Bloomberg is starting to be included in hypothetical general election polls and…he’s actually doing really well, basically on a par with Biden and Sanders, who generally do about 4-5 percentage points better than the other Dems. I’m not sure how well he will hold up once the other candidates start attacking him, but as of right now his case to be the moderate backup if Biden fizzles looks better than Mayor Pete’s.
The hell it doesn’t. What do you think bans on flavored cigarettes, flavored vaping devices, mandatory BAC limits, seat belt and open container laws, national ages for drinking and smoking are?
And we already have those infringements upon the 10th Amendment.
Now imagine multiplying those with an egotistical knowitall like Bloomberg!
OK, I guess to be fair to Steyer, the guy has at least worked his way up through the primary from the beginning, attempting to sell himself to voters. Bloomberg’s attitude of “I can just jump in here out of nowhere and buy the election” really strikes me as audacious and arrogant.
Who gives a crap? Remind me why it should matter if we think he’s a narcissistic horse’s ass. Don’t most people who run for president fall into this category in some capacity? Why does this preclude Bloomberg from possibly beating Trump? Does jumping in late somehow disqualify him? Specifically why do you think he doesn’t have a shot at the presidency? Because you don’t *want *him to win?
“Narcissistic horse’s ass” applies to nearly every presidential candidate in my lifetime. I would vote for the competent narcissistic horse’s ass over the incompetent one any time.
Yeah, I don’t like the guy, but if I did otherwise like a candidate, I certainly wouldn’t rule him out just because he was pursuing an unorthodox electoral strategy.
As of now Biden is still my second choice, but based on those hypothetical numbers it would be a tough call between Warren and Bloomberg if Biden goes away.
Biden’s chances are clearly decreased after his Iowa performance and likely will be hurt more by an expected poor showing in New Hampshire. My WAG is that his strong support among Black voters will soften mightily if he loses his narrative of most electable with a very poor New Hampshire showing.
If I had to bet right now I’d give Bloomberg the best odds of the bunch. Yeah he needs to show some chops on the debate stage. And I think he will. Mayor of New York was a tough stage to perform on. He’s tested.
I agree that Bloomberg needs to have an audition for the role, which is what getting a spot on the debate stage would offer.
As a supporter of Warren/Sanders, I agree. I think moderate Democrats are freaking the fuck out right now, and that’s what Bloomberg is counting on.
And honestly, I’m used to voting for folks I’m less than thrilled about; and from what I know about Bloomberg, which is not a shit-ton, I like him better than Biden. So if it takes a billionaire to catch a billionaire, I got my clothespin ready.
Politico article: Why Bloomberg’s Spending Goes Too Far
TL;DR version: Bloomberg’s solution to everything campaign-related is to lazily throw money and more money at it, rather than develop authentic campaigning techniques and building rapport with voters in person.
The problem with the Bloomberg scenario is that he’s running out of time. According to most polls, Biden would have to have a catastrophic collapse in the polls to give Bloomberg an opening. Iowa’s results were bad for Biden, but speculation aside, do we know that his performance was so bad that people might actually encourage him to drop out of the race? Because I think that’s almost what would be required for Bloomberg to compete with Sanders, who’s only become more popular these last few days. And we can’t rule out that Buttigieg and Warren might also feed off of Biden’s carcass as well.
At the moment, what Bloomberg seems most poised to do is to deny Sanders (and anyone else) enough delegates for the nomination. I don’t see Bloomberg winning California even with a possible Biden meltdown. It seems like the Bloomberg strategy (if one exists) is to lose battles but ultimately win the war, which would be legal and within the rules and all that. But Bernie Bros would go berserk and some might take their votes with them.
I saw the name Rich Lowry and stopped reading.
Know your sources.
Yeah, I’m betting the people Bloomberg hires to direct his money spending know a metric shit tonne more than some rumor transcriber at Politico.
Per Open Secrets he has less than $9 million of cash on hand. Buttigieg has $14.5 million and Sanders over $18 million. Bloomberg? A bit more.
Competing in the spread of states coming up takes money, more than $9 million. Sanders and Buttigieg will be able to replenish their accounts to at least competitive degrees. If Biden fails to place in New Hampshire, and there is another candidate perceived as electable and center Left … then he won’t get enough new funding to compete meaningfully going forward. No one would have to tell him to quit; he’d just fade away.
That could happen; I just don’t know that it will - yet.
Will be interesting to see.
ETA: Just to be clear, I don’t see Biden winning. Biden will collapse; I’m just wondering if he collapses hard and fast enough for Bloomberg to step in and take control of that center position.
I wasn’t real familiar with Bloomberg, so I did a bit of homework on him last night. My thoughts:
-
I think his wealth is his biggest asset, in terms of what sets him apart from other candidates. Romney ran almost entirely on the platform that he was a successful businessman and knew how to fix the economy in 2012; it didn’t get him the presidency but it did get him the party’s nomination. Trump didn’t make it his “platform,” but Trump supporters did see his business experience as an asset. I don’t think this view of equating successful in business with knowing how to improve the economy is limited to Republicans. Where this hypothesis falls apart a bit is when you look at Steyer, who’s also a successful businessman. My guess is that Bloomberg’s success over Steyer is due to three things: (1) greater name recognition, (2) actual government experience, (3) I get the impression Bloomberg plays up his wealth and sees it as more of an asset himself, whereas Steyer doesn’t seem as comfortable with owning it. IIRC, there was one debate where Warren was championing her wealth tax and Steyer essentially just jumped on the bandwagon and said me too.
-
Throughout this election cycle, I’ve said that Biden was a lock for the nomination. I have never seen someone be a front-runner in the primaries for the entire duration of pre-election campaigning and not win the candidacy. (To be fair, the sample size is small.) But in studying Bloomberg, I’m starting to notice another realistic scenario. Bloomberg has been focusing on campaigning in Big Tuesday states, particularly Texas and California, with their large delegate counts. I believe Biden was counting on Big Tuesday being the day when he really cemented his status as the front-runner, since he doesn’t have a huge lead in the first four states. And then there’s Buttigieg, who just did very well in Iowa and is poised to do well in New Hampshire as well.
What if Buttigieg gains momentum from surpassing expectations in Iowa and New Hampshire, and some Biden supporters switch over to him? And what if Bloomberg’s efforts in the Big Tuesday states are successful, and he seizes a sizable block of Biden supporters as well? And Super Tuesday votes wind up being split between Buttigieg, Biden, and Bloomberg, while Sanders winds up with more delegates than anyone, since the progressive faction appears to be coalescing around him now?
Sanders could easily wind up being the nominee in this scenario, which would probably make him the most far-left candidate ever put forth as a candidate for the general election. And (this happened before I was born, so maybe I’m wrong on this part) as I understand it, the last time Democrats put forth a far-left candidate, that candidate was defeated in an absolute landslide. (I’m thinking of McGovern vs. Nixon. If I’m wrong on that, please let me know.)
A real scenario in my estimation is Sanders having a narrow plurality but significantly short the majority, even adding in all of Warren’s delegates. The center Left group together OTOH have a solid majority with Bloomberg the very solid leader of the group.
Second vote which way ethically SHOULD delegates, including the then able to vote superdelegates, vote? Pretty sure which way it would go. And pretty sure if the circumstance was Biden in the Sanders position and Sanders in the Bloomberg that Sanders would be saying that the supers should vote for him as the progressive faction got the most votes. Pretty sure though that in my hypothetical he’ll be yelling how not giving it the one who got the most votes is unfair undemocratic and a fixed back room process stacked against him. And sulking for a while.
How is Bloomberg the solid leader of the group?
I mean, if you’re trying to say that Bloomberg could *become *the solid leader, then I agree. But considering that he doesn’t have a single delegate to his name yet, I don’t know how you could say that Bloomberg is already the leader of the group.
I wouldn’t say he’s the leader just yet, but Bloomberg’s on his way there. Step one, watch Biden drop in the polls (especially in in SC and NV) and Bernie rise (while picking ups some choice endorsements along the way). Step two, watch Biden get trounced in the first two states to vote. Step three, rise up a little bit higher in the polls (both national and Super Tuesday/March 10 states).
He’s got step one done. Step two should be complete by Tuesday night. Step three, at the rate he’s climbing right now, could be accomplished by the end of next week. I don’t think he even needs a delegate to be considered the leader of the middle lane. Just the elimination of Biden as a competitor and strong poll numbers in the March-voting states.