That is not dead which can eternal lie, and with strange aeons bring us some web forums whereupon we can gather
http://garbi.online/forum/
I haven't seen any indications that he plans to do a third-party run, although his Democratic run is probably doomed (though he's polling better than I had expected).malchior wrote: Tue Jan 07, 2020 5:08 pm Allegedly Bloomberg is dropping $10M on a superb owl ad. I fear that he is in it to win it...for Trump by going 3rd party.
He is not anywhere close to winning a primary or a caucus. The first is about a month away. That is what I meant by meaningful traction. He needs to at least place third on one probably to remain viable. Scratch that...he can scrape by for awhile because he is his own bank but he needs to improve dramatically in the next two months.El Guapo wrote: Tue Jan 07, 2020 5:20 pm (1) It is (to my surprise) not true that Bloomberg is getting no meaningful traction. He's polling in fifth place in a crowded field, at around 5.5%, ahead of Yang, Klobuchar, Booker, and Steyer.
True. He could throw in the towel mid-Feb. I've got that tickle again though. We live in an age of megalomaniacs acting because nothing hurts them. Not only isnt it a lot of money but if Trump wins...well he is still filthy rich. No skin off his back.(2) It is not a lot of money to him
Fair but if he changed his mind it wouldn't shock me because of...above.(3) He pretty strongly denounced third party spoiler candidates early in the year and said that he wouldn't do that, in the context of attacking Shultz for his (since ended) third party run. Could he change his mind later? Sure. I don't see any particular reason to see that as likely, though. Contrast that with Gabbard who has pretty explicitly flirted with the concept.
Right. He and Williamson both running for President out of their houses or something.(4) I can't believe that Bennet is still technically in the race.
As I understand it Bloomberg's strategy is to skip IA and NH (where he has no shot anyway) and gear himself towards the more populous / Super Tuesday states. Since he's not competing in IA / NH he sets media expectations there to essentially zero. He doesn't have to worry about being forced to drop out after those states, and can generate a "hear comes Bloomberg!" media buzz if he does well after that point. Seems unlikely to win, but 5.5% is way better than I expected for him at this point, so who knows.malchior wrote: Tue Jan 07, 2020 5:31 pmHe is not anywhere close to winning a primary or a caucus. The first is about a month away. That is what I meant by meaningful traction. He needs to at least place third on one probably to remain viable. Scratch that...he can scrape by for awhile because he is his own bank but he needs to improve dramatically in the next two months.El Guapo wrote: Tue Jan 07, 2020 5:20 pm (1) It is (to my surprise) not true that Bloomberg is getting no meaningful traction. He's polling in fifth place in a crowded field, at around 5.5%, ahead of Yang, Klobuchar, Booker, and Steyer.
True. He could throw in the towel mid-Feb. I've got that tickle again though. We live in an age of megalomaniacs acting because nothing hurts them. Not only isnt it a lot of money but if Trump wins...well he is still filthy rich. No skin off his back.(2) It is not a lot of money to him
Fair but if he changed his mind it wouldn't shock me because of...above.(3) He pretty strongly denounced third party spoiler candidates early in the year and said that he wouldn't do that, in the context of attacking Shultz for his (since ended) third party run. Could he change his mind later? Sure. I don't see any particular reason to see that as likely, though. Contrast that with Gabbard who has pretty explicitly flirted with the concept.
That said I wouldn't call it likely yet...
Right. He and Williamson both running for President out of their houses or something.(4) I can't believe that Bennet is still technically in the race.
Biden - 2 in 5 (42%)
Sanders - 1 in 5 (22%)
No one (e.g., brokered convention) - 1 in 8 (13%)
Warren - 1 in 9 (12%)
Buttigieg - 1 in 10 (9%)
All others - 1 in 50 (2%)
She's third nationally, and close to second.YellowKing wrote: Thu Jan 09, 2020 9:02 pm It's amazing how far Warren's stock has fallen. Peaked too early? And her healthcare plan didn't help matters. She has never recovered from that.
I do!
If you view that as progressives vs. conservatives, it's tied. And since a third of Dems still support none of the above, it's hard to say which way it will go. As of several weeks ago Warren polled as most people's #2 choice; if that's still true, she might capture a good share of that rogue third.Holman wrote: Thu Jan 09, 2020 9:54 pm
Right now the race is:
26.6% Biden
18.1% Sanders
15.4% Warren
7.1% Buttigieg
It seems like there are two lanes: Biden/Buttigieg centrists and Sanders/Warren progressives.
Well, there are reasons why two of those have already dropped out.hitbyambulance wrote: Thu Jan 09, 2020 11:48 pm i would have thought any of Harris/Booker/Castro would at least be in fourth place
Likely this. (I think he has a shot, but is one of the weaker candidates because he would be very vulnerable to attacks)noxiousdog wrote: Mon Jan 13, 2020 10:49 am I understand he's currently running second, but if Sanders gets the nomination Trump gets four more years. There's no way enough moderates are voting for a self-avowed socialist.
I would replace that with Gabbard (I've got a few basic standards in order to vote for someone, and it's not clear to me that Gabbard meets those low standards). I would vote for Sanders without hesitating - solely because of Trump - but I'd be voting against him down ballot. Him as leader of the party would also make me not feel welcome in the Democratic party.Sanders is the only democratic candidate I'd have to think twice voting for even though I'd still do it. But if I'm that much on the fence, forget about pulling anybody to the right of me.
Yes, it's pure us vs. them, which the other side has been practicing since Obama. Should the Democrats forget about an ever-receding "we" and play the same game? Go bold, or go boring? I personally prefer bold, but I can't tell you confidently that it's the winning move.pr0ner wrote: Mon Jan 13, 2020 11:12 am I do think a Sanders nomination would be more evidence that tribal politics will remain the norm for the foreseeable future in the US.
Dead-end purity?noxiousdog wrote: Mon Jan 13, 2020 11:44 am Is there any compelling reason to prefer Sanders to Warren?
That's from 7 months ago, so who knows.“If you believe in capitalism and you believe it has gone a little off the rails in the last generation, but it remains the best system to maintain economic growth and democracy, then Warren is the better candidate for you.”
“Or do you believe that capitalism is inherently unjust, inherently unstable?” Then Sanders is the right fit, Berman said
You always have to apply the 'American' filter here where anything up to and including any support for unions is hardline socialist of the communist bent. Instead, Bernie is more like true liberal by European standards whereas Warren would be a market liberal. Is he a socialist? Yes. In the sense that he thinks the government should address the imbalance between labor and capital here and promote general welfare more. But you'd think by people's reaction to Bernie that he was ready to raise the hammer & sickle here. It is pretty ridiculous.Smoove_B wrote: Mon Jan 13, 2020 12:12 pm Is it a matter of tactics? Sanders wants revolution, Warren advocates policy update/changes?
Vox suggests:
That's from 7 months ago, so who knows.“If you believe in capitalism and you believe it has gone a little off the rails in the last generation, but it remains the best system to maintain economic growth and democracy, then Warren is the better candidate for you.”
“Or do you believe that capitalism is inherently unjust, inherently unstable?” Then Sanders is the right fit, Berman said
I mean, the key thing is that Sander is a socialist in the sense that he himself defines himself as a socialist. There's a world of difference politically between a situation where Republicans are like "the Democratic candidate is a socialist!" and the candidate is like "I just want everyone in this country to have money and opportunity" and a situation where Republicans say that and the Democratic candidate is like "Yes I am."malchior wrote: Mon Jan 13, 2020 2:06 pmYou always have to apply the 'American' filter here where anything up to and including any support for unions is hardline socialist of the communist bent. Instead, Bernie is more like true liberal by European standards whereas Warren would be a market liberal. Is he a socialist? Yes. In the sense that he thinks the government should address the imbalance between labor and capital here and promote general welfare more. But you'd think by people's reaction to Bernie that they are ready to raise the hammer & sickle here. It is pretty ridiculous.Smoove_B wrote: Mon Jan 13, 2020 12:12 pm Is it a matter of tactics? Sanders wants revolution, Warren advocates policy update/changes?
Vox suggests:
That's from 7 months ago, so who knows.“If you believe in capitalism and you believe it has gone a little off the rails in the last generation, but it remains the best system to maintain economic growth and democracy, then Warren is the better candidate for you.”
“Or do you believe that capitalism is inherently unjust, inherently unstable?” Then Sanders is the right fit, Berman said
She is the candidate of the elite (says Bernie).noxiousdog wrote: Mon Jan 13, 2020 11:44 am Is there any compelling reason to prefer Sanders to Warren?
More of the script at the link.The script instructs Sanders volunteers to tell voters leaning toward the Massachusetts senator that the “people who support her are highly-educated, more affluent people who are going to show up and vote Democratic no matter what” and that “she's bringing no new bases into the Democratic Party.”
“I like Elizabeth Warren. [optional]” the script begins. “In fact, she’s my second choice. But here’s my concern about her.” It then pivots to the criticisms of Warren.
Sanders is running a campaign of enthusiasm. He's trying to get traditional non-voters to participate (independents & young voters). He's not going for moderate voters per se.noxiousdog wrote: Mon Jan 13, 2020 10:49 am 538 has released their primary model, and it's terrifying to me.
I understand he's currently running second, but if Sanders gets the nomination Trump gets four more years. There's no way enough moderates are voting for a self-avowed socialist. Sanders is the only democratic candidate I'd have to think twice voting for even though I'd still do it. But if I'm that much on the fence, forget about pulling anybody to the right of me.
He'll want someone who:Paingod wrote: Mon Jan 13, 2020 3:51 pm If it's Biden, who's his second? I don't see Sanders accepting second-fiddle to anyone.
I'm not sure I agree with that, but this isn't Europe.Lagom Lite wrote: Mon Jan 13, 2020 3:44 pm I suppose I don't fully understand why he's such a controversial candidate. By European standards, he's a centrist!