Harsh Your Mellow Monday: Martyrs, Saints, and Grifters Upon the Waves Edition

Andrew Donaldson

Born and raised in West Virginia, Andrew has been the Managing Editor of Ordinary Times since 2018, is a widely published opinion writer, and appears in media, radio, and occasionally as a talking head on TV. He can usually be found misspelling/misusing words on Twitter@four4thefire. Andrew is the host of Heard Tell podcast. Subscribe to Andrew'sHeard Tell Substack for free here:

Related Post Roulette

144 Responses

  1. Saul Degraw says:

    I’m not that concerned about the Iowa turnout. It wasn’t bad per se. Just a bit higher than 2016 levels. Barack Obama was a once in a generation political talent and people need to learn to vote without that kind of charisma being present every time. Plus there are a lot more candidates this time around. Plus the caucus system is an anti-democratic archaic thing that the U.S. gets to keep because of might and size. In any other country, the U.N. would send in special election monitors.Report

    • Chip Daniels in reply to Saul Degraw says:

      I’m not particularly eager to vote in the CA primary, yet I will crawl over broken glass to vote in November.Report

    • I agree with you about President Obama, but wonder how many folks have not drawn the conclusion you have and still think the best path is to find a new savior every 4-8 years not realizing that is a generational occurrence.Report

    • JS in reply to Saul Degraw says:

      Judging by the hypothetical head-to-heads, watching Biden and Sanders get almost identical results is rather illuminating.

      The Democratic candidate seems far less of a factor than his Republican opponent.

      Sanders and Biden represent pretty polar ends of the Democratic tent, so seeing no real wavering seems to indicate Democratic ideology or platform is not a significant factor this year.

      Watching the hypothetical head-to-heads, the pattern is pretty straightforward — high name recognition Dems cluster together, with drop-offs as name recognition drops off — not towards Trump, but towards undecided. Trump’s numbers remain static.

      I confess myself singularly unexcited for the primaries this year. There are a handful of Democrats I’d vote against in the primary, but they all seem to be nicely removing themselves from the process. I’ll likely still vote in the primary, of course. Habit of a lifetime.

      Now the general election? As Chip noted, I’d crawl over broken glass just to run up the score.Report

    • Kolohe in reply to Saul Degraw says:

      My guess is there’s also a bit of of a demographic shift in twelve years.

      The big mass of Boomers are now twelve years older, and, even though olds vote more than youngs, some stil might have more trouble going the distance at a caucus then they did when they were in their fifties.

      The skinny Gen X doesn’t have the numbers to backfill completely. And the millenials, while numerous, may have simply left the state at their current age to seek their fortunes elsewhere. (particularly the ones with more affinity for blue politics to begin with)

      Though going against this theory is that Iowa is pretty much right at the middle of states for median age of the population

      http://worldpopulationreview.com/states/median-age-by-state/

      There is something to be said though for the possibility that a lot of old Tom Harkin voters are simply no longer with us, and have been replaced by Joni Ernst voters.Report

      • PD Shaw in reply to Kolohe says:

        Your link indicates that the average age in the US increased from 37.2 to 38.2 over the last ten years, and the median age in Iowa is 38.1. Noting the link’s shift from mean to median, it appears that Iowa is squarely in the middle, and has a median age less than places like Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin. (Basically, the Northeast is the oldest part of the county and the West is the youngest)Report

  2. Jaybird says:

    Allow me to toot my own horn:

    I’ve been thinking about that a *LOT* over the weekend.

    Now, I also know that the Republicans 2016 doesn’t map to Democrats 2020 1:1. Like, not even close. (Buttigeig as Rubio!) But I do know some of the ins and outs of my brain and my brain was 100% taken in by Biden the way that it was by Jeb.

    And now I’m looking at the rest of the field and asking myself what I’m not understanding about the non-Bernie people running, about Bernie, about the base, and about the media.

    Lemme tell ya. My brain is doing the exact same thing when it looks at the media this time as last time.Report

  3. Jaybird says:

    One difference between 2020 and 2016 and 2012:

    I’ve gotten calls from supporters this time.

    In the past, I’ve gotten push-polls and I suppose that those *TECHNICALLY* qualify, but this time around is the first time that I’ve had someone call my house and try to talk me into voting for their guy. (They were a Bernie guy and they liked that I was “Yang then Bernie” and they thanked me and moved on to the next guy on their list. But I’ve never gotten a call from an enthusiastic supporter before.)Report

  4. Chip Daniels says:

    Related to HM3, from Martin Longman, reviewing David French on the Falwell Christians:
    Trumpism and the Corruption of Christian Morals
    https://washingtonmonthly.com/2020/02/10/trumpism-and-the-corruption-of-christian-morals/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+washingtonmonthly%2Frss+%28Political+Animal+at+Washington+Monthly%29

    Nut graf:
    “Trump takes kind old ladies who worry about the unborn and transforms them into hate-tweeters. He turns upright and model citizens into apologists for sexual assault, white nationalism, business fraud, self-dealing and foreign interference in our elections.”

    Longman talks about the corrupting nature of the transactional relationship between Trump and the Christians where they begin by using him as a proxy to fight their enemies, but then invest themselves in his behavior and end up excusing what they should be condemning.Report

    • I’ve about to come to the place where the only political measuring rod I even both with anymore is “Has Donald Trump changed who you are in the last 4 years, good, bad, or indifferent.”Report

      • Chip Daniels in reply to Andrew Donaldson says:

        There is always a debate within lefty circles about whether Trump has changed conservatives or merely revealed who they always were.

        I think Longman’s comments about leaders appealing to the various aspects of people’s nature is about right, that hypothetically a conservative could appeal to the best in the conservative base, but it is equally true that the base itself shapes the field of possible candidates.

        After 2012, the GOP base could have chosen a Jeb who was tolerant of immigrants, but they chose not to. They could have expelled the white supremacists and Naizs, but chose to include them.

        It isn’t Trump who is changing me.
        It is my interactions with former friends and relations, who are like that kindly old lady who now ardently defend the indefensible. Its like watching a loved one shave their head and begin reciting bizarre cult slogans about the Illuminati.Report

        • Trump has changed quite a few folks on the left also, to be fair. He seems to be an equal opportunity, bipartisan, metastasizing thing where his most ardent opponents get sucked in and lose their bearings. But your point is valid, the single issue voters latching on and signing up are this era’s “low information voters” of the past that those same people hated so openly.Report

    • The IRS investigation when the next Democratic president is in power into Liberty should be fun. “Just how do you go from $150M to $2.5B in 12 years, there Jerry.” A lot of innocent kids and folks at the university are going to get caught up in some very ugly stuff rolling downhill from the top of Chandler’s Mountain someday soon, I’m afraid.Report

      • JS in reply to Andrew Donaldson says:

        The toothlessness of the IRS — of which collar criminal investigations at all — is pretty damning.

        Take Paul Manafort. He got caught in a variety of white collar crimes entirely mostly by accident — had he not so singularly elevated his own stature, odds are no one would have ever noticed.

        And yet he committed bank fraud and tax evasion to the tune of tens of millions, and not in a particularly clever way. He was not some financial wiz — he was altering documents in Word, emailing his partner the details of his fraud, and not even bothering to hide the offshore accounts he didn’t report.

        As far as white collar criminals go, Paul Manafort was the equivalent of a cashier just helping themselves to the till, despite being on camera and knowing automatic audits were done before and after shifts. As soon as someone glanced even casually at him, it all fell apart.

