulpit Is Powerful - HRC Would Not Mention Any Of Them

eom

[lovemydog]

10. Yes. I know. Maybe she hasn't mentioned them

because she's more interested in what has a chance of actually passing in Congress.

[cantbeserious]

24. Ready Excuse For Some That Have Exceedingly Low Expectations

eom

[Dustlawyer]

44. We are prepared to March, call, whatever to force things like Publicly Funded Elections

through.

[daybranch]

18. Actually Bernie claims a revolution is necessary to accomplish what he desires most

and that is a country ruled by us and not the billionaires. It would be up to those who are the majority in that democracy to accomplish whatever things they chose. Bernie unlike Hillary has no interest in being a somewhat benevolent puppet of the rich. Hillary has no interest in accomplishing anything unless it benefits the rich and increases and maintains wealth inequality. It is not income inequality that is the basis of our problem now, it is the accumulated wealth inequality.
It is highly interesting that polls of the rich say they most want respect. How can you expect it when you treat others as they do. I suspect they are just whining we cannot recognize their supposed superiority to the degree they perceive it to be.
They must remain in the prison of their mind and make sure they guard those fences or their ignorance of their greed and inhumanity may alarm them.

[lovemydog]

28. Yes, Bernie is saying that and I believe him

and agree with him.

Hillary is saying that she wants an American where everyone can do well. I don't think she 'has no interest in accomplishing anything unless it benefits the rich and increases and maintains wealth inequality.' She's on the record with programs designed to benefit working people. For example, this is from her web site:

Reform our tax code so the wealthiest pay their fair share. Hillary supports ending the “carried interest” loophole, enacting the “Buffett Rule” that ensures no millionaire pays a lower effective tax rate than their secretary, and closing tax loopholes and expenditures that benefit the wealthiest taxpayers to pay for her plan to make college affordable and refinance student debt.

[freedom fighter jh]

32. Berne would try.

You didn't ask me, but I think Bernie would give it his best.

To me, the essential difference between Bernie and Hillary -- indeed, between Bernie and almost every other politician -- is that Bernie is able to work for the people, because he is not bound to any banks or corporations. Every well-ntended politician needs this freedom to bring his or her goals to fruition.

Someone funded by -- and dependent on -- the big banks needs to make the banks' welfare his or her top priority and can work for the citizens only to the extent that doing so does not bother the banks.

[lovemydog]

36. I hear you.

That's my biggest concern about Hillary. Who she would have in her Administration and who she would appoint in other places too. With Bernie, I get the feeling that he wouldn't have many people who are likely to be bought off by money from big corporate lobbyists. With Hillary I'm not so sure.

[Blue_Adept]

8. You need a new schtick

Just in the few threads that I've poked at this weekend I've seen you link this probably two dozen times now. That's not having a discussion.

[cantbeserious]

51. What Would One Like To Discuss

eom

[daybranch]

23. great answer!

nuff said, point made.

[pnwmom]

37. They will both have to deal with the same Congress. Why would Sanders be more successful? n/t

[PADemD]

49. Because

Bernie has (so far) 750,000 donors who would be willing to hound their representatives in Congress for change.

GOP Congress earns low marks from public

Just 14 percent of Americans approve of the way Congress is doing its job, according to a new Gallup survey released Wednesday, and they do not seem all that enamored with Republican leaders in the House and Senate, either.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/poll-congress-approval-rating-gop-leadership-121285

[cantbeserious]

50. Sanders Would Try - HRC Would Maintain The Status Quo - A Third Obama Administration

eom

[2pooped2pop]

9. house and congressional republicans

hate Hillary worse than they hate welfare for the poor. They will never let anything be accomplished if she is potus. It will be worse with her than Bernie.

Bernie will call them out as he will not be owned by the rich and will be free to be truthful. He will tell the people what is actually going on while Clinton will choose to protect the policies favoring the rich.

Clinton will agree to hawkish war while Bernie will not.

The people will not be able to handle the fake open mouthed grin she has learned to give due to her polling saying she needs to appear funner and more likable. Bernie will continue to give his natural scowl which is more appropriate for what is happening in the US.

Scotus appointments. More right leaning scotus appointments will seal the fate of the US.

[lovemydog]

12. Fair answer.

Thanks. I'd also suggest that Sanders can move the party and the country more to the left. Which is important at this time.

A lot of people doubted Reagan before he was elected and re-elected. But he is hailed by republicans as moving them more toward the right.

If one believes as I do that our party and our country would benefit from moving more toward the left, then maybe Sanders is the President to help do it.

[Scuba]

14. /\_/\_This_/\_/\

[Enthusiast]

16. Huge +1!

[GoneFishin]

25. Exactly. The difference is that one will try, and one will shrug her shoulders and feign impotence

when a policy is not in favor with her 1% Wall Street and bankster friends, pretty much the way the current President does.

[dsc]

43. what did Obama do to make Republicans hate him

I keep hearing how divisive Hillary and Bill Clinton are, well Obama is the opposite of divisive yet his relationship with the GOP is, if anything, worse than that of Bill Clinton. The fact is the GOP hates successful Democrats plain and simple and if Bernie were to win he would be by definition a successful Democrat and hated.

[2pooped2pop]

52. obama is black

That's all they needed to hate him. They wanted to make sure no black person would ever try to run again so the plan was simply no. No to everything e en if it was the same thing they wanted. No. They are very afraid of black control.

Now that I think about it I wonder if that is why they seem to actually want the non rich dead. I thought it was because they know the earth can't sustain us all. But perhaps it's twofold in that killing off the lower class they would get rid of a lot of poc before roles are reversed and poc become the majority? I think they are really terrified of that. Hmmm.

[dsc]

56. So under your rules we should never elect anything other than a white male

is that really what you think? BTW what if they hate Jews? Does that mean we will see Bernie become divisive?

[2pooped2pop]

61. I'm sure they do hate jews

Just not as much as blacks.
And those weren't rules. I was answering the question posed.
I voted for Obama and would vote for Warren or someone like her in a heartbeat. She didn't run and I believe Bernie is our best chance to change things due to his record and his integrity. Will he succeed? I certainly hope so but we will never get anything changed by voting for the same policies that have fucked us all over. You can't win if you don't play.

I'm sure we will manage to get a woman elected as potus someday, but none are running now that will truly fight for the changes that must happen for us to survive.
I am sure there will be other black men and women elected again as well.

[Enthusiast]

15. I agree. Krugman has decided where his bread is buttered, so to speak.

[marble falls]

11. I absolutely agree. We're getting a Democrat for President. What we need to guarentee is we get a...

Democratic Congress over the next six years.

[lovemydog]

13. I sure hope so.

There's a lot of legitimate disagreement here about which nominee would have better or longer coat tails. I don't think one can accurately predict it.

[Motown_Johnny]

19. Then the focus should be on 2020

when the next census and district redrawing occurs.

[marble falls]

22. And at the same same time get a major turn out for 2018. Off year elections kills Democrats....

cause Democrats don't turn out in off years.

[Motown_Johnny]

27. My underlying point for 2020 is....

... something that I have been saying here (on and off) for months.


Hillary does not energize our base and even if she is elected it is reasonable to assume that she will hurt us in 2020. It is very hard to keep the White House for 4 consecutive terms and we need someone to win in 2016 who has a good shot at also winning reelection. I just don't think Hillary is that person.



I touched on this subject in a thread a few days back:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=793845

Motown_Johnny (18,923 posts)

17. They need 60 votes in the Senate for most of that.


I don't want an (R) President either, but I don't want 2020 to be a disaster even more. We need a popular President running for reelection in 2020, not a neoliberal who has a record of getting things wrong the first time around and taking years before switching positions to where more competent people were to begin with.

