The very ferocity and coordinated nature of the attacks on Sanders makes clear that the Democratic establishment views Sanders not merely as an annoyance, but as an existential threat. And he may be, at that.
If you depend for your news on the New York Times you have been subjected to a drumbeat of article attacking Bernie Sanders -- and the conclusion of everyone "serious" that his economics are daft. In particular, you would "know" that four prior Chairs of the President's Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) (the Gang of Four) have signed an open letter to Bernie that delivered a death blow to his proposals.
Good journalism and good economics requires an open debate about the key issue driving the Sanders revolt: runaway inequality.
The outcome of Bernie's economic vision is very dependent on the "broad-based" support of his policies by independent voters, as well as Democrats. The upcoming Nevada caucus and South Carolina primary should tell us if he has enough support to bring his vision closer to reality.
Paul Krugman, Team Hillary's ace New York Times columnist, simply cannot find a kind word for Bernie Sanders or his idealistic supporters.
Given that a lot of people think about electability, it's worth looking at some evidence. The numbers indicate that the Democrats' electoral prospects would be better under Bernie Sanders than under Hillary Clinton for two important reasons.
Yes, some 50 percent of voters say they wouldn't vote for a socialist; but a lot of those are people who haven't thought about the word since the 1970s. We should take this profession of hostility less seriously.
Team Hillary clearly wants to pigeon-hole Sanders on one side of the debate hoping to isolate him from Black and Latino voters. But her strategy is likely to fail. As minority voters get to know Sanders better, his message is likely to erode Hillary's support.
John Maynard Keynes once famously said that the difficulty lies not so much in developing new ideas but in escaping from old ones. And one of the oldest and most pervasive and pernicious economic ideas is that technology kills jobs.
FDR's presidency ended in 1980 with the election of Ronald Reagan, and Reagan has ruled ever since. As we face another potentially epoch-shifting presidential election, perhaps we would do well to remember that last one.
For a long time, as he campaigned for president, a wide spectrum of establishment media insisted that Bernie Sanders couldn't win. Now they're sounding the alarm that he might. And, just in case you haven't gotten the media message yet -- Sanders is "angry," kind of like Donald Trump.
Paul Krugman doesn't get it. I've been in and around Washington for almost 50 years, including a stint in the cabinet, and I've learned that real change happens only when a substantial share of the American public is mobilized, organized, energized and determined to make it happen.
Throwing a wet blanket on progressive activists in a primary election season saying they're "unrealistic" when they're fighting like hell to turn the Bernie Sanders campaign into a grassroots social movement -- the "political revolution" Sanders is calling for -- is not only unhelpful to moving the nation forward, but disparages those who make up the democratic wing of the Democratic Party by portraying them as naïve dreamers.
If Bernie continues to gain support it's precisely because voters understand that the choice is clear -- accept the reality of plutocracy and beg for crumbs --- or fight to tear it down.
Good people, wealthy or not, need to join the game and make this country a fairer, more just place for all.
To begin exploring recent global economic developments tied to a Chinese economic downturn students can read and analyze a modified version of a recent New York Times economic report and use it to identify their own questions and topics for research.