Mike Bloomberg Is Running For President.

After flirting with the idea many times over the past decade and a half, Mike Bloomberg is officially running for President.

Even though he’s gotten his name on the ballot in Alabama and other Super Tuesday primary states and filed the Federal Election Commission paperwork necessary to create a campaign, former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg has yet to formally enter the race itself. That left some to suggest that he may ultimately decide against running as he has in the past. All that speculation came to an end this morning, though, with NBC News reporting that Bloomberg has officially entered the race for President:

MANCHESTER, N.H. — Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg officially entered the 2020 race Sunday, ending several weeks of will-he-or-won’t-he speculation about a late entry into the already-crowded Democratic primary.

Bloomberg’s entry was preceded by news of a massive television ad buy — $31 million, according to Advertising Analytics, who told NBC News it was the single largest single week expenditure they’d ever tracked. A $30 million buy in the final weeks of the 2012 race for then-President Barack Obama held the previous record.

The ad promotes Bloomberg’s record as mayor and then promises “to rebuild the country and restore faith in the dream that defines us: where the wealthy will pay more in taxes and the middle class get their fair share; everyone without health insurance can get it and everyone who likes theirs, keep it; where jobs won’t just help you get by but get ahead. And on all those things, Mike Bloomberg intends to make good.”

It’s Bloomberg’s deep pockets and willingness to spend that could help him make up the difference of getting in several months after most of the already-established Democratic field. But his strategy to win is a risky one: skipping the early four nominating contests and instead running what longtime Bloomberg aide Howard Wolfson called a “broad-based, national campaign.”

He’ll also come up against a field stacked with strong competition, some with similar messaging to his own — like former Vice President Joe Biden, who has also hinged his candidacy on his ability to beat President Donald Trump next November — and progressive Senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, who are running on platforms of more structural change. And they’ve all been running for months, building out organizing apparatuses as they go.

Still, Bloomberg Communications Director Jason Schecter maintains it’s not too late, citing polls that show Democratic voters have yet to firmly make up their mind on who to back in the field. Of Bloomberg, Schecter told NBC plainly: Bloomberg “has the skills to fix what is broken” and was motivated to run by concerns about “the possibility that we could lose next November” to Trump. “We can’t afford another four years of this,” he concluded.

=As with several other candidates this year, Bloomberg launched his campaign with an announcement on Twitter and other social media platforms:

And here’s the full ad that will be running across the country starting tomorrow and through Thanksgiving week at least:

There’s more coverage of Bloomberg’s entry into the race from The New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN, Politico and other media outlets. Meanwhile, Politico reported on Bloomberg’s historic media ad buy last night before it was clear when he might enter the race and at least one of Bloomberg’s potential opponents for the Democratic nomination is speaking out against this ad buy:

Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) tore into former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg on Friday over news of Bloomberg’s $31.5 million ad buy as he mulls his own White House bid.

“I’m disgusted by the idea that Michael Bloomberg or any other billionaire thinks they can circumvent the political process and spend tens of millions of dollars to buy our elections. It’s just the latest example of a rigged political system that we are going to change when we’re in the White House,” Sanders said in a statement.

“If you can’t build grassroots support for your candidacy, you have no business running for president. The American people are sick and tired of the power of billionaires, and I suspect they won’t react well to someone trying to buy an election.”

The broadside came after Bloomberg, who is worth roughly $50 billion, threw down over $31 million for a weeklong ad blitz that will be featured in 98 local markets as well as some national cable channels. The purchase is the largest of any candidate ever in a single week of political advertising.

The minute-long ads will start airing Monday and run through Dec. 2.
Sanders, a longtime progressive, has centered his campaign around the influence of the “top 1 percent,” referring to the power millionaires and billionaires hold in the country’s politics.

Sanders’s rebuke hints that Bloomberg’s immense wealth and ability to dig through a bottomless war chest to blanket the airwaves with ads could emerge as a top line of attack for other liberal candidates in the primary field.

This isn’t the first time that Bloomberg has considered a run for the nation’s highest office. As James Joyner noted in a post all the way back in 2006, there was speculation thirteen years ago that Bloomberg, who was then still serving as Mayor of New York City, might run in the upcoming 2008 race as an independent. No such run took place, of course, but the rumors continued well into 2007, at which time James Joyner correctly noted that an independent bid at that time would have likely helped Democrats in the 2008 election. before finally fizzling out. Four years later, as the 2012 elections drew closer and again while he was still serving as Mayor, the rumors of a Bloomberg Presidential run, either as an Independent or as a Republican, returned. As I noted at the time, while Bloomberg was denying at the time that he was running he certainly was sounding at the time like someone who was at least thinking about it, Because of this, pundits continued to speculate about what kind of impact a Bloomberg run, apparently as an Independent, might look like in 2012. Again, Bloomberg passed up an opportunity to run in that election. Four years later, there was again speculation about an independent Bloomberg bid, especially in as it became more and more apparent that Donald Trump was going to win the Republican nomination. While polls at the time showed little public enthusiasm for a Bloomberg run, it was later reported that the now-former Mayor had come closer to actually getting into the race than he had in the past but that he ultimately concluded that his presence in a race between Trump and Hillary Clinton would help Trump.

As 2020 got closer, the speculation about Bloomberg running for the Democratic nomination in 2020 returned. In March, Bloomberg ruled out the idea of running for President as a Democrat as had been speculated for many months prior to that. Notwithstanding that, it was reported in October that Bloomberg was reconsidering that idea in light of the rise in the polls of potential nominees such as Senator Elizabeth Warren, who Bloomberg has made clear he does not believe would be electable. Earlier this month, it was reported that Bloomberg was taking what many took to be the first concrete step toward running when he filed to get on the ballot in Alabama, a move he followed shortly thereafter with filings in Arkansas and other states, although not in any of the four states that will hold primaries and caucuses in February. This apparently points to the interesting, and risky, strategy of betting that Bloomberg can make himself relevant in the races that follow these first four contests even with one f the latest entries into the Presidential race since Bill Clinton entered the race for the 1992 Democratic nomination in October 1991. That, of course, was a far different race than this one, though.

As the race stands today, it’s hard to see what path Bloomberg has to become a viable candidate, never mind the Democratic nominee. Yes, he has a lot of money and he’s apparently willing to spend whatever is necessary on this campaign, but that doesn’t mean he’ll become a contender. Tom Steyer has also spent a great deal of his own fortune on ads aimed at Trump but all he’s managed to do is get himself into the low single digits in the polls nationally and in some early states such as Iowa. There’s no reason the believe that Stever will ever rise above that level.

Although he isn’t a progressive like Steyer, it’s hard not to make the same argument about Bloomberg. While he’s far closer to the center-left lane where most Democratts are, there doesn’t seem to be anything about him as a candidate that causes him to stand out in a way that other center-left candidates like Joe Biden, Amy Klobuchar, and Pete Buttigieg don’t already. Additionally, Bloomberg’s history as Mayor of New York makes it unclear how successful he’s going to be in attracting support from African-Americans and other minority groups. The former Mayor took a step in reaching out to that community last week when he renounced the “stop and frisk” police strategy that had marked his tenure as Mayor. Whether that will help to heal the damage those policies did to his relationship with minorities remains to be seen, but will be a huge factor in deciding how successful this unique campaign will be.

In any case, we’ll see where this goes I suppose.

FILED UNDER: Campaign 2020, Mike Bloomberg, Politicians, US Politics
Doug Mataconis
About Doug Mataconis
Doug holds a B.A. in Political Science from Rutgers University and J.D. from George Mason University School of Law. He joined the staff of OTB in May 2010. Before joining OTB, he wrote at Below The BeltwayThe Liberty Papers, and United Liberty Follow Doug on Twitter | Facebook

Comments

  1. Teve says:

    Scram.

  2. Teve says:

    David Sirota
    @davidsirota
    · 19h
    Every reporter covering 2020 knows that if they write a story seriously scrutinizing Mike Bloomberg, they risk enraging a person who owns a sizable segment of the media job market. It’s a very tough situation for journalists, and probably not a great dynamic for democracy.

  3. Hal_10000 says:

    The main reason he’s running, like most billionaires who run, is that he’s surrounded by people who know they can make a lot of money off of him. I really hope this goes nowhere. Not only does he have no business being President; the only thing his entry can do is make a Trump re-election more likely.

  4. Michael Reynolds says:

    I’m not so sure it’s a lost cause. A likely scenario: IA goes for Mayor Pete, NH for Bernie or Warren, NV for Biden and SC for Biden. What have you got? No front-runner. And just three days after SC comes Super Tuesday with huge, expensive media markets in CA, MA, VA, TX, even MN.

    If Bloomberg can clear the 15% threshold in CA while Booker, Klobuchar and the rest of the single digit candidates miss the 15%, he’ll be in the top tier. Big IF, obviously, but it’s not entirely quixotic. Buttigieg has money, Warren has money, Biden has squat, but Bloomberg has all the money. And he’s experienced. And he’s a successful entrepreneur. And a philanthropist. Pro gay. Pro choice. New Yorkers elected him three times, and NYC is not a hotbed of reaction.

  5. @Michael Reynolds: It is not entirely implausible, but I still think it highly improbable. Biden has the “moderate old white guy lane” and I am having a hard time seeing Bloomberg, even with his bags of cash, taking that lane over.

    Biden may not have the cash, but he has black support and he was Obama’s VP.

    And ability to get the word out doesn’t mean the word with resonate.

  6. OzarkHillbilly says:

    This is what happens when a person accumulates too much wealth.

    7
    1
  7. Liberal Capitalist says:

    Mike Bloomberg Is Running For President.

    I am ure that Mike Bloomberg’s ego is very excited about this news.

    The rest of America? Not so much.

    I mean, at a time when people are talking about income inequality and ow the tax system is structured to favor the 1%… he (a billionaire) decides to run?

    I mean, he’s worth $54 Billion. His path to winning is to buy ALL the airtime, and fill stadiums with cheering people (all paid to cheer), and he will still be a billionaire. He can personally pay every voting American $200 to vote for him, and he will still be a billionaire

    This is all ego, and it should make us sick. The roman forum has come to take place today.

  8. Kit says:

    I predict that Bloomberg will suck oxygen out of the center lane, thereby giving Warren and Sanders a boost. #owngoal

  9. Gromitt Gunn says:

    I don’t want him to be president. I don’t want him to win the Democratic nomination.

    I would like to see him go further than Guiliani so it can be added to the list of things he has done better than “A noun, a verb, and 9/11.”

  10. Michael Reynolds says:

    @Steven L. Taylor:
    Oh, I agree it’s a long shot for Bloomberg. Very long. But say you’re a Democratic voter and it’s March 3. Your number one priority is beating Trump and who is carrying that banner for you? The Veep who can’t raise money let alone show vision? The Lefty senators who can’t manage to take each other down and lose contests to a gay small-city mayor? Or the most experienced guy in the field, the one who can outspend Trump ten-to-one?

    1
    2
  11. Kathy says:

    There’s an easy attack meme/soundbite to use against him: why is a (moderate) Republican running for the Democratic nomination?

    He should take one for the team, his country, and either run for the GOP nomination, or engage in all the filthy Trump-style illegal election tricks he can.

  12. de stijl says:

    Steyer is polling at 1%, maybe 2%.

    Billionaire on a white stallion is more of a right fantasy, not a left one. Shades of Ayn Rand.

    A more fussy-pants fastidious version of Steyer is going to inspire exactly no one except people who work for him and media consultants working on commission.

    As I said on a different thread, I welcome a delusional billionaire doing a massive ad buy as there are some marginal bleed-over effects into local economies.

    Makers / retailers of barn coats are rejoicing. Some intern will be dispatched to G&L Clothing at Ingersoll and 20th. “We need a barn coat in medium with no branding visible if filmed from the front.”

    Ad shops are staffing up. Picturesque farms are prettying up and putting out feelers.

    G&L is Carhartt central. And they have a catchy jingle. “Gee and Ell Clothing / the size the styles / We’ve got it aaall”

  13. de stijl says:

    Biden, but mega-rich, resonates with who exactly?

  14. Moosebreath says:

    @Liberal Capitalist:

    “The roman forum has come to take place today.”

    And we now have our own Didius Julianus.

  15. Sleeping Dog says:

    Mike, if you have a spare $50M or so to spare, and you do, better to set up a defeat Tiny PAC and go after him

    Fortunately he’s passing on NH, so our household won’t be inundated by his campaign mailings and I’ll be spared the continual video commercials every time I go to watch something on YouTube.

  16. Gustopher says:

    He hasn’t fired people to keep his sister’s husband/rapist from having to register as a sex offender, like Deval Patrick, so he’s not all bad.

    I won’t vote for Bloomberg in the primary, but I’d be comfortable voting for him in the general. I don’t think he has a good chance of getting the nomination, though.

  17. wr says:

    @Gustopher: On the entertainment industry site Deadline there’s a commenter who posts on every box office roundup that Malificent 2 is a huge flop (it’s not) because supporting actress Elle Fanning starred in a Woody Allen movie that hasn’t been released in this country AND in various films she’d dated older men, and so American audiences hate her and refuse to see any movie she’s in. Every box office roundup, multiple messages stating the same thing.

    With all due respect, you’re kind of getting to the same point…

    3
    2
  18. Matt says:

    Oh look another old white out of touch science denying billionaire who loves shitting on minorities and poor people…..

    @Michael Reynolds: The answer is stay home and don’t even bother voting. Voting takes time from work and is tedious to engage in. I’m not wasting my time to vote for that POS and neither are the people I know who are finally leaning Democratic after realizing what a bag of crap Trump is… yeah I want Trump gone but I’m not going to cost myself money and inconvenience myself so I can get Trump lite who will then go on to further fck me over with his policies..

    Yes I realize that my opinion and the opinion of the 6 former GOP voters I’m referring to don’t matter to you. Despite that you might want to worry a bit about voter enthusiasm and how that has helped or hurt Democratic candidates in the past.

    @de stijl: Biden is vastly better than Mr I reject science because I do not want to believe it and man do I love fcking over the rights of minority groups Bloomberg…

  19. de stijl says:

    @wr:

    If Elle Fanning is your bete noir, you are in too deep.

    Step back. Breathe. Deeper – hold it.
    And release.

    Also, why are you reading comments on Deadline?

    That was stupid of me. I read comments at Kotaku and even might browse D-Listed occasionally and have it book-marked. I cannot judge. Be you. I rescind that question.

  20. grumpy realist says:

    On the other hand, I suspect that having Bloomberg as an opponent would chase Trump into total psychosis. Can’t you see how Bloomberg could needle him like crazy, mentioning his own “real billions” vs. Trump’s “sham billions”?

    Bloomberg might be the only opponent that Trump would take seriously.

  21. gVOR08 says:

    @Liberal Capitalist: On the other hand, GOPs have spent the last few decades opening politics to money. There would be some, slight, schadenfreude in seeing a D buy the election out from under them.

  22. EddieInCA says:

    @de stijl:

    If your livelihood is film and TV, you read comments at Deadline. While it’s not nearly as good as site as when Nikki was running it, it’s still a “go to” site for the industry.

    It’s a daily routine for me – multiple times per day.

  23. Michael Reynolds says:

    @Matt:
    To call Bloomberg Trump-lite reveals a complete misunderstanding of what Trump is. You might as well say there’s no difference between a head cold and brain cancer.

  24. rabble says:

    “Either you nominate me or I’ll run on my own and suck up enough votes to cost you the election.”

    It worked for Trump, why not Bloomberg?

  25. wr says:

    @de stijl: I think you misunderstood. I don’t care about any Fanning. The point was about people who post the same obsessive message about some public figure no matter the topic at hand.

    And I read Deadline because I work in the TV biz…I read comments because I’m a masochist.

  26. wr says:

    @EddieInCA: Deadline would be a better place if somehow the comments could be restricted to people in the biz. They do have the craziest line up of Trumpies and obsessive Disney and/or DC haters.

    Not to mention all the assistants at the agencies pretending to be writers whenever there’s something about the WGA…

  27. Matt says:

    @Michael Reynolds: Only because you continuously ignore my lists showing how similar they really are. Sure you can ignore how terrible the former republican Bloomberg is because you want some judges but for the average person there’s very little difference in how the two would affect their daily lives…

  28. Gustopher says:

    @wr: Are you one of the two people who went to Deval Patrick’s campaign event?

    He and Bloomberg both entered the race late, and are both seeking the same rough group of primary voters. It’s a natural comparison. Unlike most of the people here who lament the number of candidates and think we have to winnow them down right now, i generally generally new candidates — the primary will winnow it down soon enough.

    But there are some who should just go away, and who have no place being treated as legitimate. Anyone who has not held public office, anyone who can credibly be called pro-rapist, and Tulsi Gabbard.

    So, yey, a new candidate who is basically legitimate. Go Bloomberg, and good luck to him. He passes the basic litmus test of a plausible Democrat.

    We need more Bloombergs, and fewer Yangs, Steyers, Williamsons, Gabbards and Patricks.

    And Bloomberg isn’t dumb. If he’s entering the race it’s either because he sees a path to victory (unprecedented though it may be) or he wants to do something else that will be easier to do if he is running for the nomination.

  29. de stijl says:

    @wr:

    Sorry! I was “replying” to the person you were referencing in the Deadline comments, not to you.

    Re-reading my comment I get how you thought that, but it was not my intent. Apologies for the mixed message.

  30. de stijl says:

    Whenever I see Elle Fanning or Saoirse Ronan, it takes my brain a second or two to figure out who it is.

  31. de stijl says:

    @wr:

    Better version:

    To rando in Deadline comments, “If Elle Fanning is your bete noir…”

    To wr:

    “Also why are you reading…”

    Which I immediately withdrew as it was stupid.

    I read Dlisted. I cannot judge anyone.

    Sorry again. I was very unclear as to who I was addressing.

  32. de stijl says:

    It’s not just buying a barn coat and renting out the picturesque farm.

    You have to run that barn coat thru the washer and dryer a few dozen times to make it look authentic, pick a shirt, pick the appropriate fadedness of the jeans, full sun or golden hour. Set up cameras so they capture both the barn and the rolling hills.

    It takes a nation of millions (well, actually a dozen or so folks) to make a candidate look “authentic” and salt-of-the-earth.

    In the end, Bloomberg will be out after NH unless he decides to throw good money after bad.

    Btw, I am all for it. He is spending money that would otherwise just sit.

  33. wr says:

    @Gustopher: I don’t care about Deval Patrick. I’m tired of reading you post the same thing about him every time his name comes up and frequently when it doesn’t.

    If he ever polls above one percent, maybe your persistent screaming about him being a rapist or whatever will have some purpose. But now it’s just like posters on other sites who have to respond to every comment about Judaism, comedy or New York with a screed against Woody Allen.

    We’ve heard you. We know what you think on the subject. Find some new material or give it a rest.

    2
    1
  34. wr says:

    @de stijl: No problem!

    And yeah, that guy is nuts. It’s pretty obvious that he’s got a serious thing for Elle Fanning and she has refused to reply to the thousands of love letters he’s sent to her publicist’s office…

  35. Scott F. says:

    @Liberal Capitalist:
    For a guy worth $54B, that $31.5M ad buy is about the equivalent of dinner & a movie for a couple of median wealth in the US.

    He’d have to make 30+ more massive ad buys of similar size before he’d spend 1/50th of his wealth. That is before he’d pay the equivalent of what he’d owe under Warren’s 2% wealth tax.

    Think of all the better ways that money could be spent. Bloomberg needs to get over himself.

  36. Gustopher says:

    @wr: But now I know that it annoys you.

    Long ago, I used to be a Republican, because I liked the sound of things like “equality of opportunity, not a guarantee of results,” “fiscal responsibility” and, of course, spite.

    I found that the Democrats were really the party of equality and fiscal responsibility, so I switched, but I still miss the spite.

    Also, I think that the manifestly unqualified (Yang, Williamson), the permanently stained (Patrick) and Tulsi Gabbard do harm to our party by running, and they should be vocally condemned at regular intervals.

  37. Teve says:

    I wonder if Deval Patrick had anything to do with the Duke Lacrosse case?

  38. Jim Brown 32 says:

    @Gustopher: Democrats in actuality….really aren’t $–t…which is how the Republicans have gotten to advance their agenda as far as they have….as long as they have. And also why Trump is highly likely to be reelected.

    Democrats are useful in that they are less dangerous than Republicans at the moment…but any minority with a brain knows that the Party is full of prejudice whites grovelling for Big Tech and Wall Street cash…industries the liliest of lily white. They also share responsibility for the state our Democracy, economy, and society finds itself in.

    1
    1
  39. Jim Brown 32 says:

    @Gustopher: tsk..tsk..Figures that Kenyan Obama would pal around with Rape supporters and enablers. He’s probably in on the Global child sex trafficking ring with the Clinton’s too.

  40. Just nutha ignint cracker says:

    @Hal_10000: I disagree. I hope it transfers about 2 or 3 hundred million of his spare cash back into the economy. $30 million today, he’s got 10 more ad campaign ads to run. We need to cheer him on. (But vote for whoever you want to, I’m only about the Benjamins.)

  41. grumpy realist says:

    Doug, you’d probably chortle at TPM’s description of Bloomberg’s antics: Bloomberg Officially Crams Himself in The 2020 Presidential Race

  42. just nutha ignint cracker says:

    Better spending, worse spending, potayto, potahto. Spending is the key word. He should spend as much as he can, for as long as he can. Particularly if he is not likely to win afterward. (And even if he did win how much more likely is that to make Democrats stay home?)

  43. Michael Reynolds says:

    @Matt:
    Exactly what is terrible about Bloomberg? Stop and Frisk? Got news for you, at the time most Democrats were on-board with it and the scholarship of the time – such as it was – seemed to support the related broken windows theory. And Bloomberg has apologized. He’s also said some stupid things about women – things he’s walked back.

    Other than that, what’s your beef? That he’s rich?

    If you think any of that comes close to comparing to Trump you have lost the plot.

  44. wr says:

    @Gustopher: “manifestly unqualified (Yang, Williamson), the permanently stained (Patrick) and Tulsi Gabbard do harm to our party by running, and they should be vocally condemned at regular intervals.”

    I got no problem with that. Just mix it up a little! Give Booker and this abuse thing one day, then go after the others for a while.

    I did like the SNL version of Tulsi’s closing statement: “I have no interest in those dalmation puppies.”

  45. Michael Reynolds says:

    @wr: @Gustopher: @Matt:

    I think we should consider our paradigm, the metric we apply. What is needed are 1) goals and 2) means to reach those goals that are themselves consistent with those goals. This is not a contest to be the most morally pure or to be king of woke mountain. We seek the power to do good things for people, that is the essence of it. In seeking to do good for people, we must not contradict ourselves by doing bad things in a good cause.

    If we reject all sinners we reject everyone. Jesus was not divine, but he knew some good, practical, useful things, among them the necessity of forgiveness and a sincere desire for redemption. It’s not a big tent if only saints need apply.

    Stay focused on the goal. We exist as a party to protect those who lack the power to protect themselves. To that end we need power, because without power we’re just virtue-signaling. It’s harder for us because we do actually have beliefs and ethics and morals, and yet we have an obligation to the people we are supposed to be protecting. It’s not an easy circle to square, but I’d suggest a sense of proportion and a bit of realism about human beings. Pure and powerless is useless and self-indulgent.

  46. Michael Reynolds says:

    @Jim Brown 32:
    Reality check. African Americans have nowhere else to go if they are to have any political impact at all. Look at the math. AA’s are 13% of the population and declining. There is no state, not one, where AA’s can have any significant political power minus white support.

    On the other hand, the Democratic Party could theoretically ignore the AA vote, swing to the center and perhaps pick up enough moderate-conservative votes to win states and the White House. I don’t think that’d be smart, and it would be immoral, but it’d be a whole lot smarter than African-Americans walking away from the Democratic Party. We may not be perfect friends of AA’s, but we are friends and the other side are enemies. The choice is between often feckless and hypocritical Dems and a white supremacist Republican party that would be happy to see a return to Jim Crow.

    BTW, this equally true of other minorities. For example, we gained absolutely nothing from supporting trans rights, their vote isn’t even a rounding error. It probably cost us, net net, and our support for gay rights likely cost us, almost certainly cost us among AA voters who lag on gay issues.

    We are trying to do good things for people. Really. Sincerely. That’s what we’re trying to do. Do we fuck that up sometimes? Yes. But the choice for African Americans is between a party trying to be helpful, and a party that openly hates the people we are tying to help.

  47. Matt says:

    @Michael Reynolds:

    Stop and Frisk? Got news for you, at the time most Democrats were on-board with it

    Some were and they were just as wrong as Bloomberg to support a blatantly racist and illegal policy. It’s no longer in place because despite trampling on the lives of blacks and other minorities it was ineffective and illegal.

    And Bloomberg has apologized.

    Yeah mere days before filling out the paperwork for and announcing the start of his campaign. Earlier this year he was bragging about how great the program was. No one outside of the true believers sees that apology as anything more than a craven political ploy. I would be amazed if anyone actually considered it sincere.

    Other than that, what’s your beef? That he’s rich?

    My beef has been listed at least three times prior to this and you have ignored those lists every single time. I’m not even sure why I’m bothering this time because I’m sure in the next thread I’ll have to repeat this…

    Remember this post?

    “He still defends his stop and frisk policy which overwhelmingly targeted minorities as a great policy that made New York safer (it didn’t but it did violate the constitutional rights of minorities). He also opposes any form of criminal justice reform because we can’t be soft on crime. He also opposes marijuana legalization because “it’s a gateway drug” and “medical marijuana is a hoax”. I don’t understand why the Democrats are even considering this guy. He’s Trump light with his “my beliefs matter more than reality” and his “law and order” stupidity.

    IF you think you’re going to win with GOP light….”

    That pretty much covers the starting point of why I have a beef with Bloomberg. But sure try to claim my beef is purely jealously that Bloomberg is such a better person than me and rich as a result. You know because his daddy having connections had nothing to do with Bloomberg’s sucess.. Which feeds into the other post that is somewhere I can’t find so I’ll just have to give you the TLDR. Bloomberg is rich because of daddy and hard work which is fine and dandy but there’s a hundred million or more people putting forth more work and getting nowhere because they didn’t have daddy or mommy to hook them up. Bloomberg’s offspring will be successful regardless of they do. It’s statistically almost impossible for a rich connected kid to fail. Trump being another blatant example. Things in this country are broken for the vast majority of people as 90% struggle to fight over the 19% of wealth left over for them. The top 1% own over 60% of all wealth in this country with the next 9% hoovering up another 20%. We’re moving into a gilded age with new “nobility” and Bloomberg has no problem with this.

    If you think any of that comes close to comparing to Trump you have lost the plot

    You clearly have lost it secure in your smug bubble of knowledge. The Obama recovery is benefiting us all even today and you know who the average person credits for that? Trump because he’s in office so clearly it’s the result of his doings (obviously I don’t agree but good luck explaining that effectively). When the economy explodes from Trump’s stupidity the average voter will blame whoever is in office then. You don’t seem to realize that your perception is one of a small percentage of people in this country. That you’re turning away potential democratic voters because you can’t be bothered to see any other perspective. From their perspective it’s a choice between two old out of touch white guys who don’t believe in science or facts. Trump is actually at an advantage here because at least he hasn’t come out against marijauna legalization and medical marijauna like Bloomberg. Then there’s the other crap BLoomberg has pulled like the “soda ban” and more that will haunt him in a general election as he’s painted as an overbearing nanny state supporter…

    I won’t even bother voting if Bloomberg is nominee because voting costs me money and is tedious. From my daily perspective there’s no difference between a fake billionare fcking me and a real billionare fcking me…

    If you want to win then you’re going to need someone that energizes the base which includes the youth. Otherwise you’re looking at another Hillary style loss…

    EDIT : If you’re wondering I’ve been a Mayor Pete supporter since the early days. I would make an effort to show up for Warren or Sanders because they all understand that we need REAL healthcare reform in this country. Not a handout to the insurance companies. Biden may or may not be able to get me to turn out.

    I know of two Trump voters who would vote Democratic in a heartbeat if it meant real health care at a reasonable price. One had admitted they would of voted for Sanders. They ended up voting Trump because Trump was promising unicorns and rainbow farts. They rolled for the unknown Trump because they thought he might shake up the status quo that has been fcking them all this time.

  48. Matt says:

    @Matt: Oh yeah and I totally forgot to mention that Bloomberg’s policies saw a MASSIVE increase in violence at Rikers Island.

    Because like Trump Bloomberg thinks that police should rough people up whenever they can…

  49. Michael Reynolds says:

    @Matt:
    Yeah, I read it each time and you’ve still got:

    1) Stop and frisk and it’s sequelae.
    2) He’s against legalization.
    3) He’s rich.

    I don’t give a damn if he’s sincere about apologizing for stop and frisk, the only question is would he somehow return to it if in office. The answer is obviously: no.

    Am I indifferent to jail conditions? I spent 22 years going to sleep every night imagining the knock on the door. I’m probably the only person here who’s ever actually spent time in jail.

    And for the record, I’m just about to spark up. The joint is literally in my left hand.

    You don’t seem to realize that your perception is one of a small percentage of people in this country. That you’re turning away potential democratic voters because you can’t be bothered to see any other perspective. From their perspective it’s a choice between two old out of touch white guys who don’t believe in science or facts.

    This is nonsense. Were you to check my Act Blue account you’d see that I’ve donated to Elizabeth Warren and Mayor Pete. I’m not a Bloomberg superfan. And I’m really quite good at seeing the world through perspectives other than my own, I’ve been earning six figures and the occasional seven figures for 30 years writing fiction. If you know any fiction writers ask them how common that is.

    As for turning away voters, every single candidate you can name will turn away some segment of voters. You think the whole world is ready to embrace a gay, small-city mayor? One who also, incidentally, has no rapport with minority voters?

    I will vote for the nominee, period, because I am not a spoiled child who will stomp his feet if he doesn’t get exactly what he wants. Because apparently unlike you I can see the bigger picture, and that bigger picture is that we have a corrupt, treasonous, fascistic piece of shit in the White House, and equating Bloomberg with Trump is ridiculous.

  50. Jim Brown 32 says:

    @Michael Reynolds: Nothing you said was a lie Michael. I just want people to understand that, at least amongst my peer group, the relationship with the DP is entirely transactional. There is no other alternative….. But that could change just like it did in the 60s. There is a reason Trump pulled a significant numbers of Black Male voters… I predict that number wil increase in 2020. Not only do a large percent of white rural and suburban voter see Democrats as anti white… A large number of AA men see it as anti male.
    I believe the real swing voter that can save the Party’s ass is Black males… I could be a wee bit biased however.

  51. Michael Reynolds says:

    @Jim Brown 32:
    You’re not wrong about Dems being seen as anti-male. I have more than once beaten my head against a brick wall by insisting that the way to redress one injustice was not with an equal and opposite injustice because that just swings the fucking pendulum again, leading to more division, more tribalism. The opposite of lies is truth, not some other lie. The opposite of hate is not more hate.

    Among the many things Jesus got right. Also Gandhi. Also Martin. Also Nelson. 100% of the people busily swinging the pendulum in their eternal game of anything you can do, I can do back, admire at least one of those men. And they weren’t just talking mushy kumbaya, it’s smart politics. Every religious and secular saint agrees. How do people not get this?

  52. Matt says:

    @Michael Reynolds:

    Yeah, I read it each time and you’ve still got:

    Yeah because you decided before reading my post that my concerns are irrelevant.

    Your “summary” for example shows how you’re not really paying attention.

    1a) Has no problem shitting on the rights of minorities (Muslims blacks brown people you name it) and poor people in general. The constitution only belongs to those with connections or the wealth to afford it.
    1b) Is willing to say anything to get elected including suddenly reversing his statements on prior policies because they are suddenly inconvenient to his goals. I’m not convinced at all he wouldn’t flip back over to pursue similar policies later. What guarantee are you providing?
    2) He’s against science when he doesn’t want to believe it. Belief having more meaning to him than facts.
    3) He sees nothing wrong at all with the way things are for the vast majority of the country. The whole reason he’s throwing his hat in the ring is because he’s scared someone like Warren might get elected and put a stop to the top 1% sucking up all the wealth in this country.
    4) He supported policies that resulted in massive increases in police brutality and incarceration of non violent offenders.
    5) He believes he knows better than anyone else what is good for you and if you disagree he’ll push for laws forcing you to bow to his beliefs.

    I would go on but I have to work. I’ll get the rest later.

  53. Michael Reynolds says:

    @Matt:
    None of that means anything. You have no facts, you just don’t like the guy? He’s ‘willing to say anything to get elected?’ Really? That’s an accusation? You think maybe it applies to every pol ever? He ‘believes he knows better?’ Unlike you, me and every pol on earth? I should hope he thinks he knows better, you prefer someone with no vision?

    If you have evidence that Bloomberg’s policies led to ‘massive increases in police brutality,’ kindly present it. Because I don’t think you’ve got data to back that up, and ‘massive’ should certainly show up clearly.

    You got Stop and Frisk, anti-legalization and he’s rich. You can keep adding verbiage but that’s what you’ve got.

  54. Matt says:

    @Michael Reynolds:

    None of that means anything.

    It clearly does to some people.

    You have no facts, you just don’t like the guy? He’s ‘willing to say anything to get elected?

    You’re smarter than this. You’re still completely misrepresenting what I said by focusing on this stupidity that has nothing to do with the substance of my complaints. Seems you’re pretty committed to beating that strawman though so good luck…

    If you have evidence that Bloomberg’s policies led to ‘massive increases in police brutality,’ kindly present it. Because I don’t think you’ve got data to back that up, and ‘massive’ should certainly show up clearly.

    You’re engaging in the trumpster defense where you refuse to spend 20 seconds to check for yourself. Well here’s some spoon feeding to get you started.

    https://lmgtfy.com/?q=rikers+island+violence+increase+under+bloomberg

    You got Stop and Frisk, anti-legalization and he’s rich. You can keep adding verbiage but that’s what you’ve got.

    Yeah because you’re being trumpster level of dumb. You’ve castigated Jenos Guarnai and the others for pulling the crap you’re pulling right now.