Okay, then tell that to the voters. As it happens, Bloomberg is polling third nationally behind Biden and Sanders and has won a whopping zero delegates.Or maybe a racist, transphobic billionaire shouldn't even have a shred of consideration for Presidency, especially on the Democratic side? There is more than enough evidence (video, audio, and direct-quote text) that show Bloomberg only gives a shit about himself and other rich white people. We do not need another Trump running against Trump. He will actively work against minorities and the working class from day zero.
We agree to disagree then. I think if youre going to run for a spot on the democratic ticket, you at the very least, shouldn't be the opponent of the party youre attempting to get the nom for. But I guess some people think we should allow donald trump to run as a democrat. Kind of crazy anyone would be cool with that honestly.No, I read it, I just think it's a very poor rational for trying to implement a system Bernie supporters have been decrying for years.
The primary voters should decide who will represent the party, not party elites. Be that Bernie or Bloomberg.
The stage isnt going to tear him apart. Chuck Todd is not going to ask legitimate questions about his illegitimate means of buying his way onto the stage. Some of the candidates may take pop shots at him. But I don't foresee it being a unified take down to an extent that it would do more harm than good. This strategy also failed miserably for the GoP in 16.
That's for the primary voters to decide. That's called democracy.
So pretty much confirmed it's going to be Bernie vs everyone else, including Warren at the debate. Considering how critical debates have been in the lead-up to Iowa & NH, I'm really curious to see how Bernie handles the incoming. No doubt Chuck Todd will set-up endless gotcha's for him as well.
Thank youLast time I checked, someone buying their way into an election, whether it's from ridiculously expensive ad buys, cringe-inducing influencer pushes, or direct donations to the DNC, isn't called democracy.
It's honestly strange to see Bernie supporters arguing for backdoor party machinations to ice out candidates they just don't like.
I believe that he's a registered DemocratWe agree to disagree then. I think if youre going to run for a spot on the democratic ticket, you at the very least, shouldn't be the opponent of the party youre attempting to get the nom for. But I guess some people think we should allow donald trump to run as a democrat. Kind of crazy anyone would be cool with that honestly.
He has a lot more to lose. Anyone who thinks he isn't already in this needs to turn on a TV. I'd rather let the stage tear him apart then let him go on making ads and being practically ignored.
Only so he can run on their platform. Hes a republican. His policies are going to be republican. He should not be allowed on the ticket.
I think the point that I most want to see addressed is this: Bloomberg is a smarter Trump, and participating in debates did not hurt Trump, so is there a good reason to believe it will hurt Bloomberg?
I think the point that I most want to see addressed is this: Bloomberg is a smarter Trump, and participating in debates did not hurt Trump, so is there a good reason to believe it will hurt Bloomberg?
You realize anyone can qualify for the Dem ticket if they fill out paperwork in time, right?This is ridiculous. Why do you think he "qualified" in the first place?
I think the point that I most want to see addressed is this: Bloomberg is a smarter Trump, and participating in debates did not hurt Trump, so is there a good reason to believe it will hurt Bloomberg?
I remember thinking republicans were above it before they nominated Trump.The hope that the democratic primary voters see through it better?
Cause if they don't then we're fucked anyway
You realize anyone can qualify for the Dem ticket if they fill out paperwork in time, right?
Qualifying for the debate has literally nothing to do with qualifying to run in the primary. Not sure why you're conflating the two.The DNC specifically changed the rules to allow Bloomberg on stage for the debates. He only qualified because they wanted him to.
Bernie has run against Democrats. Bernie has taken every opportunity to put daylight between himself and the Democratic Party. Bernie has historically has poor participation in Democratic Party fundraising and functions.We agree to disagree then. I think if youre going to run for a spot on the democratic ticket, you at the very least, shouldn't be the opponent of the party youre attempting to get the nom for. But I guess some people think we should allow donald trump to run as a democrat. Kind of crazy anyone would be cool with that honestly.