        How many Paul Manaforts are out there? Money laundering, illegal foreign donations, fake charities, just pure illegal grift that there’s simply no one even sweeping up the low-hanging fruit anymore?Report

  5. Saul Degraw says:

    Ronald Brownstein argues that every Democratic Candidate is a niche candidate:

    https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/02/democratic-race-could-end-contested-convention/606343/Report

    • It has merit, if a bit of stretch since there is quite a bit of overlap to the nichesReport

    • JS in reply to Saul Degraw says:

      This comes up every 4 years. The media wants one, because it’s exciting. They speculate on it like the average Joe does about winning the lottery. “Wouldn’t it be neat…” and then someone has to clean their keyboard again.

      It never happens. It’s not going to happen. It’s like me telling you what sort of yacht I’d buy when I’m a billionaire.Report

  6. Saul Degraw says:

    I’m old enough to remember when Bush II tried to do this after he was reelected and still got his ass kicked. You gotta wonder why they think they can pull this off in an election year: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/trumps-election-year-gamble-cutting-entitlements-for-seniors-2020-02-10?siteid=yhoof2&yptr=yahooReport

    • Jaybird in reply to Saul Degraw says:

      If Buttigeig is the nominee, Trump will get *SLAUGHTERED* for pulling something like this.

      If Bernie is the nominee, Trump’s the (more) reasonable one.

      I mean, if we’re talking seniors, anyway.Report

      • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird says:

        I’m not saying that won’t happen. I’m just saying its pretty revealing of priorities.Report

        • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

          Here is the problem with “Inheritance”, as I see it.

          If you see “Inheritance” as “Something you get from your parents”, then it is pretty much agreed upon to be a bullshit thing. You’ll get a handful of people who say “no, it’s good” but they’re all Trustafarians. (I remember reading in a leftist forum from a guy who talked about his Trust Fund and how it wasn’t a big deal because it only gave him $600 a month. This was, like, the ’90s so those were Clinton dollars. He didn’t understand the vitriol he got in response.)

          If, however, you see “inheritance” as “something you leave to your children”, suddenly it starts polling through the roof. Sure, there are a handful of people who are still opposed, but in nowhere near the numbers we had for the previous definition.

          A simple change in framing was all it took.

          Anyway, yeah. It’s pretty revealing of priorities.Report

          • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird says:

            What would the Republican framing of cutting Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security look like?Report

            • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

              Oh, I don’t know. How *I* would sell it, however, is to rely on something like this. Just point out “when Medicare and Social Security started, it was intended to help the poor. Now? I’m not suggesting we push gramma off a cliff. But I am suggesting that we stop sending money to millionaires and multimillionaires.”

              We’re not “cutting” Social Security. We’re just means testing it. The people who still need it will still get it. It’s the millionaires who won’t get it anymore.

              That’s just off the top of my head.

              “Why was Medicare used to help David Rockefeller?” That sort of thing.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird says:

                I would so love to see the Republicans run on that.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                I have no idea what the actual campaign would be. “We know that you care about your grandchildren. You want to leave them your recipes, your gold watch, your classic encyclopedia. But what about leaving them The Deficit?”Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird says:

                “Really, Grandma, if you truly loved your children, wouldn’t you roll your Hoverround off that cliff and spare us all the trouble?”Report

              • greginak in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                It’s not like we haven’ seen them try to sell the fork SocSec/Medi before. They can just dust off the old platitudes about the deficit is coming to kill us blah blah blah. We know how they try to sell it.Report

              • CJColucci in reply to greginak says:

                Means-testing Social Security will make all too obvious that it is — gasp — WELFARE, something only Those People (TM) get. Its political invulnerability is precisely the result of its universal status and the comforting illusion so many recipients entertain that it is some kind of earned and paid-for benefit, not — shudder — WELFARE.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                Just sell it to their kids.

                They were religious hypocrites.
                They didn’t care about the environment.
                They didn’t care about people who weren’t White.
                They didn’t care about LGBT issues.
                Now they don’t care about the economy.
                Why are we sending them checks while they send us THE BILL?Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird says:

                Please proceed, Governor.Report

              • CJColucci in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                Is there a recognizable political demographic that checks the first five boxes and also wants to cut Social Security? Maybe it’s a logically-possible collection of political beliefs (or, if you prefer, irritable mental gestures), but I haven’t seen many, or maybe any, examples in the wild.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to CJColucci says:

                The Republicans have tried very hard for decades to portray SS as the program that is blowing up the budget deficit.

                One of the troubles they have had is that their core constituency loves Social Security, and as you point out, doesn’t see it as a welfare program but as some sort of annuity program that they paid for with their hard earned dollars.

                So trying to slip resentment of the olds in with appeals to the SJW/ Bernie generation seems like a bizarre sales effort.

                Especially if you have Dems pointing out that SS could be solvent for generations to come if we just raised the contribution cap so guys like Mark Zuckerberg paid a trifle more.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                That’s not how *I* would do it. (I already said how I’d do it. I’d appeal to ressentiment alone!)Report

              • Michael Cain in reply to Jaybird says:

                Just point out “when Medicare and Social Security started, it was intended to help the poor. Now?

                After the Social Security benefits and financing were completely redone in the early 1980s, it was no longer a program for the poor. It was explicitly a program that provided everyone with a modest public pension. Go read the Greenspan report.

                When Medicare was created, the problem it was intended to solve was that no one aged 65+ could individually buy health insurance — the insurance companies simply didn’t do it. It wasn’t a program for the poor, it was a group plan for everyone, with subsidies paid by the taxpayer instead of an employer.

                Medicaid, OTOH, was explicitly health insurance for the poor.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Michael Cain says:

                Please understand: I was asked to create a political ad. The truth didn’t really interest me as I was writing it.Report

            • Dark Matter in reply to Chip Daniels says:

              What would the Republican framing of cutting Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security look like?

              Savings of $292 billion would come from reforming Medicaid and other safety net programs, for example by eliminating improper payments to people who have died.

              https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/feb/9/trump-budget-cuts-44-trillion-medicare-discretiona/

              We’re going to end up with this being a combo of fake news and good ideas.Report

    • who will be the first person to run the “Granny over the cliff” ad, do you think this time?Report

  7. Saul Degraw says:

    Biden’s firewall among black voters has disappeared post Iowa. The winners from his dismal Iowa performance are Sanders and most surprisingly Bloomberg: https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1226944447767814144Report

    • Chip Daniels in reply to Saul Degraw says:

      You know how the Trump voters selected Trump over Jeb and Rubio because they saw him as a savage fighter who would take the blowtorch to the liberals?

      I’m less-than-enthused about Bloomberg, but I gotta say, the attack ads he’s running on Trump are like the effin’ St. Crispin’s Day speech, compared to the blandishments of Biden and Buttigieg.

      Not sayin’ I’m sold on him. Just that he’s a Harris veep choice away from stealing my heart from Warren.Report

      • George Turner in reply to Chip Daniels says:

        The trouble with Bloomberg is that it’s fighting fire with fire. If your outrage was driven by the flaming bonfire in the White House, all Bloomberg offers is a change from an out-of-control grease fire to an out-of-control chemical fire. You’ll still have all the outrage, arrogance, condescension, enormous ego, privilege, and rudeness, and you’ll still have an elite capitalist New York billionaire, but with the added problem that everything you love (like large Cokes, sirloin steaks, and French fries) will get banned.

        It might be hard to keep the OWS and Bernie Bros on board when the Democratic candidate is the personification of Wall Street privilege, an elite Republican whose company essentially runs Wall Street, letting him rake in billions from selling out American workers. I don’t know if it would feel like a candidacy so much as a Republican leveraged buy-out of the Democratic party, or perhaps the ultra-rich Davos/Bilderberg counter-attack on grass-roots populism and social equality.

