• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Starting to like Bloomberg

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

woolfe9998

Diamond Member
Apr 8, 2013
9,735
3,868
136
Well...we'll see if that changes if he becomes the nominee. "Senator Sanders, if you are the nominee, do you want me to NOT use my money and resources to help you defeat President Trump?" Either he stays on message that billionaire money is inherently evil and that he would rather go into battle significantly outgunned on the money front than have help from those who have big money to use in the battle. Either he would know that Bloomberg probably despises Trump enough that he'd spend much money on Bernie's behalf anyway even if Bernie didn't want it, or Bernie would probably believe that he can beat Trump handily enough without Bloomberg's money. He would be telling Democratic voters whose top priority is beating Trump that he would turn down a billion dollars to that goal.

I get Bernie's position. I just don't think his consistent positions and issues are not most of the positions and issues of the Democratic party as a whole per se, his forever war is not with Trump, but a class war against the wealthy. Everything else is in service of fighting that war and the fight is the point, not the victory and viewed through that filter. That has been his consistent message and position ...always. Having effective weapons that were made by those who make weapons to fight against those who make weapons would be unacceptable. Better to go into battle with slingshots. The fight is what matters.

Sadly IMO...It is just not where most Democrats and independents are at. To them beating Trump is job one, and they realize it takes resources to do that, not purity that would have you turn down the resources because it came from someone who had it to give.
Sanders doesn't have any control over it. They can spend it for him. It's called superpacs. It's called billionaires like Bloomberg or Steyer who decide to run anti-Trump ads. Technically he has no control over it, but he'll benefit from it nonetheless.
 

VRAMdemon

Diamond Member
Aug 16, 2012
3,611
2,290
136
Sanders doesn't have any control over it. They can spend it for him. It's called superpacs. It's called billionaires like Bloomberg or Steyer who decide to run anti-Trump ads. Technically he has no control over it, but he'll benefit from it nonetheless.
Yes...But will he embrace it or publicly decry it? It may be used to attack his position and integrity.
 

jmagg

Golden Member
Nov 21, 2001
1,434
144
106
How about zero percent?

Which current Republican Senator is going to vote for a tax increase to fund Medicare for all or student loan forgiveness or free higher education or increased social security funding?
Thats the spirit.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
66,636
14,113
136
Bloomberg is nowhere close to my choice from a policy perspective but I think people overestimate how much policy matters.

What Democrats want more than anything is to remove Trump from the White House and Bloomberg right now is showing he could be pretty effective at that. I think the basic idea of ‘he is kicking Trump’s ass on TV’ explains a lot of his rise.
 

SteveGrabowski

Platinum Member
Oct 20, 2014
2,405
632
136
If Bloomberg hijacks the Democratic party there is no hope of the United States ever becoming a decent nation again. I can't imagine what FDR would think to see such a disgrace.
 

Bitek

Diamond Member
Aug 2, 2001
8,518
2,384
136
Imo, winning is #1-100.

Personally, at this point he's got my vote unless something dramatic changes. The rest of the field has too many flaws to be comfortable with.

Sanders is a good guy, but M4A and all his tax increases will lose the suburbs. He simply hasn't shown the strength or turnout to make up for this. Counting on college students to win you the election meanwhile terrifying the elderly is a recipe for disaster.
He could cause the loss of the house if it the commie stuff goes sideways, then we're really fuuuuuuucked if T is reelected with a full Congress of toadies.

Pete's done well, but he's looked too much of a light weight. He let a middling Klobo walk over him in the debate and potentially deny him an victory in NH.
Beyond that, why chance it on a white AF small town mayor when a 3 term mayor of one of the world's largest, diverse and toughest cities is available? Policies really aren't much different.

Not only does MB have a strong funding, he's using his business experience and resources to build a data driven digital operation no one else has the likelihood of matching.

Don't forget 2 sc justices are running on fumes. It's win or lose.
Matyrs don't pick sc justices.
Losers don't make laws and run the investigations.
Only winning matters. Trump must be defeated.
 

Ajay

Diamond Member
Jan 8, 2001
6,368
1,954
136
Just found out that the DNC changed the rules so that Bloomberg can be in the debates. So, yeah - $60B gets you whatever you want. Now I just want him to buzz the hell off.
 

Bitek

Diamond Member
Aug 2, 2001
8,518
2,384
136
Just found out that the DNC changed the rules so that Bloomberg can be in the debates. So, yeah - $60B gets you whatever you want. Now I just want him to buzz the hell off.
Polling in double digits and dropping $300M to help the party win gets you in.

Sitting where he's at in the race but saying he can't get on stage bc he doesn't have enough small $ doners is dumb and a disservice to the party.

He's in the race, he needs to be able to show that he belongs there by being tested in person.

Biden is a walking dead man, but we need to hear more from him?

