Nah, he didn’t need any money to coast through super Tuesday. Why not throw in the towel on Wednesday? He didn’t need to drop two days before unless he’s trying to throw support elsewhere or perhaps is looking to not be embarrassed by a poor performance.
I agree that he is out of money - I recall seeing pictures of his SC office closed last week right in the lead up to the primary, which is crazy. Warren and Klob do poll well in their own states and I think are staying in as strategic stop-gaps to deny Bernie delegates that might put him over the top, but that’s some tin-foil hat stuff right there.
This is so dumb I don’t know where to start. This is the sort of sentiment that got you in your current predicament, so you’re doubling down?
This guy [bloomberg] is a fucking clown. Who actually likes this billionaire racist? Haven’t you had enough of that kool-aid?
Can’t say the same. I’d sooner not vote than vote for bloomberg. I’d sooner not vote than vote for biden actually. I hope whomsoever wins has the wherewithal to get rid of the damnable republican bullshit we call an electoral college and move more towards a democratic election process.
I think that someone needs to be really, spectacularly, fantastically bad before it makes any sense to not vote for them against Trump. I think you’d have to think someone was a one-in-a-million worst person to be president. To me, that means definitely supporting Biden*… but I get where you are coming from on Bloomberg.
* By “support” mean in theory. I don’t get a vote.
As of Feb. 29, the Maryland primary (ETA: which isn’t until the end of April) still has every candidate except John Delaney, whose name says “withdrawn.” I don’t know if that means they have to explicitly ask to be removed, or what, but the list is updated every business day (and Delaney withdrew on Feb. 3). I don’t know what the ballot looks like in other states, but here – in addition to the candidate – the voter also chooses up to four delegates, with the name of the pledged candidate in parentheses. (E.g. presumably one may vote for Bernie as candidate, and also select two delegates for Marianne Williamson, one for Andrew Yang, and one for Steyer).
This reminds me… Over the weekend I read a short interview with Nate Silver, who pointed out that 538 had Trump with a thirty percent chance of winning: “Trump’s going to win the election about as often as a good baseball player gets a base hit… We were quite emphatic that the election was competitive, and that Trump had a chance.”
(I don’t actually remember what they emphasized or didn’t, but I’d agree that 30 percent is much different than non-zero)
It doesn’t quite work that way. There are campaign workers and offices that remain open and that needs to be paid for. Shutter those and letting those people go, while remaining on the ballot gets noticed. And your basically out of it anyway, but the shit performance that comes out of it still reflects badly on you.
And if you can’t afford to continue after, even if you get something out of it. All your really doing is complicating shit and making the delegate situation messy. Burning what money you have left instead of sending it to the general campaign fund.
I agree it’s a little weird given that it’s tomorrow, dude’s still gonna be on the ballot. And he doesn’t even have time to campaign for some one else. He has to have known he was boned in South Carolina. But it doesn’t look good to drop before then, given the splash he made.
I really think he was out of it before voting even started. His donors apparently maxed out on direct contributions last year, and his “I’m young Biden” pitch started around then. Seemingly a play for Biden’s big donors who’d already maxed out and began to look for places to throw their money.
But especially once Bloomberg got involved they never lined up behind Pete. I don’t think he had the runway without that, his funding base was just very narrow but very moneyed. The impression that he had a shot came almost exclusively from how much money he was raising.
The most hilarious thing is that tomorrow, California will have 10x the delegates that Biden has already won, and he will not win California. Nor will Bloomberg. It’ll be Bernie, and he’ll be the front-runner. But Bloomberg will keep pissing away a few drops of his fortune to cloud, distort, muddle and divide so that when a bunch of squishy fools can’t come around to Bernie, Bloomberg will still have the money to seem like an option. And we’ll lose, because the DNC can’t say to someone Uh, we don’t want you in the race or the debates.
I think Buttigeg is a ratfuck centrist republican with a good line of bullshit and some okay personal presentation skills. I’d still vote for him over Bloomberg.
Btw, “Vote Blue, No Matter Who!” is fine, but if I have to vote Bloomberg, I simply won’t fucking vote. Because he’s as bad as Trump, if not worse, and he’ll only get the nomination because a bunch of anti-vaxxer wine-parents in rich zip codes can’t be bothered to look up “democratic socialism.”
If it makes it easier just tell yourself that you’re not voting for president, you’re voting for the Supreme Court justices that are going to need to be appointed over the next four to 8 years. Because as the republicans have known for years but some of the rest of us seem to have only learned recently, that REALLY MATTERS. And those guys tend to stick around longer than presidents.
Ok, rather than use the same kind of unhelpful language you chose, let’s break this down, shall we?
The next President of the United States is going to be the nominee from either the Democrats or the Republicans. There is, to date no 3rd party with even a teensy chance of becoming President. We can bemoan that fact, but it is a fact.
Any talk about removing the Electoral college is a dead letter for the foreseeable future, given the mechanics of amending the Constitution, so that plays no part in the current election.
So what we’re down to is voting for the lesser of two evils. Sounds bad, doesn’t it?
Well, I definitely considered HRC the lesser of two evils in the last election, so what would have been the result of her election vs. Trump? Would we have pulled out of the Paris Accords and made climate denial the official policy of our country while gutting the EPA? Would we have Gorsuch and Kavanaugh on the bench and on the brink of overturning Roe? Would we have demonized immigrants and minorities to the point of making white nationalism mainstream? Would we have Russia in control of our Executive? Would we have tossed away the norms and expectations that actually make our system run as we knew it? Would we have given billionaires massive tax cuts while slashing assistance? Would she have done a lot of shit I disagreed with on foreign policy? Yeah, probably.
Same shit with these guys. Biden and/or Bloomberg are not even close to my first choice, and in a perfect world they be sitting at home having tea instead of running for President. But the world is not perfect, and doing anything else than voting for a Democrat against Trump in the fall is a statement that one is willing to let Trump have another 4 years to shape this country because one’s voting purity is more important.
KLOBUCHAR is OUT, and that means I lived long enough to see another great sign for American Democracy: The only people who wanted Klobuchar’s brand of centrist cowardice were coward centrists, and now they’ll have to choose between their chamber-of-commerce Republican-lite principles (which aren’t winning regardless of messenger) and Sanders (who is winning regardless of how much money Bloomberg spends or how many diluted republicans they throw at him).
we obviously did not watch the same debates. in the last one, it was clear buttigieg’s whole platform was about sanders being a socialist with policies that would divide the party and doom the election.
it seemed blinding obvious to me he chose his “medicare for those who want it” plan solely to distinguish himself in the race, without any analysis of whether or not it could work. it was a platform, not a plan. and sapped any idea that i would vote for him unless i had to.
few of his policies gave him room to argue for anything, so he seemed to focus entirely on being electable, which recently became “not sanders.”
no. we’re voting for a candidate who can do right by the country. if the party can’t nominate someone who reflects the needs of people, they don’t get my vote.
if bloomberg gets the nomination, i wont vote for him. i will however vote blue for the house and senate seats that im eligible to. and i will donate to good candidates in districts that are competitive.
that’s the only way to win long term.
giving either one of the two republican billionaires a mandate is not good for the long term health of this country or the people who live here.
Yep. fivethirtyeight were getting shit throughout the 2016 campaign because their model gave Trump such a good chance of winning. The NYT Upshot needle had HRC at >90% to win, and people were screaming at 538 that they had it way wrong. Meanwhile, they were dead-nuts on: high variance, high uncertainty, and skepticism of the “blue wall” narrative.
Ok, that literally means you’re OK with Donald Trump getting another 4 years rather than Bloomberg. As much as I dislike Bloomberg (Warren is my strong preference), that’s not a position I agree with either morally or practically. (but before we get too at each others’ throats about this, we can probably agree that Bloomberg is not going to win the nomination)