Bloomberg as an individual? Or his company?
That makes a difference. Though neither is good, if people are alleging someone at the company discriminated or harassed, it doesn’t necessarily follow that the discrimination or harassment was company policy (and therefore Bloomberg’s personal policy). He might be held morally responsible, but that’s not the same thing as if he personally harassed women.
These details will be glossed over by Bloomberg opponents, of course. But they do matter.
There is at least one credible allegation of Bloomberg personally making extremely crude and sexist comments (Wapo article):
There is an independent witness for the last incident:
The more I read about Bloomberg the more astonished I am that anyone is considering seriously him for Democratic nominee. There are so many other problems with him too: stop and frisk obviously but also his opposition to Obamacare and Dodd-Frank, his 2004 endorsement of George W Bush. It’s absurd.
I’m not gonna work backwards from their outcomes to their sampling frame; that’s beyond my capabilities as a statistician.
But if they show more support for Warren generally, it fits in that they’d show her with more support v. Sanders than other pollsters do, and more support v. Sanders than they show for other candidates v. Sanders. That’s all.
You’ve awakened me to the absurdity of Bloomberg’s candidacy. Unfortunately, almost all the candidates are absurd one way or another. Amy Klobuchar is my last hope for “generic white guy.” (Earlier I was touting Cory Booker as “generic white guy” — his color may have been off and, in any event Booker is no Obama.)
With great gloom we face the heart-breaking fact that come November, the Nighmare is likely to continue.
I agree that Klobuchar is one of the less bad alternatives left but man it’s embarrassing watchingher flail around when asked who the President of Mexico is. This is something that an experienced Senator should know anyway but don’t these people do elementary prep before an interview on Telemundo ?
When I was younger I would wonder if politicians were smarter than they sounded and just dumbing it down in public but the older I get the more I realize they often are that clueless. I realize they must have skills I can only dream of like making small talk to 800 rich donors and repeating the same stump speech 78 times a day but it would be reassuring if they also knew something about the subjects they make hugely consequential decisions about.
The problem with Amy is that the average person that doesn’t follow politics or the news doesn’t know who she is. Seriously.
I haven’t seen one ad for her. My college aged niece didn’t know who she was. My brother, who actually watches cable news some and is MORE engaged than most people I know…I asked him if he knew who she was and his first reaction was “she works for CNN, right?” Then, after a gentle nudge, he remembered she was running for President.
This poll is a little more optimistic than 1 am, it shows 44% of Democratic primary voters view her favorably, 16% negatively, 23% have heard of her but have no opinion ( maybe because they think she’s a CNN newscaster) and 18% haven’t heard of her.
But that’s still sort of miserable- especially as voting has started in many Super Tuesday states.
The Democrats ( with one possible exception) do not have the resources to win this year’s general election.
No question about it. And name recognition is a necessary condition for competing in the primaries: if people aren’t sure of who you are in the first place, they’re damn sure not going to vote for you.
And name recognition explains a lot of other seeming oddities in the polls: polling last year showed that a lot of likely voters had Biden and Sanders as their top two choices, in either order, confounding the commentators who thought of the primaries in terms of ‘lanes.’ Why was this happening? Probably because they were the two Dem candidates who started 2019 with near-universal name recognition, while everyone else was playing catch-up.
The latter is why the former is SO bad.
She has virtually no support among Hispanic voters (or Black or Asian ones) and she is right that it is “on her” to expand beyond a whites only crowd. That Telemundo bit was likely her first exposure to many Hispanic voters and what she showed was that she cared so little about them that she didn’t even do the most basic prep work (and that she has cared so little about issues relevant to them that she did not know that basic information going in).
Ooof. I like her pragmatism but that is some bad combination of dumb and lazy (and maybe some white issues filter).
I watched and didn’t see her really flailing. She answered No when asked for the name. “Should” she have known the name? Perhaps. Is it a big deal that she didn’t? I don’t think so. Some people play cards very well, yet don’t remember which Jacks are one-eyed. Presumably she’ll know his name if she gets the job where that knowledge is more necessary.
I didn’t know the name, but heard it as I watched the video. If his name were George Williamson or Henry Bookbinder I could probably tell you the name I heard. But all I remember is: his name sounds very Spanish. :o
ETA: But, regardless of the name memory, she seemed uncharismatic and drab in the video. 
But if I jump off the Klobuchar wagon where is left for me? Maybe I really will become a Bernie Bro, by process of elimination!
I do think it matters. The US-Mexico relationship is obviously an important issue for any President and if you don’t even know who the President of Mexico is you simply don’t know enough to form an informed opinion. And you can’t wait till you are President when you will be overwhelmed with a hundred issues at once. You have to acquire the knowledge and judgement about the big issues before you become President.
Anyway I agree that Klobuchar doesn’t really have a chance so it’s a moot point anyway. At the end of the day despite his obvious problems, Biden is the least bad alternative left and the one who is most likely to stop Bernie as well as beat Trump.
I really dont care about a allegation of something back in 1995.
These attacks on the other democratic candidates are something everyone should be ashamed of.
All they will do is ensure trump wins.
Nm. Wrong thread
Concern noted.
And why is there no White Entertainment channel??? And no White History month???
Read for comprehension. White voters are certainly relevant, but I hope they aren’t being included in polls of black voters.
[Trump]
*Good! Use your aggressive feelings, boy. Let the hate flow through you! … Give in to your anger. With each passing moment you make yourself more my servant. *
[/Trump]
Which you were brainwashed to do by the Kremlin & GOP.
and whoever is the Dem candidate, they will do the same thing, this year.
Already we see posters on this very forum spreading the disinformation, designed to make Dem voters decide that whoevertheccandidateis is horrible , no good and not deserving.
I profoundly disagree. Historically, primaries are always full of criticism of other candidates. Trump himself got the shit criticized out of him during the primary. So did Obama. So did Bill Clinton.
The entire point of a primary, rather than a lottery or a back-room deal, is for voters to vet their candidate in preparation for the main struggle. Acting like we should be ashamed for examining and criticizing other candidates completely misses the point of this stage.
That said, it’s only a phase. Once we reach a decision as to Trump’s opponent, we need to focus our attentions and energies on making sure that person can win, however much we may disagree with them relative to the other failed choices.
Sure. Historically.
But now the GOP and Kremlin have learned how to use this against us.
Times change.
We have to stop spreading their lies and half-truths.
And I completely agree with you. I think it’s good to get the dirt out in the primary, before the general.
I always felt that the lack of a real Democratic primary season was not good for Hillary. It helps to express and define your positions to voters of your own party. It doesn’t help to go into the race with an expectation of being anointed by your party.
One thing I don’t like about Biden is his dismissive, sometimes nasty attitude when faced with a hard question. He’s irrelevant now, largely because he was ratfucked to death by Trump - but this would be a problem even if he hadn’t been.
How, by creating an atmosphere of not only untruth, but antitruth, in which real, credible reports of things that should be of genuine concern are written off, with people saying they “don’t care” about things that used to be important, simply because the very act of saying a thing happened has become inherently suspect?
That’ll never happen!