Bloomberg for President?

Skeptic Ginger said:
We are following two different strands of reality here.

We were discussing Bernie's contributions to the Democrats and you said he campaigned for Clinton. I thought you were being sarcastic because IMO, he only put in a half-assed effort.
Click to expand...

He was a ball of fire for Clinton compared to how she acted towards Obama.

All this after his complaints of being unfairly treated by the DNC were met with "you aren't in the party, go eff yourself."

So, nah.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Let's keep the issues in their columns. The discussion was about Sanders switching back and forth between Independent and Democratic Parties, and you can throw in Sanders getting mad that he didn't get the support from the DNC he felt as a Democratic Party candidate he was owed.

Do you see Bloomberg complaining the DNC isn't supporting him?

Back to who has done what. Bloomberg is getting a lot of flak tonight for all the Republicans he supported in the past.

NYT:


So the answer is, yes, Bloomberg has supported Democratic candidates. I'm not sure Sanders ever did contribute (time and support, not cash) to any Democratic candidates.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah, he supported George W Bush for his... oh wait, no, he's the other one isn't he?
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Sanders only reluctantly campaigned for Clinton. It took him a while to get over his sour grapes.
Click to expand...


Sanders was holding rallies for Clinton across the country while she was disappearing for days at a time or holding private meetings with big donors (like H. Weinstein).
Since conceding defeat in the primaries, Sanders has been one of the real champions of this campaign. He let his supporters yell at him and deride him as a sellout in bleak delegate breakfasts at the Democratic National Convention, in Philadelphia, as he endorsed Clinton and explained why they needed to do the same. He made getting support for her his priority, putting aside any subtle, undermining gestures that might have better preserved his rebel-rock-star status.
Click to expand...
https://www.newyorker.com/news/amy-davidson/bernie-sanderss-hard-fight-for-hillary-clinton

And Clinton still hasn't gotten over her sour grapes.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/21/us/politics/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders.html

Clinton has never accepted responsibility for running an incompetent campaign that took her fans for granted and disparaged voters whose support she needed.
 
Bloomberg? Hindenberg, more like...



Also, on the debate stage he looked terrible in the clips I saw. Mumbling and stumbling all over his words. No, I haven't watched the whole debate, and few people will.
 
I can't help but notice the irony: The candidate (Bloomberg) is donating to key influential legislators here rather than the big money going to influence the candidate.

Bloomberg isn't taking any donations from people trying to influence him. That's at least worth a second look.

I think at a minimum Bloomberg can beat Trump, no question.

I might prefer another candidate, but beating Trump trumps other reasons to pick a candidate.

I am not supporting Bloomberg at the moment so I don't need a bunch of arguments why he's more Republican than Progressive. I'm pretty sure he is. But I'm still not convinced Sanders is the safe choice.
 
I don't know anymore if Bloomberg can beat Trump: Bloomberg's stoicism in confrontations can be seen as Presidential, or it might be seen as passive and detached.
 
angrysoba said:
I think he's toast. Very expensive toast. Not just avocado toast, but avocado and pheasant toast, monogrammed M.B. with gold sprinkles.
Click to expand...

And this is why I kept telling people who claimed that he was trying to buy the election that it didn't matter how many billions you spend on advertising. If people don't like you or your policies, they aren't going to vote for you.
 
Bloomberg is a wolf in sheep's clothing. He is a part of the problem that you guys need to solve in november: Rich people getting richer and poor people getting poorer.
 
PhantomWolf said:
And this is why I kept telling people who claimed that he was trying to buy the election that it didn't matter how many billions you spend on advertising. If people don't like you or your policies, they aren't going to vote for you.
Click to expand...


Better odds than having ideas everyone likes but not having a few billion to lay out on testing the idea.
 
3point14 said:
Better odds than having ideas everyone likes but not having a few billion to lay out on testing the idea.
Click to expand...

Depends if you are talking having no money at all so that you can't get the idea out at all, in which case even someone with a few thousand dollars to spend has better odds, so that argument is pointless, or if you mean more than someone that had a few hundred thousand to throw about, at with point it all depends on how efficient you use it to build up your name recognition.

Once you get to the millions vs billions stage of US Politics, then it doesn't really make a lot of difference because you can get your message and name out out either way, and then it comes down to likability and policies.
 
PhantomWolf said:
Depends if you are talking having no money at all so that you can't get the idea out at all, in which case even someone with a few thousand dollars to spend has better odds, so that argument is pointless, or if you mean more than someone that had a few hundred thousand to throw about, at with point it all depends on how efficient you use it to build up your name recognition.

Once you get to the millions vs billions stage of US Politics, then it doesn't really make a lot of difference because you can get your message and name out out either way, and then it comes down to likability and policies.
Click to expand...

I'd like it to be down to likability and policies without the required wealth check first.
 
Suddenly said:
Who cares how much you can get done if your ideas are garbage?

If Bloomberg wants to put his wealth in a blind charitable trust and sign on to be chief of staff for whoever wins, then his point makes more sense. A president isn't the manager. He's the guy that hires managers.
Click to expand...
Like Trump?

Sorry, semantics I guess, hiring managers is a function of management IMO
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom