Bloomberg strikes me as really a dream Republican candidate, about the best that party could ever give us. He might even work to restore the Republican party to its former role as an opposition party that stands against everything I think is important, but at least occasionally conducts itself with integirty and principle.
I don’t see him as a great Democrat, though.
I think it is fair to see him as a far-left Republican or a far-right Democrat. Certainly, some of his policies are in the current Democrat wheelhouse, such as gun safety, climate change action, expanding Obamacare (but not universal healthcare).
In order to bring some sanity back to the Republican party they’re probably going to need to get utterly demolished in an election. Bloomberg could be the person who could bring that about if a significant percentage (5-10% maybe) of Republican voters who were planning on voting for Trump switch to Bloomberg and Democrat downticket (this second part is less likely). Elections are so close that even a small percentage of defectors can be devastating.
Certainly Sanders, who I prefer, is not that kind of nominee. The only Republicans who would vote for Sanders are diehard never-Trumpers who are sick of the disgrace he brings to the office of the president and the Republican party. However, I think it more likely that such voters will vote Republican downticket, and just not vote for Trump (leave it blank), or not show up at all. Sanders cannot capture dissenting Republicans so much I don’t think.
Yes, that is probably the answer he’d give, especially the [insert Sandersspeak].
And it would strongly illustrate why he is an idiot. He would be telling Democratic voters whose top priority is beating Trump that he would turn down a billion dollars to that goal.
Look I get his position. His consistent positions and issues are not most of the positions and issues of the Democratic party per se, his forever war is not with Trump, but a class war against the wealthy. Everything else is in service of fighting that war (and the fight is the point, not the victory) and viewed through that filter. That has been his consistent message and position …always. Having effective weapons that were made by those who make weapons to fight against those who make weapons would be unacceptable. Better to go into battle with slingshots. The fight is what matters, not the win.
It is just not where most Democrats are at.
Bloomberg is where most Democrats are at.
To them beating Trump is job one, and they realize it takes resources to do that, not purity that would have you turn down the resources because it came from someone who had it to give. Class warfare is not the top priority for most Democrats. He is consistently strong on climate change, on gun control, on public health issues, and where most Democrats are on wanting Obamacare built upon with a public option. He is where they are with what sort of judges should be appointed. He is where they are with the need to be able to work with our international partners. He is where they are with caring about getting things done that can be done, not tilting at windmills bravely.
He would say it. It doesn’t mean he has to mean it, especially because Bloomberg has promised to help the Democratic candidate no matter what. He wouldn’t have any control over how Bloomberg spends his money anyway – all that matters here is the messaging, and that would be effective messaging, IMO, in response to this.
Sanders is a savvy politician. He’s been rhetorically on the fringe for decades, but he regularly votes for compromise and other typical savvy politician activities.
This race is so remarkably uncertain right now. Bernie is the front-runner but an unusually weak one who is only polling at 24% nationally. Bloomberg has the momentum but I would bet it will stall once his full record is aired and attacked. Biden is severely weakened but if he can win South Carolina he still has a shot;and he has had a good Georgia poll. Pete has done nearly everything right so far but it’s still hard to see his path forward. The Klobucharge is real but probably too little too late. Warren appears to be the living dead but probably not yet read to pack it in. I really have no idea where this is going. A very long race without a clear winner appears likely and that is probably not good for the Democrats.
And unfortunately none of them is definitely, at this point, going to be able to defeat an incumbent Republican President at a time that the economy is, in broad terms, doing well.
People keep saying this but that is probably conventional wisdom that only applies to conventional presidents, not someone as polarizing as Trump, for whom his supporters would fiercely back him even if the economy were a smoking crater hole and whose opponents would line up a mile long at the crack of dawn to vote against him even if the Dow Jones hit 50,000. Trump has a pretty hard ceiling of support and also generates rage among his foes. His constant Tweeting and offensive words also ensure that his own approval doesn’t rise too high.
The only way the economy could really help him would be if it turned white-hotter than the Sun (which it probably can’t because it’s as good as it gets).
Wow. 538 no longer considers Biden a favorite to win South Carolina. Currently giving Sanders a 50-50 shot, Biden 1/3 chance.
Setting aside whether that last sentence is correct, the issue isn’t where most Democrats are at. It’s where most voters are at. The Democratic establishment has a bad habit of forgetting that distinction. And I wouild need some real evidence to show that Bloomberg is more where most Americans are at before I believe that.
I would say that shoe more fits online activists better than the establishment. We’ve got a guy declaring “stop and frisk” should be disqualifying, despite the reality of Bloomberg winning his election while supporting the program.
The economy was better in 2004 and Bush almost lost and I would rate him a better campaigner than Trump. Trump is very much beatable but yes the economy will be a moderate asset for him and this would be a terrible time to nominate a socialist who wants a “revolution”. All the Democrats need IMO is a Gore/Kerry quality candidate but unfortunately they won’t get one and will have to take a gamble on someone with serious liabilities.
This is too close to a “no u” argument for me to take it very seriously.
But it’s not. The fact that the twitter/blogosphere of Dem activists is out of line with mainstream voters is pretty well documented.
I seriously do not believe that saying he’d prefer to stay pure and go into the general election war against a very well funded Trump campaign and PAC machine without the billion dollar war chest, would be effective messaging to Democratic primary voters who care most about defeating Trump.
LHOD, the first issue is where Democratic voters are at. You need to win the nomination. And most of them care most about beating Trump, and are not voting for candidates who are of the hard progressive lane with a class warfare sale pitch. (Sanders and Warren together are far short of the majority that the moderate lane represents.)
Hey I am realistic enough to accept that hyperpartisanship will still be operative after the election no matter who wins. But the evidence to me is that Democratic primary voters and general election voters find the hope to heal and find some bipartisan common ground to be a more attractive sales pitch than selling getting even more entrenched poles.
Too lazy to check, but has SC released any new polls?
538 hasn’t added any. This must be based on national polls.
What is your opinion on fractions? Do you hate when pizza is cut too much because then you get less pizza?
Gadflies are more interesting if they make some sort of sense. Just sayin.
Now here’s an interesting poll.
YouGov ran a series of one-on-one matchups in the Democratic primary. If it came down to two candidates:
Sanders 54-33 Klobuchar
Sanders 54-37 Buttigieg
Sanders 54-38 Bloomberg
Sanders 48-44 Biden
Sanders 44-42 Warren
and on the other hand…
Warren 52-38 Bloomberg
Biden 47-34 Bloomberg
Buttigieg 44-37 Bloomberg
Klobuchar 43-38 Bloomberg
It seems that maybe all money does is get you to your ceiling faster. It also seems that, in contrast to some overly simplistic views, voters are picking a candidate and not a “lane”. Those who expect that the current supporters of all the other candidates except Warren will eventually unify into an anti-Bernie monolith may be in for a surprise.
More data calling the “lanes” paradigm into question. New Hampshire exit polls, broken down by self-identified ideology:
**Very Liberal ** (21% of all voters)
Sanders 48
Warren 19
Buttigieg 15
Klobuchar 9
**Somewhat Liberal **(40%)
Buttigieg 26
Sanders 26
Klobuchar 19
Warren 10
Moderate (36%)
Buttigieg 28
Klobuchar 26
Sanders 16
Biden 12
and for a bit of comic relief…
Conservative (3%)
Buttigieg 21
Klobuchar 19
Gabbard 18 :eek:
Sanders 11
So Sanders is in double digits with moderates and conservatives, and about a quarter of the left-wingers went for Pete or Amy. Clearly the relationship between self-defined ideology and candidate choice isn’t as strong as we left-brain types would like.
Also, as Nate Silver pointed out today, the “Somewhat Liberal” group is clearly where the balance of power lies, and Sanders is doing well with that group, so there’s no reason to think he’s less likely than anyone else to emerge as their choice as the field narrows.