You can't compare Bloomberg to Hillary... There was a hate to Hillary that a lot of Dems had for her... Bernie's people would except Bloomberg and so would a lot of Independents.... T_Man
It would be a poor use of resources. There is only one candidate who I would be shocked if they went back on a significant campaign promise ... and thats Bernie. At the end of the day, this is business as usual in Washington. Promises mean nothing and if you're voting based on impracticable promises, you're wasting your vote. At the end of the day, the fair weather voter will simply ask themselves this: Will I be the same or better off in 4 years with this man in charge? Sure, there are those who will be disenfranchised by Trump policies, but for the most part, we are all doing better off. Yes, we are not addressing topics we should focus on, but the 'in the now' mentality of Americans today, that is largely irrelevant. Now if you put Bernie in charge, I fully expect a recession. And Bernie wont get my vote if I feel I can't weather what I believe to be an upcoming recession. Perhaps Bloomberg will resonate better.
Bloomberg is paying hundred of million of dollars for something Trump was able to do for free. Trump created the greatest political infomercial in history without spending any his own money. Through inflammatory rhetoric and scandalous behavior, Trump was able to continuously dominate the 24-hour news cycle right up until the elections. CNN, FoxNews, MSNBC are all guilty of propelling Trump's candidacy by getting his message out to his potential voters for absolutely free. Even CBS -- the bastion of toned down news reporting couldn't help itself. Their CEO Les Moonves even remarked, "Trump is damn good for CBS." I don't see Bloomberg's paid for advertising having any real effect. It's like erectile dysfunction ads. At some point the audience just tunes out. Whereas, Trump's circus clown and freak show campaign was the main attraction and people tuned in droves to watch if for nothing more than entertainment. That's the difference; Bloomberg is interrupting the audience with his ad blitz while Trump made them turn on their TV and tune in to begin with.
He's surging in the national polls despite not being involved in early states or debates: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/e..._democratic_presidential_nomination-6730.html Latest poll has him passing Warren into 3rd place behind Biden/Bernie, and Biden likely drops more after tomorrow. The ads are positioning him to be the moderate alternative that people are comfortable with when everyone else falters. We'll see if it works but his ads certainly have moved him dramatically in the polls so far.
If Bloomberg wins without debating it's going to change politics pretty much. Not for the better. Going to see more money pour into ad campaigns and candidates will think more exposure is bad, no debates, no interviews, just run ads all over the country. I'm convinced we won't see Bloomberg in any debates since this is working for him. Then the ego of these billionaires, before they'd just throw their money behind a candidate, now they are just running themselves. I will admit, his ads are good.
If Bloomberg wins, Bernie's people will not accept him. Bloomberg is basically buying the presidency. Bernie's whole platform is about class inequality and disparaging the 1%.
Hope so. I think even if some of the purists protest vote or stay home, Bloomberg probably wins over a lot of suburban voters or Republicans to more than make up for it. He’s another candidate whose VP pick is of utmost importance.
I know it’s not the 1930’s, but FDR’s infrastructure and socialist policies work out pretty well economically so I think if you look at Bernie as an infrastructure and human capital investor, there is a great case to be made that history has shown economic success. What does make me think we would have economic woes would simply be fear and market reactions to Bernie getting elected. You’d see fear pumped into the consumer market from Fox n Right wing anger radio and that has an impact sure. There’s also the fact that if Bernie wins, he’s unlikely to get many major bills passed in his first term. IMO a climate infrastructure bill (no a real bill not the GND resolution) would be the best bill he could pass, but my gut tells me he’d go for healthcare first and it would eat up his entire first term and the most he could get done is a public option. So best case scenario is an infrastructure bill, and some budgets that reallocate military spending for more welfare/SS spending. Worse case scenario is nearly nothing gets done if Bernie wins but the Senate stays with Mitch McConnell. Even with a majority there are still machinations the Republicans can use to cause government shutdowns if Bernies budgets go overboard on something like... cutting military spending by a penny. So in the end the only thing to fear about a Bernie presidency imo is the fear itself about the boogeyman socialist. Infrastructure deficit spending has very little evidence in our history of causing recessions alone. Most evidence shows exactly the opposite.
Yes, I know. $200 million bought him 10 points nationally. We all check RCP daily. Let's see if this translates into actual votes on Super Tuesday. Also I'm curious to see if the spending model is linear or exponential. Otherwise, this is the most expensive customer acquisition cost in history. This spending spree is going to be a watershed moment in American politics. If Bloomberg can just keep spending, skip all the small states, skip the debates, skip public appearances, skip stump speeches, and just buy his way to a nomination on Super Tuesday, then this whole primary process is moot. It'll be billionaires and California-Texas deciding the nomination for both parties in the future.
However on the subject of Space Ghosts attempt to marginalize and normalize Trumps promises broken, yes... they all make promises they can’t keep but this is different because these aren’t just promises for laws to be passed that he couldn’t get passed. This is different because these are promises that is in his power to keep simply with spending bills. It makes zero sense why someone who actually ran on and wanted to keep something like social security funding would then turn around in their normal annual budget and propose gutting those programs. Trump case of broken promises is a matter of him being a con artist liar. Someone like Bernies or previously Obama’s case of being accused of lying about what they ran on are cases where they are running on giving something that they then have to fight for and get Congress a law to support. Major difference in Trump breaking his promises on what he’s promising and lying about that he actually has control over... which shows an insincere disrespect of his voters intelligence. Space Ghost trying to equate and ho hum Trumps lies is par for the course in his whataboutism 2018-20 tour of course.
I don't think it's that simple - money can buy him name recognition and put him in the top tier, as we're seeing. But on Super Tuesday, he'll likely get 30% of the vote at best (unless lots of people drop out before then). He'd still have a long way to go to win a nomination. And he's in the debates starting with the next one, so that part ends as well - people will have a chance to evaluate him pretty heavily before the majority of states start voting. I agree the lack of retail campaigning would be concerning, but a big part of the reason Iowa and NH exist in their roles is to help candidates get their message out without having money. Bloomberg's only really relevant if none of those people really appeal to many people after going through that year-long process. And it's not just being a billionaire - Steyer is trying the same strategy but largely failing. You also have to be seen as a credible President or have some kind of appeal.
Bloomberg got the first vote in both the Democratic and Republican primaries in that little midnight town in New Hampshire, both as a write-in. You know this is going to piss off Trump.
What's wrong with this? Nothing. It's absolutely true. It's what Pete was trying to say in the debate, as to why mar1juana arrests went up. Only difference is Pete was afraid to take it as far. Bloomberg isn't. Makes me like Bloomberg. There's certain areas in my town where 95% of the crime happens. I WISH they'd put more cops there. I've been saying for a year or two they should make a couple police substations in abandoned houses in the neighborhood. I don't think this is a big deal. And I'm not a huge Bloomberg supporter. Although with this type of honesty, he's growing on me. He reduced crime rates in NYC at a pretty good clip. He's got more authority on this than anyone in the race. This shouldn't hurt him. You can be offended by what he said, but you're just shielding yourself from reality.
Im not a fan of making comparisons w/out full context. One that is constantly used is "In the Nordic countries ...." While the war was in complete turmoil during FDR's term, everyone looked to the US for goods. A fair portion of our workforce was killed off and our infrastructure was not only intact, but in full force due to the war effort. Our country was very lean and could afford some fat. That is not the case today. Trump is artificially keeping the economy hot right now. Bernie is not going to do that. Corporate america is not watching Fox and Friends trying to determine their next move. They have been positioning themselves for awhile now ... and they are signaling they do not want Bernie. The DNC doesnt care if Bernie wins as an individual. They are terrified of the retribution handed down from big money. If Bernie wins, big money is pulling their money and will punish the DNC. They will signal a recession, forcing all of corporate american to slow down and cut fat.
