You’re right. All the other candidates should just stop worrying about the Bloomberg spending and polling in all the Super Tuesday states. Sleep well, revolutionaries. Sleep well.
It’s helping him because as long as he can’t be blamed for a recession, then the question that wishy-washy voters ask is, “If things aren’t really broken, why change when we can vote him out in 4 years anyway?” In the general, it’ll be option A vs option B. And more often than not, this type of election is a referendum on the economy.
I’m definitely not going to make a prediction that Trump doesn’t have a good chance of winning because he does, but I do think he’s not the same as a lot of incumbents running on a good economy.
He is more polarizing that most, and a higher proportion of voters than normal are going to vote against him regardless of the economy.
He also relied on independent voters who are not normally hardline conservatives but bought into his angry message to win in 2016. Relying on them helped him out as an outsider, but now that he’s in charge, he is going to have a tougher time making a case to them. Obviously he and the GOP are going to try to paint him as a victim the way the have been from the start, but if he can lose some ground with this demo I think it can easily make up for the random swing voters who decide to vote for him or stay home because of the economy.
Interesting in that it shows a Sanders ceiling higher than I thought it was. Albeit just one poll.
In terms of Bloomberg’s head to heads nationally not too surprising for this point in the race. He is rapidly rising but still below both Sanders and Biden and still just a name they know and have some sense of to many. Way too early to say what his ceiling will be.
No, your wrong. I would have voted for Sanders over Trump in 2012.
You dont realize how many of us voted Trump because we hated Hillary.
Bloomberg should have just have been honest saying “yeah I put more cops in black neighborhoods, thats where the crime was. Its what you do. Its the opposite of sometimes police get angry at a neighborhood and simply quit responding to calls there”.
Stop and frisk might have gone too far but I wonder how many robberies it stopped?
Remember how Eisenhower sent troops to Arkansas to enforce federal rule. sometimes it has to be done.
Hated her so much you would have voted for Sanders when Obama was running for his second term!
Speaking of, how did you vote in that election?
Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk
The data is pretty solid just about none. Best evidence is the drop in crime rate to record lows after it was stopped.
Some believe that the problem was in the implementation with not enough emphasis on documented probable cause and too much leeway given to police officer hunches (which may be explicitly or even implicitly racist just based on cognitive biases). But the facts that it accomplished little if any good and caused significant harms to many are not debated by many at this point.
*1. Stop and frisk laws have helped to get weapons off of the street.
Over a period of 10 years, there were a total of 4.4 million stop and frisk temporary detentions that took place in and around New York City. The official statistics show that 1.5% of those engagements with the public found a weapon on that individual. That means police officers were able to remove over 66,000 items that could have been used to harm someone else in the future.
The arrest rate may be low with stop and frisk as well, but an average of 10% still means that there were 440,000 arrests made that may not have happened otherwise. Those are significant numbers that can justify to many city officials that the policies are working.*
3. It creates significant reductions in crime.
After the implementation of the stop and frisk policy in New York City, crime rates went down by about 20%. Cities like Newark that implemented similar policies, even if they call them by the more politically correct name of “field inquiries,” see similar results. It is a form of proactive policing that seeks to stop something bad from happening before it starts. Although some individuals are stopped on the street without having done anything to warrant a contact, most of these incidents occur after a call for service.
To be fair:
*List of the Cons of a Stop and Frisk Law and Policy
- It is a policy that can be easily abused.
Stop and frisk policies make it easier for police officers to follow their hunches instead of having objective evidence or a reasonable suspicion that something illegal may be occurring. This disadvantage is why the NYC version of this law and policy was ruled to be unconstitutional in the first place. Officers were engaging with African-Americans and Hispanics 83% of the time using this option to frisk, yet these two population demographics make up about half of the residents in the area.*
Sop it appears it might have been a good idea, but had very poor implementation.
And Bloomberg agrees:
https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/13/politics/bloomberg-apologize-stop-and-frisk/index.html
*Michael Bloomberg apologized for the first time on the campaign trail Thursday for the New York Police Department’s “stop and frisk” policing tactic, which he repeatedly defended while serving as mayor of New York. The apology followed audio from 2015 surfacing earlier this week where Bloomberg is heard describing the policy as a way to reduce violence by throwing minority kids “up against the walls and frisk them.”
His comments came during a launch event for “Mike for Black America” in Houston at the Buffalo Soldier National Museum.
“There is one aspect of approach that I deeply regret, the abuse of police practice called stop and frisk,” Bloomberg said. “I defended it, looking back, for too long because I didn’t understand then the unintended pain it was causing to young black and brown families and their kids. I should have acted sooner and faster to stop it. I didn’t, and for that I apologize.”
Bloomberg had previously apologized for the policy in November 2019, right before he announced his candidacy. *
On one level, up where the Mayor sits, it looked good, and could be a valuable tool. But some line police abused it, and honestly, it was a very easy tool to abuse.
I am gonna give him a pass on this. But it aint a shining moment for him.
Also, crime rates have been dropping since the 1990s all across the country. When cities A, B, C, D, E, and F try approaches 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, and cities G, H, I, and J do pretty much the same as they were doing when crime rates were increasing, and crime drops in all of them, it’s hard to argue that a particular approach was the reason for the drop.
Now it’s always possible that every city tailored just the right approach for that particular city, but it’s very very improbable. 
I think intent and motives matter, too. Bloomberg continued the stop-and-frisk policy for the same reasons that the 1994 Crime Bill was signed into law by Clinton. It was seen as a way to fight crime, keeping in mind the fact that in many American cities crimes were perpetrated by people of color against people of color. Stated differently, one concern was protecting people in these communities. Bloomberg continued the policy presumably because it was in place and he thought it was effective, without considering the deeper costs that aren’t so easily assessed such as the psychological trauma it was causing people in these communities, how it was criminalizing individuals without justification, and how it led to the breakdown in trust between the city police force and residents.
I don’t think it’s accurate or even wise to compare Bloomberg’s approach, which was most likely based on good intentions but lack of awareness, to the police policies of the current administration, nearly all of which are intended to instill a sense of fear in immigrant communities and critics of the administration more broadly. Trump and the GOP have been able to persist through all of their scandal in no small part because of false equivalency.
So what does that leave white voters?
Also deciding. In context, your quoted text was discussing how stop and frisk would effect the black vote.
And not to bash Warren but this stop and frisk counter campaign that Bloomberg has run blows my mind how much better a politician he is. He has a massive shitty thing on his record but he basically rolled it out himself with a shit tonne of long secured minority leaders. Contrast with Warren rolling out her DNA bet win, with no good Cherokee support lined up.
I’m glad to be wrong in this instance.
Sounds like a good argument for Warren to hang in there, even if Super Tuesday isn’t very super for her.
Maybe I’m hanging out in the polling-geek corner of Twitter too much, but I’d have thought the whole ‘lanes’ thing had been thoroughly trashed by now. I think it applies to people like us who pay a great deal of attention to politics, but most people don’t.
Yep. East Carolina U. (unrated by 538), Feb. 12-13 (ETA: IOW, entirely after NH), 703 likely voters:
Biden 28
Sanders 20
Steyer 14
Buttigieg 8
Klobuchar 7
Warren 7
Bloomberg 6 (but not on the ballot)
Gabbard 1
The Buttigieg-through-Bloomberg group is statistically indistinguishable from one another, but the other gaps between candidates are outside the MOE.
Bloomberg may have a “me, too” problem:
According to another source (GQ, as I recall), Bloomberg’s been sued 40 times for gender discrimination and/or harassment.
That’s going to complicate his nomination bid a bit, I’d think.
Something doesn’t add up here. We have data showing that Bernie and EW are drawing votes from the same “demographic”. All other polls (and actual votes in NH and Iowa) show Bernie beating EW by a significant margin. This one does not.
Show me how this poll was conducted, and who was surveyed, and maybe I’ll consider it. Otherwise, it seems pretty suspect. It looks like a poll simply of progressive voters.
When I was doing my own polling average in this thread, I got a pretty good idea of which candidates were always high or low in polls by which polling outfits. YouGov consistently showed more support for Warren than other pollsters did.
OK. So that tells us … what? That they’re polling mostly progressive voters?