• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Bloomberg for President?

He's low energy and came in too late in the race.

If by some miracle he manages to become the nominee I think he has a good chance of losing to Trump. If he does manage to snatch enough votes to defeat Trump in the battleground states and becomes president, I think he'll be Obama 2.0.
 
Venom said:
He's low energy and came in too late in the race.

If by some miracle he manages to become the nominee I think he has a good chance of losing to Trump. If he does manage to snatch enough votes to defeat Trump in the battleground states and becomes president, I think he'll be Obama 2.0.
Click to expand...

However you intended it, I see that as pretty high praise.
 
Venom said:
He's low energy and came in too late in the race.

If by some miracle he manages to become the nominee I think he has a good chance of losing to Trump. If he does manage to snatch enough votes to defeat Trump in the battleground states and becomes president, I think he'll be Obama 2.0.
Click to expand...

You don't seem to be actually paying attention here.
 
I'm seeing a lot of Bloomberg ads on TV. That being said is he even registering on any polls?
 
kookbreaker said:
I'm seeing a lot of Bloomberg ads on TV. That being said is he even registering on any polls?
Click to expand...

I think he bought off Survey Monkey. Last month I had to fill out a survey on how bad our company Xmas lunch was, and the survey immediately after was purportedly about Democratic candidates but was actually full of pro-Bloomberg talking points. Long paragraphs about his life, for instance, and then the "question" would be something like "how likely are you to vote for Bloomberg?" It wasn't in the least bit subtle.
 
TragicMonkey said:
I think he bought off Survey Monkey. Last month I had to fill out a survey on how bad our company Xmas lunch was, and the survey immediately after was purportedly about Democratic candidates but was actually full of pro-Bloomberg talking points. Long paragraphs about his life, for instance, and then the "question" would be something like "how likely are you to vote for Bloomberg?" It wasn't in the least bit subtle.
Click to expand...

So, much like Trump's online polls.

(OK, to be fair, I've encounter lots of biased polls like this, even had one phoned in.)
 
He's blasting the airways with ads here in Florida. We see one for him almost literally every commercial break, and he's currently the only nominee who's we're seeing ads for.
 
I don't care for Bloomberg. My impression is that he's offering to be the empty suit that would be better than Trump. At the moment we have candidates who can offer more.

He can be the last ditch emergency cousin on standby to take to the prom, should all the other potential dates die in an accident or get swine flu the day before.
 
Without having strong feelings about Bloomberg I'm still somewhat heartened that a Democrat is running a fairly aggressive advertising campaign targeting Trump specifically on issues like health care. All the other Dems are still running against each other while Bloomberg is getting in front of messaging that IMO will help the Democratic field.
 
Bloomberg is running an anti-Trump, not a pro-Bloomberg campaign. And he is spending literally hundreds of millions of his own money to do so.

Regardless of whether you want him to become President or not, some thanks are in order as far as I am concerned.
 
Funny how an individual billionaire can publish as much political speech as he can afford and wants to pay for. But if a group of non-billionaires pool their resources to publish political speech, it's the end of democracy as we know it.
 
theprestige said:
Funny how an individual billionaire can publish as much political speech as he can afford and wants to pay for. But if a group of non-billionaires pool their resources to publish political speech, it's the end of democracy as we know it.
Click to expand...

Unlike Super-PACs, Bloomberg is transparent about who is paying for what.
 
theprestige said:
Funny how an individual billionaire can publish as much political speech as he can afford and wants to pay for. But if a group of non-billionaires pool their resources to publish political speech, it's the end of democracy as we know it.
Click to expand...

There is no limit on PAC spending and you should be more concerned about the fact PACs don't have to disclose donors than the fact Bloomberg is running a campaign where we know who is donors are.

On Colbert night before last, Bloomberg said he hasn't accepted any campaign donations and if he isn't nominated he plans to use his money to defeat Trump anyway.

Also re the polls, he's in 4th and 5th place in recent polls.
 
Yankistan must look into their collective soul and ponder how it has come to pass that ad buys could have a more potent effect on an election than the fact of an already impeached President whom a (small) majority of folk know to be a villain. I guess far more people catch ads during their voyeuristic "Peeping on the Kardashians" shows than read a paper or watch the news.

At the root, it's utterly ridiculous to be essentially electioneering at the halfway point in a term. Instead, the kickoff should commence no earlier than 6 months before polling day. Even that is being generous; two months is more sensible.

The grotesque piles of cash spent on elections in the US is a wonder to much of the outside world. Rampant, naked capitalism has infected your politics. The nation where money is speech and corporations are people.

In this awful milieu, I welcome a Bloomberg, whose principal motive seems to be to expose a real threat and menace, even if his own prospects of electoral success are slim. To me he's more a team player given his focus on the real enemy and not on internecine squabbling for his own aggrandizement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom