Bloomberg running for Dem nominee - thoughts?

3,927 Views | 68 Replies | Last: 4 yr ago by concordtom
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ducky23 said:

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.

There are no sure things here.

But personally, I'm not hand-wringing over it. IMO, by definition the candidate who wins the nomination will be the strongest one. This isn't like last time when there were just two candidates and only one with a realistic chance.
Anarchistbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
And yet the socialist Sanders beat Hillary in both Michigan and Wisconsin and beats Trump in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. The Democrats problem is the opposite of choosing someone too radical.

Yogi14
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.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Anarchistbear said:

And yet the socialist Sanders beat Hillary in both Michigan and Wisconsin and beats Trump in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. The Democrats problem is the opposite of choosing someone too radical.


I'll also note that these numbers are generally worse for Democrats than in other polls, so we shouldn't focus too much on one result (and as an aside, I find it a bit hard to believe that Michigan will be a tougher win than Wisconsin).
ducky23
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Anarchistbear said:

And yet the socialist Sanders beat Hillary in both Michigan and Wisconsin and beats Trump in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. The Democrats problem is the opposite of choosing someone too radical.




Sanders beat Hillary in a democratic primary.

Plus we will see what sander's numbers look like once trump starts campaigning against him in a general. Those early numbers don't mean anything to me (I wonder what hillary's numbers looked like against trump in those same states at this same point in the campaign)

I underestimated trump once. Im not making that mistake again (not that it matters)

Anarchistbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The primary results should have been a message to the Democrats about a rebellious and angry electorate. There's no way Sanders should have beaten her there considering her structural advantages, but he focused on bread and butter issues.

Those three states haven't voted for a Republican President since the 1990's - they still didn't, Trump didn't get above 48% in any of these states . So, how did he win? He ran against the second most unpopular candidate in modern polling and had a better message for an insurgent electorate . The Democrats lost because Clinton couldn't turn out the base or they defected to third parties and because people were so desperate they were willing to take a chance on a corrupt outsider instead of a corrupt insider.

Could it happen again? Sure if instead of talking about how you make peoples' lives better you focus on telephone calls in the Ukraine or a return to the normalcy that was rejected.
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
OaktownBear said:

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

Only smart people, I suppose.
Well, I'm gonna dream then.
concordtom
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.

Okay, that seems dumb.
Why start the race after giving everyone else a 100 meter headstart?
They need time to get the name and message out there.
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ducky23 said:

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.


Okay, let's move forward with impeachment then!
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ducky23 said:

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.





You and I are seeing things similarly. Your other longer post above this one where you agree with Bloomberg, too.

Bloomberg just needs to get out there and communicate. Hire Swalwell, Guillibrand, Beto, and the others as they drop out to be stumpers for him.
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

(and as an aside, I find it a bit hard to believe that Michigan will be a tougher win than Wisconsin).


But I really like their passing game, and the defensive line has been playing well stuffing the run lately. I'm going +6.
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Anarchistbear said:

The primary results should have been a message to the Democrats about a rebellious and angry electorate. There's no way Sanders should have beaten her there considering her structural advantages, but he focused on bread and butter issues.

Those three states haven't voted for a Republican President since the 1990's - they still didn't, Trump didn't get above 48% in any of these states . So, how did he win? He ran against the second most unpopular candidate in modern polling and had a better message for an insurgent electorate . The Democrats lost because Clinton couldn't turn out the base or they defected to third parties and because people were so desperate they were willing to take a chance on a corrupt outsider instead of a corrupt insider.

Could it happen again? Sure if instead of talking about how you make peoples' lives better you focus on telephone calls in the Ukraine or a return to the normalcy that was rejected.


Remind me, how/why did Hillary get labeled a Corrupt Insider?
BearlyCareAnymore
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ducky23 said:

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.





On number two, I'm sorry I have to dispute this one more time. Read my other post for detail. No matter what the media says, the polls are not showing that. Biden coalesced his constituents early. His support hasn't dropped. She picked up about 10% on him by knocking Harris out coalescing the white liberal vote. She stopped gaining in the polls over a month ago. In fact, she has slipped a tiny bit. He has been ahead in almost every national poll. She leads in Iowa and New Hampshire because the demographics are perfect for her being virtually all white. She is way behind in Nevada and getting clobbered in South Carolina.

A prediction that he will lose is fine, but his lead is not rapidly diminishing.
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
NYtimes op-ed:"Run Mike Run":

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2019/11/08/opinion/bloomberg-running-for-president-2020.amp.html?fbclid=IwAR3OyS43Rka***PiOOEFo2nrjyeL5Xb9Dz5YQgeIOGjXDxao68MWG5mC-h4
BearlyCareAnymore
How long do you want to ignore this user?
concordtom said:

OaktownBear said:

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

Only smart people, I suppose.
Well, I'm gonna dream then.


In CNN's poll of Iowa Democrats, Bloomberg's favorable rating was 18%. His unfavorable was 59%. In conservative Iowa. That is what being a socially liberal, fiscally conservative billionaire gets you with Midwest voters. Bloomberg would get slaughtered by Trump throughout the Midwest. People have got to go beyond the top line liberal and conservative designations
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
concordtom said:

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.

Okay, that seems dumb.
Why start the race after giving everyone else a 100 meter headstart?
They need time to get the name and message out there.
I don't get it either.

Also don't get Deval Patrick either.
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
He's in.
Bloomberg's first TV ad, which is running in certain markets this morning.


concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
MANCHESTER, N.H. Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg officially entered the 2020 race Sunday, ending several weeks of will-he-or-won't-he speculation about a late entry into the already-crowded Democratic primary.

Bloomberg's entry was preceded by news of a massive television ad buy $31 million, according to Advertising Analytics, who told NBC News it was the single largest single week expenditure they'd ever tracked. A $30 million buy in the final weeks of the 2012 race for then-President Barack Obama held the previous record.

The ad promotes Bloomberg's record as mayor and then promises "to rebuild the country and restore faith in the dream that defines us: where the wealthy will pay more in taxes and the middle class get their fair share; everyone without health insurance can get it and everyone who likes theirs, keep it; where jobs won't just help you get by but get ahead. And on all those things, Mike Bloomberg intends to make good."

It's Bloomberg's deep pockets and willingness to spend that could help him make up the difference of getting in several months after most of the already-established Democratic field. But his strategy to win is a risky one: skipping the early four nominating contests and instead running what longtime Bloomberg aide Howard Wolfson called a "broad-based, national campaign."

He'll also come up against a field stacked with strong competition, some with similar messaging to his own like former Vice President Joe Biden, who has also hinged his candidacy on his ability to beat President Donald Trump next November and progressive Senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, who are running on platforms of more structural change. And they've all been running for months, building out organizing apparatuses as they go.

Still, Bloomberg Communications Director Jason Schecter maintains it's not too late, citing polls that show Democratic voters have yet to firmly make up their mind on who to back in the field. Of Bloomberg, Schecter told NBC plainly: Bloomberg "has the skills to fix what is broken" and was motivated to run by concerns about "the possibility that we could lose next November" to Trump. "We can't afford another four years of this," he concluded.

The former New York City mayor declined a presidential bid in March. At the time, sources close to him told NBC News that they didn't see a path to victory with Biden in the race. But consternation from certain Democratic circles about how the Democratic field was shaking out with Biden lagging while Warren surged throughout the summer and early fall reignited talk of a Bloomberg run.

Perhaps the clearest signal that he had decided to run was Bloomberg's recent disavowal of the stop-and-frisk policy he implemented as mayor and fiercely defended for years later. Speaking at a black megachurch in Brooklyn, New York last weekend, though, Bloomberg admitted: "I got something really important wrong I want you to know that I realized back then, I was wrong and I'm sorry."

A key South Carolina politician Columbia Mayor Steve Benjamin was in the crowd that day and told NBC News a few days later that he was "moved" by the humility in Bloomberg's apology. He said he planned to endorse him if the former mayor decided to officially run.

Other 2020 hopefuls who have been running for months, however, have reacted forcefully against Bloomberg's foray into the field even before Sunday's official announcement.

"I don't think a person, just because they have billions of dollars, should sit back and say 'you know what, yeah, I think I'll run for election right now and drop $100 million,'" Senator Cory Booker told a crowd in Concord, N.H. Saturday.

Senator Amy Klobuchar, also in the Granite State on Saturday, said she doesn't "believe you get the best candidate when there's such a bias in terms of money. I don't believe that's how this works."

Klobuchar, who has joked that she raised $17,000 from her ex-boyfriends during her first Senate run, quipped Saturday of Bloomberg's record ad-buy: "Man, I'm not gonna be able to make that up with the ex-boyfriends."

Meanwhile, Warren who hasn't minced words about her feelings on billionaires, or Bloomberg told NBC News Saturday night "this election should not be for sale," later adding that she doesn't think the race "is going to be about TV ads versus TV ads" but instead about "grassroots movements."
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
One CNN guest said that the 4 guests on set currently would vote for Bloomberg in a snap, but admitted they were a very small segment of society.

Another suggested Bloomberg announce immediately that Stacey Abrams will be his VP candidate, so as to lock up the "future" vote (women, youth, minorities constituency).
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
First speech this AM in Norfolk VA



He could be in a sound studio.
Zero cheering.
Zero audience.
Very dry.
This isn't gonna get it done. People need pomp and circumstance. Most people be like zzzzzz.
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?


Amy's announcement speech was better.

calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
concordtom said:

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.

Okay, that seems dumb.
Why start the race after giving everyone else a 100 meter headstart?
They need time to get the name and message out there.
It seems like he was just fine with Biden or other more moderate candidates winning the primary.

Is it possible that he thinks he owes it to the country to avoid having our options be just Sanders/Warren vs. Trump?
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Not sure what you mean. Why would he enter as a candidate if he wanted Biden to win?
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
concordtom said:

This isn't gonna get it done. People need pomp and circumstance. Most people be like zzzzzz.
It's hard to generate pomp and circumstance when the voters aren't excited about you.
calbear93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
concordtom said:

Not sure what you mean. Why would he enter as a candidate if he wanted Biden to win?
He was fine with Biden running and winning. He probably didn't believe he could unseat Biden. With Biden showing weakness and the possibility of the nomination going to Sanders or Warren, he probably decided to run.

Just guessing. If Biden's campaign was going strong, I doubt he would have run.
Anarchistbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Bloomberg's strategy seems to be to bombard voters with ads while avoiding retail politics and rejection by voters and hope that the first four primaries yield very mixed results-then - hope that there is a white night movement. I think it's nuts but he has billions to spend.

Edit: my wife told me she googled something on gun control today and a Bloomberg ad popped up, so maybe he has higher powers and friends than I think.
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
calbear93 said:

concordtom said:

Not sure what you mean. Why would he enter as a candidate if he wanted Biden to win?
He was fine with Biden running and winning. He probably didn't believe he could unseat Biden. With Biden showing weakness and the possibility of the nomination going to Sanders or Warren, he probably decided to run.

Just guessing. If Biden's campaign was going strong, I doubt he would have run.


Agreed.
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Bloomberg said in speech today that he's best Trump before and will do it again.
When was that? What's he talking about?
Cal88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
He will blow a hundred million, enjoy a bit of limelight, get 3% of the vote then drop out. He'll take those points from Buttigieg, and will slightly help Sanders.
BearForce2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cal88 said:

He will blow a hundred million, enjoy a bit of limelight, get 3% of the vote then drop out. He'll take those points from Buttigieg, and will slightly help Sanders.
Quid Pro Blow?

kelly09
How long do you want to ignore this user?
He's sure a little fella. Probably a real fightin' bantam. Seem's to have a lot of money. Doesn't like guns or Big Gulps. Typical Dem,as far as I can see. Could be wrong though.
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I'd have a lot more respect for Bloomberg if he spent his millions helping Dems retake the Senate. But, partly since he has a history of donating to Republicans to keep the Senate I'd say his run in the Dem primary is DOA.
American Vermin
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Anarchistbear said:

And yet the socialist Sanders beat Hillary in both Michigan and Wisconsin and beats Trump in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. The Democrats problem is the opposite of choosing someone too radical.




We'll just see how stupid millions of people can be by voting for the Idiot again.
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
kelly09 said:

He's sure a little fella. Probably a real fightin' bantam. Seem's to have a lot of money. Doesn't like guns or Big Gulps. Typical Dem,as far as I can see. Could be wrong though.

1000 times better than trump!!!
Anyone who can't recognize that is an utter fool.
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

I'd have a lot more respect for Bloomberg if he spent his millions helping Dems retake the Senate. But, partly since he has a history of donating to Republicans to keep the Senate I'd say his run in the Dem primary is DOA.

He spent millions for Dems in 2016.
Refresh
Page 2 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.