        But heck, the Democrats sold out everyone but their mega donors years ago, so why not just make it official purchase, complete with branding rights?Report

        • Chip Daniels in reply to George Turner says:

          I’m a former organizer of my local Occupy, leader of a MoveOn group, and member of the county Democratic Party Central Committee, and if Michael Bloomberg were to shoot Donald Trump on 5th Avenue, I would canvass door to door for him.Report

      • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

        If I am doing a head-to-head of Bloomy and Trump, I start with a 2016 map and ask “okay, which ones do I flip?”

        Given what you’ve said about Harris and broken glass, I’m assuming that I’m not flipping California.

        But I’m noticing that there are a lot of states that I’m not flipping…Report

        • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird says:

          Are you seeing the shift of AA votes from Biden to Bloomberg?

          Because like, that shocks the hell outta me.

          Maybe the lesson of 2016 is that we should be more cautious in counting flipped states until the picture gets a little more clear.Report

          • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

            Sure, I totally am.

            But what I’m wondering about is the shift from Obama to “meh” in 2016.

            And whether Bloomy/Harris overcomes it.

            I’d love to hear arguments about why Bloomberg/Harris is significantly different from Clinton/Kaine. The stuff that I’m coming up with isn’t stuff that I’d see as particularly persuasive and relies rather heavily on “Trump is bad” to a degree that I’m not seeing as significantly different than the dynamics we had in 2016.Report

            • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird says:

              Anybody who tells you they can accurately predict the future dynamics of this is a fool and not worth listening to.

              We are in uncharted territory here where the rules of 2008 or 2016 don’t apply.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                Perhaps.

                But please understand my perspective: I thought that Hillary Clinton was an awful, awful candidate in 2016. I thought that she made a lot of mistakes and people told me stuff like “anybody who tells you they can accurately predict the future dynamics of this is a fool and not worth listening to” and I would just notice that I wasn’t really saying “TRUMP IS GOING TO WIN!” as much as “guys, there are some serious mistakes going on here and the dynamics that I’m seeing don’t line up with the narratives that I’m hearing”.

                This is not me saying “the only person who loses to Trump is Bloomberg!” Neither is it me saying “Bernie is the only one who can beat Trump!”

                But I am saying that if I am trying to come up with an argument for why Bloomberg/Harris would be significantly different than Clinton/Kaine that is persuasive and doesn’t rely on talking about Trump and I can’t do that… being told that I can’t predict the future doesn’t make me not remember 2016.

                Indeed, it makes me remember 2016 even more.Report

              • George Turner in reply to Jaybird says:

                I think Bloomberg/Harris would differ from Clinton/Kaine in that they’d lack that personal warmth, that feeling that Clinton gave off that made you feel she probably wouldn’t kill a spouse or other close family member (though everyone else was fair game).

                One of the attractions of Trump is that he makes people feel that he’s got their backs and would go to the carpet for them, and that contrasted strongly with Hillary where everything she does seems like a cynical, calculated opportunity to get ahead by stepping on someone else. Bloomberg and Harris would repeat that dynamic.

                I could see a man-on-the-street interview that would go

                “Would Bloomberg or Harris frame you for murder if they thought your 20 year federal prison sentence would make a campaign ad?

                “Oh yeah, of course they would. You betcha!”

                What Democrats should look for is someone who inspires warmth and trust, like Obama, Bill Clinton, or Jimmy Carter. Buttigieg and Beto O’Roarke inspired a lot of warmth, despite being short on wisdom or experience.

                The other thing Democrats are woefully short on this cycle is hope and optimism. They seem to have ceded all that to Trump, who fortunately has enough for the whole country. All of the candidates have stayed too focused on hatred and wrath, and that just surrounds them all with an aura of extreme negativity that does nothing for voters who weren’t already wallowing in outrage.

                It’s notable that the two things you don’t see much of at Democratic debates are American flags and smiles. It’s like the Grinch decided to run for mayor of Whoville – and without any change of heart. Many might agree that that’s an all to apt description of Bloomberg.

                Someone like an ideal Tom Hanks would probably have taken a completely different tack, saying “You know. The economy is doing great. The country is doing great. People are back to work. I say we keep that going, and roll forward to the future. All this hatred and divisiveness isn’t any good for anybody, so let’s focus on the things we do agree on. Let’s return to a proper level of civility and decorum, and not just in politics, but in our lives, and put the bile and barbs aside for a while. Nobody ever achieved peace and happiness by hating their neighbors.”

                That would present a much different dynamic, a candidate who isn’t stepping in to Trump’s well-aimed punches, and who isn’t poking moderates with a stick and calling them names.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird says:

                Can you separate your distaste for Hillary Clinton from your distaste from the Democrats in general?

                That’s the problem with these sorts of armchair forecasting, is they become wishcasts, polluted with our unseen biases and hopes and fears.

                Look at your own vocabulary for example.
                You aren’t gathering data like Nate Silver and crunching numbers; You are seeking out an “argument”.

                But this is medieval alchemy; You’re looking for the most powerful set of words based on preconceived notions of how things work that will convince you of what will happen.

                You don’t really have any data for how a Bloomberg/ Harris ticket might be received among Democrats, much less the nation at large, because, well, no one does.

                No one saw Bloomberg, he of the “stop[ and frisk” fame, gaining even a single AA vote, but here we are with him getting traction.
                There was no argument for why this event should have occurred but it did.

                There is no argument for why a doddering old Socialist should be doing so well, but he is.

                We just don’t know how this is going to play out. Arguments, no matter how cleverly worded or with geometric logic, aren’t going to give us any insight.Report

              • George Turner in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                The Pentagon has found that the people who make the best predictions are generalists, who seem to process all sorts of disparate facts and impressions and produce far more accurate forecasts that experts who tend to focus on a few metrics and models, and then miss the big picture.

                Jaybird is searching through all kinds of data points and trying to sense what they might mean. When you look back at past shifts that occurred in a vast range of countries, it’s fair to say that “Everyone should have seen that political tsunami coming if they’d been paying attention to all those little clues found in human behavior and subtly expressed opinions.”

                Often times these things can be sensed before anyone in politics is polling the question, or taking advantage of a growing sense of dissatisfaction. Sometimes you can sense it before anyone can even put a finger on what’s making them uneasy about the status quo.

                There wasn’t any 2015 poll that said that Republicans were hankering for a Donald J Trump. If there was a growing mood, a whole raft of GOP Presidential candidates mostly missed it. Yet that overall mood was being expressed daily, in subtle and non-subtle ways, all over the Internet and all over the radio. All too often with polling, people are telling you want they think you want to hear, not how you really feel, and very often the poll questions don’t nearly touch the heart of what’s going on.

                This is easier to see in Europe, where new parties can come out of nowhere and shoot to dominance, tapping into a still-forming zeitgeist. Brexit is an example, as is a new raft of European populist parties that congealed when none of the existing political options were in sync with people’s feelings. Often the entire political establishment is so out of touch that voters don’t realize it until there’s another option, and the people who create that new option are the ones who’s cat-sense lets them distill out the core concerns people have.

                Here’s an amusing story from Sweden. The Swedish communists are fed up with the Swedish left, who they describe as a bunch of LGBT obsessed, environmentally obsessed, politically correct, socially effete Nazis who’ve completely abandoned any concern for poor and working class people. The communists will probably all end up supporting a Trump type candidate and going to right-wing populist rallies.

                Such things are happening all over Europe. Last week BBC Two ran a three part series on populism in Europe (“Travels in Euroland”) where they sent a former Labour MP to dig deep into European political winds by talking to populist supporters and populist politicians. What he found was widespread and utter frustration with the existing political classes, who seem to despise, denigrate, and disdain ordinary people and their concerns.

                The investigative reporter hung out with AfD supporters in Germany who had previously been voting for Greens or for Angela Merkel. He spent a day in Bremen with a couple of AfD supporters who were also former far-left voters. They were upset because they’d been attacked and hospitalized by Muslim refugees, who attacked the two men for being married to each other. Curious as to why two gays would support the Afd, he had them discuss gay marriage with an AfD politician. Later, he had dinner with that particular politician. He pointedly questioned the racist vibes the man and his daughter gave off. But when he asked if the politician’s wife would be joining them for dinner, the response was that she wouldn’t because she was in Turkey. “What she doing in Turkey?” “She’s Turkish.”

                That pattern kept repeating. He met with a far-right fisherman in Holland who expressed how fed up everybody was with the refugee influx. Over dinner, he found out the fisherman had recently married a woman from Gambia.

                Everywhere he went, the right-wing populists he talked too seem to be utterly ordinary people, often quite leftist, who were just fed up with a self-loathing, almost traitorous political class that was obsessed with virtue signalling and SJW issues, who obviously didn’t give a fig about regular folks and their concerns.

                Often in a censorious public environment, such as the one we’re living in (where everybody sits in Facebook Jail while waiting out their Twitter ban), what people say can be quite divergent from what people think. When that happens, you have to keep your ears to the rails and your nose to the ground to sniff out clues.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                Can you separate your distaste for Hillary Clinton from your distaste from the Democrats in general?

                I don’t know if this counts for “in general” but I caucused for Sanders in 2016 and for Clinton in 2008.

                If you want, I can dig up my essays that I wrote for Andrew Yang or for Marianne Williamson (though I admit that the Marianne Williamson was more of an intellectual exercise than anything that came out of any real passion… but I found myself liking her more after it than I did before, if that’s worth anything).

                If those don’t count… I suppose I won’t be able to come up with anything else on the spot that will indicate anything to you.

                There is no argument for why a doddering old Socialist should be doing so well, but he is.

                I could make one, if you wanted. I could make a dozen. Bernie doing well is one of those things that I could explain using name recognition/Second Place using the most conservative arguments and using the DNC and Occupy Wall Street using more Progressive ones.

                That’s why I’m not wondering why someone would get behind Sanders. There are a dozen reasons to be for Sanders without mentioning Trump’s name. Maybe more.

                I’m having zero trouble coming up with arguments for why someone would dig Bernie. I’m having zero trouble coming up with arguments for why someone would dig in with Bernie without mentioning Trump’s name.

                What I *AM* having trouble with is coming up with reasons to support Bloomberg without invoking Trump.

                And that strikes me as a bad sign.

                (Big ups to Stillwater for coming up with a handful.)Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird says:

                “I could make one, if you wanted. I could make a dozen.”

                That’s exactly my point.

                One could make an argument for supporting Bloomberg..or Biden..or anyone for that matter, and an equally cogent argument against anyone.

                But these are all devoid of actual data or falsifiable goalposts.

                You can’t think of an argument for supporting Bloomberg, yet apparently some 22% of AA voters are doing just that.

                So your premise (there is no argument for Bloomberg) that you use in support of the conclusion that this is a “bad sign” doesn’t exist.

                What is so wrong with saying” well, we just don’t know what’s going to happen at this point”?Report

              • The question in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                Bloomberg was a republican until five minutes ago and he publicly endorsed George w bush twice once from the stage at the national Republican convention.

                Also stop and frisk was explicitly racist policy and he didn’t apologize for it until the millisecond he was running for office.

                I also think running a billionaire on the Democratic ticket after he decided he didn’t have to participate in the rest of politics he could just buy his way in is possibly the stupidest fishing thing the Democratic party could do and is easily the quickest way to die. just outright admitting that “no we don’t care about your issues or we don’t care about your working class policy we’ve got a billionaire with terrible past history who’s also a sex pest and we’re going to run him against Trump because fish you that’s why” is a bad ideaReport

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                That’s exactly my point.

                My point is *NOT* that I can’t put together an argument supporting Bloomberg. Of course I can. My point was that I couldn’t put together an argument for why Bloomberg wasn’t significantly different from Clinton/Kaine.

                Here, let me copy/paste what I said above:

                I’d love to hear arguments about why Bloomberg/Harris is significantly different from Clinton/Kaine. The stuff that I’m coming up with isn’t stuff that I’d see as particularly persuasive and relies rather heavily on “Trump is bad” to a degree that I’m not seeing as significantly different than the dynamics we had in 2016.

                And here’s how you read that:

                You can’t think of an argument for supporting Bloomberg, yet apparently some 22% of AA voters are doing just that.

                Let me rejoin by saying: “22%!”

                And then: “Golly!”

                One could make an argument for supporting Bloomberg..or Biden..or anyone for that matter, and an equally cogent argument against anyone.

                If I threw together an argument for why you should support Bernie, I could do it and talk about a bunch of things without ever once mentioning Trump. I could appeal to your principles. I could appeal to his stated goals. I could even appeal to his charisma.

                Bloomy?

                If I want to make an argument for him that doesn’t rely on how awful Trump is, I am stuck talking about how he’s probably not as tone-deaf as Clinton was.

                And I know that if I’m arguing against someone who doesn’t believe that Clinton was a bad candidate (and struggles to find, oh, three mistakes she made in 2016), that “Bloomberg is better than Clinton” has an implied “Clinton is worse than Bloomberg” hidden in it.

                And, let’s face it, if I were to argue back in 2016 that Clinton was worse than Bloomberg, they’d put me away.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird says:

                But this is just Kaelism, where you can’t imagine an argument that is persuasive, so you think this is a “bad sign” for the candidate.

                We have absolutely no data about how Bloomberg will perform as a general candidate. And what little data we have is counterintuitive, where he is pulling in exactly the votes he shouldn’t.

                So all we really have at this point is wishcasting and from-a-dark place conjecture.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                Chip, please understand, one of the things that I like to do, as an intellectual exercise, is come up with arguments. It’s kind of my thing. I put them together, then tear them down, then put new ones together, and then tear those down, and then, after several iterations of this, I can say “this is a good argument!” or “this is a bad argument” based on how quickly they fell when someone started poking at them.

                And when I put together arguments for why you, yes, you: Chip Daniels ought to vote for Bernie Sanders, I can put together some fun arguments!

                And when I put together arguments for why you, yes, you: Chip Daniels ought *NOT* to vote for Bernie Sanders, I can put together some less fun arguments, but, get this, they all appeal to principles that you don’t share. They’re real principles, mind… but they’re principles that aren’t really yours and so appealing to them fail.

                So then I can do stuff like that with Bloomberg. Arguments to vote for him? They are all arguments that are not unique to Bloomberg (“He is better than Trump!” “The median voter will vote for him over Trump!”) or arguments that make appeals to principles that I’m not sure that you share.

                Now, if I wanted to flip that around and put together an argument for why you, yes, you: Chip Daniels should *NOT* vote for Bloomberg?

                Oh, I could throw one of those together. It would even appeal to principles that I’m guessing you claim.

                And that is something that I see as a “bad sign” for the candidate.Report

              • veronica d in reply to Jaybird says:

                Ah yes, the “I just love playing with arguments” ploy. Great fun. For example, I love hanging out with some argumentative dork who doesn’t understand why his ignorant speculations about gender-stuff offend me. He’s just “playing with arguments” after all. Plus, he’s really super smart. Just ask him. He’ll tell you.

