I’ll give Bloomberg’s candidacy one thing: it’s made the whole “Bernie’s not even a real Democrat and that’s why I don’t like him!!!!!!!!!! :((((((((” line even more transparently dishonest than it already was.

Objective facts, nuanced perspectives, and detailed explanations instead of slogan based policy ideas. Love our "centrist circle jerk" 😂 The objective fact that parties should be able to rig the game against whomever they want. Whats going on is he equivalent of us playing chess, but then halfway through the game I decided that that all my pieces can move anywhere and yours can only move one space at a time

AJ, Well, at least Bloomberg is a registered Democrat unlike Bernie. Yes, I know Bloomberg was a Republican and I'm not a supporter of his.

The objective fact that parties should be able to rig the game against whomever they want. Whats going on is he equivalent of us playing chess, but then halfway through the game I decided that that all my pieces can move anywhere and yours can only move one space at a time Not quite the best analogy. But, IIRC, the DNC set rules for the first set of debates and intended to raise thresholds so as to not have 200 people on the stage. Relaxing the rules is what people have been complaining about for months, but now that they have, the professionally angry see conspiracies again.

The decision benefits Bloomberg, but that's not proof that the DNC changed things specifically to benefit him. Decisions can have unintended consequences and as much as the evil DNC executive committee may not want Bernie, I'd put my life's savings on them not wanting Bloomberg just as much.

The decision benefits Bloomberg, but that's not proof that the DNC changed things specifically to benefit him. Decisions can have unintended consequences and as much as the evil DNC executive committee may not want Bernie, I'd put my life's savings on them not wanting Bloomberg just as much. He definitely isn't their #1 (Biden/Pete), but he is an ideal candidate for the More Moderate Establishment wing of the party for a couple of reasons: 1. He's an example of the Third Way New Democrat Strategy, Get Richer "moderate" Republicans to join the Democrats AND 2. He's got $61.5 billion the DNC wants

He’s more ideal, sure, but changing debate rules to let him get attacked from all sides is no way to build his support or secure his money. Next conspiracy, please.

He’s more ideal, sure, but changing debate rules to let him get attacked from all sides is no way to build his support or secure his money. Next conspiracy, please. Being on the stage is better than off cause people don't have candidate object permanence. Out of sight, out of mind. Biden gets criticized every time he opens his mouth, but he's still on the stage so people still see him as a viable candidate

Viability among the public might carry more weight if more people were watching the debate. It might mean something among media pundits, but who cares? But let's be real. Bloomberg is viable because he's independently wealthy, was mayor of the largest city in America, and has good name recognition. I don't know how/why Pete is considered viable, but even if he were to have a good showing in Iowa or New Hampshire, I'd see him fizzling out. Biden's viable because he's got high name recognition, was VP, has a good base of support, and has proven to be resilient. Apologies to the Tulsis and Gravels and Castros and Gilibrands of the world and the demise of the vanity efforts, but viability isn't based on being on a debate stage.

Viability among the public might carry more weight if more people were watching the debate. It might mean something among media pundits, but who cares? But let's be real. Bloomberg is viable because he's independently wealthy, was mayor of the largest city in America, and has good name recognition. I don't know how/why Pete is considered viable, but even if he were to have a good showing in Iowa or New Hampshire, I'd see him fizzling out. Biden's viable because he's got high name recognition, was VP, has a good base of support, and has proven to be resilient. Apologies to the Tulsis and Gravels and Castros and Gilibrands of the world and the demise of the vanity efforts, but viability isn't based on being on a debate stage. Its not a point of viability, it's a point of who does the party want. The most popular Senator with a popular platform is Viable, former VP with name recognition also has viability. Bloomberg only has name recognition in the sense he's spending $228 Million on advertisements, otherwise he lost relevancy a while ago. Not being on the stage has killed campaigns (many in this cycle), people didn't know Delaney dropped out a couple days ago they thought he was gone a WHILE ago

Bruh, not being on the debate stage isn't what killed Delaney or many of the others. They were never gonna get anywhere. And having 25 people on a debate stage wouldn't have saved them. But I'll let this one go for now. You're right, DNC is evil even though God Emperor Bernie is running in that party's primary, and everything that doesn't benefit Him is proof that everything is rigged and unfair.

I’ll give Bloomberg’s candidacy one thing: it’s made the whole “Bernie’s not even a real Democrat and that’s why I don’t like him!!!!!!!!!! :((((((((” line even more transparently dishonest than it already was. Bloomberg's not even a real Democrat and that's why I don't like him.

He's a billionaire who bought a seat on the Presidential Debate stage, I think that's a fair criticism. Bloomberg isn't trying to buy a seat on the debate stage. He's trying to buy the nomination itself. He doesn't want to be in the debates because he gets all the exposure he needs with his money and controlled ads and doesn't have to answer any negative questions.

Gary Johnson very explicitly is *not* endorsing Tulsi, although he is being supportive of her campaign. https://reason.com/2020/02/09/gary-johnson-tulsi-gabbard-bill-weld-president/

Gabbard said yesterday that she will support the Democratic nominee. https://politicalwire.com/2020/02/10/gabbard-says-shell-back-the-democratic-nominee/

Should we start updating this page for cumulative vote totals for IA and NH?

image://scontent-bos3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/84416517_2937578072990199_6899590791786659840_n.jpg?_nc_cat=111&_nc_ohc=mTuPk2H5zDQAX85yEUZ&_nc_ht=scontent-bos3-1.xx&oh=28ed910662e287051547f203a582e92d&oe=5ECD69C5

I predicted that Biden would be the nominee thinking that Democrats would pull a 2004 and fall back on the "safe" choice for a candidate. I thought Warren was the second most likely winner since she was everyone's second choice, but it looks like that won't happen either. Instead, we have very interesting scenarios: - I don't think Sanders could win a majority of delegates, but a plurality is possible and that is a dangerous scenario for Democrats: either he gets the nomination or his supporters feel conspired against. - Buttigieg almost certainly has alot more money than Klobuchar, but will the establishment line up behind Klobuchar so she can compete? I would think they would to avoid having Buttigieg or Sanders as the nominee. - Will Bloomberg have an impact? If he does, it will most likely strengthen Sanders which is the opposite of what he intended when he started spending hundreds of millions of dollars. - If Sanders gets a plurality but the majority of delegates want someone else, will all hell break loose? My predictions are worthless, but I see better paths to the nomination for Klobuchar and Buttigieg than for anyone else right now.

Bloomberg has a good change at becoming the nominee. He needs Sanders to be strong, but not too strong so he can consolidate the vote from everyone else as they drop out.

Are Democrats really willing to give the nomination to a billionaire former Republican who runs a zillion TV and web ads? My crystal ball has a lousy track record, but I don't think it will happen.

The catch being that the major candidates would need to drop out quickly in March to consolidate anything. Also, it's not impossible that Bloomberg being in a debate is gonna be much better for Not-Bloomberg people than for his campaign.

Are Democrats really willing to give the nomination to a billionaire former Republican who runs a zillion TV and web ads? My crystal ball has a lousy track record, but I don't think it will happen. Democracy doesn't work.

Also, it's not impossible that Bloomberg being in a debate is gonna be much better for Not-Bloomberg people than for his campaign. I don't watch TV ads, but I'm guessing they don't say that Bloomberg was a Republican and endorsed George W. Bush. The other candidates might bring that up in a debate.

I don't watch TV ads, but I'm guessing they don't say that Bloomberg was a Republican and endorsed George W. Bush. The other candidates might bring that up in a debate. And supported stop-and-frisk for minorities. (I know he's recanted, but there's tons of video clips of him strongly supporting it and his recant is a bit too convenient.) And is a big supporter of charter schools. And is a big nanny state person who wants to pass laws against what you want to eat, drink and smoke. (Including being anti-marijuana.) And opposed minimum wage increases. And opposed paid sick days. Are Democrats really willing to give the nomination to a billionaire former Republican who runs a zillion TV and web ads? My crystal ball has a lousy track record, but I don't think it will happen. I'm not so sure. The polls have moved big for him.

This from 538 is very useful https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-primary-forecast/california/ It forecasts that Sanders wins EVERY SINGLE STATE save Alabama and Delaware. With these projections (one among a handful of others reaching similar conclusions), the other candidates might as well cash in their chips, close up shop now, and crown King Sanders. A contested convention? Not a chance. Has any other primary contest in history seen so many states (projected to be) won by a single candidate?