Active Now

Malizz
Discussion » Statements » Rosie's Corner » Mayor Pete 25%. Warren 16%. Biden/Sanders 15%. Iowa Poll. Portent of things to come?

Mayor Pete 25%. Warren 16%. Biden/Sanders 15%. Iowa Poll. Portent of things to come?

Posted - November 17, 2019

Responses


  • 10449
    Is it my imagination but is this also the ranking of their wealth (in comparison to each other)?

    The only thing Bloomberg will do is cinch trump's reelection (fracturing an already fragmenting democratic party).  Still, on the outside chance he did win, he'd be no better than trump is now... a wealthy know-it-nothing in command of a sinking ship.
      November 17, 2019 10:00 AM MST
    2

  • 46117
    How is Mayor Pete the richest one?  

    He's the poorest one.  

    The net worth of 2020 candidates ranges from Mayor Pete Buttigieg, whose net worth was estimated at around $100,000, to Rep. John Delaney who was estimated to be worth $232 million in 2015, and billionaire financier Tom Steyer.
      November 17, 2019 10:13 AM MST
    0

  • 32527
    I think he meant from poorest to richest. But still not in order. Warren is richest of the 4 listed so she would be 4th in the list.
      November 17, 2019 10:29 AM MST
    1

  • 13251
    Why does that matter?
      November 17, 2019 10:34 AM MST
    0

  • 13251
    Actually, Bloomberg was a 3-term mayor of NYC and thus in charge of the fourth-largest budget in the nation - only the federal, California, and New York state budgets are larger. That's a lot more relevant experience in government/public administration than Trump brought to the table. How is he a know-nothing?
      November 17, 2019 10:26 AM MST
    0

  • 32527
    No. From least to richest: 
    Pete ($100 Thousand)
    Sanders ($2.5M)
    Biden ($9M)
    Warren ($11M)

      November 17, 2019 10:27 AM MST
    0

  • 113301
    Bloomberg isn't in my question Shuhak. Wassup?
      November 17, 2019 11:49 AM MST
    1

  • 10449
    I was thinking something else.  Sorry. This post was edited by Shuhak at November 18, 2019 1:48 AM MST
      November 17, 2019 1:36 PM MST
    1

  • 13251
    Shuhak referred to Bloomberg as a wealthy know-nothing. I was refuting that with info on him having been a very competent mayor of NYC, which is a CEO job with some similarities to the presidency.
      November 17, 2019 1:49 PM MST
    0

  • 113301
    Oh. Okey dokey. No worries. Thanks.
      November 18, 2019 1:48 AM MST
    1

  • 46117
    Mayor Pete has shown himself to be a flip-flopping advantagist.  He says what he thinks will get him more votes.  NOW IT IS MEDICARE FOR SOME.  Oh brother. Like that is something we should settle for?  NO. That is something that will mess with the entire idea of insurance companies taking a foothold.  That is what we are fighting for.    The ability for people to CHOOSE what job they are at because they like the job rather than have to be a slave to a job they hate because of some crappy insurance.  MAYOR PETE IS SNAKEY. I DON'T TRUST HIM.  He was running as a guy who was pro Medicare for all and now he thinks he will gain advantage by flipping this way.  He is becoming Joe Biden.  That is who is is running against.  

    And he is not going to win.  No.  
      November 17, 2019 10:07 AM MST
    3

  • 113301
    Thank you for your reply Sharon. I like him. I always liked him. I like Kamala Harris bigly but she didn't connect/click. Different strokes.
      November 17, 2019 11:50 AM MST
    1

  • "Mayor Pete" is heavily favored in the Iowa caucus, which is the strangest exercise in Democracy that you'll ever see in the American process. That's OK as he happens to be the strangest candidate. If Warren doesn't do good in New Hampshire, her own backyard, she needs to drop out. Biden will do well in the quirky, egocentric south. That assessment matches him. This thing won't begin to come together for anyone until next spring. Don't leave out the new "second tier" of "Johnny come lately" candidates that have just come on board. Even if they poll low, that in itself will have an impact on somebody's bid. But keep in mind that these new candidates aren't late by historic standards, the rest of the pack was just far too early. The really interesting candidacy will be that of the president as it's looking more like he'll run as a coalition style candidate, appearing as a "Republican" on most, but not all state ballots. Much the same as Lincoln did in 1864 when he was reelected as the candidate of the "National Union" ticket.
      November 17, 2019 1:57 PM MST
    2

  • 32527
    What ballot is the President not appearing on as a Republican? 
      November 17, 2019 2:28 PM MST
    1

  • 32527
    If he holds on maybe. Iowa has a good track record for picking the nominee on the Dem side. Calling it right since 1996. There missed Clinton in 1992 who came in 4th at like 3%. 
      November 17, 2019 2:36 PM MST
    1