Michael Bloomberg 2020 campaign megathread

[win win]

According to the betting markets, as of this morning, Bloomberg's chances of the presidency stands at 13.8% , exactly the same as Bernie's.

Bernie is still a favorite to win the nomination. But the markets say he will fare poorly against Trump. While Bloomberg will be less favored to win the nomination, he will do much better against Trump.

Do you believe the collective wisdom of the betting markets?

https://electionbettingodds.com/

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

According to the betting markets, as of this morning, Bloomberg's chances of the presidency stands at 13.8% , exactly the same as Bernie's.

Bernie is still a favorite to win the nomination. But the markets say he will fare poorly against Trump. While Bloomberg will be less favored to win the nomination, he will do much better against Trump.

Do you believe the collective wisdom of the betting markets?

https://electionbettingodds.com/

I think calling Bloomberg's chances equal to Bernie's is overestimation, based on what we've seen so far. We have no idea how he'll actually go over with voters, while Bernie has a very solid shot at the nomination. I won't be surprised if it does come down to Bernie vs. Bloomberg, but I don't think their chances are equal.

As for their chances against Trump, should they become the nominee... I think those are probably are about equal. The main obstacle to defeating Trump is going to be the Republican (and proxy Russian) propaganda, disinformation, and election fraud machine. While I can't know for certain how the two men and their staffs and supporters would respond, I think both of them have everything needed to push back hard against Republican lies and crime, although in different ways.

[GeneralMacArthur]

I'm not sure why Sanders dropped 6% overnight.  His result in New Hampshire is mediocre but it's in line with his polling numbers.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Sanders likely dropped because his victory is NH was not that impressive. He received over 60% of the vote in 2016. While no one expected him to do that in such a fractured field, 26% and winning by less than 2% was not impressive at all.

[GeneralMacArthur]

Sanders likely dropped because his victory is NH was not that impressive. He received over 60% of the vote in 2016. While no one expected him to do that in such a fractured field, 26% and winning by less than 2% was not impressive at all.

The results match the polls though.  The only difference is Warren and Biden both lost late support to Klobuchar, which is good for Sanders.

Basically, if the polls on February 10 said Sanders was going to get 26%, and on February 11 he got 26%, why would he not already have been at his current odds on February 10?

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

I'm not sure why Sanders dropped 6% overnight.  His result in New Hampshire is mediocre but it's in line with his polling numbers.

The RCP average had him winning by 7.4 and he ended up winning by 1.3. It wasn't a huge victory.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Sanders likely dropped because his victory is NH was not that impressive. He received over 60% of the vote in 2016. While no one expected him to do that in such a fractured field, 26% and winning by less than 2% was not impressive at all.

The results match the polls though.  The only difference is Warren and Biden both lost late support to Klobuchar, which is good for Sanders.

Basically, if the polls on February 10 said Sanders was going to get 26%, and on February 11 he got 26%, why would he not already have been at his current odds on February 10?

Sanders was favored by more than 1.5% in the polls.

I think the bigger picture is that the "moderate" candidates did much better than the "progressive" wing. The majority of Democratic Primary voters are not sold on Sanders' "free everything for everyone" platform.

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/bloomberg-wealth-tax-compare-sanders-buttigieg-warren-biden/
Bloomberg would pay $3 billion less under his wealth tax than under Sanders plan

Democratic presidential candidate Mike Bloomberg says he would pay more to Uncle Sam under his plan to raise taxes on wealthy Americans. What the former New York City mayor hasn't said: He'd pay as much as $3.5 billion less under his wealth tax than he would under similar proposals from Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, two of his rivals for the party's nomination. Bloomberg's plan would also generate far less government revenue.

Bloomberg, who released his tax plan last week, said the proposal targets the "very rich." That includes him: Bloomberg is worth an estimated $61 billion, according to Forbes.

Much of that fortune is tied to Bloomberg LLC, the global financial data and media empire he founded four decades ago. The candidate owns 88% of the company, which generated an estimated $3.8 billion in income last year alone, according to industry consultant Douglas Taylor. And his nearly 90% ownership stake in the media enterprise entitled him to about $3.3 billion of that income stream.

Outside his proposed wealth tax, Bloomberg's broader tax plan could save him and his company millions. For instance, he would maintain the corporate tax rate at 21%, which President Donald Trump and congressional Republicans lowered from as high as 35%. That 2017 change saved Bloomberg's company roughly $550 million last year. Both Sanders and Warren would roll back Mr. Trump's corporate tax cut. 

So Bloomberg can throw $3 billion to "stop" Bernie and still be financially better off.

[Rookie Yinzer]

Democratic presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg nabbed the endorsements of three members of the Congressional Black Caucus on Wednesday, a day after taking fire over audio of the former New York City mayor praising the controversial stop-and-frisk police practice.

Bloomberg won the backing of Rep. Lucy McBath (D-Ga.), who represents a swing district, Del. Stacey Plaskett (D-Virgin Islands) and Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.). Plaskett had previously endorsed Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) for president before she ended her White House bid.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/482720-bloomberg-nabs-two-endorsements-from-congressional-black-caucus-amid-stop

[lfromnj]

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/bloomberg-wealth-tax-compare-sanders-buttigieg-warren-biden/
Bloomberg would pay $3 billion less under his wealth tax than under Sanders plan

Democratic presidential candidate Mike Bloomberg says he would pay more to Uncle Sam under his plan to raise taxes on wealthy Americans. What the former New York City mayor hasn't said: He'd pay as much as $3.5 billion less under his wealth tax than he would under similar proposals from Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, two of his rivals for the party's nomination. Bloomberg's plan would also generate far less government revenue.

Bloomberg, who released his tax plan last week, said the proposal targets the "very rich." That includes him: Bloomberg is worth an estimated $61 billion, according to Forbes.

Much of that fortune is tied to Bloomberg LLC, the global financial data and media empire he founded four decades ago. The candidate owns 88% of the company, which generated an estimated $3.8 billion in income last year alone, according to industry consultant Douglas Taylor. And his nearly 90% ownership stake in the media enterprise entitled him to about $3.3 billion of that income stream.

Outside his proposed wealth tax, Bloomberg's broader tax plan could save him and his company millions. For instance, he would maintain the corporate tax rate at 21%, which President Donald Trump and congressional Republicans lowered from as high as 35%. That 2017 change saved Bloomberg's company roughly $550 million last year. Both Sanders and Warren would roll back Mr. Trump's corporate tax cut. 

So Bloomberg can throw $3 billion to "stop" Bernie and still be financially better off.

Well Sanders wealth tax plan is absolutely insane. The Top marginal rate is 8%(8% is literally higher than the stock markets average growth)

[Gass3268]

Masive line for a Bloomberg event in TN.

https://twitter.com/gslayen/status/1227669604144680963?s=20

[GeneralMacArthur]

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/bloomberg-wealth-tax-compare-sanders-buttigieg-warren-biden/
Bloomberg would pay $3 billion less under his wealth tax than under Sanders plan

Democratic presidential candidate Mike Bloomberg says he would pay more to Uncle Sam under his plan to raise taxes on wealthy Americans. What the former New York City mayor hasn't said: He'd pay as much as $3.5 billion less under his wealth tax than he would under similar proposals from Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, two of his rivals for the party's nomination. Bloomberg's plan would also generate far less government revenue.

Bloomberg, who released his tax plan last week, said the proposal targets the "very rich." That includes him: Bloomberg is worth an estimated $61 billion, according to Forbes.

Much of that fortune is tied to Bloomberg LLC, the global financial data and media empire he founded four decades ago. The candidate owns 88% of the company, which generated an estimated $3.8 billion in income last year alone, according to industry consultant Douglas Taylor. And his nearly 90% ownership stake in the media enterprise entitled him to about $3.3 billion of that income stream.

Outside his proposed wealth tax, Bloomberg's broader tax plan could save him and his company millions. For instance, he would maintain the corporate tax rate at 21%, which President Donald Trump and congressional Republicans lowered from as high as 35%. That 2017 change saved Bloomberg's company roughly $550 million last year. Both Sanders and Warren would roll back Mr. Trump's corporate tax cut. 

