Klobuchar and South Carolina

[Jimmy Higgins]

East Carolina University released a poll and it contained a startling stat.

Americans age 54 years and under, Bernie Sanders has a slight lead with 29%, followed by Joe Biden (26%), Tom Steyer (23%), Elizabeth Warren (10%), Pete Buttigieg (3%), Michael Bloomberg (3%), Tulsi Gabbard (1%), and Amy Klobuchar (0%).

Egad! So Klobuchar is exciting approximately 0% of people under 54. The good news is you can only go up from here. In New Hampshire, Klobuchar did best with older (65+) people. She needs to fix that if she is to win.

Biden leads overall as he has apparently put all of his eggs into this basket, now that his presumptive win in Iowa and 1st or 2nd place in New Hampshire evaporated. Bloomberg must be saturating the media to get up to 7%. Tom Steyer has made this his stand. And falling into 3rd is bad for his campaign. Though, where do his supporters go. Presumably Bloomberg? But South Carolina is an island here and I don't see Steyer's support here having any play in following primaries.

 

[southernhybrid]

I find it hard to believe that Steyer is that popular in SC. But, than again, this has been such a crazy, intensely divided primary, that I guess anything is possible.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I find it hard to believe that Steyer is that popular in SC. But, than again, this has been such a crazy, intensely divided primary, that I guess anything is possible.

Why do you find it hard to believe? He's a billionaire. Like Bloomberg, he's been playing a long game. So instead of focusing too much on the early primaries he's been investing in later primaries that have more diverse and human counts. He spent $130 million recently in SC, Nevada and super Tuesday states. Meanwhile, Bloomberg spent $350 million. That was reported a couple of days ago and the money has to be more by now and continue to rise incredibly. Of course all the negative sentiment against Bernie from tv talking heads is probably free or a side effect of not being a billionaire. I don't know where Klobuchar is in all this, but frankly I liked her personality way more than Steyer or Bloomberg. She worked hard, like Bernie, Warren and Buttigieg. She got screwed with delegates in Iowa even more than Bernie did and so her surge was tempered. DNC darlings and billions of dollars should not make a democracy but I guess that is what we're up against...

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Delegate count in Iowa doesn't matter, her popular vote catapulted her in New Hampshire. If people under the age of 55 would support her, her candidacy would rocket!

Steyer, indeed, has bought into the South Carolina strategy. It has been the only target of his in the first four primaries/caucuses.

Bloomberg is everywhere online on my phone. It is bothersome that a billionaire can literally just walk in, people are that desperate for a bonafide white businessman to save us from Trump. I feel Sanders is vulnerable, but I wouldn't have much problem defending his candidacy. I can't, for the life of me, get excited about a Bloomberg candidacy.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Delegate count in Iowa doesn't matter...

It matters a miniscule amount in terms of overall delegate count. She was screwed with a disproportionate number, missing 4 national delegates. Where it matters much more is in terms of surging and perceptions to voters. In a popular democratic race without a big imbalance of money, the Iowa caucus results have created surges for candidates since 1972. With the new way we do things in our burgeoning Banana Republic, money creates surges instead. Both her disproportionate number of assigned delegates and how she is fairing after money injection are undemocratic.

If people under the age of 55 would support her, her candidacy would rocket!

Um...she's got a problem with over 55's too....which is where oligarch advertising is doing well.

It is bothersome that a billionaire can literally just walk in, ...

Yes, it is. Our democracy is very imperfect.

... people are that desperate for a bonafide white businessman to save us from Trump...

I have to disagree. That isn't the problem at all. Steyer didn't do well and neither did Bloomberg by virtue of them being billionaires as far as popular voting. It's ONLY due to their spending on advertising. If you look at the variables, you can clearly see their popular vote support is correlated to how much money they've spent in the states, not their billionaire status which is constant.

Now, if by "people" you have meant people in charge, like the DNC critters or media talking heads, then maybe that's different. A lot of people in power are doing a lot of talking on behalf of Bloomberg because of his money and status.

I feel Sanders is vulnerable, but I wouldn't have much problem defending his candidacy. I can't, for the life of me, get excited about a Bloomberg candidacy.

I completely agree. Even more so, I feel like I am not physically capable of voting for Bloomberg. I mean, if my brain told my feet to move to walk to the voting booth, somewhere along the way the signal being passed from brain to feet would diminish slowly and my feet would just sit there on the floor with an apathetic expression on their non-face.

What makes it worse is that Bloomberg is only in the race to stop progressives. If he loses, he will get behind Biden or Mayor Pete and continue his monetary assault.

Maybe he will ask Amy to be his VP though.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

My question is, if a moderate pulls out in front in a consolidated race, does Bloomberg stop and endorse them?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

My question is, if a moderate pulls out in front in a consolidated race, does Bloomberg stop and endorse them?

If he is forced to concede, he will get behind a moderate that he can influence. Endorsement with hundreds of millions is a two-way street.

 

[PyramidHead]

LOL at thinking Bloomberg is gonna have a dark night of the soul about which moderate to back, as if he won't immediately drop out if Bernie and Warren are defeated