Nothing in what we’ve seen so far suggests that he’ll come anywhere close to that. He’ll probably win Wisconsin next week, but that’s a demographically favorable state for him, so unless it’s a huge blowout (which the polls aren’t showing), Clinton will still be very much on track for the nomination.
Now, as the bumper stickers don’t quite say, stuff happens. But at this point it’s something like a 90 percent probability that Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee. Anyone denying that arithmetic is basically pulling a con job on Sanders supporters.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/04/01/feel-the-math/?_r=0
Not a fan of Krugman but I cant fault his logic on this one.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/04/01/feel-the-math/?_r=0
Not a fan of Krugman but I cant fault his logic on this one.
90% seems a bit low
As much as I do enjoy K-Thug from time to time, I don't think telling Sanders' campaign to roll over and die is really in anyone's interests but Hillary's.
As much as I do enjoy K-Thug from time to time, I don't think telling Sanders' campaign to roll over and die is really in anyone's interests but Hillary's.
Im not saying that Sanders should end his campaign only that his chances of winning at this point are less than 10%
So the arbitrary probability he pulled out of his ass is 90%, and that arbitrary number is solid enough that Sanders should end his campaign because he's willingly defrauding his constituents.
The mainstream media wrote Bernie off from day 1 and they've continued to write him off every day since. The New York times is possibly the worst of them when it comes to bias against Sanders. I remember the day they released 16 negative stories in a row, and even ghost-edited a few throughout the day to make the spin worse. Seems legit. Krugman is a Keynesian hack whose opinion nobody could possibly construe as unbiased towards the DNC establishment. Let him ramble on while we advance.
I also find it funny that you (and I) think every economic policy and position Krugman believes in is complete nonsense, yet you're more than willing to hoist up his political opinions as legitimate the second one of his views aligns with yours.
LOL I cant stand Krugman's economic stuff, he's a Keynesian through and through- but in this case, he's just going by pure logic and he's commenting on political matters rather than economics, so I tend to look at his opinions on it on a more neutral eye than I normally do.
According to whom? Krugman ballparks his chances at less than 10%. Silver, who I trust on statistics a hell of a lot more than Krugman's asspull of a figure, has no hard figure but I can't imagine he's got the guy he picked to be the next president at less than 20%.
Silver also has UNC at 54% to beat 'Nova, and I hope they do, since as much as I'd love to see an old Big East team whomp on UNC, I stand to make a ****load of money if North Carolina wins the whole shebang.
Nate probably has it somewhere in the realm of 1%
It’s Really Hard To Get Bernie Sanders 988 More Delegates | FiveThirtyEight
From the logic master that brought us "We should print money and give it to corporations to super charge the economy" we have "Sanders is defrauding his constituents, he should drop out because it's impossible to make up a 250 delegate deficit with 45% of Americans having yet to vote".
Rock solid logic.
Well, he doesn't say that, does he?
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/04/01/feel-the-math/?_r=0
Not a fan of Krugman but I cant fault his logic on this one.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/04/01/feel-the-math/?_r=0
Not a fan of Krugman but I cant fault his logic on this one.
Krugman has his moments, but this is not one of them.
It is not about the fault in his logic on reminding Sanders that he is the outsider in this campaign, it is about Krugman spending more of his capital to the benefit of Hillary. She is already looking to the general election anyway spending plenty of time talking about the GOP, so all Krugman did was ignore the economics of Sander's position on things (which is what he should be talking about) and go full steam ahead on basically being a media campaign tool for Hillary (one of the reasons he ends up with so much criticism.)
Bloody Krugman.
It's not enough that his basic rhetoric now (with a few exceptions) consists of getting various governments to spend LIKE MAD...all based on hope and theory.
Sure, his math is sound - but he did not stop there (if he had, I would not mind the article). But then he goes into a partisan rant by basically telling Sanders to give up 'for the greater good of the party'.
I think many of Sanders ideas would be disastrous to the economy...but it is clear that he is a decent fellow and has some good ideas and is doing wonders for the soul of the Democratic Party by challenging the stodgy, pedantic, corrupt elite.
And instead of encouraging that dialog, Krugman is trying to extinguish it so that Clinton enters the final race less tarnished. Spoken like a true champion of partisan politics...which is destroying America.
So now we know once and for all that Paul Krugmsn is a champion of the establishment and a fan of that pig Hilary Clinton.
Good to know.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/04/01/feel-the-math/?_r=0
Not a fan of Krugman but I cant fault his logic on this one.
She is already looking to the general election anyway spending plenty of time talking about the GOP, so all Krugman did was ignore the economics of Sander's position on things (which is what he should be talking about) and go full steam ahead on basically being a media campaign tool for Hillary (one of the reasons he ends up with so much criticism.)
But here’s the thing: we now have a clear view of Sanders’ positions on two crucial issues, financial reform and health care. And in both cases his positioning is disturbing — not just because it’s politically unrealistic to imagine that we can get the kind of radical overhaul he’s proposing, but also because he takes his own version of cheap shots. Not at people — he really is a fundamentally decent guy — but by going for easy slogans and punting when the going gets tough.
On finance: Sanders has made restoring Glass-Steagal and breaking up the big banks the be-all and end-all of his program. That sounds good, but it’s nowhere near solving the real problems. The core of what went wrong in 2008 was the rise of shadow banking; too big to fail was at best marginal, and as Mike Konczal notes, pushing the big banks out of shadow banking, on its own, could make the problem worse by causing the risky stuff to “migrate elsewhere, often to places where there is less regulatory infrastructure.”
On health care: leave on one side the virtual impossibility of achieving single-payer. Beyond the politics, the Sanders “plan” isn’t just lacking in detail; as Ezra Klein notes, it both promises more comprehensive coverage than Medicare or for that matter single-payer systems in other countries, and assumes huge cost savings that are at best unlikely given that kind of generosity. This lets Sanders claim that he could make it work with much lower middle-class taxes than would probably be needed in practice.
To be harsh but accurate: the Sanders health plan looks a little bit like a standard Republican tax-cut plan, which relies on fantasies about huge supply-side effects to make the numbers supposedly add up. Only a little bit: after all, this is a plan seeking to provide health care, not lavish windfalls on the rich — and single-payer really does save money, whereas there’s no evidence that tax cuts deliver growth. Still, it’s not the kind of brave truth-telling the Sanders campaign pitch might have led you to expect.
I’ve tweeted this out, but want to point out that this is a pretty big deal: Four former Democratic chairs of the Council of Economic Advisers have put out a letter warning that Bernie Sanders’s economic program contains a very worrisome amount of voodoo:
And the analysis is really something. The Republican candidates have been widely and rightly mocked for their escalating claims that they can achieve incredible economic growth, starting with Jeb Bush’s promise to double growth to 4 percent and heading up from there. But Mr. Friedman outdoes the G.O.P. by claiming that the Sanders plan would produce 5.3 percent growth a year over the next decade.
Even more telling, I’d argue, is Mr. Friedman’s jobs projection, which has the employed share of American adults soaring all the way back to what it was in 2000. That may sound possible — until you remember that by 2026 more than a quarter of U.S. adults over 20 will be 65 and older, compared with 17 percent in 2000.
Sorry, but there’s just no way to justify this stuff. For wonks like me, it is, frankly, horrifying.
I would actually prefer he sticks to politics and stop his Keynesian economic nonsense. :mrgreen:Exactly.
Hey Krugman...stick to economics and leave politics to politicians.
I would actually prefer he sticks to politics and stop his Keynesian economic nonsense. :mrgreen:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/04/01/feel-the-math/?_r=0
Not a fan of Krugman but I cant fault his logic on this one.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?