2020 US Election (Part One)

[Kyriakos]

What I am thinking, is that he has to have some motivation other than winning the Presidency as he certainly knows he has no chance at that. We know that he hates Trump and wants Trump out, so it just seems like this might be some calculated move to make that more likely. The two possibilities that sprung to mind when I heard this morning that he was running are:

1. He thinks that his candidacy will force the field to be more "moderate", ie softer on billionaires like him.
2. He thinks the current lack of a clear frontrunner will create a situation where Trump is able to limp back into the Presidency, therefore he is trying to kneecap Biden so Warren or Sanders can emerge as the frontrunner.

I can't really see what his game would be other than those two things... Unless its just straigthforward, delusional vanity.

Isn't it possible that he just needs this so as to prepare to run as an independent?
Cause the latter might still prevent a Bernie win against Trump (?).
After all, the same person threatened to run as independent back in 2016, if Hillary was not nominated. Not much changes with such people.

 

[Lexicus]

Unless its just straigthforward, delusional vanity.

I'd consider this a lot more likely than the other possibilities you mentioned. This is Michael Bloomberg we're talking about, after all. If the Democrats nominate him, which I don't expect, I may actually vote for Trump on the theory that an incompetent fascist is preferable to a competent one.

 

[rah]

Isn't that how Trump got elected in 2016?

 

[Lexicus]

Isn't that how Trump got elected in 2016?

No.

 

[rah]

Hillary was a lot of different things to many different people.

 

[Lexicus]

Thanks to the electoral college you love so well, my vote doesn't matter. The Democrat will win in DC with around 90% of the vote.

 

[rah]

How those electoral votes are delegated could be changed. It's not the process that is bad, but those that decide how to use it.
My vote for president hasn't counted in Illinois since a long time ago.

 

[Takhisis]

Don't they let dead people vote in Illinois or something?

 

[rah]

In Chicago, yes. Pets too. But only if they're Democrats.

 

[Takhisis]

Not Snowball, my beloved pet kitty!

 

[Sommerswerd]

Sommer, he's a billionaire.

So vanity plus boredom then?

 

[Zardnaar]

Not Snowball, my beloved pet kitty!

Snowball would be a better president than the current Clown.

 

[innonimatu]

Unless its just straigthforward, delusional vanity.

Sommer, he's a billionaire.

That reply says it all.

And Trump won, so it's nor surprising if others get ideas. I mean, the Facebook creep got those ideas also...

 

[Ajidica]

As long as we are theorizing, I have a couple ideas about why Bloomberg is teasing his entry.

-Vanity/boredom as others mentioned.
-Drive Warren toward the 'center' by threatening to unleash a bajillion dollars in ad spending against her. What I've read said Bloomberg isn't planning on entering in Iowa or New Hampshire, only Alabama. Could the goal be to split the 'white vote' and allow Biden a secure victory on his (allegedly) strong African American support?
-Galaxy-Brain theory: He wants to split the centrist vote because he believes that a Warren candidacy stands the strongest chance of victory against Trump. With Warren's wealth tax likely dead in Congress (and billionaires having a billion and one ways to hide their wealth), he feels confident the end result is a Democratic administration that in economic terms is tough on Wall Street from a consumer's point of view but doesn't directly challenge the cheap credit boom directed at the top of the economy. Bloomberg isn't stupid and his policies have a paternalist style I could see existing quite happily along a turbocharged CFPB.
-Super Galaxy-Brain theory: Bloomberg believes that he needs to split the centrist vote so Warren/Sanders gets the nominee because they have a bad matchup against Trump. This leads to a loss in November and the centrist/Clintonite Democrats can kill the Democratic left for a generation, to keep the Democrats as the Wall Street/Corporate party as he decided the GOP has gone too far off the deep end to be saved.

 

[Kyriakos]

As long as we are theorizing, I have a couple ideas about why Bloomberg is teasing his entry.

-Vanity/boredom as others mentioned.
-Drive Warren toward the 'center' by threatening to unleash a bajillion dollars in ad spending against her. What I've read said Bloomberg isn't planning on entering in Iowa or New Hampshire, only Alabama. Could the goal be to split the 'white vote' and allow Biden a secure victory on his (allegedly) strong African American support?
-Galaxy-Brain theory: He wants to split the centrist vote because he believes that a Warren candidacy stands the strongest chance of victory against Trump. With Warren's wealth tax likely dead in Congress (and billionaires having a billion and one ways to hide their wealth), he feels confident the end result is a Democratic administration that in economic terms is tough on Wall Street from a consumer's point of view but doesn't directly challenge the cheap credit boom directed at the top of the economy. Bloomberg isn't stupid and his policies have a paternalist style I could see existing quite happily along a turbocharged CFPB.
-Super Galaxy-Brain theory: Bloomberg believes that he needs to split the centrist vote so Warren/Sanders gets the nominee because they have a bad matchup against Trump. This leads to a loss in November and the centrist/Clintonite Democrats can kill the Democratic left for a generation, to keep the Democrats as the Wall Street/Corporate party as he decided the GOP has gone too far off the deep end to be saved.

Even if somehow Bernie (the only legit leftist politician) loses to Trump (which imo isn't likely, but let's assume it is how it plays out), this doesn't seem at all to mean much re "centrist" vs "leftist" in the dem party. AOC would still be their next candidate due to massive popularity.
I mean... who exactly is a popular centrist democrat politician? Buttigieg? (seems entirely fake/made up by the same media). Biden? (lol). Various Hillary-kin like Kamala? (polling at 3%). There isn't any popular dem centrist. Even if you count Warren (who supported Hillary in 2016), she is only popular (to the degree she actually is, which remains to be seen in the primaries) due to presenting herself as leftist (but staunch capitalist etc).

 

[Ajidica]

Even if somehow Bernie (the only legit leftist politician) loses to Trump (which imo isn't likely, but let's assume it is how it plays out), this doesn't seem at all to mean much re "centrist" vs "leftist" in the dem party. AOC would still be their next candidate due to massive popularity.
I mean... who exactly is a popular centrist democrat politician? Buttigieg? (seems entirely fake/made up by the same media). Biden? (lol). Various Hillary-kin like Kamala? (polling at 3%). There isn't any popular dem centrist. Even if you count Warren (who supported Hillary in 2016), she is only popular (to the degree she actually is, which remains to be seen in the primaries) due to presenting herself as leftist (but staunch capitalist etc).

I think in their hearts some establishment democrats would be okay seeing a Trump victory in 2020 if it resulted in a Warren/Sanders defeat. That would secure the Clintonite/Third Way view for easily a generation.
Also, I think you are taking a too-exclusive view of 'leftist'. Sander's socialism frequently seems to the right of European Social Democrats like Heath in the 70's. I don't think I've once heard Sanders utter the words "economic planning", and his positions on issues like transport and housing investment don't seem to be much beyond 'throw money at it'. Warren has at least introduced a proposal for a national economic and industrial policy - which means someone on her team thinks it is a good idea and she likes it enough to put it out there when it isn't a clear 'vote winner'. If she has people on her team smart enough to get a national economic and industrial policy, there is a good chance there are people who support capital and currency controls which is something basically required if we are to return to the days of massive government economic intervention and government backed full employment.

 

[JPetroski]

Even if somehow Bernie (the only legit leftist politician) loses to Trump (which imo isn't likely, but let's assume it is how it plays out), this doesn't seem at all to mean much re "centrist" vs "leftist" in the dem party. AOC would still be their next candidate due to massive popularity.
I mean... who exactly is a popular centrist democrat politician? Buttigieg? (seems entirely fake/made up by the same media). Biden? (lol). Various Hillary-kin like Kamala? (polling at 3%). There isn't any popular dem centrist. Even if you count Warren (who supported Hillary in 2016), she is only popular (to the degree she actually is, which remains to be seen in the primaries) due to presenting herself as leftist (but staunch capitalist etc).

Where are you seeing that AOC is massively popular?

It's a legitimate question and not an attack. I tried googling her approval rating and found nothing that convinced me her congressional seat is safe, let alone that she would be the next Presidential candidate, but that doesn't mean that the sources I found are on point.

 

[Kyriakos]

Where are you seeing that AOC is massively popular?

It's a legitimate question and not an attack. I tried googling her approval rating and found nothing that convinced me her congressional seat is safe, let alone that she would be the next Presidential candidate, but that doesn't mean that the sources I found are on point.

Isn't she termed as the superstar of the party?

 

[JPetroski]

Isn't she termed as the superstar of the party?

I mean, I guess I'll defer to a Democrat on that, but as far as I can see... No.

 

[Estebonrober]

Isn't she termed as the superstar of the party?

I mean, I guess I'll defer to a Democrat on that, but as far as I can see... No.

Both can be true at the same time.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli...lexandria-ocasio-cortez-poll-favorables-media

A Quinnipiac poll released on Thursday morning found that 23 percent of Americans had a favorable view of the member of Congress, while 36 percent had an unfavorable view — a -13 overall approval rating. Thirty-eight percent hadn’t heard enough about her to have an informed opinion.

This new poll isn’t a one-off finding. Three prior surveys — one in January from Morning Consult, one in February from Fox, and a third in mid-March from Gallup — all found that more Americans had negative views of AOC than had positive ones. This might surprise a lot of Democrats, who see all of her viral clips and impressive performances in congressional hearings and assume she’s a popular rising star.