US Politics - Primary Numbers

[Kalbear]

33 minutes ago, Gorn said:

Personally, I don't trust Bloomberg when he says that we will support the Democratic nominee no matter who he is. He already changed his mind once this cycle (about running for president in the first place). In early 2016, he declared he would run as an independent in general election if ends up being Sanders vs Trump.

If Sanders wins the Democratic nomination, I'd say there's a better than 50% chance that's exactly what he will do.

Per most state laws he cannot once he is in the primary due to sore loser laws. If you're worried about that, him running in the primary is the best thing possible. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

53 minutes ago, Freshwater Spartan said:

But then Boomberg didn' t run in 2016 when all of the data showed Trump would win. The same thing would likely happen again. The guy wants to win and he wants Trump to lose. Now would be given his campaign apparatus to Sanders if he doesn't get the nomination as he promised he would? Maybe not.

Someone pointed out that for all of the money he has spent he still hasn't spent the Trump tax cut yet. Can't say if that's true but it does point out he is not  being punished financially for this run. 

By the way it would be stupid to vote for Trump over Bloomberg if you are a left leaning person in the same way it would be stupid to vote for Trump over Sanders.

When in 2016, prior to the election, did “all of the data show[]” Trump would win?

[Darzin]

28 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

When in 2016, prior to the election, did “all of the data show[]” Trump would win?

They mean that all the data showed if Bloomberg ran as an independent it would help Trump.

Also my God, all the people here saying Bloomberg is the same as Trump, he's not. You're all going to burn the house down just because he's not your guy. If you think climate change is an existential threat and you stay home, I have no words, whatever else Bloomberg may be he's aggressive on climate change. But you all would rather watch the world literally burn, because "both sides are the same" like is climate change a real threat? Is Trump a danger to democracy? Cause if you think he is then well you'd rather the planet die and American democracy be overthrown then vote for someone who won't raise taxes as high as you want? You all are being disgraceful children in the face of some real and present dangers.

 

[Larry of the Lawn]

29 minutes ago, Darzin said:

They mean that all the data showed if Bloomberg ran as an independent it would help Trump.

Also my God, all the people here saying Bloomberg is the same as Trump, he's not. You're all going to burn the house down just because he's not your guy. If you think climate change is an existential threat and you stay home, I have no words, whatever else Bloomberg may be he's aggressive on climate change. But you all would rather watch the world literally burn, because "both sides are the same" like is climate change a real threat? Is Trump a danger to democracy? Cause if you think he is then well you'd rather the planet die and American democracy be overthrown then vote for someone who won't raise taxes as high as you want? You all are being disgraceful children in the face of some real and present dangers.

 

It's not like a Bloomberg presidency would be some great victory for democracy.  A Bloomberg v Trump race is the predictable result of Citizens United.  Yeah Trump is worse, but Bloomberg sucks shit too.

 

[Larry of the Lawn]

Looking forward to Zuckerberg / Bezos race in 2028.  Maybe Google can sponsor that year?

[Zorral]

I've lived under the rule of them both.  Bloomie as mayor didn't want bedbug to build that ugly monstrosity of a condo - hotel down in my neighborhood.  He couldn't even stop that.  Then there was the inevitable accidents, mortgage bankruptcies, long delays, and then it stayed empty, still standing there, with his name taken off, but still an obscene obstacle on the way to the river.

It's as though you are saying that Bloomie only raped me once and my friends a few times, but Trump has raped far more, so he's a better choice.  Blech. In fact, a lot of those stop and frisk (such a bland innocuous label for actions that were invasive, brutal, cruel, prolonged physical abuse) were as close to rape as can be got, and technically, despite maybe not a penile penetration, still technically rape.  And Bloomie thinks this was just fine. O, you may then say, of course, Bloomie was doing it legally for law and order, whereas bedbug does it for personal power and fun, so not the same.  To which, again, I vomit.

It is not the same as those who said that voting for Hillary was the same as voting for Trump.  It wasn't.  Hillary never raped me -- or anyone else. (What her husband did may well be something else, but then, he wasn't running for POTUS -- she was.)  Though what she did, both did, to Haiti, for instance was also unforgiveable and cruel.  Yet, I voted for her. And she lost.  Yet here the Dems are trying to foist the same in favor of the billionaire global oligarcy of old white fat cats strategy for running the country as their so often previously proven failure.  Demanding I support Bloomberg while they have done everything to get rid of those who actually stood a chance and would stand up to the bedbug and his cohorts, like Warren, Castro, etc.

In any case, Trump is already got his army -- you even see it and his family, etc. wearing the uniform, which is the same MAGA merch -- the so-called border patrol.

 

[Freshwater Spartan]

20 minutes ago, Zorral said:

I've lived under the rule of them both.  Bloomie as mayor didn't want bedbug to build that ugly monstrosity of a condo - hotel down in my neighborhood.  He couldn't even stop that.  Then there was the inevitable accidents, mortgage bankruptcies, long delays, and then it stayed empty, still standing there, with his name taken off, but still an obscene obstacle on the way to the river.

It's as though you are saying that Bloomie only raped me once and my friends a few times, but Trump has raped far more, so he's a better choice.  Blech. In fact, a lot of those stop and frisk (such a bland innocuous label for actions that were invasive, brutal, cruel, prolonged physical abuse) were as close to rape as can be got, and technically, despite maybe not a penile penetration, still technically rape.  And Bloomie thinks this was just fine. O, you may then say, of course, Bloomie was doing it legally for law and order, whereas bedbug does it for personal power and fun, so not the same.  To which, again, I vomit.

It is not the same as those who said that voting for Hillary was the same as voting for Trump.  It wasn't.  Hillary never raped me -- or anyone else. (What her husband did may well be something else, but then, he wasn't running for POTUS -- she was.)  

 

 

I've known woman who have been raped and comparing someone's inability to stop a construction project to the anguish they went through is pretty vile.

If you can't tell the difference between Trump and Bloomberg I don't known to tell you.

[Zorral]

58 minutes ago, Freshwater Spartan said:

I've known woman who have been raped and comparing someone's inability to stop a construction project to the anguish they went through is pretty vile.

If you can't tell the difference between Trump and Bloomberg I don't known to tell you.

 I compared the difference between them to what stop and frisk IS.  If you can't tell the difference you have an agenda that favors anti-democracy, criminals and oligarchs: THIS IS WHAT I WROTE:

 

Quote

l In fact, a lot of those stop and frisk (such a bland innocuous label for actions that were invasive, brutal, cruel, prolonged physical abuse) were as close to rape as can be got, and technically, despite maybe not a penile penetration, still technically rape.  And Bloomie thinks this was just fine.

In the meantime, for what it's worth -- Mayor de Blasio has endorsed Sanders.

 

[Freshwater Spartan]

15 minutes ago, Zorral said:

 I compared the difference between them to what stop and frisk IS.  If you can't tell the difference you have an agenda that favors anti-democracy, criminals and oligarchs: THIS IS WHAT I WROTE:

 

 

 

Based on what I've seen women to through I still say it's a vile comparison but fair enough I didn't get your original argument and I'll apologize for that.

These are serious times and this election is no joke. By August only two people will have a shot at being President and our democracy may depend on the one not named Trump winning. A question for lefties and centrists alike will be so want to be right or do you want to win? 

[Ormond]

In the useless billionaire trivia department:

One of the weirdest things about my life in Omaha is that Warren Buffett and I have the same barber. (I did not know this when I started frequenting the establishment myself.) One of the many things showing Buffett's lack of ostentation is that he goes to the regular inexpensive barbershop in the basement of the same building where he has his own offices.

Today was the fifth or sixth time over the last 30 years that I've been in the shop at the same time as Mr. Buffett. When I arrived for my appointment he was in the chair. The television was on and he was watching a news segment (probably on CNN) about what the presidential race would be like in Bloomberg and Trump turned out to be the nominees. Mr. Buffett had the TV's remote control in his hand and when the segment was over he immediately turned the TV off (of course it was only a couple of minutes before the end of his haircut.)

I just thought it was mildly humorous that I would end up witnessing one billionaire watching a news segment about two other super-wealthy guys running for President and thought I'd share that with you political junkies.

Now back to important political issues....

[Zorral]

It's only a single poll, and not one professionals like, probably but Sanders is ahead of everybody.  The one closest to him is Warren.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/02/sanders-demolishes-bloomberg-buttigieg-and-klobuchar-head-to-head-says-new-poll.html

Quote

 

... Yahoo News and YouGov are out with a new poll showing that Sanders beats all of his top competitors in head-to-head races. He currently wins at least 53 percent of the vote against Bloomberg, Buttigieg, and Klobuchar, none of whom break more than 38 percent. The matchup is closer with Biden, who gets 44 percent versus 48 percent of Sanders. But the tightest race is with Warren, who trails him 42 percent to 44 percent, with plenty of undecideds.

It’s just one poll. But it does seem to reflect one of Sanders’ often overlooked strengths: The man is incredibly well-liked by normal Democratic voters. Sure, he might terrify some Democratic National Committee officials and cable news talking heads. Hillary Clinton and her hangers-on still have it out for the guy. But according to Morning Consult, he’s got a 74 percent favorability rating within the party, higher than any other candidate. A lot of current Biden, Buttigieg, Warren, and even Bloomberg supporters currently list him as a second choice....

 

 

[Centrist Simon Steele]

2 hours ago, Freshwater Spartan said:

Based on what I've seen women to through I still say it's a vile comparison but fair enough I didn't get your original argument and I'll apologize for that.

These are serious times and this election is no joke. By August only two people will have a shot at being President and our democracy may depend on the one not named Trump winning. A question for lefties and centrists alike will be so want to be right or do you want to win? 

Your "question" doesn't even make sense. 

[Centrist Simon Steele]

39 minutes ago, Zorral said:

It's only a single poll, and not one professionals like, probably but Sanders is ahead of everybody.  The one closest to him is Warren.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/02/sanders-demolishes-bloomberg-buttigieg-and-klobuchar-head-to-head-says-new-poll.html

 

Yeah, I only like things like adding up three candidates totals in New Hampshire and showing how that cumulative beats Sanders by himself. This poll you shared is BS because it assumes "individual" match ups make more sense. Like, we already know, if Warren and Klobuchar drop out, ALL of their voters will go to Buttigeg. 

[Altherion]

15 hours ago, A True Kaniggit said:

So you agree the problem is many employers demanding a useless degree for jobs that don't need it?

Yes. However, the underlying problem is that there are not enough decent jobs in the first place. Over the past few decades, wage gains have gone to mainly those in the top quintile (more so to the top decile and even more so the top 5% and so on -- the closer to the top, the better). The result is that most jobs today don't pay much and quite a few of them are awful in other ways so the competition for the ones which are good is extremely high. Employers use college as a quick filter and if you prevent them from doing so, they'll just have to use something else.

15 hours ago, A True Kaniggit said:

Edit: A two second google reveals to me that only 34% of Americans have a minimum 4 year degree. How is that the largest in-group in the country?

Pretty sure being white like us still takes the cake on that account.

It is possible to construct larger groups, but if you do that, they tend to fall closer to the mean. To take your example, whites as a whole are not the best-off group -- they're worse off than Asians (again, taken as a whole) by practically every measure (of course, the whites at the top are better off than everyone, but they are relatively few).

[Liffguard]

3 hours ago, Freshwater Spartan said:

A question for lefties and centrists alike will be so want to be right or do you want to win? 

Winning against a wannabe autocrat by electing a full-on oligarch is a pretty hollow victory. It might still be the lesser evil, and I can entertain the argument of voting for Bloomberg for the sake of harm reduction. But Jesus what a depressing state of affairs if that counts as winning 

[DanteGabriel]

20 minutes ago, Liffguard said:

Winning against a wannabe autocrat by electing a full-on oligarch is a pretty hollow victory. It might still be the lesser evil, and I can entertain the argument of voting for Bloomberg for the sake of harm reduction. But Jesus what a depressing state of affairs if that counts as winning 

America: Plutocrats vs Kakistocrats

[Ran]

26 minutes ago, Liffguard said:

Winning against a wannabe autocrat by electing a full-on oligarch is a pretty hollow victory. It might still be the lesser evil, and I can entertain the argument of voting for Bloomberg for the sake of harm reduction. But Jesus what a depressing state of affairs if that counts as winning 

Yeah. If Bloomberg manipulates his way into the nomination, fine, I'll have to vote for him. But he's more or less dead last for me in the primaries, IMO. I'd almost consider pulling the lever for Gabbard ahead of Bloomberg, that's how much his choice to try to buy his way to the nomination (adopting Trump campaign-like tactics while he's at it) bugs me. No matter what the merits of his substantive policy positions are, this is a road we should not need to go down and will encourage more rather than less of this. It's only the unique awfulness of Trump that makes voting for Bloomberg for president acceptable, but I'd really urge people to vote for those genuinely running within the framework of the Democratic nomination than folks like Steyer and Bloomberg.

 

[Fragile Bird]

I find all of this talk about oligarchs and the rich kinda funny, when the US has elected millionaires from the very beginning.

George Washington was worth about $525M in today’s dollars. And owned slaves. Other presidents after him were worth $100M plus.

JFK inherited $1B in today’s dollars and while he served in the military, he didn’t exactly make his own fortune in business, did he. And his wife was an oil fortune heiress.

[DanteGabriel]

41 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

I find all of this talk about oligarchs and the rich kinda funny, when the US has elected millionaires from the very beginning.

George Washington was worth about $525M in today’s dollars. And owned slaves. Other presidents after him were worth $100M plus.

JFK inherited $1B in today’s dollars and while he served in the military, he didn’t exactly make his own fortune in business, did he. And his wife was an oil fortune heiress.

This country was literally founded by slavelords who thought their taxes were too high so... yeah.

[Freshwater Spartan]

According to Malcom Gladwell's Revisionist History podcast episode "Tempest in a teacup" it was about Drug Lords defending their turf.