Bloomberg poised to enter 2020 Presidential election as a Democrat

[Glenn E. Meyer]

That's because they ignored key states. So money spent in the wrong place does you know go. Bloomberg might be smarter than Hillary on that ploy.

Hillary was the only candidate who could manage to lose to Trump.

I don't think he will get the nomination. I do think if he gets it, he would win. The rationale being Trump's own unpleasantness may motivate and switch those state that HRC lost.

The gun issue is already baked it, so not a factor - sorry NRA. You ain't convincing neutrals to go Three Cheers for the RKBA. The last election was a squeaker despite the electoral totals. It was the tight numbers in the states mentioned that should terrify Donald J. Trump.

Anyway, we just switch rich overlords and the peasants can get all excited about social issues, bread and circuses.

[JAD]

Hillary was the only candidate who could manage to lose to Trump.

I don't think that's true at all. For one thing, all of the Republican candidates lost to Trump. I think an untested Trump was unbeatable. I think even a tested Trump is unbeatable, except maybe for the Bloomberg machine.

The gun issue is already baked it, so not a factor - sorry NRA. You ain't convincing neutrals to go Three Cheers for the RKBA. The last election was a squeaker despite the electoral totals. It was the tight numbers in the states mentioned that should terrify Donald J. Trump.

Anyway, we just switch rich overlords and the peasants can get all excited about social issues, bread and circuses.

I think that the reason Bloomberg is appealing is because he can make it about flavors of populism. I think populism is all that's likely to win in 2020; I think the US still is bitterly confused about the difference between a republic and a democracy, and thinks the best way to restore us to functional democracy (which we never really had, and which is the worst sort of poison) is to fire all of the politicians.

I think the gun issue is essentially populist, and will play well for Bloomberg; the best of all the available social issues.

[Borderland]

I expect Bloomberg to win both the nomination and the general election. I think the media will slew behind him hard, and I think he can pose convincingly as a populist because he doesn't have the stain of congress. I think public opinion is entirely driven by the media and the media is NYC-centric.

A billionaire populist running against a billionaire nationalist, that should get the billionaire media moguls excited.

[Borderland]

That's because they ignored key states. So money spent in the wrong place does you know go. Bloomberg might be smarter than Hillary on that ploy.

Hillary was the only candidate who could manage to lose to Trump.

I don't think he will get the nomination. I do think if he gets it, he would win. The rationale being Trump's own unpleasantness may motivate and switch those state that HRC lost.

The gun issue is already baked it, so not a factor - sorry NRA. You ain't convincing neutrals to go Three Cheers for the RKBA. The last election was a squeaker despite the electoral totals. It was the tight numbers in the states mentioned that should terrify Donald J. Trump.

Anyway, we just switch rich overlords and the peasants can get all excited about social issues, bread and circuses.

Bread is one of my favorites.

Another thing that should terrify Trump (no not the impeachment, people don't give a crap about that), is the money that will be spent by democrats to bury Trump in an election. They will leave no state unaccounted for this time around. Total campaign spending by dems should go way over a billion. Fire for effect.

[Wondering Beard]

This article is about the upcoming UK elections but I believe one can see a lot of parallels with the US.

These two paragraphs, specifically, put forward a perspective that I think is accurate and not talked much about:

"The media conception of who the swing voter in the UK is much the same as in the US – the fiscally conservative, socially liberal suburbanites who like tax cuts, “responsible” spending decisions, and who would feel perfectly comfortable living in any major US or European city. The media conception of this as the swing makes sense – these voters are in most metro areas, and if one spends enough time in well off circles, with professionals – lawyers, doctors, accountants, bankers, et all – it’s a viewpoint one would see quite frequently. Consequently, this is the swing voter the media thinks of – as New York, DC, or London media would frequently encounter that view in their work – either in their private lives after hours or in the seemingly endless amounts of charity dinners, functions, and galas that occur. The problem is, that isn’t the swing voter anymore, at least not the one that swings UK elections. Labour could do even better with that voter and still lose this election worse than any since the Second World War.

The new swing voter in the UK is the reason the Tories are on track for a large majority government. The new swing voter is the fiscally liberal, socially conservative voter who wants more money spent on northern towns and health care in regional areas and less money spent on “elites”, which routinely means whoever that voter isn’t a fan of. They’re wary of immigrants, mad at the Blair-era broken promise of only 13000/year net immigration from the 2004 EU Accession states – 250000/year would come in the decade after – and is annoyed by social issues that grip the modern left. This class of voter was staunchly Labour for decades, especially in the aftermath of Margaret Thatcher’s term in office. These voters were tempted by Theresa May last time, but went home to Labour because Corbyn did enough to reassure that Brexit would happen. With Labour policy now being a second referendum with an option to Remain – and every senior Labour politician outside Corbyn saying no possible deal is better than staying in – their likelihood of repeating their 2017 trick is somewhere between small and non-existant."

[blues]

A billionaire populist running against a billionaire nationalist, that should get the billionaire media moguls excited.

[Borderland]

I don't think that's true at all. For one thing, all of the Republican candidates lost to Trump. I think an untested Trump was unbeatable. I think even a tested Trump is unbeatable, except maybe for the Bloomberg machine.



I think that the reason Bloomberg is appealing is because he can make it about flavors of populism. I think populism is all that's likely to win in 2020; I think the US still is bitterly confused about the difference between a republic and a democracy, and thinks the best way to restore us to functional democracy (which we never really had, and which is the worst sort of poison) is to fire all of the politicians.

I think the gun issue is essentially populist, and will play well for Bloomberg; the best of all the available social issues.

I'm tracking right along with this.

Bloomberg wants more legal immigrants. Another social issue that's going to be big for Bloomberg to capitalize on. It's not just a social issue either. It's an economic issue also. He should know about the economic issues being a New York mayor.

Read this about Bloomberg and immigration. He's going for the beeg juan.

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/...on-if-elected/

[Warped Mindless]

If my FB feed is anything to go by, many "middle ground" voters here in Ohio who voted for Trump (mostly because they disliked Clinton) will be supporting Bloomberg.

Hes a pretty big threat to Trump. Trump got a lot of votes from older democrats who disliked Clinton and also dislikes the socialist. They will vote for Bloomberg.

[NickA]

Not sure if it's already been mentioned, but how about a little suppression of free press to go along with everything else. Bloomberg tells his reporters "With your paycheck comes some restrictions"

https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/06/media...ats/index.html

Unsurprising, but when I googled for the story that was the only one that didn't have a headline like "Trump refuses to credential Bloomberg reporters".

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

[0ddl0t]

Unsurprising, but when I googled for the story that was the only one that didn't have a headline like "Trump refuses to credential Bloomberg reporters".

Yesterday the Guardian published a fairly blistering oped from the far left about Bloomberg silencing the press:
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ing-press-2020


Today the left is basically calling Bloomberg a racist for saying Booker was "well spoken."
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...er-well-spoken