Big Magilla wrote
And lets be clear, as Sanders is fond of saying, these settlements were over disputes between people in Bloomberg's company, not because of Bloomberg's personal behavior. All the Trump NDAs have been about him personally.
Bloomberg 2020: Not all of his NDAs were about him.
The circular firing squad can only help Trump who should have been the focus of more discussion. Any one of these candidates would be a more humane president than what we have now but none of them are going to get anything major done with Mitch McConnell still in charge of the Senate.
Warren was way too strident. Sanders was even more dug in.
Buttigieg spent too much time picking on Klobuchar.
Biden was stronger than he's been in a while but didn't add anything new.
Bloomberg was not well-prepared. The NDA issue remains problematic but there are two sides to every story and simply releasing the women to have their say while either leaving the other party speechless or allowing both sides to air their dirty laundry in public may not be the best idea. My experience with these things is limited but from what I do know, the no. 1 reason corporations enter into these things is not to hide criminal behavior but to keep the amount of the payoff quiet so it doesn't affect future negotiations. And lets be clear, as Sanders is fond of saying, these settlements were over disputes between people in Bloomberg's company, not because of Bloomberg's personal behavior. All the Trump NDAs have been about him personally.
According to the talking heads post-debate, Bloomberg and Warren were engaged in a very cordial conversation during the break so how much of Warren's tirade was genuine concern and how much was political theatre?
With no perfect candidate, as of the moment, I'd be fairly comfortable with Bloomberg, Biden, Buttigieg or Klobuchar in that order, concerned with Warren and her purity tests and wary of Sanders' ability to get anything done.
The biggest takeaway from the Nevada debate, of which I have seen about the majority of online, is obviously the Bloomberg failure (who believes NDAs are really consensual?). For me, number two is I am very surprised at all this hostility between Amy Klobuchar and Pete Buttigieg.
The hits keep coming:
- In 2016, Mike Bloomberg referred to transpeople as "It" and "Men wearing dresses."
- He was listed on the flight manifests of Jeffrey Epstein's island.
- The number of sexual harassment & discrimination lawsuits are currently tallied at 40.
- Kissed an 11 year old girl on the cheek on stage and then said "I'm shameless." (whatever)
- A remarkable history of racist statements.
I don't really think this guy is viable. And yet...
According to RCP, he's about to overtake Biden in national polling. Within days probably, Bloomberg will be in second place!
Thirty days ago, he was at 7% national, just below Pete Buttigieg's 7.2%. Biden was at 28.4%, Sanders was at 20.4%, and Warren was 14.8%. Today, Bloomberg is at 15.8% vs. Biden's 16.5%. That means Bloomberg has risen 8% and Biden has dropped 10%. There's no getting around it. I have no doubt that there are more moderate Democrats who just want to beat Trump than progressive Democrats who want Medicare for All, but the moderate lane is just cannibalizing itself.
Regardless of his character, history and abilities, I'll say this: it's hard to imagine a scenario that better positions Bernie Sanders to win the nomination. Democrats would be better served by just going all in on Pete Buttigieg, Amy Klobuchar, or doubling down on Joe Biden. A Bloomberg candidacy might not overturn the will of the people but it couldn't look more like it. His slogan my as well be "I'm only able to do this because I'm rich." For many voters, a Bernie Sanders vs. Michael Bloomberg literally boils down to "What kind of democracy do we want?" I can't fathom a scenario where a majority says "Yeah, I want more billionaires buying their way in." And Bloomberg's personality makes Bernie Sanders look like Mr. Personality.
Big Magilla wrote:Bloomberg was a conservative Republican who became an independent, then a Democrat while Mayor of NYC. How much of the change was due to enlightenment and how much was due to self-preservation? We may never know.
Magilla, you’ve got it all wrong. According to Wikipedia:
”A lifelong Democrat before seeking elective office, Bloomberg switched his party registration in 2001 to run for mayor as a Republican.”
This reminds me so much of 2016 that it's scary and I don't mean that Bloomberg is another Trump. He's far from it.
