Does it matter to you (or to the electorate) that these two people are NOT married?

[Laelth]

Michael Bloomberg and potential First Girlfriend Diana Taylor

Of our 45 presidents, to date, 44 have been married. James Buchanan, elected in 1884, is the only President who was not married when he became President. Does this matter to us any more?

More importantly, for your consideration, will this be an issue at tonight's debate in Nevada? Will the moderators bring up this issue? Will Bloomberg's opponents bring up this issue? Should they? Does it even matter?

-Laelth

[redstatebluegirl]

1. Not an issue with me, but my bible thumping neighbors, yes.

[Laelth]

12. Why would they care?

What might their objections be?

The truth is that Bloomberg's record is weak in regards to his attitudes toward and treatment of women. He's been "dating" Ms. Taylor for about 10 years, at this point, but he hasn't married her. Why? Does this say something about his character? Or hers?

Genuinely curious.



-Laelth

[delisen]

34. People are free to marry or not.

[Laelth]

55. Of course, they are. That wasn't the question.

Does it matter to the electorate?

More importantly, for your consideration, will this be an issue at tonight's debate in Nevada? Will the moderators bring up this issue? Will Bloomberg's opponents bring up this issue? Should they? Does it even matter?

Thank you for your response.

-Laelth

[renate]

117. I sure hope they don't waste a question on "why haven't you married your girlfriend yet"

Wasting valuable debate time on that would be journalistic/political malpractice.

[Laelth]

120. I hear you. Frankly, I'd be impressed if someone asked that question.

But are his attitudes toward (and historical treatment of) women not a relevant issue? Are we going to give him a pass on the mountain of sexual harassment suits that he has had filed against him? I don't know. I think this is his greatest vulnerability.



-Laelth

[33taw]

183. What if the answer is "I asked her and she said no" because she wants to remain unmarried.

Does this say something about her?

This line of questioning would be a waste of time.

[Laelth]

190. That says something about HIM, doesn't it? n/t

-Laelth

[redstatebluegirl]

37. I don't care if he is married or not in terms of voting for him.

Mayor Pete is above him on my list of candidates, but I will vote Blue no Matter Who. I am glad Mayor Pete and my many friends who are LGBTQ have been able to make the choice I made to legally marry, but it isn't a deal breaker for me if they have a relationship that doesn't include marriage.

[Laelth]

54. OK. But I asked why your bible thumping neighbors would care. n/t

-Laelth

[redstatebluegirl]

64. I guess you didn't understand.

I live in a place full of people who are horribly judgmental about being married. They think the President should be a married MAN, they think that only married people should have sex. Hell there are even some who think the only reason you should have sex is to procreate. Just pointing out that while I don't give a rats ass if my president is married, gay, lesbian, trans, living with their partner of choice or not as long as they do what is best for our country.

In my mind it has nothing to do with character. That is what I meant, sorry if I was not clear enough.

[Laelth]

68. I fully understood what it meant in your mind. You were very clear.

Mainly, I was asking the following:

More importantly, for your consideration, will this be an issue at tonight's debate in Nevada? Will the moderators bring up this issue? Will Bloomberg's opponents bring up this issue? Should they? Does it even matter?

To you, it doesn't matter and should not matter. I get it. But this issue (Bloomberg's attitudes toward and treatment of women) is an issue upon which I feel he is vulnerable. I wonder whether his opponents will call him on this at the debate.

Thank you for engaging me in this thread.

-Laelth

[Polly Hennessey]

83. I would say those people

would not vote for Bloomberg, married or not.

[Laelth]

90. I think that some of them will.

If this DU thread teaches me anything, it teaches me that Americans seem to care very little about Bloomberg's questionable history in regards to his treatment of women.

After the pussy-grabbing Great Pumpkin, whatever Bloomberg has done in the past is a non-issue. I get it.

Thank you for the response.

-Laelth

[Blue_true]

143. Your bible thumping neighbors are likely all in for Trump.

So why give a fuck about what they think?

[MineralMan]

2. I can't see why it would matter, frankly.

[Laelth]

4. We've never had a "First Girlfriend" before.

The novelty of it has to count for something. No?



-Laelth

[MineralMan]

8. No, not really, I think.

[Laelth]

15. Doesn't it say something about his (or her) character?

They have been "dating" for about ten years. They're not married.

Diana Taylor may, if Bloomberg is elected, be required to fulfill the obligations of the First Lady. Is the American public O.K. with her fulfilling this role even though she and Mike are not married?

I will be shocked if this issue does not come up during tonight's debate.

-Laelth

[jberryhill]

29. "the obligations of the First Lady"

Can you list these "obligations" by reference to the appropriate statute(s) or Constitutional provision(s)?

Where is the requirement that the President be married, or that there be someone to fulfill these "obligations"?

Also, can you describe for me how the "American public" has felt about Ivanka speaking on behalf of the United States at various official functions.

I thank you in advance for your thoughtful reply.

That you would refer to the titular position of "First Lady" as an alleged Buttigieg supporter is interesting. Perhaps you meant to use another term, but are having problems with your keyboard.

[Laelth]

39. No. Of course, I can't. It's all traditional, but it is real.

None of the First Lady's obligations are coded into law, but they exist, nonetheless. She even has her own office and staff.

First Lady of the United States (FLOTUS) is the title held by the hostess of the White House, usually the wife of the president of the United States, concurrent with the president's term in office. Although the first lady’s role has never been codified or officially defined, she figures prominently in the political and social life of the nation.[1] Since the early 20th century, the first lady has been assisted by official staff, now known as the Office of the First Lady and headquartered in the East Wing of the White House.

...

Since the 1790s, the role of First Lady has changed considerably. It has come to include involvement in political campaigns, management of the White House, championship of social causes, and representation of the president at official and ceremonial occasions. As first ladies now typically publish their memoirs, which are viewed as potential sources of additional information about their husbands' administrations, and because the public is interested in these increasingly independent women in their own right, first ladies frequently remain a focus of attention long after their husbands' terms of office have ended.[1] Additionally, over the years individual first ladies have held influence in a range of sectors, from fashion to public opinion on policy. Historically, should a president be unmarried, or a widower, the President usually asks a relative or friend to act as White House hostess.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Lady_of_the_United_States

It's a real job. Naturally, I will be completely happy with a "First Husband" fulfilling this role.

-Laelth

[jberryhill]

41. I see

And how is the "First Lady" thing going to work out if your alleged preferred candidate were to win?

Perhaps you might want to use a different term for whatever you believe these "obligations" to be.

There is no requirement that the President be married. It is a social position. And, as in all social situations, there have always been ways to address things like that. The world has long been able to deal with single heads of state, single governors, and single persons in general. Even in couples which do not possess a "Lady" whatsoever.

[Laelth]

43. "First Husband" works fine with me.

The name will change. The role will be the same.

No, of course. There's no requirement that the President be married. Obviously, it doesn't matter to you. Fine.

But, as I asked above, "More importantly, for your consideration, will this be an issue at tonight's debate in Nevada? Will the moderators bring up this issue? Will Bloomberg's opponents bring up this issue? Should they?

I would be very curious to know your opinion regarding the questions I asked in the OP. Evidently, I wrote my post badly because nobody seems interested in discussing the questions I really wanted to ask.

-Laelth

[jberryhill]

133. Well, guess what, that's not traditional either, so there you are

The insanely pathetic aspect of your ridiculous posturing in this thread is the equation of:

"doesn't care if Bloomberg is married" = "doesn't care about the treatment of women"

Godspeed, Mr. Armstrong....

[Laelth]

147. Insanely pathetic posturing, huh?

Godspeed to you too.

-Laelth

[moose65]

138. I think I prefer "First Gentleman"

Right now, the Presidential spouse isn't called the "First Wife" (or I guess Nancy Reagan would have been called the Second Wife and Melania the Third Wife ). Her title is First Lady, which is somewhat formal I guess, so Chasten would be called the First Gentleman.

It's interesting to imagine the heads exploding if the "hostess" of the White House suddenly became the "host." I can imagine all of the homophobic vitriol that would spew from supposedly Christian mouths.

Hmmm... I think that right now, Luxembourg and Ireland have gay Prime Ministers. What are their husbands called? Wasn't it one of their husbands who was in a photo with a bunch of NATO wives and the White House didn't identify him in the photo? He was standing near Melania, I think...

[Laelth]

155. You're right. First Gentleman would be more appropriate.

-Laelth

[cwydro]

95. Lol.

Well put.

[5X]

35. and just what would that say about anyone's character?

only if you are putting your morals on him.
keep em to yourself, please.

[Laelth]

40. He's been dating this woman for 10 years and hasn't married her.

It's not that he's unmarried that's the problem (to me). It's his refusal to commit that makes me question his ability or desire to commit to the best interests of the people of the United States.

-Laelth

[jberryhill]

42. Ah, unmarried people cannot be in a committed relationship, is that it?

The most conservative portion of the American Electorate has twice elected a divorced president (Reagan and Trump).

But, in your book, divorced people have been in "committed" relationships, while single monogamous persons have not.

Geezus.

[Laelth]

44. I hear you.

The fact that Bloomberg and Taylor haven't married after 10 years of dating doesn't matter to you. Fine. I appreciate your response to that question.

Now, and this is what the OP really asks, does it matter to the electorate? Will it come up in the debates? Should it? Given Bloomberg's historical attitudes toward women and the mountain of sexual harassment lawsuits that have been filed against him, this seems to me an avenue of attack to which he is vulnerable.

No?



-Laelth

[TygrBright]

62. How do you know it's not HER refusal to commit?

She's a grown up. She has an equal say and an equal choice. She may be the one saying, "nuh-uh" to the marriage, for reasons of her own.

Women have agency, too.

Sometimes they get to exercise it.

helpfully,
Bright

[Cornus]

82. That was my first thought

[Laelth]

124. Sure. Maybe she doesn't want to marry him.

I have no personal knowledge, here. I was just asking some questions.

Do you think this will be an issue during the debate? Does it matter? Should it matter?

Evidently, you think not. Fine. Do you think that the American electorate agrees with you?

-Laelth

[TygrBright]

132. I think the American electorate has WAY more important things to care about, but...

I agree that it's easy to distract them with irrelevancies like other peoples' marriage status.

However, the more we allow ourselves to get drawn into such trivia, the less energy we have for pointing out the very real economic and climate consequences that will have a real-world effect in the lives of everyone in the American electorate, and drawing their attention to serious and immediate issues.

sadly,
Bright

[Laelth]

135. I apologize for "drawing you in" to such trivia.

Marriage matters to many of us.

-Laelth

[tonedevil]

141. The only marriage that should matter to you...

is your own.

[jberryhill]

149. Oh, I like that

[Laelth]

150. Evidently you think the American people share that position.

Fine. That's what I was asking ... i.e. is marriage a relevant criterion for a President any more? In your mind, it's not. I get it, but I see Michael Bloomberg's present and historical treatment of women as his greatest weakness. If our (other) Democratic candidates are not going to expose and capitalize on this weakness, I predict that Michael Bloomberg will be our nominee.

-Laelth

[tonedevil]

180. You seem to equate...

Bloomberg not being married to Diane Taylor with disrespect or even harassment of women. His treatment of women in general, all those NDRs at least raise questions, is demonstrably bad, but there is no reason to think he has anything other than a mature respectful relationship with Ms. Taylor.

[Laelth]

181. What I equate to what is irrelevant.

I was asking what DU thinks that the American people will say about the fact that Bloomberg has been dating Diana Taylor for 10 years and hasn't married her. Evidently, DU thinks that the American people won't care a jot. Cool. I got my answer. Thank you.

-Laelth

[tonedevil]

186. You are the first person that I have seen...

try to raise this as an issue and I will be astounded to see anyone do so in the debate.

