Mike Bloomberg takes 2nd place in new Democratic primary poll, qualifies for Wednesday's debate

Chomsky said:

I think you presented your positions here pretty well, describing the con Bloomberg argument.

The Bloomberg gambit will be evaluated in the context of Trump, specifically the Dems (& much of the country's) desire to rid themselves of him. It will come down to what's worse? A Bloomberg that's perceived as less than idea? Or, a Trump that is a known horror? (and horror is indeed how much of the country perceives Trump).

We don't know how this gambit will play-out. HRC was not well accepted by much of the party in 2016, and the results were a lack of turn-out. However soon after that, I anecdotally I ran into quite a few self-identifying Dems and non-Dems who claimed they greatly regretted not voting for HRC due to now being stuck with Trump. Those that sat on the sidelines may have learned their lesson for this time around - but we don't know.

Click to expand...

The dynamics of this election are different from 2020 in many ways. Trump is the incumbent and generally things look good to people (90% satisfied with their lives) and good economic stats on paper. But Trump's personal personae sucks - and people have been able to see this. So it is a choice for many do they more care that Trump is a creep personally? Or more care about how things are going for them with Trump as president - Trump the person versus Trump the president.

Lots of people didn't like Hilary. I commented during the 2016 that NO Democrats were starting pro-Clinton threads praising her or her campaign. Rather, all the threads by Democrats were just anti-Trump. I see the same thing about Bloomberg. Democrats aren't praising Bloomberg. They're making excuses for him - not a good starting point. Rather, I read Democrats case for Bloomberg is that he's rich and he isn't Trump - with this justifying overlooking everything about Bloomberg pretty much everyone should despise - the lesser evil of two real rotten billionaires.

While I don't think the dislike-factor is as great for Bloomberg as there was for Clinton, and it unlikely the Republicans in Congress will be holding endless hearings attacking Bloomberg, nor is the AG going to come out 10 days before the election declaring Bloomberg it a reckless liar but to powerful to prosecute like Comey did to Clinton. On the other hand, Clinton is a woman (I think more pluses than negatives in this) and Clinton has some resume federal government service.

Here is the proof that Bloomberg can buy the general election? Any historic proof that is even possible? A general election is an entire different animal than a primary. Money is a BIG deal in a primary due to all the candidates. A general election is it's own publicity. Trump was vastly outspend in 2016. Made no difference.

The premise that Bloomberg wins in November for $10 billion is nonsense in my opinion. The core reason to support Bloomberg - fabulous wealth - is a false premise in my opinion.

cont for length

Chomsky said:

I think you presented your positions here pretty well, describing the con Bloomberg argument.

The Bloomberg gambit will be evaluated in the context of Trump, specifically the Dems (& much of the country's) desire to rid themselves of him. It will come down to what's worse? A Bloomberg that's perceived as less than idea? Or, a Trump that is a known horror? (and horror is indeed how much of the country perceives Trump).

We don't know how this gambit will play-out. HRC was not well accepted by much of the party in 2016, and the results were a lack of turn-out. However soon after that, I anecdotally I ran into quite a few self-identifying Dems and non-Dems who claimed they greatly regretted not voting for HRC due to now being stuck with Trump. Those that sat on the sidelines may have learned their lesson for this time around - but we don't know.

Click to expand...

You hit the nail squarely on the head--at least for those of us who want Trump banished from any public role.
I live on the outskirts of NYC, so during Bloomberg's run as mayor I worked in the City but lived in the nearest suburban county which had our own political challenges.
While I understand @joko104 I am way beyond using a litmus test to find my ideal Democratic candidate.
Trump MUST GO! If Trump was a sitting Democrat I would register as a Republican and work to defeat Trumpism.
Right now I would vote for Mit Romney. Doesn't matter that I have voted primarily for Dems.
Can we make mistakes when voting? Sure. Being disgusted with Bill Clinton I switched parties and voted for a former Texas Governor I knew too little about.
I helped block Clinton's VP and ended up with the still-smoldering Iraqi War. Some trade off!
My more moderate pragmatism tells me:
> Trump has gutted the GOP leaving ONLY the Dems to attempt to thwart 4 more years
> A second Trump term will seriously debase our democracy and jeopardize the rule of law
> Bernie has a strong following (after all, capitalism and both major parties have managed to forget the middle class)
> Most Americans who vote are too moderate to conservative to support anyone who calls for increased socialistic governance (that includes Bernie, Warren who is disappearing)
> Mayor Pete is smart, but he can't win a majority of minorities outside the gay community, plus he's not ready for this challenge
> Senator Klobuchar is viewed by most Dems as a lightweight-- great in the Senate, but not dealing with Putin
> This leaves Bloomberg who comes with warts but who is proven effective at governing our greatest city. For 12 years Bloomberg took time from his business empire
to lead New York City in a mostly moderate and sensible manner. Did he make missteps? Yes. Do they equate with Trump's irrational and lawless behavior? Not even close.
I am considering working for Bloomberg's election.

Here's the odd thing... Will Bloomberg's grotesque statements and actions about minorities hurt or help him? Will he get slaughtered by a huge shift in black vote to Trump? Will his being such an outspoken "not afraid to point out blacks commit more crimes" be a plus?
It could - just like Republicans overlook Trump's outrageous statements with "at least he's honest about how he feels?"


Both Sanders and Bloomberg are HUGE gambles to the Democratic Party on 2 levels:
1. Does the Democratic Party REALLY want to run that far "left" with Sanders - risking maybe being slaughtered in the election - and even if winning will this cause a war in Congress between Democrats - and do Democrats REALLY want to go that far left in reality - rather than just nice "everything for free!' slogans?


2. Does the Democratic Party REALLY want to sell its heart and soul to Bloomberg's wealth just to replace Trump with him? This could cause a huge war within the Democratic Party and in Congress. There is a prospect that even if he spent $10 billion that Bloomberg is slaughtered in the election. He's not really a likable old white man - always comes across as extremely arrogant.

Personally, in my opinion Democrats should play it safe with Kolbuchar - she a woman, the perfect age at 59, left of center enough to be a Democrat, not too much to be labeled radical, and is fairly invisible in terms of personality - plus no scandal. Even Trump has yet to figure some sneering handle against Amy (Pocahotas, Little Mike, Crazy Bernie) etc. She doesn't lose votes. Bloomberg could lose millions of otherwise Democratic votes. In my opinion, Democrats should want the election to be voting for or against Trump - with the invisible female Democrat the winner by default.

I've often said "Winning he hard. Losing is easy. So focus on causing the other side to lose. If the other side loses, winning takes care of itself." In my opinion, Democrat's best chance is nominating the candidate that least loses Democratic Party votes, not by nominating the loudest controversial firecracker.

The sole premise in supporting Bloomberg is that he can buy the presidency. That is just asserted as a truism - and I don't think it is true. It maybe can by a primary. But I do not see it as winning the general election. Primaries are largely about who gets the attention - which Bloomberg is buying. But in a general election, the attention is already there as there are only two real candidates.

Sanders is a grass roots campaign so it is more "real." Bloomberg is just hundreds of millions in radio and TV ads. That is artificial, shallow and temporary. This could get very ugly between Sanders and Bloomberg - since the very core of their campaigns and even personal beliefs is proactive opposite to everything about each other. This could get very personal including for supporters, particularly on the Sander's side. The DNC sold placement to Bloomberg, who specifically is the anti-Sanders candidate even more than the anti-Trump candidate.

Putting it simpler, if Democrats have become so desperate that they nominate Bloomberg they lost before the general election even happens, no matter how it turns out. Why would Democrats even trust Bloomberg? He is the true authoritarian ego centric autocrat who as much as Trump - if not more - will listen to no one, will see being president as similar to being dictator, and nothing in his history shows he is a liberal, progressive or Democrat. He's just a super rich billionaire who truly believes his being the 12th richest man on earth means he is smarter than exactly everyone else but maybe 11 other people.

How do Democrats think they win by nominating someone who is far more everything they don't want than they do? Is electing Hitler to replace Bismarck really "winning?"

Sanders maybe would get slaughtered in the election - just as Bloomberg could. But Sander's candidacy doesn't run the Democratic Party straight into hell like a Bloomberg candidacy will. How many hundreds of excuses for Bloomberg's past statements and actions is the Democratic Party willing to make in a denial of who and what he really is?

dcaraz said:

You hit the nail squarely on the head--at least for those of us who want Trump banished from any public role.
I live on the outskirts of NYC, so during Bloomberg's run as mayor I worked in the City but lived in the nearest suburban county which had our own political challenges.
While I understand @joko104 I am way beyond using a litmus test to find my ideal Democratic candidate.
Trump MUST GO! If Trump was a sitting Democrat I would register as a Republican and work to defeat Trumpism.
Right now I would vote for Mit Romney. Doesn't matter that I have voted primarily for Dems.
Can we make mistakes when voting? Sure. Being disgusted with Bill Clinton I switched parties and voted for a former Texas Governor I knew too little about.
I helped block Clinton's VP and ended up with the still-smoldering Iraqi War. Some trade off!
My more moderate pragmatism tells me:
> Trump has gutted the GOP leaving ONLY the Dems to attempt to thwart 4 more years
> A second Trump term will seriously debase our democracy and jeopardize the rule of law
> Bernie has a strong following (after all, capitalism and both major parties have managed to forget the middle class)
> Most Americans who vote are too moderate to conservative to support anyone who calls for increased socialistic governance (that includes Bernie, Warren who is disappearing)
> Mayor Pete is smart, but he can't win a majority of minorities outside the gay community, plus he's not ready for this challenge
> Senator Klobuchar is viewed by most Dems as a lightweight-- great in the Senate, but not dealing with Putin
> This leaves Bloomberg who comes with warts but who is proven effective at governing our greatest city. For 12 years Bloomberg took time from his business empire
to lead New York City in a mostly moderate and sensible manner. Did he make missteps? Yes. Do they equate with Trump's irrational and lawless behavior? Not even close.
I am considering working for Bloomberg's election.

Click to expand...

You are a white man, correct? Most white male Democrats, particularly New Yorkers, will have no problem with Bloomberg having declared all black men are criminals, and should be driven off the streets by police profiling, police physical abuse and arrests for offenses white people would not be arrested for. Why would you care? You're not black. But you're not everyone. It is hard to imagine the Democrats running a candidate far to the right of Trump on racism - and possibly sexist too as Bloomberg's NDAs firewall collapses.

Don't Democrats want to know what is in those NDA contracts with women BEFORE nominating him, rather than after they already have?

What is attractive about Bloomberg to young voters? He's a really old, white, obscenely rich, bigot and racist man of unlimited arrogance. While Trump loves the "poorly educated," Bloomberg openly despises blue collar workers, just like he has grotesquely racist views of blacks and Latinos. He already is having to hide his record with women - professionally and personally - behind non-disclosure pay-offs. How well do you think that secrecy will hold up in the general election?

The attacks for the outrageous aspects of Trump regarding women couldn't work with Clinton due to all the outrageous aspects of Bill Clinton and Hilary Clinton's past. The same situation applies to Bloomberg. Any attack against Trump can be answered - and usually truthfully - by saying "but what about Bloomberg?!" - literally quoting Bloomberg himself. If Democrats think they can just excuse their way past this for Bloomberg need to remember how that did NOT work for Hilary.

Pete is an empty suit. He is the voice of the Silicon Valley super rich. Ideologically, he worships Sanders, but dare not say so. I see him as having a career in politics, but not likely in the White House unless he backdoors it as VP.

joko104 said:

The dynamics of this election are different from 2020 in many ways. Trump is the incumbent and generally things look good to people (90% satisfied with their lives) and good economic stats on paper. But Trump's personal personae sucks - and people have been able to see this. So it is a choice for many do they more care that Trump is a creep personally? Or more care about how things are going for them with Trump as president - Trump the person versus Trump the president.

Lots of people didn't like Hilary. I commented during the 2016 that NO Democrats were starting pro-Clinton threads praising her or her campaign. Rather, all the threads by Democrats were just anti-Trump. I see the same thing about Bloomberg. Democrats aren't praising Bloomberg. They're making excuses for him - not a good starting point. Rather, I read Democrats case for Bloomberg is that he's rich and he isn't Trump - with this justifying overlooking everything about Bloomberg pretty much everyone should despise - the lesser evil of two real rotten billionaires.

