RCP average now has Bloomberg at 10.6%. Is our nomination for sale?

[Bucky]

Is the Democratic Party to be admired for holding out for a higher price from Mike Bloomberg?

Are we for sale?

I've said and will continue to say I'll vote for whoever we nominate. I'll fake my enthusiasm--I've done it before. It's it's Bloomberg, so be it. I'll vote for him with gusto. But he's the last person on my list. You'll hear Republicans talking about stop-and-frisk nonstop for four months after the convention, but I'll bravely peep "But he apologized for that 15 years later" in response and try to turn the subject back to healthcare again.

I guess I'm for sale.

[jalan48]

1. Trump vs Bloomberg, a Wall Street dream.

[Bucky]

3. :*[

It'd be a weak ticket for us. He'd need to nominate Stacy Abrams or some equivalent progressive fighter to get the left wing of the party out in force. Ugh, it gives me tummy churns to think about it, turning off so so many of our youth voters.

[jalan48]

6. Where would his enthusiastic base be? I think voter turnout would be really low and he would lose.

[left-of-center2012]

2. All candidates need and use money

Bloomberg is using his own, the others are using money from donors.

[Bucky]

8. And can you see how one is inherently more democratic than the other?

Inspiring individuals to kick in their hard earned spare cash demonstrates a public act of buy-in. It tells the world that the people support this leader.

If you had to have surgery, would you want to get it from a surgeon who'd earned her degree through commitment and hard work, or from someone who'd bought a degree on-line and printed out a far prettier certificate?

If Bloomberg can buy his way into the top tier of candidates, it will have a profoundly demoralizing effect on the party base, I fear.

[left-of-center2012]

12. I will vote for the candidate whose policies I like

Attacks and smears don't sway me.

[brooklynite]

13. You know what shows a real buy in? Voting

People will have a chance to vote for him, or not.

[Blue_true]

20. Your analogies are off base.

Political history has shown time after time that candidates that tried to buy an election and that is all they had, have failed repeatedly. Don't mention Trump, because he didn't use his own money, he faked putting in money, but paid himself back under the table from donations.

If Bloomberg wins the nomination, he would have CONVINCED the majority of primary voters that he is the best person to go up against Trump.

Please STOP saying that Bloomberg is trying to buy the nomination, history doesn't remotely support your claim, he CAN'T buy it, he has to win it.

[redqueen]

4. Apparently so, yes.

Many here actually believe or are pretending that support from average Americans is no different to a candidate's interest income on their own own billions.

[krissey]

5. I think Bloomberg role is insurance. Having a big gun if other Democrats falter.

There is at least that comfort. At this point I do not see him as a contender.

[wiley]

7. No Republican would ever talk about stop-and-frisk as a bad thing

Only Bloomberg had the decency and humility to admit it didn't work. He didn't have to do that. He doesn't have to run for POTUS or even care what your price is, although he could easily buy almost every African American in the county like the GOP is doing. Because that is what we have been pushed to doing. Please do stop going on, and please do focus on health care.

[Bucky]

9. Why would you say that... because it's against their principles?

The essence of the Trump Republican strategy is to antagonize and divide and conquer.

[sarisataka]

10. This may be the worst phrased post

I have ever seen on this site.

[BusyBeingBest]

11. In previous years, I cared more about aspects of campaign financing, donors, etc.

But this time around, and especially this week, I'm starting to lean Bloomberg because I'm looking for the most effective show of force against the Cult of Trump, period. Not a comfortable place to be, but there I am.

[left-of-center2012]

14. The more Bloomberg gets attacked ...

The more he seems like the adult in the room.

[BusyBeingBest]

18. To be fair, he doesn't have to join the barroom brawl for donors and dollars, so he gets to

run on his own terms (so far). He's mostly been out of the fray, doing his own thing. Will have to see how he responds when they start clobbering him, as they will.

[left-of-center2012]

19. "when they start clobbering him"

Oh, the attacks have begun.

[LanternWaste]

34. Sure they have...

(I used to pretend disagreement with a position was an 'attack' too... let's us invest much more melodrama into our narratives than reality might otherwise suggest)

[Kaleva]

24. He's been punching back against Trump pretty effectively.

[BusyBeingBest]

28. Yes, I do appreciate that. That's why I'm looking at him now.

[Kaleva]

29. I selected him as my preference yesterday.

[Blue_true]

21. You are the person that some call a realist.

My take on Bloomie, I think that he has some policy positions that I am not comfortable with, but given where I stand politically, he is better than Sanders and infinitely far better than Trump.

[BusyBeingBest]

26. I feel less invested in the primary process this time, there's no one candidate

who has consistently inspired me or won my loyalty yet. So that does afford some detachment and honest rational evaluation. Not as exciting as being passionate about someone, but that's OK. Bloomberg's been politically all over the map, had some good ideas and some terrible ones that I wouldn't be comfortable with, like you, but I'm hoping he becomes more solid and CONSISTENT as a Democrat going forward.

[sarisataka]

15. Money is free speech

And it seems many are ok with that now.

[msongs]

16. Bernie raked in $40 mil recently. speaking of buying nominations nt

[Shrek]

17. Not unless he's paying for votes

Paying for ads and campaign expenses is something every candidate does.

[Blue_true]

22. Where have you been? Took some time off from DU? nt

[Shrek]

23. I'm here most days

I usually find it more rewarding to read than to post.

[wyldwolf]

25. He's not buying votes. He's buying your attention. Every Democrat is.

The fact he has more resources to buy your attention is neither illegal or unethical.

Bernie Sanders has more money than Warren, Biden, or Mayor Pete. Is he BUYING you?

[bottomofthehill]

27. Three term Mayor of New York vrs 2 term Mayor of South Bend

What qualifications does this Bloomberg have, (3 term mayor of a city with 8 million people) over mayor Pete ( two term mayor of a city of 100,000) There is a little more there than just money.

[highplainsdem]

30. You could ask the same thing about candidates offering to wipe out huge amounts of debt even for

people who can afford to repay that debt. And one isn't putting any limit on how much debt will be wiped out, or how well off the person with that debt might be. And unlike other debt forgiveness, this will be tax-free.

Neither they nor Bloomberg are directly buying votes, or the nomination.

What Bloomberg is buying is advertising and staffing. So far I haven't seen anyone accusing him of dishonest advertising.

And I want to note, one more time, that I'm not at all againt helping people with student debt who really need the help. Biden's plan does that.

But both the Warren plan and the Sanders plan for student debt forgiveness -- especially the Sanders plan -- are regressive, not progressive, and they both seem aimed at the youngest-voters demographic, which is Sanders' main strength.

I'm sure ALL our candidates would do much better with the youngest voters if they, too, were willing to offer $1.6 trillion in student debt forgiveness, tax free.

Fortunately they're more pragmatic, and less willing to make promises they can't keep.

[MineralMan]

31. No, we're not for sale, but TV ad time is.

Bloomberg is clearly not a traditional presidential candidate. His approach is completely different from any of the others. He is focused almost entirely on advertising, and has hired an excellent agency to create his ads. He's buying nothing but air time. He can't buy votes. He can't buy poll results. He can only buy ads.

And here's the thing: Bloomberg's ads are among the best political campaign ads I've ever seen. Consistently. He has a carefully planned campaign that uses TV to get his message across, and he does it better than anyone.

I don't know who his ad agency is, nor who produces his ads, but they're state of the art, not just in production values, but in concept and planning, too.

So, without bothering with the four earliest states, he has focused on the Super Tuesday states, and has now expanded his focus to include additional states.

Strikingly, his ads focus more on defeating Trump that electing Bloomberg. Why? Because he isn't primarily focused on being the Democratic nominee or becoming President. His focus has been on why Donald Trump needs to go. He has also clearly stated that, if he is not the nominee, he will continue his ad campaign to help the nominee win the election.

The result? His name is rising in poll results, after being pretty much ignored during the run-up to the folly that was the Iowa caucuses. You may have noticed the jump in Bloomberg's polling immediately after the Iowa debacle. Now, Bloomberg is being seen as a serious potential contender. In one national poll I saw yesterday, he is in third place, ahead of Elizabeth Warren.

Do I think he will be the nominee? No. Do I think he will change the campaign? Absolutely.

If you haven't seen Bloomberg ads, you will. If you're in a Super Tuesday state, you've been seeing them for quite some time if you watch broadcast TV news programming. That's when they're running...at the time more people are tuned into their local ABC, CBS or NBC station than any other time. You might not realize it, but the audience for broadcast network news is vastly larger than for cable news programming. Nobody mentions that, but Bloomberg's campaign strategy takes advantage of it in a way that nobody else is doing.

Bloomberg is not buying votes. He's buying your attention at a time when you're consuming news programming. It's working, and very well, indeed.

[mia]

32. Well said.

Thank you.

[MineralMan]

35. Thanks.

Many people on DU focus almost entirely on issues and policies. Many people on DU get their news only from online sources and cable networks like MSNBC. DU is not at all representative of the voting population. I'm not representative of it, either. I'm more of an observer, really.

In 2016, something around 150 million people voted in the presidential election, maybe. It's difficult for the 2500 or so regular DU readers to recognize how large that population is or how varied it is. Most of those voters do not follow the news online, except through second hand commentary about it on social media. Most do not watch MSNBC or even Fox News.

Most voters watch what news they watch on television on their local network affiliate stations. ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox. They pay attention to the news only during whatever news hour they take the time to watch. Most voters do not subscribe to a newspaper. Newspaper subscription number continue to fall. Those broadcast networks have audiences that dwarf cable news.

Most voters end up deciding for whom to vote based on personality and campaign promises, not on policies and concepts. Our arguments here on DU are not of any interest to most voters. The candidates know that, even Bernie Sanders. They talk to policy wonks like DUers, but only because they're listening. Mostly, though, they make broad promises that appeal to specific demographic groups. It is their individual personalty, though, that determines their voter acceptance. Trump is a blowhard. Sanders is a gumpy old man who promises things he can't deliver. Biden is a friendly uncle you trust pretty much. Bloomberg is a smart rich guy who sees through Trump. There's a simple description one can make about any of the candidates, and that's really what a majority of people will vote on.

Even more, they'll vote for the person who makes the most sense to them, based on factors that are difficult to determine.

It's fascinating. And the fact that Donald Trump won in 2016 should frighten us all. If a man like him can win a presidential election, there is something terribly wrong with our society. I just hope we can get someone elected who will return things to a more normal balance. This is a very dangerous period on our country's path. Much is at risk.

[Jose Garcia]

33. If it were, Tom Steyer would be doing much better

[xmas74]

36. What I'm hearing in Middle America:

People like Bloomberg's ads-alot. They see him as someone who can fight Trump with money and lots of it. They enjoy him getting under his skin.

Am I a fan? No, but I've had Independents contact me about having someone from the local Bloomberg campaign come to speak at the Democratic club meeting. Our regular members know who they're supporting and are focusing on down ticket. Our newest guests are interested in Bloomberg, Buttigieg,Yang and a few want info on Steyer.

Just an observation here in rural Missouri.

[flamingdem]

37. If you don't want Bloomberg get behind Biden

He's our best chance