• Tips gratefully accepted here. Thanks!:

  • Recent Comments

    Beata on Weighing the Benefits and Cost…
    Seagrl on Weighing the Benefits and Cost…
    Seagrl on Weighing the Benefits and Cost…
    Propertius on Weighing the Benefits and Cost…
    Propertius on Weighing the Benefits and Cost…
    Propertius on Weighing the Benefits and Cost…
    William on Weighing the Benefits and Cost…
    jmac on Weighing the Benefits and Cost…
    William on Weighing the Benefits and Cost…
    Beata on Weighing the Benefits and Cost…
    Beata on Weighing the Benefits and Cost…
    Beata on Weighing the Benefits and Cost…
    William on Weighing the Benefits and Cost…
    Seagrl on Weighing the Benefits and Cost…
    Beata on Weighing the Benefits and Cost…
  • Categories

  • Tags

    abortion Add new tag Afghanistan Al Franken Anglachel Atrios bankers Barack Obama Bernie Sanders big pharma Bill Clinton cocktails Conflucians Say Dailykos Democratic Party Democrats Digby DNC Donald Trump Donna Brazile Economy Elizabeth Warren feminism Florida Fox News General Glenn Beck Glenn Greenwald Goldman Sachs health care Health Care Reform Hillary Clinton Howard Dean John Edwards John McCain Jon Corzine Karl Rove Matt Taibbi Media medicare Michelle Obama Michigan misogyny Mitt Romney Morning Edition Morning News Links Nancy Pelosi New Jersey news NO WE WON'T Obama Obamacare OccupyWallStreet occupy wall street Open thread Paul Krugman Politics Presidential Election 2008 PUMA racism Republicans research Sarah Palin sexism Single Payer snark Social Security Supreme Court Terry Gross Texas Tim Geithner unemployment Wall Street WikiLeaks women
  • Archives

  • History

    March 2016
    S M T W T F S
  • RSS Paul Krugman: Conscience of a Liberal

    • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
  • The Confluence

    The Confluence

  • RSS Suburban Guerrilla

  • RSS Ian Welsh

    • Open Thread
      Use to discuss topics unrelated to recent posts.
  • Top Posts

PUMAs vs. NeverHillary: Why it was better to be a PUMA

Another short one.

Our commenters are doing a great job posting links to good articles and videos. This one is about Susan Sarandon , who helped Al Gore lose the presidency in 2000. Thanks, Susan!

She’s of the opinion that if we let Trump win, things will get so bad that revolution will happen and force political change. Booyah!

Wait, that sounds so familiar. Where have I heard that before? It will come to me…

The PUMAs, at least the ones who hung out here, should not be confused with the silly people that Susan Sarandon is speaking for. OUR focus was on the way the primary was conducted and the fairness of the outcome. We saw that the Democratic National Committee was deliberately circumventing the will of the voters and setting up Obama to win the convention without having to acknowledge Hillary or her voters.

Does anyone remember this by Harold Ickes during the rules committee meeting in May 2008?:

Yeah, that’s what made us so angry. The delegate count at the convention was much much closer than the egregious media coverage would have you believe. Hillary didn’t even get a legitimate roll call vote.

You can bet that when we go to Philadelphia this summer, Bernie will get a roll call vote even if he doesn’t have enough delegates to win the nomination. And you know what? This Clintonista would be fine with that. In fact, if Bernie wins the necessary required delegates, I’ll vote for him. I have no issues with Bernie. He’s not trying to pull a fast one, running a scorched earth campaign, telling working class voters that they’re part of the “old coalition” or using sexism or disrespectful gestures to humiliate his female opponent.

What PUMAs wanted more than anything else was a clean vote. They wanted their votes to count. They wanted a floor fight if that’s what it took. A vibrant debate at the convention was preferable to being completely cut out and exiled. And we represented the big, most Democratic states that Hillary won in 2008 like California, New Jersey, New York, Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Texas, Massachusetts, etc, etc. In fact, you might say that the Trump movement is a legacy of 2008 when many PUMAs abandoned the Democratic party for the Tea Party in disgust. We tried to keep them but they would go. I think the Tea Party is stupid but I can see where they were coming from. Pretty soon you get tired of party insiders telling you how to vote while simultaneously explicitly telling you that the guy they selected is going to ignore your concerns completely for the next 4-8 years.

So, Susan is an ass. Just saying. As far as I can tell, there’s nothing weird going on with the primaries this year. If the voters eventually turn out for Hillary and the vote is clean, they should vote for her, just like I would have voted for Obama if the vote for him wasn’t rigged and he hadn’t gone along with the rigging. They would have no legitimate reason to go NeverHillary.

Ah, now I remember where I had heard about people who wanted to make things bad so that the change would be forced on the world:


Who says the left doesn’t have fundamentalists?

48 Responses

  1. Agreed.

  2. Thank you, riverdaughter for another insightful article. However, I will not be voting for Sanders if he gets the nomination … simply because I don’t believe in the message that he’s putting forth … Preaching that he’s going to make a ‘Revolution’ as President … He’s a snake oil salesman.

    But of course he absolutely deserves a democratic process in the primary season and at the convention.

    • I can respect that. There are always other candidates. I don’t agree that sanders is a snake oil salesman but I will say that he would need a much friendlier congress than he would get in order to enact his policies.
      There are always down ticket Dems to vote for. I wouldn’t be caught dead voting for Donald Trump. HE’S the snake oil salesman and I don’t mind telling you that friends don’t let friends vote for The Donald, not even as a protest vote.

      • I would never ever ever vote for Trump.

        I also have a gut feeling that I can rest easy because Hillary is getting the nomination.

        • I thought for sure she would get it after Super Tuesday in 2008 but it didn’t turn out that way. So, you know, “trust but verify”.

          • Agree if Bernie wins how can he get anything done if the Repubs control Congress–four more years of nothing happening, just maintaining the status quo, which is what the elites want. Also, how many years has he been in Congress already? What did he accomplish there and why would it be different now? Does he have strong working relationships there to help with the horse trading that would have to be done as President? Just asking.as I see this as another “hope and change” debacle.

    • “snake oil salesman”. Amen

    • You say Sanders, supporting social democracy policies, is a snake-oil salesman?

      MedicareForAll is a proven SUPERIOR system than the uniquely crappy US health system, uniquely bad within the OECD, in terms of bein non-universal, costing a portion of GDP 2X the OECD avg, costing 1.5X neighbor, with lower life spans – 3 yrs less than Canada.

      The nations that have been most pro-social democracy within the OECD like Denmark DOMINATE the top spots in most socioeconomic indicies: life span, social mobility (the chance as a kid if you are in the bottom income quintile as an adult you make the top income quintile) e.g “Does hard work pay off?”, “happiness index”, etc.

      For the racists that assume social democracy can only work in Denmark, how do you explain Venezuela, a mixed triracial (White/Native American/Black) nation in both its leader Chavez & its voters in general? I recall reading impressive socioeconomic stats on Chavez era from 1999 to 2014, hunger cut in half, new university graduates doubling, life expectancy increasing, etc. Chavez had a mixed record, his negatives include being a “moderate authoritarian”, but the same could be said for his Venezuelan predecessor AND all since Reagan clone Presidents since Reagan including mass-incarceration B Clinton, indefinite detaining Bush43, & dictator-style no-due-process US citizen drone-murderer 0bama. But unlike Chavez, under the Reagan clones the socioeconomic stats are flat & worsen.

      Basic healthcare, education, & housing are human rights under social democracy, which happens to fulfill the UN Human Rights Declaration. Not so in neoliberal Reaganomic US, where 30K+/yr USians are killed by the continued blocking of CAN-style MedicareForAll per Harvard Public Health Profs (far more deaths than the T3r1st 1S1S Du Jour could ever dream of), mass homelessness, etc.

      Why do you hate facts & empirical reality?

      Right-wing neoliberal poli-trick-ians are the snake oil salesman

      • I can’t speak for anyone else, but I don’t hate facts and empirical reality.

        However, I don’t think PND recognizes the empirical political reality that what PND wants can’t be done here.

        Or if it can be, exactly how in sulfuric perdition does PND think they can be done?

      • Of course one is a racist just because they don’t believe that Sanders will be able to responsibly put forth what he is promising … this is Lefty fundamentalism at work.

        As for the rest of this gassy post (which oddly reads like a Jehovah’s Witness pamphlet), I think the assumptions and questionable logic speak for themselves.

  3. The victims of a “revolution” of any kind will always be the poor, whose lives will be at a minimum disrupted and in some cases taken. The elites, like Sarandon, are very unlikely to be touched by the grit of the revolt. Perhaps, we should replace “first shoot the lawyers” with “first hang the bankers” and “second shoot the actors.”

    • There’s long, slow evolution, like the kind that Obama favors which is undetectable by almost everyone. In other words, deliberately so slow as to be ineffective.
      And then there is punctuated evolution with spikes of change that can happen rapidly without completely changing the species. Like the New Deal period. I could definitely be on board for the latter and I really want D politicians to stop telling me that’s not possible.

