oxsnard posted:

His net worth is probably negative, as he needs to keep debt payments up to not default. It's a very different situation from Bloomberg

Nairbo posted:

Kamala getting primaried by Steyer would be loving hilarious tbh

Groovelord Neato posted:

It was great seeing her just ignore McCain but her health care plan doesn't raise enough and caving to the no tax on the middle class bullshit is disqualifying.

oxsnard posted:

I mean we all laugh at Steyer, but based solely on his issues page, he'd come in to the left of 90% of the senate

Gyges posted:

Maybe Feinstein will wake up and realize she belongs nowhere near the Senate, immediately resign, and spend her time just telling telling her own grandkids that they're dumbshits who don't know how things work.

Kraftwerk posted:

Is there any truth to Dems potentially losing a lot of house seats if Bernie is at the top of the ticket?
I hear a lot of congresspeople are super nervous about Bernie causing a Republican landslide in the house and senate.

Nate Silver posted:

Biden, for instance, would be a heavy favorite if he wins Iowa, with an 80 percent chance of a delegate majority and an 84 percent chance of a plurality. His majority chances would fall to 20 percent following an Iowa loss, however. Sanders would be a slight favorite to win a majority after an Iowa win, with a 61 percent chance, but his majority chances would fall to 8 percent with a loss there. Warren would also be a slight favorite to win a delegate majority after an Iowa win, but Buttigieg would not be (although his position would be substantially strengthened).

These scenarios account for Iowa wins of all shapes and sizes — big, emphatic wins and narrow, perhaps even disputed ones. With a landslide win in Iowa, Sanders might be a fairly heavy overall favorite for the nomination. If Iowa were a four-way pileup instead — with Sanders narrowly winning and Biden in a strong second place, for instance — Sanders’s projected bounce might not be enough to help him overtake Biden in national polls and the nomination could remain fairly open-ended.

Speaking of open-ended, the first three states all have highly uncertain outcomes. Biden is the nominal favorite to win Iowa, but has just a 33 percent chance of doing so. In New Hampshire, Sanders has a 31 percent chance and Biden is at 27 percent. And in Nevada, Biden has a 35 chance, with Sanders at 31 percent. Biden is a clearer front-runner in South Carolina — although even that lead might not be safe if he performed poorly in the first three states.

drawkcab si eman ym posted:

Raenir Salazar posted:

What I hope for is despite all of this obvious attempts at ratfucking that if Sanders or Warren or both manage to decisively beat Biden and Pete that it forces the establishment to grudgingly throw their weight behind them for the general so we avoid all of the "my candidate or bust" nonsense of the last election.

oxsnard posted:

Endorsements are good, that's it. No need to overthink

Gripweed posted:

https://twitter.com/normmacdonald/status/1215024931383103488?s=20

Cpt_Obvious posted:

She's also a famous internet person I think? So that means any messages she sends out on Instagram or twitter won't be censored, like it could on TV.

Politics becoming trendy is the best possible situation. Even if the fad runs out after the election, this is such a pivotal time for our country.

oxsnard posted:

I'm gonna have flashbacks to the "Vote or Die" and MoveOn stuff from 2004. That poo poo was corporate sponsored messaging masquerading as grassroots though

sports posted:

Buttigieg only had high high hopes for a minute.

mcmagic posted:

Warren has a new bankruptcy plan that is actually pretty good.

Uncle Boogeyman posted:

she also crossed a picket line in Nevada twice to stay at a hotel whose workers were on strike

Built 4 Cuban Linux posted:

Biden and Pete are going to try and drag Bernie down somehow, though I don't really know how'd they'd do it

Craptacular! posted:

Culinary is one of the most well financed political players, could have bought Warren accommodations at another hotel if they really cared, and will probably endorse Anyone But Bernie because they’re concerned about M4A reducing labor’s need for the Union.

oxsnard posted:

"there are no bad unions" is something I struggle with because there are some seriously hosed up and corrupt unions

kidkissinger posted:

This is loving stupid. "If the union cares so much about people crossing their picket lines, why don't they pay for people to use another service?"

I don't care if the union does things I disagree with. That doesn't make it ok to undermine them when they're negotiating with capital.

oxsnard posted:

"there are no bad unions" is something I struggle with because there are some seriously hosed up and corrupt unions

Judakel posted:

I was hoping I read that wrong, because the idea of the union buying different accommodations is absurd.

quote:

Michael Bloomberg Is Open to Spending $1 Billion to Defeat Trump

The Democratic presidential candidate said he would spend big even if the nominee was someone he had sharp differences with, like Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren.


By Lisa Lerer

SAN MARCOS, Texas — Michael R. Bloomberg on Saturday did not rule out spending a billion dollars of his own money on the 2020 presidential race, even if he does not win the Democratic nomination, and said he would mobilize his well-financed political operation to help Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren win in November if either is the party nominee, despite their sharp policy differences.

Mr. Bloomberg’s plans would effectively create a shadow campaign operation for the general election, complete with hundreds of organizers in key battleground states and a robust digital operation, ready to be inherited by the party nominee — regardless of who that nominee may be.

Already, Mr. Bloomberg has spent more than $200 million on advertising, putting him on pace to spend by early March about the same as what President Barack Obama’s campaign spent on advertising over the course of the entire 2012 general election. If Mr. Bloomberg fails to win the nomination, future spending would be redirected toward attacking Mr. Trump.



“It depends whether the candidate needs help; if they’re doing very well, they need less. If they’re not, they’ll need more,” he said in an interview after a lunch stop at a barbecue restaurant during a campaign swing through Texas.

While he did not rule out dropping a billion dollars on his effort, the former mayor of New York City blanched slightly at the size of the number, before mentioning the $2.8 billion he spent on charitable contributions last year, with the bulk going to his alma mater, Johns Hopkins University.

“You know how much money a billion dollars is?” said Mr. Bloomberg. “It’s a lot of money to me. It’s a lot of money to anybody.”

No firm decisions have been made about how his operation might transition to a general election, or what form it would take, but aides say hundreds of field organizers have been offered jobs through the general election. In Texas, where Mr. Bloomberg spent Saturday campaigning, he plans to open 17 offices and keep the “major ones” operational through the general election, he said. In 2018, Mr. Bloomberg spent more than $110 million to elect Democratic House members through his Super PAC, a vehicle that could be transitioned to assist with a general election effort.

His extraordinary wealth, estimated at more than $50 billion, has drawn a series of attacks from the liberal candidates in the field, who argue he is essentially trying to purchase the party nomination. Some of their aides also fear that Mr. Bloomberg could turn his massive machine against them in the primary, leveraging his spending to block them from capturing the nomination.

Mr. Bloomberg said he would mobilize his operation behind any of the Democratic candidates, even Ms. Warren, the Massachusetts senator, or Mr. Sanders, the Vermont senator. Mr. Bloomberg said he did not plan on running negative ads against any Democratic candidate, even those he strongly disagreed with.

“I really don’t agree with them,” he said, of Mr. Sanders and Ms. Warren, “but I’d still support them, yes, because compared to Donald Trump that’s easy.”

While most of the candidates are spending the bulk of their time in the first four primary states, Mr. Bloomberg is orienting his operation toward the Super Tuesday primaries in states like Texas on March 3, when about 40 percent of all the delegates are at stake.

With recent polling showing four candidates — Mr. Sanders, Ms. Warren, former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and former Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Ind. — all in a position to win both Iowa and New Hampshire, Mr. Bloomberg could play an influential role in the primary process, once the race moves past the early contests. His aides have indicated that Mr. Bloomberg is not inclined to keep pouring money into an extended contest with Mr. Biden and would instead reorient his campaign into an organization dedicated to battering Mr. Trump, should the former vice president emerge as the leader in the race.

His spending, entirely self-funded, has meant that though Mr. Bloomberg meets the polling requirement for the party debates, he does not meet the donor qualifications for participating.

As he campaigned across Texas, Mr. Bloomberg cast that decision as a campaign strength, illustrating his independence from financial interests.

Yet he also criticized the party’s process, echoing concerns leveled by other candidates who say the rules set by the Democratic National Committee are excluding qualified contenders. Mr. Bloomberg will not appear on the debate stage on Tuesday, when the candidates meet in Des Moines for their final face-off before the Iowa caucuses.

“I think Cory Booker’s got a good complaint. If I wanted to complain, I could make a good case that it wasn’t fair,” he said. “In the meantime, while they’re debating, I’m out visiting a whole lot of people. I’m not wasting the time.”

Kith posted:

I know the police union is appropriately monstrous, what are some of the others?

RasperFat posted:

Isn’t that exactly what unions want?

Like when grocery store workers are striking they would prefer you go to a competitor rather than cross their picket line to shop at their store that they are currently on strike from.

kidkissinger posted:

yes, it's the part where he suggests the union should be paying for it that is the incredibly stupid part.

do notice that he's now just trying to convince us that "actually it's ok because this union endorses politicians that are bad" which is ridiculous. we don't give up solidarity that easily.

kidkissinger posted:

yes, it's the part where he suggests the union should be paying for it that is the incredibly stupid part.

do notice that he's now just trying to convince us that "actually it's ok because this union endorses politicians that are bad" which is ridiculous. we don't give up solidarity that easily.