He won’t be nominated. A 77-year old Wall St. billionaire in an era of economic dissatisfaction and growing populism is not going to appeal to a left of center party.
3 Likes
Right, he won’t be the nominee. If he does throw his hat in the ring he will be gone by sometime in March at the latest.
Peter Beinart over at The Atlantic is noting how giddy the Warren camp is right now. Bloomberg’s desire to keep the nomination away from Warren is having the opposite effect, at least at this moment. I’m still trying to figure out who among Democratic primary voters would find Bloomberg appealing.
4 Likes
Biden supporters worried about Biden’s history of foot in mouth disease?
1 Like
Well Pete knows more about the Rust Belt than Bloomberg. And it would be nice to have a running mate who’s knowledgeable about the land and water issues in the West. Geographical diversity is important to me. The issues are different from the eastern metro areas. A lifetime in Manhattan doesn’t cut it for me at this point in time.
1 Like
So let me get this straight, is it your position that Mayor Pete, the 2 term mayor of south bend, somehow has more relevant experience than Bloomberg? There are an awful lot of things to like about Mayor Pete, but that argument just seems farcical to me. Being the mayor of NY is far more complicated than being the mayor of south bend, population 100k.
I have no argument about a well balanced ticket regardless of the Prez candidate, although I think a functional team is more important than regional considerations.
How many might that actually be? <1%? And they would more likely migrate to Pete, Amy or Corey.
1 Like
My point, as stated, is that Mayor Pete knows more about the Rust Belt than Mayor Bloomberg.
1 Like
Sounds like a purity test. He’s a moderate. We all get that. I want the best candidate to beat trump. That is all. If that’s Bloomberg, so be it.
If it’s warren, great. We can argue about who that might be but as far as moderate candidates go, I find Biden lacking and he seems to be the only viable moderate option currently.
1 Like
And? With all due respect, aside from concerns about winning rust belt states, why should we have outsized concern specifically about the rust belt vs. Any other region of the country.
I dont see how that’s particularly relevant in assessing the experience of a candidate.
Andy Borowitz’s take…
6 Likes
That’s a pretty low bar. If you never ask for more you will never get more…
2 Likes
…you’re worried that Bloomberg might be more appealing to the Dem primary voters than to the general electorate?
1 Like
Well, the general-election electorate, in all its wisdom, elected Donald Trump.
1 Like
While Hillary Clinton was only a 100-millionaire instead of a billionaire, and only 9 years younger at the time, her 2016 nomination certainly disproves your second sentence. And never underestimate the Democratic Party’s ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory…
At least enough in all the right states did. (And those were the rules that everyone agreed to before the election, and the rules by which Barack Obama won two EC landslides, so a big “whatever” to anyone who brings up the popular vote lament…)
1 Like
So you have no faith in the Democratic party prevailing in 2020. Moving on and as far away from your dystopia as I can. . .
What’s your problem? @zlj2011 wants the best candidate, to be named soon enough and it won’t be Bloomberg, to beat trump. This would be the ideal, but you think it’s a low bar.
“Purity test” appears to mean “having any standards whatsoever.”
Sorry, but would it be OK if I said “I refuse to vote for anybody who is openly a Nazi”? If you’re OK with that, you’re OK with “purity tests”.
There are just some that you allow and some you don’t.
Tell you what: find me a billionaire who earned his billions solely through hard work such that none of it derived from market manipulation, destroying smaller businesses, or pursuing monopolistic tactics, and I’ll consider it. Show me a billionaire who stood for the public vs. the hegemony of banking interests back in 2008 and, by golly, you’ll get my vote.
Problem is that all of these guys view the entire nation through the lens of prioritizing the financial markets first. And their way of thinking is why we have such wealth disparity and internecine strife in a nation that shouldn’t need to have any. Every single billionaire has more than 100 times as much money as they need to live comfortably for the rest of their lives without working. And they got their through the shared delusion that wealth is the best measure of success and value.
So, spare me your “purity test” drivel. Boo-hoo, I’'m discriminating against the ultra-rich. It’s OK, there are only 607 of them in the USA. But three of them are in our Presidential race!
Economically, Bloomberg isn’t a “moderate” to my eyes. Certainly that’s not how he’s lived his life. He’s a plutocrat. We don’t need any more plutocrats.
“I want the best candidate to beat trump.”
That’s certainly not Bloomberg. If you think it was hard holding back populism with Clinton vs. Trump, it would be absolutely impossible if Bloomberg were the nominee. Voter enthusiasm among Dems would crater horribly.
3 Likes
I’m not expert, but I don’t think those are syphilitic symptoms. If they were, we would’ve seen articles from shrinks pointing that out.
I’ll take any one of 'em over cheetoh benito
I don’t have a problem, just the realization that sometimes in order to win (and I don’t mean “win”, as in electing the Joe Manchins, Dan Lipinskis and Henry Cuellars of the world, who then go out of their way to screw us every chance they get) you not only have to fight the Republican’ts, you have to fight a few Democratic Party “leaders” too…
2 Likes