January 7, 2020

"The very real scenario of a protracted, ‘bizarro world’ Democratic primary/The dynamics have changed so much that states voting after Super Tuesday are suddenly taking on new prominence."

I read that article — by David Siders (in Politico) — yesterday, and came away thinking — though Siders doesn't come out and say it — this is how Bloomberg can win.
The Iowa field is bunched together with little daylight between a handful of well-funded candidates. Each of the four early voting states continues to present the prospect of a different winner. And, at the end of that gauntlet on Super Tuesday, a free-spending billionaire — Michael Bloomberg, the former New York City mayor — is waiting to challenge whichever candidate or candidates emerge....

[T]he candidates still standing after Super Tuesday will be forced to run a “fast play” as they scramble into March. ... Bloomberg has already put more than 200 staffers on the ground in states that vote in March and April. He traveled recently to Ohio and Michigan, where he has hired senior state-level staff and plans to open 9 offices and 12 offices, respectively.... [H]e plans to open five offices in Missouri, 17 in Florida and 12 in Illinois.
The non-Bloomberg candidates are fighting each other in earlier states and have little or nothing set up in these later states, and they will have to put so much of their energy into raising more money. Bloomberg is unique, with his billionaire money and his strategy of playing in the late states.

Today, Siders has "Sense of foreboding darkens Democratic primary/Many early-state Democrats are gripped by dread over recent headlines. The candidates are making it worse." Nothing jumped out as quotable in that article, so I guess it's a good example of click-bait headline writing, and in that light, it's interesting that the chosen words are words of doom: foreboding... dark... gripped... dread...

I don't think the dark side wins. This doom-and-gloom sounds like a commitment to losing.

135 comments:

Michael K said...

Bloomberg has guns and China as fatal issues in a general election,.

Guildofcannonballs said...

I'd love Lil Mike to take on Big Don.

Althouse and Judge Judy will vote for Lil Mike, but few others.

rehajm said...

With sixteen candidates losing is the dominant theme.

Yancey Ward said...

I think Iowa and New Hampshire clarify everything, and quickly. Each race will produce a first and second place, and if those top two are the same candidates in both, then everyone else's support in the polls and at the polls will collapse to under 5%. In the off chance that the there are, maximum, 4 different candidates in those top 4 slots (very unlikely), then Nevada and South Carolina will winnow the field down to two candidates anyway.

As of right now, after South Carolina, Joe Biden does look to be one of the two standing, and if I had to take a guess right now, the other one will be Bernie Sanders or Pete Buttuvwxyz. Bloomberg, in my opinion, has zero chance of winning a single primary anywhere- he won't even in in New York.

rehajm said...

...or is it? Seems like five or six should make it to the convention.

Greg the class traitor said...

The reason why Obama won the 2008 Dem Primary was because his team planned to keep on running after Super Tuesday, and Hillary's team assumed it was going to be all over after Super Tuesday

Obama picked up delegates in some caucuses immediately after Super Tuesday where Hillary's team just wasn't there, and that was the difference in their delegate totals.

Any Democrat candidate who sin't ready to keep on running after ST is too incompetent to be President

hombre said...

“I don't think the dark side wins. This doom-and-gloom sounds like a commitment to losing.”

It’s Democrats. Of course the dark side wins the primary.

Francisco D said...

Bloomberg is unique, with his billionaire money and his strategy of playing in the late states

Bloomberg is probably the best that the clown show Democrats can do.

However, I increasingly believe that they will nominate Bernie.

Wince said...

Bloomberg has already put more than 200 staffers on the ground in states that vote in March and April.

I must confess I still don't know what these political-types do day to day leading up to an election.

Bother people on the phone? Organize car pools to the polls on election day?

Greg the class traitor said...

Yancey Ward said...

I think Iowa and New Hampshire clarify everything, and quickly. Each race will produce a first and second place, and if those top two are the same candidates in both


It is remotely possible that the 1 : 2 in Iowa will go 2 : 1 in NH. It's not even remotely possible that the NH voters will pick the same #1 as Iowa. And w/ 16 candidates, it's highly unlikely #1 in Iowa will even be #2 in NH

It could be that South Carolina voters will "fall in line" behind the Iowa / NH picks. OTOH, I expect the identity politics loving "black leadership" in SC will fight hard to keep the "white voters of IA and NH" from deciding the race

I'd love for Bloomberg to be the Democrat candidate. But I dont' think it will happen

Lucid-Ideas said...

I don't think the message has sunk in yet. They think it's because Trump is a billionaire. It isn't money anymore. Trump could've had a net worth right up there with Hillary and he still would've blown her away.

Remind me, by how much did she outraise him? Outspend him? Out-'garner' the medias' fawning support and surety she'd win?

This isn't about money anymore. This is war.

Greg the class traitor said...

Wince said...
Bloomberg has already put more than 200 staffers on the ground in states that vote in March and April.

I must confess I still don't know what these political-types do day to day leading up to an election.


Here's what a competent team does:

1: Use whatever filters they have to try to find potential voters (the current buzzword is "microtargeting")
2: Contact those voters, try to find out which ones actually will support your candidate
3: Track early voting / day of election voting, and push their supporters to actually vote

The other thing they do is try to get people to give money and / or volunteer. because once someone's done that, they're far more likely to vote for you. So It doesn't matter how much they give, or if their volunteering is actually useful. Just the act of doing those things makes people more likely to vote, and vote for you

tcrosse said...

This isn't about money anymore. This is war.

If it were just about money, Tom Steyer would be higher in the polls (God help us).

Nonapod said...

I must confess I still don't know what these political-types do day to day leading up to an election.

I don't know either. But their seems to be this assumption that more personnel is better, more feet on the ground, more people to pester potential voters, more people to run analysis, more designers, messaging specialists, more interns and gofers for Starbucks and pizza... whatever.

There seems to be an endless supply of people who are willing to absorb all the money that wealthy donors and candidates throw at them. Modern campaigning is clearly a growth industry. And as long as there's idiots like Bloomberg and Steyer with piles of money to burn, I don't see that changing.

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

Group 1:
Biden and Hillary - the deep state crooks, who are supported by the deep state -- Brennan, Clapper, Comey, Schitt + et..al.

Group 2:
You've got the rest of the socialists, all trying to out-socialist each other.

Group 3:
Billionaires club: Bloomberg & Steyererer. Which is funny. Because the 2nd group rails against the Billionaires as if the Billionaires are unwelcome Nazis.
Steyererer is running a non-stop big money advertising campaign on the TeeVee. I wonder if people tune him out? What a waste of money. Steyererer could be helping the secret slave class in China.

mccullough said...

Steyer and Bloomberg both have money to waste. Political consultants gotta eat.

gilbar said...

The Iowa field is bunched together with little daylight between a handful of well-funded candidates

been a Long Time since i was an Iowa Democrat; but don't caucus delegates still have to be viable?
It seems to me, that if you have less than 15% of your caucus picking your candidate, then you CANNOT stand for your candidate, and HAVE to stand for someone else (this happened to me, when i tried to stand for Jesse Jackson* in the eighties )

So, ASSUMING IT STILL WORKS LIKE THIS. All those candidates that can't get 15% of their caucus, DISAPPEAR from that caucus's reporting to the level of caucus
So, it's HARD to have a 'bunch' of more than 4... Maybe that's a bunch to you?


i tried to stand for Jesse Jackson* Did i do this, because a cute girl wanted me to?
To ask the question, is to see the answer

narciso said...

It was the message not the money, now the dems have the same message and it just drives a wedge among those they need.

Yancey Ward said...

Greg,

Right now, Iowa and New Hampshire polling has the same three candidates in the Top 3, but in different orders. It is probable that 1st/2nd Iowa and 1st/2nd New Hampshire consists entirely of those three candidates, with most of the rest of the probability distribution that it is the same two candidates (regardless of order). The two states that follow have Warren in the mix, but if she fails to finish top two in both Iowa and New Hampshire, her support will drop to under 5% everywhere. I think is all but certain that it is a two candidate race after South Carolina, and it won't matter whether the other candidates officially drop out or not since they won't poll over 5%- few people are going to waste a vote on a sure loser candidate that can't finish at least 2nd.

MBunge said...

Tom Steyer has spent a bucketload of money to go nowhere in the primaries. Bloomberg starts with a much higher political profile but faces the same problem. There are already three or four established candidates and maybe a surprise in Iowa or New Hampshire adds fuel to another campaign. How does Bloomberg overcome that group of candidates who will already have the support of maybe 70 perecent of Democratic voters?

The only way is if he pulls a Romney and carpet bombs the other options with negative ads, like Romney in the 2012 GOP primaries. But at least Romney ran a full campaign. He didn’t just swoop in and try to steal it. Biden and Buttigieg voters might not hold a grudge but Bernie, Warren, and Yang voters sure will.

Mike

chuck said...

Interesting experiment. People who depended on infrastructure rather than personal appeal would include Romney, Hillary, and Cruz. We will see if Bloomberg can do better.

rehajm said...

The other thing they do is try to get people to give money and / or volunteer. because once someone's done that, they're far more likely to vote for you.

That's the way I see it. Your paid people on th eground garner key local players, like the editor of the paper or the local party laeaders what garner volunteers what garner more volunteers and so on until enough are committed to vote for your horse.

CJinPA said...

I think Bloomberg and Biden occupy the same territory - older, mainstream - with the rest vying for the younger, hyper-partisan voters.

Making Bloomer Biden's main opponent. Prepare for some old timey fisticuffs.

tim maguire said...

On the Republican side, we've seen "late state" strategies and they haven't worked yet (Giuliani being the best example). Given the media's obsession with electibility and horse-race coverage, I doubt it will work on the Democratic side either.

MountainMan said...

"Bloomberg has guns and China as fatal issues in a general election." Quite correct, Dr. K.

I live right on the TN border with VA and have lots of friends and former co-workers who live over there. The Democrats who just took over the state government are following Bloomberg's gun control agenda to the letter. If the legislature really intends to pursue all their proposals - the latest being that private gun ranges are banned and all gun ranges can only be run by the state (as if there will be any) - then it is quite possible they will push VA into the Trump column in 2020. Though they probably will have little legal effect, 90% of VA county commissions have already passed 2A sanctuary resolutions. Rural voters will come out in record numbers to vote. I am afraid things over the border are about to get really ugly. That will not help any D, but especially will not help Bloomberg.

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

Kruiser:

"I’m starting to get a nervous feeling in the pit of my stomach about Sanders. After the last election we know that anything can happen. My New Year’s fear is that Joe Biden will finally implode on the campaign trail and show up on stage at a rally wearing nothing but a cowboy hat and carrying a chicken. That’ll probably be too much for even the Democrats and they’ll start looking to the next in line, which has been Sanders since the beginning of the year.”

rehajm said...

I think is all but certain that it is a two candidate race after South Carolina, and it won't matter whether the other candidates officially drop out or not since they won't poll over 5%- few people are going to waste a vote on a sure loser candidate that can't finish at least 2nd

That's the classic scenario but I'd take the other side of that bet. There are four or five candidates with a firm base that's not concerned about wasting a vote on a loser. Bernie backers will be chanting from my cold dead hands this time around.

Yancey Ward said...

Iowa, being a caucus state, probably favors Sanders and Buttuvwxyz- more energetic supporters, and trending younger (think 2008 Democratic race). New Hampshire, though, will often tilt the opposite of the Iowa results (again, think 2008 Democratic race). So, it could work out like this:

Iowa- (1)Buttuvwxyz 30%, (2)Sanders 25%, (3)Biden 20%, (4)Warren, 15%, (5)Rest of Field 10%.
New Hampshire- (1)Sanders 32%, (2)Biden 27%, (3)Buttuvwxyz 23%, (4)Warren 10% (5)R o F 8%.

After that....

Nevada- (1)Sanders 35%, (2)Biden 30%, (3)Buttuvwxyz 25%, (4)Warren 5%, (5)R o F 5%.
South Carolina- (1)Biden 40%, (2)Sanders 35%, (3)Buttuvwxyz 15% (4)Rest of field 10%

And after that, it is just Biden and Sanders with the two billionaires splitting anywhere from 5 to 15% of the vote with whatever candidates don't drop out officially.

Yancey Ward said...

The thing is that voters want to vote for a winner- it is pure human nature, and if a candidate has a record of finishing outside the top two, that candidate won't get people to vote for them afterwards.

Lucid-Ideas said...

If there's anyone who can play well in Peoria, it's Mike Bloomberg!

Yancey Ward said...

People also have to remember- to get any delegates in a primary, you have to get more than 15% of the vote. Even a viable three way race is likely to regularly produce a third place candidate under that number, and it is all but certain that after SC, that third place candidate is going to be the same one over and over (think John Kasich in 2016).

Greg the class traitor said...

gilbar said...
The Iowa field is bunched together with little daylight between a handful of well-funded candidates

been a Long Time since i was an Iowa Democrat; but don't caucus delegates still have to be viable?
It seems to me, that if you have less than 15% of your caucus picking your candidate, then you CANNOT stand for your candidate, and HAVE to stand for someone else (this happened to me, when i tried to stand for Jesse Jackson* in the eighties )

So, ASSUMING IT STILL WORKS LIKE THIS. All those candidates that can't get 15% of their caucus, DISAPPEAR from that caucus's reporting to the level of caucus
So, it's HARD to have a 'bunch' of more than 4... Maybe that's a bunch to you?



1: 4 actually competitive candidates would be "a bunch"
2: The 15% rule was for 15% at a particular caucus. So someone who's > 15% in college towns, and no place else, will still get the college town votes

So with some geographic concentration of voters, you could easily get > 6 candidates out of Iowa

h said...

Thank you Yancey Ward. So many (almost all?) pundits are commenting on the 2020 race for nomination using the template developed for nominating process in past years which had winner take all and super delegates. In those years one or two leading candidates would emerge from early races (to be challenged by Bloomberg as the article believes). But I expect Biden, Bernie, Mayor Pete, and Warren to stay in until the convention. This makes it much harder for Bloomberg to step in as a white knight. And (in my opinion) Bloomberg has very little in the way of support among super delegates. When he was mayor, didn't he run as a Republican?

Michael K said...

The reason why Obama won the 2008 Dem Primary was because his team planned to keep on running after Super Tuesday, and Hillary's team assumed it was going to be all over after Super Tuesday

Yes and more evidence of Hillary's tendency to always be overconfident. She ran out of money. She didn't in 2016,

I think a brokered convention is still a good possibility.

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

Bernie Says His Dumbest Thing Yet

Skeptical Voter said...

Still looking for the light in the end of the tunnel, aren't they? And there's a sense that the reason that they can't see the light is that the voting public has completely blocked that end of the tunnel. There are parallels to Abu al Baghdadi running into a closed end tunnel. It will not end well.

Eleanor said...

The media wants a horse race and a brokered convention because it brings them more attention, but it doesn't mean it's going to happen.

Yancey Ward said...

Even if you reach the convention with no candidate having a majority on the first ballot, it is all but certain that the nominee will be the candidate in first place after the first ballot. To screw over that candidate and his voters at the convention will just not be politically feasible. You really think that candidate would supinely accept that?

h said...

Thank you Yancey Ward. So many (almost all?) pundits are commenting on the 2020 race for nomination using the template developed for nominating process in past years which had winner take all and super delegates. In those years one or two leading candidates would emerge from early races (to be challenged by Bloomberg as the article believes). But I expect Biden, Bernie, Mayor Pete, and Warren to stay in until the convention. This makes it much harder for Bloomberg to step in as a white knight. And (in my opinion) Bloomberg has very little in the way of support among super delegates. When he was mayor, didn't he run as a Republican?

Yancey Ward said...

Think about it- you spend a year and half of your dimishing years remaining running for president, getting first place in the delegate count, and you get jobbed at the end of it all. What would you think and say about such an event?

traditionalguy said...

Bernie has heart disease. Biden has Alzheimers. Buttigeig has a husband. And Warren is a pathological liar.

And Trump laughs.

Lucid-Ideas said...

Many moons ago I said to "screencap this: the nominee will not be Biden"

I haven't diverted from this position. Joe will not be the nominee. Watch. That will be the first big surprise of the primaries because hurr-durr his poll numbers! Polls. Don't. Matter. Anymore. As if any of these voters that matter on either side will talk to your stupid-fake-poli-sci-statisticians. Just like money will matter less and less. The electorate has changed, hardened, and polarized completely. Half the country has gone nuts with TDS, the two halves won't talk to each other (or talk over each other), and the other side is arming.

As seen on ACE, the ever present fear that Joe will show up on stage "in nothing but a cowboy hat holding a chicken" remains ever-present in everyone's mind, along with the question of whether or not the chicken "consented".

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

The most exciting D-candidates will be jettisoned because they might reach across to Trump's deplorable voters.

For the religious progressive, this is not acceptable.

Bruce Hayden said...

“The thing is that voters want to vote for a winner- it is pure human nature, and if a candidate has a record of finishing outside the top two, that candidate won't get people to vote for them afterwards.”

I would suggest that that may be more the money than anything. Yes, people want to be on the winner’s train. But the people who really want to be there are the big donors esp with Democrats, because they are buying influence with their contributions, and money spent supporting losing candidates is money down the drain. The best use of money if you are trying to buy influence, an ambassadorship, etc, is big early money for the winning candidate for a nomination. After the nomination is locked down, it takes a lot more money to get noticed.

Ficta said...

If this was normal American presidential politics I would say: with a strong economy the incumbent wins. So, let's assume it's a normal election (hey, maybe, despite goddamn Twitter, it actually is). In certain-loser years, you don't spend your good, charismatic candidate on a lost cause. You either:
A) run someone whose turn it is, but who's kind of unexciting
or
B) you run someone hardcore and let your base get it out of their system.
So, Biden or Bernie it is!

(At the end of 8 years, you also field a designated loser (Hello, Hillary!); Not sure why the Dems thought they deserved a win last time. Obama was not Reagan. I guess they didn't realize that.)

Bill Peschel said...

"Bloomberg has already put more than 200 staffers on the ground in states that vote in March and April."

And yet he couldn't file the paperwork in time for the Nevada caucus. How incompetent is that?

rehajm said...

You really think that candidate would supinely accept that?

Yup. The same way the Bernie supporters did last time. Not like they're voting for Trump...

Sebastian said...

So, Althouse, is Bloomberg sufficiently "serious" for you? Or after the coup attempt and the Dem depredations have you sworn off voting for any Dems?

Gahrie said...

Biden wins, dies a week after the convention, Hillary steps forward to "save the party and the nation".

rehajm said...

Kasich stuck around a long time. Theres' at least three of him in the Democratic primaries. After they mix it up in a few states sticking it out until the first vote at the convention becomes a viable strategy to you and your base voters...

rehajm said...

Biden wins, dies a week after the convention

He and a couple others just need to stick around until after the first vote when the back room deals can start...

Yancey Ward said...

"Biden wins, dies a week after the convention, Hillary steps forward to "save the party and the nation".

Now, this is a viable theory up to a point- that point being who is selected as Biden's running mate? How easy is it to change a candidate at the top of the ticked after the conventions? What are the ballot rules state by state? Is this a Jean Carnahan scenario, or something else?

tcrosse said...

According to Donna Brazile, the DNC was a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Clinton Crime Family in 2016. Is it still?

Yancey Ward said...

Kasich stuck it out to the end, and got under 15% of the total vote (and most of that in Super Tuesday II primaries that included Ohio). That was my point- he kept in with the theory that he could stop Trump on the first ballot- it didn't work, and it wouldn't have worked even if the Republicans didn't have winner take all in many of the primaries/caucuses and, instead, had the same rules the Democrats do this cycle. I don't expect the Democrats to find a magical path to a brokered convention this time, either. That 15% bar for getting delegates will be hard to reach for any third place finisher after February.

Bay Area Guy said...

AA: "I don't think the dark side wins. This doom-and-gloom sounds like a commitment to losing."

I'm not sure about a commitment to losing, but the Dem front-runner candidates are a buncha losers.

Bruce Hayden said...

I do hope that everyone here is right about Nanny Bloomberg. I see his commercials and those of Steyer, here in AZ. Steyer’s ads are imminently forgettable. Bloomberg’s are Jobs, Jobs Jobs. And he doesn’t have the baggage of having promised to squander tens of trillions of dollars on silly progressive causes like CAGW, slavery reparations, free college, socialized medicine, etc. Whoever gets the Dem nomination is go into have to run against Trump’s success at creating jobs, esp minority constituencies where Trump has been successful. This is a good part of why this may be a blowout election for Trump, because he was able to peel off enough of these traditional Dem constituencies by reminding them that they now have jobs that they didn’t have before and are likely to lose if the Dems win. And I think that Bloomberg is the one Dem candidate who can almost credibly claim that he can make things better for these minorities (I don’t think that he can but the clams from the others are ludicrous on their face). Bloomberg’s ads are slick and very well produced. He is the one candidate whom I think would be most formidable against Trump, and the closer he gets to the Dem nomination, the more guns and ammo I buy.

DarkHelmet said...

"Biden wins, dies a week after the convention, Hillary steps forward to "save the party and the nation".

"Now, this is a viable theory up to a point- that point being who is selected as Biden's running mate? How easy is it to change a candidate at the top of the ticked after the conventions? What are the ballot rules state by state? Is this a Jean Carnahan scenario, or something else?"

It doesn't matter what the rules are now. The Dems will do whatever they think will get them a win. See Robert Torricelli.

Yancey Ward said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
bleh said...

Bloomberg was an effective mayor. People focus a lot on his nannystatism, which turned me off greatly, but the cops were supported and the streets were clean. City government is mostly about delivering services and keeping the peace, and on those fronts he was good.

I could almost support him if not for his recent pandering to the left. When he renounced stop-and-frisk after many years of avid support for the policy, he lost me. Not that I'm a huge advocate for the policy. The issue for me is that Bloomberg thought he could turn on a dime and get "woke" on the issue -- I find that offensive. Those, like Bloomberg, who were responsible for stop-and-frisk always understood there were serious civil rights objections to the policy; but they justified the policy because of the effect on public safety. Bloomberg acts like this is all news to him and he wouldn't have supported the policy IF ONLY HE KNEW HOW IT AFFECTED BLACK AND BROWN PEOPLE. Please.

Michael K said...

City government is mostly about delivering services and keeping the peace, and on those fronts he was good.

I seem to remember chaos with superstorm Sandy and snow emergencies while he was off saving the earth. He started well.

Paul Zrimsek said...

A rare example of primary horse-race punditry which doesn't include the usually-obligatory prediction of a brokered convention. Perhaps it's too soon for that.

Curious George said...

"Gahrie said...
Biden wins, dies a week after the convention, Hillary steps forward to "save the party and the nation"."

More like Biden wins, is murdered by Hillary a week after the convention, Hillary steps forward to "save the party and the nation"."

Todd said...

tcrosse said...
This isn't about money anymore. This is war.

If it were just about money, Tom Steyer would be higher in the polls (God help us).

1/7/20, 9:39 AM


When I hear one of his ads, he comes across as the exact opposite of a successful business man. He sounds like a far left loon that couldn't get a coffee from a vending machine on the second try...

Bill, Republic of Texas said...

Asked to describe the candidates’ chances of defeating the Republican president, pluralities of Democrats said Sanders, Biden, Warren and Buttigieg can “maybe” win the general election, according to the poll. Fewer than 40 percent of Democrats say any of those candidates “probably would win.”

From the unblogged Politico article. I thought that was extremely interesting. Over 60% of Democrats don't think their candidate can win this year.

DanTheMan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
DanTheMan said...

>>At the end of 8 years, you also field a designated loser (Hello, Hillary!)

This is completely wrong. Hillary was a "sure thing" winner, right up to election day. All the polls had her winning big.

I agree with Bruce. Bloomberg is probably the D's best shot in the general election, but can he get the nomination?

Just for the record, I think Comey accidentally ruined the D's chances. If he had indicted Hillary, Joe Biden steps in and tries to out Trump Trump. He might have been able to pull it off, keeping enough old school D's onboard.

In 2020, I don't think he's got enough mental acuity to pull it off.

Bruce Hayden said...

“More like Biden wins, is murdered by Hillary a week after the convention, Hillary steps forward to "save the party and the nation"."

That would put the Secret Service in a quandary - do they protect the guy who skinny dips in front of female agents or the one they had to protect POTUS from her rages? I could see them getting a little careless if Biden won the nomination. But not if they were facing Crooked Hillary as his replacement. Very likely their two least favorite principals to protect over the last couple decades, with her, very likely, beating out Biden for the bottom slot.

tim maguire said...

Michael K said...
"City government is mostly about delivering services and keeping the peace, and on those fronts he was good."

I seem to remember chaos with superstorm Sandy and snow emergencies while he was off saving the earth. He started well.


Bloomberg did a decent job of not squandering Giuliani's achievements. He had little else to recommend him. But no matter how much he spends, Bloomberg has no national appeal. He is not electable.

Yancey Ward said...

The biggest thing about 2008 that I remember is that Clinton didn't get to claim victories in Michigan and Florida, two states that jumped the line on the primaries. Had those two states waited for their normal primary time (Super Tuesday and later), it is perhaps possible that Clinton would have been the nominee. Not certain on this- by going early, the might well have favored Clinton because, at the time (late January 2008), the voters might have favored Clinton because it was thought she would be the nominee at that time. In any case, Obama ran strong through the old South, and was strong in all caucus states. That is how he won.

Clyde said...

It would take a heart of stone not to laugh at the people quoted in that article. Mine is not, so I laughed heartily. Looking forward to their further discomfiture on Election Day!

hstad said...

This is an interesting article? Yet, in the comments all I read is that Democrats are fighting over the same [radical] electorate - not convincing any Trump voters to move over to their side. Yet, Trump's strategy of going after minorities [since his 'Deplorables' are solidly behind him] - specifically Blacks and Hispanics is already paying dividends according to the polls. Which makes the likelihood that any Democrat running, will have an impossible hill to climb. Why? If Trump wins substantially more Blacks and Hispanics in 2020 vs. 2016 -close states that he lost like - Minnesota, Main, Colorado, Nevada, New Hampshire and Virginia are in play. Moreover, the states Trump won, which where tight for him, win widen his win ratio. Since his voter catches will be higher due to his minority outreach strategy. That's what I see, while the Democrats are pushing a disaster scenario, because they've allowed the most 'radical' part of their party to dominate the news cycles. Even with the help of the MSM, you can't put enough lipstick on that pig to change the outcome.

AllenS said...

If, and I mean a big if, Bloomberg gets the Dem nomination, I cannot see Bernies' fan club showing up at all for the Presidential election.

Bruce Hayden said...

“It doesn't matter what the rules are now. The Dems will do whatever they think will get them a win. See Robert Torricelli.”

Not sure if that is true. Crooked Hillary is not the one most likely to beat Trump, and yet has a decent chance in a brokered convention. Of course, she wasn’t their best chance last time either - even Biden would probably have bee a better candidate against Trump. The Clintons just knew where all the bodies were buried, and they were able to bribe the rest with promises of wealth and power. She would do worse this time for numerous reasons, including her health, SpyGate/Steele Dossier, the hundreds of millions the Clintons have made since leaving office, her daughter’s $9 million board of directors gig, etc.

BTW - this is fun: Donald Trump Jr. Trolls Hillary With AR-15 Photo and ‘Lock Her Up’ Magazine on Instagram. Definitely want one of those ‘Lock Her Up’ magazines. Not as impressed though otherwise with is tricked out AR-15.

Ficta said...

>>At the end of 8 years, you also field a designated loser (Hello, Hillary!)

>This is completely wrong. Hillary was a "sure thing" winner, right up to election day. All the polls had her winning big.

I'm not saying the Party destined to lose intentionally does these things, but, almost always, they happen. It's the natural shape of things. Hillary had hung around long enough she was "owed" the nomination. She had the personality of a crowbar. Classic designated loser. And she lost.

Gahrie said...

Gahrie said...
Biden wins, dies a week after the convention, Hillary steps forward to "save the party and the nation"."


More like Biden wins, is murdered by Hillary a week after the convention, Hillary steps forward to "save the party and the nation"."


Well, I would point out that I never gave a cause for Biden's death. However the idea that a fine upstanding woman who has sacrificed in so many ways for the good of our country would commit such a crime is simply unthinkable.

By the way how are things going for you? You're not feeling ill or depressed are you? Just asking for the record.

Roger Sweeny said...

Media officials talk with campaign "officials" who are often employees of the campaign industry. It is in their interest to talk up the importance of spending money (on them!).

rehajm said...

“That 15% bar for getting delegates will be hard to reach for any third place finisher after February.“

I think that’s the flaw. As in the current pols Liz Biden Bernie and ‘the field’ as candidate four could last long into summer.

Achilles said...

The Democrats are stuck. The Bernie bro’s are committed to Bernie and he is the top fundraiser.

If he doesn’t get the nomination the bro’s will walk. And if Bernie dies they will blame Hillary.

They have as much trust in the dnc as Trump supporters had in the GOPe.

Hillary and Biden are losers. They have lost before and everyone knows they will lose again.

If the left is going to go into the election to win they only have one personal that can do it. But they know she cannot withstand extended scrutiny and she doesn’t have the charisma to live up to the media representation of her. She isn’t even as attractive as Kampala Harris and has the same deficiencies.

This just means that she would be inserted as late as possible.

Watch for stories about how popular Michelle is to start popping up. If that starts happening get over to the betting sites.

WK said...

Ran across CNN contributor John Kasich on Jimmy Kimmel’s show over the holidays. At one point Kimmel commented “I don’t feel like you are a Republican at all.” Maybe John will decide to jump into the democratic primary last minute......

Left Bank of the Charles said...

California used to be last or nearly last, and that made it the designated tiebreaker. But now it's moved itself up to Super Tuesday on March 3. So if the Democratic nomination goes the distance as it has in the past two contested cycles, it will come down to this:

June 2: District of Columbia, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, and South Dakota primaries
June 6: United States Virgin Islands caucuses

So it may come down to who can win New Jersey.

cubanbob said...

@Tim Maguire:

"Bloomberg did a decent job of not squandering Giuliani's achievements. He had little else to recommend him. But no matter how much he spends, Bloomberg has no national appeal. He is not electable."

The only chance Bloomberg has is that he out trumps Trump on growing the economy, immigration while not having Trump's personal style. While never say never, I just don't see it happening. A subway series of two NYC billionaires with the Democrat running as Trump without the baggage isn't going to fly.

Mark said...

strategy of playing in the late states

Letting competitors beat each other up, while voters get tired of them as well, and then jumping in as a fresh alternative works, but it works best when it is seen as the people demanding that you come in to save the day, and doesn't work so well when it is (rightly) seen as some super-rich guy trying to buy his way in.

narciso said...

yes, but he's forsworn the policies that made new York safer,

when has the California primary made a real difference,

narciso said...

in recent times, its a rolling dumpster fire,

Lincolntf said...

The Siders piece is hilarious. What a bunch of hand wringing ninnies the Dems are.

Ingachuck'stoothlessARM said...

vid: SloJo and the Blackface Cool ?? Blackface! And Biden!!

(sounds like a Rickie Lee Jones number, eh?)

https://twitter.com/michaelbeatty3/status/1214427316866011136?s=21

DanTheMan said...

If Michelle Obama runs then we are officially a Banana Republic. Which means that shortly thereafter there would be a banana shortage.

tim maguire said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
narciso said...

now warren Wilhelm said 'hold my beer'


https://deadline.com/2020/01/the-masked-singer-doctor-who-ratings-1202822167/

tcrosse said...

If Michelle Obama runs then we are officially a Banana Republic.

Most voters are too young to remember Lurleen Wallace's time as governor of Alabama, with husband George as First Gentleman of the state.

narciso said...

sorry this one,

https://nypost.com/2020/01/06/cuomo-de-blasio-see-the-light-on-the-lunatic-new-bail-law/

walter said...

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...Bernie Says His Dumbest Thing Yet
--
This week?


Blogger Gahrie said... Biden wins, dies a week after the convention
--
Look fat. Wanna do push-ups?

walter said...

"Well it’s a no brainer," Bloomberg said. "You give pathway to citizenship to 11 million people."
He also advocates against deportation, and cites his former jurisdiction of New York City as an example of immigrants feeling safe and "comfortable, regardless of their immigration status, to come and get city services."
Link

Sebastian said...

"Well it’s a no brainer," Bloomberg said. "You give pathway to citizenship to 11 million people."

Hey, Althouse, is that "serious" and "boring" enough for you?

Or does the substance of policy actually matter?

dbp said...

Nurse Bloomberg seems pretty moderate, next to the rest of the field, not to mention sane and in possession of his mental facilities. That and an unlimited amount of spending power makes him formidable.

tcrosse said...

Now is the winter of our discontent. Made glorious summer by Michelle Obama; And all the clouds that lour'd upon our house in the deep bosom of the ocean buried.

Bay Area Guy said...

"Watch for stories about how popular Michelle is to start popping up. If that starts happening get over to the betting sites."

Our friend, Drago predicted Michelle as the nominee months ago. He said brokered convention, chaos, outsider Michelle to the rescue. If he gets this right, we will bow to his political acumen.

My thought (which wasn't a good firm prediction) was that if the Dems were serious about winning they needed to do 2 things:

1. Fully embrace Biden
2. Reject the impeachment

As we can see, the Dems are greatly conflicted about both. And, that is why they are losing in 2020.

Ficta said...

Michelle? Really? Am I dwelling in a bubble (not a rhetorical question, I'm honestly asking)? Do people actually like Michelle? I mean, besides people who would vote for a potted plant if it had a D after its name. She seems like Hillary with a slightly different set of baggage. Annoying scold. Less wonky. More (way more) anti-American skeletons in her closet: Hillary hated Les Deplorables; Michelle is on record deploring the whole damned country up until her husband won the nomination. But maybe her "Beloved First Lady" makeover worked. I'm definitely not the target for that particular candidacy.

Drago said...

BAG: "Our friend, Drago predicted Michelle as the nominee months ago. He said brokered convention, chaos, outsider Michelle to the rescue. If he gets this right, we will bow to his political acumen."

Without a runaway front runner, delegate allocation and convention rules changes almost guarantee a brokered convention for the dems.

And my thinking was back then (and now) was the following:

1) Once the rules changes were put in place, I asked myself "Self, what are the rules changes put in place by the dems and who would those rules advantage and disadvantage?" (disadvantages EVERYONE in a crowded field, so maybe "avoid" the field?....)

2) Then, who would have the "internal party power" to ensure those rules changes would be accepted?

3) What would that democrat "internal party power" need to have occur during the primaries to ensure that a last minute entry would be acceptable? (ans: a divided party with no one person garnering anywhere near a sufficient level of support to be viable on the first convention ballot)

4) Which "personality" would be acceptable across the democrat spectrum as a "drop in candidate" at the last minute and be above criticism and reproach and be seen as a savior? (Not Hillary.....)

5) What would that democrat "internal party power" be doing to ensure the drop in candidate, while not in the race and above the fray, stays in the public eye CONSTANTLY? Well, be on every magazine cover, be given awards left and right, be invited to all the televised lefty award shows, write books (with more awards coming), constantly on tour to promote the book and everything else....

6) Would this person be able to potentially reconstitute the obama coalition for victory? (only 1 potential candidate is even remotely possible for that)

And lastly, wouldn't this democrat "internal party power" need to have an operations base in DC, particularly if they were coordinating daily with their minions to try and undermine the Trump admin, particularly if undermining the current Admin is essential to avoid exposure of just what the previous administration was up to in terms of massive spying on all Americans and in particular domestic political opponents...cuz if what you had done ever got out......

Gee, you might even have key staff members in living in residence with you in that location....

So, anyway, it's not that difficult to surmise requirements and sub-objectives, assuming you get the primary objectives nailed.

DanTheMan said...

It’s not Michelle. It’s a way for El Jefe Obama to be president again. It’s the sort of crap they do in Bolivia.

DanTheMan said...

Wait... let me be fair. It’s the sort of crap they do in Bolivia and other shithole countries.

Drago said...

DanTheMan: "It’s not Michelle. It’s a way for El Jefe Obama to be president again. It’s the sort of crap they do in Bolivia."

That's a bridge too far, particularly since so much of obama's legacy has been blown out of the water and too much has been exposed about obama's activities. Not to mention the economic performance that Trump has delivered.

No, it can be an obama....but it has to be an obama who could never, ever, be criticized for any reason......

DanTheMan said...

A modest proposal to my lefty friends. Propose amending the Constitution to allow Greta Thunberg to run for president...

Drago said...

DanTheMan: "A modest proposal to my lefty friends."

Careful Dan.

Compared to what the dems/lefties have been saying, that would be one of the more "modest" proposals they might offer!

Bay Area Guy said...

@Drago,

I agree on the Dem brokered convention -- on much more pedestrian grounds. Too many candidates splintering the vote, while Bernie retains his loyal, hard-core 25%.

As for a savior coming off the sidelines to rescue the Dem nomination, this is where we differ. I know Hillary would like to, but she carries to much felonious baggage. As for Michelle, wow, that would be epic. That does mean Obama is calling the shots and wants back in.

My gut, though, is that at a brokered convention, Biden or Warren gets the nod. Even if they are both politically damaged. They have each institutional inertia, particularly Biden. If I had to predict, I still think Biden gets the nomination.

DanTheMan said...

Drago. If Michelle runs everybody will assume it’s really Barack who will be the de facto president.

NYC JournoList said...

I’m putting my money on Mondale. He’s tanned, rested and ready and has a track record better than slow Joe’s!

Yancey Ward said...

"I think that’s the flaw. As in the current pols Liz Biden Bernie and ‘the field’ as candidate four could last long into summer."

It won't stay that way, though- it never does. These popularity contests always narrow down to two leading candidates- there just isn't room in people's voting behaviors for more than that- almost no one, even a die hard supporter, will keep going to the polls to check a box for #3. That 15% is a huge hurdle to get over for #3, especially after South Carolina. The Republican primaries in 2016 weren't all winner take all- a lot of them were proportionally allocated, especially early on, and yet the race still ended up two way after South Carolina. This is just the way people behave in US political races- 3rd place counts for jack shit, and rarely tops 5% in any kind of contest for very long. The stink of only showing, or worse, erodes one's base rapidly.

Howard said...

It would be a dire popcorn shortage if Mooshell O'Bambi became the Democrat nominee. Therefore it's not likely to happen if you believe in the power of big popcorn

Rabel said...

"this is how Bloomberg can win."

He's hiring and paying ordinary field organizers $6,000 a month with full fringe benefits (dental!) across the country.

That's twice what the other candidates are paying.

He's buying support at the "grassroots" level with an unprecedented amount of money paid out to thousands of "supporters."

This, buying the votes, is how Bloomberg will win - if he does.

Yancey Ward said...

Had the Democrats retained a pure proportional allocation of delegates, maybe a brokered convention is a real possibility- even if you candidate can only get 5%, then you might have a reason to vote for them, but that candidate needs to get to 15% and isn't in the top 2, then I don't think they show up unless that candidate really is polling well above 15%.

After New Hampshire, you will start getting more recent polling data for the Super Tuesday contests, and will be able to compare them to the data that we now have. I would be stunned if those new polls don't show basically a two person race, with third place polling around 10-15%, and it could be worse if people like Warren/Buttuvwxyz, Yang, Bloomberg, Gabbard continue as deep also rans. People just don't abandon one also ran candidate to support another also ran candidate- they will start choosing one of the top two candidates starting after New Hampshire.

tcrosse said...

Remember, this is not to select the best and most effective chief executive. This is a casting exercise to select the person best able to play President on TV, a role for which Trump is miscast.

FullMoon said...

I hope t is Michelle. Trump would beat her worse than Hillary. Let's all compare Obama's war record, employment numbers, welfare numbers, unemployment numbers to Trumps. Obama bombing a group of people to get one guy vs Trump precision taking out the leaders.

Throw in troop withdrawls close to election, more accusations of racism, which everyone is sick of hearing, more anti-white and anti boomer( which these days means anyone over forty),low wage young people not being forced to pay for Obamacare if they don't want to.

Obama's millions and new mansion by the sea. Racial division encouraged by Obama.

People vote for change, or fear of change. Average low information voter not going to want to go back to the way it was.




Rabel said...

You can sign up here.

Beasts of England said...

’Do people actually like Michelle?’

They don’t have to like her; just vote for her. Historic first...

Drago said...

DanTheMan: "Drago. If Michelle runs everybody will assume it’s really Barack who will be the de facto president."

tsk tsk tsk

How DARE you question Michelle's ability in her own right?!

Don't you know the moment she declares she will become the Most Beautiful, The Most Magnificent, The Most Brilliant and Most Qualified Person For The Presidency Who Ever Existed?!!

Why, even daring to question her on policy and previous statements will be a great racist and misogynistic crime against humanity.

You thought LLR-lefty Chuck was out of control in his adoration of Barack? (it was of course)

Just wait until it's Michelle. My God, LLR-lefty Chuck will run out superlatives in the first paragraph he authors concerning how other-worldly dreamy and perfect she is.

Iman said...

There was a time he was a young man
Without the wisdom of an old man
He wants his cake and to eat it too
He knows it’s one thing that he can chew
Dutiful loser, where you gonna fall?
You realize your campaign’s in a stall

In the shed, he’s not the sharpest tool
Put on the spot, he’s a stuttering fool
He's always nuzzling a little girl
A dirty swine, don’t be wasting yer pearls
Dutiful loser, grab your rusty blade
And realize, you’re heading for a fall
You can't have it all, you can't have it all
Oh, oh, can't have it all

Gk1 said...

All of this brokered convention talk is so exotic. Its not going to happen and only helps the media sell ads. At the end of the day the power brokers will have bought their candidate ahead of time. What is worth more speculation on is who would the two front runners, Biden and Sanders pick as their VP as their health is truly suspect. Biden is showing the early signs of dementia and Bernie has already had one heart attack (that we know of) on the campaign trail. I am more concerned about who their VP's are.

hawkeyedjb said...

"Don't you know the moment [Michelle] declares she will become the Most Beautiful, The Most Magnificent, The Most Brilliant and Most Qualified Person For The Presidency Who Ever Existed?!!"

I agree. I was just saying this recently to a friend, who replied "But what exactly has she accomplished?"

So we will have to overcome all that racism.

rehajm said...

These popularity contests always narrow down to two leading candidates- there just isn't room in people's voting behaviors for more than that

Two points: After New Hampshire there’s a good chance we don’t know who is number one, who is number two and who is number three anf if Bernie is three his supporters aren't jumping for liz or bernie- he’ll stick around. Two: In the early races the field might get over thirty percent. If/when the also-rans drop out it incentivizes the others to try and pick up their supporters.

Yancey Ward said...

Rehajm,

Just on today's polls, one can narrow the field down to three candidates after New Hampshire- Biden, Sanders, Buttuvwxyz/Warren. It is close to 40% probable that the top two in Iowa and New Hampshire will be the same two candidates, though possibly in different orders. If the same candidate wins both, then that candidate will be one of final two, with likely South Carolina picking the other one based on best finish.

You don't go out and pick up the supporters of the also rans- they choose all on their own, and they will go from a loser to a potential winner, not go to another loser.

Yancey Ward said...

I don't know who the two candidates will be, but Biden does look to be one of them. The battle is going to be who is 2nd. Right now, Sanders and Buttuvwxyz look stronger than Warren, but I suspect most of Buttuvwxyz's support is illusionary, and he would win about 5% tops in SC. It may well come down to who finishes 2nd to Biden in SC- that will give you a clue about how the candidates will perform in a state that isn't 90% white.

Ingachuck'stoothlessARM said...

a Mooshelle admin, with more of this?

Intel Shows Soleimani Was a CIA Asset, Protected by Obama Administration

with Soleimani’s days truly numbered, and Israel’s finger on the trigger, President Obama notified Iran of the imminent assassination. Soleimani slipped the noose and continued his reign of terror for five more years"

https://www.dcclothesline.com/2020/01/07/intel-shows-soleimani-was-a-cia-asset-protected-by-obama-administration/

Ingachuck'stoothlessARM said...

will Dems do also?

Trump campaign buys 60 sec commercial during Super Bowel

Yancey Ward said...

Trump campaign buys 60 sec commercial during Super Bowel

The Democrats will demand free equal time.

Ingachuck'stoothlessARM said...

in this vid, Joe Biden claimed the Iran Deal "cutoff every one of Iran's pathways to a nuclear weapon."

https://twitter.com/i/status/1214615241910358016

BUT...Obama admitted that under the Iran Deal Iran could get a nuclear weapon by 2028.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/obama-admits-iran-nuclear-deal-only-delays-inevitable-leaves-problem-for-future-presidents


Rabel said...

"Intel Shows Soleimani Was a CIA Asset, Protected by Obama Administration"

Nothing in your link supports that statement.

Iman said...

Obama was an asset of Iran.

elkh1 said...

The Chinese would love a Bloomberg win to set them free to make more blood money and pay off our politicians, and rebury the Uighurs under the rug.

Saint Croix said...

Bloomberg looks at Trump and thinks, "Money. Money did it. I got money. I can win this."

But that's the wrong lesson. Trump spent a lot less money than Clinton did, and won. Trump won because he won the debates. Trump won because of his personality.

What Trump did not do is skip all the debates, skip Iowa, skip New Hampshire, skip South Carolina, spend a billion dollars and buy the election.

Saint Croix said...

The big news is how much trouble Warren is in. She's trailing big in both Iowa and New Hampshire. Biden has a lock on South Carolina.

I realize it's boring and predictable to say Biden is going to win the nomination. He was Obama's veep, he's ahead in all the polls, and black people love him.

Biden is polling five times higher than Bloomberg. The man has spent $100 million already and nobody likes him.

Biden's personality is similar to Trump's. HIs more open than most politicians, more willing to speak his mind and/or say the wrong thing. Neither Biden nor Trump have much of a filter. Bernie also doesn't have much of a filter.

What will be interesting is if Warren drops out and endorses Bernie.

Sephora Coupon & Promo Codes said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Sephora Coupon & Promo Codes said...

Great
Thank post
https://couponforless.com/store/bike-mania

mikee said...

Having watched Republicans from Ford to Romney run as if losing with dignity was their only goal, I'm so very, very glad to watch the Democrats fight amongst themselves to choose the chump who takes on the role of sad loser this year.

Hillary's 2016 campaign loss and post-election TDS was just as fun as watching Mondale lose well against Reagan, McGovern get creamed by Nixon, and Gore fail to steal the election from Bush. But the Republicans need a truly crushing defeat of Bernie/Warren/Biden/Yang/Bloomie this time, so I'm guessing the Dems will act like they want actually to win it instead of simply losing gracelessly again, like Hillary last time around. Should be fun!

mac ville said...


The drugs foster new perspectives on old problems. One of the things our mind does is tell stories about ourselves. If you're depressed, you're being told a story perhaps that you're worthless, that no one could possibly love you,
best quality psychedelics,100% tested with discreet delivery
buy-mescaline
shrooms-for-sale
buy-ayahuasca
4-aco-dmt-for-sale
What the drugs appear to do is disable for a period of time the part of the brain where the self talks to itself.