We can't have a repeat of 2010 in 2020. We need our base energized enough to help us take back some state governments and deal with the gerrymandering problem that we have had since 2010. If it is their base that is energized we will be screwed.


Yes, 2016 is important and bad things will happen if an (R) wins. 2020 is even more important and even more bad things will happen if an (R) wins then.


Think me an idiot if you want, I honestly don't care. I am not energized about Hillary Clinton and will never be energized about her. I will turn out and vote for every (D) I can (as always) and my vote will count just as much if I am doing it under duress or with joy. Unfortunately, many will not turn out for someone they feel is the slightly lesser of two evils and I can't blame them for it.

Maybe some of us should try to lose the tunnel vision and focus on more than just 2016. Given the demographic shifts in progress, 2020 could be a huge year for us. If it is a disaster then it could be two more decades before we have any shot at redrawing the districts in a fair way (since 2030 will be an off year election). At my age, I could easily be dead by then. I really don't want to live the rest of my life with the (R)s controlling the House just because we chose a terrible nominee in 2016.

[marble falls]

30. I've seen polls that suggest a Clinton/Bush match up would actully supress turnout 2016.

[2pooped2pop]

55. and that is what Bernie means

When he says he can't do it alone and we need a revolution. People approve of actual democratic policies but we must get them up and out to vote for more government leaders who will not be bought and will work for the people.

[Motown_Johnny]

17. I think some Executive actions are possible and Bernie would take them

while Hillary would not.


There is a difference.

[GoneFishin]

29. Krugman is a voter and a U.S. citizen. He is entitled to his opinion. His opinion is not convincing

in this case.

Bernie will try to make changes. Hillary will not. Which one is guaranteed to fail?

[EdwardBernays]

20. welllllll....

Presidents TEND to win reelection and we should vote thinking that a President's party will never control the Congress... it does happen.

[n2doc]

26. Bull

The President has considerable powers on their own. Obama has shown this. So have his predecessors. To say there would be no effective difference is just wrong, and is focussing on one narrow area of Presidential power.

[TM99]

31. That he would seriously opine that there is no difference

between neoliberal economic based policies and democratic socialism economic based polices shows just how partisan and out of touch with those of us outside of the DC way of thinking. He is more focused on the D after the name than the actual policies themselves.

[lovemydog]

33. He's talking more about the legislative branch

of government.

[TM99]

42. No he is talking about the President as well.

Sanders may not get everything he wants but his economic policies based on democratic socialism are truly opposite the Randian GOP ones of today. Any compromises will start from a dramatically different place on the spectrum of ideas.

Clinton's neoliberal economic policies are not that different from the GOP policies as we have seen since the 1990's. People seem to not realize that the ACA (Obamacare) is nothing more than a variant of RomneyCare which was a variant of HeritageCare which are all conservative GOP approaches to mandated health insurance that nominally benefits us but greatly benefits the insurance corps.

I do not want another triangulating neoliberal in the vein of Clinton or Obama to be 'compromising' with the GOP run congress yet again. Those compromises have fucked us not just as far as economic justice goes but also social justice. The new meme is that had Clinton NOT passed DOMA, the GOP led congress would have pushed through a constitutional amendment, so it should be looked at as a worst case 'compromise'.

[Recursion]

35. And rightly so. That letter is all that matters.

Presidents don't make policy decisions, pretty much ever.

They staff the executive departments, where policy decisions are made. And while the actual cabinet secretaries would probably be different, cabinet secretaries also don't make policy decisions. Those are made a level or two lower, and Clinton, Sanders, and O'Malley all have the same bag of Democrats to pull from for those.

Preferred policy is probably the worst conceivable reason to support someone for President, because policy isn't what Presidents do.

[TM99]

40. Bullshit.

The right-ward shift of the Democratic party due to neoliberalism is directly related to Bill Clinton and Obama including NAFTA, repeal of Glass-Steagal, 'Welfare Reform', ACA insurance mandated medicine, and TPP.