What is scary are the talking heads on MSNBC and CNN and the print journalists in the NY Times and Washington Post and others, who for every bad thing that was brought to light about Trump they had to find something bad to say about Hillary to appear "balanced". Now, for every bad thing Trump and his cronies do, they have to find something negative to say about one of his Democratic opponents. "Biden is dull, he uses a typewriter instead of a computer. His surviving son is far from a saint." and so on. If people are looking for a perfect candidate they're not going to find one. The Bloomberg who was mayor of NYC for three terms is not the Bloomberg who supported every liberal cause there is out there once he left office. He's evolved as have most of the other candidates.
But go ahead. Get so turned off by all the Democrats that are running that come Election Day you stick your head under a pillow and refuse to get out of bed until the election is over. All that will do is get you four more years of Trump or worse, the rest of your life under the far right society that Trump and McConnell have wrought.
Big Magilla wrote
He is not someone I ever thought I would support for President but I don't just want Trump to lose - I want him and all his sycophants in congress to lose big. Bloomberg is someone who can pull in independents and moderate Republicans better than any of the others running. Whether he does it by running himself or by putting his money behind someone else I don't care, but as the saying goers, "don't look a gift horse in the mouth."
I am skeptical of this reasoning because going after independents and moderate Republicans was part of Hillary Clinton's failed strategy in 2016 but let's put that aside from a minute...
Instead of looking at types of voters, look at the electoral map and regional appeal. Michael Bloomberg's only advantage is I could see him maybe taking Arizona and Florida but he does not appeal to Midwesterners or the Rust Belt at all. He is a cold institutionalist with bizarre authoritarian instincts. He's pretty much the only candidate I could imagine that would allow Trump to run the same successful populist 2016 campaign. Even if disappointed progressives don't stay home, Bloomberg's path to victory is such an uphill battle and it's so weird to me that more people don't see this.
As someone posted recently on Facebook. Michael Bloomberg would be the end of the Democratic Party as it would drive away every one of Sanders and Warren's supporters and possibly even a few more to the left. Bloomberg is the antithesis of what the Democratic Party is wanting to stand for. He's not a guy who pulled himself up by his bootstraps. Every one of the other nominees are. Most of them are self-made. Defeating Trump cannot come with the utter abandonment of our principles.
No, being uber-wealthy doesn't have to mean a disconnect between being for the people, but Bloomberg's gilded life means he doesn't actually know shit about how the other half lives. That is, essentially, what has been Trump's problem. Trump is so disconnected from the life of regular people and has spent so long as a snake-oil salesman that he knows how to hoodwink desperate people. Bloomberg has done the same thing. He's the exact opposite side of the same coin.
I may not want Biden as president or Sanders, but holy shit do they know more about what it's like to have been on the lower rungs of the economic ladders than any of these billionaires running. Biden has been too far removed for too long, but I think he's much more a man of the people than Bloomberg can ever be. We don't need to go from one disconnected "billionaire" to another.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
Bloomberg was a conservative Republican who became an independent, then a Democrat while Mayor of NYC. How much of the change was due to enlightenment and how much was due to self-preservation? We may never know.
He is not someone I ever thought I would support for President but I don't just want Trump to lose - I want him and all his sycophants in congress to lose big. Bloomberg is someone who can pull in independents and moderate Republicans better than any of the others running. Whether he does it by running himself or by putting his money behind someone else I don't care, but as the saying goers, "don't look a gift horse in the mouth."
Big Magilla wrote:They all have ties to Wall St. You don't think they keep their millions under their mattresses, do you?
That’s a good question, Magilla. How DID the other candidates make their billions-oops-I-mean-millions (because Bloomberg’s the only one with the billions)? Sanders only cracked the million dollar mark a couple of years ago, through book sales. Warren made 2 million as a consultant to financial firms, that is true. It took her over 30 fuckin’ YEARS to make that much. I doubt anyone here has a problem with a couple of million dollars acquired in this fashion. Really, there is a difference.
