Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Market politics

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ultimately Bloomberg is essentially a Never Trump Republican........

With all respect @wdolson - Bloomberg is absolutely not running as to defeat Trump. He is running to help the DNC stop Bernie from winning........whether it is by winning the nomination himself through spending more in the campaign, or if it is by helping to split the vote in enough states to enable the DNC to arrive at a contested primary which offers them once again the opportunity to pick a less-popular candidate for the general election through their 'special' rules...........and we know how that turned out in 2016.

I sincerely understand why many long-term democrats don't want to say this out loud though, as it might steal a little bit of their soul to admit that the DNC and Corporate Dems might not be on the high road, and that they no longer represent the beliefs and values that they continue to advertise - the beliefs and values that brought many of us to the party decades ago (myself included). But all the evidence is there right in front of us now once again. The DNC rigged the Primary in 2016 for a Loser and admitted it, and then moved on to rig Iowa in the 2020 primary for a favorite of the billionaire-class and got caught with its hand in the cookie jar. Now there are already reports of problems with early voting counts in Nevada while the DNC tries out new apps to count people 'standing in a room'...........and of course the DNC changed the rules to allow Mike Bloomberg into the debates while lesser candidates that had campaigned from the beginning couldn't qualify. Bloomberg would be perfectly happy with Trump as president for another term, and he has done a great job of praising Trump already.

The will of the people is pretty clear at this point..........a Trump / Sanders election. But will the DNC allow the Will of the people to be heard. There were over 17,000 people in the Tacoma Dome for the Bernie rally on Monday night despite the Washington state primary still 3 weeks out. And there were 11,000 people in Denver the night before......with people waiting in the overflow areas to see him as well because both venues were completely packed. The Trump rallies are similar.......except that at least Fox News covers the Trump rallies. Sanders and his supporters continue to speak to huge rallies with overflow crowds multiple times each week. But you won't see Main Stream Media DNC plants like Chuck Todd, Chris Mathews, Rachel Maddow, John Oliver, Joy Baher, Bill Maher, the CNN cast, or the MSNBC bench fall in-line for Sanders to beat Trump and call for the DNC to join forces with the Will of the people. Instead you see those same people losing their minds right now trying to come up with anything they can offer to stop a Democracy from electing the most popular candidate in the country (Sanders). So I offer that the hardest thing for me to say out loud as a long-time democrat is that the RNC is less corrupt than the DNC because the RNC at least let their most popular candidate win.

upload_2020-2-19_18-24-19.png
 
Agreed. How are most of the dems ok with this but yet want to get rid of the electoral college? It's like conservatives being all for the free market but then wanting to outlaw Tesla selling direct to consumers. You can't be here for this and there for that. Every vote counts, every time....well it should at least.
 
So, there is a point that a plurality is not a majority, and it's possible for a candidate to win a plurality, while a majority is opposed to them - and in that case, that candidate arguably should not win.

However, two problems with the way this works for the Democratic convention.

So, there's two ways to fairly represent alternate choices of an electorate. The first is a ballot that presents those alternate choices - ranked choice and rated ballots, for instance - but that isn't applicable here. The second is a representative process, which is what the convention is - the electors are sending delegates to represent them. However, the delegate selection process is so inside baseball that most of the electors have nothing to do with it - they're just selecting whoever the delegates for their preferred candidate are, not selecting those delegates to represent their wishes, and that means that the alternate choices don't get accurately represented, you get the delegate's alternate choices, not the electorate's.

The second problem, an even bigger one, is the superdelegates. Many of them hold that status due to being elected officials, yes, but they aren't representing the electorate's preferences for the primary, they're representing something else entirely.
 
According to this article Michael Bloomberg and Donald Trump never met until Bloomberg ran for mayor. In the 2001 mayoral race Trump backed his Democratic opponent, but started buddying up to Trump after Bloomberg won.
Bloomberg in 2016: ‘Yes, Donald, I do love you’

They are not lifelong friends. They found each other useful at times when Bloomberg was mayor, but that seems to be the extent of their "friendship".

With all respect @wdolson - Bloomberg is absolutely not running as to defeat Trump. He is running to help the DNC stop Bernie from winning........whether it is by winning the nomination himself through spending more in the campaign, or if it is by helping to split the vote in enough states to enable the DNC to arrive at a contested primary which offers them once again the opportunity to pick a less-popular candidate for the general election through their 'special' rules...........and we know how that turned out in 2016.

