I think Bloomberg recognizes that a 3rd party bid gets Trump back in; I don’t think he risks that. I think he is worried that Biden runs out of gas, and either Sanders or Warren loses straight up. So, get in as last ditch effort to avoid catastrophe.

He'll be in all of the states' primaries if he keeps meeting the deadlines from here on out, Alabama just had the first deadline out of all the states.

He did say he was going to focus on Super Tuesday rather than New Hampshire/Iowa, but he will still be on those early states' ballots assuming he doesn't change his mind in the next few weeks.

I think he knows it would be preferable to win the Democratic nomination and beat Trump. I think he will go third party, even if that means Trump likely wins, if Warren or Sanders wins the nomination.

Have no idea who this guy is and why he thinks he stands a chance but okay, the more the merrier.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/13/polit...020/index.html

Why? The biggest problem this field has is it is too large. I don't get how these late-comers think they can win.

I think that the fact that there are no runaway leaders tying things off up top is the reason why people are still getting in. They believe that there's still a chance to break out of the mold, and they didn't have to spend all the early money that the other candidates have to this point. I'm just guessing, but that has to come into play.

I don't know if Patrick thinks he can win or if he just sees it as a step towards something else, maybe a VP or Cabinet job or a TV gig.

I remember when Patrick was considered a rising star... like 20 years ago. That's literally the only thing I remember about him.

Might as well be Patrick Starfish.

Who would be an exciting late entry? Michelle Obama?

Patrick is no in to win. He's in to attack dog Warren so she gets hurt but the other possible candidates don't get the blowback for attacking her.

She might be short on policy, but she will really get the pro and anti-obama crowds out.

Just joking. I agree with you. I am somewhat like Bloomberg late entrance but he's got $ to self fund and all things held equal, would prefer a business man to a politician (Trump notwithstanding).

Hillary obviously!

I feel for her, I'm sure she needs closure.

I voted for Hillary, but... DEAR GOD, NO.

Chelsea Clinton?

I don't think she has shown interest in politics much. If she is interested, she should start now while she has Bill (Hillary is debatable) to get herself elected to something and build up her credentials.

Yeah I agree, but it would be "exciting".

Oprah.

It would be interesting if that is so. He had a long conversation with her before he entered the race. It would be interesting if it the call was "this isn't personal, but I am about to rip you to shreds."



I was just listening to David Plouffe's podcast, and they where saying Warren has by far the biggest ground game presence in the Super-Tuesday states. I also just saw an article saying she has the largest staff level in Texas than any other candidate. She is taking some lumps right now, and has sort of plateaued if not dropped. But she is going to be tough to beat going forward.

That would be exciting and she can self fund.

I did a casual search and did not find this rationale, would be interested in reading more about it if you have a link.

So what's his end game? To hurt Warren so some other candidate would think him for VP/Cabinet and/or hurt Warren so someone less "socialist" gets elected and he doesn't have to pay all those taxes?

Politico seems to believe the person most likely to be hurt by Patrick's entry in to the race is Joe Biden:

How Deval Patrick could torpedo Joe Biden - POLITICO

More, I think she wins walking away. She just doesn't want to do it.

Donald Trump vs. Oprah for President seems like something from a Watchmen like comic book. Our reality has become a dystopian comic, guys!

My speculation. Patrick is hooked into Wall St. And I imagine he's been involved in a fair amount of "Warren would be horrible" conversations. And his base is geographically the same as hers.

So it seems logical that his main motivation in getting in is to save the party/country from Warren. Sure, he'd love to be president, too. But if he can knock her out, that's a win.

Twitter was a buzz last night about an Obama speech that seemed to be a warning against Sanders and Warren's visions. It looks like they took certain statements and ran with them a biit out of context. He did say, “I don’t take it as a criticism when people say, ‘Hey, that’s great Obama did what he did, and now we want to do more.’ I hope so. That’s the whole point,” and “I want proposals that are bolder with respect to reducing inequality and giving people more opportunity and allowing us to make more investments in our infrastructure and our education systems and others."


So, not totally selling out the more left leaning candidates. He did warn, though.

For example: pic.twitter.com/FsqT4zL1Hg

— Jon Favreau (@jonfavs) November 16, 2019

I don't see Obama's failings as having to do with policies. Where he failed it was because he didn't recognize or accept the degree to which the GOP will not work with any Dem admin. In terms of process, the Dems need to get much more radical in order to combat the GOP.

Unfortunately the Dem primary candidates either don't have a plan on how to use process to their advantage or are still willing to believe that a phone call or a round of golf will suddenly make the GOP reasonable. Meanwhile Dems in Congress are generally more concerned with individual power than with institutional advantage.

What little I've seen of the Dem debates is just candidates screaming promises. It tells me nothing. Anybody on the internet can tell me what they'd like the government of the U.S. to look like. I'd like to vote on effectiveness, but I'm almost as a total loss on how to evaluate that. Certainly none of the candidates are interested in telling me how exactly they're going to accomplish anything, or what battles they're willing to not fight or concede to make other progress.

An unskilled and unreasonable politician candidate promising 10/10 won't accomplish as much as a skilled and reasonable politician candidate promising 5/10.

I don't think you can call many of the candidates unskilled and inexperienced. Maybe Mayor Pete and Yang. The rest of the field have been effective legislatures that know how to work in Washington. It is also pretty silly to think they would tell you what they are willing to give up on. They will all have to do some give and take, but no one running for office is going to say "but this isn't really important to me."

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

No major legislation is happening in the current political environment without complete control over congress. It doesn't matter if you're Biden, Warren, or even Obama. So there's really no point in discussing how you're going to sell McConnell on Medicare for all or gun control. He's has almost single-handedly destroyed bipartisan legislation in this country.

The ACA was an incredible accomplishment by Obama, but even that was gutted in order to get it passed and there's zero chance similar legislation would pass right now.

Right - so 95% of what the candidates talk about, which is their ideal legislative visions, is completely irrelevant to anything. I hear about someone favoring one candidate over another because they like their health-plan more, but, that's also completely irrelevant.

I though Obama was a great president, I'd vote for him again. But I thought, and still think, his initial campaign was completely dishonest. He just promised a lot. That was the strategy. I remember posting about it here at the time. I remember an exacerbated Hillary Clinton trying to get this across at one of the primary debates. I don't buy the narrative that he was just too dumb to realize that the Republicans would oppose him.

There's just very little reality set forth in these debates and commercials and campaigns. I have no idea how any of them would actually serve in that role.

Ya, I guess that's true, I just wish there was a way to figure out what their priorities would be. I have an idea on some of them but it's just a best guess. Everybody just promises all the things on every issue. It's not real.

Presidents do things besides sign legislation passed by Congress. And I don't think these candidates differ much on what they'd sign and what they'd veto. The moderate candidates aren't stopping whatever scaled-down legislation a theatrical left-controlled congress gets through. So what is the real difference between the candidates? I guess the ways they exercise the powers of the executive branch, how they represent the United States in relations with other countries, and the way they take part and try to influence the outcome of the legislative battles. Not how much free stuff we're gonna definitely gonna get if we send them $20/month.

The one who I feel like drifts into honesty occasionally is Yang. But like you said, he has one of the weakest track records as far as demonstrating an ability to serve in that role. But, I'm not 100% sure that matters. Trump has been able to do a lot of damage with no experience at all. He also over-promised and duped his supporters about what he'd be able to do, but he's found ways to forward his agenda.

So ya, I'm completely lost on who to support. There's 3-4 I'm drawn to, but I'm not sure if it's for reasons that actually translate to being a good president. I can find a random redditor that matches my policy opinions exactly, but that doesn't mean I'd want them to be president.

This came a bit out of nowhere Friday. Everyone could tell Pete was getting some momentum, but not to this level. Now all weekend, all guns have turned on Pete. I expect the debate this week will be heavy on the Pete-bashing.


New Des Moines Register/CNN/Mediacom IOWA poll
Buttigieg 25%
Warren 16%
Biden 15%
Sanders 15%
Klobuchar 6%
Everyone else at or below 3 percent https://t.co/NfZakqdCKv

— Zach Montellaro (@ZachMontellaro) November 17, 2019

Yeah the latest polls out of Iowa have been really interesting concerned Buttigieg. One does wonder what is the reason for the bump. You can see Harris is "below 3%" - did her support go almost all to Buttigieg?

He's in the thick of it in New Hampshire, but South Carolina is still BIG on Biden.

Come on Joe...seriously???

Joe Biden Is Out Here Calling Weed a 'Gateway Drug' in 2019

Wow, that is his 3rd strike with me, though he still gets my vote if it is between him and Trump and I guess we wait 4 more years for someone with some common sense to legalize it.

Since Biden is such a weak frontrunner overall, some moderates are probably looking around to see who else can stop Warren/Sanders.

I don't think anyone told Joe that pro legalization is a fairly moderate stance in 2019.

Biden is STILL very much in front of national polls. Buttigieg is only really surging in Iowa. Granted he's been campaigning there, so maybe he's really good one on one which is pushing him up.

Even in the few national polls that show Biden in the 20s show Buttigieg with 9% at highest. It's generally Sanders and Warren that benefit from Biden in the 20s rather than the 30s in the national polls.

Did one of those that asked who you are more aligned with. Came out to be Biden (no surprise) and Yang (surprise).

I would like to see Yang survive to the very end. Some new ideas and breath of fresh air.

I wasn't going to vote for him the Primaries anyway, but, how can you be this out of touch and it's almost the 3rd decade of the 21st century? I wonder if he thinks leaded gasoline is still perfectly fine and heavy metal music brings out the devil...

Same here, if it's him or trump, it will be Joe with no hesitation and hope that we can primary him out if he decides to run for a second term.


I imagine all of his campaign advisers are no younger than 75. This is super tone deaf and legalization is supported by the majority of Americans.

Two-thirds of Americans support marijuana legalization | Pew Research Center:
"Majorities of Millennials (those born between 1981 and 1997), Generation X (born between 1965 and 1980) and Baby Boomers (born between 1946 and 1964) say the use of marijuana should be legal."
"Members of the Silent Generation (born between 1928 and 1945) continue to be the least supportive of legalization: Only 35% favor legalizing marijuana, while 64% are opposed." ...Biden was born in 42

tl;dr - 67% of Americans support legalization of marijuana

Another one bites the dust

Wayne Messam suspends his Democratic primary campaign - Vox

WTF is up with Klobuchar shaking?

Klobuchar plays the gender card

*yaaaaaaaaaawwn*

Just tuned in

Mayor Pete with a very strong answer there with several good lines including "I don't even play golf" and how the fighting in Washington looks small from where his community sits.

Democrats like to bring up the fact that women earn less than men, but don't point out that they do different jobs.

90% of job fatalities are men, but democrats never talk about bridging that gender gap.

You'd have a point if women weren't consistently paid less when they do the same jobs.

I don't understand this comment at all.

Yang with the line of the night.