                I mean, you probably understand why people don’t like you. Maybe. Whatever.

                Try arguing for what you believe based on principles you hold — if you have any principles at all, that is.Report

              • DensityDuck in reply to veronica d says:

                “Ah yes, the “I just love playing with arguments” ploy.”

                Lady, it ain’t his fault you’re a bad player.

                “Try arguing for what you believe based on principles you hold”

                yeah maybe his principle is “if what I come up with is utter bullshit then the people who say they know The Right Answer ought to be able to easily handle my utter bullshit, and if they can’t handle it, then maybe they don’t actually know The Right Answer.”Report

              • Jaybird in reply to veronica d says:

                Veronica, please understand that, from my perspective, I am not saying “oh, my gosh! I caused a ‘yikes!'” but saying “they’re pulling out ‘Mean Girls’ tools in defense of freaking Bloomberg?!?! Against someone who is arguing that freaking Bernie is easier to argue for than Bloomberg?!?!?”

                So, from here, let me just say that this is not a good look.Report

              • Dark Matter in reply to Jaybird says:

                Bloomberg has a history of compitently running for office and running large organizations such as a (very) successful business and NYC.

                My ten second review of his wiki really impressed me, there’s a LOT to like.Report

              • Dark Matter in reply to Dark Matter says:

                After a deeper dive… if he’s still alive when he gets to my state I’ll vote for him in the primaries. Ditto if he gets the nod and goes against Trump.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Dark Matter says:

                I dig this answer but I keep seeing that these answers also apply to other candidates and, get this, in equal or greater measure.

                If I want an argument for why I should support Bloomberg and all I get are arguments that apply equally to both Bernie Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard, then I find myself wondering what’s going on.

                (Though, I’ll grant, neither seems to apply to Andrew Yang or Marianne Williamson.)Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird says:

                What puzzles me is the different performance of Buttigieg and Bloomberg.

                In one sense they are almost identical in terms of policy and history. Both center-right neoliberals, socially liberal fiscally conservative.

                Yet one of them is pulling zero AA votes, while the other one is gaining traction.
                I haven’t seen anyone explain this, other than Steve M over at No More Mister Nice Blog
                https://nomoremister.blogspot.com/2020/02/if-joe-biden-is-tanking-could-mike.html
                Where he reports that several AA leaders see Bloomberg as the safer strategic choice to beat Trump.Report

              • An $11M Super Bowl ad aimed directly at black parents.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Michael Cain says:

                And maybe that’s the thing, is that while all the other candidates are for obvious reasons focusing on Iowa and New Hampshire, Bloomberg is speaking to the rest of us.

                So like maybe Warren would get better traction if she had Bloomberg’s warchest, but she doesn’t so she doesn’t.

                Which seems maddeningly unfair that perhaps the 2020 President will just end up being the guy who happened to have a billion dollars burning a hole in his pocket.

                Maybe there isn’t some big picture narrative, no grand theme pundits can write books about, just he was first out of the gate and had the deepest resources.Report

              • Our current Colorado governor, Jared Polis, has a net worth of $300M or so. When he announced he was running for governor, the other Dems who had declared dropped out very quickly. He was one of the original Gang of Four — four very rich Coloradans who supported specific liberal issues — whose money was instrumental in making Colorado much bluer over the last 15-16 years.Report

              • Dark Matter in reply to Jaybird says:

                What is going on is Bloomberg’s resume is crazy good. While Gabbard was working for her father, being a self employed teacher of martial arts, or serving in the military; Bloomberg was putting together a multi-billion dollar company and creating tens of thousands of jobs and making NY function as it’s mayor.

                If you assume being President is really hard and you want someone who is really good at it, then resumes should matter.Report

            • Stillwater in reply to Jaybird says:

              I’d love to hear arguments about why Bloomberg/Harris is significantly different from Clinton/Kaine.

              Bloomberg is, I think, a better retail politician than Clinton. He would probably also surround himself with better political advisers than Clinton did (for a host of reasons).He also wouldn’t enter the general election with the highest disapprovals in Presidential history.Report

              • George Turner in reply to Stillwater says:

                Bloomberg is, I think, a better retail politician than Clinton.

                He is, but you can rightly say that about almost anyone.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Stillwater says:

                Hrm. Better retail politician, likely to surround himself with better political advisers, and lower disapprovals.

                You know what? I agree with the first one, don’t know whether I agree with the second one, and don’t know if the last one counts as “significant”. (“That’s a weasel word then!” “The New York Post ran an article about how he had the worst disapprovals of all the candidates!”)

                But, yeah. Those are the arguments for why he’d be significantly different than Clinton and that is exactly what I asked for.

                Thank you.Report

    • JS in reply to Saul Degraw says:

      “Biden’s firewall among black voters has disappeared post Iowa.”

      He never had one, not really. Biden was on top because he seemed most electable, because he was a former VP. As soon as that shattered, the support flowed to whomever now looks most electable.

      It’s not an ideology primary. It’s a pretty focused “Beat that other guy” primary. The more politically involved might be in screaming fights over the minutia of healthcare plans, but I suspect the average Democrat cares only for “whomever has the best chance of beating Trump” because everything else is fairly trivial compared to that.Report

      • Chip Daniels in reply to JS says:

        It is interesting how ideology hasn’t seemed to matter very much at all since the GOP went all in on white identity politics after 2012.Report

        • George Turner in reply to Chip Daniels says:

          Trump did better than Romney among blacks, and now Trump’s approval numbers are almost four times higher (22% in early February) than they were when he beat Clinton. Only 60% of blacks strongly disapprove of him, and if Democrats nominate a blindingly white candidate like Bernie, Buttigieg, or Bloomberg, it might be that only those 60% would stay on board with the elitist Democratic party.

          Washington Examiner article about a Zogby poll.

          There are some seasons Democratic strategists who are deeply concerned that things could go all pear shaped for them.Report

        • Stillwater in reply to Chip Daniels says:

          It is interesting how ideology hasn’t seemed to matter very much at all since the GOP went all in on white identity politics after 2012.

          Ehhh, Trump realized that the GOP was top-heavy on lies and institutional BS and that kicking out its legs would flip it ass over tea-kettle. Ideology hasn’t meant squat to the party since Reagan except as a lever to up-grift.Report

  8. Aaron David says:

    It will be interesting to see who the Dem establishment settles on now that Biden is in freefall, polewise. It is sad how they were backing him, as whatever is going on with him is getting worse. My father has late stage Alzheimers, and Biden is showing a lot of similar symptoms. Not that I know what it is, but it is coming to the fore. As Density Duck once said, he is polling well because peolpe know who is is, as opposed to the other guy.

    Alsotoo:

    Report

    • Chip Daniels in reply to Aaron David says:

      Democrat Strategist:
      “President Trump has been going very hard at African American men.”

      “Truer words have never been spoken!”
      The New York FiveReport

      • JS in reply to Chip Daniels says:

        In addition to “brokered conventions”, the “Will black voters abandon the Democratic party” storyline comes up every election as well.

        I’m amazed anyone has the balls to apply that one to Donald Trump. Dubya, Mitt Romney, John McCain — you can at least try out that storyline with a straight face.Report

        • Stillwater in reply to JS says:

          Trump doesn’t need very many black voters to not vote Dem for the strategy to pay off bigly. Seems like smart politics on his part.Report

          • Kolohe in reply to Stillwater says:

            Yeah, the people saying that Trump will get “30 percent” of the African American vote are lying to their audience or to themselves or both.

            But he maybe perhaps could get 12% of the vote, which may be just enough to get narrow victories (again) in Pennsylvania, Ohio and Wisconsin, and certainly enough to keep locked in North Carolina and Florida, which in turn almost guarantees him re-election.

            Still, it’s an uphill climb for him to get to 12%, because his numbers with African American women are still atrocious and have shown no signs of improving, as far as I know.Report

  9. Jaybird says:

    Bloomberg supporters, down here.

    Let’s say that this clip starts getting played by oppo researchers. Berniebros, even.

    Let’s say that I say that this statement by Bloomberg is disqualifying for him. “I cannot vote for someone like this! I would prefer to stay home or vote third party than vote for someone who believes this sort of thing!”

    What’s the counter-argument?

    All of the stuff I’m thinking of is “Trump is bad too” and gets worse from there. “See? This is a message that will resonate with White America. Everything you like about Trump, nothing you don’t!”Report

    • InMD in reply to Jaybird says:

      That illustrates pretty well why I wouldn’t support him. Dude represents some of the most authoritarian instincts in our culture, and I can’t think of anyone in the entire field who would be more effective with the tools he’d have at his disposal.Report

      • Jaybird in reply to InMD says:

        Yes, but that’s an argument for why middle America would dig him. Vote Bloomberg!

        Read some praise that comes from his critics!

        “I can’t think of anyone in the entire field who would be more effective with the tools he’d have at his disposal.”

        Report

        • InMD in reply to Jaybird says:

          Orwellian indeed.

          Though I am curious whether the tough on crime stuff resonates quite the way it used to, especially when combined with opposition to gun rights as a core part of the agenda. Lot of 2A love, and not a lot of crime, out there in flyover country. Granted of course that perception is not always reality.Report

      • Jaybird in reply to InMD says:

        Wait, you may be right. The NYT is arguing that this is a bad thing, not that it’s a good thing.

        Report

        • InMD in reply to Jaybird says:

          The question I guess is whether it’s right in the jurisdictions where it will matter. He might end up turning off people in the urban core he needs for the primary with heightened sensitivity to the quite clear racism and also sending a bad message to D leaning gun owners in WI, MI, west PA, etc. he may need in the general.Report

          • Jaybird in reply to InMD says:

            Good news: CNN is questioning the motives of the person who brought the audio to light. (Wait, I mixed my metaphor there.)

            Report

            • InMD in reply to Jaybird says:

              Motives? Like… defeating a rival candidate? If CNN didn’t exist the BernieBros would have to invent it.Report

              • CJColucci in reply to InMD says:

                What’s the news here? This was exactly what Bloomberg was saying publicly back when. Everyone who was paying attention then knew about it. He has since had a Come To Jesus moment on stop and frisk, and I leave it to others whether they think he’s sincere. I don’t care that much about sincerity once you box yourself in and can’t do it again.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to CJColucci says:

                What’s the news here?

                I think it has to do with the African-American vote.Report

              • CJColucci in reply to Jaybird says:

                African-Americans already know about this, and knew it back when. If they are, nevertheless, coming around on him, about which I have no basis yet for a view, that’s a positive for Bloomberg. But the recycling of old news was played by the recycler as something negative, that needed to be broadcast, presumably because he thought it insufficiently known by people who might not like it.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to CJColucci says:

                I’ll tell you this right now: I’d rather be a Biden supporter arguing about how this matters than a Bloomberg supporter talking about how this doesn’t.Report

              • Stillwater in reply to Jaybird says:

                Small comfort. Like Hillary, Joe!’s popularity peaked the day he announced. He’s toast.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Stillwater says:

                I swear that I wrote “Bernie” in there. Nope. I wrote Biden.

                Huh.

                Anyway, I’m still in this weird place where I spent most of last week wondering how in the hell I had no idea that Buttigeig was going to win in Iowa and I’m waiting to see what happens in New Hampshire (Bernie, I’m almost certain) before making guesses about Super Tuesday.

                But I am currently in denial about Bloomberg. I cannot believe that he’s being floated as a serious contender.

                What this feels like most to me is the 20 minutes in 2018 that we were arguing over whether Oprah has baggage.Report

              • Stillwater in reply to Jaybird says:

                The best evidence that Bloomie’s a contender is that he’s getting the “attack him like he’s the frontrunner!” treatment.

                My clear-eyed practical been-around-the-block self can’t see Bloomie winning. But when I squint a bit? Ahhh, there it is.

                Personally, I *still* have a hard time believing Bernie will win the nom, and that despite having laid eyes on Nate Silver’s Dem nominee predictions. Like, I just *can’t* believe it…..Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Stillwater says:

                I’m not sure that I’m seeing him being attacked like he’s the frontrunner as much as he’s being attacked like he’s a former Republican mayor who supported Stop and Frisk.

                Now is he being *DEFENDED* like he’s the frontrunner?

                Yes.

                Which is weird.Report

              • CJColucci in reply to Jaybird says:

                I accept that as a statement about how you feel.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to CJColucci says:

                Well, I can lay my marker down here without embarrassment:

                A month ago, I thought that the big battle was going to be between Biden and Bernie. Buttigeig’s win in Iowa is little more than a weird replay not of Kerry in 2004 but Robertson in 1988.

                Sentiment is shifting to Bloomberg only because of a narrative that Biden stumbled and, by Super Tuesday, it’ll be Biden vs. Bernie again.

                And people who bring up Bloomberg will be called “trolls” for doing so.

                There. I look forward to this comment being thrown in my face for reading the situation incorrectly when I should have known that (insert what everybody knows in June 2020 here).Report

              • CJColucci in reply to Jaybird says:

                This may be right, it may be wrong. At least it’s about the actual world. I don’t think I have a basis for predictions, at least no basis warranting inflicting my predictions on others, so I will await events. For people who think they do have some basis for predictions, I promise not to point and laugh if they don’t pan out.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to CJColucci says:

                There’s a phenomenon I’ve seen where someone says something like “the Iraq war is going to be a debacle!” and other people say “you can’t know that!”

                And then, when the Iraq war turns out to be a debacle, the people who said “you can’t know that” merely pivot to “well, they *COULDN’T* have known that.”

                And, on one level, I suppose they’re right.Report

              • cjcolucci in reply to Jaybird says:

                Take that up with them. I stand by my promise not to point and laugh.Report

          • Chip Daniels in reply to InMD says:

            None of this sheds any light on Bloomberg’s rise in the polls.

            He is somehow gaining traction with the AA voters. Who, more than anyone, are extremely aware of his history with Stop & Frisk.
            They don’t need the lefty Twitter guys to tell them what they already experience.

            Bloomberg befuddles guys like us for the same reason that Biden did; We can’t possibly imagine who these Democrats are who are supporting him, because they aren’t here at OT or our Twitter feeds to explain themselves.

            For the record, I don’t really like the guy, any more than my lefty brethren. But obviously a lot of other people do.Report

            • Is it, in your opinion, desperation, the money, or lack of other options that is fueling Bloomberg?Report

              • Philip H in reply to Andrew Donaldson says:

                i’ll go with money. I have yet to click a single Youtube ad for a single candidate, but his commercials come on before every video I watch. His ads are now a staple of prime time broadcast TV down here in very Republican Mississippi. He’s one in 4 or 5 of the ads i see on facebook. Whether his history will matter or not, he’s already saturating the channels as if he has won. Which you can do when you are a billionaire.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Andrew Donaldson says:

                One of the commenters over at BJ wrote:

                “You know how at the end of Texas Chainsaw Massacre the driver of that truck slowed down just enough to allow the girl to hop on and avoid being murdered by Leatherface? Every one of the Dem candidates is like the driver of that truck for me.”

