New poll says Bloomberg is in 4th place

[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.

Have you met America?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Bloomberg's money will make sure that the middle of the country know who he is when the time comes. And they don't far out left wing progressives.

[Anonymous]

^ they don't want far out lefties

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Honestly, I would prefer someone who is willing to put up his own money than someone who is bought by lobbyists.

[Anonymous]

It would be quite funny to have two Manhattan billionaires facing each other in November.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It would be quite funny to have two Manhattan billionaires facing each other in November.

The fact that he really gets Trump's goat makes it so sweet to think about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Bloomberg's money will make sure that the middle of the country know who he is when the time comes. And they don't far out left wing progressives.

They also don't want billionaire nanny staters telling them they can't have a Big Gulp, either.

[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.

You know what I don't need?

People telling me what I don't need. That's what.



Go away.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It would be quite funny to have two Manhattan billionaires facing each other in November.

Only one of them is a billionaire, though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It would be quite funny to have two Manhattan billionaires facing each other in November.

Only one of them is a billionaire, though.

Vote Dem -- the party of the REAL billionaires

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Bloomberg's money will make sure that the middle of the country know who he is when the time comes. And they don't far out left wing progressives.

Whoever fooled (some portion of) the populace into thinking a guy with a net worth in the tens of billions is “far left” is trickster par excellence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DP. Math is not your strong suit. At the Democratic National Convention there will be 4750 total delegates. Iowa has 49 delegates. New Hampshire 24. South Carolina 54. Total 127, less than 3% of the total number of votes. The only important these states have is early voting and the possibility that they are early indicators or bellweathers of trends. But they don't have to be. Trends could start after those states and become much more important.

[Anonymous]

Lol Bloomberg. Remember that time when he was a persistent defender to the NYPD's racist stop and frisk practices that would make someone like Joe Arpaio nod in approval? There are many in the Hispanic and Black community who will not forgive him for that. Or maybe that time when he suggested that minorities could not be trusted with guns?

And speaking of guns, on the other side of the political spectrum; the only thing people know about Bloomberg is how much he doesn't like guns and coca cola. By all means, give Bloomberg the nod, another 4 years of Trump might finally convince the Dem establishment that most people are tired of the same old **** they've been offering for decades now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It would be quite funny to have two Manhattan billionaires facing each other in November.

Only one of them is a billionaire, though.

Vote Dem -- the party of the REAL billionaires

Yep. The party of billionaires, for billionaires, who all claim to understand regular people. Yeah ok

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It would be quite funny to have two Manhattan billionaires facing each other in November.

Only one of them is a billionaire, though.

Vote Dem -- the party of the REAL billionaires

Yep. The party of billionaires, for billionaires, who all claim to understand regular people. Yeah ok

Trumpsters actually think Trump is a regular guy, so ..