2020: The Democratic Presidential Nomination Thread

[mister d]

And I'll say now and later Sanders has zero obligation to campaign for Bloomberg if he somehow got the nomination.

[Steve of phpBB]

But pretty amazing you can even frame it that way, isn't it?

Yes, it is amazing that even after what happened in 2000 and 2016, and what happened in the aftermath of both elections, it is once again a concern.

And I'll say now and later Sanders has zero obligation to campaign for Bloomberg if he somehow got the nomination.

Do you believe the Democratic Party has an obligation to give Sanders a shot at the Democratic Party nomination?

[mister d]

No, I don't think there's an obligation, but I'd also say you can't argue no obligation (or outright obstruction) and then blame him and/or his base for not falling in line later. No one is going to argue Bloomberg is obligated to support Sanders, right?

[Steve of phpBB]

Mostly agree, although I think the real issue is that his forcefulness exposes the party as hypocrites on a lot of issues. He's closer to what the party attempts to portray themselves as than the party itself is.

It could be that, or it could be that he has been shitting on the Democratic Party for years. Regardless of anyone's position on any particular issue, why on earth would they not be hostile to him?

Do you think the DNC is hostile to Bloomberg? Do you think it should be? Keep in mind that he ran for office as a Republican, campaigned for Bush’s re-election, had a bunch of Democrats arrested at the 2004 GOP Convention, accused Obama of stoking racial tension, and as recently as 2018 backed a number of GOP congressional candidates. Because some of your posts today make me think you’d prefer Bloomberg as the nominee to Sanders even if Sanders gets the plurality of delegates.

I have no idea if Tom Perez or other individuals in the DNC administration are hostile to Bloomberg.

But it's not really the same thing. Sanders made a name for himself by attacking the Democratic Party (though he calls them the Democratic "establishment"). Like Nader and others have done, Sanders has been creating and exploiting a division among the left, by prominently attacking the center-left. This naturally weakens the left (in the short term at least) and makes Republican victories more likely. Which is exactly what happened in both 2000 and 2016, both of which were disasters for the people and principles Sanders and Nader profess to care about.

And with his debate answer about pluralities and both-sides tweets about the Republican and Democratic establishment, he appears to be doing it again.

Unless I'm mistaken, Bloomberg hasn't done this. He's more like other politicians who switch parties. As long as they work for the party *now*, their past as a member of the opposition is forgiven.

I don't know who I'd prefer as the nominee between Bloomberg or Sanders. If the convention were tomorrow, I'd probably prefer Bloomberg because he polls about the same as Sanders against Trump and I think Sanders will fall farther than Bloomberg once the GOP's guns are trained on him. But I don't think it will come to that. And if it comes down to Bloomberg vs Sanders for the last few months, and Sanders stays up, that means he can withstand the attacks and would be more likely to win in November.

To me, it is all about winning in November. The differences between a Bloomberg administration and a Sanders administration would be trivial compared with the differences between either of them and another Trump term.

[mister d]

Your brackets feel completely off. Sanders doesn't divide the left, he represents the left and fights against the center, where the Dem establishment is presently aligned. That's why its the establishment and not the party, because the party still encompasses the left while the establishment serves the center.

[Steve of phpBB]

No, I don't think there's an obligation, but I'd also say you can't argue no obligation (or outright obstruction) and then blame him and/or his base for not falling in line later. No one is going to argue Bloomberg is obligated to support Sanders, right?

I would say Bloomberg is definitely obligated to support the Democratic nominee.

Plus, putting aside talk about obligations or "falling in line," there are real issues at stake in this election that will affect millions of people. People whose lives Sanders has claimed to care about his whole career - and whose lives Bloomberg at least professes to care about now. If either of them pulls back in any way, candidates or supporters, then Fuck Them.

[Steve of phpBB]

Your framing feels completely off. Sanders doesn't divide the left, he represents the left and fights against the center, where the Dem establishment is presently aligned. That's why its the establishment and not the party, because the party still encompasses the left while the establishment serves the center.

I dunno. I think this may be a result of what issues you prioritize.

I'd hardly say that the Dems are the "center" when it comes to abortion rights, health care, gay rights, trans rights, DACA, immigration enforcement, clean water, clean air, climate change, equal pay, civil rights, worker safety, unionization rights, consumer protection, police violence, tax policy.

Think of how much was gained on these issues by Obama the Centrist and his Centrist allies in Congress. And how much is being lost now.

My point is the same, though. We have a two-party system. A candidate who deliberately splits the Dems - and does so by attacking other Dems - is naturally going to be met with hostility from the people he is attacking and the people whose priority is those who will suffer if the Dems lose.

[mister d]

The list in paragraph two is why they're the center and not the right? (Also overstates the gains/progress on a lot of issues.)

[Joe K]

Mostly agree, although I think the real issue is that his forcefulness exposes the party as hypocrites on a lot of issues. He's closer to what the party attempts to portray themselves as than the party itself is.

It could be that, or it could be that he has been shitting on the Democratic Party for years. Regardless of anyone's position on any particular issue, why on earth would they not be hostile to him?

Do you think the DNC is hostile to Bloomberg? Do you think it should be? Keep in mind that he ran for office as a Republican, campaigned for Bush’s re-election, had a bunch of Democrats arrested at the 2004 GOP Convention, accused Obama of stoking racial tension, and as recently as 2018 backed a number of GOP congressional candidates. Because some of your posts today make me think you’d prefer Bloomberg as the nominee to Sanders even if Sanders gets the plurality of delegates.

Unless I'm mistaken, Bloomberg hasn't done this. He's more like other politicians who switch parties. As long as they work for the party *now*, their past as a member of the opposition is forgiven.

Bloomberg STILL gives money and hosts fundraisers to help re-elect GOP incumbents. He did that in 2018, when the Dems were fighting to deny Trump a rubber stamp from Congress.

[Joe K]

The list in paragraph two is why they're the center and not the right? (Also overstates the gains/progress on a lot of issues.)

Also Bloomberg has been absolutely horrible for his entire career on workers rights, police violence, healthcare, unionization and civil rights. If those are your priorities it’s insane to me that you’d back him over Sanders or literally any alternative in the primary field.

[Steve of phpBB]

The list in paragraph two is why they're the center and not the right? (Also overstates the gains/progress on a lot of issues.)

I guess if you want to characterize it like that.

You know those recent Supreme Court cases those of us on the non-right all hate? The ones that allow border agents to avoid liability for shooting Mexican kids on the other side of the river? Whatever name you want to give to the class of voters who oppose those things, Sanders is deliberately splitting them, attacking the people who are on the same side as him on the issue, and thus helping the party that supports those things.

So, yeah, Sanders engenders hostility among people who care a lot about border agents shooting Mexican kids across the border.

[Joe K]

The list in paragraph two is why they're the center and not the right? (Also overstates the gains/progress on a lot of issues.)

So, yeah, Sanders engenders hostility among people who care a lot about border agents shooting Mexican kids across the border.

And yet he’s been completely dominating the Latino vote thus far. Are you suggesting that Latinos don’t care about those issues or that they are getting duped by Sanders?

[mister d]

I'm starting to think Dems can't handle actual passionate, concrete stances versus pliable ambition. Debates over these issues aren't supposed to be friendly.

[Steve of phpBB]

The list in paragraph two is why they're the center and not the right? (Also overstates the gains/progress on a lot of issues.)

Also Bloomberg has been absolutely horrible for his entire career on workers rights, police violence, healthcare, unionization and civil rights. If those are your priorities it’s insane to me that you’d back him over Sanders or literally any alternative in the primary field.

Yeah but the issue isn't who I'd rather see as President. The issue is who I think is most likely to win.

Plus, if Bloomberg were president, his presidency just would not be that different from Sanders'. Both he and Sanders would be appointing folks from the Democratic institutions to be heading the agencies dealing with those issues. He'd be appointing judges going through the Democratic ranks and recommended by Democratic senators. Yes, there would be differences on the margins. But JFC, those differences are nothing compared to the difference between Bloomberg and Trump.

When it comes to things like single payer, or raising taxes on the upper middle class, Bloomberg is just as likely as Sanders not to have Congress pass those things. And anything that does pass Congress, I don't think he'd veto.

[Johnnie]

If Bloomberg wins, that opens the door for every other billionaire to buy their way to the presidency and cement the oligarchy.

Literally the only reason he's in this is his billions. He sucks. And I have no faith he'd actually be better than Trump. Because he has a "-D" next to his name when he isn't one? What is it with rich New Yorkers just changing their politics when it suits them.

[mister d]

Like ... at best, Bloomberg is Romney. Even with full obstruction the idea the difference versus Sanders is in the margins is insane.

[Joe K]

The list in paragraph two is why they're the center and not the right? (Also overstates the gains/progress on a lot of issues.)

Also Bloomberg has been absolutely horrible for his entire career on workers rights, police violence, healthcare, unionization and civil rights. If those are your priorities it’s insane to me that you’d back him over Sanders or literally any alternative in the primary field.

Yeah but the issue isn't who I'd rather see as President. The issue is who I think is most likely to win.

Plus, if Bloomberg were president, his presidency just would not be that different from Sanders'. Both he and Sanders would be appointing folks from the Democratic institutions to be heading the agencies dealing with those issues.

Strongly disagree with you here and think you’re giving Bloomberg way too much credit for his supposed political conversion. The differences in the Treasury and Labor departments alone would be major. Bloomberg is fiercely pro-finance and anti-Labor. He’s even said there shouldn’t be any minimum wage laws at all. I’m pretty sure he also opposes the concept family leave laws. The reason he’s gotten sued so often for sexual harassment, which Warren keeps pounding him on, is because of his extreme hostility to maternity leave. That’s before we even get to foreign policy, where Bloomberg is a right-wing hawk and Sanders opposed the Iraq War and a number of other foolish interventions that Bloomberg would have backed.

[Steve of phpBB]

The list in paragraph two is why they're the center and not the right? (Also overstates the gains/progress on a lot of issues.)

So, yeah, Sanders engenders hostility among people who care a lot about border agents shooting Mexican kids across the border.

And yet he’s been completely dominating the Latino vote thus far. Are you suggesting that Latinos don’t care about those issues or that they are getting duped by Sanders?

I haven't seen nationally, but I have seen polls with him getting 33-38 percent of Latino support in a couple of recent California polls, and 27 percent in California. Like with the national vote, he's dominating in comparison to the other individuals (which is certainly important), but not the field.

But yeah, I really don't think most voters are thinking about specific Supreme Court decisions and how they relate to Presidential choices. His platform is great for Latinos, and he has a great deal of national recognition, so I would expect them to support him.

[Joe K]

Way higher than that in Nevada:





ETA: Iowa too:

[degenerasian]

If Bloomberg is the nominee, Trump will go left of him and cater to pro-labor, just like he did in the 2016.
If Sanders is the nominee, Trump can't take that ground. He'll have to resort to socialist name calling.

[P.D.X.]

I have zero faith that Bloomberg would actually champion a Democratic agenda if elected POTUS.

[Nonlinear FC]

Fuck Bloomberg, hard. He's pretty close to how I felt about Howard Schultz.

[Joe K]

I have zero faith that Bloomberg would actually champion a Democratic agenda if elected POTUS.

What gives you that idea, Bernie Bro?

[Nonlinear FC]

I'm starting to think Dems can't handle actual passionate, concrete stances versus pliable ambition. Debates over these issues aren't supposed to be friendly.

I don't have time to respond to this, but maybe think a bit about how this is supposed to be received and processed by non-Bernie people.

I've been in the trenches for these policy debates. Not sure if you are saying anyone that doesn't fall in line with Bernie, or even Warren, is somehow only in the fight due to their desire to retain power.

That's super cynical and I can tell you from personal experience just not true.

[mister d]

I’m quite cynical right now, for sure, but that wasn’t intended as a blanket comment. There are Dems who can have a more centrist framework I don’t agree with but can (atleast partially) respect as a foundation. It was generally aimed at those who declare Bernie is too angry or loud or (laughably) individualistic and those who parrot it as an insult because he’s on stage truly fighting. Or those who think actually engaging in a primary debate is akin to a circular firing squad. And especially those who see someone like Pete, an ideological void, as an alternative because he seems nice and does a good Obama impression. “I’m not Trump but whoa I’m also not Bernie” will get fucking romped if there’s nothing but motivational poster speak behind it. Lastly, the whole “the marginalized left has to support (Bloomberg) because he’s better for the marginalized left than Trump” is offensive if it ends up coming from the same leadership that stomped out the guy actually fighting for the marginalized left. Its incremental assistance held hostage after removing the chances of far greater gains. If tomorrow your employer decides you’re now $12 per hour versus salaried and you know you can’t go anywhere else but they still need your production, you can either accept it or you fuck everyone in hopes of blowing everything up.

[Joe K]

If Bloomberg is the nominee, Trump will go left of him and cater to pro-labor, just like he did in the 2016.
If Sanders is the nominee, Trump can't take that ground. He'll have to resort to socialist name calling.

Trump could also go left of Bloomberg on racial justice issues. Bloomberg’s NYPD was insanely racist towards blacks and Latinos (the whole reason stop-and-frisk ended is because he lost a federal civil rights lawsuit), and spied on Muslims where they lived and worshipped. Yet the only regret Bloomberg expressed before running for President is that the police stopped too many white people. Even if those groups don’t vote for Trump I wouldn’t blame them one bit for abstaining. But if that happens you can rest assured that Sanders, and not Bloomberg, will be the one blamed for “divisiveness.” Because treating disempowered groups horribly isn’t the kind of division that seems to matter.

[BSF21]

Just give me Warren or Bernie. Get it done. Stop the bullshit. Throw the towel and let Pete become a centrist governor in a red swing state and Kamala to be AJ and Biden and Klobuchar to fuck off into that good night. I’m over it.

[Johnnie]

Mike Bloomberg Is Full of Shit and So Are His Surrogates

Bloomberg Said Ending a Racist Housing Practice Caused Financial Crisis

Almost stating outright he bought members of Congress.

Burning through hundreds of millions of dollars to run for president just because he can.

This man is not a better alternative to Trump. And you're not holding my vote hostage or putting me on a guilt trip to fall in line because Trump is the worst person ever.

[Joe K]

Add these guys to the list of privileged white men who would be supporting a real Democrat like Pete Buttigieg or Mike Bloomberg if they cared about the plight of immigrants and minorities:

[Ryan]

Sadly, "Keep trashing each other and looking mediocre so that when (insert actual good candidate here) swoops in at the convention, it seems way more effective" is by far not the worst idea right now.

[Joe K]

That’s a pretty hilarious list of “saviors.” The Obama’s are enjoying their break from the political fires and the rest of that list is a joke. Harris dropped out because she was polling under 5% nationally and getting trounced in her home state but she should get it at the convention? OK... I actually like Sherrod Brown but if he wanted to run he should have actually run.

[mister d]

[Joe K]

Worse than that, it’d be a suicidal decision by the Party the ramifications of which would be felt well beyond 2020. If Sanders really is unelectable and a down-ballot drag then you can start your recovery from that in 2022. But disenfranchising an entire generation of young voters and activists? Good luck dealing with that fallout.

To make that choice, the Party has to either be extraordinarily dumb or, alternatively, genuinely prefer to have the country ruled for a generation by a hard-right nationalist GOP than by a democratic socialist for 4-8 years.

[Nonlinear FC]

I’m quite cynical right now, for sure, but that wasn’t intended as a blanket comment. There are Dems who can have a more centrist framework I don’t agree with but can (atleast partially) respect as a foundation. It was generally aimed at those who declare Bernie is too angry or loud or (laughably) individualistic and those who parrot it as an insult because he’s on stage truly fighting. Or those who think actually engaging in a primary debate is akin to a circular firing squad. And especially those who see someone like Pete, an ideological void, as an alternative because he seems nice and does a good Obama impression. “I’m not Trump but whoa I’m also not Bernie” will get fucking romped if there’s nothing but motivational poster speak behind it. Lastly, the whole “the marginalized left has to support (Bloomberg) because he’s better for the marginalized left than Trump” is offensive if it ends up coming from the same leadership that stomped out the guy actually fighting for the marginalized left. Its incremental assistance held hostage after removing the chances of far greater gains. If tomorrow your employer decides you’re now $12 per hour versus salaried and you know you can’t go anywhere else but they still need your production, you can either accept it or you fuck everyone in hopes of blowing everything up.

Ok, so pretty specific (and legit) grievances. I guess I'm still somewhat protective of my former colleagues.

[Johnnie]

I like making a post in this thread literally a day prior to a New York Times article proving my suspicions right.

Fuck moderate Democrats. Pieces of shit. They'd rather have Trump than Bernie because they ARE DIET FUCKING REPUBLICANS.

[degenerasian]

Why was Bloomberg a popular NY Mayor? Was it just money? What did he do right?

[Nonlinear FC]

I like making a post in this thread literally a day prior to a New York Times article proving my suspicions right.

Fuck moderate Democrats. Pieces of shit. They'd rather have Trump than Bernie because they ARE DIET FUCKING REPUBLICANS.

Solid take.

[Joe K]

Why was Bloomberg a popular NY Mayor? Was it just money? What did he do right?

A few things:

1. He bought a lot of endorsements from influential community figures by donating to them or their pet causes.

2. Most of his tenure as mayor was during a time of pretty expansive economic growth. At the time many considered aggressive policing to be a significant factor in that growth, although that’s an increasing disfavored view among researchers.

3. This relates to point 2 but even though NYC is a very Democratic city there was a pretty significant desire during the Giuliani/Bloomberg years to have a right-wing mayor to be “tough” on minority communities. It was a strong brand of NIMBYism: otherwise “liberal” people were willing to support civil right violations if it meant that their Manhattan condos kept appreciating in value.

[Joe K]

I would add that one of the most compelling argument against Sanders’ electability is if you think the Bloomberg/NYC effect will also happen nationally if the stock market has a strong year. If affluent Democrats will back Sanders over Trump, even if they view it as a potential risk to their stock portfolio, he can absolutely win. He’ll clean up with working class Dems and minority voters and also polls well with independents.

But I think this discussion will be mooted as it seems increasingly likely the Coronavirus will have a massive effect on the global economy such that Trump won’t be able to just point to the stockmarket to handwave away all his other awfulness.

[mister d]

4. Most anyone looks ok sandwiched between Guiliani and de Blasio.