Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #401  
Old 02-19-2020, 02:27 PM
ITR champion is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Indiana
Posts: 10,482
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Interesting article. But your link just takes me to the home-page of Proxysite.Com.

Does the link work for others, and my problem is just yet another symptom of Internet-in-the-Jungle?
The article is on the Vanity Fair site here: https://archive.vanityfair.com/artic...fought-the-law , but only for subscribers.
  #402  
Old 02-19-2020, 10:39 PM
nearwildheaven is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 14,255
After seeing him get eviscerated at tonight's debate, I don't think he'll be in the race much longer.
  #403  
Old 02-19-2020, 11:04 PM
Happy Lendervedder's Avatar
Happy Lendervedder is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Michigan
Posts: 15,778
Unless his poll numbers absolutely crater in California, North Carolina, Virginia, Texas and Michigan between now and March, I don't see any way he's dropping out after one bad debate, or even a rough second one. And yes, tonight was bad, especially the first half. But I imagine he still believes he is the strongest candidate to face Trump in the general. Unless polling numbers start showing him finishing in third or fourth place in the big states on Super Tuesday and March 10, he'll continue on.

If Warren or Biden don't do particularly well in NV and SC, they're going to have a hard time continuing to raise money to compete in March. Same with Amy. As the field contracts, Mike will still have a shit-ton of money to compete. And honestly, I can't imagine his debate performances actually getting worse from here on out, so as more states start to pay attention, and there are less candidates lobbing bombs at him, there's a chance he is able to find his sea legs on the debate stage.

Or not. Who the fuck knows?
  #404  
Old 02-19-2020, 11:05 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 21,737
Quote:
Originally Posted by nearwildheaven View Post
After seeing him get eviscerated at tonight's debate, I don't think he'll be in the race much longer.
He came off as woefully ill-prepared and the others pounced on him.

But he has a lot of money and may try to buy his way through. If he spends $1 billion on this and fails he'll still be massively wealthy and will never notice the difference.
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill
  #405  
Old 02-19-2020, 11:22 PM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 17,546
He did say that no matter what, he would use his billions of dollars and his campaign machine to help the eventual (D) candidate whoever it may be. So it may be in best Democratic interests for someone like Buttigieg or Klobuchar to be the standard-bearer and for Bloomberg to do what he does best, dispense money where it is needed.
  #406  
Old 02-19-2020, 11:44 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 23,994
He won't drop out after one poor debate. Biden had multiple poor debates and is still there! Klobuchar really has had only one good one. But, assuming he is in the next one next week, he either is much better prepared and does much better, or he withdraws after a subpar Super Tuesday.

His money facilitated getting him a chance to be heard. But it doesn't assure people like what they hear.
  #407  
Old 02-20-2020, 01:01 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 20,144
I am rather prepared for his polling and Super Tuesday results to not be much affected by his debate performance. As I said in the debate thread, he mostly stayed on brand. I bet "He's kind of an asshole but..." is something his campaign has extensively focus grouped. Lol.
  #408  
Old 02-20-2020, 10:41 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the Land of Smiles
Posts: 21,566
I've given up deciding who's electable, but fear the answer is "None of the above." Anyway, Moscow Mitch will be calling the shots even if the D's win the White House and 50 Senate seats in November -- the Ds lack the gumption to override the filibuster rule.

I just read through this thread again and found MUCH to disagree with. I am NOT a Bloomy Brat, but the arguments against him are ... [checks forum] unconvincing. Fortunately DSeid produced an excellent summary I'd have been proud to write, so I'll just quote it. I've bold-faced key points, and underlined one that refutes a silliness upthread (that Bloomberg might be teaching the Putin-GOP axis new tricks).

Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Bloomberg's pitch is severalfold -

His positions on the issues which are most important to many of us.

NOT selling disruptive change as the path forward. (Which many of us feel is unlikely to actually deliver anything, let alone anything good.)

A proven track record of delivering on goals set more often than not.

A path to beating Trump and to delivering the Senate with significantly better odds than many of us see any other candidate currently having.

And yes his executive skill set - excellence in which is in fact a very uncommon thing.


I am now to understand that to you not is not the amount of money Bloomberg is sppending, it is that "microtargeted propaganda" based on "information from data scientists who knew exactly who to target" is inherently evil.

Using a sophisticated team of data scientists, developers, and digital advertising experts to not only know who voters were, but how "exactly how it could turn you into the type of person it wanted you to be", microtargeting specific scripted pitches to specific voters who might be most vulnerable/persuadable to that pitch ... is ... Trumpian and evil. Except, if you clicked the link, it was Team Obama that developed the approach to the degree that is was effective.

I know you are using the word "propaganda" as a scary word, in a negative sense, but all it really means is information in support of a cause. Team Obama was great at saturating the right places with the right propaganda. It worked in 2008 and the sophistication of the microtargetting process was raised in 2012. Eight years later it will need to be revised dynamically responding to how social media has changed, and using tools that may not have even existed in 2012. 2020's battle will fought differently than 2102's,

The R side will be using those tactics the best they can. The D side had better be able to do it better. Those "vulnerable" to the tactics (be it vote one way, the other, or more importantly perhaps, to vote, will more likely than not decide the election at all levels.
  #409  
Old 02-20-2020, 12:24 PM
Nicest of the Damned is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Boston
Posts: 466
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Anyway, Moscow Mitch will be calling the shots even if the D's win the White House and 50 Senate seats in November...
Good point. Maybe Bloomberg should be pouring resources on Amy McGrath's campaign if he really wants to help.
  #410  
Old 02-20-2020, 01:55 PM
carnivorousplant is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Central Arkansas
Posts: 60,193
Is it now a hobby of the ridiculously rich to run for President?
__________________
You callous bastard! More of my illusions have just been shattered!!-G0sp3l
  #411  
Old 02-20-2020, 02:56 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,904
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Lendervedder View Post
Unless his poll numbers absolutely crater in California, North Carolina, Virginia, Texas and Michigan between now and March, I don't see any way he's dropping out after one bad debate, or even a rough second one. And yes, tonight was bad, especially the first half. But I imagine he still believes he is the strongest candidate to face Trump in the general. Unless polling numbers start showing him finishing in third or fourth place in the big states on Super Tuesday and March 10, he'll continue on.

If Warren or Biden don't do particularly well in NV and SC, they're going to have a hard time continuing to raise money to compete in March. Same with Amy. As the field contracts, Mike will still have a shit-ton of money to compete. And honestly, I can't imagine his debate performances actually getting worse from here on out, so as more states start to pay attention, and there are less candidates lobbing bombs at him, there's a chance he is able to find his sea legs on the debate stage.

Or not. Who the fuck knows?
Uh, he's already in third place in Texas and Michigan, and a very distant second in California. It's pretty much the same picture in all of the Super Tuesday/March 10 States. The only States in that group he seems to have any shot at actually winning are Arkansas and Missouri. And those polls aren't taking his debate performance last night into account. His rapid rise to around 15% in the polls has been impressive, but he hopes to win, he needs to do a lot better than he's doing right now. I'm not seeing any reason to think he's capable of that.
  #412  
Old 02-20-2020, 03:01 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,904
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
A path to beating Trump and to delivering the Senate with significantly better odds than many of us see any other candidate currently having.
Problem is, those darn general election polls keep showing him as having about the same chance of beating Trump as Bernie or Biden do (the others usually being a few percentage points behind). But maybe you're expecting his numbers will get better based on his brilliant debate performance last night? I realize many folks on this board, especially when it comes to Bernie, regard polling data as less reliable than the results you see gazing into your navel, but just FYI...
  #413  
Old 02-20-2020, 03:28 PM
Happy Lendervedder's Avatar
Happy Lendervedder is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Michigan
Posts: 15,778
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
Uh, he's already in third place in Texas and Michigan, and a very distant second in California. It's pretty much the same picture in all of the Super Tuesday/March 10 States. The only States in that group he seems to have any shot at actually winning are Arkansas and Missouri. And those polls aren't taking his debate performance last night into account. His rapid rise to around 15% in the polls has been impressive, but he hopes to win, he needs to do a lot better than he's doing right now. I'm not seeing any reason to think he's capable of that.
Not according to 538. As of 4:19pm 2/20:

CA
1. Bernie 27.8%
2. Bloomberg 15.2 (I'll give you that this is a distant second place)

NC
1. Bernie 21.9%
2. Bloomberg 19.7

Michigan
1. Bernie 27.6%
2. Biden 18.6
3. Bloomberg 18.0 (essentially tied with Biden here)

Texas
1. Bernie 24.2%
2. Biden 18.8
3. Bloomberg 18.0 (over the past two or three days, they've actually jockeyed between second and third)

Virginia
1. Bloomberg 22.4%
2. Bernie 22.4

I don't think Bloomberg's poll position is quite as dire in these larger early-March states as you currently claim. Will it stay that way? Time will tell. If he starts cratering in these states, then I'll believe his campaign's in trouble.

Last edited by Happy Lendervedder; 02-20-2020 at 03:32 PM.
  #414  
Old 02-20-2020, 05:02 PM
Razncain is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: TX & CO
Posts: 1,786
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
He did say that no matter what, he would use his billions of dollars and his campaign machine to help the eventual (D) candidate whoever it may be.
I hope he honors that, but after last night, maybe he’ll revise that to any Democratic candidate except Warren.
  #415  
Old 02-20-2020, 05:04 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 7,903
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicest of the Damned View Post
Good point. Maybe Bloomberg should be pouring resources on Amy McGrath's campaign if he really wants to help.
I don't think we should assume he isn't. He's been promoting her as a candidate for several years, now:

Quote:
Amy McGrath Has a Bracing Message for America
This Democrat running for Congress in Kentucky thinks American government is worth fighting for.

