he's tanking period, not kidding at all:

Not just that, there's also a good chance that he finishes New Hampshire in 5th place, behind even Amy Klobuchar. But really any 4th-or-worse place finish would create such a negative news cycle for him that I dont know how he could survive until South Carolina anyway. His campaign is running dry on money, and news cycles like this wont help them at all.

To me it feels as if the party and its donors have come to the conclusion that Joe just "doesnt have it" anymore, and they try to starve him out of the race instead of calling him out openly.

it's outright disgusting how bloomberg was able to literally BUY himself into a somewhat promising position in this democratic primary - just by dropping insane amounts of money on TV and online ads. really tells you a lot about the state of american politics...

Regarding this essential question the best we had here is a compilation of shrugging shoulders + "this is how it works"

it would be the same in Europe, you guys just tax people before they get Bloomberg rich. (obligatory, this is a half joke based on the increased taxes on wealth between America and Europe). Or if they do have that money its OLD money and they're already royalty or duchess of something or other, and the idea of wading into a red tape clogged govt isn't appealing. (obligatory this is a joke, the Duchess of something or other is probably not real). and he hasnt seen a debate stage, isn't really polling in a scary way yet IMO (just a bump from mass advertisement). I'll be more impressed when he wins even a single delegate, and i hope he does.

gotta agree with you on that one...

however, let's not forget that a 1on1 race against Bloomberg for the nomination is Bernie's wet dream. I just dont see how Bloomberg is supposed to win over even a single Bernie voter, while I could have imagined a "rally around the safer and more moderate choice"-effect if the standard bearer of the establishment wing was Biden/Buttigieg/Klobuchar.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Feb 11 2020 03:34pm

this is such an overtalked about narrative. in reality if Bernie loses only like 10% of his voters will stay home for the general election and all the rest will vote for anyone not named Donald Trump. using 2016 numbers for turnout is bunk, people thought HRC had it in the bag so they stayed home rather than vote for her after she fucked Bernie. but in 2020 bernie hasnt been fucked as hard and they know better what staying home risks. the elusive "bernie trump crossover vote" is such a bullshit thing lol. maybe in 2016 when trump was all "we're gonna change how this govt runs", but in 2020 they know its a bad choice for their ideals.

im not talking about the general election, im talking about the democratic nomination.

bloomberg is the perfect foil for Bernie. out of all the scenarios of how the Democratic primaries could shake up, one of the most likely ones is that the two wings of the party clash in the end, with Bernie the standard bearer of the progressive wing, and Biden/Buttigieg/Klobuchar/Bloomberg the standard bearer of the moderate/establishment wing. my point is that Bernie's chances of clinging the nomination if it comes down to this clash would be by far higher against Bloomberg than against the other 3.



when it comes to the general election: I really disagree with you there. I dont think that lacking turnout from the bernie crowd was playing that much of a role, let alone crossover voters. keep in mind that 88% of bernie supporters did end up voting for Clinton (compared to 70somethign percent of Hillary voters that went with Obama in 08). it also doesnt seem like enthusiasm for Trump among his base is significantly down.

other factors that you're forgetting: this time around, the whole GOP apparatus will truly be behind Trump, his campaign will be professionally run instead of a chaotic trainwreck. his fundraising looks a lot better than it did in 2016, he still has a masterful command of the news cycle, and the most damaging opposition research that the Democrats could find has already been used. and while some of his policies in office will have disappointed the hopes of his faithful, he has also delivered a good number of "wins" for his base. he also has neither tanked the economy nor started world war 3 nor transformed the country into the Fourth Reich. a lot of the more dramatic warnigns against him from 2016 have proven wrong or way overblown. the partisan attacks against him, the mueller report, the impeachment, the circus surrounding Kavanaugh's nomination and all that definitely had a circling-the-wagons effect. so all in all, among Republican voters, the number of never-trumpers will be down compared to 2016.

for all of these factors, I really think that Trump's prospects shouldnt be underrated. I dont think that it will be enough for the Democrats to just nominate a completely bland and uninspiring, cookie-cutter candidate not named Clinton. the democratic candidate will have to offer at least some vision for the future of the country which goes beyond "globalization and economic status quo, yay!" and "feminism and diversity, yay!".

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Feb 11 2020 03:56pm

i honestly couldn't care less if it benefits bernie or not, it's just ridiculous that you're able to outright buy a chance at the presidency in america. by that logic i should be in support of trump abusing his office to get political dirt on biden - because that certainly 'helped bernie' as well. it's still wrong though.

You don't think Bloomberg is good at winning elections? I have not looked it up but I'm not sure how many elections he has lost.