New poll says Bloomberg is in 4th place

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You leftists need to get out of the city more. You all are clueless!!

It's bubble-vision. Totally prevents them from seeing the world outside the beltway.

eh.. I can say the same to rural people who have never left their tiny little insular towns. Maybe it would open up their eyes. Certainly, many have left those areas to never return. Why do you think that is if rural areas are so wonderful?

I'll agree with you the small town bubble is as isolated as the liberal urban bubble is. The vast majority live in neither. But in ordinary suburbs and ordinary cities.

Define “ordinary city.”

Tampa, Dallas, Kansas City, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Baltimore, Columbus, Denver, Charlotte, Atlanta, Raleigh, Jacksonville, Phoenix, Indianapolis, you get it.

Even in the DC area outside the beltway can fall into this category.

Those cities all vote blue. We are talking about cities, right? “Ordinary cities?” Not gerrymandered Congressional districts that include parts of cities? They all vote blue. Outside the beltway are suburbs, not cities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You leftists need to get out of the city more. You all are clueless!!

It's bubble-vision. Totally prevents them from seeing the world outside the beltway.

eh.. I can say the same to rural people who have never left their tiny little insular towns. Maybe it would open up their eyes. Certainly, many have left those areas to never return. Why do you think that is if rural areas are so wonderful?

I'll agree with you the small town bubble is as isolated as the liberal urban bubble is. The vast majority live in neither. But in ordinary suburbs and ordinary cities.

Define “ordinary city.”

Tampa, Dallas, Kansas City, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Baltimore, Columbus, Denver, Charlotte, Atlanta, Raleigh, Jacksonville, Phoenix, Indianapolis, you get it.

Even in the DC area outside the beltway can fall into this category.

Those cities all vote blue. We are talking about cities, right? “Ordinary cities?” Not gerrymandered Congressional districts that include parts of cities? They all vote blue. Outside the beltway are suburbs, not cities.

Shrugs. Those cities may be blue but as regions they are far less politically obsessed or divided or out of touch as DC can be, along with certain other places. And I think that was the point. They are much more representative of the "real" America than the inside the beltway, whether it's the suburbs or the more urban areas (and one uses urban lightly in a lot of those places).

I quickly looked at the NYTimes map of the 2016 election. Hillary won 90% of the vote in DC, which is typical of most elections. But only 51% of Hillsborough County, where Tampa is. Or 60% of Orange County (home to Orlando). Sure, cities are more blue but they are not so lopsided as DC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You leftists need to get out of the city more. You all are clueless!!

It's bubble-vision. Totally prevents them from seeing the world outside the beltway.

eh.. I can say the same to rural people who have never left their tiny little insular towns. Maybe it would open up their eyes. Certainly, many have left those areas to never return. Why do you think that is if rural areas are so wonderful?

I'll agree with you the small town bubble is as isolated as the liberal urban bubble is. The vast majority live in neither. But in ordinary suburbs and ordinary cities.

Define “ordinary city.”

Tampa, Dallas, Kansas City, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Baltimore, Columbus, Denver, Charlotte, Atlanta, Raleigh, Jacksonville, Phoenix, Indianapolis, you get it.

Even in the DC area outside the beltway can fall into this category.

Those cities all vote blue. We are talking about cities, right? “Ordinary cities?” Not gerrymandered Congressional districts that include parts of cities? They all vote blue. Outside the beltway are suburbs, not cities.

Shrugs. Those cities may be blue but as regions they are far less politically obsessed or divided or out of touch as DC can be, along with certain other places. And I think that was the point. They are much more representative of the "real" America than the inside the beltway, whether it's the suburbs or the more urban areas (and one uses urban lightly in a lot of those places).

I quickly looked at the NYTimes map of the 2016 election. Hillary won 90% of the vote in DC, which is typical of most elections. But only 51% of Hillsborough County, where Tampa is. Or 60% of Orange County (home to Orlando). Sure, cities are more blue but they are not so lopsided as DC.

“Tampa” and “Hillsborough County” are not the same. Neither are “Orlando” and “Orange County.” Cities vote blue. Even “ordinary cities.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You leftists need to get out of the city more. You all are clueless!!

It's bubble-vision. Totally prevents them from seeing the world outside the beltway.

eh.. I can say the same to rural people who have never left their tiny little insular towns. Maybe it would open up their eyes. Certainly, many have left those areas to never return. Why do you think that is if rural areas are so wonderful?

I'll agree with you the small town bubble is as isolated as the liberal urban bubble is. The vast majority live in neither. But in ordinary suburbs and ordinary cities.

Define “ordinary city.”

Tampa, Dallas, Kansas City, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Baltimore, Columbus, Denver, Charlotte, Atlanta, Raleigh, Jacksonville, Phoenix, Indianapolis, you get it.

Even in the DC area outside the beltway can fall into this category.

Those cities all vote blue. We are talking about cities, right? “Ordinary cities?” Not gerrymandered Congressional districts that include parts of cities? They all vote blue. Outside the beltway are suburbs, not cities.

Shrugs. Those cities may be blue but as regions they are far less politically obsessed or divided or out of touch as DC can be, along with certain other places. And I think that was the point. They are much more representative of the "real" America than the inside the beltway, whether it's the suburbs or the more urban areas (and one uses urban lightly in a lot of those places).

I quickly looked at the NYTimes map of the 2016 election. Hillary won 90% of the vote in DC, which is typical of most elections. But only 51% of Hillsborough County, where Tampa is. Or 60% of Orange County (home to Orlando). Sure, cities are more blue but they are not so lopsided as DC.

Something like 130% of HRC’s margin (I.e. 3.4M of her 2.6M popular vote edge) was in a handful of high-income counties in the I-5 and I-95 metros: Seattle, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and DC. The Dems do better in cities in general, but it’s high-income educated people that they truly represent and it shows in the vote totals.

[Anonymous]

I like him a lot. He's got my vote. I think he's got the money and the platform to get on the ballot. He's better than all the other Dem candidates and he's light years better than Trump.

A side perk is how much he annoys and agitates Cons/Trumpers, especially when they get all riled up about the soda!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You leftists need to get out of the city more. You all are clueless!!

It's bubble-vision. Totally prevents them from seeing the world outside the beltway.

eh.. I can say the same to rural people who have never left their tiny little insular towns. Maybe it would open up their eyes. Certainly, many have left those areas to never return. Why do you think that is if rural areas are so wonderful?

I'll agree with you the small town bubble is as isolated as the liberal urban bubble is. The vast majority live in neither. But in ordinary suburbs and ordinary cities.

Define “ordinary city.”

Tampa, Dallas, Kansas City, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Baltimore, Columbus, Denver, Charlotte, Atlanta, Raleigh, Jacksonville, Phoenix, Indianapolis, you get it.

Even in the DC area outside the beltway can fall into this category.

Those cities all vote blue. We are talking about cities, right? “Ordinary cities?” Not gerrymandered Congressional districts that include parts of cities? They all vote blue. Outside the beltway are suburbs, not cities.

Shrugs. Those cities may be blue but as regions they are far less politically obsessed or divided or out of touch as DC can be, along with certain other places. And I think that was the point. They are much more representative of the "real" America than the inside the beltway, whether it's the suburbs or the more urban areas (and one uses urban lightly in a lot of those places).

I quickly looked at the NYTimes map of the 2016 election. Hillary won 90% of the vote in DC, which is typical of most elections. But only 51% of Hillsborough County, where Tampa is. Or 60% of Orange County (home to Orlando). Sure, cities are more blue but they are not so lopsided as DC.

Something like 130% of HRC’s margin (I.e. 3.4M of her 2.6M popular vote edge) was in a handful of high-income counties in the I-5 and I-95 metros: Seattle, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and DC. The Dems do better in cities in general, but it’s high-income educated people that they truly represent and it shows in the vote totals.

Yeah sure.

Doesn’t change the fact that all across the country, cities voted blue. Maybe only light blue but blue. The reason Bloomberg is surging is because Bloomberg is blanketing the country with ads. I watch 1 hour of “live” tv a week and even I have seen his ads.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I like him a lot. He's got my vote. I think he's got the money and the platform to get on the ballot. He's better than all the other Dem candidates and he's light years better than Trump.

A side perk is how much he annoys and agitates Cons/Trumpers, especially when they get all riled up about the soda!

+1 such a dumb thing to get riled up about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I like him a lot. He's got my vote. I think he's got the money and the platform to get on the ballot. He's better than all the other Dem candidates and he's light years better than Trump.

A side perk is how much he annoys and agitates Cons/Trumpers, especially when they get all riled up about the soda!

If your guy Bloomberg's platform is so great, why won't he participate in the debates? Either (A) he's afraid of the optics of being shorter than everybody else, or (B) he's afraid that he will do a bad job in the debates.

He's worth $60 billion. That is a lot, but it pales in comparison to the $21 trillion U.S. economy. We won't give you the keys unless you make your case in a competitive setting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like him a lot. He's got my vote. I think he's got the money and the platform to get on the ballot. He's better than all the other Dem candidates and he's light years better than Trump.

A side perk is how much he annoys and agitates Cons/Trumpers, especially when they get all riled up about the soda!

If your guy Bloomberg's platform is so great, why won't he participate in the debates? Either (A) he's afraid of the optics of being shorter than everybody else, or (B) he's afraid that he will do a bad job in the debates.

He's worth $60 billion. That is a lot, but it pales in comparison to the $21 trillion U.S. economy. We won't give you the keys unless you make your case in a competitive setting.

He didn't qualify for the debates since he entered the race so late.

To qualify for February debate:
-Need at least 225K unique donors and at least 1K unique donors in 20 states
-Two qualifying pollsters showing at least 7% support in NH, NV, or SC

He can't buy his way into the debates, even if he wanted to. He's going to run a shadow campaign outside the normal Party system and then he's hoping to capture the nomination at a contested convention.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like him a lot. He's got my vote. I think he's got the money and the platform to get on the ballot. He's better than all the other Dem candidates and he's light years better than Trump.

A side perk is how much he annoys and agitates Cons/Trumpers, especially when they get all riled up about the soda!

If your guy Bloomberg's platform is so great, why won't he participate in the debates? Either (A) he's afraid of the optics of being shorter than everybody else, or (B) he's afraid that he will do a bad job in the debates.

He's worth $60 billion. That is a lot, but it pales in comparison to the $21 trillion U.S. economy. We won't give you the keys unless you make your case in a competitive setting.

Not PP and not a big fan, but he hasn’t qualified for the debates.

[Anonymous]

I think he will eventually run as an independent if a brokered convention doesn’t go his way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like him a lot. He's got my vote. I think he's got the money and the platform to get on the ballot. He's better than all the other Dem candidates and he's light years better than Trump.

A side perk is how much he annoys and agitates Cons/Trumpers, especially when they get all riled up about the soda!

If your guy Bloomberg's platform is so great, why won't he participate in the debates? Either (A) he's afraid of the optics of being shorter than everybody else, or (B) he's afraid that he will do a bad job in the debates.

He's worth $60 billion. That is a lot, but it pales in comparison to the $21 trillion U.S. economy. We won't give you the keys unless you make your case in a competitive setting.

Not PP and not a big fan, but he hasn’t qualified for the debates.

He’s not trying to, I think.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You leftists need to get out of the city more. You all are clueless!!

It's bubble-vision. Totally prevents them from seeing the world outside the beltway.

eh.. I can say the same to rural people who have never left their tiny little insular towns. Maybe it would open up their eyes. Certainly, many have left those areas to never return. Why do you think that is if rural areas are so wonderful?

I'll agree with you the small town bubble is as isolated as the liberal urban bubble is. The vast majority live in neither. But in ordinary suburbs and ordinary cities.

Define “ordinary city.”

Tampa, Dallas, Kansas City, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Baltimore, Columbus, Denver, Charlotte, Atlanta, Raleigh, Jacksonville, Phoenix, Indianapolis, you get it.

Even in the DC area outside the beltway can fall into this category.

Those cities all vote blue. We are talking about cities, right? “Ordinary cities?” Not gerrymandered Congressional districts that include parts of cities? They all vote blue. Outside the beltway are suburbs, not cities.

Shrugs. Those cities may be blue but as regions they are far less politically obsessed or divided or out of touch as DC can be, along with certain other places. And I think that was the point. They are much more representative of the "real" America than the inside the beltway, whether it's the suburbs or the more urban areas (and one uses urban lightly in a lot of those places).

I quickly looked at the NYTimes map of the 2016 election. Hillary won 90% of the vote in DC, which is typical of most elections. But only 51% of Hillsborough County, where Tampa is. Or 60% of Orange County (home to Orlando). Sure, cities are more blue but they are not so lopsided as DC.

Something like 130% of HRC’s margin (I.e. 3.4M of her 2.6M popular vote edge) was in a handful of high-income counties in the I-5 and I-95 metros: Seattle, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and DC. The Dems do better in cities in general, but it’s high-income educated people that they truly represent and it shows in the vote totals.

Yeah sure.

Doesn’t change the fact that all across the country, cities voted blue. Maybe only light blue but blue. The reason Bloomberg is surging is because Bloomberg is blanketing the country with ads. I watch 1 hour of “live” tv a week and even I have seen his ads.

Great pro-Trump false flag, PP!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think he will eventually run as an independent if a brokered convention doesn’t go his way.

Bernie?

[Anonymous]

I am Trumper and this is the ONLY Dem candidate I would vote for over Trump.