Bloomberg in the Debates?

[MineralMan]

This morning, I see that there are three OPs in the Democratic Primaries forum about Mike Bloomberg and the primary debates. They're quite different:

1. One claims that Bloomberg doesn't want to be in the debates.

2. The second claims that he shouldn't be allowed in the debates.

3. Still another one complains that the DNC has changed the rules about the debates.

The first OP was wrong. Bloomberg will be glad to be in the debates. He wasn't in them before, because his candidacy didn't meet the requirements. That's for the same reason he wasn't on the ballot for the first four primary events. He didn't declare his candidacy in time, and does not accept campaign donations. Also, since his name did not appear in early polls, he could not have qualified for the earlier debates.

The second OP is pretty much ridiculous. Clearly, Mike Bloomberg is a candidate in the Democratic Primaries. He's gaining strength in the polls and is advertising heavily in the Super Tuesday states, where he certainly will be on the ballot. He is a Democratic primary candidate and needs to be able to represent himself in future debates. Of course he should be allowed to debate, on grounds of simple fairness to the candidates.

The third OP ignores that the rules for qualifying for the debates have changed multiple times as the primary season has gone on. They have changed by making the requirements even more difficult to meet. That helps to limit the number participating so that candidates who are doing well get precedence.

Clearly Bloomberg is a genuine candidate, and one whose support in the polls is growing. We need to hear from him in the debates, where other candidates can ask him questions and challenge his plans. The DNC has changed the rules that kept candidates who were self-funding their campaigns out of the debates. Why? Because there weren't any until Bloomberg jumped in. So, now he qualifies, based on his national poll results. Bloomberg will be happy to appear in those debates, and is probably fully prepared for them.

[bluewater]

1. Voters should insist that Bloomberg be vetted in the debates.

There are only 2 debates left before Super Tuesday:

February 19th in Las Vegas, Nevada.

February 25th in Charleston, SC.

Bloomberg should not be allowed to parachute into Super Tuesday on March 3rd with out having to answer questions about his policies and his past.

[calguy]

5. You are so right

If my man Joe disappoints in the next two primaries, my next choice is Mike. I'd sure feel a lot better about it if I got to see how he performs on the debate stage. I'm all for a full vetting of all the candidates. Bernie has so far escaped a the full fledged vetting that should be required. Show us his medical records like he promised.

[MineralMan]

10. Or without the chance to state and defend his positions in

a debate forum. Both things are part of these debates.

[bluewater]

27. Or be confronted by the other candidates in

a debate forum. That is an important part of these debates.

[MineralMan]

29. And so he will be.

He'll be in the debates. No problem.

[robbedvoter]

39. Also, Bernie Sanders who claims to be the frontrunner (Delegates #

notwithstanding). Just for once, in my life, I'd like to see a debate where he is questioned. Is M4A real or a unicorn? And I mean even by your candidate, if possible. Unless she is running for VP.

[calguy]

2. Why are so many Bernie people so against letting Mike in the debates?

Are they afraid of seeing Bernie telling Mike to get off his lawn?

[bluewater]

4. Every Bernie supporter I know wants Bloomberg IN the debates.

In any case, Bloomberg will qualify for the debates and that is a good thing.

Bloomberg is unvetted nationally, and needs to answer directly questions about his past conduct and policies like Stop and Frisk.

[thesquanderer]

9. Are there really lots of Bernie people against letting Mike debate?

I think they may be against the idea that someone can try to buy themselves into the presidency, that would be an ideologically consistent position for them to take. But that's not quite the same as arguing that he should not be in the debate.

[TwilightZone]

11. There's been a lot of complaining that the DNC is changing the rules to let him in.

Not all Sanders supporters, but they seem to be the majority.

[thesquanderer]

21. Logical math though...

Even IF most of the people complaining about letting Bloomberg into the debates are Sanders supporters, that doesn't by any stretch imply that most Sanders supporters don't want Bloomberg in the debates.

[TwilightZone]

24. It's not usually either/or

In my experience, the people complaining about the rule changes mostly also say that he shouldn't be included. It's a small sample size, admittedly, but I've seen the assertion made repeatedly on DU. It also involves the DNC, which seems to automatically engender support of whatever the opposite is of what they've done.

That being said, some seem to have figured out that it might be advantageous for their candidates for him to be included so he can be vetted, so some have changed their minds since.

Even Elizabeth Warren chimed in with a tweet:

"The DNC didn’t change the rules to ensure good, diverse candidates could remain on the debate stage. They shouldn’t change the rules to let a billionaire on. Billionaires shouldn't be allowed to play by different rules — on the debate stage, in our democracy, or in our government," Massachuetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren said in a tweet on Friday.

[thesquanderer]

37. Yeah, I was disappointed in that response from Warren.

I don't think anyone should be objecting to the "rules change" though I know that some people are. I explained my reasoning at https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287519811#post4

I think one can make one's point about money buying power without complaining about the DNC's rules, which I think make sense here.

Though as it happens, I think it may actually favor Warren and Sanders to HAVE Bloomberg on the debate stage, as I discussed from different angles at https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287520099#post9 and in my posts earlier in this thread. But I'd be favor of the rule change either way, because I think it benefits the party and the country to have him in the debates, regardless of whether it benefits my preferred candidate. Because the last thing I'd want is to have someone win the nomination WITHOUT having debated the other candidates.

Though none of that speaks to the specific point I was making that you were responding to here... that the fact that most critics of something may be Sanders supporters logically has no correlation whatsoever with whether most Sanders supporters are critics of that thing. The same way that saying that all plants are living things doesn't mean that all living things are plants... and it's a common kind of logical misreading of facts.

[calguy]

26. I've heard many Berners argueing against the DNC

for allowing changing the requirement to be admitted into the debates in order to accommodate Mr. Bloomberg. I take that to mean they fear Bloomberg's presence on the same stage as Bernie.
I can accept that a lot of my DU friends don't see it the same way I do.

[jcmaine72]

14. Speaking only for myself, I want Bloomy in the debates.

[Autumn]

34. I eagerly anticipate Bloomberg debating the candidates. Bernie won't tell him to get off his lawn,

he won't have to. He will have to debate some real candidates with actual support. Trump won't be on our debate stage and your Mr. b's got no other game. Self bought ads don't work as answers in a debate.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

3. If Bloomberg is to be regarded as a serious candidate - and polls show he is -

he has to be included. It wouldn't be fair to the voters or the other candidates to just let him ride on his excellent and expensive TV ads. Questions have been raised about his actions as mayor of NY - stop and frisk, and other things - and he should be put on the spot about those things, just as the other candidates have had to address controversies in their previous careers. The whole debate process is pretty much a goat rodeo when there are this many participants and there's no perfect way to do it. But Bloomberg's poll numbers are improving and if the other candidates want to slow him down, make him run the same gantlet as the rest of them. Maybe he'll perform well or adequately, or he'll fall on his ass, but we have to hear from him.

[TwilightZone]

12. Agreed.

The only reason to exclude him is the silly argument about him not meeting donor requirements.

There are myriad reasons to include him, including all you mentioned.

[TwilightZone]

6. There's a bit of panic setting in, methinks.

Of course he should be in the debates, if for no other reason than that we need to know how he's going to fare should he end up our nominee. He's proven he can effectively take it to Trump in the media. Can he do so in the debates?

Bloomberg also looks like a potential threat to the candidate perceived by many to be the front-runner, which would seem to be causing some consternation. The consternation has many sources, of course, but the reaction to various potential threats to various candidates (or one, in particular) has been similar throughout the cycle.

He's not my favorite, but we should probably accept that he's a legitimate candidate, at least for the moment.

[Zolorp]

7. I never claimed he didn't want to be in the debates

Some people have no sarcasm detectors.

[bluewater]

8. Or, perhaps they are attempting neural marketing.

It's designed to influence your subconscious....

[MineralMan]

16. It's Neuromarketing, and it's in use by every candidate

all the time. Campaign ads are all designed to influence the subconscious mind and trigger decision making.

It's a field of marketing I'm involved in, to be sure. Everyone is, really, who is involved in marketing, sales, and advertising. I've even written a book on Internet Neuromarketing, which you can find on Amazon.

All advertising and marketing is designed to affect the subconscious, emotional parts of people's brains. We understand how it works better now, thanks to neuroscience research in the past couple of decades, but it has always been a part of marketing.

And, make no mistake, political campaigns are primarily marketing efforts. Understanding the underlying brain activity simply makes them more effective.

Check the Twitter hashtag #Neuromarketing for more information on this concept.

[TwilightZone]

19. That's the best you got?

A thinly-veiled personal attack?

[bluewater]

22. Um, what attack? The poster wrote a book on neural marketing. LOL

It's Neuromarketing, and it's in use by every candidate

all the time. Campaign ads are all designed to influence the subconscious mind and trigger decision making.

It's a field of marketing I'm involved in, to be sure. Everyone is, really, who is involved in marketing, sales, and advertising. I've even written a book on Internet Neuromarketing, which you can find on Amazon.

All advertising and marketing is designed to affect the subconscious, emotional parts of people's brains. We understand how it works better now, thanks to neuroscience research in the past couple of decades, but it has always been a part of marketing.

And, make no mistake, political campaigns are primarily marketing efforts. Understanding the underlying brain activity simply makes them more effective.

Check the Twitter hashtag #Neuromarketing for more information on this concept.

But YOUR ad hominem attack has been duly noted.

[TwilightZone]

28. Right.

Sure, go with that. Accusing him of trying to subconsciously influence another poster isn't a personal attack. Nah.

Also, don't use terms you clearly don't understand, like ad hominem attack.

[MineralMan]

31. No worries. It's fine with me for that topic to be raised,

even if the terminology is used incorrectly.

I spend a lot of time in my work talking about the ethics of neuromarketing. It can be used unethically, but usually isn't. It's everywhere, though. Amazon lives and breathes neuromarketing. It's one of the reason's the company is so successful.

[bluewater]

35. Thank you.

It is a valid technique, and you are right, all campaigns try to do it.

I have no idea why that poster thought it was some form of insult.

Pointing out a strategy or use of technique is not an attack.

His comments directed at me though were.

Thanks for the OP, and I hope you enjoy your day.

[MineralMan]

38. I speak only for myself, and don't try to figure out what anyone else

means, except from their actual word.s

[bluewater]

33. And the ad hominem attack on me continues...

Sure, go with that. Accusing him of trying to subconsciously influence another poster isn't a personal attack. Nah.

Also, don't use terms you clearly don't understand, like ad hominem attack.

Your continued personal attack on me has been noted.



The poster said neuromarketing WAS about influencing the subconscious and all campaign ads do it.

It's Neuromarketing, and it's in use by every candidate

all the time. Campaign ads are all designed to influence the subconscious mind and trigger decision making.

It's a field of marketing I'm involved in, to be sure. Everyone is, really, who is involved in marketing, sales, and advertising. I've even written a book on Internet Neuromarketing, which you can find on Amazon.

All advertising and marketing is designed to affect the subconscious, emotional parts of people's brains. We understand how it works better now, thanks to neuroscience research in the past couple of decades, but it has always been a part of marketing.

And, make no mistake, political campaigns are primarily marketing efforts. Understanding the underlying brain activity simply makes them more effective.

Check the Twitter hashtag #Neuromarketing for more information on this concept.

You keep choosing to ignore this, while continuing a personal attack against me.

I guess if that is all you got, that is all you got.

[Lunch Lady]

25. Someone just ended up with Egg Salad on their face. nt.

[thesquanderer]

13. I agree about your 2nd and 3rd points, but am not sure about the first.

Without debates, he's doing quite well. He's staying above the sniper fire, and minimizing challenges. If he actually has to defend some of his record and statements on a debate stage, it could make it harder for him to win rather than easier, as a major audience could be hearing controversial things about him for the first time. So strictly pragmatically, an argument can be made that his odds of success on Super Tuesday could be greater without a debate than with one... and I think Bloomberg is nothing if not pragmatic.

[MineralMan]

17. Well, since his campaign has gotten noticed by the media,

he's been answering questions on his record and earlier statements. He'll be doing more of that, no doubt. He'll be answering those questions in the debates, too, of course. He'll also be putting forward his plans and priorities. That's all what it's about.

[thesquanderer]

20. A lot more people see a debate than read interviews or see Face the Nation.

He may want to minimize exposure he can't control, and maximize exposure that he can (i.e. paid ads).

[MineralMan]

23. No. He'll be in the debates.

He'll still be running all of those ads, too. More people see the ads than watch the debates. Social media exposure is also very important, but ads still are the most effective. Each way of appearing before the public has its place. News, ads, debates, rallies, etc.

Of all of them, TV ads have the broadest reach among voters, though. That's why there are so many of them. Bernie is now advertising in the Super Tuesday states. Ads from Sanders and Bloomberg are the only ones I've seen here in Minnesota, so far.

But, you're right, fewer people see news coverage than all the other campaign efforts, except for rallies, which have the smallest reach.

[thesquanderer]

30. Whether he'll BE in the debates and whether he WANTS to be in the debates are 2 different questions.

[MineralMan]

32. Well, I can't address what he wants or doesn't want.

I don't know the man. However, I'm pretty sure he'll do well in the debates. He's a very well-spoken man.

[thesquanderer]

36. I agree, we can't know for sure what he wants or what he doesn't want.

But that's why I posted my disagreement in the first place, because you said

One claims that Bloomberg doesn't want to be in the debates.
...
The first OP was wrong. Bloomberg will be glad to be in the debates

We just don't know that that's true, and one can make a good case for thinking it could in fact be the opposite.

He doesn't always give the best answers in the moment.

Have you seen the one where he said Xi Jinping is not a dictator, and that moving coal plants away from the cities showed China's concern for climate change? (No, it shows their concern for localized pollution in their cities. The plant contributes to global warming regardless of whether it's in the city or 50 miles away.)

See https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287363762

Then there was the one where he said the reason he hadn't apologized for stop-and-frisk earlier is because, not being a candidate, he wasn't being asked about it. But then people showed he had been asked about it plenty.

I don't think a debate would be a cakewalk for him by any means. He may well feel he's best off not being challenged in front of a large audience, and could be hoping he doesn't quite qualify for the pre-Super Tuesday debates.

I'm not a Bloomberg fan, which is exactly why I hope he DOES qualify.

[marlakay]

15. I want him in the debates

So people really know what he stands for and what he has accomplished both good and bad.

[MineralMan]

18. Well, he will be in the debates from now on.

It should be interesting.