Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 11-07-2019, 07:06 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 85,469
And here, I thought, as I was reading through this thread that it was bumped to mock the OP's prognostication skills, because it's obviously far past when anyone could be declaring their candidacy, and he hadn't.
  #52  
Old 11-07-2019, 08:16 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,610
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnT View Post
Lol, in trying to stop Warren, he just immensely helped her by:

1. Showing the powerful are actually scared of her*
2. If he continues, he'll merely split the moderate "why can't things be like the 90s" voters with Biden, Buttigieg, and others, thereby helping Warren seal the nom.

Politickin' is hard.
I'm sure you could sure teach that self made billionaire former mayor of New York a thing or two! Like your ability to know so confidently that he just helped Warren. I mean her recent plan announcements just scared the shit out of upper middle class and they would be pretty happy to have a new choice, but you know this will just energize all those people concerned about the rich being scared.
  #53  
Old 11-07-2019, 08:23 PM
JohnT's Avatar
JohnT is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 23,863
Lol, OK. Yeah, the number of Dems interested in voting for Blooomberg is so overwhelming that it's a wonder he ever dropped out in the first place. Is that the new narrative?

He's not getting her voters, so am interested in hearing how his possibly pealing off support from Biden, et al, harms her chances?

If the "concerned for the rich" voter (really? Is that a real thing?) wants a safe harbor, there's already Biden. Or Buttigieg. Or Weld. Or Booker. Or Trump.

I can say one thing with assurance, however: the votes Bloomberg gets will not be coming from Warren.
  #54  
Old 11-07-2019, 08:38 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,610
I know a couple posters on this board that had settled on Warren as the more vibrant and decently electable candidate - her all in plans of the last week has scared them. I hate to break it to you politicking expert, but she will lose votes to a moderate and since this isn't a first past the post situation, splitting them matters less than you seem to think. No frigging way is she clocking majority vote because of a vote split.

Last edited by CarnalK; 11-07-2019 at 08:39 PM.
  #55  
Old 11-07-2019, 09:01 PM
Damuri Ajashi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,512
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
So republican light is what you want?

Fuck that.
This is not the time for pushing radical agendas. Lets fight about that after we have decisively settled the issue of whether pandering to white supremacists is politically viable or not.

Quote:
What is considered the "left wing" of the party today used to be mainstream a few decades ago. The "center" has been pushed to the right.
Really? Because decades ago, gay marriage would never have gotten any traction.
Decades ago, there were a significant number of pro-life Democrats.
Decades ago, many of Bernie Sanders' proposals would be considered socialist if not communist.

Quote:
Seems to me Bloomberg aims to be a spoiler. He can't win but he can screw over a left candidate who would otherwise win by splitting the ticket and I suspect that is his only goal.
Then noone will vote for him.

People are voting against Trump, not FOR any particular candidate. We just need a candidate that won't scare off voters to put up against Trump.

Right now that looks like Biden and I don't see what advantage Bloomberg has over Biden and Bloomberg can use his money without running for office.
  #56  
Old 11-07-2019, 09:04 PM
Damuri Ajashi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,512
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
No chance the Democrats nominate anyone remotely acceptable to the NRA. They will lose some votes by pushing hard for gun control, but I think they'd lose more by not doing so.
You may be right, but the votes they would lose by pushing gun control will be in swing states and the votes they lose by not pushing gun control will be in blue states.

We don't need to win California by 5 million votes again only to lose the rest of the country by 2 million votes.
  #57  
Old 11-07-2019, 09:06 PM
Chingon is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: the hypersphere
Posts: 690
We?
  #58  
Old 11-07-2019, 09:07 PM
Damuri Ajashi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,512
Quote:
Originally Posted by JXJohns View Post
Just curious of who a liberal, life long gun proponent might be if they do exist. I'm coming up short...
Bernie Sanders is not as bad on guns as some of the others.

The NRA is going to be out in full force no matter what because the NRA is no longer a single issue organization. They are now a partisan organization. They now have opinions about unions and taxes.
  #59  
Old 11-07-2019, 09:09 PM
Damuri Ajashi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,512
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
Roughly half of democratic primary voters are liberals now. Unless he can win them over, I don't see him winning a primary.
I think people give a shit about electability.

I would vote for him if I thought he had a better chance than Biden.
  #60  
Old 11-07-2019, 09:16 PM
Damuri Ajashi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,512
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
There's nothing wrong with Bloomberg running as a Democrat. I have no problem with that. If he was running third party, that would be awful, but as a Democrat it's absolutely fine.
I agree. As long as he fades into the woodwork and supports the eventual Democratic candidate, I think he could help rein back from the the more radical ideas out there.
  #61  
Old 11-07-2019, 09:19 PM
Damuri Ajashi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,512
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chingon View Post
We?
Are you under the impression that all Democrats think exactly like you?
  #62  
Old 11-07-2019, 11:08 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,610
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
Bernie Sanders is not as bad on guns as some of the others.
If only someone had said that last year, immediately after.

Though, I seem to remember fact checking myself and seeing Sanders didn't generally get a good bgh grade from the NRA.
  #63  
Old 11-07-2019, 11:43 PM
actualliberalnotoneofthose is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 2,427
I guess the Dems needed a super wealthy guy with terrible ideas to outdo the other team.
  #64  
Old 11-07-2019, 11:56 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,610
eta: that "bgh" is accidental meaningless letters. Sorry!
  #65  
Old 11-08-2019, 12:11 AM
Unreconstructed Man is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 369
I guess we might finally get to see what happens when a self-promoting, egomaniacal asshole billionaire from New York City gets into the White House
  #66  
Old 11-08-2019, 12:56 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,610
How bad could it be?
  #67  
Old 11-08-2019, 02:33 AM
dba Fred is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,089
He Made It There, He Can Make It Anywhere! Bloomberg 2020
  #68  
Old 11-08-2019, 07:36 AM
JKellyMap's Avatar
JKellyMap is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 9,791
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
You may be right, but the votes they would lose by pushing gun control will be in swing states and the votes they lose by not pushing gun control will be in blue states.

We don't need to win California by 5 million votes again only to lose the rest of the country by 2 million votes.
I agree. The Dem candidate should be an absolute gun nut. Goes hunting every weekend.

Iím pro-gun control, but Iím confident that better gun laws can happen despite the Presidentís preferences/leisure activities. Much more important now is securing those 100,000 non-Trump votes of people living near the Great Lakes.
  #69  
Old 11-08-2019, 07:37 AM
JKellyMap's Avatar
JKellyMap is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 9,791
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Man View Post
I guess we might finally get to see what happens when a self-promoting, egomaniacal asshole billionaire from New York City gets into the White House
Heh.
  #70  
Old 11-08-2019, 07:53 AM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 9,426
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace View Post
It's high time we had a billionaire businessman from NYC as president! It's a novel idea, and I think it would do the country good.
Hey, what ever happened to this guy?
  #71  
Old 11-08-2019, 08:23 AM
RTFirefly is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,884
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
I mean her recent plan announcements just scared the shit out of upper middle class
I'm definitely upper middle class - can you remind me of what plans of hers were supposed to scare me? I seem to have missed the memo.
  #72  
Old 11-08-2019, 08:24 AM
RTFirefly is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,884
Quote:
Originally Posted by actualliberalnotoneofthose View Post
I guess the Dems needed a super wealthy guy with terrible ideas to outdo the other team.
We already had Steyer, now we've got two of them!
  #73  
Old 11-08-2019, 10:43 AM
Chingon is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: the hypersphere
Posts: 690
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
Are you under the impression that all Democrats think exactly like you?
I'm not using 'we' now am I?
  #74  
Old 11-08-2019, 12:03 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,610
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
I'm definitely upper middle class - can you remind me of what plans of hers were supposed to scare me? I seem to have missed the memo.
I'm sorry if I implied that your cohort is a hive mind. If nothing has scared you then nothing has scared you.
  #75  
Old 11-08-2019, 12:05 PM
RTFirefly is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,884
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
I'm sorry if I implied that your cohort is a hive mind. If nothing has scared you then nothing has scared you.
Obviously the phrase 'supposed to' eluded your comprehension.

Can't say I'm exactly surprised. I kinda figured you had nothing.
  #76  
Old 11-08-2019, 12:09 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,610
Yeah, you win the internet again.
  #77  
Old 11-08-2019, 12:14 PM
RTFirefly is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,884
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Yeah, you win the internet again.
Thanks! I've noticed on previous occasions that this is what you say when you have nothing to say. I acknowledge your concession.

ETA: So basically, there weren't any Warren plans that scared the upper middle class at all. Which is what I figured.

Last edited by RTFirefly; 11-08-2019 at 12:16 PM.
  #78  
Old 11-08-2019, 12:24 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,610
It mainly indicates I remembered how tiring discussions with you are. You know what I'm talking about but we have to go through a bunch disingenuous rhetorical questions. Here, a totally not freaked out upper middle class doper:
Quote:
Originally Posted by .. View Post
Warren's going all in on this plan is IMHO a horrible idea and demonstrates horrible judgement. I've never thought that she would be the best president of the bunch but I had managed to convince myself that she was possibly more electable than Biden as Biden has disappointed so far during this campaign. That's regrettably now past tense.

I am left with hoping that Biden either gets his shit together or falls so dramatically that he drops out leaving space for maybe Klobuchar to pop out of the lower tier ... the former is of course more likely.

Sigh.
Eta: I know this isn't extensive polling data. I am merely making a gut feeling prediction.

Last edited by CarnalK; 11-08-2019 at 12:28 PM.
  #79  
Old 11-08-2019, 05:25 PM
RTFirefly is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,884
Buahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yeah, "her recent plan announcements just scared the shit out of upper middle class" = one Doper.

"I know this isn't extensive polling data. I am merely making a gut feeling prediction" - maybe try using the future tense for predictions, rather than the past tense?

I mean, it should be easy to 'predict' the past, but you couldn't even manage that.
Quote:
You know what I'm talking about but we have to go through a bunch disingenuous rhetorical questions.
You made an assertion, and I asked what it was based on. When you're incapable of responding, then of course you will find discussions with me to be tiring. Such is life.

Last edited by RTFirefly; 11-08-2019 at 05:26 PM.
  #80  
Old 11-08-2019, 05:34 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,610
Bwahaha all you like. I never presented this as some intensive study. If you followed the conversation you jumped into, you'd see I was merely offering my gut feelings in response to someone else's.
  #81  
Old 11-08-2019, 06:22 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 11,025
I'm okay with Bloomberg's candidacy, but wish he would have entered the race sooner.

My guess is Bloomberg is motivated as much by Biden's weaknesses and flaws as he is by Warren's strength. From his point of view, there's no backup with mainstream centrist cred if Biden loses.
  #82  
Old 11-08-2019, 07:11 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,610
And the next time you ponder why I post "you win the internet", just reflect for even a second about what was going through your head, as an upper middle class adult, when you went to the trouble of typing out " Buahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!".
  #83  
Old 11-08-2019, 08:27 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 7,253
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
What major city was Sanders the mayor of?
Being the gadfly of the Senate is different from being an executive of a billion dollar empire and one of the world's largest cities that has a population larger than most American states.
Yes, Bloomberg has undoubted experience with governing. He has real credibility on that score.

But I'm not seeing a real appeal to two important constituencies: voters in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and other swing states; or voters of color. Also: being 76 doesn't make him unusual in this field, but it isn't an asset, either.


Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
... From his point of view, there's no backup with mainstream centrist cred if Biden loses.
The only person who'd be a slam-dunk in this race is Michelle Obama.

Her kids are now 21 and 18. She could do it if she wanted to. The thing is--with respect to this being a thread about Bloomberg--that she probably should start out as someone's Vice President to gain additional credibility for an ultimate run at the Presidency--which could be in 2024 if she VPed for one of the old candidates. (She's 55.)

Bloomberg should bend his efforts toward drafting her. He could promise to fund her favorite charity to the tune of many millions, for example. He could point out that Biden is faltering and there is real danger of Trump getting those Electoral College votes again. She may not be politically ambitious, but she'd respond to a call to public service.

Mike 'n' Michelle 2020!
  #84  
Old 11-08-2019, 08:32 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 11,025
I agree that Bloomberg is 4 years too late; I wanted him to run in 2016. But shit, if Biden fizzles and we're left with the rest of the field, Bloomberg can't be that bad.
  #85  
Old 11-08-2019, 08:49 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 7,253
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
I agree that Bloomberg is 4 years too late; I wanted him to run in 2016. But shit, if Biden fizzles and we're left with the rest of the field, Bloomberg can't be that bad.
Oh, I think he'd be a good President. I'm just a bit skeptical about his chances in the general. But I'm happy to wait to see what the polls say.

The biggest mistake is to assume that 'most voters see it the way I do' (and I think that goes for everyone whether they admit it or not).
  #86  
Old 11-08-2019, 09:30 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 11,025
Would 4 more years of Trump be bad? Maybe it would goad us into appropriate action? From this it would be obvious that only would ballot choice should appear on the ballot.

Last edited by asahi; 11-08-2019 at 09:31 PM.
  #87  
Old 11-09-2019, 05:14 AM
RTFirefly is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,884
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Bwahaha all you like. I never presented this as some intensive study.
No, you presented it as an assertion of fact.
Quote:
If you followed the conversation you jumped into, you'd see I was merely offering my gut feelings in response to someone else's.
Then say so. Qualify your assertion. Use words. People can't read your mind.

If you present gut feelings as statements of fact, you should expect to have problems in this forum.
  #88  
Old 11-09-2019, 05:22 AM
RTFirefly is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,884
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
Would 4 more years of Trump be bad? Maybe it would goad us into appropriate action? From this it would be obvious that only would ballot choice should appear on the ballot.
Four more years of Trump would be pretty terrible. There would be basically no restraints on him in a second term. In another four years, the Federal courts would be wall-to-wall right-wing hacks, just the way his Cabinet is already. There would be no brakes on Trump's abuse of executive power.
  #89  
Old 11-09-2019, 06:31 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 7,253
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
Four more years of Trump would be pretty terrible. There would be basically no restraints on him in a second term. In another four years, the Federal courts would be wall-to-wall right-wing hacks, just the way his Cabinet is already. There would be no brakes on Trump's abuse of executive power.
For the courts if for nothing else, another Trump term would be a disaster.

The idea that 'more Trump might be good because Americans will rise up only if things get really bad' rests on some very shaky assumptions. The major one, perhaps: that Americans (like all humans) don't simply acclimate to whatever horrors are visited on them by their dictator.

People adjust much more often than they rebel. It's a case of frog in pot of water being brought to a boil, rather than a case of Spartacus, for most of the history of the species.
  #90  
Old 11-09-2019, 06:39 PM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,635
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
Would 4 more years of Trump be bad? Maybe it would goad us into appropriate action? From this it would be obvious that only would ballot choice should appear on the ballot.
There was a recent article (wish I could find it) which pointed that a 2020 Democratic presidential victory could be bad for the D's, because the economy is likely to go into recession by 2021, which could be promptly blamed on the D-president even if not his/her fault, which could then usher the Republicans right back into the White House in 2024. Additionally, midterm elections tend to go against the ruling party, so Republicans could either strengthen their Senate majority or regain it in 2022.

Then, if Ginsburg and/or Breyer go, you could have a Republican president, Republican senate, in 2024 or beyond, paving the way for a 7-2 conservative Supreme Court.

Of course, the impending recession could hit early in 2020 and get Trump out of the White House, but if it waits til 2021, then it's bad for Team Blue.
  #91  
Old 11-09-2019, 10:52 PM
Damuri Ajashi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,512
Quote:
Originally Posted by JKellyMap View Post
I agree. The Dem candidate should be an absolute gun nut. Goes hunting every weekend.

Iím pro-gun control, but Iím confident that better gun laws can happen despite the Presidentís preferences/leisure activities. Much more important now is securing those 100,000 non-Trump votes of people living near the Great Lakes.
I agree. The only priority. The ONLY priority! should be getting the current resident out of the white house.

No issue is more important. NO issue is more important.

I don't give a shit whether they are in favor of a public option or full on single payer health care. Just tell me which candidate is going to win more electoral votes.

I don't give a shit whether they support government financing of abortions.

I don't care where they stand on guns.

I don't care where they stand on invading Iran with nuclear tanks.

We can hash all that out later.

We have to beat this guy and not just by a little bit, it has to be embarrassingly lopsided. Texas and Georgia has to go blue.

We can ignore the woke SJW liberals because they will turn out no matter what. Not only will they turn out, they will canvas the streets for whatever candidate is running against Trump. Even if they don't adhere to woke SJW liberal orthodoxy. They don't need firing up.

We can ignore the socialist and communists because they similarly support whoever is running against Trump. They are not a swing vote this election no matter who is running against Trump.

We should deliberately ignore all of them and try to win back the middle because it's not enough to win by a few electoral votes, we have to turn the whole goddam map blue. The loss has to be so complete that noone ever nominates someone like Trump again.
  #92  
Old 11-09-2019, 10:55 PM
Damuri Ajashi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,512
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chingon View Post
I'm not using 'we' now am I?
So then wtf did you mean by saying "we"?

What was that comment supposed to mean if you are not a Democrat?
  #93  
Old 11-09-2019, 11:01 PM
Damuri Ajashi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,512
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
Would 4 more years of Trump be bad? Maybe it would goad us into appropriate action? From this it would be obvious that only would ballot choice should appear on the ballot.
RBG and Breyer cannot hold out another 8 years.

If we re-electing him, we can't pretend the first time was a mistake. This is who we are.

If the first 4 years didn't goad you into action, I'm not sure another 4 years will.
  #94  
Old 11-09-2019, 11:21 PM
Damuri Ajashi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,512
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
There was a recent article (wish I could find it) which pointed that a 2020 Democratic presidential victory could be bad for the D's, because the economy is likely to go into recession by 2021, which could be promptly blamed on the D-president even if not his/her fault, which could then usher the Republicans right back into the White House in 2024. Additionally, midterm elections tend to go against the ruling party, so Republicans could either strengthen their Senate majority or regain it in 2022.
Redistricting in every state will occur during the 2021/2022 congress. A wave election would be a good thing for the long term strength of Democrats.

Quote:
Then, if Ginsburg and/or Breyer go, you could have a Republican president, Republican senate, in 2024 or beyond, paving the way for a 7-2 conservative Supreme Court.
If we get a Democratic president, I expect those two to retire shortly into the second year of the new administration.

Quote:
Of course, the impending recession could hit early in 2020 and get Trump out of the White House, but if it waits til 2021, then it's bad for Team Blue.
Noone can reliably predict when economies will go into recession. It could very well be a soft landing a la 1994. We could also see confidence in the economy once there are adults at the wheel again.
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 02:29 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, 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