4:05pm Thursday With all precincts reporting, there were almost 297,000 votes in this year’s Democratic primary, up from just over 253,000 in 2016. So Democratic turnout in New Hampshire was well up on 2016, but this is partly explained by having an uncontested Republican race.
The final outcome is Sanders 25.7%, Buttigieg 24.4%, Klobuchar 19.8%, Warren 9.2% and Biden 8.4%.
8:18pm Conversation article up. I argue that Klobuchar has a good case for being electable. She won her three Minnesota Senate races by at least 20 points, far exceeding the presidential lean of Minnesota. She’s 59, so she doesn’t fall into the 70+ category.
Also, the FiveThirtyEight forecast has the chance that nobody wins a pledged delegate majority up to 33% (one in three). We could be heading for the first contested convention since 1952. The next two contests are the Feb 22 Nevada caucus and Feb 29 South Carolina primary. Then it’s Super Tuesday on March 3.
3:05pm Two US TV networks have CALLED the New Hampshire primary for Bernie Sanders.
2:50pm With 82% in, Sanders’ lead over Buttigieg down to 1.7%. The NY Times Needle gives him a 68% chance to win. Hardly a convincing victory in a state where he crushed Clinton 60-38 in 2016.
2:22pm Sanders’ lead over Buttigieg down to 2.1% with 69% in. The NY Times Needle gives Sanders a 59% chance to win.
2:07pm Took a break for lunch, but didn’t miss much. Sanders 2.5% ahead of Buttigieg with 64% in (26.4% to 23.9%). Klobuchar has 20.1%, and both Biden and Warren have less than 10%, and will both miss the 15% threshold to win any NH delegates.
1:02pm CNN has Sanders still ahead in NH by 4.4% over Buttigieg with 41% in.
1pm The NY Times needle is now giving Sanders just a 53% chance to win, with 33% for Buttigieg and 14% Klobuchar. However, Wasserman on Twitter is projecting Klobuchar will finish third.
12:47pm The NY Times needle is giving Sanders a 59% chance of winning, with Buttigieg a 33% chance and Klobuchar 8%. But for some reason, CNN’s results are more up to date than the NY Times.
12:37pm With 32% in in the Dem primary, 27.8% Sanders, 23.5% Buttigieg, 20.0% Klobuchar. Gap opening up between Buttigieg and Klobuchar for 2nd place. Warren and Biden still at less than 10%.
12:35pm In the Republican primary, Trump has 85%.
12:25pm Dave Wasserman on Twitter
The three major center/left candidates so far (Buttigieg, Klobuchar, Biden): 53%
Sanders/Warren: 36%
But, the first group's failure to consolidate is the best thing going for Bernie Sanders.
— Dave Wasserman (@Redistrict) February 12, 2020
12:17pm 28% Sanders, 23% Buttigieg, 21% Klobuchar with 20% in on the CNN results.
12:12pm 28% Sanders, 22.5% Buttigieg, 20.5% Klobuchar, less than 10% for both Warren and Biden in CNN results with 17% in.
12:05pm CNN is back ahead of the NY Times, and has 28% Sanders, 22% Buttigieg, 20% Klobuchar, 9% Warren, 9% Biden with 14% in.
12pm With 7% in, 28% Sanders, 22% Buttigieg, 20% Klobuchar, 12% Warren, 7.5% Biden. US election analysts on Twitter are saying Sanders should win.
11:50am With 5% reporting, the NY Times has 30% Sanders, 22% Buttigieg, 18% Klobuchar, 12% Warren and just 7% Biden.
11:40am The CNN New Hampshire results give Sanders 27%, Klobuchar 22%, Buttigieg 21%, Warren just 11% and Biden 8%. That’s with an estimated 3% in. So Klobuchar has had a massive surge in New Hampshire.
Guest post by Adrian Beaumont, who joins us from time to time to provide commentary on elections internationally. Adrian is an honorary associate at the University of Melbourne. His work on electoral matters for The Conversation can be found here, and his own website is here.
The final RealClearPolitics poll average for today’s New Hampshire Democratic primary gives Bernie Sanders 28.7%, Pete Buttigieg 21.3%, Amy Klobuchar 11.7%, and Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren both 11.0%. Most polls close at 11am AEDT, with some staying open until 12pm. Unlike Iowa, New Hampshire is a primary, not a caucus. Primaries are administered by the state’s election authorities, not by a party. Counting is slow in New Hampshire.
Sinn Féin comes first in Irish election
Irish politics has been dominated by two conservative parties: Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael. But at Saturday’s election, the far-left Sinn Féin upset this order by coming first on first preferences with 24.5% (up a massive 10.7% since the 2016 election). Fianna Fáil was second with 22.2% (down 2.1%) and the governing Fine Gael third with 20.9% (down 4.7%). The Greens won 7.1% (up 4.4%). Irish Labour has never been a strong party, and won just 4.4% (down 2.2%).
While Sinn Féin advocates a united Ireland, its success at this election appears to be the result of a campaign focused on homelessness and hospital waiting lists.
Despite winning the popular vote, Sinn Féin was second in lower house seats with 37 of the 160 (up 14). Fianna Fáil won 38 (down six), Fine Gael 35 (down 14), the Greens 12 (up ten), other left-wing parties 17 (up one) and independents 19 (steady). There were two more total seats than in 2016. A Fianna Fáil/Fine Gael grand coalition would have 73 seats, short of the 81 needed for a majority. Government formation is likely to be difficult.
In Tasmania’s Hare-Clark system, which is used in Ireland, leakage from within parties has occasionally cost seats. In Ireland, leakage is a bigger problem, as the ballot paper lists candidates alphabetically, not by party grouping (see Antony Green). To reduce leakage, Sinn Féin only nominated 42 candidates, and were unable to benefit as much as they should have from their late campaign surge.
Previous Irish elections have been held during the working week, but this one was on Saturday. Turnout was expected to increase, but it actually fell 2.2% to 62.9%.
C@tmomma @ #544 Saturday, February 15th, 2020 – 10:36 pm
So which of the other candidates has a greater degree of broad appeal? Maybe I’m missing something.
Obama was in a mad rush to get his ‘christian credentials’ in order before his presidential campaign really kicked off.
It all seemed rather unedifying – particularly in amongst all the smear about him being a secret muslim.
Bernie Sanders leaps to first among Texas Democrats in latest University of Texas / Texas Tribune poll
U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders has doubled his support among Democratic voters in Texas and now leads the race for that party’s presidential nomination in Texas, according to the latest University of Texas/Texas Tribune Poll.
Sanders had the support of 24% of the self-identified Democratic primary voters in the poll, up from 12% in October. Sanders passed both former Vice President Joe Biden and U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, the two leaders in the October 2019 UT/TT Poll. Early voting in the Texas primaries starts on Tuesday; election day — Super Tuesday — is March 3.
The field of candidates has changed since the earlier survey. Beto O’Rourke, who was third in October, has dropped out of the race. And Michael Bloomberg, who entered the contest late, landed fourth in the newest poll, ahead of Pete Buttigieg and U.S. Sen. Amy Klobuchar, the second- and third-place finishers in this week’s New Hampshire primary. Warren finished fourth in that contest, with Biden fifth.
Andrew Yang, who dropped out of the presidential race this week, was behind Buttigieg and ahead of Klobuchar in the latest UT/TT Poll.
“Most of the movement has been Sanders and Bloomberg, with Biden [holding] still,” said Joshua Blank, research director for the Texas Politics Project at the University of Texas at Austin. “To be unable to increase his vote share is pretty telling for Biden.”
While Biden’s support was static, Sanders was surging in Texas, and Bloomberg was rising on the strength of millions of his own money spent on advertising after a late start.
“It’s not so much that Biden has collapsed as that he has been exposed,” said James Henson, co-director of the poll and head of the Texas Politics Project at UT-Austin. “He had superior name recognition in a crowded field. The question was whether he would build on that.”
A slight majority of all Texas voters — 52% — said they would not vote to reelect President Donald Trump in November. Republicans remain solidly in his corner: 90% said they would vote to reelect Trump, including 80% who said they “definitely” would do so. Democrats feel just as strongly: 93% said they would not vote for the president’s reelection, including 88% who would “definitely not” vote for him. Independent voters were against reelection, but less so: 38% said they would vote to reelect Trump, while 62% said they would vote against him.
“With Trump at the top of the ballot, in congressional and legislative races where candidates are running with margins of 5% or less, where the independent [voters] go could become a factor,” Henson said. “It adds uncertainty to those races.”
But when pitted against some of the top Democrats in hypothetical head-to-head contests, the president topped them all, if somewhat narrowly. Trump would beat Sanders by 2 percentage points, 47%-45%, within the poll’s margin of error. He’d beat Biden 47-43, Warren 47-44, Bloomberg 46-41, Buttigieg 47-42, and Klobuchar 46-41. Trump had 45% support against Yang’s 43%. The president, whose reelect number was under 50% in the survey, didn’t get a majority of the vote in any of the matchups, even while getting more support than each Democrat.
“The Trump trial ballots confirm what we’ve seen, that Trump is winning, but he clearly is under-performing, given the party profile in the state,” said Daron Shaw, a government professor at UT-Austin who co-directs the poll. “It is interesting when you put a flesh and blood Democrat up there, it drops that number, but here’s a Republican in a Republican state who’s not at 50%, which is a sign of weakness.”
Shaw said Sanders has shown some of the same strengths Trump displayed in the Republican primaries four years ago. “The conventional wisdom is that this guy is going to get peeled like an onion. But I think they might be missing the point,” he said. “I don’t know that Bernie could shoot someone on 5th Avenue and no one would care. But I think his supporters don’t care.”
And he said Bloomberg’s money gives him an edge in Texas, because he can afford to advertise in a state that’s too big to win by shaking voters’ hands in diners. “In a state like Texas where you can’t do retail politics, he’s the king of wholesale,” Shaw said.
Overall, Democratic voters have favorable opinions of all of their top candidates, but Sanders, Warren and Biden had much higher favorable scores. Voters’ views of Buttigieg, Klobuchar and Bloomberg were positive overall, but with each of the three, a large number of Democrats were neutral or had no opinion.
Asked about their second choices for the presidential nomination, 48% of Democratic voters who support Sanders listed Warren. Biden’s voters listed Warren (25%) and Bloomberg (24%). Warren supporters’ second choices were Sanders (43%), Biden (15%) and Klobuchar (14%). Biden was the second choice for 28% of Bloomberg’s supporters in the survey, followed by Warren (20%).
The University of Texas/Texas Tribune internet survey of 1,200 registered voters was conducted from Jan. 31 to Feb. 9 and has an overall margin of error of +/- 2.83 percentage points, and an overall margin of error of +/- 4.09 percentage points for Democratic trial ballots. Numbers in charts might not add up to 100% because of rounding.
https://www.krgv.com/news/bernie-sanders-leaps-to-first-among-texas-democrats-in-latest-university-of-texas-texas-tribune-poll
Interesting that the only other person who performed as well as Sanders head-to-head against Trump in this Texas poll was Yang. Maybe he dropped out too soon? Guess it’s hard to keep going without enough donations though. Would have been interesting to see how he went in some of these other states.
Another thing to take out of that is, while Trump is ahead in Texas against all of them, he is vulnerable and within striking distance of being beaten. This is Texas we’re talking about! It’s hardly lefty central and you’d think Trump would be a sure thing against anyone there, especially someone like Bernie, yet Sanders is within the poll’s margin of error of beating him.
“Firefox
No one winning is very high at 37%. Might be a negotiated convention. Biden, Sanders and Bloomberg. Each able to let another win but not enough to win by themselves without a deal.”
***
Indeed. Would make for some fascinating TV viewing if it comes down to a contested convention. So much water to go under the bridge before then though.
“If Sanders wants to be the nominee, he needs to start winning primaries with a 40-50% vote share.”
***
Coming first and winning a primary/caucus is still coming first and winning, even if it’s with less than 50% of the vote. As you noted, it’s a very crowded field right now. Let’s see what happens when a few more drop out.
“Bernie Sanders doesn’t have broad appeal. Even across the Democratic Party, let alone the broader electorate. He is just succeeding because he doesn’t have any real competition, except for Elizabeth Warren, who is fading fast.”
***
That isn’t what Iowa, NH, and these polls are telling us. It wasn’t what the 2016 contest told us either. Just because he doesn’t appeal to you doesn’t mean he doesn’t appeal to many others.
Those Texas figures are very interesting – there’s been quiet muttering for quite a few years now about Texas trending purple, but for the moment, I think we have to assume it’s staying red. Still, Trump is clearly a drag on the GOP ticket there, and with the right candidate/ messaging, the Dems could yet pull off an upset in the Lone Star state. My gut feel is that Texas’ slow steps into swing state status is still a decade or so away from occurring, though the early harbingers (such as a number of House seats flipping, or the state legislature changing hands) might be closer at hand.
As for the Democratic 2020 horse race, these are encouraging figures for Sanders, though again, he seems to keep stalling at the 25-30% mark. An interesting development in the cross-tabs appears to be that Warren is a lot of voters’ second choice, so she might yet make a comeback, if the right cards fall her way. It’s been notable that she’s been backing away from Medicare-for-all in recent weeks, as her polling is possibly suggesting that there might be votes to be peeled off the Bernie column around that.
“This was also the problem for him in 2016, and in the final analysis he wasn’t the nominee then because he couldn’t convince enough Democrat voters to back him.”
***
The problem for Bernie in 2016 was that it was decided that Clinton would be the nominee before they even got to Iowa and anyone had had the chance to vote.
No, I don’t buy that at all. Bernie’s problem in 2016 was that he couldn’t get enough Democrats to vote for him. Hilary Clinton won over 3 million more votes than Sanders, won more states, and won more delegates. It’s all very well to argue that the fix was somehow in, but in the final wash-up Sanders couldn’t win enough votes, and that’s the reason why he wasn’t the nominee. Now, there’s no doubt that Clinton was the preferred choice of the Democratic Party establishment, but as we saw in Iowa a few weeks ago, the Democrats are not particularly good at even running simple things, let alone somehow “fixing” (and people who claim this never seem to explain how it occurred) a nationwide primary election. The famous observation of Will Rogers comes to mind here – “I am not a member of any organised political party – I am a Democrat!”
“An interesting development in the cross-tabs appears to be that Warren is a lot of voters’ second choice, so she might yet make a comeback, if the right cards fall her way.”
***
This is why I think she would be a good choice as Bernie’s VP. She has some appeal to moderates while still being an anti-establishment progressive. Her biggest problem at the moment seems to be fundraising. She really needs a decent result in Nevada to get a bit of confidence back in her campaign and convince people to donate to her.
I will say, though, that the presumed inevitability of Hilary Clinton in 2016 was a problem for the Dems, as her presence scared off any other potential candidates. Sanders ran a good campaign in 2016, but he greatly benefited by being the “not Hilary” candidate. In retrospect, the Dems would have been better off with a field like this year’s.
Hey Firefox (and others interested in progressive US politics), I was wondering if you check out TYT’s stuff at all?
Agree that Warren needs to start getting some strong results, as her campaign is teetering on the edge. She’ll need to win a few states on Super Tuesday – luckily for her, Massachusetts is one of the states to vote on 3rd March, but most of the others are spread across the South and West, areas where she is probably less strong. There’s still time for her, but not much.
As I’ve noted previously, I’m not sure that Warren would be such a great pick for VP for Sanders, given their similarities in age and region. That said, there are not many other options for him, and of course, we are not privy to his deliberations.
Drudge Report saying Bloomberg is looking at Hillary as his running mate.
Diogenes – so I guess that means we can definitely rule it out as a possibility!
Bellwether:
C@t thinks Buttigieg is the chosen one, currently (previously it was Biden – but she saw sense on that).
Actually, I am surprised – given he was surely the establishment’s favourite – at how poorly Biden has done so far.
Mr Newbie @ #566 Sunday, February 16th, 2020 – 4:48 pm
Would probably have been better in the long run sticking with Biden if popularity is the No.1 concern.
Mr Newbie,
You just can’t help dragging me into your comments, can you?
So tell me, other than you are a blinkered Bernie Bros, what is so wrong with Pete Buttigieg, that allows you to ridicule people who support him?
Oh, and that line about my support for Joe Biden is something you have plucked out of thin air. I always thought he was too old!
https://youtu.be/9asIbd-0uus
Warren has long been polling well as many voters second choice, which is nice as far as it goes, but ultimately second choice is not first and that’s become her problem once voting started.
I have a feeling her campaign really needs to pull out some kind of miracle result in Nevada.
Klobushar`s success and Sander`s success have make it hard for Warren to get enough votes to be a leading candidate.
Warren is likely to stay at least in until after Super Tuesday, when lots of states (including Massachusetts, her home state) vote, to get enough delegates to try and either bargain herself in as a compromise candidate or (more likely) vice-presidential nominee.
Tom
Warren wouldn’t add much to a Sanders, Biden or Bloomberg ticket. Perhaps Buttigieg though.
St Pete poll in must win Florida with Bloomberg in front of Biden.
I think Bloomberg would be crazy to get Hillary as running mate – he’d be better off with Klobuchar.
“No, I don’t buy that at all.”
***
Surely you will acknowledge that the establishment Dems had decided that they wanted Clinton to be Obama’s successor long before the primaries even started? She was being lined up as the next president from the moment she narrowly lost to Obama in the 2008 primaries. Even Donald Trump himself thought that Clinton was going to be Obama’s successor, even all the way up to the very last minute. Even Murdoch’s propaganda empire were preparing for a Clinton victory.
Frank Luntz: At 5:01, all the narratives were written: Hillary Clinton was elected president. It’s supposed to be a really closely guarded secret. Probably a hundred people were aware, because they prepare their graphics, they prepare all their material. I have a photograph [of a graphic]: “Fox News declares Hillary Clinton elected president.”
[The Trump campaign] saw the numbers, and they knew what I knew, which is that up to this point the exit polling had never been this wrong, so the assumption was that she was going to win.
Chris Wallace: I spoke to President-elect Trump in an interview I did with him in December, a month later, and he said that going into election night, and after his people had read the exit polls, they thought he was going to lose, too. He thought he was going to lose. That was just the accepted wisdom.
https://www.gq.com/story/inside-donald-trumps-election-night-war-room
“I think Bloomberg would be crazy to get Hillary as running mate”
***
He sure would be. If Clinton wants to see Trump defeated the best thing she and her worshipers can do is stay as far away from the whole thing as possible.
“Warren wouldn’t add much to a Sanders, Biden or Bloomberg ticket.”
***
Warren and Bloomberg wouldn’t work (she’s strongly against big money corrupting politics). Wouldn’t work with Biden either. Would probably work quite well with Sanders.
“ Surely you will acknowledge that the establishment Dems had decided that they wanted Clinton to be Obama’s successor long before the primaries even started?”
As evidenced by the amount of pledged superdelegates from the start of that race, buttressed by the media narrative at the time being that these were baked into her lead and incapable of changing their minds
“Klobushar`s success and Sander`s success have make it hard for Warren to get enough votes to be a leading candidate.”
***
This has something to do with it for sure. There were times last year when Warren was the frontrunner to win the whole thing, then Bernie started surging again. Klobuchar does also provide an alternative for those seeking a female candidate. I’ve said it before – there would be many women who felt cheated by what happened in 2016 and are still furious at Trump over it. Good on them. They have every right to be. Trump is a sex offender who should be in prison, not in the White House. I think it’s important that if the nominee isn’t a woman, which it probably won’t be, then the VP should be.
CNN showing footage of huge lines of Nevada caucus voters at early voting stations in Las Vegas. Good signs for a big turnout.
As I understand it, this is the first time that early voting has been possible in the Nevada caucuses. So it’s a bit hard to really know what those lines mean: they could just be taking from the on-the-night turnout.
Certainly it’s not a bad sign for turnout, though.
Michael Bloomberg rocked by re-emergence of sexist remarks
Of the Bloomberg Terminal, the computer system on which a fortune estimated at $60bn was built, Bloomberg is quoted as saying: “It will do everything, including give you a blowjob. I guess that puts a lot of you girls out of business.”
He is also quoted as comparing “a good salesperson” to “the guy who goes into a bar, and walks up to every gorgeous girl there, and says, ‘Do you want to fuck?’ He gets turned down a lot – but he gets fucked a lot, too!”
Attempts to contact Buckingham Palace for comment were unsuccessful.
The Post said Bloomberg declined to be interviewed. A spokesman was quoted as saying: “Mike openly admits that his words have not always aligned with his values and the way he has led his life and some of what he has said is disrespectful and wrong.
“Mike simply did not say the things somebody wrote in this gag gift, which has been circulating for 30 years and has been quoted in every previous election Mike has been in.”
In September 2001, however, when Bloomberg first ran for mayor in New York, a position he would fill for three terms, the New York Daily News quoted a spokesman as saying: “Some of the things he might have said. He says he can’t recall saying many of the things he was asked about.”
Bloomberg was also reported to have called the remarks a “bunch of Borscht Belt jokes”.
The publication of the booklet comes during a Democratic primary influenced by the #MeToo movement, which seeks redress against men in positions of power accused of mistreating women.
Trump has enraged opponents with offensive remarks about women and minorities, as well as his history of accusations of sexual misconduct and assault.
Bloomberg has been taken to court by a number of female employees. “A number of the cases,” the Post said, “have either been settled, dismissed in Bloomberg’s favour or closed because of a failure of the plaintiff to meet filing deadlines.
“The cases do not involve accusations of inappropriate sexual conduct; the allegations have centred around what Bloomberg has said and about the workplace culture he fostered.”
The Post report also quoted a witness as saying Bloomberg told a female employee who was pregnant to “kill it”, a claim his spokesman denied.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/feb/15/michael-bloomberg-booklet-sexist-remarks-abortion
Firefox – I’m not disputing that Clinton was the preferred option for the Democratic Party establishment in 2016. But Clinton still had to get people to vote for her in the primaries, and they did so, in large numbers, which is why Clinton got easily more votes, states and delegates than Sanders. To be sure, being the establishment favourite brings with it some advantages, but as Joe Biden is showing this time around, being the establishment pick is no guarantee of getting the nomination. Sanders and his followers might be better served by admitting that they fell short last time, rather than casting aspersions that there was some sort of fix in place. Sanders lost, in the final analysis, because he got fewer votes.
Gee, the dirt is starting to come out about Bloomberg. Not surprising I guess, as he’s flown a bit under the radar until now. We’ll soon see if it makes a difference to his polling.
One wonders why Buckingham Palace was contacted for comment on Michael Bloomberg’s history of casual sexism in the first place.
“To be sure, being the establishment favourite brings with it some advantages, but as Joe Biden is showing this time around…”
***
That’s one way of putting it I guess…
Biden is showing why I’ve been saying he would be an even bigger mistake than Clinton was.
“One wonders why Buckingham Palace was contacted for comment on Michael Bloomberg’s history of casual sexism in the first place.”
***
Sorry, there was more to the article I left out because I didn’t want to quote the whole thing. Should have included that bit too or it doesn’t make sense. Here:
In one comment printed in the 1990 booklet, the businessman turned politician is said to have said of Britain’s royal family: “What a bunch of misfits – a gay, an architect, that horsey faced lesbian, and a kid who gave up Koo Stark for some fat broad.”
The tone of the comment – seemingly about Prince Edward, Prince Charles, Princess Anne and the scandal-ridden Prince Andrew – is typical of a booklet which a female aide presented when Bloomberg, now 78, was celebrating his 48th birthday.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/feb/15/michael-bloomberg-booklet-sexist-remarks-abortion
Firefox @ #331 Monday, February 17th, 2020 – 10:04 am
That metaphor is as apt as it is crude!
Don’t understand why the Democrats are supposed to hyperventilate over this when the Republicans give a free pass to Trump admitting to and bragging about literally assaulting women.
“Trump is worse”, while true, is not an adequate excuse for Bloomberg. There is no excuse for what he’s reported to have said. It doesn’t have to be a battle between two misogynists.
Trump doesn’t need the support of the progressive left to win. Bloomberg certainly does.
Firefox @ #299 Monday, February 17th, 2020 – 11:20 am
Seems he denies saying most of it. Is there documented evidence proving anything beyond the “blowjobs” remark and the salesman joke?
And isn’t the salesman joke more misandrist? It’s not really making any statement about women, but it does tend to imply that a man’s only interest in women is for sex. Terribly, terribly misandrist. 🙂
Stephanie Kelton would be an excellent VP nominee for Sanders. She is America’s greatest economist, and economy policy is by far the most important area where the federal government must change course. If you get economic policy right, the improvement to people’s lives is immense. Kelton is an extremely good public speaker. She is a first class academic who can also communicate complex ideas in a lucid way to a lay audience – a very rare combination. She was the Senate Democrats’ chief economic advisor in 2015 and 2016 – so she knows the budget process extremely well, including the ways in which political considerations drive that process. She was Bernie’s senior economic advisor in 2016 and she has that role again in the current campaign. If you want someone who would be a powerful communicator, a key contributor to economic policy development, and a historic first female Vice-President, Stephanie Kelton is the best choice.
Firefox
I don’t think Warren adds much for Sanders as she also from the NE, similarly liberal and not very exciting.
After Biden, Bloomberg is the most preferred by black Americans. Sanders couldn’t choose him but he could do with a black female from the South with bipartisan appeal.
Nicholas: I would have thought someone like that would be far more effective in a cabinet post. Vice President isn’t really a policy development role.
Nicholas – Kelton does indeed sound like a decent VP choice for Sanders, though I must confess that I don’t know much about her. But someone with some economic heft would be a good fit for Sanders (given the much-noted doubts about Bernie in this regard), and she seems to tick a few other boxes as well.
That said, I suspect that the moderate-progressive divide will need some nurturing, and so a ticket balancing the two wings of the Party may end up being a political necessity. Even if Bernie does end up getting the nomination (and I still have my doubts), it wouldn’t at all surprise me if he picked someone more establishment as his Veep, and if one of the more mainstream ends up being the nominee, they will face pressure to put a Progressive forward as their running mate. Party unity will be crucial to beat Trump in November, and so whoever ends up with the ring will need to take steps to keep the other half of the Party on-side.
Nate Cohn analysis:
The Math That Could Add Up to a Sanders Nomination
Why 15 percent is so important to him, and how Bloomberg could scramble those calculations.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/12/upshot/bernie-sanders-2020-path.html
C@tmomma
In precis, no-one really has a clue.
Depending on which report you read, the likelihood that Hillary will be a Bloomberg’s running mate is 0% or 100% or somewhere in between.
I wouldn’t be surprised if these leaks are a tactic from the Bloomberg camp to get everyone focussed on him and his campaign.
“I wouldn’t be surprised if these leaks are a tactic from the Bloomberg camp to get everyone focussed on him and his campaign.”
maybe
But could also be from the Trump campaign or associated russian hackers to get trump’s base riled against Bloomberg. Trump relished and misses the “Lock her up” chanting at his neo-nuremberg rallies.
“Seems he denies saying most of it. Is there documented evidence proving anything beyond the “blowjobs” remark and the salesman joke?”
***
The incident where he told a pregnant employee to “kill it” is from court proceedings. It is but one of many times women have taken him to court it would seem. Article on that to follow…
***
“And isn’t the salesman joke more misandrist? It’s not really making any statement about women, but it does tend to imply that a man’s only interest in women is for sex. Terribly, terribly misandrist.”
***
Really? You don’t see how women in his employ would have found a joke like that to be off? It along with everything else points to a workplace full of sexual harassment. No wonder so many women have taken the slime to court.
You know, it speaks volumes as to the desperation of the establishment that some would try and stoop to the level of downplaying what is clearly unacceptable workplace behavior. The standard you walk past is the standard you accept.
Bloomberg won’t release women who sued him from secrecy agreements
Democratic presidential candidate Mike Bloomberg told ABC News this week he will not take any steps to release women who have signed confidentiality agreements with his company to speak publicly about past allegations that the former New York City mayor fostered a hostile work environment for some female employees.
“You can’t just walk away from it,” Bloomberg said. “They’re legal agreements, and for all I know the other side wouldn’t want to get out of it.”
Last month, ABC News reported on several lawsuits in which Bloomberg was accused of making crude remarks in the 1990s and of allegedly fostering an uncomfortable environment for women to work — allegations Bloomberg has denied. Three cases against the company remain active.
ABC News has spoken with several women who expressed interest in telling their stories who were subject to confidentiality agreements, but said they feared the prospect of facing retribution from the company for speaking out.
The report prompted Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., a rival presidential candidate, last month to criticize the billionaire media mogul’s use of non-disclosure agreements as “a way for people to hide bad things they’ve done.” Warren told reporters in Iowa “women should be able to speak” and said “when women raise concerns like this, we have to pay attention. We have to listen to them, and if Michael Bloomberg has made comments like this, then he has to answer for them.”
Bloomberg offered a terse reply when asked about Warren’s remarks by reporters Wednesday night: “Maybe the senator should worry about herself and I’ll worry about myself.”
Bloomberg has stepped away from his role at the helm of his company, but maintains a large ownership stake. He said his company has built an enviable record of gender equity.
“We’re not perfect,” he told a small gathering or reporters Wednesday. “But we have very low attrition and I think we treat our employees — no matter what their gender or age or ethnicity is — as well as any company. We can always do better — but we keep looking for better ways to make our employees get better benefits because that’s the way you attract good people and I can parade out a whole bunch of any group that you want that will tell you it’s a great place to work.”
Since his late entry into the campaign for the Democratic nomination, Bloomberg has been touting his record as a self-made business success. On the campaign trail this week, Bloomberg touted his company’s progressive record, consistently saying he has fostered the growth and promotion of everyone within his company. He has drawn on that record to build his 2020 platform, recently unveiling a plan to tackle the issue of maternal health.
It was in the midst of a three-state jobs creation tour that he addressed the question of the non-disclosure agreement.
It is a touchy subject. Amidst a #MeToo movement that questioned the practice of silencing victims, critics say Bloomberg owes his former employees the opportunity to share their stories.
“If Mr. Bloomberg is running for president, I think the public needs to know what actually happened in this business,” said Bonnie Josephs, a lawyer whose former client, Sekiko Sakai, filed a lawsuit against Bloomberg’s company in the 1990s. Sakai accused Bloomberg of making sexually explicit and derogatory statements to and about women in the workplace.
In December, a company spokesman told ABC News that the company rarely settles disputes, preferring to take them to court. But Sakai’s case is one of at least five the company has settled in the past 25 years. She is now bound by a confidentiality agreement.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/bloomberg-wont-release-women-sued-secrecy-agreements/story?id=68171036
Nothing like being super rich and being able to throw hush money around all over the place to cover your backside.