Presidents push policy, and I will not argue with you yet against about the President being nothing more than a fucking manager. History shows us otherwise.

[dreamnightwind]

45. Completely agree!

[Ed Suspicious]

46. Bullshit.

You mean to tell me there are none other than neoliberals to choose from? You mean to tell me the most powerful person from the most powerful country in the world is powerless to influence our policy? You mean to tell me the person most responsible in our country for setting the tone and tenor, the person who holds a veto over laws and legislation, the person who can make signing statements and enforcement decisions, person who for a time owns the bully pulpit, the person who appoints Supreme Court judges on a divided court . . . you mean to tell me this person's political ideology is the "probably the worst conceivable reason to support someone for President?"

I forgot mention the power over the cabinet with his appointment power and his influence over 15 massive bureaucracies employing . What about his influence over the way 2,750,000,000 federal employees approach their jobs, often times in policy enforcement.

After all that you mean to tell me presidents don't do policy?

Bullshit.

[stevenleser]

38. I've only been saying this for the last five months or so.

Allowing the Republicans to outmaneuver us in state elections has long lasting consequences thanks to redistricting.

As a result, all this flailing by folks to try to convince us that Bernie is better than Hillary and all of that is completely wasted effort because whether it's Bernie or Hillary or for that matter, O'Malley or Lessig or whomever, the difference in terms of what they will be able to accomplish with a Republican House of Representatives will be so little that it won't matter.

We Democrats in general, and I consider the Sanders effort part of this, tend to focus on the top offices and neglect "lesser" elected office. We should be putting just as much effort into getting Democrats into state houses. Not doing so has screwed us.

[djean111]

47. Oh, you should see how much effort Debbie Wasserman-DINO puts into getting DINOs and even

GOP buddies of hers elected, down here in Florida! She meddles with the state organization, has campaigned for GOP buddies, and refused to campaign for Democrats who were running against her GOP buddies.

The failure to get Democrats elected at lower levels, IMO, starts with Debbie. She just does not like liberals, and is currently pushing a Republican who turned Democrat in 2012 (so he could run against another Republican, he has not changed his mind on any issues, mind you) to take Rubio's place. That New Democrat Coalition (advised by the Third Way) is taking control of the Democratic Party. I will not vote for any of them. Ever.

This has absolutely nothing to do with Sanders.

[joshcryer]

57. Been saying it since 2010 when I helped kept CO blue.

And we lost guys like Grayson and Feingold, all because the party wasn't "pure" enough.

And people whine and complain that the party doesn't do enough and that there isn't enough support.

If you're shitting on the democrat then people don't feel like voting, simple as that.

[stevenleser]

59. Still got you beat by four years...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x210173



http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_steven_l_060513...

May 13, 2006

Election 2006 State Legislature Races – An important Reminder to Democrats and Progressives
Make Sure to Vote Democratic, You Might Be Saving Your Right to Future Votes or to having those future votes counted!

by Steven Leser

http://www.opednews.com

Steven Leser

One thing of which many Democrats have been guilty is not paying enough attention to races for state legislature. Over the years, I have heard a lot of people say things along the lines of “I just vote for President, Senate and House (and maybe the Governor) and leave the rest blank”. Somewhere along the way, this attitude has allowed the GOP to gain control of one or more houses in state legislatures in areas that are otherwise more evenly divided among the parties or are outright Democratic strongholds. Because state legislatures have tremendous power to determine the rules regarding how elections are held, this has had a serious negative effect on the conduct of elections.

For their part, Democratic candidates for state legislatures should articulate plans for revamping the laws in their states regarding elections such as:

1. All Electronic Voting Machines should have a verifiable paper trail or they should not be used. Voters should be given a receipt with a number that can be compared with a vote database in the event of a recount so there is no doubt that their vote was tabulated correctly. During the recount, complete tables of votes should be published that include the above vote number and the candidate chosen in each race.

