Democrat candidates

[Fau Teixeira]

I agree with Dave.

I'm blue no matter who*

* except Bloomberg.

[CF DolFan]

This next debate should be interesting. I'm sure Bloomberg's comments on blacks, Latinos, farmers, and his sexist and misogynistic behavior will be brought front and center. I think the ratings for this one will be big.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

I agree with Dave.

I'm blue no matter who*

* except Bloomberg.

Really?  You would take 4 more years of Trump over Mike?  Bloomberg isn't perfect, but give me whoever is behind door #2. 

[Dave Gray]

Really?  You would take 4 more years of Trump over Mike?  Bloomberg isn't perfect, but give me whoever is behind door #2. 

I ultimately would vote for Bloomberg over Trump, but I do think that it might have a longer-term negative effect.  Bloomberg represents an oligarchy and really, it's the death of democracy.  Let's be honest -- he has no business being in this discussion, but he bought his influence.

Bloomberg is forfeiting the Democratic party and admitting that we are the new Republicans.  And the Republicans...what are they?  It is a long-term rightward shift.  He is most assuredly better than Trump.  But I think it might be two steps backwards.

I'll say it again.  Run Sanders.  Win or lose, you stand for something.  If you lose, you look back on your principles and you run whatever Sanders-equivalent again in 4 years, until people finally give you that swing back.  Otherwise, you're selling out to the corporations and the ultra-wealthy to buy influence forever.

We need to move towards simpler elections without money controlling everything.  Two billionaires facing off to represent the best interest of the other 99.9 percent is insulting to even the most basic idiot. 

[Fau Teixeira]

Really?  You would take 4 more years of Trump over Mike?  Bloomberg isn't perfect, but give me whoever is behind door #2. 

What policies does Bloomberg have that I care for?  His stop and frisk policy? Maybe his opposition to a minimum wage? Bloomberg is the problem. When Bernie talks about the billionaires that buy elections .. Bloomberg is the poster child. At least Trump is an idiot. We don't have that luxury with Bloomberg.

[Sunstroke]

What policies does Bloomberg have that I care for?  His stop and frisk policy? Maybe his opposition to a minimum wage? Bloomberg is the problem. When Bernie talks about the billionaires that buy elections .. Bloomberg is the poster child. At least Trump is an idiot. We don't have that luxury with Bloomberg.

A couple of thoughts...

1) You may be confusing Bloomberg the New York mayor with Bloomberg the Presidential candidate. If you think his Presidential election platform will be identical (or even similar) to what he ran with in NY, I think you're wrong.

2) You may not appreciate money's place in a capitalist society, but money buys radio time, TV time and column inches, and those are necessary to win a general election. And, for what it's worth, Trump is actually the poster child for that niche.

3) In what world is idiocy a luxury?

[CF DolFan]

A couple of thoughts...

1) You may be confusing Bloomberg the New York mayor with Bloomberg the Presidential candidate. If you think his Presidential election platform will be identical (or even similar) to what he ran with in NY, I think you're wrong.

Are you saying Bloomberg is magically a different person now or that he will find ways to hide it now that he knows he needs those same people?

2) You may not appreciate money's place in a capitalist society, but money buys radio time, TV time and column inches, and those are necessary to win a general election. And, for what it's worth, Trump is actually the poster child for that niche.

First off no one thinks Trump bought a presidency. Well ... they probably do now just so they can justify Bloomberg just as you did. If Bloomberg was to win then like Dave says ... what democracy we have left would end. If only mega rich people can win an election then we (liberals, conservatives, and independent alike) are really screwed

[Spider-Dan]

I don't think you realize how much conservatives felt attacked during the previous 8 years but to have an "in your face" rebuttal to it is appealing for many.

If you're telling me that "family values conservatives" voted for an immoral idiot (that represents virtually everything they supposedly are against) just because it feels good to own the libs... yeah, I realized that.

You want to excuse your vote in the general election as saving the republic from the evil she-demon?  Fine.  But that does not explain at all why Trump crushed your primary.  You all nominated Trump because, at the end of the day, conservatism is not about tax policy or family values or any of that nonsense.  It's strictly about nursing your grievance with the left, and whomever "triggers the libs" is who will get the right's votes.

[Spider-Dan]

I agree with Dave.

I'm blue no matter who*

* except Bloomberg.

Please stop with this nonsense.  It was dumb when people said there would be no difference between Gore and Bush, it was dumb when people said there would be no difference between Hillary and Trump, and it's dumb to say there will be no difference between Bloomberg and Trump.

I'm pretty sure that if swastika-waving Nazis drive a car into a group of protesters and kill people, Bloomberg will not insist that "very good people were on both sides."
I'm equally sure that Bloomberg will not direct DHS to start stealing children from lawful asylum-seekers, then deport their parents with no record of how to reunite them with their children.
I'm 100% positive that Bloomberg will not withhold funds appropriated by Congress in an attempt to extort a foreign government into interfering with an election.

Give me a break with this purity BS.  If your candidate is so bad that he can't win a liberal primary against Mike Bloomberg, he would lose to Trump in the general election anyway and you should be glad a better candidate is there to hopefully stop his re-election.

And one more thing:

Bloomberg is the problem. When Bernie talks about the billionaires that buy elections .. Bloomberg is the poster child.

This is called "reaping what you sow."

Instead of fighting to, say, limit the amount campaigns can spend, Bernie - who gets more small-dollar donations than anyone else, by a wide margin - instead chooses to demonize accepting corporate contributions, so he can use all the money he harvested from the working-class and outspend everyone else in the Democratic primary.  Well, guess who never needs to accept corporate donations, or any other kind of donations?  Billionaires like Mike Bloomberg and Tom Steyer.  Bernie's self-serving approach to campaign finance made it EASIER for billionaires to parachute in and buy the primary.

[CF DolFan]

If you're telling me that "family values conservatives" voted for an immoral idiot (that represents virtually everything they supposedly are against) just because it feels good to own the libs... yeah, I realized that.

You want to excuse your vote in the general election as saving the republic from the evil she-demon?  Fine.  But that does not explain at all why Trump crushed your primary.  You all nominated Trump because, at the end of the day, conservatism is not about tax policy or family values or any of that nonsense.  It's strictly about nursing your grievance with the left, and whomever "triggers the libs" is who will get the right's votes.

Lol ... You live in a miserable world don't you? I had no idea you only vote for your "perfect" role models.  I've already explained most of us didn't vote for "Trump the man" and Dolphster backed me up. Trump has my back as far as I'm concerned because he is supporting my agenda. As a God fearing Christian I'm not going to look to my pastor if I need military action. I'm going to find a military man who will fight for me and I couldn't care less if he cusses, smokes dope, and is a little misogynistic as long as he gets the job done.

BTW ...Bloomberg got smacked down last night from what he should have expected. He seemed surprised. Another performance like that and he isn't coming back IMO.

[Dave Gray]

In terms of the debate:

Warren gained the most.  She looked full of passion and her attacks on Bloomberg were absolutely brutal.  Worse yet is that he had no rebuttals.  He just took it.

Bloomberg was awful.  He had almost no good answers.  I don't doubt that might be an OK guy, but he just doesn't represent my views at all on many of these issues I care about.  Of course he'd be better than Trump, but I think it would ultimately harm what I am looking to accomplish to put a guy like that in, only to incrementally correct Trump (and not even to the levels of the other corporate Dems before.)

Pete is the best debater.  His answers are great and he seems really intelligent and able.  I would trust him as a leader.  However, I just don't agree with his middle-ground approach.  It's as simple as that.  I wish he were more in line with my views, because I really like him.

Amy kinda got lost last night.  She's kinda like Pete, but not as eloquent.  I don't think she helped herself, but she didn't perform poorly.

Biden, who I've been pretty critical of, was actually OK last night.  I think he's old and out of touch and is trying to channel Obama.  I just don't think it's what people are looking for.

Bernie benefited from Bloomberg being in the room.  All of his income inequality stuff hits harder when he's standing next to an out-of-touch Billionaire that is taking heat from everyone on the stage.  Bernie is a known quantity, so there are no surprises.  I think it's telling that the knock against Bernie isn't really what he's saying, but it's just that "people aren't ready for it". 

