Bloomberg running for Dem nominee - thoughts?

3,858 Views | 68 Replies | Last: 4 yr ago by concordtom
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Kinda late in the game.

Probably hurts Biden big time.
Anarchistbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Insignificant. He was polling at 1% and is likely to not rise too much above that

Biden's strength is "electability", (the Ukraine thing helps him in the primaries), and Obama (black voters). Bloomberg has no constituency- there are plenty of other moderates in the race; plus the idea that rich billionaires are our salvation ( Steyer and Bloomberg) is way out of touch with primary voters.

He'd be better off running as a third party in the general
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I don't think Biden's base will overlap with Bloomberg that much. Biden is holding his strength with non-white and working-class voters. Those people are jumping ship for Bloomberg?
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
So basically no impact? Not even on the guns issue?
Anarchistbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Who of the Democrats doesn't favor gun control?

Plus the first primary he is entering is Alabama. I don't think gun control advocated by a midget New Yorker is going to play there.

My own view is he wants to spend money on growing his brand so he can be "drafted" if Warren or Sanders are getting the nomination
BearlyCareAnymore
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Anarchistbear said:

Who of the Democrats doesn't favor gun control?

Plus the first primary he is entering is Alabama. I don't think gun control advocated by a midget New Yorker is going to play there.

My own view is he wants to spend money on growing his brand so he can be "drafted" if Warren or Sanders are getting the nomination
Alabama is not the first primary he is entering. Alabama is the state with the earliest deadline to put your name on the ballot. That deadline is today so if he doesn't file he wouldn't be on the ballot there. The media loves the story, but I don't believe he has decided to run. He is preserving his opportunity. If he runs, he will be running in Iowa.
BearlyCareAnymore
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:

Kinda late in the game.

Probably hurts Biden big time.
WIAF

I don't believe he has said he has decided to run. Alabama is the first deadline to get on the ballot, so filing there just preserves his ability to jump in.

IMO, it all depends on what happens with Biden's campaign. Right now there is a completely false narrative going on that his campaign is fading and Warren is surging. As usual it is because the media doesn't know how to interpret polls. It is obvious that the lesson that wasn't learned from 2016 in the "blame the polls" for what they didn't say aftermath was that the media needs to be a lot more careful about how they report them. I suggest reading this for some context:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/warrens-polls-have-leveled-off-at-least-for-now/

And this one shows that on average Warren is down a bit since the last debate while most candidates INCLUDING BIDEN, are up a bit


https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/despite-his-heart-attack-sanders-is-still-solidly-in-third/

There are a few issues going on here:

1. Biden had already coalesced the moderate and minority vote months ago. His national numbers have not been dropping much unlike the portrayal. He's stayed pretty consistent. That seems obvious as he was the defined choice of the moderate establishment from the beginning.

2. Warren has been able to become the standard bearer for a particular type of voter (mostly liberal white voters). She was competing for that lane from the beginning. Actually, if you looked at polls a few months ago, it was clear that she and Harris were competing for the same voter (in polls that asked for second choice, they were each the second choice for the other). Much of Warren's surge has been taking the Harris vote. In fact, since Harris peaked after the first debate, the change in the polling percentages across the board has been almost entirely Harris voters moving to Warren while everyone else stayed nearly the same.

3. The tightening of the race between Warren and Biden has been almost entirely due to Warren kicking other candidates like Harris out of her lane, not Biden support waning. However, at least for now, the polls indicate that process has ended. Warren hasn't gained in national polls in over a month. She convinced white liberals to come to her side. She has not made inroads with any other voting segment, so her polls have become static.

4. On that second choice polling from a few months ago, one of the surprises was that the two pairs of candidates that were most strongly correlated with each other were Warren/Harris - which didn't make sense philosophically, and Biden/Sanders which really didn't make sense philosophically. But voters aren't always voting philosophically. I think there is an assumption that if Bernie left, Warren would get his vote. I think that assumption is faulty. Frankly, a lot of Bernie voters hate Warren's guts.

5. Way too much is being made of Iowa and New Hampshire in reporting the early state polling. See the following:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/national-polls-and-state-polls-show-pretty-much-the-same-thing/

If you look at the polling in the first 4 states, they combined mimic the national polling which still has Biden ahead. Iowa and New Hampshire are both extremely white. Warren is doing better there than in national polling because you would expect her to based on the demographic makeup of the state. (plus New Hampshire is in her back yard). Buttigieg is exceeding his national polling in Iowa for the same reason. But in contest #3, South Carolina, Biden is trouncing everyone. In contest #4, Nevada, he is winning handily. If things hold as they are today, Biden is going to crush everyone throughout the south. None of the other three top candidates have shown they can pull any nonwhite vote. Frankly, if Warren doesn't win Iowa AND New Hampshire, she is probably dead meat.

That is the state of the polling. Where things are going badly for Biden are 1. Narrative and 2. Fundraising.

1. Narrative - I assume the media will continue to love the interesting story that Warren is surging whether it remains true or not UNLESS, the rest of the Democrats are able to knock her down, in which case the media will love the Warren is plummeting narrative. Biden basically needs to survive through the next few months until South Carolina and Nevada. Probably primarily Nevada because everyone knows he is going to clean up in SC. If he does that, I think you will see him go on to be the nominee.

2. Fundraising - Biden's campaign is doing terribly in fundraising. That is probably a bigger problem.

Both issues concern me as to his campaign staff. They should be able to change the narrative and I have no idea why they can't fundraise better

I think Bloomberg is plain and simple staying in to see if Biden gets taken down and creates a vacuum on the moderate side. I don't think that is likely, and I'm not sure he would be the guy to fill it if it does. It won't be Buttigieg because he can't pick up Biden's minority vote. Honestly, I think it would be the minority vote, not the moderate vote, that would determine this.

BearNIt
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Bloomberg won't make the debates which puts him at a disadvantage. His popularity among minorities regarding interactions with the police could also hinder him as will his relationship with the Unions while mayor. The consensus was that he was the manager that New York needed at the time and that is why he won multiple terms. If he can annoy the Idiot in Chief for the next few months I would welcome his run. Democrats need to sharpen their skills for the general election. It appears that Medicare Care for all and the end of private insurance is not going to sell in middle America and could provide Republicans with what they need to scare middle America in voting for the Idiot in Chief.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Warren and Biden have consolidated their lanes. Waiting behind them to enter those lanes if they falter are Bernie and Pete, and behind that you still have the likes of Klobuchar, Booker, Harris. I don't see how Bloomberg captures either of those lanes at this point.

Bloomberg would appeal to a relatively small demographic within the party: upper-class white urban moderates. That group is surely overrepresented within the newsmedia and donor class, but there aren't that many votes there. That's why he's always only polled at around 1% support.
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
OaktownBear said:

wifeisafurd said:

Kinda late in the game.

Probably hurts Biden big time.
WIAF

I don't believe he has said he has decided to run. Alabama is the first deadline to get on the ballot, so filing there just preserves his ability to jump in.

IMO, it all depends on what happens with Biden's campaign. Right now there is a completely false narrative going on that his campaign is fading and Warren is surging. As usual it is because the media doesn't know how to interpret polls. It is obvious that the lesson that wasn't learned from 2016 in the "blame the polls" for what they didn't say aftermath was that the media needs to be a lot more careful about how they report them. I suggest reading this for some context:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/warrens-polls-have-leveled-off-at-least-for-now/

And this one shows that on average Warren is down a bit since the last debate while most candidates INCLUDING BIDEN, are up a bit


https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/despite-his-heart-attack-sanders-is-still-solidly-in-third/

There are a few issues going on here:

1. Biden had already coalesced the moderate and minority vote months ago. His national numbers have not been dropping much unlike the portrayal. He's stayed pretty consistent. That seems obvious as he was the defined choice of the moderate establishment from the beginning.

2. Warren has been able to become the standard bearer for a particular type of voter (mostly liberal white voters). She was competing for that lane from the beginning. Actually, if you looked at polls a few months ago, it was clear that she and Harris were competing for the same voter (in polls that asked for second choice, they were each the second choice for the other). Much of Warren's surge has been taking the Harris vote. In fact, since Harris peaked after the first debate, the change in the polling percentages across the board has been almost entirely Harris voters moving to Warren while everyone else stayed nearly the same.

3. The tightening of the race between Warren and Biden has been almost entirely due to Warren kicking other candidates like Harris out of her lane, not Biden support waning. However, at least for now, the polls indicate that process has ended. Warren hasn't gained in national polls in over a month. She convinced white liberals to come to her side. She has not made inroads with any other voting segment, so her polls have become static.

4. On that second choice polling from a few months ago, one of the surprises was that the two pairs of candidates that were most strongly correlated with each other were Warren/Harris - which didn't make sense philosophically, and Biden/Sanders which really didn't make sense philosophically. But voters aren't always voting philosophically. I think there is an assumption that if Bernie left, Warren would get his vote. I think that assumption is faulty. Frankly, a lot of Bernie voters hate Warren's guts.

5. Way too much is being made of Iowa and New Hampshire in reporting the early state polling. See the following:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/national-polls-and-state-polls-show-pretty-much-the-same-thing/

If you look at the polling in the first 4 states, they combined mimic the national polling which still has Biden ahead. Iowa and New Hampshire are both extremely white. Warren is doing better there than in national polling because you would expect her to based on the demographic makeup of the state. (plus New Hampshire is in her back yard). Buttigieg is exceeding his national polling in Iowa for the same reason. But in contest #3, South Carolina, Biden is trouncing everyone. In contest #4, Nevada, he is winning handily. If things hold as they are today, Biden is going to crush everyone throughout the south. None of the other three top candidates have shown they can pull any nonwhite vote. Frankly, if Warren doesn't win Iowa AND New Hampshire, she is probably dead meat.

That is the state of the polling. Where things are going badly for Biden are 1. Narrative and 2. Fundraising.

1. Narrative - I assume the media will continue to love the interesting story that Warren is surging whether it remains true or not UNLESS, the rest of the Democrats are able to knock her down, in which case the media will love the Warren is plummeting narrative. Biden basically needs to survive through the next few months until South Carolina and Nevada. Probably primarily Nevada because everyone knows he is going to clean up in SC. If he does that, I think you will see him go on to be the nominee.

2. Fundraising - Biden's campaign is doing terribly in fundraising. That is probably a bigger problem.

Both issues concern me as to his campaign staff. They should be able to change the narrative and I have no idea why they can't fundraise better

I think Bloomberg is plain and simple staying in to see if Biden gets taken down and creates a vacuum on the moderate side. I don't think that is likely, and I'm not sure he would be the guy to fill it if it does. It won't be Buttigieg because he can't pick up Biden's minority vote. Honestly, I think it would be the minority vote, not the moderate vote, that would determine this.


Thanks, good discussion.
BearlyCareAnymore
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

Warren and Biden have consolidated their lanes. Waiting behind them to enter those lanes if they falter are Bernie and Pete, and behind that you still have the likes of Klobuchar, Booker, Harris. I don't see how Bloomberg captures either of those lanes at this point.

Bloomberg would appeal to a relatively small demographic within the party: upper-class white urban moderates. That group is surely overrepresented within the newsmedia and donor class, but there aren't that many votes there. That's why he's always only polled at around 1% support.
The media simply does not inform their opinions on electability on actual polling and when they do they do such a superficial job they do it wrong. "Moderate" and "Progressive" is not the whole story. To even remotely tell the story you have to separate out Socially Moderate/Progressive and Fiscally Moderate/Progressive.

Bloomberg is a social progressive who has no understanding or concern at all for the financial plight of anyone who is worth less than $50M. He will institute fiscal policies that will massively help the wealthy. As you say, social progressive with his fiscal views is a very small demographic.

The Obama/Trump voter, on the other hand tends to be socially conservative but thinks the little guy gets screwed. How are they going to move into Bloomberg's camp?

And, as usual, the media entirely ignores minorities. Biden leads because he is the choice of minorities. Again, how is Bloomberg taking over that demographic?

I also don't think Mayor Pete is waiting in the wings to take over if Biden stumbles. He is probably the candidate least liked by Blacks.

Honestly, if Biden dropped out of the race tomorrow, it would be very interesting what would happen. I think the assumption is that minorities would move to one of the other 3 main candidates, but I'm not sure that is the case. I think you'd see the polling being a mess with whites initially moving to Pete and Bernie and Blacks trying to decide where to go between three candidates they don't like and two candidates - Harris and Booker that they like (in terms of polling) but who are way behind. It would be a question of whether one of the other candidates was able to coalesce enough support. Honestly, I think that moderate whites would rather go with Booker or Harris than Pete, Bernie or Warren, so if minorities coalesced around one, the moderates might jump to them.

But I don't think Biden is going anywhere.
BearlyCareAnymore
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:

OaktownBear said:

wifeisafurd said:

Kinda late in the game.

Probably hurts Biden big time.
WIAF

I don't believe he has said he has decided to run. Alabama is the first deadline to get on the ballot, so filing there just preserves his ability to jump in.

IMO, it all depends on what happens with Biden's campaign. Right now there is a completely false narrative going on that his campaign is fading and Warren is surging. As usual it is because the media doesn't know how to interpret polls. It is obvious that the lesson that wasn't learned from 2016 in the "blame the polls" for what they didn't say aftermath was that the media needs to be a lot more careful about how they report them. I suggest reading this for some context:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/warrens-polls-have-leveled-off-at-least-for-now/

And this one shows that on average Warren is down a bit since the last debate while most candidates INCLUDING BIDEN, are up a bit


https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/despite-his-heart-attack-sanders-is-still-solidly-in-third/

There are a few issues going on here:

1. Biden had already coalesced the moderate and minority vote months ago. His national numbers have not been dropping much unlike the portrayal. He's stayed pretty consistent. That seems obvious as he was the defined choice of the moderate establishment from the beginning.

2. Warren has been able to become the standard bearer for a particular type of voter (mostly liberal white voters). She was competing for that lane from the beginning. Actually, if you looked at polls a few months ago, it was clear that she and Harris were competing for the same voter (in polls that asked for second choice, they were each the second choice for the other). Much of Warren's surge has been taking the Harris vote. In fact, since Harris peaked after the first debate, the change in the polling percentages across the board has been almost entirely Harris voters moving to Warren while everyone else stayed nearly the same.

3. The tightening of the race between Warren and Biden has been almost entirely due to Warren kicking other candidates like Harris out of her lane, not Biden support waning. However, at least for now, the polls indicate that process has ended. Warren hasn't gained in national polls in over a month. She convinced white liberals to come to her side. She has not made inroads with any other voting segment, so her polls have become static.

4. On that second choice polling from a few months ago, one of the surprises was that the two pairs of candidates that were most strongly correlated with each other were Warren/Harris - which didn't make sense philosophically, and Biden/Sanders which really didn't make sense philosophically. But voters aren't always voting philosophically. I think there is an assumption that if Bernie left, Warren would get his vote. I think that assumption is faulty. Frankly, a lot of Bernie voters hate Warren's guts.

5. Way too much is being made of Iowa and New Hampshire in reporting the early state polling. See the following:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/national-polls-and-state-polls-show-pretty-much-the-same-thing/

If you look at the polling in the first 4 states, they combined mimic the national polling which still has Biden ahead. Iowa and New Hampshire are both extremely white. Warren is doing better there than in national polling because you would expect her to based on the demographic makeup of the state. (plus New Hampshire is in her back yard). Buttigieg is exceeding his national polling in Iowa for the same reason. But in contest #3, South Carolina, Biden is trouncing everyone. In contest #4, Nevada, he is winning handily. If things hold as they are today, Biden is going to crush everyone throughout the south. None of the other three top candidates have shown they can pull any nonwhite vote. Frankly, if Warren doesn't win Iowa AND New Hampshire, she is probably dead meat.

That is the state of the polling. Where things are going badly for Biden are 1. Narrative and 2. Fundraising.

1. Narrative - I assume the media will continue to love the interesting story that Warren is surging whether it remains true or not UNLESS, the rest of the Democrats are able to knock her down, in which case the media will love the Warren is plummeting narrative. Biden basically needs to survive through the next few months until South Carolina and Nevada. Probably primarily Nevada because everyone knows he is going to clean up in SC. If he does that, I think you will see him go on to be the nominee.

2. Fundraising - Biden's campaign is doing terribly in fundraising. That is probably a bigger problem.

Both issues concern me as to his campaign staff. They should be able to change the narrative and I have no idea why they can't fundraise better

I think Bloomberg is plain and simple staying in to see if Biden gets taken down and creates a vacuum on the moderate side. I don't think that is likely, and I'm not sure he would be the guy to fill it if it does. It won't be Buttigieg because he can't pick up Biden's minority vote. Honestly, I think it would be the minority vote, not the moderate vote, that would determine this.


Thanks, good discussion.
I'm going to add a couple subjective points to this. I think that Warren may have jumped the shark in her ridiculous health care pander and that has made her vulnerable especially when Bernie is essentially saying it's ridiculous. Further, she may have REALLY jumped the shark with her statement in her plan tossing a preemptive hand grenade at anyone who disagrees with her. Then when they disagreed with her she said they should be running for the Republican primary. I think Biden was right (politically and just plain right) to go after her as arrogant and elitist over that. I think her line may play well with the 20% who support her, but Democrats don't do litmus tests very well. The party is too diverse for that. I think that Biden's attacks are following up the line that came up big in the last debate that hurt her, especially by Klobuchar, essentially "hey, we're all Democrats. We want the same things. We just disagree on how to get them. Who died and made you judge of all Democrats?" I think she better have a response to this because they are all coming after her on the arrogance point. I suspect the next debate will be a big challenge for her. Personally, I think the health care plan is going to end up being an unforced error like the genetic test was. I actually hope so because politicians need to be punished for panders like that.

concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I've been all in on Bloomberg for a year now.
So glad it looks like he's finally going for it!
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Divide nation into thirds: left progressives, moderate/independents, and conservative right.

Bernie and Warren deemed too left, can't pay for their programs, and so may estranged the moderates/independents and the right.

Biden is slipping, showing signs of aging. Lacking zip.

Buttigieg is doing a great job as an intellectual and talking up issues down the middle of the road, which will win votes on the left and middle, but is only 37, gay, and lacks political experience as only a mayor. Also lacks other experience as a leader, say in business or any other organization. I point out his sexual preference only because I believe there's a large swath of the nation who won't vote for that, a sin, according to the Bible.

Klobuchar is a third "Moderate" who could win as gathering the left of the Dem party and the Middke of both parties, but she hasn't developed a Calling Card of her candidacy, seems a bit timud and unsure in her responses and lacking the je ne se quoi to gather eyes and ears.

Contrast those top5 with Bloomberg.
He is a social liberal and a financial conservative, like me.
He is smart and calm and experienced. He is old, but doesn't show signs of diminished ability to speak on issues deeply and in ways that I like.

And I really like how he views the role of president as not a shiny personality, but as a manager of an expert staff who will handle all the vast areas of responsibility.

Oooo! Now this excites me!!!

I first came to know of "Bloomberg" using his firm's first-class wall street trading and financial-information Terminal, then as a 3-term Republican and Independent mayor of NYC. Bloomberg is an intelligent, calm and reasoned executive leader with a proven track record in finance, business, and politics - as well as in the philanthropy world, where he is a member of The Giving Pledge (give away at least 50% of his fortune) .

I really liked his 2018 Face The Nation and CNN Fareid Zachariah interviews - particularly where he describes what the Presidential Leadership job should be! Managing a huge staff of 40,000, something he has experience in, unlike Trump, who had a small office.

"Management is something you learn over a period of time and you have to manage larger and larger groups of people and make more and more difficult decisions and live with those decisions as you go."

"...get people regardless of their political persuasion who have expertise in each of these areas that you're not an expert on and give them authority to go along with responsibility and then let them do it..."

"If you don't give people the confidence that you're going to have their backs you're not going to get good people and you're not going to keep them."

I like all that. Especially after Trump who declares himself to be an expert in everything and knows more about everything than anyone else, but displays every day that he is a complete buffoon!!!!

Bloomberg was a Dem who switched to the GOP prior to his 2001 mayoral run, but then switched to be an Independent while in office, and now is back to being a Democrat. Who says he can't beat Trump?

"Mike believes that Donald Trump represents an unprecedented threat to our nation," adviser Howard Wolfson said.

"We now need to finish the job and ensure that Trump is defeatedbut Mike is increasingly concerned that the current field of candidates is not well positioned to do that," Mr. Wolfson said.
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
As Mayor, he turned the city's $6-billion deficit into a $3-billion surplus. Regarding the federal deficit, an issue of utmost importance to me(!) he said:

"I believe the best economic stimulus is fiscally responsible, long-term deficit reduction [not deficit spending to prime the pump] that sends a clear signal to the private sector about Washington's commitment to economic stability."

"We need a plan that looks at the economic consequences for our country not the political consequences for the next election. And that means having the courage to admit what everyone knows: We are not going to be able to just cut our way out of the problem and we are not going to be able to just tax our way out of the problem. We must do both."
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:

Kinda late in the game.

Probably hurts Biden big time.


He deferred to Hillary, as did Biden, in 2016. And he was deferring to Biden this time, but upon seeing him slip and maybe not up to it, and with the others who he apparently has No Confidence in, he's saying, well, I guess I have to go do it in order to beat trump.
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unlike Trump, who lied and cheated and inherited and bankrupted and bluffed his way to his fortune, Bloomberg earned his the old fashioned way, with a fabulous premier product I used as an asset manager. Bloomberg has multiple more in billions more than trump, and while trump cheats in the philanthropic world, judges punishing him just this week, Bloomberg has already placed many billions into his Foundation, and has committed to The Giving Pledge, meaning he will give away at least half of his wealth.

My first question will be:
"How are you going to place your company into a blind trust? Will you give it up entirely in exchange for a blind mix of other assets? How will that work?"
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
OaktownBear said:

And, as usual, the media entirely ignores minorities. Biden leads because he is the choice of minorities. Again, how is Bloomberg taking over that demographic?

I also don't think Mayor Pete is waiting in the wings to take over if Biden stumbles. He is probably the candidate least liked by Blacks.

Honestly, if Biden dropped out of the race tomorrow, it would be very interesting what would happen. I think the assumption is that minorities would move to one of the other 3 main candidates, but I'm not sure that is the case. I think you'd see the polling being a mess with whites initially moving to Pete and Bernie and Blacks trying to decide where to go between three candidates they don't like and two candidates - Harris and Booker that they like (in terms of polling) but who are way behind. It would be a question of whether one of the other candidates was able to coalesce enough support. Honestly, I think that moderate whites would rather go with Booker or Harris than Pete, Bernie or Warren, so if minorities coalesced around one, the moderates might jump to them.
I would also caution against assuming that just because a particular candidate is not popular with minority voters now that they wouldn't shift their support there if Biden drops out. Historically, black voters in particular have been very pragmatic about who they support, which seems to be the biggest reason behind backing Biden now, thinking he's the surest bet to beat Trump. If he's not viable anymore (for example, he loses badly in the first two primaries and is out of money and has the "loser" stink on him) I could see them going in a lot of different directions.
BearlyCareAnymore
How long do you want to ignore this user?
concordtom said:

wifeisafurd said:

Kinda late in the game.

Probably hurts Biden big time.


He deferred to Hillary, as did Biden, in 2016. And he was deferring to Biden this time, but upon seeing him slip and maybe not up to it, and with the others who he apparently has No Confidence in, he's saying, well, I guess I have to go do it in order to beat trump.


You can dream but he was one of the least popular candidates when he took his name out before and he has zero chance of getting the nomination. He has a tiny constituency
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I haven't watched this yet, but highlights showed him ripping into Trump as a con man demagogue, which I love. Who did NOT recognize that to be true back then? I've called that group plain old STUPID!!!

Democratic National Convention speech
July 2016, Philadelphia

Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Trump HATES Mike Bloomberg because he has real $$$...and he can steal some GOP moderate votes.
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Bloomberg, having made over $50B and committed half to give-away, could easily throw $1B at this run. But the Iowa vote is in less than 3 months.
He's been looking at this a long time and so is surely not at ground zero, but he's better ramp up extremely fast!!

Anarchistbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
OaktownBear said:

Anarchistbear said:

Who of the Democrats doesn't favor gun control?

Plus the first primary he is entering is Alabama. I don't think gun control advocated by a midget New Yorker is going to play there.

My own view is he wants to spend money on growing his brand so he can be "drafted" if Warren or Sanders are getting the nomination
Alabama is not the first primary he is entering. Alabama is the state with the earliest deadline to put your name on the ballot. That deadline is today so if he doesn't file he wouldn't be on the ballot there. The media loves the story, but I don't believe he has decided to run. He is preserving his opportunity. If he runs, he will be running in Iowa.


Apparently not. This is interesting.

Bloomberg will not contest first four states in Democratic nominating process. "If we run, we are confident we can win in states voting on Super Tuesday and beyond, where we will start on an even footing," says Bloomberg adviser Howard Wolfson.
BearlyCareAnymore
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Anarchistbear said:

OaktownBear said:

Anarchistbear said:

Who of the Democrats doesn't favor gun control?

Plus the first primary he is entering is Alabama. I don't think gun control advocated by a midget New Yorker is going to play there.

My own view is he wants to spend money on growing his brand so he can be "drafted" if Warren or Sanders are getting the nomination
Alabama is not the first primary he is entering. Alabama is the state with the earliest deadline to put your name on the ballot. That deadline is today so if he doesn't file he wouldn't be on the ballot there. The media loves the story, but I don't believe he has decided to run. He is preserving his opportunity. If he runs, he will be running in Iowa.


Apparently not. This is interesting.

Bloomberg will not contest first four states in Democratic nominating process. "If we run, we are confident we can win in states voting on Super Tuesday and beyond, where we will start on an even footing," says Bloomberg adviser Howard Wolfson.


Then he isn't serious and can be ignored
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
That's like Giuliani's strategy to blow off NH and IA and focus on FL. He was doa before FL ever voted.
American Vermin
Anarchistbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
He's going all in on a ban of sweet tea and football in Bama.
Yogi14
How long do you want to ignore this user?
OaktownBear said:


Frankly, a lot of Bernie voters hate Warren's guts.
I doubt that this is true.
ducky23
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I share bloomberg's concern that the current batch of candidates are weak

I don't see warren or sanders beating trump in the key battlegrounds states.

I think Biden could potentially beat trump, but I don't see him getting out of the primary.

And the only other moderate left is mayor Pete, whose sexual orientation probably makes him unelectable in the battleground states (plus he's currently unpopular with African Americans)

Bloomberg is right. A hero needs to emerge. Except it's not him. Either Michelle or Oprah need to save the country.

And before you scoff, both would beat trump quite easily.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I think every one of the leading Democratic candidates can certainly beat Trump in the swing states. This has little to do with them and more to do with Trump being unpopular.
BearlyCareAnymore
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ducky23 said:

I share bloomberg's concern that the current batch of candidates are weak

I don't see warren or sanders beating trump in the key battlegrounds states.

I think Biden could potentially beat trump, but I don't see him getting out of the primary.

And the only other moderate left is mayor Pete, whose sexual orientation probably makes him unelectable in the battleground states (plus he's currently unpopular with African Americans)

Bloomberg is right. A hero needs to emerge. Except it's not him. Either Michelle or Oprah need to save the country.

And before you scoff, both would beat trump quite easily.


1. Bernie and Warren are no more socially liberal than anyone else. The Obama/Trump voter was socially conservative but screwing over the rich with liberal fiscal policies is up their alley. They can win there.

2. Biden is ahead and has the most likely chance of winning.

3. I'm not happy with the field either.
Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
You guys are looking for an unicorn, that does not exist.
ducky23
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

I think every one of the leading Democratic candidates can certainly beat Trump in the swing states. This has little to do with them and more to do with Trump being unpopular.
They certainly "can" win. But will they? I'm hoping not to leave this up to a coin flip.
ducky23
How long do you want to ignore this user?
OaktownBear said:

ducky23 said:

I share bloomberg's concern that the current batch of candidates are weak

I don't see warren or sanders beating trump in the key battlegrounds states.

I think Biden could potentially beat trump, but I don't see him getting out of the primary.

And the only other moderate left is mayor Pete, whose sexual orientation probably makes him unelectable in the battleground states (plus he's currently unpopular with African Americans)

Bloomberg is right. A hero needs to emerge. Except it's not him. Either Michelle or Oprah need to save the country.

And before you scoff, both would beat trump quite easily.


1. Bernie and Warren are no more socially liberal than anyone else. The Obama/Trump voter was socially conservative but screwing over the rich with liberal fiscal policies is up their alley. They can win there.

2. Biden is ahead and has the most likely chance of winning.

3. I'm not happy with the field either.
1. Agreed. But I don't think the Obama/Trump voter can/will differentiate socially liberal from being economically socialist. I know its a popular talking point (but I still believe it to be true), but once Trump labels them as being a "socialist", its over for them in the swing states (despite the fact that many/most Obama/Trump voters don't even know what being a "socialist" means). Trump will convince them that Bernie/Warren want to take from the middle class to give to people on welfare.

2. Biden's lead is fleeting and has been rapidly diminishing. He's going to lose Iowa and NH and then who knows what'll happen. Maybe SC saves him, but I can see Warren or Pete gaining momentum going into super tues.


Page 1 of 2
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.