QMany Posted February 12, 2020 Share Posted February 12, 2020 I could not care less about a few bad apples booing; the race has been pretty clean to-date. We're not talking about Trump antics or his KKKampaign supporters here. All that matters is that everyone turns out to vote for the eventual nominee. 3 Link to comment
TGHusker Posted February 12, 2020 Author Share Posted February 12, 2020 29 minutes ago, knapplc said: Speaking of Bloomberg and his money: Funny that Bloomberg is entirely self-funded. Remember when Trump had to sell hats to fund his campaign? Weird that a billionaire would have to do that. That is why his tax records have never seen the light of day. It will probably show he really isn't a billionaire - just a cheap con artist pretending to being a billionaire. But you do bring up an important point. With all of our past discussion on Citizens United, it seems that the Billionaires in our midst have found a safe way to get beyond any restrictions on campaign financing - self funding. We already have seen that self funding (or selling MAGA Hats) hasn't provided the best kind of candidate --but all of that money (mix in a little Russian influence and some easily persuaded, low info voters) and we end up wt dufus in Chief in the WH. Bloomberg is most assuredly better qualified, has more valid experience, and is a self made billionaire who could in the end be effective in the WH. However the weight of his money may project him beyond other candidates who may be more qualified. Lots of money doesn't = the most qualified candidate. By qualified I mean the type of person (from a personality perspective - the intangibles ) , experience and policy proposals that we need right now. 37 minutes ago, QMany said: I could not care less about a few bad apples booing; the race has been pretty clean to-date. We're not talking about Trump antics or his KKKampaign supporters here. All that matters is that everyone turns out to vote for the eventual nominee. Link to comment
knapplc Posted February 12, 2020 Share Posted February 12, 2020 15 minutes ago, TGHusker said: Bloomberg is most assuredly better qualified, has more valid experience, and is a self made billionaire who could in the end be effective in the WH. You're right - but Bloomberg is only preferable to Trump, and frankly I want all billionaires out of public office. I suspect all of them of self-dealing, Bloomberg as well. 2 Link to comment
Moiraine Posted February 12, 2020 Share Posted February 12, 2020 I’m concerned Bloomberg will run even if he doesn’t win the nomination. Link to comment
TGHusker Posted February 12, 2020 Author Share Posted February 12, 2020 44 minutes ago, knapplc said: You're right - but Bloomberg is only preferable to Trump, and frankly I want all billionaires out of public office. I suspect all of them of self-dealing, Bloomberg as well. agree. I would much rather see someone earn it via proving themselves via the meat grinder of the primary season vs buying it. Some of the current crop of candidates have long, thought out policy positions that have been tested in the public court yard of the primaries and pre-primaries. These policies positions are as if not more important than the candidate themselves as these policies will outlive their term in office. Elizabeth, Amy and Bernie specifically have paid their dues in that regard. Biden is riding on Obama's record and Pete still has a lot of development which is needed on his proposals IMHO. He speaks a lot of nice sounding words but not as much depth that I would like to see - reflective of his experience. 25 minutes ago, Moiraine said: I’m concerned Bloomberg will run even if he doesn’t win the nomination. hope not - thinking that may hurt Dems?? Link to comment
BIGREDIOWAN Posted February 12, 2020 Share Posted February 12, 2020 26 minutes ago, Moiraine said: I’m concerned Bloomberg will run even if he doesn’t win the nomination. That's worse case scenario for dems. It'll pull enough votes away from the democratic nominee that no matter who would possibly run as the independent Trump wins. Link to comment
teachercd Posted February 12, 2020 Share Posted February 12, 2020 I don't think it will be a problem. The democratic voters are all so smart that they will realize that they need to come together and vote for just one or the other. Link to comment
Danny Bateman Posted February 12, 2020 Share Posted February 12, 2020 IIRC Bloomberg has said he would support the eventually nominee. It would obviously be hardest for him to stomach Sanders but even having his tremendous wealth going towards a continual stream of anti-Trump ads rather than pro-Bernie ones would be a very helpful asset. He could probably throw some money at downballot races too, trying to maintain the House as well as work to narrow the margin in the Senate. Lukewarm take: If Sanders is the nominee the GOP will retain the Senate and we'll need every one of Bloomberg's dollars to stay competitive and maybe try to gain a seat or two. Agree? Link to comment
Notre Dame Joe Posted February 12, 2020 Share Posted February 12, 2020 4 hours ago, TGHusker said: If enough GOPers pull away from Trump - he won't win those close states he won in 2016. Weld's voters reveal a crack in the trump support. Bill Weld and Mitt Romney. Once in a while Taxachussetts gets so stuck they have to bring in an R to clean it. As a byproduct they get too big for their britches. Say is Deval Partick in the race? 1 Link to comment
TGHusker Posted February 12, 2020 Author Share Posted February 12, 2020 3 minutes ago, Notre Dame Joe said: Bill Weld and Mitt Romney. Once in a while Taxachussetts gets so stuck they have to bring in an R to clean it. As a byproduct they get too big for their britches. Say is Deval Partick in the race? Maybe there is some good old common sense wt those guys - since they can see through trump's nonsense. Romney should have won in 2012 esp after that first debate. If he had, I think he would have been a very good president and we wouldn't have the great divide we have now in this country. 1 Link to comment
TGHusker Posted February 12, 2020 Author Share Posted February 12, 2020 Well billionaire big money doesn't always translate into victory 1 Link to comment
teachercd Posted February 12, 2020 Share Posted February 12, 2020 20 minutes ago, Danny Bateman said: IIRC Bloomberg has said he would support the eventually nominee. It would obviously be hardest for him to stomach Sanders but even having his tremendous wealth going towards a continual stream of anti-Trump ads rather than pro-Bernie ones would be a very helpful asset. He could probably throw some money at downballot races too, trying to maintain the House as well as work to narrow the margin in the Senate. Lukewarm take: If Sanders is the nominee the GOP will retain the Senate and we'll need every one of Bloomberg's dollars to stay competitive and maybe try to gain a seat or two. Agree? Do you seem Blooimie helping out or giving major cash if he is not the nominee? I guess I have a hard time seeing that. Link to comment
Decoy73 Posted February 12, 2020 Share Posted February 12, 2020 2 hours ago, Moiraine said: I’m concerned Bloomberg will run even if he doesn’t win the nomination. I think Bloomberg wants Trump defeated and will support the nominee. 1 Link to comment
Decoy73 Posted February 12, 2020 Share Posted February 12, 2020 27 minutes ago, Danny Bateman said: Lukewarm take: If Sanders is the nominee the GOP will retain the Senate Why do you think the Democratic nominee may influence the senate races? Link to comment
Danny Bateman Posted February 13, 2020 Share Posted February 13, 2020 6 hours ago, teachercd said: Do you seem Blooimie helping out or giving major cash if he is not the nominee? I guess I have a hard time seeing that. Yeah I do. He's always put money into politics to support candidates who he agrees with on both sides of the aisle. In this case that means despising Trump. Taking the gavel away from McConnell and having a Democratic Senate would make an excellent Trump foil. 5 hours ago, Decoy73 said: Why do you think the Democratic nominee may influence the senate races? All politics are local. The person at the top of the ticket has a lot of potential to influence downballot candidates. Bernie is a bit of a regionally appealing candidate that has an extremely narrow path to victory through the Rust Belt. He's not winning Arizona. He's not winning North Carolina. He's not winning Georgia. He's not winning Alabama or Kentucky or South Carolina or Texas or any of the other states where Senate races are even more of a stretch. He's not winning NE-02's one EV. Heck, @JJ Husker is a fairly moderate guy in CO who dislikes both parties for the most part and even he doesn't want to vote for him. It's not likely any Dem is super competitive in any of those places. I think a savvy moderate could be a stronger play in the Sun Belt in some of those places. Running a perceived socialist is not going to be helping in any of those races nor in any purple district House races. Candidates in those areas will have to run on a promise of "Bernie is a great guy, but I'm going to D.C. to rein him in." Obviously just my take but I think it's fairly reasonable. Could be wrong though. Link to comment
Recommended Posts