Michael Bloomberg 2020 campaign megathread

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

God damn it.

Literally my immediate reaction when I saw he was running.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

0

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Bloomberg's version of Biden's 2007 "articulate and bright and clean":

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/473485-bloomberg-apologizes-after-he-calls-booker-well-spoken-i-probably-shouldnt

Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg apologized Friday after calling fellow 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) “well spoken," a phrase which critics have said has racist undertones.

While discussing his 2020 competitors with CBS’s Gayle King in an interview that aired Friday morning, Bloomberg said, “Cory Booker endorsed me a number of times, and I endorsed Cory Booker a number of times. He’s very well spoken, he’s got some good ideas.”

Obama said it was no big deal.   Booker got offended.  That's why Obama was President and Booker won't be.

Among other reasons

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Gross

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

https://twitter.com/DRUDGE/status/1228705577678716929

*Yawn* Wake me when you find a remotely credible source that isn’t obviously making up it’s “story.”

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Bloomberg is increasingly looking like a Ronald Hump candidate:

This reminds me of the dumb "turnout was moderate" cartoon Jfern used to have in his sig back when he was insisting that Obama would lose in 2012 b/c he was an evil Moderate Hero or some such nonsense.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Bloomberg is probably worse than Trump, more racist, more sexist & more of an oligarch. He treats women like scum.

If Trump was running on a D Ticket & was surrounded by Democratic politicians, he will 100% better than Bloomberg, far more liberal. Bloomberg, a racist & a sexist buying the nomination probably should be followed by a Trump 2nd Term, filling the Court with conservative judges so that Democrats don't even think of nominating a racist, sexist, evil oligarch.

https://youtu.be/uq-v1TTUyhM

Bloomberg has been sued by 40 women in 64 cases of sexual harassment. If that is who Democrats want to nominate, then they deserved to die as a party.

Literally everything you accuse Bloomberg of being is what Trump has been accused of as well: a rich, self-absorbed, racist, sexual abuser.

That is a great argument for not nominating Bloomberg. Last time I checked, the whole point of being the opposition to Donald Trump is actually being the opposite of Donald Trump, not the exact same except in blue.

Bloomberg, awful as he is, is not even remotely as bad as Trump nor are the two particularly similar.  I get that the Bernie camp is gonna be pushing this narrative as hard as they can and that makes sense from a strategic perspective, but it's also a load of BS.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Bloomberg is increasingly looking like a Ronald Hump candidate:

This reminds me of the dumb "turnout was moderate" cartoon Jfern used to have in his sig back when he was insisting that Obama would lose in 2012 b/c he was an evil Moderate Hero or some such nonsense.

Good thing that Hillary easily defeated Trump like everyone thought she would.

Good thing that Obama easily defeated Romney.  I guess turnout wasn't moderate in 2012 after all

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Cor, imagine if the US presidential election is two billionaires running against each other. That's the kind of thing you expect from post-Soviet banana republics and West African kleptocracies; not a wealthy country that claims to be an advanced democracy

Trump's not a billionaire   Although obviously, Bloomberg is a self-made one.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

https://mobile.twitter.com/CANCEL_SAM/status/1229127380402393088

This is really going to hurt Bloomberg with the nursing home vote, which is a huge part of Klobuchar's support in Florida.

In order for a "moderate" candidate to win, they have to consolidate the nursing home vote and win 100% of it, and Bloomberg just shot his chances of doing so into pieces.

Nah, those folks are gonna come out in droves for Bloomberg in Florida.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

So last week I talked to this older black woman on my local Democratic Committee and she told me she was going from Biden to Bloomberg.

I called her today to see what she was thinking after Bloomberg’s tumultuous week. She said it made her support him even more because it must mean Trump is scared. Obviously this is anecdotal but older black voters are not going to run away because Twitter roasted him.

Interesting

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

https://twitter.com/david_darmofal/status/1229171740854693889?s=21

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Bloomberg, awful as he is, is not even remotely as bad as Trump nor are the two particularly similar.  I get that the Bernie camp is gonna be pushing this narrative as hard as they can and that makes sense from a strategic perspective, but it's also a load of BS.

The complacency of the center-left in this country never fails to astound me. Why do people keep trying to revive the "At least our guy is better than the other guy" argument? It has never worked; it failed miserably in 2016 and it will fail again because turnout among your base can only be increased by putting forth a positive argument for your candidate. If you hate Trump and everything he stands for, the way to excite the base and present a credible case against him is to contrast with him, not to capitulate to the style of politics he's created and to compromise all of your morals in exactly the same way Republicans have.

Jesus effing Christ, isn't this common sense?

You don’t have to convince me, Chief; I’m not a Bloomberg supporter   I just think he’s far better than Trump.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Bloomberg, awful as he is, is not even remotely as bad as Trump nor are the two particularly similar.  I get that the Bernie camp is gonna be pushing this narrative as hard as they can and that makes sense from a strategic perspective, but it's also a load of BS.

The complacency of the center-left in this country never fails to astound me. Why do people keep trying to revive the "At least our guy is better than the other guy" argument? It has never worked; it failed miserably in 2016 and it will fail again because turnout among your base can only be increased by putting forth a positive argument for your candidate. If you hate Trump and everything he stands for, the way to excite the base and present a credible case against him is to contrast with him, not to capitulate to the style of politics he's created and to compromise all of your morals in exactly the same way Republicans have.

Jesus effing Christ, isn't this common sense?

You don’t have to convince me, Chief; I’m not a Bloomberg supporter   I just think he’s far better than Trump.

I think you are underestimating just how stupid Democrats will look if they nominate a racist/sexist billionaire in 2020 after four years of (apparently feigned) outrage.

I think Bloomberg is the most likely nominee, sadly.  If we're gonna take a massive gamble though, why not at least do it with someone like Bernie who actually...you know...excites Democrats.  If we lose, at least we'll have lost fighting for our principles.  But what do I know? 

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I'm inching closer to not voting for Bloomberg if he wins the nomination. All these "unearthed" comments from less than a decade ago are truly sickening and it is abundantly clear that Bloomberg is nothing more than an establishment Republican who was too cowardly to primary Trump. I'm not absolutely certain I wouldn't vote for Bloomberg, but I would strongly consider voting for Howie Hawkins and donating to Democratic Senate candidates instead.

Bloomberg has been excellent on gun control and global warming.  He's to the left of most Democrats on immigration.  He supports raising taxes on the wealthy and he'd also appoint progressive judges if elected and be better than Trump on almost literally every issue.  Moreover, the rule of law itself is at stake.  Nothing Bloomberg would do will come even close to moving America toward an authoritarian oligarchy nor endanger American national security compared to what would happen in the first year of a Trump second term.   And Ginsberg and Breyer are old enough that the 2020 winner could easily get to make two SCOTUS appointments.

You live in Pennsylvania; your vote matters more than most this time around.  None of us has the luxury of sitting this one out.  This isn't 2000; the stakes are probably the highest they'll ever be in either of our lifetimes.

I'm inching closer to not voting for Bloomberg if he wins the nomination. All these "unearthed" comments from less than a decade ago are truly sickening and it is abundantly clear that Bloomberg is nothing more than an establishment Republican who was too cowardly to primary Trump. I'm not absolutely certain I wouldn't vote for Bloomberg, but I would strongly consider voting for Howie Hawkins and donating to Democratic Senate candidates instead.

Agreed. I'll vote for down-ballot Democrats, but in the off-chance that the nominee is Bloomberg, I will vote Green Party. I hate Trump, but I don't have to settle for someone just as bad. I know a lot of others in Wisconsin who feel the exact same way.

This self-defeating ego-trip was brought to you by Helping Trump Win Re-election to Own the Center-Left!

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I'm inching closer to not voting for Bloomberg if he wins the nomination. All these "unearthed" comments from less than a decade ago are truly sickening and it is abundantly clear that Bloomberg is nothing more than an establishment Republican who was too cowardly to primary Trump. I'm not absolutely certain I wouldn't vote for Bloomberg, but I would strongly consider voting for Howie Hawkins and donating to Democratic Senate candidates instead.

Bloomberg has been excellent on gun control and global warming.  He's to the left of most Democrats on immigration.  He supports raising taxes on the wealthy and he'd also appoint progressive judges if elected and be better than Trump on almost literally every issue.  Moreover, the rule of law itself is at stake.  Nothing Bloomberg would do will come even close to moving America toward an authoritarian oligarchy nor endanger American national security compared to what would happen in the first year of a Trump second term.   And Ginsberg and Breyer are old enough that the 2020 winner could easily get to make two SCOTUS appointments.

You live in Pennsylvania; your vote matters more than most this time around.  None of us has the luxury of sitting this one out.  This isn't 2000; the stakes are probably the highest they'll ever be in either of our lifetimes.

Yes, I understand this, except Bloomberg is *not* a fiscal moderate--he is a fiscal conservative and has said so himself. I am *not* in favor of the generic gun control measures that he may pursue just for the sake of pursuing those solutions--I want a President who will consider a different approach on that issue in particular. And Bloomberg purchasing the presidency sets an incredibly dangerous precedent for oligarchy in America. It is essentially a choice between someone who would purchase the Presidency and be open to democracy and someone who would strongarm the Presidency and not be open to democracy; it's a disturbing dichotomy and very dangerous for America.

However, your points about SCOTUS and climate change are well taken--these are quite literally the only things that keep Bloomberg in the "maybe" column for me.

Don't get it twisted, I see Donald Trump as a fascist who would absolutely make a power grab to hang on to power, but I do not see how voting for Michael Bloomberg is the type of sacrifice I should be expected to make just because Democrats are too scared to confront Trump from a more ideologically consistent position. Why should I have to flex my backbone so Bloomberg and the Democratic Party can avoid having one? I've already committed to voting for Biden, Pete, or Amy if they win the nomination--I'll even volunteer for them. That's no problem for me, for the reasons you mentioned. But Bloomberg is quite literally a Republican. If Jeb Bush wanted to run as a Democrat, would I have to vote for him because he's not "as extreme" as Donald Trump?

You shouldn't have to flex your backbone so the Democratic establishment and Bloomberg can avoid having one.  Neither should I.  It's a f***ing pathetic situation.  If it were any other Republican than Trump, there would be a strong argument for voting third party in protest.  However, this one is just too important.  

And tbh, if Jeb was the Democratic nominee, I would say to vote for him over Trump.  It has nothing to do with how extreme Trump is and everything to do with the fact that Trump is a wannabe dictator who has done everything in his power to undermine the rule of law and whose Presidency represents an existential threat to American democracy.  This is not a normal election.  The rule of law itself is at stake.

This self-defeating ego-trip was brought to you by Helping Trump Win Re-election to Own the Center-Left!

Word to the wise: this talking point has never persuaded a single voter, and is so cliche now that it probably hurts your argument. I gave up trying it in 2017 after hundreds of attempts resulted in literally no one saying, "you know what? you're right!" and literally everybody digging their heels in deeper. Please never canvass or phone bank using this argument.

Also worth noting that most of Bloomberg's "progressive" issues aren't actually issues that directly motivate or inspire even a majority of Democrats. Gun control is basically now a prioritized social issue for suburbanites and global warming is a niche issue for left-wing environmentalists. Even if most Democrats support these issues in broad terms, it's not something that genuinely motivates them or inspires them.

Obviously, I would never canvass or phonebank with that argument  Telling people who are being stupid to stop being stupid never persuades people.  However, talking to someone on Atlas who seems to have already made up their mind is another matter entirely.  Also, I'd argue the idea that Bloomberg and Trump are basically the same is so absurd it doesn't really merit serious discussion.  If folks make posts on Atlas like the one Redjohn made; I'm not gonna mince words about what I think of their self-destructive, ego-fueled gift to the far right.  

On a different note, gun control definitely excites suburban Democrats.  You may not like it, but they've become a key part of the party's coalition.  You can't beat Trump without them.  They're necessary, but not sufficient for Democrats to win in 2020.  

As for global warming, that's one of the most important issues currently facing the world.  Whether it motivates people or not, a candidate's views on it are pretty d*** important.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Obviously, I would never canvass or phonebank with that argument  Telling people who are being stupid to stop being stupid never persuades people.  However, talking to someone on Atlas who seems to have already made up their mind is another matter entirely.  Also, I'd argue the idea that Bloomberg and Trump are basically the same is so absurd it doesn't really merit serious discussion.  If folks make posts on Atlas like the one Redjohn made; I'm not gonna mince words about what I think of their self-destructive, ego-fueled gift to the far right.

Well then, I guess you should acknowledge that it's just a cathartic experience for you and nothing more; if it's a bad idea/pointless to make such an argument to somebody who might actually be persuadable (through other means), then it's even more pointless to say it to somebody who has already made up their mind. The fact that you would make those comments in such a situation means it's not ridiculous to think you might make them in situations like I mentioned.

On a different note, gun control definitely excites suburban Democrats.  You may not like it, but they've become a key part of the party's coalition.  You can't beat Trump without them.  They're necessary, but not sufficient for Democrats to win in 2020.  

As for global warming, that's one of the most important issues currently facing the world.  Whether it motivates people or not, a candidate's views on it are pretty d*** important.

I literally said it was a "prioritized social issue for suburbanites", so not sure why you're repeating me as if I said something different? At the end of the day, though, these voters don't need to be excited or motivated: Democrats have limited political capital to spend, and spending it on groups that are a) already going to vote for us and b) have absurdly high turnout rates has a very rapidly diminishing return on investment. Plenty of disposable income and high educational attainment = no turnout strategy needed. Building the basis of our campaign around issues that people who are already with us and have guaranteed sky-high voter turnout rates is an act in pandering rather than electoral skill, and is obviously both a waste of investment and political malpractice (especially when such issues can and do hurt us elsewhere).

I misread your post re: suburbanites.  Somehow I missed that, my bad.  I don't necessarily disagree which is one of the reasons that Bernie is my second choice whereas Bloomberg is by third-to-last

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Yep... tonight should be interesting.

https://twitter.com/Mike2020/status/1230185349571383296?s=20

ROTFL

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

It would be awesome if Joe's last great act of public service & major public appearance was to slay a billionaire oligarch at tonight's debate.

I mean, the man couldn’t even slay Kamala Harris

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

LMFAO Joe is on fire today!

https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1230207883721179136

Didn’t he endorse Fred Upton?

Yes and IIRC Biden even let footage of him praising Upton be used in ads when Upton was facing the toughest race of his career.  Upton won by like 2-3%

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

If any of them want to be the nominee, they should be attacking Sanders, not each other. If they can't stop the Sanders train, nothing else matters.

I mean, yes, but I think you're overestimating the political instincts of some of these folks.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

His nomination would be a significant setback for anyone who believes in anything Obama/Clinton/Sanders ran on.

Bernie Sanders called for Obama to be primaried. Don't try to wrap him up in Obama's legacy because y'all are scared that Bloomberg will keep your fave from an outright majority of delegates.

How dare anyone call for the primary-ing of a President. It's scary that people think their side shouldn't be questioned, and any pushing is the work of Russian spies and people with horrible motives. Bloomberg doesn't believe in the ideals Obama believed in. Unless Obama believes in literally buying an election?

Silence, Republican

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Smart move by Mike, will be able to limit Biden's bounce by pivoting to his leadership:

https://twitter.com/PoliticsReid/status/1233845814369439749

So does this mean he wants to stop-and-frisk Asian-Americans now?