-
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.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Democratic Presidential Primary |February OT| It Can't be Worse than Iowa, Right? (Discussion Guidelines in OP)
- Thread starter Poodlestrike
- Start date
- Status
I wish we had an anti-Bloomberg clause for the primary. There aren't any rules against him joining, unfortunately, and changing who can enter after the fact doesn't work. At this point the best that can be done is put him on a debate stage and murder him on live television.
I don't think he has a reasonable chance of getting the nom, personally.
I don't think he has a reasonable chance of getting the nom, personally.
Ok, Bloomberg should not be able to spend hundred of millions of dollars as that is a tremendous advantage he has over the other candidates, especially since he's using it in a way that undermines the already convoluted process. To pretend that his outrageous spending is not a circumvention of the system is just as idiotic as pretending that his problems are just "people don't like him".
Bloomberg is literally a more competent, smarter Trump. He's the lawful evil to Trump's chaotic evil.
Even if the Democratic Party wanted him off the ballot, in the majority of states, whose on the primary ballot for both parties is determined by the legislature, not the party.
If the state primary rules in Kentucky say, "you need x" and Bloomberg does that, the DNC can say all they want, and it doesn't matter.
Can we not have a moderator on this site that is supposed to protect minorities try to shame people into not wanting a fascist, racist, transphobic, islamophobic, MBS/Epstein/Weinstein buddying, climate change profiting, poor-hating, sexual harassing piece of shit billionaire who is lying about his record and using his billions of dollars to trick the electorate on the democratic ticket, and think maybe it'd be best to stop this guy from causing irreversible damage to our most vulnerable people?
"I'm disheartened people don't want to support the democratic process" uh yeah I don't want another billionaire fascist in office dude.
This is ignoring the realities of the situation where a billionaire has infinitely more power to corrupt the institutions that voters rely on to make accurate assessments of what kind of person they're voting for. Bloomberg literally bought his way into a third term by buying off and threatening council members in NYC, we already see a number of democrats falling in line. The media is already portraying attacks on his record as "smears" from other campaigns. Bloomberg has the power to corrupt and he is doing so.
"I'm disheartened people don't want to support the democratic process" uh yeah I don't want another billionaire fascist in office dude.
This is ignoring the realities of the situation where a billionaire has infinitely more power to corrupt the institutions that voters rely on to make accurate assessments of what kind of person they're voting for. Bloomberg literally bought his way into a third term by buying off and threatening council members in NYC, we already see a number of democrats falling in line. The media is already portraying attacks on his record as "smears" from other campaigns. Bloomberg has the power to corrupt and he is doing so.
I wish he wouldn't run. But he is. And the qualifications are and will likely always be basic. There is no litmus test for running on any ticket as long as you're otherwise qualified to run as president and have made any deadlines.
Sucks he can just buy infinite ads and blast them nonstop, taking advantage of people that don't pay attention that much or don't care about his racism and shitty policies. That's a symptom of a long-term erosion of involvement and education as it relates to civics in this county. But the fact is that he's doing it. And as a result, he's rising in the polls to become a legitimate threat and a contender for the nomination unchecked without having to run a traditional primary.
Which means he needs to be on the debate stage. Otherwise, he will continue to go unchallenged for months and will greatly increase his chances of forcing a brokered convention where all hell would break loose and anything could happen.
The irony in your position is that youre being hypocrticial in what you think is and isn't ok to be decided by the party. Earlier you said you were ok with them changing the rules to allow bloomberg on. You also said you were ok with them making rules that dont allow Corey booker on because he was in 10th place. But then when we argue against a republican fascist being allowed on youre not ok with them doing anything about it in the name of democracy. In some cases you seem to think its acceptable for them to decide who gets to go on their platform even if it belies a democratic process, but then in the case of a racist fascist youre chalking up changes theyre making as apart of the democratic process despite the fact that its actually only being decided on, as you put it, authoritarian rules.
Youre not being consistent with your arguments and that they seem to strongly favor Bloomberg is a bit suspect.
At no point have I said the Democratic party doesn't have a right to place spending restrictions on campaigns. They do, and they should.
But that should be their reaction to Bloomberg's entry, not disallowing him specifically.
I mean they were rules that would hamper him, like the minimum number of donations. But they're gone now.
I understand the realities of it but acting like this is a normal thing and we should be shamed into going along with it and accepting it as the "democratic process", I'm not buying it.
You mean minimum number of donations to enter the debate? Him not being in the debate helps him not hurts him.
There's this weird idea the DNC can just say, "Mike Bloomberg is a bad person, and he's officially not a Democrat," and that's that.
That won't stop him from being able to get on the ballot, because primary ballot rules are decided by state legislatures, not state parties.
I listed out criteria that youre glossing over to get to a "you just dont like him" categorization of my argument, which isn't really different than when people on the internet get caught in dog whistles saying "you just dont like that its my opinion!". I don't like bloomberg. But thats not why i think he shouldn't be allowed on the platform and I listed my reasons to you several times over that I wish you would actually continue arguing over instead of trying to wrongly assert that I'm trying to kick him off because I don't like him.
If they can change the rules to allow Bloomberg on the debate stage, then they should be able to change the rules to do whatever they want to protect black people from another racist fascist being the nominee of the two major parties.
You're ignoring the power he holds and how he himself is corrupting the democratic process. It's not feelings, it's about protecting minorities in this country. It's about SURVIVAL.
Did you just write up a wall of text beginning with 'I'm just gonna get my last word in and leave before a rebuttal can come,' accuse me of some vague sinister motives knowing full well you were bowing out before a response could come, all while talking about how much you can't stand online toxicity?
Cool.
Whats the mental equivilant of vomiting in your mouth?
Umm, placing polling standards on debate participation this late in the game isn't nearly the same thing as disallowing a specific individual from running for the nomination.
And, yeah, you figured it out, I'm actually in the tank for Bloomberg. Thinking the electorate has the right to decide who is our parties' nominee is such a ridiculous position it's impossible I could have arrived at it genuinely.
it is what it is but it isn't what it was and should have been
yeah
Some more numbers from that Morning Consult National Poll
Black
Biden 34%
Sanders 30%
Bloomberg 19%
Warren 8%
Buttigieg 4%
Steyer 3%
Klobuchar 1%
Hispanic
Sanders 48%
Bloomberg 17%
Biden 13%
Buttigieg 8%
Warren 7%
Klobuchar 3%
White
Sanders 28%
Bloomberg 19%
Biden 15%
Buttigieg 14%
Warren 11%
Klobuchar 7%
Black
Biden 34%
Sanders 30%
Bloomberg 19%
Warren 8%
Buttigieg 4%
Steyer 3%
Klobuchar 1%
Hispanic
Sanders 48%
Bloomberg 17%
Biden 13%
Buttigieg 8%
Warren 7%
Klobuchar 3%
White
Sanders 28%
Bloomberg 19%
Biden 15%
Buttigieg 14%
Warren 11%
Klobuchar 7%
Isn't Bloomberg gaining support from minorities in recent polls?
I sincerely doubt that it would impact him negatively.
It's also about the point where they broke rules to let Bloomberg, the DNC did have some Anti-Bloomberg rules.
Thank god he doesn't. Even if it goes to a brokered convention, I see two things stopping him.
1) I think the institutional superdelegates will want an actual Dem, which will block Bloomberg (but also Bernie), and
2) Bernie will largely have a plurality, and even if he can't get it himself, he could probably ally with whichever moderate gives him the most in order to stop Bloomberg. This means I think Biden would win as long as he remains viable, as Buttigieg could live to fight another day, and Biden would likely be a one-termer who might have to let go of power to the VP any day.
At worst, the 2024 field will be much stronger.
This is seriously starting to look like a winning coalition for Sanders. Amazing diversity.
Again I'm wondering why you think the electorate can't be lied too? They are not the arbiters of truth and justice. Donald Trump is the president, is that acceptable to you?
Based on his polling, he would have shattered that anyway. The rules didn't envision someone actually being able and willing to actually self-fund a full-blown presidential campaign and actively reject donations. It's unheard of until now. And so it makes sense to update them to reflect that new reality.
The intent of the rule was to indicate you had some level of competent support. Bloomberg making a self-imposed rule to not accept donations, yet rise in the polls like he has been doing, clearly shows viable support is there. Even if he did it by buying himself millions of dollars of advertising, buying high end equipment for his now massive staff, and paying them a starting salary of $70,000 a year.
There are black people who voted for Trump also. I don't see this as a defense for Trump or Bloomberg
Explain. I've clearly articulated my thoughts I think. Hopefully you're not conflating the fact that this is the reality with support of Bloomberg or what he's doing.
The only reason they're supporting him is because he's pushing himself to be a supporter of minorities, us minorities who know are continuing to spread his past and what I've learned is that some genuinely didn't know.
Ads are that powerful.
The minority support isn't going to be permanent.
Nah your post isn't what I have trouble with, sorry if I wasn't being specific.
I don't "support party rule by the elites" but very cool of you to put words in my mouth.
I support campaign finance reform that wouldn't allow a billionaire to use their own wealth to fund a political campaign. I guess this means I don't really want democracy.
You continue to ignore how Bloomberg is even relevant to this primary in the first place (hint: it's not due to a grassroots efforts in support of his policies) which is what the issue is.
Like how do you look at this and not see an issue?good ol democracy!
They didn't have rules to bar him from entering. And ignoring the fact that he's now in third place at this point would be insane, and booting him out of the entire primary would hurt his supporters (likely also get him to spend his billions on a third party bid like he always threatens). I also really doubt he comes out of the debate better than he entered.
Do you think maybe media companies would be nicer to Bloomberg when he's directly giving them so much money?
Bloomberg spending so much money also affects the ability for other campaigns to get messaging.
Ad inventory is not unlimited. There's only so many minutes per hour of television, and so many pre-roll videos on youtube. When he purchases them it raises the price for other campaigns.
Bloomberg spending so much money also affects the ability for other campaigns to get messaging.
Ad inventory is not unlimited. There's only so many minutes per hour of television, and so many pre-roll videos on youtube. When he purchases them it raises the price for other campaigns.
Bloomberg has done great harm to minorities and your response is "well he has minority support"?
right here's my favorite democracy joint
and I'm going to head in and get me a nice democratic slice
and I'm going to head in and get me a nice democratic slice
I mean, no it doesn't. Trump clearly said something that amounted to a quid pro quo (not the mention the reams of other evidence that overwhelmingly established it) but argued that because he didn't literally say the words "quid pro quo" it didn't happen. Bloomberg did in fact donate money to the DNC months ago (a fairly normal thing for democrats, the DNC gets tens of millions of dollars in donations; donations are not inherently corrupt), but you don't have a shred of evidence tying that to the DNC's choice to do away with the donor requirements once people started voting and there are several good arguments that the donor threshold is not useful and, in fact, is actively harmful when you have a self-funding candidate passing up half the field and allies of other candidates are complaining it's unfair and shielding him from scrutiny.
Ok, you can choose to actually think someone polling near the 15%-20% range nationally wouldn't be able to meet the minimum donor threshold if you want to I guess.
I just feel like we should let minority voters decide how important Bloomberg's issues are to them
I've responded to your points on why he should be disallowed and I don't find them to be compelling practical reasons to not allow his participation in the race. They seem to boil down to "his positions don't represent the policies the Democratic party should embody," which I certainly agree with, but that is a decision that belongs to the Democratic primary voters, not anyone else.
If i'm missing something in your argument, please tell me.
The posters point is that he very easily could've opened his campaign up for donations and meet the threshold given his polling numbers.
I would recommend studying what it means to be democratic. Part of that criteria is offering voters an actual choice. Allowing Bloomberg to be the nominee isn't just undemocratic because he bought it, it's undemocratic on the part of the party because there will then be no choice in the general election, which is the real metric we should be worried about. How a nominee is selected is much less relevant than the consequences of that choice when the vote is for who holds public office.
- Status