I'm kinda drifting towards Bloomberg.

[Kablooie]

I really like Pete but I think Trump will use every gay stereotype he can think of to attack him over and over and over.
I'd like him to run again in a few years when his opponent won't be Trump. He's certainly young enough to give it another shot in the future.

Biden's experience is extensive and his views are good but I just don't feel the energy he had years ago. I thought he would be the best but after seeing the debates I just am not sure he would stand up well to Trump's low blow character assassinations. You need someone who's willing to hit back hard and not just defend themselves as I expect Biden would do.

I like the essence of what Bernie and Elizabeth both say but they seem too focussed on particular issues. If they don't accomplish their particular goals there's not a lot more they are offering. They don't seem flexible. I also think one of the biggest issues will be to restore a functioning government. After Trump's decimation it's going to be a skeleton that will take time to grow back to health and other issues will have to take a back seat until then.

Amy seems too wonkish, not a rough and tumble fighter. She wouldn't stand up well to the mountain of bluster that would land on her.

Bloomberg isn't dynamic but seems pragmatic and logical. Some of his past issues bother me but I expect him to have learned from them and to try to make up for them in the future.
He has donated his money over the years to very good causes which demonstrate honest, liberal views. Also his New York Mayor managerial experience is worthwhile.
One big plus is his money for political ads. He will be able to match the Republicans and not be beholden to any other powers to do it. Also most of the things Trump could attack him on, Bloomberg could attack Trump right back. They are similar in a lot of ways except that Bloomberg is an adult who uses intelligence, logic and has experience.
In a normal election I don't think he would be my choice but in this campaign, against this monster, I think Bloomberg would hold up better than the others. I'm sure he will be attacking Trump personally and not just defending his own past and that's going to be essential.

[ALBliberal]

1. Love this analysis thank you.

[BusyBeingBest]

2. Agree with much of your reasoning--

I already voted so I'm just waiting for how things work out. I think on DU people are very primed to hate him, but I don't think the rest of the voting public automatically hates billionaires. I mean, we have a pseudo-billionaire for pResident now. He's a really, really smart, hard working and accomplished person, and he is calm and reasoned. That would be a good match against Donnie the Clown. He also has good proposals.

[StevieM]

3. I'm standing put in my belief that George W. Bush was one of the worst presidents we have ever had.

And Bloomberg supported him for re-election.

I am not OK with that.

[DaDeacon]

6. 100% agree!

[Kablooie]

9. That's awful but I'm thinking of winning over Trump as being more important.

And I think Bloomberg has the best chance.
Also his Republican background would draw some Republicans to vote for him too.

If we go with who we think is the best candidate and they lose we may never have a chance to vote for a good candidate again because the country will become a one party, totalitarian state at the end of another 4 years.

[Happyhippychick]

4. Great analysis. I'd love if he picked Pete for veep

[Blue_true]

8. My guess is Bloomberg would pick Booker or a Hispanic member of Congress.

Jacquain Castro would fit the bill well, he is pretty good foreign policy creds.

[Squinch]

31. Stacy Abrams.

[Blue_true]

37. No. Need someone that has held office at the national level.

Abrams make people happy as a potential choice, but I believe that she and Gillum would be totally bad choices for number 2. Susan Rice or a female Hispanic member of Congress that had a good national profile would be far better choices.

[blm]

5. I understand that concern, but, I'm going to correct you reWarren.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2020/1/15/21054083/elizabeth-warren-2020-democratic-primary

......
Warren is the only Democrat running for president who has built, or directly managed, a federal agency. That gives her a form of experience that is unique in the Democratic field but central to the work of the president. As my colleague Emily Stewart wrote in her excellent retrospective on Warren’s work setting up the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, “the real action in any administration is executive in nature: knowing what regulatory buttons to push, which enforcers can really go for blood, who to put where, and how to manage them.” And Warren does.

Campaigning in the age of television frames the presidency as a communications job, which, sometimes, it is. But those powers are overstated: Presidents are rarely able to dramatically change public opinion, and their interventions are as likely to hurt legislative efforts as help. By contrast, campaigns understate both the power and the difficulty of leading the world’s most powerful and consequential bureaucracy, and the next president will face a particularly hard version of that job, as Donald Trump has driven out a tremendous amount of civil service talent and demoralized many of those who remain.
.......

[Kablooie]

10. I really like her and she is a fighter.

I think she would be my second choice but I still feel Bloomberg has the best chance against the landslide of shit that will land on them.

[blm]

12. That wasn't the point. You said you were concerned about

getting the government back running the way it needs to after Trump’s dismantling of it. Your dismissal of Warren’s ability to do that isn’t just wrong, it’s completely, indisputably wrong. She is actually the best equipped to rebuild it.

As far as facing Trump, she morphs into an assassin when confronting corruption - and Trump is as corrupt as it gets.

[Kablooie]

14. I agree that she would probably be a good manager to restore our government when needed.

I'm not confident that Bernie would. That statement was more about him than Elizabeth.

Elizabeth may make a better president but unfortunately I still feel, so far, that Bloomberg, in spite of his disturbing faults, would have the best chance against Trump and that's the only thing that matters.
If we don't win, we lose everything.

[blm]

17. You grouped them together when they are polar opposites.

Did you read Klein’s article? Your comments don’t indicate that you know much about Warren.

And, as far as facing Trump, I see the assassin side of her in full mode. One on one she’d twist Trump into a pretzel.

[thesquanderer]

26. Nah, not polar opposites. Significant differences, but also lots in common.

Which is why it makes sense that, according to morningconsult, the leading second choice for Warren supporters is Sanders, and the leading second choice for Sanders is Warren.

[JudyM]

15. I agree, I think she'd be the best for that. I'm leaning toward Sanders though for electability and

I think she should be VP and orchestrate all the different parts of that.
Whatever happens, I hope she has a large hand in getting things back together in our democracy.

[rainy]

11. She is the best candidate for this moment

It’s time for a woman to lead. The future belongs to women to shape and mold into a better world.

[Kablooie]

13. You are right, it's time for a woman to lead.

If Bloomberg won it would be years of another male president but there would still be an opportunity in the future for a woman.

But if a woman ran and lost to Trump, there may never be another chance for a woman to run in our lifetimes because right wing extremists would have made a successful coup of our government.

I have to go with who I think is the best to beat Trump, not who would be the best president.

[stopbush]

7. I voted for Mike in the CA primary early voting.

I agree with your analysis.

[blue neen]

16. "Bloomberg is an adult who uses intelligence, logic and has experience."

I think he showed that tonight.

[HarlanPepper]

18. Beyond the money and his willingness to use it against Dump I'm not sure I see the appeal.

But obviously there’s nothing more subjective than picking a candidate.

[Midwestern Democrat]

24. It baffles me as well. Bloomberg may be the least charismatic presidential candidate I've ever

seen who's polling in the primary wasn't negligible - honestly, in terms of charisma, he makes Michael Dukakis look like Bill Clinton in his prime.

[thesquanderer]

25. And supposedly, he'll use that money against Trump no matter who our nominee is. nt

[Awsi Dooger]

19. I am voting for Michael Bloomberg

I held my Florida ballot blank until tonight. Tomorrow I am filling it out and checking the Bloomberg box.

All things being equal I would vote for Klobuchar. Unlike far too many in our party I don't have an idiotic appraisal of the electorate. Males have teflon and especially rich powerful males. This is an incredibly daunting task against an incumbent. We need to throw out our stupid whining about statements and policies past and project to how voters think in a general election.

If we put Sanders out there the question, "Is he too liberal for your state?" will have affirmative rates in the 40-45% range. With Bloomberg it will be normal territory for a Democrat, low 30s. Heck, in the New Hampshire exit poll you had half of respondents saying Sanders was too liberal. And this was in a Democratic primary.

Besides, Bloomberg had an excellent debate.

[BusyBeingBest]

20. I went from planning to vote for Amy to going along with my

husband on Bloomberg. It was a last minute decision, was a little on the fence about it--but I just felt she wasn't going to get past Super Tuesday, as much as I think she's a solid choice.

[MoonlitKnight]

21. Might as well wait a week

A lot is going to happen in the next week. You have plenty of time before that ballot needs to be mailed.

[womanofthehills]

28. So you have no problem with Bloomberg supporting Graham - $250,000 to a total ass

A review of Mr. Bloomberg’s giving shows that he has not only backed Republicans in competitive and pivotal races like Mr. Toomey’s, but that he has also sunk money into Republican primaries on behalf of McConnell allies. They include Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina — Mr. Bloomberg helped Mr. Graham in 2014 by giving $250,000 to a PAC supporting him — and the late Senator Thad Cochran of Mississippi, who in 2014 fought off a Tea Party insurgent by just a few thousand votes and had $250,000 in support from Mr. Bloomberg.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/26/us/politics/michael-bloomberg-republicans-donations.html

[Dem4Life1102]

22. Luke was almost seduced by the dark side too.

But he was able to fight it.

[denem]

23. Bloomberg would split the part as much, or more than, Sanders.

For better or worse, there are many berners who simply will not vote for poster child of 'the billionaire class'.

[underthematrix]

27. I'm good with either BIDEN or BLOOMBERG

[Squinch]

29. This is me. The Biden spread in the contested states is compelling,

but he was running such a dud of a campaign. Last night gave me hope for him, though.

I'm good with Bloomberg because I think he would win
I know that is not pure of me but I don't care.

[still_one]

30. The only thing Bloomberg is doing in my opinion is insuring Sanders is the nominee

[underthematrix]

32. BIDEN gets OBAMA and extremely high PoC and indie turnout and Bloomberg gets us Republicans

and indies and high voter turnout. Either one is a win for us. Keep the HOuse. Take the senate and White House and increase our govships and control over state houses.

[still_one]

33. I hope you are right, but I am not so sure

[underthematrix]

34. Hey. I don't have a crystal ball. Your point of view is just as valid as mine.

[still_one]

35. I will go with your crystal ball thank-you

[DemocratSinceBirth]

36. If you want a moderate you should go with Biden.

Biden is not without flaws but he's Bloomberg without the racial and sexist baggage. A broad swath of Democrats will never accept an interloper with Bloomberg's baggage. That's an empirical observation and not a normative one.

Imagine a Biden candidacy supplemented by Bloomberg's billions in anti-Trump ads.