Straight Dope Message Board

Straight Dope Message Board (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/index.php)
-   Politics & Elections (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/forumdisplay.php?f=34)
-   -   "Mike" Bloomberg Presidential campaign, 2020 (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=885983)

Rick Kitchen 11-26-2019 09:42 PM

"Mike" Bloomberg Presidential campaign, 2020
 
I just saw a "Mike" Bloomberg ad where he claimed he has stood up to "this administration". When? He left office as mayor before Individual 1 took office.

Budget Player Cadet 11-27-2019 03:22 AM

I think there's very little more telling of the state of modern American politics than a billionaire starting his campaign by spending more on ads than anyone ever had... from his own pockets, without significantly impacting his own wealth, explicitly to fight against people on the left who want him to pay more taxes.

Quote:

Bloomberg is running in part because he opposes the progressive candidates' "extreme wealth taxes" which would see him paying $3.7b under a Sanders presidency, $3b under a Warren presidency or $512m under a Steyer presidency -- per year.

That $32m that Bloomberg has dumped into his ad-buy? It's 1.1% of the tax bill he'd owe under Warren in the first year.

Lavish political spending is a rational calculus when it comes to the ultra-rich: the Kochs -- who have been pouring money into oligarch-friendly organizations and campaigns for a generation -- have seen a massive return on their investments. Amazon was making a similar calculus when it dumped unprecedented sums into the local Seattle elections -- though Amazon's investment failed in large part because the impropriety was so blatant that it motivated voters to cast ballots against it.
To which there really is only one response that I can dignify this with. Starts with a "G", looks sharp on billionaires.

The Other Waldo Pepper 11-27-2019 06:04 AM

Greatcoats?

Budget Player Cadet 11-27-2019 06:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper (Post 21996592)
Greatcoats?

I was going with Gucci but sure, that works too.

KidCharlemagne 11-27-2019 08:54 AM

If he wanted a centrist candidate, his timing could not possibly have been worse. Buttigieg was just catching fire and was tied with Sanders and Warren to win at 23% on PredictiT. Now Buttigieg is down to 18% last I looked. I like Bloomberg but he's an idiot to split off the centrist vote from Buttigieg at the moment.

Damuri Ajashi 11-27-2019 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KidCharlemagne (Post 21996895)
If he wanted a centrist candidate, his timing could not possibly have been worse. Buttigieg was just catching fire and was tied with Sanders and Warren to win at 23% on PredictiT. Now Buttigieg is down to 18% last I looked. I like Bloomberg but he's an idiot to split off the centrist vote from Buttigieg at the moment.

Its hard to take Butigieg seriously. He has never gotten more than 10,991 votes in an election.

Rick Kitchen 11-27-2019 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi (Post 21997111)
Its hard to take Butigieg seriously. He has never gotten more than 10,991 votes in an election.

OK, Republican talking point.

KidCharlemagne 11-27-2019 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi (Post 21997111)
Its hard to take Butigieg seriously. He has never gotten more than 10,991 votes in an election.

Trump had 0 votes before he got elected. As did Bloomberg for Mayor. I trust prediction markets over polls and those had him dead even at the top

Thing Fish 11-27-2019 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet (Post 21996499)


To which there really is only one response that I can dignify this with. Starts with a "G", looks sharp on billionaires.

I was thinking "Guillotine".:eek:

ITR champion 12-13-2019 04:22 PM

Do you want to see a room full of staffers dancing to a song called "Moves Like Bloomberg"?

Probably not, but if you do: https://twitter.com/nickciarelli/sta...54210465742848

Bijou Drains 12-15-2019 09:08 AM

He's running plenty of ads on TV here in NC. I see them as I fast forward past them on recorded shows. :)

TriPolar 12-15-2019 09:16 AM

I hope he becomes the Democratic candidate because of none of the rest of them have a chance. Their reaction to him joining the race is the proof of that.

dalej42 12-15-2019 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi (Post 21997111)
Its hard to take Butigieg seriously. He has never gotten more than 10,991 votes in an election.

Itís hard to take the US Senate seriously. No bill has ever gotten more than 100 votes.

dalej42 12-15-2019 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ITR champion (Post 22025958)
Do you want to see a room full of staffers dancing to a song called "Moves Like Bloomberg"?

Probably not, but if you do: https://twitter.com/nickciarelli/sta...54210465742848

In case you didnít know, this was satire.

Wesley Clark 12-15-2019 12:37 PM

Who is his voting base?

My impression is black people don't really like him due to things like stop and frisk.

Liberals don't really like him due to the fact that he is just running to oppose Sanders & Warren's progressive taxes on wealth and income.

Liberals and blacks make up nearly 3/4 of all democratic voters when combined. How is he going to win a primary?

I do worry that lots of billionaires will fund 3rd party runs and fund the GOP to stop the democrats if Warren or Sanders is the nominee.

Then again, NYC is full of black people and liberals and he won the mayoral race there.

Sam Stone 12-15-2019 01:23 PM

To add to that: Libertarians and many Republicans dislike him because he's a nanny-statist who never saw a problem that couldn't be solved by making something illegal.

Rick Kitchen 12-15-2019 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TriPolar (Post 22028276)
I hope he becomes the Democratic candidate because of none of the rest of them have a chance. Their reaction to him joining the race is the proof of that.

He;s an opportunist who's only a Democrat when it benefits him. Just like Bernie.

dalej42 12-15-2019 01:31 PM

And even more, the political junkies that have been following this from the beginning don’t like people like Steyer or Bloomberg who jump in late and eschew the usual retail politics of primary campaigns.

It may seem hokey to have to meet with people at a county fair in Iowa or a diner in NH, but I want the President to remember those faces when s/he has to get on tv to respond to a terror attack that killed thousands, a massive hurricane causing destruction of thousands of homes, or that s/he wants to send troops off to war.

Bloomberg and Steyer look like two jewellery companies jumping in with advertising during the Christmas through Valentines time frame.

Bijou Drains 12-15-2019 03:55 PM

He's on TV more than Law and Order reruns.

Oakminster 12-15-2019 03:57 PM

Isn't Bloomberg the Nannystate doofus that wanted to ban Big Gulp sodas? His stance on guns is disqualifying for me anyway, but
the soda thing was annoying.

ITR champion 12-16-2019 09:59 AM

ABC News has a detailed article about sexual harassment allegations against Bloomberg: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/bloo...ry?id=67744180

snowthx 12-17-2019 09:03 PM

We're getting a lot of Bloomberg ads here in CA as well. My question - he says "...the wealthy pay their fair share..." What does that mean, exactly? I know there is always that "sock it to the rich" mentality but I am not clear on what he is signalling, and it goes against what some have posted here in this thread.

Also, I wish Bloomberg woulda run as a Republican in order to Nader the Trump voting block.

Tatterdemalion 12-17-2019 09:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick Kitchen (Post 22028637)
He;s an opportunist who's only a Democrat when it benefits him. Just like Bernie.

For that matter, just like Trump.

adaher 12-18-2019 06:44 AM

I would support Bloomberg in a heartbeat. My only beef with him is his nanny state ideas, but that doesn't really apply to national politics anyway.

Wesley Clark 12-18-2019 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by snowthx (Post 22033454)
We're getting a lot of Bloomberg ads here in CA as well. My question - he says "...the wealthy pay their fair share..." What does that mean, exactly? I know there is always that "sock it to the rich" mentality but I am not clear on what he is signalling, and it goes against what some have posted here in this thread.

Also, I wish Bloomberg woulda run as a Republican in order to Nader the Trump voting block.

It means he is only running because he is afraid of Bernie and Warren's wealth tax proposals.

Someone did the math once, Bloomberg has spent a small fraction of what he'd pay in one year in wealth taxes on his political ads. He spent something like 35 million on ads which is a small percent of what he would pay annually under a wealth tax.

He is just trying to prevent a wealth tax from passing into law. That's probably his sole motivation.

dalej42 12-18-2019 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wesley Clark (Post 22034054)
It means he is only running because he is afraid of Bernie and Warren's wealth tax proposals.

Someone did the math once, Bloomberg has spent a small fraction of what he'd pay in one year in wealth taxes on his political ads. He spent something like 35 million on ads which is a small percent of what he would pay annually under a wealth tax.

He is just trying to prevent a wealth tax from passing into law. That's probably his sole motivation.

I highly doubt that. Heís smart enough to know that the wealth tax is DOA in the Senate along with most of the Warren/Bernie fantasies.

