Nate Silver Says Bloomberg is Slipping in Polls After Debates: He’s in ‘A Lot of Trouble’

[Roadvirus]

Bloomberg did pretty good on the last debate. His numbers will go up a little.

He did good alright....at failing.

 

[Roadvirus]

racist, sexist, arrogant, billionaire authoritarian defines Trump

And then there's Bloomie who is the same thing, expect he also asks people if they are going to kill their unborn child.

 

[SheWolf]

View attachment 67274532​

 

[jamesbyoung]

And then there's Bloomie who is the same thing, expect he also asks people if they are going to kill their unborn child.

Bloomberg is by far the better person, the better executive, and the better businessman. We need somebody who can lead rather than simply divide. Trump has to be defeated.

 

[poweRob]

He did good alright....at failing.

Yeah he sucked. But his suck was an improvement to his last performance. and everyone sucked because CBS apparently doesn't know how to handle a debate where it was OBVIOUS how the contenders were going to come in and act like.

 

[eman623]

So much for the "Money buys elections!" canard. Clearly it doesn't.

Back a few years, Meg Whitman spent $100 million of her own money against Jerry Brown for the CA Governor race. Her approval rating went DOWN! While Jerry spent nothing and soared in the polls.

 

[Craig234]

Bloomberg did pretty good on the last debate. His numbers will go up a little.

An instant poll after the debate ranked him badly in it.

 

[jmotivator]

The Howard Schultz independent run is getting more likely by the hour.

 

[Paradoxical]

Meh, Bernie isn't a con man. He's sincere about his political ideology and platform, whether one agrees with him or not. He's not some scummy wanna-be gangster who uses the courts as a weapon of intimidation and skips out on bills whenever he can.

Worldwide depression would ensue if somehow he was elected.

I'm luvin that he is the front runner. Means a republican house.

 

[Paradoxical]

Bloomberg did pretty good on the last debate. His numbers will go up a little.

What the hell is this guy thinking? That 60 billion can change him from a dour old white guy into a charismatic black dude with sunglasses that the Democrats will vote for? LMAO.

Not even YOUR side wants this ugly old billionaire with a likability scale of zero.

 

[Paradoxical]

Pretty good compared to his previous debate performance, you mean. And last night's performance was pretty bad. But generally speaking, it's easy to improve after what was arguably the worst defeat in debate history.

Agreed. First impressions in any sales pitch is what matters and he would need God intervention at this point. How in the hell did he ever get elected mayor is what I wanna know.

That leaves Bernie as the last dufus standing. Good riddance to what was the Democratic party. You will be joining the Whigs.

 

[Ikari]

Worldwide depression would ensue if somehow he was elected.

I'm luvin that he is the front runner. Means a republican house.

Y'all can count those chickens before they hatch, but it's possible you'll be disappointed in the end.

 

[Surrealistik]

So much for the "Money buys elections!" canard. Clearly it doesn't.

Back a few years, Meg Whitman spent $100 million of her own money against Jerry Brown for the CA Governor race. Her approval rating went DOWN! While Jerry spent nothing and soared in the polls.

To the contrary; that Bloomberg is doing as well as he is despite only being in the race since the start of December, possessing less than zero charisma, having a decisively mediocre platform (which is scarcely even advertised in his massive ad blitz) and being one of the most unrelatable, arrogant and flawed candidates I've yet seen, while effectively buying his way into the Dem debates, is a solid, even undeniable testament to the power of money relative to electoral politics.

While you may be tempted to cite Steyer as a counterpoint, the fact is they they're not comparable: Steyer is basically a one issue candidate who doesn't really strive to message beyond climate change.


The only thing that Bloomberg's example really demonstrates is that money isn't everything, which is obvious and readily apparent to just about everyone.

 

[Craig234]

The Howard Schultz independent run is getting more likely by the hour.

Let him try. IMO he's worse than Bloomberg or Steyer and will do worse than Bloomberg.

 

[Craig234]

To the contrary; that Bloomberg is doing as well as he is despite only being in the race since the start of December, possessing less than zero charisma, having a decisively mediocre platform (which is scarcely even advertised in his massive ad blitz) and being one of the most unrelatable, arrogant and flawed candidates I've yet seen, while effectively buying his way into the Dem debates, is a solid, even undeniable testament to the power of money relative to electoral politics.

While you may be tempted to cite Steyer as a counterpoint, the fact is they they're not comparable: Steyer is basically a one issue candidate who doesn't really strive to message beyond climate change.


The only thing that Bloomberg's example really demonstrates is that money isn't everything, which is obvious and readily apparent to just about everyone.

I would add that the Bloomberg example misses the far larger problem of the corruption of money in politics. It isn't about one person using wealth to buy an election. It's about a PERVASIVE role of money to turn the government against the voters.

There are countless powerful, wealthy interests who want government to serve THEM, and not VOTERS, and their only weapon to get what they want is to spend money.

Our political system is DROWNING in money where, if your name isn't "Bernie", you have almost no chance to get elected without their money. It REQUIRES the media buys and such to have a chance to win. The idea of some fair 'whoever has the best policies' is only one factor that is not enough. Even Bernie does not run without money; he has a lot, but gets it from the voters he does serve, not the powerful interests.

We have a system with over 10,000 lobbyists, over $3 billion spent on lobbying, where a majority of members and staff of Congress go into lobbying when they leave office, making them serve lobbyists while in office; where virtually all members spend half their time on fundraising calls; where the #1 thing parties demand of candidates is being able to raise the money from those interests.

It's that smothering SYSTEM - which even goes so far as to influence the media, who get billions in advertising from those dollars that biases their coverage against any candidate who wants money out of the system - that's the issue, not one person spending to buy one election. That corruption drives our main legislative agendas and destroys democracy.

 

[jmotivator]

Let him try. IMO he's worse than Bloomberg or Steyer and will do worse than Bloomberg.

Well, I think Schultz's choice to run would not be to win. He has expressed his fear of Bernie Sanders winning the presidency as his motive for running, so he would likely run just to split the Democrats and spoil Sanders' hopes.

 

[Craig234]

Well, I think Schultz's choice to run would not be to win. He has expressed his fear of Bernie Sanders winning the presidency as his motive for running, so he would likely run just to split the Democrats and spoil Sanders' hopes.

That could happen. But it'd be ironic if he pulled more from trump and helped Bernie win. Bernie would have to persuade people that the ass trying to protect the wealthy is wrong.

 

[Paradoxical]

I would add that the Bloomberg example misses the far larger problem of the corruption of money in politics. It isn't about one person using wealth to buy an election. It's about a PERVASIVE role of money to turn the government against the voters.

There are countless powerful, wealthy interests who want government to serve THEM, and not VOTERS, and their only weapon to get what they want is to spend money.

Our political system is DROWNING in money where, if your name isn't "Bernie", you have almost no chance to get elected without their money. It REQUIRES the media buys and such to have a chance to win. The idea of some fair 'whoever has the best policies' is only one factor that is not enough. Even Bernie does not run without money; he has a lot, but gets it from the voters he does serve, not the powerful interests.

We have a system with over 10,000 lobbyists, over $3 billion spent on lobbying, where a majority of members and staff of Congress go into lobbying when they leave office, making them serve lobbyists while in office; where virtually all members spend half their time on fundraising calls; where the #1 thing parties demand of candidates is being able to raise the money from those interests.

It's that smothering SYSTEM - which even goes so far as to influence the media, who get billions in advertising from those dollars that biases their coverage against any candidate who wants money out of the system - that's the issue, not one person spending to buy one election. That corruption drives our main legislative agendas and destroys democracy.

How would Democrats get elected and stay i office if it weren't for lobbyists?

 

[eman623]

To the contrary; that Bloomberg is doing as well as he is despite only being in the race since the start of December, possessing less than zero charisma, having a decisively mediocre platform (which is scarcely even advertised in his massive ad blitz) and being one of the most unrelatable, arrogant and flawed candidates I've yet seen, while effectively buying his way into the Dem debates, is a solid, even undeniable testament to the power of money relative to electoral politics.

While you may be tempted to cite Steyer as a counterpoint, the fact is they they're not comparable: Steyer is basically a one issue candidate who doesn't really strive to message beyond climate change.

The only thing that Bloomberg's example really demonstrates is that money isn't everything, which is obvious and readily apparent to just about everyone.

Money isn't just not everything. It's not even the most important thing. The riddle of money is that you can buy access, but you can't buy support or buy elections.

Bloomberg has exactly 0 delegates so far, he was a punching bag in the next-to-last debate and Nate Silver gives him a 1-in-50 chance to win the nomination. All that can be yours for the princely sum of $500 million dollars.

 

[Taylor]

Meh, Bernie isn't a con man. He's sincere about his political ideology and platform, whether one agrees with him or not. He's not some scummy wanna-be gangster who uses the courts as a weapon of intimidation and skips out on bills whenever he can.

Yeah, either that or you're one of the people being conned.

 

[Surrealistik]

I would add that the Bloomberg example misses the far larger problem of the corruption of money in politics. It isn't about one person using wealth to buy an election. It's about a PERVASIVE role of money to turn the government against the voters.

There are countless powerful, wealthy interests who want government to serve THEM, and not VOTERS, and their only weapon to get what they want is to spend money.

Our political system is DROWNING in money where, if your name isn't "Bernie", you have almost no chance to get elected without their money. It REQUIRES the media buys and such to have a chance to win. The idea of some fair 'whoever has the best policies' is only one factor that is not enough. Even Bernie does not run without money; he has a lot, but gets it from the voters he does serve, not the powerful interests.

We have a system with over 10,000 lobbyists, over $3 billion spent on lobbying, where a majority of members and staff of Congress go into lobbying when they leave office, making them serve lobbyists while in office; where virtually all members spend half their time on fundraising calls; where the #1 thing parties demand of candidates is being able to raise the money from those interests.

It's that smothering SYSTEM - which even goes so far as to influence the media, who get billions in advertising from those dollars that biases their coverage against any candidate who wants money out of the system - that's the issue, not one person spending to buy one election. That corruption drives our main legislative agendas and destroys democracy.

Agreed on all points, I'm merely speaking to its direct impact in this specific context.

Money isn't just not everything. It's not even the most important thing. The riddle of money is that you can buy access, but you can't buy support or buy elections.

Bloomberg has exactly 0 delegates so far, he was a punching bag in the next-to-last debate and Nate Silver gives him a 1-in-50 chance to win the nomination. All that can be yours for the princely sum of $500 million dollars.

Now imagine what happens when you apply that force multiplier to a coefficient that more than scarcely exceeds zero: someone who isn't actively repugnant and didn't enter the race so late he wasn't even a presence in the crucial first couple of primaries. It's not everything, but it easily and by far one of the most important things unfortunately.

 

[Roadvirus]

Bloomberg is by far the better person, the better executive, and the better businessman. We need somebody who can lead rather than simply divide. Trump has to be defeated.

Yeah...telling someone to kill their unborn baby is very great example of "leading".

 

[eman623]

Agreed on all points, I'm merely speaking to its direct impact in this specific context.

Now imagine what happens when you apply that force multiplier to a coefficient that more than scarcely exceeds zero: someone who isn't actively repugnant and didn't enter the race so late he wasn't even a presence in the crucial first couple of primaries. It's not everything, but it easily and by far one of the most important things unfortunately

You undercut your own argument. If someone ISN'T repugnant and DOESN'T enter late and DOES enjoy broad support, then that person will most likely lead both the polls AND the money raised.

But back on our Earth, Bloomberg IS repugnant and DID get into the race late and all that money DIDN'T help. Money is not far and away the most important thing. Or more exactly, support breeds money. Money doesn't breed support.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Pretty good compared to his previous debate performance, you mean. And last night's performance was pretty bad. But generally speaking, it's easy to improve after what was arguably the worst defeat in debate history.

That combined with it being Sanders' turn to be taken down a peg by the rest of the pack.

 

[Surrealistik]

You undercut your own argument. If someone ISN'T repugnant and DOESN'T enter late and DOES enjoy broad support, then that person will most likely lead both the polls AND the money raised.

But back on our Earth, Bloomberg IS repugnant and DID get into the race late and all that money DIDN'T help. Money is not far and away the most important thing. Or more exactly, support breeds money. Money doesn't breed support.

Not at all.

The only reason Bloomberg is polling even close to where he is, despite only being in this race for 2-3 months is because he dumped hundreds of millions into his campaign, and carpet bombed the airwaves, full stop. Again, we're talking about a guy who started at zero, and ended up being in the top 2 or 3 candidates in terms of aggregate polling, surpassing people who have been in this race since the beginning.

Money does as a point of fact breed support.