The Race for the 2020 POTUS elections

DORISPULASKI

Watching submarine races
Messages
11,577
The story about how Warren was sexually harassed by the man responsible for hiring her for one of her first positions teaching law amazed me - he actually chased her around his office! When he died, she was asked to speak at his funeral and mentioned her Me Too moment in front of his widow and children!


So I think she's had experience putting M.C.P.s in their places, but from the last debate I don't think it's her style to get personal. There's something very classy about her, ....
If that is true, it does not make me think better of her. It is not classy, and yes, it is getting personal, and needlessly so, to tell #MeToo stories about the deceased at his funeral, where his widow and children are present. The widow and children had done nothing to her, after all.
 

sk9tingfan

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,812
I'm sure that Bloomberg was watching the initial set of primary polls carefully all this time and saw that Biden was flailing in the polls increasingly. Warren and Sanders may be too far to the left to ensure a candidate that was electable(case in point - the stance of billionaires and Wall Street). Warren's and Sanders' health plans are financially untenable and totally discount the value of Obamacare and ignore the fact the most insured individuals will not want to automatically give up their private insurance, most of which is funded by employers. Also to dismantle the entire insurance and device manufacturers would be next to impossible over a short period of time. I also cannot fathom the legal challenges based on the conservative courts that Trump and McConnell have left us with.

A more realistic approach would be to correct the issues associated with the ACA, negotiate with the drug and device manufacturers(must be changed in the ACA legislation) and provide dual public and private options. Over time, if the trend is toward the public option, then we could move to a single payer approach.

I guess we will have to see what transpires.
 
Last edited:

snoopy

Well-Known Member
Messages
11,481
Bloomberg should just sign on with Buttigieg. Pete is doing well in Iowa, if he could pull out a win the game could change.
 

mrinalini

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,168
If that is true, it does not make me think better of her. It is not classy, and yes, it is getting personal, and needlessly so, to tell #MeToo stories about the deceased at his funeral, where his widow and children are present. The widow and children had done nothing to her, after all.
Well, this article mentions that she said it "with a smile on her face and humor in her voice":


I'm sure she couched such a story in palatable terms so as not to devastate the family; Warren doesn't strike me as the type who would do otherwise. If she were, she probably would've hammered Biden at the last debate when he tried to claim credit for the CFPB when in reality he had next to nothing to do with its creation. Instead, she was deliberately vague, "President Obama had to fight people within his own administration..." Anyway, I take no issue with what she said at that funeral - perverts and abusers should be shamed in front of all and sundry, as far as I'm concerned.

As for Bloomberg entering the race, what a freaking joke. The only reason he's doing it is because of the popularity of Warren and Sanders and he's terrified of what either of those two might enact if they win. If Biden were the sole front runner, everything would be fine and dandy and there would be no need to rock the boat, I'm sure. I hope Warren and Sanders' campaigns spin this turn of events to their utmost advantage and wring everything they can out of it. Only the people will be able to stop another billionaire from taking office because Bloomberg will have unlimited funds at his disposal whereas Warren and Sanders can only go so far as the people are willing to carry them.
 

Vagabond

Well-Known Member
Messages
13,475
If Michael Bloomberg wants to run in the presidential primaries, he should do so in the Republican ones.

Ditto for Tom Steyer.

:soapbox: :sneaky: :saint:
 

DORISPULASKI

Watching submarine races
Messages
11,577
I am widow. I have been to my husband's funeral. I cannot picture anything more unclassy than spoiling the widow's memory of her husband, and the children's memory of their father, for a fcking joke at the funeral. Or for making a political point at a funeral. There is no way to make this look acceptable.

If she hated the family that much, the classy thing to do would be to make an excuse to not speak at the funeral.
 

el henry

#WeAllWeGot #WeAllWeNeed
Messages
1,173
Well, this article mentions that she said it "with a smile on her face and humor in her voice":


I'm sure she couched such a story in palatable terms so as not to devastate the family; Warren doesn't strike me as the type who would do otherwise..
.....
There is no way in hell, this story, if true, redounds to Elizabeth Warren's benefit.:(

I don't care if every enemy this man had was at his funeral and no matter how gently she couched it.

Sweet baby Jesus, how can this possibly be spun as some example of oh how Liz supports women and sticks up for women and we're so tired of having men push us around? This woman of Liz's age range (younger, but Spousal Unit is her age exactly, so I live with it :) ) and cohort does not see that at all.

I can only pray that it is not true, or has been exaggerated🙏.
 
Last edited:

Zemgirl

Well-Known Member
Messages
11,754
This happened in 1997, btw. Not sure why it's news now.
Because she's a woman and running for President and there's so little else they can attack her with?
That anecdote led a WaPo profile of Warren last month, and is based on what Warren said on Meet the Press a couple of years ago. I don't think Warren was trying to attack herself, and Holly Bailey's profile is not an attack either.

So that's why something that happened in 1997 is being discussed again. It is true that not everyone who's shared the story sees Warren's actions as something to applaud. But others shared it because they think it reflects well on Warren, or simply because it's interesting.
 

Zemgirl

Well-Known Member
Messages
11,754
Feck you Bloomberg and your billionaire ego. No one needs you.
I don't know about need, but a lot of people could certainly use the money he'll sink into a vanity run in downballot races or to support voting rights.
 

BlueRidge

AYS's snark-sponge
Messages
53,677
I think Bloomberg is just positioning himself to be the centrist savior if Biden implodes and there isn't an alternative. To that I say, go Pete! (or Amy for that matter)

My guess is Bloomberg will never really get in.
 

Vagabond

Well-Known Member
Messages
13,475
Steyer Aide Offered Money for Endoresements
The overtures from Pat Murphy, a former state House speaker who is serving as a top adviser on Steyer’s Iowa campaign, aren’t illegal — though payments for endorsements would violate campaign finance laws if not disclosed. There’s no evidence that any Iowans accepted the offer or received contributions from Steyer’s campaign as compensation for their backing.
:bribe:

One more reason for having a wealth tax! :shuffle:
 

Buzz

Well-Known Member
Messages
32,392
Bloomberg's energy and resources put in the right places like get out and vote could really do a lot of good. The Democrats needs all hands on deck to defeat Trump. I don’t think a Presidential run for him is a good idea. According to CNN Trump is much more well organized this time around and very well funded.
 

ilovepaydays

Well-Known Member
Messages
9,744
I think Bloomberg is just positioning himself to be the centrist savior if Biden implodes and there isn't an alternative. To that I say, go Pete! (or Amy for that matter)

My guess is Bloomberg will never really get in.
I think if Bloomberg really wanted to pursue a successful Presidential run, he would have started it at least six months ago.

Klobuchar has positioned herself well to be a VP candidate, IMO. Unless something really weird happens, she would have needed to be in at least in the double digits nationally by now.

I’ve heard some pundits make potential parallels to McCain’s comeback in the 2008 Republican primaries. I think John McCain was at a distant 4th or 5th at this point in 2007, but what he pulled off was an anomaly. It also helped him that Romney, Giuliani, and Huckabee had the worst (and weirdest) strategies ever. It was like McCain was the only GOP candidate who looked at the primary calendar and the map of the United States. :confused:
 

BlueRidge

AYS's snark-sponge
Messages
53,677
I think if Bloomberg really wanted to pursue a successful Presidential run, he would have started it at least six months ago.

Klobuchar has positioned herself well to be a VP candidate, IMO. Unless something really weird happens, she would have needed to be in at least in the double digits nationally by now.

I’ve heard some pundits make potential parallels to McCain’s comeback in the 2008 Republican primaries. I think John McCain was at a distant 4th or 5th at this point in 2007, but what he pulled off was an anomaly. It also helped him that Romney, Giuliani, and Huckabee had the worst (and weirdest) strategies ever. It was like McCain was the only GOP candidate who looked at the primary calendar and the map of the United States. :confused:
Honestly I think this may be an anomalous year. There's a real chance of Biden imploding, and I think we're seeing a full-on effort to stop Warren that will succeed. And if Warren is going to be blocked, Sanders sure isn't going to be let through.

So I think a candidate not currently polling much right now could take hold by winning some primaries. Pete is counting on a strong finish in Iowa making him that candidate and so is Amy but I think Pete has the big edge there. But if he does well in Iowa, he might not reap the reward. If Biden and Warren are seen as not making it after Iowa, another candidate say Harris or Booker making a run in the south with strong Black support could catapult into the race.

I just don't see it being Bloomberg. I'm afraid he is discounting anti-semitism. A billionaire former mayor of NYC who is Jewish? I hate to think the latent anti-semitism that would bring out.
 

clairecloutier

Well-Known Member
Messages
9,676
I like this quote from an article about how centrists dominate the news media and the DC establishment generally:

The great 20th century historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. .... was deeply wary of middle-of-the-road politics. “Great presidents,” he told me, “are unifiers mostly in retrospect.”

In their own times, he noted, they divide the country over large questions—slavery, civil rights, the proper role of government versus the private sector—and only later “unite the country at a new level of understanding.”
 

ilovepaydays

Well-Known Member
Messages
9,744
I just don't see it being Bloomberg. I'm afraid he is discounting anti-semitism. A billionaire former mayor of NYC who is Jewish? I hate to think the latent anti-semitism that would bring out.
Not anymore than Trump having an Orthodox Jewish daughter, son-in-law, and grandchildren in the White House.....

Bloomberg’s older than I thought he was - 77. For some reason, I thought he was around 50 when he was elected mayor of NYC (2001). But Bloomberg is roughly the same age as Biden and Sanders, so there’s that.
 

Susan1

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,547
I don't know about need, but a lot of people could certainly use the money he'll sink into a vanity run in downballot races or to support voting rights.
I said the same thing about Tom Steyer. Put your billions and your support behind someone who can actually win.
 

BlueRidge

AYS's snark-sponge
Messages
53,677
Not anymore than Trump having an Orthodox Jewish daughter, son-in-law, and grandchildren in the White House.....
I think there's a big difference between that and the candidate himself being Jewish. Plus Trump has actively courted anti-semites himself so that tends to negate concerns about his family.

I've heard one too many evocations of "the Jews control the economy, the world, the government [fill in the blank]" not to be concerned about this.

While Bloomberg doesn't match my issue preferences, if I were choosing who to be president between him and Biden, I'd take Bloomberg. I have real concerns about Biden's grasp on present day reality with regard to Republicans. He seems to be wedded to the delusion that Republicans were always reasonable until Trump came along and will revert to that once Trump is gone. This is really kind of shocking coming from the man who was VP during the 8 Obama years when the Republicans were engaged in massive obstruction.

Bloomberg is smart, wants to deal with the gun problems and climate change. We could do worse. I just really dislike the precedent of billionaires ascending to the top political office.
 
Last edited:

nylynnr

Well-Known Member
Messages
729
Feck you Bloomberg and your billionaire ego. No one needs you.
Millions of New Yorkers would disagree and welcome him back as mayor.

OTOH I don't think he will actually run for President; he has a history of indecision on the topic and may simply be trying to keep options open. Progressives here, though, should hope he does, because he will simply siphon off Biden and Mayor Pete votes in the primaries and ensure Warren is nominated. They should also want him to run in the general election, because there, he will siphon off Republican votes.
 

Reuven

Official FSU Alte Kacher
Messages
15,471
Bloomberg is smart, wants to deal with the gun problems and climate change. We could do worse. I just really dislike the precedent of billionaires ascending to the top political office.
He doesn't stand a chance of winning, yet he is most assuredly better than the Thing in the White House.
 

mrinalini

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,168
On paper, it seems like Bloomberg doesn't stand a chance at winning, but he's also the ninth richest man in the world with 52 billion dollars in the bank. I always tend to think that those with that kind of money can buy lots of things; lots and lots of things.

This could either be really good or really bad for Warren although I'm inclined towards the former, and I agree that it's much worse for Biden and Buttigieg. I just worry that she's like the little engine that could, powered by the grassroots and going up against the almighty and all-powerful vested interests, and Bloomberg is the embodiment of all of that.
 

BlueRidge

AYS's snark-sponge
Messages
53,677
Granted Tom Steyer is only worth 1.6 billion, but he hasn't been able to do more than buy his way into the debates where he's been ignored.

I don't think you can buy the nomination. Bloomberg has a lot more credibility than Steyer of course, having been mayor of New York.

But I don't see him catching on. And I think he will realize this and not run.

As for Warren going up against the all-powerful vested interests, that is happening without having Bloomberg in the race (although if he doesn't run he may fund a moderate candidate).

I came across this statement in a Paul Waldman column about Bloomberg and I thought it encapsulated things well:

Elizabeth Warren, for instance, thinks the problem is an economic and political system captured by the wealthy and powerful; her solution is deep structural change to dismantle their power. Joe Biden thinks the problem is polarization and partisanship, and the solution is his brand of problem-solving based on good faith and strong cross-partisan friendship.
Bernie is in the same place as Warren and I think Amy is in the same place as Biden.

What is interesting to think about is whether Pete, or someone like Booker, could carve out a new space different from these alternatives and make a success of it. (I have to admit I really want to see Pete borrow from both the left and the moderates to craft something else rather than just tack to the Biden side. So far not seeing it though. So maybe Cory or maybe even Kamala could.)
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 8, Guests: 2)

Top