Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 02-05-2020, 04:19 PM
Boycott is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 537
I can't get behind him until I actually see him for myself. He needs to get on a debate stage or at least participate in a TV broadcast town hall. It comes down to perception and for now too much of the perception is from ads and imagery.
  #52  
Old 02-06-2020, 11:49 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 23,647
Biden's chances are clearly decreased after his Iowa performance and likely will be hurt more by an expected poor showing in New Hampshire. My WAG is that his strong support among Black voters will soften mightily if he loses his narrative of most electable with a very poor New Hampshire showing.

If I had to bet right now I'd give Bloomberg the best odds of the bunch. Yeah he needs to show some chops on the debate stage. And I think he will. Mayor of New York was a tough stage to perform on. He's tested.
  #53  
Old 02-06-2020, 07:34 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 12,627
I agree that Bloomberg needs to have an audition for the role, which is what getting a spot on the debate stage would offer.
  #54  
Old 02-06-2020, 07:43 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 42,393
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Biden's chances are clearly decreased after his Iowa performance and likely will be hurt more by an expected poor showing in New Hampshire. My WAG is that his strong support among Black voters will soften mightily if he loses his narrative of most electable with a very poor New Hampshire showing.

If I had to bet right now I'd give Bloomberg the best odds of the bunch. Yeah he needs to show some chops on the debate stage. And I think he will. Mayor of New York was a tough stage to perform on. He's tested.
As a supporter of Warren/Sanders, I agree. I think moderate Democrats are freaking the fuck out right now, and that's what Bloomberg is counting on.

And honestly, I'm used to voting for folks I'm less than thrilled about; and from what I know about Bloomberg, which is not a shit-ton, I like him better than Biden. So if it takes a billionaire to catch a billionaire, I got my clothespin ready.

Last edited by Left Hand of Dorkness; 02-06-2020 at 07:43 PM.
  #55  
Old 02-06-2020, 07:54 PM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 16,973
Politico article: Why Bloomberg's Spending Goes Too Far

TL;DR version: Bloomberg's solution to everything campaign-related is to lazily throw money and more money at it, rather than develop authentic campaigning techniques and building rapport with voters in person.
  #56  
Old 02-06-2020, 07:55 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 12,627
The problem with the Bloomberg scenario is that he's running out of time. According to most polls, Biden would have to have a catastrophic collapse in the polls to give Bloomberg an opening. Iowa's results were bad for Biden, but speculation aside, do we know that his performance was so bad that people might actually encourage him to drop out of the race? Because I think that's almost what would be required for Bloomberg to compete with Sanders, who's only become more popular these last few days. And we can't rule out that Buttigieg and Warren might also feed off of Biden's carcass as well.

At the moment, what Bloomberg seems most poised to do is to deny Sanders (and anyone else) enough delegates for the nomination. I don't see Bloomberg winning California even with a possible Biden meltdown. It seems like the Bloomberg strategy (if one exists) is to lose battles but ultimately win the war, which would be legal and within the rules and all that. But Bernie Bros would go berserk and some might take their votes with them.
  #57  
Old 02-06-2020, 07:58 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 12,627
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Politico article: Why Bloomberg's Spending Goes Too Far

TL;DR version: Bloomberg's solution to everything campaign-related is to lazily throw money and more money at it, rather than develop authentic campaigning techniques and building rapport with voters in person.
I saw the name Rich Lowry and stopped reading.

Know your sources.
  #58  
Old 02-06-2020, 08:00 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,826
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Politico article: Why Bloomberg's Spending Goes Too Far

TL;DR version: Bloomberg's solution to everything campaign-related is to lazily throw money and more money at it, rather than develop authentic campaigning techniques and building rapport with voters in person.
Yeah, I'm betting the people Bloomberg hires to direct his money spending know a metric shit tonne more than some rumor transcriber at Politico.
  #59  
Old 02-06-2020, 09:25 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 23,647
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
The problem with the Bloomberg scenario is that he's running out of time. According to most polls, Biden would have to have a catastrophic collapse in the polls to give Bloomberg an opening. Iowa's results were bad for Biden, but speculation aside, do we know that his performance was so bad that people might actually encourage him to drop out of the race? ...
Per Open Secrets he has less than $9 million of cash on hand. Buttigieg has $14.5 million and Sanders over $18 million. Bloomberg? A bit more.

Competing in the spread of states coming up takes money, more than $9 million. Sanders and Buttigieg will be able to replenish their accounts to at least competitive degrees. If Biden fails to place in New Hampshire, and there is another candidate perceived as electable and center Left ... then he won't get enough new funding to compete meaningfully going forward. No one would have to tell him to quit; he'd just fade away.
  #60  
Old 02-07-2020, 09:44 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 12,627
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Per Open Secrets he has less than $9 million of cash on hand. Buttigieg has $14.5 million and Sanders over $18 million. Bloomberg? A bit more.

