Why? I told you there were rumors that I read about. If you don’t believe me then I doubt there’s much reason to continue discussion. Why would you talk to someone you believed is a liar?
Edit to add: The quote from a Bloomberg (unnamed) aide was posted in mainstream press. I have seen these banal requests for cites go on for years on the sdmb and have never seen them meaningfully advance any discussion. I suspect you’re disinclined to believe Bloomberg’s aides, but for some reason you want to “make me” go dig up an old quote that you yourself would’ve seen if you say, read the New York Times during the month of January, specifically January 11th. It’s silly.
Not only was Biden slipping but Pete was rising. Bloomberg’s timing was right around that DMR poll showing Pete leading Iowa.
I wish wish wish wish Biden (and Bernie) would have rode off into the sunset and sat this one out. Damnit Joe, you’ve been in the Senate since Nixon was President. Even the 1990s were light years ago in politics. The loud activist progressive Democrats don’t give a fuck about where politics was at during the crime bill and Anita Hill. They know that you are EVIL and that’s that. Moderate liberals like myself are looking for something different now and to move forward. That’s why Buttigieg and Harris caught my eye.
Bloomberg is the last thing I want as well and I hope he does bow out if Biden looks more viable.
I’ve seen things like there on Political Wire and other blogs myself, I’ll try to find one next time I see it.
The main reason is that Bloomberg could have pulled a Steyer and run enough fundraising ads to meet the donor standards. So, as of now, he had no interest in getting on the debate stage which leaves the waiting in the wings theory with some support.
I’m not calling you a liar. You made a statement I had not heard before and I simply asked for a fucking cite so I could read it for myself. This place is about fighting ignorance, and if you could’ve produced a link, it would’ve actually accomplished the fighting of my ignorance.
Hey, I heard rumors that Biden will resign the minute after he takes office, should he win, and hand the presidency over to his vice president. Is it kosher for me to post that with no accountability, or should I get my panties in a wad too if someone asks for a cite?
When I’m trying to have a discussion with someone in good faith, and ask for a cite, but they tell me it’s my responsibility to verify their claims, yeah, I tend to get a bit cranky.
I do believe I’m starting to get a better picture of the person I’m interacting with.
Ok, but what about my point that Bloomberg made no attempt to meet the donor requirement to get on the debate stage? Andrew Yang will be up there next debate while Bloomberg won’t.
The paragraph that I think is being referenced reads:
“His aides have indicated that Mr. Bloomberg is not inclined to keep pouring money into an extended contest with Mr. Biden and would instead reorient his campaign into an organization dedicated to battering Mr Trump, should the former VP emerge as the leader in the race”
But I don’t interpret that as Bloomberg intends to drop out. He’s once again making it clear that his priority is getting Trump out rather than getting himself in, but he’s made that clear already.
Time will tell. I guess I mostly think Bloomberg’s entry into the race is significant because up until the time he entered the race, I didn’t think any of the Democratic candidates had a shot in hell against Trump. But I think Mike and his billions and a data-driven approach and the analytical infrastructure he has in place now means that the Democrats have an actual chance.
I’m much less depressed about the whole thing than I was a month ago.
I don’t think he cared. Unorthodox? Sure, but skipping the first four states in favor of the more delegate-rich states in Super Tuesday and beyond is unorthodox too. But, hell, this isn’t even the only debate in February, and it sounds like the party is adjusting the qualifications for the ones later in the month. Those are closer to the primaries he’s competing in anyway, if he chooses to participate.
I don’t want a really young guy but can’t we have someone born after the Korean War? Yang and Mayor Pete were born after Korea but neither one of them is going to be the nominee.
Thanks for posting that. But like you, I’m not interpreting that as Bloomberg secretly wanting to end his campaign. I see that as someone who is willing to step aside if the writing is on the wall, and throw his considerable wealth into the fall election(s).
But, seriously, if there are rumors of Bloomberg wanting to end his campaign for president, I’d love to see/read them. Especially interested as I continue to figure out who I’m going to vote for.
Deval Patrick (1956), Tom Steyer (1957), Amy Klobuchar (1960)
Take your pick.
The young-but-not-too-young candidates like Harris, Booker, Beto, Castro and Gillibrand were all driven out by because people evidently liked the seniors more.
doubt Bloomberg stays in after super Tuesday unless he does really well that day.
Deval Patrick (1956), Tom Steyer (1957), Amy Klobuchar (1960) are not winning the nomination. One of them only wins if the all top guys/gal die or quit.
I guess I should have said a leading candidate born after Korea.
Which he could. And if not he is committed to helping whoever the candidate is beat Trump. Not to being a spoiler or causing the likely nominee to waste resources.
FWIW Bloomberg has a long history of spending large amounts of his money for political causes. Those causes have not been fighting against progressive taxation.They’ve been
The only problem with this analysis is that it isn’t true. Biden has never been below 25% in national polls, and for about the last six months he’s been holding steady in the 25-30% range.
The candidate who WAS doing well when Bloomberg entered was Warren, who peaked in the low 20s and had moved into second place at that point. But she was still trailing Biden.
Which mean that my question to the OP is still, if he wanted to ensure a centrist President, why wouldn’t he just spend his money supporting Biden?
Because siphoning enough delegates off to lead to a brokered convention where he can then offer financial incentives to the democrats will give him more power and influence in the democratic party.
Plus Biden seems to have a cap the same way Bernie has a cap. Biden’s base is democrats over age 50. Since nearly half of voters are under age 50, then Biden will have a cap on how many votes he is going to get. The democratic party is starting to become fairly evenly divided between progressives and centrists, which means getting a majority of votes may not be possible (Hillary and Sanders ended up being 55-43 for Hillary, and the voters have moved to the left since then).
How exactly do you expect this “offering of financial incentives” to go down? Secret bribes or an offer to fund a massive campaign against Trump? Cuz, he did one of those already.
There’s obvious reasons why Bloomberg got in the race. He thought it was a weak field that needed a livelier moderate candidate and he wanted to show the best way to take on Trump.
That is an extraordinarily generous assessment of Citizen Bloomberg, that he simply oozes civic virtue and good intentions. I don’t know much about the man at all, but am eager to be reassured, if you have such.
He could offer jobs and financial assistance to a lot of delegates.
He could offer to self fund his campaign if he is nominated. He could offer over a billion dollars for the presidential race, senate, house and various state and local races too.
I think doing this would give him more power and influence within the democratic party than just starting a superPAC for Biden and putting half a billion dollars in it.