Wesley Clark 12-18-2019 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dalej42 (Post 22034344)
I highly doubt that. Heís smart enough to know that the wealth tax is DOA in the Senate along with most of the Warren/Bernie fantasies.

True, a wealth tax won't pass. But I think Bloomberg, Steyer, the starbucks guy, etc are trying to hold back the rising tide of wealth taxes that are being proposed.

Even if the dems win the presidency and senate we won't get a wealth tax in 2021.

But we may get one down the road, and I think they know it.

adaher 12-18-2019 03:38 PM

Unlikely. the wealth tax is a proposal that is designed to fix a political problem(voter resistance to taxes), rather than an actual revenue problem. Such things don't tend to remain problems for long. 10 years from now either voter resistance to taxes will subside, or the poiltical class will have resigned themselves to working within the limits of actual revenue streams rather than trying to get cute and creative.

In addition, wealth taxes have an extensive empirical history in other countries and have been utter disappointments in every one. While I realize that the progressive true believers are immune to empiricism, the Democratic base believes in science and doesn't tend to tolerate ideas that are proven failures for long. Once the smart folks at Vox and Think Progress and Brookings spend enough time ripping apart the wealth tax idea it'll lose favor among the educated class that runs the Democratic Party pretty fast.

septimus 02-04-2020 05:54 PM

The Betfair market currently shows Bloomberg as 18% to become the Democratic nominee and over 10% to be the winner in November! (Sanders is 35% and 15.5%; Biden is 16% and 7%. All three front-runners are in their late 70's.)

Wow! Am I the only one flabbergasted by this?

Bloomberg doesn't appear at all in some polls, and does poorly in several others. But he polls 14% in one nationwide poll, and 17% in a recent Florida poll.

I assume this is due almost entirely to his advertising barrage, right? Or is there something else I'm missing? Do the people saying "Bloomberg" even know he's Jewish? (He's not very religious, but does attend his Reform synagogue on High Holidays.) Do they know he's only 5'8" tall? (If elected he'd be the shortest President since William McKinley. I am not prejudiced against Jews or short people, but I think many "Undecided" voters might be.)

I've expressed my own views several times: The three key features I look for in America's Dem champion against Donald Trump are electability, electability and electability. Is Bloomberg electable? I wouldn't have thought so, but today's whole political landscape has me utterly confused and increasingly dizzy.

Wesley Clark 02-04-2020 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TriPolar (Post 22028276)
I hope he becomes the Democratic candidate because of none of the rest of them have a chance. Their reaction to him joining the race is the proof of that.

Why do people assume you can just walk all over the democratic base and voter turnout will not change?

Most will still vote. But they may not donate money and they may not volunteer. And some will stay home sadly.

I mean, we are in an age where people are getting tired of oligarchs. Trump ran as the anti-oligarch when he talked about how he offered money to politicians and he couldn't be bribed. Granted when he won he governed as a typical GOP plutocrat, but still.

If Bloomberg buys his way into the position, especially if Sanders wins more delegates but Bloomberg buys the nomination, then that is going to cause quite a fight within the democratic party. In an age when people feel plutocracy and oligarchy are behind many of the biggest problems we face as a nation (climate change, unaffordable housing, health care, wealth inequality, lack of good paying jobs) for the democrats to let someone buy their nomination is going to cause a lot of ruckus.

I'd still vote for Bloomberg because he is vastly superior to Trump. But its just going to energize the democrats liberal base to work independently of the democratic party in the future.

Happy Lendervedder 02-04-2020 06:12 PM

I'd like to see a Bloomberg-Abrams ticket.

She's expressed a strong desire to be president, and attaching herself to Bloomberg wouldn't be a bad potential path. And she recently appeared with him on stage at a voting rights event in Georgia. Plus he gave her gubernatorial campaign a half million in 2018, and her Fair Fight voters organization $5 million in December.

https://www.axios.com/mike-bloomberg...93a94722a.html

I could see this being a good pairing, mutually beneficial, and a good ticket to beat Trump

Boycott 02-04-2020 06:20 PM

I've been relatively complimentary to Bloomberg on here ... but I'm not ready to give him the green light.

While it's great he trolls Trump and gets that man really insecure, the fact is Bloomberg2020 is propelled by digital ads and self-funding. He is building a big team on the ground which is key but the man himself has yet to appear at a debate, yet to participate in a town hall, has given limited TV interviews and has largely been able to campaign in the Super Tuesday states outside of the media glare while everyone else has been in Iowa.

Bloomberg2020 is still a theory. It may never be needed if Biden picks up and wins Nevada and South Carolina ahead of Super Tuesday. And if it is needed then there's still that prospect where he will be in the line of fire for the first time and will have to defend himself.

PhillyGuy 02-04-2020 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Happy Lendervedder (Post 22120124)
I'd like to see a Bloomberg-Abrams ticket.

Abrams seems to me the logical front-runner for the Democratic vice-presidential nomination, so long as Buttigieg isn't the presidential nominee. I think he'd need to have someone on the ticket with Washington experience.

Abrams's experience as minority leader of the Georgia House of Representatives should be considered highly qualifying for national office -- more qualifying than being a member of the U.S. congress who isn't in leadership. However, the optics are that Abrams wouldn't balance Buttigieg's lack of conventional qualifications as, in some sense, Pence did for Trump.

PhillyGuy 02-04-2020 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wesley Clark (Post 22120107)
Why do people assume you can just walk all over the democratic base and voter turnout will not change?

I think that Bloomberg would reduce both Democratic and Republican turnout, while Bernie would juice both.

I much prefer Bloomberg to Trump, but both have big business-related conflicts of interest, impossible to fully get away from. Bloomberg could have a formal blind trust, but he would still know how Bloomberg the firm was doing.

As for electability -- a major concern for me because, I think, a reelected Trump will be worse -- Bloomberg has the moderate box checked but little else.

While not my first choice, Biden has a significant electability advantage because voters have pretty much made up their mind about him. This reduces his susceptibility to the vile but skillful character assassination campaign Trump is sure to wage against any opponent. Also, my Trumpist relatives don't seen worried about Biden destroying their way of life the way they seem concerned about Warren and Bernie. Maybe with any of the Mr. B. candidates, one or two would see the long lines at the poll and turn around.

elucidator 02-04-2020 08:25 PM

Are his tax returns under audit?

asahi 02-04-2020 08:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhillyGuy (Post 22120193)
I think that Bloomberg would reduce both Democratic and Republican turnout, while Bernie would juice both.

I much prefer Bloomberg to Trump, but both have big business-related conflicts of interest, impossible to fully get away from. Bloomberg could have a formal blind trust, but he would still know how Bloomberg the firm was doing.

As for electability -- a major concern for me because, I think, a reelected Trump will be worse -- Bloomberg has the moderate box checked but little else.

While not my first choice, Biden has a significant electability advantage because voters have pretty much made up their mind about him. This reduces his susceptibility to the vile but skillful character assassination campaign Trump is sure to wage against any opponent. Also, my Trumpist relatives don't seen worried about Biden destroying their way of life the way they seem concerned about Warren and Bernie. Maybe with any of the Mr. B. candidates, one or two would see the long lines at the poll and turn around.

Bloomberg is increasingly picking up mayoral endorsements, and that's potentially a really big deal. Having mayors of major cities, particularly if they're popular, could have major impact in terms of organizing local voter movements in areas that Hillary whiffed on in 2016. The mayoral endorsements include the current mayor of DC, the former mayor of Philadelphia, the former mayors of Flint, MI, Fresno, Anchorage, and Los Angeles. It's a racially diverse group of local organizers that cross a political spectrum. Also, consider that the fiercest resistance to Trump is occurring at the local levels, and these are the warriors who are often right on the front lines, talking with people in their communities every day who are eligible to vote and deciding whether to vote or stay home, or vote independent, or vote green, or vote, God for fucking bid, for Trump.

I think Mike Bloomberg is still a long shot. I can't recall a time when someone waited so long in the modern era to decide to run and pulled off a victory, but in this crowded field and with so many lingering doubts between campaigns and constituencies, Bloomberg might be in a unique position to bring some of these groups together under a tent.

DSeid 02-04-2020 09:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wesley Clark (Post 22120107)
Why do people assume you can just walk all over the democratic base and voter turnout will not change?

Most will still vote. But they may not donate money and they may not volunteer. And some will stay home sadly.

Bloomberg's campaign could be well funded even if donations aren't so numerous.

The contrast between Trump and Bloomberg is hyuge, and his positions are very much in line with much of the base. His biggest track record of activism, backed up with many hundreds of millions of dollars spent, are climate change (half a billion there alone), gun control, and public health (from decreasing tobacco deaths to the opioid crisis to obesity). His bona fides on immigration reform go back a ways, before 2016's election. Class warfare is not what all of "the base" cares about.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Happy Lendervedder (Post 22120124)
I'd like to see a Bloomberg-Abrams ticket.

Me too! Although I also see Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin as good match. (Albeit we need her seat and a special election is no sure thing. But Pence debating and getting destroyed a gay woman would be so much fun! And she both appeals to rural voters and can shift a percent or two in Wisconsin that could matter mightily.) Or Castro.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhillyGuy (Post 22120193)
I think that Bloomberg would reduce both Democratic and Republican turnout, while Bernie would juice both. ...

Not sure.

Bloomberg would possibly juice Trump's base. Trump would run hard on the Big Gulp tax and Bloomberg's work to shut down coal plants. But he'd win over the business Republicans and likely sweep the burbs.

I've written before about how he doesn't hit a first choice for optimizing Black turnout, or winning over rural voters, or exciting the class warfare brand of progressives. But if the choice in a contested convention comes down to him or either Sanders or Buttigieg (with Biden and Warren both having faded in that scenario) well I think the majority of D voters and delegates are going to be center left not hard progressive and of the biggest delegate getters in the center left will prefer Bloomberg's experience over Buttigieg.

On preview:

He'll show his taxes which will demonstrate how much he gives away (more than Trump has ever earned I think).

And his waiting was his best shot. Iowa style coffee shops hands on politicking is not his strength. He does have the huge advantage of advertising to the unsure voters in a Super Tuesday contest in a way that no one else will be able to afford to do. Watching tv in those states will be hell!!

Bijou Drains 02-04-2020 09:21 PM

I think nobody running can beat Trump except Bloomberg but I only give him around 40% chance of beating Trump. But we have 9 months until we vote and that might change.

Lamoral 02-04-2020 10:27 PM

I think he's a narcissistic horse's ass who should fuck off out of this election along with Tom Steyer. He doesn't have a shot in hell at the presidency.

Thing Fish 02-04-2020 11:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lamoral (Post 22120629)
I think he's a narcissistic horse's ass who should fuck off out of this election along with Tom Steyer. He doesn't have a shot in hell at the presidency.

I pretty much agree, but it's not fair to put him in a group with Tom Steyer. Bloomberg served three terms as Mayor of NYC, while Steyer has never run for anything before in his life. He may be a narcissistic horse's ass, but he at least has a credible resume for a Presidential candidate.

Thing Fish 02-04-2020 11:37 PM

Bloomberg is starting to be included in hypothetical general election polls and...he's actually doing really well, basically on a par with Biden and Sanders, who generally do about 4-5 percentage points better than the other Dems. I'm not sure how well he will hold up once the other candidates start attacking him, but as of right now his case to be the moderate backup if Biden fizzles looks better than Mayor Pete's.

pkbites 02-04-2020 11:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adaher (Post 22033776)
My only beef with him is his nanny state ideas, but that doesn't really apply to national politics anyway.

The hell it doesn't. What do you think bans on flavored cigarettes, flavored vaping devices, mandatory BAC limits, seat belt and open container laws, national ages for drinking and smoking are?

And we already have those infringements upon the 10th Amendment.

Now imagine multiplying those with an egotistical knowitall like Bloomberg!

Lamoral 02-04-2020 11:40 PM

OK, I guess to be fair to Steyer, the guy has at least worked his way up through the primary from the beginning, attempting to sell himself to voters. Bloomberg's attitude of "I can just jump in here out of nowhere and buy the election" really strikes me as audacious and arrogant.

Happy Lendervedder 02-04-2020 11:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thing Fish (Post 22120704)
Bloomberg is starting to be included in hypothetical general election polls and...he's actually doing really well, basically on a par with Biden and Sanders, who generally do about 4-5 percentage points better than the other Dems. I'm not sure how well he will hold up once the other candidates start attacking him, but as of right now his case to be the moderate backup if Biden fizzles looks better than Mayor Pete's.

A poll of Michigan voters last month put him 7 points over Trump in a head-to-head, better than any other candidate, including Biden.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lamoral
I think he's a narcissistic horse's ass who should fuck off out of this election along with Tom Steyer. He doesn't have a shot in hell at the presidency.

Who gives a crap? Remind me why it should matter if we think he's a narcissistic horse's ass. Don't most people who run for president fall into this category in some capacity? Why does this preclude Bloomberg from possibly beating Trump? Does jumping in late somehow disqualify him? Specifically why do you think he doesn't have a shot at the presidency? Because you don't want him to win?

syncrolecyne 02-04-2020 11:54 PM

"Narcissistic horse's ass" applies to nearly every presidential candidate in my lifetime. I would vote for the competent narcissistic horse's ass over the incompetent one any time.

Thing Fish 02-05-2020 12:02 AM

Yeah, I don't like the guy, but if I did otherwise like a candidate, I certainly wouldn't rule him out just because he was pursuing an unorthodox electoral strategy.

Thing Fish 02-05-2020 12:05 AM

As of now Biden is still my second choice, but based on those hypothetical numbers it would be a tough call between Warren and Bloomberg if Biden goes away.

Happy Lendervedder 02-05-2020 12:50 PM

With the endorsements of Rep. Juan Vargas (CA-51) and Rhode Island Gov. Gina Raimondo today, Bloomberg jumps past Bernie and Amy in 538's endorsement tracker and into third place (behind Biden and Warren).

And this doesn't even count the likely endorsement of Mr. Met!

He's also been racking up some smaller mayoral endorsements that don't show up in the endorsement tracker. At first I was largely shrugging at the endorsements of mayors (and former mayors), but as I've been thinking about it, oftentimes people feel more connected to their mayor than they do to their governor or Senator or a previous presidential candidate. For Bloomberg to make these types of endorsements a priority, again, strikes me as a shrewd move.

Corry El 02-05-2020 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by syncrolecyne (Post 22120727)
"Narcissistic horse's ass" applies to nearly every presidential candidate in my lifetime. I would vote for the competent narcissistic horse's ass over the incompetent one any time.

Yeah that's pretty much universal, even far down ballot from president. Also, though comparing favorably as a person to Trump isn't saying much, one can still marvel at just how much less obviously arrogant Bloomberg is as a much more self made creator of a much bigger empire. I mean do we really expect *extremely* successful people to not think well of themselves? A bit unrealistic if so, and if we impose the standard of true, through-and-through humility on such people then their talents would never be used in public service.

Not that being a self made super billionaire means Bloomberg is *the* choice for president, of course. But I also don't see him as comparable to Steyer, besides Trump, in relationship of past success to what he offers now. Steyer has never done anything in public life but spending money he can easily spare for advocacy. Trump's true status as 'successful businessman' is a lot more questionable than either. Bloomberg is a bona fide personal mega-success who has shown a talent for executive office in the biggest city in the country.

Main problem I see with Bloomberg's chances is that, or if, Democratic primary voters are just too out of tune with his relative moderation and/or hold his previous even less leftward than current views (and party affiliation, *elected* as a Republican not just personally registered as one) against him. And if a lot of them really resent his 'arrogance' for pursuing a strategy minus retail politicking in IA/NH, he has to wear that too, fair or not. They're entitled to not choose him for any reason they want. And I think it's really unlikely they will. RCP avg betting odds of 18% for Bloomberg seems high to me.

Ann Hedonia 02-05-2020 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Happy Lendervedder (Post 22121624)
With the endorsements of Rep. Juan Vargas (CA-51) and Rhode Island Gov. Gina Raimondo today, Bloomberg jumps past Bernie and Amy in 538's endorsement tracker and into third place (behind Biden and Warren).

And this doesn't even count the likely endorsement of Mr. Met!

He's also been racking up some smaller mayoral endorsements that don't show up in the endorsement tracker. At first I was largely shrugging at the endorsements of mayors (and former mayors), but as I've been thinking about it, oftentimes people feel more connected to their mayor than they do to their governor or Senator or a previous presidential candidate. For Bloomberg to make these types of endorsements a priority, again, strikes me as a shrewd move.

And he will get those endorsements. He’s been working with city governments across the country since 2016 through his Bloomberg Philanthropies American Cities Initiative and US Mayor Challenge -

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/25/u...ors-trump.html

https://www.bloomberg.org/program/fo...tive/#programs

https://www.bloomberg.org/press/rele...ors-challenge/

It actually feels like he may have been laying the groundwork for a possible Presidential run since around the time Trump got elected- these organizations are going to be huge assets.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:38 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.