It's comical how Bloomberg wouldn't get into the race until Warren polled higher than Biden for two days. Even a tiny chance that a wealth tax could happen was enough for Bloomberg to commit to the race. Haha.

It certainly feels that way. Honestly though I'm not sure if his goal is for a moderate nominee that joining the race is the way to do it. Seems much more likely to me he'll peel some support away from Biden rather than actually decreasing support for Warren/Bernie/et al.

Edit: As far as I can tell, my comment below was totally incorrect. Parent comment may well be unchanged. I dug up the web archive to confirm because there was uncertainty, and as far as I can tell, it's unchanged. I have a version on my phone that renders a different comment, but since, I can't repro it or verify it now, I need to retract what I wrote below.

My original comment: OP has edited the comment above without mentioning it, rendering this entire reply thread useless.

No. This is not true. The comment is exactly the same.

Why are you doing this?

Why is this being downvoted?

It is a interesting contribution and gives valuable insight into the article that has been posted.

HN tends to take a dim view of political discussions in my experience.

There have been a number of indicators of a slowing economy for quite some time now. There was at least one run towards bonds in recent months. The Fed has been famously weighing its rate decisions sighting troubling economic outlooks. The yield curve inverted. GDP figures are trending downward. This is all just off the top of my head.

Most importantly of all, a stagnating economy is likely the only way anyone in the Democratic primary can beat Trump. And there's not an editor in the country who isn't carefully weighing this when picking what finance stories to run.

> Why is this being downvoted?

So was the other comment by the same user. They're being downvoted because they're critical of a Democratic presidential candidate.

At least in my case, I downvoted it because it cited Daily Mail as a reliable source. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Mail and https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/daily-mail/ have more, but basically, it’s a tabloid. Their assessment of the decision is incomplete, probably because reporting is not how they differentiate.

Here’s a few other entities' explanations of Bloomberg’s decision: https://www.npr.org/2019/11/25/782732936/bloomberg-news-says..., https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/473542-bloomberg-report..., https://www.cjr.org/the_media_today/michael_bloomberg_news_p...

Of the four sources posted, only the Mail did the work of getting quotes from Bloomberg reporters. That alone gives it more credibility on this story. The other sources have to editorialize, because they don’t contain original reporting. (NPR features some hot takes from uninvolved parties, which is what reporters do when they can’t get a direct quote.) The Daily Mail has the best reporting on this story.

> The Daily Mail has the best reporting on this story.

I respectfully disagree, but I think anyone who reads the stories can decide for themselves.

I agree that it's interesting that Daily Mail texted reporters (or as they wrote, "DailyMail.com's anecdotal sampling of Bloomberg reporters' opinions shows scattershot unease but no willingness to contest the company policy"). I think the 2 opinions I linked to are far more thorough, though. Daily Mail's piece is what they could put out in an hour or two, and the novelty of texting a few reporters doesn't replace thinking about the underlying problems.

Reporting is facts, quickly. Editorial is issues, thoughtfully.

Further down in the article was both a quote from a Bloomberg reporter and a statement from Bloomberg Business News. They got the scoop, as they say.

>only the Mail did the work of getting quotes from Bloomberg reporters. That alone gives it more credibility on this story.

Which in no way indicates it has more credibility. Just that it reportedly spent more resources on this story.

Did you downvote the wrong comment? It was a different comment by the same author, with the same unique format, that cited the Daily Mail.

(Update: I'm no longer sure whether this is correct. More on this, for the three other people who care: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21969051)

No, OP subsequently edited the comment without saying so. This whole reply thread is now useless.

I'm sorry to say but you seem to be a petulant person or someone with an axe to grind, here. I haven't seen anyone try to vociferously beat down a fully citation-ed comment with legitimate sources as if it were salvaged from some hearsay somewhere.

Some would mistake you for someone who works for the aforementioned billionaire's campaign, the way you seem to want to launder his image, here.

There's no point to continuing this here, but I'd like to restore your faith that there's someone online who doesn't have an axe to grind :-) I don't, nor do I have a strong opinion about the next president (well, other than that I'd like it to not be Trump).

If you're up for email, I just added an obfuscated version of my email address to my profile. Say hi and maybe we can get back to a good place.

Eh, nothing changed for me. People probably just got lost in the hierarchy on mobile or something.