Geoff > Status Update

Peter (Pete) wrote: "I detest Mayor Pete but he is doing the lords work ruining Biden and clearing a path for Bernie to the nomination while Pete has no path."

I hear you. Iowa is a very small sample size, and nonwhite voters in Iowa is even smaller (9% of caucus-goers, according to NYT), but the demographics the NYT put up are worth taking a look at.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...

38% among nonwhite voters for Bernie, 12% for Pete (Biden got 17%). I think Pete will crash and burn in South Carolina and beyond...unless he pulls out New Hampshire and somehow gins up enough of a perception of "electability" in the mainstream media that he starts winning people over.

Age demographics are interesting, too. 18-24 year-olds went 64% for Bernie, 10% for Pete, 9% for Warren, and (hahaha) 1% for Biden. Pete finally gets a 1% advantage over Bernie moving in to the 40-49 bracket.

Peter (Pete) wrote: "His work at McKinsey his careerism his rumored CIA connections, His way of trying to sound high flown like Obama while saying absolutely nothing with his vacuous verbiage. That fact that he is blan..."

Seconded.

This is probably the best argument I've read against Pete. It's long, but quite persuasive, and worth reading if anyone is considering voting for him. I admit that when I first heard about him, listened to him speak articulately, and heard that his favorite book was "Ulysses", I thought "hey, this guy seems bright..." This article helped open my eyes:

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2019/0...

I am old but I am a displaced member of the professional-managerial class stuck in working-class lifestyle so my interests are with Bernie.

Peter (Pete) wrote: "His work at McKinsey his careerism his rumored CIA connections, His way of trying to sound high flown like Obama..."

All valid points, certainly. One of my friends is very active in his campaign, so I see a lot of very positive stuff about him and it's good to consider the downsides.

I like his manner. I think I'd like him as a person. But whether I'd vote for him if I were a US voter, I'm less sure. Also, for anyone under 40 to lead such a huge and powerful country is not necessarily ideal imo - nor anyone in their mid 70s or beyond.

Thanks folks, for answering my questions. To Mike above, don't mean to be disrespectful of anyone's loyalty. In yet another narrowly contested election, I'm just worried for DEM votes going to Trump (or to a late independent entrant) because we dislike the DEM nominee. I see strong feelings against Buttigieg, Biden, Warren (top tier), Bloomberg (rising). It’s understandable, I can’t stand them sometimes myself. But how can we dislike anyone more than Trump?! The current pool of DEM candidates isn't as reviled as Clinton (I think?), so hopefully voting for any one of them - strategically as a vote against Trump - won’t be objectionable by Nov.

FWIW I don't buy into most of Sanders’ (imo, far-fetched) plans, and think he's more shout-y than persuasive for the most part. But I do believe his passion and his integrity, and that what he says comes from a good place. So, if nothing else, I can trust my vote on someone like that.

----------------

Cecily: Bad news, everyone in the top tier is < 40ys, > 70yrs. Personally, age is irrelevant to me but I can see where it may convey the perception of experience, either as a politician or generally, in life. Buttigieg’s problem isn’t age, I think? He’s just “too perfect” in background, articulation, always-ready-diplomatic-answers. I want to see real passion, real anger, cracks in that carefully cultivated facade. That said, still better than Trump.

Alfred wrote: "Thanks folks, for answering my questions. To Mike above, don't mean to be disrespectful of anyone's loyalty. In yet another narrowly contested election, I'm just worried for DEM votes going to Trum..."

Agreed anyone of them is better than Trump but that is a low bar. I will dutifully vote for whoever is the nominee but if it isn't Bernie a lot of people won't vote.

Alfred wrote: "Thanks folks, for answering my questions. To Mike above, don't mean to be disrespectful of anyone's loyalty. In yet another narrowly contested election, I'm just worried for DEM votes going to Trum..."

Alfred, I agree with you. Beating Trump is obviously the priority. I live in New Jersey, which almost always goes to the Democrat, and the truth is that my individual vote is very unlikely to make a difference. That being said, I voted for Hillary Clinton in the general last time, even though I have problems with her, and ultimately I would probably make the same calculation with regards to the nominee this year.

Except that I now think the nominee is going to be Sanders, knock on wood, and I think that the diverse coalition he's building is the only chance we have to beat Trump.

As a candidate Nixon also covertly sabotaged the Vietnam peace talks, so he sacrificed hundreds of thousands/millions of lives for the sake of his own political career. I think he was worse than Trump.

Thought this was interesting, and will leave it here. https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinio...

Maybe if Sanders picks a moderate running mate, that would appease (or ease the concerns of?!) most of the DEM base.

Very informative opinion piece on Bloomberg, here. He sounds ever so slightly to the left of Putin:

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2020/0...

Mike wrote: "slightly to the left of Putin"

Mike, this article is excellent, thank you for posting it.

The damage that would be done, nominating Bloomberg, would probably be irreparable. And I hate that it's even possible he actually might get the nom.

Well that is depressing.

Civics 101 question: By when does he have to join in with the primaries?

and is even paying people money to say nice things about him online (so if you see someone praising Bloomberg, remember: There’s a good chance they were paid to do it).

Antonomasia wrote: "Civics 101 question: By when does he have to join in with the primaries?"

The first Bloomberg votes will be cast on March 3, or "Super Tuesday," when 14 states and the U.S. territories hold their primaries. 1,344 of the 3,979 total delegates are assigned on this day.

ATJG wrote: "Mike wrote: "slightly to the left of Putin"

Mike, this article is excellent, thank you for posting it.

The damage that would be done, nominating Bloomberg, would probably be irreparable. And I h..."

A friend just texted me from the gym. He's been on the treadmill for 16 minutes, and has seen four Bloomberg ads.

I'd still be really shocked if he managed to get a plurality of primary votes. Super Tuesday, which includes Texas and California, is less than a month away now, and the highest I've seen him in national polling is a distant third behind both Biden and Bernie (they were both in the mid-20s, Bloomberg had I think 14%)- but I've also seen him behind Pete and Warren in other polls.

I think the danger is if Bernie, who is looking increasingly like the front-runner, ends up with a plurality of delegates- but not enough to win the nomination outright. In that case, the DNC might just be treacherous and stupid enough to try to hand the nomination to Bloomberg.

In a way, that would be even more undermining to democracy than Trump's victory. Whatever you think about their choice, at least we know that the majority of Republican voters had their say- when the establishment had already decided that the nominee was going to be Jeb Bush. It would be ironic if the Republicans turned out to be more democratic than the Democrats.

Jeb Bush might have been the designated nominee, but he was a terrible debater within a group of terrible debaters (Cruz, Rubio, Carson, maybe the exception being Kasich). Trump came along and out-nasty everyone, and made himself stand out as a bully-in-chief. The nomination was Bush to lose.

Bloomberg has a horrible stage presence too. His public speaking lacks vigor and connection. I have never seen him smile, even in ads! If he gets on that stage with a group of articulate, passionate DEM candidates **, he's going to look out of his league. Voters enamored by the bombardment of slick Bloomberg ads will compare those to his live performances, and dial down the enthusiasm that we're seeing in some recent polls. I don't worry about Bloomberg that much.

I think the danger is if Bernie, who is looking increasingly like the front-runner, ends up with a plurality of delegates- but not enough to win the nomination outright.

At that point, I expect some candidates to have dropped out. Sanders will get Yang's supporters, and Steyers', and from all the stragglers still in the running (why, oh why?), and probably chunks more from Warren. I still think it'll come down to Sanders v.s. Buttigieg...


[** EDIT: May I also give a shout out to my candidate Amy Klobuchar for an outstanding debate in NH and a record fund-raising for her thus far. (Mini-rant) She gets better with each debate but gains little traction from it. She comes across honest, warm, pragmatic, damn humorous and obviously, got things done across the aisle. She's a three term senator in a red state, for goodness sake, and the first woman senator ever elected from MN. Why aren't more people giving her due consideration? (Mini-rant over)

Klobuchar did place 3rd in two polls today, so Yay!]

Mike wrote: "... A friend just texted me from the gym. He's been on the treadmill for 16 minutes, and has seen four Bloomberg ads...."

I know a couple of Dems who don't want (or expect) Bloomberg to get the nomination, but love his ads and hope they're sowing seeds that other candidates may harvest. Cloud cuckoo land?

Cecily wrote: "Cloud cuckoo land?"

Ha, I won't rule out any kinds of optimism, even the extreme end.

Rationalizing it just for myself, and this is in part trying to not be my own downer because everything else is depressing enough, I keep coming back to what Bloomberg said about backing any DEM candidate who gets the nomination, even Sanders. I don't know if that's a strategic move, or a strategic miss-step, or just off the cuff soundbite, but he said it.

With that in mind, why then would anyone even want to vote for Bloomberg? I would just throw all my effort towards generating or sustaining momentum for my favorite candidate so that, that person has the clearest and strongest path to getting the DEM nomination. When that happens, I get both my favorite candidate as nominee and indirectly, the Bloomberg $ firepower without actually needing Bloomberg to be a nominee. It's not as if there are any real Bloomberg supporters out there who would cry over that, anyway.

As for the barrage of ads, I think they do two things indirectly. At the very least, they raise increased awareness about gun control, education, environment, immigration, healthcare etc... If ads are in your face frequently, it's hard to not be at least aware. More tangentially, maybe that awareness can turn into interest, into caring about issues, and into checking out other candidates on where they stand on these same issues. That's not a bad thing, right?

Because the alternative is Trump, and his recently announced severe budget cuts. And that's a very, very bad thing.

Just now from Rachel Maddow:

"Erm... Bloomberg apparently just won the Dixville Notch *Republican* primary as a write-in."

https://twitter.com/maddowblog/status...

So that's Bloomberg getting GOP votes and Tulsi Gabbard (is she still in?) often spouting Putin/GOP talking points. I'm confused!

Write-ins are literally just people writing in names of candidates (or made-up characters, whoever they want) in lieu of the candidates being in ballot. Dixville cast a grand total of 5 votes....
DEM: 1 Buttigieg, 1 Sanders, someone wrote in Bloomberg 2.
GOP: Trump 0, Weld 0, someone (maybe same person?!) wrote in Bloomberg 1

Gabbard's 1 vote was from slightly bigger Hart County out of ... total 20 votes? for the DEM candidates.

Alfred wrote: "Write-ins are literally just people writing in names of candidates (or made-up characters...."

I just noted it says he won that vote. But OK. 5 votes cast.... LOL
(I've not delved further, and don't really understand such minutiae of US primaries.)

It's actually kinda funny, I remember write-ins for "Dolly Parton", "Mickey Mouse", "Hillary & Trump together etc...

Another one for the optimists: political scientist who closely predicted the House result in 2018 suggests "the Democrats are a near lock for the presidency in 2020, and are likely to gain House seats and have a decent shot at retaking the Senate"

https://www.politico.com/news/magazin...

Just seen people for Pete here outside South Ken station in London getting people to register and vote etc - told them I was impressed to see them all the way over here and braving the cold! Interestingly have never seen anything similar from any other candidates before

Antonomasia wrote: "Another one for the optimists: political scientist who closely predicted the House result in 2018 suggests "the Democrats are a near lock for the presidency in 2020, and are likely to gain House se..."

Also this: Nationally polled Independents pick Sanders by 18 points over Trump, more than any other Dem in the field:
National GE, @Reuters
/@Ipsos
Among Independents:

Warren 34% (+5)
Trump 29%

Buttigieg 35% (+8)
Trump 27%

Bloomberg 39% (+14)
Trump 25%

Biden 43% (+14)
Trump 29%

Sanders 46% (+18)
Trump 28%

Source:
https://twitter.com/PpollingNumbers/s...

Jonathan wrote: "Just seen people for Pete here outside South Ken station in London getting people to register and vote etc - told them I was impressed to see them all the way over here and braving the cold! Intere..."

Jetsetters and PMC types love Mayor Pete.

Peter (Pete) wrote: "Jetsetters and PMC types love Mayor Pete."

Yeah, and he continues to poll dismally with minority voters, which is why I don't see him as a real threat to get the nomination. He will probably get 2nd in New Hampshire tonight, he even has an outside chance of winning, but it's hard to imagine him doing well in South Carolina or many of the Super Tuesday states.

Cecily and Alfred, please take a look at the Current Affairs article I posted yesterday, which does a great job of detailing the many problems with Bloomberg. Additionally, a couple of audios have recently surfaced in which Bloomberg explains what he thinks the relationship between police and minority communities should be:

https://www.gq.com/story/michael-bloo...

...Hard to understand where this guy gets off pretending to be a Democrat. This is someone who supported W. Bush for president twice, supported the Iraq War, instituted stop-and-frisk and continued to defend the policy until he announced his run for president, illegally surveilled Muslims in NYC and New Jersey, and is now trying to buy an election on the principle that saturating the electorate with ads can supersede any counter-argument. On top of that (although not mutually exclusive), as detailed in the Current Affairs article, he sounds like nearly as repulsive a human being as Donald Trump. No way in hell I'm voting for him, not even against Trump.

Thanks, Mike. I'm a Brit, living in the UK, but I have family in friends in the US, and take an active interest as a fellow citizen of the world. I knew little of Bloomberg beyond his being a former NY mayor, billionaire, and late entrant. I don't know anyone supporting him, and your links suggest why not. (But I do know some who like his ads.)

As to this rich man "pretending to be a Democrat", isn't that something of the reverse of the current incumbent?

It's been heartening to see the hatred ratboy has provoked from Biden and Klobuchar. This would seem to be a case where personal loathing trumps the class solidarity of the bourgeoisie. A case where you have to bring in Freud to complement Marx.

Cecily wrote: " So that's Bloomberg getting GOP votes and Tulsi Gabbard (is she still in?) often spouting Putin/GOP talking points. I'm confused!

I dislike Gabbard because of her support for the BJP and her bad stance on Israel, but this still seems inaccurate; what are the Putin/ GOP talking points she repeats?

Cecily wrote: "Thanks, Mike. I'm a Brit, living in the UK, but I have family in friends in the US, and take an active interest as a fellow citizen of the world. I knew little of Bloomberg beyond his being a forme..."

No problem, Cecily. But I would truly appreciate it if, in the event that you do hear from family or friends in the U.S. who are thinking about voting for Bloomberg, you would share those links with them.

And yes, I'm starting to notice similarities between the two of them. Two rich, racist, sexist, asshole New Yorkers, who will run in whichever party is most convenient.

Predictably, by the way, Trump tweeted today, crowing about Bloomberg's racist remarks. Why would we want to select the one candidate who can't even claim the moral high-ground against Donald Trump?

David wrote: "Cecily wrote: " So that's Bloomberg getting GOP votes and Tulsi Gabbard (is she still in?) often spouting Putin/GOP talking points. I'm confused!

I dislike Gabbard because of her support for the B..."

This has been in the air ever since Hillary made her deranged comments about Tulsi being a "Russian asset", which I understand to mean that Tulsi differs from the establishment on foreign policy. Wouldn't be surprised if they try to use that line on Bernie next.

Mike wrote: "David wrote: "Cecily wrote: " So that's Bloomberg getting GOP votes and Tulsi Gabbard (is she still in?) often spouting Putin/GOP talking points. I'm confused!

I dislike Gabbard because of her sup..."

The architects of the destruction of the Middle East are snowflakes who can’t handle criticism.

Antonomasia wrote: "Another one for the optimists: political scientist who closely predicted the House result in 2018 suggests "the Democrats are a near lock for the presidency in 2020, and are likely to gain House se..."

Thanks for posting. I skimmed it, but will take a longer look when I have time tomorrow. But I've got to say that I'm initially pretty skeptical of the idea that the Dems could be a near lock against an incumbent president.

David wrote: "Mike wrote: "David wrote: "The architects of the destruction of the Middle East are snowflakes who can’t handle criticism.."

Yep.

Mike wrote: "Antonomasia wrote: "Another one for the optimists: political scientist who closely predicted the House result in 2018 suggests "the Democrats are a near lock for the presidency in 2020, and are lik..."

Agreed, especially if they decide to blow it and nominate Biden, Bloomberg, &c &c

Antonomasia wrote: "the Democrats are a near lock for the presidency in 2020, and are likely to gain House seats and have a decent shot at retaking the Senate"

Thanks for article, so interesting. I'll be checking out more stuff from Rachel Bitecofer. Although that summary up there sounds less like a predictive forecast than a prognosis projected from current events?

Mike wrote: "Cecily and Alfred, please take a look at the Current Affairs article I posted yesterday,"

I did, thanks for that, and the previous article on Buttigieg.

My view on Bloomberg's rise is that he's just the new novelty in the race. I remember Biden being the hot topic before and long after he announced running until people finally realized that the "most electable" candidate just wasn't up to the task. It takes time for people to become informed about Bloomberg, and make their own judgement from there.

As I mentioned, the fervor will die down once he actually speaks on the debate stage and loses the insulation of the ads.

His record isn't surprising... Probably more tapes to be revealed. And, oh, haha, another similarity on your comparisons of the two billionaires - they both have incriminating tapes.

I don't want the Jinx it but is looking good for Bernie in New Hampshire tonight.

Yang and Bennet announced they're out.

Alfred wrote: "Yang and Bennet announced they're out."

Hadn't even heard of Bennet. Not that they'd care about people in the UK, but it maybe shows what a low profile he had.

Kind of a shame about Yang as he had some interesting policies, expected him to stay in a bit longer, but didn't think he would make it to the final two.


Something lighter: what food the campaigns' staffers eat most, according to FEC filings: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2...

Also in a lighter mood. A flowchart of how to decide which Dem to vote for. It's not entirely complete or up to date, but it made me smile. Especially the bit about rotating PDFs:

Cecily wrote: "Also in a lighter mood. A flowchart of how to decide which Dem to vote for. It's not entirely complete or up to date, but it made me smile. Especially the bit about rotating PDFs:

"

I ended up where I thought I would end up (that is, Bernie 8) ).

Where is all the positive coverage of Pete Buttigieg happening, that is encouraging people to vote for him? I have only seen a small amount, especially in the last couple of months. There was some in the summer which was kind of naive and starry eyed, but that seems to have been superseded, in places I read, by stuff questioning PB's background (McKinsey especially) and being positive about Sanders.

Antonomasia wrote: "Where is all the positive coverage of Pete Buttigieg happening, that is encouraging people to vote for him? I have only seen a small amount, especially in the last couple of months. There was some ..."

In general, the media has basically "fallen in love" with every other candidate than Bernie, despite his frontrunner status.

Here's an--albeit kind of long--media analysis of how the media is actively trying to stop Bernie: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmBHw...

There's also headlines like this, coming out of yesterday: "With third-place finish, Klobuchar bursts to the center of the Democratic presidential race" (this was the front-center story on Washington Post's website for most of the morning)

Could legitimately see a headline saying something like "Bernie support plummets up to first place, but XYZ is surging into striking distance"

Antonomasia wrote: "Where is all the positive coverage of Pete Buttigieg happening, that is encouraging people to vote for him? I have only seen a small amount, especially in the last couple of months. There was some ..."

I have difficulty saying what Buttigieg's appeal is supposed to be, but I think he activates a certain nostalgia among the professional managerial class hoping that we can return to pre-2016 by simply finding Obama 2.0. Someone simultaneously cool and dorky, an insider who can also claim a minority identity. I don't think the former Mayor has anything like Obama's political skills, however, and it's not going to work for a small core of supporters to will a personality cult into existence.

Everything about the man is kind of fraudulent though; he's not even that skilled of a linguist

https://dailycaller.com/2019/05/01/pe...

He's refusing to even answer questions on foreign policy, in the hopes that running as vague and vacuous campaign as possible will be a winning formula (as indeed it kind of was for Obama)


https://www.theamericanconservative.c...

Antonomasia wrote: "Where is all the positive coverage of Pete Buttigieg happening, that is encouraging people to vote for him? "

I agree with David above that it's hard to pinpoint exactly what Buttigieg's appeal is. He's a bit everything, and maybe that's it. He's young at 38 yrs but is a bit of an old soul. He straddles progressive-centrist positions. He's got the "perfect job resume" - veteran (he volunteered after 9/11), multilingual, Ivy League, all-round-good-guy-wholesome-American sort of image but doesn't come across as someone behaving better than the next guy, and in fact comes across mature and earnest. The whole eagle-scout-future-president package, if you will, which makes you want to punch him in the face, of course.

Maybe people see him as a figure for "generational change" (term from somewhere in the articles), kind of a bridge between the young and old on the moderate side.

His lack of experience is a concern, as is his low polling among African-Americans and Latinos. How he does next in the diverse states of NV and SC will be telling if he's got staying power.

Some articles below on Buttigieg from places I check out sometimes, if they're useful.

(I like reading about voter impressions) https://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...

https://www.newyorker.com/news/campai...

https://www.vox.com/2020/2/4/21121636...

Mayor Pete is a darling of the PMC but I don't trust him one bit. One should look at his record in South Bend and his work at McKinsey. And the fact that his speeches are full of flowery diction but are vacuous when it comes to policy. He is a blowed dried candidate with a sinister past.

Peter (Pete) wrote: "He is a blowed dried candidate with a sinister past"

And at 38 years old, he's barely started on his villainous career! Wait till he's 48 or 73 years with some real estate experience and an orange tan.