Competing in the spread of states coming up takes money, more than $9 million. Sanders and Buttigieg will be able to replenish their accounts to at least competitive degrees. If Biden fails to place in New Hampshire, and there is another candidate perceived as electable and center Left ... then he won't get enough new funding to compete meaningfully going forward. No one would have to tell him to quit; he'd just fade away.
That could happen; I just don't know that it will - yet.

Will be interesting to see.

ETA: Just to be clear, I don't see Biden winning. Biden will collapse; I'm just wondering if he collapses hard and fast enough for Bloomberg to step in and take control of that center position.

Last edited by asahi; 02-07-2020 at 09:46 AM.
  #61  
Old 02-07-2020, 10:25 AM
The wind of my soul is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Washington, D.C.
Posts: 2,078
I wasn't real familiar with Bloomberg, so I did a bit of homework on him last night. My thoughts:

- I think his wealth is his biggest asset, in terms of what sets him apart from other candidates. Romney ran almost entirely on the platform that he was a successful businessman and knew how to fix the economy in 2012; it didn't get him the presidency but it did get him the party's nomination. Trump didn't make it his "platform," but Trump supporters did see his business experience as an asset. I don't think this view of equating successful in business with knowing how to improve the economy is limited to Republicans. Where this hypothesis falls apart a bit is when you look at Steyer, who's also a successful businessman. My guess is that Bloomberg's success over Steyer is due to three things: (1) greater name recognition, (2) actual government experience, (3) I get the impression Bloomberg plays up his wealth and sees it as more of an asset himself, whereas Steyer doesn't seem as comfortable with owning it. IIRC, there was one debate where Warren was championing her wealth tax and Steyer essentially just jumped on the bandwagon and said me too.

- Throughout this election cycle, I've said that Biden was a lock for the nomination. I have never seen someone be a front-runner in the primaries for the entire duration of pre-election campaigning and not win the candidacy. (To be fair, the sample size is small.) But in studying Bloomberg, I'm starting to notice another realistic scenario. Bloomberg has been focusing on campaigning in Big Tuesday states, particularly Texas and California, with their large delegate counts. I believe Biden was counting on Big Tuesday being the day when he really cemented his status as the front-runner, since he doesn't have a huge lead in the first four states. And then there's Buttigieg, who just did very well in Iowa and is poised to do well in New Hampshire as well.

What if Buttigieg gains momentum from surpassing expectations in Iowa and New Hampshire, and some Biden supporters switch over to him? And what if Bloomberg's efforts in the Big Tuesday states are successful, and he seizes a sizable block of Biden supporters as well? And Super Tuesday votes wind up being split between Buttigieg, Biden, and Bloomberg, while Sanders winds up with more delegates than anyone, since the progressive faction appears to be coalescing around him now?

Sanders could easily wind up being the nominee in this scenario, which would probably make him the most far-left candidate ever put forth as a candidate for the general election. And (this happened before I was born, so maybe I'm wrong on this part) as I understand it, the last time Democrats put forth a far-left candidate, that candidate was defeated in an absolute landslide. (I'm thinking of McGovern vs. Nixon. If I'm wrong on that, please let me know.)
  #62  
Old 02-07-2020, 11:46 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 23,647
A real scenario in my estimation is Sanders having a narrow plurality but significantly short the majority, even adding in all of Warrens delegates. The center Left group together OTOH have a solid majority with Bloomberg the very solid leader of the group.

Second vote which way ethically SHOULD delegates, including the then able to vote superdelegates, vote? Pretty sure which way it would go. And pretty sure if the circumstance was Biden in the Sanders position and Sanders in the Bloomberg that Sanders would be saying that the supers should vote for him as the progressive faction got the most votes. Pretty sure though that in my hypothetical hell be yelling how not giving it the one who got the most votes is unfair undemocratic and a fixed back room process stacked against him. And sulking for a while.
  #63  
Old 02-07-2020, 02:51 PM
The wind of my soul is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Washington, D.C.
Posts: 2,078
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
The center Left group together OTOH have a solid majority with Bloomberg the very solid leader of the group.
How is Bloomberg the solid leader of the group?

I mean, if you're trying to say that Bloomberg could become the solid leader, then I agree. But considering that he doesn't have a single delegate to his name yet, I don't know how you could say that Bloomberg is already the leader of the group.
  #64  
Old 02-07-2020, 03:01 PM
Happy Lendervedder's Avatar
Happy Lendervedder is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Michigan
Posts: 15,659
I wouldn't say he's the leader just yet, but Bloomberg's on his way there. Step one, watch Biden drop in the polls (especially in in SC and NV) and Bernie rise (while picking ups some choice endorsements along the way). Step two, watch Biden get trounced in the first two states to vote. Step three, rise up a little bit higher in the polls (both national and Super Tuesday/March 10 states).

He's got step one done. Step two should be complete by Tuesday night. Step three, at the rate he's climbing right now, could be accomplished by the end of next week. I don't think he even needs a delegate to be considered the leader of the middle lane. Just the elimination of Biden as a competitor and strong poll numbers in the March-voting states.

Last edited by Happy Lendervedder; 02-07-2020 at 03:02 PM.
  #65  
Old 02-07-2020, 03:03 PM
Rick Kitchen's Avatar
Rick Kitchen is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Citrus Heights, CA, USA
Posts: 18,114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Lendervedder View Post
I wouldn't say he's the leader just yet, but Bloomberg's on his way there. Step one, watch Biden drop in the polls and Bernie rise (while picking ups some choice endorsements along the way). Step two, watch Biden get trounced in the first two states to vote. Step three, rise up a little bit higher in the polls (both national and Super Tuesday/March 10 states).

He's got step one done. Step two should be complete by Tuesday night. Step three, at the rate he's climbing right now, could be accomplished by the end of next week. I don't think he even needs a delegate to be considered the leader of the middle lane. Just the elimination of Biden as a competitor and strong poll numbers in the March-voting states.
South Carolina will go big for Biden and his stock will rise tremendously afterwards.
  #66  
Old 02-07-2020, 03:11 PM
Happy Lendervedder's Avatar
Happy Lendervedder is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Michigan
Posts: 15,659
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Kitchen View Post
South Carolina will go big for Biden and his stock will rise tremendously afterwards.
His poll numbers are dropping by the day in SC, and it's happening as a result of his abysmal results in IA. Do you think his numbers in SC will turn around after he finishes fourth in NH? How about if he loses NV? Will his support in SC go up then?

He may "win" in SC, but don't expect this to be the savior it was once thought to be for him, as far as delegate count goes.

I have a hard time believing "his stock" will go up tremendously at this point no matter what the outcome in SC is. He's getting shellacked and is struggling with fundraising.
  #67  
Old 02-07-2020, 03:51 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 23,647
Quote:
Originally Posted by The wind of my soul View Post
How is Bloomberg the solid leader of the group?

I mean, if you're trying to say that Bloomberg could become the solid leader, then I agree. But considering that he doesn't have a single delegate to his name yet, I don't know how you could say that Bloomberg is already the leader of the group.
Sorry if it was unclear that I was presenting what I can see as a realistic scenario of where this might end up by the end of the primary process. Not where we currently are.
  #68  
Old 02-07-2020, 03:58 PM
cmkeller's Avatar
cmkeller is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: New York, NY, USA
Posts: 13,617
A minor question for the OP - why the quote marks around "Mike" in the thread title? Isn't that his name?
__________________
"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
  #69  
Old 02-07-2020, 09:14 PM
Rick Kitchen's Avatar
Rick Kitchen is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Citrus Heights, CA, USA
Posts: 18,114
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmkeller View Post
A minor question for the OP - why the quote marks around "Mike" in the thread title? Isn't that his name?
I'm the person who created the thread, and I put Mike in quotes because he was Michael till he decided to run for President. He's running ads with Obama making nice comments about him and Obama calls him Michael throughout.
  #70  
Old 02-07-2020, 10:37 PM
pjacks is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Chicago
Posts: 300
So what's Bloomberg's endgame? According to 538, Sanders has about a 1 in 2 chance to get a delegate majority outright.

There is about a 25% chance no candidate gets a majority. In this scenario Sanders is likely to enter the convention with a delegate plurality.

So Bloomberg stans- explain to me what happens. Do you think Bloomberg, or any other "moderate" candidate, can convince their opponents to give him all their delegates to put him over the threshold? How do you think certain voters will react to the candidate who won the primary popular vote being denied the nomination, by a billionaire former Republican no less? We've been hearing for 3 years about how HRC won the popular vote (by plurality) nonstop and how that is all that matters. What changed? Do you think there will simply be severely depressed voter turnout among Democrats in November, or will there also be riots in the streets of Milwaukee to look forward to?

It's bonkers. This road leads to ruin and would destroy the party, and rightfuly so.

You don't want Sanders as the nominee? Fine. All the Non-Bernies need to drop out immediately, save for one acceptable centrist Democrat. Warren can also stay in to continue to split the Left vote. If Bloomberg is the Chosen One, then the party leaders/donors need to pull off the band-aid immediately and tell Pete, Biden & Amy to drop out ASAP. Have them hold a joint press conference so they can give some song and dance about how impressed they are with Bloomberg and how they know on their hearts that he is the president we need in these troubled times, or some bullshit like that.

This isn't some deep mystery- we saw what happened in 2016 on the GOP side. Trump had too many opponents who all took their turn as the party's chosen savior, and they all failed to overtake Trump because there were always other Non-Trumps still in the race sucking up votes and campaign donations until it was too late. It's happening again, clear as day.

Last edited by pjacks; 02-07-2020 at 10:42 PM.
  #71  
Old 02-07-2020, 10:47 PM
Happy Lendervedder's Avatar
Happy Lendervedder is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Michigan
Posts: 15,659
The difference is HRC campaigned poorly. She was looking to expand the electoral map before having the blue wall in-hand. Bloomberg doesn't seem to be repeating that mistake. He's visiting states he needs to both win the nom AND win the genera,l all the while others are dumping their cash and time into two states that will offer up 74 delegates and are electoral map road apples.

Sure, he may not excite the left, but most of them will turn out. However, the bulk of the Dems across the country still seem to prefer a moderate.

Last edited by Happy Lendervedder; 02-07-2020 at 10:49 PM.
  #72  
Old 02-07-2020, 11:14 PM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 16,973
Quote:
Originally Posted by pjacks View Post
Do you think there will simply be severely depressed voter turnout among Democrats in November, or will there also be riots in the streets of Milwaukee to look forward to?
I think the Democratic convention, no matter how chaotic or prolonged, will still give enough time between then and November that the party will patch any wounds and come against Trump as a unified whole. Three months is a long time. They hate Trump enough that splintering the vote won't be an issue this time. It's not like the Democrats are only going to announce their final candidate two weeks before Election Day.
  #73  
Old 02-07-2020, 11:36 PM
pjacks is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Chicago
Posts: 300
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
I think the Democratic convention, no matter how chaotic or prolonged, will still give enough time between then and November that the party will patch any wounds and come against Trump as a unified whole. Three months is a long time. They hate Trump enough that splintering the vote won't be an issue this time. It's not like the Democrats are only going to announce their final candidate two weeks before Election Day.
Craziness. I'd rather have 4 more years of Trump rather than ever again vote for a party that so ghoulishly subverts the will of its voters. A billionaire former Republican installed as the nominee by a smoke-filled room of party elites- you couldn't make up a better way to irreversibly piss off at least a quarter of Democrats. Insane.

If Bloomberg must be the nominee, he needs to win the most delegates or he will be deemed illegitimate by a substantial number of people.

Last edited by pjacks; 02-07-2020 at 11:38 PM.
  #74  
Old 02-07-2020, 11:37 PM
Wesley Clark's Avatar
Wesley Clark is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 23,478
Quote:
Originally Posted by The wind of my soul View Post

- I think his wealth is his biggest asset, in terms of what sets him apart from other candidates. Romney ran almost entirely on the platform that he was a successful businessman and knew how to fix the economy in 2012; it didn't get him the presidency but it did get him the party's nomination. Trump didn't make it his "platform," but Trump supporters did see his business experience as an asset. I don't think this view of equating successful in business with knowing how to improve the economy is limited to Republicans. Where this hypothesis falls apart a bit is when you look at Steyer, who's also a successful businessman. My guess is that Bloomberg's success over Steyer is due to three things: (1) greater name recognition, (2) actual government experience, (3) I get the impression Bloomberg plays up his wealth and sees it as more of an asset himself, whereas Steyer doesn't seem as comfortable with owning it. IIRC, there was one debate where Warren was championing her wealth tax and Steyer essentially just jumped on the bandwagon and said me too.
I think that despite them both being billionaires, Bloomberg's wealth is on a different level than Steyers. Steyers entire net worth is one years income to Bloomberg.

I think one appeal of being a billionaire candidate is that you can't be bribed. Nobody can offer you 50 million dollar in exchange for your obedience, as you already have your own money. Trump played up this aspect of his wealth a lot, how he couldn't be bribed but he had done a lot of bribing of politicians himself.

However Bloomberg does have skeletons. Not just stop and frisk, but he spent 11 million helping to re-elect GOP senator Pat Toomey in 2016. Seeing how close the senate is right now, and how its possible to win it back in 2020, Bloomberg has to answer why he was giving millions to GOP senators as recently as 4 years ago. He also gave a quarter million dollars to Lindsay Grahams campaign in 2014.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/26/u...donations.html

Quote:
Originally Posted by The wind of my soul View Post
Sanders could easily wind up being the nominee in this scenario, which would probably make him the most far-left candidate ever put forth as a candidate for the general election. And (this happened before I was born, so maybe I'm wrong on this part) as I understand it, the last time Democrats put forth a far-left candidate, that candidate was defeated in an absolute landslide. (I'm thinking of McGovern vs. Nixon. If I'm wrong on that, please let me know.)
The vast majority of people who voted in 1972 are dead now, and the people who vote are totally different people. Either way, LBJ won in a landslide in 1964 and he was pretty far left too. FDR and LBJ were pretty far left by todays standards and they won in landslides. But either way its not pertinent, as virtually eveyrone who voted back then is dead now. The youngest people to vote in the 1972 election are almost 70 now.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion

Last edited by Wesley Clark; 02-07-2020 at 11:40 PM.
  #75  
Old 02-08-2020, 08:49 AM
Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 11,261
I think there is a risk some liberals stay home if Bloomberg is the nominee. Of course some moderates may stay home if it's Sanders. I guess Dems need to pick their poison.
  #76  
Old 02-08-2020, 09:42 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 12,627
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijou Drains View Post
I think there is a risk some liberals stay home if Bloomberg is the nominee. Of course some moderates may stay home if it's Sanders. I guess Dems need to pick their poison.
There is the risk, but voters in both camps should swallow their pride and accept that either of these two would be better than Trump. Especially in these times, general elections are not the occasion to express your displeasure with the primary process.

Our entire political system is under threat. There is a very real risk that we may never again have normal elections after 2020. It's a real risk that the 2020 election itself may not be a normal election. We cannot become a circular firing squad. We have to recognize and act against the danger that's in front of us, and that danger is Trump.

I personally fear the consequences in terms of policy and the long-term reputation of the democratic party if Sanders gets elected, but that wouldn't mean shit to me if it's him against Trump. The danger with Sanders in my eyes is that he turns out to be a monumental mistake, but one that voters can correct. With Trump, he is a mistake that the Constitution's mechanisms have been unable to stop and unable to fix, and that cancer will metastasize if he's in power past January 2021.
  #77  
Old 02-08-2020, 09:46 AM
The wind of my soul is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Washington, D.C.
Posts: 2,078
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijou Drains View Post
I think there is a risk some liberals stay home if Bloomberg is the nominee. Of course some moderates may stay home if it's Sanders. I guess Dems need to pick their poison.
Seriously??? Liberals absolutely hate Trump enough that they would vote for Bloomberg rather than stay home. Moderates don't hate Trump nearly as much.
  #78  
Old 02-10-2020, 01:13 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 40,897
If the Dems were to nominate the personification of Alfred E. Neuman, I'd vote for him against Trump. Hell, if they were to resurrect Richard Nixon from the grave and run him against Trump, I'd vote for Tricky Dick. So sure, if Bloomberg wins the nomination, I'll vote for Bloomberg in November.

Actually, I'm starting to be more than a little Bloomberg-curious. Two reasons:

1) He seems to take climate change very seriously, and as Warren might say, he's got a plan for that.

I think the thing that really struck me about his view on climate change is that, well, it's easy to have a little "Climate Change" box on your issues page for you to click on, but even if he's got a good plan, who knows how important it is to him, really?

Then I clicked on the box for "Puerto Rico." And the first sentence is:
Quote:
Puerto Rico has been hard hit by climate change over the last twenty years.
To me, suggests that for him, climate change is not just in that one box.

2) He hasn't said a word about the filibuster AFAIK. But if he's the sort of guy who wouldn't get extremely pissed at the notion that a Democratic Senate majority might put that arcane tradition ahead of actually getting important shit done, then I've totally misread him.

I'm really not keen on the notion of nominating a mega-billionaire for President. But we've got to deal aggressively with climate change, and soon. There are other problems that we should fix now, but won't kill us to wait a decade. If Biden and Sanders are willing to let arcane Senate traditions get in the way of trying to save the fucking planet, which it appears they are, then fuck both of 'em.

If Warren's campaign is going nowhere, which is the way it looks right now, Bloomberg might be the best bet.

I didn't really say that, did I?

Apparently I did.

Last edited by RTFirefly; 02-10-2020 at 01:14 PM.
  #79  
Old 02-10-2020, 01:34 PM
Ann Hedonia's Avatar
Ann Hedonia is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,933
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
If the Dems were to nominate the personification of Alfred E. Neuman, I'd vote for him against Trump. Hell, if they were to resurrect Richard Nixon from the grave and run him against Trump, I'd vote for Tricky Dick. So sure, if Bloomberg wins the nomination, I'll vote for Bloomberg in November.

Actually, I'm starting to be more than a little Bloomberg-curious. Two reasons:

1) He seems to take climate change very seriously, and as Warren might say, he's got a plan for that.

I think the thing that really struck me about his view on climate change is that, well, it's easy to have a little "Climate Change" box on your issues page for you to click on, but even if he's got a good plan, who knows how important it is to him, really?

Then I clicked on the box for "Puerto Rico." And the first sentence is: To me, suggests that for him, climate change is not just in that one box.

2) He hasn't said a word about the filibuster AFAIK. But if he's the sort of guy who wouldn't get extremely pissed at the notion that a Democratic Senate majority might put that arcane tradition ahead of actually getting important shit done, then I've totally misread him.

I'm really not keen on the notion of nominating a mega-billionaire for President. But we've got to deal aggressively with climate change, and soon. There are other problems that we should fix now, but won't kill us to wait a decade. If Biden and Sanders are willing to let arcane Senate traditions get in the way of trying to save the fucking planet, which it appears they are, then fuck both of 'em.

If Warren's campaign is going nowhere, which is the way it looks right now, Bloomberg might be the best bet.

I didn't really say that, did I?

Apparently I did.
He not only has a plan, hes actually been enacting policy. Hes partnered with the Sierra Club in an initiative to eliminate coal fired power plants.
Since 2011, theyve closed 299 of them ( out of the 515 ).

https://content.sierraclub.org/coal/...halfway-moving
(Note: this article is from 2017 and they give the number of shuttered plants at 262. But the updated number is 299.

Hes selected 25 partner cities and hes working with them in a 2 year program to move them towards sustainability, providing them with funding, expertise and data to enact their own programs.

https://www.bloomberg.org/program/en...enge/#overview

That why I like him, hes not just talk.
  #80  
Old 02-10-2020, 02:03 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 40,897
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ann Hedonia View Post
He not only has a plan, hes actually been enacting policy. Hes partnered with the Sierra Club in an initiative to eliminate coal fired power plants.
Since 2011, theyve closed 299 of them ( out of the 515 ).

https://content.sierraclub.org/coal/...halfway-moving
(Note: this article is from 2017 and they give the number of shuttered plants at 262. But the updated number is 299.

Hes selected 25 partner cities and hes working with them in a 2 year program to move them towards sustainability, providing them with funding, expertise and data to enact their own programs.

https://www.bloomberg.org/program/en...enge/#overview

That why I like him, hes not just talk.
Because I have only started coming around to taking him seriously, I hadn't bothered to learn much about him until now. So this is good to know.
  #81  
Old 02-10-2020, 02:54 PM
Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 11,261
People on the far left possibly stay home or vote Green if Bloomberg is the nominee. Not a lot of people, but some maybe enough to get Trump re-elected. A smaller group of moderate Dems will possibly stay home if Sanders is the guy.
  #82  
Old 02-10-2020, 03:17 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 4,755
I wonder how many people forget, or ever even knew, that Bloomberg was a lifelong Democrat before switching to the Republican party to run in and eventually win the election to become mayor of NYC. People see another rich guy from New York and just assume he is really a Republican. I have no idea, of course. But for another example of his Democrat bona fides, check out his position on gun control. As for him being rich, I'm not really concerned about that because it seems to me that once you are as rich as Bloomberg, running for president just to add to your wealth (present president notwithstanding) and what one would do when elected regarding that wealth just isn't an issue with me. And given his history since leaving the mayorship, his philanthropy, I think he definitely deserves a good look.

Last edited by Fiddle Peghead; 02-10-2020 at 03:18 PM.
  #83  
Old 02-10-2020, 04:19 PM
Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 11,261
Many people don't know Trump was a pro choice Dem for a long while. The media pointed that out when he first entered the race.
  #84  
Old 02-10-2020, 04:25 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 23,647
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ann Hedonia View Post
And he will get those endorsements. Hes 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.
This I think is worth returning to. Not my original thought but this track record has many mayors willing to put their GOTV machines in his service during both the primary and general elections. Running it up in the cities while winning the suburbs is not a bad tactic.
  #85  
Old 02-10-2020, 06:00 PM
Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 11,261
Bloomberg in town Thurs I might go see him.
  #86  
Old 02-10-2020, 06:04 PM
Boycott is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 537
What is fascinating about Bloomberg's strategy is by jumping in so late and skipping the early states to pump his own money - hundreds of millions worth - into the Super Tuesday delegate rich states, is it is making everyone else (candidates and pundits) look foolish.

While everyone else was fighting over wine caves and the purity of super pacs, Bloomberg saw it as democrats stupidly tying their own hands behind their back and more importantly saw an opening. He is now polling closely behind Warren in the RCP tracker, and in some selective national polls above her.

While busing from the 1970s became a hot topic in this primary it ultimately did not hurt Biden with black voters. But Mr Stop and Frisk has now taken the number two spot according to a recent poll (even if it is exaggerated as it shows Biden down 20 points but it's clear Biden has lost some support to Bloomberg as everyone else is pretty much flat). This strengthens the notion some of us have been arguing that when you listen to black voters, especially older ones, their number one goal is to beat Trump. They are pragmatic and the real politically sharp voters. Too much of this primary have been about bullshit talking points that appeal to a small but vocal constituency.

This might be premature but I don't how there is enough time in the calendar to stop Bloomberg if Biden tanks.

Because Bloomberg has been skipping the early states, his ads and targeted media is focusing 100% on Trump. He has been running a shadow GE campaign while everyone else has been sparring fellow democrats.

Because Bloomberg has been self-funding his campaign he has not qualified for the three debates he has been eligible despite meeting the polling requirement. Now the donor requirement has been scrapped he will qualify for the next debate. In addition he has not participated in a town hall Q&A and has done very few network interviews. That's not been a bad thing for his campaign --- because it allows his ads and targeted media to portray himself as presidential and electable. Most people have not heard him on the stump or off the cuff. By the time we do the image of Bloomberg might have already grown big enough that he will not be pulled back.

Last edited by Boycott; 02-10-2020 at 06:07 PM.
  #87  
Old 02-10-2020, 08:34 PM
Ann Hedonia's Avatar
Ann Hedonia is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,933
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
This I think is worth returning to. Not my original thought but this track record has many mayors willing to put their GOTV machines in his service during both the primary and general elections. Running it up in the cities while winning the suburbs is not a bad tactic.
He has the endorsement of the mayor of Flint, MI, who is talking about the help he gave the city during the water crisis. He also has the endorsements of the mayors of Philadelphia, Washington DC and Compton CA (along with many others ). This will, I think, help him make inroads with black voters.

It will be a stretch for even Trump to paint him as a Radical Socialist, and hes not going to spook the financial markets.
  #88  
Old 02-10-2020, 11:30 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,903
Hard to figure out where his support is coming from. The only major candidate whose vote share has been falling since he started rising is Warren (Biden has obviously fallen since Iowa but was holding steady before). Seems weird that he would be the second choice of so many Warren supporters. Either that or they’re coming from the previously undecided voters.

I’m not taking him super seriously at this point. Progressives aren’t going for him and I can’t really see him winning much of the white working class vote. The sexual harassment stuff isn’t going to help. We’ll see what happens to his polling numbers once the other candidates start attacking him.
__________________
Please...we prefer the term "Bernard Brother".
  #89  
Old 02-11-2020, 04:09 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 40,897
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
As for him being rich, I'm not really concerned about that because it seems to me that once you are as rich as Bloomberg, running for president just to add to your wealth (present president notwithstanding) and what one would do when elected regarding that wealth just isn't an issue with me. And given his history since leaving the mayorship, his philanthropy, I think he definitely deserves a good look.
The problem IMO with a super-rich officeholder is that they see the world very differently from people who have to worry about the monthly bills, that they inhabit such a different universe that they have no sense of what it's like down here, you have no sense of what ordinary people's problems are that the government might should do something about.

One of the things I appreciate about Warren is that she's been there.
  #90  
Old 02-11-2020, 06:39 AM
John Bredin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: BuffaloGrove IL (Chicago)
Posts: 2,148
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijou Drains View Post
People on the far left possibly stay home or vote Green if Bloomberg is the nominee.
The two or three posts before the quoted one are about Bloomberg's bona fides on the environment and climate change. I need not expound on Trump's record on the environment (EPA, Interior Dep't, Paris Accords, etc.) and contempt for acknowledging much less addressing global warming. If the election comes down to Trump vs. Bloomberg, anyone on the far left who votes Green or stays home might as well start calling themselves climate change deniers because the effect would be the same.
  #91  
Old 02-11-2020, 06:42 AM
cmkeller's Avatar
cmkeller is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: New York, NY, USA
Posts: 13,617
Rick Kitchen:

Quote:
I'm the person who created the thread, and I put Mike in quotes because he was Michael till he decided to run for President. He's running ads with Obama making nice comments about him and Obama calls him Michael throughout.
Perhaps that was true of before he got into politics at all (I don't know much of how he referred to himself as a businessman alone) but he certainly went by "Mike" before the presidential campaign. Here's an image from 2009
__________________
"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
  #92  
Old 02-11-2020, 08:28 AM
Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 11,261
I will see him Thursday , they have not picked a site yet. Rain is predicted so I figure it will be indoors. Guess he can afford to rent any place.
  #93  
Old 02-11-2020, 09:30 AM
Steve MB is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 13,594
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boycott View Post
his ads and targeted media is focusing 100% on Trump
This could prove to be an effective strategy for picking up Democratic voters who are sick of the internecine pie fights and worried about the party snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
__________________
The Internet: Nobody knows if you're a dog. Everybody knows if you're a jackass.
  #94  
Old 02-11-2020, 09:49 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 40,897
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Bredin View Post
The two or three posts before the quoted one are about Bloomberg's bona fides on the environment and climate change. I need not expound on Trump's record on the environment (EPA, Interior Dep't, Paris Accords, etc.) and contempt for acknowledging much less addressing global warming. If the election comes down to Trump vs. Bloomberg, anyone on the far left who votes Green or stays home might as well start calling themselves climate change deniers because the effect would be the same.
This. Anyone who considers themselves Green who doesn't vote for the Democratic nominee in November, regardless of who that is, is clearly treating political and ideological purity as being of greater importance than climate change and the environment.

Last edited by RTFirefly; 02-11-2020 at 09:50 AM.
  #95  
Old 02-11-2020, 09:50 AM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 40,758
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve MB View Post
This could prove to be an effective strategy for picking up Democratic voters who are sick of the internecine pie fights and worried about the party snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
Possibly not minorities, though.
Quote:
"So one of the unintended consequences is people say, 'Oh my God, you are arresting kids for marijuana that are all minorities.' Yes, that's true. Why? Because we put all the cops in minority neighborhoods," Bloomberg is heard saying on the recording. "Yes, that's true. Why do we do it? Because that's where all the crime is. And the way you get the guns out of the kids' hands is to throw them up against the wall and frisk them... And then they start... 'Oh I don't want to get caught.' So they don't bring the gun. They still have a gun, but they leave it at home."
Quote:
The Aspen Times reported at the time that Bloomberg representatives asked the Institute not to distribute footage of his appearance.
Cite.

Which highlights a problem I have with many Democratic/progressive policies, and I don't think it is limited just to me. Putting more cops in high-crime neighborhoods is common sense. But it seems to be controversial among Democrats. They'd rather talk about "whiteness" or something.

Bloomberg has supposedly disavowed his position. Which, IMO, means he is backing off from common sense. I suppose this is the usual "run in primaries from the extreme, and when nominated, race back to the middle". I wonder if Bloomberg is going to get a chance to race back anywhere.

Regards,
Shodan
  #96  
Old 02-11-2020, 10:05 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,826
You think backing off "stop and frisk" is an extreme position? Hoookay.
  #97  
Old 02-11-2020, 10:50 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 40,897
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Mayor of New York was a tough stage to perform on. He's tested.
We've got two former mayors left in the race: the mayor of NYC, and the mayor of...South Bend, Indiana???

I'm thinking only one of these guys really has the chops to belong in this race.
  #98  
Old 02-11-2020, 10:57 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 40,897
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Which highlights a problem I have with many Democratic/progressive policies, and I don't think it is limited just to me. Putting more cops in high-crime neighborhoods is common sense. But it seems to be controversial among Democrats.
Nothing wrong with putting cops in high-crime neighborhoods in order to reduce violent crime. That's absolutely great, AFAIAC.

The problem comes when the cops expand their mission well beyond that, and bust the people living there for a lot of trivial shit like marijuana possession. That makes the residents of those neighborhoods soooooooooooooo much safer, right?

Basically that just punishes poor people for not being able to afford to live in a nicer neighborhood where the cops don't stop and frisk you for dope.
  #99  
Old 02-11-2020, 11:01 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,826
Couple new polls up on 538 and Bloomberg is nuzzling up to Warren with only 0.6% separating them.
  #100  
Old 02-11-2020, 11:24 AM
Mnemnosyne is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 370
I admit, I didn't see Bloomberg as a real possibility at first, since he declared his candidacy so late (I believe I read something about him not even being on the ballot in these early states, right?) so I figured he had no chance. I hear more and more about him actually having a chance, especially with Biden suddenly doing bad, and...honestly, I am confused. To me, it is looking like this billionaire suddenly decided to walk in and purchase the election (and the timing made it look like his reason for getting into it was because he was concerned about Warren or Sanders potentially winning), and...is maybe succeeding? I mean, to me, that looks just as bad as Trump winning with lies and false information. He is the one democratic candidate that I really, really do not want to vote for. It seems a lot of people here do not share that view, and it perplexes me that many of you don't.

So, to those of you who have no problem supporting him, or even actually would want him to win...why? I'm not against billionaires on principle: I would have voted for Steyer with no problem had he been the nominee, but Steyer didn't wait til after the race had started only to try to purchase victory.
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 07:19 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