Anonymous wrote:Don't care for him. Don't want him to win the nomination.

But if he does I'll volunteer for his campaign and definitely vote for him.

Because Trump.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Most moderates are for common sense gun control, doesn't matter if they live in the middle of the country or not.

I actually think policies like taxing big soda is a good idea.

I much prefer Bloomberg to Trump or any of the lefties. And Trump barely won in many of the middle of the country battle ground states (less than 1%), so yes, I do think Bloomberg can win it.

-signed an Independent

You're not as independent as you think if you're ok with someone else telling you how much soda you're "allowed" to drink.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Most moderates are for common sense gun control, doesn't matter if they live in the middle of the country or not.

I actually think policies like taxing big soda is a good idea.

I much prefer Bloomberg to Trump or any of the lefties. And Trump barely won in many of the middle of the country battle ground states (less than 1%), so yes, I do think Bloomberg can win it.

-signed an Independent

You're not as independent as you think if you're ok with someone else telling you how much soda you're "allowed" to drink.

You weren't prevented from drinking the quantity you wanted. You could always buy two drinks. The soda tax makes sense. Americans are fat and it's crippling the health care system.

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

Anonymous wrote:

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 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

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Most moderates are for common sense gun control, doesn't matter if they live in the middle of the country or not.

I actually think policies like taxing big soda is a good idea.

I much prefer Bloomberg to Trump or any of the lefties. And Trump barely won in many of the middle of the country battle ground states (less than 1%), so yes, I do think Bloomberg can win it.

-signed an Independent

Anonymous wrote:

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.