While I don't think the dislike-factor is as great for Bloomberg as there was for Clinton, and it unlikely the Republicans in Congress will be holding endless hearings attacking Bloomberg, nor is the AG going to come out 10 days before the election declaring Bloomberg it a reckless liar but to powerful to prosecute like Comey did to Clinton. On the other hand, Clinton is a woman (I think more pluses than negatives in this) and Clinton has some resume federal government service.

Here is the proof that Bloomberg can buy the general election? Any historic proof that is even possible? A general election is an entire different animal than a primary. Money is a BIG deal in a primary due to all the candidates. A general election is it's own publicity. Trump was vastly outspend in 2016. Made no difference.

The premise that Bloomberg wins in November for $10 billion is nonsense in my opinion. The core reason to support Bloomberg - fabulous wealth - is a false premise in my opinion.

cont for length

Click to expand...

You've put a ton of stuff out here, and I do agree with nearly most. I think you've shown reasonable insight into a lot of the dynamics here, and not only is that a huge number of variables and parameters to digest, but like I said I agree with most - as large & complex as the picture is.

One thing I must point-out though is that it's not just "money buying an election". Money is one component of Bloomberg, and it's an important one, but there are perceptions of a much more complete package. Blomberg has demonstrated competence in rolling out what appears to be the premier Dem campaign infrastructure, including data analytics. He also is a media mogul, and is perceived to understand and have the ability to present a successful media campaign. In addition he also is from New York, and is thought to know Trump, Trump's weaknesses, The New York ways, and to be able to take-it to Trump and one-up him mano-a-mano. Finally, a lot of us believe Bloomberg will be a contrast by being able to present a superior version of Trump's veneer of being a "successful" business man. We believe Bloomberg can run right at Trump at what Trump portrays as his core strength --> business & economic acumen.

So to portray Bloomberg's appeal as due solely to his money, is not even beginning to glimpse at whole picture of Bloomber's draw. If money were the primary draw, Steyer would have taken off! He didn't, and will soon be out.

Is the Left prepared to support a rich, old, white guy for president?

Puigb said:

Obama's re-election in 2012 proves the Dems have the numbers, by a decent amount.

Problem for the Dems is they, unlike Republicans, don't always come out for their parties candidate.

Click to expand...

National counts of registered voters give edge to Dems.
But the coalition that typically vote in support of Democratic Party candidates is far less homogenous than the far whiter GOP support.
Mr. Trump will have to turn the tide that won the Dems control of the House.
I see the November election as a national test. Will more voters make their choice based on how good their economic reality is, or will the majority
vote for a more moderated and civilized approach to governing?
And then, do the majority of Electoral votes cast support a continuation of Trumpism, or a course correction?

JMaximus said:

Is the Left prepared to support a rich, old, white guy for president?

Click to expand...

Bernie is more in touch with the Left than the vast majority of Dems. See H. Clinton's popular vote in 2016.
In Bernie's world America is far better off under the rule of a comfortably off, old white guy.

Our Democratic Party has to accommodate an ever broader spectrum of political views simply because American politics limits serious voters to two choices.
However, despite that "problem" I find it impossible to feel at home in the Republican Party.
Since the 1960's I've seen the GOP rail against unions, fight against healthcare benefits for every citizen, tout itself as the champion of "patriotism"
while lying to the nation about the need for either the Vietnam War or the Iraq War, and attempt to hold on to the 1950's that were dominated by white America.
Add to this the Republicans' tax cuts for millionaires and our largest corporations which doubled our national debt, and I find it difficult to understand how
voting is even close.

joko104 said:

You are a white man, correct? Most white male Democrats, particularly New Yorkers, will have no problem with Bloomberg having declared all black men are criminals, and should be driven off the streets by police profiling, police physical abuse and arrests for offenses white people would not be arrested for. Why would you care? You're not black. But you're not everyone. It is hard to imagine the Democrats running a candidate far to the right of Trump on racism - and possibly sexist too as Bloomberg's NDAs firewall collapses.

Don't Democrats want to know what is in those NDA contracts with women BEFORE nominating him, rather than after they already have?

What is attractive about Bloomberg to young voters? He's a really old, white, obscenely rich, bigot and racist man of unlimited arrogance. While Trump loves the "poorly educated," Bloomberg openly despises blue collar workers, just like he has grotesquely racist views of blacks and Latinos. He already is having to hide his record with women - professionally and personally - behind non-disclosure pay-offs. How well do you think that secrecy will hold up in the general election?

The attacks for the outrageous aspects of Trump regarding women couldn't work with Clinton due to all the outrageous aspects of Bill Clinton and Hilary Clinton's past. The same situation applies to Bloomberg. Any attack against Trump can be answered - and usually truthfully - by saying "but what about Bloomberg?!" - literally quoting Bloomberg himself. If Democrats think they can just excuse their way past this for Bloomberg need to remember how that did NOT work for Hilary.

Pete is an empty suit. He is the voice of the Silicon Valley super rich. Ideologically, he worships Sanders, but dare not say so. I see him as having a career in politics, but not likely in the White House unless he backdoors it as VP.

Click to expand...

It's great advice you give Dems:
Put forth a Socialist who wants to eliminate the health insurance industry and turn it over to the federal government, pay all college costs from tax revenue, and worry about the costs after we tax the sXXt out of the corporate and 1% strata.
Result: Dems loose bigger than with Hillary.
Instead, this Hispanic New Yorker will hope that Bloomberg has learned from his worst missteps during 12 years of governing NYC.
Will Bloomberg be scrutinized by black, and Hispanic and Asian Americans? You bet. And you are telling me that Bloomberg's record is MORE racially offensive than Trump's?
That Trump "loves the poorly educated"? In that case I must assume you want badly for Trump to win.

Chomsky said:

Source: (The Week) Mike Bloomberg takes 2nd place in new Democratic primary poll, qualifies for Wednesday's debate

While the article headline refers to Mike Bloomberg's sudden 15pt ascent to the number two spot in the party, which is remarkable in itself, we also can't can't overlook Bernie's rise to dominate the field by 12 pts! Finally, this just might be turning-out to be two-horse race.

Bloomberg has now qualified for Tomorrow's (Wed) Nevada debate stage, where he will be in the odd position of being the rising 2nd place challenger while not being on the state ballot! I think we can predict the field will come after Bloomberg, and coupled with his being untested on the debate exchange it will be an important moment for him and the party.

If Bloomberg performs well and resonates, he could get a nice lift into the heart of the race. At this time, Bloomberg appears to be a legit contender with potential to improve his position and perhaps depose Biden and several others.

Click to expand...

Biden is beginning to look like a dead duck. Warren not far behind him. How about a cooked goose for Warren. Since 25 Jan in the national polls, RCP averages Biden has fallen from 30% down to 17% and keeps right on falling. During the same time period, Warren went from 16 to 12%. I think one should remember Warren was at 30% at the end of October. Bloomberg has gone from 6 to 16% since 25 Jan. Sanders has climbed from 21 up to 28% during the same time period.

RealClearPolitics - Election 2020 - 2020 Democratic Presidential Nomination

More bad news for Biden, in Nevada he has dropped from 29% down to 16% as of today. At one time Biden lead Sanders by 10 points, today he's 14 points behind. Worst yet, Biden has seen a 20 point lead in South Carolina over Sanders drop to just 4 points. Steyer is right on Sanders heels and could be the big surprise when it comes to the expectations game.

More bad news awaits Biden on Super Tuesday, he's now 14 behind Sanders in California. Although Biden is clinging to 5 point lead in Texas, down from 16. Biden also leads in North Carolina by 4, down from 9 over Sanders. Bloomberg is tied with Sanders in Virginia and leads Sanders in Oklahoma. There is the possibility that after Super Tuesday, this could be a two candidate race. Bloomberg and Sanders with Sanders the favorite.

With each passing day, Biden looks toast with Warren not far behind. On Super Tuesday Warren only leads in Massachusetts, her home state. Klobuchar and Buttigieg are basically in single digits in the super Tuesday polls I have.

