NYT Op Ed (Krugman): Sanders delegitimizing black Dems

[smock]

The Pastrami Principle
Paul Krugman

A couple of months ago, Jeb Bush (remember him?) posted a photo of his monogrammed handgun to Twitter, with the caption “America.” Bill de Blasio, New York’s mayor, responded with a picture of an immense pastrami sandwich, also captioned “America.” Advantage de Blasio, if you ask me.

Let me now somewhat ruin the joke by talking about the subtext. Mr. Bush’s post was an awkward attempt to tap into the common Republican theme that only certain people — white, gun-owning, rural or small-town citizens — embody the true spirit of the nation. It’s a theme most famously espoused by Sarah Palin, who told small-town Southerners that they represented the “real America.” You see the same thing when Ted Cruz sneers at “New York values.”

Mr. de Blasio’s riposte, celebrating a characteristically New York delicacy, was a declaration that we’re also Americans — that everyone counts. And that, surely, is the vision of America that should prevail.

Which is why it’s disturbing to see Palinesque attempts to delegitimize large groups of voters surfacing among some Democrats.

Quite a few people seem confused about the current state of the Democratic nomination race. But the essentials are simple: Hillary Clinton has a large lead in both pledged delegates and the popular vote so far. (In Democratic primaries, delegate allocation is roughly proportional to votes.) If you ask how that’s possible — Bernie Sanders just won seven states in a row! — you need to realize that those seven states have a combined population of about 20 million. Meanwhile, Florida alone also has about 20 million people — and Mrs. Clinton won it by a 30-point margin.

To overtake her, Mr. Sanders would have to win the remaining contests by an average 13-point margin, a number that will almost surely go up after the New York primary, even if he does much better than current polls suggest. That’s not impossible, but it’s highly unlikely.

So the Sanders campaign is arguing that superdelegates — the people, mainly party insiders, not selected through primaries and caucuses who get to serve as delegates under Democratic nomination rules — should give him the nomination even if he loses the popular vote. In case you’re rubbing your eyes: Yes, not long ago many Sanders supporters were fulminating about how Hillary was going to steal the nomination by having superdelegates put her over the top despite losing the primaries. Now the Sanders strategy is to win by doing exactly that.

But how can the campaign make the case that the party should defy the apparent will of its voters? By insisting that many of those voters shouldn’t count. Over the past week, Mr. Sanders has declared that Mrs. Clinton leads only because she has won in the “Deep South,” which is a “pretty conservative part of the country.” The tally so far, he says, “distorts reality” because it contains so many Southern states.

As it happens, this isn’t true — the calendar, which front-loaded some states very favorable to Mr. Sanders, hasn’t been a big factor in the race. Also, swing-state Florida isn’t the Deep South. But never mind. The big problem with this argument should be obvious. Mrs. Clinton didn’t win big in the South on the strength of conservative voters; she won by getting an overwhelming majority of black voters. This puts a different spin on things, doesn’t it?

Is it possible that Mr. Sanders doesn’t know this, that he imagines that Mrs. Clinton is riding a wave of support from old-fashioned Confederate-flag-waving Dixiecrats, as opposed to, let’s be blunt, the descendants of slaves? Maybe. He is not, as you may have noticed, a details guy.

It’s more likely, however, that he’s being deliberately misleading — and that his effort to delegitimize a big part of the Democratic electorate is a cynical ploy.

Who’s the target of this ploy? Not the superdelegates, surely. Think about it: Can you imagine Democratic Party insiders deciding to deny the nomination to the candidate who won the most votes, on the grounds that African-American voters don’t count as much as whites?

No, claims that Clinton wins in the South should be discounted are really aimed at misleading Sanders supporters, giving them an unrealistic view of the chances that their favorite can still win — and thereby keeping the flow of money and volunteers coming.

Just to be clear, I’m not saying that Mr. Sanders should drop out. He has the right to keep campaigning, in the hope either of pulling off huge upsets in the remaining primaries or of having influence at the convention. But trying to keep his campaign going by misleading his supporters is not O.K. And sneering at millions of voters is truly beyond the pale, especially for a progressive.

Remember the pastrami principle: We’re all real Americans. And African-Americans are very definitely real Democrats, deserving respect.

[smock]

And a warning in advance: the comments are full of Berners claiming that Krugman is playing the race card, or calling him a racist. *eyeroll*

[eponinepontmercy]

Who’s the target of this ploy? Not the superdelegates, surely. Think about it: Can you imagine Democratic Party insiders deciding to deny the nomination to the candidate who won the most votes, on the grounds that African-American voters don’t count as much as whites?



I have gotten this argument.  Because of voter suppression efforts, black voters are going to be disenfranchised anyway.  Those Hilary wins in the south don't really count for much.

[jeaniebueller]

Hillary won traditionally red states, so she is basically a DINO.

[eclaires]

Apr 15, 2016 10:35:20 GMT -5 eponinepontmercy said:

Who’s the target of this ploy? Not the superdelegates, surely. Think about it: Can you imagine Democratic Party insiders deciding to deny the nomination to the candidate who won the most votes, on the grounds that African-American voters don’t count as much as whites?



I have gotten this argument.  Because of voter suppression efforts, black voters are going to be disenfranchised anyway.  Those Hilary wins in the south don't really count for much.

lol, I saw that particular bit of wisdom and was like... ::blink blink::

So just write them off!  WE KNOW BETTER!!!!  My god.

[chedifuen]

Excellent points

[litebright]

"He is not, as you may have noticed, a details guy."

This made me laugh. Ooooo, Krugman burn!

[heyjude]

Berners call southern voters i.e black southerners "low information voters."

[heyjude]

And on some interview on CNN yesterday Bernie, not a surrogate, Bernie himself, said that Hillary's wins in the South were misleading with the implication that his wins in white states was a true projection of his chances.

:/

[jojoandleo]

Apr 15, 2016 11:14:51 GMT -5 heyjude said:

And on some interview on CNN yesterday Bernie, not a surrogate, Bernie himself, said that Hillary's wins in the South were misleading with the implication that his wins in white states was a true projection of his chances.

:/

Are you fucking kidding me? Wins in the DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY in the south are not wins on the backs of republicans. MEANWHILE, he ignores his OWN WINS in deep red states? Like fucking Oklahoma!?! Come the fuck on you ignorant douchnozzle. Shut. THE FUCK. UP!

[heyjude]

So the actual line was the southern states "distort reality." Out of his mouth.

[downtoearth]

Apr 15, 2016 12:08:47 GMT -5 heyjude said:

So the actual line was the southern states "distort reality." Out of his mouth.

Was that in the post-debate interview between CNN and Bernie last night? Do you have a link to that or a copy of the transcript?

[aurora]

Apr 15, 2016 11:14:51 GMT -5 heyjude said:

And on some interview on CNN yesterday Bernie, not a surrogate, Bernie himself, said that Hillary's wins in the South were misleading with the implication that his wins in white states was a true projection of his chances.

:/

No matter what your stance is on Sanders vs. Clinton, I just truly don't understand this argument. If a state is likely to go red in November, we all of a sudden don't care what any of its blue voters think? I mean, it seems like we should care *more* now, since this is their only real opportunity to state a preference.

Also I'm laughing at "The Pastrami Principle"

[heyjude]

www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/sanders-says-southern-primaries-distort-reality

Sanders says Southern primaries 'distort reality'

Bernie Sanders has made clear he much prefers talking about his political vision, not the campaign process, but there’s one part of the process the Vermont senator talks about quite a bit. Time magazine reported:
Bernie Sanders told “Nightly Show” host Larry Wilmore at a taping Wednesday evening that scheduling Southern states early in the Democratic primary “distorts reality.” […]



“Well, you know,” Sanders said, “people say, ‘Why does Iowa go first, why does New Hampshire go first,’ but I think that having so many Southern states go first kind of distorts reality as well.”

Comments like these are an extension of a standard argument from the Sanders campaign: it may look like Hillary Clinton enjoys a sizable advantage, but her lead only exists because of the South. The “reality,” when it’s not “distorted,” is a lot different.


But the more Sanders makes this argument, the less sure I am of the point he’s trying to make.



I’m absolutely certain that the senator isn’t trying to dismiss the importance of African-American voters – such an argument would be completely contrary to his progressive values and campaign strategy – but when Sanders says “reality” is “distorted” by primary results from states in which black voters dominate, it’s not at all clear which reality he’s referring to.



Perhaps Sanders’ aides have encouraged him to make this argument. Maybe it’s not too late for him to remove this rhetorical arrow from his quiver.



It’s possible the senator is arguing that conservatives tend to dominate in the South, so the primary results in the region are less important. At first blush, this may seem compelling, except Republicans also dominate in states like Utah and Idaho – states Sanders won easily. Do they distort reality, too? Why would Kansas represent reality more than Georgia?



