Yes, Iowa matters. No, Bloomberg is not a contender.

That's why it's not uncommon to see candidates drop out after Iowa.

Last night's fiasco, though, changes things somewhat. There's a big difference between getting undisputed results during primetime on election night and what we're experiencing this year. This is an absolute shitshow. The Iowa Democratic Party is a laughingstock.

through Super Tuesday this time.

It will be after Super Tuesday when I think we will see candidates dropping out.

However, agree with you response 110%

...always makes a big difference. To say Iowa doesn't matter, as many posts have claimed, is absurd and not historically accurate.

Bloomberg will be the one left standing to pick the pieces,
after the other candidates finish their 'circular firing squad'.

choice.

Gotta give him a chance in his firewall, though.

Should wrap things up nicely. Super Tuesday is an air game, not a ground game, and only Bloomberg has the cash to pull that off.

Saying otherwise is nuts in the 21st century.

Did you see my thread about the homophobe who voted mayor Pete then found out he is gay? Much of the electorate get 100% of their voter information from commercials on TV and swaying that percentage is all it takes.

Sure, money matters. But the correlation between spending and winning delegates isn't as strong as you think.

Waiting....

http://theconversation.com/money-in-elections-doesnt-mean-what-you-think-it-does-104452 (scroll down a ways)

And the Freakonomics authors famously wrote about this issue.

Also, there's a big difference between raising a lot of money via donations and spending one's own money. If someone has raised a lot money via small donations, it's safe to say that person has a lot of support. But simply being a billionaire says no such thing. Sure, buying ads helps, and there being millions of ignorant people helps. But Bloomberg winning the Democratic Party nomination ain't happening.

It's all about delegate math. Show me how Bloomberg hypothetically and realistically ends up with a majority of delegates. Where do you see him winning or at least walking away with a large number of delegates on Super Tuesday?

That is about money spent by Democrats compared to Republicans. Apples and oranges, this is about primaries.

Don't ask for proof if you are only going to reciprocate with unsubstaniated opinion.

HE did not submit a peer reviewed study.

His link has no bearing on spending money in primaries and caucuses.

Antiquated. The whole thing.
1. shorten it to two weeks
2. set a declare by date.
3. Results in 2 days after each.

but institutional failure seems to be the standard in the 21st century.

mode in the primaries demonstrates their endurance and ability to hold up in a GE

Two weeks is too short for that in my view.

Many people are unable or unwilling to take part in a time-consuming, public spectacle.

I've advocated for starting with 2 or 3 states that reflect our electorate demographically, such as Illinois and Arizona. Then, have a Super Tuesday with 8-10 states a few weeks later. And then have all the rest of the states vote a month after that. Candidates need time to campaign in all the states, and those with less funding and less name recognition deserve a chance to compete.

-Laelth

Show me, with delegate math, a realistic path to the nomination for Bloomberg. Where is he going to win?

Until then none of us really know anything despite what think we might know.

All these "Bloomberg can win" people should be able to demonstrate a path to the nomination using delegate math. Where is he going to win on Super Tuesday?

I believe that he is being the most strategic by far. The only other than comes close is Buttegieg.

He's currently gaining in the polls, and the convention is a ways off yet. Anything can happen (especially if you have a fortune that you're willing to spend to make it happen).

We shall see what we see.

-Laelth

...thus proving Bloomberg's point. I'm not voting for Bberg at this point but to say he is not a contender is sheer folly. If anything, I think it's the opposite. He's got a whole lot more millions to blow through yet and everything he has done has been spot on.

...it's foolish and historically inaccurate to say Iowa doesn't matter (and even this year it's not meaningless). IA and NH always have an outsized influence on the narrative. And, usually, a candidate drops out after Iowa--that wouldn't happen if it didn't mean anything. In 2016 it was O'Malley. In 2008 it was Biden and Dodd. In 2004 it was Gephardt. And so on.

There's a reason why, outside of the DU bubble, the consensus is that Biden benefits from the mess that is Iowa (while the wind is somewhat taken out of the Buttigieg and Sanders sails). A prime time, undisputed announcement of the results with Biden finishing a distant 4th would have been far more damaging than what we're seeing with the absolute shitshow put on by the Iowa Democratic Party. It's 24 hours later, we only have partial results, what results we do have will be questioned (right or wrong), and nobody walks away with great momentum. As a result, Biden's odds of finishing 2nd in New Hampshire are greater than they would be otherwise. He may end up 3rd or 4th anyway, but the Iowa chaos boosts his chances. 2nd in NH and 1st or 2nd in NV will help him maintain frontrunner status. Not because IA, NH and NV produce a ton of delegates, but because - again - the media narrative matters...a lot!