New poll says Bloomberg is in 4th place

[Anonymous]

Too ****ing old!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'd prefer Bloomberg to either Sanders or Biden. He seems to be the sharpest of the 75+ crowd.

Absolutely! Nothing says sharp like telling us The White House will work better when converted to an open office plan!

[Anonymous]

Might as well vote for Bloomberg. The only thing that matters in politics is money so we should have a legit billionaire be our president.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I will probably vote for Bloomberg. I would've done so without him spending much money. Liberals still have not learned that you can't win the election with support from just the coastal blue areas. You need a moderate.

The only thing the middle of the country knows about Bloomberg is that he hates guns and big sodas. He’s not beating Trump.

[Anonymous]

Andrew Yang is in 4th place in the latest Emerson College poll. This race is wide open. Just say no to the septuagenarians. This race should be about future vs past, new vs old, fresh vs stale.

Buttigieg or Yang will present a sharp contrast to the senile Trump.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Poor Klobuchar, she's so much more intelligent with more integrity.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd prefer Bloomberg to either Sanders or Biden. He seems to be the sharpest of the 75+ crowd.

Absolutely! Nothing says sharp like telling us The White House will work better when converted to an open office plan!

As someone who lived in NYC when he was mayor, this made me lol.

[Anonymous]

National polls don't matter that much at this point in time because of the way we've structured the primaries. Bloomberg is barely on the map in Iowa, NH, or SC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Proves that buying elections is possible!

How is this any different than other candidates spending money, wherever the source of that money comes from? Is it better if the money came from lobbyists?

I'm all for campaign finance laws, but I don't think what Bloomberg is different to what most of the other candidates are doing if they are accepting large donations from corporations and lobbyists.

And Rs are just as bad about this.

NP and I agree (with 2nd PP).

The main difference between Bloomberg and the others is the source of the money. Buttigieg had his expensive fundraisers in the "wine cave". Warren held expensive fundraisers in her Senate reelection campaign, then transferred millions of dollars to her presidential campaign and then tried to claim that she was so much better than Buttigieg because she did not use high dollar fundraisers this time, even though close to half of her starting campaign finance oney came from such big dollar fund raisers. The top 5 leading candidates all earned more than $15M in donations in the 4th quarter alone and average over $20M collectively for 3 months. The top 5 have all raised over $50M since the start of their collective campaigns. And they are all spending that to "buy" the election.

The only difference between them and Bloomberg is that he is self-funded. Pretty novel that he will pay for it himself instead of trying to pay for his election campaign on the wallets of his donors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:National polls don't matter that much at this point in time because of the way we've structured the primaries. Bloomberg is barely on the map in Iowa, NH, or SC.

You understand that's intentional, right?

[Anonymous]

So I guess we can look forward to stop-and-frisk for black people nationwide, and tiny little sodas for everyone.

Yeah, no thanks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I will probably vote for Bloomberg. I would've done so without him spending much money. Liberals still have not learned that you can't win the election with support from just the coastal blue areas. You need a moderate.

This is so frustrating and ignorant of the makeup of this country.

First, we Democrats live other places besides "the coastal areas" and in plenty of those places there are a lot of us. You wouldn't know it, since a lot of those states are winner take all in the EC instead of apportioned.

Second, why don't republicans ever have to nominate a moderate to win? Why do Democrats always have to move center? The Republican party has objectively moved further and further to the right in the last 10 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So I guess we can look forward to stop-and-frisk for black people nationwide, and tiny little sodas for everyone.

Yeah, no thanks.

Real talk: what's with the small soda hate? No one needs a big gulp.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:National polls don't matter that much at this point in time because of the way we've structured the primaries. Bloomberg is barely on the map in Iowa, NH, or SC.

You understand that's intentional, right?

??

A bunch of ad buys may get you voters but won't get you delegates. If he wins none of those first three states how can he expect to get the nomination? He's also polling behind some combo of Biden, Sanders, and Warren in Alabama, Colorado, Georgia, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Texas, Virginia... So I guess I'm not following your logic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So I guess we can look forward to stop-and-frisk for black people nationwide, and tiny little sodas for everyone.

Yeah, no thanks.

Real talk: what's with the small soda hate? No one needs a big gulp.

DP, something about "freedom"