Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
WestCanMan

Bloomberg

Recommended Posts

Bloomberg's campaign manager is dismissing the other wannabes...only Mike can defeat Trump !   /s

 

Quote

“Mike is getting in this race because he thinks that Donald Trump is an existential crisis and he thinks he’s on a path to victory and he’s getting in to alter that dynamic,” Sheekey said Monday in an interview with CNN. 

Sheekey said the general election is only about six states: Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Florida and Arizona.

“That’s the whole general election. And right now Donald Trump is winning, he is winning that election. It’s very tough for people who don't live in New York or California to understand that, but that is what’s happening,” Sheekey said.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/471950-bloomberg-campaign-chief-trump-is-winning-2020-election-right-now

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, bush_cheney2004 said:

Bloomberg's campaign manager is dismissing the other wannabes...only Mike can defeat Trump !   /s

 

 

 

They seem a little peeved that he's jumped-in with his billions. Not very socialist at all!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

They seem a little peeved that he's jumped-in with his billions. Not very socialist at all!

 

That's the funny part....the other stiffs have attacked billionaires in their policies and rhetoric, but Mike is one of the biggest B's of all.   Bloomberg is blasting key swing state media markets with his new commercial, dropping an estimated $100 million just for the blitz...the kind of money the others can only dream of right now.  Then he will blow an even bigger wad for Super Tuesday.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

That's the funny part....the other stiffs have attacked billionaires in their policies and rhetoric, but Mike is one of the biggest B's of all.   Bloomberg is blasting key swing state media markets with his new commercial, dropping an estimated $100 million just for the blitz...the kind of money the others can only dream of right now.  Then he will blow an even bigger wad for Super Tuesday.

 

Yup...how is the Politburo supposed to function with such examples of craven capitalism making for an uneven playing field??? Share those billions, Mike. Socialist lives matter!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

You underestimate Trump, and the Dems don't have any reasonable candidates who can beat him.

You underestimate how much hate there is for Trump. even among conservatives. Give them a reasonable alternative - and not some shrill far left socialist - and they'll either vote Democrat or stay home.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought that Bloomberg was a realistic candidate, then I saw him on TV yesterday wearing a green sweater and talking like an old, frail man. He looks as unpresidential as Carrot-Top in a bikini.

On The Five last night Greg Gutfeld was passing on some speculation that he saw on twitter, some guy said that he may have just joined the race so that he could get around campaign finance laws and/or make his own ads to influence the election in favour of the Dems. IE, he can spend tens or hundreds of millions on attack ads aimed at Trump if he's a candidate, but he can't give that much money to other candidates for their own campaigns.

It makes sense, because IMO he's not really trying to become president when he makes speeches that seem to be coming from a low-cost care home. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Argus said:

You underestimate how much hate there is for Trump. even among conservatives. Give them a reasonable alternative - and not some shrill far left socialist - and they'll either vote Democrat or stay home.

The aren't going to get a reasonable alternative, so moot point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

I thought that Bloomberg was a realistic candidate, then I saw him on TV yesterday wearing a green sweater and talking like an old, frail man. He looks as unpresidential as Carrot-Top in a bikini.

On The Five last night Greg Gutfeld was passing on some speculation that he saw on twitter, some guy said that he may have just joined the race so that he could get around campaign finance laws and/or make his own ads to influence the election in favour of the Dems. IE, he can spend tens or hundreds of millions on attack ads aimed at Trump if he's a candidate, but he can't give that much money to other candidates for their own campaigns.

It makes sense, because IMO he's not really trying to become president when he makes speeches that seem to be coming from a low-cost care home. 

 

Bloomberg only looks good to people who don't know who he is. Once they see him or find out about him, it's a completely different story. Dead on arrival.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/10/2019 at 5:27 PM, Argus said:

To an extent I agree. But that does not mean he will win the nomination. The Democrats seem determined to put forth a candidate as unelectable as possible.

Indeed, and why is that? I'd say it's because the business-friendly elites who run the party are competing with the Republicans for the same big money donors, and therefore, when all is said and done, they would rather a weak, mediocre centrist like Biden lose to Trump, than have a progressive candidate (Bernie) who can fill arenas and large halls win the nomination. Because he's talking to the have-nots/not the haves, and his message is the one that resonates with struggling working class people who aren't seeing any prosperity promised by Obama or Trump.

*worth noting that in a Florida class action fraud lawsuit filed against the DNC by a number of pissed off Sanders delegates in 2016, the case was dismissed because it was ruled that the DNC is under no obligation to provide fair elections, since it is a private organization. So, for the life of me, I don't know why Sanders and anyone on the left bothers to waste their time with the Democratic Party anyway!  Sanders says a third party run for president isn't feasible and state election rules preserve the Duopoly, making alternatives like the Green Party and the Libertarians go through the arduous and expensive task of fighting to get on the ballot every four years.  But, if that's true, it means it's time for more people to take the streets and disrupt the system for both fraudulent parties, whose policy objectives serve millionaires and billionaires, not working people!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Argus said:

You underestimate how much hate there is for Trump. even among conservatives. Give them a reasonable alternative - and not some shrill far left socialist - and they'll either vote Democrat or stay home.

You watch CNN too much!  A lot of average Americans have become completely turned off by the glib, well rehearsed candidates both D's And R's have served up for them to choose from. 

In 2016, Hillary Clinton offered......more of the same! So, if you were part of the more privileged minority who's wealth was increasing, she was your candidate. But the majority of Americans were worried about their future prospects and didn't want a candidate promising to shut down the coal industry/but failing to offer any equivalent replacement jobs plan for coal and declining manufacturing in states like West Virginia, Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio or Wisconsin. 

Team Hillary at first blamed Comey for her loss, and then whined about the Electoral College....but still has no alternative proposal for electoral reform, and then the strategy was find a foreign enemy to blame our loss on and keep those incriminating emails from resurfacing for discussion.....I know, how about Russia? And CNN and MSNBC has been offering nothing else for the past four years...but still call themselves a news channel!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Right To Left said:

Indeed, and why is that? I'd say it's because the business-friendly elites who run the party are competing with the Republicans for the same big money donors, and therefore, when all is said and done, they would rather a weak, mediocre centrist like Biden lose to Trump, than have a progressive candidate (Bernie) who can fill arenas and large halls win the nomination. Because he's talking to the have-nots/not the haves, and his message is the one that resonates with struggling working class people who aren't seeing any prosperity promised by Obama or Trump.

 

Not that straightforward, as Trump still has the support of a significant portion of the "struggling working class" because of other ideological concerns, and that includes women.    The Democrats have a difficult challenge....have Trump win in a landslide against an ardent socialist or abandon the lefties to back a moderate with better chances.    This is Bloomberg's calculation and assessment after watching frail Biden continue to underperform.

 

Quote

..But, if that's true, it means it's time for more people to take the streets and disrupt the system for both fraudulent parties, whose policy objectives serve millionaires and billionaires, not working people!

 

Mostly not true, given support for and impact of third party candidates nationally and in individual states (e.g. Wallace, Perot, Buchanan, Nader, Ventura, etc.) using the existing system.    More voters identify as independent that Democrat or Republican.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Not that straightforward, as Trump still has the support of a significant portion of the "struggling working class" because of other ideological concerns, and that includes women.    The Democrats have a difficult challenge....have Trump win in a landslide against an ardent socialist or abandon the lefties to back a moderate with better chances.    This is Bloomberg's calculation and assessment after watching frail Biden continue to underperform.

In 2016, Sanders was polling better against Trump than Hillary Clinton was.  He was offering a lot of things that middle class and lower people wanted: Medicare for all and a $15. min wage. I'm not sure about free tuition for state universities and writing off student loan debts. But, no doubt that drew in a lot of the youth support Sanders was receiving. 

What Trump offered the working class was a combination of divisive (border walls, attacking immigrants) with some appealing ideas like a big public infrastructure spending program and trying to keep manufacturing in America by raising tariffs and duties on imports (which used to be conservative policies in a bygone era). When the rigged candidate  -  HIllary Clinton launched her $Billion Fall Campaign after the Convention, she promised NOTHING!!  Which may have been honest....since she had no intentions of helping working class Americans any more than Obama. But still, it was a competition between a candidate offering nothing to working people vs another who had a history of lies and deceit....but at least was promising something rather than nothing! 

Quote

Mostly not true, given support for and impact of third party candidates nationally and in individual states (e.g. Wallace, Perot, Buchanan, Nader, Ventura, etc.) using the existing system.    More voters identify as independent that Democrat or Republican.

Some of my American cousins from my mother's side of the family, living in states like New York and California, say they usually register as Democrats just to vote in the damn primaries every four years...because those states run closed primaries, where only registered Democrats can vote.  If it wasn't for all of these games, there would likely be many more registered independents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Right To Left said:

In 2016, Sanders was polling better against Trump than Hillary Clinton was.  He was offering a lot of things that middle class and lower people wanted: Medicare for all and a $15. min wage. I'm not sure about free tuition for state universities and writing off student loan debts. But, no doubt that drew in a lot of the youth support Sanders was receiving.

 

True, but Sanders (or anybody else), cannot win a presidential election with the "youth vote", as it historically has much lower turnout.   Bernie was fighting against the machine he needed to get elected....Clinton crushed his attempt to do so with her own machine.   This depressed voter turnout, especially compared to Obama.

 

Quote

What Trump offered the working class was a combination of divisive (border walls, attacking immigrants) with some appealing ideas like a big public infrastructure spending program and trying to keep manufacturing in America by raising tariffs and duties on imports (which used to be conservative policies in a bygone era). When the rigged candidate  -  HIllary Clinton launched her $Billion Fall Campaign after the Convention, she promised NOTHING!!  Which may have been honest....since she had no intentions of helping working class Americans any more than Obama. But still, it was a competition between a candidate offering nothing to working people vs another who had a history of lies and deceit....but at least was promising something rather than nothing!

 

Tactical mistakes were also made....Hillary ignored her husband's advice to campaign harder in "blue wall" states.   There was a party and media arrogance that wrote Trump off as a crude, inexperienced buffoon with no chance to win.    Then he made U.S. political history.

 

Quote

Some of my American cousins from my mother's side of the family, living in states like New York and California, say they usually register as Democrats just to vote in the damn primaries every four years...because those states run closed primaries, where only registered Democrats can vote.  If it wasn't for all of these games, there would likely be many more registered independents.

 

Many Americans are not officially registered with a political party and primary election turnout is far worse than the already poor general election turnout.   Party hacks on either side live in a bubble that speaks to their base, especially in New York and California.   But Trump has more than just a GOP base, he has a larger base that includes the "deplorables".  Ronald Reagan tapped into a similar dynamic (Reagan Democrats), a fact not lost on Team Trump.

At any rate, it is amazing that the Democrats still find themselves in a close race to defeat incumbent Donald Trump, after all that has happened.   Trump has an X-factor and the juice to do it again, and the Democrats' only counter means drinking the Kool-Aid® of socialism, or selling out to a moderate.    Trump is still driving the narrative.  "Anyone But Trump" is not a viable election strategy in the U.S.

 

 

 

Edited by bush_cheney2004

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Democrats have no moderate to sell out to. Moderate for the 2020 Dem field isn't moderate, they are too busy selling out to the far left to try and win the primary, to pivot back to center. The well has been poisoned, there is no going back, even if they wanted to.

Edited by Yzermandius19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

Bloomberg only looks good to people who don't know who he is. Once they see him or find out about him, it's a completely different story. Dead on arrival.

I'm as guilty of that as anyone.

I thought it was going to be good for some Democrats to get a chance to vote for a non-socialist, and that DNCers needed a capitalist voice on the debate stage. Now I see that they're not getting either because no one will want to vote for him and he's not a persuasive or insightful/quick-witted person so he'd be a dud on the debate stage. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

On The Five last night Greg Gutfeld was passing on some speculation that he saw on twitter, some guy said that he may have just joined the race so that he could get around campaign finance laws and/or make his own ads to influence the election in favour of the Dems. IE, he can spend tens or hundreds of millions on attack ads aimed at Trump if he's a candidate, but he can't give that much money to other candidates for their own campaigns.

There are no practical limits as to how much you can donate to a candidate in the Untied States. So Gutfied was lying to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Right To Left said:

Indeed, and why is that? I'd say it's because the business-friendly elites who run the party are competing with the Republicans for the same big money donors,

No, it's because people like you want a pure left candidate who is absolutely unelectable. If Trump wins re-election it will be because of the progressives like Warren and Sanders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Another billionaire trying to pretend he gives a crap about the working class or has any idea how they scrape by.

Just who do you want as president, some guy who was schlepping coffee last Tuesday? At least he grew up in middle class.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Argus said:

There are no practical limits as to how much you can donate to a candidate in the Untied States. So Gutfied was lying to you.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2014/09/23/dinesh-dsouza-avoids-jail-time-get-five-years-of-probation-for-campaign-finance-violation/

I confess to not knowing exactly how this works, but I think that individuals are limited to about $5K or $10K per candidate.

https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/candidate-taking-receipts/contribution-limits/

I don't ave time to read this page, but it seems as though there are campaign donation limits.

 

Edited by WestCanMan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

 There are no practical limits. Most money is spent on advertising. You can start a PAC, and then advertise, running tens of millions of dollars worth of attack ads on other candidates, as long as you don't specifically run ads in favor of your candidate. But it amounts to the same thing. The NRA, for example, spent $30 million to help elect Trump, and won't say where the money came from. There have been suggestions Russia funneled money through them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Argus said:

 There are no practical limits. Most money is spent on advertising. You can start a PAC, and then advertise, running tens of millions of dollars worth of attack ads on other candidates, as long as you don't specifically run ads in favor of your candidate. But it amounts to the same thing. The NRA, for example, spent $30 million to help elect Trump, and won't say where the money came from. There have been suggestions Russia funneled money through them.

 

Canadian residents/dual citizens and Canadian business subsidiaries in the USA contribute far more than the Russians.    Canadians try to influence U.S. elections with money and volunteered time for campaigns..."because it matters so much".   Canadians even cross the border to attend/protest presidential inaugurations.

 

Quote

Hundreds of Canadian residents, including a former Conservative MP and an aide to a Liberal cabinet minister, have been contributing money to the U.S. election campaign, CBC News has learned.

The vast majority of the contributions from Canada went to Democratic presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders or to the Democratic Party. Of the more than 450 individual contributors identified by CBC News, only two contributed to Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-trump-clinton-u-s-election-1.3837993

 

Quote

The American subsidiaries and employees of at least 17 Canadian companies gave more than US$2-million in U.S. political donations over the past two years, helping bankroll Super PACs and candidates

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/world/us-politics/article-the-us-midterms-canadian-connections-firms-subsidiaries-helped/

 

I'm sure that Americans gladly return the favour each election season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Argus said:

 There are no practical limits. Most money is spent on advertising. You can start a PAC, and then advertise, running tens of millions of dollars worth of attack ads on other candidates, as long as you don't specifically run ads in favor of your candidate. But it amounts to the same thing. The NRA, for example, spent $30 million to help elect Trump, and won't say where the money came from. There have been suggestions Russia funneled money through them.

The NRA supported a Republican nominee for POTUS? Shocking! Must have been Russia, there is no other explanation.
:rolleyes:

Trump Derangement Over 9000

Edited by Yzermandius19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

The NRA supported a Republican nominee for POTUS? Shocking! Must have been Russia, there is no other explanation.
:rolleyes:

Trump Derangement Over 9000

The NRA spent far more on helping Trump get elected than they had ever done before for any previous Republican presidential candidate

https://newrepublic.com/article/155224/nra-sold-america

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...