I think it's important to shy away from making huge generalizations and I personally don't like the term "Bernie Bro" (yes I know it's in some of the articles linked below, it's a dumb term). I really dislike Pete but I think all of the "mayo" and "rat" stuff is ridiculous and childish, as was the snake emoji business for Warren. I'm trying to imagine the reaction if people started referring to Sanders as a rat or a snake constantly or came up with a shitty, denigrating nickname for him and just kept that in play at all times when referring to him as has happened with Pete.Because they were doing that lol. There were trending hashtags for both of those events, for DAYS. People spent 3-4 days talking about Pete "ratfucking" the Iowa Caucus, and regularly call him a rat. Are you just glossing over these facts? How many Warren supporters are in here taking shots at other candidates? Exactly. Bernie supporters are vilified because they consistently behave the worst. When SNL is blasting a subset of them as "an army of internet trolls" on Network Television, you have an image problem.
trump was a better reflection of the republican base than 'establishment' republicans. the average GOP voter runs off white grievance politics and "owning the libs". they ate Trump up. do you think the average democratic voter is really secretly a bloombergite? (and if so, what does that say about bernie's chances?)I think the point that I most want to see addressed is this: Bloomberg is a smarter Trump, and participating in debates did not hurt Trump, so is there a good reason to believe it will hurt Bloomberg?
The problem for Bloomberg is that the Democratic base is not a bunch of knuckle dragging neanderthals.I think the point that I most want to see addressed is this: Bloomberg is a smarter Trump, and participating in debates did not hurt Trump, so is there a good reason to believe it will hurt Bloomberg?
Yes, and they should have. Again, a not insubstantial number of voters currently support him. The party should it be denying voters the ability to hear from a viable candidate. They deserve that information.The DNC specifically changed the rules to allow Bloomberg on stage for the debates. He only qualified because they wanted him to.
The DNC specifically changed the rules to allow Bloomberg on stage for the debates. He only qualified because they wanted him to.
I actually have no idea what the party rules are about this. I would think that you have to be actually eligible for the office to qualify for the primary race (natural born citizen, 35 years old, not legally dead). Are you saying that's not right?You realize anyone can qualify for the Dem ticket if they fill out paperwork in time, right?
I already qualified my position as to why Bernie isn't a problem. He is a democrat and his positions align on the democratic policy spectrum. Bloomberg's do not.I believe that he's a registered Democrat
And if you start requiring that you have to be a Democrat to run in the primary, that means Bernie can't run
You made a broad generalization about Sanders supporters being by far the most toxic. I expect you to back that up rather than trying to deflect your own generalizations as me being "part of the problem."
Once again, if you cannot do that, I suggest you should probably stop making incendiary generalizations. For someone railing against online toxicity, you should hold yourself to a higher standard than contributing to it.
The DNC specifically changed the rules to allow Bloomberg on stage for the debates. He only qualified because they wanted him to.
Then you checked wrong. Primary voters have the right to bases their decisions on whatever criteria they want. They best way to fight against the influence Bloomberg's money has on the election is to allow him in the debates, where his money doesn't matter and he will have to face his opponents and the electorate directly.Last time I checked, someone buying their way into an election, whether it's from ridiculously expensive ad buys, cringe-inducing influencer pushes, or direct donations to the DNC, isn't called democracy.
Bloomberg isn't running for the Republican nom? I mean say what you want about the rank and file dems, I'd give them the bare minimum credit that they'd be against "smarter Trump" once his past is broadly exposed. Also, the prevailing sentiment is that Bloomberg is a terrible debater, so seeing how he deals with people dragging him through his past racist comments and policies should hopefully be effective. No one knows for sure though.
What positions do and do not "align on the democratic policy spectrum" is so vague and free flowing, there is literally no way to actually enforce a rule like that if it was createdI already qualified my position as to why Bernie isn't a problem. He is a democrat and his positions align on the democratic policy spectrum. Bloomberg's do not.
Yes, and they should have. Again, a not insubstantial number of voters currently support him. The party should it be denying voters the ability to hear from a viable candidate. They deserve that information.
Democrats don't like it when you intentionally target black people with your police force and spy on mosques. Republicans do.I think the point that I most want to see addressed is this: Bloomberg is a smarter Trump, and participating in debates did not hurt Trump, so is there a good reason to believe it will hurt Bloomberg?
What do you think the reason was?
#NeverWarren Attacks.
Mayor Pete Compared them to Trump Supporters.
Bernie's Supporters are least likely to support the eventual nominee.
When he announced in Feb 2019, he had to send a letter to surrogates asking them to chill out.
Sanders had to apologize to Joe Biden just a month ago.
Sanders has to regularly urge his supporters to show restraint.
And by regularly, I mean regularly.
Most recently that Culinary Union was attacked.
Even The Onion has picked up on how overzealous they can be.
Nevermind that this thread multiple times, multiple threads in OT, and PoliERA have been locked because a certain subset of Democratic Voters supporting a certain candidate have turned to negative attacks against other users.
I think it's important to shy away from making huge generalizations and I personally don't like the term "Bernie Bro" (yes I know it's in some of the articles linked below, it's a dumb term). I really dislike Pete but I think all of the "mayo" and "rat" stuff is ridiculous and childish, as was the snake emoji business for Warren. I'm trying to imagine the reaction if people started referring to Sanders as a rat or a snake constantly or came up with a shitty, denigrating nickname for him and just kept that in play at all times when referring to him as has happened with Pete.
It's clearly not the entirety of Sanders supporters here or elsewhere but it's hard to argue that any other candidate has a subset of supporters with such a toxic reputation.
On the other hand, mischaracterizing Sanders supporters as "brownshirts" or whatever bullshit Chuck Todd or Chris Matthews wants to propagate is insane and needs to be called out.
It's kind of funny that there is no study on how much the public option will cost the US, and yet they continue to use that as an attack. Bernie should just tell them how much will their plan cost. All Bernie has to say is that his plan will be cheaper because there are two studies about his plan showing that.Medicare For All is still cheaper than any union healthcare, and he will almost certainly bring that up. It also supports everyone, and not just those with a job or union that happens to also provide insurance options.
I already qualified my position as to why Bernie isn't a problem. He is a democrat and his positions align on the democratic policy spectrum. Bloomberg's do not.
But you'll argue for capitulating and taking money from an authoritarian racist and allowing him into the field while trying to suggest a candidate who has been part of the party for decades and is on the same spectrum as the party should would be equally disqualified (despite the fact i already gave my reasoning for the distinction).Bernie has run against Democrats. Bernie has taken every opportunity to put daylight between himself and the Democratic Party. Bernie has historically has poor participation in Democratic Party fundraising and functions.
But he qualifies for the primary so he gets to run, as it should be. The Party standard-bearer should be decided by the actual members of the party. I am not in favor of an authoritarian party structure.
Unless were saying there are no distinctions between the republicans and democrats I'm not sure I agree with thisWhat positions do and do not "align on the democratic policy spectrum" is so vague and free flowing, there is literally no way to actually enforce a rule like that if it was created
That goes without saying. At minimum, you'd need to be eligible for the office you're running for to file campaign paperwork and actually run and/or declare a party. But beyond that, anyone can run.I actually have no idea what the party rules are about this. I would think that you have to be actually eligible for the office to qualify for the primary race (natural born citizen, 35 years old, not legally dead). Are you saying that's not right?
Bloomberg was a Republican for 5 out of 78 years, that is such a nonsense argument against a guy with real problems
Especially when everyone knows why he became a Republican and it had nothing to do with policy. Bernie gets a pass for (occasionally) becoming a Democrat for the exact same reason Bloomberg "became a Republican" in 2001. An easier path to election
Yes, and they should have. Again, a not insubstantial number of voters currently support him. The party should it be denying voters the ability to hear from a viable candidate. They deserve that information.
Then you checked wrong. Primary voters have the right to bases their decisions on whatever criteria they want. They best way to fight against the influence Bloomberg's money has on the election is to allow him in the debates, where his money doesn't matter and he will have to face his opponents and the electorate directly.
Don't you think it's a good idea for Bloomberg to have to face the other candidates and explain his record rather than be able to pump endless "Mike Will Get It Done" ads (featuring Obama, no less) without pushback on primetime TV?
#NeverWarren Attacks.
Mayor Pete Compared them to Trump Supporters.
Bernie's Supporters are least likely to support the eventual nominee.
When he announced in Feb 2019, he had to send a letter to surrogates asking them to chill out.
Sanders had to apologize to Joe Biden just a month ago.
Sanders has to regularly urge his supporters to show restraint.
And by regularly, I mean regularly.
Most recently that Culinary Union was attacked.
Even The Onion has picked up on how overzealous they can be.
Nevermind that this thread multiple times, multiple threads in OT, and PoliERA have been locked because a certain subset of Democratic Voters supporting a certain candidate have turned to negative attacks against other users.
We already see how this worked out for a billionaire in 16. Idk why we expect it to be different this time around.What if....Bloomberg does very well at the first debate he attends? Everyone in here seemingly thinks he'll either shit himself or wilt like a flower when the others attack him.