Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

This blog will pay for itself.

In after Baud. Damn.

Ron DeSantis, the grand wizard, oops, governor of FL

I didn’t have alien invasion on my 2023 BINGO card.

Impressively dumb. Congratulations.

if you can’t see it, then you are useless in the fight to stop it.

No offense, but this thread hasn’t been about you for quite a while.

The GOP couldn’t organize an orgy in a whorehouse with a fist full of 50s.

In my day, never was longer.

Good lord, these people are nuts.

Just because you believe it, that doesn’t make it true.

You can’t love your country only when you win.

Is it irresponsible to speculate? It is irresponsible not to.

Accused of treason; bitches about the ratings. I am in awe.

Authoritarian republicans are opposed to freedom for the rest of us.

rich, arrogant assholes who equate luck with genius

Let’s finish the job.

He seems like a smart guy, but JFC, what a dick!

When your entire life is steeped in white supremacy, equality feels like discrimination.

You don’t get to peddle hatred on saturday and offer condolences on sunday.

Usually wrong but never in doubt

A democracy can’t function when people can’t distinguish facts from lies.

Every one of the “Roberts Six” lied to get on the court.

Optimism opens the door to great things.

You are here: Home / Past Elections / 2020 Elections / Election Year Redlining Open Thread: Warren v Bloomberg

Election Year Redlining Open Thread: Warren v Bloomberg

by | 111 Comments

This post is in: , , ,

Anyone who hates the idea of President Bloomberg, remember — Mike promised he’d spend up to $2billion supporting whichever Democratic candidate triumphs in the primaries. If that turns out to be Elizabeth Warren, not only will we all be getting a better President, but it will viscerally hurt Mike Bloomberg.

(Yes, he and his vast fortune will be better off under President Warren than President Trump, but she’s been so meeeeean to him already!)


Reader Interactions

111Comments

  2. 2.

    zhena gogolia

    The Chris Evans tweet is spot on.

    We had our chance in 2016. Citizens United still lives, and now we need a savior with a lot of money.

  8. 8.

    Cacti

    @zhena gogolia: We had our chance in 2016. Citizens United still lives, and now we need a savior with a lot of money.

    I remember when left wing cranks were whining about Merrick Garland being too right wing.

    Idiots all.

  10. 10.

    zhena gogolia

    @Cacti:

    They were getting ready to attack President Hillary for not replacing his nomination with a more progressive figure. So we got Gorsuch. Congratulations.

  13. 13.

    Jim, Foolish Literalist

    @zhena gogolia: and St McCain was chuckling about how they were going to block all HRC’s nominees in the fall of ’16

    I was heartened to see Warren was running an ad featuring Obama this weekend. Hopefully someone has finally pulled her away from Rose Twitter.

  14. 14.

    zhena gogolia

    @zhena gogolia:

    Every US citizen should read that Atlantic article by Donald Ayer. It is terrifying and should serve to concentrate our minds. I have seen references to Barr’s frightening speech to the Federalist Society but have never had the patience to go read it. Ayer lays it out there very clearly and terrifyingly.

  15. 15.

    Emma

    @Baud: These are terrible times indeed. In this very blog anger seems to be ratcheting up. We seem to be screaming past each other and it seems to me this is the worst thing that can happen at this moment.  I said to a dear friend yesterday that the best thing I could have done was not to have children, because the end of an empire is a terrible place to be born into. Whatever happens — even if we’re lucky to get a Democratic president OR a Democratic Senate — things will never be the same and I don’t think we know how to move forward from here.

    (PS the Florida one)

  16. 16.

    feebog

    @schrodingers_cat:

    May be need a thorn to take out a thorn.

    What we need is someone:  1.  Who can beat Trump.  2.  Who will reverse his policies and fix the damage he has done.  3.  Who will put forward progressive policies to replace that damage, not just return to the status quo.  That’s Warren for sure.  Maybe Biden to a lesser extent.  I’m not sure Mayor Pete has the political chops and Bernie will never be able to work with people to get legislation accomplished.

  17. 17.

    senyordave

    Since there is a nonzero probability of Bloomberg being the Democratic candidate I hope there is not a scorched earth campaign against him.  I think he is in the race for three main reasons, in order:

    1.  He thinks he can be a better POTUS than any other candidates
    2.  He loathes Trump, both as a president and as a person
    3.  He thinks the Democrats are moving too far to the left

    I do not see him as the devil.  He brings a lot of negatives to the table – condescending, sexist, racist.  I suspect he would govern as a moderate democrat, socially liberal, with an eye toward long-term fiscal responsibility.  And as a former financial analyst, long-term fiscal responsibility matters to me.  IMO, the deficit will ultimately cause a meltdown.

    I prefer him over Sanders and Biden.  They are too out of touch.  Sanders is a complete phony and will definitely lose to Trump and no way should a 78 year old who had a heart attack in the last year be running.  Biden is just there, wouldn’t be terrible and might beat Trump (although he is damaged because of the Ukraine stuff, just because something is legal doesn’t mean it isn’t sleazy).

    Warren and Klobuchar are my first and second  choices, Warren is first by a mile.  Maybe she can right the ship, but MFA with a plan how to get there was a sever miscalculation.  People DON’T want detailed plans, almost two thirds of people can’t do a simple household budget.  In this election people want a return to normalcy and a bunch of vague promises.

    Not sure about Mayor Pete, I think he would be in way over his head.  because of that I worry about electability issues.

    I don’t begrudge Bloomberg his money, he earned it.  I also am not going to think gee, I hope it hurts him to spend $2 billion.  Because if he is made to feel that way, maybe he will pull a Sanders and take his toys and go home ( I am of the opinion that Sanders’ lack of enthusiastic support for Hillary was instrumental in her losing to mangolini).

  18. 18.

    Cacti

    @schrodingers_cat: However I am glad that he is calling out BS and his ardent blue tick supporters on Twitter on their hate and intimidation

    I look forward to the companion ad showing all of the noxious comments that have come from his top surrogates and staff. It’s a top down problem in the Wilmer campaign.

  19. 19.

    Cacti

    @senyordave: Warren and Klobuchar are my first and second  choices, Warren is first by a mile.

    I had hopes for Klobuchar, but she just netted maybe the biggest own-goal of the campaign season.

    Went for an interview on Telemundo, and couldn’t name the President of Mexico when asked. Not enough facepalms for that one.

  21. 21.

    SFAW

    @zhena gogolia:

    Thanks for posting that link. I read as much as I could without succumbing to more despair than I already have. I’ll go back and finish it at some point. I would feel better if I thought the commentary, and the “letter signed by 1000 former DoJ lawyers” (or whatever it is), would have any kind of effect on Traitor Turtle. About the only thing that would cause him to consider impeaching Fascist Shill Barr would be a personal attack on Elaine Chao. And, even then, I wonder whether he would do anything, or just say something about omelets.

    Of course, the topper to that article was a pointer to another piece in The Atlantic, wherein David Brooks appears to be saying that the nucular family should be destroyed, because it’s a badBadBAD thing. Or something. I don’t know the exact nature of it, because I’ll be dipped in shit (as a Hillbilly might say) if I read anything from that moron.

    Is it still Monday? I’ve had enough Infrastructure Week for it to be NEXT Friday.

  22. 22.

    Lacuna Synechdoche

    Anne Laurie @ Top:

    Anyone who hates the idea of President Bloomberg, remember — Mike promised he’d spend up to $2 billion supporting whichever Democratic candidate triumphs in the primaries …

    In 2016, most of the GOP primary candidates were afraid to go after Trump because they worried that he wouldn’t give them money and/or run third party if they were to mean to him.

    Bloomberg’s promise to spend up to $2 billion works the same way. Yes, I’m sure Bloomberg wants to humiliate Trump and see him beaten at the polls in 2020. But the $2 billion promise also works to  scare Democratic nominees that Bloomberg will withhold that cash if they’re too mean to him in debates or ads. I mean, seriously, who’s going to compel Bloomberg to pony up if he decides he doesn’t like Warren, or Sanders, or whoever the nominee is, because they attacked him and will raise his taxes?

  23. 23.

    Ryan

    Hate to break it to Chris Evans, but if Hillary had been elected, she would not have appointed two SC picks.  The SC would now only have 7 justices.

  24. 24.

    cmorenc

    One of the R attack themes, should Bloomberg be the D nominee, will be that Bloomberg has a past history of multiple  “me-too” inappropriate sexual advances against women – I heard Maria Bartiromo making this very claim while surfing the Fox Business Network Channel a day or two ago.  I have no idea whether there’s any substance whatever to Bartiromo’s claims, but if not, do you really think that will inhibit the Rs from pushing them as a distraction?  Nope – it would be consistent with classic Rovian R counterattack strategy – project your own candidate’s weaknesses onto the opponent to muddy up the electorate’s perception that there’s any meaningful difference between them.

    If you all didn’t see this coming (yet),  don’t be surprised to see this theme interweaved with all the other spaghetti the Rs will heave at the wall to see what sticks.

  26. 26.

    SFAW

    @feebog:

    Bernie will never be able to work with people to get legislation accomplished.

    Listen, you fake liberal, Bernie will get all shouty (and finger-waggy) at the Republicans (and the Republican-lites, i.e., Demon-rats), including Mitch, until they finally see the error of their ways. And then it will be brogressive paradise as far as the eye can see.

  27. 27.

    Jinchi

    Anyone who hates the idea of President Bloomberg, remember — Mike promised he’d spend up to $2billion supporting whichever Democratic candidate triumphs in the primaries.

    Am I the only person put off by this? Mike is essentially trying to bribe the rest of the field as well as Democratic voters, with only the promise of buying us victory in the general election. Color me skeptical that he will ever spend a dime to support Warren or Sanders, and consider this.

    Presidential candidates raised and spent $1.5 billion during the 2015-2016 election cycle, according to campaign finance reports filed with the Federal Election Commission that cover activity from January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2016. Congressional candidates collected and disbursed $1.6 billion, political parties received and spent $1.6 billion, and political action committees (PACs) raised and spent $4 billion and in the 24-month period.

    Bloomberg is claiming that he will personally spend more on the 2020 presidential election, than all the candidates combined did just 4 years ago. We already have a serious problem with money dictating everything in American politics. No single person should have that much control of the process. We already have voters worried that the other candidates are being too mean to Mike.

    Democrats have to stop wishing for a rich man to come rescue them. If the presidency comes down to a battle between the billionaires, Republicans have us outgunned.

  28. 28.

    SFAW

    @Jinchi:

    Am I the only person put off by this? Mike is essentially trying to bribe the rest of the field as well as Democratic voters, with only the promise of buying us victory in the general election.

     

    I don’t follow. If he says he’ll spend $2B for whoever gets the nom, how is that bribing the rest of the field?

    ETA: For what it’s worth: not disagreeing re: the problem of a rich guy being able to buy the Presidency

  29. 29.

    Omnes Omnibus

    @Jinchi: I agree with you.  Also, for those who believe Sanders can’t win, there are still four real Democrats running.  At this point, Bloomberg has not garnered any delegates.  Let’s see how he does in the rough and tumble of actual primaries and caucuses.  My guess is that he will be weighed in the balances and found wanting.

    Vote for the candidate you want to win.

  30. 30.

    senyordave

    @Cacti:

    I had hopes for Klobuchar, but she just netted maybe the biggest own-goal of the campaign season.

    Went for an interview on Telemundo, and couldn’t name the President of Mexico when asked. Not enough facepalms for that one.

    Pretty close to disqualifying, apparently Steyer couldn’t name him either, but she is a US senator.

    The fact that Trump couldn’t identify Mexico on a map would probably elevate him in the eyes of his supporters doesn’t help her cause.

  31. 31.