      • We definitely need another “New Deal” period, but it was more likely had Hillary won in ’08, because she would have followed a failed Republican Administration, and would have had a mandate for change, as Obama did, but did not really take advantage of.

        Now we are faced with an almost impossible hurdle in retaking the House. Winning the Senate is possible but difficult. (BTW, that is one of several objections I have to Sanders’ endless campaign: he is hurting her to some degree, and making it harder for her to campaign in the General, particularly as regards downticket impact). If the Democrats are still substanially outnumbered in the House, even someone as brilliant and skilled as Hillary is going to have a very hard time getting anything significant through. This is a very unfortunate fact. As we all know, FDR had a strong mandate, and a very frightened country, including many corporate Republicans. The right wing Republicans are currently intractable. Right now, I would settle for remaking the Supreme Court; nibbling around the edges of the ACA; and trying to do something significant about global warming. Maybe some of the major changes could come about if Hillary wins a second term. I think we lost our best opportunity for drastic change in 2008, making that election so absolutely frustrating and disappointing. However, Hillary is very resourceful, so I am optimistic about being able to circumvent some of the difficulties.

  4. Bernie needs to disavow the idiocy Sarandon has been spewing. She’s a first line surrogate for Bernie that has called Hillary voters “vagina voters” and has spewed all kinds of nasty stuff at us with crickets coming from Bernie’s campaign.

    I hope I never had to make the choice between Bernie and Trump in a polling place because I can’t afford Bernie and I don’t want Mussolini running the country.

    • Have you had an experience with an exchange policy yet?

      • You mean people who’ve been forced onto the Obamacare “Marketplace” are so mad plenty of them could vote for Trump?

        Yeah. I could easily see that. Every time I get anywhere near that hot mess, I boggle that we don’t have people running amok.

        Although it’s not entirely fair to compare the guy with the cheezwhiz coiffure to Mussolini. I can’t see The Donald being competent enough to make the trains run on time.

        • I always laugh when I see journalists trying to score points for Obama’s legacy by bringing it up. It’s only a great thing if you’ve never been forced to use it.

      • No, I have not but I can understand the people who don’t like it. However the problem is that Bernie would charge me 11K a year more for health insurance. How does Bernie get people like me to vote for him? And there are a lot of mes out there. And Bernie’s plan even failed in his home state of Vermont the most politically favorable place for his plan.

      • Go to Vox.com. they have a calculator and you should look and see if you’re able to afford Bernie. I’m willing to bet going by what you’ve said about jobs that you wouldn’t be able to afford him either.

        • I think that depends on a couple of assumptions. 1.) that the US will continue to be unique among other developed nations in that it will not impose cost controls on healthcare providers. 2.) that we will continue to prioritize military spending over healthcare and education.
          I’ve said this before. I’ve had French colleagues who worked in the US and got US salaries and paid US taxes who say that our tax system is shocking. They may pay more in taxes overall but they get so much more for it that Americans end up paying out of pocket. Like college, child care and healthcare. In a sense, we are already double taxed. We just don’t know it because most of us have no real interest in how the rest of the world works.
          The French are also shocked at what we pay for health care services. The prices we pay here would NEVER happen in France. Never. When the cost of a procedure varies from state to state and hospital to hospital and Doctor to Doctor there is enormous potential for overspending at someone’s expense. That’s where your money is going. But if all you’re afraid of is higher taxes because the cost part and national priorities have not been resolved, then someday YOU might find yourself stuck with a ACA plan through no fault of your own. It doesn’t just happen to losers. It could happen to anyone who inadvertently finds themselves out of the employer provided healthcare system where costs are negotiated for you. You’ll be stuck on the individual market paying individual prices. If you’re not on SS yet with Medicare, it definitely could happen to you.

          • The problem with the European system is that it is not affordable. European countries are in huge debt because of it and their economy is in shambles. Furthermore its not fair to compare the USA to France or Germany. You should compare the USA to the whole of the European union, including the poorer southern countries and the richer northern countries. If you want to use France as an example compare it to Massachusetts.

            I’m not saying that you are wrong in criticizing the USA system, I’m just saying that no country in the world has solved the healthcare problem.

          • Well, Bernie’s plan has no cost controls for healthcare providers but frankly I’m not sure how we do that. My point being if you’re going to talk about people still struggling it’s hard to tell them that they are going to have to shell out even more money.

            I have been in the individual insurance market before Obamacare and it was bad. Obamacare basically didn’t fix the problems in the individual market for insurance. So having been in that market I know about all the problems with it. However, how do you sell what Bernie is selling to people who are not in the individual market? People live in the here and now and not what might happen in the future. Especially if you believe people are still struggling.

          • European countries spend a lot less per capita than we do on health care. That is not why they’re in trouble.
            The problem in Europe is the Euro. Those countries that are on it can’t print their own currency and their banking system is demanding repayment the Greece, Spain, Ireland can’t afford. Meanwhile right wing politicians are using the banking euro crisis to make it look like the problem is social programs.
            Wrecking their healthcare systems would only lead to more costs being dumped on their citizens by unethical capitalists who want to privatize. See England.
            Don’t get sucked in by the right wing propaganda. No European in their right mind would voluntarily do away with their cost efficient health care plans.
            Btw, both Germany and Switzerland have private insurance systems that are heavily regulated and cost controlled. And Germany actually WANTS immigrants. They have an aging population and no replacements. So, you know, they have no interest in degrading their social programs.

  5. Not completely true. European countries spend more than what they can afford, period. In health care and education and social programs and in private-state industrial enterprises. Obviously these programs are popular and should be maintained. The Euro is not the only reason there is a problem with European countries. Lets see a small country like Greece, without the euro they don’t have access to the whole European market, with the euro they have to follow some rules like don’t get in debt over a certain limit. They are screwed either way. Anyway the main problem is that the European politicians like to spend money to prop up private companies to give jobs and contracts to their buddies, that’s the problem.

    • I lost my job to a French person. As much as I hated losing my job, I’m glad they had labor protections to be able to carry on with the research I was doing.
      The reason citizens all over the world can’t afford their social benefits is because the vultures have taken everything that isn’t nailed down.
      You want nice things? Go back to the political and economic policies of the 60s.
      The only people who would have a problem with that are the rich and well connected. They loved Reagan and deregulation and how did that turn out???
      Please, don’t repeat right wing talking points to me.

  6. The pro-left elites such as Susie Sarandon will not feel the pain
    of the “revolution”. I consider Bernie to be as dangerous as Trump.
    Both want to abruptly overturn the system. Nothing good will come of that. I do agree with Christo72 that Berns is a snake oil salesman.
    The PUMA movement was due to the denial of Hillary’s voters.
    The level of disrespect the party gave us. I would not advise doing this again. The level of hatred being aimed at Hillary is terrible.
    Hartmann/Schultz/Rhodes/Ring Of Fire/Olbermann/TYT etc is just as bad as it was in 2008.

    I am NOT going to have my tax bill raised by 10k a year. I am an affluent business owner, not a mutli millionaire/billionaire.

    My Father and I work very hard for what we have. That SOB Bernie does not realize that, nor does he based upon his past sympathies.
    I am in way comparable to the financial class. My money is not easy money. It was not earned the way alot of Wall Street (not all) does by manipulating the system.

    One more thing RD, perhaps it is time for a motion picture excise tax, seeing how many in Hollywood support Bernie, they should be willing to pay more too. Danny Glover is an advocate for the film tax credit, yet supports Bernie’s move to tax me more. Danny can go to hell.

    • I think you are being intentionally frightened by the prospect of paying $10K more in taxes. Whoever is doing this is exaggerating the number and making it look like the worst case scenario.
      I have no problem with Bernie but even if he wins the nomination and was elected, we are years away from a European style healthcare system.
      But make no mistake, we have to go in that direction so that it’s fair to everyone. It can be done in many different ways but it has to include cost controls and it has to be universal. I’m sure the hospitals and doctors are going to push very hard to scare the living shit out of you to make you think you are going to pay thru the nose.
      But I don’t believe it.
      If the rest of the developed world can do it, we can do it.

      • We can do it if we reduce military spending, but I think the MIC is never going to allow that to happen.

        Hillary was for single payer originally in the 90s and remember what happened. Congress certainly has not changed since then for the better. Even if it’s a man touting it (!), single payer is not going to be voted through our Congress, however much it makes sense, saves money, is the moral thing to do. The pharmaceutical industry is the #2 largest, deep-pocket lobbying group in the country (Chamber of Commerce is #1–another reason single payer won’t happen if business has to pay for it).

        My husband is Canadian; yes, they pay way more taxes there, yes they get way more for them (and Trudeau!), and… there are WAY fewer millionaires+ there than in the U.S.

      • Agree with RD.
        Tough we are years away from Universal healthcare, we must work on that direction before social unrest takes on the reality of the unsustainable system we are enduring in the present.

  7. >Not completely true. European countries spend more than what they can afford, period. In health care and education and social programs and in private-state industrial enterprises.

    Uh, no. France, Germany, Norway, Sweden, Denmark etc. can totally afford their welfare states. Other economies, nowhere near as advanced, can’t. Though as rd notes, the Euro isn’t helping.

    The US could certainly afford a European style welfare state: it isn’t the cost, it is that America (for better AND worse) isn’t Denmark. Our culture, not the cost, stands in the way, which is why even the New Deal/Great Society (to which we need a return) fell well short of what people expect in northern and western Europe.

  8. I remember joining PUMA and going to Denver and meeting you while making posters in that old house…you were such a pretty lady and I was the old lady using the scooter…I don’t regret joining that group and learned a lot….thanks for all you do…..Athyrio aka Linda Morgan

  9. there’s no taking the neverHillary people serious. After living and experiencing the 08 primary these people roll off of you. Unless they were there in 08 calling for Hillary to have a proper roll call, or writing superdelegates emails about her winning the popular vote or complaining about how the DNC voted at the RBC meeting they need to sit down and shut the hell up.

  10. Hillary has the right to be annoyed see below:

    I’m also getting annoyed at Bernie’s supporters and at the notion that Hillary’s supporters are not as passionate or loyal as Bernie’s. I’m going to be really annoyed if they do Hillary in 2016 what they did to her in 2008.

    • The pro-left activists wanted Obama in 08, now they want Bernie.
      Too bad for them if their first choice, Obama was not all they hoped for.
      The pro-left gets no do-over. They had their chance.

  11. The face of a sociopath…

    • The face of a winner.

      • As RD asked rhetorically, “Who says the Left doesn’t have fundamentalists?”.

        Three of them (or one using three noms de Web) decided to drop by. 😛

    • Bernie supporters seem to be having a complete and utter meltdown.

      • That’s what desperate people do.

      • I suspect that Sanders himself does not think even half as poorly of Clinton as the obnoxious minority among his supporters do.

        • I hope not. Didn’t the Clintons campaign for him? If not, Sanders took
          some of the money they had raised for down-ticket candidates to run his campaign for Senate.

          CNN had an article on Bernie’s dialing for dollars. Apparently, Bernie and Jane showed up at Democratic fundraisers on Martha’s Vineyard repeatedly. In spite of Socialist rhetoric, Sanders attended Goldman Sacks fundraisers.

  12. Washington State was a big win for Bernie Sanders, but less of a win in terms of voters because it is a caucus state.

    A comment from a Seattle to Krugman’s blog points out what the win represented.


    “Less than 6% of Washington eligible voters participated in the caucus (including me, BTW). And Bernie got 60% of caucus votes (Hillary won some and Bernie won some others.

    So he got 60% (not 70%) of 5.9% or 3.5% of eligible Washington voters – 3.5 percent.”

  13. http://www.thenation.com/article/hillary-clinton-just-delivered-the-strongest-speech-of-her-campaign-and-the-media-barely-noticed/

    I listened to all of Hillary’s speech in Madison (You-Tube, I think; 30 minutes). The Nation is calling it the strongest speech of her campaign. The topic is the Supreme Court. The worthless screaming “media” is focusing on The Donald’s latest and how Bernie is on a roll, without educating voters about what caucuses really are. Also, it would be a service if the actual duties of a President as defined in the Constitution were well known by voters. Bernie won’t be providing free public college education. He also doesn’t make laws as President.

  14. Note: Hillary was the 11th most liberal Senator when she was in office; Sanders is the 2nd in terms of votes; but not very successful in terms of leadership.


    An Excerpt:

    “A strong case can be made that Republicans would absolutely love to have Sanders knock off Clinton and to be the Democratic nominee.

    Ever hear of “America Rising”? How about “American Crossroads” headed by Karl Rove? Or “Targeted Victory”? All of these are right-leaning PACs who operate on social media.

    As quoted in a May 15, 2015, NYT article entitled “The Right Baits the Left To Turn Against Hillary Clinton,” Colin Reed, executive director of America Rising, said this: “The idea is to make her life difficult in the primary and challenge her from the left. We don’t want her to enter the general election not having been pushed to the left, so if we have opportunities– creative ways, especially online–to push her to the left, we will do it.” Young, internet savvy Republican operatives are feeding lines of attack against Hillary Clinton to rabid Bernie backers under the anonymity of the internet, unwittingly making some of those backers Republican shills.

    The Times article notes that they actually delight in wearing bracelets emblazoned with “WWEWD”–“What would Elizabeth Warren do”? So far they have been wildly successful in sowing seeds of discord among the Democrats.”

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: