[JamieG]

Malcolm Tucker is very funny. I love the thick of it. However, he's not a real person and if he was he'd be horrendous person to work with. A work place bully might be funny in a good comedy, but definitely not in real life. Nobody in their right mind suggests that Malcolm Tucker is a role model or would be a good leader.

I have to disagree with what you that what you and I think is irrelevant. Sure maybe we can't vote in the presidential election, but there are plenty of elections we can vote in and the normalising of racist candidates is not something I am happy to just shrug my shoulders at.

[TobyD]

What about his implementation of racist policing tactics as New York major? Was that just banter too?

No. In my opinion that is a more legitimate criticism of Bloomberg but he apologised for it and in a month or two the polls and primary voting will have made it clear whether black voters in the US buy his apology and/or care about this issue. It is pretty irrelevant what you or I think.

I don't really have a particularly strong positive or negative opinion on Bloomberg, but if the very extensive chapter in the book I've just read was in any way accurate stop and search was introduced wholesale by police forces across the country, after an original, and very successful, trial in Kansas City.
To briefly summarise, it worked when done only on the worst, say 5 blocks, in the entire city, and even then only at night. The amount of aggravation to people in these cases was vastly outweighed by a disproportionate fall in violence and illegal drugs. Other forces started to do this all the time, in wider areas and it didn't work.

It seems rather harsh to pin all this on Bloomberg, as I understand it, it was an extremely prevalent trend which was misunderstood and poorly implemented.

[andy popp]

I know all too well that I can be a pompous ass. I remember with embarrassment trying to pull academic rank one time, something I apologised for immediately. But if I've ever been snide to someone simply for the fact that they work in the private sector then please point out those posts and I will apologise for them too.

I could have been less rude in my post, I should have left out the swearing. But it was your second recourse to accusations of "wokeism" in a week and it is a boring, trite, and fatuous argument that bears no relationship to any reality - either the reality of what most humanities departments are like (something I do actually know something about) or, more importantly, the reality of why many Democrats do not support Bloomberg. It's very dismissive of huge swathe of people who hold sincere views on a whole bunch of issues.

The accusations of racism and sexism are actually nowhere near the top of the list why I don't support Bloomberg (though if women and black and brown people I know say those things are real problems for them then I will I listen). The fact that he's very rich is also nowhere near the top of the list. I've read his policy platform and parts of it are actually ok, but its very weak on healthcare. I don't think he gets the real pain many American's are facing. I think America, in which I do have a real stake, needs a degree of change far beyond what Bloomberg is willing to conceive. Thus far any momentum he has seems to be built on some idea that he's the only one who can beat Trump - but there's zero actual evidence for that, it hasn't been tested yet. He hasn't deigned to put himself on the ballot and face the voters. His performance in the Nevada debate suggests he is ill-prepared, perhaps even arrogant. I don't like the fact that he seems to think he can bypass much of the process and the hard work. I think his electability claim is a house of cards. But we'll see on Super Tuesday. If I'm wrong, I'll acknowledge it.

So, sure, come up with good arguments why Bloomberg is the right candidate, but don't just ridicule and write-off any opposition to him.

[TobyD]

I know all too well that I can be a pompous ass. I remember with embarrassment trying to pull academic rank one time, something I apologised for immediately. But if I've ever been snide to someone simply for the fact that they work in the private sector then please point out those posts and I will apologise for them too.

I could have been less rude in my post, I should have left out the swearing. But it was your second recourse to accusations of "wokeism" in a week and it is a boring, trite, and fatuous argument that bears no relationship to any reality - either the reality of what most humanities departments are like (something I do actually know something about) or, more importantly, the reality of why many Democrats do not support Bloomberg. It's very dismissive of huge swathe of people who hold sincere views on a whole bunch of issues.

The accusations of racism and sexism are actually nowhere near the top of the list why I don't support Bloomberg (though if women and black and brown people I know say those things are real problems for them then I will I listen). The fact that he's very rich is also nowhere near the top of the list. I've read his policy platform and parts of it are actually ok, but its very weak on healthcare. I don't think he gets the real pain many American's are facing. I think America, in which I do have a real stake, needs a degree of change far beyond what Bloomberg is willing to conceive. Thus far any momentum he has seems to be built on some idea that he's the only one who can beat Trump - but there's zero actual evidence for that, it hasn't been tested yet. He hasn't deigned to put himself on the ballot and face the voters. His performance in the Nevada debate suggests he is ill-prepared, perhaps even arrogant. I don't like the fact that he seems to think he can bypass much of the process and the hard work. I think his electability claim is a house of cards. But we'll see on Super Tuesday. If I'm wrong, I'll acknowledge it.

So, sure, come up with good arguments why Bloomberg is the right candidate, but don't just ridicule and write-off any opposition to him.

Nicely put Andy, I understand your point about change,  but do you think that conservative America will vote for the amount of change that Sanders would represent? Theres no doubt that he has charisma as a speaker,  but I wonder if he might put off a lot of crucial swing voters with the mentions of socialism? Bloomberg has a record of government of New York, and is prominently pro gun control,  does that not count for anything?

[andy popp]

No, I'm very far from convinced. There are a significant group of people who will never vote for Bernie. But as people have said about Brexit and the most recent UK elections, some of the old left/right labels are starting to break down. I've lost track of the number of interviews I've read with voters who went for Bernie in the 2016 primaries and then voted for Trump in the general - not out of some petulant revolt but because those were the two they thought might bring about change of some kind in their lives.

But Bernie's route to victory is not thought converting conservatives, it's through turn out - in particular turning out particular groups who tend to vote in lower numbers. The Latinx vote in Nevada last night showed how that can be done. Turn out in the 2016 general was 55%. Hillary didn't lose states like Pennsylvania because a few thousand "Bernie Bros" threw a strop and voted Green or Libertarian. She lost because she totally failed to get the vote out in sufficient numbers, despite the obvious importance of the election.

Interestingly, I've just seen on a friend's FB someone who described themselves as a disaffected moderate Republican saying they would not vote for Trump this year and would vote for any democrat except Bloomberg and Bernie. He doesn't like Bloomberg because he sees him as too similar to Trump. Only one person, but we may be over-estimating Bloomberg's appeal to moderate swing voters.

[andy popp]

An addendum; in 2016 Bloomberg spent many millions of dollars supporting the re-election campaign of Republican Senator Pat Toomey in Pennsylvania. The ads Bloomberg paid for set out to paint Toomey as moderate centrist, something that isn't really true (he has occasionally uttered very mild criticism of Trump but always votes the party line). Toomey went on to win by just 1.5%, an important win in the Republican fight to hold on to the senate and thus critical to their ability to appoint Supreme Court judges and acquit Trump. That's what I mean when I say Bloomberg isn't really a Democrat.

[mrjonathanr]

But it was your second recourse to accusations of "wokeism" in a week

Wokeism? Is that a word coined by people who can’t spell ‘enlightened’? 

[Offwidth]

Even as a critic of the orange one, I'm gobsmacked about this (I shoild have known better... always follow the money):

https://www.theroot.com/we-calculated-how-much-we-pay-trump-to-play-golf-it-tu-1841793634

[TobyD]

No, I'm very far from convinced. There are a significant group of people who will never vote for Bernie. But as people have said about Brexit and the most recent UK elections, some of the old left/right labels are starting to break down. I've lost track of the number of interviews I've read with voters who went for Bernie in the 2016 primaries and then voted for Trump in the general - not out of some petulant revolt but because those were the two they thought might bring about change of some kind in their lives.

Interesting,  that's almost exactly what John Sopel says on the most recent Americast podcast. I'm not really a fan of Sanders bombastic rhetoric,  thin on the detail style but if hes the best chance of getting rid of Trump I hope he wins.

.... That's what I mean when I say Bloomberg isn't really a Democrat.

One might reasonably argue,  neither is Sanders. Frankly,  I wouldn't care that much what they were within reason if they have a chance of winning. 

[andy popp]

.... That's what I mean when I say Bloomberg isn't really a Democrat.

One might reasonably argue,  neither is Sanders. Frankly,  I wouldn't care that much what they were within reason if they have a chance of winning.

True, but Bernie is consistent. Bloomberg has flip-flopped in a way that makes him look opportunistic.

[jwi]

Is their really a majority to be had for a pure-hearted socialist among the ≈ 50% americans who have franchise?

I feel that this record has gotten plenty of airtime in both France and Britain without becoming a hit.

[Oldmanmatt]

.... That's what I mean when I say Bloomberg isn't really a Democrat.

One might reasonably argue,  neither is Sanders. Frankly,  I wouldn't care that much what they were within reason if they have a chance of winning.

True, but Bernie is consistent. Bloomberg has flip-flopped in a way that makes him look opportunistic.

I actually like the idea of a leader, who is not hamstrung by ideology and will change their mind based in the realities of a given situation.

Too many are simply the “Head Sheep”, the world could do with a few more goats leading the flock.

(Not implying Sanders is a sheep).

[andy popp]

I didn't mean in terms of ideas or policy but just in in broad alignment. Bernie has always been on the left, even if he hasn't always been a member of the Democratic Party, Bloomberg has switched back and forth between Democrats and Republicans.

[andy popp]

Is their really a majority to be had for a pure-hearted socialist among the ≈ 50% americans who have franchise?

As I've said before, I'm far from convinced there is. But I'm no more convinced any of the others have a better chance.

[Sasquatch]

I didn't mean in terms of ideas or policy but just in in broad alignment. Bernie has always been on the left, even if he hasn't always been a member of the Democratic Party, Bloomberg has switched back and forth between Democrats and Republicans.

Does that mean he's flip/flopped or that he's actually moderate and the parties have swung back and forth? 

[andy popp]

I suppose there could be some truth but seems to me that for the last four decades the GOP have only every really moved in one direction.

[SA Chris]

What, the boyband?

[TobyD]

Could the only positive thing about the virus be it being the end of Trump's political career? Hes certainly been regularly and massively incompetent.  From an Observer article:
Trump’s original sin was committed two years ago when he disbanded a White House office dealing specifically with preparation for pandemics. His discomfort on this topic was clear on Friday when a reporter asked him about it.

“Well, I just think it’s a nasty question,” he said. “I don’t know anything about it.”

Surely he can't survive politically if / when the fatalities start increasing? That said, I wouldn't put it past him to try to cancel the election and award himself a second term. 

[tomtom]

It is for sure a bit test of his presidency. As it is for Boris. When the CV19 dust starts to settle - there will (unfortunatley) be a series of case studies (e.g. countries) against which the USA and the UK will be judged. China, S.Korea and Japan at the 'good' end (so far - its a long game I admit) and Italy and Iran at the bad end.

At the moment it looks like the USA is going more Italy than Korea shall we say...

Against those exemplars of outcomes - there will be few places to politically hide I would guess...

Then again, Trump seems to be able to dodge most things - including so far CV19...

[andy popp]

A good part of his base just think it's a Democrat hoax. Rapidly mounting deaths might start to sway some people but that would require a persuasive argument that the blame lies, at least in part, with the administration's response. Many people will simply hear his argument that he acted early by banning travel from China in January and accept that.

Being cynical, the real risk for Trump comes from knock on effects on the economy. I have seen so many people say they can't stand him but they're doing well personally and that is what they vote on. Again, that relies on persuading people that at least some of the responsibility lies with him. This is going to be financially devastating for many people - there's massive economic insecurity in the US with large swathes of the population living pay check to pay check in insecure jobs with no legal protections. But many of those who think of themselves as secure and comfortable will see investments devastated. But who knows? Looks like we're going to be relying on Uncle Joe to make the argument. This is almost certainly also going to reveal the inadequacy and gross inequality of the US healthcare system.

Could he use it to cancel/suspend the elections in November? It seems far fetched but I suppose if the progress of the disease proves utterly catastrophic (and prolonged) then I guess its not inconceivable. 

[cheque]

the CV19 dust

That’s what a ~10 year old kid at Awesome Walls on Friday evening was describing the chalk on the holds as to his instructor.

[remus]

Cuomo wants “all states to be treated the same.” But all states aren’t the same. Some are being hit hard by the Chinese Virus, some are being hit practically not at all. New York is a very big “hotspot”, West Virginia has, thus far, zero cases. Andrew, keep politics out of it....

Id assumed Id be a little more used it to by now, but somehow he still finds new ways to lower my opinion of him. To call it a 'Chinese virus' and then not 25 words later make an appeal to 'keep politics out of it'! The sheer madness of it!

[TobyD]

Never assume that there isn't a new low that Trump will sink to. I don't think it's that far fetched that he'll try to delay or cancel the November election.

He'd probably start a war with Iran if he thought it'd get him a few more years fleecing the American people and pretending he has any talent.

[James Malloch]

All of the stock market gains since the 2017 inauguration have gone. How will this be spun come election time...

[andy popp]

How will this be spun come election time...

"I don't take any responsibility." He's already said it.