Why isn't Tom Steyer being considered a viable moderate?

[ElementaryPenguin]

He certainly had a better time on the debate stage than Bloomberg.

His resources are comparable, and his positions are sound.

He seems like Bloomberg with less arrogance - and far less baggage.

He missed this debate - and it's treated as if he no longer exists.

[C_U_L8R]

1. Zero experience?

[ElementaryPenguin]

2. To run against Trump - who had Zero experience - and has learned NOTHING

Except for how to get away with murder.

[musicblind]

32. Experience hasn't mattered since 2016.

As Biden supporter, I hate to say that, but it's true

[denem]

3. I like Tom.

In 2019, I resented the fact that his money mattered more than his political skills. After last night he might as well have been Bill Clinton, when compared to Bloomberg.

[ElementaryPenguin]

6. I agree.

I like him too.

[musicblind]

33. I've always liked Tom.

He may be a billionaire, but I truly believe his heart is in the right place. I believe he loves this country and wants to see a progressive agenda in the White House.

Not all rich people are jerks, and he's a great example. The main reason he suffered was he didn't fair as well in the debates against polished linguists like Biden, Warren, and Buttigieg. Sometimes, how you sound matters as much as what you say.

He's smart as hell, though. I'm glad he's on our side.

[wryter2000]

4. For me

Term limits. A huge non-starter. We wanted to impeach Trump without Nancy Pelosi, Jerome Nadler, and (I assume) Adam Schiff? Probably lots of other great Dems who've been in Congress for a while.

National referendum. I live in CA. Our ballot initiative system is a disaster. Proposition 13 anyone?

And his stupid ad says he wants to shake up Washington. Washington is in chaos. We need to restore sanity, not shake things up.

[ElementaryPenguin]

7. He wouldn't get term limits passed.

But he makes a valid point (though I don't agree with him on that).

[wryter2000]

11. He wouldn't get a referendum passed, either

But it shows me a weakness in his thinking.

[ElementaryPenguin]

14. I lived out there during Prop 13 also!

A catastrophe!

[musicblind]

34. Despite all those great minds, I still want term limits.

I think it would get more things done and fewer people would be afraid of upsetting primary voters all the time. Just my opinion, though.

[Autumn]

5. Steyer didn't qualify for last nights debate.

[ElementaryPenguin]

9. I know he didn't

But I lost track of what the requirements were for last night.

[W_HAMILTON]

20. He is polling poorly nationally since he hasn't really been spending money nationally.

He is polling better in Nevada and South Carolina and would have probably otherwise qualified for last night's debate, but there weren't enough qualifying polls released in the eligible time frame from those two states for him to qualify.

[StevieM]

23. He deserved to be in that debate.

But the DNC screwed him for real like the way Bernie pretends they screwed him in 2016.

[musicblind]

35. Which is crazy because he actually led the Point Blank Political poll out of Nevada

and hee was only one point from second in the Beacon Research poll out of Nevada.

Both of those polls were released just last week.

How does someone leading one the few polls out of Nevada not land on the Nevada debate stage?

After all, it was called the "Nevada" debate, not the "National" debate.

[Autumn]

36. I don't know what they're thinking . And it pissed me off that Bloomberg was there and Steyer

wasn't. They could change the rules for one billionaire but not for another billionaire. I wonder what the difference is that appeals to them.

[BeckyDem]

8. Good questions. He is not a bad guy at all and nothing like Bloomberg.

[ElementaryPenguin]

10. I just never see Steyer get the credit I think he deserves in these debates.

He seems assertive and confident - without being obnoxious and arrogant.

[BeckyDem]

12. I prefer Warren but he has been sincere about the changes he has made in his life.

So I see your point.

[ElementaryPenguin]

13. As of today, he seems a considerably better choice than Bloomberg

And he can expose Trump as a business fraud with roughly the same credibility Bloomberg could. And he won't get outspent either.

[BeckyDem]

15. Yes!

No one is asking Steyer, how many NDA's do you have?

No one needs to ask him, why would you embrace and amplify stop and frisk?

[nobuddy]

16. Leading up to NH he flooded our radio stations

Every single commercial break - same commercial. I actually never tired of it because the commercial opened with him calling trump a criminal.

[Doremus]

17. Based on his position on climate change alone, I would consider him a progressive, not a moderate

There are others who prioritize climate change and who have more experience than he does but if Steyer somehow pulls off a miracle and becomes the nominee I'd be glad to support him.

[blm]

18. Bloomberg bought his poll ratings in one fell swoop.

Last edited Thu Feb 20, 2020, 08:54 PM - Edit history (1)

Great ads can do that.

[W_HAMILTON]

19. He is considered viable -- in Nevada and South Carolina...

...where he spent his resources; however, his numbers in Iowa and New Hampshire were terrible, as are his national numbers, because he wasn't spending as much money in those states. Contrast that with Bloomberg, whose big spending was specifically directed nationally rather than specifically targeted for a portion of the early voting states, which is why he been able to do nationally what Steyer was able to do in the couple of states where he spent big (e.g., build up a potentially double digit base of support).

[patricia92243]

21. Just goes to show the election cannot be purchased as some would

have us believe.

[tritsofme]

22. Because he's not a real candidate.

[ElementaryPenguin]

29. Fitting. Trump is not a real President.

[StevieM]

24. Tom Steyer is a good person and a great Democrat.

He has earned my respect.

[ElementaryPenguin]

30. Mine too.

[NedBraden]

25. Why?

Why?

Simple answer : there's a richer billionaire. And that's what the Bloomers want.


A richer billionaire to BUY our party.

Not a minor billionaire like stryker, but a big $hot like "MIKE," ( all propaganda , no substance and after last night possibly an undercover repuke).


"MIKE!" ha$ what it take$ to get it done.


No run along stryker with your Democrat progressive stories and let MIKE takeover.


MIKE just needs to cut a few checks and he's on the way to buying the party.




I'm feeling even sicker to my stomach than I thought was possible. The orange cheeto was bad enough,but oligarch MIKE being allowed to buy the party is truly disgusting. Maybe even worse than cheato , in most regards.

[ElementaryPenguin]

27. I agree with most of what you said, Ned - but NO ONE on this planet could be worse than Dump!!

[evertonfc]

26. You can't be wealthy and a Democrat anymore

The Sanders crew says so. Sad

[ElementaryPenguin]

28. A lot of our Hollywood supporters would be surprised by this...

Steven Spielberg and Tom Hanks - you guys have too much money - don't give us any more.

[jg10003]

31. Resources are nowhere near comparable

Bloomberg has already spent 300 million and shows no sign of slowing down. Steyer does not have that level of liquidity. Steyer's total worth is "only" 1.5 billion. Bloomberg could spend 2 billion without cashing out a single share of stock.

[Autumn]

37. He's not a moderate IMO.

[Demsrule86]

38. He has no experience in government and has been interested in one issue only...He is not for me.

Biden is the best choice by far.