Latest Poll: Sanders 31%; Bloomberg 19%; Biden 15%
Warren 12%; Klobuchar 9%; Buttigieg 8%
New York Times National Polling Average as of February 14th
Sanders 24%: Biden 23% (-)
Warren 14%: Bloomberg 10% (+); Buttigieg (+)9% ;Klobuchar 5%
minus indicts falling, plus indicates rising
With the fading of Biden as the centrist candidate, and Warren as the progressive alternative, and rather lackluster challenges by Buttigieg and Klobuchar, will it become Bernie vs. Mike?
Bernie might not only have to defeat the money of the billionaires but also two of them personally to become president.
Many have maintained that we have rule by an oligarchy. Are we experiencing the transition from indirect rule by oligarchical interests to direct rule by an oligarch? Maybe we just get to choose which one we like the most? the entertainer Trump? the technocrat Bloomberg?
I just got home from breakfast at a Jewish deli with an ex-New Yukker (but Italian) who was one of the first in line to get a Bloomberg bumper sticker when the office opened here. His version of Democratic angst is that those 31% Bernie voters stay home, like they did in '16, when their boy doesn't get the nomination.
ReplyDeleteTalking to Democrats these days is like talking to Woody Allen at is peak. Oy, so terrible it's going to be. And they aren't even Jewish.
The problem for Bloomberg is not just the 31% Sanders but also the 12% Warren. The Warren voters are likely to be hostile to Bloomberg not only because he is a billionaire but also because he is a sexist male.
ReplyDeleteAnd so they will let Trump continue in office? Because he is not a sexist male? Huh?
DeleteNo, you're missing the point. Most women recognize that if you end up two male jerks, you vote for the lesser one. And then you make his life a living hell if he steps out of line.
Delete"And so they will let Trump continue in office?"
DeleteThe young people in Britain were against Brexit, but a lot of them did not vote because they assumed it would fail. I suspect many people didn't vote in 2016 because the polls said Hilary would win.
While those of us who vote all the time, often vote for the lesser of two evils, those who don't always vote are not very motivated to get out and choose the lesser of the two evils.
Re: Bloomberg as techncrat: this is Ross Douthat's pithy compare-and-contrast with Trump, from a couple of days ago:
ReplyDelete"Third parties are generally founded on ideas that elites are neglecting, like the combination of economic populism, social conservatism and America-first foreign policy that propelled Donald Trump to power. Whereas Bloombergism is elite thinking perfectly distilled: Social liberalism and technocracy, hawkish internationalism and business-friendly environmentalism, plus a dose of authoritarianism to make the streets safe for gentrification."
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/15/opinion/bloomberg-trump-2020.html
(The subhead for that article characterizes Bloomberg as a "power-hungry plutocrat".)
Not being a complete wise-*ss in noting that Douthat's description of Bloomberg makes the latter sound almost Republican. Those policies are pretty close to the platforms of moderate Republicans (now-former governor Bruce Romney, now-former senator Mark Kirk) who have had recent statewide electoral success in blue-state Illinois.
That is a confusing CNN story; it throws a lot of conflicting poll numbers out there.
ReplyDeleteI think interest is high for B'berg because he's never debated before. Possibly his popularity in the national scene will change, depending on how he does in Vegas.
"Are we experiencing the transition from indirect rule by oligarchical interests to direct rule by an oligarch? Maybe we just get to choose which one we like the most?"
ReplyDeleteI think the "Citizens United" decision kind of brought that out in the open. It was going on before, but just a little more under-the-table. I don't believe an oligarch is necessarily going to be elected. But I don't think anyone is going to be elected without oligarch involvement.
Have we ever had a really poor or middle class president? Lincoln is always held up for learning by candlelight, but Washington and all of the presidents up to around Hayes did that, too. And Lincoln was a railroad lawyer before going to Washington; for those days, that is at least Sullivan & Cromwell level. Pat Nixon had a modest "Republican cloth coat" when Dick was Veep, but by the time he was president, he had done a few years at Mudge Rose and could afford compounds in California and Florida. Jefferson was a candidate for debtors' prison most of his life but never had to live like it. Both Roosevelts came from money, as did the Bushes, although theirs had been earned in living memory. JFK, of course, had a rich daddy and a champagne wife. Come down to it, LBJ and Ronald Reagan were probably the only ones who ever were truly poor. Politics made LBJ a rich man, and his friends made Reagan pretty rich by the time they reached the White House.
ReplyDeleteJust one damn plutocrat after another since those Virginians.
You're right that Lincoln was pretty prosperous by Illinois standards by the time he was nominated. But he was dirt-poor growing up in Kentucky and Indiana. When the family moved to Illinois and he struck out on his own, he spent the first half or so of his adulthood so deeply in debt that he referred to it as his personal "National Debt". He was thought to have married above his station by marrying Mary Todd; she was from Kentucky aristocracy, whereas he was a respectable attorney who circulated with the right crowd but came from humbler beginnings. I believe personal charm was a big reason for his success; he could spin a yarn or tell a joke better than anyone, and people always were congregating to him to hear his latest story.
DeleteTruman came from a family of working farmers.
DeleteMigosh, how did I forget HST? Shame on me.
DeleteTruman was always broke. Hoover (and maybe Eisenhower) had dough, but they petioned for a pension for ex presidents because they knew Harry needed the money.
DeletePetulant followers of those not nominated (Bernie, Warren and whomever) who do not vote will have the burden of another 4 years of Trumplethinskintinyhandserialadulterer on their consciences (assuming they know what consciences are). I just read something that said that referring to "Bernie bros" is a form of bullying!!! The bullying will be done by those who don't vote and sit and home and pout.
ReplyDeleteNo Matter Who
Vote Blue
Yale researchers published a report in Lancet saying that Medicare for All would save the American citizenry $450B per year. It seems strange to assert that we can't afford universal health care when so many advanced countries do it at less cost than our system with better statistical outcomes. As far as waiting to see a doctor, how many times to we get examined by a PA or an RN. The only reason it might not work here is that America is dumber or greedier which might be true.
ReplyDeleteA single-payer system would be less expensive than what we have now if we think of a health care "bucket". There wouldn't have to be as much money in the bucket; less administrative costs and we wouldn't have to support the insurance industry. The reason the PTB don't like it is because they either have a vested interest in the present system, or they prefer to shove costs off on the patients, rather than have them covered by taxes. Which they might have to pay more of.
Delete