SUPERTHREAD: 2020 United States Elections

[The Romulan Republic]

In other news, "No majority" (ie, contested convention) is now the most likely outcome of the primary on fivethirtyeight, at 2 in 5 odds. Bernie win comes next at 1 in 3. Then Biden at 1 in 8.

I'm really starting to worry that we're going to get a contested convention, which means the super delegates get to vote and the Centrists can try to ram through a "moderate" candidate and deprive Bernie (who will almost certainly have the most votes, though not a majority) of the nomination.

Such a scenario would be the next closest thing to simply conceding the election and crowning Donald Trump King, as it would pretty much guarantee a riot on the convention floor, followed by 10 million progressives or so staying home, going third party, or even spite voting for Trump.

I will also add that in light of this, anyone without a clear path to the nomination who stays in the race at this point is being unforgivably selfish.

[loomer]

Any progressive who 'spite votes' for Trump is not, in fact, a progressive.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Not that I would ever in a million years endorse or excuse a spite vote for Trump, but in the (unlikely) case that, say, the Democratic party rams through Bloomberg as their candidate in a rigged convention, that's a pretty strong signal that if you are a progressive your votes literally do not actually matter. In which case it doesn't really matter WHAT you do with your vote. I don't necessarily agree with that perspective, but I can see the scenario playing out that at least makes it coherent.

[Straha]

I won't equate Bloomberg to Trump, who is a special kind of monster even by the standards of American politics. I also stand by my view that "Both Sides are just as bad" narratives are lazy and disingenuous and simplistic, and serve to normalize and legitimize the worst players.

This isn't a 'Both Sides are just as bad' narrative. This is a more nuanced narrative that recognizes that while the Democratic party, writ large, is fundamentally better than Trump in a number of key ways Mike Bloomberg is a piece of shit who is arguably worse than Trump in many real and quantifiable ways and the Democratic Party nominating him is a repugnant notion that should be opposed.

The notion that anyone, anywhere, would look at him and think "Yo, that guy! That guy is our saviour from a billionaire promoted out of his depth because of monetary and cultural connections." is offensive, and the fact that people will, during the primary, smile and say "Well, you know, if it's him I'll take him." is more ammunition for the accusation of the Democratic party being fucking gutless and unwilling to take a stand for anything.

The counterargument, of course, is that we have to vote for whoever the nominee is, because if we lose to Trump, it won't matter what people think of the Democrats, because the US won't be a Republic any more and there won't be another election (other than the kind where the Dear Leader gets 90%, anyway).

I get that Bloomberg is a pile of shit. And the bit about him altering term limits really does give me pause. But there is a reason why people say "Vote Blue no matter who", and its not just mindless party loyalty. Its because we saw what Bernie or Bust's "principles" cost us three years ago, and we know that the country can't stand four more years (and neither, frankly, can the world, especially given the Climate Crisis).

1. The Premise of the argument is wrong. Bloomberg is a Republican. He was elected as a Republican. Supported Republicans. Endorsed Republicans. (Even endorsing and funding Scott Brown over Elizabeth Warren.) And his politics remain those of Republicans.

2. The fuck? "Term limits really does give me pause"? Bloomberg racially profiled and harassed the entire black populace of New York City, put Black and Latin@ children in cages, and then complained about how he wasn't able to do it more and it's the fucking TERM LIMITS that give you pause? He blamed ending red-lining for the economic recession and it's TERM LIMITS that upsets you? He flaunted multiple court orders as mayor of New York City and the response is "Well, that approach to electoral ethics..." is where you focus? For fucks sake.

3. Bloomberg is a Corrupt, Racism, Authoritarian, pro-big business, anti-labor, authoritarian with a track record of governmental abuse. Those who make the argument for him being better than Trump ultimately come down to Bloomberg being a more articulate racist who knows how to say the quiet parts softly. That's not comparatively better, and the fact that people would position it as such is horrifying.

4. "Vote Blue No Matter Who" is toxic if it's applied to anyone who claims to be a Democrat. Nobody on the Left (and I use the term in its broadest sense here) seriously thinks he's one of our own. The fact that he can blow into the Democratic party, despite being strongly against its goals and values for years, and then claim that sort of institutional loyalty with a straight face is a disgrace to us all and undermines the people who absolutely have earned that right despite real and deeply felt internal disagreements (for instance: Klobuchar, Booker, Harris). If we're going to talk about who is being sold out here, it is the not insignificant portion of the party on the Left (and now I use the term more narrowly) who view racism, sexism, and being an oligarch as redlines that should not be crossed (to go beyond the basic one of 'being a republican'). For the 'centrist wing' of the Party to select Bloomberg over any of the other candidates (Biden, Klobuchar, Warren) would be a calculated and cold 'fuck you' to its youth and most active base, and a clear message that appealing to Republicans is more important than including the Left Wing in the party. In that world, I think it's fine for the Left to wash its hands of the party that wants no part of it. And if the Democratic Party isn't going to stand for anything but instead stand on "ANYBODY BUT TRUMP!" then it has become a hollow institution and begs the question why it should exist.

[aerius]

Bloomberg is scum. Yes. But I do not say that he is "arguably worse than Trump". That's Straha's argument, not mine. And while I would have deep misgivings about Bloomberg, I would also be very, very hesitant to choose Trump over him (which is what not voting amounts to, in practice), because we have been down this fucking road before. I heard the exact same arguments from every Bernie or Buster in 2016: "Don't vote for the lesser of two evils", "Both Sides are just as bad (but really we mean that the Democrats are worse)", "You're part of the problem". It was stupid and infuriating then, but now, when we've had three years to see just how vile and destructive Trump is? Its evil. You want to tell people that the highest priority is the destruction of the Democratic Party? Okay. Australia burning? That's on you. Heather Heyer run over in Charlottsville? That's on you. Dead little children in cages? That's on you. And everything that comes after will be on you too. And yeah, you can say you're not American, you can't vote, its not your fault, blah blah blah- but when you advocate an action that you know will have destructive results, you bear partial responsibility for those results.

The Democrat party supporting Bloomberg as its presidential candidate would be like the NDP running Stephen Harper for PM. If the party is so fundamentally broken and morally bankrupt that it would nominate & support a candidate who goes against everything that it stands for, it needs to fucking die. And if you're not willing to raise hell with every Democrat party contact you have to keep Bloomberg out of the picture, then you are part of the fucking problem.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

Not that I would ever in a million years endorse or excuse a spite vote for Trump, but in the (unlikely) case that, say, the Democratic party rams through Bloomberg as their candidate in a rigged convention, that's a pretty strong signal that if you are a progressive your votes literally do not actually matter. In which case it doesn't really matter WHAT you do with your vote. I don't necessarily agree with that perspective, but I can see the scenario playing out that at least makes it coherent.

From what I've been reading, Michael Bloomberg is basically Trump without the spray-on tan, blatant misogyny, and Putin bro-mance. Bloomberg being nominated would be an exceptionally clear signal that the upper echelons of the Democratic party don't care about, and are actively uncomfortable with, the liberal wing of the party. It would be a tacit admission that they believe that the American political center really lies on the right.

Of course, that sort of thinking is going to get Trump re-elected. First, because Donald Trump has been running for 2020 since November 9, 2016 ... he knows how to look "powerful" with all those cult-of-personality rallies of his. This will be the emotional image the average low-information "swing" voter will have ... the ones who makes up their mind at the last minute based on whatever their gut tells them, and however their 401K happens to be doing on that day.

if you give them the choice between a conservative racist asshole New York billionaire and a conservative racist asshole New York billionaire; you're giving them no compelling reason to upset the apple cart ... which is why I hope the "anyone but Sanders" lane picks a not-Bloomberg candidate and does so soon; at least that way someone (be it Sanders or Not-Sanders) is likely to come into the convention with a majority of delegates. And it probably shouldn't be Steyer or Klobuchar, because neither of them could be bothered learning the name of the President of Mexico, prior to being interviewed by Telemundo.

[The Romulan Republic]

This isn't a 'Both Sides are just as bad' narrative. This is a more nuanced narrative that recognizes that while the Democratic party, writ large, is fundamentally better than Trump in a number of key ways Mike Bloomberg is a piece of shit who is arguably worse than Trump in many real and quantifiable ways and the Democratic Party nominating him is a repugnant notion that should be opposed.

The notion that anyone, anywhere, would look at him and think "Yo, that guy! That guy is our saviour from a billionaire promoted out of his depth because of monetary and cultural connections." is offensive, and the fact that people will, during the primary, smile and say "Well, you know, if it's him I'll take him." is more ammunition for the accusation of the Democratic party being fucking gutless and unwilling to take a stand for anything.

The counterargument, of course, is that we have to vote for whoever the nominee is, because if we lose to Trump, it won't matter what people think of the Democrats, because the US won't be a Republic any more and there won't be another election (other than the kind where the Dear Leader gets 90%, anyway).

I get that Bloomberg is a pile of shit. And the bit about him altering term limits really does give me pause. But there is a reason why people say "Vote Blue no matter who", and its not just mindless party loyalty. Its because we saw what Bernie or Bust's "principles" cost us three years ago, and we know that the country can't stand four more years (and neither, frankly, can the world, especially given the Climate Crisis).

1. The Premise of the argument is wrong. Bloomberg is a Republican. He was elected as a Republican. Supported Republicans. Endorsed Republicans. (Even endorsing and funding Scott Brown over Elizabeth Warren.) And his politics remain those of Republicans.

That's probably the strongest argument for not voting for Bloomberg- that he's not actually a Democrat, but is in fact effectively a Republican infiltrator.

2. The fuck? "Term limits really does give me pause"? Bloomberg racially profiled and harassed the entire black populace of New York City, put Black and Latin@ children in cages, and then complained about how he wasn't able to do it more and it's the fucking TERM LIMITS that give you pause? He blamed ending red-lining for the economic recession and it's TERM LIMITS that upsets you? He flaunted multiple court orders as mayor of New York City and the response is "Well, that approach to electoral ethics..." is where you focus? For fucks sake.

His racism is evil and deplorable. That's why I posted about it in the first place. But the country can survive a bad President who will eventually be gone. A bad President who is determined never to leave is another thing altogether. That's where I was coming from here.
That Bloomberg is at least preferable to Trump is also a calculation many black voters are clearly making, given Bloomberg's rising support with that demographic in, for example, South Carolina.

Of course, knowing this board, I'm sure how my post will be interpreted is "TRR hates black people".

3. Bloomberg is a Corrupt, Racism, Authoritarian, pro-big business, anti-labor, authoritarian with a track record of governmental abuse. Those who make the argument for him being better than Trump ultimately come down to Bloomberg being a more articulate racist who knows how to say the quiet parts softly. That's not comparatively better, and the fact that people would position it as such is horrifying.

There are other issues to consider- how does Bloomberg compare on cozying up to foreign dictators? Or on the Climate Crisis?

If he's even a little bit willing to address Climate Change, that is a powerful argument for him over Trump, given, you know, the existential threat to the global ecosystem.

4. "Vote Blue No Matter Who" is toxic if it's applied to anyone who claims to be a Democrat. Nobody on the Left (and I use the term in its broadest sense here) seriously thinks he's one of our own. The fact that he can blow into the Democratic party, despite being strongly against its goals and values for years, and then claim that sort of institutional loyalty with a straight face is a disgrace to us all and undermines the people who absolutely have earned that right despite real and deeply felt internal disagreements (for instance: Klobuchar, Booker, Harris). If we're going to talk about who is being sold out here, it is the not insignificant portion of the party on the Left (and now I use the term more narrowly) who view racism, sexism, and being an oligarch as redlines that should not be crossed (to go beyond the basic one of 'being a republican'). For the 'centrist wing' of the Party to select Bloomberg over any of the other candidates (Biden, Klobuchar, Warren) would be a calculated and cold 'fuck you' to its youth and most active base, and a clear message that appealing to Republicans is more important than including the Left Wing in the party. In that world, I think it's fine for the Left to wash its hands of the party that wants no part of it. And if the Democratic Party isn't going to stand for anything but instead stand on "ANYBODY BUT TRUMP!" then it has become a hollow institution and begs the question why it should exist.

I am not entirely unsympathetic to that point of view. Obviously, there has to be a line somewhere. If, say, David Duke were to somehow become the Democratic candidate, I could not consider myself a Democrat.

But I am exceedingly reluctant to say "this is where I don't vote Democrat", partly because of what the alternatives are (to be blunt: perpetual Trumpist dictatorship, or almost certain futile armed resistance against it), and partly because, as I said before, we've been down this road (such and such is no different from the Republicans, don't vote) before, more than once. And its fucked us every time. Bush v Gore 2000. Trump v Clinton 2016.

So maybe this time is different. Maybe this time we have someone who really is just another Republican, and should not be voted for whatever the cost. But you must understand my skepticism, given the history and consequences of this sort of rhetoric. And the consequences to the world if Trump remains in power for another term (something I regard as tantamount to making the US a fascist dictatorship, and Trump the President for life).

Fortunately, I think this is all most likely theoretical. Bloomberg will most likely not be the nominee, and I'll do my part to make sure that he isn't. If God hates us enough that he ends up being the nominee... well, we'll cross that bridge when we come to it.

[Straha]

Not that I would ever in a million years endorse or excuse a spite vote for Trump, but in the (unlikely) case that, say, the Democratic party rams through Bloomberg as their candidate in a rigged convention, that's a pretty strong signal that if you are a progressive your votes literally do not actually matter. In which case it doesn't really matter WHAT you do with your vote. I don't necessarily agree with that perspective, but I can see the scenario playing out that at least makes it coherent.

From what I've been reading, Michael Bloomberg is basically Trump without the spray-on tan, blatant misogyny, and Putin bro-mance. Bloomberg being nominated would be an exceptionally clear signal that the upper echelons of the Democratic party don't care about, and are actively uncomfortable with, the liberal wing of the party. It would be a tacit admission that they believe that the American political center really lies on the right.

The Blatant Misogyny is there, he's just better at getting non-disclosure agreements.

[The Romulan Republic]

Well, all I can say is its time to fight like Hell to keep Bloomberg out of the nomination, and hope we don't have to decide what to do if he gets it. Personally, I'm hopeful. Bernie is the winner of the first two contests (tied if you want to be generous to Buttigieg, but recent polling has made Bloomberg's lack of a path outside of small heavily white states painfully clear). He's leading all over the place. We can do this, and get a real progressive nominee. Even in a contested convention, I'm hopeful that most of the Warren people, and at least some from the other camps (particularly the politically progressive Steyer) would go to Bernie.

Help us Bernie Sanders, you're our only hope.

Edit: I'd personally be okay with Warren or Steyer or Klobuchar, and at least tolerate Biden or Buttigieg. But I don't think any of them have much of a shot, at this point.

[The Romulan Republic]

Bernie Sanders rally crashed by topless protesters in Nevada (animal rights folks protesting Sanders' support for the dairy industry, apparently):

https://businessinsider.com/topless-dai ... lly-2020-2

[FaxModem1]

"Support Bernie Sanders, and you may just see topless women."

[The Romulan Republic]

Good news is that even a lot of Centrist Democrats don't seem happy about Bloomberg-in part because a lot of them are supporting other candidates (Buttigieg, Biden, Klobuchar). So the attacks on Bloomberg are ramping up in earnest from all quarters. Its one of the advantages of such a crowded field- rather than another polarized race between Sanders' base and a united "establishment" trying to block Bernie, we have Sanders with his devoted base, other progressives who are (brief tiff with Warren aside) mostly cordial toward each other, and a Centrist block far too busy fighting between its four or five different preferred candidates to mount a concerted effort to block Sanders. It also doesn't hurt that Bloomberg has previously pissed on things the Centrists hold dear as well (like Obamacare)- as I've said before, he has a political resume that seems tailor-made to piss off everybody, and I very much doubt that he'll hold up well now that people are looking in earnest below the surface of "Centrist billionaire". Likely he'll just be another person who rises briefly in the polls, a la Harris and Warren and Buttigieg, before quickly peaking, becoming the focus of the others' attacks, and then crumbling into obscurity while Bernie keeps sailing to victory.

Pretty good run-down here of the state of the race:

https://cnn.com/2020/02/16/politics/202 ... index.html

(CNN)Welcome to 2020! With just 6 days until the Nevada caucuses and 13 days until the South Carolina primary, the Democratic primary is in full swing. Every Sunday, I outline the 5 BIG storylines you need to know to understand the upcoming week on the campaign trail. And they're ranked -- so the No. 1 story is the most important of the coming week.

5. Tom Steyer matters!: While the other billionaire in the 2020 race (more on that below) is getting most of the attention these days, it's Steyer who is in double digits in recent polls in Nevada and South Carolina.

Those numbers are largely the result of heavy ad spending by Steyer in both states. To date, Steyer has spent almost $180 million on TV ads, according to CNN's David Wright. That's second only to former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

Now that all of the candidates including frontrunners like Bernie Sanders and Pete Buttigieg have turned their full attention to Nevada and South Carolina, it's an open debate as to whether Steyer's support stays with him or not.

And, if Steyer starts to leaks support -- because voters don't really see him as someone who can win -- where does it go? To a single candidate regarded as more viable? Or to a series of candidates -- each picking up a small-ish amount of Steyer backers?

Of course, it's also possible that Steyer voters in Nevada and South Carolina are hardcore Tom-heads (or something) and they are going to stick with him no matter what.

4. Elizabeth Warren, overlooked?: The Massachusetts senator is a bit of a forgotten candidate these days -- following a third place finish in Iowa and a fourth in New Hampshire.

And while Warren's path to the nomination seemed to rely on a victory in one of those two states, there are signs of life even after her less-than-impressive showings.

She raised $6 million since Iowa, a sign that her supporters aren't ready to walk away just yet. And she's holding on to third in new Nevada polling, above both former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg and Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar.

While there's still six days before Nevada votes, a third place finish there -- coupled with her latest fundraising numbers -- should allow her to stay in the race through South Carolina and the Super Tuesday states on March 3.

And, given the large number of uncertainties still at play in this race -- scroll down -- there's still some reason to believe Warren's doubters have written her political obituary just a little too quickly.

3. The Bloomberg oppo: Know how you can tell that former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg's Democratic primary opponents are starting to get very worried? A whole lot of opposition research is emerging about past things he has said and done that might not sit will with voters.

There's his support for "stop and frisk" -- and repeated comments he made defending that policy, which is widely regarded as overly punitive for black and Latino men. (Bloomberg has apologized.) There's his support for "redlining," a deeply biased policy that led banks not to make mortgage loans in low income, heavily minority areas. There's the many, many crude and sexist remarks allegedly attributed to Bloomberg during his years building his business.

And there will be more. Lots more. (CNN's KFile reported on a clip from 2010 in which Bloomberg talked down the Affordable Care Act and said it was "another program that's going to cost a lot of money.")

Some of these quotes and stances are things Bloomberg had already had to deal with during his three successful runs for mayor. Other are new -- dredged up by the top-notch reporters and opposition researchers covering a presidential campaign.

But, either way, it remains to be seen whether this spate of negative news stories slows the momentum that Bloomberg's massive ad spending has created. If his numbers don't take a hit, his opponents should be very, very nervous.

2. Wither Biden?: The former vice president and one-time frontrunner in this race, Joe Biden's chances in the race are now hanging by a string following a fourth place finish in Iowa and a fifth in New Hampshire.

Biden and his side continue to insist that everything is totally cool because black and Hispanic voters haven't, well, voted yet. But, polling data in Nevada suggests Biden is running behind Sanders and that his lead in South Carolina is not what it once was. Plus, there's already lots of chatter that Biden's support in South Carolina is rapidly eroding.

The question for Biden over the six days before Nevada -- and the 13 days before South Carolina -- is whether he can somehow bend the storyline from "he's done for" to "there's still a long way to go."

No one likes to vote for someone they think can't win -- and Biden's performance in the first two states has left that scent lingering on him. A strong second in Nevada might help but if he drops to third or worse in the Silver State caucuses, that will likely doom him even in his longtime South Carolina firewall.

1. Bernie, the frontrunner: The Vermont democratic socialist won the popular vote in Iowa (while narrowly losing out to Buttigieg among delegates) and claimed victory in the New Hampshire primary. Plus, per above, polling suggests he is the favorite going into Nevada next weekend.

Add that to his seemingly infinite capacity to raise money from his small-dollar, online donor base -- $25 million raised in January alone! -- make him the new frontrunner in the Democratic race.

That's a very different role than Sanders has played literally (Chris Traeger voice), his entire political life. Sanders has always been some combination of scrappy underdog and Don Quixote charging at windmills.

Now, though, he's the person most likely to lead the Democratic Party against President Donald Trump this fall. There's two things to think about there: 1) How comfortable or uncomfortable is Bernie in that role and 2) How hard will establishment figures within the party fight to knock him out of that role (and will it work)? (Ok, that was three questions.)

Make no mistake: Sanders is in uncharted waters here. Does he sink or swim?

[The Romulan Republic]

Even at a contested convention, I think Biden or Warren is a more likely Sanders alternative than Bloomberg, especially if stuff like him attacking Obamacare keeps coming out. The Democratic centrists don't want someone who will shit all over Obama's legacy.

[Tribble]

I suspect that Bloomberg is ultimately going to be the front runner against Sanders, if only because he has way more money to spend than everyone else combined. Especially if Biden collapses; IMO a lot more of his supporters will go to Bloomberg than the others.

All Bloomberg (and the rest) really have to do is block Sanders from getting a majority on the first ballot. If they can do that than IIRC the super delegates get involved... I find it kind of hard picturing them supporting Sanders over a more “establishment” figure.

Note that does not mean I support Bloomberg, I just don’t feel very optimistic about Sanders chances. He was blocked by the establishment the first time around, why would they change their minds this time? Especially with all the other people running? Sanders has to win a majority or he’s screwed.

[The Romulan Republic]

I suspect that Bloomberg is ultimately going to be the front runner against Sanders, if only because he has way more money to spend than everyone else combined. Especially if Biden collapses; IMO a lot more of his supporters will go to Bloomberg than the others.

Bloomberg will probably emerge as the final challenger to Bernie, but I'm not at all convinced he'll sweep up the Biden supporters that easily. Oddly enough, Bernie is (or at least was) a popular second choice for a lot of Biden voters. There are also, as I noted above, multiple Centrists to choose from, including ones with less baggage and less offensive positions than Bloomberg. That's really Bernie's best hope in this campaign- his opposition is hopelessly divided.

And Steyer also has a lot of money to throw into the race, and its he, not Bloomberg, who is now polling in double digits in Nevada and SC. And unlike Bloomberg, he's actually a decent person policy-wise, billionaire status aside- I'd be quite content with a Steyer nomination, if Bernie or Warren couldn't pull it off.

All Bloomberg (and the rest) really have to do is block Sanders from getting a majority on the first ballot. If they can do that than IIRC the super delegates get involved... I find it kind of hard picturing them supporting Sanders over a more “establishment” figure.

A lot of people act like the superdelegates are a homogenous block that will all work together as part of a DNC plot to rig the primary. But that's not really the case. Oh, sure, most of them probably aren't going to be big Sanders fans, but there are serious reasons why a lot of them won't be thrilled with Bloomberg either. And most of them are, above all else, politicians. They want to win, and they're probably smart enough to know that handing the nomination to Bloomberg of all people after Sanders got more votes would rip the party in two. Sure, there are probably some die-hard anti-Bernie people who would rather make Trump Fuhrer than have Bernie in the White House, but I'm willing to bet that its not a majority of them. I don't have a source at the moment, but IIRC, even Bill Clinton said in 2016 that he would vote for Bernie if he got a majority of the pledged delegates. And I expect that'll be the norm.

And again, there will be multiple Bernie alternatives coming to the convention with delegates, and they may all try to put themselves forward as a compromise candidate. Also, its not just the superdelegates that get to vote for whoever they want on the second ballot- its all the delegates, including the pledged delegates for each of the other campaigns. If Bernie is just shy of a majority, I'm better most of the Warren people and any delegates Steyer picks up jump ship to him, as well as perhaps a smattering from other campaigns.

I think it would be very advantageous to hammer Bloomberg on his criticisms of Obamacare, a policy which is pretty much sacred to the Democratic leadership. That won't win him any friends with the moderates.

Note that does not mean I support Bloomberg, I just don’t fee very optimistic about Sanders chances. He was blocked by the establishment the first time around, why would they change their minds this time? Especially with all the other people running? Sanders has to win a majority or he’s screwed.

While its difficult to resist the temptation, I think, to be honest, that it is generally ill-advised to speculate about this. It encourages people to get into the mindset that any outcome other than the one they want is fraudulent, and lays the ground work for conspiracy theorist disinformation campaigns. And Sanders is honestly in a better place right now than he was at this point in 2016, even if it doesn't look like it- he's tied/maybe won Iowa and won New Hampshire, just like last time, but while his win in NH was narrower, his opposition is much more divided, he's on track to win Nevada (going two or arguably three for three in the opening contests), and is leading national polls by a solid margin.

Recent polling had Bloomberg in a close race between Biden and Warren for second/third/fourth place, but having skipped the early contests and missed the early debates, he's running out of time. And the attacks are just getting started. Unless he can actually win several states on Super Tuesday, despite winning nothing prior to that, he's toast.

Super Tuesday will determine whether he is a serious challenger to Sanders, or just another candidate who briefly rose and quickly fell, a la Harris and Warren and (as soon as Nevada votes) Buttigieg.

[Straha]

That's probably the strongest argument for not voting for Bloomberg- that he's not actually a Democrat, but is in fact effectively a Republican infiltrator.

We're sticking a pin in this 'Democratic identity is worth fighting for' argument.

2. The fuck? "Term limits really does give me pause"? Bloomberg racially profiled and harassed the entire black populace of New York City, put Black and Latin@ children in cages, and then complained about how he wasn't able to do it more and it's the fucking TERM LIMITS that give you pause? He blamed ending red-lining for the economic recession and it's TERM LIMITS that upsets you? He flaunted multiple court orders as mayor of New York City and the response is "Well, that approach to electoral ethics..." is where you focus? For fucks sake.

His racism is evil and deplorable. That's why I posted about it in the first place. But the country can survive a bad President who will eventually be gone. A bad President who is determined never to leave is another thing altogether. That's where I was coming from here.
That Bloomberg is at least preferable to Trump is also a calculation many black voters are clearly making, given Bloomberg's rising support with that demographic in, for example, South Carolina.

Of course, knowing this board, I'm sure how my post will be interpreted is "TRR hates black people".

"I can excuse racism, but I draw the line at electoral shenanigans."

You are literally saying that Bloomberg's mass targeting of Black and Latino folk for state violence and arrest, his surveillance of the Muslim population, and his jackbooted thuggery is more tolerable than upsetting norms of power. That is, to put it mildly, fucked up. And lampshading it with hand-wringing about how "Well, people might call me racist!" doesn't make you A. not racist or B. not fucked up.

