It is as if the question of that demographic split is Verboten. Why?
The bias here against him is ambitious to a fault. Having interjected himself into national attention by challenging Ellison and Perez for DNC head honcho election, he next says he's the Presidential mayor in things, and what are his policies?
He's the most conservative of the bunch, i.e., most Republican of the "Democrats," youngest, and gay. He seems to generate trust among a substantial number of the Iowa and New Hampshire folks.
And will Amy see the "hard on staff" question arise again, now that she's gotten some traction?
Bernie has to face a mountain of deceit, including Clinton rage, and yet his support base is strongest in orientation and will. Is that enough?
Saddest result so far - Warren's not being top three. Most cheerful result, for progressives and those looking at a career politician's full record - the Biden slippage. He never was presidential, even while part of the conservative Obama presidency. And he was all too Republican in willingness over time to ax away at Social Security. Bless that stuff. And distance it from policy setting, please.
Klobuchar? Over Warren? People so far have made a big mistake. A few, actually.
But, the ambitious climber of a Rhodes Scholar, Ivy Leaguer showing up big so far? Why? The lalst Rhodes Scholar in the White House was a Gringrich facilating disaster; and some folks want to try another smooth-talking one? Why? Billionaires love him, but how should that translate to votes?
It seems from the progressive peerspective here to be no different than voting for Bloomberg to vote for the mayor. Age and accumulated wealth differ; but the ultimate candidacy depends upon the same stale constricting money perspective of wealth calling all the shots. Either way, wealth will be in the driver's seat if either of the former mayors captures a large segment of the primary vorte. Those new Dems, the Bernie backers liking AOC and Progressive Caucus policies such as Medicare for All need to show up in further primary voting. In short, gotta push aside the impediments or continue facing modern-day serfdom at the hands of Wall Street and corporate grinding.
 |
| pick your paradigm mayor - privatizing parks vs standing up to landlords |
Soon, a third mayor - mayor pete will greet mayor Bloomberg, one having the wealth the other covets (but out of Wall Street servicing, not out of carving himself a political career). A Bernie - Bloomberg race would be interesting. With Pete left by a curbside.
___________________________
image credit: Down With Tyranny
_______________UPDATE_______________
You look at the bio, private school, Harvard, Rhodes Scholar, military ticket punched, McKinsey, run for Indiana statewide office and lose, run to inject the name into national party donor and leadership attention - to head the DNC and lose; and currently run for President after earning only a college town city hall short and questioned tenure. This is a man impatient to advance; and with a background more Republican than progressive. But, being gay, did he look at the Republican vs Democrat career paths one against another; and then meet Michele Bachmann in full gay-hate fury in picking his course? Deciding upon a Blue Dog career, slickly packaged and tightly disciplined? To cash in? He reminds me of Dick Gephart. That integrity and outlook troward the single payer worldview. But that is just reading and guessing early in a process where the Bloomberg name has not seen a ballot. Also, others admittedly see the man in a better light. To the extent of voting for him, which is interesting but not worrying. Others see potential in him worth worry, with a wealthy few investing money in him, his candidacy and resolve, while a clearly substantial number of voters felt a call to back Mayor Pete; twice so far.