I don’t agree with Paul Krugman, as described in a rec list diary. Joe Biden certainly has a recent record of being willing to negotiate social security cuts:
That makes him somewhat less than credible as a defender of social security. If it’s not central to Biden’s campaign, then it doesn’t matter. If protecting the safety net from Trump’s corrupt pillaging is, then the Democrats need a nominee who can credibly push that case. I don’t see why it’s Biden, and Krugman isn’t explaining why either.
All this aside, I would caution that while a very smart person, Krugman is not very good at campaign analysis. In this 2008 piece, he literally argues that Obama is a wine track mirage who can’t win, and what the Democrats need is hero of the white working class: Hillary.
Mr. Obama was supposed to be a transformational figure, with an almost magical ability to transcend partisan differences and unify the nation. Once voters got to know him � and once he had eliminated Hillary Clinton’s initial financial and organizational advantage � he was supposed to sweep easily to the nomination, then march on to a huge victory in November.
Well, now he has an overwhelming money advantage and the support of much of the Democratic establishment � yet he still can’t seem to win over large blocs of Democratic voters, especially among the white working class.
As a result, he keeps losing big states. And general election polls suggest that he might well lose to John McCain.
It goes on like this, but you get the picture. Krugman has a lot of skills, but as a campaign analyst he’s basically like somebody from the comments on this web site.