2. Voters should be allowed to vote by provisional ballot for all races in any precinct in the state in which they live. Identification requirements should be minimal. Voters should be required to enter their name, address and Social Security number and a signature. That should be adequate to deter fraud. If there is still a concern, vote fraud penalties should be increased to a minimum of seven years in prison with no parole.

3. A quick, but thorough recount process that specifies a complete manual recount of all precincts and counties. No race should be allowed to be certified and no electors can be sent to Washington DC until the completion of the recount process.

4. Felons should automatically be re-enfranchised upon their release from prison.

5. Governors should not be permitted to remove local supervisors of elections at their whim. Their removal should entail an impeachment process by the state legislature.

6. All individuals involved in the conduct of an election should be fingerprinted in advance and their fingerprints put on file with the FBI. The same goes for any and all vendors involved with handling election machines.

7. All programming code associated with election machines should be made public. During a recount, candidates and local party officials should have the right to independent forensic investigation of voting machines and their programming code. As specified in item #3 above, this must be completed prior to certification and any electors being sent to Washington DC.

Thoughtful state representatives and state senators can probably think of some more good laws regarding elections. The point is to get good Democrats elected so that they can implement them. Our country should be the model of how democratic elections are conducted. There is no reason why our elections cannot be conducted in an accurate, transparent and fair manner that gives complete assurance to everyone as to their results. The people of this country deserve no less.

Remember – MAKE SURE you vote for your Democratic candidates for state legislature. You will thank me and yourself later.

[mmonk]

39. I disagree. I can't imagine Bernie engaging in grand bargains.

Derivatives regulations are needed and commercial banking deposits need deeper protections. The investment banks that have commercial bank subsidiaries and insurance subsidiaries need to be broken up. Rating agencies have to have oversight.

[Ed Suspicious]

41. Part of the reason I'm voting for Sanders is because I feel we need to reset the conversation. We

need to get back to a place where a financial meltdown that evaporates people's nesteggs . . . a meltdown that was largely caused by financial actors using other peoples money to recklessly inflate and then burst our economy will spark enough outrage that people land in jail and policies to vigorously questioned and that they ultimately change. Right now we are programmed to accept economic atrocities at our expense because, I don't know, job creators are too big to fail/jail blah blah blah.

We need a hard reset in attitude and understanding. That is a major reason I'm voting for Bernie.

[dreamnightwind]

48. Disagree

I read Krugman's article, and it didn't ring true to me at all.

First, I think there's a huge difference between Hillary and Bernie, one that is obscured rather than illuminatedby the corporate media debates and election coverage.

Second, it's very easy to forget about the huge percentage of disaffected voters who have lost faith in either party. They call themselves independents, for the most part because the politicians of both parties are perceived (accurately IMHO) as being owned by their large campaign donors, giving us lip service and giving the donors room service.

The point I'm trying to make is that Bernie is someone these people relate to, and for the right reasons.

So he has the capability to drive a huge turnout, with people showing up who have given up on the process. And there are a LOT of such people.

Not only would that help him win, it would help elect a Democratic House and Senate.

I don't know when or even if we could turn them our way (I'd say the Senate would be likely in 2016, maybe 2018 for the House). Hopefully the party would follow Bernie's lead and stand up for our interests, getting the public to come out to the polls to vote the obstructing Republicans out of office so the policies, which polls clearly show they want, can be enacted.

People are starving for authentic representation by someone who is working for them rather than for their large corporate donors, and we shouldn't underestimate the potential of that.

[NurseJackie]

58. That was very interesting. Thanks! (nt)

[raouldukelives]

60. I agree with his assessment that those who benefit the few at the top.

Do enormous damage to those at the bottom. At home and most especially abroad.

What may seem like small, innocuous ripples to many of them are tidal waves to others.

I think we have real problems facing us. I disagree that the one siding with the problem causers would be just as effective as the one who isn't.