• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Poll: Bloomberg overtakes Biden in Florida

GreatNews2night said:
One thing is certain: if the 2020 race ends up being Bloomberg vs. Trump, then America will have rejected the left. We'll be pitching one billionaire fascist wannabe dictator who promotes racism and xenophobia, versus another billionaire who is the head of a mega corporation with assets in 69 countries, who despises all progressive ideas regarding higher taxation for the rich.

Still, Bloomberg vs. Trump, I'd vote Bloomberg.

Bloomberg can have all the negatives in the world but I don't believe that anybody who is or will be running for president in 2020 is worse than Trump, not even Bloomberg.

I will ALWAYS vote for the lesser of two evils.
Click to expand...
I'll vote for Trump. Thanks.
 
JacksinPA said:
Poll: Bloomberg overtakes Biden in Florida | TheHill


Michael Bloomberg is leading the pack of Democratic presidential hopefuls in Florida, according to a new survey from St. Pete Polls, a sign that the former New York City mayor has picked up traction in a crucial swing state before most of his rivals have even started to campaign there.

The poll shows Bloomberg with 27.3 percent support in the Sunshine State, up 10 points from a similar poll released late last month. Biden, meanwhile, has seen his support in Florida plummet, falling from more than 41 percent in January to 25.9 percent this month.
==========================================================
I want to see him debate The Donald of Orange, he of the raccoon eyes.
Click to expand...

Unless he is going to rum as an independent, he will not be debating Donald. I just don't see a NY city billionaire getting the Dem nomination.
 
Chomsky said:
But the bolded is the point.

Even if true, there's little Trump or the GOP can throw up of that nature that will stick. Trump is simply demonstrably far worse in those (or pretty much - any) matters! When comparing the two side-by-side one-on-one, I can't see Trump successfully making that argument.

Even if we were to equate the two men in their sordid activities, Bloomberg still far surpasses in the gravitas of him being a highly successful self-made businessman, in contrast to Trump's poor-little-rich-boy's dismal track record of failure & bankruptcy.
Click to expand...

But part of that problem is those who dont like Trump (mainly indies and NeverTrumpers) arent going to vote for Bloomberg. They are already the ones loving Buttigieg and Klobuchar for giving them a positive message. Putting up two that are more similar in their tactics isnt going to generate enthusiasm. Then throw in the far left and Sander/Warren supporters who think he is buying the election and there are lots of things that could go wrong. Bloomberg is a massive risk.
 
GreatNews2night said:
And who says that the Dems are doing this? As of now, good statisticians give to Bloomberg a 1 in 15 odds of winning the nomination. Meanwhile Bernie's chances are 1 in 3.
Click to expand...

Some early polls are showing Bloomberg doing incredibly well in some places without doing a thing but spending money. There is a contingent of dems who would "rather stick it to Trump" with their own version, instead of just finding a better person overall. Thats problematic on so many levels. You want to see a peeved Sanders running third party? Watch what happens if someone like Bloomberg wins.
 
pilot16 said:
Some early polls are showing Bloomberg doing incredibly well in some places without doing a thing but spending money. There is a contingent of dems who would "rather stick it to Trump" with their own version, instead of just finding a better person overall. Thats problematic on so many levels. You want to see a peeved Sanders running third party? Watch what happens if someone like Bloomberg wins.
Click to expand...

If Bloomberg gets more votes in the primaries and collects more transparently allocated pledged delegates above simple majority, yes, he should win, regardless of how he is regarded and regardless of how he is funded; it's not illegal to buy campaign ads.

If Sanders gets more votes in the primaries and collects more transparently allocated pledged delegates above simple majority, yes, he should win, regardless of how he is regarded. Having followers doesn't give him uncontested rights to the nomination unless he wins the nomination by getting more caucus delegates and more delegates from popular vote primaries than his opponents, regardless of how his opponents are funded.

That's democracy. If Sanders is against democracy then he has no business running for POTUS.

If Bernie wants to be the nominee, his followers need to stop worrying about the other candidates, and need to recruit enough people to democratically give Bernie a majority of pledged delegates. If they don't, they should put up and shut up.