[Fau Teixeira]

Please stop with this nonsense.  It was dumb when people said there would be no difference between Gore and Bush, it was dumb when people said there would be no difference between Hillary and Trump, and it's dumb to say there will be no difference between Bloomberg and Trump.

I'm pretty sure that if swastika-waving Nazis drive a car into a group of protesters and kill people, Bloomberg will not insist that "very good people were on both sides."
I'm equally sure that Bloomberg will not direct DHS to start stealing children from lawful asylum-seekers, then deport their parents with no record of how to reunite them with their children.
I'm 100% positive that Bloomberg will not withhold funds appropriated by Congress in an attempt to extort a foreign government into interfering with an election.

Give me a break with this purity BS.  If your candidate is so bad that he can't win a liberal primary against Mike Bloomberg, he would lose to Trump in the general election anyway and you should be glad a better candidate is there to hopefully stop his re-election.

And one more thing:
This is called "reaping what you sow."

Instead of fighting to, say, limit the amount campaigns can spend, Bernie - who gets more small-dollar donations than anyone else, by a wide margin - instead chooses to demonize accepting corporate contributions, so he can use all the money he harvested from the working-class and outspend everyone else in the Democratic primary.  Well, guess who never needs to accept corporate donations, or any other kind of donations?  Billionaires like Mike Bloomberg and Tom Steyer.  Bernie's self-serving approach to campaign finance made it EASIER for billionaires to parachute in and buy the primary.

Never, in one million years would I ever vote for Bloomberg. He would do more damage to america if he won long term than 4 more years of Trump. It wouldn't just be the damage that trump does directly. It's that he would move the "left" right into the center right. And the right would go even further right to compensate. We need a steep correction to the left. Bloomberg would make it impossible for at least 20 more years

[Spider-Dan]

I've already explained most of us didn't vote for "Trump the man" and Dolphster backed me up. Trump has my back as far as I'm concerned because he is supporting my agenda.

First off, the overwhelming majority of Republicans did vote for "Trump the man" in the primary, with many other solid conservative options available.

But more importantly, why shouldn't we on the left take the same approach you are rationalizing?  We're not voting for Angel-in-Chief either.  So why should we care about whether our candidates are socialist Kenyan Muslims as long as they'll pass laws we like and appoint judges we like?  Taking your approach, I shouldn't even care who wins the Dem primary, because I'm not voting for a mentor or a role model.

[Spider-Dan]

Never, in one million years would I ever vote for Bloomberg. He would do more damage to america if he won long term than 4 more years of Trump. It wouldn't just be the damage that trump does directly. It's that he would move the "left" right into the center right. And the right would go even further right to compensate.

What you are describing is what happens when Republicans win.

If you want to push Dems to the left, you won't be able to do that when the voters - by electing Republicans - are saying the Dems are already too far to the left.  After Nader helped Dubya beat Gore, we didn't get a strong progressive candidate in 2004; we got a centrist that voted for the Iraq War.

You don't win by losing.  Things only get worse.

[CF DolFan]

In terms of the debate:

Warren gained the most.  She looked full of passion and her attacks on Bloomberg were absolutely brutal.  Worse yet is that he had no rebuttals.  He just took it.

....

Bernie benefited from Bloomberg being in the room.  All of his income inequality stuff hits harder when he's standing next to an out-of-touch Billionaire that is taking heat from everyone on the stage.  Bernie is a known quantity, so there are no surprises.  I think it's telling that the knock against Bernie isn't really what he's saying, but it's just that "people aren't ready for it".  

Weird part about this is Warren isn't losing voters to Bloomberg. She's losing them to Bernie but pretty much helped him out and left Bernie alone.

Personally I think Bernie will be the nominee unless they just decide to choose someone else. With that said I honestly believe there is a large amount of Dems who will not vote for Bernie. Considering the low rating for capitalism among Democrats these days it wouldn't surprise me to see that party splitting soon. Might be a good opportunity for a third party to be relevant.