So Bloomberg can throw $3 billion to "stop" Bernie and still be financially better off.

Know how I know Bloomberg's a good candidate?  Cause a Republican is writing disingenuous stuff like this to turn people against him.

Bloomberg knows as well as anyone that Bernie's wealth tax is just virtue signaling and has zero chance of even being proposed, much less becoming law.

[President Johnson]

Masive line for a Bloomberg event in TN.

https://twitter.com/gslayen/status/1227669604144680963?s=20

I've watched some footage/videos of his events, and the crowds are larger and more energized/excited than Joe Biden's ones.


Can we please pin this thread now?

[Rookie Yinzer]

My aunt is going to his early vote rally in Raleigh tomorrow. At this point everyone in my family has transitioned from Biden to Bloomberg. It's been fascinating to watch.

[Rookie Yinzer]

Bro... this is pretty damning for Joe Biden. Bloomberg’s political team is putting in WORK.

https://twitter.com/kharyp/status/1227648657538846722?s=20

This is an observation not an ENDORSEMENT.

[Tender Branson]

Yeah, this thread needs to be stuck and the other new map thread unstuck.

Even unstick the primary/caucus filing thread. It’s pretty clear at this point that all major candidates will be on the ballot everywhere.

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

AP

Meanwhile, Democratic presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg wasn’t truthful about why he recently apologized for supporting the controversial “stop and frisk” policy, falsely claiming no one had ever asked him about it before.

A look at recent remarks by political figures, including Trump from the NATO summit in London and back home as House Democrats sped toward impeaching him:

STOP AND FRISK

BLOOMBERG, asked about the timing of his recent apology for supporting the “stop and frisk” policy: “Well, nobody asked me about it until I started running for president, so, c’mon.” — interview Friday with “CBS This Morning.”

THE FACTS: That’s not true. Bloomberg has been repeatedly asked about his position on the policing strategy that he embraced as New York City mayor from 2002 to 2013. He defended it each time — most recently in January.

Stop-and-frisk gave police wide authority to detain people they suspected of committing a crime, and Bloomberg aggressively pursued the tactic. Under the program, New York City police officers made it a routine practice to stop and search multitudes of mostly black and Hispanic men to see if they were carrying weapons.

“We focused on keeping kids from going through the correctional system,” Bloomberg said while taking questions at the United States Naval Academy’s 2019 Leadership Conference. “The result of that was, over the years, the murder rate in New York City went from 650 a year to 300 a year when I left.” He added that most police departments do the same thing, “they just don’t report it or use the terminology.”

Bloomberg also defended the policy after a federal judge in 2013 struck down the policy as violating the civil rights of blacks and Latinos who were disproportionately affected. He called it a “dangerous decision made by a judge who I think does not understand how policing works and what is compliant with the U.S. Constitution.”

Bloomberg then wrote an op-ed in The Washington Post in 2013 entitled “’Stop and frisk’ keeps New York safe.”

Bloomberg attacked the judge who struck down stop-and-frisk policy, called the decision “dangerous decision made by a judge who I think does not understand how policing works and what is compliant with the U.S. Constitution.”

It is probably why Bloomberg is most electable against Trump. He is "clean" Trump 

1 Thinks stop-and-frisk was effective (because it was) (2002-2013)
2 attacks judge (2013)
3 compares Putin's attack on Ukraine to US annexing California and believes NATO expansion gave Putin justification for aggression (2015)


And  he is not wrong. What Trump gets through his gut, almost intuitively, Bloomberg gets analytically, wherever the numbers and facts lead him.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/02/11/not-long-ago-bloomberg-likened-putins-attack-ukraine-americas-annexation-california/
Not long ago, Bloomberg likened Putin’s attack on Ukraine to America’s annexation of California

[Forward]

AP

Meanwhile, Democratic presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg wasn’t truthful about why he recently apologized for supporting the controversial “stop and frisk” policy, falsely claiming no one had ever asked him about it before.

A look at recent remarks by political figures, including Trump from the NATO summit in London and back home as House Democrats sped toward impeaching him:

STOP AND FRISK

BLOOMBERG, asked about the timing of his recent apology for supporting the “stop and frisk” policy: “Well, nobody asked me about it until I started running for president, so, c’mon.” — interview Friday with “CBS This Morning.”

THE FACTS: That’s not true. Bloomberg has been repeatedly asked about his position on the policing strategy that he embraced as New York City mayor from 2002 to 2013. He defended it each time — most recently in January.

Stop-and-frisk gave police wide authority to detain people they suspected of committing a crime, and Bloomberg aggressively pursued the tactic. Under the program, New York City police officers made it a routine practice to stop and search multitudes of mostly black and Hispanic men to see if they were carrying weapons.

“We focused on keeping kids from going through the correctional system,” Bloomberg said while taking questions at the United States Naval Academy’s 2019 Leadership Conference. “The result of that was, over the years, the murder rate in New York City went from 650 a year to 300 a year when I left.” He added that most police departments do the same thing, “they just don’t report it or use the terminology.”

Bloomberg also defended the policy after a federal judge in 2013 struck down the policy as violating the civil rights of blacks and Latinos who were disproportionately affected. He called it a “dangerous decision made by a judge who I think does not understand how policing works and what is compliant with the U.S. Constitution.”

Bloomberg then wrote an op-ed in The Washington Post in 2013 entitled “’Stop and frisk’ keeps New York safe.”

3 compares Putin's attack on Ukraine to US annexing California and believes NATO expansion gave Putin justification for aggression (2015)

Dude, Bloomberg was just acknowledging why Putin did what he did. In that same interview, he explicitly says that what Putin did was wrong and that it shouldn't have been allowed. He has since strongly condemned Putin many, many times, even before running. Please don't support Bloomberg.

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

AP

Meanwhile, Democratic presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg wasn’t truthful about why he recently apologized for supporting the controversial “stop and frisk” policy, falsely claiming no one had ever asked him about it before.

A look at recent remarks by political figures, including Trump from the NATO summit in London and back home as House Democrats sped toward impeaching him:

STOP AND FRISK

BLOOMBERG, asked about the timing of his recent apology for supporting the “stop and frisk” policy: “Well, nobody asked me about it until I started running for president, so, c’mon.” — interview Friday with “CBS This Morning.”

THE FACTS: That’s not true. Bloomberg has been repeatedly asked about his position on the policing strategy that he embraced as New York City mayor from 2002 to 2013. He defended it each time — most recently in January.

Stop-and-frisk gave police wide authority to detain people they suspected of committing a crime, and Bloomberg aggressively pursued the tactic. Under the program, New York City police officers made it a routine practice to stop and search multitudes of mostly black and Hispanic men to see if they were carrying weapons.

“We focused on keeping kids from going through the correctional system,” Bloomberg said while taking questions at the United States Naval Academy’s 2019 Leadership Conference. “The result of that was, over the years, the murder rate in New York City went from 650 a year to 300 a year when I left.” He added that most police departments do the same thing, “they just don’t report it or use the terminology.”

Bloomberg also defended the policy after a federal judge in 2013 struck down the policy as violating the civil rights of blacks and Latinos who were disproportionately affected. He called it a “dangerous decision made by a judge who I think does not understand how policing works and what is compliant with the U.S. Constitution.”

Bloomberg then wrote an op-ed in The Washington Post in 2013 entitled “’Stop and frisk’ keeps New York safe.”

Bloomberg attacked the judge who struck down stop-and-frisk policy, called the decision “dangerous decision made by a judge who I think does not understand how policing works and what is compliant with the U.S. Constitution.”

It is probably why Bloomberg is most electable against Trump. He is "clean" Trump  

1 Thinks stop-and-frisk was effective (because it was) (2002-2013)
2 attacks judge (2013)
3 compares Putin's attack on Ukraine to US annexing California and believes NATO expansion gave Putin justification for aggression (2015)


And  he is not wrong. What Trump gets through his gut, almost intuitively, Bloomberg gets analytically, wherever the numbers and facts lead him.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/02/11/not-long-ago-bloomberg-likened-putins-attack-ukraine-americas-annexation-california/
Not long ago, Bloomberg likened Putin’s attack on Ukraine to America’s annexation of California

Dude, Bloomberg was just acknowledging why Putin did what he did.

Totally, dude, that is basically what I'm saying. It's essentially only Trump and Bloomberg (may be Bernie?) who "just acknowledged why Putin did what he did."  

I wish more politicians would just acknowledge that, dude!

Bloomberg also acknowledged why stop-and-frisk rocks! He even wrote an op-ed in 2013, dude!
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/michael-bloomberg-stop-and-frisk-keeps-new-york-safe/2013/08/18/8d4cd8c4-06cf-11e3-9259-e2aafe5a5f84_story.html
Michael Bloomberg: ‘Stop and frisk’ keeps New York safe

As a black Brooklyn detective with nearly 20 years on the job recently told the Daily News, “Stop-and-frisk is never about race. It’s about behavior.” If an officer sees someone acting in a manner that suggests a crime is afoot, he or she has an obligation to stop and question that person. That’s Policing 101, and it’s practiced all over the country. The difference is that in New York — unlike in many other cities — police officers are required to fill out a form every time they make a stop, identifying why the stop was made and the race of the person.

Of the 24 million interactions that New York police officers have with the public each year, about 500,000 — or 2 percent — involve a stop. The average officer on patrol makes about one stop every two weeks, hardly an excessive number.

Amazingly, out of several million stops that have happened over the past decade, the advocates who brought the case could identify only 19 stops that they believe were unjustified — and the judge disagreed with them on a majority of even those handpicked cases, finding that 10 of the 19 stops were in fact justified, even though they did not lead to an arrest. By doing so, the judge acknowledged that stops that do not end in arrest are often legitimate; those scoping out a robbery, or lying in wait of a potential victim, can be stopped and deterred even if they cannot be arrested.

Amazingly!

[Interlocutor is just not there yet]

Can this thread be stickied now?

He's in 3rd place on the RCP/538 averages and this thread has as many views/posts as the 3rd place finisher in New Hampshire. I'd agree with unsticking the schedule/delegate/filing megathread for this one.

Unless it'll wait until Super Tuesday to see if he's not a fluke or something.

[AtorBoltox]

Anyone want to take a stab at explaining how endorsing Bush in '00 and '04 is consistent with the talking point that 'he's totally always been a liberal democrat guiz'

[Sir Mohamed]

Anyone want to take a stab at explaining how endorsing Bush in '00 and '04 is consistent with the talking point that 'he's totally always been a liberal democrat guiz'

Didn't Trump endorse Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004? He was a registered Dem at the time probably voted for them. It would be hilarious if they face off in November.

[Forward]

Anyone want to take a stab at explaining how endorsing Bush in '00 and '04 is consistent with the talking point that 'he's totally always been a liberal democrat guiz'

Bloomberg didn’t endorse Bush in 2000. He actually voted for Gore. But he did endorse Bush, but Bloomberg has supported the Democratic candidate every election after that.

[GeneralMacArthur]

Anyone want to take a stab at explaining how endorsing Bush in '00 and '04 is consistent with the talking point that 'he's totally always been a liberal democrat guiz'

He didn't in 2000.

In 2004, he was the mayor of NYC post-9/11 and the RNC held the convention in NYC.  If you actually listen to his speech, it's 15 minutes long and the first 13 minutes are all talking about how great New York is and how the city is rebuilding itself after 9/11.  Then the last two minutes are him thanking Bush for support post-9/11 and for keeping America safe.

Given the unique circumstances under which their relationship developed I don't think it says much about his broad political views.  The Bush Administration's impact on him was 95% consumed by post-9/11 domestic response, and virtually everyone including most Democrats agree that the Bush admin did a good job there.

[Vaccinated Russian Bear]

WSJ journo>>>


https://twitter.com/tparti/status/1227977231084990464