It turned out to be a real “super,” Super Tuesday for former VP Joe Biden, who roared back to winning at least nine of the 14 contests up for grabs. Biden’s huge comeback comes after a rough several months of seemingly to struggle in the first three Democratic nominating contests.
However, Sen. Bernie Sanders, claimed gold, as most expected he would, with a sizable win in delegate-rich California – divvying up the map on the biggest primary day of the season and indicating a tight battle between the two that is likely to drag on for weeks or more.
It emerged after midnight Wednesday that Biden had narrowly defeated Sanders in Texas, the second-biggest prize of the day. With 90 percent of precincts reporting, Biden was ahead of Sanders 33.3 percent to 29.3 percent. It looks as though the candidates will receive a similar share of the state’s 228 pledged delegates.
The former vice president’s comeback was remarkable given his poor performances in Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada earlier this year, which left many pundits declaring his campaign dead in the water. Biden won the most contests Tuesday and certainly outperformed expectations from just a week ago – though who came out ahead in the delegate race remains unclear.
“I’m here to report, we are very much alive! And make no mistake about it, this campaign will send Donald Trump packing,” the 77-year-old Biden told fired-up supporters in Los Angeles Tuesday night.
Biden’s weekend win in South Carolina and the decision by 2020 rivals to bow out and endorse him were undeniable factors – especially in Minnesota, which he won after backing from Klobuchar, the home-state senator.
Next week’s Mar. 10 primary in Michigan will be Biden’s next big test as he seeks to demonstrate that he can reliably overcome Sanders’ appeal in the Midwest and the so-called “rust belt.”
Biden so far is projected to win Texas, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Virginia, Tennessee, Alabama, North Carolina, Arkansas, and Oklahoma. Sanders handily won his home state of Vermont and later racked up wins in Colorado and Utah, in addition to California.
Who comes out ahead in the delegate race is still being assessed, because they are allocated proportionally and not all votes have been counted. Approximate total delegate counts through Super Tuesday are 660 for Biden, 586 for Sanders, 110 for Bloomberg, and 101 for Warren.
For their part, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Bloomberg have openly suggested they could stay in the running until the Democratic National Convention. It’s unclear whether their poor showing on Super Tuesday will lead them to reconsider.
According to the polls, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders is doing very well with the younger voters in the Democratic Party – those under 35 years old. This is not the first time that that has happened. Septuagenarian Ronald Reagan was also popular with younger voters in the Republican Party some 40 years ago.
The question is why have young people been partial to two old white guys who represent the opposite ends of the philosophic continuum? The simplest answer may be that both offered hope of a brighter future – and after all, young voters are legitimately more concerned about the future. Older voters tend to base their election choices on past knowledge and experience – serving as a counterbalance to the youth’s more intangible assessment of things to come.
For the most part, Reagan delivered on those dreams of a better future. Reaganomics – despite the carping from the left – brought America out of the malaise of economic inflation and stagnation and into an age of unrivaled prosperity.
Today’s young Democrats – at least somewhere around 66 percent of them – are hoping that Sanders socialism will bring them a better future. What could be better than free education, forgiveness of student loans, free healthcare, guaranteed income and a smart phone in every pocket.
Those of us old enough to have seen – and even endured – the realities of socialism are a bit alarmed. And we may wonder why the best and brightest of America’s youth are so taken in by the false promises of socialism and Big Brother government. After all, it is the young people – not us oldsters – who will pay the price for being wrong.
To see how wrong they will be, one only need to look at those nations that travelled down the road of socialism in its many forms – including Russia, China, North Korea, Cuba, and Venezuela. We can see the end result of fascist and communist socialism in the World War II axis powers of Germany, Spain and Italy. And more importantly, how free-market capitalism restored the vitality of those nations to the benefit of all their citizens.
The argument that socialism is beneficial to the people remains a dogmatic belief – not a matter of fact. That is why much of the embrace of socialism among the younger generation is based on what they learned in the theoretical world of academia. They have been taught theories of socialism – which paint a very pretty picture, indeed – but not the realities.
In many ways, socialism is the Santa Clause of the young voters. They get everything on their list without knowing that mom and dad are paying for it. It is all free stuff.
When Sanders offers free education and free healthcare, he is lying. Teachers and doctors still must be paid – and someone has to do the paying. It winds up being those young people who think they are getting something for nothing. They will be paying a high price for the rest of their lives in the form of confiscatory-level taxes.
On the other side of the coin, they will suffer from a decline in education, healthcare and just about every other facet of their lives. Government does nothing efficiently. It is fraught with enormous waste and fraud –and that is because government is the worst supervisor of expenditures.
The only answer as to why young people would limit their future potential – individually and collectively – by embracing the provable failure of socialism is because they are gullible or greedy. They either uncritically believe the claims on the label or they just want to acquire the essentials and luxuries of life without having to exert too much effort.
In a sense, people of the older generations – who speak out against the evils of socialism – are working for the young people. Folks my age will live out the rest of our lives on the positive momentum of a free-market capitalist society. The under-35 crowed will live long enough to suffer the consequences of their youthful misjudgment. Let us hope that there are enough rational voters of all ages to save the younger generation from itself.
So, there ‘tis.
It seems that nowadays we are living in an ever-changing society. A society where the definition of words change even though the words have not. Freedom to do whatever one wants seems to be the theme. Sometimes such aspirations can begin to take on a whole new meaning in itself. Dr. Frankenstein created a monster out of his desire to preserve life. Ironically, his creation took his life. What direction is humanity going with all of the new ways that people attempt to define themselves? Some will say humanity is going to hell, or that humanity is already there.
One of the sickest things that I have seen in my short time on this rock is the creation and the implementation of the non-gender specific bathrooms in schools. Totally insane concept. All patents should be up in arms, or anyone for that matter, when considering that their children will be forced to use restrooms that are also shared by the opposite sex. It sounds strange even saying “opposite sex” these days. These people with this gender swamp agenda are doing social engineering. They are programming our children the idea that the creator was wrong and separate genders do not exist.
There are some things that are helping to cause these ambiguous changes. Animals are coming up in studies where when exposed to high levels of estrogen, nearly all of the test subjects sex changes. Also, we have a lot of food that has soy as an ingredient. Read your the ingredients in your food. Nearly all processed food that we eat has soy in it. Soy is very high in estrogen. Estrogen is a female sex hormone produced from ovarian follicles in female mammals. According to some scientific tests, fish populations can be effected dramatically causing male fish to produce eggs and change their sex from male to female. We have been seeing an influx of homosexuality, lesbianism, and transsexuality over the last few decades. Industrial companies pollute the water with their chemical by-products which oftentimes is high in estrogen. Along with all of the soy in our food, maybe this could be a catalyst for all of the sexual confusion that we have been experiencing. Maybe there is an agenda being forced upon the general public here in America and abroad to confuse the sexes. But why?
Unless you are blind, it is easy to see that homosexuality and transgenderism are being forced upon us. We don’t know whether to call someone a male or female. And if we get it wrong, all hell breaks loose. It’s to the point where transexuals and transvestites are being allowed to give book readings in drag in libraries across America. Not only that, but schools are allowing books on homosexuality and such to be part of the curriculum for children in kindergarten. The fact is that we are being socially and genetically modified to accept the homosexuality and transgender agenda. There is an agenda. Look up NAMBLA for further information. Not only are they forcing homosexuality and transgenderism on us but also pedophilia as well. One can witness this conspiracy or agenda when taking a look at male musicians and entertainers wearing dresses (even if for a movie because this runs amuck in Hollywood), purses, and the color pink. This agenda is a part of the transhumanist movement which is the portal to population reduction.
Today we live in a world where we are made to believe that up is down and down is up. Where gender doesn’t exist or it exists in a multitude of categories beyond male and female. Where children prior to pubescence are telling their parents what they identify with sexually. Where power is being taken from the parents subjecting the parents to be governed by their Children of the Corn.
It seems almost impossible to imagine. With a starting lineup of some 28 candidates, the race seems to now be a competition between the six who made the stage in the Las Vegas debate – with no disrespect to those who are officially still running but not able to make it to the debate stage. As Joe Biden oft says – “come on, people, get real.”
Looking at the mud fight that was billed as the Democrats’ Las Vegas debate, it is arguable that the best choices are no longer in the running.
The progressive wing of the Democratic Party might have been better served by candidates like New Jersey Senator Cory Booker or California Senator Kamala Harris. They lean to the left ALMOST as far as Senator Elizabeth Warren but without falling into the radical camp of senator Bernie Sanders. They are certainly as articulate as any of those in the lead – and more so that some of them.
Like their policies or not, they do have strong resumes – especially Booker who was the mayor of a MAJOR city (Sorry, Mayor Pete) and a United States Senator. He came to the race with stronger credentials than Barack Obama – and he made it all the way to the White House. Given the Democrats current flirtation with dogmatic socialism, Booker and Harris are more moderate, ergo more acceptable and more likely to win.
In terms of the so-called moderate wing of the Democratic Party, the best candidates fell off the earliest. In fact, they hardly got any traction whatsoever. Guys like Colorado Senator Michael Bennett. I saw him as the John Kasich of the Democrat field. You remember Kasich – the former governor of Ohio and candidate calling for harmony, unity and all things wonderful. Kasich was a bit of a whiner and that is the same quality I see in Bennett. In terms of projecting a public image, Kasich and Bennett are two guys you could not find if they were standing on a street corner by themselves.
Another moderate who seemed like he would be a good President was Congressman John Delaney. But he had two problems. True political moderates are persona non grata in the Democratic Party and he is not a good campaigner.
It is not small irony that those who drop by the wayside in the race to the Oval Office seem to personify the call for unity – like they actually meant it and could do it. Of course, the frontrunners all claim that they can unify the nation, but they campaign on divisiveness.
Some of the Democrats who dropped out of the race could easily pass the likability test – something the frontrunners seem incapable of doing.
As a conservative, however, I am not sorry to see the disarray on the progressive Democrat side. They may be on their way to nominating the worst possible candidate.
So, there ‘tis.
I am not a conspiratorial theory-type. But if I was, I might suspect that former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg is Republican secret agent – a sort of Manchurian candidate – programmed to wreck the Democratic Party and get President Trump re-elected.
Of course, he is not. But he could not do more to ensure the defeat of the eventual Democrat candidate for President. – no matter who it is.
For generations, Democrats have promoted the belief that all those corporate fat cats were Republicans. That is why they complained about political donations from evil Wall Street. If there ever was the personification of what Democrats claimed to hate, it is Michael Bloomberg – a mega-billionaire willing to spend a fortune to buy his way into the White House.
While billionaire businessman Tom Steyer exposed a bit of Democrat hypocrisy as the Party leaders embraced both Steyer’s politics and money, Daddy Warbucks Bloomberg eliminates any pretense that Democrats are concerned about corporate money and those Wall Street one-percenters who control it.
They may be critical of him as a competitor, but not his money in principle. Senator Elizabeth Warren said Bloomberg should withdraw from the race but encouraged him to then use his billions to help Democrats get elected.
On the issue of money-in-politics, Bloomberg takes the onus off Republicans and makes the Democrats look bad.
However, that is small potatoes, as they say, compared to the damage Bloomberg is doing by running for President. While he claims to be most concerned that socialist Bernie Sanders might actually get the Democrat nomination for President, Bloomberg’s campaign is making that prospect more and more likely every day.
Bloomberg clearly further splinters the anti-Sanders vote. Entering the race was bad enough. But Bloomberg brought to the campaign more than enough money to guarantee a bloc of delegates – despite skipping the first four primaries.
Bloomberg’s initial strategy was based on arrogance and hubris. It was to put so much money in the race that folks like Biden, Buttigieg and Klobuchar would immediately suspend their campaigns and yield the road to Milwaukee to Bloomberg.
That is a simplistic theory, and there is no assurance that all the Biden, Buttigieg and Klobuchar voters would go for Bloomberg. It is arguable that a large percentage – even a majority of black and Hispanic voters in the so-called moderate camp — could switch to Sanders.
Since the moderates have not dropped out, Bloomberg has initiated Plan Two – to force a brokered convention in which he could more secretively buy the nomination. That, of course, would make the Democrat presidential nomination a jump ball between him and Sanders.
That is how Bloomberg will destroy any chance Democrats have of beating Trump. Imagine a nation facing the prospect of four more years of President Trump – by all measure a fairly successful President despite his abrasive and pugnacious personality – and either the radical socialist or the American oligarch as the other option.
If Sanders was the nominee, he has already said that Bloomberg’s money would be unwelcomed – and even Bloomberg seems to believe that no amount of money would overcome Sanders’ political vulnerabilities. He is probably correct.
If Sanders is kicked to the side at the convention and Bloomberg emerges as the Democrat standard bearer, no amount of money would get all those angry and bitter Sanders’ supporters to the polling places. They would more likely be in the streets protesting. It could be 1968 all over again.
One young Sanders supporters told me that if the Democrat establishment rigs the race against Sanders again, she and her friends will vote FOR Trump to punish the Democrat establishment. That may be just be anecdotal – just talk — but it does sound credible. And if she and her friends did that, there definitely would be others.
Bloomberg has the reputation as an intelligent man – but you have to wonder. Is he clueless of the damage he is doing to the Democrats – maybe even irreparable at this point – and the benefit his candidacy is providing to Trump? The only explanation that makes sense is the blindness of arrogance.
So, there ‘tis.
The drama concerning political consultant and Trump crony Roger Stone took another decisive turn on Thursday as U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson sentenced the 67 year old lobbyist to 3-years in prison, for allegedly lying and witness tampering.
The sentence was considerably less, then the recommended 7 to 9 years sought by federal prosecutors, who apparently had a personal vendetta against the flamboyant GOP political pundit.
Moreover, the trial itself was marred by a number of improprieties; the most telling concerned the jury selection allowed by Judge Jackson, in which an individual with an obvious political bias was cleared to sit on the jury to decide whether Stone was innocent or guilty of the charges.
Prior to sentencing, Fox’s senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano weighed in on the controversy surrounding the case, reminding viewers how Judge Jackson presided over the trial by refusing a second request by the defense team, after it was discovered that a key juror had lied on the questionnaire regarding any political predispositions or biases.
Napolitano concluded that “only a pardon can fairly undo this mess.”
Adding, “This is not about politics and it’s not about friendship, it’s about the Constitution and human decency.”
When asked what should happen on Thursday, Napolitano said, “The judge should interrogate this foreperson about her biases against the President.”
The 69 year old senior judicial analyst also concluded that “The judge should interrogate the departed prosecutors about what they knew about this foreperson and when they knew it and why they quit. And then determine whether or not the integrity of Stone’s trial was adversely affected by this juror. It seems inconceivable that it was not.”
Napolitano was referring to the highly unusual mass resignations by the 4-DOJ prosecutors, who apparently became angry at having their putative sentencing of 87 to 108 months rejected by Attorney General Barr.
The outrageous recommendation by the prosecutors sparked a brief dust-up between the President and the Attorney General, who complained during an interview that the President was making his job difficult.
As for Tomeka Hart, a former Memphis City Schools Board President who acknowledged her dislike for the President through a series of anti-Trump social media posts, to be awarded a position of foreperson on the jury that convicted Stone is outrageous.
Even more mind-bogging Hart actually posted on social media specifics about the Stone case, before she was selected to sit on the jury, breaking every tenet of confidentiality imaginable. Moreover, once it was discovered she violated a court ruling, a “mistrial” should have immediately followed, along with the Democratic activist being held in contempt
The question of whether the President will pardon Stone is almost a certainty, during a brief Q&A session with reporters the day before Stone was sentenced; the President was asked if he intended to pardon his long time friend.
The President responded, “I think it’s very tough what they did to Roger Stone, compared to what they do to other people on their side. I think it’s very tough. I think it’s a very tough situation that they did something like that.
Adding, “I’ve known Roger over the years. He’s a nice guy. A lot of people like him. And he got very – he got hit very hard, as did former White House National Security Advisor Michael Flynn and as did a lot of other people. They got hit very, very hard. And now they’re finding out it was all a big hoax. They’re finding out it was a horrible thing. It was – we were spied on – my campaign was spied on.”
Don’t be surprised that before Stone actually sets foot in a jail cell, he’ll be pardoned, to the chagrin of the rabid left.
The sky is falling again. The wolf is at the gate. The American Republic is about to crash. President Trump is the greatest threat to American democracy since King George III tried to take back the colonies in the War of 1812.
At least in the latest fearmonger campaign concocted by the Democrats and implemented by the public relations agency of CNN, MSNBC & Co. Several previous attempts to bring down President Trump — with variations on mendacious narratives that Vladimir Putin is Trump’s number one backer – have failed. And now we have yet another. This one due to a claim by one of the intelligence bureaucrats that the Russians are helping Trump – for a second time according to the left’s pernicious narrative.
Before dealing with the current re-packaging of the old propaganda, we should look back down that twisted trail to see how it all evolved.
American intelligence agencies discovered that Russian operatives were using social media to meddle in the 2016 General Election. This was reported to then-President Obama – whose initial response was to privately tell Vlad not to do that anymore. The finger shaking diplomacy was to no avail.
In retrospect, even Obama aides later admitted that a public condemnation tied to sanctions would have been more appropriate and more effective. Obama did impose some mild sanctions and booted the Ruskies out of some facilities in Maryland where covert operations were said to be taking place.
In those early days, it was widely reported by the intelligence community – and by President Obama – that the Russian meddling did not affect the outcome of the election. In fact, some of the meddling was harmful to Trump. Some was just to cause grassroots friction – especially in the area of race relations.
While the Trump campaign was peripheral to Russian meddling, Democrats and their media pals slowly twisted the narrative to suggest that Russian meddling was not only SOLELY to secure the election of Donald Trump, but that Trump, his family and his campaign aides were actively conspiring with the Russians.
Democrats and biased bureaucrats subjected the nation to a two-year investigation in which the assured we the people that Special Counsel Robert Mueller would most certainly find that Trump had conspired with the Russians. House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff even reported that he had seen conclusive evidence. Schiff’s lie was exposed when Mueller have Trump a clear and complete exoneration of the accusations.
Having failed in that effort, the #NeverTrump Resistance Movement put the nation through a divisive impeachment process that was the most partisan in American history — and the first in which there was no underlying statutory crime.
House Speaker Pelosi broke tradition by putting Schiff and his intelligence committee in the fore of the impeachment investigation – a departure from the role of the Judiciary Committee to conduct any impeachments. Pelosi did not trust Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler to do a good job. He was the bull in the china shop compared to the slick talking Schiff.
As expected, the impeachment was foredoomed in the Senate. The ending of that movie was already known. And as some had predicted, the impeachment appears to have increased Trump’s favorability rating.
The twice debunked narrative of Trump conspiring with the Russians is now being resurrected once again – with all the hyperbole and sensationalism that only the left-wing media can provide. They hope to ride that dead horse to victory in the upcoming election.
The news of the day that has gotten the media cabal all excited is a report in the New York Times (where else?) that Trump replaced the head of national intelligence supposedly because a member of the intel staff reported to Schiff’s committee that the Russians were now meddling in the 2020 election to get Trump re-elected.
What facts to support that theory are yet unknown. But Trump’s enemies are declaring that he replaced his intel chief with the current ambassador to Germany because he was enraged that such a communication would be presented to Schiff’s committee without his knowledge. Trump expressed concern that Schiff would weaponize that information – true or not – to be used against the President – and that seems to be exactly what is happening.
It is not an unreasonable concern. Traditionally, the Intelligence Committee has stayed away from partisanship. That ended when Pelosi made the Intelligence Committee the most politically partisan legislative body within Congress. She did so by assigning the impeachment to Schiff and his band of rabid Democrats.
While Democrats say that it is part of the process for the intel community to brief Congress, someone seemed to skip the interim step – telling the President of the United States. Remember it was Obama who got the word first about Russian meddling -– before Congress. In fact, Congress was never informed until Obama went public with the information.
The President has every right to distrust Schiff and the Democrats on the Intelligence Committee. After all, they are the ones that undertook that unjustified impeachment. It was shamefully carried out for no other reason than to damage Trump’s reputation and historic record.
Why Trump’s intelligence officials would run off to Congress without informing the boss first is yet to be explained. But that alone seems to be more than just cause for a few heads to roll.
As to what the Russians might be doing, only time will tell. But a healthy measure of skepticism would be well advised before we follow Schiff & Co. down another rabbit hole – or perhaps more appropriately, a rat hole.
The Democrats are looking very desperate these days. Like all the other obsessive and irrational attempts to take Trump down, this could – and should — also backfire.
So. There ‘tis.
The widely anticipated first appearance of Michael Bloomberg in a democratic debate was far from the bombastic performance the former New York Mayor needed. Instead, he stumbled through most of the debate, which didn’t get lost on one person in the audience who was probably most keyed in to Bloomberg’s performance – Donald Trump.
The president, in an early morning tweet after the former mayor’s dismal performance, mocked Bloomberg, calling the former New York City mayor “grossly incompetent.”
“Mini Mike Bloomberg’s debate performance tonight was perhaps the worst in the history of debates, and there have been some really bad ones,” Trump tweeted.
“He was stumbling, bumbling and grossly incompetent. If this doesn’t knock him out of the race, nothing will. Not so easy to do what I did!” he added
“Worst debate performance in history!” he added in a subsequent tweet.
Trump’s remarks about “Mini-Mike,” were nothing new. At a rally in Phoenix Wednesday night, while the debate was taking place, the president had this to say, “Now they have a new member of the crew, mini Mike,” Trump told the crowd of supporters. “We call him ‘no boxes.’ I hear he’s getting pounded tonight,” Trump went on. “I hear they’re pounding him.”
But, the president was not alone in his assessment of Bloomberg’s poor showing. Pundits on the right and left feel that he struggled to find his footing during his debut at the Democratic primary debate in Las Vegas. It was the ninth primary debate so far, and his fellow candidates’ experience on the stage shone through.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) wasted no time going after Bloomberg after the debate began.
“Democrats are not going to win if we have a nominee who has a history of hiding his tax returns, of harassing women and of supporting racist policies like redlining and stop and frisk,” Warren said. “Democrats take a huge risk if we just substitute one arrogant billionaire for another.”
Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) added later, “I don’t think you look at Donald Trump and say we need someone richer than Donald Trump in the White House.”
For the most part, Republicans and Democrats alike cheered as Harrison Ford’s President James Marshall kicked terrorists “the hell off of my plane,” in the classic action-adventure movie, Air Force One.
However, in the real world, Ford’s politics are decidedly a little more Hollywood one-sided. Ford seems to be dipping his toe into political waters, noting in a recent interview that talking about politics has become unavoidable.
Days after the 77-year-old actor appeared on Jimmy Kimmel Live and called President Donald Trump a “son of a b—-,” he was asked about his recent forays into talking politics in an interview with CBS News. The star responded by noting that politics has become too divisive and called for a return to “the middle ground.”
“I think it’s come to the point where we gotta start talking politics,” Ford said. “But we gotta talk about it in a positive way. We gotta regain the middle ground. We’re in these ideological enclaves. But the truth is in the middle. Progress is made in the middle.”
When asked if he thought it was possible to get back to the middle ground, the iconic actor’s response was blunt. “We damn well better,” he shot back.
Ford was on hand to promote his new film, “The Call of the Wild,” which he says spoke to his personal beliefs about climate change and human beings’ impact on the natural world.
“We’re in danger of losing the support of nature for our lives, for our economies, for our societies,” Ford added in the interview. “Because nature doesn’t need people, [but] people need nature.”
The actor has previously been critical of the United States’ decision to pull out of the Paris Climate Accord. In the CBS interview, he noted that he believes young people will help usher in an era of actually making progress on climate change.
“I’m now seeing that I think we’re coming close to being able to really commit the resources and energy to confronting the issue because it’s taken up on the highest level of politics,” he explained. “It’s taken up on the streets by young people.”
Ford’s comments come after an appearance in Mexico City earlier this month where he bashed America’s current leadership while praising young climate activist Greta Thunberg.
“Science is being ridiculed by people in ideological campgrounds. They are refusing the wisdom, the discipline of science in favor of a political point of view,” Ford continued. “And that has to stop. And I believe young people throughout the world have known it has to stop and are capable and willing to make the sacrifices to make that happen.”
Billionaire Democratic candidate for president, Michael Bloomberg will appear on the debate stage for the first time against fellow candidates in Nevada.
A new NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll published Tuesday shows Bloomberg with 19% support nationally in the Democratic nominating contest. Under recently changed rules, he only needed one more poll above 10% to qualify for Nevada.
The former New York City mayor, who launched his presidential campaign in November, will appear in Wednesday’s debate in Las Vegas alongside former Vice President Joe Biden, Sens. Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar and former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg. Fellow billionaire and philanthropist Tom Steyer is still hoping to qualify.
Bloomberg’s campaign said that it was seeing “a groundswell of support across the country” and that qualifying for Wednesday’s debate “is the latest sign that Mike’s plan and ability to defeat Donald Trump is resonating with more Americans.”
“Mike is looking forward to joining the other Democratic candidates on stage and making the case for why he’s the best candidate to defeat Donald Trump and unite the country,” Bloomberg campaign manager Kevin Sheekey said in a statement.
Even though he will participate in the debate on Wednesday, Bloomberg will not be on the ballot in Nevada. The former NYC mayor is skipping the first four primary states — Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina — to focus on saturating Super Tuesday states with ads and to campaign in the 14 states that will vote on that day while other candidates are grinding it out in the early states. This strategy has allowed him to pass other candidates in national polls despite their strong showings in Iowa and New Hampshire.
Bloomberg has not appeared in earlier debates, because his campaign is self-funded.
Until a recent change, one of the criteria for candidates to get on the debate stage was their number of donors, but the DNC changed those rules for the Nevada debate in late January, opening the door for Bloomberg to make the stage. That decision drew criticism from his Democratic competitors, who have previously characterized Bloomberg as trying to “buy” the presidency.
“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,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts tweeted at the time.
The fact that Bloomberg didn’t appear at the most recent debates, of course, drew ridicule from President Trump.
“Mini Mike Bloomberg doesn’t get on the Democrat Debate Stage because he doesn’t want to – he is a terrible debater and speaker. If he did, he would go down in the polls even more (if that is possible!),” Trump tweeted last month.
The other candidates who have qualified for Wednesday’s debate are former South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg, Biden, Sanders, Warren, and Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota.