Poll: Bloomberg overtakes Biden in Florida

[Chomsky]

Just saw some headlines that Bloomberg might consider Hillary as his VP. Thats going to lose him a lot of votes.

Michael Bloomberg reportedly considering Hillary Clinton as his running mate

No! Please tell me no! :doh

 

[redrover]

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.

Here is a little song sung by the founding fathers. This is consistent with my thinking.YouTube

 

[GreatNews2night]

Just saw some headlines that Bloomberg might consider Hillary as his VP. Thats going to lose him a lot of votes.

Michael Bloomberg reportedly considering Hillary Clinton as his running mate

The article is obviously pure speculation. This is the ONLY thing the article offers as "evidence" for this wild guess (pay attention to the innuendo of the word "supposedly"):

Clinton and Bloomberg were spotted together in December at a dinner with daughter Chelsea, Page Six reported – supposedly to celebrate the birthday of socialite Annette de la Renta.

So, if Bloomberg attends a dinner in December thrown by a socialite, and it happens that Hillary Clinton is also there because her daughter is a friend of the birthday girl, it means that Bloomberg is considering Hillary as his veep?

:lamo

These people all live in New York City and frequent the same circles. It means strictly nothing.

So, the choice of words, "supposedly", stands for a knowing wink wink, as if to say, OK, obviously it wasn't because of the birthday; they were supposedly attending the birthday but we all know that they were there to plot their shared presidential ticket.

Yeah, right. Isn't the much more likely explanation, that they both got invited to that birthday???

And the other part is that it looks like someone from the campaign said so. But you click on it, and it's just a tweet, and the tweet says someone "close" to the campaign. Source not named, of course. So, not "of" the campaign, but merely "close" to the campaign.

This is utter and complete garbage; it's what passes for journalism, these days.

Look, Bloomberg is a smart guy. He built a whole empire, becoming the 11th richest man in the entire freaking planet, self-made, not inheriting anything from papa.

Do you think that such a smart man doesn't know that if he picks Hillary as his veep while he will already have lots of trouble attracting Bernie fans, he will lose every - single - one of them? Good luck winning the general election by irreversibly alienating at least 25% of the Dem electorate.

Why in the hell would Bloomberg commit political suicide like this?

 

[GreatNews2night]

Well - I was expressing my suspicion in relation to the other poster's comment, with respect specifically to Bernie's chance of prevailing by majority going into the convention. That's not likely to happen. And yes, Bloomberg may indeed gain majority, though I believe that will also be unlikely if Biden or (perhaps) Buttigieg remain in the race.

As to Nate Silver's odds, thanks much for posting them. I'm a numbers guy, and I'm a big fan of Nate and what he does at 538. As I stated in my post, my (neophyte) non-quantitative hunch was that probably no one will reach majority status, predicated upon other moderates besides Bloomberg (Biden, Buttigieg) remaining in the race. This was the same predication the other poster used, which is why I responded to it in like form. I do not believe Silver predicates his odds by that.

However, I'm good with Silver's (non-predicated) odds and wouldn't doubt if they're accurate. Biden (and the others) may drop, leaving a heads-up race between Bloomberg & Sanders, where I believe Bloomberg might then prevail. So Nate's odds are probably good.

While I agree with everything above, with all respect I'm not claiming anything to the contrary. I realize some here may, but my prognostication of a brokered convention was proclaimed agnosticly.

However, I'm beginning to think it might be interesting to have a brokered convention. I don't necessarily fear it, unless Bernie drags it through the mud. As I watch Bernie this cycle, I think there is that possibility. But I do believe Bernie should fight damn his best to represent his wing. They all should. This is what democracy looks like. And what will prepare them for Trump.

[edited to fit posting requirements]

I was not blaming anything on you. I was merely going on and on with more thoughts of mine about this topic.

Nate did consider several possibilities, though, including, Bloomberg entering the race, people dropping out, etc., and he detailed all the reasons why he was still giving to "no majority" only 40% although he said that this possibility did increase (he started by giving it 4%, then 16%, then 33%, and now 40%). He said if Super Tuesday is a bloody mess and nobody emerges from it stronger than the others then this possibility increases, while obviously if there is a clear winning of Super Tuesday this possibility drops. That's natural because at this point we have 2% of the delegates being allocated, and in March we have 41% of them, therefore things will be a lot clearer, then. I'm sure Nate will update his model and its predicting value will increase.

I was just saying, if nobody wins a majority, I don't think the Democratic Party will screw the front runner. I think they will simply confirm that person in second ballot. If they don't, it's political suicide. So if Bernie gets most delegates, he should be the nominee, no conspiracy theory necessary (again, I'm not saying that YOU is a conspiracy theory - much the opposite, I value what you say, always interesting and with good bases).

 

[Surrealistik]

"GD"? What's that?

Great Depression.

Unfortunately there is no way to know, because corporate donations apparently need to be funneled through individuals and PACs. From the page I linked to:


omehow I find it unlikely that with this little overlap, these donations are exclusively coming from employees. Otherwise, where are the employees of 20 out of the 25 top employers, nowhere to be seen among Bernie's top 20 donors? This makes it statistically unlikely that the list only reflects employees. And another way to look at it is, why are some corporations much higher in Bernie's list although they aren't among the biggest employers? What would make it any more likely that suddenly, Boeing employees, for example, would donate in much higher numbers to Bernie, although there are much bigger numbers of employees in many other corporations in America, than Boeing's employees? One might assume that the enhancement in Boeing's dollar number came from some big check that was not coming from mere employees. Similarly, why would one expect that health insurance group Kaiser Permanente would donate based on their number of employees only, while much bigger health insurers by number of employees, UnitedHealth and HCA Healthcare, are not there?

Can I prove it with this method? I cannot and due to federal law there is no way to prove it. But do I find it suspicious. Yeah! Don't you?

Right, but when you have an MSM that demonstrably despises Bernie and as a rule generally tries its best to minimize/damage him (that's not CT, it's just true), if there was any kind of corporate or industry bundler soliciting donations on Sanders' behalf, I have exactly zero (0) doubt it would be picked up on and be blared on the airwaves until the end of time given it would undermine and corrode one of Sanders' core pillars of appeal in that he is not bought, paid for or otherwise influenced by monied interests.

Also looking to his top 5, the only entries there I find remotely suspicious are Microsoft and Alphabet; postal workers, university faculty per the University of California (intellectuals among a left leading institute of higher education) and Amazon workers (who benefited directly from Sanders' shaming Bezos into a 15 / HR wage) all check out completely. In fact big tech names happen to be the only real standouts that are suspicious among his list of top donators organizations (with the majority being directly related to groups heavy on low wage or unionized workers and the military per Sanders' pro-veteran and anti-war stances). Kaiser Permanente makes sense when you consider it's a managed care group, and thus employs health care workers, many of which are MFA proponents. I suppose the big tech connection could be explained by the overall left wing lean of the sector's employees, and/or those making lower wages, and/or whose jobs might be at risk of displacement due to H1-B visas.

 

[PLizzy]

In the link below to a post I did from up-thread, there's excerpts and links to a recent poll that speaks directly to two of the concerns you bring-up above --> African American vote & general elect-ability.

It appears Bloomberg is doing very well among all registered voters, and is making significant progress with the African-American vote.

DP

Great point. I suspect Bernie will never make a majority of delegates going into the convention. His wing is a minority, not even a plurality. As long as there's multiple moderates in the race, even if Biden does collapse but remains in the race at some relatively low level (ex: 10%), we're off to the super-delegate round or brokerage!

Keep in mind that he's dodged debates, so people haven't had a chance to make an honest judgement of him, especially low information voters. Once he has to start talking about his record with civil rights, we'll really see whether he's the front runner for the center-left lane.

 

[PLizzy]

I was not blaming anything on you. I was merely going on and on with more thoughts of mine about this topic.

Nate did consider several possibilities, though, including, Bloomberg entering the race, people dropping out, etc., and he detailed all the reasons why he was still giving to "no majority" only 40% although he said that this possibility did increase (he started by giving it 4%, then 16%, then 33%, and now 40%). He said if Super Tuesday is a bloody mess and nobody emerges from it stronger than the others then this possibility increases, while obviously if there is a clear winning of Super Tuesday this possibility drops. That's natural because at this point we have 2% of the delegates being allocated, and in March we have 41% of them, therefore things will be a lot clearer, then. I'm sure Nate will update his model and its predicting value will increase.

I was just saying, if nobody wins a majority, I don't think the Democratic Party will screw the front runner. I think they will simply confirm that person in second ballot. If they don't, it's political suicide. So if Bernie gets most delegates, he should be the nominee, no conspiracy theory necessary (again, I'm not saying that YOU is a conspiracy theory - much the opposite, I value what you say, always interesting and with good bases).

We'll get more clarity on Super Tuesday. That's when everyone will have their put-up or shut-up moment. The lowest hanging fruit will have to drop out in favor of the two or three leaders.

 

[GreatNews2night]

Especially when the news gets out about Bloombergs past with women and his attitude of women. He is essentially Trump lite. I hate seeing democrats throwing perfectly decent and good candidates out the window, just because Bloomberg can "stick it to Trump on Twitter." Thats utterly ridiculous. Lets throw away some of the best candidates that cover the entire democratic spectrum just because this dude has billions of dollars. Sounds republican to me. I encourage people to read about Bloombergs past and decide if this is the high road people really want to take.

Bloomberg'''s sexist remarks fostered company culture that degraded women, lawsuits allege - ABC News
Bloomberg faces backlash for calling trans woman '''man wearing a dress''' - Business Insider
Michael Bloomberg won'''t release women from nondisclosure agreements - Los Angeles Times

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.

 

[GreatNews2night]

Right, but when you have an MSM that demonstrably etc (snipped due to character limit)

OK, what about Boeing?

And even the case of Kaiser Permanente, don't you think that those employees even though ideologically they are for M4A, would be weary of losing their jobs if Bernie's plan to throw MCOs and health insurers (KP is both) out of business, would make them kind of afraid? I'd think that employees of large state and federal hospital systems might think like that, because they wouldn't be out of business in case M4A passes, but employees of an MCO/Health Insurer organization?

"Sure, I'm ideologically for M4A... it would be good for the American People... therefore I'll support the candidate that will make me lose my job for sure. I'll just be unemployed, but that's OK as long as my fellow Americans benefit."

While this would be noble, I somehow doubt that a lot of people would think like that.

If the driver of this is people who are on low wages, why don't we see other businesses like McDonalds and Starbucks represented there although they are among the top 25 US employers?

I just find the whole thing kind of not statistically convincing. So, yes, I did get suspicious, because the viable explanation for the absence of statistical correlation might be easily explained by the corporations themselves cutting checks to the campaign, therefore introducing a statistical bias and ruining the correlation between bigger employers by number of employees, and the regular working people who supposedly are the contributors to the campaign.

You say that the MSM would be all over it... but like I said, federal law prevents us from knowing the truth, so, it also prevents them (the MSM editors) from knowing the truth... because it will all figure as the contribution of individuals, so, you can't accuse the campaign of this without proof, lest you get a libel lawsuit. I'd say that the MSM is particularly ill equipped to make this accusation without proof, given libel laws.

On the other hand, websites like the one we just linked to, will be able to publish the raw data... and won't escape the right wing's attention (as per a right wing poster here publishing the link) and I can't think of any other way to try to sort it out, other than looking at the statistical likelihood or lack thereof, that it's all employees.

Look, I don't dispute that the employees of the University of California (where Sanders has a big following) is among the top donors... I don't dispute that unions like postal workers and people like VA employees are for him (imagine, M4A might actually fix the dysfunctional VA). What I find troublesome is the lack of OTHER correlations...

Because if it's all coming from the American working class, then naturally the top 25 employers by number of employees would be more represented. The fact that only 5 of them are there, troubles me.

Look, doesn't it trouble you just a little?

I wouldn't expect from you, an attitude like that of Trumpers, who will find that their cult leader can do no wrong and regardless of what is said (and even proved) against him, will blindly support him. I'm just saying, if this is a bit strange, I'd expect that you'd be troubled. Actually you did say so. I am.

If there is a more benign explanation, great. But I believe in statistics, and the lack of statistical correlation makes me suspicious.

Sure, I wouldn't expect that Warren Buffett's business which is listed there in the top 10 employers as #7, would have a lot of its employees donating to Bernie Sanders... or JP Morgan... but many of the other top 25, why aren't they there? Maybe there are other reasons, but the only one I can think of, is corporate donations twisting the expected correlation.

Because, see, even if the University of California can be understood, why aren't business like Home Depot, FedEx, Kroger, Target, Lowe's, freaking GE, Walgreens (and many others who have hundreds of thousands of regular working class employees) there? They have MANY more employees than the University of California.

And if you think that Kaiser Permanente is all explained, why BIGGER similar operations like United HealthCare and HCA Healthcare are not represented? If there is a reason for KP to be represented based on healthcare workers liking M4A (which like I said, I doubt), then how do you explain that bigger similar organizations are not, unless KP itself is cutting checks to the campaign, for some weird reason?

 

[Surrealistik]

OK, what about Boeing?

And even the case of Kaiser Permanente, don't you think that those employees even though ideologically they are for M4A, would be weary of losing their jobs if Bernie's plan to throw MCOs and health insurers (KP is both) out of business, would make them kind of afraid? I'd think that employees of large state and federal hospital systems might think like that, because they wouldn't be out of business in case M4A passes, but employees of an MCO/Health Insurer organization?

"Sure, I'm ideologically for M4A... it would be good for the American People... therefore I'll support the candidate that will make me lose my job for sure. I'll just be unemployed, but that's OK as long as my fellow Americans benefit."

While this would be noble, I somehow doubt that a lot of people would think like that.

Well I did say that there were some curious elements; I agree that Kaiser's contributions in particular are kind of strange (though MFA is as a point of fact popular among health care providers: Why Doctors Are Fighting Their Professional Organization Over Medicare for All | The Nation | Why Nurses Are Going Door-to-Door for Medicare for All | GQ ) vs other managed care operations and Boeing is a standout, but overall I'm not sure I see any clear and specific trend here that implies a coherent corporate or industry lean/bundling operation with the possible exception of big tech; after all the odd cases are typically only one offs as you've pointed out, and even in the case of big tech, there are viable alternate explanations; in the meanwhile, Sanders has not attended or hosted any high roller and exclusive fundraisers.

Also, I don't think the absence of an MSM canary outing Sanders is definitive proof that no wrongdoing is afoot, but I do think it is an element that in balance works against the idea of a nefarious corporate subversion.

Further, keep in mind that when you have an exceptionally broad donor cross-section disbursed among many companies and individuals, including independent contractors and the like, the top donor groups/employers/organizations ultimately doesn't mean terribly much; of the top donors listed on that website, a mere $2,479,860 total derives from them of Sanders' $108 million haul; we're talking a pitiful 2.3% of the entirety of the amount he raised. Among the top five Dem candidates other than Bloomberg (who champions his own interests above all), him, Buttigieg (who leads for maximal donors and has the highest maximal ratio), Biden (who has by far the highest %), Klobuchar and Warren this is the smallest %. Moreover he has the highest % of small donors and by far the lowest % of maximal donors.

In general I find that there isn't any strong or compelling evidence that Sanders is the beneficiary of industry bundlers and corporate leadership.

 

[Surrealistik]

OK, what about Boeing?...

Here's a breakdown of my calcs/numbers if you're interested: Open Secrets 2020 Campaign Financing Analysis - 2-15-2020 - Google Sheets

Overall Klobuchar, Pete and Biden appear to have the least organic campaigns/the most heavily propped up by big/top donors (unsurprisingly); Klobuchar leading for maximal donations as a % and Biden leading for top donor composition of total donations as a %, with Pete being middle of the road for top donor orgs, but a robust 2nd place in terms of the maximal ratio.

 

[TomFitz]

Bloomberg is well like in Florida because a lot of people from NY ended up there...

That’s why he would beat Trump there.

 

[GreatNews2night]

Well I did say that there were some curious elements; I agree that Kaiser's contributions in particular are kind of strange [...]
In general I find that there isn't any strong or compelling evidence that Sanders is the beneficiary of industry bundlers.

Well, one aspect that you didn't address, and which made a large chunk of my post is the other way around. If all that Bernie gets is contributions from individual working class Americans, what explains the ABSENCE of 20 out of the top 25 employers by numbers, in his donor mix?

Stats are usually infallible.

Throw 10 coins up 1,000 times and the distribution between heads and tails will be VERY close to 50-50.

Get a candidate who touts the fact that his contributions are from working class Americans only, and his top 20 will be likely to be strongly correlated to employees of America's top 25 employers by numbers, with a couple of exceptions like the financial industry he is frontally against (thus Buffett's company and JP Morgan not being there).

If there is no or very little correlation, I'd say that there are INTERVENING FACTORS screwing the expected statistical correlation, and I'd be VERY curious to know what they are. In the analogy with the coins, if it's not 50-50, then some coins have two heads or two tails, which is screwing the expected correlation.

OK, see, I was defending Bernie. I even said to the guy who first published the link to the Website, before he did, "you'll have to vote for Bernie if you don't want big money in politics because his donors are regular working class Americans, he's the only one that doesn't take corporate money; even Warren can't say the same."

So, I was believing in his claim.

Then I got shocked when I looked at the data.

I won't dispute that the others accept even MORE and LARGER shares of corporate money... that's a fact.

Still, I don't like misrepresentations. If Bernie has accepted even ONE big donation from a big business like Boeing or Kaiser Permanente, it sounds to me like the joke about the prostitute.

A man approaches a woman and asks, "would you give me a BJ if I give you 10 bucks?" She slaps him and says "How dare you? I'm not a prostitute." Then he says, "OK, I'll give you 1 million dollars for a BJ, will you do it?" The woman says "Well, in this case... I guess it's fine." The man says, "Well, I changed my mind again, I'm only offering 10 bucks." She says "Didn't I tell you that I'm not a prostitute?" He says, "No, you've just demonstrated that you are a prostitute; now we're just negotiating your fee."

So, if Bernie knowingly accepted money from Boeing or Kaiser Permanente, etc., he is already showing that he is prostituting himself too... although it seems like he definitely does it less often than others.

 

[Surrealistik]

I won't dispute that the others accept even MORE and LARGER shares of corporate money... that's a fact.

Still, I don't like misrepresentations. If Bernie has accepted even ONE big donation from a big business like Boeing or Kaiser Permanente, it sounds to me like the joke about the prostitute.

A man approaches a woman and asks, "would you give me a BJ if I give you 10 bucks?" She slaps him and says "How dare you? I'm not a prostitute." Then he says, "OK, I'll give you 1 million dollars for a BJ, will you do it?" The woman says "Well, in this case... I guess it's fine." The man says, "Well, I changed my mind again, I'm only offering 10 bucks." She says "Didn't I tell you that I'm not a prostitute?" He says, "No, you've just demonstrated that you are a prostitute; now we're just negotiating your fee."

So, if Bernie knowingly accepted money from Boeing or Kaiser Permanente, etc., he is already showing that he is prostituting himself too... although it seems like he definitely does it less often than others.

Well the statistics clearly show that Sanders easily has the most organic campaign; he leads for small donors, and performs by far the worst in terms of maximal donors; that is basically beyond any shadow of a doubt.

Is it possible he's benefiting from bundlers and donations from corporate leadership? Yes; I haven't disputed that, but I don't think the case against him per this dataset is particularly robust; the absence of certain big employers from his top 20 list most definitely can't be argued as some kind of smoking gun in support of this assertion.

 

[GreatNews2night]

Here's a breakdown of my calcs/numbers if you're interested: Open Secrets 2020 Campaign Financing Analysis - 2-15-2020 - Google Sheets

Overall Klobuchar, Pete and Biden appear to have the least organic campaigns/the most heavily propped up by big/top donors (unsurprisingly); Klobuchar leading for maximal donations as a % and Biden leading for top donor composition of total donations as a %, with Pete being middle of the road for top donor orgs, but a robust 2nd place in terms of the maximal ratio.

What the hell, Kaiser Permanente is Pete Buttigieg's #9 donor, and Bernie's #8 donor...

Pete Buttigieg is NOT a proponent of Medicare For All, much the opposite.

So, your idea that what explains Kaiser Permanente's donation to Bernie is that healthcare workers like Medicare For All, doesn't hold water.

It's even more concerning. If Kaiser Permanente is trying to cover all bases and donating both to a proponent of Medicare For All and an adversary of Medicare For All, with better reason Sanders might want to recuse KP's donation.

Like I said, if you prostitute yourself even just once, then you're a prostitute, just a less prolific prostitute than bigger prostitutes.

I would love to have a direct explanation from the Sanders campaign. I'd like to email them and ask, "look, I'm considering voting for Bernie, but I'm concerned about some of his donors. Why in the hell is he apparently taking donations from Kaiser Permanente and Boeing??? Would you care to explain?"

If they tell me a convincing reason or explanation regarding why it seems so but it isn't really so, I'll recover my faith. But if they don't, I'll be very disappointed.

 

[Surrealistik]

What the hell, Kaiser Permanente is Pete Buttigieg's #9 donor, and Bernie's #8 donor...

Pete Buttigieg is NOT a proponent of Medicare For All, much the opposite.

So, your idea that what explains Kaiser Permanente's donation to Bernie is that healthcare workers like Medicare For All, doesn't hold water.

It's even more concerning. If Kaiser Permanente is trying to cover all bases and donating both to a proponent of Medicare For All and an adversary of Medicare For All, with better reason Sanders might want to recuse KP's donation.

Like I said, if you prostitute yourself even just once, then you're a prostitute, just a less prolific prostitute than bigger prostitutes.

I would love to have a direct explanation from the Sanders campaign. I'd like to email them and ask, "look, I'm considering voting for Bernie, but I'm concerned about some of his donors. Why in the hell is he apparently taking donations from Kaiser Permanente and Boeing??? Would you care to explain?"

If they tell me a convincing reason or explanation regarding why it seems so but it isn't really so, I'll recover my faith. But if they don't, I'll be very disappointed.

Kaiser has a provider component and an insurer component; it is entirely conceivable that the insurer component loves Pete and the provider component loves Sanders; unfortunately we don't know because the data is unfortunately just not that granular and transparent.

 

[GreatNews2night]

Kaiser has a provider component and an insurer component; it is entirely conceivable that the insurer component loves Pete and the provider component loves Sanders; unfortunately we don't know because the data is unfortunately just not that granular and transparent.

Sure, but Kaiser Permanente is a tiny insect as compared to America's top 25 employers by number of employees... that it figures so prominently in Bernie's and Buttigieg's (two vastly different candidates) list of top donors is, sorry, extremely suspicious.

To expect that half the employees of the company (relatively small as compared to the huge corporations I've listed) suddenly became Bernie's #8 donors and the other half suddenly became Buttigieg's #9 donors, again, when other health care and health insurance organizations are nowhere to be seen in either campaign, just stretches imagination. Again, it's just too improbable, statistically speaking.

There is no convincing explanation other than the corporate owners decided to cut a check to Buttigieg and another one to Sanders...

Sorry but this one is just too weird to discount... and too much of an outlier to explain otherwise, given the comparative size of the company.

 

[Surrealistik]

Sure, but Kaiser Permanente is a tiny insect as compared to America's top 25 employers by number of employees... that it figures so prominently in Bernie's and Buttigieg's (two vastly different candidates) list of top donors is, sorry, extremely suspicious.

To expect that half the employees of the company (relatively small as compared to the huge corporations I've listed) suddenly became Bernie's #8 donors and the other half suddenly became Buttigieg's #9 donors, again, when other health care and health insurance organizations are nowhere to be seen in either campaign, just stretches imagination. Again, it's just too improbable, statistically speaking.

There is no convincing explanation other than the corporate owners decided to cut a check to Buttigieg and another one to Sanders...

Sorry but this one is just too weird to discount... and too much of an outlier to explain otherwise, given the comparative size of the company.

I mean if the insurer/health care industry were consciously trying to steer Sanders, odds are you'd see more related companies in his top 20 and more maximal donations. At absolute worst one might argue that this company is specifically trying to get some kind of special concession in the event either comes to power.

 

[GreatNews2night]

I mean if the insurer/health care industry were consciously trying to steer Sanders, odds are you'd see more related companies in his top 20 and more maximal donations. At absolute worst one might argue that this company is specifically trying to get some kind of special concession in the event either comes to power.