In fact, the same week that Clinton did well in states like Florida and Virginia, Sanders won in Oklahoma and Nebraska. There’s no reason to believe those Democratic voters are any more or less important – or more or less in line with reality – than any other group of Democratic voters.



What’s more, the South may be filled with “red” states, but in Democratic primaries, it’s economically liberal African-American voters who represent the bulk of those who are turning out to participate. Their votes don’t “distort” reality so much as they reflect reality.



Maybe the argument is that Southern voters count, but they shouldn’t have a prominent role at the start of the primary season. Except, (a) the South doesn’t go first; the overwhelmingly white states of Iowa and New Hampshire go first; and (b) I don’t know why states with fewer black voters would do a better job of ensuring that reality isn’t distorted.



Perhaps Sanders means Southern states aren’t truly representative of the Democratic electorate. Except (a) given the importance of African-American communities in the party, I’m not sure why not; and (b) are voters in Utah, Kansas, and Idaho more representative of the Democratic electorate?



Maybe he means that Democrats won’t do well in these Southern states in the general election. That’s true, but once again, the same can be said of many of the states Sanders has also won.



As we discussed the other day, the New York Times reported last week that the Sanders campaign deliberately focused its efforts away from the South for a reason: “Sanders and his advisers and allies knew that black voters would be decisive in those Southern contests, but he had been unable to make significant inroads with them.”


As a tactical matter, this made perfect sense. There was no reason for the senator and his operation to build an electoral strategy around states he was likely to lose.



But as a rhetorical matter, arguing that states in which black voters were decisive “kind of distort reality” is a very different kind of message, one that Sanders still has time to change.

[mdgirl]

I'm trying so. hard. to find a gif of Jonah Hill saying "My dad loves your shit," to Paul Krugman and I can't. :-(

[kadams767]

Apr 15, 2016 11:14:51 GMT -5 heyjude said:

And on some interview on CNN yesterday Bernie, not a surrogate, Bernie himself, said that Hillary's wins in the South were misleading with the implication that his wins in white states was a true projection of his chances.

:/

Yes, Vermont.  The true representation of this country's populace at large.  :/

[FloFTW]

Tell me, Bernie, which states actually count as reality. If it's only Michigan, Ohio, and Florida, you still fucking lose. By a lot.

[jeaniebueller]

Apr 15, 2016 12:20:28 GMT -5 kadams767 said:

Apr 15, 2016 11:14:51 GMT -5 heyjude said:

And on some interview on CNN yesterday Bernie, not a surrogate, Bernie himself, said that Hillary's wins in the South were misleading with the implication that his wins in white states was a true projection of his chances.

:/

Yes, Vermont.  The true representation of this country's populace at large.  :/

Speaking of Vermont, on Andrea Mitchell reports today, she said that the entire population of public housing in NYC was equal to the population of Vermont. Puts that in perspective....

[5kcandlesinthewind]

Apr 15, 2016 12:30:33 GMT -5 jeaniebueller said:

Apr 15, 2016 12:20:28 GMT -5 kadams767 said:

Yes, Vermont.  The true representation of this country's populace at large.  :/

Speaking of Vermont, on Andrea Mitchell reports today, she said that the entire population of public housing in NYC was equal to the population of Vermont. Puts that in perspective....

That seems about right. I bet there are some buildings in NYC that have a higher population in one building than some towns in VT.

And also, this is just  SSDD with him. They don't vote for him, they don't endorse him? They're dummies who are part of the big, bad establishment, and they don't matter anyway.  Fuck this dude and his old white male privilege.  Fuck him right in his likely-deaf ear.

[One Girl In All The World]

I posted this and got the response that her lead doesn't count the caucuses. Didn't someone here have a good response for that? I forget where I saw that.

[wawa]

And when Hillary takes Maryland? (pretty sure polls still show her with a solid lead here)
We're pretty solidly blue, despite the governor. Mittens got something in the 30's if I remember correctly.

So is that real reality? Or no?

[downtoearth]

Apr 15, 2016 13:33:10 GMT -5 One Girl In All The World said:

I posted this and got the response that her lead doesn't count the caucuses. Didn't someone here have a good response for that? I forget where I saw that.

Well, you could do the math where the caucuses had like <10% turnout and that is of say 50% of the eligible voters in that state and so it's really like 3% of all people who could vote that actually voiced their opinions.