Michael Bloomberg for President 2020

[bad_teammate 13194]

9 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Well, that deserves a hearty "fuck you".  

This is how you build a coalition?  

 

[wildcat09 29349]

2 hours ago, Lagunamadre said:

 

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

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

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

[bad_teammate 13194]

We need Mike Bloomberg because women love abusive bosses who tell them to abort their babies.

[MaybeACoordinator 8349]

3 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

We need Mike Bloomberg because women love abusive bosses who tell them to abort their babies.

Evidently enough of them loved a guy who bragged about grabbing them by the pussy so ‾\_(ツ)_/‾

 

 

[jimmyjazz 45898]

So, @bad_teammate apparently thinks anyone to the right of far left is a racist and a misogynist.  is that where we're at?

[Hank Scorpio 17729]

 

[EMAWesome 101]

On 2/16/2020 at 6:19 PM, GRHorn said:

 

 

Bloomberg doesn't know his ass from that hole in the ground he is digging.

[bad_teammate 13194]

So, [mention=880]bad_teammate[/mention] apparently thinks anyone to the right of far left is a racist and a misogynist.  is that where we're at?

I just said they had the same racial attitudes. I didn't say they were racists.

[staboner 4969]

21 minutes ago, Hank Scorpio said:

 

voila

good work Homer, when you get home tonight there's going to be another story on your house

[Lagunamadre 1975]

13 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

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

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

[tantric superman 4667]

13 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

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

Because women dig Bloomberg.

[tantric superman 4667]

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

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

Yes. 

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

[bad_teammate 13194]

1 minute ago, tantric superman said:

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

What does this even mean?

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

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

[wildcat09 29349]

14 minutes ago, Lagunamadre said:

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

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

[tantric superman 4667]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

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

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

2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

What does this even mean?

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

The goals for this cycle should be:

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

[tantric superman 4667]

1 minute ago, wildcat09 said:

If our primary goal is appealing to that particular group of voters, Bloomberg ain’t it.

Primary goal should be picking the correct candidate.  If women want to be stupid, they;ll be stupid. 
I'm sick of the Dems overthinking demographics. 

[Lagunamadre 1975]

7 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

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

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

[bad_teammate 13194]

2 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

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

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

That's interesting.

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

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

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

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

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

[HenryJames 66041]

 

[bad_teammate 13194]

Good. Battle test the Bern Dawg before the general election. I love it.

Fire away, you racist oligarch.

[tantric superman 4667]

26 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

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

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

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

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

 

 

[bad_teammate 13194]

22 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

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

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

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

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

Quote

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

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

You seriously don't understand the impacts of poaching?

This is honestly mind-melting.

Edited February 18, 2020 by bad_teammate

[HenryJames 66041]

 

[Biff Tannen 45673]

7 hours ago, HenryJames said:

 

Criminy.

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

This man went to Brown and Stanford.

 

 

 

Edited February 19, 2020 by Biff Tannen

[Horn of Gabriel 1614]

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

What does this even mean?

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

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

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

[bad_teammate 13194]

Just now, Horn of Gabriel said:

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

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

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

[Aqua Buddha 14590]

15 minutes ago, Horn of Gabriel said:

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

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

Point to someone on the Republican side who matches that.

[babysdaddy 2721]

14 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

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

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

Big oppose guy

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

[bad_teammate 13194]

lol @ quoting his campaign website and not looking at his actual record

[wildcat09 29349]

5 minutes ago, Aqua Buddha said:

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

Point to someone on the Republican side who matches that.

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

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

[David Dennison 18854]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

lol @ quoting his campaign website and not looking at his actual record

This is peak bad_teammate.

[GSU&UT 1798]

5 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

This is peak bad_teammate.

Correct take. He wasn't mayor 30 years ago, I'm not stupid enough to believe he changed his views wildly overnight.

[Skipper 6133]

2 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

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

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

[bad_teammate 13194]

2 minutes ago, Skipper said:

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

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

[Fozzz 152]

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

[wildcat09 29349]

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

[Skipper 6133]

15 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

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

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

[softlynow 1814]

22 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

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

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

Edited February 18, 2020 by softlynow

[Hank Kingsley 20918]

21 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

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

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

 

[wildcat09 29349]

4 minutes ago, softlynow said:

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

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

Quote

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

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

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

 

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

[Hank Kingsley 20918]

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

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

 

[jimmyjazz 45898]

41 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

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

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

[Biff Tannen 45673]

4 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

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

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

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

[Hank Kingsley 20918]

40 minutes ago, longhornmatt said:

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

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

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

[wildcat09 29349]

2 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

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

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

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

[softlynow 1814]

5 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

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

 

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

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

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

[Biff Tannen 45673]

1 minute ago, wildcat09 said:

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

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

[Hank Kingsley 20918]

9 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

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

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

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

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

 

 

Edited February 18, 2020 by Hank Kingsley

[F250 28767]

36 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

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

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

 

[Biff Tannen 45673]

1 minute ago, Hank Kingsley said:

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

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

 

 

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