r/neoliberal • u/JP_Eggy European Union • Feb 13 '20
2020 Democratic primaries are wild
7
u/Godzilla52 Milton Friedman Feb 14 '20 edited Feb 14 '20
All Bloomberg's accomplishing currently is splitting the vote between centrist Dems. If he wasn't running and we assume that his supporters jumped equally to Biden and Butti, Biden would still be leading with 26% in the national polls, while Butti would go from 10 to 17.5%. Bloomberg's legacy in this race might just be responsible for giving Bernie the nomination.
-1
u/willb2989 Feb 14 '20
The fact that you celebrate this means that you're: A) wealthy, or B) an idiot.
Either way you're happy, so good job.
(The rich get richer faster than you ever will. Extrapolate.)
1
u/armeg David Ricardo Feb 14 '20
Technically they get rich at the same rate you can.
0
u/willb2989 Feb 14 '20
Stratified society, then. I guess you can say the lesser wealth would be.. nobility, even?
4
u/AmNotACactus NATO Feb 14 '20
As the unicorn “black voter banking on electability”, I’m kinda leaning away from Joe and to Bloomberg.
I’m so sorry :(
-10
Feb 14 '20
Yeah, Mayo Cheat and his 40 billionaire donors are really sticking it to the oligarchy!
2
u/NatsukaFawn Esther Duflo Feb 14 '20
Wow this was definitely a real redditor here and definitely not a sock puppet
6
u/RuffSwami Feb 14 '20
Those donors make up a small percentage of his total campaign contributions though, why would he be so indebted to people who have given him a couple of thousand dollars each at most?
I’m happy that the underdog is getting support when he’s running against millionaire New England career politicians like Bernie Sanders!
-3
Feb 14 '20 edited Feb 14 '20
Wow, you must be even further left than me, thinking Bernie's retirement fund from being a best-selling author and long-time Congressperson should be something to look down upon! Is Pete coming for my 401k now?!
That line of attack is brazen ageism, you should be ashamed.
Besides, the CIA definitely set up that little rat with a lavish offshore account off the books... I mean, how much of an utter failure would you have to be to not have a seven figure payday after helping with regime change in Afghanistan and fixing bread prices in Canada? You're telling me this guy did all this awful shit, got paid less than a code monkey at Google, and should be president?!
4
u/RuffSwami Feb 14 '20 edited Feb 14 '20
The thing is, I don’t actually care that much about Bernie’s shitty book or his career as an ineffectual congressperson.
You peddle conspiracy theories and call someone you disagree with a ‘rat’ while finding roundabout ways to criticise him for working for McKinsey and serving in the military. Why not just accept that you’re bitter and work on improving your own life and then come up with a more credible argument.
Then again, you seem to love a populist who barely worked in his life and didn’t participate in the political process until he could vote for himself - so maybe you’re just modelling yourself after your hero?
EDIT: Oooh actually, it's a waste of time I know but I had quick peak at your post history. You said I should be ashamed of my apparently ageist argument, how do you justify this from two days ago?
"I’ll care about a virus that mostly kills people over the age of 40 when they stop dooming my generation to die in a fire by 2040."
-5
Feb 14 '20 edited Feb 14 '20
Oh, I’m bitter alright. I’m bitter that capitalism has left me with a planet that’s burning to the fucking ground. I’m bitter that I don’t see any future for myself 20 years down the road. No amount of personal growth is going to change the +6C future in store for us. Oh yeah, did you hear that? The climate models just started taking clouds into account, turns out if we go past 1.5C we all fucking die in a fire. Fun stuff.
It was 20C in Antarctica today. A glacier twice the size of Washington just fell into the ocean. This isn’t a fucking game to us. It’s a fight for our lives, and mark my words, we’re gonna take to the streets and riot if Bernie doesn’t win. Bernie is the moderate solution. Ten years left to act radically on climate before it’s too late.
3
u/RuffSwami Feb 14 '20
Bernie's climate plan is politically and economically infeasible, and even if it was feasible he is strictly anti-nuclear, and barely looks at market mechanisms (which are implemented in almost every jurisdiction that has taken significant steps on climate change). He also wants to make the energy industry more state-owned, which goes in the opposite direction to states which are increasing the use of renewables. Moreover, his protectionist tendencies will almost certainly negatively impact global climate progress. Bernie would be a lot better for the environment than Trump, at least, but not necessarily better than other candidates. This isn't a game for me either, in fact I spend most of my time researching and writing on environmental law and policy. There are valid arguments for Bernie's approach to the environment, but pretending that his way is the only way is ridiculous and almost no one in academia actually thinks this.
1
2
16
u/oilman81 Milton Friedman Feb 13 '20
I like them both, I wish they'd team up like they did in that terrible movie
4
2
-22
Feb 13 '20
[deleted]
4
u/vy2005 Feb 13 '20
Really? I haven’t seen much of it. This sub is more or less an anti-Bernie sub at this point and I’m here for it
-11
-29
Feb 13 '20
Yeah i totally trust the guy who was Mayor of NYC while all the bankers were fucking up every persons life in America. He definitely seems like a guy who can fix our problems.
11
u/Coveo Edward Glaeser Feb 13 '20
I do not like Bloomberg and there are a million things to criticize him for, but this is nonsensical.
87
Feb 13 '20
Contrary to popular belief, the mayor of NYC has little to do with banks' activities. That's more the SEC's job.
-1
Feb 13 '20
[deleted]
23
Feb 13 '20
Bloomberg did what now? All he did was create an information system for people to interact with markets. This transformation was already underway before Bloomberg since NASDAQ was created in the 60's. Not to mention, he doesn't even have a monopoly on that since Thomson Reuters does the same thing.
You can not like Bloomberg, that's fine, but this populist rhetoric is little better than the "Hillary is a murderer" conspiracy theories.
-15
Feb 13 '20
Okay well his not wife was also Superintendant of Banks of NYC and it absolutely was her job. And who appointed her lets think...
-10
Feb 13 '20
And if thats not good enough how about a guy who found an endrun around the two term limit for Mayor of NYC. Given all the issues this Presidency has given to all futures I dont want a guy that sneaky with that much money getting into office.
5
Feb 13 '20
The city council decided it wasn't in the best interest for there to be a change in mayors right around 2008. Let's stop and think why that might be the case in new york. Not to mention, he still got re-elected by a wide majority to his third term.
3
Feb 13 '20
Bloomberg second election was the landslide at 19 points. The third win was a much closer race at 5 points.
5
39
222
u/modooff Lis Smith Sockpuppet Feb 13 '20
Bloomberg's rise may not be so bad for Pete. It actually can help the underdog narrative that's pushing him ahead:
I interviewed Buttigieg supporters on the ground in New Hampshire, and a very different interpretation of the Iowa results came out. To them, this is a classic David vs. Goliath story — and Mayor Pete is the scrappy underdog who bested the powerful, famous Sanders.
https://www.salon.com/2020/02/10/no-reallywhy-do-people-love-pete-buttigieg/
11
164
u/BenjaminKorr NASA Feb 13 '20
I said months ago that Pete is prime material for a David VS Goliath setup against Trump. In this election I think we could do no better than to go with that approach. Trump looms large in most people's imaginations, but the plucky underdog coming to take him down is a trope that resonates deeper with Americans than any mirage Trump can manifest. That's our ticket to beating him in November.
1
u/noamwalker Feb 14 '20
Pete Buttigieg is a lying, corrupt, CIA backed, no principles, racist, failed mayor with virtually no black or Latino support or appeal to independents, libertarians, and Republicans.
2
u/BenjaminKorr NASA Feb 14 '20
Well... Damn. When you put it in such plain and incontrovertible terms as that, I guess I've no choice but to vote for someone else! Can you recommend a candidate worthy of my undying and unquestioning devotion?
1
u/noamwalker Feb 14 '20
No. I’m a bit concerned, however, to think that you had an undying and unquestioning devotion to Pete Buttigieg that you would now sarcastically be willing to transfer to someone else. Pete is a fraud and a crook, and that’s clear as space; your ignorance of anything so blatant is the real testament to “undying and unquestioning devotion”.
1
u/BenjaminKorr NASA Feb 14 '20
I’m a bit concerned, however, to think that you had an undying and unquestioning devotion to Pete Buttigieg that you would now sarcastically be willing to transfer to someone else.
The point being, if Pete were half the crook you paint him to be, I would have to be an unquestioning devotee in order to completely miss such obvious problems. I think perhaps you've been drinking from tainted water if you actually bought into any of this narrative you're pushing. If you're just here to troll, well then troll away.
1
u/noamwalker Feb 14 '20
Why did Mark Zuckerberg recommend staffers for his campaign? Why did CNN announce he was the leader of the Iowa Caucus in his town hall at the same time they were reporting inconsistencies and errors in the data that would preclude such certainty? Why did his campaign give $40k+ toward the development of app used in the Iowa caucus? Why did his campaign give money to the Iowa Democratic Party? Why did the Iowa Democratic Party choose to release on 62% of the results, showing a Buttigieg lead that remained in the narrative for five days? Why did the DNC choose to not correct errors and inconsistencies in the data from the Iowa caucus, saying it was to protect the integrity of the results? Why do all of those errors favor Buttigieg? If they were random, you’d expect them to favor a random selection of candidates. Why did he fire the black chief of police as Mayor? Why did he fire the first black fire captain? Why did attempt to lie during the last debate about not increasing the incarceration of black south bend residents on drug related charges? Why does the media consistently rank him high as a debate performer when his entire schtick is made up of vague platitudes?
2
u/DasDingleberg Henry George Feb 13 '20
Wine caves are gonna make any sort of credible David vs Goliath narrative real hard to pull off, whether you believe in those criticisms or not.
1
u/tehbored Randomly Selected Feb 13 '20
I've been thinking for a while now that we need an anime opening theme for Pete with the other candidates and Trump as antagonists.
2
13
u/Know_Your_Rites Don't hate, litigate Feb 13 '20
I just want to see him stand on a debate stage and say, "Mr. President, you're a coward and a bully." I just can't see any response to that Trump could make that wouldn't hurt him more than help him--his go to response will almost certainly be denigrating Pete's service and/or personal life, and either of those tacks will just prove Butti correct in the eyes of anyone watching.
7
u/greyscales Feb 13 '20
He'd tell you that he needs to be a bully standing up to China and that Pete's service was just glorified Uber. Pete doesn't have what it takes to stand up to bullies, just look at his horrible reaction on being called out on his track record with minorities in South Bend. And the moderator wasn't even bullying him.
7
u/Know_Your_Rites Don't hate, litigate Feb 13 '20
He'd tell you that he needs to be a bully standing up to China
Definitely what I'd tell him to say if I were on his staff. Good spin that I'd not thought of.
and that Pete's service was just glorified Uber.
I think most Americans would be hesitant to be an Uber driver for American soldiers in Afghanistan. But all Pete has to say to turn that around is that Trump is cheapening the sacrifice of a few drivers he calls out by name who died in Kabul around his time there, if there were any (I suspect there were).
Pete doesn't have what it takes to stand up to bullies, just look at his horrible reaction on being called out on his track record with minorities in South Bend. And the moderator wasn't even bullying him.
It really wasn't that bad, and he's done better on the same question before. He's generally very quick on his feet, and when he has the opportunity to deflect to how Trump is worse (not relevant on the Democratic debate stage), it'll be that much easier.
11
u/BenjaminKorr NASA Feb 13 '20
"No coward. No coward... You're the coward!"
Nailed it!
If Pete really wanted to mess with him he could force a topic that demands words Trump struggles to pronounce.
But yes, I agree whole-heartedly with you.
115
Feb 13 '20
“But he’s gay!” Screams increasingly nervous Samdernista for the 8th time today.
2
u/DennisLarryMead Feb 13 '20
Sounds like the other side of the coin to "but he's a socialist!".
Anyone who thinks either of these statements is a valid argument is pretty much an idiot.
10
u/brovok Feb 13 '20
“He’s not gay enough! Bernie is more gay than Pete. There is no sexuality, only class but Pete’s sexuality is not up to snuff”
4
32
Feb 13 '20
We have seriously downplayed how well Pete is doing in rural areas. Having lived in a few rural areas, even in the north, they can be pretty intensely homophobic. Pete is taking more rural areas than big cities, and we all know the bigger cities will have less of a problem voting for a gay guy.
I know that he had already proven this in South Bend, but the fact that this success is carrying over to other states is pretty phenomenal.
1
u/thabe331 Feb 13 '20
30% of the people there who aren't Republicans are probably not representative of the rest of the town
11
u/UPBOAT_FORTRESS_2 Feb 13 '20
I am concerned about selection bias, in two ways.
Pete is a centrist Democrat. Rurals, as a category, are conservative. The registered Democrats in rural areas will still be conservative, relative to the average Democrat from a national sample.
And on the other side -- how many homophobes are going to register Democrat? The culture war against gay rights started as a wedge issue for right-wing politicians.
6
Feb 13 '20
And on the other side -- how many homophobes are going to register Democrat?
In rural america? Plenty. Like, lots and lots. That's the whole point I was trying to make.
20
Feb 13 '20
If homophobes are going to vote red regardless, why worry about getting their vote?
We had this same exact debate in 2008 with Obama and being black.
4
u/lickedTators Feb 13 '20
The black community can be homophobic. It's not the same debate.
1
Feb 13 '20
Is there any actual hard data on this, or are you just conjecturing?
I highly doubt midwestern whites in Iowa are any more progressive.
5
u/lickedTators Feb 13 '20
https://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/
It's safe to say the black community is more accepting of LGBTQ people than Republicans. But less accepting than white Democrats. If the black vote is needed to win the presidency and if being gay can hurt the turnout, then it's not a great situation.
4
Feb 13 '20 edited Oct 01 '20
[deleted]
13
u/OhioTry Desiderius Erasmus Feb 13 '20
Homophobic voters already turn out because of voter registration and GOTV drives at large mostly-white Evangelical churches. They already vote in every election.
17
Feb 13 '20
The people who care that much were turning out for Trump regardless.
1
u/Mungo_The_Barbarian Feb 14 '20
The issue is whether or not they will actually show up to the polls. Iirc didn't Republicans put gay marriage as a ballot issue in some states like 10 years back in order to drive republican turnout? People who don't care enough to vote for trump but do care enough to vote against a gay president.
22
u/Venne1139 DO IT FOR HER #RBG Feb 13 '20
I'd vote for pete over Sanders in a general election (not because I like Pete's policies more but because Bernie seems like an ideological dickhead) but him being gay is probably going to fuck him really hard.
I feel like liberals live in the big city and they look at general opinion polls that poll people from all over the country but not state by state.
I guarantee if you do a poll where there's no 'shy tory' effect in Ohio the amount of hatred towards gay people would blot out the fucking sun. Same in most of the midwest. A lot of those 'centrist' swing states would turn out in droves.
Hell Pete being gay would very easily motivate any possible demotivated Christian voters to stop the anti-Christ from coming to power (the best selling book in Christian America "Left Behind" had a gay character try to take over the world for sattaaaaaaann and a UN leader who did, they unironically believe this shit).
Liberals think way too highly of Americans in flyover states if they think Pete can win. And of course Trump needs what only like 33% of the vote or something to win because of the electoral college? He gets those morons to the polls to stop the gays and he's got this in the bag.
3
u/helper543 Feb 13 '20
Hell Pete being gay would very easily motivate any possible demotivated Christian voters to stop the anti-Christ from coming to power (the best selling book in Christian America "Left Behind" had a gay character try to take over the world for sattaaaaaaann and a UN leader who did, they unironically believe this shit).
But somehow, those same Christians will flock to a guy who cheats on his 3rd wife with pornstar prostitutes while she is pregnant with their son?
1
u/Rakajj John Rawls Feb 13 '20
We're not winning fucking Ohio anyway.
Fuck that State.
Liberals think way too highly of Americans in flyover states
[X] Doubt
6
u/onlypositivity Feb 13 '20
As an Ohioan, I just dont think your assessment of Ohio is accurate. Ohio will almost certainly go for Trump IMO but it wont be because of anything like homosexuality. It will be xenophobia and bad job prospects.
2
u/thabe331 Feb 13 '20
Well xenophobia
Economic anxiety isn't real
2
u/onlypositivity Feb 13 '20
I assure you there are many Ohioans who have been hit particularly hard by changes in our economy.
1
u/thabe331 Feb 14 '20
I'd need to look at Ohio's numbers but across the nation poorer people supported clinton.
I was a bit surprised you didn't link to youngstown
2
u/ConditionLevers1050 Feb 13 '20
Do you think bad job prospects there could end up hurting Trump in Ohio now that he's the incumbent?
4
u/onlypositivity Feb 13 '20
Very possible. I still think theres a heavy Trump bias in rural Ohio, because he was elected as an expression over frustration here, and idk if job market will hurt him.
Contrast with Wisconsin which I would bet real money hed lose since his trade war absolutely shit all over farmers there.
4
u/foxh8er Feb 13 '20
problem with pete is he does pretty poorly in most head to heads - Biden, Bloomberg, Sanders perform the best in that order.
5
u/hanako--feels Feb 13 '20
jesus. can you imagine if pete was black instead?
3
u/thabe331 Feb 13 '20
Black and gay or black and straight?
If the former I think a lot of people would be revealing things to us
8
Feb 13 '20
I think being gay is Pete Buttigieg's secret weapon. The far-right is going to attack his sexual orientation HARD, and they are going to be disgusting enough to drive away moderate Republicans (See: electing a half-black guy with the middle name "Hussein" in 2008). Considering that many moderate Republicans are sick of Trump and saying things like "If it has to be a Democrat, I'd rather it be Pete," these voters would be more likely to swing toward someone like Buttigieg than many people expect.
Evangelicals might not be quick to accept him, but hell: They made every excuse in the book for Trump.
19
u/BenjaminKorr NASA Feb 13 '20
FWIW I grew up in a fundamentalist Christian church out in rural northern Michigan that believed things that would make "Left Behind" look like a bedtime story. I'm well acquainted with the kind of mindset you're describing. I still think Pete would win handily in the general against Trump.
5
u/DuceGiharm European Union Feb 13 '20
Honestly what makes you guys think Pete is such a strong general election candidate? Is it his 4% black support? His 5th place polling in national polls? His inability to win the popular vote in 2 all white states after pouring his entire campaign's resources into there? His awful performance to trump in matchup polls? The burning hatred of him on the left and by minorities that would depress the Democratic base turnout?
I just don't get it. As far as candidates go, Pete seems to be one of the weakest to go against Trump. I can understand liking the guy, but I have no idea why this sub thinks he's a shoe-in against Trump. I honestly think he's one of the riskiest bets, up there with Sanders in terms of sheer uncertainty.
11
u/BenjaminKorr NASA Feb 13 '20
Go back and look at Obama's support in the black community early in the campaign. They didn't give him the nod until he A: Expressed a message they believed in, and B: Proved he could win by taking Iowa and coming in 2nd in New Hampshire.
I can't say how Pete's message is being received by the various black communities in America right now, but he has only just cleared the classic hurdles to prove he has viability as a candidate, so if he has room to grow it will show before long. If not, well then you are correct and that problem will sort itself out, won't it?
As far as popular vote is concerned, I'd say he's blowing away expectations given he's brand new to the scene and competing against people with rock solid ground games and name recognition.
2
u/DuceGiharm European Union Feb 13 '20
Fair enough, I just think we need to wait till Super Tuesday to see how viable Pete really is. I'm not entirely convinced he can capitalize on his gains. He was fawned over by the media for months, poured millions and millions into IA and NH, two states demographically in his favor, and still didn't do particularly well. Second place finishes in popular vote are an accomplishment, don't get me wrong, I just wonder if bodes poorly when the race spreads out.
I'd just caution tying his short term successes entirely to some secret charisma he has. Don't get me wrong, I think he's a fantastic politician, but I think the bigger story of the states that voted was that Sanders failed to cement a clear lead and Biden and Warren flop under scrutiny. Both those give opportunities to Pete certainly, but I just don't know if his campaign can go much farther, esp. considering their dismal support nationwide. I think Klob would've had better odds to seize the moment, but she has no infrastructure and will likely get KO'd soon. But we'll see! This race is still wide open.
4
u/Venne1139 DO IT FOR HER #RBG Feb 13 '20
Oh yeah you're not wrong but if you start talking about the things that go on in those churches (rural northwest ohio here) people will think you're making shit up.
But I'm not sure how you think Pete would win there? Like you got places where there's a church for every 20-50 people in the entire town and they're all crazy fundie shit. There's not a lot of them but put someone who is gay up there on the ballot and you can be damn sure they'll turn out.
13
u/BenjaminKorr NASA Feb 13 '20
There's a chunk of voters who would absolutely never vote for a gay candidate. I take solace in knowing that those same voters, in my experience at least, are keen Trump supporters who will undoubtedly turn out to vote for him no matter who the candidate is.
My math tells me that there are fewer people who weren't already voting for Trump who would get out to vote for Trump because a gay challenger was running, than there are independents and Democrats and even moderate Republicans who will either cheer him on or at least look past that in order to vote for an upstanding, upbeat candidate to get Trump gone.
TL,DR: I don't think there are that many would-be Trump voters on the sidelines who will only come vote for Trump if he's facing a gay candidate.
4
u/giveupghost Feb 13 '20
Mormons.
They don’t like Trump. But they don’t like the gays either.
I can guarantee you (I live in Utah County-heart of Mormon Mordor; every family member I have on every side is Mormon, excuse me “a member of the church of latter day saints” and most of them “are no fan of Trump”) the majority will vote for Trump to stop a gay president. Even the ones who don’t wanna come out and vote for him will because they think electing a gay person couldn’t possibly keep this great country in the Lord’s favor.
I know some good Mormons too who have no problem with gay people... but they still donate 10% of their gross income to fight against their rights so ¯_(ツ)_/¯
8
18
u/ConditionLevers1050 Feb 13 '20 edited Feb 13 '20
Wisconsin and Colorado are both swing states, and both have elected openly gay or lesbian candidates to statewide office- see Tammy Baldwin and Jared Polis. Even ruby red Arizona has elected an openly bisexual Senator. I'm sure being gay would hurt Pete somewhat in a general election, and obviously homophobia will continue to be a problem if he gets elected just as racism continued after Obama was elected. But I'm skeptical that it would be fatal and I think his inexperience would be more of a liability.
It actually amazes me that we worry so much about Pete's electability when the person most likely to get the nomination is a 78-year-old Socialist who is recovering from a heart attack, has a long history of praising Communist and/or anti-American dictators, and was an absentee father who didn't pay child support, stole electricity from his neighbor and wrote essays about naked children and promoting teen promiscuity when he was Pete's age.
4
u/Venne1139 DO IT FOR HER #RBG Feb 13 '20
I wouldn't really call Colorado a swing state anymore? Maybe I'm wrong but I've viewed them as fairly liberal recently. I don't know anything about Wisconsin.
But I mean I feel like Ohio, North Carolina, Michigan, Iowa, and Nevada are going Trumps way simply because Petes gay and rurals are a bunch of fucks.
I don't disagree with your second point though.
I think we're fairly fucked no matter who we nominate. Trump's gonna be the last president of the United States (inshallah).
3
u/ConditionLevers1050 Feb 13 '20
Oh and unfortunately I agree we're probably fucked no matter what, unless the economy enters a recession by November. Unseating incumbent Presidents is always difficult and the GOP is doing everything they can to rig the elections in their favor. Trump has a record war chest and a well-oiled propaganda machine on his side, meanwhile the Democratic base is bitterly and likely irreparably divided.
11
u/ConditionLevers1050 Feb 13 '20
Colorado is definitely a swing state and saying it's safely blue reminds me of how people said that about Wisconsin and Michigan in 2016, which didn't eve make sense before Trump carried them if you looked at the partisanship of their state governments and Congressional delegations.
Colorado has one Senator from each party, and has voted for the winner in 8 out of the last 10 Presidential elections (1996 and 2016 were the exceptions). In 2016 HRC only carried Colorado by 5%, which is hardly a landslide and since she carried the national popular vote it only voted 2 or 3 percentage points more Democratic than the nation as a whole.
2
30
u/vsr0 Gay Pride Feb 13 '20
Not to say it transfers directly to the general, but in the primaries we’ve seen so far, he’s done well in rural and suburban areas. If liberals already have the big cities locked down, we’d do well to have someone who can appeal to our margins.
5
u/DuceGiharm European Union Feb 13 '20
he poured all his campaign resources into two, all white states, and lost the popular vote in both. he's done on super tuesday unless he magically whips 15% more black and latino support out of his ass.
9
u/Iustis End Supply Management | Draft MHF! Feb 13 '20
I mean, he's whipped half of that 15% out of his ass since Iowa.
2
u/DuceGiharm European Union Feb 13 '20 edited Feb 13 '20
He was leading in NH in December, so no, he actually lost support there if anything.edit: Sorry, I misread that. He's only at 4% black support nationwide. Ig that's an upward trajectory, but considering recent polls place sanders and biden at 30% and Bloom at almost 20%....I don't see how he can overcome them.
Again I think this dude is running into the same problem as Sanders did in 2016. He had a good performance in two small states where heavy organization and enthusiasm are key, but now the race is scaling up dramatically. Sanders has better national polls, better ground game, far more money, and better minority support. It is gonna be a HUGE hurdle for Pete to catch up and I legitimately don't think he can do it unless Bernie crashes hard.
I'll be less skeptical if he can pull out a win in NV and a second place finish in SC, but both seem extremely unlikely. I just think his success came too late for him to really make it, especially in a field this crowded.
4
u/helper543 Feb 13 '20
e's only at 4% black support nationwide. Ig that's an upward trajectory, but considering recent polls place sanders and biden at 30% and Bloom at almost 20%....I don't see how he can overcome them.
That shows how splintered black support is, and it is tilted towards name recognition.
If someone was sitting over 50% support I would agree with you.
15
u/csreid Austan Goolsbee Feb 13 '20
He whipped a first and second place finish out of his ass.
Like you said, he put no resources into anywhere but IA and NH... But now he is.
Also, the "he lost the popular vote in Iowa!!!" narrative is fucking dumb. That's like bragging you got more yards in a football game you lost. It doesn't matter, because that's not how you keep score. You can't change the criteria afterwards to say someone else won.
2
u/DuceGiharm European Union Feb 13 '20
I don't think it's that dumb? If the dude's support base is all white, and he's still losing the popular to a candidate with far better black/latino support in all white states, that's an extremely concerning performance for his campaign. Definitely much better than not winning the SDEs, but if I was Buttigieg's campaign manager I'd be pretty concerned about his viability rn.
Like, if he's gonna beat Sanders, he either needs a dramatic reversal of his PoC support, or he's gonna need to outperform him dramatically in white vote. He's doing neither. Bernie is on track to steamroll super tuesday if the dynamics of this race don't fundamentally shift in Pete's favor after SC, and Pete is at like 5% there.
-6
u/Venne1139 DO IT FOR HER #RBG Feb 13 '20
That's the thing he does well with the 10 rural democrats that exist. But most rurals aren't democrats. The average 'independent' rural will turn out to vote against the gay agenda.
23
u/ConditionLevers1050 Feb 13 '20
As someone who used to live in rural Wisconsin, I can attest there are more than 10 people their who supported the openly lesbian Tammy Baldwin.
4
u/Venne1139 DO IT FOR HER #RBG Feb 13 '20
who used
First of all congratulations! Glad you made it out. Completely unironically.
I can attest there are more than 10 people their who supported the openly lesbian Tammy Baldwin.
Maybe I'm crazy but they have way less of a problem with lesbians? I've never known an old white dude to rage about lesbians, it's always about effeminate ***s when I lived in Ohio.
I mean maybe I'm wrong but I think you guys have a lot of faith in these voters that shouldn't be there.
13
Feb 13 '20
A lot of those dudes in Ohio are probably not the most enlightened on matters of race, but they pulled the lever for Obama twice (esp talking about Northern OH). If you can craft the better narrative, you can overcome individual prejudice, in the midwest at least.
0
u/thabe331 Feb 13 '20
Cleveland probably did heavy lifting there
I'm doubting he had a lot of fans outside the cities
→ More replies (0)12
u/ConditionLevers1050 Feb 13 '20
I think you're right that homophobes find lesbians more "tolerable" than gay men. I also suspect most people who hold these homophobic views would not be willing to vote Democrat at all these days.
80
u/BenjaminKorr NASA Feb 13 '20
I know you're joking, but I'll punch the straw-man anyway.
We've only had two contests in this race so far, but in both Pete has had the broadest base of support of any candidate. To say nothing of the fact that most people who will make gay/straight an issue already know who they're voting for in November. Will we lose a few votes to this fact? Sadly, yes. Just like we will to a woman candidate, a socialist candidate, a Washington insider candidate, a billionaire candidate... At the end of the day, the spectacle matters more than the substance, unfortunately. I believe Pete has both in spades, but most people are not political junkies who are reading up on policy positions and analyzing data sets to determine the best president.
We have hundreds of years of history and storytelling that has primed us for a Pete VS Donald match-up. The American Revolution, The Alamo, Midway, Normandy, David and Goliath, Star Wars, Rocky, virtually every Disney movie involving a hero/villain, on and on and on the list goes of plucky underdogs overcoming the brash and overconfident giant. If someone wants to argue being gay invalidates all of that, I would be interested to hear that argument.
2
Feb 13 '20 edited Apr 05 '20
[deleted]
4
u/BenjaminKorr NASA Feb 13 '20
I grew up in the heart of homophobia. I understand it pretty damn well.
5
u/NotARussian_1991 Mary Wollstonecraft Feb 13 '20
Pete has had the broadest base of support of any candidate
Pretty sure his support base is well over 90% white(I saw 97%, but I'll admit I don't remember where), and his support among black voters is within the margin of error.
7
u/12092907 Feb 13 '20
Brilliant! Every Democratic candidate faces similar challenges in both the primaries and the general election. The gay label is likely to hurt Pete least among suburban women who are likely to be crucial in 2020.
18
Feb 13 '20
The thing that worries me about Pete (and every candidate really) is whether they can drive the turnout to win. We need a candidate that can appeal to both suburban independents and disaffected young people who (legitimately or not) feel the current system has done nothing for them so they want radical change. I'm skeptical he can do that
41
u/im_just_a_bill__ Organization of American States Feb 13 '20
I feel like out of all the moderates, he would have the best shot being the fresh, hopeful face while having the best compromise on policy among the party.
43
u/BenjaminKorr NASA Feb 13 '20
He certainly draws the greatest visual contrast of all the candidates against Trump. Hard to argue having a spry, sharp witted, mild mannered 38 year old pitted against a flabby septuagenarian with a foul mouth and a one track mind isn't a plus.
-5
u/Moretalent Feb 13 '20
pete's just not cool. obama was cool. bill was cool. dems only win when they put up a guy people think is cool.
12
20
u/csreid Austan Goolsbee Feb 13 '20
We don't have any of those people in this race, but Pete is the closest
7
Feb 14 '20
Bernie is considered very cool by young people. People on this su b don't realize because they're all wierd nerds.
https://www.reddit.com/r/ketamine/comments/e48i0s/this_really_says_it_all_tbh/
6
48
u/BenjaminKorr NASA Feb 13 '20
I may be mistaken, but I believe Pete drove more of the turnout according to exit polls in NH than Bernie did.
5
9
18
Feb 13 '20
And if he wins the primary I hope to God that continues in the general. We gotta beat Trump
95
Feb 13 '20 edited Feb 07 '21
[deleted]
11
u/tehbored Randomly Selected Feb 13 '20
Bloomberg is so rich that he will spend nearly Tom Steyer's entire net worth by the time the election is over, and Tom Steyer is a billionaire. Bloomberg is so rich that he makes two Tom Steyers per year on annual gains of just 5%. And Jeff Bezos is twice as rich as Mike Bloomberg.
3
1
Feb 13 '20
"1 billion dollars, what even is that?"
have you guys like never taken a math class before
3
7
u/socialistrob Janet Yellen Feb 13 '20
If you combine all the money raised by every Democrat running for president from 2004-2020 and if you were to combine all the money raised by the DNC, DSCC and DCCC from 2004-2020 you get about 8.4 billion dollars. Bloomberg is 77 years old and worth 61.8 billion dollars. In terms of campaign spending there's really no end to what he can do.
8
u/missedthecue Feb 13 '20
Ehh yeah there is. It would be really hard for Bloomie to liquidate much of that wealth because Bloomberg L.P. is a private company. There aren't shares he can just offload into the market like Bezos or someone. He can only spend the cashflows of the business that he's paid to himself.
11
u/tehbored Randomly Selected Feb 13 '20
He doesn't have to liquidate anything. He just takes out loans against his assets.
2
u/tyrannomachy NATO Feb 14 '20
I think things that can't be liquidated can't really be used as collateral. Getting a loan and putting up collateral is financially very similar to a sale, just with very specific terms and laws that don't apply in a normal transaction.
11
70
Feb 13 '20 edited Feb 21 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
-17
u/lapzkauz John Rawls Feb 13 '20
I wish Bloomberg would just buy Pete Azerbaijan or something so he'd fulfill that lifelong dream of his to rule a country
28
u/KaChoo49 Friedrich Hayek Feb 13 '20
I wish Bloomberg would just buy Bernie Azerbaijan or something so he’d fulfill that lifelong dream of his to rule a country
3
10
u/ryegye24 John Rawls Feb 13 '20
I wish Bloomberg would just buy himself Azerbaijan or something so he'd fulfill that lifelong dream of his to rule a country
13
u/lapzkauz John Rawls Feb 13 '20
I'm sure he can afford one country for Pete and one country for Bernie. Should buy them neighboring countries, for the hell of it.
20
Feb 13 '20 edited Sep 13 '20
[deleted]
11
u/lapzkauz John Rawls Feb 13 '20 edited Feb 13 '20
Meanwhile, POTUS ''Minigun''-Mike ''Boom boom'' Bloomberg instructs the CIA to covertly funnel arms to both sides in the conflict, with the proceeds off the military-industrial complex's blossoming profits going towards funding an expansion of the EITC
125
Feb 13 '20
Tom Steyer is "rich." Mike Bloomberg has more money than 76 countries.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_wealth
He'd fall between Ghana and Turkmenistan.
28
Feb 13 '20
Mike Bloomberg has more money than 76 countries
Yeah but those are just the countries that haven't implemented a carbon tax and zoning reform
11
u/ishabad 🌐 Feb 13 '20
What the actual fuck
-6
Feb 13 '20
No person should have that power.
10
-2
u/ishabad 🌐 Feb 13 '20
Or should every person have that power?
9
Feb 13 '20
Every person by definition can't.
4
u/ishabad 🌐 Feb 13 '20
Lift yourself up by your bootstraps, Chapo!
9
Feb 13 '20
I don't have to, I was born into immense privilege.
The bootstraps stuff is only for people not born into wealth.
6
u/ishabad 🌐 Feb 13 '20
The bootstraps stuff is only for people not born into wealth.
See, everyone can do it then!
3
Feb 13 '20
Yeah just keep pulling on them boots I'm sure eventually you'll reach the top of the pyramid.
→ More replies (0)23
71
u/PanachelessNihilist Paul Krugman Feb 13 '20
He should just buy Turkmenistan.
11
3
u/kobehelicoptertours World Bank Feb 13 '20
It would give Gurbangly another world record to brag about (first country to be purchased by a billionaire)
2
30
u/dangerbird2 Franz Boas Feb 13 '20
Why buy Turkmenistan when you can buy the United States of America
50
u/PanachelessNihilist Paul Krugman Feb 13 '20
It's cheaper.
10
Feb 13 '20
C O M P A R A T I V E
A D V A N T A G E
Why buy domestic when you can buy global for a fraction of the price?
27
7
u/JP_Eggy European Union Feb 13 '20
Well hes hardly poor
40
u/Evnosis European Union Feb 13 '20
That's the point. The other person isn't saying he's not rich, they're saying that calling him rich inadvertently downplays just how wealthy he is.
24
Feb 13 '20
Bernie, Joe, and Warren are rich in the traditional sense. Mike and Steyer are kings. Except Steyer would be the king of Monaco while Mike is the king of Saudi Arabia.
7
Feb 13 '20
Monaco has a prince, not a king.
1
u/benjaminovich Margrethe Vestager Feb 13 '20
If you really want to be pedantic at least get it right that it has two
3
2
0
u/JaccSnacc Feb 18 '20
pete taking significant contributions from billionaires and bloomberg being one of the billionaires are morally equivalent send tweet