What about Bloomberg's policy record bugs you?
What about Bloomberg's policy record bugs you?
I could talk about his enthusiasm for using the police to hassle black people, his hostility to unions or the frankly obscene levels of wealth he's hoarded as good reasons he should be fired into the sun rather than nominated, but the basic issue with his candidacy is that it represents an attempt to buy the nomination and thence the presidency for the sole purpose of preserving a status quo - which he has reaped enormous personal benefits from - in American which has been and continues to be absolute catastrophe.Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
Look. You guys are all centrists, right? Politics is all about compromise, many fine people on both sides, that sort of thing.
Here's how I see it: you guys want to make Michael Bloomberg president, and I what to drop him into a tank full of sharks. How about we compromise, and take the middle position, which is that we don't feed him to sharks, but also don't make him president?
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
Fine.
Lets look on the brightside. After the Democrats reject everyone who could be decent, at least we know that once Trump is re-elected he'll be a lame duck.
I'd rather a centrist Democrat than even a lame duck Trump, I'm guessing you'd rather a lame duck Trump than even considering a rational Democrat.
Maybe after 4 more years of Trump and maybe after the Republicans have stacked the Supreme Court even more in their favour, maybe then you'll consider someone not insane for President?
Literally every poll I've seen has any given Dem nominee beating Trump right now (I haven't actually seen a poll for Bloomberg, but I don't doubt he'll get similar results), yet you've somehow decided the dems lose if they don't pick Bloomberg? Even with his baggage? In the general: "Don't vote for Trump, he's a racist- oh shit, well ummm, you shouldn't vote for Trump because he has sexual assault allegations hanging over him.. oh shit"
What do you base this on?
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
If polls were infallible and unmoving then Biden would be a lock.
I think the Dems stand a chance potentially with Bloomberg, Klobuchar (sp?) or Buttigieg. I think they stand no chance with Biden, Sanders or Warren.
Polls pitting an incumbent against a generic opponent always look bad for the incumbent. Right now, most non-Democrats aren't paying attention to the primaries, which means they're assuming the nominee will be a generic Democrat. Polls are also pretty unreliable at predicting turnout during realignments (or something close).
Hope is the denial of reality
Right. Polls aren't infallible and November is a long way off - god help us.
But where does this certainty that the Dems will lose without a centrist candidate come from exactly? Centrist dems don't exactly have a great record against Donald Trump. Small sample size and everything, but damn.
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
Clinton didn't lose because she wasn't a centrist.
Ok, so I read that about five times and it either meansClinton didn't lose because she wasn't a centrist.
"Clinton didn't lose (Clinton won), because she wasn't a centrist (Clinton was a left leaning dem)" i.e she won by not being a centrist, which, well... neither of those things are true.
- or -
"[The reason] Clinton lost wasn't that she wasn't a centrist" which means that you think Clinton wasn't a centrist but also, that wasn't why she lost, which... I dunno.
Either way, sounds like you're agreeing with me. Welcome aboard.
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
Doesn't matter. You didn't care. You considered it yawn-worthy. Because Biden, unlike Bloomberg, didn't have "frankly obscene levels of wealth."
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
2am typo sorry. I meant to write "Clinton didn't lose because she was a centrist". I'm saying her centrism wasn't the reason she lost.
Last night in the Chelsea v Man Utd match Chelsea had more possession, more shots and more corners than United. The reason they lost wasn't because they had more possession - nor did were they the "real winners" by virtue of having more possession - they lost because they conceded more goals.
The reason she lost was because she lost swing states in the midwest like Wisconsin and she did that because she ignored those states and didn't campaign in them. The solution for the Democrats is not to double-down on some far left leader that will be even more appealing to Californians, the solution is to have a laser like focus on the needs of the states they need to win to flip the electoral college.
The GOP were also putting out hit pieces on Clinton for 25 years. And it wasn't because she was a centrist.
Hope is the denial of reality
I'm actually curious who y'all think will have the best chance against Trump. I think the establishment Dems are a bit worried at this point. Can the party win with a socialist as the nominee? Will a billionaire on the ticket turn down enthusiasm? Is Biden too scandal ridden to win? Will America elect a gay man? Those are the questions I'd think they are asking themselves right now.
The people who have the best chance against Trump in the general are usually going to have a harder time winning the primary, since the primaries favor extremists while the general favors moderates. Biden is the only one who I think could plausibly lose to Trump, but Sanders will also have a rough go of it. Warren would do a bit better than Sanders. Bloomberg, Buttigieg, and Klobuchar (in descending order) would have an easier time. Honestly though, it's a bit early to make solid predictions - the choice of running mate could be a big influencer.
Bloomberg, Buttigieg and Klobuchar are the only plausible winners but in what order I'm not certain.
Biden, Sanders and Warren will almost guaranteed lose.
The US will not elect a woman, a gay man or a socialist. Barr will investigate Bloomberg and try to torpedo his campaign shortly before the election, and, because of the Trump admin's extraordinary corruption, Biden will find it difficult to get his campaign off the ground.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Biden will find it difficult to get his campaign off the ground because he can't get to the end of a sentence without forgetting how he started it.
You say that like it isn't a presidential trait, but we both know it is, in fact, the quintessential presidential trait.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Ah yes, I couldn't could the number of times that Obama or Bill Clinton would start a sentence then just meander off like Biden does. Oh wait, they didn't because they weren't geriatrics.
When was the last geriatric Democrat President?
So what you're saying is that it isn't a Democratic presidential trait; we can see that it is obviously a Presidential trait if the President is a Republican.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Who has the best chance? I don't know. I think Bernie Sanders has the worst chance. I think he's got the best shot of managing to duplicate Clinton's electoral results, by spurring Republicans who don't really want to vote for Trump and would just stay home into holding their noses because they're terrified of a "socialist" becoming President. And at this point, I think Trump has spent enough time prepping to face Biden that him running might be a handicap as well/
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
The confidence with which you make statements about my state of mind is extremely misplaced, FYI.
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
I think Sanders would do a spectacularly good job at winning the popular vote and a spectacularly bad job at winning in the electoral college. His strategy is to basically convince blue collar midwesterners to vote on their economic interests instead of their social ones, and I'm not convinced that's possible at this point. I could see Buttigieg convincing suburban voters (including some Republicans) to vote for him, but he's also going to lose the support of religious African Americans (who'd likely stay at home). Not sure how those balance out.
Bloomberg has the best chance of attracting suburbanites and pro-business Republicans, though he'd depress left-wing turnout. My guess is the former outweighs the latter in the electoral college. Biden would do best in the Midwest and he's not going to piss off any Democratic group, but he might also completely collapse.
Hard to tell with Klobuchar. She's pretty inoffensive (to sexists) as far as female candidates go. And she might appeal to the moderates. But I'd need to see a more sustained increase in popularity for her before I'd consider her candidacy to be viable.
Hope is the denial of reality
Buttigieg is interesting because it seems like a lot of his supporters don't even realize he's gay. There were some videos from the Iowa caucus of Pete's supporters finding out he was gay and immediately asking to change their votes. The media is treating it like it matters as much as it should by never bringing it up, so it'll have to be Trump's campaign that tells everyone he's gay. I don't think Trump has the finesse to do that in a way that'll win over many who aren't already guaranteed Trump votes, so I think it's mostly going to amount to suppressing the turnout of the no-homo blue votes. Unfortunately, there's probably a lot of those to suppress in the battleground states.
It's not the Trump campaign or depressing "no homo" blue voters I'd be concerned with, there. It's the effect of the church pulpits two days before the election surging conservative GOTV efforts. I don't know how effective that will be in the battleground states in 2020. I know of times in the past when it has been quite effective and led to poll-overturning surges from out of nowhere with gay marriage initiatives. I'd like to think that our society has moved on. But maybe it hasn't. And maybe preachers and pastors will wax on about how if god-fearing folk could just get control of another SCOTUS seat the whole nightmare could be made to go away again.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
In the recent past Biden and/or Bloomberg would be the best bet. But things are different now.
Of the reasons Clinton lost, some big ones may still be relevant now. A. Working class white folks had had enough of "establishment approved" candidates who have been promising a lot, and delivering not much (for them) for a very long time, including the last Clinton President. B. The Democratic establishment got exposed with their finger on the scale against the Sanders campaign, so voting for Trump was an opportunity to give a big middle finger to the Dem establishment and the Rep establishment.
I think if Sanders was the candidate in 2016, we'd have a President Sanders right now, and everything but the stock market would be in a better place.
Again, things are different now.
A. Trump has already been caught attempting to rig the election, to an extent, and the Republican party almost unanimously supported his efforts. It's nuts to think he isn't going to go to much further lengths to cheat now, using all the power available to him as President. And even if he loses the electoral college, does anyone actually expect him to concede defeat? Remember the 4 million or so illegal aliens that handed Clinton to popular vote in 2016? I can't imagine where that goes, but I fully expect him to refuse to acknowledge a loss.
B. What's the status of the anti-establishment sentiment that got Trump elected? That's the calculus that determines whether Bloomberg/Biden are the best candidates, or Sanders/ Warren. The Dems might serve up the best candidate for 2012 America, and hand Trump the victory. Or they might serve up the best candidate for 2016, and do the same. It depends how sick of Trump the "normal" people are, and whether, and how much, they are still pissed at the Dem establishment. The party better figure this out, with polls or whatever, because it's the key.
C. I like Mayor Pete, but the anti-homo wild card makes him risky. Its particularly worrisome that some of his Iowa supporters were freaked out when they found out he was gay, because Trump's machine is going to crank out, loud and clear, all the homophobic sewage you can imagine. Everyone's going to have the chance to vote based on knowledge that he's gay, and with all their latent, or blatant, anti-gay fears stoked to the max. Is this how we want to find out whether America is still largely homophobic?
The Rules
Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)
The best indicators of a Democrat switching to Trump wasn't being anti-establishment; it was racism, sexism, and xenophobia. The GOP haven't weaponized those identities in decades, which is why the same people were willing to previously vote for a black president. As for Sanders supporters voting Trump: that was a fairly small block (about 6-8% if I recall correctly).
Hope is the denial of reality
A margin enough to flip Michigan.
As for appeals to racism, sexism, and xenophobia, that is (was?) anti-establishment all the way. And nothing much with those sentiments is different today, though Trump has delivered as-promised (more or less), so...
The Rules
Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)
Kinda scary if the outcome ends up depending on the engagement of infrequent/irregular voters.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote