Outside of entering the race and running a campaign exlusively with his own money, Bloomberg spoke at the RNC in 2004 to praise George Bush and the Iraq war and gave money to Republican candidates in 2016.

As premature as it is to say anything about the Democratic Convention in July, I suspect that it'll be brokered, that is, no candidate will emerge from the primaries with enough delegates to be nominated (principally because of Bloomberg & Steyer). Rules changes in 2016 suggest 'Superdelegates' - the Democrats own mini- Electoral College - will be poised to select the nominee (by breaking deadlock on the 2nd ballot). And all hell breaks loose if that happens! "Bernie Bros" et al will be fools nonetheless if, for whatever reason, they sit out the general election; IMO that'll be a surrender, not a protest ... like the Michigan, Wisconsin & Pennsylvania voters who stayed home in 2016. Will make the Iowa fiasco look like anything but. :shade:

Bloomberg spoke at the RNC in 2004 to praise George Bush and the Iraq war and gave money to Republican candidates in 2016. — Maw

Bloomberg obviously thinks that four years from now isn't the best option. Reminds of one former Democrat supporter (below in picture with Bloomberg and Clinton).

Best democratic buddies! Why wouldn't Michael Bloomberg want to be in the same league as his fellow golf friends?

As premature as it is to say anything about the Democratic Convention in July, I suspect that it'll be brokered, that is, no candidate will emerge from the primaries with enough delegates to be nominated (principally because of Bloomberg & Steyer). Rules changes in 2016 suggest 'Superdelegates' - the Democrats own mini- Electoral College - will be poised select the nominee (by breaking deadlock on the convention floor). — 180 Proof

Political parties can make their own rules how they want.

What really matters is the general election.

Yes, Clinton also sucks ass

I'm not even a Democrat and I'd be a little outraged if Bloomberg managed to buy the Primary away from Sanders. Bloomberg seems to be climbing at least on betting sites where he's at around 25% in second place where Sanders stands at around 45%. It's amazing how much Biden has fallen.

Political parties can make their own rules how they want.

What really matters is the general election. — ssu

If the parties select the candidates and there is nearly complete overlap in major donors support - control of the agendas - of (both) parties, then the differences are narrow enough that the electorate in the general election are reduced to shoppers in Walmart choosing between cases of Bud Lite & Miller Lite (or gonorrhea & syphillis :vomit:). The herd's getting more and more restless, even rambunctious, lifting their snouts from the slop to grunt their growing unease-to-displeasure with merely ratifying "acceptable" choices made for them by oligarchs. If we don't get it right before the conventions, then we get Wrong or Wronger at the polls in the general. I'm no populist but they have a point - have had it for decades (and not just under their baseball caps) - and the b.s. gumbo is at a boil since even they now see that Live Poor, Vote Rich never has and never will "trickle-down" as advertised.

The term "populist" is being bandied about. Shame. "Nationalist" as well.

Lose the terms, focus upon the issues involving what's best for the overwhelming majority.

I think the best would be if the two parties would partition to two parties.

the GOP => Libertarian&Conservative Wing GOP / Trumpist-populist GOP
the DNC => Leftist Social Democrat DNC / Centrist DNC

Even one party dissolving into two would mean that the other party would win. Both House and Senate could easily be contested. Also the political map at the state level could turn different.

It is essential for a democracy in order to function that the political landscape can change. Now America just get's these media campaigns promising change, yet the political structures don't change at all.

What the people actually want is a libertarian-conservative party and a socialist-progressive party. It would be great if that was what we had because then the compromise would be moderate libertarian socialism. But the big business, especially military industrial interests would hate that, as they would lose all their power, so they have to promise people those things respectively and then deliver on nothing but their own self-interest. If they split in four like suggested, the Trump Republicans and “centrist” Democrats would die completely because our electoral structure naturally gravitates towards two parties.

That's presuming that all business operate in a certain way or on a very specific business model in pure abstraction, in practice I don't see that as the case, and I believe business models are diverse in their goals and methods.

Lately I tend to view "mass media" businesses or ones which sell products widely considered "addictive" to be more likely to be operated on that type of basis, but that's just my opinion and I can't go into further detail on substantiating that.

I agree of course, which is why I'm voting for anyone who gets the nomination. I also think Bernie stacks up very well with Trump. According to the polls, only Biden does better in some of the key states...but Bernie isn't far behind. So if there's no clear "guarantee" then let's go with the candidate with the enthusiasm behind them? If Trump could do it in 2016, the democrats can do it in 2020.

I think the answer is organization and solidarity on the left. They already have the numbers. I've spoken to some Bernie-or-bust people and Never-Bernie people, and both groups boggle my mind. We need to come together after someone is nominated.

:up:

Bernie — Xtrix

Biden — Xtrix

The problem with both Bernie and Biden is that they are too old. I'm in my 70s; Bernie is 78. He will be 79 before he takes office. Perhaps his health is very robust and he will live to be 100, mentally sharp all the way. Perhaps he will collapse under the strain of what is an extremely demanding job. I like Sanders, I like what he proposes. But he is still too old.

Biden is just a little younger, not enough to make a difference. He is also too old.

Pete, on the other hand, is short on governmental service, and perhaps short on 'gravitas'. I'm glad a young gay guy is running for president, more power to him, but... kind of young and inexperienced.

In the 'good old days' candidates were not put through the kind of demolition derby the Democrats are running. The 'pros' decided who was going to run on the basis of various political factors. The smoke filled back room had a decided downside, but it wasn't all down.

Just because somebody thinks they could run the country is no reason for the party to let them run. Donald Trump is the prime example of what happens when that route is tried.

Who really thinks that a "democratic socialist" can command enough votes? I'm a socialist, but most people are not, and I just don't see a DSA candidate winning.

But the big business, especially military industrial interests would hate that, as they would lose all their power, so they have to promise people those things respectively and then deliver on nothing but their own self-interest. If they split in four like suggested, the Trump Republicans and “centrist” Democrats would die completely because our electoral structure naturally gravitates towards two parties. — Pfhorrest

What party is most successful depends quite a lot of the actual leaders and the people. And not just on right wing or left wing party gets everybody. The traditional blue collar worker voting for the left is quite far from the woke student voting left. Just as a traditional conservative is from the alt-right. The support of a party doesn't follow just from it's agenda. How it would play out, only God knows.

What a multiparty system does is that it creates the necessity of coalition administrations. This has one extremely important effect: the political parties have to work together. A party leader cannot viciously attack and defame an opponent and then think they can later form a government with that opponent. It would eat his/her own credibility. Hence the political debate loses part of the vitriol, which is actually good in my view. In the US system, the two parties have to invent that vitriol to get the people to be fixated on the two party system. Otherwise more would see through the facade. Just like Trump & Clinton, they were great friends! One of them took this role of being "an outsider", which his followers eagerly still believe in.

I don't disagree with any of that, my point that simply splitting the two mainstream parties each in half would not be a stable situation (because first-past-the-post electoral systems naturally gravitate toward two-party systems; two parties, or parties at all, are not codified anywhere in US law, it just happens that way as an unintended side-effect). And I expect, and I think the moneyed interests expect, that the halves of those parties not on their side would see much more popular support, resulting in the new two-party balance being much more in favor of the common people than the oligarchs, for which reason they (who have the power to control such decisions) would not let that happen. I would like to see that happen, but I don't expect it.

What a multiparty system does is that it creates the necessity of coalition administrations. This has one extremely important effect: the political parties have to work together.

Or a no-confidence vote, one or the other. The ties that bind the coalition are rarely as solid as multi-party proponents like to pretend.

If "working together" means silencing or otherwise modifying a platform in order to appease the coalition and to achieve consensus, then maintaining the coalition and power becomes the prime motive over implementing party policy. Coalition becomes little more than bargaining between political elites, dressed up as compromise.

Also, how is that really any different than the two-party system that we have in the US, when push comes to shove? Each of our two major political parties can be viewed as a coalition of a bunch of what would hypothetically have been separate parties if we had a different electoral system, but then if those parties would have had to band together into coalitions to try to secure power, I don't see how that would necessarily avoid doing just what we have now: say, a coalition of economically liberal, big-business, military, and socially conservative interests, and another coalition of socially liberal, different-big-businesses, environmentalist, minority, socialist, etc interests?

Who really thinks that a "democratic socialist" can command enough votes? I'm a socialist, but most people are not, and I just don't see a DSA candidate winning. — Bitter Crank

The term "socialism" is almost devoid of meaning these days. Look at the proposals. All of them have majority support. He has the enthusiasm and the young voters. If he's the nominee, more people will hear the message, and it's precisely that which accounts for his popularity: the message. Let him promise the world -- GOOD. The question of how you're going to pay for it has been answered: tax the wealthy. But people don't really care about that. Trump got elected by saying Mexico was going to pay for a wall, did the voters really care? No. The Republicans were screaming for years about the debt, and now they've run it up. No one seems to care. The level of ignorance of our electorate is stunning.

There are plenty of people "on the fence" with the same level of thinking. They LIKE the idea of student loan debt forgiveness, free public universities, free healthcare, doing something about climate change, etc. Keep hammering home that message, and it doesn't matter if Bernie is an old, cranky, white, Jewish socialist. We already have the numbers in this country, we just need to come together and organize in solidarity. Defeat Trump, and don't worry so much about the rest.

Or a no-confidence vote, one or the other. The ties that bind the coalition are rarely as solid as multi-party proponents like to pretend.

If "working together" means silencing or otherwise modifying a platform in order to appease the coalition and to achieve consensus, then maintaining the coalition and power becomes the prime motive over implementing party policy. Coalition becomes little more than bargaining between political elites, dressed up as compromise. — NOS4A2

Those are the things in politics. If the coalition cannot work together, then the administration doesn't work. Usually the government falls on a "no confidence" vote. If nobody is willing to work together, then nothing happens. But Republics can work too, you know. One party rule isn't the only answer.

But how is now it working with the two party system? The other one can simply wait 4 to 8 years until people are so fed up with what they have they'll vote for something different. And that' 4 to 8 years time to get a working campaign together. Both just aim for total control and will have zero incentive to work with the other party.

Things like corruption, the rule of law or how well the institutions of a justice state work are the outcome of many different things. However, in a multiparty system it is more easier for new parties to emerge than in a two party system. Also if the political landscape is too much fractured to many little parties, that can pose also a problem.

I think we can agree that a one party system means a lot of trouble and the potential for overwhelming corruption and misuse of power. My argument that a far too solid two-party system will have those same negative aspects than as one party system too, even if the bickering between the two might hide it. Just as in business, replacing a monopoly with a duopoly might not make things better, especially if the duopolies agree on a joint effort on keeping any other serious competition ever from rising. And then dividing the market themselves.

:up: :clap:

Biden is being absolutely murdered in NH. I knew he was an unlikable fuddy duddy but this is next level. Maybe Americans are not entirely shit.

I'm not understanding Buttigeig's sudden surge in popularity. From what I can tell he seems like a pretty mainstream Democrat, so I'm not seeing what makes him stand out from the crowd.

Seriously? You think you need to support the vastly superior democracy that is Finland because "shock horror" your elected parties compromise? Since when is compromise a fault? For fuck's sake man, don't let the right wing hijack common meaning of words!

Possibly the Democratic half plus the Romney type Republicans. I miss conservatives I could have reasonable disagreement with instead of the populist drivel we have to contend with nowadays.

Buttigeig is young and looks the part. It worked for Tony Blair, who brought the left wing to power in the UK in a country strangled by right wing biased media.

All he needs to do is pick Trump apart with slick sarcasm. The media will love it.

I think Buttigieg would be a terrible choice.

I don't know enough about him. I think though that to beat Trump they need someone who can equal him on the media stage.

He has no experience whatsoever and his plans are just status quo bullshit. Exactly what the US doesn't need. Beating Trump shouldn't be the goal, transforming US politics and aligning it more with what a majority of people want should be the goal. There's a worrying correlation between what the rich want and what laws get passed and what the rich don't want and what laws therefore don't get passed when compared to the correlation between what the rest want and what laws don't get passed and what the rest don't want and what laws still get passed.

You can read this:

One [finding] is the nearly total failure of “median voter” and other Majoritarian Electoral Democracy theories. When the preferences of economic elites and the stands of organized interest groups are controlled for, the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy. — Princeton research paper

Beating Trump shouldn't be the goal, transforming US politics and aligning it more with what a majority of people want should be the goal. — Benkei

This presupposes that the majority doesn't want what Trump offers. What you mean to say is that your hope is that US politics is brought into alignment with something you find more palatable.

I'd argue on the other hand that if the Democrats wish to win, they need to move back to the center, instead of continuing to drift left because that shift is reactionary to Trump and not the result of a sudden desire by middle America to emulate European liberalism.

This presupposes that the majority doesn't want what Trump offers. What you mean to say is that your hope is that US politics is brought into alignment with something you find more palatable. — Hanover

No, I meant what I said not what you want it to mean. Research is quite clear on this. What the majority of voters want doesn't matter in the USA.

Greatest democracy my ass.

I'd argue on the other hand that if the Democrats wish to win, they need to move back to the center, instead of continuing to drift left because that shift is reactionary to Trump and not the result of a sudden desire by middle America to emulate European liberalism. — Hanover

Trump's election was reactionary to the fact the political establishment hasn't listened to people for quite some time and was a lurch to the insane right. Bernie Sanders isn't reactionary at all but the most sensible of the democrats as it most closely aligns what a majority of Americans want. As consistently polled when people are asked about policies without identifying whether it's a republican or democratic idea.

Don't worry about it turning into a European utopia. You're too far removed from that to reach that within 8 years. Also, we're mostly not Liberal but then that's not the only thing Americans consistently get wrong because they actually barely know anything about anything outside of the US.