Vrede too wrote: ↑
Thu Feb 13, 2020 10:56 am
That's an understandable moral stance, but maybe not a winning electoral strategy, for you as well as them.
My point was about the "reduced accountability" of self-financing, not a denial of the extreme and undemocratic importance of money.
Does this mean that you're thinking of voting for him?
I don't think any stance that would aid or lead to another Trump term could be considered "moral." Jump the Godwin Rule shark and for sake of analagy substitute "Hitler" for "Trump". Could helping to keep Hitler in power be considered moral?
Well, you can't have it both ways on the financing - a candidate who accepts donations incurs some obligation to those who donate - the candidate who self-finances "has no accountability." The candidate who cannot self-fund nor accepts contributions loses.
Sure, I'd vote for Bloomberg. Probably first choice at this point. When you look at RealClearPolitics, in every battleground state, Biden beats Trump in every poll. But assuming Biden's biting the big one and is effectively out. RCP polls show that in almost all polls, Bernie will beat Trump; and in some, maybe half, Warren win. Pete doesn't. Maybe one or two polls in a couple of states. Klobuchar didn't have enough support to be included in the polls, apparently. So if Biden has tanked, and Warren is headed the same way, we're left with Bernie, Pete, and Amy.
My heart can't stand the excitement.