By Francis Wilkinson
October 31, 2017
It’s easy to blame Donald Trump for much of what’s wrong in America. But give credit where it’s due. He's pushing people like Amy McGrath into the political arena.

McGrath, 42, retired as a lieutenant colonel from the Marine Corps earlier this year, moved with her husband and three young children back to her native Kentucky, and promptly began running as a Democrat for the Sixth District congressional seat occupied by Republican Andy Barr.
...
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/ar...ge-for-america
  #416  
Old 02-20-2020, 05:07 PM
Socsback is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Posts: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
Problem is, those darn general election polls keep showing him as having about the same chance of beating Trump as Bernie or Biden do (the others usually being a few percentage points behind). But maybe you're expecting his numbers will get better based on his brilliant debate performance last night? I realize many folks on this board, especially when it comes to Bernie, regard polling data as less reliable than the results you see gazing into your navel, but just FYI...
The polls have been miserably wrong in the primaries so far.

Bernie is polling better doing to name recognition (from running in 2016) more than anything else, I think. Biden has that going for him too, but he's a disaster, and losing support to younger/better moderates.
  #417  
Old 02-20-2020, 05:27 PM
ITR champion is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Indiana
Posts: 10,482
Another video from Bloomberg's past surfaces.
  #418  
Old 02-20-2020, 06:08 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,904
Quote:
Originally Posted by Socsback View Post
The polls have been miserably wrong in the primaries so far.

Bernie is polling better doing to name recognition (from running in 2016) more than anything else, I think. Biden has that going for him too, but he's a disaster, and losing support to younger/better moderates.
Uh, no they haven't. Biden significantly underperformed his polls in Iowa, and Klobuchar overperformed in NH. Other than that the polls have been reasonably accurate. Also, it appears that Biden is actually losing support to Bloomberg, who is neither (significantly) younger nor better; neither Buttigieg nor Klobuchar has picked up much support in the last few weeks.
  #419  
Old 02-20-2020, 06:14 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 13,275
Quote:
Originally Posted by nearwildheaven View Post
After seeing him get eviscerated at tonight's debate, I don't think he'll be in the race much longer.
I think he has another shot to redeem himself in next week's Carolina debates, but he will have to redeem himself. If there's any upside to last night, he got a taste of all the different lines of attack that he faces from here on out - they unloaded all their arsenal on him.

I had wondered what the effects of just barely qualifying in time for the debate might have on Bloomberg. I suspected he might get roughed up a bit, but Warren really slapped him around good. I think he'll be ready to fight next time - hope so for his sake.

But the real winner last night wasn't Warren, Buttigieg, or Klobuchar; it was Sanders and Biden, but particularly Sanders. I don't see how he loses Nevada. Biden might have saved his campaign in South Carolina. We shall see.
  #420  
Old 02-20-2020, 06:16 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 13,275
Quote:
Originally Posted by ITR champion View Post
Actually, I thought it was kinda funny.
  #421  
Old 02-20-2020, 09:06 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 23,994
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
... Fortunately DSeid produced an excellent summary I'd have been proud to write ...
Thank you for the kind words.

Quote:
Originally Posted by carnivorousplant View Post
Is it now a hobby of the ridiculously rich to run for President?
It has always been the hobby of those with some power in this country to at least imagine themselves as president of the United, possibly the most powerful position in the world. That's been true for governors and senators and others. Those with extreme wealth have some power and are among that group.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
Problem is, those darn general election polls keep showing him as having about the same chance of beating Trump as Bernie or Biden do (the others usually being a few percentage points behind). But maybe you're expecting his numbers will get better based on his brilliant debate performance last night? I realize many folks on this board, especially when it comes to Bernie, regard polling data as less reliable than the results you see gazing into your navel, but just FYI...
While they do show that he is a few points ahead in most polls, I take the general election polls with many grains of salt for a while more yet. No question though that if his debate performance continues at that level his general election theory goes kaboom. Being unflappable as others shout is on brand but being flatfooted and ill-prepared is not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Lendervedder View Post
... If he starts cratering in these states, then I'll believe his campaign's in trouble.
He needs to do better than not crater though. He needs to build support in time for Super Tuesday.

Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
I think he has another shot to redeem himself in next week's Carolina debates, but he will have to redeem himself. If there's any upside to last night, he got a taste of all the different lines of attack that he faces from here on out - they unloaded all their arsenal on him.

I had wondered what the effects of just barely qualifying in time for the debate might have on Bloomberg. I suspected he might get roughed up a bit, but Warren really slapped him around good. I think he'll be ready to fight next time - hope so for his sake.
...
Aye.

IF he is as smart as he is advertised to be, then he is prepping hard, will learn much from that prep, and has this last week's poor performance to learn from. Next week there will be many more likely paying attention and whose votes may be swayed by that night's performances. It is also true that their firing off all of their arsenal makes those shots less effective in the next round. Ironically his poor performance last night may HELP him by lowering expectations of him next week ... if he nails it next time.

Two poor debate performances though would prove just what Biden's weak to mediocre debate performances proved: that the electability hypothesis just aint actually there; he don't got it.
  #422  
Old 02-20-2020, 10:01 PM
Try2B Comprehensive's Avatar
Try2B Comprehensive is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 6,858
Team Bloomberg responds to poor debate performance, from here:

Quote:
Howard Wolfson, one of Mr. Bloomberg’s closest advisers, on Thursday shouldered the blame for the outcome of the debate.

“I led the debate prep and I accept the responsibility for inadequately preparing him,” Mr. Wolfson said.
From the same article:

Quote:
“So, how was your night last night?” Mr. Bloomberg joked to a crowd of hundreds in Salt Lake City on Thursday morning. He warned that the party “may be on the way to nominating someone who cannot win in November.”

“If we choose a candidate who appeals to a small base like Senator Sanders,” he concluded, “it will be a fatal error.”
Under Bloomberg's normal conditions, such a forward-looking statement would be hedged with the following askerisk*:

Quote:
Certain information set forth in this presentation contains “forward-looking information”, including “future oriented financial information” and “financial outlook”, under applicable securities laws (collectively referred to herein as forward-looking statements). Except for statements of historical fact, information contained herein constitutes forward-looking statements and includes, but is not limited to, the (i) projected financial performance of the Company; (ii) completion of, and the use of proceeds from, the sale of the shares being offered hereunder; (iii) the expected development of the Company’s business, projects and joint ventures; (iv) execution of the Company’s vision and growth strategy, including with respect to future M&A activity and global growth; (v) sources and availability of third-party financing for the Company’s projects; (vi) completion of the Company’s projects that are currently underway, in development or otherwise under consideration; (vi) renewal of the Company’s current customer, supplier and other material agreements; and (vii) future liquidity, working capital, and capital requirements. Forward-looking statements are provided to allow potential investors the opportunity to understand management’s beliefs and opinions in respect of the future so that they may use such beliefs and opinions as one factor in evaluating an investment.

These statements are not guarantees of future performance and undue reliance should not be placed on them. Such forward-looking statements necessarily involve known and unknown risks and uncertainties, which may cause actual performance and financial results in future periods to differ materially from any projections of future performance or result expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements.

Although forward-looking statements contained in this presentation are based upon what management of the Company believes are reasonable assumptions, there can be no assurance that forward-looking statements will prove to be accurate, as actual results and future events could differ materially from those anticipated in such statements. The Company undertakes no obligation to update forward-looking statements if circumstances or management’s estimates or opinions should change except as required by applicable securities laws. The reader is cautioned not to place undue reliance on forward-looking statements.
But now that he is running for office, I guess he feels it is acceptable to be full of crap. Alternatively, Bernie has not significantly changed his stripes in the past 50 or so years of his public life.
__________________
Above it isn't bright, below it isn't dark.
  #423  
Old 02-21-2020, 05:47 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the Land of Smiles
Posts: 21,566
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
Problem is, those darn general election polls keep showing him as having about the same chance of beating Trump as Bernie or Biden do (the others usually being a few percentage points behind). But maybe you're expecting his numbers will get better based on his brilliant debate performance last night? I realize many folks on this board, especially when it comes to Bernie, regard polling data as less reliable than the results you see gazing into your navel, but just FYI...
IANAL but if Bloomberg is the nominee he'll be subject to fewer restrictions on expensive self-advertising. That will give him an advantage (small? big?) not reflected in current polling data.

(But don't consider me a Bloomy Brat. I've given up understanding this primary and no longer have an opinion on who is most electable.)
  #424  
Old 02-21-2020, 01:10 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,904
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
IANAL but if Bloomberg is the nominee he'll be subject to fewer restrictions on expensive self-advertising. That will give him an advantage (small? big?) not reflected in current polling data.

(But don't consider me a Bloomy Brat. I've given up understanding this primary and no longer have an opinion on who is most electable.)
You've finally acheived satori!

One thing we absolutely don't know, but are about to find out, is where the point of diminished returns on TV commercials is. I've definitely seen some folks complain of seeing way too many Bloomberg ads.
  #425  
Old 02-21-2020, 01:40 PM
Lantern is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,142
I think his weak debate performance will stop Bloomberg's momentum which was probably slowing down anyway. Whether it will lead to a significant fall I am not sure about. I think the sheer power of money may keep him around the 12-15% mark which probably works well for Bernie since it blocks a possible Biden resurgence.

Presumably Bloomberg will be a bit better in the next debate but I don't expect some massive improvement. I don't think he has the personality to be an effective debater and no amount of preparation can stop him getting pounded on stop and frisk, sexual harassment and a number of other issues. Fundamentally he doesn't have a good story for a Democratic primary.
  #426  
Old 02-21-2020, 03:02 PM
Ann Hedonia's Avatar
Ann Hedonia is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 4,141
Bloomberg’s biggest problem is that he’s Michael Bloomberg. I don’t know if he can buy his way around it. I, for one, hope he can, but I know that’s a minority opinion.

I’ve got more to say, but I also fell and injured my wrist yesterday morning. I can read but I can’t type without pain. - this short one is stretching my limit. It kind of reminds me of my stints in Twitter Jail.

Last edited by Ann Hedonia; 02-21-2020 at 03:03 PM.
  #427  
Old 02-21-2020, 05:11 PM
Heffalump and Roo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,498
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ann Hedonia View Post
Bloomberg’s biggest problem is that he’s Michael Bloomberg.
I was going to ask what this means but I won't because of. . .

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ann Hedonia View Post
I’ve got more to say, but I also fell and injured my wrist yesterday morning. I can read but I can’t type without pain
I'm sorry to hear it. I hope it feels better soon.
  #428  
Old 02-22-2020, 10:03 AM
Ann Hedonia's Avatar
Ann Hedonia is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 4,141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heffalump and Roo View Post
I was going to ask what this means but I won't because of. . .



I'm sorry to hear it. I hope it feels better soon.

Feeling a little better today, I’m going to give it shot.

I like Mike Bloomberg’s proposed policies. I’m a huge fan of his philanthropic work, especially his work with cities. I like his approach to this work. I like the idea of evidence-based solutions. In this I feel he’s the polar opposite of Trump - the man who believes his gut instinct provides the right answer to everything vs the guy who commissions a dozen expert analyses in order to decide what to have for breakfast. I believe in expertise and one of the most distressing things about the Trump administration is the devaluation of expertise.

And I like that he is willing to spend unlimited money to defeat Trump. But therein lies the catch. He can only spend unlimited money if the candidate is Mike Bloomberg. Otherwise the campaign donation rules kick in.

And Mike Bloomberg is not a good candidate. Hes not a good spokesperson for his policies. Plus, he’s short. He has a voice that makes you want to stab your eardrums with a sharp stick to make it stop. He’s uncharismatic and passionless. He’s a 60 billion dollar computer geek. I don’t think he’s neurotypical. He’s really really smart but doesn’t have the ability to connect with people. And I don’t think that can be taught or coached.
  #429  
Old 02-22-2020, 10:47 AM
Happy Lendervedder's Avatar
Happy Lendervedder is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Michigan
Posts: 15,778
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ann Hedonia View Post
I don’t think he’s neurotypical.
I was actually wondering about this myself watching the debate. The way he would sorta look off either before or during an answer. I'm not sure, in the fast-pace of a six-person debate, he's equipped to read the situation, and adjust his answers or tone on the fly. He would start giving an answer, and the audience would react, and he would sorta shut down, possibly as he tried to figure out what that reaction meant. I say this as an aspie person myself who struggles in similar situations.

I can see how such a debate, if he is not neurotypical, would be a challenge. These people he was sharing the stage with, and who were sitting in the audience reacting, aren't necessarily the "enemy" like they would be in a general election debate. His tone and answers need to be more nuanced here, which I'm sure he realizes but might struggle with implementing.

This is neither a defense or attack, just an observation. I wonder, however, how it would affect the campaign if he came out as being on the autism spectrum. We live in a world where many families are touched in some way by varying degrees of autism, and people are learning to see autism as having many positive attributes, and it isn't limited to a "Rain Man"-style existence anymore. If Mike were on the spectrum, announcing this might actually humanize him and earn him some points and attention from families touched by autism.

ETA: This is all just speculating. He very well could just be a really bad debater.

Last edited by Happy Lendervedder; 02-22-2020 at 10:50 AM.
  #430  
Old 02-22-2020, 02:42 PM
contradancer is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Maine, Germany
Posts: 135
I think he means on instagram. The place where Trump goes nuts, displaying his personality disorders in full force.
__________________
Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion.
Steven Weinberg
  #431  
Old 02-22-2020, 03:02 PM
contradancer is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Maine, Germany
Posts: 135
I noticed that as well. He's not a bad debater, just an unpracticed one. And as the others were in attack mode, having spent so much money, time and hope put into their campaigns, it would be useless to try to argue with them. They are afraid. I don't blame them, but my first priority is someone who can go toe to toe with someone who tries to debase him by saying he needs a box to stand on. Someone with very little self esteem and a cruel streak. That is why his children are so messed up and his son is not allowed to be around him. God knows what he threatened melinia with to make her stay. They don't live with him in the White House, but with her parents. A prominent psychiatrist said Trump will be a permanent part of future class curriculum on the subject of personality disorders. No one can dispute he is a major head case and narcissist. I think Mike, while not perfect, is within the normal range. In the past when black, low-income women were allowed to have legal abortions, the violent crime rate fell beginning about 15 years later (documented) and was tied to the fact that those potential criminals were never born. But it wasn't a bad idea, go where the crime is its just so random. When you get desperate to prevent violence, maybe there is no good solution.
__________________
Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion.
Steven Weinberg
  #432  
Old 02-22-2020, 04:24 PM
MEBuckner's Avatar
MEBuckner is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Posts: 12,495
Well, I'm still very much not a fan of Mike Bloomberg, but it's being widely reported (including on Fox News) that Clint "Empty Chair" Eastwood has apparently endorsed Bloomberg. I still can't see myself voting for Bloomberg next month; or NOT voting for him in November if he gets the nomination.

I really wish to hell we had a candidate we looked like (s)he could unite the various factions of the Democratic Party, and the "independents", and the refugees from the Republican Party, and rout Trump and his lackeys from office by a landslide.
__________________
"In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves." -- Carl Sagan

Ceterum censeo imperium Trumpi esse delendam
  #433  
Old 02-22-2020, 04:43 PM
Locrian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Valley Village, CA
Posts: 4,666
Quote:
Originally Posted by MEBuckner View Post
Well, I'm still very much not a fan of Mike Bloomberg, but it's being widely reported (including on Fox News) that Clint "Empty Chair" Eastwood has apparently endorsed Bloomberg. I still can't see myself voting for Bloomberg next month; or NOT voting for him in November if he gets the nomination.

I really wish to hell we had a candidate we looked like (s)he could unite the various factions of the Democratic Party, and the "independents", and the refugees from the Republican Party, and rout Trump and his lackeys from office by a landslide.
I think you've summed up my feelings. There's no front leader, which is worrisome as hell. I really think that after Super Tuesday, if you're still dragging and desperately hanging on (or *shudders* consider running as a third-party candidate), quit and support someone else. There should be no more than two of them left after ST.

Their constant attacking of each other is just nuts at the debates. Candidates don't need to tell me we need to beat Donald Trump. WE KNOW THIS. That's ONE thing the candidates are in agreement with.

Bloomy, on the other hand, does he really WANT to be president? Or is he running just to BE president, much like what Orangeanus is now. Shit, if I had $60 billion, the last thing I'd do is run for office.

All I feel right now with Bloomy is he could defeat Donny. But that's really all I think about him. And all the other candidates have so much good and bad about them as well. Bloomberg with race and misogyny, Biden and Sanders with pie-in-the-sky crap, Buttigieg with low experience, and I have this eerie and dirty feeling that Warren and Klobuchar's big red flag is simply being female. Not for me, not for this board, but come on. Would any MAGA-creeps really vote for a woman if Donny wasn't running? I think if any of them did support a Republican woman running for president, it'd come down to "How hot is she?" or "Cool, her husband works for NASCAR" or something.

Last edited by Locrian; 02-22-2020 at 04:44 PM.
  #434  
Old 02-22-2020, 05:56 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 23,994
Quote:
Originally Posted by contradancer View Post
I noticed that as well. He's not a bad debater, just an unpracticed one. ...
Well he was in that last debate a bad debater for the venue. Yes because he is out of practice ... or really never was in practice for that sort of debate ever. And because he was ill-prepped.

If he does not have a team of people throwing every imaginable question and line of attack at him drilling him in how to turn those questions into chances to discuss exactly what he would do as president to address real problems and how he has the goods to beat Trump that they do not have, then he is either too arrogant or lazy for the race. A crappy debate next week and he should drop out before he is the spoiler for others on Super Tuesday. If he can, in the week, bring up his skill level to showing his chops, then OTOH he may have what it takes.

Anyone else suspecting that right after South Carolina votes he does something to grab the news cycle - like release his tax returns (which he miraculously was able to get together faster than expected) and/or come up with some way to release from NDAs that makes him look good? I'll be mildly surprised if he doesn't have a March 1st or 2nd surprise.
  #435  
Old 02-22-2020, 06:24 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 23,994
What would be the best result possible from South Carolina for Bloomberg?

I think Biden losing it narrowly to Sanders with neither Buttigieg or Klobuchar getting on the board for statewide delegates, underperforming their polling even.
  #436  
Old 02-23-2020, 02:20 AM
Lantern is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,142
I don't think Bloomberg has any realistic chance of winning the nomination. He is the perfect foil for Bernie's populist insurgency and on top of that he has a lot of personal baggage and is a poor public speaker. At this stage he is just a spoiler dividing the field to Bernie's advantage.

The only realistic shot to beat Bernie is Biden and for that to happen the Dem establishment will have to consolidate behind him very soon, he would have to win South Carolina and use that momentum to come a strong second on Super Tuesday leading to a one-on-one race with Bernie which would still be tough to win. This isn't likely to happen so it's probably Bernie.
  #437  
Old 02-23-2020, 08:20 AM
carnivorousplant is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Central Arkansas
Posts: 60,193
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lantern View Post

The only realistic shot to beat Bernie is Biden and for that to happen the Dem establishment will have to consolidate behind him very soon, he would have to win South Carolina and use that momentum to come a strong second on Super Tuesday leading to a one-on-one race with Bernie which would still be tough to win. This isn't likely to happen so it's probably Bernie.
I agree. Folks are optimistically voting for the person they wish were President, not to beat Trump.
  #438  
Old 02-23-2020, 09:16 AM
survinga is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: In the Deep South
Posts: 569
Quote:
Originally Posted by frognot View Post
For me Bloomberg vs Trump isn't Good vs Bad but Bad vs Worse.

I'm okay voting for Bad. Have seen Worse in action.
That's where I am on Bloomberg. He has things in his background from his mayorship that are very troubling, to say the least. He has to answer for stop-and-frisk. And I'm not thrilled to see a billionaire trying to buy the presidency. But if it boils down to Bloomberg vs Trump, I think he's a gigantic improvement over Trump. Is he "bad"? I suppose he is. But "bad" is much better than Trump.

And I'm not a fan of Bernie either. But again, if it's Bernie vs Trump, I have to go with Bernie. Personally, I'm more in the Biden or Klobuchar camp.

But every Democrat that's left in this race would be an improvement over Trump on a whole array of issues domestic and foreign, respect for the law, respect for our institutions and societal norms. Defeating Trump is step one in slowing and reversing our slide into authoritarianism. So, I think the Democratic Party has to unite behind the candidate after the primaries are over, or once it's clear who will win at the convention.

Last edited by survinga; 02-23-2020 at 09:17 AM.
  #439  
Old 02-23-2020, 03:12 PM
Corry El is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 4,399
https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/22/opini...art/index.html

Piece by Joe Lockhart, a Clinton admin adviser. I don't know if he's now the 'wrong kind' of Democrat, 'traitor' etc. But just putting standard internet argument ad hominem aside and reading the piece...makes sense if you were somebody advising Bloomberg, assuming he really wants to win. A lot of Bloomberg's mega bucks have been spent positively promoting Bloomberg, vaguely, 'Mike will get it done' (what exactly?). But the negative part has been pretty much all v Trump. Which is 'Primary Good Party Citizenship 101'. But candidates everywhere often abandon this when it gets to crunch time, and I think Lockhart is correct that Bloomberg has no chance at the nomination running $gazillions ads attacking Trump and not attacking Sanders hard.

The field is not going to winnow down quickly, naturally, to Bloomberg v Sanders. Biden, Buttigieg and Warren can all plausibly tell themselves they've had successes they might repeat or are 'doing better lately', and haven't run out of money. Klobuchar is probably near the end but that's one person.

Nor IMO is there any chance whatsoever the convention will give *Bloomberg* the nomination if he has fewer delegates than Sanders. Possibly, not likely, they'll give it somebody else despite a Sanders plurality but not a former elected Republican. Bloomberg has to have the most delegates to win. That's very unlikely to happen at all, but there's just no way without reducing Sanders' support.

Of course it's possible, despite all the bad will toward Bloomberg on these threads, that he's not on an ego quest to be nominee at all costs. Maybe he'd prefer to stay positive about 'other' Democrats, accept that he can't beat Sanders but keep spending money on ads attacking Trump all the way to November. I'm not saying that's true, I don't know, but I agree with the piece that staying positive he has no chance of winning.
  #440  
Old 02-24-2020, 10:09 AM
Happy Lendervedder's Avatar
Happy Lendervedder is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Michigan
Posts: 15,778
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corry El View Post
https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/22/opini...art/index.html

Piece by Joe Lockhart, a Clinton admin adviser. I don't know if he's now the 'wrong kind' of Democrat, 'traitor' etc. But just putting standard internet argument ad hominem aside and reading the piece...makes sense if you were somebody advising Bloomberg, assuming he really wants to win. A lot of Bloomberg's mega bucks have been spent positively promoting Bloomberg, vaguely, 'Mike will get it done' (what exactly?). But the negative part has been pretty much all v Trump. Which is 'Primary Good Party Citizenship 101'. But candidates everywhere often abandon this when it gets to crunch time, and I think Lockhart is correct that Bloomberg has no chance at the nomination running $gazillions ads attacking Trump and not attacking Sanders hard.

The field is not going to winnow down quickly, naturally, to Bloomberg v Sanders. Biden, Buttigieg and Warren can all plausibly tell themselves they've had successes they might repeat or are 'doing better lately', and haven't run out of money. Klobuchar is probably near the end but that's one person.

Nor IMO is there any chance whatsoever the convention will give *Bloomberg* the nomination if he has fewer delegates than Sanders. Possibly, not likely, they'll give it somebody else despite a Sanders plurality but not a former elected Republican. Bloomberg has to have the most delegates to win. That's very unlikely to happen at all, but there's just no way without reducing Sanders' support.

Of course it's possible, despite all the bad will toward Bloomberg on these threads, that he's not on an ego quest to be nominee at all costs. Maybe he'd prefer to stay positive about 'other' Democrats, accept that he can't beat Sanders but keep spending money on ads attacking Trump all the way to November. I'm not saying that's true, I don't know, but I agree with the piece that staying positive he has no chance of winning.

Based on the ads/posts I've seen this morning of Facebook, Mike's indeed shifted his attention to Bernie.
  #441  
Old 02-24-2020, 05:49 PM
Oredigger77 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Back at 5,280
Posts: 5,558
I just saw a new Bloomberg add saying he was going to cure the race poverty gap. That seems like a big thing to promise and entirely pointed at trying to buy black votes. Does anyone know anything about his "plan"?
  #442  
Old 02-24-2020, 06:57 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 20,144
He's actually already been putting that out there for a while. I think his plan mainly focuses on raising black home ownership.
  #443  
Old 02-24-2020, 07:35 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 23,994
Really not too hard to just visit his site and read it.
  #444  
Old 02-25-2020, 09:00 PM
nearwildheaven is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 14,255
Earlier today, I saw on another website that he's paying his campaign workers $20 an hour. Maybe THIS is his plan to redistribute his wealth and reduce poverty?

  #445  
Old 03-04-2020, 09:26 AM
squeegee's Avatar
squeegee is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Aptos CA
Posts: 9,352
Bloomberg has dropped out, multiple sources reporting.
  #446  
Old 03-04-2020, 09:44 AM
cmkeller's Avatar
cmkeller is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: New York, NY, USA
Posts: 13,683
I'm shocked he's given up so quickly. It's not like he didn't know that he had an uphill climb, getting into the race so late.
__________________
"Sherlock Holmes once said that once you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the answer. I, however, do not like to eliminate the impossible. The impossible often has a kind of integrity to it that the merely improbable lacks."
-- Douglas Adams's Dirk Gently, Holistic Detective
  #447  
Old 03-04-2020, 09:51 AM
Loach's Avatar
Loach is offline
The Central Scrutinizer
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Pork Roll/Taylor Ham
Posts: 26,484
I don’t know if he ever could have won the nomination, but if he had been in from the beginning, been on all of the ballots and got his bad debates out of the way back when few were paying attention he might have made it very interesting.
  #448  
Old 03-04-2020, 09:51 AM
Wesley Clark's Avatar
Wesley Clark is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 23,869
that was half a billion well spent. So far he has only won 44 delegates, not nearly enough to deny Sanders the majority. But since it looks like Sanders probably won't get it anyway, it doesn't really matter anymore.

Bloomberg could've spent that half a billion dollars investing in GOTV efforts and registration drives all over the country.

It is a good day for democracy, this shows you can't just buy an election.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion

Last edited by Wesley Clark; 03-04-2020 at 09:54 AM.
  #449  
Old 03-04-2020, 09:57 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 20,144
What? You don't assume that this is all part of some other secret plot?
  #450  
Old 03-04-2020, 10:20 AM
Buck Godot's Avatar
Buck Godot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: MD outside DC
Posts: 6,517
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmkeller View Post
I'm shocked he's given up so quickly. It's not like he didn't know that he had an uphill climb, getting into the race so late.
But his entire strategy rested on the idea of skipping the small early states so that he could get a jump on a Super Tuesday. If he couldn't even come close to winning on the day that he had spent the most money and effort on, how is is going to pull it off going forward. Also he realizes that if he stays in he's, at best, going to be a spoiler for Biden, and who he (rightly in my opinion), thinks has the best chance of beating Trump. So for his political goals he's best off dropping out and spending his money promoting Biden rather than himself.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:44 PM.

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.

 
Copyright © 2017