I think his weak debate performance will stop Bloomberg’s momentum which was probably slowing down anyway. Whether it will lead to a significant fall I am not sure about. I think the sheer power of money may keep him around the 12-15% mark which probably works well for Bernie since it blocks a possible Biden resurgence.
Presumably Bloomberg will be a bit better in the next debate but I don’t expect some massive improvement. I don’t think he has the personality to be an effective debater and no amount of preparation can stop him getting pounded on stop and frisk, sexual harassment and a number of other issues. Fundamentally he doesn’t have a good story for a Democratic primary.
Bloomberg’s biggest problem is that he’s Michael Bloomberg. I don’t know if he can buy his way around it. I, for one, hope he can, but I know that’s a minority opinion.
I’ve got more to say, but I also fell and injured my wrist yesterday morning. I can read but I can’t type without pain. - this short one is stretching my limit. It kind of reminds me of my stints in Twitter Jail.
Feeling a little better today, I’m going to give it shot.
I like Mike Bloomberg’s proposed policies. I’m a huge fan of his philanthropic work, especially his work with cities. I like his approach to this work. I like the idea of evidence-based solutions. In this I feel he’s the polar opposite of Trump - the man who believes his gut instinct provides the right answer to everything vs the guy who commissions a dozen expert analyses in order to decide what to have for breakfast. I believe in expertise and one of the most distressing things about the Trump administration is the devaluation of expertise.
And I like that he is willing to spend unlimited money to defeat Trump. But therein lies the catch. He can only spend unlimited money if the candidate is Mike Bloomberg. Otherwise the campaign donation rules kick in.
And Mike Bloomberg is not a good candidate. Hes not a good spokesperson for his policies. Plus, he’s short. He has a voice that makes you want to stab your eardrums with a sharp stick to make it stop. He’s uncharismatic and passionless. He’s a 60 billion dollar computer geek. I don’t think he’s neurotypical. He’s really really smart but doesn’t have the ability to connect with people. And I don’t think that can be taught or coached.
I was actually wondering about this myself watching the debate. The way he would sorta look off either before or during an answer. I’m not sure, in the fast-pace of a six-person debate, he’s equipped to read the situation, and adjust his answers or tone on the fly. He would start giving an answer, and the audience would react, and he would sorta shut down, possibly as he tried to figure out what that reaction meant. I say this as an aspie person myself who struggles in similar situations.
I can see how such a debate, if he is not neurotypical, would be a challenge. These people he was sharing the stage with, and who were sitting in the audience reacting, aren’t necessarily the “enemy” like they would be in a general election debate. His tone and answers need to be more nuanced here, which I’m sure he realizes but might struggle with implementing.
This is neither a defense or attack, just an observation. I wonder, however, how it would affect the campaign if he came out as being on the autism spectrum. We live in a world where many families are touched in some way by varying degrees of autism, and people are learning to see autism as having many positive attributes, and it isn’t limited to a “Rain Man”-style existence anymore. If Mike were on the spectrum, announcing this might actually humanize him and earn him some points and attention from families touched by autism.
ETA: This is all just speculating. He very well could just be a really bad debater.
I noticed that as well. He’s not a bad debater, just an unpracticed one. And as the others were in attack mode, having spent so much money, time and hope put into their campaigns, it would be useless to try to argue with them. They are afraid. I don’t blame them, but my first priority is someone who can go toe to toe with someone who tries to debase him by saying he needs a box to stand on. Someone with very little self esteem and a cruel streak. That is why his children are so messed up and his son is not allowed to be around him. God knows what he threatened melinia with to make her stay. They don’t live with him in the White House, but with her parents. A prominent psychiatrist said Trump will be a permanent part of future class curriculum on the subject of personality disorders. No one can dispute he is a major head case and narcissist. I think Mike, while not perfect, is within the normal range. In the past when black, low-income women were allowed to have legal abortions, the violent crime rate fell beginning about 15 years later (documented) and was tied to the fact that those potential criminals were never born. But it wasn’t a bad idea, go where the crime is its just so random. When you get desperate to prevent violence, maybe there is no good solution.
Well, I’m still very much not a fan of Mike Bloomberg, but it’s being widely reported (including on Fox News) that Clint “Empty Chair” Eastwood has apparently endorsed Bloomberg. I still can’t see myself voting for Bloomberg next month; or NOT voting for him in November if he gets the nomination.
I really wish to hell we had a candidate we looked like (s)he could unite the various factions of the Democratic Party, and the “independents”, and the refugees from the Republican Party, and rout Trump and his lackeys from office by a landslide.
I think you’ve summed up my feelings. There’s no front leader, which is worrisome as hell. I really think that after Super Tuesday, if you’re still dragging and desperately hanging on (or shudders consider running as a third-party candidate), quit and support someone else. There should be no more than two of them left after ST.
Their constant attacking of each other is just nuts at the debates. Candidates don’t need to tell me we need to beat Donald Trump. WE KNOW THIS. That’s ONE thing the candidates are in agreement with.
Bloomy, on the other hand, does he really WANT to be president? Or is he running just to BE president, much like what Orangeanus is now. Shit, if I had $60 billion, the last thing I’d do is run for office.
All I feel right now with Bloomy is he could defeat Donny. But that’s really all I think about him. And all the other candidates have so much good and bad about them as well. Bloomberg with race and misogyny, Biden and Sanders with pie-in-the-sky crap, Buttigieg with low experience, and I have this eerie and dirty feeling that Warren and Klobuchar’s big red flag is simply being female. Not for me, not for this board, but come on. Would any MAGA-creeps really vote for a woman if Donny wasn’t running? I think if any of them did support a Republican woman running for president, it’d come down to “How hot is she?” or “Cool, her husband works for NASCAR” or something.
Well he was in that last debate a bad debater for the venue. Yes because he is out of practice … or really never was in practice for that sort of debate ever. And because he was ill-prepped.
If he does not have a team of people throwing every imaginable question and line of attack at him drilling him in how to turn those questions into chances to discuss exactly what he would do as president to address real problems and how he has the goods to beat Trump that they do not have, then he is either too arrogant or lazy for the race. A crappy debate next week and he should drop out before he is the spoiler for others on Super Tuesday. If he can, in the week, bring up his skill level to showing his chops, then OTOH he may have what it takes.
Anyone else suspecting that right after South Carolina votes he does something to grab the news cycle - like release his tax returns (which he miraculously was able to get together faster than expected) and/or come up with some way to release from NDAs that makes him look good? I’ll be mildly surprised if he doesn’t have a March 1st or 2nd surprise.
What would be the best result possible from South Carolina for Bloomberg?
I think Biden losing it narrowly to Sanders with neither Buttigieg or Klobuchar getting on the board for statewide delegates, underperforming their polling even.
I don’t think Bloomberg has any realistic chance of winning the nomination. He is the perfect foil for Bernie’s populist insurgency and on top of that he has a lot of personal baggage and is a poor public speaker. At this stage he is just a spoiler dividing the field to Bernie’s advantage.
The only realistic shot to beat Bernie is Biden and for that to happen the Dem establishment will have to consolidate behind him very soon, he would have to win South Carolina and use that momentum to come a strong second on Super Tuesday leading to a one-on-one race with Bernie which would still be tough to win. This isn’t likely to happen so it’s probably Bernie.
That’s where I am on Bloomberg. He has things in his background from his mayorship that are very troubling, to say the least. He has to answer for stop-and-frisk. And I’m not thrilled to see a billionaire trying to buy the presidency. But if it boils down to Bloomberg vs Trump, I think he’s a gigantic improvement over Trump. Is he “bad”? I suppose he is. But “bad” is much better than Trump.
And I’m not a fan of Bernie either. But again, if it’s Bernie vs Trump, I have to go with Bernie. Personally, I’m more in the Biden or Klobuchar camp.
But every Democrat that’s left in this race would be an improvement over Trump on a whole array of issues domestic and foreign, respect for the law, respect for our institutions and societal norms. Defeating Trump is step one in slowing and reversing our slide into authoritarianism. So, I think the Democratic Party has to unite behind the candidate after the primaries are over, or once it’s clear who will win at the convention.
Piece by Joe Lockhart, a Clinton admin adviser. I don’t know if he’s now the ‘wrong kind’ of Democrat, ‘traitor’ etc. But just putting standard internet argument ad hominem aside and reading the piece…makes sense if you were somebody advising Bloomberg, assuming he really wants to win. A lot of Bloomberg’s mega bucks have been spent positively promoting Bloomberg, vaguely, ‘Mike will get it done’ (what exactly?). But the negative part has been pretty much all v Trump. Which is ‘Primary Good Party Citizenship 101’. But candidates everywhere often abandon this when it gets to crunch time, and I think Lockhart is correct that Bloomberg has no chance at the nomination running $gazillions ads attacking Trump and not attacking Sanders hard.
The field is not going to winnow down quickly, naturally, to Bloomberg v Sanders. Biden, Buttigieg and Warren can all plausibly tell themselves they’ve had successes they might repeat or are ‘doing better lately’, and haven’t run out of money. Klobuchar is probably near the end but that’s one person.
Nor IMO is there any chance whatsoever the convention will give Bloomberg the nomination if he has fewer delegates than Sanders. Possibly, not likely, they’ll give it somebody else despite a Sanders plurality but not a former elected Republican. Bloomberg has to have the most delegates to win. That’s very unlikely to happen at all, but there’s just no way without reducing Sanders’ support.
Of course it’s possible, despite all the bad will toward Bloomberg on these threads, that he’s not on an ego quest to be nominee at all costs. Maybe he’d prefer to stay positive about ‘other’ Democrats, accept that he can’t beat Sanders but keep spending money on ads attacking Trump all the way to November. I’m not saying that’s true, I don’t know, but I agree with the piece that staying positive he has no chance of winning.
I just saw a new Bloomberg add saying he was going to cure the race poverty gap. That seems like a big thing to promise and entirely pointed at trying to buy black votes. Does anyone know anything about his “plan”?
Earlier today, I saw on another website that he’s paying his campaign workers $20 an hour. Maybe THIS is his plan to redistribute his wealth and reduce poverty?
