-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Democratic Presidential Primary |February OT| It Can't be Worse than Iowa, Right? (Discussion Guidelines in OP)
- Thread starter Poodlestrike
- Start date
- Status
A republican billionaire that has been able to get significant polling support among Dems without having to actually appear on a ballot or stage yet. Yup, great idea. Let's just let him run a general election campaign with no way to counter him.
If he's not accepting donors, there would be no way for him to get on the stage. He'd have been on based on polling alone anyway. The rules didn't envision someone not needing donors running.
Bloomberg is a bigger factor in the election than Booker was. That's just a practical reality.
He can't win on 2nd and 3rd place finishes alone. If he wants to burn his money trying go ahead. But its literally impossible. Hes not getting 1st place finishes out of ads in states. Putting him on the debate stage is only going to help him, not hurt him.
He is literally only polling that high because he has enough fuck-off money to advertise massively in every state. He is attempting to buy his way into the Presidency, and that is a problem. The only positive thing about him being in any debate is due to the inevitable teardown of his very candidacy.
Klobuchar yesterday said she wanted to build a "big tent" for anti-abortion Democrats, and she is still a better candidate than Bloomberg could even hope to be. That is saying something.
Like a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Also worth noting, I like Bernie Sanders. I've voted to send him to the Senate twice, as well as donated to and voted for him in the 2016 Primary.
Name a single candidate in the Democratic field this entire election cycle with supporters who have constantly been criticized for their behavior. Beto, Buttigieg, Warren, Biden, Steyer, Yang, Tulsi, Klobuchar, Booker, Castro, etc. have not had this problem. Only Sanders. The closest you can come up with is maybe some salty Kamala Harris supporters on Twitter, and people rightfully told them they were being ridiculous
I didn't say otherwise. But why are we arbitrarily drawing lines in % points? Your argument is that any serious contender deserves to be on the stage for people to choose. I see no reason why Booker shouldn't be up there but Mike should, especially since Mike is only up there because he pooled millions into ads
Ultimately the only thing that's giving him legitimacy is his spending and the approval numbers he's seeing. It's not the DNC (he didn't need them to change a single thing to do what he's doing right now) and it's not some party elite. It's those ill informed voters who are gobbling up his ad buys.
Personally I think all the hand wringing is for naught. He's not going to win the nomination
They really don't. Bloomberg is literally the only candidate in the race I absolutely will not vote for. I will abstain.
The "why" honesty doesn't really matter, because he is still in the race and still has that level of support. Those voters picking Bloomberg have every right to make their decision for whatever reason they want to.
So you do not, in fact, have receipts for the claims you made? Sounds like you should probably stop making those claims and generalizations if not.
It's because the system is fundamentally borked if there was a spending cap most of those issues matter less but the presidency is fundamentally about who can generate the most money which is why the logical conclusion is a billionaire buying the whole thing. It's a systemic issue either it's bought in the shadow by billionaires or you have what we got now where billionaires have decided to cut out the middle men and do it themselves.
Last edited:
You don't think they won't hand 2020 to Trump just to spite Bernie? They are more afraid of the tiniest whiff of socialism than balls-out fascism.
Are you requesting I dig up every single negative post a Sanders supporter has ever made on here? You could try reading back just a few pages. If your claim is that Sanders supporters are not problematic, you're either willfully living in denial or you may be part of the problem.
Justifying the destructive nature of his candidacy is not even worth the effort. He will never come close to the nomination in the first place, yet there are plenty bending over backwards to vote for a racist, transphobic Republican. Just stop.
Here's an idea: billionaires shouldn't even exist, let alone run for the fucking Presidency. It goes against the very nature of the Democratic process.
The DNC allowed him on the ticket. The DNC also changed rules to help him on stage (they shouldnt have).
I agree it doesn't matter. But then again, the GoP thought the same thing about Trump in 16 so who the hell knows.
I'm back and forth on whether or not Bloomberg will be helped or harmed by being in a debate. My feeling is that a billionaire shouldn't be able to buy rule changes that they want, and that if he wants to be on the stage he probably suspects it will help him more than being attacked will harm him.
Also, he's a smarter Trump, and being in primary debates didn't exactly hurt Trump.
Also, he's a smarter Trump, and being in primary debates didn't exactly hurt Trump.
Because 3rd place is viable and, say, 10th isn't. A polling standard for debates at this stage isn't arbitrary, it's a practical necessary.
It's honestly not even close. So sad to see people around me pondering Bloomberg.
Of course they allowed him on the ticket, he qualified. They have no basis to disallow him.
Bloomberg should be in the debates so that he can't stay invisible anymore. He's had this enormous advantage of name recognition through money, and zero push back. If he isn't in the debates he goes into super Tuesday with no push back. Can't let that happen.
Klob and Pete have already proven that you can far outperform your place in polling. I agree it isn't arbitrary. But it isn't out of a practical obligation for him either.
This is ridiculous. Why do you think he "qualified" in the first place?
You made a broad generalization about Sanders supporters being by far the most toxic. I expect you to back that up rather than trying to deflect your own generalizations as me being "part of the problem."
Once again, if you cannot do that, I suggest you should probably stop making incendiary generalizations. For someone railing against online toxicity, you should hold yourself to a higher standard than contributing to it.
Hes a republican. That alone should disaqulify him since hes on the opposite end of the spectrum as to what this party is supposed to stand for. And if the policy is to allow anyone on their ticket, including a donald trump, for instance, they should rethink that position and at the least, not actively work to support their run.
The counter I know people will bring up is Bernie but bernie is an actual democrat and is on the spectrum of the liberal agenda.
This says a lot honestly. It absolutely does matter.
Nah. This will only further boost his campaign.
Just wow.
Yes, it absolutely does. The DNC changed the rules specifically to allow a Republican billionaire to have a chance for the Democratic nomination for Presidency. That absolutely matters! How can you ignore that?
It's honestly strange to see Bernie supporters arguing for backdoor party machinations to ice out candidates they just don't like.
Maybe if you ignore the criteria I just listed in my post this response would make sense.
Seriously did you just stop reading before getting to the part where I answered the Bernie argument?
I corrected my post, they changed the rules specifically to give him a chance at the nomination by accommodating him to make it to the debates that he was NOT qualified for previously.
They had a minimum number of donor rule for every debate until tonight's. Jesus
Err you jumped shark here. If he got through via illegitimate and corrupt means then he shouldn't be allowed to run and represent the party and says a great deal about the party itself. You can't handwave everything there's obvious logical limits.
It really is. Like... why would Bernie supporters want the DNC to have the power to deny any qualified candidate from running? The open process is what allows Bernie to run in the first place
He has a lot more to lose. Anyone who thinks he isn't already in this needs to turn on a TV. I'd rather let the stage tear him apart then let him go on making ads and being practically ignored.
Or maybe a racist, transphobic billionaire shouldn't even have a shred of consideration for Presidency, especially on the Democratic side? There is more than enough evidence (video, audio, and direct-quote text) that show Bloomberg only gives a shit about himself and other rich white people. We do not need another Trump running against Trump. He will actively work against minorities and the working class from day zero.
No, I don't. The DNC isn't going to knee cap the leading candidate and accept 4 more years of Trump. Do you even know how the DNC works?
No, I read it, I just think it's a very poor rational for trying to implement a system Bernie supporters have been decrying for years.
The primary voters should decide who will represent the party, not party elites. Be that Bernie or Bloomberg.
The stage isnt going to tear him apart. Chuck Todd is not going to ask legitimate questions about his illegitimate means of buying his way onto the stage. Some of the candidates may take pop shots at him. But I don't foresee it being a unified take down to an extent that it would do more harm than good. This strategy also failed miserably for the GoP in 16.
And the way we make sure he isn't considered is to expose his bullshit for all to see on a national debate stage.
That's for the primary voters to decide. That's called democracy.
- Status