Yang and stayer took up oxygen for numerous debates for little benefit (other than to bring up reparations again...)

MB is not going away, so let him show that he belongs in stage and can take a hit.
 

woolfe9998

Diamond Member
Apr 8, 2013
9,735
3,868
136
Yes...But will he embrace it or publicly decry it? It may be used to attack his position and integrity.
Oh he can publicly decry it while still benefiting from it. That way he gets the benefit and comes out "clean."

Citizens United needs to be overturned.
 

Maxima1

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2013
3,003
542
126
Sanders is a good guy, but M4A and all his tax increases will lose the suburbs. He simply hasn't shown the strength or turnout to make up for this. Counting on college students to win you the election meanwhile terrifying the elderly is a recipe for disaster.
Easy to attack Trump on health care and SS.

Beyond that, why chance it on a white AF small town mayor when a 3 term mayor of one of the world's largest, diverse and toughest cities is available?
I don't know why Pete gets so much crap with minorities but Bloomberg gets a pass on a lot of that stuff.

Polling in double digits and dropping $300M to help the party win gets you in.

Sitting where he's at in the race but saying he can't get on stage bc he doesn't have enough small $ doners is dumb and a disservice to the party.
Well, it's also dumb he's essentially buying the primary. I say let him in the debates though because he needs to answer the criticisms. He's riding off a bunch of ads and media without much scrutiny yet.

Biden is a walking dead man, but we need to hear more from him?
Biden isn't out just yet. IA and NH are some of his worst states. He can still come back; he's still better odds than anyone else except Bernie.

Yang and stayer took up oxygen for numerous debates for little benefit (other than to bring up reparations again...)
What was wrong with Yang? He's seeding UBI and bringing up issues that others don't. Understandably crowded -- they could have done JV debate like Republicans did.

 

Indus

Diamond Member
May 11, 2002
6,277
1,875
136
Michael Bloomberg Appeared To Blame Obama For Racial Division In 2016

During a November 2016 speaking event at Oxford University in England, the former New York City mayor suggested that Obama had failed to address issues of racial segregation:
I would argue that today we are more segregated, in America certainly, than we were, in terms of race, than we were a dozen years ago, and yet we’re just finishing up eight years with our first Black president. “Why are we more separated than we were before?” is the question you’ve got to ask yourself. Why during the Obama administration didn’t we pull together? Ask the president. That’s his job really to pull people together.
 

brandonbull

Diamond Member
May 3, 2005
5,352
445
126
If Bloomberg is the nominee, then this country is effectively finished as any sort of democratic republic, and is simply an oligarchy in everything but name.
Bloomberg is going to buy his way in and bypass the rules all the other Democrat candidates had to adhere to. 2020 is starting to shape up like 2016 did. Hillary comes in with a ton of money and blamm, she is now their candidate. I'd Be surprised if moneybags Bloomberg isn't the Democrat candidate.
 

BUTCH1

Lifer
Jul 15, 2000
18,809
676
126
Bloomberg is going to buy his way in and bypass the rules all the other Democrat candidates had to adhere to. 2020 is starting to shape up like 2016 did. Hillary comes in with a ton of money and blamm, she is now their candidate. I'd Be surprised if moneybags Bloomberg isn't the Democrat candidate.
For many they understand any Dem candidate will need serious $$ to have a shot. Trump's GOP's wealthy have amassed what's called the "death star" of funding for electronic media, reportedly close to a $billion. Yes, he's buying his way in but I could live with a moderate Democrat of any ilk vs the lawless disgrace Trump is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bitek and esquared

BonzaiDuck

Lifer
Jun 30, 2004
14,300
848
126
While I prefer someone with a lower to mid middle-class background, selection of political leaders by the Left from upper 20% to 5% has been a way for the Left to accommodate the Right's belief that dollars equate to brain-cells, or that "we have the most money, we therefore have the most to lose, so we should have a greater right to rule."

All of those myths have increasingly infused the thinking of certain factions within the GOP. Since the political campaign system has been corrupted with money since the 19th century, it would be considered a status-quo that can only be ameliorated by playing the game of competing in the money arena. While Warren and others have done well to refuse PAC and contributor funding to finance their campaigns, being in the thrall of special-interest contributors is not a necessary outcome, although it could be more likely according to the "follow-the-money" principle.

Remember that the Right tried accusing Hillary for pandering to various contributors simply by accepting large reimbursements for speaking engagements. One of their tactics is to initiate accusations against its own excesses before the Dems can raise the issue -- in a manner of speaking -- beating them to the punch. The public opinion dynamic in a sub-discussion of the "money and politics" issue is therefore different, although the degree and number of corruption scandals by Republicans generates enough news anyway to raise suspicions of more people.

Among the myths is the "unsusceptibility to bribery" folklore: "He has his own money, so he cannot be corrupted; it's the poor guy that you have to watch out for." This latter idea applies the real perception of banana-republic ethics to American culture, disparaging the right of the masses to rule in proportion to their sheer numbers. It dovetails with the idea that people of humble means can never be as smart or informed as those at the top of the socio-economic pyramid.

But despite the myth which we see shattered by Trump's stupidity, lack of education despite high schooling opportunities, his malignant narcissism and lack of empathy, his failure to pay attention to numbers, facts and statistics, his "gamble-from-the-gut" instincts about risk and his aversion to using a staff to advantage or accept conflicting opinions or conclusions -- it is possible to find someone who actually fills the bill for having started from little and focusing their brain, aptitude and learning toward the goal of making money.

Bloomberg got his BS in electrical engineering. He was the son of a Jewish book-keeper employed by a dairy corporation with a network of dairy-farms. They could call his father a book-keeper, but this was Bloomberg's exposure to accounting and business early in life. After undergraduate years at Johns Hopkins, he went to Harvard Business School, quickly rose in the ranks of Wall Street investment firms, and soon realized and understood a need and demand that could be filled with great profit: instant, computerized information about stocks, bonds, and other instruments that are traded up and down Wall Street by other companies. He variously stepped in and out of the CEO role, but the recent profitability of his company over the last ten years has raised notice in the financial community.

He is also a passionate philanthropist, more like Bill Gates, and so unlike the scam-artist and tax-fraud Trump, who misused his own charity to commission a painting of himself to hang in his own building.

Finally, managing a government like the city of New York as mayor might as well be a responsibility in the same magnitude of leading a nation-state, even for lack of a standing army or the ambassadorial dimension of international relations. Without a need to maintain diplomatic relations with a foreign state, New York is nevertheless the headquarters of the UN and the World Bank. And while the news gave at least as much time to Bush 43 in the wake of 9-11, Bloomberg was in the thick of it. If you want someone to stabilize and regulate financial markets, Bloomberg's experience would serve well.

If you can trust the man's integrity and sincerity, he could begin to assist squaring away this costly mess Trump has created. Maybe he could pick someone like Buttigieg or Steyer for a running mate, but even better -- he could enlist Warren or Klobuchar. There are many unifying possibilities, limited only by the participants' egos.

I say, in this desperate situation with the clock ticking toward greater and greater risk as a megalomaniac spins wider arcs of destruction and damage, Bloomberg could be a Machiavellian choice that still offers progressive promise parallel to a Warren or Sanders presidency. It addresses the fundamental issue without dismissing serious issues raised in the debates. And any administration by someone like Bloomberg could attempt to draft the talents of other candidates who lose the primary.

So you could say -- on behalf of another candidate choice -- that Bloomberg is merely attempting to buy the election. But do you really think that either Steyer or Bloomberg are not averse to putting their own interests ahead of the country's, as Trump has demonstrated consistently through both his campaign and tenure? I think they simply see a need, and want to fill it out of mostly altruism.

It is less important at this time to turn the Ship of State in the most prudent direction, and more important to keep it from capsizing. There is a long and hard road ahead -- you could compare it to the reconstruction of post-war Europe. The one least discussed but implied much in the recent news happens to be restoring the morale and expertise in the career civil service, and putting so many things back on track such as the State Department, the Treasury and IRS, the EPA. Even OPM deserves attention, as Trump's people have decimated some areas of expertise there which keeps a watchful eye on behaviors and sub-cultures in all the various agencies. OPM itself could use a makeover.

We want our government returned to the same or better operation and effectiveness that it had before Trump. Who, for instance, do you think Bloomberg would pick to replace Betsy DeVos or Ben Carson? Both of those cabinet members are totally unprepared for the leadership they've been assigned to provide. In practical terms, DeVos has absolutely no value to good government and Carson should go back to neuro-surgery.

The GOP has taken us into a sinkhole by trying to sabotage and undermine government at the federal level by other than legislative means. But nobody ever wrote a statute defining malicious mismanagement as a crime with penalties. The federal level must all be repaired. Only in a good state of repair can it be moved forward toward truly progressive objectives with the best outcomes. Who is best prepared to see the biggest picture of it all?
 
Last edited:

nickqt

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2015
4,612
1,483
136
Bloomberg is going to buy his way in and bypass the rules all the other Democrat candidates had to adhere to. 2020 is starting to shape up like 2016 did. Hillary comes in with a ton of money and blamm, she is now their candidate. I'd Be surprised if moneybags Bloomberg isn't the Democrat candidate.
Clinton was the frontrunner in 2008 until she wasn't, and there was never any real doubt that she'd be the candidate in 2016. There hasn't been a candidate before Clinton with a better resume for it.

