Author Topic: US Elections 2020 II - Bernie Topwin: "We'll see this trashcan dream come true"  (Read 109156 times)

Urinal Cake

  • -0/-0
In that vein https://twitter.com/i/status/1228068429749460993
Just the apathy, 'Oh one of these makes a stand guys again'

Bloomberg's main message seems to be that he can stop Trump because he has some psychological edge on him. Either because he's a proper billionaire, knows how to hurt Trump because of their personal history, Trump's attack can't hurt him etc.


Paul Calf

  • LOTION MAN
  • Golden Member
  • *****
  • I barely have words for this bullshit.
That analogy would only really hold if the scientists actually thought the magicians were magical, which they don't, in most cases

No. The point is that even the most brilliant scientists are often unable to explain how a trick was pulled off, or to detect cheating and dishonesty.

Start a James Randi thread if you're that bothered.

mojo filters

  • Self-impeacher
Bloomberg's main message seems to be that he can stop Trump because he has some psychological edge on him. Either because he's a proper billionaire, knows how to hurt Trump Beca se of their personal history, Trump's attack can't hurt him etc.

Those are all good starting points for a presidential candidacy right now. However Bloomberg needs the capacity to personally and effectively message all of those, plus all the rest required for a national campaign.

Sadly for him, current showings indicate he sees little reason to deviate from his previous haughty, arrogant and defensive political postures.

Pulling his senior campaign advisors from previous and current subordinates -- potentially prone to sycophancy -- suggest that his obvious talents do not necessarily extend to the political strategy needed to meet the moment.

Urinal Cake

  • -0/-0
The interesting thing is that Bloomberg just encapsulates and exaggerates all the other candidates worst points. Biden with women/girls. Buttigieg with black people. Klobuchar with employees. Warren and being a Republican who found regulations and  wokeness. But since this hasn't really stopped the media or white support before it's not a step too far to support Bloomberg.

But unlike them I don't know maybe he really doesn't care because he has fuck off money. Like he's the Dems big bad to get rid of the GOP's big bad.

Like he's the Dems big bad to get rid of the GOP's big bad.

The Dems may very well be stupid enough to think this, but Donald Trump's appeal is not that he purchases votes.

Bloomberg appeals to almost nobody and his sole selling point is that he has a shitload of money to spend on the election. That might give him some traction in the primary, but it has a 0% chance of succeeding against an incumbent President, much less an incumbent President who is skilled at dominating the airwaves for free.

mojo filters

  • Self-impeacher
The Dems may very well be stupid enough to think this, but Donald Trump's appeal is not that he purchases votes.

The dems will benefit from Bloomberg's money if he keeps his promises, regardless of how badly he tanks when exposed to a sceptical and thorough national media scrub.

I don't see a downside, when winning back even a non-filibuster proof Senate, is as strategically important for democrats as beating Trump.

Trump purchases votes, just not with money. He presents a quasi-respectable opportunity for insecure white folks to buy into their bitter grievance predilections, via the ballot box.

Never before has a viable candidate offered these people the chance to invest their stake in democracy, with stocks and shares in the vitriolic bile of Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and so forth.

Amongst his base, Trump is selling to folks who don't recognise the oxymoronic notions of stupid people who don't want the government interfering with their Medicare / Medicaid / Social Security and all that incomprehensible jazz.

You can't put a price on the votes of pissed off people with absurd grievances to be exploited. Trump rally crowds chant build the wall just as loud in Wisconsin and Michigan, as they do in southern border states.

Urinal Cake

  • -0/-0
It's all in the context of Sanders and Trump.

Bloomberg has an uphill battle against Sanders. I imagine Bloomberg just wants to consolidate all the moderate votes asap after ST. Like I said before it doesn't seem to be a step too far for voters to switch.  If he loses to Sanders  think there's a good chance he'll run third party.

In the context of Trump the DNC looks at Trump's reelection fund and is scared shitless. Most of them probably have conveniently forgotten how much Clinton out spent Trump by and still lost. Those who do remember those facts think that Bloomberg probably knows how to spend his own money better than Clinton spends other people's money- which is true. Also the flood of money Bloomberg brings in helps pumps their own wallets.

The DNC is really hoping that there a lot of any 'anybody except Trump' voters that will turn out. But even if they lose to Trump they haven't lost control of the party and the money to Sanders.

chveik

  • I feel like swimmin' in rat piss
The dems will benefit from Bloomberg's money if he keeps his promises, regardless of how badly he tanks when exposed to a sceptical and thorough national media scrub.

lol

mojo filters

  • Self-impeacher
I agree that democrats see Bloomberg's money as a key factor in beating the generously funded Trump/RNC re-election engine room, run by Brad Parscale on the 14th floor of a modern office block in Rosslyn.

Bloomberg may not radiate sincerity, but I honestly don't think he's quite so self-absorbed as to consider running third party. He's flawed, but he got where he is running businesses and campaigns via narrowly driven use of data. A third party candidacy makes no sense in this cycle.

Bloomberg will fail as long as he advocates for fiscally conservative and socially liberal policies. They might have helped the likes of James Carville keep Bill Clinton popular, as he balanced budgets, whilst facing the post-1994 Gingrich House win and subsequent partisan flawed impeachment.

Trump has lucked into cultivation of non-conservative policies, that no previous republican offered.

Remember the manifesto of "compassionate conservatism" a pre-9/11 Bush 43 offered? Not many do.

The post-Tea Party republican base has ironically enabled the worst instincts of the worst Americans - liberal spending to keep their Social Security and military industrial complex excesses, whilst indulging the inherent cultural conservative tendencies exacerbated by such abominable policies as legal access to abortion and gay marriage.

Mister Six

  • Golden Member
  • *****
  • Ridiculously teacakes

mojo filters

  • Self-impeacher
lol

Bloomberg hasn't even faced a national election, nor a primary debate so far. It hasn't stopped the bad press emerging and being presented every hour, on all three cable news networks.

The only folks unable to scrutinise Bloomberg are the poor staff he's effectively emasculated, working at his own media channels.

He may not like being held to account, but throughout and after his 12 year mayoral term - Bloomberg gave a lot of speeches, about many subjects, in many places. His political work, philanthropy and arrogance are effectively interchangeable.

There's no value in dumping large volumes of questionable material at once. Bloomberg's problematic prior statements will inevitably trickle out.

Once he actually enters the primary election cycle, his competitors will have plenty to hit him hard with. Bloomberg has previously been cocooned in his bubble of moneyed privilege, protected by employing sycophantic aides in key positions - both in government and his businesses.

The most cynical counter to a cheap lol is simply how much low hanging fruit exists, to attack Bloomberg from every angle. He might have prevented his own empire from scrutinising his presidential candidacy, but that cowardly tactic was not well received.

There are plenty of ex-Bloomberg staffers who've progressed to more prominent media outlets. I can count on one finger one ex-Bloomberg anchor who's been unnecessarily sympathetic, so far - and she just lost out in a cable channel's weekday schedule reshuffle.

I have no problem with legitimate attacks on properly-resourced media outlets, when any such failings are apparent. If folks want to criticise, evidence is your best weapon - otherwise you just look like a mirror image of some cranky alt-right cunt.

Personally I don't think that's a good look, especially in these polarised times when the White House and enablers tell overt lies with apparent impunity. YMMV...

https://twitter.com/blakezeff/status/1227976156936171520

A pretty detailed (for twitter) breakdown on the power of Bloomberg.

Urinal Cake

  • -0/-0
Bloomberg may not radiate sincerity, but I honestly don't think he's quite so self-absorbed as to consider running third party. He's flawed, but he got where he is running businesses and campaigns via narrowly driven use of data. A third party candidacy makes no sense in this cycle.

Bloomberg will fail as long as he advocates for fiscally conservative and socially liberal policies. They might have helped the likes of James Carville keep Bill Clinton popular, as he balanced budgets, whilst facing the post-1994 Gingrich House win and subsequent partisan flawed impeachment.
Third party candidacy makes no sense to stop Trump. It makes some sense to stop Sanders. I don't know enough about Bloomberg's mayoral campaigns to really understand his character but from what I know he just seems like an egoist and opportunist. He originally was a democrat but switched to be a Republican to become mayor of NY riding on Guiliani's coattails. Than he became an Independent and won twice after he changed the rules to stop 2 term limits. Now he's a Democrat for the Presidency. Apparently he's had aspirations to be president since 2012 so if he's already got the national machine why not just become Independent again and go the whole way? It's his last shot.

Bloomberg policy wise seems to be offering a national $15 per hour minimum wage (after his $10 is too much people should rightly question on whether he would pull through) and a lot of 'nice' things like Biden, Buttigieg and Klobuchar etc. To a lot of people it's good enough compared to Trump. To his business people he would undoubtedly be free trade which means he'd have their support compared to Trump as well.


Quote
Trump has lucked into cultivation of non-conservative policies, that no previous republican offered.

Remember the manifesto of "compassionate conservatism" a pre-9/11 Bush 43 offered? Not many do.

The post-Tea Party republican base has ironically enabled the worst instincts of the worst Americans - liberal spending to keep their Social Security and military industrial complex excesses, whilst indulging the inherent cultural conservative tendencies exacerbated by such abominable policies as legal access to abortion and gay marriage.
Trump promised a lot of things. The things he delivered on was tax-cuts, 'better' trade deals, cutting red tape for business and immigration. Trump in his own way has balanced the conservative base (immigration, some trade) and the liberal corporate end (tax cuts, red tape, some trade).   
I'd say limiting legal access to abortion is due more to the efforts of States rather than Trump. What Trump is carroting is switching the Supreme Court conservative so they can overturn Roe v Wade. And gay marriage.


Dewt

  • ゴーリー! ゴースト!
$$$

Fucking hate centrists

I can’t help but worry when I think about the upcoming Las Vegas debate. Hosted by “Bernie Bros are brownshirts and he isn’t a frontrunner” Chuck Todd. The only thing giving me hope is that the previous debates hosted by your MSNBC and CNNs haven’t done any damage, and in fact people seem to be seeing through it. We’re going to see all the questions being framed as Bernie being in the wrong again, and I guarantee they’ll force him to condemn the “bros”

Urinal Cake

  • -0/-0
Frankly in the Nevada debate, anybody who doesn't attack Bloomberg has already handed in their resume for a position in a Bloomberg government.

PlanktonSideburns

  • putting the 'rimmage' back in pilgrimage

Frankly in the Nevada debate, anybody who doesn't attack Bloomberg has already handed in their resume for a position in a Bloomberg government.

I just don’t think they’ll be given a chance to, with questions slanted extremely favourably to bloomberg (if he’s even there, I don’t really understand if he is or not).

Urinal Cake

  • -0/-0
It's still up in the air. I think in the last debate Warren referred to billionaires buying elections. If he's not there there should be a question if he should be allowed to debate even if he hasn't met the threshold etc.

Moderators are anti-Sanders but usually don't  play favourites. Unless it's a straight Bloomberg vs Sanders issue it should be okay. Favourism is usually reserved for post debate analysis.

FerriswheelBueller

  • CaB rear of the year 2020
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Take it easy, but take it.
    • I am antsy for baseball in the off-season.
Surely no one in their right minds has become so politically bereft they hanker for Bloomberg 2020.

Surely. Please, god.

QDRPHNC

  • Golden Member
  • *****
  • "A soupçon of pizzazz."
Anyone who doesn't want Bernie Sanders to be president is a fucking wanker.

Urinal Cake

  • -0/-0
Poll numbers with POC? https://twitter.com/PpollingNumbers/status/1228044398962839555
Sanders has Bloomberg handily beat but Bloomberg is beating Warren and Steyer. Also  Biden still hanging on.

Kyle Kulinski on Elizabeth Warren, the Culinary Union, and Medicare For All: "Desperate Elizabeth Warren Tries To Take Bernie Down With Her"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zTNdtfGIvs

If (and I am saying if) it does come down to Bloomberg and Trump; the only way I could see Bloomberg win is if he literally buys votes, by the millions of voters. Not in his election promises but giving cold hard cash for people voting for him.

Bill Maher fanboys and the likes seem to be jizzing thinking MB will be so able to wind up Trump and tear him down. Can't see it. On a debate stage, Trump would just run rings around him and even if you despise him; Trump has so much more charisma and a way to relate to voters.

Many of the areas that the Democrats have tried to attack Trump on racism, sexual harrassment will be negated. While have some political experience: Bloomberg looks far more like buying an election than Trump ever did. And one of the major concerns I hear so many of the left worrying about is Trump trying to manipulate term limits and not accept when he constitutionally have to step down. Well Mr Bloomberg has been a prime example of someone saying one law for me and one for the plebs.

Shoulders?-Stomach!

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Mr Moose is up! It's done done done!
    • http://jackanderton.jamendo.net/
Agreed, it's an 'if you can't beat them, join them' tactic which is never going to work. Didn't work last time when they chose a mega rich establishment piece of grotesquely unlikable shit.

The whole point is that many ordinary people are in Trump's thrall as they see him as an outsider. Even as President he has behaved in a manner that supports that public image as an outsider kicking against the pricks.

Choosing the most obvious establishment candidate once again to run against him is like serving up victory on a plate.

Sanders is doomed to lose as the centrists simply won't allow even the faintest flicker of a possibility of a widening of the political possibilities in America to the left (they don't seem to mind it when the right do it all the time). However at least you're putting Trump up against a guy who clearly obviously is an outsider and makes Trump look what he actually is, a rich bully who is the puppet while thinking he is the master.

Many of the areas that the Democrats have tried to attack Trump on racism, sexual harrassment will be negated

Exactly, if Bloomberg is the nominee Democrats will have to admit that they would have voted for Trump if he had a D next to his name.

Bloomberg looks far more like buying an election than Trump ever did.
Trump didn't have to buy anything, the media gave him levels of airtime and prominence that Bloomberg would have to, and seemingly will pay billions for.

Must say, I'm loving how much this exposes bullshit about billionaires not actually having access to their swathes of cash.

Dex Sawash

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Upphängningspunkterna
Perfect name

Esquire's political blogger verbified his name and refers to any centrist both-siderism as Chuck Todding.
I laugh.

Tags: