Michael Bloomberg 2020 campaign megathread

[No War, but the War on Christmas]

You can’t support Bloomberg and be a Democrat. Period. He’s literally worse than Trump in my opinion, if mostly because he’d be far more competent a Republican.

[Adam Griffin]

Median Bloomberg Voter

[Rookie Yinzer]

Mike comes for Bernie 👀

https://twitter.com/MikeBloomberg/status/1229369357471551488?s=20

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Mike comes for Bernie 👀

https://twitter.com/MikeBloomberg/status/1229369357471551488?s=20

"basket of deplorables"

Really sad stuff from the oligarch.

[RI]

In case you harbored any delusions of Bloomberg winning back the Rust Belt or reversing any trends:

https://twitter.com/PeterMentes/status/1228518467776761856

[redjohn]

Sure Bloomberg is an oligarch with an incredibly bad history of sexist and racist comments and actions, but BERNIE has fans on twitter who tell biden to drop out.

What a joke. Mike thinks he can buy this whole thing, but he can't.

[Gass3268]

My hope is that Bloomberg and Sanders can take each other out, allowing someone else to rise up to the top. Anyone would be better than those two.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

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

NOTE: the "transcript" above the clip is selectively edited to remove that Bloomberg specifically mentions prostate cancer.

From Wikipedia:

The first decision to be made in managing prostate cancer is whether treatment is needed. Prostate cancer, especially low-grade forms found in elderly men, often grows so slowly that no treatment is required. Treatment may also be inappropriate if a person has other serious health problems or is not expected to live long enough for symptoms to appear.

The a campaign to cast Bloomberg in the worst possible light is starting to make me angry. We should argue about which candidate is better. I think Sanders would be a better nominee and President. But inventing a circular firing squad from nothing is not going to help, and I see a lot of "Bernie Bros" doing it. (Disclaimer: I'm personally convinced that most vocal and critical Bernie Bros (who are not the actual majority of Sanders supporters) would not vote for any Democratic nominee, even Senator Bernie Sanders.)

[Sir Mohamed]

My hope is that Bloomberg and Sanders can take each other out, allowing someone else to rise up to the top. Anyone would be better than those two.

I tend to agree. Now, I would support both Bloomy and Sanders in the GE b/c they're far better than the current Dumpsterfire in the WH. BUT I think both would, as nominee, face serious backlash from certain segments of the party and the electorate that may put victory perspectives into jeopardy. Sanders will certainly alienate swing voters in suburban districts that helped to flip the House in 2018. Bloomberg is disliked by progressives, grassroots activists and will probably suffer from weak youth turnout. Even some leftists who would be willing to vote for Biden or Butti in the end struggle with Mr. 60 Billion $. I'm not sure whether each Sanders or Bloomberg can make these losses up with their own constituents. Trump can easily go after each one, dennoucing Sanders as dangerous socialist who wants America to turn into Venezuela 2.0, and Bloomberg as out-of-touch neoliberal hack, who is a puppet of global elites wanting to ship jobs overseas, trying to buy his way into the WH.

I think it would be much safer to nominate Biden, Warren, Butti or Klobuchar. Each of them has flaws, but fewer risks than Sanders and Bloomberg.

[Adam Griffin]

It's Bloomberg and Sanders now. Make your choice. If you support Bloomberg, then you don't actually care about sorting out any structural issues (or even elevating the discussion), whether they be social or economic: you just either care about "beating Trump no matter what" or hate Sanders so ferociously that you'll tear apart a 200 year-old party for the hell of it. I don't want to hear another complaint about big money, nepotism, sexism, racism, homophobia, general bigotry or injustice from anybody who pledges to support his guy from here on out. In just a week, more overt comments have been outed by him than by Trump or any other nominee of either party in the history of the Republic.

Best case, you'll beat Trump and put somebody in there who shares the same views but who will be competent enough to implement them. Worst case (and far more likely), 5-10 million Democratic voters stay home, vote third-party or vote for Trump out of spite. Either way, the Democratic Party will be dead for anybody who doesn't identify with it over more than simple brand recognition. Guess the Romney voters will have finally found their home!

Literally the only reason this guy is even being discussed is because of a coalition of rich offended Republicans who don't want to pay taxes and Baby Boomers who vegged out too much in front of the boobtube and saw too many of his ads on TV, buying the snake oil about how he's electable: because he has money after all! Even if the past 2 presidential victors won despite being outspent (Obama '12, Trump '16) in broad, two-faction spending.

This guy will destroy the Democratic Party. If your vision for the majority party of America is a coalition of rich people and low-information voters who'll stand by the brand no matter what, then love on this pathetic, unvetted oligarch. Love on the party that'll get 45% of the vote for a generation. 'Cause that's all you're getting, and that's all you deserve.

[This user has not been convicted of 34 felonies]

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.

[redjohn]

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 user has not been convicted of 34 felonies]

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.

I still believe Bloomberg is acceptable on climate change, which is a top 3 issue for me in 2020, but I would need a lot of convincing to even consider Bloomberg, all things considered.

[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!

[This user has not been convicted of 34 felonies]

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?

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

Mike is done. The first rule of Fight Club:

Don't talk about Bernie Bros. JUST DON'T.

[Adam Griffin]

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.

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.

 

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, global warming is a niche issue for left-wing environmentalists, and immigration reform isn't even rated among Latinos and Asians as their #1 surface issue. Even if most Democrats support these issues in broad terms, it's not something that genuinely motivates them or inspires them.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

This guy will destroy the Democratic Party. If your vision for the majority party of America is a coalition of rich people and low-information voters who'll stand by the brand no matter what, then love on this pathetic, unvetted oligarch. Love on the party that'll get 45% of the vote for a generation. 'Cause that's all you're getting, and that's all you deserve.

The Republican utter lack of self-awareness remains breathtaking.

[Adam Griffin]

This guy will destroy the Democratic Party. If your vision for the majority party of America is a coalition of rich people and low-information voters who'll stand by the brand no matter what, then love on this pathetic, unvetted oligarch. Love on the party that'll get 45% of the vote for a generation. 'Cause that's all you're getting, and that's all you deserve.

The Republican utter lack of self-awareness remains breathtaking.

Are you just looking at my avatar and missing the joke, or are you just making a blanket assumption that I've been anything other than a Democrat for my entire life because I'm not chanting #VoteBlueNoMatterWho at deafening levels for hours?

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

Bloomberg is increasingly looking like a Ronald Hump candidate:

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

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

Back in 2015, my anti-establishment self was smugly looking forward to pointing at Hillary Clinton vs. Jeb Bush as the ultimate self-condemnation of America's fake democracy. Now, looking back at myself, reminds me of an old quote by SF author Neal Stephenson,

For a Westerner to trash Western culture is like criticizing our nitrogen/oxygen atmosphere on the grounds that it sometimes gets windy, and besides, Jupiter's is much prettier. You may not realize its advantages until you're trying to breathe liquid methane.

(Not to say there wasn't room for improvement - there was and always will be room for improvement. But if my only choice is between the Republicans of Gilead's toxic miasma and President Bloomberg, the choice is pretty clear.)

[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.

[Adam Griffin]

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).

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

https://twitter.com/nadabakos/status/1229231095704539137

[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