Chomsky said:

You've put a ton of stuff out here, and I do agree with nearly most. I think you've shown reasonable insight into a lot of the dynamics here, and not only is that a huge number of variables and parameters to digest, but like I said I agree with most - as large & complex as the picture is.

One thing I must point-out though is that it's not just "money buying an election". Money is one component of Bloomberg, and it's an important one, but there are perceptions of a much more complete package. Blomberg has demonstrated competence in rolling out what appears to be the premier Dem campaign infrastructure, including data analytics. He also is a media mogul, and is perceived to understand and have the ability to present a successful media campaign. In addition he also is from New York, and is thought to know Trump, Trump's weaknesses, The New York ways, and to be able to take-it to Trump and one-up him mano-a-mano. Finally, a lot of us believe Bloomberg will be a contrast by being able to present a superior version of Trump's veneer of being a "successful" business man. We believe Bloomberg can run right at Trump at what Trump portrays as his core strength --> business & economic acumen.

So to portray Bloomberg's appeal as due solely to his money, is not even beginning to glimpse at whole picture of Bloomber's draw. If money were the primary draw, Steyer would have taken off! He didn't, and will soon be out.

Click to expand...

I understand what you hope and his money can buy staff and campaign infrastructure. Steyer's spent only a slight fraction what Bloomberg has. I have yet to hear or see a Steyer's radio or TV ad - compared to hundreds I've heard and seen for Bloomberg - meaning likely tens of thousands just in my Florida area.

While I understand what hope with Bloomberg going mono-a-mono with Trump, but are you certain Bloomberg can win that showdown? Trump was a media superstar with massive self presentation skills. Can Bloomberg match and best this? Is there any personal economic attack Bloomberg can make against Trump that hasn't already been thrown at Trump literally for years?

Notice in your message you just skipped over the negatives about Bloomberg - and they are huge. Every attack against Trump will be met with "but what about Bloomberg?!" That neutralized, if not beat, Hilary and all the negatives thrown at Trump with "but what about Bill and Hilary Clinton?!"

Aren't you a little concerned about what is in all the NDAs Bloomberg has with women for personal and professional matters? Any concern about how he explained and bragged about stop and frisk in racial context?

I understand what Democrats hope Bloomberg brings to the table. But only calculating positives doesn't work, just like Trump can't solely rely on the economy and other government/social issues. Trump's weakness is not on issues. It is on his personality. Bloomberg's weakness isn't on issues either. It is on his personality.

Someone pointed out that since candidates started appearing on TV - starting with the Kennedy-Nixon debate - whoever is the more charismatic - more likable - candidate has always won the general election. Possibly it is that simple. Which candidate has a better smile and talks more down-to-earth? Which one do you like/dislike more.

Are you certain that Bloomberg is more likable person than Trump? Confident that he won't be personally more disliked? Trump has not stop campaigned. I've never seen any candidate for president - and certainly no president - that NEVER stops holding campaign rallies. Where's Bloomberg? Why is he hiding? Can he really win by a high tech campaign while he hides out in an NYC top floor penthouse and otherwise behind an army of guards - while Trump is racing around the country holding rallies and deliberately raising controversy so he remains the center of attention?

There are many similarities between the Bloomberg campaign and the Hilary campaign. "Mike Bloomberg, come out, come out where ever you are!" Will Bloomberg even seriously campaign?

It is too early to try to predict November because now it is just Democrats against Trump. Not until the Democrats have their candidate can much intelligent calculations be made.

Last problem... What if there is a brokered convention with Sanders having the most elected delegates - but well short of a majority - and the convention instead gives it to the mega-billionaire? No matter how much they hold their noses, could all Sander's supporters stand the stench of voting for that billionaire who stole the nomination from Bernie? Remember, tricks against Sanders is what made Trump the president if you do the math in key swing states.

Without a doubt most Democrats and others will disagree. But in my opinion the Democratic Party has a better chance against Trump with a nobody, than an extremely controversial candidate of a notably controversial (buying the White House) campaign. I think it is the wrong gamble.

Perotista said:

Biden is beginning to look like a dead duck. Warren not far behind him. How about a cooked goose for Warren. Since 25 Jan in the national polls, RCP averages Biden has fallen from 30% down to 17% and keeps right on falling. During the same time period, Warren went from 16 to 12%. I think one should remember Warren was at 30% at the end of October. Bloomberg has gone from 6 to 16% since 25 Jan. Sanders has climbed from 21 up to 28% during the same time period.

RealClearPolitics - Election 2020 - 2020 Democratic Presidential Nomination

More bad news for Biden, in Nevada he has dropped from 29% down to 16% as of today. At one time Biden lead Sanders by 10 points, today he's 14 points behind. Worst yet, Biden has seen a 20 point lead in South Carolina over Sanders drop to just 4 points. Steyer is right on Sanders heels and could be the big surprise when it comes to the expectations game.

More bad news awaits Biden on Super Tuesday, he's now 14 behind Sanders in California. Although Biden is clinging to 5 point lead in Texas, down from 16. Biden also leads in North Carolina by 4, down from 9 over Sanders. Bloomberg is tied with Sanders in Virginia and leads Sanders in Oklahoma. There is the possibility that after Super Tuesday, this could be a two candidate race. Bloomberg and Sanders with Sanders the favorite.

With each passing day, Biden looks toast with Warren not far behind. On Super Tuesday Warren only leads in Massachusetts, her home state. Klobuchar and Buttigieg are basically in single digits in the super Tuesday polls I have.

Click to expand...

Warren terribly miscalculated how she should campaign.

With Bloomberg particularly, Steyers is gone. If being rich is the qualifier, why would anyone vote for Steyer?

Unless Bloomberg really blows it in the debates, it will be Sanders versus Bloomberg - which I have been predicting on this forum before anyone on the forum or in the MSM even considered Bloomberg a serious contender. Two 78 year old rich and richer white men. Somehow, I don't think that is what most Democrats really want. More is Democrats feel they have no choice but to pick one of those two. Bloomberg stinks, but he's not a socialist and can spend billions.

To me, that choice is between an autocratic fascist (Bloomberg) - but he will not structurally change our economic system - or Sanders, a person who fantasizes of the perfect system Norway-style - when the USA is nothing like Norway and thus risking the entire economy and social structure. Then again, obviously I deeply oppose both.

joko104 said:

Warren terribly miscalculated how she should campaign.

With Bloomberg particularly, Steyers is gone. If being rich is the qualifier, why would anyone vote for Steyer?

Unless Bloomberg really blows it in the debates, it will be Sanders versus Bloomberg - which I have been predicting on this forum before anyone on the forum or in the MSM even considered Bloomberg a serious contender. Two 78 year old rich and richer white men. Somehow, I don't think that is what most Democrats really want. More is Democrats feel they have no choice but to pick one of those two. Bloomberg stinks, but he's not a socialist and can spend billions.

To me, that choice is between an autocratic fascist (Bloomberg) - but he will not structurally change our economic system - or Sanders, a person who fantasizes of the perfect system Norway-style - when the USA is nothing like Norway and thus risking the entire economy and social structure. Then again, obviously I deeply oppose both.

Click to expand...

I think you could be right. We'll know for sure after Super Tuesday. Now who either one picks as VP could make up for being old rich white men. Especially if that someone is a fresh young face which could be groomed for the presidency in 2024. A female minority is probably a qualifier the democrats will put on that fresh young face.

PirateMk1 said:

You made your point. We find out in November who has the numbers to win. We be going for all the marbles. Winner takes all. If that dont motivate people to vote I dont know what will.

Click to expand...

I don't think voting determines who wins any more. I used to but I think the vote, the justice system and checks and balances have all been revealed to be impotent when a sufficiently corrupt party works to undermine them.

Trump will win because there's been a coup and America is fully ****ed.

Perotista said:

I think you could be right. We'll know for sure after Super Tuesday. Now who either one picks as VP could make up for being old rich white men. Especially if that someone is a fresh young face which could be groomed for the presidency in 2024. A female minority is probably a qualifier the democrats will put on that fresh young face.

Click to expand...

The ideal female VP candidate for Democrats would be Michele Obama, but I doubt she would accept. The only one better would be Oprah.

MrPeanut said:

This has been frustrating me a lot lately. I like Bernie but I have never been a Bernie or bust person at all. I will vote for anyone but Bloomberg. Right now all we have is polling and a lot of that is based off of people not really knowing who Bloomberg is and has more to do with him just throwing millions of dollars at ads. I look forward to the debate but electing a republican billionaire to the top of the democratic ticket is just too much for me.

Click to expand...

Bloomberg is only in this to help Bernie get the nomination and lose to Trump whether he knows it or not.

joko104 said:

The ideal female VP candidate for Democrats would be Michele Obama, but I doubt she would accept. The only one better would be Oprah.

Click to expand...

Either one I think would open a can of worms. Basically due to no experience. We've have someone now who had no experience in government. There is a one I wanted to run for the presidency that didn't who I think would be an ideal VP choice. Tammy Duckworth, Senator, Illinois. The Democrats have a bunch of other female senators and a few governors. My choice would be Duckworth. Military vet and spunky.

The Democratic party is in total disarray. Part of them support a Democratic Socialist while there are a growing number supporting Bloomberg who changes his party affiliation according to any primary. Look I am looking forward to this debate and Bloomberg with his money is buying his way. A lot of crap is about to hit the fan.

dcaraz said:

In Bernie's world America is far better off under the rule of a comfortably off, old white guy.

Click to expand...

Lol. Sanders is rich.

D_NATURED said:

I don't think voting determines who wins any more. I used to but I think the vote, the justice system and checks and balances have all been revealed to be impotent when a sufficiently corrupt party works to undermine them.

Trump will win because there's been a coup and America is fully ****ed.

Click to expand...

CT section is further down...

vesper said:

The Democratic party is in total disarray. Part of them support a Democratic Socialist while there are a growing number supporting Bloomberg who changes his party affiliation according to any primary. Look I am looking forward to this debate and Bloomberg with his money is buying his way. A lot of crap is about to hit the fan.

Click to expand...

Only one hour into the debate. . . it's a bloodbath.

Everyone is ganging up on Mini-Mike. Pocahontas threw some haymakers at Mini-Mike, be he landed on his feet. The audience oohed and ahhhed.

Quid Pro Joe is really on his game tonight. . . naturally, there were a few gaffes, but he seemed very strong supporting status quo Obamacare. He pointed out the fact that Comrade Bernie's medicare-for-all would cost taxpayers $37 Trillion over 10 years.. . . . It would crush our economy. I agreed with him on that point.

Klobuchar got a few laughs from the audience, but it's pretty clear she's just not presidential material. Buttigieg was eloquent and compelling. He mixed it up with Comrade Bernie which was funny.:beat

Chomsky said:

t.b.d.

Click to expand...

Turns out it was the fake indian in the casino with repeated knockout blows what done Bloomie in.

Your party is safe-ish...

...for now.

Helix said:

I can say that I'll vote against every downticket Republican for at least the next ten years. However, I don't think I can vote for Bloomberg.

Click to expand...

So you're really a Democrat, and not an Independent at all.

Chomsky said:

Source: (The Week) Mike Bloomberg takes 2nd place in new Democratic primary poll, qualifies for Wednesday's debate

While the article headline refers to Mike Bloomberg's sudden 15pt ascent to the number two spot in the party, which is remarkable in itself, we also can't can't overlook Bernie's rise to dominate the field by 12 pts! Finally, this just might be turning-out to be two-horse race.

Bloomberg has now qualified for Tomorrow's (Wed) Nevada debate stage, where he will be in the odd position of being the rising 2nd place challenger while not being on the state ballot! I think we can predict the field will come after Bloomberg, and coupled with his being untested on the debate exchange it will be an important moment for him and the party.

If Bloomberg performs well and resonates, he could get a nice lift into the heart of the race. At this time, Bloomberg appears to be a legit contender with potential to improve his position and perhaps depose Biden and several others.

Click to expand...

Bloomberg supports some really bad leftist ideas, but I think he did better in the debate last night than any of the other misguided leftist ideologue candidates.

American said:

So you're really a Democrat, and not an Independent at all.

Click to expand...

I can't help you when it comes to reading for comprehension. Only you can do that.