The Demise Of The Broder/Bloomberg Movement

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 12:34:00 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Bumped

Just had to post this. I hate Tweety and the I hate the trashing the Media gives Hillary. So I do not care for the smug joy the Media takes in her loss tonight.

Buuuuut . . . I DO love that the Broder/Bloomberg Unity 08 conference in Oklahoma next week is now in shambles. Think Broder will write it up?

Update [2008-1-4 13:31:39 by Big Tent Democrat]: Kevin Drum remarks on Iowa: [More...]

[A]t the very least, it also seems to indicate that a polarized, partisan political environment doesn't turn people off of politics. Right? . . . So: clear choices, strong emotions, and partisan loyalties are good for voter participation and voter turnout. I hereby declare Broderish bipartisanship the loser in last night's caucuses.

Well, I think the High Broderists will adopt Obama as their own and work hard for McCain on the other side. Declare victory and get out out of the Unity 08 business.

< New Hampshire Debates Saturday Night | Ground Reporting From NH >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

The Demise Of The Broder/Bloomberg Movement | 25 comments (25 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Obama just saved Bloomberg (4.75 / 4) (#7)
by Maryb2004 on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 11:45:30 PM EST

a lot of money. Bloomberg ought to do something nice for him.

Although I think the Republican half of the Unity08 party is still going to be in a panic if Huckabee makes any kind of showing in NH.

: Heh (none / 0) (#11)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 11:50:00 PM EST

[ Parent ]
: Private sector Bloomberg vs. Public Mike (none / 0) (#20)
by joejoejoe on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 02:39:42 AM EST

Bloomberg is actually very smart and progressive when he spends his money outside of politics and atrociously stupid when he spends public money as Mayor and in politics.
The $100 million that Bloomberg personally gave to endow the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health will save more lives anything he's done as mayor.
The hundreds of millions of dollars of public money Bloomberg spent ramming through stadiums for the Yankees and Mets, not so much. Who knew the Yankees needed welfare for a new stadium when they have a $200 million dollar payroll and get 4 million people to games in the Bronx, more than any other team in any sport in the world.
Let Bloomberg spend his own $1 billion on public health measures like mosquito nets and stopping infant diarrhea in the third world and get him the hell away from putting calorie counts on menus in New York restaurants and running for higher office.

[ Parent ]

No. (none / 0) (#1)
by Molly Bloom on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 11:35:27 PM EST

Heh (none / 0) (#2)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 11:36:20 PM EST

Me neither.

[ Parent ]

Time for a re-write of Lincoln 1860 with a focus (none / 0) (#3)
by Molly Bloom on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 11:40:25 PM EST

on Obama?

[ Parent ]

I'm hitting him tomorrow (none / 0) (#6)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 11:44:49 PM EST

in the Guardian Online.

Gotta keep him honest.

[ Parent ]

: I will be reading it later in the day I am sure. (none / 0) (#8)
by Molly Bloom on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 11:46:22 PM EST

I have work to attend to in the AM.

[ Parent ]
: excellent. (none / 0) (#10)
by Compound F on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 11:49:39 PM EST

Unity '08: Obama & Big tent. It's at least plausible. (maybe not, but I like the effort.)

[ Parent ]

More like LBJ 1964 (none / 0) (#21)
by joejoejoe on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 02:52:52 AM EST

Where 27 Senate Republicans voted along with Democrats to pass the civil rights act. Those seats largely still exist in the GOP. The problem lies in shifting the GOP leadership out of the hands of modern Dixiecrats like Lott, Allen, McConnell & Kyl and into modern pragmatists like Grassley, Lugar and Snowe.

The second biggest election in '08 is Mitch McConnell's seat. Pick him off and the subsequent leadership battle might splinter the GOP into a Know-Nothing anti-immigrant, racist core and Northern and Western pragmatists ala Gov. Schwarzenegger and moderate Senators like Snowe, Lugar, and Voinovich.

[ Parent ]

Matthews just said (none / 0) (#4)
by andgarden on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 11:43:03 PM EST

that he thinks nothing ever gets fixed in Washington because of "vanity."

Tweety ought to be an expert on that subject (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by Molly Bloom on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 11:43:42 PM EST

[ Parent ]

: He was projecting (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by andgarden on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 11:48:19 PM EST

[ Parent ]

This night just gets better and better... (none / 0) (#12)
by BlueLakeMichigan on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 11:51:11 PM EST

Doesn't it?

Obama wins, even though I privately feared an Edwards blowout amid low youth turnout, and America's Mayor (Giuliani) becomes Iowa's Goat. Sweetness all around.

My reservations about Obama not being able to get Democratic primary voters out was alleviated as well, as even though by an extremely slim margin, he still seemed, by MSNBC's measurements, to get the edge in the Democratic vote, 32-31-23. (Obama-HRC-Edwards) The only worry is possible Republican manipulation, (I'm personally a quite paranoid person) but self-identified Rs only made up 3 percent, so I'm a little less worried.

Also, the same exit polling data states that the only political ideology in which Obama was bested was the conservatives, who overwhelming backed Edwards. Iowa voters who were very liberal and liberal picked Obama by big margins, and he narrowly got the moderates. I think Obama has appeal to progressives, at least in Iowa, and I urge others here to take a second look at him.

Hmm (none / 0) (#13)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 11:53:06 PM EST

So he did win Dems? I thought he lost by a point.

Messed that one up.

[ Parent ]

: Liberal (5.00 / 1) (#22)
by Jgarza on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 04:07:16 AM EST

His support was also by far the most liberal.
hence why i was so annoyed when you decided to play mark penn with snipits of incomplete polling data.
Partisan ID and ideaology are separate things, on top of that the poll wasnt designed to pick up partisan id. but thanks to your incredibly misleading post(it was actually refernced) a bunch of the i hate Obama bloggers now claim that he is conservative and that his support is conservative,(since indies like him, ofcourse you without basis expanded that to repubs) both of which are false. Blog darling Edwards has the most conservative support.
Obama's support is from the creative class. that bodes well for federal funding of the new urbanist agenda in cities in my book.
Edwards base is conservative people age 45-65(probably right at the age range who would been hit by loose of manufacturing jobs) but he finished 3rd with the union vote.
Clinton was over 65 married lower middle class to right above the poverty line.
Here is the data

[ Parent ]
: Won by a point (none / 0) (#15)
by andgarden on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 12:00:19 AM EST

All of the polls were right, but DMR made the right assumptions.

[ Parent ]

According to MSNBC... (none / 0) (#14)
by BlueLakeMichigan on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 11:56:19 PM EST

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21225980/

MSNBC says Obama won Democrats by a point. Like I said though, it was narrow. VERY narrow to be precise.

Am I A Petty Person (none / 0) (#16)
by BDB on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 12:28:33 AM EST

for wishing it had lasted until Bloomie spent 10 or 100 million and then fell apart? I am? Well, I'm okay with that.

Although Broder is more likely to claim we don't need such a movement because we now have Obama. Not Obama's fault, but I hate that. We don't need it because Democrats are the answer, not some BS Unity party.

It's the Republicans who need Bloomberg. (none / 0) (#17)
by Maryb2004 on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 12:42:08 AM EST

People talked about Obama bringing back the Reagan Democrats,which must give the Republican Party heartburn. But Obama seems intent on proving that he can create Obama Republicans. That ought to create full scale panic.

The Republican Party needs a candidate that, although he might lose, won't send large numbers swarming over to be Obama Republicans where they might be lost for a long time. They are pinning their hopes on McCain. If that doesn't work, expect to see pressure on Bloomberg once again to run as an independent. I wonder though if Bloomberg wants to spend his money on a losing campaign meant only to give Wall Street Republicans someone to vote for that isn't Obama when he's not getting any bi-partisan upside.

[ Parent ]

: I Honestly Think (5.00 / 1) (#19)
by BDB on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 01:17:50 AM EST

Republicans want to run against Obama or think they do. Nothing would make me happier than for him to make them pay for that in November 2008 and after tonight I think he has a chance to do that. And I might not be alone, the Iowa turnout for Democrats generally and Obama in particular had to scare the hell out of Republicans. People are talking about how bad Hillary Clinton's third place finish is, but in terms of voters she kicked Mike Huckabee's ass and he won by a fair margin.

[ Parent ]

Advertising (none / 0) (#18)
by Pete Guither on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 12:43:39 AM EST

I just had a MikeBloomberg.com google display ad (a hastily assembled one with no graphics) show up on my site, so there's still some spending going on.

Sad (none / 0) (#23)
by koshembos on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 06:55:06 AM EST

For progressives the lose of Edwards is tragic. Hillary may still win, but she and Obama are not progressives. Kucinich's move to let Obama get his supporters is another indication that the guy is out of his mind. Richardson is a real mystery, after all Bill Clinton gave him endless opportunities. He must assume that Obama is going to win the nomination and hopes to get a future job in the Obama administration.

Democrats are now in a bad shape. We have a candidate who supports many of the Republicans ideas, who lack principles (I vote present), who might take seriously bipartisanship (God forbid). We also have a cunning candidate with an average intelligence and that's a dangerous disease.

Can you imagine compassionate change?

Gosh, (none / 0) (#24)
by Dulcinea on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 01:02:41 PM EST

I'm with Kosh!

: too, although I assume (none / 0) (#25)
by oculus on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 01:05:57 PM EST

Obama is highly intelligent.

[ Parent ]