                So yeah, the desperate hunger to Crawl Over Broken Glass To Vote For Anyone But Trump is a real phenomenon.

                I recall that in the primaries leading up to the 2018 vote, at every Dem candidate forum I went to, the number one question from everyone was “What will you to to stop Trump?”
                Every other issue faded in relevance, and the winner here in my extremely blue district wasn’t the leftyest lefty, but the most seasoned pol who emphasized his ability to work the system.

                And it seems like my reaction now isn’t unique, in that the first clear voice we are hearing of “I can F*ck Up Trump’s Sh!T” is the one people latch onto.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                Chip, I don’t doubt for a moment that there are “I would crawl over broken glass to vote for the Democrat running against Trump!” voters.

                I just also believe that there are “I’d vote for a good candidate against Trump, but I’d vote 3rd party if there wasn’t” voters as well.

                On top of that, I also believe that there are “I’d vote for a good candidate but, without a good candidate, I’d just stay home” voters and, get this, I even think that there are some “I’d vote for some candidates before Trump but I’d vote for Trump before other candidates” voters out there.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird says:

                Of course there are.

                I don’t think anyone has a good handle on what proportions these people exist in the electorate.
                Further, those proportions are almost certain to vary from now until November.

                Again, we haven’t seen Bloomberg work a room, or engage in a debate or take a punch.

                So all this could be a flash in the pan, or the start of something big.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                “We haven’t seen Bloomberg work a room, or engage in a debate or take a punch.”

                That’s a hell of a basket to be considering for eggs.

                Mind if I see it as indicative of knowledge of the weakness of the other baskets?Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird says:

                Sure.
                They’re all terrible candidates, until one of them wins.Report

              • Stillwater in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                I recall that in the primaries leading up to the 2018 vote, at every Dem candidate forum I went to, the number one question from everyone was “What will you to to stop Trump?”

                That might be true of the online community, but is it true of Dem base voters in general? I recall *plenty* of punditizing (from both inside and outside The Pahty) that the 2018 candidates notably avoided getting into the Trump weeds and stuck with traditional bread and butter issues like healthcare, education, jobs, stuff like that.

                Saying that I’ll concede that Bloomberg is singularly focused on presenting himself as a “I can beat Trump” candidate, and it works in part because no one else in the party – not national Dem, not Dem Superpacs, not the DNC/CC, none of the candidates, not anyone* – is running ads about beating Trump.

                A lot of people want Trump gone. Bloomberg is the only person tapping into that desire.

                *Which is yet another reason I think the Democratic party needs a complete gutting and overhaul. The political incompetence of Party leadership is absolutely stunning.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Stillwater says:

                If the “I Will F*ck Up Trump’s Sh!t” candidate starts climbing in the polls how will that change the other candidates messaging?Report

              • Stillwater in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                He is climbing in the polls.Report

              • DensityDuck in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                ” the desperate hunger to Crawl Over Broken Glass To Vote For Anyone But Trump is a real phenomenon.”

                …said Hillary Clinton in 2016.Report

              • Anecdata point… Colorado’s primary is three weeks from today. The mail-in ballots should be in everyone’s hands by the end of this week. The state has just about as many delegates as Iowa and New Hampshire combined. Bloomberg’s TV ads during Broncos’ football games started Thanksgiving week. It certainly looks likely that a lot of the primary ballots will have been returned by the time the other candidates start advertising here. If they start advertising at all — California’s mail ballots are due the same day as Colorado’s.

                So, money, and all the things that it buys, like ads and organization.Report

            • InMD in reply to Chip Daniels says:

              I don’t find Biden as mystifying, and can kind of see how an old insider connected to a popular former administration who no one loves but very few hate could get traction in a fractious coalition.

              Bloomberg I find a bit harder to get my mind around. The ability of some black voters to look passed S&F doesn’t completely shock me, as Bloomberg’s basic statement that black people are disproportionately impacted by violent crime is true. This of course does not justify the particular manner in which the state has approached the issue.

              It seems like he has all of the ‘is he really one of us’ baggage of Bernie but with none of the ‘but he’s been on our side when it mattered most’ goodwill.Report

              • Stillwater in reply to InMD says:

                I think part of the allure of Bloomberg is that he’s *not* perceived by the public as a product of the Democratic Party while he singularly possesses the one thing every candidate aspires to: individual power. He’s powerful, and I bet a lot of people are drawn to his candidacy because they sense that this election will be determined by pretty straight power concepts. That’s the lane Bloomberg is angling for, seems to me, with domestic policy issues (and pandering to the base, etc) taking a backseat.Report

              • Philip H in reply to Stillwater says:

                This is probably a true assessment for many. They will then profess to be shocked at his neoliberal economic policies . . .Report

              • Stillwater in reply to Philip H says:

                My own 2 cents: that Bloomberg is not shackled to current Dem politics – retail and wholesale – is viewed by his supporters as an asset. Couple that with his cash and it’s a (potentially) Trump-defeating combination.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Stillwater says:

                He seems to be the perfect Moderate Candidate that all the pundits have been dreaming of.

                Y’know, the Chris Matthew’s types who fret over the unelectable leftwing lurch, and If Only the Dems would nominate a socially liberal, fiscally conservative non Woke white man then by golly the country would rally round him.

                Normally I just see this as the Pundit Fallacy where they just ascribe their own biases to the nation as a whole.

                But this may be a test of that theory.Report

              • Stillwater in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                Chip, Bloomberg’s spent hundreds of millions on TV and internet ads. He’s rising in the polls because people like his message, not because he’s being fluffed by the media.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Stillwater says:

                Right.
                Which may be a validation of the theory.

                Maybe the Great Moderate Centrist only lacked funding, all along.Report

              • Stillwater in reply to Chip Daniels says:

                Never underestimate the power of a compelling narrative. 🙂Report

              • InMD in reply to Stillwater says:

                Probably true. Determination by power concepts huh? I hope for everyone’s sake he’s wrong about that.Report

              • PD Shaw in reply to InMD says:

                African Americans are nearly twice as likely to tell pollsters that violent crime, particularly gun crime (82%), is a “very important” issue, when compared to whites (47%). Which candidate has done the most about gun violence?

                Generally, African-American voters are more socially conservative than white Democrats, so I would expect them to vote for anybody but Sanders or Warren unless they have no choice.Report

              • DensityDuck in reply to PD Shaw says:

                I mean, it’s worth remembering how people tried to tag Hillary Clinton with “superpredators”, and how it didn’t work.Report

              • InMD in reply to PD Shaw says:

                Yes, that’s why I said it doesn’t surprise me. It’s a sentiment I am exposed to where I live. Doesn’t mean the response that concern tends to recieve from the state is the right one, but that’s what they say about democracy. We get what we ask for, good and hard.Report

              • Aaron David in reply to InMD says:

                It is a combo pack, really. On the one hand, lower crime (!), but on the other, racial profiling(?)

                I do see that the clip has spread to NPR though.
                https://www.npr.org/2020/02/11/804795405/throw-them-against-the-wall-and-frisk-them-bloomberg-s-2015-race-talk-stirs-debaReport

    • Brandon Berg in reply to Jaybird says:

      Here’s an NYT article from 2013.

      The stop-and-frisk policing tactic, which the city credits with reducing gun violence, is as polarizing as ever: 50 percent approve of it and 47 percent disapprove of it, according to the poll, which was conducted before a federal judge ruled Monday that the city’s use of the procedure violated New Yorkers’ rights by, in effect, singling out young black and Hispanic men. Approval for the tactic is lowest among black residents, 28 percent of whom support it, compared with 55 percent of whites and 59 percent of Hispanics.

      While 49 percent of New Yorkers approve of Mr. Bloomberg’s job performance, black residents do so at a significantly lower rate (38 percent) than whites (55 percent) or Hispanics (49 percent).

      Back then, 28% of black New Yorkers supported the stop-and-frisk program, and 38% approved of Bloomberg in general. I think a lot of white people have a bad habit of modeling black people as a unified hive mind. If we consider that they are, in fact, individuals capable of independent thought, it becomes less of a mystery.

      To be clear, I haven’t actually interviewed any black people on this issue. So this is speculative. But as discussed, the victims of crime committed by black perpetrators are overwhelmingly black. Conversely, the primary beneficiaries of reducing crime in black neighborhoods were…black people. In particular, middle aged, elderly, and middle-class black people got all the benefits of crime reduction, but probably weren’t stopped and frisked much. So that’s a win for them, unless their sons or grandsons got arrested.

      You know who I bet dislikes young black men playing gangster even more than white Republicans in Texas? Older black people who have to put up with their crap because they live in the same neighborhood. It’s like that Chris Rock bit about how much black people hate [black people]. That lost a bit in translation, but you know the one.

      I’m not even that old, but I know that if there were a bunch of white people in my neighborhood running around shooting each other and committing petty crimes, I wouldn’t like them much, either. And maybe I’d be a bit more tolerant of stuff like stop-and-frisk, if it got them to cut that shit out. I mean, apparently it turns out that it doesn’t actually help much and the thing that actually reduced the crime was just getting more cops on the street, but that was less clear back then.

      Anyway, that’s my highly speculative theory on why some black people like Bloomberg. Some journalist should probably find some actual black Bloomberg supporters and ask them. That would be a good story, if said journalist just played it straight and didn’t try too hard to shoehorn it into the Narrative.

      Incidentally, I’ve been stopped and frisked several times. I’m opposed to it in principle, but in practice it’s a pretty minor hassle.Report

      • Jaybird in reply to Brandon Berg says:

        This clarifies a phenomenon I noticed wandering around and can now put my finger on.

        There are a ton of arguments for Bloomberg for President and why Bloomberg would be a solid Presidential choice that don’t make a single appeal to Trump.

        They can be summed up as: “Pretend it’s 1996 and you have a chance to vote for Bob Dole again.”

        This is one of those argument that might move a bunch of conservatively-inclined people! Bloomberg is in the ballpark of fiscally responsible, he’s tough on crime and, not only that, knows which parts of town require more heavily policing than which other ones, he care about public health, and has been the executive of what is arguably the most complicated city in the world.

        But here’s the wacky thing: I don’t see this argument moving The Populist Left. The Technocratic Left? Hey, you have to make trade-offs, right? It’s worth it to make a trade here so long as you get more back over there.

        But the more arguments that I put together in my head for Bloomberg, the more that I see that, yeah, we can’t make these arguments. At best, we’ll be called someone who is constructing a strawman. At best.Report

        • Dark Matter in reply to Jaybird says:

          I don’t see this argument moving The Populist Left.

          Yes. Bloomberg is white and sleeps with a woman, so he doesn’t hit any identity politics buttons. He’s also one of the evil rich, and worse, he got it via merit.

          His policies are bedrock economic sanity combined with social sanity/progressiveness. His experience shows crazy levels of competence… but the Populist Left has their heart set on repeating Venezuela’s experiment so that also works against him.

          If it matters, I’d vote for Bloomberg over Trump. Maybe also Buttigieg although that’s a harder sell.Report

      • Brandon Berg in reply to Brandon Berg says:

        Related: You know that super-racist 1986 drug bill that created a 50-bazillion-to-one penalty disparity between crack and powder cocaine? A while back I cross-checked the list of cosponsors of that bill against a list of black members of the 99th Congress, and it turns out that of the 21 black members of the 99th Congress, 17 were cosponsors of that super-racist bill.

        Crime was totally out of control in 1986. The violent crime rate had tripled since 1960, and the worst of it was heavily concentrated in urban black neighborhoods. Since most black people were not violent criminals, they were very keen on getting the ones who were off the streets. Crack may or may not have been a major causal factor, but the circumstantial evidence against it was pretty strong, and at the time everybody thought it was. Black people wanted that stuff out of their neighborhoods.

        The super-racist 1994 crime bill was a bit less lopsided; 12 black House members voted against it, and 24 in favor, with 2 abstaining. On a bill that was, again, super-racist. Republicans voted against it 131-46, I guess because it included the so-called assault weapons ban, but I wasn’t old enough to be paying attention back then.

        Members of the white woking class like to believe that every black person ever to exist (except Clarence Thomas, who is wrong about everything and therefore actually white) has agreed with them about every political issue. But history suggests that theorizing about the systemic causes of crime is a privilege reserved primarily for those living in places not blighted by said crime.Report

  10. Jaybird says:

    Bloomberg apologizes for some reason:

    Report

    • Brandon Berg in reply to Jaybird says:

      He seems to use “95%” as a generic intensifier. It’s not literally true that 95% of homicide pepetrators and victims are young, minority males. It’s also not literally true that he cut stop-and-frisk by 95%. It’s true that young, non-minority males commit a greatly disproportionate share of crime. It’s true that he greatly reduced stop-and-frisk. But in neither case is 95 the correct percentage to use.

      Edit: I seem to have a comment stuck in moderation. It’s from 5-10 minutes before this comment, and it has a blockquote from an NYT story.Report

    • Jaybird in reply to Jaybird says:

      A challenger appears:

      Report

      • Aaron David in reply to Jaybird says:

        So Bloomberg is looking for the Warren vote then.Report

        • George Turner in reply to Aaron David says:

          He also adds more chaos.

          In the Roger Stone thread, Dragonfrog said “Bloomberg isn’t a Democratic mirror image of Republican extremism. Bloomberg is a Republican.”

          I could easily see that view becoming rather widespread, and I could see it becoming compounded with the conviction that Bloomberg is just Trump cranked to eleven. From one perspective, he is everything Democrats don’t like about Republicans: Rich, entitled, condescending, out-of-touch, arrogant, power mad, pompous, big-business, Wall Street, racist, law-and-order, stop-and-frisk, dictatorial. “We couldn’t find any Getty’s, Carnegies, Hunts, or Rockefellers to sell out too, so Bloomberg will have to do!” I could also see myself arguing that a Republican billionaire will win in 2020 no matter what happens because both parties are running Republican billionaires, so it’s a guaranteed victory for team red. “Sure, Bloomberg started mollifying crazy New York Democrats when he had to, for political reasons, but once he’s President he can go back to being his true self!”

          Remember last summer when Democrats were terrified that Howard Schultz, founder of Starbucks, was considering a bid? I guess they didn’t want his money tainting the purity of their cause. Well, they might be having some regrets about sending him off so quickly because although he’s a highly successful businessman, at least his ideological bonafides were solid, and now Michael (R) Bloomberg has stepped in to fill the vacuum he left.

          Although I will note that Bloomberg is reportedly paying even minor “influencers” $150 to make nice comments about him, so maybe we can all make a few bucks on the side.

          Bloomberg: Strong. Successful. Experienced. He’s what America needs.

          Whew! That was so easy.Report

          • Chip Daniels in reply to George Turner says:

            “I could also see myself arguing that a Republican billionaire will win in 2020 no matter what happens ”

            Bloomberg, and which other one?
            Steyer? Hard to see that, but maybe.Report

  11. Jaybird says:

    This is one of those things that I can see only being seen as an attack by a very, very small group of people.

    Report