How Michael Bloomberg could win
The D field is pretty messed up. Bloomberg, as a candidate, still seems to have the best chance of defeating Trump. But he has to counteract:
- Incumbancy
- Great economy
- A content electorate that does not want to rock the boat
Bloomberg, IMO, can make an effective argument that his presidency will not disrupt the good economic times. On top of that, he is a bright, grounded adult who will actually give much deserved dignity back to the office of PotUS.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Back in 2016, a wealthy New Yorker got into a crowded presidential race and was immediately dismissed. Virtually nobody actually liked the candidate, polls showed, and there were also questions about how serious he was about the whole thing. Then that candidate won.
Could it happen again in 2020?
The results of the Iowa caucuses have fed speculation that former New York mayor Mike Bloomberg might actually have a shot at the Democratic nomination. He wasn’t on the ballot, mind you, but the results — with a democratic socialist senator and the young former mayor of a relatively small city finishing in the top two slots — seem to have cracked the door ajar to a wild card. Couple that with the “ gut punch ” suffered by the leading “establishment” candidate — Joe Biden’s fourth-place finish — and it’s not unreasonable to think a lane could open for Bloomberg.
It’s anything but likely, but it’s hardly the punchline it once was.
Let’s break it down. First is what happened in Iowa and what it means. It has been abundantly clear throughout this process that the Democratic Party is terrified — terrified — of picking the wrong candidate, only to see them lose to President Trump. Iowa Democrats liked Bernie Sanders and Pete Buttigieg so much that they combined for more than half the vote, but it’s not difficult to see voters confronting the reality of those two actually facing Trump and, rightly or wrongly, suddenly getting skittish.
And that goes double now that Trump’s numbers are creeping up . There was a time when Democrats seemed to have the luxury of picking any number of hopefuls who would be favored against Trump, because they all led him in the polls. That’s not so clearly the case anymore. Trump’s approval rating has hit or tied new highs in several polls in recent weeks — including 49 percent in the latest Gallup poll — and the general election matchups are suddenly tight. In other words, a party that has long said electability is Priority No. 1 may move even further in that direction and really think hard about its options once the front-runners solidify.
The answer for those voters, throughout the race, has been consistent: Biden. But not only did he fare poorly in Iowa, he’s been an unsteady candidate. Biden is hardly sunk, but if the longtime top candidate in this race can’t notch a win in the first three contests before he gets to the South Carolina primary, you wonder how much of an option he’ll be in the fourth.
Which brings us to Super Tuesday, on March 3. That’s the first date on which Bloomberg will be on ballots, thanks to his late entry into the 2020 race and his unorthodox strategy of spurning the first four states. He has gambled that he doesn’t need the “momentum” that candidates covet from those early states, perhaps in part because his lavishly self-funded campaign doesn’t need the money that usually comes with it. He’s also betting that not even trying in those four states will help him avoid the kind of potentially negative narrative that Biden is confronting. It’s a novel strategy, but if anyone could pull it off, it would be a mega-billionaire like Bloomberg.
So can he? Super Tuesday will be make-or-break for Bloomberg, no doubt — as it will be pretty much for everyone else. That’s because 14 states are holding contests, and about 1 out of every 3 delegates is at stake. As the other candidates have focused on Iowa and New Hampshire, Bloomberg has blanketed these other states with ads and hired unheard-of amounts of staff in them. The combined investment so far is more than a quarter-billion dollars .
And there are signs that it’s working — at least somewhat. There are very few polls in the Super Tuesday states, but the few we have suggest he’s a player. To wit, some recent polls:
- He’s third in North Carolina at 14 percent.
- He’s fourth in Texas at 9 percent.
- He’s fourth in Utah at 10 percent.
He’s done worse in California , which is by far Super Tuesday’s biggest delegate prize, but he’s making huge investments there now .
Beyond that, we haven’t seen many Super Tuesday polls. But if you look at states in the two weeks that follow, the trend holds. In the March 10 mini-Super Tuesday:
- He’s second in Missouri at 14 percent.
- He’s fourth in Washington at 12 percent.
- He’s fourth in Michigan at 9 percent.
And on March 17:
- He’s second in Florida at 17 percent.
- He’s fourth in Ohio at 10 percent.
By that point, more than 3 out of every 5 delegates will have been selected. And pretty much every poll we have suggests he’s at least on voters’ radars in most of these states. If the contest is still open after the first four states and/or the party starts to wonder about a front-runner like Sanders or Buttigieg being able to win, Bloomberg has set himself up as an option.
Part of the resistance to Bloomberg undoubtedly owes to his wealth. This is a Democratic Party where an anti-billionaire message has suited some of the candidates quite well, after all. But if this become a “just win, baby” election, you wonder what those same voters might come to believe about what that wealth could do for their chances — especially from a candidate who is very much on their side on issues of gun violence and climate change. Bloomberg could also very plausibly present himself as a pragmatic pick on other issues, like the economy.
There’s a lot of what-ifs built into the case for Bloomberg winning the nomination, but there remain a lot of questions about the 2020 Democratic field, and the party’s unquenchable thirst for getting Trump out of the Oval Office could make for a unique campaign.
Bloomberg has a credible case to make that he can provide them something that they didn’t even know they wanted. And if 2016 showed us anything, that’s sometimes what the moment calls for.
Article is LOCKED by moderator [smarty_function_ntUser_get_name: user_id or profile_id parameter required]
Who is online
137 visitors
Bloomberg will be in the next debate. This should be good.
I think he will prove himself in debate. It will be worth more than what he has spent on his ads.
I agree. The electorate needs to see the man, not the ads. From what I have seen of the D debates, Bloomberg will change the dynamic.
IMO, if Bloomberg was running as the R candidate you would be worshiping the man.
And here is the irony... Trump and Bloomberg are both New Yorkers, and have both been Rep, Dem, and Indies.
The only difference I see is that Bloomberg has made his own money and speaks English. That is very good and a huge, really huge difference.
Bloomberg is competent and presidential.
... after all you are the Donald Trump fan 1. To me that implies that the greatest candidate in the world (as you see things) is whoever has the R besides their name.
Yeah, [removed,] no Democrat is going for it.
I do respect Bloomberg for making his own money, and not inheriting it and relying of good bankruptcy lawyers to keep it.
Bloomberg will need to shine, because the D's have not properly challenged each others heft in prior debates. Now this 'party' will be properly set with two billionaires to wail at-two men by virtue of their stations in life whom can take the licking-and we will be able to determine what mettle and measure each man possesses. This debate needs to rise to and if possible exceed expectations! We need to see some sparks fly. We're looking for several choice candidates to lift out of the lot!
You are forgetting about his ridiculous $15 minimum wage. Maybe he should as the workers in Seattle how they feel about it now?
I am a Biden supporter. But, I and I know some folks, who are open to the billionaires. Trump has no clue. You know what is funny, I got my ballot and it had all these names on it and only three names interest me—I can't remember the last time in a primary when I was 'conflicted' about choosing my candidate! It happened.
Unlike Mr.s Trump, Mr. Bloomberg is self-made. He came from a middle class family and turned the adversity of losing his job, into Bloomberg PC. What is wrong with a person who proves you can still do it by yourself? Being a billionaire shouldn't be a dirty word if you worked for it and do good with it.
I agree. I have no problem with Mr. Bloomberg and his good name that I know of (out this far West). I like what I hear and I am interested (and so is my 'crowd'); we're watching what shakes out of the primaries. Is it too early to ask what damaging oppo research is there about Bloomberg? After all, Trump is 'raining' on Joe Biden indirectly through his son and I didn't even see it coming!
So is Trump. And mind your mouth when you talk to me.
Context is your friend. Goodtime Charlie. Out of context is not, it's a pretext. Please understand the meaning internal to the expression, "self-made" it has little to nothing to do with 'doing it on one's own.'
The former is everybody ultimately who is a winner; the latter is someone, or everyone, who has helped lay a foundation for achievement and acquisition.
I don't know if Mr. B plays golf or not, but I bet that if he is elected and states that he will put the citizens first over it, he will actually mean it, unlike the liar in chief. He won't line his pockets with tax payer money, price gouging us every time he golfs at his own resorts either.
Because I told you not to talk to me that way, and if you continue it is grounds for a ticket once a request has been made, per the CoC. I hope we clarified that.
And why do you think I care what Elizabeth Warren says?
I have to agree with you, Paula.
no no...he didn't build that!
Trump...daddy made millionaire
Bloomberg...self made millionaire.
Nuff said.
I am so looking forward to this debate with
.
Bloomberg is taking it on the chin hard from those who dislike or want to repeat mention his financial expenditures to introduce himself. It's a decent slam and he needs to be prepared to answer! I repeat: He knows this "question-comment" is heading to a debate near him-so he "better" be prepared with a 'closer.'
Michael Bloomberg advertisements have been airing in Minnesota. From the ads, it seems Bloomberg is running for Governor of New York rather than running for President. Bloomberg seems a bit too insular; he is going to need to learn how to speak to the heartland.
The Nevada debate should be interesting. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren have been running against what Bloomberg represents. I expect that Bloomberg will provide a platform for Sanders and Warren and boost their grassroots support. I don't think Sanders and Warren supporters would accept Bloomberg as the nominee. IMO the beneficiaries of having Bloomberg on the debate stage will be Buttigieg and Biden.
Nerm, you are a bonafide republican (Trump) supporter, yes? So how should we process your state of the "D" party 'analysis'? I have seen a Bloomberg ad in the West; Trump is in it and it's clear who Bloomberg is targeting: this President. The ad is powerful.
NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, and a thousand times NO. I've been a life-long Roosevelt Democrat. Hillary Clinton convinced me I have been an idiot to support the Democratic Party for decades.
I don't care what Trump or Republicans do. I seek vengeance for Democrats rigging an election to put someone like Hillary Clinton in the White House. No matter how much you may dislike Donald Trump, my dislike for Hillary Clinton will always be greater. IMO Democrats need finger-of-God judgement.
The ads airing in Minnesota have been touting Michael Bloomberg's record as mayor of New York, particularly healthcare. I live close to the Mayo clinic so the emphasis on healthcare isn't surprising. But healthcare, particularly Obamacare, is a sore point in Minnesota. Minnesota had a better system than Obamacare. And Democrats modeled Obamacare after Romney's fubar system while ignoring what we had in Minnesota. East and west coast Democrats obviously don't give a damn about what Democrats are doing in the heartland. A pox on them.
Wow! Eight "thousand" nos. You don't care what Trump or Republicans do? And, Democrats need the "finger-of-God judgment"? I detect a definite conservative bias, eh?
And that is why I have been an idiot for supporting the Democratic Party over decades. I am a progressive, not a liberal and not a conservative. There isn't any room in the Democratic Party for progressives any longer. Democrats replaced Roosevelt with Reagan.
What makes you think that Bloomberg's plan would be like Obamacare?
You do realize that NYC had the first public health system, right? Nothing like the ACA.
Let the man speak and listen.
And for the record, I resented what happened with Hillary, too, but that doesn't take Bloomberg off the table. Both parties are corrupt. He is running as a Dem for the same reason that Trump ran as a Repub. No indie could ever win in this lousy two party system.
Okaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay. Now, you are confusing me.
He's not insulting them. He is saying that they are a hard sell. That is quite the opposite. Only PJ media could twist that into an insult. In fact, the speech was criticized because he said, "man wearing a dress" during the speech which the LGBGQ is now upset about. It seems that anyone can get upset when looking for reasons.
Michael Bloomberg is advocating a financial solution to a cost problem. That approach won't work. New York was a beneficiary of Obamacare; New York's health care system was becoming unaffordable. Obamacare provided the means to throw more money at the system.
By all means, let Michael Bloomberg speak. I haven't been opposing Bloomberg's participation. My worry is that those who oppose Bloomberg (within the Democratic Party) will be labeled 'Republicans' or 'deplorable' or 'Trump lovers'. Letting Bloomberg speak is one thing; trying to rig the game is another. And Democrats are allowing Bloomberg to bypass their own requirements to be on the stage.
Bloomberg is exceptional because Democrats are making exceptions. Bloomberg isn't being allowed on the stage because of his ideas, support, or presidential qualities. Bloomberg is being allowed on the stage because he is a billionaire from New York.
What confuses you?
Your conversation is all over the place! Try grounding it! How the heaven are you a "progressive" who is not a liberal or even a "progressive" conservative for that matter? Make sense or its simply frustrating to pin you down. It is simply too much effort to try to follow your ideas around as they cut new paths to other vistas!
I am someone who is a news "junkie." If it takes a person more than a handful of comments to get his or her ideas, agendas, and positions across to me that person is hiding his or her true views for whatever reason, is not laying out his or her political view successfully, or trying to be too politically cute by half.
An understatement IMO.
Were Theodore Roosevelt and Franklin Roosevelt liberals or conservatives? Attempting to shoehorn progressives into political boots that don't fit isn't confusion. I refuse to be forced into those stereotypes any longer.
I am a progressive. I am not a liberal and I am not a conservative. And I am not a hyphenated progressive, either.
What does all this have to do with this discussion? I'm not connecting with you. Franklin Roosevelt's policies set well with the modern Democracy Party and Progressives are a party subset. Conservatives have never wanted any thing to do with Franklin Roosevelt's policies in particular. This is a distraction. What's your game?
Been successful for 244 years......what pray tell is different? Social media. pfftttt.
SSDD.
Let's illustrate with an example from current news. Wages are increasing, unemployment is very low, and people are re-entering the labor force. That's all good news.
Liberals claim that increasing the minimum wage was responsible; there is little doubt that has been a large contributing factor. Conservatives claim that cutting business taxes was responsible; there is little doubt that has been a large contributing factor.
What the results shows is that it was necessary to be liberal and conservative at the same time. That's progressive.
We aren't engaged in an endless, mindless debate about how increasing wages kills jobs, are we? We aren't arguing about how higher wages makes business less competitive, are we?
A progressive approach provides real, measurable results without mind numbing ideological arguments. That is one of the reasons that people can't wrap their heads around what being progressive means. In simple terms, a progressive is liberal and conservative at the same time. A progressive is not one or the other; a progressive must be both.
Define, "moderate politics" in your own words. And then compare the two political stances: Moderate and progressive. Be concise, please.
Why should I define "moderate politics" if that is your talking point?
Aren't moderates about achieving political compromises that provide political benefits? Aren't moderates focused on obtaining political benefit rather than results? Isn't moderate politics about kicking the can down the road?
Progressives won't accept political compromises that do not deliver desired results. Progressives aren't moderates; progressives are uncompromising concerning results.
Okay for flips and giggles, how is the above pairing not resolved in the center of politics? Warning: I am going to move on if you persist in these wild of field statements of yours.
A desirable result isn't necessarily centered. Liberals and conservatives achieving a compromise position that is acceptable to both may take important parts of a solution off the table.
Achieving compromise ends up with something that is less liberal and less conservative. But that compromise places limits on the effectiveness of solutions, too. Using the example I provided, moderates would argue for a smaller minimum wage increase and a smaller tax cut so the compromise is more acceptable for both sides; but that compromise would only kick the can.
You have yet to clarify this statement:
Explaining how being a moderate possibly could slow or stop action at crucial points, in the policy-making process, does not clarify why you are attempting to define progressivism in this manner above!
Roosevelt died. What next?
I think you are correct for a large minority of them. But if the general comes down to Bloomberg v. Trump who do you think they will vote for?
I expect they'll stay home. Bernie supporters aren't party-first Democrats. Why bother voting for a well spoken Trump? Michael Bloomberg is just another New York billionaire, after all.
IMO Pete Buttigieg could hold Bernie supporters. Biden is too establishment. And Warren isn't going to make it.
I do not see that. Who would protest Bernie losing by allowing Trump to be re-elected?
Moreover, just last Friday eve, Bernie stated the end of campaigning is a unified challenger to Donald Trump. Buckle up, Bernie is going to fight for what he perceived to be his. Still, this time he knows (and his surrogates have had explained to them I hope) not to poison the well when and if he can not possess it.
From the viewpoint of Sanders' supporters, Michael Bloomberg is another Trump. What's the diff?
Minnesota chose Sanders and Rubio by large margins in the 2016 primaries. I don't see Bloomberg doing well in Minnesota.
One is a presidential adult, the other is a juvenile bully.
Then you don't know Bloomberg.
Which makes the presidential adult far more dangerous. Ronald Reagan was the epitome of presidential. How'd that work out?
If the choice was between Trump and another Reagan, I'd certainly stay home. Not voting is a vote of no confidence, too.
Trump is more progressive than any of the Democratic candidates. But Trump is such a sleaze I can't vote for him. I certainly wouldn't vote for Michael Bloomberg, either.
Michael Bloomberg was mayor of New York City; a city with a population of 8.6 million that occupies an area of 320 square miles. I live in Minnesota; a state with a population of 5.6 million that occupies an area of 89,000 square miles.
What does Michael Bloomberg know? My experience tells me is that Michael Bloomberg lives on a different planet than I do.
The idea of 'protest' assumes party loyalty. Bernie Sanders is an independent; Bernie's supporters are more independent, too.
Sanders' revolution has been trying to change the Democratic Party which is a rejection of the establishment status quo. Why would those trying to change the party accept an establishment candidate just because they have a D behind their name?
Sanders' grassroots support is a natural evolution of the Occupy Wall Street movement. OWS was not partisan; OWS was voicing dissatisfaction with establishment politics by both parties. Sanders' supporters are not party-first Democrats. Just electing Democrats is not their priority. The grassroots movement is attempting to infiltrate the Democratic Party and take power away from the establishment.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is a Bernie supporter. AOC is not a politician; she is more an OWS activist. AOC is about changing the Democratic Party and not about being a party-first loyalist. AOC is challenging Nancy Pelosi. The fight is about far more than just winning the next election.
When the Democratic establishment loses then they are weaker and more vulnerable. That creates a power vacuum that Bernie's supporters want to fill. Activists play the long game, they aren't trying to score political points.
What? No the concept of 'protest' does not assume party loyalty. One can protest for any reason. Stick with the common meaning of common words, okay?
Because, as I noted, they would be choosing between Bloomberg and Trump. Since they clearly are more aligned with the D than R they would almost certainly favor Bloomberg over Trump for that reason alone. I am amazed that you would think otherwise.
Well, that's the point. Bernie's supporters are NOT clearly more aligned with the D than R. Bernie's supporters are not that partisan. OWS activists weren't partisan, they were trying to change both parties. In case you haven't noticed, the Republican Party is slowly creeping toward becoming more progressive. The party may remain more conservative than progressive but adding that hyphen really is a tectonic shift in the Republican Party. Ronald Reagan is finally and truly dead in the Republican Party. Now its time to exorcise Ronald Reagan from the Democratic Party.
Politically Donald Trump has been advancing the goals of the OWS movement. Trump has been weakening the political establishment. Trump bashes everything associated with the establishment; military, foreign policy, free trade, foreign alliances, finance, bureaucracy, political correctness, and the elite. By weakening the establishment, Trump has been shifting political power back towards the grassroots. Trump has removed Reagan's ideology from the Republican Party. Trump has created a political vacuum that provides an opportunity to change the Republican Party. That's the goal of activism.
Trump would attract more support if he weren't such a shallow, obnoxious, self-serving, ego-maniac.
They are.
I would explain, but this is too obvious to bother.
That's a point of irreconcilable difference. Besides, the point of discussion is how Michael Bloomberg can win the Democratic nomination.
Bernie Sanders is in a leading position because he is putting forward ideas and those ideas are apparently sufficiently appealing to attract support. IMO Bloomberg should embrace those ideas but make a contrast in how to achieve the goals. That eliminates the argument that the ideas are too extreme and shifts the debate toward who is best capable of achieving those goals. Sanders is arguing that we need to do big things; Bloomberg should agree and argue about who is more capable.
Bloomberg should avoid making 'defeating Trump' the theme of his campaign. Again, Bloomberg should embrace some facets of Trump's political arguments and make the case that he is more capable. Trump will tout a strong economy; Bloomberg should congratulate Trump and shift the debate toward how to maintain that strong economy while addressing inequalities that persist. One obvious distinction that Bloomberg could make would be championing the building of factories to manufacture solar panels and wind turbines; to both create jobs and address climate change. That would be a nod toward Ocasio-Cortez's Green New Deal. Tying jobs and climate change together makes a grassroots economic case for addressing both problems.
Bloomberg should argue that healthcare is a complex problem that can't be fixed with easy solutions. Addressing healthcare will require a lot of work that must include bipartisan input. Again, that makes the argument about capability to manage difficult problems rather than arguing about a single solution for the problem. Healthcare is not a Democrat or Republican issue; healthcare is a grassroots issue.
Michael Bloomberg's main selling point is his ability to govern; not his ability to think outside the box. Bloomberg shouldn't be arguing about the impracticality of big ideas or arguing for a pragmatic approach. Instead of arguing that free college is impractical, Bloomberg should embrace that as a worthy goal that will need someone capable of governing to accomplish.
Crooked donnie is an uncouth loud mouth bully, a disgusting dictator wanna be and is the child in the room
You didn't even vote for him now did you.
Now that is really funny. I know you got confused and meant to say Trump. It's OK.
It is amazing to watch someone state the exact opposite of simple, observable reality. To compare Trump with Bloomberg and conclude that Trump is the adult is fascinating. But, then again, you also claim that evolution is pseudoscience — a worldwide conspiracy of godless scientists — so this is not all that surprising.
12% of Bernie supporters voted for Trump. The hatred for Hillary was profound.
Yes, Trump is all that and more. But people knew who and what Donald Trump is/was before he was elected.
Trump didn't pretend to be anything other than what he is. What people saw during the Republican primaries is what people got for a President.
Donald Trump did not act presidential during the 2016 campaign and was elected anyway. Trump has not changed since the 2016 Republican primaries.
Democrats stating the obvious won't help their chances against Trump. In fact, Democrat's hair-on-fire outrage over Trump not being politically correct only reminds voters why Trump was elected.
The people didn't elect him the EC did, he LOST the popular vote.
If Hillary Clinton could not manage something as simple as the Electoral College then why was she the best choice for President?
Yes, the dislike of Hillary Clinton was profound.
Registered Voters Who Stayed Home Probably Cost Clinton The Election
Bernie supporters defected and Bernie supporters stayed home. Sanders' revolution isn't a cult that just blindly follows Sanders. And they aren't party-first loyalists.
Why do you care what he does or not do anyway?
Because Michael Bloomberg could become President. The question was how Bloomberg could win the Democratic nomination. As I pointed out, Bloomberg's selling point is ability to govern. I doubt Bloomberg will follow the strategy I proposed.
Pete Buttigieg is sort of following that strategy. But being mayor of South Bend is being dismissed as real governing experience by the party establishment.
The political conflict will be between Bloomberg and Sanders. Bloomberg's ego and Sanders persistent devotion to his ideals will be a source of constant conflict; the contrasts are too large to ignore. Sanders will have to directly challenge Bloomberg; Sanders grassroots base will expect that. Warren is trying to insert herself into the debate but is failing; Warren has started resorting to gimmicks to attract attention. Biden is trying to run on Obama's coattails but Biden wasn't that prominent in Obama's legacy. Biden has already demonstrated that electing him won't be a re-election of Obama. Amy Klobuchar is positioning herself to be the pragmatic choice; safe, reliable, presidential, and not willing to rock the boat.
The real challenger to Bloomberg is Buttigieg.
Some did. But the point remains that Bernie supporters are clearly (obviously) more aligned with the D party than the R party:
This is ideologically obvious yet you still try to argue the point.
Right? Trump has never bullied anyone.... Oh wait..
Is it ideologically obvious or are you only seeing what you want to see? Do you know Sanders' position on issues?
Sanders and Trump are pretty much on the same page regarding foreign policy. Sanders and Trump are pretty much on the same page regarding small business and manufacturing. Sanders and Trump share many goals; they differ on how to achieve a common set of goals.
If Sanders does win the Democratic nomination then Republicans are going to be in for a shock (as will many Democrats). Sanders and Trump agree on many policy issues. The contrast between Sanders and Trump is not as ideologically stark as is being assumed.
Donald Trump is not a Reagan Republican. Bernie Sanders is not a Reagan Democrat. Both are leading a grassroots revolution to change the political landscape. And both are succeeding.
It is obvious that Sanders supporters are closer to the ideologies supported by the D party than the ideologies supported by the R party. That you do not see this is amazing.
That is the crucial difference in politics Nerm. Politics is not so much about goals but rather means to achieve goals. All politicians, for example, speak of human rights and ensuring all are content with sufficient resources to lead decent lives. They differ (greatly) in how they would achieve these ends.
I even gave you an example (part of what you quoted) so why pretend you could not understand what I wrote?:
Not all politicians speak of human rights or speak of ensuring all are content with sufficient resources to lead decent lives. While those can certainly be goals; they are not necessarily common goals. Some claim that the authority of the state supersede human rights; the rights of the state are greater than the rights of individuals. Some claim that allocation of resources are best determined through competition; life isn't fair and those who cannot compete will be denied resources to lead decent lives.
Not all goals are created in common. That's why political parties create a platform to delineate and prioritize goals.
What I said is that Sanders and Trump share several common goals. The differences between their platforms is not as stark as people are assuming.
You are still talking methods rather than goals.
And I pointed out that sharing common general goals is to be expected. It is obvious, Nerm. The crucial difference in politics is not the general goals as many share the same goals (e.g. happiness, good standard of living, health, etc.); the difference in politics is the means by which the goals are achieved.
You pointing out that Sanders and Trump share common abstract goals is pointing out the obvious. And as the goals become more abstract the more commonality you will find.
Recognize that there are profound differences in approach between Sanders and Trump and those difference in approach is where the politics lie.
[ Note also that Sanders and Trump differ in more concrete (less abstract) goals that apply to their different methods. Sanders has a specific goal of redistributing wealth from the uber-rich. Clearly Trump's does not have that as a goal. These less abstract (concrete, method-tied) goals represent differences in method. They are goals of the method, not end goals (general goals) for society (e.g. happiness). ]
Could Bloomberg Win the Democratic Nomination?
Attack ads can backfire. That was proven in Canada with the ad pointing out Jean Chretien's facial disfigurement due to Bells Palsy, and since the people of Canada are relatively fair minded, Chretien won a landslide victory and the party posting the attack ad almost got wiped out, notwithstanding that (I believe) it was the incumbent.
Just buy all the "Trump" properties. Bloomnberg has the money, and I get that he would be hesitant to take on all that garbage debt, but still. Buy dip shit out of his own business.
Wouldn't it be a hoot if he would buy all of Trump's resorts and then have him trespassed.
I'm leaning towards Mayor Pete in the primary, but I'm okay with voting for Bloomberg if it gets rid of Trump.
I am liking him more and more.
To the tune of Five Foot Two, Eyes of Blue...
Five foot six, eyes of brown
But oh, what that five foot does own
Has anybody seen Bloomberg?
Self made man, wears a tan,
To be POTUS is his plan
Has anybody spent so much?
Now if you run into a
Five foot six, full of tricks,
Bern he'll beat and Mayor Pete
Biden hasn't got the feet,
But could he win, be candidate?
Could he, could he, could he rate?
Has anybody seen Bloomberg?
Five Foot Two, Eyes of Blue:
Bloomberg is 5'8", not 5'6".
Some say eight, some say six
Use whatever gets you kicks
Some say six, some say eight
Makes no difference for his fate.
I "use" facts that I look up. I do like how you rhyme though.
I wasn't putting him down, Paula. Well, maybe I did downsize him a bit. Although I have no vote in America I think Bloomberg would be the best choice as the POTUS candidate for the Democratic Party, but having seen all the bad moves they've already made I doubt that will happen. From afar, the person I would really love to see as POTUS is Nikki Haley. I am not burdened with American party loyalties.
I couldn’t vote for the man.
From his attempts to control behavior via totalitarian style bans to his lack of understanding of “common sense” gun laws he’s proven to me his interests don’t even remotely align with my belief system.
Like any good politician, he’s pandering to his base. No doubt about it.
What do you call Trump's attempt to have abortion made illegal? Feels pretty controlling to me.
When did Trump try and make abortion illegal?
That's big news!
Sean, did you seem to miss him at the "March for Life'?
Speaking in public is an attempt to make abortion illegal now? I don't think that how the law works.
Also, he never even advocated for making abortion illegal during his march for life speech.
Sean don't play coy. What do you think that march was about? It's just harder to do since they have to go through SCOTUS.
So he hasn't tried to make abortion illegal. Thanks for making that clear.
Yes Sean, and that is trying to control women's behavior. Thanks for making that clear.
What are you talking about?
speaking about a hypothetical (which he walked back) is now an actual attempt to control women’s behavior? If trump used that type of “logic” , against a democrat the fact checkers would call that a lie.
your “proof” of Trump’s supposed attempt to make abortion illegal is to cite a SPEECH where he didn’t even advocate for making abortion illegal and an answer to a hypothetical about a mythical world where abortion is already illegal.
he’s been the president for 3 years. You can’t cite a single actual attempt to make abortion illegal.
The interviewer asked if he wanted it (abortion) banned, and he said yes.
He's appeared at the March for Life.
Sounds like working toward an abortion ban to me.
If a bill crossed his desk banning abortion (and specifying penalties for it), given what he's said since he became a candidate, would you expect him to sign or veto?
He would veto it on federalism grounds. He's said states should set their own abortion policies.
Frankly, I doubt he knows what "federalism" is.
I'd say it would depend entirely on whether the bill were to reach him before or after an election. If before, he would sign it, because he would know that to do otherwise would be political suicide.
He knows diddly squat about civics, but he can pander with the worst of them.
The day Trump makes abortion illegal, I’ll be right next to you to protest it and I’m not pro choice per se. I think abortion can be an abhorrent practice but also don’t feel it’s my position or the governments to tell other people what they should or shouldn’t do in such instances.
When it comes to forced control of behavior, that is exactly what Bloomberg HAS actually done before and not just talked about it.
So your turn. You okay with that?
That's not "Trump not supporting abortion", loki. It's him saying he wants to ban abortion. Nobody is putting words in his mouth. He was being asked for clarification, and he confirmed.
Yes and no. Given NYC public health system (we have public hospitals) I totally understand why he tried to do it. I don't think it's applicable nationwide though and I am sure he will explain that. I think the fiscal conservative in him tried to bring costs down in the city, but the idea didn't float.
His past tweets:
As most people know, and for those who would like to know, I am strongly Pro-Life, with the three exceptions - Rape, Incest and protecting the Life of the mother - the same position taken by Ronald Reagan. We have come very far in the last two years with 105 wonderful new.....
....Federal Judges (many more to come), two great new Supreme Court Justices, the Mexico City Policy, and a whole new & positive attitude about the Right to Life. The Radical Left, with late term abortion (and worse), is imploding on this issue. We must stick together and Win....
....for Life in 2020. If we are foolish and do not stay UNITED as one, all of our hard fought gains for Life can, and will, rapidly disappear!
Get real. He is trying to ban abortion by any method possible.
You clearly trust him, I don’t.
If he’s willing to take a liberty like that away in NYC, he’ll have no problem doing it on a larger scale in the US and deep down you know it. There’s no end to the potential totalitarianism for those willing to act in such a manner.
Thats how liberties are. They are easy to accept when you agree with them. They only get hard when you don’t.
Do you not get what the word ban means? Your own post proved yourself wrong.
I also have no idea how you equate calling oneself pro-life as an "attempt to ban abortion." Where is the actual attempt to ban abortion? An executive order? Did he order the military to shoot people trying to get abortions? After three years in office, what executive power has he used to ban abortion? You'd think Courts would have noticed a President attempting to ban abortion, but I can't find a single case where that was even alleged.
If you apply that standard to Bloomberg, he's in favor of banning pop, food, the first amendment, the second amendment etc etc...
"You say you want to ban it." Trump had every opportunity to say that no, he did not want to ban abortion. He did not. He said he was pro-life. He tried to make the question about Matthews' religion. He squirmed. He agreed with legal penalties. But he affirmed that he is against abortion, and at no point did he contradict Matthews' statement, although he had ample opportunity.
What Matthews was trying to do was get a straight answer out of Trump. It's a hard job, nailing Jello to a tree. Is getting a straight answer something only liberal journalists and anchors do?
You can try to deny he said it, loki. But he did say it. Hell, he may not even believe it himself - after all, when he knocks up a mistress, he supports abortion. Ask Marla. But he knows what his base wants to hear, and he tries to give it to them.
You really think it would boil down to just one action on his part, Sean? You know better than that.
It was originally claimed that Trump tried to make abortion illegal. That's obviously never happened. Whether he calls himself pro-life or not doesn't have anything to do with his supposed attempt to make abortion illegal, which is what this discussion has devolved to.
You're ignoring what he's already done. He's setting the stage, attempting to create a favorable environment for the attempt. Like I said, it won't be ONE discrete attempt to illegalize abortion. He (or more likely, his advisors) know that he'll need a judicial branch willing to buck the precedent set by Roe v. Wade.
He has not "tried", past tense. He is actively engaging in the attempt, now. It's an ongoing process. And I'm fairly sure you know that.
I've been asking for examples of what he's done to outlaw abortion. The sum total of the responses has been he's called himself pro-life and attended a pro-life rally. That's it. Not a single use of the powers of the Presidency to actually make abortion illegal, as was claimed.
He's setting the stage to create a favorable environment...
As I said, if that's the standard you are going to use, then you can claim Bloomberg is trying to outlaw everything from soda, to free speech, to automobiles etc etc..
Your refusal to acknowledge the answers does not mean they don't exist, and doesn't invalidate them.
Sean,
You know how this is done, and only done through either the states or SCOTUS. If he gets another 4 years it will be done.
Oh please. Trump has done a ton by executive order and has had them overturned. What are those but totalitarian? And in the case with the Soda, he was overturned by the court. That is why we have checks and balances.
I value my liberties. One of the reproductive rights which will not make it another 4 years if RBG retires.
Yes you value the liberties you value but not the one you don’t. I’m for all choice. What I drink, what I eat and what gun I choose to own. And yes, your choice on reproductive rights. Anything less is hypocritical and you know it.
And save me the self righteous indignation. Had Hillary won things would have likely already swung the other way on SCOTUS appointments. RBG1 would have already bailed and been replaced with another liberal minded judge along with the others already selected by Trump.
To quote our last POTUS ..... “elections have consequences. Tough luck, get over it ......”
Sure, sure.
If you really believed that, you wouldn't like him as much.
Funny, deep down you know the republican majority Senate literally gave up its liberties to President Donald Trump and his millions of Twitter followers.
Yet, you don't want us to internalize that; just look where you 'point.'
Where we are as a nation today is a president office holder who has his hands wrapped around the throat of the republican party through wiles, intimidation, and a promise of politically killing off disloyal (out of line) members using his large cadre of voters.
And now he wants to extend his control over the rest of the country. And here you are trying to project Trump's character and actions onto a man who wants Trump's job, so as to release Trump to return to private life!
I know of no such thing but then again I’m not delusional like so many others here .....
You are clearly not standing in the shoes of a republican politician—they know lots about such things. Donald Trump's got them and their political power in his hands. Mitt Romney is something special (keep an eye on him). Mitt answers to a higher authority.
Lol .... my belief system doesn’t answer to a political party narrative like many here and I understand that Romney is the flavor or the day for many Dems. Not so much in 2012 when they were calling him all sorts of bad things. You probably were as well .....
Of course he supports abortion as a result of incest, just in case.
This is not about 'you' is it? It is about the collective-a party. Republicans are sold out to Donald Trump and deep down you know it. Thus, you are not on an island with your belief system to comfort you: Sparty On, you are surrounded and possibly overwhelmed by a unified republican tone. Yet, you persist to listen.
Romney is not a democrat or any subset of democrat! You will be reminded of this very thing the next time Romney has to issue a vote. Then, you will have to determine how you feel about Romney all over again.
Ah but it is and it’s also about the TDS ridden on the left. Still following their failed “resist” narrative.
Sad but true .......
OK what the heck? I am expressing my POV and you get all snarky because I care about reproductive rights.
We have laws and government for a reason. Without them there is anarchy. But I believe in doing them within the confines of the Constitution.
I didn't say otherwise. Don't put words in my mouth. I want balance in the Supreme Court.
I am well aware of that, and hence why I am going with who I feel is the best bet to get Trump out. Oh and for the record, I didn't vote for Obama.
Okay, well, that happened. (Smile.)
Glad we finally found agreement on something
Okay, that happened too. There was nothing in your comment which was relevant to my comment. TDS is a so-called distraction. I will tear Donald Trump 'a new one' any time I wish or not and you have the liberty to call that anything which floats. You want to fix your so-called, "TDS" —get Donald off media pronto. Otherwise, color me: On that "A**" as needed.
I wouldn't worry too much, the right has suffered from ODS for the last 12 years.
True. Had Dems not won the midterms, trump wouldn't have been impeached for his crimes.
C’mon frosty ..... you know better than that ........
At this rate, it seems like there will be primaries up until the general election.
I will vote for Bloomberg in a heartbeat over Trump, and I think he would be a good president.
Bloomberg will have to make some compromises with the progressives though, either to get the nomination in the first place or to get these young sanders and Warren supporters out to vote in November.
I'm still waiting , also, for the seed about Bloomberg where the non Democrats (independents) acknowledge that defeating Trump , not electing Bloomberg, is the cause we need to fight for this year.
Everyone should be denouncing Trump and saying they will vote for whoever emerges as the main general election opponent to Trump.
I havent seen that in these pro-Bloomberg seeds here yet.
[Deleted]
Can someone please clear this up....I am under the impression that if a mod is participating in a seed, they cannot moderate same seed.
Am I wrong about this?
Mods can't moderate a thread in which they're participating - they're prevented from doing so by the site itself. It's better if they don't moderate on a seed where they're participating, but sometimes, there are few mods online when a violation occurs, so whichever mod is present has to take care of it.
That being said, your ticket was issued before I commented on this seed (in a different thread).
[deleted]
Nevermind. I Reread your post. My understanding was the entire seed cannot be moderated if that mod posts anywhere within it.
No the focus should be on keeping Trump in power as a roadblock to the progressives theft and redistribution programs like cash for clunkers or free crap for the lazy at the expense of the working man.
Spot on Dean, spot on.
Good grief John, Bloomberg seeds are not required to discuss (or even mention) Trump nor are the participants required to take a pledge.
People who want Trump out of office more than they want a third party will readily take such a "pledge".
People who want Trump out of office more than they want a third party will readily take such a "pledge".
Sorry JR I don't do 'pledges' but this independent centrist will be voting for whoever is nominated by the dems to run against Trump. Thinking that Bloomberg might just be the smart and pragmatic choice.
I feel like he could beat Trump in a general election between just the two of them. However, I don't think enough Democrats will vote for him in the primaries for him to get the nomination.
Alternatively, even though he could do well as an independent, I think Trump wins a three-way race. Not enough people can stomach voting for the independent in a presidential race. I think it strikes them as weak or illegitimate somehow. And since there will obviously also be a Democratic nominee, I suspect Bloomberg would take more votes from that candidate than he would from Trump.
Hi Tacos,
Bloomberg will not run as an independent. He will only run as a dem. I think we will get a better idea of how he will do, after the next debate.
His money is probably the biggest factor in his favor. He can hang in the fight longer than some of the others. If some a couple of the top 4 drop out after Super Tuesday, I feel better about his chances. I could see at least two of Pete, Joe, or Elizabeth Warren dropping out by then. I think Bloomberg could do very well if his main competition is Bernie and just one of the others.
I foresee Joe dropping out sooner than he ever planned and Bloomberg picking up most of those voters.
and so far he has not moved the needle.
he is just throwing away money while blocking other dems.
win win
That is not buying the election. He made his own money and now he is spending it as he sees fit. The people who are voting will decide if they want him or not. And frankly, I like that he is using his own money. That means no one has bought him.
That's odd. He went from 16th place to 4th in less than a month. I think that is quite a needle move.
He is spending his money on ads, not trying to push agendas in back rooms.
my bad, I should have been more specific.
I was not talking about the democrat primary results
I was talking about nov 2020
when bloomberg can fill a football stadium at one of his campaign events he might have a shot.
Is that the measurement now? History has shown us some other people who could do that, but I wouldn't say that was a sign of character.
it has been a measurement in every election in my lifetime.
how did that become new? crowd size matters
like obama... and unlike clinton
You realize that you have nothing to base that on or can prove, but I guess it sounded scary, so you said it.
Unlike a certain POTUS who claimed he is rich and didn't need contributors, Bloomberg is putting his money where his mouth is and not using campaign money for personal use.
My take: Majority of Republicans will vote for Trump regardless of what he says or does, we have already seen how blindly they follow him. I do have Republican family & friends who voted for Trump and are truly appalled at many of his actions & words and say they will not vote for him again BUT they will never vote for a Democrat, so I am guessing they will vote for Trump. Some might vote for a Bloomberg or Biden BUT they will never vote for a Sanders, Warren or any of the other candidates. If Democrats really want to vote Trump out they had better pick someone who can wrest some votes from Republicans and Independents.
Spot on comment!
It is better, possibly much better, for the sake of the sanity of our nation, that a "moderate" be nominated by the Democrats.
But anyone, who would vote for Bloomberg, but stays home or votes for Trump or votes for a minor third party candidate, instead of Sanders or Warren , will be directly contributing to the downfall of America.
If we re-elect someone with the mountain of psychological and ethical and mental disqualifications Trump has, the United States will be in disgrace like it never has been before and I forsee tragedy for our people.
So you are saying that only Sanders or Warren are acceptable to you
and for whatever nonsensical reason, you believe that Bloomberg is as flawed as Trump?
{emoji deleted}
Trump has been president for three years and America appears to be in pretty good shape.
I dont know at all how you got that from what I said.
As a Democrat, Bloomberg is right of center. If that what it takes to beat Trump, so be it.
When I read the comments of some of these independents, we dont see the absolute need to get rid of Trump burning as bright. Some of them see this as an opportunity for an "independent " presidency. I really doubt that is how it would turn out. The Democratic Party is a little more to the left than in the past, and Bloomberg will have to recognize that fact, imo.
We need to get Trump the hell out of there, if it is accomplished by Bloomberg, Buttigieg, Biden Kloubuchar, Sanders or Warren.
The American people should vote for whoever the Democratic nominee is.
Glad to hear that , Butt...
The sentence without the comas reads
That's silly
That is such a narrow POV. I have voted for Republicans. I vote for the person, not the party.
No Wally, he's exactly like the current POTUS, a New Yorker who has been a Democrat,
a Republican and an Independent when it suited him.
That would explain those questionable polls that had Biden ahead all this time!
Yea, we all know how biased fox news is.
You mean our own eyes, right? When Biden couldn't draw flies he kept leading the national polls. How could that be?
Then how about this?
"Bloomberg, for his part, continues to face questions on his record.
His efforts hit a snag Monday night when a series of video and audio clips of the former mayor making controversial remarks about criminal justice emerged on social media -- less than a day after a new poll showed him gaining traction with African American voters.
"Ninety-five percent of your murders, murderers and murder victims fit one M.O.," Bloomberg is heard saying in one audio clip, reportedly recorded during a 2015 speech at the Aspen Institute. "You can just take the description, Xerox it and pass it out to all the cops. They are male, minorities, 16 to 25. That’s true in New York, that’s true in virtually every city. And that’s where the real crime is."
In another recording of unknown origin, Bloomberg is heard saying, "the way you get the guns out of the kids’ hands is to throw them up against the walls and frisk them."
How does that play with certain democrats?
Vic,
Glass houses?
“You Don’t Want to Live With Them Either”
“Bring Back the Death Penalty”
“Our Very Vicious World”
“He Doesn’t Have a Birth Certificate”
“Go Back to Their Huts”
Mr. Bloomberg needs to get out ahead of these "oppo" narratives. Because as we all know conservatives are political 'elephants' with long memories for repeat spreading of stories until they drain each one dry of its 'guts.' This stuff can be answered. Mr. Bloomberg has certainly seen how Impeached President Donald Trump airs out dirty laundry in public.
Don't let this get out there and the silence returning be deafening! Over answer it even just in case someone gets it belated! Remember Trump will micro-target and use those dreadful push calls to spread this oppo pervasively.
Bloomberg must deal with this full-frontal.
Hmm. I am going to enjoy reading this one. Thank you, dear Perrie! Looks scrumptious. And, I will look to see if there is any leads I can drill down on in it too.
I think a lot of voters know that and it drives their support for Biden, who still polls well - in my opinion - in spite of himself.
Many of those who voted for Trump were democrats who voted for Obama. You have turned off a lot of moderate democrats.
losing 7 million obama voters to trump is still too painful for them to think about.
And it doesn't look like those people are coming back. As I write this Bloomberg has just pulled out a win in the tiny hamlet of Dixville Notch, NH.
And on the other side of the ledger there is but one name checked off - that of the man who drew a huge audience in NH last night!
Vic Bloomberg wasn't even on the ballot and Trump ran virtually unopposed.
Is that not what one would expect?
bloomberg, the rich mans trump.
I'm sure he can bring the democrat party together in nov
as if...
And so the smear campaign begins. . . .
If the right follows the same “smear” template used by the left for that the last three years you are in for a very bumpy ride ..... yippee ki yay!
This is from, "Real Time with Bill Maher" last Friday's show. Pay specific attention to the interview starting at 4:40: Operative terms: "Republican Oligarch" and "Bernie Sanders."
Quinnipiac poll Feb 5-9:
Bloomberg beats Trump 51-42
Sanders beats Trump 51-43
Biden beats Trump 50-43
Klobuchar beats Trump 49-43
Warren beats Trump 48-44
Buttigieg beats Trump 47-43
The Plague beats Trump 47-44
Anal Warts beats Trump 70-30
This same week in 2016 per RCP polling:
Hillary 47
Trump 42.3
No anal warts ran in 2016.
If "Bloomberg" get's the nomination by just shelling out His "Big Amounts of Cash" for Commercials. The Democrats running for the nomination, including the major DS candidates, Bernie and Warren, with their supporters, will have a "Total Meltdown".
Can the DS Candidates and its members, support "Big Money" against Trump, without sounding "Hypocritical" ?
Comments soon to go past 400.
I will be locking this article today given its size. If someone wants to seed another Bloomberg article to continue then please do so.
So please get your final comments out.