The New Hampshire Primary |Feb 9|: Live Free or Die

Status
Not open for further replies.
ChronotriggerJM said:
Can anyone give me a TLDR on Bloomberg? What's the big deal with this guy anyway?
Click to expand...

He is very pro-business Billionaire ex mayor of New York. He founded Bloomberg, which is a business publication/trading system that most of Wall St uses, especially for bond pricing.

He is socially extremely liberal, stronger on gun control than anyone the Dems have up.

He's got a pretty pourous record on minority rights, and oversaw stop and frisk and let the NYPD do mostly whatever they wanted to reduce crime.

That said, he can appeal to middle america with a tough on crime vote.

If he could run for mayor again he would curb stomp DeBlassio in NYC. That said, we'll see if America is ready for a Jewish billionaire that pisses off parts of both parties from New York to be president.

He's also really really short. Like, impressively short.
 
ChronotriggerJM said:
Can anyone give me a TLDR on Bloomberg? What's the big deal with this guy anyway?
Click to expand...

Rich guy who was mayor of NYC as a Republican but got some accolades from Democrats for carrying out big-gubment health initiatives like banning excessively large sodas and stuff like that. He would be portraying himself as a "moderate" if he ran, which he is supposedly considering if Trump and Sanders become the nominees.
 
StoOgE said:
He is very pro-business Billionaire ex mayor of New York. He founded Bloomberg, which is a business publication/trading system that most of Wall St uses, especially for bond pricing.

He is socially extremely liberal, stronger on gun control than anyone the Dems have up.

He's got a pretty pourous record on minority rights, and oversaw stop and frisk and let the NYPD do mostly whatever they wanted to reduce crime.

That said, he can appeal to middle america with a tough on crime vote.

If he could run for mayor again he would curb stomp DeBlassio in NYC. That said, we'll see if America is ready for a Jewish billionaire that pisses off parts of both parties from New York to be president.

He's also really really short. Like, impressively short.
Click to expand...

Thank you all for the replies :P Impressively short, I like that lol.
 
euphemism said:
Cool, so what is the current (non-super) delegate count now for the dems?
Click to expand...


http://nytimes.com/elections/2016/primaries/iowa
Iowa:
(44 total delegates)

Hillary 23
Bernie 21


http://nytimes.com/elections/2016/primaries/new-hampshire
New Hampshire:
(24 total delegates)

Hillary 9 (currently)
Bernie 13 (currently)

2 delegates still undetermined, I haven't checked the voter data to see if those 2 are leaning towards Bernie or Hillary. IF, and thats a big IF, Hillary gets those 2 and makes it 11-13 in NH, they'd be exactly tied in non-super-delegates.
 
Flo_Evans said:
I think Bloomberg would hurt Trump more than Bernie if he ran but that's a pretty big guess.

It would be exciting that's for sure.
Click to expand...

He would pull from both parties pretty evenly if it were Trump/Bernie.

It would at the very least be an extremely fun election.
 
Paskil said:
The difference is that she is a known quantity and has been under the heat lamp for years. Bernie is untested, in terms of the level of scrutiny a candidate gets. Hillary's skeletons have been in the public eye for years. They will slap Bernie with any and everything (socialism, flip-flopping, VA, raising taxes, rating with the NRA). Not saying he can't handle it, but given his policy stances, he's going to get slammed on certain issues compared to Hillary.

Politics of fear play big with this country. They will turn everything you see as a positive into a negative, and a large portion of the population will eat it up.
Click to expand...

And they'll (rightly) turn some of Hillary's supposed positives in to negatives as well. For example, her experience in foreign policy just hurts her considering her weak outcomes in that field. They'll also have subtly sexist ads that the right will eat up, her flip-flopping is worse etc.
 
Yoda said:
Uh so not going to mention watergate/political sabotage at all?
Click to expand...
That's not why McGovern lost, he lost because the bulk of the party abandoned him. His campaign was dead in the water before Watergate even happened.

StoOgE said:
Very possible, and yeah.. you would wind up with mainstream Republicans and moderate democrats brokering a deal for Bloomberg.
Click to expand...
But they vote as single states in the House.
 
StoOgE said:
He is very pro-business Billionaire ex mayor of New York. He founded Bloomberg, which is a business publication/trading system that most of Wall St uses, especially for bond pricing.

He is socially extremely liberal, stronger on gun control than anyone the Dems have up.

He's got a pretty pourous record on minority rights, and oversaw stop and frisk and let the NYPD do mostly whatever they wanted to reduce crime.

That said, he can appeal to middle america with a tough on crime vote.

If he could run for mayor again he would curb stomp DeBlassio in NYC. That said, we'll see if America is ready for a Jewish billionaire that pisses off parts of both parties from New York to be president.

He's also really really short. Like, impressively short.
Click to expand...

Shit, if they didn't change the law back he could have been mayor until the day he died.

StoOgE said:
He would pull from both parties pretty evenly if it were Trump/Bernie.

It would at the very least be an extremely fun election.
Click to expand...

That's putting it mildly.

I wouldn't want him as president, but there's worse options for sure.
 
PsychoWARD23 said:
I love how some Hillary supporters assume her attack ads aren't gonna be brutal as well. Flip-flopping is something she's done quite often and some of the most devastating political ads ever have come from that: 1 2. The only thing Bernie has been inconsistent on is gun control and that's something that the Right can't even attack as much because (sadly) he isn't as progressive on that as Hillary.


Then if the GOP nom is an anti-establishment guy, you've got all the Wall Street/Super PAC stuff.
Click to expand...

As others have said, current polls reflect a Hillary Clinton who is continually being attacked over the e-mail server and Benghazi. Yes, the volume on that will be turned up... but my republican friends on Facebook are all slamming Hillary and aren't yet saying a peep about Bernie.
 
benjipwns said:
But they vote as single states in the House.
Click to expand...

Sure, but I think states with moderates on both sides would figure out enough to get there. He would be the compromise candidate.

Super blue and super red states would go to Trump/Sanders. But swing and lean states wouldn't.
 
maabus1999 said:
If people don't understand why Bernie is seen as high risk by a lot of people, they need to look at history the last time a Dem, Walter Mondale, ran on raising taxes (which Bernie wants to do). Granted things have change but this is why many older establishment Democrats are afraid the GOP will DEMOLISH him in the general via negative ads over and over again. His positive message will be buried under this media fire most likely.

map_1984_original.jpg
Click to expand...

This isn't a kosher comparison, Mondale was running against an incumbent, popular president, Bernie Sander is not. Bernie's message isn't so simple,"I'm going to raise your taxes" is a republic attack ad which will have no potency with the people Bernie is looking to win over. Also, there wasn't 30 years of irrefutable proof trickle down economics is bullshit except for those at the top of the income ladder.
 
StoOgE said:
He is very pro-business Billionaire ex mayor of New York. He founded Bloomberg, which is a business publication/trading system that most of Wall St uses, especially for bond pricing.

He is socially extremely liberal, stronger on gun control than anyone the Dems have up.

He's got a pretty pourous record on minority rights, and oversaw stop and frisk and let the NYPD do mostly whatever they wanted to reduce crime.

That said, he can appeal to middle america with a tough on crime vote.

If he could run for mayor again he would curb stomp DeBlassio in NYC. That said, we'll see if America is ready for a Jewish billionaire that pisses off parts of both parties from New York to be president.

He's also really really short. Like, impressively short.
Click to expand...
As someone who rather liked Bloomberg, saying he would demolish BDB in an election doesn't say much about Bloomberg.

De Blasio is an ineffectual GOP stereotype of liberal establishment politicians come to life.
 
plagiarize said:
As others have said, current polls reflect a Hillary Clinton who is continually being attacked over the e-mail server and Benghazi. Yes, the volume on that will be turned up... but my republican friends on Facebook are all slamming Hillary and aren't yet saying a peep about Bernie.
Click to expand...

Anecdotal and all (but so is yours), but I have two close friends who have switched from voting GOP to vote for Bernie because he represents small government where it actually counts and they got sick of the GOP being racist and sexist which is especially apparent this election.
 
Cagey said:
As someone who rather liked Bloomberg, saying he would demolish BDB in an election doesn't say much about Bloomberg.

De Blasio is an ineffectual GOP stereotype of liberal establishment politicians come to life.
Click to expand...

I don't know anyone who likes Deblablabla at this point.

Christine Quinn was the hero we needed.
 
benjipwns said:
That's not why McGovern lost, he lost because the bulk of the party abandoned him. His campaign was dead in the water before Watergate even happened.


But they vote as single states in the House.
Click to expand...

He certainly wasn't the best, but Nixon's landslide wasn't purely the candidate/opposing party's fault. The irony being he'd have still won without those tactics.

Worth pointing out that "dark money" slush fund back then was a whooping $700,000 back then... only enough to pay HRC for 3 speeches these days.
 
Yoda said:
This isn't a kosher comparison, Mondale was running against an incumbent, popular president, Bernie Sander is not. Bernie's message isn't so simple,"I'm going to raise your taxes" is a republic attack ad which will have no potency with the people Bernie is looking to win over. Also, there wasn't 30 years of irrefutable proof trickle down economics is bullshit except for those at the top of the income ladder.
Click to expand...

Ok, then look at McGovern vs Nixon. I mean history is right there in front you. And you don't have to agree with it, but the point is MANY other people do and see Bernie has High Risk. And if you can't agree why others see Bernie has high risk, then your blinding yourself for whatever reason.
 
It is honestly strange to see how well Sanders is doing. Not that this is a bad thing I just did not expect it. I am curious as to when the attack campaign gets turned up a notch against Sanders.

It would be a great Presidential race if it was Trump/Sanders and Bloomberg. I don't know if I am ready for the crazy though.
 
So here's the question I have:

I get that if Bloomberg were to run with Sanders and Trump, he'd actually have a chance, and it makes sense, since he would appeal to moderate voters turned off by Trump and Sanders' more extreme views.

But what about the (in my opinion, far more likely) combination of Clinton and Trump? Does Bloomberg actually have a chance of taking way enough votes to give Trump an edge or would he eat more of the conservative vote?
 
BiggNife said:
So here's the question I have:

I get that if Bloomberg were to run with Sanders and Trump, he'd actually have a chance, and it makes sense, since he would appeal to moderate voters turned off by Trump and Sanders' more extreme views.

But what about the (in my opinion, far more likely) combination of Clinton and Trump? Does Bloomberg actually have a chance of taking way enough votes to give Trump an edge or would he eat more of the conservative vote?
Click to expand...

This is a big concern of mine. If or when Clinton gets the nom (ugh), He could eat Clinton's moderate and independent voters. Few moderates and few youths looks bad for Clinton and good for Trump.
Fuck off Bloomberg, this shit is heated enough as is.
 
Prodigal Son said:
This is a big concern of mine. If or when Clinton gets the nom (ugh), He could eat Clinton's moderate and independent voters. Few moderates and few youths looks bad for Clinton and good for Trump.
Fuck off Bloomberg, this shit is heated enough as is.
Click to expand...

He said he's only jumping in if it's Trump/Sanders or Cruz/Sanders. Dunno where you got the idea he'd jump in if Clinton got the nom.
 
I'm actually fairly skeptical of the prospect of Bloomberg winning any electoral votes unless he can make it to at least second place in the popular vote. The way the Electoral College works makes for a fairly high threshold for candidate support to win any electoral votes unless that support is geographically concentrated a la George Wallace in 1968. Ross Perot got over 18% of the vote in 1992 and that yielded him zero electoral votes. More likely would be him playing spoiler for one candidate or another in certain states. Perot allowed Clinton to win some states that likely would have voted for Bush in a two-candidate race, though contrary to popular belief all evidence points to Clinton still handily winning the election overall even without Perot.

These Electoral College dynamics, combined with first past the post voting in Congressional elections, also make me skeptical of the possibility for a third party to rise absent some major voting reforms. If a new party were to become a significant force I'd expect it to be at the expense of one of the existing parties dying like the Whigs or for said party to fizzle out after an election or two.
 
Flying Toaster said:
It is honestly strange to see how well Sanders is doing. Not that this is a bad thing I just did not expect it. I am curious as to when the attack campaign gets turned up a notch against Sanders.

It would be a great Presidential race if it was Trump/Sanders and Bloomberg. I don't know if I am ready for the crazy though.
Click to expand...

Sanders has a surprising amount of internet activism. If Reddit is anything to gauge by, these people are actively phone banking, canvasing, and just cranking out spam on social media. How well that number translates into turnout is still to be decided, and we'll see how Sanders handles his first real challenges. If the Nevada / South Carolina walls turn out to be less of a threat than anticipated, Sander's becomes a real threat to contend with. If he splats and fizzles however, the attacks on Hillary start ratcheting up.
 
B-Dubs said:
He said he's only jumping in if it's Trump/Sanders or Cruz/Sanders. Dunno where you got the idea he'd jump in if Clinton got the nom.
Click to expand...

Didn't encounter this information.

Then he'd be eating Sander's independent voters along with some moderate voters (but likely not the youth).

Ugh.
Still fuck off Bloomberg.
 
Box of Kittens said:
I'm actually fairly skeptical of the prospect of Bloomberg winning any electoral votes unless he can make it to at least second place in the popular vote. The way the Electoral College works makes for a fairly high threshold for candidate support to win any electoral votes unless that support is geographically concentrated a la George Wallace in 1968. Ross Perot got over 18% of the vote in 1992 and that yielded him zero electoral votes. More likely would be him playing spoiler for one candidate or another in certain states. Perot allowed Clinton to win some states that likely would have voted for Bush in a two-candidate race, though contrary to popular belief all evidence points to Clinton still handily winning the election overall even without Perot.

These Electoral College dynamics, combined with first past the post voting in Congressional elections, also make me skeptical of the possibility for a third party to rise absent some major voting reforms. If a new party were to become a significant force I'd expect it to be at the expense of one of the existing parties dying like the Whigs or for said party to fizzle out after an election or two.
Click to expand...
best case scenario is a fringe third party that steals the bigot vote away from the Republicans, moving them more moderate and letting the democrats get more left wing. We don't want the third party to be viable.

A three party system sounds great on paper, but then you look at the last UK general election and it doesn't sound so great.
 
Honestly who in this election would support Bloomberg? The guy is all over the place. He's King Nanny State but a fiscal conservative. Libertarians won't go for him - he's pro gun control. Maybe Wall Street? But that's such a narrow piece of the pie. He's pretty shitty even for an Independent candidate.
 
plagiarize said:
A three party system sounds great on paper, but then you look at the last UK general election and it doesn't sound so great.
Click to expand...

Three (or more) party systems can work fine if you have some form of proportional representation and the expectation that parties will form coalitions to govern. They don't really play nicely with first past the post elections though and they're, if anything, less compatible with US presidential elections (seriously, the system for electing the president in the absence of a candidate with an electoral college majority is incredibly dumb).
 
teruterubozu said:
Honestly who in this election would support Bloomberg? The guy is all over the place. He's King Nanny State but a fiscal conservative. Libertarians won't go for him - he's pro gun control. Maybe Wall Street? But that's such a narrow piece of the pie. He's pretty shitty even for an Independent candidate.
Click to expand...

Basically everyone who's a social liberal and doesn't want a tax increase.
 
teruterubozu said:
Honestly who in this election would support Bloomberg? The guy is all over the place. He's King Nanny State but a fiscal conservative. Libertarians won't go for him - he's pro gun control. Maybe Wall Street? But that's such a narrow piece of the pie. He's pretty shitty even for an Independent candidate.
Click to expand...

middle america who like low taxes, safe neighborhoods and a good economy who generally aren't biggoted but maybe want a little bit of protectionism.

i.e. the people who used to vote for Reagan and Clinton.

Do those voters still exist? Who knows.
 
I have a question, and I will admit, it definitely shows how dumb I am in regard to all of this. There are two primaries, right? Like, this one and the runoff, right? So if I forgot to register for this one, I can still register and vote in the next one, right?
 
PsychoWARD23 said:
His stance on police (and even the Big Gulp thing, yes) are going to hurt that.
Click to expand...

Most voters are not idealouges that need 100% commitment to a philosophical cause. He has a little bit that almost everyone agrees with.

That said, he has enough to piss off everyone, which could be his undoing. So, its down to people looking the other way where they dont agree.

I assume his minority support will be close to non-existant however.
 
ZeroMaverick said:
I have a question, and I will admit, it definitely shows how dumb I am in regard to all of this. There are two primaries, right? Like, this one and the runoff, right? So if I forgot to register for this one, I can still register and vote in the next one, right?
Click to expand...

Register to vote.

And no.
 
Final numbers are in. Nothing changed:

Democrats
Voting percentage reported 100%

Bernie Sanders 60%
Hillary Clinton 38%

Republicans
Voting percentage reported 100%

Donald Trump 35%
John Kasich 16%
Ted Cruz 12%
Jeb (John E. Bush) 11%
Marco Rubio 11%
Chris Christie 7%
Carly Fiorina 4%
Ben Carson 2%

Vote totals

Democrats
Voting percentage reported 100%

Bernie Sanders 150,506
Hillary Clinton 94,806

Republicans
Voting percentage reported 100%

Donald Trump 99,914
John Kasich 44,615
Ted Cruz 33,052
Jeb 31,160
Marco Rubio 29,881
Chris Christie 20,981
Carly Fiorina 11,628
Ben Carson 6,473
 
Amir0x said:
This argument doesn't seem very convincing to me, even if I try to imagine myself as a Bernie voter. So Bernie's value is either a conversation about Demovratic socialism in which he gets nothing done legislatively, or as a finger wagger as the country burns down around him where he also gets nothing done legislatively? How happy do you think the country is going to be with socialism once they blame the socialist for the economic collapse as he proceeds to yell "i told you so" over and over and during interviews can say "I always said this would happen, why if you guys just listened to me..."?

To say nothing of the fact that this entire scenario relies on the gamble that the economy even collapses during his term. Lots of what ifs before just to have a man who you feel would be better equipped to turn around and say he's not a hypocrite, I guess?



It's not defeatist at all. It's more like a strategist who knows how to actually win the battle, whereas some underfunded and understaffed general wants to just rush headlong into overwhelming forces. There is plenty of evidence that drastic change happens very rarely in American politics, especially since the end of the civil rights era. When it does happen, you can see it coming clearly. The last major change was that gay marriage was made legal everywhere, and that didn't even occur legislatively and we all saw it coming years ago. Anyone can see the landscape and tell Bernie is not inspiring that sort of change, no matter how many young folk his supporters thinks he's getting. Democratic primary turnout hasn't even been good at all.

So barring some catastrophe that nobody can foresee right now, we know that it's not happening.



Idealists are sometimes incapable of being realistic. For example, Bernie supporters keep trying to get Bernie supporters on board by telling how his radical plans can fundamentally change the country for the better. Not one Bernie supporter has ever, not once, figured out a solution to how any of his shit gets passed. Neither has Bernie Sanders either. Because he can't. So all this trouble is over someone who can't even pass legislation. How realistic are our goals again? My goals is Supreme Court nominations that are liberal, and therefore ensuring we have the candidate most likely to win in the GE. An attainable goal.

If you're starting out mountain climbing, you don't choose Mount Everest on your first goal. You choose a mountain more even with your amateur skill level. Maybe one day you'll scale Mount Everest, but it takes years of training to actually to be sure you can do it without dying. And then when you reach the mountain, it takes months of climate and altitude acclimation before you can even attempt the summit.

Ensuring we have a true socialist candidate who can also go into office and convince Congress to pass legislation in that agenda is Mt. Everest. To scale it, we need to change several things fundamental to the system at the moment. The earliest chance we have to do that is after the 2020 US Census. And that is the cold, hard reality we're dealing with.
Click to expand...
I actually agree with you on almost every point. I think I am just coming at it from the other direction. I think Bernie is the beginning we need for positive change. Change always causes turmoil and I think that turmoil may be necessary right now. To me, THAT is the slow progress we need. Another establishment figure for 4-8 years would just delay the steps toward change to possibly make another attempt again down the line.

I believe Hillary would delay any positive change greatly because I am concerned about the things she would actually do as president. I think it would be a setback. The Clintons ARE the establishment and I doubt they will exact any changes that would erode their own power. They tend to betray their own party, yet everyone "selectively" ignores it. They were both disastrous for the Black community but are highly supported by them. Same for women, low-income people, and the LGBT community. I DO believe that there would be a backlash if Hillary were president at some point, so ultimately Sanders ideals might slowly occur. But I don't think that is the only or best way for things to improve. I say we start now.
 
A Human Becoming said:
Final numbers are in. Nothing changed:

Democrats
Voting percentage reported 100%

Bernie Sanders 60%
Hillary Clinton 38%

Republicans
Voting percentage reported 100%

Donald Trump 35%
John Kasich 16%
Ted Cruz 12%
Jeb (John E. Bush) 11%
Marco Rubio 11%
Chris Christie 7%
Carly Fiorina 4%
Ben Carson 2%

Vote totals

Democrats
Voting percentage reported 100%

Bernie Sanders 150,506
Hillary Clinton 94,806

Republicans
Voting percentage reported 100%

Donald Trump 99,914
John Kasich 44,615
Ted Cruz 33,052
Jeb 31,160
Marco Rubio 29,881
Chris Christie 20,981
Carly Fiorina 11,628
Ben Carson 6,473
Click to expand...

WMUR with 99% reports more votes:
Code: 
Name	Party	Votes	Vote %
Trump, Donald	GOP	100,127	35%
Kasich, John	GOP	44,766	16%
Cruz, Ted	GOP	33,105	12%
Bush, Jeb	GOP	31,220	11%
Rubio, Marco	GOP	29,947	11%
Christie, Chris	GOP	21,010	7%
Fiorina, Carly	GOP	11,671	4%
Carson, Ben	GOP	6,483	2%
Paul, Rand	GOP	1,894	1%
Total Write-ins	GOP	1,775	1%
Huckabee, Mike	GOP	214	0%
Santorum, Rick	GOP	197	0%
Martin, Andy	GOP	169	0%
Gilmore, Jim	GOP	133	0%

Name	Party	Votes	Vote %
Sanders, Bernie	Dem	150,974	60%
Clinton, Hillary	Dem	94,993	38%
Total Write-ins	Dem	2,174	1%
O'Malley, Martin	Dem	641	0%
Supreme, Vermin	Dem	260	0%
 
A Human Becoming said:
Final numbers are in. Nothing changed:

Democrats
Voting percentage reported 100%

Bernie Sanders 60%
Hillary Clinton 38%

Republicans
Voting percentage reported 100%

Donald Trump 35%
John Kasich 16%
Ted Cruz 12%
Jeb (John E. Bush) 11%
Marco Rubio 11%
Chris Christie 7%
Carly Fiorina 4%
Ben Carson 2%

Vote totals

Democrats
Voting percentage reported 100%

Bernie Sanders 150,506
Hillary Clinton 94,806

Republicans
Voting percentage reported 100%

Donald Trump 99,914
John Kasich 44,615
Ted Cruz 33,052
Jeb 31,160
Marco Rubio 29,881
Chris Christie 20,981
Carly Fiorina 11,628
Ben Carson 6,473
Click to expand...

Kind of surprised more voted in the republican side.

277,704 vs 245,312

wonder why that is, NH is pretty blue IIRC.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

New Hampshire man is 2nd person known to be living with a pig kidney
28
1K
Alebrije replied
Anyone live in Seattle? I need to kill 9 hours after my flight
17
322
Panajev2001a replied
Those who currently live in Portland, OR
5
664
Boss Mog replied
Taco Bell Live Más LIVE 2025
|OT| News Clickbait 
21
1K
GymWolf replied
Brand New has reunited - First live shows in 8 years incoming
11
705
Chuck Berry replied
Top Bottom