the art of our necessities is strange
January 23, 2016 12:34 PM Subscribe

"If you have a Democratic frontrunner who is opposed to capitalism and a Republican frontrunner who wants to deport 10 million immigrants, that'll make a difference."

Michael Bloomberg set to run for President.
posted by four panels (317 comments total) 10 users marked this as a favorite

stop, just stop
posted by yueliang at 12:37 PM on January 23, 2016 [46 favorites]

We are Bernie voters here, and would strongly consider voting for Bloomberg. Very strongly.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:38 PM on January 23, 2016 [4 favorites]

The former mayor was raised in a Democratic family outside of Boston, and contributed to Democratic campaigns as a young man. But he always viewed the two-party system as a political Uber -- a convenient means of getting where he wanted to go that commanded little personal allegiance -- and ran for mayor under the Republican banner only because it offered him an easier path to nomination.

I admire the courage of his convictions.
posted by GenjiandProust at 12:39 PM on January 23, 2016 [28 favorites]

(sighs tiredly) Sure, why not.
posted by emjaybee at 12:39 PM on January 23, 2016 [44 favorites]

One nation under moon law here we come.
posted by Artw at 12:41 PM on January 23, 2016 [12 favorites]

I just feel like he would continue the same old shit. I mean, look at him deciding not to run if Clinton gets nominated, that is so very telling.
posted by yueliang at 12:42 PM on January 23, 2016 [28 favorites]

I bet he's more scared of Bernie than he is of Trump. And that makes me happy.
posted by pjsky at 12:43 PM on January 23, 2016 [14 favorites]

The debates will just be him and Trump whipping bundled stacks of $100 bills at each other until one falls down.
posted by The Card Cheat at 12:43 PM on January 23, 2016 [110 favorites]

He's a totalitarian. Trump lite, or Trump with progressive proclivities. It will be "stop and frisk" for the whole nation.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 12:43 PM on January 23, 2016 [28 favorites]

American presidential politics is the weirdest soap opera.
posted by the uncomplicated soups of my childhood at 12:43 PM on January 23, 2016 [17 favorites]

The debates will just be him and Trump whipping bundled stacks of $100 bills at each other until one falls down.

You seriously think they handle money? They have people to do that for them.
posted by srboisvert at 12:45 PM on January 23, 2016 [9 favorites]

First, I still don't see Bernie getting the nod. Second, I don't see a path to Bloomberg winning the general, so all he'd end up doing is playing spoiler. The question is for whom would he steal votes. I'm thinking sane people, so probably Bernie voters. That's the path to a Trump presidency and the End Times.

If he did win (and third party candidates don't win), how does he govern, exactly? He's got no core constituency in Congress to support him.

It just doesn't make any sense.
posted by leotrotsky at 12:45 PM on January 23, 2016 [11 favorites]

We are Bernie voters here, and would strongly consider voting for Bloomberg. Very strongly.

But... why? That doesn't make any sense at all. They're, like, opposites?
posted by Justinian at 12:45 PM on January 23, 2016 [77 favorites]

...contributed to Democratic campaigns as a young man. But he always viewed the two-party system as a political Uber -- a convenient means of getting where he wanted to go

Bloomberg has been viewing things as "political Ubers" since before Uber even existed. People must have thought he was crazy, but look at him now. Truly a visionary
posted by oulipian at 12:46 PM on January 23, 2016 [10 favorites]

leotrotsky says the same thing. No comprendo. Why would votes for the socialist switch to votes for the arch capitalist? Am I living in bizarro world?
posted by Justinian at 12:46 PM on January 23, 2016 [7 favorites]

I bet he's more scared of Bernie than he is of Trump.

Yep.

The fact is Hillary Clinton is behind in Iowa and New Hampshire. That should scare a lot of people — and it does.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 12:47 PM on January 23, 2016 [3 favorites]

Aren't there filing deadlines for states, which vary for each? So this is just a play to swing the election a particular way, not actually win?

Goddamn this year is going to suck.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 12:48 PM on January 23, 2016 [6 favorites]

Per the article, he's going to make his decision by March, which is as late as his advisors think he can get on all 50 state ballots.
posted by Etrigan at 12:50 PM on January 23, 2016

If it's Bernie vs. Trump and Bloomberg runs, I think that probably means that Trump wins. And that's a pretty scary scenario.

I still don't think it's going to be Bernie, though. Bernie might win Iowa and New Hampshire, but I don't think he'll win the whole thing.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 12:50 PM on January 23, 2016 [7 favorites]

leotrotsky says the same thing. No comprendo. Why would votes for the socialist switch to votes for the arch capitalist? Am I living in bizarro world?

There is a huge constituency of people out there who hate big sodas. Bloomberg will win in a landslide.
posted by Drinky Die at 12:52 PM on January 23, 2016 [10 favorites]

Why would votes for the socialist switch to votes for the arch capitalist?

Because the vast majority of Americans vote for personalities, not policies.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 12:54 PM on January 23, 2016 [21 favorites]

leotrotsky says the same thing. No comprendo. Why would votes for the socialist switch to votes for the arch capitalist? Am I living in bizarro world?

There are a surprisingly large number of people who aren't sure whether they support Bernie or Trump. They're both vaguely populist and anti-establishment, shouty 'outsiders', so I guess it makes sense as long as you don't pay attention to what they're actually saying.

A lot of people are really bad at ideology and just kinda vote for who makes them feel better. Which is not completely unreasonable, but it does result in voting patterns you wouldn't predict if you model people as ideologues, which they aren't.
posted by BungaDunga at 12:56 PM on January 23, 2016 [26 favorites]

He's a totalitarian. Trump lite, or Trump with progressive proclivities. It will be "stop and frisk" for the whole nation.

Between him and Giuliani and LaGuardia, is the true "New York values" authoritarianism? Because that's what it takes to run that town?
posted by Apocryphon at 12:56 PM on January 23, 2016 [4 favorites]

"I'm against big banks, but am for the biggest banker."
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 12:56 PM on January 23, 2016 [9 favorites]

If he runs, he's not going to take votes from Trump. Bloomberg runs a gun control lobby. That is all ye know and all ye need to know to judge how the Republican base will react to him. Hell, your average Trump voter would probably vote for Sanders on sheer anti-establishment points alone before considering Bloomberg.

So yeah, this handcart is slow and boring. Let's go to hell on a rocket sled instead.
posted by Grimgrin at 12:56 PM on January 23, 2016 [11 favorites]

So, if Cruz and Hillary get the respective nods and Trump goes third party, and please God Bernie follows suit, dare we hope for a genuine five way race?

For that, I might actually subscribe for some basic cable

Because the vast majority of Americans vote for personalities, not policies.

I'd rephrase that. They vote against personalities.
posted by BWA at 12:57 PM on January 23, 2016 [9 favorites]

But... why? That doesn't make any sense at all. They're, like, opposites?
Justinian

The startling numbers of former Paulbots who are now feeling the Bern, despite Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders having almost diametrically opposite belief systems, leads one to conclude that people don't really care what the candidates' actual positions or views are.

Rather, I think both of them attract people out of a general anger against the status quo. You can say that at least both of them aren't espousing business as usual.
posted by Sangermaine at 12:57 PM on January 23, 2016 [11 favorites]

liberalism is only appealing to the rich people who benefit from it, and to the people they pay to talk it up in the media. Bloomberg will not win a significant fraction of the vote in a sanders-bloomberg-trump race, because among the electorate as a whole Bloomberg's liberalism is significantly less appealing than Sanders's social democracy or Trump's white nationalist fascism.

The only way I can see Bloomberg drawing votes from Sanders supporters is if a significant fraction of the institutional Democratic Party endorses him — if like Clinton and Wasserman-Schultz and the party's legislative leadership decides to revolt against the rank-and-file party membership, like the Parliamentary Labour Party has revolted against Corbyn. In which case may Based God help us all, because it'd mean the fucking Trotskyists were right all along about what the Democratic Party is.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 12:57 PM on January 23, 2016 [13 favorites]

I don't think that Bloomberg would get lots of enthusiastic Sanders voters. I think he would get a lot of anyone-but-Trump and/or centrist Democratic voters who would otherwise hold their noses and vote for Bernie.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 12:58 PM on January 23, 2016 [10 favorites]

the theory that on 9/11 we entered an alternate, shittier, timeline grows more and more compelling by the day
posted by nadawi at 1:00 PM on January 23, 2016 [78 favorites]

If Sanders looks close to getting the nod Bloomberg would be running purely to make sure he doesn't get the presidency; he would prefer Trump to Sanders.

And that's all you need to know.
posted by fullerine at 1:02 PM on January 23, 2016 [64 favorites]

The startling numbers of former Paulbots who are now feeling the Bern, despite Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders having almost diametrically opposite belief systems, leads one to conclude that people don't really care what the candidates' actual positions or views are.

Rather, I think both of them attract people out of a general anger against the status quo. You can say that at least both of them aren't espousing business as usual.
posted by Sangermaine at 12:57 PM on January 23 [+] [!]

Although Paulites are prominent on certain reprehensible web fora that we shall not name, there's never been a significant number of them out in reality — most people can tell that libertarianism is just market liberalism with the mask off, and unless you're rich, white, male, and young, market liberalism with the mask off is real ugly for you.

Both the white nationalist fascist movement that's aligned behind Trump and the mildly socialist Sanders movement are significantly larger and more meaningful than libertarianism ever was or ever will be.

Like, yeah, there's Paulites out there who've turned into brocialists for Sanders, but despite how ungodly loud they are, there's not that many of them. Because there weren't that many Paulites to start with.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 1:03 PM on January 23, 2016 [9 favorites]

The question is for whom would he steal votes. I'm thinking sane people, so probably Bernie voters. That's the path to a Trump presidency and the End Times.

It is starting to feel like the opening headlines montage from a post-apocalyptic movie up in here.
posted by strangely stunted trees at 1:04 PM on January 23, 2016 [9 favorites]

> It is starting to feel like the opening headlines montage from a post-apocalyptic movie up in here.

yes, so long as we agree that the montage started with headlines about the Bush v. Gore ruling.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 1:05 PM on January 23, 2016 [24 favorites]

liberalism is only appealing to the rich people who benefit from it, and to the people they pay to talk it up in the media.

To clarify, you mean economic liberalism, correct? Neoliberalism? Otherwise that's a confusing statement.
posted by leotrotsky at 1:05 PM on January 23, 2016 [3 favorites]

Nader, Paul, Bernie, and now Bloomberg all share one core constituency: people who are naively "anti-establishment" enough to roll with somebody who falls outside the boundaries of the either party's establishment.

(Which is not to say that all supporters of any given one of these candidates were naive anti-establishment types, but rather that they all have in common a rhetoric and persona that attract people who are naively anti-establishment.)
posted by tobascodagama at 1:05 PM on January 23, 2016 [5 favorites]

The startling numbers of former Paulbots who are now feeling the Bern

are a myth
posted by Drinky Die at 1:06 PM on January 23, 2016 [8 favorites]

The only way I can see Bloomberg drawing votes from Sanders supporters is if a significant fraction of the institutional Democratic Party endorses him — if like Clinton and Wasserman-Schultz and the party's legislative leadership decides to revolt against the rank-and-file party membership, like the Parliamentary Labour Party has revolted against Corbyn.

What would be more entertaining is if the DNC and the RNC joined forces to rally around an emergency unity ticket against the masses. Biden-Romney?
posted by Apocryphon at 1:07 PM on January 23, 2016 [6 favorites]

Bloomberg helped Snyder get reelected... wonder how that's working out.

brocialists? really? god damn it all to hell
posted by M Edward at 1:07 PM on January 23, 2016 [7 favorites]

there's never been a significant number of them out in reality

i first ran into rabid ron paul supporters - multiple times - uncomfortably - in grocery check out lines and parking lots. i'm sure it depends on where you are, but the idea that they were just loud on the internet doesn't track with my experience (setting aside that of course people on the internet walk around outside holding those same opinions).
posted by nadawi at 1:08 PM on January 23, 2016 [4 favorites]

But... why? That doesn't make any sense at all. They're, like, opposites?

We are New Yorkers who thought he did a fantastic job as mayor. so there's that.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:08 PM on January 23, 2016 [3 favorites]

Nader, Paul, Bernie, and now Bloomberg all share one core constituency: people who are naively "anti-establishment" enough to roll with somebody who falls outside the boundaries of the either party's establishment.

I don't know. I feel like Bloomberg is fundamentally different from the other ones. He doesn't feel anti-establishment to me. He's totally establishment. He's just sorta in that in-between gray zone that used to be occupied by liberal Republicans and that doesn't have a convenient party home anymore. I think that establishment types in both parties would be much more comfortable with Bloomberg than with either Bernie or Trump.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 1:09 PM on January 23, 2016 [14 favorites]

Billionaires In My Elections
posted by uosuaq at 1:09 PM on January 23, 2016 [3 favorites]

I'm about this close to voting for Pat Paulsen.
posted by delfin at 1:09 PM on January 23, 2016 [16 favorites]

But... why? That doesn't make any sense at all. They're, like, opposites?

Ideologically, yes. But they are both Not-Clinton, which for a lot of people is going to trump ideological details.

I can't think of any other major candidate who was as fervently anti-gun as Bloomberg, though. It's hard to see that being a winning aspect nationally, but there is a sizable percentage of republicans who say they won't vote for Trump, so those votes may be at least somewhat in play.
posted by Dip Flash at 1:10 PM on January 23, 2016 [1 favorite]

(I should say I am not interested in voting for Bloomberg OVER Sanders. If Bernie gets the nomination, he will get my vote. But if Bloomberg did run against Clinton and Trump, which he should reserve the right to do, I will vote for him.)
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 1:11 PM on January 23, 2016

Seriously, though, is Biden any more progressive than Clinton or are they both typical establishment Democrats, I can check On the Issues but I want to know the prevailing consensus
posted by Apocryphon at 1:11 PM on January 23, 2016

despite the democratic process or the law or whatever, i just want to nominate biden as vp for life no matter who the president is.
posted by nadawi at 1:13 PM on January 23, 2016 [17 favorites]

I am starting to wonder what Howard Dean has been up to.
posted by 4ster at 1:13 PM on January 23, 2016 [13 favorites]

I don't know. I feel like Bloomberg is fundamentally different from the other ones. He doesn't feel anti-establishment to me. He's totally establishment.