Yes, that's what I think too, regarding your last phrase. That's the most likely explanation for this statistical anomaly. They clearly (or at least it's very likely that they did) tried to get on the good side of both candidates, still uncertain about which one will prevail. I'd hope that Bernie would stop that and return the check, though. Wouldn't you?

I just noticed that they contributed to Warren too. Most likely they contributed to Biden and Klobuchar as well; just, we don't see them in their top donors because they got smothered by all the other bigger donors who contributed to these campaigns too, and got bumped out of the top 20.

I think the corporate owners said, "look, folks, let's cut a check to all the main campaigns; we'll have some leeway regardless of who wins; it's a good investment for us."

I just hoped that Bernie would be the only one to say, "thanks, but no thanks, here is your check back, I don't take corporate donations, and especially not from a company whose business is half that of being a private health insurer. You can donate to my opponents who are all in bed with you."

If instead Bernie said to his staffers who process donations, "hey, money is money, let's carry on, folks" I'll be very disappointed.

 

[Surrealistik]

Yes, that's what I think too, regarding your last phrase. That's the most likely explanation for this statistical anomaly. They clearly (or at least it's very likely that they did) tried to get on the good side of both candidates, still uncertain about which one will prevail. I'd hope that Bernie would stop that and return the check, though. Wouldn't you?

I just noticed that they contributed to Warren too. Most likely they contributed to Biden and Klobuchar as well; just, we don't see them in their top donors because they got smothered by all the other bigger donors who contributed to these campaigns too, and got bumped out of the top 20.

I think the corporate owners said, "look, folks, let's cut a check to all the main campaigns; we'll have some leeway regardless of who wins; it's a good investment for us."

I just hoped that Bernie would be the only one to say, "thanks, but no thanks, here is your check back, I don't take corporate donations, and especially not from a company whose business is half that of being a private health insurer. You can donate to my opponents who are all in bed with you."

The big problem here is it's impossible to confirm motive, and obviously it's probably too onerous to police and review individual donations. Where do you draw the line? How much money per individual? Do you interview or survey each donor? Do you bar people working for certain industries and companies? Do you employ donation caps/quotas per industry/company in proportion to its employee base? Etc.

The best Bernie can do is categorically shun donations from billionaires (he has literally returned a billionaire's donation: A Billionaire’s Spouse Donated To Bernie Sanders. He’s Returning The Check. ) and corporate bundlers.

Like I said, if there is evidence he took up money from said bundlers, I would absolutely demand he return it.

 

[btthegreat]

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.

Its at the point where road-kill along the interstate can get better polling numbers than Biden now.

 

[GreatNews2night]

The big problem here is it's impossible to confirm motive, and obviously it's probably too onerous to police and review individual donations. Where do you draw the line? How much money per individual? Do you interview or survey each donor? Do you bar people working for certain industries and companies? Do you employ donation caps/quotas per industry/company in proportion to its employee base? Etc.

The best Bernie can do is categorically shun donations from billionaires (he has literally returned a billionaire's donation: A Billionaire’s Spouse Donated To Bernie Sanders. He’s Returning The Check. ) and corporate bundlers.

Like I said, if there is evidence he took up money from said bundlers, I would absolutely demand he return it.

Generally you are right, but consider the following: when a donor makes it into his freaking top 10, I would expect some scrutiny from his campaign managers and from the candidate himself. So, he was able to stop the check from the billionaire's spouse, huh? Someone must have alerted him to it. Shouldn't he have the same scrutiny regarding Kaiser Permanente? Because, given the statistical anomaly, I don't think that this small company made it into his top 10 donors simply by a bunch of employees sending him some small checks (otherwise these small donations from a small company - relatively speaking as compared to the big dogs I've listed - that doesn't have so many employees, would be like #2000 in his list, not #8). So, I'm thinking that it was ONE big check, or two or three big checks from the main owners. #8 in a huge and well-funded campaign like Sanders' is not small. I can't really believe that this wasn't flagged in some way, especially regarding what industry this company does business in. Who doesn't know that Kaiser Permanente is a health insurer? Certainly, not political activists who are staffers in one of the major campaigns, and one that specifically proposes a huge revolution in health care.

I can imagine this scene in Bernie's headquarters, in the office that processes donations:

"Oh, there's a statistical anomaly here, yay, we're getting big checks from this small company called Windmills and Biodiesel of America, Inc, who is in clean energy, yay! Nice to see that they understand we're big environmentalists! We are doing something right, folks, let's carry on!"

"Hm, how and why in the hell did freaking Kaiser Permanente, a private health insurer no less, become our #8 biggest donor??? Very weird!! Worth looking into it! Mr. Sanders, come here please, look at this!!!"

And look, the billionaire's spouse donated... $470!!! They were able to spot that, but were totally oblivious to Kaiser Permanente becoming their #8 top donor???

Again, it stretches imagination.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Good

Bloomberg is in every way a better politician and a better human than Donald Trump.

A better human than Donald Trump is a low hill to climb. Hell even Richard Nixon was a better human than Donald Trump.

 

[Surrealistik]

Generally you are right, but consider the following: when a donor makes it into his freaking top 10, I would expect some scrutiny from his campaign managers and from the candidate himself. So, he was able to stop the check from the billionaire's spouse, huh? Someone must have alerted him to it. Shouldn't he have the same scrutiny regarding Kaiser Permanente? Because, given the statistical anomaly, I don't think that this small company made it into his top 10 donors simply by a bunch of employees sending him some small checks (otherwise these small donations from a small company - relatively speaking as compared to the big dogs I've listed - that doesn't have so many employees, would be like #2000 in his list, not #8). So, I'm thinking that it was ONE big check, or two or three big checks from the main owners. #8 in a huge and well-funded campaign like Sanders' is not small. I can't really believe that this wasn't flagged in some way, especially regarding what industry this company does business in. Who doesn't know that Kaiser Permanente is a health insurer? Certainly, not political activists who are staffers in one of the major campaigns, and one that specifically proposes a huge revolution in health care.

I can imagine this scene in Bernie's headquarters, in the office that processes donations:

"Oh, there's a statistical anomaly here, yay, we're getting big checks from this small company called Windmills and Biodiesel of America, Inc, who is in clean energy, yay! Nice to see that they understand we're big environmentalists! We are doing something right, folks, let's carry on!"

"Hm, how and why in the hell did freaking Kaiser Permanente, a private health insurer no less, become our #8 biggest donor??? Very weird!! Worth looking into it! Mr. Sanders, come here please, look at this!!!"

And look, the billionaire's spouse donated... $470!!! They were able to spot that, but were totally oblivious to Kaiser Permanente becoming their #8 top donor???

Again, it stretches imagination.

The Sanders campaign was tipped off to the donation by Forbes; as mentioned previously if the media can root this out this singular individual donation, I have no reason to believe they couldn't do the same for a much more visible bundling program when it would be such an effective bludgeon against Sanders and a notable story besides.

The problem is again, how do you determine what to return? I mean maybe doing a periodic review of your top corporate sources might make sense to try and see if there's any coordinated bundling activity going on (though you generally don't have to search for it as a rule; bundlers generally _want_ you to know the money is coming from them as a bloc) and if so which donations stem from it, but beyond that it gets way too messy.

 

[GreatNews2night]

The Sanders campaign was tipped off to the donation by Forbes; as mentioned previously if the media can root this out this singular individual donation, I have no reason to believe they couldn't do the same for a much more visible bundling program when it would be such an effective bludgeon against Sanders and a notable story besides.

The problem is again, how do you determine what to return? I mean maybe doing a periodic review of your top corporate sources might make sense to try and see if there's any coordinated bundling activity going on (though you generally don't have to search for it as a rule; bundlers generally _want_ you to know the money is coming from them as a bloc) and if so which donations stem from it, but beyond that it gets way too messy.

You have a good point, if Forbes spotted the $470 donation by the billionaire's wife, it is conceivable that if the Kaiser Permanente donations were truly suspicious, they'd have looked them up too. This point does reassure me a little.

I still think, if the KP donation is a single big check (or two or three big ones), then it spells trouble. We'll never know, though. And yes, if the company is trying to donate to all campaigns to earn some sort of advantage, they certainly would have made sure that the candidates knew about the donations otherwise their good will leverage would be gone.