“extraordinarily generous assessment”? Oookay.
I’d still take those voters over 50 any day. They’ll show up and vote. Some 21 year old maybe firing off a 24/7 tweet storm about Bernie in their college dorm. then realize they’re past the deadline to get their absentee ballot from back home.
I highly doubt Bloomberg is going through this exercise to reduce his own taxes. The simpler thing to do if very rich but typically a supporter of Democrats and worried about a wealth tax is to not support Democrats in key Senate races. Without a Democratic Senate there will never be one (one might debate whether there ever would be either with a slim Democratic majority relying on Senators from typically conservative states). And that’s what a lot of rich Democratic donors may do actually, it’s been written about. But attempt some double bank shot with all the effort of running a presidential campaign I really doubt it.
I’m still with the conventional wisdom not seeing much chance for Bloomberg. But again I’m pretty sure the reason he’s running is that he disagrees with that, not to bribe a brokered convention to get another nominee to abandon a wealth tax. And as far as donating a lot to Democratic campaigns or at least big money toward direct ads against Trump, he insists he will do that whether he wins or loses the nomination.
Because the Democrats avoid winner take all apportionment of delegates by primary result, and leaving aside super delegates, a first ballot deadlock is always more likely than with GOP, and more likely that usual this year. However fatal flaw IMO with Bloomberg remains, he’s not really a Democrat and has no real base within the party (Sander is not really a Democrat but does have a real base within the party). I think he overestimates the ability of ‘party insiders’ to substitute him as the ‘moderate’ if some other moderate(s) implode.
To a significant degree see post #35 above.
He has a long track record of using his billions making meaningful impact on causes that can only be described as civic virtue and good intentions: fighting for environmental causes; public health issues such as reducing tobacco deaths, reducing gun deaths, reducing traffic accident death, and preventing and treating opioid addiction; and many more items which you can read about here. His money has gone to those causes, not The Club for Growth or such shit.
Politically he is unapologetic on issues that won’t endear him to some Obama-Trump voters. He’s worked hard for many years to shut down coal plants, he is the poster child for what the Right likes to demean as “the nanny state” regarding the role of the government in incentivizing behavior changes that impact public health, and is very big on stronger gun regulations. He is NOT someone who sells easily to rural voters and add in that he’s Jewish? He could potentially help ramp up Trump’s base.
On taxation he is currently promoting greater taxation of the wealthiest (but not the “wealth tax”). His past record there though is mixed - he’s made past statements expressing concern that increased taxation of the wealthiest would drive the wealthiest out, but then again as mayor is raised taxes on the wealthiest and property taxes. Under his tenure NY went from a deficit to a surplus.
His now apologized for long support of stop and frisk could be weaponized against him. And he is FOR free trade and against protectionism, which does not sell well with the populist crowd.
To my read there is little question that he is civic minded and of good intentions. And that some will strongly believe that he is mistaken as to what is the good.
Yes, young people have lower turnout, which is a problem.
But those young people will be old people someday, and those old people will pass away. The oldest millennials are 40… The democratic party is changing, and the DNC is trying to keep the democratic party a neoliberal party while the new voters coming in want a party more like FDR.
You mean, by the time Bernie and Bloomberg are dead, things will have shifted in Bernie’s favour?
There’s a simple non-complimentary explanation why Bloomberg would run for president, same explanation that at least partly explains virtually every presidential candidacy in history IMO: personal ambition to rise to the position of arguably highest prestige and power in the country and maybe the world.
In explaining self interested aspects of the ‘sound of hooves’ in people running for president, general personal ambition seems like ‘horses’ to me, and ‘to make the tax code more favorable for me personally’ seems like ‘zebras’. You’d really want to have some evidence for the tax idea besides just ‘he’d pay more tax’.
FDR was an advocate of American entrepreneurship. FDR was an advocate of capitalism. FDR was an unabashed patriot, unceasing in his support for America as a world leader on the global stage.
Bernie Sanders and his ilk could not be further different from FDR.
FTR the age at which a Democrat becomes less likely than not to support Bernie is about 40.
Really blows my mind that people are seriously thinking that the Democratic Party should nominate a Republican. Yet some of these people lose their shit at the thought of nominating an Independent who has been caucusing with Democrats for the last thirty years!
You talking about Warren?
More sanders “we wuz robbed” conspiracy theories. :rolleyes:
I don’t think you understand what Sanders actually stands for then, more what fox news says he stands for.
I think you’re referring to that shitbag who runs against the party he’s seeking the nomination of.
Gabbard’s a she.
I often consider myself cynical but … Wow! Thank God I’m not that cynical. Do you assume that all politicians are motivated primarily by their own selfish interests? Or just billionaire candidates?
The actual cost to Bloomberg of his campaign is much MUCH greater than his expected loss to a wealth tax … since the probability of passing such a tax is very low. (And as I explained in another thread, it’s under a moderate President that progressive programs are most likely to pass Congress!)
Nitpick: Given Warren’s proposal (“two cents”), Bloomberg would pay $1.2 billion. In my dialect that’s not “several billions.”
@ OP - When Bloomberg tried to ban large soft drinks, is that because he cleverly shorted Coca Cola shares? I suppose he’s also shorted Smith & Wesson since he’s hoping for gun control.
According to the NYT, Bloomberg spend $11.7M to re-elect Sen. Toomey (R-PA) in 2016. He held off his Dem challenger by 1.5%.
Makes sense if you prioritize gun control over everything else put together, but is completely counterproductive if you support the general run of Democratic goals.
And of course, we’re in an environment where every Senate seat counts. If a Democrat held that seat, we’d be at least even money for re-taking the Senate this fall, instead of way less than that.
So he’s got a lot of nerve, running for the Democratic Presidential nomination. He’s already majorly damaged our prospects for accomplishing anything in 2021.
Let him prove himself by helping some other Dem candidate win in 2020. Then he can run some other time.
Bloomberg isn’t going to get the nomination; and he knows it.
It appears he’s running as a way to force FoxNews to carry his barrage of anti-Trump ads. He should be applauded for this.
He’s the same age as Biden, almost as old as Sanders … him running another time is not really an option.
But your point otherwise is well made. He is Team His Issues, which overlap well with many Democrats issues but is not unflinchingly partisan Team D for the sake of being Team D. Which given that little can be done regarding those issues with the Rs having the Senate, the entrenched partisan nature of things, is regrettably counter-productive to achieving those goals.
Plus side is those issues. Good SCOTUS picks. And likely the best to have at the helm when the growth cycle ends. This is a person who knows how to be an executive and who understands economics in detail. And he trolls Trump with skill. I see him as better in a debate against Trump than anyone. His track record of approval ratings in New York by Ds and Rs alike is notable. He is unapologetically what he is believing what he believes and people like that.
Downside besides that he really is someone who reaches across the aisle on issues he cares about. Who exactly is his following?
If Obama-Trump voters matter most then how does he, as elite as they come, a Big Gulp tax supporting, Free Trade supporting, Pro-Choice, anti-coal, Climate agreements loving, gun control advocating, former big city mayor appeal best? If turnout of young progressives excited by revolutionary change and class warfare matter most, then how does he, the sigma outlier percenter, appeal best? If Black turnout optimization matters most how does someone whose past support of Stop and Frisk would be weaponized against him, appeal best? If suburban women matter most how does someone with a history of charges of misogynistic statements and work environments appeal best?
But yeah if Biden fails to place in either of the first two, those Ds who do NOT want a progressive champion, who prefer a more center Left, even moderate, less radical, at least trying to be bipartisan and healing approach, will be looking for a new standard bearer. He’s ready for that possibility.
And if Biden doesn’t fall? He’s put out all those anti-Trump ads in key states. From his POV still money well spent. And he’s out after Super Tuesday. Maybe even before.
Take a deep breath and remember that the Democrats run a big-tent party. There’s room for all the shitbags.