[Laelth]

189. Interesting.

I ran a thread recently--a fluff thread entitled VOTE for the MOST ATTRACTIVE FIRST COUPLE. When producing this thread, I noticed that all of our nominees were married except one--Michael Bloomberg. Then, it occurred to me that 44 of our 45 Presidents have been married, and I wondered whether or not this is a serious issue for the American people. The fact that my own preferred candidate, Pete Buttigieg, is married (not to mention the fact that he only recently got the right to marry) matters to me. I wondered whether DU thought this fact would matter to the American people.

Evidently not.

-Laelth

[happybird]

185. +1 million

[LoveMyCali]

222. Your marriage should matter to you

but why is someone else's marriage or non-marriage any of your business?

[cwydro]

97. How do you know that SHE doesn't want to marry HIM?

And what would that say about either of their character?

It’s a choice.

[Laelth]

125. I don't know that. Maybe she doesn't want to marry him.

I have no personal knowledge, here. I was just asking some questions.

Do you think this will be an issue during the debate? Does it matter? Should it matter?

Evidently, you think not. Fine. Do you think that the American electorate agrees with you?

-Laelth

[SWBTATTReg]

57. Keep em to yourself, please. EXACTLY. If you're in a conversation with someone, and ...

you're chatting about their job, etc., and then you blatantly ask them if they're married? Hmmm...in some corners this question would be considered out of bounds...and perhaps even considered a form of harassment. From an old IT guy in the hiring dept.

[Laelth]

65. I didn't ask if anyone was married. We know that Bloomberg is unmarried.

Instead, I asked whether the electorate cared. I asked whether this issue would come up at tonight's debate. I asked whether it should. Obviously, you don't care one way or the other. Fine. Do you have an opinion, beyond your own, regarding how the American people feel about this issue?

Thank you for engaging me in this thread.

-Laelth

[SWBTATTReg]

67. I think you already answered this question yourself ...

Why did you post this question on DU if you're looking for an answer on how the electorate would feel, from the American people? You seem to not want answers from any of us here on DU...or perhaps what you're hearing is not the answers you're looking for?

[Laelth]

69. We all know a lot of people.

We talk to those people. Perhaps half of us are engaged in Democratic Party politics at the grassroots level. We talk to our fellow Democrats, and we even listen to our Republican neighbors on occasion.

DU is a great place to ask the kind of questions that I am asking, to wit:

More importantly, for your consideration, will this be an issue at tonight's debate in Nevada? Will the moderators bring up this issue? Will Bloomberg's opponents bring up this issue? Should they? Does it even matter?

That's why I launched this thread here and now.

Thank you for your response.

-Laelth

[jberryhill]

81. A lot of people are saying...

Donald? Is that you?

[Rorey]

88. This won't be an issue at tonight's debate in Nevada

The moderators won't bring this up. Bloomberg's opponents won't bring this up. They shouldn't. And it doesn't matter.

If I'm wrong, you can remind me after the debate.

As for if it matters to the electorate, which you've asked repeatedly for some reason, it could matter to a few, and won't matter to some. We've got too many very important issues that actually matter, so it's mystifying why anyone would try to make this an issue. But you're entitled to your opinion about what's important.

[Laelth]

102. Cool. Thank you for your assessment.

I think that Bloomberg's treatment of women is an issue upon which he is vulnerable, but you may be right. This issue may never come up. We shall see what we see.

Thank you for the response.

-Laelth

[Rorey]

112. Yes, his treatment of women, and others, are important issues

You seemed to be making an implication on various posts on this thread that he should "make an honest woman" out of his gf. As a woman, I find that to be demeaning and insulting.

Editing to add: You implied that he seemed to be unwilling to commit. What the hell difference does it make if two consenting adults have a piece of paper to say they're bonded together for life? And, really, who even cares if they're committed? It's clearly only their business what kind of relationship they chose to have.

[Laelth]

115. It appears that nobody is willing to address these issues with Bloomberg.

That's what I was driving at with this thread. It's just not an issue for most Democrats. After the pussy-grabbing President, we could care less how Bloomberg treats women. That's what I have gleaned from this thread, and it has been enlightening.

Thank you.

-Laelth

[Rorey]

118. After the shit show of the last 3+ years, we've got WAY bigger issues

I'm kinda more concerned with saving the planet and the well-being of my fellow Americans than I am about stupid comments this so-called candidate has made about women.

Personally, I've got my own theory about Bloomberg's actual desire to be President. We'll see what happens. I'm NOT a supporter of Bloomberg, at all, but I'm a supporter of any damage he can do to -45.

[Laelth]

119. I certainly appreciate his relentless attacks on the Great Pumpkin.

Frankly, I would not mind having him as President, either. I think he's truly vulnerable on one, key issue--his treatment of women, and if our (other) Democratic candidates are not going to exploit that weakness, I think it very likely that he will be our nominee.

Thank you for engaging me in this thread.

-Laelth

[Rorey]

122. I definitely wouldn't mind if Buttigieg was President, but it's not going to happen

We need to throw our support behind someone who actually has a chance to win in the GE.

Some day, if our nation continues to be a democracy, we'll have a gay president, but not this election. JMO

[Laelth]

127. You're probably right.

But Pete actually has the most delegates right now.

Just sayin'.

-Laelth

[Rorey]

130. There's a long road ahead.

A VERY long road.

My actual point, though, was that he has virtually NO chance to win the general election. Not yet. In a future election, yes. But not this one.

[MineralMan]

103. Character? No.

Many couples don't marry these days. It's an option. I can't imagine anyone would care, really.

I don't think it will come up in the debate. There are far more serious things to discuss there.

[Laelth]

110. Thank you for your considered opinion.

We shall see what we see, but I think that Bloomberg's attitudes toward women and his historical treatment of women are potential avenues of attack for our (other) Democratic candidates. If Bloomberg gets a pass on these issues, we may as well anoint him now.

I hereby predict, based upon the responses from Democrats that I have seen in this thread, that Michael Bloomberg will be our 2020 nominee. Hold me to this prediction, please.

I hope that he selects Pete Buttigieg as his running-mate.

-Laelth

[MineralMan]

111. Anoint? For goodness' sake.

Nobody's getting anointed. His relationship isn't going to be a topic in the debate. Why? Because if they raise that, they will have to raise Buttigieg's relationship and there's no way they'll do that.

What is Bloomberg's attitude toward his apparent partner? Do you know? I assume that she is just fine with their current relationship. If she were not, she would probably not be in it.

I suspect their relationship is one of mutual respect and affection. I know other couples in the same sort of relationship. They aren't married, but have been together for years.

Bloomberg might become the nominee, or he might not. That's 48 primary events and a convention away.

[Laelth]

113. I don't disagree with you.

I see Bloomberg's history with women as his biggest weakness. If that is not going to be exploited by the other people who appear on the stage with him this evening, I feel that he is invulnerable and will cruise to victory.

I don't necessarily see that as a bad thing. As long as he beats the Great Pumpkin, I am cool with it, but it's obvious that very few people care about the issues that I have raised here in this thread.



-Laelth

[Rorey]

114. What?

"I hereby predict, based upon the responses from Democrats that I have seen in this thread, that Michael Bloomberg will be our 2020 nominee. Hold me to this prediction, please."

I hate to break this to you, but voters from the entire country get to vote. We here at DU aren't the deciders, and you can clearly see from the DU poll at the top of this forum, we here at DU aren't even in line with what national polls are showing.

[Laelth]

121. I know that. It was just a prediction.

Please, hold me to it.

-Laelth

[LakeArenal]

140. Especially older married before people are not ready to get married again

[jberryhill]

148. ...with children, who would prefer not to see some other set of kids inherit

If you have two adults with children, who then get married, it can make for some interesting legal goings-on when one of them dies.

[LakeArenal]

139. No

[Laelth]

153. Thank you for the thoughtful analysis. LOL. n/t

-Laelth

[LakeArenal]

166. A hundred other comments say it quite well.

[thegoose]

52. We never had a "first stripper" before, but now...

[Laelth]

61. LOL. Nicely done.

Frankly, I remain rather fond of Melania (although I get attacked every time I say so). I think she's making the best of a bad situation, protecting her child, and representing us fairly well as First Lady.



-Laelth

[tonedevil]

100. I think she is a birther...

and I can never forgive anyone for that.

[Laelth]

108. I think she says what she has to say to protect her son.

I can not fault her for that. It would seriously grieve me to be in her position.

-Laelth

[tonedevil]

116. You don't seem to think women...

have their own agency. That woman was an adult in 2011 when she went on the view to say:

"It’s not only Donald who wants to see [Obama's birth certificate], it’s American people who voted for him and who didn’t vote for him. They want to see that," she argued. Behar then made the point that the birth certificate had already been on display and all over the internet. "We feel it’s different than birth certificate," Melania responded.

It's not like she was Shanghaied into servitude. She married donald knowing who he was and what he was.

[Rorey]

128. She's a disgusting grifter

Sometimes I think I despise her even more than I despise -45.

[sdfernando]

56. We have had a "First Girlfriend" before.

Grover Cleveland married his wife Frances while he was President. He was 49 and she was 21.

[Laelth]

59. Sweet. I didn't know that. Thank you. n/t

-Laelth

[sdfernando]

66. That relationship would seem a bit creepy now-a-days

Check out Frances Cleveland's Wikipedia page.

[hughee99]

136. At least 2, actually. Woodrow Wilson's wife passed away in 1914, and he remarried

(Edith) in 1915, so for about a year-ish, she was “first girlfriend”.

[sdfernando]

144. Thats right!...forgot about her....

some say Edith was actually running the country (unofficial acting president) after Woodrow had his stroke.

[Laelth]

156. Excellent information. Thank you. n/t

-Laelth

[Voltaire2]

3. Don't care at all.

[Laelth]

167. Cool. But do the American people care?

Or, as I asked above:

More importantly, for your consideration, will this be an issue at tonight's debate in Nevada? Will the moderators bring up this issue? Will Bloomberg's opponents bring up this issue? Should they? Does it even matter?



-Laelth

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

5. Not in the least.

Of all of Bloomberg's issues, this would be the most trivial. BTW, Buchanan was probably gay. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/pete-buttigieg-wouldnt-be-americas-first-gay-president/2019/03/26/0b7b1eb4-41de-11e9-922c-64d6b7840b82_story.html

[Laelth]

168. It's entirely reasonable to assume that Buchanan was gay.

But, as I asked above, regarding the fact that Bloomberg has been dating Ms. Taylor for 10 years and hasn't married her:

More importantly, for your consideration, will this be an issue at tonight's debate in Nevada? Will the moderators bring up this issue? Will Bloomberg's opponents bring up this issue? Should they? Does it even matter?

Thank you for your response.

-Laelth

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

171. No, it doesn't matter.

[Laelth]

172. I think Bloomberg's weakest spot is his historical treatment of women.

Not to mention his present treatment of his girlfriend of ten years. If this isn't an issue for DU, then I think he's invincible. I predict that he will be our nominee.

Please, hold me to this prediction.

-Laelth

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

174. Has he abused her, or just not married her?

If he is abusive in some way that would matter; but they might both have their own reasons for not wanting to get married, and that doesn't.

[Laelth]

179. He has a mountain of sexual harassment lawsuits on his desk.

I haven't read them. I haven't met his accusers. I have no idea whether or not all these suits are valid, but usually where there's smoke, there's fire.

I was just trying to poll DU on whether this was going to be an issue. Evidently not. My question has been answered. Thank you.

-Laelth

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

182. As I understand it the lawsuits are against his company and not him personally.

As far as I can determine, the lawsuits do not involve accusations of inappropriate sexual conduct; instead, the allegations have centered around what Bloomberg has said and about the workplace culture he fostered. He has an obligation to maintain a workplace that's free of that sort of thing so he (technically the business) would be legally responsible.

[tonedevil]

188. This is bait and switch...

The headline question is does it matter to the electorate if Bloomberg has married the woman he has been with for 10 years. The answer to that is no and it will not be a campaign issue. Now you have switched to a concern about the sexual harassment lawsuits against him or at least his company. That is a separate question and those may well be used against him and have quite a negative effect. Do you see how the two questions are different?

[Laelth]

194. You give me too much credit.

I am not clever enough to pull a “bait and switch.” I genuinely wanted DU’s opinions on the questions I asked.

-Laelth

[left-of-center2012]

6. No

Why do you ask?

[Laelth]

21. Genuine curiosity about American attitudes toward the institution of marriage.

Especially in the context of political candidates.

Beyond that, my preferred candidate happens to be in a loving, committed marital relationship. I think that counts for something. It says something about his capacity to love, to be an ally, to be faithful, and to be loyal and faithful to the people of the United States.

-Laelth

[left-of-center2012]

24. Uh huh

okie dokie

[NYFlip]

7. I don't care

[Laelth]

169. Cool. Do you think the American people care?

I wonder whether an issue will be made of this. Evidently, you think not.

-Laelth

[hlthe2b]

9. Given the current two ARE-- only on a technicallity...

https://www.irishtimes.com/polopoly_fs/1.3998840!/image/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_620/image.jpg

[Laelth]

173. After the pussy-grabbing Great Pumpkin, anything goes.

I get it. I am a little bit stunned that DU Democrats hold this view, but it is what it is.

Thank you for the response.

-Laelth

[DanTex]

10. Umm, no. Why would anyone?

[squirecam]

11. No. What concerns me is Bloomberg doesn't take questions from voters

While on the campaign trail. He didn’t accept the town hall on CNN tomorrow. Tonight is one of the few opportunities where he must answer questions. That concerns me.

[highplainsdem]

13. IMO this doesn't matter at all. And if it's brought up, then people will also have to consider

that Sanders was never married to the mother of his son Levi, a woman he was involved with after divorcing his first wife. (I don't think that matters, either, but this is something Sanders and those around him have tried to downplay since his earliest years in politics in Vermont.)

[JustAnotherGen]

14. Nope - not to me!

Supposedly - he and his ex wife of many years are quite good friends.

[JustAnotherGen]

16. BTW

I would rather have a President and First Gentleman, or a President and his Significant Other - than a toxic dick man-whore like mushroom dick in the white house. Booker wasn't married either - and it didn't register with me in the Presidential Election - or in his current senate re-election.

[Laelth]

19. Same here.

That was part of my motivation for posting this thread. My preferred candidate happens to be a happily married man in a faithful and committed relationship. Call me an old-fashioned prude, but I think that counts for something.

-Laelth

[JustAnotherGen]

23. I can't agree on that

I never wanted to be married - but my true love came along and I got married at 39 and he was 43.

I never believed marriage and children was where it was at (especially for women) - and you know what?

Stacey Abrams is no 'less' just because she isn't married.

It's pretty common among black American women elites (highly educated) that we remain single.

Lets just make sure that we don't assume that everyone is cut from the same cloth, or ALL relationships are the same.

No two relationships are the same.

Ultimately my husband asked me to marry him because he knew I would NEVER live with another man again unless it was legally/social norm that I HAD to.

That's why he married me.

[Codeine]

33. Really? Why?

No snark, just honestly curious.

[Laelth]

164. Why does marriage matter?

It speaks to commitment--to a lack of selfishness--to the ability to honor alliances--to the ability to make a promise and keep it, and it matters a great deal to people like Pete Buttigieg who was denied the right to marry until very recently.

How can I trust Bloomberg to actually commit to the welfare of the people of the United States if he's not even willing to publicly commit to the woman he's been sleeping with for ten years? How can I trust him if he is not willing to take an oath?

That's what I am driving at in this thread.

-Laelth

[5X]

45. "an old-fashioned prude" not something to brag about, to me.

[Laelth]

50. I wasn't bragging.

My personal ethics are out of date, obviously. I am learning to live with it.

I think that marriage is an honorable institution (as does my preferred candidate who, only recently, was granted the right to participate in the institution of marriage). Beyond that, I feel that the ability to commit (inside any formal arrangement, like swearing an Oath to the Constitution) is a sign of high character (if one actually honors that commitment).

-Laelth

[Demsrule86]

163. Oh please...such nonsense...a big who cares.

[jberryhill]

17. No

I can't see how marital status is at all relevant to anything.

[MoonRiver]

18. No, of course not.

[Nanjeanne]

20. So many good reasons to dislike Bloomberg - this matters not at all.

[Laelth]

25. Doesn't it say something about his attitude toward women, in general?

Given the number of sexual harassment claims that have been filed against Bloomberg, this seems relevant to me.



-Laelth

[Nanjeanne]

31. I think the 40+ lawsuits says enough about his attitude. Don't care if he's married or not. Who'd

want to marry him anyway?

[Polybius]

146. I would

I need money.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

178. The sexual harassment lawsuits were not against him personally,

as Ms. Gray has incorrectly implied, but against his company. Not that that's an OK thing because the buck is supposed to stop with the boss, but so far I haven't seen any evidence that he, personally, is a sex pest. He's apparently made some flagrantly sexist remarks over the years, which he definitely needs to address.

[cwydro]

98. You seem to think this woman with whom he's involved has no say so at all.

That really says more about YOUR attitudes toward women than his.

You think he should make an “honest woman” of her, amirite?

[Laelth]

101. I am certain that she DOES have some say.

And, given the picture I posted above, it appears that she is content with the arrangement.

But the questions I asked were these:

More importantly, for your consideration, will this be an issue at tonight's debate in Nevada? Will the moderators bring up this issue? Will Bloomberg's opponents bring up this issue? Should they? Does it even matter?

Would you like to share your opinions on those? My opinion, here, is irrelevant.

-Laelth

[cwydro]

105. No, no, no, no, and no.

That’s my opinion on those questions.

[Laelth]

109. Thank you. We shall see what we see tonight. n/t

-Laelth

[Zolorp]

22. I don't care, do you?

[Laelth]

26. Yes. I suppose I do care.

If you date someone for 10 years and don't marry that person, I assume (if you're Michael Bloomberg) that you're a greedy bastard who doesn't want to risk losing half of your $50+ billion in a divorce ... not that I would want to lose that much, either, but it would say something about my level of commitment to my "girlfriend" if I didn't marry her after dating for 10 years.

-Laelth

[marlakay]

32. Most rich people have prenup

Even for long term relationships.

[Laelth]

46. Then, why didn't he do that?

I find it odd that he and Ms. Taylor haven't married, and, given the mountain of sexual harassment lawsuits that have been filed against Bloomberg, this seems a viable avenue of attack. His is vulnerable in regards to his treatment of women, I think.

As I asked in the OP:

More importantly, for your consideration, will this be an issue at tonight's debate in Nevada? Will the moderators bring up this issue? Will Bloomberg's opponents bring up this issue? Should they? Does it even matter?

Evidently, I wrote the OP badly. Nobody wants to discuss the questions I was actually asking.

Thank you for your responses in this thread.

-Laelth

[SMC22307]

197. Why are you assuming his "girlfriend" wants to be married?

You - no one - has any idea of the inner workings of Bloomberg's personal relationships. His marital status is a non-issue. We're voting for President, not watching The Bachelor. His opponents should not bring it up, but if they do, I hope Bloomberg shoots them down. Focusing on silly shit has got to end, or we'll be looking at four more years of Fat Nixon.

[Laelth]

198. I make no such assumptions.

I ran a thread recently--a fluff thread entitled VOTE for the MOST ATTRACTIVE FIRST COUPLE. When producing this thread, I noticed that all of our nominees were married except one--Michael Bloomberg. Then, it occurred to me that 44 of our 45 Presidents have been married, and I wondered whether or not this is a serious issue for the American people. The fact that my own preferred candidate, Pete Buttigieg, is married (not to mention the fact that he only recently got the right to marry) matters to me. I wondered whether DU thought this fact would matter to the American people.

Evidently not.

-Laelth

[SMC22307]

206. Marriage equality matters. Whether someone choses to marry doesn't.

Many things factor into the decision to marry and it really isn't anyone's business unless they're in the relationship.

[Laelth]

208. Fair enough.

Thank you for engaging me in this thread.



-Laelth

[Zolorp]

70. I suppose that's a problem you need to deal with on your own.

It doesn't seem to affect either Bloomberg or his girlfriend, and those are the only two people that really matter in it.

Many times people who are married and become divorced are soured on the institution itself. I believe the two are committed to each other and don't want the bother of a piece of paper.

[Laelth]

75. I really wasn't trying to talk about myself.

The questions I asked were these:

More importantly, for your consideration, will this be an issue at tonight's debate in Nevada? Will the moderators bring up this issue? Will Bloomberg's opponents bring up this issue? Should they? Does it even matter?

I can tell what you think. You have been very clear. Do you have any opinion regarding these further questions?

Thank you for engaging me in this thread.

-Laelth

[Zolorp]

89. Only a stupid ass of a moderator would bring it up in a debate.

Even worse if one of his opponents are that stupid.

[Rorey]

93. This!

This. This. This.

[Laelth]

159. Why is the issue of "marriage" a stupid quesion?

Why is Bloomberg's questionable history regarding women off-limits or a "stupid" topic to address?

Are you being serious here?



-Laelth

[DavidDvorkin]

27. The people who would vote against him for that reason would have voted for Trump in any case.

[Laelth]

47. So, you don't think it will come up in the debate?

Gracious! I wrote this OP badly.

More importantly, for your consideration, will this be an issue at tonight's debate in Nevada? Will the moderators bring up this issue? Will Bloomberg's opponents bring up this issue? Should they? Does it even matter?

That's what I am really asking.

Thank you for your response.

-Laelth

[DavidDvorkin]

91. I don't know if it will come up in the debate

If so , I don't think much time will be spent on it.

[JudyM]

96. Not necessarily, and this is the only valid argument against it, IMO.

Many republicans who may be considering voting for a Dem because they view trump as immoral or bad for the country may hesitate before switching parties if the Dem candidate is “living in sin” ... at least trump is married when he represents us in other countries. (Hold my barf bag please)

Have to say it doesn’t mean a thing to me but I know republicans — to them, patriotism and “apparent” morality both matter a lot. They would be far more concerned about social mores in that respect than they are about voting for a democratic socialist. Based on my conversations with otherwise smart republicans.

[RKP5637]

28. Nope! n/t

[BlueJac]

30. Not one bit

[Laelth]

49. I take it you think this issue will not be addressed at tonight's debate.

Got it. Thank you for your response.

-Laelth

[Codeine]

36. All sorts of things to dislike about Bloomberg.

His frankly beautiful girlfriend isn’t one of them.

[5X]

38. if he moved to Utah and married several would that be better?

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-51562737

[Laelth]

48. That's a very good question.

I am quite curious to hear what you think about that.

However, the OP asks the following:

More importantly, for your consideration, will this be an issue at tonight's debate in Nevada? Will the moderators bring up this issue? Will Bloomberg's opponents bring up this issue? Should they? Does it even matter?

Obviously, I wrote the OP badly. My apologies. Nobody wants to talk about the questions I really hoped would be discussed.

Thank you for your response.

-Laelth

[apcalc]

51. BFD. Don't give a rat's ass...

[Jose Garcia]

53. At least she's not young enough to be his daughter

[TygrBright]

58. It's one of the few things I like about him.

He's in a long-term, committed relationship with a grown-up his own age who has a life of her own, and they seem to make the "we each have our own lives but we share together life, too" thing work for both.

They have no need for the legal status of marriage- no kids, lawyers enough to ensure each of their assets and estates are steered according to their own intents and wishes.

appreciatively,
Bright

[Laelth]

74. Wow! That's not an answer that I expected. Cool.

But what about these questions:

More importantly, for your consideration, will this be an issue at tonight's debate in Nevada? Will the moderators bring up this issue? Will Bloomberg's opponents bring up this issue? Should they? Does it even matter?

Any opinion on those?

Thank you for the response.

-Laelth

[TygrBright]

80. Obvs I don't think it matters.

I suppose if it does matter to someone, they'll bring it up.

I think there are much better uses for the limited amount of time candidates have to describe their intentions should they become President, and how they will deal with the various potential challenges of that office. But I'm also aware that a media dependent on ginning up tempests in teacups will grab onto anything they think might make people clutch pearls and argue about irrelevancies, so it's possible some moderator will bring it up.

Whoopety-doo, if they do. I suspect Bloomberg is well-prepared for such a query and will make the moderator look as petty and stupid as Buttigieg manages to make everyone who brings up his marital status look.

Ditto on the opponents thing. The ones who haven't already been made to look like asses for pecksniffing other candidates' marital status might try, I suppose. We'll learn something valuable either way.

disinterestedly,
Bright

[Laelth]

86. Fair enough. Thank you. n/t

-Laelth

[Croney]

60. I see the phrase "he hasn't married her" used in this thread,

as if he's toying with the affections of a helpless ingenue. Maybe he asked and she said no. More likely, they have an adult relationship where both parties' needs are met.

The term First Partner works with any of the candidates.

[Laelth]

72. Oh, no. It's "First Husband" for me. LOL.

I suppose "First Partner" will work fine if we get that far.



-Laelth

[cwydro]

99. Thank you.

That’s what I keep saying.

As if the “poor little woman” is being used in some way.

[TDale313]

63. Nope. Not an issue. n/t

[Peacetrain]

71. Not one bit of an issue with me!

[Kali]

73. doesn't matter to me, doubt it matters to the electorate

he has other issues that will matter more to any electorate.

as for potential cross-over electors...they don't seem to have a problem with a possible illegal imigrant soft porn model. they no longer have any credibility (if they ever did) commenting on the morals of any first spouses.

[Laelth]

78. I hear you.

For me, it's a question of Bloomberg's ability to commit. If he can't commit (openly and publicly) to a woman he's been dating for 10 years, can I trust his ability to commit to the well-being of the people of the United States? Or, is he in it for his own selfish interests?

That is what I question, and I think it is a worthy topic of debate.

-Laelth

[Kali]

79. with the divorce rate in this country

I doubt many people really associate marriage with commitment anymore.

[Laelth]

214. That's sad. It's not at all amusing. n/t

-Laelth

[Bradical79]

76. Don't care, people who do are being stupid

If this is your problem with Bloomberg, your worldview is more than a little fucked up.

[lapfog_1]

77. are they hurting anyone?

Seriously... is this a question for 2020?

[aeromanKC]

84. No

Not in the least

[Renew Deal]

85. Isn't he previously married with kids?

Weren't Reagan and Trump divorced? And how old is he? It's not like he's 40 and about to get married. Though a WH wedding would certainly be a spectacle.

[YOHABLO]

87. No, what bothers me is that bow tie doesn't go with that tux.

[redqueen]

92. It's amusing to me that so many people here highlight the importance of moderates

until something like this comes up.

Yes, I do think this will hurt him with some voters. Especially when combined with his history with women and women's issues.

Edit to add, as for me, no it doesn't really matter, except as a reminder of what he thinks about women.

[Mike Nelson]

94. To me...

... it doesn't matter. I think it would, for some.

[greatauntoftriplets]

104. It's meh to me.

Here in Chicago, we have a First Lady. She's married to Lori Lightfoot, the current mayor.

[mindem]

106. None of my business

it's just another stupid thing to be uptight about.

[samnsara]

107. why would that even be an issue? A Bachelor in the WH would be kinda fun..

[Devil Child]

126. I see little to no positives in Michael Bloomberg as a Democratic primary candidate

But him being unmarried doesn't rank anywhere on that list.

[nolabear]

129. No, but an incumbent nasty breakup would be SPECTACULAR.

[NoMoreRepugs]

131. If our candidate can beat drumpf I don't care

if their significant other is a blow up doll.

[Laelth]

177. I think that Daffy Duck could beat Trump in 2020.

That's not what I asked. My question(s) are intended to determine whether Bloomberg's historical mis-treatment of women is a liability. On DU, apparently, it is not. Thank you for the response.

-Laelth

[NoMoreRepugs]

193. If anyone can beat Dump there sure seems to be a whole

lot of unnecessary hand-wringing going on here at DU.

[Laelth]

195. I have been watching and posting on DU since 2004.

You've been around since 2009. "Hand-wringing" is just what we do. I suspect you are used to it by now.

Cheers!



-Laelth

[Kali]

215. you didn't ask about his historical mistreatment of women

you asked about marital status. they are two totally different matters.

[Laelth]

218. True. I think that one is indicative of the other. n/t

-Laelth

[Runningdawg]

134. I think the only people who would care are already in Trumps cult.

[customerserviceguy]

137. I just don't think that makes any difference anymore

We've come a long ways since 1964, when I recall that there were qualms among GOP voters that Nelson Rockefeller had actually married a divorced woman.

I expect that tonight's non-Bloomie debaters will have much bigger fish to fry with the mayor.

[Laelth]

212. That's my concern.

I see Bloomberg as being vulnerable on this one issue, i.e. his historical and present treatment of women. If he is not challenged on this issue, I think Bloomberg will be our nominee.

I can only hope that he picks Pete Buttigieg as a running-mate.



-Laelth

[customerserviceguy]

223. Seems that Bloomie

got cut down pretty far by Sen. Warren. However he treats any woman who is his arm candy doesn't matter as to how he's treated women who have worked for him. Just because the Orange Anus is nice to Melania doesn't mean he's not a sexist pig.

I like Pete a lot, but I cannot see him picked as a running mate. The ticket needs to be balanced by race and gender, and there's no woman of color left in the race to win the nomination and pick Pete. I can envision a Cabinet-level office for him, since he probably wouldn't be able to win statewide office in Indiana.

[Laelth]

224. Senator Warren nailed Bloomberg in this weak spot.

I was glad to see somebody do it, but I don’t think it will hurt Mike much, and I doubt it will help Elizabeth much.

As for Pete, I will say what I always say. He’s young, energetic, and optimistic. The past 60 years have taught me that Pete is the kind of candidate that Democrats need to run if we want to win (JFK, Carter, Clinton, Obama). Pete’s intelligent, articulate, a veteran, a Midwesterner, pragmatic, reasonable, decent, relatively moderate, responsible, and respectful. I think he’s the unity candidate that we need.

That said, we shall see what we see.



-Laelth

[Blue_true]

142. Your thinking on this issue is really outdated.

I think that the Prime Ministers of New Zealand and Iceland are not married to their partners, the New Zealand PM even has a child from her relationship. It makes no difference.

Beautiful woman though, Bro.

[Laelth]

210. Evidently, you are right.

At least as far as DU is concerned. I agree that Michael Bloomberg and Diana Taylor make a cute couple, but they can't hold a candle to the Yangs.



Peace.

-Laelth

[Tweedy]

145. No

[RandySF]

151. No

[radical noodle]

152. Doesn't matter at all to me

I think they have a lot of other things to go after tonight without attacking him for not being married.

[ALBliberal]

154. They look like a happy couple. NT

[Laelth]

157. They do look good, but they can't touch these peeps. n/t

Andrew and Evelyn Yang

I adore that picture.

-Laelth

[ALBliberal]

165. Sure wish he was still in it. Crazy smart charismatic guy.

[Laelth]

200. So do I.

My daughter is really ticked off that she won’t be able to vote for Yang in the primaries. If Buttigieg has dropped out by the time we vote, she plans to write Yang in.

-Laelth

[ALBliberal]

204. Good for her for voting. I think Yang was

my sons favorite as well.
And obviously your daughter can still vote for dem nominee in the general. Good for her and her convictions.
These young people feel everything so strongly at least the ones I know do.

[Laelth]

205. Without question, she will vote for our nominee in the general.

And she feels very strongly about these things, but she's really mad that I am telling her she will probably have to vote for Bloomberg.

-Laelth

[ALBliberal]

213. Squirrely primary. Nothing feels normal about it.

Last primary I was all for Bernie as were my girls but this time we feel he might not have the best shot at winning. Wish Harris was still in the running as well. Praying daily that Trump will be defeated.

[Laelth]

217. Agreed. I think we are heading for a brokered convention.

That said, I think that Daffy Duck could beat the Great Pumpkin in November. Too many Democrats stayed home in 2016 because everybody thought that Hillary was guaranteed to win. I don't think that Democrats will make the same mistake this year.

-Laelth

[Dan]

158. After Trump...are you serious?

I suspect that Trump if elected in 2020 will divorce his current wife and marry his daughter, and the evangelicals will tell us that is the way it should be.

[Laelth]

160. It appears that many Democrats share this view (especially on DU).

I am a bit stunned, but it is what it is.



-Laelth

[whistler162]

161. Of all the issues this is my No. 1

<SARCASM>

[Laelth]

170. Thanks. n/t

-Laelth

[LaelthsDaughter]

162. Yup! And here's why!

I really don’t care in principle who is married and who isn’t most of the time. Like: You do you boo!

In THIS case I do care. Bloomberg is going to be representing democrats and the United states as a whole, if he is elected for president. I dislike that he has so many accusations of assult towards women. I do not know and I can’t know how he treats his current girlfriend. I just think it’s a bit telling that they haven’t married yet. It makes me wonder if we have a toned down version of Trump hiding away inside of Bloomberg. I, for one, dislike that he isn’t married to her.

[33taw]

184. What if she doesn't want to get married?

[LaelthsDaughter]

191. Then my next question is why

Why wouldn’t she? What possible reasons would cause her to not do so? That in itself is concerning. It says something about thier relationship and I dislike having to question that.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

192. Any number of reasons. Many people have very happy, satisfactory relationships

without being married or wanting to be married. In any event, it's nobody's business but theirs.

[33taw]

199. I've know many people who have chosen not to get married and it has nothing to do with their

partner. Maybe she had a failed marriage and does not want to get married. Who knows, I don’t care why they aren’t married. Anymore, that i can about why other candidates are married.

[SMC22307]

209. LOL Women have to be married off, eh?

What it says is that it's none of your business whether or not a couple chooses to marry. You have no idea the inner workings of their relationship and rather than be "concerned" for two grown adults fully capable of making their own decisions, why not focus on something important like, I dunno, protecting SS and Medicare, voter suppression, environmental degradation, etc.

[Steelrolled]

175. Nope

I think they (and we) can manage.

[Thomas Hurt]

176. If he gets in the Oval Office the christofascists will be squealing like pigs about it.

Family values will be a thing again.

[happybird]

187. Nope.

and a quick polling of my family and coworkers (a wide variety of religious, anti-religion, and political beliefs) all agree. To quote a coworker, “It ain’t 1920, it’s 2020.”

[Laelth]

196. Interesting. Thank you.

I am a little shocked that Bloomberg's treatment of women and his attitudes toward women are irrelevant to the Democratic voting public (at least as it is reflected on DU). If this is the case, as it appears to be (i.e. if he gets no moderator questions on this issue, and if he gets no challenges from the Democrats running against him on this issue), I feel confident in predicting that Michael Bloomberg will be our 2020 nominee. This issue, I think, is his greatest weakness. If nobody is willing to exploit it, he should win.

Thank you for your response.

-Laelth

[TalenaGor]

201. IDGAF

[SMC22307]

211. *Probably the best answer in the thread*

[JFlash]

202. No.

No it does not.

[VarryOn]

203. I see it was a good thing...

Married or not.

With his wealth, he could very easily---actually, very, very very easily--have any number, shape, intelligence, size or age of woman or man he wanted. The fact he's stuck with same partner all these years (since 2000) is impressive.

[Laelth]

221. True. He could have bought any number of "companions" with his wealth.

My ethical standards for the people who earn my vote is a little higher, however.

-Laelth

[marble falls]

207. Let me check: ....... nope.

[Gravitycollapse]

216. This is dumb and a complete waste of our time. It's 2020, not 1920.

[Maru Kitteh]

219. Did he court her at a party after admiring soft porn shots while cheating

on his second wife who he married because he was cheating on with her on his first wife?

[Laelth]

220. Not sure. It's a good question, though.

If your real question is, "Is he better than Trump?" then my answer is a definite "yes."

-Laelth