Ready for this? Bloomberg could easily become one of the Final Four.

[MineralMan]

On sheer spending, alone, he could rise up to the 10% polling level, at the expense of Mayor Pete, probably.

When we emerge from Super Tuesday, there are likely to be just four candidates left standing. Biden, Sanders and two of the three: Warren, Buttigieg and Bloomberg. If Bloomberg rises, one of the other two will fall out, I'm pretty sure.

The Final Four. It's going to happen. Then, at some point - not long after Super Tuesday - it will dwindle down to just two vying for the nomination. I'm sure one of those will be Joe Biden. The other? I don't know. It could be any of the four mentioned above, I think. I just can't predict, given Bloomberg's entry into the fray and Harris dropping out.

Super Tuesday will move us into the Final Four battle, though. Of that I'm certain.

[redqueen]

1. What a sickening thought. nt

[MineralMan]

3. It is, isn't it? But, it could easily happen.

Right now, it's all about polling, and Bloomberg is spending tons of money in the Super Tuesday states. The network news hours are now being slammed with Bloomberg ads, morning and evening here in Minnesota. Same with other March 3 states. It would be a mistake to believe that Bloomberg couldn't rise to the 10% level in polling before March 3. He could. Easily. Maybe even higher.

The question is: Who drops down to make room for Bloomberg. Mayor Pete is creeping up and Elizabeth Warren is slipping down. One of them would be the one to lose out to Bloomberg. Which? If I had to guess, I'd guess Buttigieg as the loser in that battle. He has the weakest position in terms of his stands on things.

So, keep an eye on the polls. Just saying...

[MBS]

44. My reaction as well. n/t

[abqtommy]

2. I have a hard time trusting anybody but it's almost impossible for me to have positive thoughts

about wealthy people like ALGAE BLOOMberg. I smell a rat, a BIG RAT,

[LiberalFighter]

4. My gut feeling is that it won't happen.

It is more likely that Bloomberg will dwindle out of it.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

5. Great, another elderly billionaire.

Would he be better than Trump? Of course; almost anybody would be better than Trump. Is the flu better than Ebola?

But I don't think he'll catch on, even though he's got a ton of money to spend on advertising, once some of his comments get more exposure - like the one about how all the other candidates could be spending money like he is if they'd just bothered to become rich.

The one positive thing I can think of about Bloomberg as a candidate is that he's vastly richer than Trump, which will drive Trump crazy.

[ritapria]

6. If we nominate Blomberg

We might as well shut down the Democratic Party and join the Republican Party . We can become the moderate wing of the GOP. .. Blomberg fought mightily for a Republican Senate majority in Albany .

[MineralMan]

8. Oh, I don't think he can win the nomination.

I just think he can make it into the playoffs.

[underthematrix]

7. The longer Bloomberg stays in the more it

helps Biden.

[MineralMan]

9. I agree.

[Demsrule86]

10. How so?

[underthematrix]

16. Well Bloomberg is a real billionaire. Not a fake one. he has resources to

unlock much more information about #TraitorTrump including his Russian mob connections and his sexual depravity. This all helps Biden because most DEMS are not gonna vote to put a billionaire in charge of our constitutional republic.

[Mike 03]

20. Whoa, good point.

Bloomberg can afford to do extraordinary opposition research, and probably has deep connections to people who can find "stuff" out.

[Demsrule86]

26. I see...I was just wondering. Makes sense.

[Blue_true]

30. I also think that Bloomberg will support the eventual

nominee and turn his guns fully on Trump. That works to our nominees advantage. I don't expect Bloomberg to try to disrupt our convention then go missing during the Fall campaign.

[MH1]

34. Your last sentence

is what makes Bloomberg slightly more palatable in that final four than one of those other names.

Only slightly, because of policy. But distinctly.

[Blue_true]

41. I get your drift. You don't have to risk a hide to lay out the truth. nt

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

36. By that logic, Charles Koch could possibly win the Democratic nomination.

If all it takes is buying media spots for slick ads.

It might be helpful to actually be a Democrat, which Charles Koch is not. What party is Bloomberg in today?

[underthematrix]

38. Why would you think Bloomberg has any chance of winning the nomination?

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

39. I don't think he has any chance. But, I thought Clinton was a certainty for prez.

I don't want a repeat of that sick feeling the day after.

[Blue_true]

42. Bloomberg has actually been a democrat longer than Bernie Sanders.

I think Bloomberg changed back to the Democratic Party just after Trump was elected. He was a long time democrat before running for Mayor of NYC. But even if one ignore his earlier years as a democrat, he still would have around 36+ months in the party versus about 10 months for Sanders.

[Mike 03]

13. Seems to me it could work like that too.

Biden is in a fascinating position. He's the leading nominee (so far) but he also has the benefit of this "underdog" persona, because he's being viciously attacked by Trump. His son is being attacked. Trump will spare no expense trying to dig up dirt. Bloomberg vs. Joe would situate him again as an underdog because of Bloomberg's overwhelming wealth and related benefits vs. Joe's "blue collar" persona. I think America still likes an underdog. I recognize the contradiction implicit in what I'm saying, since Joe's polling is anything approaching that of an underdog: I'm really talking about perception. Biden also has heart and sincerity that will be hard for Bloomberg to match.

[radius777]

33. I don't agree, because Bloomberg pulls votes from the middle,

votes that Biden (and Buttigieg) is depending on. Also don't discount Bloomberg's ability to pull some PoC and female votes, he's always been able to.

If Bloomberg gains traction, and I doubt he will (Steyer is also a billionaire and hasn't taken off either), the biggest beneficiary IMO is Sanders.

[Dennis Donovan]

11. I dunno, I'm rooting for Syracuse this year...

[MineralMan]

12. Yah, me too.

I was at Syracuse U., courtesy of the USAF, for 9 months. A total immersion Russian Language program. It was freaking amazing, really.

[oldsoftie]

14. All that spending can backfire though; people get sick of hearing about you.

And then you become a meme and its all over

[MineralMan]

17. That's true. But, I'm just talking about around 10% of primary voters.

That's all it will take to move Bloomberg into the final four on March 3. 10%.

That's easy, if you can spend the money. Really easy.

[Peacetrain]

15. Was talking to a friend in the Cities last night.. and she said the only commercials she is seeing

right now are Bloomberg and some Steyer commercials.. Sad thing is, she liked them.. No one else can run a bunch of commericals in Mn right now, even Amy Klobachar.. Its pathetic.. It literally is buying the election.. and they can be the second hands of God, does not make it right.. The next time a Dictator will just by his or her way to the top of the leader boards. I am not impressed with how the billionaires are doing this, even if they have good intentions. Their influence is so outsized because of money.

[MineralMan]

18. Yup. Steyer and Bloomberg.

Nobody else is spending money advertising here. They're all taken up by the Iowa/New Hampshire mania. That, in my opinion, is silliness.

Amy? She doesn't need to advertise here, but she still will be out of the running before March 3. She's a wonderful person, and I love her to death, but she isn't going to be President. I hope she stays in the Senate, though.

[Peacetrain]

19. I like her too.. how do you fight that kind of money

My nightmare.. the battle of the billionaires, while we scramble for the scraps..

[Act_of_Reparation]

21. That is why he jumped in.

His billionaire friends are worried Joe Biden won't pass muster and slipped Bloomberg in to hedge their bets. That's my suspicion, anyway.

[MineralMan]

24. Yes. I think you're right. He's counting on his ad buys in Super Tuesday states

to move him up into contention at some level. Personally, after seeing a bunch of his ads, I expect him to end up second or third on March 4. Everyone else is in Iowa and New Hampshire, pressing the flesh and showing up at small rallies. It's tradition, and Bloomberg is having none of it. Tom Steyer's also advertising in the March 3 primary states, but not as heavily.

So, Bloomberg is taking his shot at Super Tuesday. If he ends up in second place in the delegate count after those primaries, I think he goes for broke. If he isn't there on March 4, I think he drops out right away. He can outspend everyone without dipping into anything but petty cash. I don't think he's going to show up much in person, either. He's just going to flood every market with advertising and see if that brings him enough votes to look good.

I don't think he can beat Biden. But, I do think he can kick some serious ass on the other three secondary candidates and cut them down to the point that they get very few delegates on March 3. Remember the 15% rule. it's going to play very strongly on Super Tuesday.

On March 4, I suspect this forum on DU will be talking about different things than it is today.

[Blue_true]

31. Wouldn't it be rich if Bloomy wines the nomination and selects Steyer as his VP.

Some people here would be traveling to NYC to jump off the 82th floor of the Empire State Building (unfortunately, 8 years ago a college student did, got over the fencing that is designed to prevent that).

[MH1]

35. LOL, seriously doubt Bloomy would pick Steyer for veep

They may both have money, but they have hugely different policies.

I don't see Bloomy getting the nom but this is a fun game. I think he would make a very strategic veep pick that would also be someone closer to him on policy. Possibly Biden but more probably someone midwest or south to help in the electoral college.

[rogue emissary]

22. He's already at 4% in one national poll.

[MineralMan]

23. Yes. And he'll keep rising.

Pete Buttigieg and Elizabeth Warren need to start looking over their shoulders. Bloomberg is catching up.

Bloomberg doesn't care about Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina or Nevada. He has focused on March 3, and is pumping money into ads in those crucial states. He doesn't care about his current polling, either. He'll just keep flooding the airwaves with ads in Super Tuesday states. Nobody else is doing that, although Steyer is advertising in those states at a lesser level.

Meanwhile, everyone else is still jumping through hoops in Iowa. It's ridiculous. It's a mistake.

[Blue_true]

32. As the lower tier (the 2%ers), he likely picks up the lion's share of their vote. nt

[karynnj]

25. While I don't think 4 is a magic number, I think Bloomberg could well stay in longer than

any of the others if they had had the same support. One reason candidates exit is that if they are seen as unlikely to win donations - big and small, but especially big, dry up. Bloomberg by not taking money and essentially implying he is not competing in the earliest states. I think it is a given, based on what he has said, that he will be in through super Tuesday.

If you assume that Bloomberg is in through SuperTuesday, I think he is definitely in the final 4, which could be more than 4.

I would bet that Bloomberg's gain will be at the expense of Mayor Pete and Biden. In fact, I would bet that is the reason for the early Kerry endorsement. My guess is that Kerry gave Biden the same generous offer of an endorsement where and when Biden wants it - as he did for Obama. Clearly the Biden campaign coordinated the ad that made the case that Biden could move on day one to being a respected leader - because he is already well known and respected.

In 2008, Obama opted not to have Kerry endorse before Iowa because he stood a good chance in winning it (or at least being a surprisingly close second). He made the same decision before NH, which he lost by _ I think - 3%. It was then, that Obama had Kerry endorse him before Nevada and South Carolina -- and soon after Kennedy endorsed him.

I would also note that in addition to the endorsement, Obama got the only advocate who could support him on TV who could go toe to toe with Bill Clinton. Clinton obviously outranked him as a former President still loved by many, but Kerry's high road campaign and his reputation gave him the edge as being seen to be honest in addition to being very articulate and very informed on issues.

[MineralMan]

27. Actually, I don't think Bloomberg will steal votes from Biden.

I think, instead, he will pick up votes from Mayor Pete and from undecided voters, along with some votes from minor players. He'll be in through Super Tuesday, for sure. That's where he starts, actually. Ads are running like crazy right now in those states, including Minnesota, my own state.

Really, I think Super Tuesday is going to narrow the field to four. There might be a couple more, who don't have a chance, but four is where it will be on March 4. Of those four, probably only three will have enough delegates to count. Remember the 15% rule.

[karynnj]

28. If the Iowa polls are accurate - and the Des Moines Register seems to be pretty good - the danger

for all of them - including Biden is that 15% rule, which is applied at the caucus level first. (In 2004, Dean did less well because he got zeros in several caucuses -- but he still would have been way behind Kerry. ) I am sure DU has some Iowa experts that would have insight into how each candidate's support is spread over the state. So, many are near polling within 2 or 3 % of 15 % overall - making it tough to even guess how the final numbers would look if the race were today.

He is even running ads in Vermont, but it might be that our local stations here also cover Plattsburg NY.

We will actually know from NH, Iowa, SC, NV if Bloomberg is a strong threat. If he fails to get 15% in each of them, why would we expect him to get above 15% in the superTuesday states? As soon as he begins to look like a threat, tons of opposition research will come out. Democrats don't vote just on guns and climate change. On many issues, he really is a Republican.

I also think that prior to SuperTuesday, there will be opposition ads to him. Stop and Frisk was not the only negative. One thing that will hurt him in the Democratic primary is that he gave money to many Republican candidates and pacs. I randomly saw that he gave $200,000 to support some terrible education initiatives in Iowa. https://stateimpact.npr.org/idaho/2012/11/01/why-nyc-mayor-mike-bloomberg-gave-200000-to-support-idahos-education-reform-laws/

I suspect that in Bloomberg's 8 years being a Republican mayor (after being a private citizen who contributed to Democarats and before he became an independent party mayor, now a Democrat) will be years when he used his money to try to gain traction in the Republican party. Not to mention, I have not reviewed his 2004 convention speech.

This is NOT Elizabeth Warren, who was a private citizen who moved from being a Republican to being a Democrat - but who has been a Democrat for her entire political career.

[MineralMan]

29. I don't think Bloomberg is even bothering with the four early

states. It looks like he's totally focused on Super Tuesday, where far more delegates are at stake. Since he doesn't have to raise campaign funds, he doesn't really care about the small number of delegates availalble in those first four states.

Iowa is different from primary states, in that delegates are named after a process that involves district and the state convention. An accurate count of delegates following the caucuses is hard to determine, really, although estimates can be made. But, Iowa only sends 49 delegates to the convention anyhow. That's an insignificant number, compared to the number of delegates at stake on March 3.

Bloomberg wouldn't even have to run in the first four states if he chose not to.

[IcyPeas]

37. Quote: "It's not my fault they didn't have the good sense to become billionaires."

the second video down. he basically says anyone could become billionaires if they worked hard enough!

Link to tweet

“They’re criticizing me for it,” Bloomberg said, explaining that he’d earned his wealth through years of hard work. “Ask them what they’re doing. Why didn’t they do that? They had a chance to go out and make a lot of money.”

It’s hard to imagine any of this playing well with voters, who seem unlikely to welcome the suggestion that amassing a fortune like Bloomberg’s is merely a matter of willpower and hard work. Bloomberg has used his wealth to champion a number of causes, including gun control, that are important to Democrats and progressives. But Democrats weren’t exactly clamoring for another old rich white guy to enter the 2020 race, and his remarks about his wealth, his record, and the field’s diversity will only reinforce the impression that he’s out of touch with much of his party.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/12/bloomberg-interview-warren-and-sanders-couldve-been-billionaires-if-theyd-worked-hard-enough

[flamingdem]

40. Perhaps Bloomberg's heart is in the right place

He truly despises Trump and will use all his mean$ to defeat him even if not the nominee.

Or not.

Time will tell.

[MineralMan]

43. I'm not a Bloomberg fan at all.

I don't think he really has any chance of becoming the nominee, but I do think he has a chance of spoiling the chances of some other candidates. I think he will play a role in the primaries that causes problems for other candidates who probably didn't have much of a chance, either.

One thing's certain: He has plenty of money he can spend on whatever campaign strategy he has. He doesn't have to get contributions from others. He'd still be a billionaire, even if he spent a billion dollars on his campaign. That gives him a real opportunity to throw a monkey wrench into the works, for sure.

I consider him to be more of a Republican than a Democrat, frankly.