Bloomberg is not illegally bribing votes to vote for him. He is simply buying campaign ads. The other candidates have bought campaign ads too. It's just that Bloomberg can afford more of them. Last I checked, being rich does not forbid someone from running for office. The only constitutional conditions are to be older than 35, being a natural born US citizen, and having resided in the United States for at least 14 consecutive years. Bloomberg checks for all three conditions.

If any candidates loses cleanly and fairly but goes berserk and goes third party to screw everybody in a scorched earth move, then that candidate is a moron and a traitor and has no business running inside the party anyway.
 
Last edited:
pilot16 said:
But part of that problem is those who dont like Trump (mainly indies and NeverTrumpers) arent going to vote for Bloomberg. They are already the ones loving Buttigieg and Klobuchar for giving them a positive message. Putting up two that are more similar in their tactics isnt going to generate enthusiasm. Then throw in the far left and Sander/Warren supporters who think he is buying the election and there are lots of things that could go wrong. Bloomberg is a massive risk.
Click to expand...

I think its really hard to make determinations now and with the curveball of Bloomberg I don't believe judgements can be made with where votes will go. This election has greater complexities with Trump, the number and diversity of Democratic candidates as well as the whole Bloomberg situation.
 
GreatNews2night said:
If Bloomberg gets more votes in the primaries and collects more transparently allocated pledged delegates above simple majority, yes, he should win, regardless of how he is regarded and regardless of how he is funded; it's not illegal to buy campaign ads.

If Sanders gets more votes in the primaries and collects more transparently allocated pledged delegates above simple majority, yes, he should win, regardless of how he is regarded. Having followers doesn't give him uncontested rights to the nomination unless he wins the nomination by getting more caucus delegates and more delegates from popular vote primaries than his opponents, regardless of how his opponents are funded.

That's democracy. If Sanders is against democracy then he has no business running for POTUS.

If Bernie wants to be the nominee, his followers need to stop worrying about the other candidates, and need to recruit enough people to democratically give Bernie a majority of pledged delegates. If they don't, they should put up and shut up.

Bloomberg is not illegally bribing votes to vote for him. He is simply buying campaign ads. The other candidates have bought campaign ads too. It's just that Bloomberg can afford more of them. Last I checked, being rich does not forbid someone from running for office. The only constitutional conditions are to be older than 35, being a natural born US citizen, and having resided in the United States for at least 14 consecutive years. Bloomberg checks for all three conditions.

If any candidates loses cleanly and fairly but goes berserk and goes third party to screw everybody in a scorched earth move, then that candidate is a moron and a traitor and has no business running inside the party anyway.
Click to expand...

I agree with all that, but why would a party that prides itself on inclusivity and reducing income inequality, desire someone like Bloomberg who bought his way into debates when Cory Booker, Andrew Yang and Julian Castro werent allowed to? They should be railing against it as Warren is doing. Its not right. I know its not illegal and the rules can change, but how does it look to people of color and the working class, that a billionaire can buy his way into it? Seems like a wrong and dangerous message at the time when they have been railing about that for years in regards to Trump and his influence.
 
pilot16 said:
But part of that problem is those who dont like Trump (mainly indies and NeverTrumpers) arent going to vote for Bloomberg. They are already the ones loving Buttigieg and Klobuchar for giving them a positive message. Putting up two that are more similar in their tactics isnt going to generate enthusiasm. Then throw in the far left and Sander/Warren supporters who think he is buying the election and there are lots of things that could go wrong. Bloomberg is a massive risk.
Click to expand...
As is Bernie a risk.

What will remain to be seen, is whether the party's progressive wing will hold their noses and vote for Bloomberg in a response to Trump. Yes, that's a big risk. But then the whole election's a huge risk. In addition, we must weight the broader appeal Bloomberg may have with Indies, disaffected moderate Republicans, and those Dems & former Dems that crossed-over for Trump in 2016. This last demographic, just like the "Reagan Democrats" of 1980, (just barely) gave Trump his win in 2016, and they are a key element to wining back 2020.
 
Common Sense 1 said:
Pitiful comment about the story. Just so full of Trump hate. "The Donald of Orange, he of the raccoon eyes."

Don't you understand how that damages your thread? Nope you don't! :confused::confused:

Anyway Biden is a dead man walking. His campaign is dead in the water. Big money folks are fleeing away from him.
Looks like Bloomberg is buying his way to the nomination.
Click to expand...


This has been the process for many election cycles, now.
 
Chomsky said:
As is Bernie a risk.

What will remain to be seen, is whether the party's progressive wing will hold their noses and vote for Bloomberg in a response to Trump. Yes, that's a big risk. But then the whole election's a huge risk. In addition, we must weight the broader appeal Bloomberg may have with Indies, disaffected moderate Republicans, and those Dems & former Dems that crossed-over for Trump in 2016. This last demographic, just like the "Reagan Democrats" of 1980, (just barely) gave Trump his win in 2016, and they are a key element to wining back 2020.
Click to expand...

I’d have a problem voting for Bloomberg. If Bloomberg picks Hillary as his running mate the problem would be insurmountable for me.
 
Risky Thicket said:
I’d have a problem voting for Bloomberg. If Bloomberg picks Hillary as his running mate the problem would be insurmountable for me.
Click to expand...

Why do you suppose HRC keeps interjecting herself into the equation? She has to know she is “damaged goods!”
 
pilot16 said:
Todays news from Bloombergs past:

Bloomberg in 2013: Civil libertarians and teachers union are like NRA ‘extremists’ - POLITICO
Click to expand...

From the video:

Bloomberg said:
"The truth of the matter is, comparing stops to the general population is just not rational. Comparing stops to the witnesses’ description of suspects and the identification of suspicious activity — which together reflect the racial and ethnic breakdown of criminal activity — is what matters. And the numbers put the lie to the racist allegations. In fact, the percentage of stops of blacks is less than that of whites and Asians when adjusted for crime reports."
Click to expand...

Trump was right. Bloomberg is going to have a lot of trouble competing with professional politicians.
 
Rexedgar said:
Why do you suppose HRC keeps interjecting herself into the equation? She has to know she is “damaged goods!”
Click to expand...

That's an excellent question. A couple of months ago when it first seemed to me Hillary was under the impression that America still cared what she had to say I wondered if maybe she had a brain hemorrhoid. I couldn't conceive of a logical reason for her political comments otherwise. Last week when I read that Bloomberg might choose Hilary as a running mate I thought, naaaaa, that's bull****. I thought at first it was Russian disinformation to aid Trump. But, I cannot find where Bloomberg has denied the possibility. Could be that Hillary has been plotting it for a while. In no way do I trust Bloomberg and I damn sure don't trust Hillary.
 
pilot16 said:
I agree with all that, but why would a party that prides itself on inclusivity and reducing income inequality, desire someone like Bloomberg who bought his way into debates when Cory Booker, Andrew Yang and Julian Castro werent allowed to? They should be railing against it as Warren is doing. Its not right. I know its not illegal and the rules can change, but how does it look to people of color and the working class, that a billionaire can buy his way into it? Seems like a wrong and dangerous message at the time when they have been railing about that for years in regards to Trump and his influence.
Click to expand...

First, let me clarify that I'm not one of Bloomberg's fans and I'm in principle not planning to vote for him in the primaries (will vote for whoever wins the Dem nomination, in November).

So I'm not here to defend Bloomberg, but I don't like the perpetuation of certain myths. First of all, Bloomberg hasn't even participated in any debates yet. Second, it looks like he will qualify from now on, but actually, based on polls and not even based on the funding rules that have changed. Third, I have no issue with the funding rules having changed to accommodate him, because it makes all the sense in the world.

Look, the original rules wanted some minimum of donors and some donation amounts to qualify a candidate for debates, and it made sense because the Debate Committee wanted to make sure that candidates making it into this platform were viable candidates and not some nutjob who decided to run but wasn't endorsed by anybody therefore had no donors. Along comes Bloomberg, a candidate who obviously attracts national interest and who is already polling in double digits, which is more than what can be said of other candidates who are in debates from the beginning. So, should Bloomberg be disqualified because he doesn't meet the original funding requirements? Absolutely not, because the spirit of the requirements was the viability of a campaign, and given that Bloomberg is self-funded with more than enough campaign funds, can afford the campaign until the end actually better than anybody else, and is not accepting donations, obviously he *is* viable even if he doesn't meet the viability rules that apply to other people who are not self-funded. So, the party adapted to the new situation. Nothing wrong with that.

It would be utterly ridiculous to say to Bloomberg "well, we can't let you into the debates because you have no donors and you have not met the dollar threshold in donations so you are not viable enough to be in a debate." Bloomberg would say "but I made the conscious voluntary decision of not relying on donors. I have 50 billion dollars. I don't need any donor, and money-wise I'm extremely viable which is the spirit of the rule, actually more than any other." The party would then say "nope, no can do, rules are rules and we aren't changing them although they obviously had NOT anticipated a situation like yours." Ridiculous.

The situation change, you adapt to it. I'm sure that the disclosure forms all candidates had to sign when they registered with the party, had a clause saying that the Debate Committee reserved to itself the right to change rules along the way if new situations required some flexibility.
 
Risky Thicket said:
I’d have a problem voting for Bloomberg. If Bloomberg picks Hillary as his running mate the problem would be insurmountable for me.
Click to expand...

As per post #103, this idea that Bloomberg is considering Hillary as veep sounds to me like a blatant baseless speculation, and one wonders if the agenda of people pushing it is to increase the chaos on the Dem side in other to favor Trump.
 
Risky Thicket said:
That's an excellent question. A couple of months ago when it first seemed to me Hillary was under the impression that America still cared what she had to say I wondered if maybe she had a brain hemorrhoid. I couldn't conceive of a logical reason for her political comments otherwise. Last week when I read that Bloomberg might choose Hilary as a running mate I thought, naaaaa, that's bull****. I thought at first it was Russian disinformation to aid Trump. But, I cannot find where Bloomberg has denied the possibility. Could be that Hillary has been plotting it for a while. In no way do I trust Bloomberg and I damn sure don't trust Hillary.
Click to expand...

Again, the "evidence" presented for it is that someone "close to the campaign" (not of the campaign, and unnamed - who knows if this person even exists) said so, and Bloomberg in December was in a birthday party of some socialite, to which Hillary had also been invited. Great evidence, indeed.
 
GreatNews2night said:
Again, the "evidence" presented for it is that someone "close to the campaign" (not of the campaign, and unnamed - who knows if this person even exists) said so, and Bloomberg in December was in a birthday party of some socialite, to which Hillary had also been invited. Great evidence, indeed.
Click to expand...

Let's hope that ^^^ is the beginning and the end of the matter.

I was never a Hillary fan and I am less so today. Bloomberg, for me, is an indication (not that I needed further proof) of how completely fecked the DNC has become. I am not a Democrat. I am not a Republican, whatever that is anymore. I damn sure am no Bloomberg fan, for many reasons.
 
Risky Thicket said:
That's an excellent question. A couple of months ago when it first seemed to me Hillary was under the impression that America still cared what she had to say I wondered if maybe she had a brain hemorrhoid. I couldn't conceive of a logical reason for her political comments otherwise. Last week when I read that Bloomberg might choose Hilary as a running mate I thought, naaaaa, that's bull****. I thought at first it was Russian disinformation to aid Trump. But, I cannot find where Bloomberg has denied the possibility. Could be that Hillary has been plotting it for a while. In no way do I trust Bloomberg and I damn sure don't trust Hillary.
Click to expand...

https://deadline.com/2020/02/bloomb...ring-hillary-clinton-running-mate-1202860922/
Personally, I think this was all just a right wing wet dream.:mrgreen:
 
bearpoker said:
Bloomberg Campaign Shuts Down Report He’s Considering Hillary Clinton As Running Mate – Deadline
Personally, I think this was all just a right wing wet dream.:mrgreen:
Click to expand...

LOL never fooled me, see my posts on the matter, I always said it was BS and right wing propaganda trying to inject more chaos among the Dems. Turns out it's even unconstitutional as according to the 12th amendment the president and the veep can't be residents of the same state and both Bloomberg and Hillary Clinton are New York State residents.
 
Risky Thicket said:
Let's hope that ^^^ is the beginning and the end of the matter.

I was never a Hillary fan and I am less so today. Bloomberg, for me, is an indication (not that I needed further proof) of how completely fecked the DNC has become. I am not a Democrat. I am not a Republican, whatever that is anymore. I damn sure am no Bloomberg fan, for many reasons.
Click to expand...

Of the two, which would you support?
 
CaughtInThe said:
A Trump supporter talking about values.

This entire era is like some bizarro episode of puffin stuff.
Click to expand...

a Trump hater pretending that Trump hating is rational. That is whackadoodle guano
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom