Bloomberg is an oppo research gold mine. Share this far and wide. Unless the mainstream media picks it up, it will be isolated to twitter. pic.twitter.com/Fm0YCi4ZRy— Pastor Ben (@BenjaminPDixon) February 11, 2020 Jfc, and I thought the other clip was bad! 😳 #BloombergIsRacist https://t.co/mkI5Y3vZ1U— HootHootBerns (@HootHootBerns) February 11, 2020 1227074872603316224 is not a valid tweet id
This thread is funny the Bernie bros are insufferable and cultish which is scary but the Bernie bashers are unfair and naive with their putdowns. Fact is Bernie is a factional candidate within the party. He garnered 43% of the primary vote in 2016 which was impressive but he has only held on to just over half of his support. His high numbers in 2016 was a combination of the Left and his supporters buying into his message and the other half were Hillary detractors who voted for him because he was the only other choice. Now in a 5 way race Bernie benefits alot because he has a base of 25% of the party but a very low ceiling. The longer it's a multi-party race the better for Bernie. Once the moderates rally together and coalesce on one candidate in theory he is toast. Unless Bernie gets on a run and wins several early primaries the momentum might be too much for rivals to stop just like Trump in 2016. Or his moderate opponent is so controversial and weak then he would be the de facto person with pularity support to win. I suspect Bernie wins tonight but if he gets upset by Pete or Amy or Warren his chances to win the nomination nosedive.
I'm not sure how the "moderates" coalesce though. Generally speaking, candidates drop out because of lack of money, support, or both. Bloomberg has unlimited money to try and increase support, Biden has enough to hang in there and is still the strongest moderate guy nationally, Buttgieg is a prolific fundraiser and has early state shine. I think there are three or four candidates in this field that have the juice to reasonably stay in all the way until the convention. EDIT: Also, proportional delegate accumulation means that it matters significantly less who wins these contests and as long as you meet certain bars you can still collect delegates and bargain at the convention.
Something interesting about the primary that the lady illustrates is that Democrats like their choices this election. I know on here the feeling is more polarized, but in general polling data last I checked suggests that most Democrats view most of the candidates quite favorably. Which is an interesting dynamic.
His, um, full-throated defense of stop-and-frisk before the Aspen Institute back in ye olden days of 2015: https://slate.com/news-and-politics...racial-profiling-stop-and-frisk-policing.html
Please stop it. The choices are horrid, the turnout in Iowa and the turnout in NH will lower than 2016 and 2008. Voters aren't excited by unexciting candidates.
Oh. Yeah Bloomberg is quite problematic. I don't think there's anyone here who would disagree with that.
If he somehow gets the D-Nom....we still voting for him? It’s not OK.....But There’s a greater objective here.
Of course we would. It wouldn't make much sense to effectively vote for someone who's history is worse than Bloomberg's (quite bad) one on race and justice, who is unapologetic about it, and who also happens to be much worse in every other imaginable way. But barring some very strange events, Bloomberg won't be the nominee. Even in the unlikely event that he ends up leading in delegates, he won't have a majority, and any contested convention will opt for someone else.
He's an ass for defending stop & frisk, but this is also the problem of prosecutors/cops running for office. They're biased by what they find on the ground. Minorities in America disproportionately have worse economic outcomes, and all of it has to do with actual policies back in the REALLY bad racist days prior to the Civil Rights movements. We STILL have undefunded and undervalues social structures in minority majority residential areas - often called "slums" and "ghettos". Since humanities first instinct is survival, the natural outcome for poor, socially ostracized, with lack of social services, is going to be high crime. That has absolutely nothing to do with skin color, and everything to do socio-economic factors that started before any of us were alive. But if you're prosecutor or cop, you're record is absolutely going to show a higher targeting of minorities, because that's where a lot of the crime is. It's a basic function of human survival instinct. We FORCED this upon them, as a nation. So now we have to weigh in on candidates who are used to prosecuting minorities moreso than white people? How's the going to turn out?
If it was Charles Manson / Tex Watson running against Trump / Pence, I wouldn't have to pause for very long
I mean think of that moment in the debate where Buttigieg was confronted with the fact that he prosecuted a high number of African Americans for marijuana crimes. The answer to that is that he had to, because his poor neighborhoods were going to have more crime - such as dealing marijuana - and those poor neighborhoods have more minorities because of racist institutions that we still haven't gotten over. He didn't fail because his police dept prosecuted all these crimes, he "failed" because he didn't get South Bend to overcome those 100 year racist institutions that created the environment that put humans into survival modes. And obviously that's not really his failure.
I'd be willing to buy that if I had evidence of measures he took to help break these cycles. As of right now, I don't have that evidence.
From what I've seen, most of the Bernie/Warren voters have been winnowed out, so most of her voters would actually go elsewhere than him. Biden's in trouble in South Carolina, because Steyer has focused his money and attention there like a laser. He may not get the slam-dunk first-in-the-South win he was counting on.
He's a freakin mayor. His power to break those cycles are non-existent. That's not what mayors do. Not even NYC has the funding and power to break institutional racism, and get us away from a system where poor people live in neighborhoods where well to do run away from, and take social institutions with them. We have a capitlistic system which says that the only housing you can afford, if you're poor, is where other poor people live and crime is high, and schools underfunded and overcrowded, healthcare not good enough, etc If you're asking a mayor why his small city in Indiana has high rates of prosecution for African Americans, with the expectations that he's responsible for it and has the power to do something significant about it, then it's your fault for asking that question.