• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

The consolidated New Hampshire primary results thread (let's try this again)

Page 8 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
ecogen said:
I'd be more worried about him choosing to run as an independent if Bernie gets the nom to "save the US from the commies", or something. Ditto with that moron Gabbard.
Click to expand...

Yeah that’s pretty unlikely to happen as well. The only people who think democrats are out to get Bernie are the same types who believe in conspiracy theories, aka not the sharpest tools in the shed.
 
ivwshane said:
Yeah that’s pretty unlikely to happen as well. The only people who think democrats are out to get Bernie are the same types who believe in conspiracy theories, aka not the sharpest tools in the shed.
Click to expand...

I don't think the democrats writ large are out to get Bernie, but I wouldn't put it past either of the two people I mentioned to run as independents.
 
ivwshane said:
Honestly it’s a stupid concern as Bloomberg doesn’t have a chance in hell at winning the primary.
Click to expand...
In fairness, while I agree that there probably isn't much of a chance of Bloomberg winning the primary, a contested convention is all too plausible. And who knows where that charlie foxtrot would end up?
 
Glad to see Amy and Mayor Pete make strong showings. I would prefer either of them to Biden, Sanders or Warren.
 
ecogen said:
I'd be more worried about him choosing to run as an independent if Bernie gets the nom to "save the US from the commies", or something. Ditto with that moron Gabbard.
Click to expand...

He's not going to do that. He's on a personal mission to burn Trump to the ground. Let's not also forget he was a Dem before he joined the Rs to run in the weak R mayoral primary in post Ghouliani, post 9/11 NYC.

His CJ record is not at all progressive, but many of his other policies and positions are.

Tulsi otoh is Jill Stein 2.0
 
Last edited:
Bitek said:
That's what the Nader ppl said in 2000 about Gore.

That thinking allowed Bush to win FL and then the WH.

How did that turn out?
Not at all like you wish.
Click to expand...

Bullshit, ridiculous to equivocate nominating a centrist Gore to completely selling the party out to a Republican oligarch who has previously aligned himself with McConnell. You could make that argument if I said I wouldn't vote Klobuchar or Mayor Pete or Biden in the general, but I would vote them in any of them in a second over Trump. I will note vote for the Democrats making themselves the party of billionaires in a failed bid to take Trump down. Bloomberg cannot beat him and even if he could he'd be even more destructive than Trump since he'd unify the parties in implementing a right wing agenda. Not at all worth it just to get an assault rifle ban for four years since it's Bloomberg's one liberal pet issue.
 
ecogen said:
I'd be more worried about him choosing to run as an independent if Bernie gets the nom to "save the US from the commies", or something. Ditto with that moron Gabbard.
Click to expand...

I'm also concerned about that. I have no doubt whatsoever that Bloomberg would vastly prefer a Trump presidency to a Sanders one.
 
I'm really starting to believe it's going to be Trump winning another term. The rah rah capitalists are going to turn up the noise..."SOCIALISM!!" "VENEZUELA!!" "COMMIE!!", etc etc on Bernie if he gets the win, and I'm not sure much of the media is going to be on his side.

It would be nice to see a revolution, but most people don't like change, especially the older voters who come out in force. I hope I'm wrong come November.
 
Bitek said:
He's not going to do that. He's on a personal mission to burn Trump to the ground. Let's not also forget he was a Dem before he joined the Rs to run in the weak R mayoral primary in post Ghouliani, post 9/11 NYC.

His CJ record is not at all progressive, but many of his other policies and positions are.
Click to expand...

I'll take your word for it, I'll admit my knowledge of Bloomberg is pretty limited. I'm purely going on what I've seen since the start of the primaries.

Tulsi otoh is Jill Stein 2.0
Click to expand...

This is my take as well.

SteveGrabowski said:
I'm also concerned about that. I have no doubt whatsoever that Bloomberg would vastly prefer a Trump presidency to a Sanders one.
Click to expand...

I thought so myself, but others disagree. As I said above, I don't know too much about Bloomberg to insist one way or the other.
 
SteveGrabowski said:
I'm also concerned about that. I have no doubt whatsoever that Bloomberg would vastly prefer a Trump presidency to a Sanders one.
Click to expand...

This is preposterous. Sure he doesn't want Bernie but there is no way he runs independent. Bloomberg has spent many years building up a political operation that has backed large numbers of Dems in down ballot races, spending untold millions upon millions to do so. An independent run would douse all that with gasoline and set it aflame rendering him permanently toxic to the party and its future candidates. This is so extremely unlikely as to venture into paranoia just to entertain the idea.
 
K1052 said:
This is preposterous. Sure he doesn't want Bernie but there is no way he runs independent. Bloomberg has spent many years building up a political operation that has backed large numbers of Dems in down ballot races, spending untold millions upon millions to do so. An independent run would douse all that with gasoline and set it aflame, rendering him permanently toxic to the party and its future candidates. This is so extremely unlikely as to venture into paranoia just to entertain the idea.
Click to expand...

Buying Toomey's Pennsylvania win should have rendered him toxic already. Which surely helped Trump claim Pennsylvania too. I'll take his action vs some empty campaign talk when judging his motive.
 
SteveGrabowski said:
I'm also concerned about that. I have no doubt whatsoever that Bloomberg would vastly prefer a Trump presidency to a Sanders one.
Click to expand...

If that’s the case why has Bloomberg spent hundreds of millions attacking Trump and basically nothing attacking Sanders? This makes no logical sense.

If your argument is that attacking Trump helps Bloomberg in the primaries, so does attacking Sanders.
 
fskimospy said:
The difference is that the presidency is vastly, vastly more powerful than the majority leader, and Trump is both a criminal and insane.
Click to expand...
I agree with most of your points in this discussion but on this one I disagree. The Senate majority leader is usually the most powerful position in government. No term limits, virtually undefeatable in an election, and nothing gets done without their consent. The Speakership in the House used to wield even more power but Newt weakened the position.
 
fskimospy said:
If that’s the case why has Bloomberg spent hundreds of millions attacking Trump and basically nothing attacking Sanders? This makes no logical sense.

If your argument is that attacking Trump helps Bloomberg in the primaries, so does attacking Sanders.
Click to expand...

From the start I have thought he was getting his name out there in preparation for a possible spoiler run to stop a wealth tax from Warren or Sanders that would cost him billions of dollars. And soon as Warren and Sanders started talking a lot about that wealth tax, (which we should have, as middle class Americans effectively pay a wealth tax through property taxes) he wanted in.
 
thilanliyan said:
I'm really starting to believe it's going to be Trump winning another term. The rah rah capitalists are going to turn up the noise..."SOCIALISM!!" "VENEZUELA!!" "COMMIE!!", etc etc on Bernie if he gets the win, and I'm not sure much of the media is going to be on his side.

It would be nice to see a revolution, but most people don't like change, especially the older voters who come out in force. I hope I'm wrong come November.
Click to expand...

Hillary Clinton got smeared a socialist. The Mao+Stalin comparisons from Limbaugh, Hannity, and the rest of the right wing media machine are coming no matter who the Democrats run.
 
SteveGrabowski said:
From the start I have thought he was getting his name out there in preparation for a possible spoiler run to stop a wealth tax from Warren or Sanders that would cost him billions of dollars. And soon as Warren and Sanders started talking a lot about that wealth tax, (which we should have, as middle class Americans effectively pay a wealth tax through property taxes) he wanted in.
Click to expand...

So if I’m hearing you right he is spending hundreds of millions of dollars attacking Trump in order to run a spoiler candidacy to make sure Trump wins?

Uhmm, what.
 
IronWing said:
I agree with most of your points in this discussion but on this one I disagree. The Senate majority leader is usually the most powerful position in government. No term limits, virtually undefeatable in an election, and nothing gets done without their consent. The Speakership in the House used to wield even more power but Newt weakened the position.
Click to expand...
In addition, clearly controls the narrative wrt presidential impeachments. If the SML decides he's okay with the executive branch committing crimes, they're going to commit crimes.
 
SteveGrabowski said:
Buying Toomey's Pennsylvania win should have rendered him toxic already. Which surely helped Trump claim Pennsylvania too. I'll take his action vs some empty campaign talk when judging his motive.
Click to expand...

He thought Toomey was his best shot at some gun control legislation. It was ill advised and knowing what we know about the political climate, ultimately futile. Bloomberg has spent hundreds of millions to elect democrats. An independent run would totally end his power inside the party in a nanosecond.
 
IronWing said:
I agree with most of your points in this discussion but on this one I disagree. The Senate majority leader is usually the most powerful position in government. No term limits, virtually undefeatable in an election, and nothing gets done without their consent. The Speakership in the House used to wield even more power but Newt weakened the position.
Click to expand...

Nothing gets done without the president’s consent either, and unlike the majority leader the president has enormous power to enact policy unilaterally.

Give my party the presidency for 20 years and you take the majority leader for 20 years and let’s see what the country more closely resembles, yours or mine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top