Election 2020

[B-Fly]

Yes, I've cited this fact as I've expressed fears that the Dems won't get behind one of the old candidates. The Dems seem to propel young, charismatic candidates to victory and stay home for everyone else.

Yes, but besides Buttigieg, that could potentially include Booker, Yang, Gabbard and Castro, too.

[Sour Masher]

Yes, but besides Buttigieg, that could potentially include Booker, Yang, Gabbard and Castro, too.

It could. I'm surprised Booker hasn't gotten more traction. Yang has gotten more than I thought he would. None of this group seems viable given current polling, though.

[Teenwolf]

Buttigieg will never overcome his record on race. There's no point in him even running knowing that black voters despise him. No amount of cringe-inducing clapping and dancing is going to attract black voters.

This newly unearthed statement from 2011 is insane. I couldn't find an article, the clip just went viral in the last few hours.

[Sour Masher]

TW, I'm sure you've seen the video John Cusack mentions and the stuff he's said about boycotting MSNBC--he is saying the same stuff you've highlighted for awhile now about anti-Bernie bias. What is new is that this comes on the heels of Yang also calling for a MSNBC boycott. I was wondering what your thoughts are about that. Do you think they have also been unfair to him and his candidacy?

Within the "mainstream" trio 24 hour political news networks, MSNBC is seen as the most progressive, and I imagine how they bend coverage does have impact on the viewers that get most of their pundit stuff from them. Do you think they are in the tank for a specific candidate, or just more mainstream candidates in general? Is it an orchestrated effort from on high, or simply a function of the clips being taken from their more moderate pundits who have individual biases against Sanders, and maybe Yang?

https://www.inquisitr.com/5759952/jo...nders-boycott/

[Sour Masher]

So, with Bloomberg officially running, I have to ask B-Fly and others who respect the work he has done as mayor of NY--help me see why he implemented stop and frisk and how that policy isn't a huge detriment to his candidacy? I know it is still a contentious issue, and many still think it was a justified policy that gave LEOs the freedom to target potentially unlawful individuals that they would not have been able to otherwise.

But that is not the take on S and F that most Democrats have. At least in hindsight, I believe most Democrats realize the potential for abuse of the policy outweighs the additional freedoms it gives to LEOs. Would anyone disagree with that take? If so, I'd like to hear why. If not, I'd like to hear why and how they see Bloomberg overcoming this issue. Was his apology enough? Was it the right strategy?

[Teenwolf]

TW, I'm sure you've seen the video John Cusack mentions and the stuff he's said about boycotting MSNBC--he is saying the same stuff you've highlighted for awhile now about anti-Bernie bias. What is new is that this comes on the heels of Yang also calling for a MSNBC boycott. I was wondering what your thoughts are about that. Do you think they have also been unfair to him and his candidacy?

Within the "mainstream" trio 24 hour political news networks, MSNBC is seen as the most progressive, and I imagine how they bend coverage does have impact on the viewers that get most of their pundit stuff from them. Do you think they are in the tank for a specific candidate, or just more mainstream candidates in general? Is it an orchestrated effort from on high, or simply a function of the clips being taken from their more moderate pundits who have individual biases against Sanders, and maybe Yang?

https://www.inquisitr.com/5759952/jo...nders-boycott/

Its institutional bias. In 2016, Ed Schultz was told not to cover Bernie Sanders. When he refused to blackout Bernie, he was fired.

This is very obvious, the MSNBC Bernie blackout and general disdain for his campaign. Signs of bias: changing polls to make it look like Bernie is losing. They've shown several factually incorrect polling numbers (often flipping Sanders and Warren). They've done the same thing to Yang. He's at 4% in the best national poll (Morning Consult), and yet when they show polls they'll leave Yang out and show Klobuchar at 2% instead. So the biases are clearly against the non-establishment figures. They've also done this misquoting thing, where they would take the best lines from Sanders at the debate and attribute the quotes to Warren. After the recent debate, they did the same thing to Gabbard. They credited the quote where Tulsi shredded Buttigieg to him instead of her!

This is aside from many conversations in mainstream media acting like he has no hope in hell, therefore ignoring him in entirely, while simultaneously heaping free positive press at Beto, then Harris, then Warren, and now Buttigieg. If Sanders had used a stock image from Kenya to promote a Marshall plan for black America, and he had deceived those South Carolina leaders into endorsing him, his campaign would be over. Buttigieg doesn't even face a question. Its pathetic.

Media critics have broken it down into stats recently.

In These Times found that the network consistently covers Bernie Sanders the least of the top three candidates, as well as most negatively; that it covers Elizabeth Warren most positively; and that both are dwarfed by the network’s overwhelming focus on Joe Biden, who was often portrayed as the “safest” choice of the field. The network’s political coverage also revolved almost exclusively around fluctuating poll numbers and “electability”—as defined by its hosts and guests.

https://inthesetimes.com/article/221...ic-debate-2020

[Teenwolf]

Morning Consult numbers continue to trend positive for Bernie, negative for Warren and Biden. Morning Consult conducts polls with the largest sample size, so their numbers track the most consistently.

Biden 30
Sanders 21
Warren 15
Buttigieg 9
Harris 5
Yang 4

21% is the highest Sanders has reached in several months, the 9 pt lead is lowest in months. When Biden announced, he held his largest lead, 40-19. Although Biden keeps fluctuating in the 27-32 range, it's a good sign that he slipped as Sanders gained. 2nd choice numbers have dramatically improved for Sanders as well, where he holds the biggest advantage. I hope the gap disappears soon, and the bullshit electability argument with it. Fun to watch now that its pushing in the right direction.

Early primary states are even closer, and with Biden's support so soft, its looking very good for Sanders to outperform polling.

Biden 26
Sanders 23
Warren 18
Steyer 9
Buttigieg 8
Yang 4

[B-Fly]

So, with Bloomberg officially running, I have to ask B-Fly and others who respect the work he has done as mayor of NY--help me see why he implemented stop and frisk and how that policy isn't a huge detriment to his candidacy? I know it is still a contentious issue, and many still think it was a justified policy that gave LEOs the freedom to target potentially unlawful individuals that they would not have been able to otherwise.

But that is not the take on S and F that most Democrats have. At least in hindsight, I believe most Democrats realize the potential for abuse of the policy outweighs the additional freedoms it gives to LEOs. Would anyone disagree with that take? If so, I'd like to hear why. If not, I'd like to hear why and how they see Bloomberg overcoming this issue. Was his apology enough? Was it the right strategy?

Remember the context. Bloomberg ran in 2001 to succeed Giuliani, who by the time of the November 2001 election had become "America's Mayor" in the wake of 9/11. His flagging popularity pre-9/11 was completely reversed, and of course would have flagged again with time, but at that point he was NY resolve and NY stability. Giuliani was term-limited at the time, and many NYC voters were still shell-shocked and afraid. Bloomberg had switched to the Republican party because the Democratic party machine in NYC wasn't going to open a lane for an outsider when Marc Green and Freddy Ferrer were party loyalists who had paid their dues. Meanwhile, a significant majority of NYC voters still credited Giuliani's "broken windows" policies for the tremendous decline in NYC crime rates that occurred in the 1990's (although there were a lot of overlapping factors that contributed to it). Even if they thought Giuliani himself was mean-spirited, insensitive and even racist, many non-white voters and white liberals credited Police Commissioner William Bratton for the heightened sense of safety in the City and in their neighborhoods. Bloomberg had no background in policing or criminal justice, but was a good listener and recognized that for most NY'ers at the time, it was important for the next Mayor to commit to sustaining the much lower crime rates and the overall greater sense of safety in the City from domestic crime, while also providing reassurance about facilitating NYPD's ability to keep NY'ers safe from the now heavier specter and fear of terrorism. Stop and frisk was part of that crime-reduction and crime-prevention legacy that was still credited with tremendous success at the time. As crime numbers continued to drop under Bloomberg and the NYPD's post-9/11 reputation for anti-terror preparedness, investigation and prevention grew in each year post-9/11 as various plots and schemes were thwarted and there were no successful terrorist recurrences, Bloomberg's approval ratings on crime and safety stayed very strong. NYPD was pretty tremendously popular and Bloomberg was as well. As NYC as a safe city became more of a resting status quo in folks' minds into Bloomberg's second and third term, the arguments against stop-and-frisk started to gain a bit more traction, but Bloomberg was loathe to risk a change that might threaten the sustained low crime rates. It did ultimately hurt him pretty significantly in his second re-election campaign, where his margin of victory was surprisingly thin.

Will his apology "work"? I honestly don't know. Bloomberg's path to the Democratic nomination would depend on Biden falling, Warren and Sanders splitting progressives and scaring/alienating the establishment/moderate voters, and Bloomberg leapfrogging Buttigieg (and Harris, Klobuchar, Booker) as the guy perceived to be best positioned to defeat Trump. To do that, I think he would need to attract a reasonable percentage of Biden's Black support. Biden's Black support leans older and more establishment already, so it's not necessarily impossible. But I think it would still be tough for him. His obvious advantage, of course, is that to the extent he can develop a strong message he's better positioned than anyone to flood the internet, television and radio with that message.

[Teenwolf]

I have a question for our resident Bloomberg scholar.

Presuming Bloomberg's motivation to run is based entirely on preventing the progressive candidates from winning and raising his taxes... how does it help his cause to enter the race? He isn't going to attract a single Sanders voter, so he's only further splitting the centrists. It seems much more likely to be an advantage for Sanders and Warren than it would be to hinder them.

The only explanation I can think of is that he's delusional enough to think he can win.

[B-Fly]

I have a question for our resident Bloomberg scholar.

Presuming Bloomberg's motivation to run is based entirely on preventing the progressive candidates from winning and raising his taxes... how does it help his cause to enter the race? He isn't going to attract a single Sanders voter, so he's only further splitting the centrists. It seems much more likely to be an advantage for Sanders and Warren than it would be to hinder them.

The only explanation I can think of is that he's delusional enough to think he can win.

I certainly reject the notion that Bloomberg's motivation to run "is based entirely on preventing the progressive candidates from winning and raising his taxes." Bloomberg has never been loathe to pay more taxes, and his first ads already promise to demand far more in taxes from the super-rich. Bloomberg presumably believes that Warren and Sanders can't defeat Trump, because he believes persuadable voters in the center will find them too extreme. He presumably stayed out of the race thinking that Biden could win both the nomination and the general election with his appeal across moderate voters, establishment voters/interests, party loyalists, African-Americans, etc. But he's presumably been watching Biden on the trail and in the debates and in the polls and viewing the potential blow back against Biden from the Ukraine investigations and thinking that Biden could fall, and that as a result the nomination would likely fall to a candidate too far left to win. And he does presumably think that with strong progressive credentials on gun control and the environment and moderate positions on most other issues he could craft a message that, with his unlimited capacity to broadcast the message, could make him the guy to replace Biden as the safest bet to beat Trump. At least I assume that's the thinking in Bloomberg's camp.

[Teenwolf]

Bloomberg wouldn't just need Biden to fall off to win, he would need Biden to drop out. Seems like a one in a million shot to win the nomination, but a 99% shot at hurting the centrists he favors. I don't understand his calculation.

I agree with his calculation that Biden could be a dead man walking after South Carolina, given his lack of funding... I just don't think Bloomberg is in any position to usurp those voters. Sanders would hold much more appeal to the Biden base, given their similar working class constituencies, and he's already got 20% of the vote locked down.

Needless to say, I love Bloomberg's entry for Sanders' chances.

[Sour Masher]

Remember the context. Bloomberg ran in 2001 to succeed Giuliani, who by the time of the November 2001 election had become "America's Mayor" in the wake of 9/11. His flagging popularity pre-9/11 was completely reversed, and of course would have flagged again with time, but at that point he was NY resolve and NY stability. Giuliani was term-limited at the time, and many NYC voters were still shell-shocked and afraid. Bloomberg had switched to the Republican party because the Democratic party machine in NYC wasn't going to open a lane for an outsider when Marc Green and Freddy Ferrer were party loyalists who had paid their dues. Meanwhile, a significant majority of NYC voters still credited Giuliani's "broken windows" policies for the tremendous decline in NYC crime rates that occurred in the 1990's (although there were a lot of overlapping factors that contributed to it). Even if they thought Giuliani himself was mean-spirited, insensitive and even racist, many non-white voters and white liberals credited Police Commissioner William Bratton for the heightened sense of safety in the City and in their neighborhoods. Bloomberg had no background in policing or criminal justice, but was a good listener and recognized that for most NY'ers at the time, it was important for the next Mayor to commit to sustaining the much lower crime rates and the overall greater sense of safety in the City from domestic crime, while also providing reassurance about facilitating NYPD's ability to keep NY'ers safe from the now heavier specter and fear of terrorism. Stop and frisk was part of that crime-reduction and crime-prevention legacy that was still credited with tremendous success at the time. As crime numbers continued to drop under Bloomberg and the NYPD's post-9/11 reputation for anti-terror preparedness, investigation and prevention grew in each year post-9/11 as various plots and schemes were thwarted and there were no successful terrorist recurrences, Bloomberg's approval ratings on crime and safety stayed very strong. NYPD was pretty tremendously popular and Bloomberg was as well. As NYC as a safe city became more of a resting status quo in folks' minds into Bloomberg's second and third term, the arguments against stop-and-frisk started to gain a bit more traction, but Bloomberg was loathe to risk a change that might threaten the sustained low crime rates. It did ultimately hurt him pretty significantly in his second re-election campaign, where his margin of victory was surprisingly thin.

Will his apology "work"? I honestly don't know. Bloomberg's path to the Democratic nomination would depend on Biden falling, Warren and Sanders splitting progressives and scaring/alienating the establishment/moderate voters, and Bloomberg leapfrogging Buttigieg (and Harris, Klobuchar, Booker) as the guy perceived to be best positioned to defeat Trump. To do that, I think he would need to attract a reasonable percentage of Biden's Black support. Biden's Black support leans older and more establishment already, so it's not necessarily impossible. But I think it would still be tough for him. His obvious advantage, of course, is that to the extent he can develop a strong message he's better positioned than anyone to flood the internet, television and radio with that message.

Thanks for the context. He seems like a smart guy, so he must believe this issue isn't big enough to tank him, and he must also believe/fear Biden is highly vulnerable, and the other candidates are also vulnerable to losing to Trump or I don't think he would have jumped in. It will be interesting to see how it plays out.

[Teenwolf]

Thanks for the context. He seems like a smart guy, so he must believe this issue isn't big enough to tank him, and he must also believe/fear Biden is highly vulnerable, and the other candidates are also vulnerable to losing to Trump or I don't think he would have jumped in. It will be interesting to see how it plays out.

Or... he's a scumbag billionaire who will run 3rd party to tank the Democrats if Sanders wins the primary. Unless the CIA takes care of Bernie before that, of course.

[Teenwolf]

New Hampshire Emerson poll shows Sanders' surge continuing. Biden's falling off is also well documented.

Decided voters show an even bigger advantage for Sanders.

Sanders 65% committed
Warren 47% committed
Buttigieg 40% committed
Biden 36% committed

Those numbers are staggeringly bad for Biden, as well as showing the enthusiasm gap Sanders enjoys.

sanders buttigieg surge in new hampshire as biden and warren slip poll

Sanders led the Democratic primary field with 26 percent support among primary voters, trailed by Buttigieg at 22 percent. Former Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) each had 14 percent, while no other candidate broke double digits.

The poll suggests a significant shuffling of the primary field in the Granite State, with Sanders and Buttigieg both doubling their support compared to the same poll in September. That survey had Sanders at 13 percent and Buttigieg at 11 percent.

Meanwhile, Biden, who led in the September poll, fell 10 points, while Warren dropped 7 points. And in a sign the field could rejigger further, 55 percent of Democratic primary voters said there's a chance they could change their minds ahead of the Feb. 11 primary.

[revo]