DUMP TRUMP (previously 2020 candidates)
ml1 said:
Mike Bloomberg is loved by Beltway pundits. His problem is that most voters don't like him. Most Democrats aren't going to fall for another narcissistic, authoritarian NY billionaire.
He has his warts. But the scenario laid out in the WaPo is not implausible. If Sanders wins IA and NH, which looks like it might happen, the other candidates will be back on their heels. If the race can ever be framed as Sanders vs. Doomsberg mano a mano, I like Mike's chances.
Smedley said:
If Sanders wins IA and NH, which looks like it might happen, the other candidates will be back on their heels.
Candidates with less support and fundraising may be "back on their heels". I don't think that IA and NH dictate or affect any candidate's prospects in NV and SC (let alone "Super Tuesday") for those with more of both.
Smedley said:
He has his warts. But the scenario laid out in the WaPo is not implausible. If Sanders wins IA and NH, which looks like it might happen, the other candidates will be back on their heels. If the race can ever be framed as Sanders vs. Doomsberg mano a mano, I like Mike's chances.
his polling is averaging about 5% and he's got ads running every two minutes on every channel. I'll be president before Mike Bloomberg.
Smedley said:
If the race can ever be framed as Sanders vs. Doomsberg mano a mano, I like Mike's chances.
When you ask people outside the Northeast about Michael Bloomberg, what do they tell you?
Too bad. He wasn't my first choice, but I wish he had more staying power in the race compared to some who are still in it. It’s with a full heart that I share this news—I’m suspending my campaign for president. To my team, supporters, and everyone who gave me a shot—thank you. I am so proud of what we built, and I feel nothing but faith in what we can accomplish together. pic.twitter.com/Fxvc549vlJ
DaveSchmidt said:
Smedley said:
If the race can ever be framed as Sanders vs. Doomsberg mano a mano, I like Mike's chances.
When you ask people outside the Northeast about Michael Bloomberg, what do they tell you?
I haven't asked.
I'm well aware Doomsberg has a likability problem. He faces an uphill climb, and he needs things to break his way to have a shot. But there are scenarios in which that could happen, including the one the WaPo column covered today.
If it comes down to Doomsberg as the last best hope to beat Sanders, I think there are lots of voters who would be less comfortable with Bernie's far left policies and his chances to beat Trump in the general election, than they would be with whether they like or don't like Doomsberg.
Don't forget Trump had high unfavorability numbers in 2016 and he was elected president. Sometimes you gotta pick your poison.
Bloomberg is not my favorite but his ads are good. He has selected t-v programs popular everywhere in the USA like Wheel of Fortune and popular subjects like pre-existing conditions.
Smedley said:
I haven't asked.
I'm well aware Doomsberg has a likability problem. He faces an uphill climb, and he needs things to break his way to have a shot. But there are scenarios in which that could happen, including the one the WaPo column covered today.
If it comes down to Doomsberg as the last best hope to beat Sanders, I think there are lots of voters who would be less comfortable with Bernie's far left policies and his chances to beat Trump in the general election, than they would be with whether they like or don't like Doomsberg.
Don't forget Trump had high unfavorability numbers in 2016 and he was elected president. Sometimes you gotta pick your poison.
that WaPo column is a good example of the pundit's fallacy. There's no real reason to believe events will turn out that way, other than the fact that the pundit hopes they will.
ml1 said:
Smedley said:
I haven't asked.
I'm well aware Doomsberg has a likability problem. He faces an uphill climb, and he needs things to break his way to have a shot. But there are scenarios in which that could happen, including the one the WaPo column covered today.
If it comes down to Doomsberg as the last best hope to beat Sanders, I think there are lots of voters who would be less comfortable with Bernie's far left policies and his chances to beat Trump in the general election, than they would be with whether they like or don't like Doomsberg.
Don't forget Trump had high unfavorability numbers in 2016 and he was elected president. Sometimes you gotta pick your poison.
that WaPo column is a good example of the pundit's fallacy. There's no real reason to believe events will turn out that way, other than the fact that the pundit hopes they will.
No real reason, except for the two data-supported points that the column is premised on.
"Reality No. 1: Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont is leading in most polls in both Iowa and New Hampshire. He’s also the best organized in both states. And he’s got a hot hand; what used to be called “momentum.”
Reality No. 2: Democratic primary voters are, as Gallup put it, “thinking strategically about [their] 2020 nominee.” Here’s Gallup’s write-up from two months ago: “Six in 10 Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents would prefer to see the party nominate the candidate with the best chance of beating President Donald Trump, even if that person does not share their views on key issues. By contrast, 36% say they would rather have the reverse: a candidate aligned with them on almost all the issues they care about, even if that person is not the most electable.”
Smedley said:
No real reason, except for the two data-supported points that the column is premised on.
"Reality No. 1: Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont is leading in most polls in both Iowa and New Hampshire. He’s also the best organized in both states. And he’s got a hot hand; what used to be called “momentum.”
Reality No. 2: Democratic primary voters are, as Gallup put it, “thinking strategically about [their] 2020 nominee.” Here’s Gallup’s write-up from two months ago: “Six in 10 Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents would prefer to see the party nominate the candidate with the best chance of beating President Donald Trump, even if that person does not share their views on key issues. By contrast, 36% say they would rather have the reverse: a candidate aligned with them on almost all the issues they care about, even if that person is not the most electable.”
how do those data points connect to Bloomberg specifically?
Smedley said:
I haven't asked.
I'm well aware Doomsberg has a likability problem.
The question goes more to the matter of whether, six months before the convention, Democratic voters across the vast majority of the country have any idea who this New Yorker in the commercials is at all.
ml1 said:
Smedley said:
No real reason, except for the two data-supported points that the column is premised on.
"Reality No. 1: Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont is leading in most polls in both Iowa and New Hampshire. He’s also the best organized in both states. And he’s got a hot hand; what used to be called “momentum.”
Reality No. 2: Democratic primary voters are, as Gallup put it, “thinking strategically about [their] 2020 nominee.” Here’s Gallup’s write-up from two months ago: “Six in 10 Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents would prefer to see the party nominate the candidate with the best chance of beating President Donald Trump, even if that person does not share their views on key issues. By contrast, 36% say they would rather have the reverse: a candidate aligned with them on almost all the issues they care about, even if that person is not the most electable.”
how do those data points connect to Bloomberg specifically?
Did you read the whole column or just what I've posted? I'm happy to post more if you don't get WaPo. I think the columnist adeptly makes the case for how an early Bernie roll would set the table for Doomsberg to make a big splash on Super Tuesday.
DaveSchmidt said:
Smedley said:
I haven't asked.
I'm well aware Doomsberg has a likability problem.
The question goes more to the matter of whether, six months before the convention, Democratic voters across the vast majority of the country have any idea who this New Yorker in the commercials is at all.
I don't think he's that unknown, and even if he is, I don't see how that would be a show stopper. Doomsberg has plenty of $ to tell his story, and when you look beyond stuff like his ego, the record of sexism at his company (where, full disclosure, I used to work), and his stupid 3rd term as NYC mayor, there's a lot to like on bedrock democratic issues like climate change, gun control, and right to choose.
If it came down to it, would you vote for Doomsberg or Sanders? Gun control, or gun control plus wackadoo stuff like rent control? I'd take Doomsberg any day of the week. And I think a lot of voters in swing states would too.
As an experiment, read that column again, mentally substituting the references to “Democrats” with “Democratic voters like my Aunt Mary in Akron” and see if it comes across the same.
Bernie's notoriously bad with old folks, so my Aunt Mary in Akron ain't voting for no wild-haired guy yelling about a revolution and promising free rides for everyone. I can tell you that much.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/460161-bernie-sanders-struggles-to-win-over-older-voters
I didn't find the column's analysis very compelling, and then I read this at the end of the piece:
If Democrats nominate anyone besides Bloomberg, they will be outspent in the general election by 2 to 1 or even 3 to 1. If they nominate Bloomberg, he will outspend Trump at least 5 to 1 and dramatically improve the party’s chances of winning seats at every level of governance.
Bloomberg announced a few days ago that he would continue to run ads through November, regardless of who wins the nomination.
Oops.
Smedley said:
Did you read the whole column or just what I've posted? I'm happy to post more if you don't get WaPo. I think the columnist adeptly makes the case for how an early Bernie roll would set the table for Doomsberg to make a big splash on Super Tuesday.
I did read it, which is why I concluded that it's the pundit's wishful thinking. There isn't any reason to believe a man like Bloomberg, who isn't well-liked overall, but especially among African-Americans, is going to emerge as most "electable" Democratic alternative to Sanders. Sure he has a lot of money to advertise, but that isn't going to make him more electable by itself. The cliche is that the fastest way to put a bad restaurant out of business is to do a lot of good advertising. That's as likely to be the outcome of Bloomberg's advertising blitz as it is that it makes him more electable.
and fwiw, Bernie polls well against Trump, and he's not even the nominee at this point. So given the choice between a WaPo columnist's gut, or polling averages that show Bernie comfortably within the MoE against Trump, I'm not willing to believe that Mike Bloomberg is the most "electable" Democrat.
The New York Times has begun posting the interviews with Presidential candidates that its editorial board conducted, leading up to their endorsement.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/01/13/opinion/election-nytimes-the-choice.html
So there may be some fodder for discussion in there.
nohero said:
The New York Times has begun posting the interviews with Presidential candidates that its editorial board conducted, leading up to their endorsement.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/01/13/opinion/election-nytimes-the-choice.html
So there may be some fodder for discussion in there.
the fact that Bloomberg declined to participate is noteworthy.
ml1 said:
nohero said:
The New York Times has begun posting the interviews with Presidential candidates that its editorial board conducted, leading up to their endorsement.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/01/13/opinion/election-nytimes-the-choice.html
So there may be some fodder for discussion in there.
the fact that Bloomberg declined to participate is noteworthy.
He probably, and correctly, concluded that the NY Times editorial board endorsement was as likely as the NRA board endorsement.
The unlikeliness of that endorsement is itself is a comment on Bloomberg.
DaveSchmidt said:
Smedley said:
I haven't asked.
I'm well aware Doomsberg has a likability problem.
The question goes more to the matter of whether, six months before the convention, Democratic voters across the vast majority of the country have any idea who this New Yorker in the commercials is at all.
I'm just impressed that a former mayor of New York grasps that there is a "rest of the country" ;-)
Smedley said:
Bernie's notoriously bad with old folks
Pretty much everyone in my family that burns for Bernie is over 60. My 96 year old step mom is hardcore. Kind of like Nan on steroids.
Trump was elected by appealing to those who feel abused by "coastal elites". Bloomberg epitomizes coastal elites.
As to Polls I saw a clip of Bernie Sanders saying the Polls go up and the Polls go down and he's happy when he's up but he's not relying on Polls.
In the meantime here's an analysis of Bernie v. Elizabeth which says the difference is about strategy:
https://www.thenation.com/article/sanders-warren-iowa-strategy/
As Bernie knows the Polls are all over the place:
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/13/joe-biden-leading-iowa-new-poll-098247
STANV said:
As Bernie knows the Polls are all over the place:
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/13/joe-biden-leading-iowa-new-poll-098247
the article indicates the "likely voter" screens in the two most recent polls are pretty different from each other. That's typically the biggest difference among most polls. And the more restrictive the likely voter screen, the more it tends to advantage better known, more established candidates who appeal to older voters (who are more likely to meet the more restrictive voter threshold).
It's become very apparent today that Bernie is really a low-life. Bernie only cares about Bernie.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/13/politics/bernie-sanders-elizabeth-warren-meeting/index.html
It says a lot about Booker's candidacy that the reaction of a forum full of New Jersioids is a collective shrug.
sbenois said:
It's become very apparent today that Bernie is really a low-life. Bernie only cares about Bernie.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/13/politics/bernie-sanders-elizabeth-warren-meeting/index.html
Its been apparent for a long time that you would still hate Bernie if he started walking on water, raising the dead and turning water into wine. I have my reservations about his candidacy (mainly related to his age) but he can't possibly be as bad as you portray him.
I mean, its not like he is running around and touching people inappropriately or something. 
For Sale
Garage Sales
-
HUGE Rummage sale to benefit the Bloomfield High School Robotics Team Sale Date: Apr 27, 2024
More info
Rentals
Advertisement
For Warren's sake hopefully her campaign has some idea why she has lost traction and has some adjustments in place. I suspect having no idea why her numbers have dropped and waving off any criticism as tinfoil-hat stuff is not a winning strategy.