    PST

    @SFAW: it’s to make him acceptable to voters who might otherwise reject him out of hand and to give other candidates a reason to go easier on him than they otherwise might.

  32. 32.

    Chyron HR

    @SFAW:

    They’ll be tainted by his dirty money.  The only way to fund a Presidential campaign and remain pure is the receive thousands of individual $27 grassroots donations from the same IP address within a few picoseconds of each other.

  33. 33.

    Omnes Omnibus

    @SFAW: Read the sentence after the one you quoted.  Jinchi doesn’t believe that he will follow through if he is not the nominee, and I will admit to having my doubts about it too.

  34. 34.

    Chyron HR

    @Ryan:

    A) We’d have eight since Kennedy wouldn’t have retired.

    B) Better eight justices than having Judge Rophenaugh on the court.

  35. 35.

    SFAW

    @PST:

    That’s approaching triple-reverse-psychology territory re: reason/justification. Just my opinion, of course.

    @Chyron HR:

    I assume you’re being a fake purity troll, as opposed to a “sincere” one.

  36. 36.

    Jinchi

    @SFAW: If he says he’ll spend $2B for whoever gets the nom, how is that bribing the rest of the field?

    Would it be clear if a Russian oligarch came along waving a billion dollars and promising to spend it on whoever gets the nom? It works the same way if an American billionaire does it.

    Mike wants to own the presidency. He’d rather cut out the middle-man and run the place himself, but he’ll be fine with the traditional model of simply having powerful people owe him, personally. He isn’t just promising to donate to the nominee, he’s promising to spend more than every one else, combined. The fact that he can say this out loud and expect praise for it shows a lot about how corrupting the last few years of Trump have been, even outside the Republican party.

  37. 37.

    joel hanes

    Mike promised he’d spend up to $2billion supporting whichever Democratic candidate triumphs in the primaries.

    If, in this best of all possible worlds, Warren is the Dem nominee, I predict that we will discover that Bloomberg is keenly aware that the closely-parsed meaning of “up to” includes all smaller amounts, including zero.

  38. 38.

    SFAW

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    Two separate concepts in those sentences. One is the idea of it being a bribe, the other questions his sincerity. My point was: if Bloomberg says (truthfully or not) he’ll kick in $2B for whomever, how is that considered a bribe? If he said he’d donate $XX to Candidate W’s or Candidate K’s favorite charity if he/she drops out, yes, that’s (apparently) a bribe. But he’s not saying that. His (possible) insincerity does not change that.

  40. 40.

    Elizabelle

    @Ryan:   Oh bullshit.  Obama, and President Hillary, should just seat the nominated justice and let the Supreme Court take it up.  I doubt John Roberts wants to annoint Mitch McConnell as sole decider of who gets a Supreme Court seat.

    Take the Eeyorism elsewhere.

  41. 41.

    SFAW

    @Jinchi:

    Would it be clear if a Russian oligarch came along waving a billion dollars and promising to spend it on whoever gets the nom? It works the same way if an American billionaire does it.

    It’s still not a bribe to get them to drop out, at least not in the conventional (and near-universal) meaning of the word. Now, if you wanted to talk about how it would be a bribe to gain access after Dem Candidate X wins the White House, that’s a different issue. But that’s not what you were saying.

  44. 44.

    satby

    @senyordave: and the only one of the interviewees who could, the guy currently leading in delegates, is completely ignored again.

    Everyone needs to wait for a few more states to vote. Especially some closed primary states so we can eliminate ratfucking Republican votes. Then we’ll see what’s what.

  46. 46.

    mrmoshpotato

    @oldster:

    Warren is the best Democratic candidate running this cycle.

    And she’s not dead yet.

    And, again, only two small-ass, white-ass states have voted.

  47. 47.

    BR

    Might we all commit to each calling our local media and/or national media comment lines that we listen to and complain about the erasure of Warren, and convey we’re mad and going to show up for her?  Probably not something they get a lot of from Warren supporters, but for the first time I’m motivated to do it, and am going to call a few comment lines tomorrow.  Want to join me?

  48. 48.

    satby

    @Omnes Omnibus: and I vote for Democrats, real ones. Not carpetbaggers, at least not unless forced. But I’ve been reliably informed that we don’t discuss politics on this blog any more, so I can’t say.

  49. 49.

    tobie

    @senyordave: She flubbed it. Yes. Big time. But is it disqualifying? No. She doesn’t do this routinely — in fact this is the first own goal I’ve seen from her throughout a long and grueling campaign — and I have no doubt that if she were to negotiate with Mexico, she would do her homework and read all the background material assembled for her. I don’t think anyone denies Klobuchar works hard and is a quick study. I’ll cut her some slack: she takes her day job as a Senator very seriously (so does Warren, Bernie not so much) while also campaigning. You could see her exhaustion in that one interview. Stuff like this happens.

  50. 50.

    Another Scott

    Cite for the “$2B” number? It seems to be growing over time. My vague recollection was that it was “$1B” a few weeks ago.

    TheHill cites this NBC News report from January 10:

    WASHINGTON — Former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s massive campaign apparatus and an army of some 500 staffers will march on through the general election in November even if he loses the Democratic nomination, campaign officials tell NBC News, shifting their efforts toward working to elect whomever the party selects to face President Donald Trump.

    Bloomberg’s vast tech operation will also be redirected to help the eventual nominee, as Democrats struggle to compete with the vaunted digital operation built by Trump campaign manager Brad Parscale. Hawkfish, a digital company started by Bloomberg that’s carrying out his $100 million online ad campaign, will be retained through Election Day to help defeat Trump, the officials said.

    Awaiting the eventual nominee would be a shadow field operation across the country that’s currently unparalleled in size by any of the other candidates in the presidential race. The roughly 500 staff members Bloomberg has committed to paying through November include those in battleground states like Florida, North Carolina, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, as well as in Arizona.

    To be clear, Bloomberg remains in the race to win it. Most recent national polls have shown him in fifth place among Democratic primary voters or in close competition with Pete Buttigieg for fourth place, just six weeks after Bloomberg entered the race. His primary strategy relies on amassing delegates in states that vote later in the primary calendar, after the early states where his competitors are focusing the vast majority of their resources.

    […]

    If another Democrat wins the nomination, the Bloomberg-funded staffers won’t work directly for the nominee, which would constitute an in-kind contribution by Bloomberg to the campaign that would exceed federal contribution limits. Rather, those staffers would be paid by an independent funding vehicle supported by Bloomberg, officials said.

    By law, those staffers and Hawkfish would not be able to coordinate their activities with the nominee’s campaign. The arrangement would likely be similar to how super PACs, which can accept unlimited contributions, can spend limitless sums working to defeat or elect candidates as long as they act independently.

    In states where the Democratic nominee will be competing in the fall, the Bloomberg staffers could play a critical role driving up Democratic turnout, in line with the former mayor’s pledge to spend more than $15 million this election on get-out-the-vote efforts. They could also organize their own events, ad campaigns and other organizing tactics in support of the nominee, so long as it’s not coordinated with the campaign.

    Bloomberg already has a super PAC, Independence USA PAC, that could be used to facilitate the effort. In 2018, Bloomberg spent more than $110 million through that PAC to help elect Democratic candidates for the House, according to the PAC. The vast majority of those candidates won their races.

    Since entering the race in November, Bloomberg has rapidly hired more than 800 staffers, including 500 field organizers and staff in more than 30 states and another 300 staffers in his campaign’s New York headquarters. He’s already unleashed more than $100 million on advertising and is on track to have a dozen offices in Ohio, nine in Michigan and 17 in Florida, his campaign has said.

    (Emphasis added.)

    I don’t see even “$1B” there.

    Sure, he could spend a lot of money, but it’s not clear how effective it would be. And keeping his own media operations – something outside the Democratic Party – running through the fall isn’t necessarily a good thing…

    NYPost from February 1:

    […]

    Bloomberg, who is reportedly worth $50 billion, is self-financing his campaign.

    “Our first month’s filing represents a down payment and commitment in all 50 states to defeat Donald Trump, and it shows we have the resources and plan necessary to take him on,” said Bloomberg campaign manager Kevin Sheekey.

    Experts believe Bloomberg will spend more than $1 billion to win the White House. The campaign has said Bloomberg will spend “whatever it takes” to defeat Trump, even if a rival wins the Democratic nomination.

    Bloomberg — who officially announced his campaign for president Nov. 24 has spent more than $225 million on self-funded ads — including a $10 million spot during the Super Bowl — though he isn’t competing in the first four primary and caucus states, Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina.

    Instead, he is running a nationally focused campaign with an eye on states holding contests on Super Tuesday, March 3, including California and Texas.

    (Emphasis added.)

    People shouldn’t get starry-eyed about the money. And shouldn’t take whispered speculation as a commitment to spend a fortune on Democratic candidates. We need to be focussed on electing people that we think would do the best job.

    GOTMFV, as LOLGOP says.

    Corrections welcome.

    Cheers,
    Scott.

  51. 51.

    BR

    @mrmoshpotato:

    And despite what the media is saying, it you look at general-election head to heads in places like Texas, she and Bernie are doing the best, and all the so-called moderates are way behind.

  53. 53.

    SFAW

    @Jinchi:

    Having read some of the follow-up comments from various others, I guess I don’t reject the possibility that Bloomberg’s doing it to get other candidates to “go easy” on him. I don’t think that’s the primary reason he made that “offer,” but I’m not inside his head, so I withdraw my earlier objection, and apologize for any assholity I might have put forth.

  54. 54.

    Omnes Omnibus

    @satby: But I’ve been reliably informed that we don’t discuss politics on this blog any more, so I can’t say.

    I am not going to touch that.

  57. 57.

    senyordave

    @schrodingers_cat:  I give Amy K a pass on failing this pop-quiz.

    A US senator running for president can’t name the president of Mexico.  It does look bad, but it may just be a tip of the tongue type of thing.  I gave a big presentation one time ate work, and I blanked on the name of the project champion.  It was not a good luck, but my boss laughed it off.  However, we aren’t grading on the Trump curve.  If a person isn’t smearing feces on the floor they are by definition more presidential than Trump, but this should not be the baseline.

  58. 58.

    Jinchi

    @SFAW: It’s still not a bribe to get them to drop out

    I never said he was asking anyone to drop out. It’s absolutely a bribe to whoever thinks they could win the nomination.  You wouldn’t want to go to hard on Mike and blow your chance to defeat Trump, would you? We’ve already seen reports of him using financial leverage to buy perks and crush bad press.

    And it can still be a bribe even if the money never changes hands. Your own comment suggests he’s bought good will just by making the offer.

  59. 59.

    mrmoshpotato

    @SFAW:

    Is it still Monday? I’ve had enough Infrastructure Week for it to be NEXT Friday. 

    I’m sure you’ve had enough for a lot of us.

  60. 60.

    gvg

    @senyordave: Nonsense, this is chicken littlism.  She had a brain fart but has a history of being prepared on other days and things. Also she will listen to staff.

    If she makes a habit of it, then I’ll worry. Compare that easily correctable mistake to the serious issues with Trump and Bloomberg, not to mention Bernie not being prepared with a plan to break up the banks after claiming it was his issue for years or on and on about some of the other candidates. Don’t freak out so easily.

  62. 62.

    Ruckus

    @Emma:

    I wrote yesterday that I was glad I slept in and this is why. Bloomberg is not the inevitable candidate that he makes himself out to be. We have 3 old white men running for president. They are not the future of our country. They are the past. And I understand this because I’m not far behind them. We shouldn’t elect them because they have a longer history, we shouldn’t elect them because they are better humans than whose in office now – because most people are better humans than that, we have a chance to elect a reasonable human being for president, and that’s who we should be electing. We are fighting so much because we are scared that everything is taking a shit and that we will have to clean it up to our dying day. Guess what, that is always what humans have to do. That’s actual life. One foot forward, two steps back is an old sayin for a good reason, it’s how humans work.

    Ask your selves who is the best candidate to take 2 steps forward?

    Bloomie? I don’t think so.

    Biden? How will he do that?

    Mayor Pete? He’s not bad but why is he running, I can’t really tell.

    Amy? Possibly, she seems not all that unreasonable but if the stories are true, who is going to work and help her because no one can do this alone, it is, as the old saying goes, going to take a nation to fix a nation’s problems.

    Warren? At least she has plans, she’s on the right side of the issues and problems and she has history, the CPFB. And that’s a biggie.

    So, do we want to work to fix the mess that once again republicans have made out of whatever it is that they try to do? And what they have been trying to do with this maladministration is destroy the country. First time they have had real success at their goal, all they had to do was click the box for the worst person on earth to have ever been president. That’s not conservation, that’s a nuclear election.

    So, find me a better solution and I’ll play game but until then vote like your country, and possibly your life depends on it, because it does. We don’t get to elect the person we like best, we are obligated to elect the person who will do the best job, we are hiring an employee, not a child god/king. Think like an employer, not a subject.

  63. 63.

    tobie

    @schrodingers_cat: I’m a big supporter of Klobuchar but I’ll agree she should have known this. It was a mistake, she owned it, and she won’t do it again. Whenever someone harps on one thing as disqualifying, though, it’s a pretty clear sign that they wanted to disqualify the candidate already. I really don’t know how the candidates with day jobs are managing the demands of work and the campaign. Just this week Klobuchar succeeded in getting a bill passed for STEM education for veterans. That’s impressive given the climate. It’s also a good example of what it means to be running on all cylinders.

  66. 66.

    mrmoshpotato

    @Ryan: Sorry, gotta be a jerk here to lay blame.

    Hillary would’ve nominated 2 Justices, and fascist shitstain Mitch McConnell would’ve told her to shove it and wiped his ass with the Constitution.

  67. 67.

    Another Scott

    @schrodingers_cat: I haven’t seen the clip, and I agree that it shouldn’t be disqualifying.  But, going on Telemundo and not being able to quickly come up with the name is a big, big own goal.

    It’s like a band going to Springfield and thanking the crowd from Shelbyville…  :-/

    Cheers,
    Scott.

  68. 68.

    gvg

    @Jinchi: If he hadn’t said he would support whomever the nominee was, I think a significant portion of the democratic activists would have dismissed him out of hand and his media trajectory would have been less favorable.

    He is richer than others so he needs to make a larger offer in order to show commitment. There is some country I have read about that considers income when determining a fine and richer people have to pay more in order to be deterred from socially undesirable behavior.  And Bloomberg does have a history of playing both sides.  I’d like to see a promise he would not donate to any Republicans running for office. At all levels-that might show he really gets it better.

  70. 70.

    Xentik

    @zhena gogolia:  I spend a lot of time reading threads and generally enjoy the back and forth about candidates and whatnot, but I have to vent about this:

    Bloomberg isn’t a savior. He’s a billionaire who decided he has a good shot of buying the presidency. No evidence exists that a billionaire has ever done anything out of the kindness of their own heart. Even their philanthropy is more about seeing their own names written on a wall or plaque, or hearing them called out at some gala.*

    Additionally, there is no reason to believe his claim that he will spend money on whomever the candidate is. If he truly feels so strongly that he should spend his money to stop trump, where was he in 2016? In 2018? When Kavanaugh was being appointed to the Supreme Court? At any point he could’ve been pouring billions into voter registration and turnout. Claiming he’ll spend 2 billion on the nominee is a very convenient promise to make, as he gets all the benefit of it now (good will) for free. There’s nothing stopping him from running a “split your ticket” campaign** if he loses, or not even spending the money. What would he lose in that case? Nothing.

    If he ends up our candidate, then by all means, vote for him. But we mustn’t delude ourselves. He is buying a presidency because he thinks he’ll get his money’s worth. Don’t project democratic ideals and beliefs onto him, because there is no evidence he actually espouses any of them beyond maybe gun control. ***

     

    • — Case in point: Bill Gates dedicated himself to spending down his billions via donations in 1998 when he was worth ~$50 billion. Twenty years later he’s worth ~$110 billion. Either billionaires literally can’t spend money faster than they make it, or he is unwilling to actually commit to his promise.

    ** — As others have mentioned here before, even as recently as 2016 he was spending money to ensure republicans were elected over democrats, e.g. Toomey in the PA senate race.

    *** — Note that Bloomberg dropping 10 million on something philanthropically is equivalent to the median american buying a large pizza. That’s not strong support. Wake me up when a billionaire drops 10 billion in one go to achieve something that doesn’t benefit them.

  71. 71.

    Ruckus

    @Jinchi:

    This is how rich people work. They buy what they want. Bloom wants a democratic president to replace the boychild that sits and shits in there now. He just set the price he’s willing to pay and it’s more than has been spent before, which would make him the rightful owner of whatever it is that he bought.

  72. 72.

    Immanentize

    @mrmoshpotato: I think we have reached the point where no President will again fall for the Garland trick.  The Constitution allows for recess appointments.  The next Dem. President facing McConnell will make a recess appointment to the Supreme Court when there is a vacancy (and a recess).

    And there is no magic in the number 9.

  74. 74.

    Emma from FL

    @Ruckus: Actually I wasn’t thinking about voting as such. Even if we elect a Democratic president and a Democratic House, I don’t think the old political norms will suffice.

    After much self-debate (I have four people in my head, how about you?) I’ve decided that if given the choice I want a democratic Congress. Having control of both houses would allow us to get a lot more done than the other way around.

  75. 75.

    WaterGirl

    @Immanentize: Can I ask how you managed a duplicate comment?  WordPress is supposed to stop the posting process and say something like “You said that already.”

    Trying to figure out if something is happening the shouldn’t be.  Or rather, should be happening, but isn’t!

  76. 76.

    Immanentize

    I think this is what happened.  I posted, then by accident hit back instead of refresh in my browser.  Then, my comment came up and I thought I hadn’t posted it, so I hit the post comment button. I’ve done this before….

    Let me try it.

  78. 78.

    Immanentize

    • I think this is what happened.  I posted, then by accident hit back instead of refresh in my browser.  Then, my comment came up and I thought I hadn’t posted it, so I hit the post comment button. I’ve done this before….

    Let me try it.

  79. 79.

    Ruckus

    @tobie:

    We know the interview, we don’t know how it was set up or how much time she even had to do any prep at all. I would imagine that a presidential run is chaotic at best, no matter who is running it, no matter who is the candidate. I worked in pro sports and I can tell yo that event prep goes on every minute of the day, no matter if you do or not. It’s an all hands on deck, everyone working towards a single goal or it doesn’t work at all. And that is one sporting event, not a two year run at one of if not the biggest job in the world. There is a reason that a president has a big staff to get them prepared for anything, including day to day operations of a nuclear armed nation.

  80. 80.

    Immanentize

    @WaterGirl: ok. That’s it, except I also had to change the post ever so slightly (adding the indent this time) to repost.  Without adding the indent, it recognized the same post as designed.  Hope that helps?

  81. 81.

    snoey

    @Immanentize: I thought that the SC recently allowed the Senate to be in permanent bogus session if it wanted to.

    Spinal Tap shouldn’t be the only thing that goes up to 11.

  82. 82.

    J R in WV

    @Chyron HR:

    …receive thousands of individual $27 grassroots donations from the same IP address within a few picoseconds of each other.

    @SFAW:

    I assume you’re being a fake purity troll, as opposed to a “sincere” one.

    Neither, sarcastic with regard to the reality of Bernie’s small donor fundraising scheme. “…from the same IP address within a few picoseconds of eash other?” is pretty clear, isn’t it!

  83. 83.

    neldob

    If Bloomberg does win the presidency our work will have to be organized and energetic to keep him from entrenching the status quo. I have to say the left has been pretty meek these last many years. Maybe we were just tired of fighting after the Vietnam War for so many years.

  84. 84.

    Immanentize

    @snoey: not permanent, but more than usual, non-recess.  There is always Buta recess between house elections and the start of a new Congress.  But I think that it requires both houses to play the no recess game? I need to check that.

    The other possibility is that the President sends a candidate and states, if this appointment is not acted upon in 180 days, I will assume your assent.  Thank you!

    No telling how that would come out.  Most likely would depend on whether the President was D or R.

  86. 86.

    Matt McIrvin

    The 2008 financial crash would not have been averted if we had allowed the banks to be more racist.

    Ha ha holy shit, Warren just nailed down my primary vote regardless of what happens between now and Super Tuesday. This line has to be rewarded.

  87. 87.

    J R in WV

    We have recently donated to both the Warren and the Klobuchar campaigns. Those are the best two Democrats in the race as of today.

    Sanders will be very lucky not to drop dead at the podium getting himself worked up to work up the crowd. Biden can turn to toast with a few more lying pony express comments, whatever stupid thing he said to a supporter.

    Pete, well, he’s much too slick and way too much marketing/management double speak there. After a long career around career management dorks, I know one when I see one, and Pete is a perfect example of a guy who is all talk.

    Watched a bunch of Arthur Andersen Androids work hard into getting fired once working for a fortune 500 corp. Folks flying in on the company jet, flying back out that evening, no way to manage a project! Came in to work one morning, all the Androids had packed up over-night and were GONE. What a blessing. So hard to work with a big group of people supposed to be on the “team” who won’t talk to you face to face, ever. Amazing mis-management style~! no wonder the whole organization vanished in a cloud of scandal! Pete would be that president!

    Hope Warren gets the nomination running away with a clear majority long before the convention!

    Hope if Warren doesn’t get it, Klobuchar does. Hope either one picks an inspiring VP candidate obviously qualified to fill the top spot right now. Will  vote for a Democrat in the fall, will donate and work hard for the right one.

  88. 88.

    Ruckus

    @Emma from FL:

    Absolutely, as we have seen over the last 3 yrs, the ENTIRE republican party is a problem for the continued concept of the US, for any improvement in it and for the majority of it’s citizens to exist. And yes I believe that, because even if that’s not their intent, that is a real possibility of their process or lack thereof.

    What I’m saying is how do we get out of this mess? Do we hire someone like Bloom, whose record is spotty at best (and I just gave him far more credit than he deserves – stop and frisk?) who is buying his way in because he can do this with out one drop of sweat, or do we hire someone with not unreasonable plans and a record of making prior ideas work. This is not a personality contest, like HS class president, this is a job, a big job, the biggest job, this is like putting on the white suit and going into the containment zone of a nuclear accident to shut off a reluctant valve. Forty five men have done this job and 5 or 6 of them were some of the worst choices for the job, walking down the street and hiring the first person you see had a better chance of being successful than the last time we did this.

    We have an opportunity to coalesce around the best person presenting themselves at the hiring conference and come to a consensus about that. As employers we have to hire the best person for the job, out of the people applying for the job, and to do that we have to understand what the job actually is and set the goals for the work and the limitations of employment. It is not a personality contest, although personality is a part of the job. It is not an easy job, so hiring an idiot is not a good idea. It is a job of a lot of responsibility so we should hire someone responsible. It is unlike any other job so anyone we pick will only have some real idea of what it is like. But it is a job that requires that same dedication that putting on that white suit and going into the nuclear reactor building does, so that is a necessary requirement.

    Notice that the current job holder has zero qualifications for the job and proves it every second. We want the anti trump, the person the farthest away from who he is to be our nuclear accident clean up person.

  89. 89.

    SFAW

    @Jinchi:

    I never said he was asking anyone to drop out.

    Yes. I went back and re-read, realized I was “auto-completing” inappropriately, thus my apology @ 53.

    Again: sorry for my eff-up.

  91. 91.

    Sturgeonmouth

    @senyordave:

    I don’t begrudge Bloomberg his money, he earned it.

    He “earned” it by developing a product that enables the financial industry to churn faster–not a great contribution to society. His near monopoly in this field is not because his technology can’t be replicated. It’s because government granted intellectual property rights create a barrier to competitors. This is a policy choice, as economist Dean Baker points out at every opportunity. Technology alone doesn’t make people like Bloomberg, Gates, and Zuckerberg rich – it’s the government protection of their technology.

  92. 92.

    Ruckus

    @Sturgeonmouth:

    Bloom and his ilk are not creating anything but more money. They move money around – trade it, and profit off that. The are the money van moving company, like Bekins. They are leeches on an economy. Yes it is necessary to have a money moving process, but there is an entire industry dedicated to enrichening themselves by needlessly moving money around – trading it, sort of like trading baseball cards like kids, but with a better return.

  93. 93.

    Emma from FL

    @Ruckus: The problem is “we.” The Democratic party is not a monolith; we are a league of voters. It makes us more vulnerable to the kooks and cranks but it allows us to tap into a large pool of voters that have nowhere to go.

    As per current polls, Bloomberg is now in the lead in Florida and Biden is right behind him. I will vote for Warren, but I don’t expect her to come even close.  And my people, with their nearly genetic need for a caudillo, actually vote for Trump. At this point I am praying for either a rain of frogs or Biden. I can live with Uncle Joe.

  94. 94.

    sdhays

    @Cacti: Why were they asking her what the name of the President of Mexico is? That’s a stupid question from a stupid, bygone era. Our current President would believe you if you talked about “President Sanchez of Mexico”, even though he has personally talked to the real President because he’s stupid and doesn’t care. I would expect Klobuchar to have detailed thoughts on the US relationship with Mexico and be knowledgeable about the political situation there, but I don’t give a shit if she can remember the Mexican President’s name on “Stump the Candidate”.

    And she’s not in my my top tier, I just don’t like it when the media wastes its time trying to embarrass a candidate on frivolous things instead of digging into actual thoughts.

  95. 95.

    SFAW

    @Sturgeonmouth:

    What “intellectual property rights” has government granted Bloomberg (or Bloomberg L.P.)? Look, I don’t like the racist bastard any more than you do, but he did actually invent something that a particular market wanted. I didn’t like Gates when he ran MS, either — the company was vicious, cheated (for which they got caught, but suffered few consequences in the US), and used their near-monopoly position to crush competitors — but the company did produce something of value

    ETA: When you talk about government protection, do you mean patents? If not, then I need some help figuring it out. If you ARE talking about patents: Article I of the Constitution might be a tough thing to eliminate.

  96. 96.

    Kent

    @Elizabelle: Yes, this.  Obama didn’t go all in for Merrick Garland because they thought Hillary would win.

    He could have sent him up to SCOTUS with a secret service escort and just declared that since the Senate was refusing to do their job of advise and consent then he was just going to decide that consent is assumed.  They don’t like it they can hold an actual vote.

    Then it is no longer up to McConnell, it is up to Collins, Gardner, Murkowski, to actually vote against a qualified nominee for no fucking reason.  That is a lot tougher vote.  Especially if you put up a black or Hispanic nominee or a centrist woman.

    Obama didn’t really use his full power to force a vote.  I expect they were sort of expecting to get a younger and more progressive nominee out of Hillary.

  97. 97.

    Miss Bianca

    @SFAW:

    Of course, the topper to that article was a pointer to another piece in The Atlantic, wherein David Brooks appears to be saying that the nucular family should be destroyed, because it’s a badBadBAD thing. Or something. I don’t know the exact nature of it, because I’ll be dipped in shit (as a Hillbilly might say) if I read anything from that moron.

    Actually, for a David Brooks article, it’s shockingly…not bad. Some other jackal pointed it out last week and I actually managed to read the whole thing without once gagging or yelling things.

  98. 98.

    Kent

    @Miss Bianca: I thought it was excellent and thought provoking.  It was US-centric but basically most of Latin America actually does the mult-generational family thing he talks about.  My wife’s family in Chile is like that.  Every Sunday is dinner with grandma, etc.  But people are also much less mobile in Chile.  Really only one major city in Santiago so family tends to be much closer.

    This all raises the question.  Is it Brooks that has just been stupid all these years, or is it the NYT that has made him stupid.  It’s an honest question.  What percentage of the stupidity is innate Brooks and what percent is the role expected of him by the NYT.

  100. 100.

    Another Scott

    @SFAW:

    e.g. TOS:

    This Web site, and all of the content it contains, or may in the future contain, including but not limited to text, content, photographs, video, audio and graphics, goods, designs, information, applications, software, music, audio files, articles, directories, guides, photographs as well as the trademarks, service marks, trade names, trade dress, copyrights, logos, domain names, code, patents and/or any other form of intellectual property (collectively, the “Service”) that relates to this site, are owned by or licensed by Bloomberg or other third parties and are protected from any unauthorized use, copying and dissemination by copyrights, trademarks, service marks, international treaties, and/or other proprietary rights and laws of the U.S. and other countries. The Service is also protected as a collective work or compilation under U.S. copyright and other laws and treaties. All individual articles, columns and other elements making up the Service are also copyrighted works. You agree to abide by all applicable copyright and other laws, as well as any additional copyright notices or restrictions contained in the Service. You acknowledge that the Service has been developed, compiled, prepared, revised, selected, and arranged by BLP, its general and limited partners, and its subsidiaries, and their respective general partners and affiliates (collectively “Bloomberg”) and others (including certain other information sources) through the application of methods and standards of judgment developed and applied through the expenditure of substantial time, effort, and money and constitutes valuable intellectual property of Bloomberg and such others. You agree to protect the proprietary rights of Bloomberg and all others having rights in the Service during and after the term of this agreement and to comply with all reasonable written requests made by BLP or its suppliers and licensors of content, equipment, or otherwise (“Suppliers”) to protect their and others’ contractual, statutory, and common law rights in the Service. You agree to notify BLP in writing promptly upon becoming aware of any unauthorized access or use of the Service by any individual or entity or of any claim that the Service infringes upon any copyright, trademark, or other contractual, statutory, or common law rights. All present and future rights in and to trade secrets, patents, copyrights, trademarks, service marks, know-how, and other proprietary rights of any type under the laws of any governmental authority, domestic or foreign, including rights in and to all applications and registrations relating to the Service (the “Intellectual Property Rights”) shall, as between you and Bloomberg, at all times be and remain the sole and exclusive property of Bloomberg. All present and future rights in and title to the Service (including the right to exploit the Service and any portions of the Service over any present or future technology) are reserved to Bloomberg for its exclusive use. Except as specifically permitted by the TOS, you may not copy or make any use of the Service or any portion thereof. Except as specifically permitted herein, you shall not use the Intellectual Property Rights or the Service, or the names of any individual participant in, or contributor to, the Service, or any variations or derivatives thereof, for any purpose, without BLP’s prior written approval.

    Bloomberg Finance LP patents.

    Etc.

    The government, through patent and trademark law, presents substantial barriers for anyone wanting to compete with Bloomberg’s properties. It’s how he collects his rents.

    HTH.

    Cheers,
    Scott.

  101. 101.

    Ksmiami

    @Immanentize: what I want is a ducking nominee who will go scorched earth and full metal pulp fiction on McConnell and the Republicans in government- all of them.

  103. 103.

    Felanius Kootea

    AMLO.  Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador.  A real disappointment once in office, you could call him the Bernie of Mexico.

  106. 106.

    Kent

    @satby: 

    The Jimmy Carter of Mexico in some ways. Overly focused on performative stuff like selling state helicopters and limos and not so much on really big hard stuff like crime and the economy.

  107. 107.

    Ruckus

    @Emma from FL:

    I was using the democratic we. I don’t really count republicans any longer, as I think you are right, they are looking for a caudillo, as they have been for my entire life. They mistake a leader as someone who is a mob boss, a dictator, and a caudillo. They like power, and don’t give a damn about equality and fairness. They seem to like cruelty, they obviously like themselves some bigotry.

    But I see us at a cross roads. We can run scared to daddy or we can work to make this place better for all. Daddy for the most part hasn’t done all that well for us over the last few decades, the last one excepted. But the republicans hired the worst daddy on the planet. Most bad dads just leave and don’t pay support, really bad dads refuse to leave and fuck up everything they can. That’s who they hired this time.

  108. 108.

    J R in WV

    @gvg:

    At least Senator Klobuchar knows New Mexico is part of the United States, and that Colorado doesn’t need a border fence, which evidently our current president know nothing of these details and cares even less. Plus NOW she knows the Mexican president’s name, and I expect she will remember it, unlike the tick currently infesting the white house.

    Trump is lucky if he knows what day of the week it currently is, and who that woman helping him down the steps is.

    ETA: He is already forgetting Mrs. Trump’s name, we see him referring to her as “My lovely First Lady” which is a tell that at that moment he cannot utter her name, for whatever reason.

  109. 109.

    SFAW

    @Another Scott:

    The government, through patent and trademark law, presents substantial barriers for anyone wanting to compete with Bloomberg’s properties. It’s how he collects his rents.

    So, in other words, Bloomberg LP is just like every other tech, manufacturing, development, or service company which has patent and trademark protection. Opinions differ and all that, but the whole “government … presents substantial barriers” thing is kind of overstating things.

    Were I smart enough (and industrious enough) to invent something that could/would corner a particular market, with the possibility of long-term control, I’d want that same protection

    ETA: And — although I only skimmed them — the TOS don’t look substantially different from those of any large tech company trying to prevent reverse engineering, etc. I don’t have a lot of love for draconian TOS in general, but it’s not as if they were created for Bloomberg.

  110. 110.

    SFAW

    @J R in WV:

    we see him referring to her as “My lovely First Lady”

    It might just be a power/control/narcissism thing for him: “Look at MY-MINE-ME-MINE bee-YOO-tee-full trophy wife.” If he called her “Melania” (or even “Melanie”), it would not be viewed as an example of HIS greatness.

    I mean, I agree his cognitive “skills” are in sad shape, but I can see another possible explanation.

  111. 111.

    Sturgeonmouth

    @SFAW:

    So, in other words, Bloomberg LP is just like every other tech, manufacturing, development, or service company which has patent and trademark protection. Opinions differ and all that, but the whole “government … presents substantial barriers” thing is kind of overstating things.

    Patents, trademarks, and copyrights are inventions of governments period, so I’m not sure how that is overstating things.

    Were I smart enough (and industrious enough) to invent something that could/would corner a particular market, with the possibility of long-term control, I’d want that same protection

    Of course you would. So would I.  But government policy should focus on the public interest, not the interest of an individual. I’m not opposed to the concept of intellectual property (I have 17 patents), but it should not enable long term monopolies and the associated price gouging.

    ETA: And — although I only skimmed them — the TOS don’t look substantially different from those of any large tech company trying to prevent reverse engineering, etc. I don’t have a lot of love for draconian TOS in general, but it’s not as if they were created for Bloomberg.

    I never suggested Bloomberg was unique. In fact, I specifically lumped him in with Gates and Zuckerberg as people who have benefited extraordinarily from our government’s policies on intellectual property.

    For a lot more on this topic, I highly recommend reading Dean Baker at:

    https://www.cepr.net/blog/dean-bakers-beat-the-press/

    and downloading his free book:

    Rigged: How Globalization and the Rules of the Modern Economy Were Structured to Make the Rich Richer

    @Another Scott: thanks from yet another Scott for covering for me while I was out having fun.

Comments are closed.