I sincerely understand why many long-term democrats don't want to say this out loud though, as it might steal a little bit of their soul to admit that the DNC and Corporate Dems might not be on the high road, and that they no longer represent the beliefs and values that they continue to advertise - the beliefs and values that brought many of us to the party decades ago (myself included). But all the evidence is there right in front of us now once again. The DNC rigged the Primary in 2016 for a Loser and admitted it, and then moved on to rig Iowa in the 2020 primary for a favorite of the billionaire-class and got caught with its hand in the cookie jar. Now there are already reports of problems with early voting counts in Nevada while the DNC tries out new apps to count people 'standing in a room'...........and of course the DNC changed the rules to allow Mike Bloomberg into the debates while lesser candidates that had campaigned from the beginning couldn't qualify. Bloomberg would be perfectly happy with Trump as president for another term, and he has done a great job of praising Trump already.

The will of the people is pretty clear at this point..........a Trump / Sanders election. But will the DNC allow the Will of the people to be heard. There were over 17,000 people in the Tacoma Dome for the Bernie rally on Monday night despite the Washington state primary still 3 weeks out. And there were 11,000 people in Denver the night before......with people waiting in the overflow areas to see him as well because both venues were completely packed. The Trump rallies are similar.......except that at least Fox News covers the Trump rallies. Sanders and his supporters continue to speak to huge rallies with overflow crowds multiple times each week. But you won't see Main Stream Media DNC plants like Chuck Todd, Chris Mathews, Rachel Maddow, John Oliver, Joy Baher, Bill Maher, the CNN cast, or the MSNBC bench fall in-line for Sanders to beat Trump and call for the DNC to join forces with the Will of the people. Instead you see those same people losing their minds right now trying to come up with anything they can offer to stop a Democracy from electing the most popular candidate in the country (Sanders). So I offer that the hardest thing for me to say out loud as a long-time democrat is that the RNC is less corrupt than the DNC because the RNC at least let their most popular candidate win.

View attachment 512974

I have never been a Democrat. I've been consistently voting that way because the Republican party began to lose its way in 1980 and I saw it going off the rails before 1990. It has become increasingly toxic since then to a point that the future of the republic hangs in the balance.

I see the extreme left getting paranoid about everything the Democratic party does. I don't see it. They didn't eliminate the superdelegates, but they dramatically weakened their power from 2016. In the age of television there has never been a brokered convention. Why? Largely because it doesn't play well on TV. If no candidate sails into the convention with enough delegates to lock up the nomination, there will be intense negotiations behind the scenes to prevent a brokered convention. There will only be a second vote if a consensus can't be reached and everyone is aware the Democrats need to come out of the convention looking strong and unified to take down Trump, so there will be both internal and external pressures for every candidate to come together behind one person and present a united front.

I also see different possible explanations for the same behaviors that fit the facts. In 2016 the DNC was largely run by a group of older women who were first generation feminists who had to deal with less qualified men getting promoted over them. In 2008 the first gen feminists saw Barack Obama doing that again because that was supposed to be Hillary's year. In 2016 the popularity of Bernie scared them because they saw it happening again and they put their thumb on the scale to help Hillary win the nomination. In her book about 2016 Hillary blamed misogyny for why she lost rather than what I see as the real reason: she is a terrible candidate and she made some terrible mistakes on the campaign, and a foreign government was doing all it could to disrupt her primary as well as the general election.

The networks aren't covering Bernie rallies, but they aren't covering any other Democratic candidate rallies either.

I don't think the DNC wants Bernie to be the nominee, but I think it has more to do with his electability. If he becomes the nominee, the Republicans will be running a blizzard of ads to equate Bernie with the communist/socialist demons of the cold war. There are a lot of old memes in the heads of Gen Xers and older that are ripe for reactivation. Even if Bernie wins the general election, a large number of people who hate Trump more might vote Republican down ticket to prevent Bernie from doing anything too extreme and that will be a disaster when it comes to getting anything done.

As I've said before, I don't see where any one Democrat is likely to rule all that differently than any other between having to get legislation through Congress and all the damage that needs to be repaired. Pick any candidate in the running who qualified for Wednesday's debate (as well as some who didn't) and they will all do at least an adequate job.

But the two biggest issues for me are #1 get rid of Trump and #2 take the Senate and control the House. My choice for nominee is whoever I think has the best chance of achieving those two goals. Anything else is just noise.

I am neither Democrat nor Republican, I'm a pragmatist. There are things I would like government to do, but at this point I just want it to function correctly. The Republicans have proven they are absolutely hopeless at governing, so it falls to the Democrats who can govern.

If Bernie's coattails are large enough to sweep in a Senate majority and win the presidency, I'm fine with that. If they aren't, I don't want to see him win the nomination. Bernie has a lot of support among younger people, which is fine, but that is one of the least reliable voting demographic. If Bernie could get the under 30s turnout up to near equal with the rest of the population, the Democrats would win in a landslide, but it has never happened.

The under 30 vote is almost always more than 20% less than the over 65 vote. And usually is 20% less than the 45-64 vote too.

https://www.census.gov/content/dam/...its/2017/voting-and-registration/figure04.png

I am an optimist by nature, but a pragmatist by experience. I don't want to be Charlie Brown chasing the football hoping to kick it time after time.

The existential crisis everyone opposed to Trump is dealing with is which candidate can beat him and sweep in the most Congressional seats? There is no clear answer to that question. Every single Democratic candidate has a downside that could sink them every single one has some advantage the others don't.

Whether the constitution is still in effect of not in 2024 depends on the answer. This is the most critical presidential election in US history. Do we go the route of Nazi Germany or do we look back on this time as a near miss disaster?
 
  • Like
Reactions: kcveins and ggies07
Bloomberg got wrecked last night, no question. Warren and Sanders destroyed him and exposed him for exactly what he is. I can't imagine anyone watching that thinking he could ever be viable.

Every single Democratic candidate has a downside that could sink them every single one has some advantage the others don't.

I'm sorry but the "socialist" "communist" argument falls flat for most people. Many Boomers saw how that label was used in the past to try and discredit people rightfully protesting against a corrupt government. What other "downside" do you think exists for Sanders? Again, he's the most liked and most trusted Senator in the country.
 
Bloomberg got wrecked last night, no question. Warren and Sanders destroyed him and exposed him for exactly what he is. I can't imagine anyone watching that thinking he could ever be viable.

Very few watched, but almost nobody in super Tuesday states have escaped his advertising deluge. For those whose single issue is defeating Trump, he's doing a good job of selling himself as the anti-Trump candidate.

I'm sorry but the "socialist" "communist" argument falls flat for most people. Many Boomers saw how that label was used in the past to try and discredit people rightfully protesting against a corrupt government. What other "downside" do you think exists for Sanders? Again, he's the most liked and most trusted Senator in the country.

The fairly far left in this country and those who are aware of the larger world the socialist=communist meme was never as strong as it was among those who wave the flag and don't really think much about the whys of life. Among those who really don't think about the memes believe the strong US military has kept the US free despite the fact the last time the US was under any serious threat from a foreign power was the War of 1812, believe the USSR was the Evil Empire, and believe socialism/communism are the most evil forms for government.

Listen to Rick Wilson, he knows the Republican playbook by heart and he's said he could come up with a dozen ads ripping apart Bernie with no effort. He won't do it because he's focused on getting a Democrat, any Democrat elected in 2020, but he knows his counterparts still working for the Republicans are crafting the same sorts of ads he can make against Bernie.

When Obama was elected many thought we had turned a corner on racism in this country. I watched the GOP slime machine throw ideas against the wall trying to find a meme that would undermine Obama's presidency and they hit on racism and they spent 8 years fanning that fire.

Personally I don't grok racism. I never got the memes instilled because even though I am white, I grew up a minority in a majority non-white part of Los Angeles. I never went to a school that was more than 15% white before college. Most of the white people I've known who grew up around non-whites in urban or suburban areas also don't grok racism. Memes about "Mexicans coming to take our jobs" are countered easily with thoughts of "the Gonzalezes next door were just like us, just a bit darker skinned."

When I was at Boeing I worked with a woman who had moved to Seattle from North Dakota. Her personal politics were far left and she fit into Seattle's culture well, but she told me she never saw a black person until she went off to college and her hometown was 100% white. Even though she worked with underprivileged kids, who were often non-white, I sometimes saw some global attitudes about non-white people creep in that were alien concepts to me.

My father grew up in the 1920s and 30s in a small town in western Michigan. The town had a large European immigrant population and he said all the ethnic groups hated one another. In a town of about 15,000 there were three Lutheran and three or four Catholic churches because the different ethnic groups of the same religion couldn't go to church together. He thought it was ridiculous and moved to Los Angeles for college. He had many non-white friends when I was a kid, but he could make remarks about other ethnic groups that made me cringe sometimes.

I watched the racism memes settle in with Obama from the outside. I watched racism come back. In any large population there is always a core of some people who believe in one thing or another that's unsavory. Some of those people are overt about it, while there is a contingent who are in the closet about it. Then there is another population who are in the fringe about it. They don't have strong views one way or the other, but are influenced by the greater culture. If the people around them are talking one way or the other about something, they will join in to get along with the crowd. In school these were the people who sometimes followed in the wake of the school bully, but disappeared when the bully got their clock cleaned by the geeky kid who fought back.

When people are given permission to be open about some unsavory idea. Those who were open about it all along are happy to have a wider audience, and those who always believed, but were quiet chime in, and finally those who are just trying to get along with the crowd join them. It's much easier for the last group to do so if they already carry the meme.

People who think through things, or never picked up the memes don't tend to join the herd with the newly approved meme because they either think too much about the world and deactivated those memes or the new memes fall on deaf ears.

In parts of the country that once had slavery, a fair number of whites fall into the first two categories: either overtly racist, or closet racist with most of the rest of the population being the go along with the crowd types. In parts of the country that are predominantly white, but were non-slavery, there are more of the go along to get along types about racism, but they are still vulnerable to the memes. For whites who have lived around a lot of non-white people, they are much more immune to the memes.

These days almost all intellectuals who think about these things are on the left end of the political spectrum, or at least allied with it. GOP circles actively discourage people thinking about these things because if they do, they realize how ridiculous they really are.

Bill Maher a few weeks back made the case that Democrats need to convince anyone who is thinking about voting their way that there is no other place to go. If they don't like the nominee, they need to hold their nose and vote for them because the alternative is worse. Trump is already playing that meme at his rallies. And all he needs to do to cash in is make the Democratic nominee look a tiny bit worse than him. That's what they will do with the socialist meme with Bernie playing in the whitest parts of the country. It will fall on deaf ears in the cities, but they have already ceded the cities to the Democrats. It will play well in white rural areas and seep into the suburbs.

On top of that Bernie is something of a one trick pony. Back in 2016 when the black kid in St Louis was shot and killed by police, he talked about racism in economic terms. While non-white, non-Asian people in the US are more likely to be under the poverty line, there is more to racism than just economics. Quite a few non-white people who are middle class or even wealthy have stories about being harassed by police that are alien to most white folk.

Bernie tends to see everything through an economic lens. A fair number of problems could be solved or helped by throwing money at them, but there are quite a few that require other solutions. Bernie has had to deal with some international and national security issues while in Congress, but I don't believe he's ever been on an international relations or security oriented committee in his time in Congress.

I think Bernie could serve quite well as a cabinet member focused on something that involves human welfare like the VA, Housing and Urban Development, Secretary of Labor, and a few others. I think he would struggle to deal with the international situation and the problems this country has that are not economic in nature.

I think Biden is done as a candidate and he never was a great candidate, but he does have a much broader base of experience than Bernie. Though as others have pointed out, he's also beholden to financial interests that need to change and he would be resistant to making changes there because of those ties.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kcveins
I think Biden is done as a candidate and he never was a great candidate,
Agree. And I think Bloomberg is pretty much done as well, but even if he hung on he's not going to stimulate anyone to turn away from Trump, and I think a sizeable number would stay home or vote 3rd party if he buys his way to the nomination. Warren had a great debate but I doubt that's enough to turn around her decline and get the nomination. So other than Sanders, who else is left who has a real chance against Trump?
 
Agree. And I think Bloomberg is pretty much done as well, but even if he hung on he's not going to stimulate anyone to turn away from Trump, and I think a sizeable number would stay home or vote 3rd party if he buys his way to the nomination. Warren had a great debate but I doubt that's enough to turn around her decline and get the nomination. So other than Sanders, who else is left who has a real chance against Trump?

Klobachar did unexpectedly well in New Hampshire. She might be surging.

Super Tuesday will tell us a lot. A recent poll showed Bernie as the only one polling over 15% in California. I don't know if it's only in California or in all states, but there is a 15% viability threshold and only candidates getting over 15% of the vote get any delegates. If Bernie is the only one to get more than 15% in California on Super Tuesday, Bernie will be in poll position for the nomination.
 
  • Love
  • Like
Reactions: phantasms and Dare
Moderator note:

Some participants here (n≥≥1) are diminishing this thread's potential by presenting not arguments and insight, but a listing of news...or internet chatter...positive to his or her favored candidate.

As long as the TMC owners have provided the Investor Forum special dispensation to have one thread dedicated to the 3rd rail of Politics, elsehwere prohibited throughout TMC, make the most of it. Remember always my first track coach's observation: "Bakewell, you have a lot of potential. In fact, you're 100% potential". I did my best to reduce that percentage.
 
Techno Politico Escapism.

It seems to me that the internet is no longer largely (not 100% of course) outside the bounds of politics.

If I were developing a global autonomous fleet how would this modify my thinking?

It seems to me that the development of StarLink is complete. SpaceX has confirmed the orbital tech and the launch tech and it now looking to monetize and offload the tech through an IPO probably mostly to a conglomerate of banking and cellular companies that are good a billing on a global scale. Next focus...

StarShip is the future and the aspiration is a production cost of $5 million per ship and a build rate of 2 per week. StarShip is analogous to Tesla's Model 3. StarShip will allow the Tesla autonomous developmental NN to move to orbit outside the easy control of local politics.

Tesla develops StarNNet for orbital placement via StarShip where power is cheap and cooling is easy and reliability and sovereign-like control is maximized. A few copies in orbit along with some satellites and global autonomous control is secured.

The breakthrough development is the $5 million dollar StarShip. This staggers the thinking. 100 StarShips for half a $ billion. SpaceX controls the launch booster technology and sells or leases the StarShips to be modified and purposed for nearly any corporate use or promotion. Global growth accelerates. TMC has one for lease and member groups use as needed:)

Space becomes the new platform much sooner than most anticipated. Nationalism weakens as millions of citizens personally see the earth from orbit. Politics struggles to remain relevant as the vast frontier of space beckons.
 
  • Helpful
Reactions: JRP3

The polls are all over the map. I assume this refers to the Emerson poll that came out on Feb 18? On the same day polls came out from NBC/WSJ and Marist showing Trump losing the every Democrat.

Latest Polls

Emerson is an A- by Five Thirty Eight's rating system, but NBC/WSJ is A/B and Marist is an A+. All respected polls.

So much depends on the assumptions the pollster makes. The polls are frequently all over the map at this point.

In more disturbing news the House Intelligence committee got a briefing from the intelligence community that said numerous sources have found that Putin is interfering again and is interfering in the Democratic primaries as well as planning on messing with the general election. Upon hearing this Trump fired the Director of National Intelligence and put a loyalist in his place with no intelligence experience who was a Devin Nunes aid.

I'm sure Putin wants the weakest possible Democrat to win the nomination. Beware of the Russian behind the curtain.
 
  • Funny
Reactions: SPadival

The polls are all over the map. I assume this refers to the Emerson poll that came out on Feb 18? On the same day polls came out from NBC/WSJ and Marist showing Trump losing the every Democrat.

I'm still trying to understand positions of TheHill but I'm getting the impression to some extent they favor Trump over every Democrat other than Sanders, simply because their thing is populism, and somehow they are able to ignore issues such as climate change. For them, "establishment", per se, is corruption.
 
I'm still trying to understand positions of TheHill but I'm getting the impression to some extent they favor Trump over every Democrat other than Sanders, simply because their thing is populism, and somehow they are able to ignore issues such as climate change. For them, "establishment", per se, is corruption.

If you check various sources that rate media bias, The Hill ranges between dead neutral and slight right bias. The current CEO of their parent company is Jimmy Finkelstein who was a fundraiser for Rudy Giuliani's 2008 presidential run. The founder, Jerry Finkelstein was a Democratic power broker in New York state.

One of the better bias check sites IMO is mediabiasfactcheck,.com.

The Hill - Media Bias/Fact Check

Some news sources have very balanced news reporting, but their opinion page can be very biased. The Wall Street Journal has suffered from this for years. I think some of the opinion pieces at The Hill can be biased too. But the state of politics is so wacked out these days any analysis of the political news seems biased one way or the other.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JRP3
Status
Not open for further replies.