Michael Bloomberg 2020 campaign megathread

[Sorenroy]

I think that the lower tier of candidates in general can be split into two broad categories: the "Who?"s and the "Why?"s. Candidates in the first group need to spend a significant amount of money and time just to explain who they are. Candidates in the "Why?" tear are fairly well known, but they just haven't gained enough traction to get into serious contention and thus need to spend their time arguing their theory of the case.

As shown by his qualification for the Alabama ballot and his 4% (and 5th highest name recognition) in Morning Consult's flash poll, Bloomberg is coming into the race as a "Why?" candidate. Unlike a Steyer of Delaney who has to spend tens of millions of dollars just to be recognized, Bloomberg can approach the race much more like a Warren, starting with a low level of support but able to drain cash directly into answering why they should be someone's candidate of choice.

What I can't understand is Bloomberg's approach to the race. I, and a lot of other people judging by this forum's reaction and the Morning Consult poll, really need to hear the answer to the question of "Why?" If you are a moderate, why not support Biden or Buttigieg? If you feel that being a billionaire is important, why not support Steyer? Bloomberg and his immense wealth could attempt to make an argument, but by staying out of the race he is leaving that by the wayside. And, if he enters later, he will have an immense amount of ground to cover just to make that case quickly to potential voters.

I don't like slapping the label of being entitled to candidates who are actively campaigning for the presidency, but I can't help but feel some air of entitlement from Bloomberg here as he seems to think that people will just flock to him if he decides he wants to run later on.

[Sorenroy]

All I had to go off of was the Tweet (from the detestable Walker Bragman) which makes it sound like he's talking about the intellegentsia in third person.

Yeah same here, the tweet made it sound like he was positioning "real America" against "the intelligentsia and trans activists" and I'm so used to hearing Republicans say that I didn't question it.

That being said Bloomberg still isn't getting a pass from me. He's right you need to be a salesman, but I don't trust someone who instinctively refers to trans women as "men in dresses" to either sell it or even care about selling it.

And let's be clear: he was not quoting anyone. The full quote from Bloomberg: "if you want to know if somebody's a good salesman, give them the job of going to the Midwest, and picking a town, and selling to that town the concept that some man wearing a dress should be in the locker room with their daughter. If you can sell that you can sell anything."

He did not say "the concept that someone can identify as a gender other than their birth-assigned gender, and that's okay!" and then go on to say that Midwesterners will respond that they "don't want some man wearing a dress in the locker room with their daughter." That was *his wording.*

Dude, why did you leave out the part he says right after that? He says “they [Midwesterners] say ‘what on Earth are you talking about?’ and you say ‘Well, this person identifies his or her gender as different than what’s on their birth certificate’ and they say ‘What do you mean? You’re either born this or you’re born that.’”

He literally says exactly what you just said he didn’t say.

 Bragman’s description of the clip is extremely disingenuous. He makes it sound like Bloomberg is pitting himself against the Intelligentsia, when in fact he makes it very clear that he is part of the intelligentsia that supports trans rights.

As someone who has grown up/become politically engaged in the same state as Peebs, I'm probably more sensitive to the specific language people use around certain issues, especially that of Trans rights, than someone who isn't from the state made temporarily famous for using Trans people as a political punching bag to drive up conservative turnout. With that caveat out of the way, I fully agree with Leinad that having your go to phrase be "some man wearing a dress" is problematic. I know Bloomberg clarifies in the next part of his speech, but it's not like it would have undermined the point he was making at all if he had led with "if you want to know if somebody's a good salesman, give them the job of going to the Midwest, and picking a town, and selling to that town the concept that a trans woman should be in the locker room with their daughter." Even that is a bit crass, but it still gets to the point he's trying to make without needlessly creating some idea of Trans people acting in some malicious way.

And, again, I do understand that Trans issues are a little newer to the scene then other equality issues, so I give Bloomberg the tiniest amount of slack on what he said. The whole clip makes me think that 2016 Bloomberg was in the situation of a lot of older liberals, where they are still evolving (in the best sense of the term) on the issue. I'd obviously rather someone who came to the right views on this earlier as the nominee, but it's not a dealbreaker to me that Bloomberg is an old guy that hasn't really been in touch with me on all the issues I find important. Much more of an issue is his views on race which, as I pointed out in the "Bloomberg Is a Big Ol' Racist" thread, are clearly problematic and would have been even when he originally made those statements.

[Sorenroy]

Bloomberg's performance yesterday was embarrassing. Not only for himself, but for the millions of Democratic primary voters polling seems to suggest that he has. After spending months pumping money into ads, it's insulting that he would put so little effort into his debate performance. Billions of dollars of ads aren't going to combat wall to wall media coverage talking about a Bloomberg collapse. As a Democrat, it would be embarrassing to call myself such under a Bloomberg nomination. No wonder he's losing against every one of his primary rivals one on one.