I voted for Sanders in my state's primary in 2016. I was not surprised that the Democratic party openly preferred that a Democrat win the Democratic primary. She didn't buy her way into anything.
 

BonzaiDuck

Lifer
Jun 30, 2004
14,300
848
126
When was the last time a commoner was elected?

Mr. Peanut is the closest I can recall and he still had bucks. You'd have to go back before Ike to find one.
Both the Roosevelts -- Teddy the GOP progressive and Franklin the "Socialist" -- were upper crust. Truman was a haberdasher turned politician, and managed to get us through early post-war era, although he had a bigoted side and was influenced by a congressman with bad ideas. Both parties wanted to run Eisenhower, but he only made himself available to the GOP. He gave us the interstate highway system and supported a landmark integration of black students at a public high-school -- opposed by Governor Faubus. Eisenhower was key to the students' enrollment by taking state National Guard troops under federal control. Ike had been a Texas-born, Kansas-raised farm boy before his military career. He bore the weight of grief for 500,000 Americans who died under his command in defeating Hitler's Reich. He gave us NASA and the space program.

The Kennedys were part of another east coast elite; Joe Kennedy had experience under Roosevelt as ambassador to Britain, and continued to influence politics while dabbling in the Hollywood movie industry. So Jack and Robert had good government and leadership commitments as the center of their lives.

Nixon, with some severe personal flaws and his downfall of criminality in Watergate, was the son of Quakers who owned "the poorest little lemon grove in California." He saw his older brother die of tuberculosis. So one would categorize him by his modest origins.

Both of the Clintons as well as Barack and Michelle came from lower middle-class circumstances. Bill Clinton grew up in a broken home; Hillary's father had a small business making draperies; Barack owed much to his mother -- a female vanguard in academia expanded by world travel; his grandmother worked her way up the ladder to be a bank vice-president.

These are the kinds of people we want for a presidency. Even Nixon gave superior service to Trump's, promoting the idea of an EPA. But we don't need another Nixon, and we desperately pray for relief from the Trump Scourge. The man is a virus in human form.

So despite his enormous financial success that vastly overshadows that of the con-man and criminal Trump, Bloomberg's origins seem more like those of the Clintons, the Obamas, perhaps Eisenhower whose path of success was different but not totally incomparable. He's not just "from Wall Street" -- he saw an opportunity to build a fortune providing a general service to investment and trading firms. He was able to build that business with both technical expertise and business acumen -- which Trump simply doesn't have.

The real issue is whether or not Bloomberg sees the world like many of us do, as opposed to being raised in a lap of luxury, given to Trump's gambling driven as much by delusion and ego without calculation or common sense.

It's one thing for an office-holder to use his position for self-enrichment, like Trump. It's another if a candidate provides tremendous resources to either secure his nomination or support someone else more successful in the primary. There's little doubt that Bloomberg would eagerly show his taxes to public scrutiny, and he has an obvious caliber and track record suggesting he would divest himself of his business in a proper way.

In the case of Bloomberg or Steyer, an argument parallel to things suggested by Sanders that disqualifies the candidate just because he has been enormously successful might be unwise. Sanders can inspire; he has noble ideas; but he's branded himself to an ideology rather than discussing it as a toolbox for solving some public problems. Sanders had success as a mayor like Bloomberg, but Bloomberg would make the better administrator. He would be more flexible.

All of these candidates appear to be fine people. Some of them may have enduring historical fame, whether they win the nomination or not. Biden could lose and still be valuable in his continued support. We have a major opportunity when you take all the candidates -- including Harris and Booker -- as administration resources. For instance, would you not be blessed with Kamala Harris as AG? And in the end, if a Senator merely returns or continues to be a Senator,, then we will still be well-served.

We need to focus on winning senatorial races to turn the tables and oust McConnell. Bloomberg might allow the Dems to free up other resources to do just that. And time is of the essence.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Bitek

Muse

Lifer
Jul 11, 2001
24,777
1,169
126
When was the last time a commoner was elected?

Mr. Peanut is the closest I can recall and he still had bucks. You'd have to go back before Ike to find one.
Well, AFAIK, at least two of the candidates, and the most progressive, Warren and Sanders were commoners in their youth.
 

ch33zw1z

Lifer
Nov 4, 2004
27,667
6,953
136
Bloomberg is going to buy his way in and bypass the rules all the other Democrat candidates had to adhere to. 2020 is starting to shape up like 2016 did. Hillary comes in with a ton of money and blamm, she is now their candidate. I'd Be surprised if moneybags Bloomberg isn't the Democrat candidate.
Then don't vote for a Dem. It's not like you were going to anyways
 

Muse

Lifer
Jul 11, 2001
24,777
1,169
126
Then don't vote for a Dem. It's not like you were going to anyways
He's obviously damned to hell. Anyone who would vote for a Republican at this point in American history is, well, history.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY