Boycott, that’s a helpful summary of Illinois’ Governor Pritzker. Is this someone we should all keep in mind as a possible future presidential candidate? (Even as soon as ‘24, if either Biden wins and decides to pass the torch due to age, or the worst happens and Trump wins this November?).
Good post.
I think Democrats need to ditch the idea that billionaires are disqualified from winning the nomination because they’re too rich. The Roosevelts and Kennedys were wealthy and powerful and both families turned out great public servants.
(I see Pritzker would be our first Jewish President, as of course Bloomberg would be — that’s cool! Anyway, just a thought to keep in the back of our minds. I now return this thread back to 2020…)
No, they’re not going to head to the fridge and grab another beer. They’re going to watch it, it’s going to make an impact on them, and that impact is “Bloomberg wants to take your guns.” And there are about a million other ways that Bloomberg could have connected with Black voters other than this topic.
No I’m not saying anyone’s going to literally engage in rebellion, just that it decreases their chances of voting Democratic.
A million is a bit of a stretch. But he is connecting with black voters in other ways. However this topic matters to him, he’s not backing away from it, and it’s not as unpopular among industrial Midwestern voters as you think. You don’t only need to appeal to the old white guys to win the nomination or to re-take Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania in the general. Young people, women and African Americans need to be wooed too.
You need AA and suburban voters, especially women, if you want to win the moderate lane.
In the event Biden steps down after one term it is 99% likely the Vice President will be on the top of the ticket in 2024. The Democrats can’t have another rigorous primary again after this one --especially as the Republicans will likely be in limbo if they lose in 2020 after staking everything on Trump and Trumpism.
If Dems don’t win in 2020 then I don’t see why Pritzker shouldn’t throw his hat in the ring. He’s doing a good job. I think the Governor of California Gavin Newsom will probably run at some point. There will be a changing of guard too with AOC probably taking on the mantle from Sanders. Apart from Buttigieg I doubt anyone else in the 2020 field can have another crack at it.
I agree.
Democrats need to rebut this idea their policies hurt the economy and markets. The data is there that Democratic administrations manage the economy better, because they typically inherit it in bad shape from a Republican administration. Having wealthy individuals run for office also can rebut it too because Bloomberg, Steyer and Pritzker are billionaires who think people like them ought to pay their fair share that they currently get away. They can explain better that corporate tax cuts are good for them because the tab goes to the middle class without being accused of being “envy of success/wealth”. They can use the GOP’s favorite buzz word “job creators” against them because they are job creators. They can expose the flaws Trickle Down Economics better than a politician because in theory they should be happy with Trickle Down policies since they are in the top 1% but now want to help others climb up the ladder and get a piece of the American Dream that the last forty years of has erased.
Just to expand on this because it’s important to show why Bloomberg is probably smart for tackling this horse in his $11 million Super Bowl ad:
A poll on gun control done in Michigan last year found that red flag laws were favored by 78% of Dems, 67% of independents, and 64% of Republicans.
Also, nationally, according to a Quinnipiac poll last year, 91% of Democrats and 59% of independents favor more gun restrictions, including 68% of women and 53% of men. For African-Americans and Hispanics, it’s 85% and 59% respectively.
[Link to NPR story in which those cites above were found.]
To highlight the support of suburban women, a recent poll in Pennsylvania showed that gun control was the top priority among a plurality of respondents. Seventy-two percent of the women polled said gun laws should be stricter and there should be universal background checks and a waiting period. This was a poll done by a Republican organization.
In Wisconsin last year, a poll showed 80% of voters supported the expansion of background checks on all firearm purchases, *including 75% of gun owners.
*
An ad on gun violence during the most-watched sporting even in the United States is by no means a bad idea for Bloomberg. Gun nuts aren’t the only ones watching. And the Obama-to-Trump voters aren’t all gun nuts.
Per 538 aggregation the top four polling candidates as of now are Biden, Sanders, Warren, and Bloomberg. One Methodist woman, one Catholic man, and two Jewish men - one a bit of the old atheist socialist Jewish New Yorker stereotype (even though he’s lived a long time in Vermont) and one a Jewish New Yorker who actually does control some of the levers of finance and news media. Rounding off the top five an Episcopalian gay man. A Catholic has been president only once before, and did not get to complete the term. A Jewish, a woman, or a gay president would all be firsts.
Gun control is popular. It’s also been Bloomberg’s signature issue for as long as he’s been in politics, so it’s a sure thing that the gun nuts will be pressing him on the issue. For him to back down or de-emphasize the issue would work about as well as Bernie Sanders saying “well, maybe for-profit health insurance companies aren’t so bad after all”.
Um, when she said what she’d DO, and when she said how she’d PAY FOR IT, are two different things.
Don’t hand me an orange and say, “this apple isn’t the same as that apple.” No shit, Sherlock.
Bernie supporting op-ed: Please do not vote for Warren in Iowa, it will destroy hopes of a progressive-left nominee.
Without 50 votes democrats won’t get a single thing passed, it is utterly ridiculous to think otherwise. Democrats couldn’t pass the GOP platform without a majority.
- This author is putting too much importance on Iowa.
- Could easily flip that around and say to Sanders voters to vote for Warren. She’s not going to be in her eighties at the time of re-election, she hasn’t had a heart attack in the campaign, she can unite sparring factions of the party, and a recent poll by a progressive group show her doing better in a head to head with Biden than Sanders.
Maybe. But Bernie Bros are much more “my way or the highway” than Biden or Warren voters. Only about half of Bernie voters say they will support the eventual D nominee regardless of who he or she may be. By contrast, around 90% of Biden and Warren supporters say they’re fully in for the eventual D candidate whoever it may be.
That’s the traditional reading. But there’s an alternative reading: Sanders appears to be drawing voters into the Democratic tent that otherwise wouldn’t want to be here. It looks like fully 1 in 6 Sanders supporters aren’t so much Democrats as they are people who support Sanders.
A candidate who can draw that many outsiders into the party is pretty remarkable, and offers an interesting path forward.
I concur- IF they vote for any Dem. At least this time around.
That’s obviously the ideal. But if there are 100,000 dudebros who would vote for Trump in a Trump-Biden race, and for Sanders in a Trump-Sanders race, I’m not going to support Biden over Sanders out of party loyalty or spite or something.
Elizabeth Warren is truly pathetic. A 9 year old trans person has to interview the Secretary of Education?
There can’t be many. But, nine year olds don’t get to pick what they want for dinner much less political offices they know nothing about.
How fucking woke will she try to be to pander?
Don’t know there are. They may be nonvoters no matter what. And suspect more Pennsylvania and elsewhere working class folk who would vote Biden in Biden-Trump but Trump in Sanders-Trump. I don’t think there is any reason to believe Sanders wins back Obama-Trump and Obama-nonvoting voters more than Biden does. It’s a guess but I’d guess the opposite.