3. Bloomberg is a Corrupt, Racism, Authoritarian, pro-big business, anti-labor, authoritarian with a track record of governmental abuse. Those who make the argument for him being better than Trump ultimately come down to Bloomberg being a more articulate racist who knows how to say the quiet parts softly. That's not comparatively better, and the fact that people would position it as such is horrifying.

There are other issues to consider- how does Bloomberg compare on cozying up to foreign dictators? Or on the Climate Crisis?

If he's even a little bit willing to address Climate Change, that is a powerful argument for him over Trump, given, you know, the existential threat to the global ecosystem.

I'm pulling something I wrote for another medium. Let's talk about the areas where Bloomberg would supposedly be better than Trump:

Race - Bloomberg is a racist, not 'just' in speech but in action. He threw black and latin@ kids in cages because he felt they didn't have the right to walk the street without justifying their presence. He fought the courts that tried to stop him, and constantly positioned his policies as protecting New Yorkers from 'them'. In my eyes there's no distinction between that attitude and the attitude of 'shithole countries' sending us their 'rapists'. The distinction that can, easily, be made is that Bloomberg is more articulate, he knows to say the quiet part softly in a way that Trump struggles with. I don't think that makes Bloomberg better, and I think that should be fundamentally disqualifying to be President.

Economic policy - Bloomberg is a Wall Street billionaire who has bemoaned every regulation he has ever come across, compared the minimum wage to the Soviet Union, and called for the active repeal of the post '08 recession regulatory package. I'll talk more about labour activism and power below, but none of this is good. We can all agree that Trump is horrific, but that doesn't mean we should actively _opt into_ Bush/McCain era Republicanism.

Health Care - Do you think Republican Billionaires seriously give a shit about health care policy or want to reduce the control the market has over it? Do you think that he is the person who we should pick to try and continue the fight that Obamacare started?

Executive Rights - Bloomberg has a history of ignoring court orders as the head of an executive agency to engage in capricious violent action against those whom he _simply did not like_. He sent the NYPD in like thugs to crack skulls of the Occupy Wall Street movement because he thought they were unpleasant. He tried to turn the NYPD into an intelligence agency collecting information on Mosques around the City metropolitan area and the world. This was all for local concerns, imagine the horrendous shitshow of this if it scaled up into the US Military apparatus and fears of global stability. Trumpism does not retroactively excuse Bushism or justify a return to Neoconservative policy.

Corruption - Two Stories. Story the first: The Mayor of New York is term limited to two terms. Bloomberg was mayor for two terms. Then the financial crisis hit. Bloomberg didn't want anyone else running the city during the financial crisis. So he spent his money to get the City Council to undo the term limit. He then ran for a third term while also supporting putting term limits _back onto the mayor_. Story the Second: Bloomberg was a _Republican_ who spent years of his life supporting Republican politics. Then a scumbag Billionaire was elected President as a Republican. So Bloomberg gave a bunch speeches offering views and policies that were completely disjointed with his prior philosophies and political actions, changed party affiliation, and then spent billions of dollars to make himself a viable candidate for the Democratic nomination to be President. This is a level of corruption which should be viewed as flatly unacceptable.

Let me finally offer the Merrick Garland Disadvantage:

Bloomberg is a billionaire who has only ever wanted a smoothly operating government doing what it takes to ensure the most neoliberal of economic models hits no speed bumps. Historically he has happily cooperated with all members of his party, that is: Republicans, and even with centrist democrats to make this happen. He currently thinks that that neoliberal model is threatened by a capricious Trump and wants to restore order and balance. To do this now he is buying his way into the Democratic Primary.

Which begs the question: Do you think he gives a fuck about down ballot races? Do you think he will fight for Democrats like Doug Jones or Tammy Baldwin to protect their influence in the Senate? We know he thought Republicans Scott Brown and Pat Toomey were worth fighting for for before, which other Republicans will he pick in the future. If we want to support the Democratic Party, why pick him?

Obviously, I think this is a reason to reject him by itself. But I also think it leads to a question of what will he do if he's elected President and hits a McConnell roadblock? This could be a SCOTUS nominee, but it could be anything important to the Democratic Party: Labor Rights, Family Leave, whatever. Does he have any reason to be beholden to the Democratic Base and its interest groups like Unions/Women's Activists/Minority Rights groups? Any reason why he would fight the good fight? Bluntly, no. He will immediately make a deal, and that deal will almost certainly end up being as reflective of Republican interests (because, in part, he is one) as it is of Democratic interests. And in an era when the Republican Party is defined by its Trumpist influence what is the net benefit in that?

The Theory of the Bloomberg candidacy is that the Left wing of the party is unimportant to the Democratic Party and can be safely ignored in favor of appealing to Centrists and Republicans, and that Bloomberg is uniquely positioned to do that because he was (or is) a Republican. To say that Bloomberg is an acceptable face of the party is to say that it's okay to tell the ideological core of the Party that they are _expendable_ and unworthy of being included in the political calculus of the election. That is, to put it briefly, a suicidal strategy.

But I am exceedingly reluctant to say "this is where I don't vote Democrat", partly because of what the alternatives are (to be blunt: perpetual Trumpist dictatorship, or almost certain futile armed resistance against it), and partly because, as I said before, we've been down this road (such and such is no different from the Republicans, don't vote) before, more than once. And its fucked us every time. Bush v Gore 2000. Trump v Clinton 2016.

Let's go back to that pin. You have made clear that you view the distinction between Republican and Democrat as not just important but, to use your own words, called it "probably the strongest argument" to vote against someone. Which begs the question then, why is it important to be a Democrat? What is important about that group identity? Why is it something worth fighting for and preserving in abstract and not in the context of other parties?

Then, what does Bloomberg represent in terms of those core values? If he undermines, attacks, and erodes those values then why are you willing to fight for him? Because if it's simply because he'll now have a "D" next to his name when he runs while acknowledging that he undermines what that should stand for then you're the one damaging the party. And if the logic is simply 'anybody but the GOP' then why does it matter that you're a democrat? You've already defined yourself as 'not them' and if that's all that matters then identifying 'with' someone is a pretty hollow act.

Show some chutzpah. Take a stand. There are Democrats who cannot, and should not, be tolerated. Dan Lipinski and Bloomberg should both be run out on the rails. To say otherwise is cowardice.

[Ralin]

We can all agree that Trump is horrific, but that doesn't mean we should actively _opt into_ Bush/McCain era Republicanism.

Do you think that he is the person who we should pick to try and continue the fight that Obamacare started?

Trumpism does not retroactively excuse Bushism or justify a return to Neoconservative policy.

You seem awfully determined to make it sound like Rom is advocating any of those things when near as I can tell the closest he’s come to that is saying it would be better than Trump doing the same things or worse.

Which begs the question then, why is it important to be a Democrat? What is important about that group identity? Why is it something worth fighting for and preserving in abstract and not in the context of other parties?

For much the same reason that what’s his name Manchin the guy who voted for Rape Judge Kavanaugh being in the Senate is better than any of the Republicans who would probably take his place because at he’s +1 towards making the not-Republican Party a majority.

Then, what does Bloomberg represent in terms of those core values? If he undermines, attacks, and erodes those values then why are you willing to fight for him? Because if it's simply because he'll now have a "D" next to his name when he runs while acknowledging that he undermines what that should stand for then you're the one damaging the party. And if the logic is simply 'anybody but the GOP' then why does it matter that you're a democrat? You've already defined yourself as 'not them' and if that's all that matters then identifying 'with' someone is a pretty hollow act.

Because other people in said party are/will be working for the things we want associated with the Democrats. Which is more than you can say about the Republicans, and is at least something to work with.

[The Romulan Republic]

"I can excuse racism, but I draw the line at electoral shenanigans."

Where did I excuse it? Was it when I was the one who quoted Michael Bloomberg's racist words in this thread as a point against his candidacy? Was it when I called his racism "evil and deplorable"?

Don't put words in my mouth, so that you can accuse me of defending something that I despise.

You are literally saying that Bloomberg's mass targeting of Black and Latino folk for state violence and arrest, his surveillance of the Muslim population, and his jackbooted thuggery is more tolerable than upsetting norms of power. That is, to put it mildly, fucked up. And lampshading it with hand-wringing about how "Well, people might call me racist!" doesn't make you A. not racist or B. not fucked up.

You are twisting my words and their meaning, making it appear as though I believe some nebulous political "norms" are more important than opposing racism. But the President respecting the legal limits on their office is not an abstract point, or a nicety that only white racists care about. It is absolutely foundational to any functioning system of government, or any possibility of future reform.

Its not that I think preserving norms for their own sake is more important than opposing racism. What I said is that a bad President, even a racist President, who will be gone in four (or eight) years is preferable to a bad President who intends to make himself dictator for life. And I don't see how you can honestly argue that point. Although the casual way in which you dismiss attacks on the limits of executive power as "upsetting the norms of power" and "election shenanigans" is telling as to how little value you likely place on democratic institutions or the rule of law.

There's pretty much no way to definitively refute an accusation of racism, because there are so many disagreements on what racism is, and many even take the view that essentially "Its racist if someone perceives it as racist". It is also, of course, possible to be racist without being aware of it. Its also a difficult accusation for a progressive to defend against, because we are rightly expected to take accusations of racism seriously and sympathize with the victims over the perpetrators. And indeed, there is probably not a person on this planet past infancy who has never been guilty of racial prejudice (or very few). So I can't honestly say that I am not racist. But that doesn't mean that I am being racist simply because I disagree with you on whether refusing to vote Democrat is the most effective way to fight racism.

I might also argue that its racist of you to advocate an action (refusing to vote for the Democratic nominee) that you KNOW would lead to the reelection of (and likely dictatorship by) a Klan-endorsed racist who locks thousands of children in concentration camps for the crime of being brown and foreign.

And if you feel that my views on racism are irrelevant, given that I am a white man, fair enough. But I would remind you, again, that many black voters support Bloomberg as well, presumably because they've made the same calculus that even the mayor who's perhaps best-known for stop and frisk is better for them than four more years of Donald Trump:

https://usatoday.com/story/news/politic ... 750395002/

I'm not saying that a black person can't be racist, but surely if we're talking about the rights and interests of black Americans, and whether it is inherently racist to be willing to vote for Michael Bloomberg despite his racist policies, then their viewpoint is at least somewhat relevant?

I'm pulling something I wrote for another medium. Let's talk about the areas where Bloomberg would supposedly be better than Trump:

Race - Bloomberg is a racist, not 'just' in speech but in action. He threw black and latin@ kids in cages because he felt they didn't have the right to walk the street without justifying their presence. He fought the courts that tried to stop him, and constantly positioned his policies as protecting New Yorkers from 'them'. In my eyes there's no distinction between that attitude and the attitude of 'shithole countries' sending us their 'rapists'. The distinction that can, easily, be made is that Bloomberg is more articulate, he knows to say the quiet part softly in a way that Trump struggles with. I don't think that makes Bloomberg better, and I think that should be fundamentally disqualifying to be President.

It really, really should. But what if the choice is between someone who did that shit, and someone who did that shit and a lot of other, additional evil shit?

Sure, you can say "Don't vote for the lesser of two evils" (or insist that the two evils are equivalent), but sometimes you have to accept something awful to prevent something even worse. The classic example, of course, would be the alliance with the Soviet Union in the Second World War. Joseph Stalin was unquestionably an evil man, much more destructive and brutal than anything Bloomberg has done: a mass-murderer and a tyrant- someone who in any normal circumstances absolutely should have been opposed. But if the Allies had not worked with him, Nazism might well control the world today.

Was that wrong? Were Stalin's acts not "disqualifying"? Or should Hitler have been allowed to win, rather than ally with the mass murdering tyrant Stalin?

Economic policy - Bloomberg is a Wall Street billionaire who has bemoaned every regulation he has ever come across, compared the minimum wage to the Soviet Union, and called for the active repeal of the post '08 recession regulatory package. I'll talk more about labour activism and power below, but none of this is good. We can all agree that Trump is horrific, but that doesn't mean we should actively _opt into_ Bush/McCain era Republicanism.

Health Care - Do you think Republican Billionaires seriously give a shit about health care policy or want to reduce the control the market has over it? Do you think that he is the person who we should pick to try and continue the fight that Obamacare started?

Executive Rights - Bloomberg has a history of ignoring court orders as the head of an executive agency to engage in capricious violent action against those whom he _simply did not like_. He sent the NYPD in like thugs to crack skulls of the Occupy Wall Street movement because he thought they were unpleasant. He tried to turn the NYPD into an intelligence agency collecting information on Mosques around the City metropolitan area and the world. This was all for local concerns, imagine the horrendous shitshow of this if it scaled up into the US Military apparatus and fears of global stability. Trumpism does not retroactively excuse Bushism or justify a return to Neoconservative policy.

Corruption - Two Stories. Story the first: The Mayor of New York is term limited to two terms. Bloomberg was mayor for two terms. Then the financial crisis hit. Bloomberg didn't want anyone else running the city during the financial crisis. So he spent his money to get the City Council to undo the term limit. He then ran for a third term while also supporting putting term limits _back onto the mayor_. Story the Second: Bloomberg was a _Republican_ who spent years of his life supporting Republican politics. Then a scumbag Billionaire was elected President as a Republican. So Bloomberg gave a bunch speeches offering views and policies that were completely disjointed with his prior philosophies and political actions, changed party affiliation, and then spent billions of dollars to make himself a viable candidate for the Democratic nomination to be President. This is a level of corruption which should be viewed as flatly unacceptable.

Let me finally offer the Merrick Garland Disadvantage:

Bloomberg is a billionaire who has only ever wanted a smoothly operating government doing what it takes to ensure the most neoliberal of economic models hits no speed bumps. Historically he has happily cooperated with all members of his party, that is: Republicans, and even with centrist democrats to make this happen. He currently thinks that that neoliberal model is threatened by a capricious Trump and wants to restore order and balance. To do this now he is buying his way into the Democratic Primary.

Which begs the question: Do you think he gives a fuck about down ballot races? Do you think he will fight for Democrats like Doug Jones or Tammy Baldwin to protect their influence in the Senate? We know he thought Republicans Scott Brown and Pat Toomey were worth fighting for for before, which other Republicans will he pick in the future. If we want to support the Democratic Party, why pick him?

Obviously, I think this is a reason to reject him by itself. But I also think it leads to a question of what will he do if he's elected President and hits a McConnell roadblock? This could be a SCOTUS nominee, but it could be anything important to the Democratic Party: Labor Rights, Family Leave, whatever. Does he have any reason to be beholden to the Democratic Base and its interest groups like Unions/Women's Activists/Minority Rights groups? Any reason why he would fight the good fight? Bluntly, no. He will immediately make a deal, and that deal will almost certainly end up being as reflective of Republican interests (because, in part, he is one) as it is of Democratic interests. And in an era when the Republican Party is defined by its Trumpist influence what is the net benefit in that?

I note that you didn't actually directly address my point about Climate Policy.

However, all of this is certainly important information to get out there and hammer Bloomberg with now so we DON'T have to make the awful choice between Bloomberg and Trump that I described above.

The Theory of the Bloomberg candidacy is that the Left wing of the party is unimportant to the Democratic Party and can be safely ignored in favor of appealing to Centrists and Republicans, and that Bloomberg is uniquely positioned to do that because he was (or is) a Republican. To say that Bloomberg is an acceptable face of the party is to say that it's okay to tell the ideological core of the Party that they are _expendable_ and unworthy of being included in the political calculus of the election. That is, to put it briefly, a suicidal strategy.

Support for Bloomberg is, I think, built largely on a combination of "Anyone but Bernie" panic from Centrists combined with Biden's fall, and a cynical calculation that America will only elect a rich conservative, so that essentially the only way to beat Trump is to play his own game. Its idiotic, and it will almost certainly fail if attempted.

In your rush to paint me as a racist who supports police brutality against black people, you seem to have missed the point that I'M NOT ACTUALLY A BLOOMBERG SUPPORTER. I KNOW that he's a corrupt bigot with Right-leaning policies. I also know that he's likely to lose to Trump if he's the nominee. I am planning to cast my vote for Bernie Sanders, because I believe he is a) a person of better moral character, b) a person with better overall policies, and c) more likely to win a general election against Trump. I might vote for Bloomberg in the general election, if it was him or Trump, because the alternative is a man who has literally locked children in concentration camps, had his lackies argue in court that there is no right to a habitable planet, and branded his political opponents and law enforcement guilty of treason and threatened civil war if he doesn't win. But I really do not want to have to make that choice.

What we have here, at its core, is not an argument between a person who opposes racism and a person who condones it, or a person who supports Bloomberg and one who opposes him- what we have is an argument between two people who oppose racism, but differ on what the most practical tactics are. Which you then construe, falsely, as me not caring about racism.

And fuck you for making me have to defend Bloomberg, even a little.

Let's go back to that pin. You have made clear that you view the distinction between Republican and Democrat as not just important but, to use your own words, called it "probably the strongest argument" to vote against someone. Which begs the question then, why is it important to be a Democrat? What is important about that group identity? Why is it something worth fighting for and preserving in abstract and not in the context of other parties?

Then, what does Bloomberg represent in terms of those core values? If he undermines, attacks, and erodes those values then why are you willing to fight for him? Because if it's simply because he'll now have a "D" next to his name when he runs while acknowledging that he undermines what that should stand for then you're the one damaging the party. And if the logic is simply 'anybody but the GOP' then why does it matter that you're a democrat? You've already defined yourself as 'not them' and if that's all that matters then identifying 'with' someone is a pretty hollow act.

Show some chutzpah. Take a stand. There are Democrats who cannot, and should not, be tolerated. Dan Lipinski and Bloomberg should both be run out on the rails. To say otherwise is cowardice.

I agree that there has to be a line after which we say "We will not support this person". If we will support anyone with a D next to their name no matter what they do, then we really are no different than the Republicans.

But I am reluctant to rush to that conclusion, or to reject any potential nominee at this point, for one simple reason: because I have seen the last four years of Trump, I have seen the consequences of refusing to vote Democrat because you oppose the nominee, and I honestly believe that if we lose this election, then the United States, the most powerful nation on Earth, will be a fascistic dictatorship. Sure, we might punish the Democrats for picking Bloomberg, we might even send a message about what being a Democrat should stand for, but that will do exactly fuck-all to keep the United States from being a fascist dictatorship, because we won't get a chance to pick a better nominee next time and try again, or to build a viable third party. Trump will be dictator, and any (likely futile) resistance to him will be with guns and bombs in the streets, while the world burns thanks to Climate Change.

To ask, no, to demand that I knowingly help damn my country and the world to that fate is asking for a hell of a lot. And while I think I can see where you're coming from, its a hell of a thing to call me racist because I'm NOT willingly to knowingly work to give a Klan-endorsed fascist that power.

And of course, these sorts of shit-flinging feuds between fellow Leftists is exactly what Trump and his allies want. For that, I regret being sucked into one once again.

[The Romulan Republic]

Also, seriously: when even Ralin says I'm being misrepresented, you know its bad.

[Straha]

We can all agree that Trump is horrific, but that doesn't mean we should actively _opt into_ Bush/McCain era Republicanism.

Do you think that he is the person who we should pick to try and continue the fight that Obamacare started?

Trumpism does not retroactively excuse Bushism or justify a return to Neoconservative policy.

You seem awfully determined to make it sound like Rom is advocating any of those things when near as I can tell the closest he’s come to that is saying it would be better than Trump doing the same things or worse.

A. The call to endorse Bloomberg if he is the nominee is a statement that says we should "opt into" and "pick" the policies aligned above. The arg is that this is unacceptable on many levels and that we should delineate that Bloomberg is an unacceptable person to lead the country and/or the Democratic party.

B. I realize that he is making the claim that Bloomberg is better than Trump. Reading the posts I've made would make very clear that I disagree with that on a number of levels. Which is where the argument is coming from.

Which begs the question then, why is it important to be a Democrat? What is important about that group identity? Why is it something worth fighting for and preserving in abstract and not in the context of other parties?

For much the same reason that what’s his name Manchin the guy who voted for Rape Judge Kavanaugh being in the Senate is better than any of the Republicans who would probably take his place because at he’s +1 towards making the not-Republican Party a majority.

"if the logic is simply 'anybody but the GOP' then why does it matter that you're a democrat? You've already defined yourself as 'not them' and if that's all that matters then identifying 'with' someone is a pretty hollow act."

At least bother reading the post you're responding to.

Then, what does Bloomberg represent in terms of those core values? If he undermines, attacks, and erodes those values then why are you willing to fight for him? Because if it's simply because he'll now have a "D" next to his name when he runs while acknowledging that he undermines what that should stand for then you're the one damaging the party. And if the logic is simply 'anybody but the GOP' then why does it matter that you're a democrat? You've already defined yourself as 'not them' and if that's all that matters then identifying 'with' someone is a pretty hollow act.

Because other people in said party are/will be working for the things we want associated with the Democrats. Which is more than you can say about the Republicans, and is at least something to work with.

Completely unresponsive to the section you've quoted.

[The Romulan Republic]

Huh, looks like the Bern is starting to play dirty:

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4 ... or-golfing

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) hit back at a statement by former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s presidential campaign calling President Trump “Bernie’s new bro” with a photo of the president and Bloomberg golfing.

https://t.co/XwB74v3u0w pic.twitter.com/UID9vVK1yi

— Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) February 17, 2020
ADVERTISEMENT
The original statement from Bloomberg campaign manager Kevin Sheekey accused Sanders and Trump of “deploy[ing] the very same attacks and tactics against Mike,” and came the same day that Bloomberg released an ad attempting to tie Sanders to tweets from some of his apparent supporters attacking other candidates.

“Sen. Sanders is building a multi-racial, multi-ethnic, multi-generational movement for justice. We recognize that our opponents in the establishment would like to perpetuate a false myth to discount the breadth and diversity of our supporters — and we categorically reject it," Sanders campaign deputy director of communications Sarah Ford said in a statement to The Hill Monday.

"As the senator has said loudly and clearly, there is no room in the political revolution for abuse and harassment online, and we must live our values of love and compassion,” Ford added.

Sanders has repeatedly blasted Bloomberg since his entry into the race for blanketing the airwaves with ads without entering early primaries and caucuses, saying in Nevada Sunday “I’ve got news for Mr. Bloomberg, and that is the American people are sick and tired of billionaires buying elections.”

I can live with "Don't attack fellow Democrats, unless its Bloomberg" honestly.

Bloomberg is trying to both sides Sanders and Trump. Ugg.

[Darth Yan]

I'll prefer Bernie. I'll vote for whoever the dem nominee is but I'll be holding me nose for certain candidates (Bloomberg especially. HE at least has a plan for climate change which makes him slightly better than Trump.)

[The Romulan Republic]

I'll prefer Bernie. I'll vote for whoever the dem nominee is but I'll be holding me nose for certain candidates (Bloomberg especially. HE at least has a plan for climate change which makes him slightly better than Trump.)

Yeah. Honestly, I think that if he were identical to Trump on every issue but that (and he isn't) the fact that he is at least seemingly willing to make some effort on the ONGOING EXISTENTIAL THREAT TO HUMAN EXISTENCE AND THE PLANETARY ECOSYSTEM, as opposed to actively making it worse at every turn, would at least be a strong argument in his favor.

That's a really shitty choice I don't want to have to make, there's a reason I compared it to allying with Stalin to stop Hitler, but I can at least see the argument. Existential threats kind of by definition take precedence.

For now, though, I'm going to fight for the Bern and hope for the best. Sanders is truly in a position to pull it off, a much stronger position than he ever was in 2016, so rather than panicking over what we'll do if its Bloomberg or Trump, our energy would be best spent on working as hard as possible to put Bernie over the top and have a nominee who both excites voters and unambiguously stands for progressive values.

[The Romulan Republic]

New poll gives Sanders a 19 point lead in Nevada:

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4 ... evada-poll

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) holds a 19-point lead in Nevada, the next state to vote in the 2020 presidential nominating contest, according to a poll released Monday.

Progressive pollster Data for Progress found the democratic socialist with 35 percent support Nevada ahead of its caucus on Saturday. Clumped behind him are Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), former South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg and former Vice President Joe Biden, with 16 percent, 15 percent and 14 percent support, respectively.

Twenty-one percent of respondents back other candidates, including 10 percent for philanthropist Tom Steyer and 9 percent for Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.).

Sanders held an overwhelming advantage among voters under age 45, who backed him at 64 percent, and Hispanic voters, who supported him at 66 percent. No other candidate registered in the double digits for Hispanic support.

The independent senator also has the highest net favorability rate at 38 percent, with 68 percent having a favorable view of him and 30 percent unfavorable. Warren followed with a 35 percent net favorability rate.

Sanders won the New Hampshire primary last week and came in a close second to Buttigieg in Iowa the week before.

Nevada will be the most diverse state for the 2020 candidates so far, so a Sanders win would further solidify him as a front-runner.

The Data for Progress poll surveyed 766 likely caucus goers between Feb. 12 and 15. The margin of error is 3.4 percentage points.

Well.



If that is even close to accurate, Biden and Warren are fucking toast, and Buttigieg is likely beginning his downward slide into irrelevance. Which, yes, will leave Bloomberg (and possibly Steyer and Klobuchar) as the only serious opposition to Sanders, but if he wins Nevada by that much, after "tying" Iowa and winning NH, he'll probably get enough of a boost to either win or run a close second in South Carolina. And if he goes three or even four for four... well, at that point Sanders is going into Super Tuesday looking less like a front-runner, and more like a presumptive nominee. Its also hard to imagine him losing his leads in California and Texas after such a string of wins (unless other candidates drop out and their people go overwhelmingly to Bloomberg, but that's hard to buy with that much momentum and obvious electability behind Sanders), so he probably dominates the delegate count on Super Tuesday too, even if Bloomberg takes a few big states like Florida.

Its too early to say, but if these numbers hold, all the panic over Bloomberg may just turn out to be as much a tempest in a teapot as the panic over the Warren/Bernie feud or Bernie's heart attack were.

Winning Nevada in a landslide, and having a close race (win or lose) in SC, will also forever put to bed the myth that Sanders is just supported by angry young white men (at least for all but the most determined and pathetic trolls).

[The Romulan Republic]

I also just noticed that fivethirtyeight is fudging their statistics a bit to make Bernie look weaker, and a contested convention look more likely.

On their main page, they have a graphic showing the odds of different primary outcomes, with "no one" getting a majority (ie contested convention) at 2 in 5, and Bernie next at 1 in 3.

If you click for more information, though, you'll see that they are rounded the odds for "no one" up from 37% to 2 in 5 (40%), while rounding Sanders' odds down from 35% to 1 in 3 (33.3%).