Well, which establishment? I guess it's my fault for being vague about that. He's not a DNC/RNC type, is mostly what I mean. (Trump isn't, either, but he's too much of a cartoon villain to attract the kind of people I'm talking about.)
posted by tobascodagama at 1:13 PM on January 23, 2016

Seriously, though, is Biden any more progressive than Clinton or are they both typical establishment Democrats, I can check On the Issues but I want to know the prevailing consensus

If anything he is more conservative in some ways (though less hawkish internationally), but with considerably more integrity and consistency.

Supposedly he has been regretting his choice to not run, now that the race is playing out this way, but my understanding is that he's well past the point of no return (without Bloomberg's capacity to self-fund a candidacy).
posted by Dip Flash at 1:16 PM on January 23, 2016 [2 favorites]

The former mayor was raised in a Democratic family outside of Boston, and contributed to Democratic campaigns as a young man. But he always viewed the two-party system as a political Uber -- a convenient means of getting where he wanted to go that commanded little personal allegiance -- and ran for mayor under the Republican banner only because it offered him an easier path to nomination.

The prerogative of a rich white man.

If Sanders looks close to getting the nod Bloomberg would be running purely to make sure he doesn't get the presidency; he would prefer Trump to Sanders.

And that's all you need to know.

See above.
posted by HumuloneRanger at 1:17 PM on January 23, 2016

Biden is not in any way more progressive than Hillary, but people like him better because reasons.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 1:17 PM on January 23, 2016 [15 favorites]

Ideologically, yes. But they are both Not-Clinton, which for a lot of people is going to trump ideological details.

Bloomberg seems extremely Clinton from here, FWIW.
posted by Artw at 1:18 PM on January 23, 2016 [7 favorites]

I don't know, this might not be so bad. I mean, the morning after President Trump's inauguration, we'd wake up to a smoldering crater where our country used to be. I feel like with President Bloomberg, it would take several weeks.

Me, I'm debating between writing in Jello Biafra or writing in Richard Sherman...
posted by Slarty Bartfast at 1:19 PM on January 23, 2016 [10 favorites]

> liberalism is only appealing to the rich people who benefit from it, and to the people they pay to talk it up in the media.

To clarify, you mean economic liberalism, correct? Neoliberalism? Otherwise that's a confusing statement.
posted by leotrotsky at 1:05 PM on January 23 [+] [!]

I'm a real stickler for terminology here, because I think getting the terminology right clarifies the actual political processes at play. Although in America "liberal" has meant "everything from the center right left" since the 1980s in most places other than college campuses and the Bay Area (and college campuses in the Bay Area), it is a very useful distinction.

Phil Ochs on liberalism.

I refrain from using the neologism "neoliberalism," because there is nothing "neo" about neoliberalism. It's the same old idea that abstract equality before the market is sufficient to achieve freedom — this is the idea behind both "social liberalism" and "economic liberalism" — and it's a total crock. Abstract equality before the market in a world where most people are dispossessed of everything but their labor time means less than nothing.

Our governing institutions for most of the 20th century were, as you know, for the most part liberal (in this technical sense); the Democrats tended to be the liberals who tempered their liberalism with support for moderate social welfare measures, while the Republicans tended to be the liberals who mixed their liberalism with support for white supremacy, patriarchy, militant Christianity, and ultranationalism.

The cable news stations that no one watches are liberal; the cable news station that old people watch is liberal-leaning-fascist; both political parties are institutionally liberal (even though there's little support for liberalism from the base of either party right now); and Bloomberg, as a rich person, of course loves liberalism.

Presenting liberalism as neoliberalism obscures the actual dynamics that have been in play since the start of the 20th century. We are a socialist-and-fascist country ruled by liberal political parties and liberal institutions. Liberalism is breaking down in America. This might turn out to be a really terrible thing — there's a very good chance that more of us are fascist than socialist.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 1:19 PM on January 23, 2016 [40 favorites]

So you mean "classical liberal." Or, "liberal in an European/Australian/Canadian/everywhere except the U.S. sense." Our definition of "liberal" is like the political terminology equivalent to using Imperial instead of metric, I feel.
posted by Apocryphon at 1:21 PM on January 23, 2016 [4 favorites]

A tangent, but I'm wondering if a lot of pro-Bernie supporters are really just anti-Hilary, not necessarily because they're misogynists or whatever, it's just the current insurgent narrative is that she's the arch-fraud collaborator with corporate interests who works to uphold the corrupt establishment while pushing incremental reform. But that really just means she's a mainstream Democrat.

My take, as a Bernie supporter, is exactly the reverse. Bernie offers a chance, however incredible, of eventual real economic and political change in this country, a desire I believe is shared by many populist-supporting Republicans as well. Hillary, at best, means incremental change in line with her firmly centrist history and strong ties to the financial folks. Which is the path that's been leading us steadily downwards for the last thirty years. Or something like that.

Hillary's fine - but she's uninspired and severely compromised - and I'll vote for her if it comes to that. But I really hope it doesn't.

And yes, Biden seems to have much more integrity than she does.
posted by emmet at 1:23 PM on January 23, 2016 [29 favorites]

More to the point. Given the huge gap in our nation, if the next president is a Dem, he will have to do a lot more executive actions to get anything done. This means all he does will go to the Supreme Court. Then the GOP will announce that when they win the White House they will undo whatever exec actions were put in place.Our future then is that a lot of executive actions will be the order of business. And of course Congress, controlling the purse, will act to stop the president.

Hard times ahead on the American dinner plate.
posted by Postroad at 1:26 PM on January 23, 2016 [3 favorites]

whatever terms you use, bloomberg and sanders do not share economic views and they are pretty far apart from each other.
posted by nadawi at 1:28 PM on January 23, 2016 [6 favorites]

Well, from 1970 until today it wasn't necessary for Americans to get the terminology right, since there was no functioning left in America.

The main thing insisting on terminology clarifies for me, at least, is how both fascists and leftists have largely the same critique of the legislative branch and of the mass media; both the legislature and the media are liberal, and both the left and the right are observing the problems of liberalism from their different perspectives. This doesn't mean that the left and the right are somehow "the same" because they object to the same things in the same ways; left perspectives tend to be valid, and right perspectives are always reprehensible.

This is, for whatever it's worth, how I've been able to hold fruitful conversations with family members who identify as Republicans; Republicans, just like decent people, can see how our institutions are corporatist and liberal, but because of our screwed-up discourse they think that corporatist liberalism is a left wing thing.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 1:28 PM on January 23, 2016 [16 favorites]

Well, which establishment? I guess it's my fault for being vague about that. He's not a DNC/RNC type, is mostly what I mean.

Sure. The DNC would prefer to have Hillary, and the RNC would prefer to have Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio or someone like that. But I don't think that either of them would look at Bloomberg and see the apocalypse. They look at Bernie and see 4 years of total gridlock, because there's no way that the Republican Congress is going to play with him at all. They look at Trump and see the end of the fucking world. Bloomberg may not be their preference, but he's basically within the mainstream of the American political system. They know what to do with him.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 1:28 PM on January 23, 2016 [5 favorites]

Sanders is NOT opposed to capitalism! Social democracy is capitalistic! It's not state control of major industrial or business sectors. It's just careful about redistributing wealth to make things fairer for all.
posted by persona au gratin at 1:26 PM on January 23 [+] [!]

Yes, which is why I think it's so weird that Sanders insists on identifying as a democratic socialist rather than a social democrat. I for reals do not get that at all. He's been far enough inside left politics for long enough to know damn well exactly what he's doing every time he says "democratic socialist" rather than "social democrat."

I mean, it's fascinating, and it's intriguing, but I don't get it. Why is he dogwhistling to me? I'm a crazy person!
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 1:29 PM on January 23, 2016 [33 favorites]

And I'm a Bernie supporter, though I do think he's being disingenuous with his health care proposal on the cost side. And given the nihilists in the GOP, a Bernie administration probably wouldn't differ very much in policy effected from a Hillary administration. And I think Hillary will be a good president.
posted by persona au gratin at 1:30 PM on January 23, 2016 [7 favorites]

Sanders *NEEDS* to win Iowa. But he is not looking likely at all.

Any Sanders supporter who would ignore Sanders himself and vote for Bloomberg over Clinton though? Ridiculous waste of a vote.
posted by markkraft at 1:31 PM on January 23, 2016 [3 favorites]

Buick: ha. Yes, in general his lack of branding is great branding. But in that term, ugg. I agree.
posted by persona au gratin at 1:32 PM on January 23, 2016

That Loras poll was a total outlier, markkraft. I don't think anyone has any idea what's going to happen in Iowa. Most of the polls have it being pretty close, and turnout is anyone's call.

I've stopped answering my phone until next Monday.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 1:32 PM on January 23, 2016 [1 favorite]

Can we please just go ahead and put all the candidates in the Thunderdome right now? I love politics but this election cycle is really putting my love to the test. I like some of Bloomberg's ideas but for the most part, this announcement is a little yawn worthy due to the timing.
posted by Muncle at 1:34 PM on January 23, 2016 [3 favorites]

I am starting to wonder what Howard Dean has been up to.

Works for a firm that lobbies on behalf of pharmaceutical and for-profit health care interests.
posted by saul wright at 1:34 PM on January 23, 2016 [9 favorites]

Trump is the death throes of a very old and hateful America that is on its way to the grave. Thank God. Young America is tolerant and cosmopolitan and urban and not full of fear.
posted by persona au gratin at 1:35 PM on January 23, 2016

The reason why, right now, I don't think Sanders is going to win Iowa is that O'Malley is still polling at like 5 percent, and during the actual caucus process once O'Malley is out I suspect most of the pro-O'Malley caucus-goers are going to go for Clinton in the subsequent round.

The other reason why I don't think Sanders is going to win Iowa is that I still have psychological scars from roughly this time in the cycle 12 years ago, when I thought that Howard Dean's army of flown-in orange-hat wearing college students were going to turn out enough caucus-goers to win Iowa for Dean, and as such I am constitutionally incapable of getting my hopes up.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 1:35 PM on January 23, 2016 [4 favorites]

> Trump is the death throes of a very old and hateful America that is on its way to the grave. Thank God. Young America is tolerant and cosmopolitan and urban and not full of fear.

Isn't that what people said about Nixon?
posted by The Card Cheat at 1:36 PM on January 23, 2016 [13 favorites]

>> I am starting to wonder what Howard Dean has been up to.

> Works for a firm that lobbies on behalf of pharmaceutical and for-profit health care interests.
posted by saul wright at 1:34 PM on January 23 [+] [!]

That said, though, the organization he founded is socialist af, and they're significantly more politically powerful right now than Dean himself is.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 1:37 PM on January 23, 2016 [4 favorites]

We are Bernie voters here, and would strongly consider voting for Bloomberg. Very strongly.

buhhh
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 1:38 PM on January 23, 2016 [3 favorites]

Trump is the death throes of a very old and hateful America that is on its way to the grave. Thank God. Young America is tolerant and cosmopolitan and urban and not full of fear.
persona au gratin

I think you've got that backwards. Trump is a rallying cry of a worryingly large number of people who do not want that kind of future.

The assumption that we're inevitably marching towards a glorious, better future is really dangerous because it lets people get lazy and complacent. Trump shows that that vision is anything but inevitable, and we mock and dismiss him and his supporters at our peril.

Not that Trump himself is so great, but that he's tapping into something real and dangerous. If Trump fails someone else is going to pick up the banner.
posted by Sangermaine at 1:41 PM on January 23, 2016 [22 favorites]

I am neither a registered Democrat nor a registered Republican. No party affiliation here. I am my own $20 Super PAC. I would consider Bloomberg even if he is a Red Sox fan. The way I see it, he is fiscally conservative and socially liberal, supports gun control and is not financially beholden to anyone. He is in the middle of this country. Cruz and Trump are insane. 'nough said. Hilary is a lying opportunist. This email thing is big and real. Bernie, while a lovely man, will polarize this country. The conservatives will wake up to find out that they are not the eyes of the world but that there is someone in office worse to them than Obama. It is a simplistic view of US politics, but the US population is for a large part, simpletons me included. A third party candidate has the best chance of a third party candidate in the last 100 years.
posted by AugustWest at 1:41 PM on January 23, 2016 [12 favorites]

So according to my Twitter feed, Chuck Grassley just said something that sounded a lot like an endorsement of Trump and then announced that he's going to be introducing Marco Rubio at an event next week. The feeling is basically that he's on Team Anyone-But-Ted-Cruz, including potentially Trump. Which is kind of an amazing testament to how much he must hate Cruz. Apparently Cruz is literally the worst person in the world and many Republicans hate him intensely merely because he's a huge asshole.

I hate to say this, but I think the Republican establishment may be deciding that they can stomach Trump. I'm seriously starting to get scared that we could have a President Trump.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 1:43 PM on January 23, 2016 [2 favorites]

Well, this will certainly help Charlie Rose fill a guest slot at least once a week.
posted by Thorzdad at 1:43 PM on January 23, 2016 [1 favorite]

"They look at Bernie and see 4 years of total gridlock, because there's no way that the Republican Congress is going to play with him at all."

What makes you think that the Democrats would, either?!

You know how Democrats needed to have their arms twisted to vote for Obamacare, and how it cost many their careers? Well, Bernie's plans are worse than that, and would be contested by hundreds of millions of dollars of Harry and Louise ads on basically everything he'd try to do.

Seriously, Bernie's whole agenda is D.O.A. This goes a long way to explain why even if he wins a handful of states in the primaries, he'll lose them once the Democratic superdelegates cast their votes.
posted by markkraft at 1:44 PM on January 23, 2016 [3 favorites]

Well, this will certainly help Charlie Rose fill a guest slot at least once a week.

If the morning news is any indication, Charlie is exhausted.
posted by jonmc at 1:45 PM on January 23, 2016

PredictWise gives Iowa about 60/40 to Clinton, and the nomination overall 80/20 again to Clinton. If Bernie wins Iowa I guess the latter odds will readjust quickly towards him. Trump's chance at the nomination has roughly doubled in the last few weeks to almost 50% at the expense of Cruz, who is about on par with Bush at 10%.

Which of the candidates can guarantee global nuclear annihilation? I'd like to vote for him or her.

Why choose the lesser evil?
posted by BungaDunga at 1:45 PM on January 23, 2016 [3 favorites]

Hateful racist/sexist fuckery is like cockroaches ya'll; you can nuke 95% of it but if you ignore that 5% and leave scraps around, pretty soon you got problems. Don't get complacent.
posted by emjaybee at 1:46 PM on January 23, 2016 [5 favorites]

The way I see it, he is fiscally conservative and socially liberal, supports gun control and is not financially beholden to anyone.

hmm well I'd say I'm fiscally conservative but socially very liberal. the problems are bad but their causes...their causes are very good
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 1:48 PM on January 23, 2016 [19 favorites]

yes, so long as we agree that the montage started with headlines about the Bush v. Gore ruling.

I blame Nader(*) for all of this.

As I said in another thread, outside of NYC and a handful of deans at Johns Hopkins University, thanks to the media, mainstream Americans know absolutely nothing about Bloomberg except that he would take away their guns and soda, two of America's most favoritest consumer products. Gun massacres drive gun sales and the rest of us sit on our asses sipping refreshments while people get shot, and thus guns and soda pop prop up our ailing economy in ways that we're uncomfortable dealing with in rational ways. So while I agree with some of Bloomberg's social policies, the only ego he would help get elected by running is Trump's.

* : Actually, 300K+ Democratic voters in Florida who picked Bush are numerically to blame, but it's easier to blame Nader.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 1:50 PM on January 23, 2016 [3 favorites]

The debates will just be him and Trump whipping bundled stacks of $100 bills at each other until one falls down.

*ahem*
posted by Fizz at 1:52 PM on January 23, 2016 [3 favorites]

edeezy: Hillary Clinton's foreign policy will require starting a war with Russia to get it implemented if that helps you decide.
posted by Grimgrin at 1:55 PM on January 23, 2016 [1 favorite]

Young America is tolerant and cosmopolitan and urban and not full of fear.

Young America doesn't vote nearly as much as Old America.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 1:55 PM on January 23, 2016

Card Cheat: yeah, but we've actual data to show this. But, you're right, maybe today's kids turn into Alex Keaton in 25 years. It could happen.
posted by persona au gratin at 1:57 PM on January 23, 2016

If it's Bernie vs. Trump and Bloomberg runs, I think that probably means that Trump wins. And that's a pretty scary scenario.

That is, I think , the point of this exercise. It's a billionaire trying to hold the democratic nomination hostage.
posted by mhoye at 1:58 PM on January 23, 2016 [19 favorites]

I think we are headed toward a better future. This is consistent with insisting that we now make sure Trump isn't our next president. Or any of the GOP.
posted by persona au gratin at 1:59 PM on January 23, 2016 [1 favorite]

Well, thank God, Young America has no memory of Ralph Nader. Or Alf, for that matter.
posted by y2karl at 1:59 PM on January 23, 2016

Yeah, with every 5-4 awful SC decision, I thank Nader for campaigning in swing states and making sure we all knew that there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats.
posted by persona au gratin at 2:02 PM on January 23, 2016 [17 favorites]

The Third Way Billionaire Oligarch platform has no real constituency outside of Wall Street and the think tanks paid by Wall Street. Remember how Simpson-Bowles fever swept the nation? Exactly. A Bloomberg campaign would be indistinguishable from an Alan Simpson run.
posted by T.D. Strange at 2:06 PM on January 23, 2016 [3 favorites]

making sure we all knew that there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats.

It's called theater, the difference that is. Yes, the rich and powerful use wedge issues which adversely impact certain minorities and/or vulnerable populations. Hard to believe, I know.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 2:06 PM on January 23, 2016 [2 favorites]

I think we are headed toward a bitter future. Ashes taste bitter, right?
posted by indubitable at 2:07 PM on January 23, 2016 [1 favorite]

Paul Krugman on how change happens

Meanwhile, on the left there is always a contingent of idealistic voters eager to believe that a sufficiently high-minded leader can conjure up the better angels of America’s nature and persuade the broad public to support a radical overhaul of our institutions. In 2008 that contingent rallied behind Mr. Obama; now they’re backing Mr. Sanders, who has adopted such a purist stance that the other day he dismissed Planned Parenthood (which has endorsed Hillary Clinton) as part of the “establishment.”
posted by Brian B. at 2:08 PM on January 23, 2016 [3 favorites]

He could suspend term limits for president!
posted by Obscure Reference at 2:10 PM on January 23, 2016 [5 favorites]

for: he's serious about climate change!
against: blamed the CRA for the GFC :P

nytimes - "Mr. Bloomberg would face daunting and perhaps insurmountable obstacles in a presidential campaign: No independent candidate has ever been elected to the White House, and Mr. Bloomberg's close Wall Street ties and liberal social views, including his strong support for abortion rights and gun control, could repel voters on the left and right."
posted by kliuless at 2:11 PM on January 23, 2016 [1 favorite]

I mean, the morning after President Trump's inauguration, we'd wake up to a smoldering crater where our country used to be.

I would stick around long enough to watch Putin beat the shit out of him on live tv and then I would fight my way onto the next flight up to the ISS.
posted by poffin boffin at 2:13 PM on January 23, 2016

"That Loras poll was a total outlier, markkraft."

... and yet its results are very similar to another recent poll.
posted by markkraft at 2:16 PM on January 23, 2016

Yeah, Krugman has taken a dark turn over the last 2 weeks. The tldr; of his past few columns has been:

1) Don't bother struggling against injustice, corruption, inequality, or simple mass stupidity.
2) It is hopeless.
3) Accept your fate.

I feel like there is something about the NYT's editorial office that just hollows out a person's soul.
posted by Balna Watya at 2:17 PM on January 23, 2016 [19 favorites]

Sanders' odds of winning the whole thing are now as short as 6/1. It's on like Donkey Kong.
posted by colie at 2:29 PM on January 23, 2016 [2 favorites]

One comment deleted. Let's not totally derail into "Sanders is bad" or Bernie vs Hillary stuff, thread is about Bloomberg.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 2:33 PM on January 23, 2016 [1 favorite]

People who are saying Bloomberg would spoil a Trump/Sanders election in favor of Trump: what universe do you live in?

I really think this one of those areas where MeFi's liberal bubble is shining through. Sanders is a socialist. Yeah, in reality he's not that kind of socialist, but the word "socialist" has been political kryptonite in the US for, like, ever.

In a Trump-Sanders race there would be two kinds of swing voters: low-information voters (the usual swing voters) and higher-information centrist/center-left types who hate Trump but also dislike Bernie. The low-information voters will mostly be scared off by the word "socialism," and will vote for Trump. Some of the higher-information centrist/center-left types will hold their noses and vote for Bernie, and some will also stay home. But that group simply is not large enough to offset the low-information group, which will flock to Trump - not necessarily because they love him, but because they need to save the nation from "socialism." A Sanders nomination is Trump's clearest and easiest path to the White House - probably his only path, really.

If Bloomberg runs, suddenly that mass of low-information swing voters that is afraid of "socialism" but maybe finds Trump off-putting has a viable alternative. He'd also pick up pretty much all of the higher-information centrist/center-left voters. I'd consider Bloomberg the favorite in a three-way race with Sanders and Trump, although obviously such a thing would be tremendously difficult to predict.

That said, this is all a hypothetical exercise. Bloomberg saying "I'll consider running if Hillary looks unlikely to get the nomination" is like me, staring at the snow outside my window in Brooklyn right now, saying "I might go to the beach tomorrow if all the snow disappears and it's 80 degrees outside."
posted by breakin' the law at 2:33 PM on January 23, 2016 [6 favorites]

markkraft, that's some very dodgy cherry-picking there. I agree that the overall polling suggests that Sanders is unlikely to win in Iowa, but you've picked the only two polls of the last ten that make the picture look really strong for Clinton. Surely you're aware of some of the other polls conveniently listed over at fivethirtyeight:

Douglas Fulmer & Associates (pdf) has Clinton +9.

Opinion Research Corporation has Sanders +8.

Emerson College (pdf) has Clinton +9.

Selzer & Co. has Clinton +2.

Public Policy Polling (pdf) has Clinton +6.

Quinnipiac (pdf) has Sanders +5.

Mason-Dixon Polling & Research has Clinton +7.

American Research Group has Sanders +3.

Marist College has Clinton +3.

To me, that looks like a slim but real advantage for Clinton, not a runaway freight train.
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 2:35 PM on January 23, 2016 [13 favorites]

Bloomberg would be a disaster.

One the most Ill-considered ideological positions is this bizarre "fiscally conservative but socially liberal" position.

What it means is you're for progressive social causes you don't want to fund.

Thus you're not REALLY progressive where it matters. You have to want to pay to change things rather than deferring those costs onto somebody else.
posted by innocentsabored at 2:56 PM on January 23, 2016 [31 favorites]

Seriously, Bernie's whole agenda is D.O.A.

So is Hillary's.
posted by Drinky Die at 2:58 PM on January 23, 2016 [14 favorites]

So if Trump actually shoots somebody in the middle of Fifth Avenue to prove he won't lose any voters in Iowa, does that say anything about Bloomberg's record of creating a safer New York?
posted by scaryblackdeath at 2:58 PM on January 23, 2016 [3 favorites]

People who are saying Bloomberg would spoil a Trump/Sanders election in favor of Trump: what universe do you live in?

I live in Iowa, and I'm reasonably politically active and aware. I would really never have predicted that Sanders would be viable here, but I'm seeing people go for him who have really surprised me. I suspect that a lot of them may balk at the last minute, but I could be wrong about that. I think, in fact, that you may be a little out of touch with the mood out here in the hinterlands. I don't think that "socialist" has the power to scare people that it did fifteen or twenty years ago.

And I say that as someone who, as of right now, plans to caucus for Hillary.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 3:00 PM on January 23, 2016 [4 favorites]

Seriously, Bernie's whole agenda is D.O.A.

Well, isn't everyone's other than the most tepid incrementalist?

Which was Coates' criticism of Sanders'. If you're going to be radical ( as opposed to incremental ), time for 40 acres and a mule.
posted by mikelieman at 3:14 PM on January 23, 2016 [10 favorites]

I'm still aghast at how little even theoretically self-aware high information voters apparently care about actual positions and policies. Man, I had no idea. The idea that Sanders voters could support Bloomberg over Clinton...

Thanks for opening my eyes!
posted by Justinian at 3:22 PM on January 23, 2016 [2 favorites]

If it's Bernie vs. Trump and Bloomberg runs,

The election will basically be three old dudes from New York yelling at each other.
posted by thivaia at 3:33 PM on January 23, 2016 [51 favorites]

The idea of Sanders actually being the Dem nominee seems pretty fanciful to me, but you have to figure that at least part of Bloomberg's calculus is a black-sheep "Clinton gets indicted over the emails / DOJ refuses to indict and you have mass resignations at FBI" scenario. If she gets forced out or is devastatingly compromised, the race suddenly looks very different, especially if the Dem Stonecutters aren't effectively able to slide Biden or someone else who isn't Bernie into the slot. I wouldn't put the odds for Bloomberg much above 10-20% but when you have that kind of money you can afford to blow a little bit of it on low-risk high-yield gambles.
posted by gerryblog at 3:36 PM on January 23, 2016 [1 favorite]

Someone mentioned a 5 way race; that seems inconceivable. But Trump has made noises/threats before of going independent if he doesn't win the nomination; so it's possible he'll do that (personally, I think his joke candidacy really turned on him when he started winning - too late to back down now, but I don't think he really wants the job). And if Bloomberg runs 3rd party, we'll have two 3rd party candidates. I would love to see a Cruz/Trump/Sanders/Bloomberg 4 way race. I suspect Sanders would come up winning in this scenario, but who the hell knows.

Although there has been a couple of people in this thread enthused about him, it's hard to see exactly Bloomberg would be appealing to; certainly not the Islamic population his police department spied on, certainly not the other minorities his police department stopped-and-frisked, certainly not the NRA types, so what - urban white people?
posted by el io at 3:38 PM on January 23, 2016 [1 favorite]

Checkbook activists?
posted by box at 3:41 PM on January 23, 2016

Am I the only one who thinks Bloomie can win this?

The GOP has a fundamental problem in that their nominee needs to campaign from the hard right in order to win the nomination, and then pivot to some middle in order to win the general election. It's a self-defeating strategy, and gets more self-defeating each election cycle. Trump may win the nom, but would alienate too many people in order to win the general election.

Sanders is exciting, but I have no doubt that the fix is in. We get our little show of democratic expression, but in the end, he can't be allowed to win, and the powers at be will make sure of that. But also, he's simply unappealing to a LOT of people, those who are only concerned with easy labels and not looking at actual policy.

Clinton is, well, Clinton. She's been around too long and has too much baggage. Too many people don't like her, for a whole slew of reasons, legit or not.

Enter Bloomie. For lack of a better label, a Rockefeller Republican, i.e. conservative but sane. That's the political centre ground. He attracts people who don't really want to vote for Clinton for whatever reason, he attracts mainstream Republicans who would find it easier to vote for him than Trump, and Sanders, well, Sanders won't be allowed anywhere near the presidential election anyway.

He's a Republican who is rich enough to bypass the nomination process of conceding to the nutbars. Same strategy as for when he sought the mayorship in the first place, bypassing the crowded Dem field by declaring himself a Republican. But even if he *is* a Republican, a lot of Dems are very comfortable with a lot of his policies.

Drawing from the centre left and centre right, Bloomie is positioned very, very well. Someone 'new' and outsider just enough, a self-made rich guy, establishment support -- I can easily see him taking this, no problem.
posted by Capt. Renault at 3:42 PM on January 23, 2016 [8 favorites]

If it's Bernie vs. Trump and Bloomberg runs,

The election will basically be three old dudes from New York yelling at each other.

"Two Billionaires and a Socialist." I'd totally watch that sitcom.
posted by el io at 3:42 PM on January 23, 2016 [32 favorites]

if Bernie wins in Iowa you are going to see just how little democracy means to the people who run this country.
posted by ennui.bz at 3:43 PM on January 23, 2016 [24 favorites]

Black swan, not black sheep. Make the edit window however long it's been since I posted that.
posted by gerryblog at 3:47 PM on January 23, 2016 [1 favorite]

I can't blame anyone in the managerial class from voting their self-interests and going with Bloomberg. Fortunately, the managerial class is small in relative terms; although they are pound for pound more influential than most people, they think they're vastly more influential than they actually are because maintaining employability in America means diligently flattering managers and executives when they spout their harebrained ideas. This is why every election cycle a bunch of businessmen get the idea that America desperately wants the right manager to come along and tell them what to do, even though literally no one who isn't managerial class wants any part of that.

The best case scenario for a Sanders victory involves Sanders winning the White House, spending a couple of years movement building, and sneaking the occasional bill through the legislature past the two party apparatuses. Even this will only be possible, though, with continual mass pressure from outside electoral institutions. Sanders can make noise from the inside with executive orders, but BLM/Occupy 2.0 or whatever will have to keep up the pressure on Democrats by making noise from the outside through direct action. And then, maybe, in 2018 the Sanderistas could get a real foothold in congress through primary challenges against the worst of the Democrats, much like the Tea Party got a foothold through primary challenges against the least bad of the Republicans.

On the other hand, if Trump or Cruz wins, the Republican party apparatus will fall in line behind them; fascism and white nationalism are compatible with the interests of large business in a way that democratic socialism isn't, and that even social democracy isn't, and the Republican mainline has proved themselves more than willing to follow Tea Party/Trumpist schismatics farther and farther to the right no matter how far to the right they go.

If Clinton wins, well, she won't get anything done, and we'll get to delay figuring out what sort of country we are for another four more years as the depression deepens. This may be for the best; although from hip cities it can seem like Americans are decent, good, cosmopolitan people, I fear that on the whole our culture is corrosive and vicious and that if we were unrestrained we would gladly use our military and police apparatuses to turn the entire world into a living hell.

It would take a miracle for Bloomberg to win. Not worth discussing. Martin O'Malley is more likely to be our next President.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 3:57 PM on January 23, 2016 [18 favorites]

I have a friend from China who is feeling pretty smug about our election season. The Chinese get so much shit from the USA about their government and how backwards they all are that it is supremely satisfying to watch our Great Experiment disintegrate into a clown show.
posted by Anonymous at 3:58 PM on January 23, 2016

if Bernie wins in Iowa you are going to see just how little democracy means to the people who run this country.

Sanders could win Iowa. He could win New Hampshire. Talk to me again if he can win South Carolina.

Sanders is the Obama coalition minus African Americans. That's a losing coalition overall.
posted by Justinian at 4:02 PM on January 23, 2016 [9 favorites]

"Two Billionaires and a Socialist." I'd totally watch that sitcom.

Well, more like Half a Socialist.
posted by Apocryphon at 4:03 PM on January 23, 2016 [1 favorite]

So what with all these third-, fourth-, ...nth-party runs looming is there any chance that 2016 will be the year America finally starts thinking about an alternative to the MLB model of presidential elections, where each league holds a championship series and the two league winners go head to head for the Presidency? Like a ranked-voting system where we wouldn't have to worry about "spoiler candidates" ever again?

(I realize, of course, that the answer is "no because the only people with an interest in making that happen is everyone except those in power".)
posted by hoist with his own pet aardvark at 4:05 PM on January 23, 2016 [4 favorites]

if Bernie wins in Iowa you are going to see just how little democracy means to the people who run this country.

You realize the Iowa caucuses have a super unimpressive track record for determining the eventual nominee, right?
posted by scaryblackdeath at 4:08 PM on January 23, 2016 [8 favorites]

So what with all these third-, fourth-, ...nth-party runs looming is there any chance that 2016 will be the year America finally starts thinking about an alternative to the MLB model of presidential elections, where each league holds a championship series and the two league winners go head to head for the Presidency?

Let me introduce you to the House of Representatives, where the party affiliation by state is currently GOP 33, Dems 14, split 3. They would pick from the top 3 in electoral votes, if nobody gets to 270.

I'm guessing none of them vote for Bloomberg. They love Cruz, and could tolerate Trump as the GOP nom. Only way they don't vote for the Republican is if that guy somehow finishes fourth, which is basically impossible, or with the Corruptest of Bargains. (Hey, last time it created 1 1/2 new parties!)
posted by Huffy Puffy at 4:24 PM on January 23, 2016 [1 favorite]

Condorcet method or bust!
posted by Apocryphon at 4:32 PM on January 23, 2016 [4 favorites]

You realize the Iowa caucuses have a super unimpressive track record for determining the eventual nominee, right?

Generally yes but in Saunders case it moves him from "Bernie who" to a serious contender.

A three way presidential debate where Bloomberg and Bernie rip The Donald to shreds would be really great TV!

(Feel The Bern, baby, feel the Bern)
posted by sammyo at 4:32 PM on January 23, 2016 [1 favorite]

They love Cruz? Do you read the papers? The republican establishment is on the verge of embracing trump rather than letting Cruz win.

The only way Bloomberg comes in is if Sanders and Trump are the nominees. Hes appealing to centrist Democrats and he's not terrifying to lots of centrist repubs in swing states. I'm not sure he can win but he maybe can force congress to pick the winner - and then we end up with some establishment republican.. But he's not running against Hillary and if Rubio or something wins the repubs he's not running either. It's only if you can drive a truck through the middle ground thatthiss makes any sense at all.
posted by JPD at 4:35 PM on January 23, 2016

...he attracts mainstream Republicans who would find it easier to vote for him than Trump

"Jewish fella from New York? Wants to take away my guns? Sounds good to me."

"Bloomberg is allergic to people"
posted by rhizome at 4:38 PM on January 23, 2016

From an ex-conservative urban millennial perspective, and there are lots and lots of us, 2008 was "Obama seems reasonable and charismatic but McCain is a nice guy too" whereas 2016 is "everyone I know of any age is expressing daily excitement for Bernie on and offline" including many self-identifying conservatives. I am young but I have never seen anything like it.

Sanders' campaign can't fail at this point. Even if he doesn't secure the nom or the presidency everyone under 30 is finally going to know the score and we'll fight for 2018, for 2020, for as long as it takes to win the country we want to live in. Bernie, and Bernie specifically, has awoken my entire generation to the idea that collective action could lead to change in spite of the Establishment's death grip on the entire country's authoritative and procedural systems. This cannot be taken for granted.

So from my perspective, Bloomberg's centrism is a slap in the face. "You want change? You want a say? Here's more of exactly not that."
posted by an animate objects at 4:40 PM on January 23, 2016 [29 favorites]

scaryblackdeath: "You realize the Iowa caucuses have a super unimpressive track record for determining the eventual nominee, right?"

7 of the last ten winners have gone on to win the nomination. That seems like a pretty good predictor to me.
posted by octothorpe at 4:43 PM on January 23, 2016 [2 favorites]

For what its worth, my "talk to me again if he can win South Carolina" wasn't just snark. When Obama won Iowa, Africa American support moved to him en masse and very quickly because it proved he was a viable candidate. So if Sanders has a chance it will show up in South Carolina via a win in Iowa. I don't think it will happen because I believe Clinton has much more solid African American support this time around so I think S.C. really will act as a firewall for her. But I'm slightly less certain of that than I was a month ago.

So we'll see how the polls in S.C. look after iowa.
posted by Justinian at 4:43 PM on January 23, 2016 [5 favorites]

could lead to change in spite of the Establishment's death grip on the entire country's authoritative and procedural systems

ah, you're me 20-30 years ago. Since then, I've come to the realization that ~half this nation are nitwits and will always be nitwits.

http://www.thisdayinquotes.com/2011/04/we-have-met-enemy-and-he-is-us.html
posted by Heywood Mogroot III at 4:47 PM on January 23, 2016 [4 favorites]

I honestly believe the internet has changed the game. Information doesn't behave like it used to.
posted by an animate objects at 4:48 PM on January 23, 2016 [7 favorites]

A system where we let God simply directly nominate the Republican candidate would be so much simpler than this mess
posted by thelonius at 4:50 PM on January 23, 2016 [7 favorites]

God has already spoken and we ignored them.
posted by an animate objects at 4:55 PM on January 23, 2016

ah, you're me 20-30 years ago. Since then, I've come to the realization that ~half this nation are nitwits and will always be nitwits.

Weltschmerz (from the German, meaning world-pain or world-weariness, pronounced [ˈvɛltʃmɛɐ̯ts]) is a term coined by the German author Jean Paul and denotes the kind of feeling experienced by someone who believes that physical reality can never satisfy the demands of the mind.

I honestly believe the internet has changed the game. Information doesn't behave like it used to.

Since we can't actually audit the operation of the network and tabulating computers underpinning the elections, I would suggest it made fixing them even easier since you don't need to shave mechanical levers or dump boxes of ballots in the Hudson. Just kick it into failover for a while, load up fake results, let it replicate, and flip it back to normal.
posted by mikelieman at 4:58 PM on January 23, 2016 [4 favorites]

People who are saying Bloomberg would spoil a Trump/Sanders election in favor of Trump: what universe do you live in?

In the universe where this poll was conducted.

In a two-way race, Clinton edges out Trump by a 44 to 42 percent margin, with 14 percent of voters saying they are undecided. In a match-up including Bloomberg, however, Clinton’s support declines by 8 points, to 36 percent, and Trump’s support declines by 5 points, to 37 percent. With Bloomberg in the race, Clinton’s support would decline the most among independents (36 to 24 percent) and adults under 30 years old (52 to 41 percent).

posted by Pater Aletheias at 4:58 PM on January 23, 2016 [4 favorites]

(Okay, that's Clinton/Trump but Sanders/Trump would likely be similar. If anything, Bloomberg might pull more from Sanders than he does from Clinton, since Sanders is seen as further left, therefore the appeal of centrist Bloomberg is greater.)
posted by Pater Aletheias at 5:01 PM on January 23, 2016

If Bloomberg runs he would definitely throw the election to Trump or the Republican nominee. That is a stone cold mortal lock. Bloomberg has been busy spending his billions running pro-gun control ads for the past decades in places like Arkansas to try to help Democrats. His combination of social liberalism and paternalistic "progressivism (taxing soda at $5) would be dead on arrival anywhere outside the Boston-New York-DC megalopolis.

What he would do is peal away voters in suburbs who otherwise would vote democratic out of fear of the Republican nominee.

The fact that he would run and throw the election to the someone like Trump if Sanders were nominated just goes to show how grasping and shallow large portions of our elite really are. The prospect of someone winning who would promote ideas that would make our country a little more like Candada and Europe is apparently so terrifying that they would rather throw the election to someone basing their campaign on appeals to racism and bigotry.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised. They all do attend each others' weddings if photos are to be believed.
posted by eagles123 at 5:03 PM on January 23, 2016 [17 favorites]

They all do attend each others' weddings if photos are to be believed.

And golf, too.
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 5:24 PM on January 23, 2016 [5 favorites]

If Trump truly had an economically populist platform instead of simplistic nativism and protectionism then Bloomberg would peel more managerial votes from him. But his tax plan was approved by Grover Norquist himself, I think Wall Street will be willing to cast their lot with him.
posted by Apocryphon at 5:27 PM on January 23, 2016

I think Jamelle Bouie said it best:
And let’s be real. Bloomberg’s main sell is he gives upwardly mobile whites a vaguely liberal option shorn of minority interests.

Bloomberg let’s you support climate change action and marriage equality without worrying about what black people think.
posted by fifteen schnitzengruben is my limit at 5:31 PM on January 23, 2016 [11 favorites]

If he's so worried that Clinton won't succeed, why doesn't he back Clinton with more resources?
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 5:33 PM on January 23, 2016 [4 favorites]

One the most Ill-considered ideological positions is this bizarre "fiscally conservative but socially liberal" position.

What it means is you're for progressive social causes you don't want to fund.

Thus you're not REALLY progressive where it matters. You have to want to pay to change things rather than deferring those costs onto somebody else.

It may not be the path to electability but you'll amazingly find you can fund a fuck ton of stuff if you start defunding the military. Just sayin'.
posted by juv3nal at 5:39 PM on January 23, 2016 [2 favorites]

Wall street loathes trump. The fact that Bloomberg wants to run against him is the best evidence to support that.
posted by JPD at 5:42 PM on January 23, 2016 [1 favorite]

Wall Street loathes Sanders. The fact that Bloomberg is only going to run if it's Bernie and will most likely throw the election to the Republican is the best evidence to support that.
posted by chris24 at 5:53 PM on January 23, 2016

Wall street also loathes Sanders but no one in this thread was asserting he had their support.

The fact wall street doesn't loathe Hillary is why he won't run against her.
posted by JPD at 5:56 PM on January 23, 2016 [2 favorites]

Like many billionaires, Bloomberg is an egomaniac with a bit of a messiah complex. The fact that he's even talking about this thing is the best evidence to support that.
posted by box at 5:57 PM on January 23, 2016 [4 favorites]

See now thats certainly true.
posted by JPD at 5:58 PM on January 23, 2016 [1 favorite]

One the most Ill-considered ideological positions is this bizarre "fiscally conservative but socially liberal" position.

Strong disagree. Socially liberal doesn't mean I automatically accept that I have to spend to support all my liberal positions. I can support affirmative action in education and still cut the arts budget. I can support the poor and the homeless by making it easier for businesses to hire people. I can love schoolteachers but hate some of the actions of teachers unions. I can support gay marriage without sending a wedding gift.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 6:06 PM on January 23, 2016 [3 favorites]

Yes, no one thinks Wall Street likes Sanders, but I think it might be fear of him more than Trump that is driving this. Bernie polls well enough against Trump to conceivably win. Wall Street/Bloomberg hate that possibility enough to contemplate a run for Bloomberg that has a pretty small chance of him winning, but a really good chance of ensuring Trump wins. If Bloomberg somehow pulls it off as the first third party great for them, but if not then at least it's mostly likely Trump and not the socialist.
posted by chris24 at 6:07 PM on January 23, 2016

The Paul->Sanders people have vexed me for a while. Seeing people saying the support Sanders, but would switch to Bloomberg also vexes me. I didn't understand the reasoning - at the very least it seemed to be poorly thought out with regard to consistency.

But I just made a post on LJ with some thoughts on this (sorry hastily put together, also, buzzed on alcohol)...

There's a few different axes one can fall one. I'm not talking the stupid ass political compass, but rather...

1) Left/Right
2) Insider/Outsider
3) Independent/Partisan....

Some of these can overlap in sensibility. A Right-Insider-Partisan would support any Republican (even Trump -- though I think that's a hard pill to swallow) A Right-Insider-Independent would support most Republicans, but maybe not Trump/Palin (in other words, they might be "moderate"... in this sense "right-leaning", but still middle) same for "Left-Insider-Independent" these are the kinds of people who would vote for Hillary, Obama, McCain, Bloomberg.... The establishment and lean one way without taking a strong stand.

My idea here is that there are different allegiances and that one can "bind" to certain of these axes more than others. I consider myself a "Left-Partisan-Outsider". That doesn't mean I don't ever support inside candidates who are on the inside... Hmm .

Thinking more I think "Partisan" is something that can be applied to 1 & 2.

So I'm "Outsider-Independent" (tend towards outsider, but flexible towards working with insiders), but Partisan-Left (rabidly anti-right wing, and oppose insider and outside policies that pursue such lines, while supporting policies/politicians that are left-wing, whether inside or out).

So Paulites who support Sanders would be Outsider-Partisan Right(Libertarian)-Independent. If that makes sense.

At this point it's a naive formulation, but does anybody else think there's merit in such a construction? Has this been done before? I haven't seen it, but it may already be discussed by more Poli-Sci academically inclined people.
posted by symbioid at 6:08 PM on January 23, 2016 [1 favorite]

And I can be liberal on some issues and not others. It's not one size fits all.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 6:12 PM on January 23, 2016 [2 favorites]

My experience is that Bloomberg supporters consider Sanders basically unelectable. They may be wrong but they aren't really scared of him. Even if he wins they figure he gets nothing done. The Trump idiots are far more disconcerting to them.

But voting for Bloomberg in a Sanders-Bloomberg-Trump race is a surefire way to get Trump elected. You don't split the non-Trump vote as a way to prevent Trump from getting elected!
posted by Justinian at 6:14 PM on January 23, 2016 [4 favorites]

At this point it's a naive formulation, but does anybody else think there's merit in such a construction?

I'm Lawful Neutral with a soupçon of Chaotic Evil, myself. With that said, I don't think any multidimensional metric can omit radical/incremental as a core stat...
posted by mikelieman at 6:15 PM on January 23, 2016 [3 favorites]

The view is that the math doesn't work that way. You are bettimg the anti-trump/anti- sanders votes are more than the pro votes for either candidate. Or at least in the states that matter.
posted by JPD at 6:21 PM on January 23, 2016

I love how everybody seems to argue from the assumption that Sanders and Clinton don't have pretty much exactly the same policies. For all intents and purposes, either candidate would do to further a positive, progressive and functionally identical agenda.

I'll happily vote for Sanders if he gets the nomination but I have to admit that over the past 8 years I've gotten pretty used to not having an old, white man yelling at me from the president's pulpit and I'd love to keep that trend going.

Bloomberg is going to fuck either of their candidacies up: any votes he drains from Trump, he's going to drain from the Democratic candidate twofold.
posted by lydhre at 6:26 PM on January 23, 2016 [8 favorites]

There may be a lot of anti-Trump/anti-Sanders voters, but enough to get to 270? Very doubtful. In which case it goes to the House and it's President Trump.
posted by chris24 at 6:26 PM on January 23, 2016

I just don't see scenario where a Bloomberg candidacy doesn't throw the election to whoever would run against Trump. Does anyone honestly think Trump voters are going to vote for a guy who funds gun control ads and taxes soda?

Bloomberg would only appeal to suburban voters who like to think of themselves as moderate but can't bring themselves to vote Republican because they don't want to be associated with what the party has become over the past 20 or so years.

I guess maybe Bloomberg could peel away Republican moderates, but how many of those voters are left?
posted by eagles123 at 6:28 PM on January 23, 2016

He doesnt need 270. He just wants Congress to pick the winner.
posted by JPD at 6:34 PM on January 23, 2016

Which would be Trump.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 6:35 PM on January 23, 2016 [1 favorite]

as far as i'm concerned, this election is about one thing - who's going to be the scapegoat when the shit hits the fan in the next 4 years
posted by pyramid termite at 6:36 PM on January 23, 2016

A tie in the electoral college is pretty unlikely, though.
posted by eagles123 at 6:36 PM on January 23, 2016

No it won't select trump. Itll be an establishment Republican.

It doesnt need to be a tie - you have to win a majority of the electoral college or congress votes.

Dont forget Bloomberg isnt worried about Sanders winning. Hes only enterimg because he thinks Sanders absolutely can't beat Trump.
posted by JPD at 6:40 PM on January 23, 2016

I guess maybe Bloomberg could peel away Republican moderates, but how many of those voters are left?

I might be wrong, but I think Bloomberg delivers New York's 29 electoral votes to him.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 6:42 PM on January 23, 2016

If Trump is the candidate it'll have to be him. The House has to pick from the top three candidates.
posted by chris24 at 6:42 PM on January 23, 2016

Yeah, I guess it wouldn't need to be a tie if Bloomberg won a state. I'm actually not sure here. Could congress pick someone even though they came in last in electoral votes?

Could Bloomberg even win New York though? He's certainly remembered fondly by some New Yorkers, but not everyone liked him by the end of this term. New York is more than NYC as well.

I guess I see Bloomberg getting like 5-15 percent of the popular vote, with most of that vote concentrated in wealthy suburbs in the Mid-Atlantic and Midwest. I'm not sure that's enough to carry a state.
posted by eagles123 at 6:50 PM on January 23, 2016

They'd pick Bloomberg.

He's inoffensive to establishment dems and repubs
posted by JPD at 6:50 PM on January 23, 2016 [2 favorites]

I think if the polling is telling him 5-15 % vs trump and Sanders he doesn't run.
posted by JPD at 6:53 PM on January 23, 2016

If Trump is the candidate it'll have to be him. The House has to pick from the top three candidates.

The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the [twenty-first day of January] next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.

The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

So if the GOP genuinely doesn't want Trump as president and he chooses some establishment-approved (or at least establishment-slightly-more-palatable) Republican as his VP candidate, and they keep the Senate, they elect that VP, tell a few of their House delegations to vote for Bloomberg, or just not vote, long enough to tie up the voting until Inauguration Day, and the VP becomes President.

Even if they don't keep the Senate, they could possibly convince a couple of Democratic Senators to give up their votes for the (comparative) good of the country.

So it won't necessarily be Trump. But it won't be Sanders or Bloomberg, barring a pretty huge swing in the House.
posted by Etrigan at 6:53 PM on January 23, 2016

It's not about the establishment at that point. It's about the crazies in the House. The same guys who didn't think Paul Ryan was conservative enough.
posted by Huffy Puffy at 6:55 PM on January 23, 2016 [3 favorites]

But Ryan ended up winning the speaker election.
posted by JPD at 6:56 PM on January 23, 2016

And you get dems to cross the aisle (sort of) for Bloomberg to avoid Trump.
posted by JPD at 6:57 PM on January 23, 2016

The Republicans have 33 states in the House. You have to flip 8 to prevent GOP Candidate X from winning.
posted by Huffy Puffy at 7:00 PM on January 23, 2016

This election cycle is by far the strangest of my entire life. Just when I seem to have a grasp for the fundamentals of this race, some new story shakes things up.

First there is the inevitability of Senator Clinton winning the primary vs the email scandal from hell. While I feel for her because we all make mistakes, I have to say she demonstrated such a startling lack of judgment. Do I really want her as commander in chief? I refuse to let myself ponder this question too deeply lest I have doubts on election day.

Then there is Bernie Sanders, who seems to have the right ideas about a lot of things but the wrong ideas about gun control, and I have my doubts about his electability let alone his ability to get anything done in today's fractious political climate.

Governor O'Malley would be my first choice of these three, but only because Secretary Castro and Senator Warren decided to stay on the bench, and anyway he never had a chance.

The republican side is outright terrifying.

Today we get the Bloomberg bombshell. If the wheel's come off the Clinton clown car before March, and Bloomberg decides to step in to 'save us,' we could honestly be looking at a Tru...I'm not even going to say it, I won't say it. It's too horrifying to think, let alone type. I'm going to step away from metafilter before I become catatonic from memories of Bush v. Gore.
posted by getting_back_on_track at 7:02 PM on January 23, 2016 [4 favorites]

Trump isn't "GOP candidate X" that's the point.
posted by JPD at 7:03 PM on January 23, 2016 [1 favorite]

getting_back_on_track, the first time I voted was election night of 2000, and everyone guaranteed me that would be the strangest thing that ever happened.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:04 PM on January 23, 2016 [6 favorites]

I'm not sure why people don't think Bloomberg won't drain votes from Trump. Did the GOP primary voters who brought us McCain over Huckabee and Romney over Bachman wouldn't vote for him over Trump? I'm sure there's a healthy amount of Republicans who think Trump goes too far.
posted by Apocryphon at 7:06 PM on January 23, 2016 [4 favorites]

Remember that candidate Bloomberg basically bought off members of the City Council to allow him a third term, despite what voters very clearly wanted.

Of course, to his credit, he stood his ground when, as he was about to be elected mayor, the disgusting Rudy Giuliani started dropping loud hints about how, he, as America's Mayor, should be able to stay in office through some unexplained waiver of the election results.
posted by etaoin at 7:08 PM on January 23, 2016

A particular unknown is what this electorate is going to look like. How many people are going to show up who have never voted before, and how many people are so cynical that they will sit home for the first time?
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:08 PM on January 23, 2016 [1 favorite]

As far as I can tell, the chain of events that ends with Bloomberg entering the race begins with Sanders winning Iowa and New Hampshire. Clinton is still ahead in Iowa right now, so from where I sit the greater likelihood still sits with a Clinton vs Trump Presidential race.

To a Sanders supporter like me, that just means we are back to where we were when I started paying attention to politics in the late 90's: A Clinton squaring off against Republican crazies.

It'd be like we completed a circle, which I guess would be somewhat strange in itself.

Only now, we live in much more dangerous times.
posted by eagles123 at 7:10 PM on January 23, 2016

Bernie pleads with young students: Get out and vote
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:13 PM on January 23, 2016 [1 favorite]

I would give anything to be "back to where we were... in the late 90's"

Bob Dole was no Trump.
posted by saul wright at 7:15 PM on January 23, 2016 [4 favorites]

ah America! Forever reminding me I made the right choice by not having kids.
posted by mwhybark at 7:20 PM on January 23, 2016 [17 favorites]

Did the GOP primary voters who brought us McCain over Huckabee and Romney over Bachman wouldn't vote for him over Trump?

As I understand it, the difference is that McCain has people who genuinely like him. Bloomberg doesn't.
posted by rhizome at 7:44 PM on January 23, 2016 [2 favorites]

When Bloomberg left office, I believe he had something like a 50% "good" approval rating, and more than a 20% fair rating. So some people like him.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:45 PM on January 23, 2016 [2 favorites]

I'm trying to envision the voter base that would enthusiastically support Bloomberg, and I can't.

But fucking Ted Cruz has enthusiastic supporters. NPR did a profile recently of his volunteers in Iowa and they had actual speaking human beings talk about how they totally dig Cruz and he's gonna save us. And yeah...Trump has people, too. *shudder*
posted by scaryblackdeath at 7:51 PM on January 23, 2016

So, if Cruz and Hillary get the respective nods and Trump goes third party, and please God Bernie follows suit, dare we hope for a genuine five way race?

Throw in Jeb! as Cruz's VP and I cannot wait to see the War of the Five POTUS.
posted by Apocryphon at 7:53 PM on January 23, 2016 [2 favorites]

Winter is coming.
posted by eriko at 8:28 PM on January 23, 2016 [3 favorites]

#NIGHTSKING2016

oh no, I've become an accelerationist
posted by the man of twists and turns at 8:38 PM on January 23, 2016 [6 favorites]

If Clinton loses primaries and Sanders goes on to the general, I hope that Clinton voters who are genuine about their support for women's rights and civil rights in general support Sanders over Bloomberg.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 8:40 PM on January 23, 2016 [16 favorites]

If the Democratic nominee is worried they are going to lose the race after Bloomberg enters, they should end their campaign and just go ahead and endorse him. He isn't ideal, but hey, lesser of two evils. We would rather have Bloomberg nominees for the Supreme Court than Trump nominees.
posted by Drinky Die at 8:47 PM on January 23, 2016

One the most Ill-considered ideological positions is this bizarre "fiscally conservative but socially liberal" position...you're not REALLY progressive where it matters. You have to want to pay to change things rather than deferring those costs onto somebody else.

You can be fiscally conservative and be pro abortion, pro gun control, support immigration, and acknowledge climate change.

I don't know why people are saying that a Bloomberg run equals a Trump win. I think Bloomberg would attract way more Republican votes than people here think. I work in a fairly conservative-leaning office and the general tone among my coworkers (think upper-middle class suburban white guys in their 40s) is that Trump is insane... but push come to shove, those guys would vote for Trump over Clinton and definitely over Sanders. But if Bloomberg ran - they'd vote for him in a heartbeat. There are plenty of moderate conservatives in this country who aren't wacko xenophobes or gun nuts.

If Trump gets the GOP nomination, I think Bloomberg should enter regardless of who gets the Democratic nomination. Realistically that is going to be Clinton, and the problem with Clinton is that a lot of people simply don't like her, or don't really care that much about her. If asked, sure a lot of people would say they'd pick Clinton over Trump, but would they bother getting out to the polls for her? Apathy doesn't win elections. Trump vs. Clinton would be very similar to Bush vs. Gore/Kerry in 2000/2004, and that's an incredibly scary thought. Introduce Bloomberg on the other hand, and you get all of the moderate conservatives who were forced to vote for Trump, plus a good chunk of the liberals who don't like Clinton.
posted by pravit at 8:56 PM on January 23, 2016 [3 favorites]

In what way is Bloomberg more palatable to R's than Trump is? Like, what's going to tip a purple state'r to voting for the face of gun control?
posted by rhizome at 9:05 PM on January 23, 2016 [1 favorite]

Clap your hands if you believe in moderate conservatives.
posted by Artw at 9:15 PM on January 23, 2016 [6 favorites]

Schwarzenegger was a thing, guys
posted by Apocryphon at 9:33 PM on January 23, 2016 [3 favorites]

Schwarzenegger was a thing, guys

For a Republican Party that doesn't exist anymore.
posted by chris24 at 9:41 PM on January 23, 2016 [2 favorites]

Not nationally, no, but there are plenty in places like the Northeast and California. The problem is they are outnumbered by the social conservatives and tea party types, not that they don't exist. Some might rather vote for Bloomberg than Trump but would still never consider Hillary/Sanders. Maybe some in Ohio or Florida as it regards states that would be in play.
posted by Drinky Die at 9:46 PM on January 23, 2016 [2 favorites]

I can support the poor and the homeless by making it easier for businesses to hire people

the idea was to list your positions that weren't 'bizarre'

ahem
posted by Heywood Mogroot III at 10:16 PM on January 23, 2016 [2 favorites]

I can support the poor and the homeless by making it easier for businesses to hire people

By eliminating collective bargaining, cutting environmental regulations, and lowering wages! Yay!

Yay?

Oh. Wait.
posted by innocentsabored at 10:28 PM on January 23, 2016 [5 favorites]

You can be fiscally conservative and be pro abortion, pro gun control, support immigration, and acknowledge climate change.

What good is "acknowledging" climate change when you won't raise your taxes to pay for it's effects? What's the point of being pro abortion when you won't raise your taxes that support clinics that perform them? What good is being for gun control when you won't fund the needed law enforcement mechanisms? What good is supporting immigration (what ever that means) when you won't pay for educating and housing new immigrants?

Nope. The entire idea of "fiscal conservative" and "socially liberal" is just a salve for a do-nothing conscience. It's just an embarrassed and slightly less honest form of libertarianism.
posted by innocentsabored at 10:44 PM on January 23, 2016 [29 favorites]

I really don't understand why Bloomburg would be afraid of Sanders. What is it he thinks a President Sanders could do with a Republican-controled House of representatives?
posted by straight at 11:18 PM on January 23, 2016 [1 favorite]

I'm not sure why people don't think Bloomberg won't drain votes from Trump.

I think the general suspicion is that a significant number of R's who hate Trump would just stay home in November rather than vote for anyone. So it's less that Bloomberg would pull votes away from Trump (in the general), and more that he would just get votes from people who weren't gonna vote for Trump anyway.

Said suspicion is probably a large part of the reason the National Review just did that big "anti-Trump" issue, for example. Modern elections are in practice all about GOTV rather than convincing the undecideds, and the Republican powers-that-be are probably afraid that a Trump candidacy means a lot of Republican voters nope out.
posted by soundguy99 at 11:21 PM on January 23, 2016 [1 favorite]

I really don't understand why Bloomburg would be afraid of Sanders.

Because ideas matter, and just like Occupy made it okay to talk about income inequality, a president Sanders would have one of the biggest podiums, perhaps the biggest, in the world from which to spread his ideas and legitimize them. Something our oligarchs will not abide by.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 11:24 PM on January 23, 2016 [10 favorites]

If you look at Corbyn in the UK, even just becoming leader of the opposition as a half-socialist with some popular support means your entire party structure wages total war on you. The Assange option is also always waiting.
posted by colie at 12:40 AM on January 24, 2016 [4 favorites]

There are plenty of moderate conservatives in this country who aren't wacko xenophobes or gun nuts.

In what way is someone who would vote for Trump over Clinton functionally different than a xenophobic gun nut? I don't give a shit what is in somebody's heart; that is between them and their non-existant god. I care about their actions. Someone who votes for Trump is a supporter of xenophobia racism. Trying to split hairs that they may support and enable xenophobic racism without actually being a xenophobic racist... well, knock yourself out.
posted by Justinian at 3:42 AM on January 24, 2016 [4 favorites]

He's a totalitarian. Trump lite, or Trump with progressive proclivities. It will be "stop and frisk" for the whole nation.

To say nothing of our Second Amendment rights. NYC has outlandishly restrictive gun laws relative to almost everywhere else in the nation.

Those tendencies for state control extend to even the comical - the example of regulating soda sizes in NYC as an example.
posted by theorique at 3:43 AM on January 24, 2016

It's not so much social liberalism as it is social libertinism. But again, it goes into the imprecision of "liberalism". If you mean it to be permissive, as in being okay with pot, abortion, and gay marriage, libertarians are technical socially liberals. I'd you take economic leftism to be an integral part of "social liberalism", then sure, libertarians are not.

Yeah it's "I don't care what you do in your own life but you're on your own" versus the religious right which does care very much what you do. I happen to agree fully with the critique that "freedom from" (negative liberty) doesn't mean much without "freedom to" (positive liberty) but ideologies that focus on the "freedom from" have justifications that make sense to their believers. The libertarian/classical liberal might say that government intervention has counterproductive consequences - consequentialist libertarianism, which is a mode of argument I find convincing in some particular cases. Or they might say that the government simply doesn't have the right to intervene in the matter - deontological libertarianism, which ugh.
posted by atoxyl at 3:56 AM on January 24, 2016 [4 favorites]

Though the people I am talking about are generally - despite describing themselves as fiscally conservative and socially liberal - anti gun-control and unconcerned with climate change. But what is "socially liberal" anyway? Those are positions identified with the Left. This is another case of the peculiar American sense of "liberal" being confusing.
posted by atoxyl at 4:03 AM on January 24, 2016 [1 favorite]

Schwarzenegger was a thing, guys

So was Jesse Ventura. You know, in hindsight they were both better governors than they had to be.
posted by mikelieman at 4:10 AM on January 24, 2016 [5 favorites]

I don't even understand his point with the 'I could shoot someone'. I guess even Caligula probably took a while to get up to his full speed. We're not there yet with Trump.
posted by colie at 4:26 AM on January 24, 2016

His point was that his campaign has the momentum of a runaway freight train and he is so popular there is nothing that can stop him.
posted by Drinky Die at 4:39 AM on January 24, 2016 [1 favorite]

nadawi: the theory that on 9/11 we entered an alternate, shittier, timeline grows more and more compelling by the day

For the record, it was 26 September 1983.
posted by ob1quixote at 5:00 AM on January 24, 2016 [4 favorites]

if Bernie wins in Iowa you are going to see just how little democracy means to the people who run this country.

Well, the Democratic party was never really committed to internal democracy anyways. Case in point: superdelegates. Clinton will likely have 1/3 of the delegates she needs to win before any state delegates are committed. That's quite a hole for Bernie to climb out of.

Question for the MF hive mind: How loyal are these superdelegates to Clinton? I.e. what is the likelihood that their allegiance will swing to Sanders? The article says this would be "rare."
posted by Noisy Pink Bubbles at 5:43 AM on January 24, 2016

Question for the MF hive mind: How loyal are these superdelegates to Clinton?

Excellent question. Here's a list of them. I suppose it would take a bunch of digging to figure out their individual characters (or lack thereof). The sort of thing journalists are supposed to do. Has anyone stepped up to that plate?
posted by BWA at 6:02 AM on January 24, 2016

I really don't understand why Bloomburg [sic] would be afraid of Sanders. What is it he thinks a President Sanders could do with a Republican-controled House of representatives?

Bloomberg isn't afraid of Sanders winning the general election, he is afraid of Sanders running in the general and by virtue of being unelectable throwing the election to Trump (or some other wacko GOP candidate, of which there are currently several). It would be the same if Clinton wins the primary but enters the presidential election so damaged by scandals or continuing to run an inept campaign, either of which are real possibilities.

I am sure that Bloomberg is just as unelectable nationally as is Sanders or Trump (in his case, it will be the gun control thing, along with just being such an unadorned NYC plutocrat), but he would still have a huge impact by entering the race and could quite possibly prevent a total crazy like Trump from winning. Perot was never a viable winner, but he definitely had a hand in Clinton's win, for example.

Trump currently has a solid base of support, but he also has a large percentage of people who say they won't vote for him no matter what, and giving them an option other than staying home would be huge.
posted by Dip Flash at 6:52 AM on January 24, 2016 [2 favorites]

by virtue of being unelectable throwing the election to Trump

The notion that Bernie Sanders, who has held national elective office for 25 years is 'unelectable' yet Donald Trump, who went bankrupt running a casino is Atlantic City is 'electable' is ... fascinating.
posted by mikelieman at 7:33 AM on January 24, 2016 [25 favorites]

Question for the MF hive mind: How loyal are these superdelegates to Clinton?

I think they are more loyal to the party than Bernie ever was, which would be as simple as calling oneself a Democrat. What is more to the point is that lovable Bernie has never faced the hate-liberals-attack-machine. That's the extremely well-funded election process where an otherwise nice person will agree to carry the torch for working people, but in short order will appear to most people as weak, tired, dishonest, boring, out-of-touch, unfaithful, corrupt, subversive, and generally unfit. It's an effective form of brainwashing which Obama somewhat avoided because the attack machine had to be softened to avoid appearing as racist, and he was relatively new without a track record. The attack-machine's method of thought reform, often employing subliminal trickery and whisper campaigns across religious networks, is likely the same reason why so many people viscerally dislike Hillary, especially if they were raised around people who spit out her name in a learned panic from AM radio or church sources. Most people aren't free to change their own mind after a heavy dose of it early on, and many don't vote out of confusion. But in the end, if someone hasn't faced an attack-machine, they probably don't know when and how to use one either.
posted by Brian B. at 7:34 AM on January 24, 2016 [1 favorite]

giving them an option other than staying home would be huge.

If they'd otherwise refuse to vote for Trump or for his opponent, what difference would they make? They could just stay home.
posted by callistus at 7:37 AM on January 24, 2016

ah America! Forever reminding me I made the right choice by not having kids.

My son is in the family room playing Fallout 4 right now, & for the first time, I'm beginning to wonder if he may actually be gaining valuable life skills.
posted by Devils Rancher at 7:37 AM on January 24, 2016 [10 favorites]

The notion that Bernie Sanders, who has held national elective office for 25 years is 'unelectable' yet Donald Trump, who went bankrupt running a casino is Atlantic City is 'electable' is ... fascinating.

I would be happy to be wrong because I like a lot of what he is saying, but my gut feeling is that Sanders would not win in the general election for president, particularly if he was against a more normal GOP candidate. Vermont is not reflective of the national political landscape for a whole host of demographic, political, and historical reasons. Sanders doing well is a reflection on Clinton's lack of enthusiastic support and her lackluster campaign, not a signifier of his enormous national popularity.

It's all a bit of an academic question, because the chances of Trump and Sanders each winning their respective primaries is low. They are polarizing candidates, they both have their party establishments against them, and there are a lot of primary voters who are expressing dissatisfaction with the political status quo but who have not yet voted.
posted by Dip Flash at 7:52 AM on January 24, 2016

Well, there's also the fact that Trump's lead at this point is bigger and more durable than either Romney or McCain's.

It's not just "primary voters who are expressing dissatisfaction with the political status quo", on the Republican side, those voters are overwhelmingly the majority. The real face of the Republican party is standing up for Cruz or Trump, there's little chance than an "establishment" candidate makes an enormous comeback, and it's less clear that any "establishment" candidate is any different from Trump's ideas anyway. Rubio is only other credible "establishment" guy left and he's floundering to sound more like Trump every day.

The right has been transformed into the party of Palin-Trump from the bottom up. They're voting their actual policy choices as well as the candidate who mostly closely mirrors their deranged temperament, not just throwing a tantrum like the parade of "not-Romney's" in 2012. Why at this point would they settle for a pitiful imitation like Bush or Rubio when the Real Deal Trump Himself holds a commanding lead?
posted by T.D. Strange at 8:35 AM on January 24, 2016

Gun control is my number one issue. I don't know what is hard to understand about that.

I lived in Japan for years and it was nice that the streets were so safe.

However, I feel that has a lot less to do with gun control and a lot more to do with having a more middle-class society, plus (I must admit) Japan's police has Bloomberg's 'stop & frisk' attitude towards the population.

While the mass shooters capture the news cycle, the real toll on guns is the day in day out crime statistics, e.g. just under 30% of violent crimes involve handguns.

I'd feel a lot safer in a nation with 30% of the crime we have now than just having a blanket ban on guns. Realistically, all policy here has to look 30-40 years down the road.

Plus even though the conservative majority recently amended the 2nd Amendment to strengthen the individual right to guns, I believe we as a free people have a 9th amendment right to guns.

Gun accidents and mass-shooting events are a harm on the order of motor vehicle accidents, if not less.

If you feel guns are unsafe for your home -- the sensible position -- not having one is sufficient.

To solve the larger issue of our unsafe society, we need to tackle the issue head-on, not its symptoms, like crime.
posted by Heywood Mogroot III at 8:38 AM on January 24, 2016 [3 favorites]

I lean Sanders, but would be happy to vote Bloomberg. I would only do so if Bloomberg were polling competitively, which is unlikely. Gun control is my number one issue. I don't know what is hard to understand about that. I'm sick of the gun deaths and violence, and while I don't believe Bloomberg would be able to do much, it might help push the Overton Window on the issue.

This is fascinating. In the aftermath of Sandy Hook and other mass shootings, one of the things we gun control supporters lamented was the fact that it's not a voting issue for so many people. So here comes a guy who successfully restricted gun ownership as mayor and has spent a container ship full of money on the issue, but he's way out of step with the average gun control proponent on many other issues, while the avowed democratic socialist in the race has been squishy on gun control.

I guess my questions here would be (a) what else about Sanders' platform do you like that led you to support him before the prospect of Bloomberg's entry into the race, and (b) what makes you think Bloomberg could affect change on the issue after so many years of Obama trying and failing to do so? The Overton window is an overused concept in politics that really doesn't exist unless you're trying to move it in a direction where you have leverage over the other side. Where does that leverage come from with so few competitive districts in congress?
posted by tonycpsu at 9:22 AM on January 24, 2016 [2 favorites]

The notion that Bernie Sanders, who has held national elective office for 25 years is 'unelectable' yet Donald Trump, who went bankrupt running a casino is Atlantic City is 'electable' is ... fascinating.

Federal elective office is not national elective office. Sanders has won ten statewide elections in Vermont over a period of time when Vermont has voted only for the Democratic nominee for President, including Obama's two largest margins of victory outside of Hawaii and D.C. Before that time, he never outpolled a Republican in five statewide elections.

It's not out of the realm of sanity to point out that Sanders' lock on the three electoral votes of the second-least-populous state in the Union -- a state with fewer people than the District of Columbia -- might not translate to 267 more.
posted by Etrigan at 9:23 AM on January 24, 2016 [9 favorites]

I don't think Bloomberg needs to worry. Jeb! will ultimately pull this out. We're all so caught up in the horserace and the spectacle (and our ideological filters with respect to the GOP rank and file other), that we're maybe underestimating both the GOP rank and file and the GOP establishment.
posted by notyou at 9:23 AM on January 24, 2016

Hillary, who has a lock on the election

That's what people said in 2008, when she was eight years (and a scandal or two) younger and still untainted by the loser stigma that that campaign ended up branding her with. And today the prevailing mood is if anything more anti-establishment than it was then. I want to see her win (though only because Bernie hasn't got a chance), but I'm worried that what with her establishment warhorse image and charisma deficit, not to mention the strong possibility of a gendered variant of the Bradley Effect coming into play on Election Day, it might be Hillary who proves to be unelectable.
posted by hoist with his own pet aardvark at 9:27 AM on January 24, 2016 [1 favorite]

Jeb! will ultimately pull this out.

Yeah, I don't think so.
posted by leotrotsky at 9:33 AM on January 24, 2016 [7 favorites]

Maybe not. It wouldn't be the first time I've overestimated the American electorate.
posted by notyou at 9:36 AM on January 24, 2016

I'm more than amazed at how little traction JEB! has gotten in this election. Republican primary seasons usually have a default candidate that the voters go back to after flirting with the crazy ones but it doesn't seem like that's happening this year.
posted by octothorpe at 9:39 AM on January 24, 2016

I think the establishment seems to be coalescing around Rubio, not Jeb!.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 9:40 AM on January 24, 2016 [3 favorites]

Elevator pitch: science fiction movie, a dystopia in future USA where presidency is trophy for billionaires & poor are poisoned with lead.
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 10:09 AM on January 24, 2016 [6 favorites]

The "conventional wisdom" of the GOP establishment is no longer conventional nor wise. With the Frankenstein like reanimation of arch-conservative John Bircher Tea-baggers now totally out of control there IS no GOP establishment.

One can see Rubios stratagem plain as day. Lay low. Fly under the radar as long as possible. Wait for Trump to make a mistake. Then say something wildly outrageously racist and anti-Muslim and gather up Trumps fallen leaves.

But it won't work. Unless there is a brokered convention - and that is very unlikely- Trump WILL be the Republican nominee. The idea that there exists a silent majority of sensible moderate conservatives out there is ludicrous. Trump is leading double digits in every poll. Every nightmarish racist utterance has only increased his lead.

Bloomberg will only capture a minuscule portion of republicans. And ones that might've voted for Hillary. Becuase over the last thirty years the GOP has spent billions cultivating and distilling itself into a potent concentration of proudly ignorant white disaffected cowards.
posted by innocentsabored at 10:09 AM on January 24, 2016 [5 favorites]

Republican elites surrender to Trump.

The establishment is making peace with Trump. They know the base will NOT accept another Romney, ie, Rubio or Bush, and they HATE Cruz. They think they can control Trump.

Trump IS the establishment candidate.
posted by T.D. Strange at 10:31 AM on January 24, 2016 [4 favorites]

Yup. It really looks like, at least in Iowa, the Republicans have decided that a Trump victory is inevitable and that they're going to have to try to work with him.

This is going to sound totally nutty and paranoid, but I'm half expecting Trump to die in some sort of convenient bus accident.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 10:33 AM on January 24, 2016

This is going to sound totally nutty and paranoid, but I'm half expecting Trump to die in some sort of convenient bus accident.

More likely an aviation accident or lone gunman.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 10:43 AM on January 24, 2016 [2 favorites]

If you are a Republican, how scared are you of Trump really? His tax policies are straight out of the Reagan/Norquist playbook. His racism and xenophobia are nothing that you haven't been dog-whistling to your base since Nixon. So what if he throws a Presidential election to the Democrats? You will still control the House, probably get the Senate back in 2018 if the Democrats manage to retake it in 2016, and you will still control most state governments. Plus, whoever you run in 2020 will be well positioned to appear more moderate by playing off of Trump just like Bush II was able to appear moderate by playing off the Gingrich congress. Even better, this time it will be just a rhetorical difference. The 2020 Republican candidate (Rubio) wouldn't even have to change his or her policies much because Trump's entire campaign is based around his image.

Meanwhile, if Clinton wins, she'll be starting her Presidency with historically weak favorability ratings. In addition, the country will be entering a recession that we might not pull out in time to make a difference for the 2020 election. That is bad news for the incumbent.

The only solace right now is that both Clinton and Sanders lead Trump in the general election head to head match ups. Sander's lead is actually fairly large. Still, its going to be tough for the Democrats to hold the Presidency for another eight years either way.
posted by eagles123 at 10:45 AM on January 24, 2016 [3 favorites]

Thing is, I'm not sure it's back to business as usual in 2018 or 2020. The most interesting thing about this fever dream of a race is that we just might be seeing the two-party system finally beginning to implode. I mean, here we are seriously contemplating the possibility of a race between three de facto independents (Sanders, Bloomberg, Trump). Would that have been even imaginable a year ago?
posted by hoist with his own pet aardvark at 10:59 AM on January 24, 2016 [7 favorites]

Btw if Bloomberg does jump in, it's basically a free-for-all, so what's to stop another long-shot outsider or two following suit, especially one who does not represent the aging New York white male demographic? If it's looking like no one's getting to 270 then all you have to do is finish in the top three and then sell yourself to the Republican House as the least worst option, which might not even be too hard given the competition. The way this race has been going, it's not out of the question that the next few weeks (before the ballot deadlines hit) could get even crazier.
posted by hoist with his own pet aardvark at 11:06 AM on January 24, 2016 [1 favorite]

The way this race has been going, it's not out of the question that the next few weeks (before the ballot deadlines hit) could get even crazier.

Biden / Kardashian 2016
posted by an animate objects at 11:14 AM on January 24, 2016 [3 favorites]

both Clinton and Sanders lead Trump in the general election head to head match ups. Sander's lead is actually fairly large.

Why is Bernie outperforming Hillary against Trump, anyway? Who are these people who'd pick Bernie over Trump, but wouldn't vote for Hillary? That seems really weird.
posted by hoist with his own pet aardvark at 11:19 AM on January 24, 2016

my gut feeling is that Sanders would not win in the general election for president, particularly if he was against a more normal GOP candidate.

It's not out of the realm of sanity to point out that Sanders' lock on the three electoral votes of the second-least-populous state in the Union -- a state with fewer people than the District of Columbia -- might not translate to 267 more.

Let's game this out: not even counting purple states, there are 19 states that have gone to Democrats every election since at least 1988, and these 19 states count for ~250 electoral votes.
posted by rhizome at 11:24 AM on January 24, 2016

Since at least 1992, you mean.
posted by hoist with his own pet aardvark at 11:29 AM on January 24, 2016

Btw if Bloomberg does jump in, it's basically a free-for-all, so what's to stop another long-shot outsider or two following suit, especially one who does not represent the aging New York white male demographic?

There are no outsiders who have Bloomberg's money, which is required to make a play for the nomination at this point. I don't think the GOP is just going to shift gears and put their juice behind some "oh wait, I just remembered" candidate, unless the RNC secretly hired Jim Anchower to run things.
posted by rhizome at 11:30 AM on January 24, 2016 [2 favorites]

Mea culpa. Yes, 1992. I'm not sure what construction I was going for there, but that's what I meant.

But to shore up this observation a little bit, there are at least a few states who should be in this group but voted R when the US was at its heights of demagoguery in 2004.
posted by rhizome at 11:31 AM on January 24, 2016

The most interesting thing about this fever dream of a race is that we just might be seeing the two-party system finally beginning to implode.

We might be seeing this two-party system begin to implode. Remember that Republicans vs. Democrats, in their current configurations, is far from the first party system that America has seen. We might be seeing a realignment in action. Also, remember there have always been a few remarkable races that had more than two candidates get electoral votes - 1968, 1948, 1912, and of course, 1860.
posted by Apocryphon at 11:33 AM on January 24, 2016

El Bloombito is posting to Twitter again, so we've got that going for us at least.
posted by Devils Rancher at 11:34 AM on January 24, 2016 [5 favorites]

Why is Bernie outperforming Hillary against Trump, anyway? Who are these people who'd pick Bernie over Trump, but wouldn't vote for Hillary? That seems really weird.

Why do people presume that Republicans are the only ones who stay at home on election day if their party doesn't nominate a candidate who they sufficiently like?
posted by Apocryphon at 11:35 AM on January 24, 2016 [4 favorites]

Is the idea that in a Sanders-Trump election, Democrats stay home and let Trump win because they preferred Hillary? I'm not sure that's realistic.
posted by rhizome at 11:37 AM on January 24, 2016

Why is Bernie outperforming Hillary against Trump, anyway? Who are these people who'd pick Bernie over Trump, but wouldn't vote for Hillary? That seems really weird.

I'm guessing some combination of (1) populist fervor among low-information voters, (2) people who like blunt, candid, "straight-talk," (3) sexism, and (4) Sanders is not as well-known as Clinton and so doesn't have the same unfavorable numbers. (The fourth factor is like when "generic Republican" polled better than any specific Republican candidate in the early stages of the 2012 election cycle.) I'm not sure how to weight those factors -- and I'm probably leaving something out.
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 11:39 AM on January 24, 2016 [2 favorites]

In addition, the country will be entering a recession

This might be weird, but I don't see this happening.

To understand what a recession is you need to understand what happened back to 1982, and 1990, 2001, 3Q07.

IMV baby boomer demographics drove so much of this story, the '82 repression:

https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=39Bp ("real" fed funds rate, the fed's % minus CPI %).

Basically, outside of 2007, when the Fed wants to give us a recession, they can. Fed tightening was present up 2005-2006, but it was the implosion of the home equity cashout flow ($1T/yr during the peak bubble years of 2004-2006) that knocked the nation into recession.

Anyway before I get too long-winded here I think Gen Y filing into the workforce (they're age 16-34 now) while the boomers (age 52-70) file out into retirement this decade and next is going to be very "stimulative", like the 70s on crack. People knock the 70s, but total employment grew by 20M jobs, the same topline # posted in the 80s and 90s (let's not talk about the past decade, sigh).
posted by Heywood Mogroot III at 11:40 AM on January 24, 2016 [1 favorite]

Partisanship over personalities leads to weird derangement syndromes. (Was that site taken over by trolls, or did the webmaster veer off on their own?)
posted by Apocryphon at 11:41 AM on January 24, 2016

There are no outsiders who have Bloomberg's money, which is required to make a play for the nomination at this point. I don't think the GOP is just going to shift gears and put their juice behind some "oh wait, I just remembered" candidate, unless the RNC secretly hired Jim Anchower to run things.

I don't think that's quite true. Not that they're likely to run, but America has no shortage of outsiders with money who have run for president or could potentially. Herman Cain, Steve Forbes, Ross Perot, heck John McAfee is already running. None of them might be as recognizable as Trump, but then neither is Bloomberg.
posted by Apocryphon at 11:44 AM on January 24, 2016

The idea that there exists a silent majority of sensible moderate conservatives out there is ludicrous. Trump is leading double digits in every poll...

The establishment is making peace with Trump...

If you are a Republican, how scared are you of Trump really? His tax policies are straight out of the Reagan/Norquist playbook. His racism and xenophobia are nothing that you haven't been dog-whistling to your base since Nixon...

We might be seeing a realignment in action...

The One Weird Trait That Predicts Whether You're a Trump Supporter - "Trump's electoral strength—and his staying power—have been buoyed, above all, by Americans with authoritarian inclinations. And because of the prevalence of authoritarians in the American electorate, among Democrats as well as Republicans, it's very possible that Trump's fan base will continue to grow."

so i guess bloomberg's just peeved that it's not his brand of neoliberal, technocratic authoritarianism that's on display (and that people are fed up with)?
posted by kliuless at 12:12 PM on January 24, 2016 [4 favorites]

>This might be weird, but I don't see this happening.

> To understand what a recession is you need to understand what happened back to 1982, and >1990, 2001, 3Q07

It's not guaranteed that we are entering a recession, but there have been signs lately. Plus, we'd be "due" sometime in the 4 years if you go by gaps between past recessions.

The classical explanations for recessions up to about 1990 or so was that businesses overproduced goods relative to demand, so the recession was just a correction while businesses burned through excess inventory. After 1990, it seems like recessions are more related to overextension of credit somewhere in the economy (which is how they looked pre-1929).

Of course, all of that ignores the fact that the economy did not improve for many people post 2008 despite the economic growth. Realistically, the economy hasn't worked for some people since the late 1970's. Economic growth is just one measure of the economic well-being of people in a society.

I think its a pretty good bet that one of the reasons why this election season has featured such strong insurgent candidates is the widespread economic insecurity felt by many Americans.
posted by eagles123 at 12:20 PM on January 24, 2016 [6 favorites]

widespread economic insecurity felt by many Americans

yup. Hollowing out of mfg, construction, information (office etc) jobs:

https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=3egr

Like the late 20s, stock market speculative gains floated a lot of boats in the late 90s, and when corporate profits failed to arrive to justify those valuations, boom, market crash + recession.

but I look at this chart:
https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/CP/ (corporate profits)

and think, man, we're flying high. Adding consumer debt take-on:

https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=3egs shows we've still got another credit expansion coming, Gen Y being age 16-34 and all.
posted by Heywood Mogroot III at 12:31 PM on January 24, 2016 [1 favorite]

To understand what a recession is you need to understand what happened back to 1982, and >1990, 2001, 3Q07

That's true, but when the Chinese and other Asian economies implode because of unserviceable debt it's going to make 3Q07 look like a relaxing afternoon at the beach...
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 12:35 PM on January 24, 2016

the economy did not improve for many people post 2008 despite the economic growth

The economy hasn't improved for most people for a long time now
posted by rhizome at 1:06 PM on January 24, 2016 [2 favorites]

I don't even understand his point with the 'I could shoot someone'. I guess even Caligula probably took a while to get up to his full speed. We're not there yet with Trump.

If President Trump installed a horse in his Cabinet, who would be surprised?

And honestly, that would be the least of our worries.
posted by emjaybee at 1:17 PM on January 24, 2016 [4 favorites]

I'd be surprised if he turns up for work at all once he's done all the fun bits.
posted by Artw at 1:18 PM on January 24, 2016 [4 favorites]

Does Bloomberg even have enough time to get a ground game going? Forget the cost, I mean the people.
posted by Room 641-A at 3:43 PM on January 24, 2016

Perot announced in Feb, but that was a special case.
posted by rhizome at 3:58 PM on January 24, 2016

but when the Chinese and other Asian economies implode because of unserviceable debt

They're not bound to the euro, so they can print.

Back when the JPY was at 80 it hit me, they really didn't have a problem that couldn't be solved with some BOJ intervention.

https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=3emz
posted by Heywood Mogroot III at 4:32 PM on January 24, 2016 [1 favorite]

Does Bloomberg even have enough time to get a ground game going? Forget the cost, I mean the people.

His need for that depends strongly on his goals.
posted by Artw at 4:38 PM on January 24, 2016 [1 favorite]

Huh. I think you just answered two questions.
posted by Room 641-A at 5:28 PM on January 24, 2016

The question is: Does Bloomberg know how to use a chart and pointer?

Is he the chosen one? Will he finally bring balance to teh budgetzzzzz?!!!!!!!!!
posted by eagles123 at 6:29 PM on January 24, 2016

John Scalzi on the current crop of Democratic candidates.

The money bit as far as this thread is concerned:

(But — third party candidate! Oh, my sweet summer child. You’re adorable. I mean, if you were always going to vote Libertarian or Green or whatever, or were otherwise honestly up in the air, then don’t let me stop you. Groovy by me. But if you were going to vote Democratic but then didn’t get your way in the primaries, so screw it, then yeah. Maybe think beyond your own fit of foot-stomping pique. I suppose this also holds true for you potential GOP voters who might ragequit if Trump/Cruz/whomever doesn’t get the nomination, but my point of view, since that field is filled with people I wouldn’t vote for even if you promised me all the ice cream I ever wanted for the rest of my life, delivered by a unicorn that farts gold coins and diamonds, I’m less concerned if you do it.)

posted by Justinian at 2:19 AM on January 25, 2016 [1 favorite]

Bloomberg: Your own fit of foot-stomping pique.
posted by Justinian at 2:19 AM on January 25, 2016

You Can't Tip A Buick: I refrain from using the neologism "neoliberalism," because there is nothing "neo" about neoliberalism.

I like the "Neo-" formulation, because it indicates the recognition of and integration of the critiques of Hayek et al, starting in the 70s.

We are a socialist-and-fascist country ruled by liberal political parties and liberal institutions. Liberalism is breaking down in America. This might turn out to be a really terrible thing — there's a very good chance that more of us are fascist than socialist.

I'm starting to come around to the idea that the Crisis of Liberalism™ is a crisis of success, that the policies and worldviewsystem that were good for, say, fighting the Nazis* and dealing with The Great Depression are not so great at dealing with the issues that face us in the West† today, and that we can only keep pulling the levers that worked for so long.

* or getting the Communists to fight Nazis.
† a terrible and inaccurate formulation. Maybe take a page and call them FVEY?
posted by the man of twists and turns at 9:40 AM on January 25, 2016 [1 favorite]

Why is Bernie outperforming Hillary against Trump, anyway?

I suspect part of this is information. Most voters still aren't paying attention, and non-Democrats know very little about Sanders.

In the general, the Republican candidate will probably make every other sentence "Sanders is a self-described socialist!". Hillary has not made such direct attacks on that because she doesn't want to completely alienate the left. But any Republican will seize on that like a gift from the heavens.

Now, exactly how effective that is is unknown and there will potentially be the counter-strategy of Sanders saying "Are you seriously going to vote for Donald Trump?". But I think there is a LOT of room for movement in a general election matchup with Sanders, I wouldn't trust general election polling on an unknown (to most people) candidate 10 months before the election.
posted by thefoxgod at 12:52 PM on January 25, 2016

Hillary has not made such direct attacks on that because she doesn't want to completely alienate the left.

Well, not exactly.
posted by rhizome at 1:15 PM on January 25, 2016 [1 favorite]

I meant specifically on the "SOCIALISM!" angle, not that she wasn't attacking him at all (obviously they're attacking each other in the debates at this point). At least I can't find an instance of it.
posted by thefoxgod at 1:18 PM on January 25, 2016 [1 favorite]

If you count concern trolling...

There's also this (though it's not clear it came from the Clinton camp).
posted by Backslash at 1:39 PM on January 25, 2016 [2 favorites]

Hillary has not made such direct attacks on that because she doesn't want to completely alienate the left.

Either way, I think that train has already left the station. Some of the straight-up lies and misrepresentations that the Clinton campaign has been attacking Sanders with (e.g. calling him a "reliable vote for the gun lobby" or claiming that he wants to "dismantle Medicare") have already alienated a lot of Sanders supporters previously willing to hold their noses and vote for Hillary in the general.
posted by Backslash at 1:49 PM on January 25, 2016

Her obvious nonsense about protecting the legacy of Ovamacare by never improving on it is pretty offputting.
posted by Artw at 1:55 PM on January 25, 2016 [3 favorites]

There's also this from back in September.
posted by Backslash at 2:06 PM on January 25, 2016 [1 favorite]

Hmm, I guess you could call that concern trolling, but I think it's an actual real concern (that his socialist label will be a problem in the general). Others both here and elsewhere think so too, although I admit its something that could only be truly tested if he won the nomination.

Most people don't seem to really know anything about Sanders (at least people I know) since no one is really paying attention to anything but Trump. (By "no one" I mean people who are not interested in politics, which is like most Americans but obviously not the people in this thread, by definition :) )
posted by thefoxgod at 2:19 PM on January 25, 2016

or claiming that he wants to "dismantle Medicare"

Sending Chelsea out there was shameful. I was always fine with Clinton being the nominee if Bernie isn't, but now I will really be holding my nose if I have to ~~pull that lever~~ ink the dot.

Why is Bernie outperforming Hillary against Trump, anyway?

Maybe because when you put all three together, Bernie looks like the best candidate.
posted by Room 641-A at 2:34 PM on January 25, 2016 [6 favorites]

More likely it's because the entire country knows what there is to know about Clinton while Sanders is still an unknown to most people. You might as well poll "generic Democrat" against Trump. Which would also outpoll Clinton. Generics always outperform specific candidates because they don't have a record of pissing people off or being attacked 24/7 by the other party's machine.
posted by Justinian at 2:46 PM on January 25, 2016 [3 favorites]

I don't know if the S-word is going to be a problem for Bernie. He kind of owns it, and he's probably itching to cut loose with the critical beatdown. Sanders v. Trump in a debate would be epic.
posted by rhizome at 2:59 PM on January 25, 2016 [1 favorite]

I suspect that the s-word has been somewhat defanged by eight years of the GOP trying to stick it on a popular, centrist President.
posted by tobascodagama at 3:58 PM on January 25, 2016 [3 favorites]

Well that's kind of the thing, right? The scandalizing mentality hopes that the target of their opprobrium will punish themselves through shame driven by intimidation. If the target doesn't see anything wrong with it, though, it takes all the wind out of the critics' sails.

Just like after Madonna's "Sex" book came out and people were criticizing her for it, she said, essentially, "so what, ya frickin' squares?" to which nobody really had a reply outside of prudish finger-wagging. Likewise, I think if Bernie critics are forced to stand up for e.g. eating the poor, they might decline the opportunity.
posted by rhizome at 5:50 PM on January 25, 2016 [2 favorites]

Rare that I will say this, but look to Trump: Not giving a fuck does wonders.
posted by Artw at 6:00 PM on January 25, 2016 [4 favorites]

Our system is so broken that it has come to this.
posted by eggkeeper at 9:23 PM on January 25, 2016 [3 favorites]

Sangermaine: "The startling numbers of former Paulbots who are now feeling the Bern, despite Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders having almost diametrically opposite belief systems, leads one to conclude that people don't really care what the candidates' actual positions or views are.
"

Paul was a darling of Reddit back in the day and Bernie is the darling now. The thing is if you talk to these people they are adamant that they are focused on the issues unlike everyone else who, e.g. is just voting for Clinton because she is a woman.

Honestly I'm not sure what percentage of Reddit is supporting Bernie *because of* Hillary (and more generally, her gender). But it's probably significant.

Also, the weird thing is despite Sanders being a socialist he doesn't *feel* big government even though that's exactly what he's promising. That's partially because his platform focuses as much on dismantling the status quo as it does on providing these (government) services.
posted by Deathalicious at 1:32 AM on January 26, 2016

Like Corbyn, Sanders has a shot if Socialism stops being a dirty word.
Not likely but not impossible.

I still think Corbyn is laying the groundwork for an electorate who questions the narrative they are being fed. Whether he can get there before his death by a thousand cuts I'm not sure. Sanders doesn't have that option because the American media establishment hasn't just spent years pissing away the last dregs of their reputation through things like Hillsborough, Yewtree and the hacking scandals.
posted by fullerine at 2:55 AM on January 26, 2016

WTF, Hillary?
posted by tonycpsu at 8:14 AM on January 26, 2016 [2 favorites]

Maybe just poorly-worded -- segregation & Jim Crow were the southern reaction to reconstruction. Could she have meant reconstruction would have gone better if Ol' Abe had been around to shepherd it further along? Seems more poorly-worded than an actual utter misunderstanding of history.
posted by Devils Rancher at 8:30 AM on January 26, 2016

She's going to get grosser the further right did panders too. No way is she going to go head to head against trump without 90% adopting his "platform".
posted by Artw at 8:37 AM on January 26, 2016

Could she have meant reconstruction would have gone better if Ol' Abe had been around to shepherd it further along? Seems more poorly-worded than an actual utter misunderstanding of history.

She could have meant that, but absent a clarification, a plain reading of what she said suggests that she's either very confused about the history or pandering to neoconfederate voters.
posted by tonycpsu at 9:00 AM on January 26, 2016 [1 favorite]

But the neoconfederates think Abe was a traitor & John Wilkes Booth was a True American Hero, so it's muddled at best.
posted by Devils Rancher at 9:04 AM on January 26, 2016

Oh, I'm not saying her pandering will always succeed, far from it, but by god is she going to put in the effort.
posted by Artw at 9:05 AM on January 26, 2016 [1 favorite]

I'm assuming she hasn't re-thought what she learned in school way back when, and maybe in addition hasn't unlearned what she learned about Reconstruction during her time in Arkansas -- during which time she likely would have had comments about carpetbaggery or worse murmured about her, and would have had to develop the "right" language to express her understanding of local feelings.
posted by notyou at 9:18 AM on January 26, 2016 [1 favorite]

No way is she going to go head to head against trump without 90% adopting his "platform".

That's only going to be because if Trump makes it into the general, he too will run towards the center. And I have feeling he has more room to maneuver because his lack of any specific policy or platform proposals.
posted by FJT at 9:25 AM on January 26, 2016

Trump running to the centre does not seem particularly likely TBH.
posted by Artw at 9:27 AM on January 26, 2016 [1 favorite]

There are hints. In the debates he already has talked about more infrastructure spending, fair trade, rebuilding American manufacturing, and how bad TPP is. These are all things that the Left have been talking about for a long time. As long as it looks like he's bashing the enemies of America (minorities, immigrants, and Democrats) his base would be satisfied.
posted by FJT at 9:39 AM on January 26, 2016 [2 favorites]

rhizome: "There are no outsiders who have Bloomberg's money, which is required to make a play for the nomination at this point. I don't think the GOP is just going to shift gears and put their juice behind some "oh wait, I just remembered" candidate, unless the RNC secretly hired Jim Anchower to run things."

Hola Mi Amigos!
posted by symbioid at 10:20 AM on January 26, 2016 [1 favorite]

No way is she going to go head to head against trump without 90% adopting his "platform".

There's 0% chance of that happening. She's run centrist campaigns before, she will again.
posted by thefoxgod at 2:52 PM on January 26, 2016 [3 favorites]

I mean, adopting 90% of Trumps platform would include:

Forcibly deporting 11 million immigrants.
Ending free trade with China.
Ending NAFTA.
Repealing Obamacare.
Defunding Planned Parenthood.
Changing her views to anti-abortion
Opposing gun control

Its almost inconceivable she would do any of those things. Those are all things that the DNC/centrist wing of the Democratic party firmly opposes.
posted by thefoxgod at 2:57 PM on January 26, 2016 [5 favorites]

There are hints. In the debates he already has talked about more infrastructure spending, fair trade, rebuilding American manufacturing, and how bad TPP is.

Speaking of: Trump will ‘definitely not’ participate in Fox debate, campaign says [WaPo]
posted by Room 641-A at 4:49 PM on January 26, 2016

We're reliving on the DNC as a bulwark against triangulation and Overton window shift? Oh dear.
posted by Artw at 4:53 PM on January 26, 2016

Republican elites surrender to Trump.

Link that may or may not be The Onion and oh god fuck it I'm not even going to hover over it to find out; I don't want to know.
posted by Dr.Enormous at 7:40 PM on January 26, 2016 [2 favorites]

delfin: "I'm about this close to voting for Pat Paulsen."

Pity that Harold Stassen died.
posted by Chrysostom at 10:10 AM on January 27, 2016 [1 favorite]

I used to always write in Gus Hall.

These days I write in Zombie Gus Hall.
posted by notyou at 5:02 PM on January 27, 2016

Miguel Bloombito: El Mayor Emeritús y candidato para el presidente.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 12:11 PM on January 28, 2016 [1 favorite]

Can Bloomberg even get dirty in a campaign? I'm not under the impression that he's ever had to run a real one, or even go toe to toe with anybody smart.
posted by rhizome at 2:33 PM on January 28, 2016

Is there a debate thread?
posted by box at 6:11 PM on January 28, 2016

I think maybe this is. They have beer there.
posted by homunculus at 6:14 PM on January 28, 2016

Why Michael Bloomberg Could Make Donald Trump President: The former New York mayor would take votes away from a Democratic candidate.
posted by homunculus at 2:43 PM on February 1, 2016

Yeah, I read a, "I'd like to vote for a Democrat, but without all that stuff about the blacks and the poors," prediction/theory, but I'm not sure how many of those voters are out there.
posted by rhizome at 2:51 PM on February 1, 2016

« Older "It's not a single process, it's 1,095 days of... | Drone Art: Arctic Edition Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments

MetaFilter

the art of our necessities is strange
January 23, 2016 12:34 PM Subscribe

Tags

Share

the art of our necessities is strange January 23, 2016 12:34 PM Subscribe

Tags

Share

the art of our necessities is strange
January 23, 2016 12:34 PM Subscribe