Michael Bloomberg for President 2020

[BradInATX 9208]

3 minutes ago, hornhorn said:

You didn't answer the rest of the post. So I take it that you're going to save YOUR wealth for you and yours and not change someone's life in India/Africa by giving away all your money. All of that while you berate someone else for doing the same? 

 

Sorry clown, I'm not discussing my personal finances with you. 

[hornhorn 100]

1 minute ago, BradInATX said:

 

Sorry clown, I'm not discussing my personal finances with you. 

That's exactly what the wealthy are telling you. Glad you understand how it feels now.

Like I've said before about you fake SJWs, let's save the world with their money and sacrifices over there. Not mine. Nope. Nope. Nope. 

[tantric superman 4667]

Stop saying LOL.

[tantric superman 4667]

On 11/8/2019 at 10:19 PM, Anastasis said:

Lulz.

 

 

 

Hey everybody!  We're all gonna get laid!

[Brandywine 1316]

On 11/9/2019 at 3:45 AM, Bookman said:

If that's real that's terrible.

Agree! Makes me think of Stronger Together! Which was awful.

[Tuco 5076]

I get that Bloomberg appeals to the Republicans who feel displaced in the new Trumpian version of the GOP.  They want an old school Republican to vote for.  You know what, I want you to have an old school Republican to vote as well.  But it can't be a replacement for the Democratic candidate.  If the last three years has taught anything, it's that the vast majority of Republicans will not turn on Trump, regardless if there is another more traditional Republican out there.  Look at McCain, Kasitch, and  Romney - they nibbled around the edges of Trump's support, but the vast majority of Republicans backed Trump.  Cruz got booed at the RNC because he wouldn't say the words "vote for Trump." The amount of displaced Republicans a Bloomberg-type candidacy picks up will not make up for the number of traditional Democrats it would turn off.  A guy like Bloomberg would absolutely crash and burn with the labor vote in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, which already a huge challenge.  If the choice in November is between a Republican and Trump, many Democrats have little reason to go the polls. 

If you want an old school Republican to vote for, you need to take back the GOP.  And the only way to do that is to make sure that the Trumpian GOP is not a viable party.  If it fails, they will look for a new path.  That means voting against each and every Republican candidate until Trump, and the movement he started, is defeated.  I get that if it's a choice between a Democrat and Trump, you may stay home, or even vote for Trump.  While that sucks, we stand more to lose if we lose the Democratic base. 

 

[tantric superman 4667]

New school old Republican!

[JimmyJames 12271]

13 hours ago, hornhorn said:

LOL, Americans aren't dying in squalor and poverty. If you want to talk about poverty let's talk about people in Africa and India compared to whom you are a billionaire. Average salary in India is $295/year which is less than what poorest of Americans spend on discretionary items like alcohol and cigarettes.

Tell me how much of your wealth will you be donating to them today? Just like you want the billionaires to donate theirs to you while you still continue to berate them. 

What an absolutely ignorant post. Stastically, in the richest country in history, the average life expectancy for white males is on the decline. That is shameful and a reflection of a broken society. Anecdotally, I saw much more homeless in Austin all over the place and that was even before the stupid ass city counsel took away the camping ban. I guess they all smoke too many cigarettes. 

So now were comparing ourselves to Africa? Well I guess we do have a wannabe dictator as president so maybe that is the standard nowadays. 

Why don’t you tell us how much of your wealth you will be donating? 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Very few REALLY like Bloomberg.  He’s going to need an amazing sales pitch. 

Edited November 14, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Tuco 5076]

Surprised he is less liked amongst older people.

[Zavala 1384]

I wonder how much his political consultants scammed from him convincing him to run.

 

Sounds like China

[Zavala 1384]

https://www.axios.com/michael-bloomberg-2020-election-fundraising-e6420ea0-333f-48b7-abc5-c30639b879ff.html?utm_source=morning_brew

How much you think his political advisors made telling him he could win?

[bolverk 29671]

It's in these situations that I invoke my 1% doctrine. He wouldn't miss a penny, but that would alter my reality and nicely set up my progeny for generations. Just 1% please.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

 

 

[bad_teammate 13195]

Bloomberg sucks and will lose hilariously.

Jeb! without the sexy charisma

 

[bad_teammate 13195]

@SydneyCarton

Quote

Out of curiosity, and as someone who hasn't paid attention to Bloomberg, why exactly would he be such a laughably bad candidate? You know, in the world of "Anyone But Trump" I fail to see how a (hopefully, I haven't been paying attention) less evil and vile version of a successful Billionaire with potentially strong business and economic ties would be the worst thing in the world if he happens to match up well against Trump. Someone kindly inform me. 

- He's 5'8"
- He is very unpopular (26% favorable, 54% unfavorable)
- He has no natural constituency of voters
- There is no organic, grassroots movement trying to get him into the race

He checks boxes for people playing Fantasy Politics and pretending to be pundits. But that's it.

 

[Drew 2408]

Basically another bad candidate among some other bad candidates(not that any of those would make bad presidents, especially compared to Trump, but that they aren't really giving a ton of optimism that they can beat him)

[SydneyCarton 48093]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

@SydneyCarton

- He's 5'8"
- He is very unpopular (26% favorable, 54% unfavorable)
- He has no natural constituency of voters
- There is no organic, grassroots movement trying to get him into the race

He checks boxes for people playing Fantasy Politics and pretending to be pundits. But that's it.

 

Yeah. But that's not what I really asked, is it? You cited reasons that you don't really like him, or find him to be a non ideal candidate to you personally. He's currently tied for 3rd in national polling, and if Biden drops out that will only increase. If he matches up well against Trump, why should I give a shit if he's short or if he doesn't have a natural constituency if he can win? Considering the state of this country and the shitshow that is the democratic party, I'm not sure checking boxes on Fantasy Politics isn't a more than viable path forward. 

[Dbeasy 15049]

Bloomberg has one thing going for him - judge judy’s endorsement and her 10 million daily viewers.

[David Dennison 18856]

8 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

@SydneyCarton

- He's 5'8"
- He is very unpopular (26% favorable, 54% unfavorable)
- He has no natural constituency of voters
- There is no organic, grassroots movement trying to get him into the race He checks boxes for people playing Fantasy Politics and pretending to be pundits. But that's it.

 

And he has enough money to take this all the way to the convention.

[bad_teammate 13195]

Just now, SydneyCarton said:

Yeah. But that's not what I really asked, is it? You cited reasons that you don't really like him, or find him to be a non ideal candidate to you personally. He's currently tied for 3rd in national polling, and if Biden drops out that will only increase. If he matches up well against Trump, why should I give a shit if he's short or if he doesn't have a natural constituency if he can win? Considering the state of this country and the shitshow that is the democratic party, I'm not sure checking boxes on Fantasy Politics isn't a more than viable path forward. 

How can someone win if they don't have a voting base? What is Bloomberg's voting base?

You're really impressed with him and his 8.3% polling average, but what is his actual case for winning delegates and convincing people he can win?

"He's a billionaire!" is not an argument that people care about. This isn't a Republican primary.

 

[bad_teammate 13195]

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

And he has enough money to take this all the way to the convention.

1) What is "this"?

That's a serious question. What do you mean by "this"?

 

[David Dennison 18856]

Just now, bad_teammate said:

1) What is "this"?

That's a serious question. What do you mean by "this"?

 

His campaign. All while flooding the media with ads. 

[SydneyCarton 48093]

Just now, bad_teammate said:

How can someone win if they don't have a voting base? What is Bloomberg's voting base?

You're really impressed with him and his 8.3% polling average, but what is his actual case for winning delegates and convincing people he can win?

"He's a billionaire!" is not an argument that people care about. This isn't a Republican primary.

 

You said "Natural Constituency." To me, that means someone like say, Sanders who appeals to his far left socialist viewpoints, or maybe another candidate with very specific social policies. Or maybe a base of voters based on gender or cultural affiliation. And that's all fine, but I think in this election there is a natural constituency that is "Anyone but Trump" that most people are perfectly, perfectly fine to buy into this time around. 

I'm not impressed, I asked a question, and I don't have an answer yet. By the way, he's up to 2 points to 10% today. This guy is just getting started, but that's not the point. My question was, and remains, that if this guy is matching up against Trump, and he matches up favorably, what's the problem? This is a hypothetical because no one knows what the fuck this thing looks like even a few months from now. People seem to take Pete seriously, and that guy is polling behind Bloomberg nationally. Help me understand the difference for a guy who just entered the race recently, hasn't debated, and has basically skipped the caucuses?

I don't give a flying fuck about idealistic notions of "Oh, he's not a real democrat" or "He doesn't have a political ethos" at this point. For a party that many think seems to have made a huge mistake by focusing on "Anyone but Trump" as their goals in 2020, I don't understand dismissing a guy now who might embody that notion and could have a chance to win, instead rejecting him because he doesn't stand for anything specific. That's what I'm trying to understand. 

 

[bad_teammate 13195]

10 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

His campaign. All while flooding the media with ads. 

Ok, so ads.

What do the ads do?

The purpose of ads is to get votes in primaries. If he doesn't win the primaries, then what are the ads?

The last meaningful primary is April 28th in NY. The convention starts July 13th.

What are these ads from April 29th to July 12th? "I KNOW I DIDN'T GET ENOUGH DELEGATES BUT ELECT ME ANYWAY!"?

6 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

You said "Natural Constituency." To me, that means someone like say, Sanders who appeals to his far left socialist viewpoints, or maybe another candidate with very specific social policies. Or maybe a base of voters based on gender or cultural affiliation. And that's all fine, but I think in this election there is a natural constituency that is "Anyone but Trump" that most people are perfectly, perfectly fine to buy into this time around.

"Anyone but Trump" also fits all these other candidates who have voters and donors already.

Quote

 My question was, and remains, that if this guy is matching up against Trump, and he matches up favorably, what's the problem?

What does it mean to "match up favorably against Trump"? What are you looking at? Head-to-head poll #s?

He's horrifically unpopular. People hate him.

Quote

Help me understand the difference for a guy who just entered the race recently, hasn't debated, and has basically skipped the caucuses?

Why is it incumbent on me when you admit here he's got absolutely nothing to show for himself?

Quote

I don't give a flying fuck about idealistic notions of "Oh, he's not a real democrat" or "He doesn't have a political ethos" at this point.

Neither do I. I'm asking you who the hell is voting for this guy in the primaries. Who? Tell me.

Quote

For a party that many think seems to have made a huge mistake by focusing on "Anyone but Trump" as their goals in 2020, I don't understand dismissing a guy now who might embody that notion and could have a chance to win, instead rejecting him because he doesn't stand for anything specific. That's what I'm trying to understand. 

How does he "embody that notion"? He's another NY billionaire that people hate, except he has no actual fanbase or cachet.

 

 

[David Dennison 18856]

4 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

What are these ads from April 29th to July 12th? "I KNOW I DIDN'T GET ENOUGH DELEGATES BUT ELECT ME ANYWAY!"?

You know as well as I do that he doesn't need to win on the first ballot. He just needs there to be a second ballot.

[SydneyCarton 48093]

Listen, before I respond to your post, it's important to note that I'm not trying to be antagonistic. I asked questions seeking answers, and I appreciate you taking the time to talk to me and try to give me answers. In no way do I want this to turn into a slapfight or a shitfest, because I don't know shit about Bloomberg. And honestly, if I dont know shit about him, a lot of people don't know shit about him. 

17 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

"Anyone but Trump" also fits all these other candidates who have voters and donors already.

This is true, but these guys have basically all taken turns kicking themselves and the entire Democratic constituency in the dick for months on end now. Everyone has warts. And at this point, most democrats don't think any of them can win. The existing players certainly seem to be looking like a fait accompli at this point. 

Quote

What does it mean to "match up favorably against Trump"? What are you looking at? Head-to-head poll #s?

A rich, pro-capitalist who's been a successful businessman. This is the kind of shit that sways moderates and other republicans to entertain the idea of switching. I have friends with some money that literally contemplate voting for Trump because they're pretty sure Warren and Sanders are going to basically take everything they've worked to earn, right or wrong. It's a real perception. 

Quote

He's horrifically unpopular. People hate him.

I don't hate him. I don't know him. Who are people? That's why I'm asking questions. I"m betting there's more people like me than aren't. Why do his polling numbers keep going up if no one will vote for him and he's so hated? Is it a NY thing? Because honestly they'll probably still vote Democrat anyway, so I don't really give 2 shits if that is the case. Again, I don't know. 

 

Quote

Why is it incumbent on me when you admit here he's got absolutely nothing to show for himself?

I'm not sure he has nothing to show for himself.

Quote

How does he "embody that notion"? He's another NY billionaire that people hate, except he has no actual fanbase or cachet.

If he's a compromise candidate that can actually get it done, and I am not sure he can't, then I don't care about anything else.

 

Thanks for taking the time to post, I think this conversation has probably reached it's ending point. 

 

 

 

Edited February 4, 2020 by SydneyCarton

[Skipper 6135]

Did he only jump in after realizing how absolutely horrible Biden is as a candidate?  Had he starting spending all this money day 1 he might be at the top of the pack right now.  Bernie/Warren bros will never support him (I think this segment of the D party is who 'hates' him), but if they would, he might actually have a shot against Trump (unlike Bernie).  

[Rougarou 594]

Makes you wonder. If you had 50 bn dollars and could buy your way to being President for 49 bn, would you do it?

I mean there have only been like, what maybe 38-40 men be President? There are lots of billionaires, being a President is more elite and exclusive and you'll be glorified and remembered for at least a couple of hundred of years more than the average man assuming the world doesn't end soon.

[washparkhorn 9939]

7 minutes ago, Rougarou said:

Makes you wonder. If you had 50 bn dollars and could buy your way to being President for 49 bn, would you do it?

I mean there have only been like, what maybe 38-40 men be President? There are lots of billionaires, being a President is more elite and exclusive and you'll be glorified and remembered for at least a couple of hundred of years more than the average man assuming the world doesn't end soon.

Only 2,153 in the world. And 607 in the United States. Not much of a meal for hungry hogs, but a solid snack. 

[406W30th 1111]

@SydneyCarton

Quote

Out of curiosity, and as someone who hasn't paid attention to Bloomberg, why exactly would he be such a laughably bad candidate? You know, in the world of "Anyone But Trump" I fail to see how a (hopefully, I haven't been paying attention) less evil and vile version of a successful Billionaire with potentially strong business and economic ties would be the worst thing in the world if he happens to match up well against Trump. Someone kindly inform me. 

Bloomberg is more competent than Uncle Joe but plagued with many of the same problems, and with half the charisma. And he will do horribly with people of color, having been a staunch advocate of the racist, horrifically inefficient Stop & Frisk practice.

He's a billionaire from NYC who owns a media empire and made his money on Wall Street. What key battleground states is he going to win? Wisconsin? Michigan? Pennsylvania? He's also trying to verbally spar with Trump, which is a terrible idea because he's nowhere near as crass or crazy. (Though they do seem to have in the common the utter incapacity to act like a human being.)

Bloomberg sucks. He should've wasted his billions primarying Trump for the Republican nomination instead.

 

[JimmyJames 12271]

I’m ecstatic that Bloomberg is doing what he’s doing because there is no possible way he wins the dem nomination and is spending millions attacking trump constantly and making his pea brain warped mind mad. Someone explain the downside to that? Go Mike. 

[bad_teammate 13195]

15 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

And at this point, most democrats don't think any of them can win.

That's a bold and unfounded claim right there.

Quote

A rich, pro-capitalist who's been a successful businessman. This is the kind of shit that sways moderates and other republicans to entertain the idea of switching. I have friends with some money that literally contemplate voting for Trump because they're pretty sure Warren and Sanders are going to basically take everything they've worked to earn, right or wrong. It's a real perception.

I agree, those people exist. If you look at the distribution of wealth and income in America, there are much fewer of those people than the working/poor class pool that doesn't vote.

If that's Bloomberg's play, then he'll have to start actually winning things. Until then, he's nothing.

Quote

I"m betting there's more people like me than aren't.

Then your understanding of demographics is... well... bad.

You like him because he suits your demographic needs. You think your demographic is bigger than it is and you confuse "most democrats" for "me and my friends".

Quote

Why do his polling numbers keep going up if no one will vote for him and he's so hated? Is it a NY thing? Because honestly they'll probably still vote Democrat anyway, so I don't really give 2 shits if that is the case. Again, I don't know. 

Bloomberg has spent $200M in ads in states where no other candidates are advertising. He is flooding the airwaves with his face and logo. In many (most?) of the ads, you don't even hear his voice.

And that $200M investment, which is more than Bernie, Pete, Warren, and Biden COMBINED has him at 8.3% nationally.

His ads are all about Super Tuesday, where...

0.3% chance of winning California
2% in Texas
1% in North Carolina
0.9% in Virginia

And this is him running ads completely unopposed. No one is even fighting against him and he's facing almost zero media scrutiny.

Quote

If he's a compromise candidate that can actually get it done, and I am not sure he can't, then I don't care about anything else.

I have no fundamental reason to think he would beat Donald Trump.

If "I'M A MODERATE!" was a winning strategy we'd have President Hillary Clinton.

8 minutes ago, Skipper said:

Did he only jump in after realizing how absolutely horrible Biden is as a candidate?  Had he starting spending all this money day 1 he might be at the top of the pack right now.  Bernie/Warren bros will never support him (I think this segment of the D party is who 'hates' him), but if they would, he might actually have a shot against Trump (unlike Bernie).  

Bloomberg switched parties in October of 2018 specifically to prepare for the rise of Warren or resurgence of Sanders. This is his entire purpose; to protect elite wealth. That's all this is.

[Hank Scorpio 17729]

1 hour ago, SydneyCarton said:

You said "Natural Constituency." To me, that means someone like say, Sanders who appeals to his far left socialist viewpoints, or maybe another candidate with very specific social policies. Or maybe a base of voters based on gender or cultural affiliation. And that's all fine, but I think in this election there is a natural constituency that is "Anyone but Trump" that most people are perfectly, perfectly fine to buy into this time around. 

I'm not impressed, I asked a question, and I don't have an answer yet. By the way, he's up to 2 points to 10% today. This guy is just getting started, but that's not the point. My question was, and remains, that if this guy is matching up against Trump, and he matches up favorably, what's the problem? This is a hypothetical because no one knows what the fuck this thing looks like even a few months from now. People seem to take Pete seriously, and that guy is polling behind Bloomberg nationally. Help me understand the difference for a guy who just entered the race recently, hasn't debated, and has basically skipped the caucuses?

I don't give a flying fuck about idealistic notions of "Oh, he's not a real democrat" or "He doesn't have a political ethos" at this point. For a party that many think seems to have made a huge mistake by focusing on "Anyone but Trump" as their goals in 2020, I don't understand dismissing a guy now who might embody that notion and could have a chance to win, instead rejecting him because he doesn't stand for anything specific. That's what I'm trying to understand. 

 

He has 60 billion dollars and decided he wants to be the most powerful man in the world and will spend all the money it takes to accomplish that. The end. 

[JimmyJames 12271]

4 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

That's a bold and unfounded claim right there.

I agree, those people exist. If you look at the distribution of wealth and income in America, there are much fewer of those people than the working/poor class pool that doesn't vote.

If that's Bloomberg's play, then he'll have to start actually winning things. Until then, he's nothing.

Then your understanding of demographics is... well... bad.

You like him because he suits your demographic needs. You think your demographic is bigger than it is and you confuse "most democrats" for "me and my friends".

Bloomberg has spent $200M in ads in states where no other candidates are advertising. He is flooding the airwaves with his face and logo. In many (most?) of the ads, you don't even hear his voice.

And that $200M investment, which is more than Bernie, Pete, Warren, and Biden COMBINED has him at 8.3% nationally.

His ads are all about Super Tuesday, where...

0.3% chance of winning California
2% in Texas
1% in North Carolina
0.9% in Virginia

And this is him running ads completely unopposed. No one is even fighting against him and he's facing almost zero media scrutiny.

I have no fundamental reason to think he would beat Donald Trump.

If "I'M A MODERATE!" was a winning strategy we'd have President Hillary Clinton.

Bloomberg switched parties in October of 2018 specifically to prepare for the rise of Warren or resurgence of Sanders. This is his entire purpose; to protect elite wealth. That's all this is.

So what’s the problem? He’s not winning the dem nomination. 

[bad_teammate 13195]

No problem, Sydney just wanted to know why he was a bad candidate so I explained it.

[Skipper 6135]

14 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

If "I'M A MODERATE!" was a winning strategy we'd have President Hillary Clinton.

It's been beaten to death but she was a bad candidate.  Period.  Just like Biden is proving to be a bad candidate.  Biden 10+ years ago wasn't 'great' by any stretch but he would have likely won the nomination pretty easily and probably beaten Trump.  But in 2020, he's by far the least impressive of any candidates and it's finally starting to catch up with him as more and more are exposed to his incompetence.  Unfortunately for the D's their best candidates (i.e., Bernie/Warren) are polarizing and won't get support in the general.   I know a lot of Dems but I don't a single Bernie Bro. Of course, the D's I've discussed this with are all 35+ and employed.  

I think you are right though that many Bernie/Warren supporters simply wouldn't vote for either if their choice is Bloomberg/Trump since both are wealthy capitalist.  But that cuts both ways if Bernie wins.   Hence, 4 more years of Trump.  

[Chad Fuck 17677]

3 minutes ago, Skipper said:

It's been beaten to death but she was a bad candidate.  Period.  Just like Biden is proving to be a bad candidate.  Biden 10+ years ago wasn't 'great' by any stretch but he would have likely won the nomination pretty easily and probably beaten Trump.  But in 2020, he's by far the least impressive of any candidates and it's finally starting to catch up with him as more and more are exposed to his incompetence.  Unfortunately for the D's their best candidates (i.e., Bernie/Warren) are polarizing and won't get support in the general.   I know a lot of Dems but I don't a single Bernie Bro. Of course, the D's I've discussed this with are all 35+ and employed.  

I think you are right though that many Bernie/Warren supporters simply wouldn't vote for either if their choice is Bloomberg/Trump since both are wealthy capitalist.  But that cuts both ways if Bernie wins.   Hence, 4 more years of Trump.  

The Ds do their best when they're running someone young.  Obama, Clinton, JFK.  Klobuchar and Buddajudge are the best of the lot as far as that goes.  

Olds do not inspire Ds, Weekend at Bernie's notwithstanding.  

 

[bad_teammate 13195]

Bloomberg is a worse candidate than Hillary.

He's spent $200M to get basically nowhere and no one has even taken a swing at him yet. Put him on the debate stage and he'll get fucking eaten alive and I'm not even talking about Bernie.

This won't be the first debate, where people were mostly hands-off. Warren is feeling heat. Klobuchar is probably feeling hope. Joe has got to be absolutely desperate, and Bloomberg threatens to take from all 3 of them.

[bad_teammate 13195]

lol yeah this is the guy. He's a fucking dynamo

 

[bad_teammate 13195]

Great take from Nate about this Bloomberg nonsense.

 

[bad_teammate 13195]

What's the coalition, Mike?

 

Say hi to Ghislaine for me!

[Fozzz 152]

If Bernie doesn't win the nomination I hope the dems hand it Bloomberg as that it would be the death blow for the dems as a nationally competitive party.

[HenryJames 66049]

2 hours ago, Hank Scorpio said:

He has 60 billion dollars and decided he wants to be the most powerful man in the world and will spend all the money it takes to accomplish that. The end. 

Username checks out.

Edited February 5, 2020 by HenryJames

[Aqua Buddha 14596]

Here's the deal about rich people.  They're not all the same.  98% of the public thinks a multi millionaire is the same as a billionaire.  (That's what makes them "the public.")  There is a significant difference in wealth between $30M, $100M, $1B, $10B, and $15B.  They're all on completely different tiers.  Mark Cuban once said he's surprised how much richer some people are than even he is.  Even when you get to the billionaire class, they're all different.  Some are more liquid than others.  (Bezos really isn't THAT liquid.  His shares are all tied up in AMZN and through his divorce.)

What I'm getting at is that there are maybe 10 people in the world that can do what Bloomberg is doing.  He's a legitimately liquid multi billionaire.  Tom Steyer is a legitimately rich guy and Bloomberg can spend Steyer's entire net worth on this and not think twice about it. 

Money matters.  It's why politicians whore themselves out.  Bloomberg doesn't have to do that.  He can have the best org and carpet bomb us all with ads.  Those things matter.  

Bloomberg is about to dump more money than we've ever seen in any presidential election.  It may work.  It may not.  It most definitely matters, though.

My prediction is he gets the nomination after Biden's collapse is complete.  Bern and Warren are only getting 35% of the vote.  If ideology matters, that tells me that the moderate wing is the remaining 65%.  

[bad_teammate 13195]

Unless you use that money to literally pay voters, the marginal utility of an ad dollar comes a callin'.

Jeb Bush spent $53,000,000/delegate
Hillary spent $85,000/delegate

[Aqua Buddha 14596]

Is there a state that Bernie brings in play that wasn't in play before?  You can make the argument that he plays well with blue collar whites in PA, MI, and WI but are those states guaranteed and if not, what other states does he bring into the fold?

[bad_teammate 13195]

6 minutes ago, Aqua Buddha said:

Is there a state that Bernie brings in play that wasn't in play before?  You can make the argument that he plays well with blue collar whites in PA, MI, and WI but are those states guaranteed and if not, what other states does he bring into the fold?

Bernie doesn't only play well with blue collar whites. He's very strong among Latinos right now and has made that outreach a major priority.

WI, PA, and MI are the obvious ones and those alone get the White House.

FL is next. AZ and NC after that. But none of that is necessary in the least.

[JimmyJames 12271]

22 minutes ago, Dr. Beeper said:

Bloomberg is the only person I’d consider voting for. If he doesn’t win the Dem nomination, I will not vote. 

Beep bop boop

[LABEVO 928]

Bloomberg is throwing away change in his couch money which is why he is running.  He doesn’t give a fuck about the money and he can influence the debate.