Jump to content

Michael Bloomberg for President 2020


hornhorn

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Lagunamadre said:

 

Y'all are both right. The question is do the energized college kids outweigh the anti-socialist suburban whites or visa versa. Only one way to find out. 

I'm predicting the suburban whites would give Trump a landslide, because death, taxes and young people don't vote. 

Dems aren’t getting suburban white men but they might get a solid share of suburban white women. If that’s who we need to target, why the fuck would we run Bloomberg out there?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

Dems aren’t getting suburban white men but they might get a solid share of suburban white women. If that’s who we need to target, why the fuck would we run Bloomberg out there?

The 2018 blue wave was in large part to suburban white women. They will be needed for the dem candidate to have any chance. These are moderate to conservative women who despise Trump, but I am guessing they would never vote for a socialist. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bloomberg is a cynical, depressing pick, but he's a mercenary, and I don't think he hurts down ballot candidates. 

Will he be better than Trump on climate change and health care? 

Yes. 

I'm going to let blacks and hispanics make their own choices and not preach to them about which of the candidates is more or less racist, or more or less likely to solve the problems that interest them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, tantric superman said:

Bloomberg is a cynical, depressing pick, but he's a mercenary, and I don't think he hurts down ballot candidates.

What does this even mean?

As for not hurting downballot candidates, he is already doing that.

I think center/center-right people need to just lean into the fact that they like Bloomberg because he's a center-right Republican who will hurt the progressive movement longterm. There's a lot of self-delusion and pretending going around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Lagunamadre said:

The 2018 blue wave was in large part to suburban white women. They will be needed for the dem candidate to have any chance. These are moderate to conservative women who despise Trump, but I am guessing they would never vote for a socialist. 

The entire reason they’re even considering voting Dem is because they despise Trump and his act has turned them off of GOP politics. Some have developed more liberal views on issues in the past few years and some haven’t but simply despise Trump. If our primary goal is appealing to that particular group of voters, Bloomberg ain’t it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

There's a lot of self-delusion and pretending going around.

You're so kind.  I was worried you were going to call it stupidity.

2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

What does this even mean?

It means what it says.  He isn't going to hurt down ballot candidates, especially in the suburban areas where anti-Trumpers made big gains in 2018,

The goals for this cycle should be:

1) Lock in House, 2) Regain senate, 3) defeat of Trump will likely occur if that happens. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

The entire reason they’re even considering voting Dem is because they despise Trump and his act has turned them off of GOP politics. Some have developed more liberal views on issues in the past few years and some haven’t but simply despise Trump. If our primary goal is appealing to that particular group of voters, Bloomberg ain’t it.

Ohh see I disagree. He gives them everything they want (continuation of Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama America) without all of the Trump baggage of incivility. That group is happy enough with their lives and they don't want to break things to start over like the MAGA and Bernie crowds. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

It means what it says.  He isn't going to hurt down ballot candidates, especially in the suburban areas where anti-Trumpers made big gains in 2018,

So when down-ballot candidates say, "I can't hire staff I need because Mike is hiring up everyone" your interpretation is, "That doesn't hurt those candidates."?

That's interesting.

He is actively hurting down-ballot candidates right now. I guess you have a motivation for breezing past those candidates telling you directly it's happening, and it might be useful for you to interrogate your internal reasons for ignoring objective reality.

What I suppose you mean is that he will not suppress the vote to an extent that will hurt those candidates, right? Is that what you mean?

If so, we have no evidence to support you. Turnout was flat in Iowa, up in NH, and looks to be wildly up in Nevada. That would be two positive and one neutral points from states where Bloomberg was a non-participant.

The more obvious issue is the lack of on-the-ground support for Bloomberg that isn't directly paid for. People aren't turning out in droves to canvas or volunteer for him. He's not packing huge venues. There is zero evidence aside from wishful thinking that he's going to turn out voters. So like the above, it might be useful for you to ask yourself why you're indulging in that evidence-free wishful thinking.

Do you think suburban women will be excited to turn out for a little office tyrant who sexually harasses women and tells them to abort their babies?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

What I suppose you mean is that he will not suppress the vote to an extent that will hurt those candidates, right? Is that what you mean?

Yep, and have only worked as an unpaid volunteer on campaigns, so (wishful) thinking that whatever harm he is doing to down ballot candidates now will not affect the down ballot primaries and will wash out once the general election campaigning begins in earnest.

Ultimately if he is bidding up the wages of paid volunteers, that is a good thing for the paid volunteers.  While I respect some of the linked reports, I don't really know if over paid volunteer in campaign A necessarily has a long term deleterious effect on their ability to assist on campaign B or campaign B's ability to get new workers. 

In other words, if this means more money for Dem volunteers in the short run, how do we know it isn't a good for Dems in the long run?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

Yep, and have only worked as an unpaid volunteer on campaigns, so (wishful) thinking that whatever harm he is doing to down ballot candidates now will not affect the down ballot primaries and will wash out once the general election campaigning begins in earnest.

How will it "wash out"? Do you have any idea how campaigning works?

Local candidates need to run local races to win. There can be HUGE variations in how people vote. While a lot of people just slam "STRAIGHT D" or "STRAIGHT R", people mix up their tickets and the spreads can be 20+ points between the top of the ticket and down-ballot races.

And this isn't happening on the R side. Their billionaires fund local campaigns and provide top-level experienced staff to small races. Those Ds running against them are going up against AR-15s armed with hatchets.

Quote

While I respect some of the linked reports, I don't really know if over paid volunteer in campaign A necessarily has a long term deleterious effect on their ability to assist on campaign B or campaign B's ability to get new workers.

So you don't understand how hiring up all the experienced workers makes it harder for other campaigns to find experienced workers?

You seriously don't understand the impacts of poaching?

This is honestly mind-melting.

Edited by bad_teammate
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, HenryJames said:

 

Criminy.

My wife's co-worker (doctor) just told her that he's voting for Bloomberg "because he is the only one that can beat trump and he is a REAL successful business man, unlike trump"

This man went to Brown and Stanford.

 
 
 
Edited by Biff Tannen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

What does this even mean?

As for not hurting downballot candidates, he is already doing that.

I think center/center-right people need to just lean into the fact that they like Bloomberg because he's a center-right Republican who will hurt the progressive movement longterm. There's a lot of self-delusion and pretending going around.

There aren't many center-right Republicans who want to ban guns or tell you what size slurpy you can order at 7-11.  He's a big government guy, he's liberal on many issues and the only reason anyone would think he's "center-right" is because the Democratic field has swerved so far to the left that they knocked over the guardrail on the way to Sweden.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Horn of Gabriel said:

There aren't many center-right Republicans who want to ban guns or tell you what size slurpy you can order at 7-11.  He's a big government guy, he's liberal on many issues and the only reason anyone would think he's "center-right" is because the Democratic field has swerved so far to the left that they knocked over the guardrail on the way to Sweden.

- He opposes minimum wages
- He opposes social welfare
- He loves both military intervention and the militarization of police

I agree that he's a mixed bag in some ways, but he's got all the marks of a pro-business elite Republican. He's definitely not a base Republican, for sure. But that's the old order, the elite Republicans throwing some red meat to the base Republicans during election season and then ignoring them until it was time for another election. Trump changed all that. Bloomberg would've fit right in as the 2008 Republican candidate because he wouldn't have pretended to care about guns.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Horn of Gabriel said:

There aren't many center-right Republicans who want to ban guns or tell you what size slurpy you can order at 7-11.  He's a big government guy, he's liberal on many issues and the only reason anyone would think he's "center-right" is because the Democratic field has swerved so far to the left that they knocked over the guardrail on the way to Sweden.

You may love him or hate him but to call him center right is either willful ignorance or delusion.  He openly supports PP, gun control, and more taxes and spending.  (Plus a $15 min wage, BTW.)

Point to someone on the Republican side who matches that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

- He opposes minimum wages
- He opposes social welfare
- He loves both military intervention and the militarization of police

I agree that he's a mixed bag in some ways, but he's got all the marks of a pro-business elite Republican. He's definitely not a base Republican, for sure. But that's the old order, the elite Republicans throwing some red meat to the base Republicans during election season and then ignoring them until it was time for another election. Trump changed all that. Bloomberg would've fit right in as the 2008 Republican candidate because he wouldn't have pretended to care about guns.

Big oppose guy

Given how much time you're in here responding I assume you're in this thread to learn and possibly support Mike so here you go. He doesn't need your money though

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Aqua Buddha said:

You may love him or hate him but to call him center right is either willful ignorance or delusion.  He openly supports PP, gun control, and more taxes and spending.  (Plus a $15 min wage, BTW.)

Point to someone on the Republican side who matches that.

Positions he adopted approximately 30 seconds ago. Anybody who thinks he actually supports those things, despite everything else he's said and done in the other 78 years of his fucking life, is a goddamned fool.

If you want to believe him go ahead, but we're under no obligation to pretend he actually believes any of that shit. He's got an extensive record that tells us who he is.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

He's not packing huge venues. There is zero evidence aside from wishful thinking that he's going to turn out voters. So like the above, it might be useful for you to ask yourself why you're indulging in that evidence-free wishful thinking.

Does a Bloomberg voter seem like the type of person that needs to attend a large cult-like rally with like minded individuals convinced a politician is going to solve all of their problems?  Of course he's not someone that's going to attract massive crowds.    Bloomberg voters likely (i) vote on a regular basis and (ii) have a life and don't need everyone in the world to know which candidate they prefer.   

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Skipper said:

Does a Bloomberg voter seem like the type of person that needs to attend a large cult-like rally with like minded individuals convinced a politician is going to solve all of their problems?  Of course he's not someone that's going to attract massive crowds.    Bloomberg voters likely (i) vote on a regular basis and (ii) have a life and don't need everyone in the world to know which candidate they prefer.   

Sir, the Jeb! readings... they're... THEY'RE OFF THE SCALE!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've yet to see a Bloomberg supporter anywhere online give a reason for supporting him that isn't just "he's the only one that can beat Trump." His supporters are the supporters Biden lost, who only supported Biden because they thought Biden was the most electable until Biden started losing. There's no such thing as an actual affirmative Bloomberg supporter (that he isn't paying).

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

I've yet to see a Bloomberg supporter anywhere online give a reason for supporting him that isn't just "he's the only one that can beat Trump." His supporters are the supporters Biden lost, who only supported Biden because they thought Biden was the most electable until Biden started losing. There's no such thing as an actual affirmative Bloomberg supporter (that he isn't paying).

Believe it or not, there are a lot of people out there that didn't want the Trump nativist revolution and don't want to replace that with the polar opposite socialist revolution.  I think a lot of people that vote for Bloomberg would probably be fine with Biden/Klobuchar/Pete but will be convinced Bloomberg most likely to rise out of that pack, and yes, actually beat Trump.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

I've yet to see a Bloomberg supporter anywhere online give a reason for supporting him that isn't just "he's the only one that can beat Trump." His supporters are the supporters Biden lost, who only supported Biden because they thought Biden was the most electable until Biden started losing. There's no such thing as an actual affirmative Bloomberg supporter (that he isn't paying).

I think this is correct. This also underscores Bernie’s ceiling. The folks worried about beating Trump first and foremost aren’t gravitating to Bernie when their #1, 2, 3, etc. falter. Bernie’s path to the nomination is one where the culling stalls until at least very late in the game. If Biden’s freefall continues apace, and Klobuchar’s lack of a campaign apparatus sinks her shot at following up the NH surprise, I think you see Bloomberg pivot to a kill shot on Buttigieg, and that’s all he’d need to win. 

Edited by softlynow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

Sanders would've won in 2016. He will win in 2020.

I don't necessarily disagree, but I don't think using 2016 as a barometer for 2020 is very smart. Bernie has gone further left on policy since 2016, and whatever negativity people have regarding his supporters is much stronger now.  Plus people have lost their fucking minds since Trump took office. It's a totally different and unpredictable ballgame this time around. 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, softlynow said:

I think this is correct. This also underscores Bernie’s ceiling. The folks worried about beating Trump first and foremost aren’t gravitating to Bernie when their #1, 2, 3, etc. falter. Bernie’s path to the nomination is one where the culling stalls until at least very late in the game. If Biden’s freefall continues apace, and Klobuchar’s lack of a campaign apparatus sinks her shot at following up the NH surprise, I think you see Bloomberg pivot to a kill shot on Buttigieg, and that’s all he’d need to win. 

This isn't how it's been playing out or how it will play out:

Quote

Judging by media coverage and the comments of party luminaries, you might think Democrats are bitterly polarized over Bernie Sanders’s presidential bid. Last month, Hillary Clinton declared that “nobody likes” the Vermont senator. Last week, James Carville, who ran Bill Clinton’s 1992 campaign, said he was “scared to death” of the Sanders campaign, which he likened to “a cult.” Since the beginning of the year, news organization after news organization has speculated that Sanders’s success may set off a Democratic “civil war.”   

But polls of Democratic voters show nothing of the sort. Among ordinary Democrats, Sanders is strikingly popular, even with voters who favor his rivals. He sparks less opposition—in some cases far less—than his major competitors. On paper, he appears well positioned to unify the party should he win its presidential nomination.

So why all the talk of civil war? Because Sanders is far more divisive among Democratic elites—who prize institutional loyalty and ideological moderation—than Democratic voters. The danger is that by projecting their own anxieties onto rank-and-file Democrats, party insiders are exaggerating the risk of a schism if Sanders wins the nomination, and overlooking the greater risk that the party could fracture if they engineer his defeat.   

 

Most people who choose who to support based on "electability" don't seem to actually understand electability. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bloomberg's late entrance/surge seems to have killed any chance for my favorite candidate, but it would be poetic justice for Bernie to win the nomination in part because of Mike trying to buy the presidency. 

Bloomberg not being an automatic "no" for Democratic voters shows how Trumpism finally broke their brains. 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

I don't think it's because they're too busy, I think it's because to attend a Bloomberg rally you'd have to be around a lot of Bloomberg supporters, and no one wants that.

Well that's a mighty fucking stupid take, even for you.  Witness: Trump rallies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Bloomberg not being an automatic "no" for Democratic voters shows how Trumpism finally broke their brains. 

I think there is a lot of truth to this.  People are fucking horrified with what is happening and just want it to end.  For some reason, and I guess maybe it's the multitude of ads, they think Bloomberg can do it.  They don't give a fuck about platforms.  They just want the dotard gone.  I think this is what Bernie Bros need to understand.  Their issues are important, but maybe not the most important thing THIS election.  This election is about saving our republic.  We can revisit the lofty ideals once we get back on a normal path.

I would love to kill two birds with one stone, but I'm worried it's not possible.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, longhornmatt said:

Bloomberg is gaining 15 points in polls from a month ago and now running second nationally (and leading a number of states) despite not even really being in the race yet.  His tsunami of ads are working so far.  Jeb had a Hindenburg trend line despite the huge cash and ad buys.

The reason for his surge is exactly BECAUSE he hasn't really entered the race. It looks like many people are ok with Bloomberg because of the vague, quickly assumed thought that he could defeat Trump due to him flooding the airwaves. It's all hot air at the moment IMO.  He's the "shiny new object" (sorry, Bama Chick). Biden was cruising in national polling for almost a year, until reality smacked him in the face in Iowa and NH. 

Assuming Bloomberg's at the debate tomorrow, the picture will become much more clear whether voters will take him seriously or not afterwards. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

I think there is a lot of truth to this.  People are fucking horrified with what is happening and just want it to end.  For some reason, and I guess maybe it's the multitude of ads, they think Bloomberg can do it.  They don't give a fuck about platforms.  They just want the dotard gone.  I think this is what Bernie Bros need to understand.  Their issues are important, but maybe not the most important thing THIS election.  This election is about saving our republic.  We can revisit the lofty ideals once we get back on a normal path.

I would love to kill two birds with one stone, but I'm worried it's not possible.

I’m more team Warren than team Bernie, but the idea that a President Bloomberg would get us “back on a normal path” is absurd. Literally nobody is less likely to do that than him.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

This isn't how it's been playing out or how it will play out:

 

Most people who choose who to support based on "electability" don't seem to actually understand electability. 

Dem voters may not be hostile to Sanders, but his numbers have been static, while the other 60-65% seem to float among the other candidates. The game-changer, IMO, is if he can manage a breakthrough with the African-Americans who’ve propped up Biden’s numbers. His answers on racial issues have been less than well-received. Of course, Buttigieg and Bloomberg both have their problems there as well. 
 

For my part, I’m not personally hostile to Bernie, but I’m hesitant to test the effect of four months of the GOP machine highlighting the things Boomers will be scared of in the general. I get why Trump wants to face him. I also get that he’s tried tearing down Biden to get to Bernie. But neither would be, IMO, the toughest dem challenger.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, wildcat09 said:

I’m more team Warren than team Bernie, but the idea that a President Bloomberg would get us “back on a normal path” is absurd. Literally nobody is less likely to do that than him.

Oh, I'm not saying I think he would.  But it seems a lot of people do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

I think there is a lot of truth to this.  People are fucking horrified with what is happening and just want it to end.  For some reason, and I guess maybe it's the multitude of ads, they think Bloomberg can do it.  They don't give a fuck about platforms.  They just want the dotard gone.  I think this is what Bernie Bros need to understand.  Their issues are important, but maybe not the most important thing THIS election.  This election is about saving our republic.  We can revisit the lofty ideals once we get back on a normal path.

I would love to kill two birds with one stone, but I'm worried it's not possible.

If Bloomberg is the nominee and defeats Trump, #Resistance Democrats will breathe a sigh of relief, take a break from politics, and let Bloomberg fuck this country up the ass with zero pushback. 

We are better off with Bernie, Warren, Pete, Biden, or Klob as the D nominee, even if we don't know if they end up beating Trump. No matter the result, it is a healthier situation for the country. Bloomberg vs. Trump is the fucking apocalypse. I'm with @bad_teammate on this one. 

 

 

Edited by Hank Kingsley
  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

I've yet to see a Bloomberg supporter anywhere online give a reason for supporting him that isn't just "he's the only one that can beat Trump." His supporters are the supporters Biden lost, who only supported Biden because they thought Biden was the most electable until Biden started losing. There's no such thing as an actual affirmative Bloomberg supporter (that he isn't paying).

He seems to have the most support from a confederation of displaced Neocons, Never Trumpers and Resistance folks which might just be the same people .

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Hank Kingsley said:

If Bloomberg is the nominee and defeats Trump, #Resistance Democrats will breathe a sigh of relief, take a break from politics, and let Bloomberg fuck this country up the ass with zero pushback. 

We are better off with Bernie, Warren, Pete, Biden, or Klob as the D nominee, even if we don't know if they end up beating Trump. No matter the result, it is a healthier situation for the country. Bloomberg vs. Trump is the fucking apocalypse. I'm with @bad_teammate on this one. 

 

 

Again, I pretty much agree with this.  It appears a good chunk of people do not.  I don't know how we handle that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...