Ahoy! Bloomberg, right ahead!

[malchior]

Bloomberg is essentially just a wealthy Republican in the mold of, say, Mitt Romney. He's disgusted by Trump's personal conduct, and by his inaction on the climate crisis and gun violence. (Romney, in fairness, doesn't give a shit about climate change. Bloomberg's record on that front is strong.) But Bloomberg basically thinks the system as presently constructed is working

This is one of my problems with Bloomberg. Thinking you can tinker with the system is not getting the problem. Of course he thinks it's working. It literally obeys his every command and contorts itself to serve him. It's failing across the board for the vast majority of people. The fact that gun violence, inequality, healthcare, and climate change go unaddressed are the evidence of the system *NOT WORKING*. A technocrat isn't going to fix the rot by turning dials like he seeks to.

With Bloomberg, people might feel they won't have to pay attention to politics all the time anymore, which could appeal to professional-class coastal liberals who, like Bloomberg himself, generally like the economic status quo and are tired of being mad.

This is eye-roll worthy. That he is the right "Captain Edward J. Smith" at the helm of the ship is supposed to be comforting? Might as well say let's see how long the plutocrat can keep his own gravy train rolling. He doesn't even have to worry about going down with the ship as the water rushes in because he is almost 80. Whenever the shit really hits the fan he'll likely be gone already.

To this professional-class, coastal liberal who cares about the environment and doesn't buy into Bernie's revolution and feels like the number one threat to this country is Trump and his utter lack of respect for our democratic norms and institutions, all of the above doesn't really sound so bad.

You don't have to buy into Bernie's revolution but thinking the system just needs a steady hand is only going to lead to more Trump or a worse more competent Trump stand-in either from the right or left down the line.

[coopasonic]

You don't have to buy into Bernie's revolution but thinking the system just needs a steady hand is only going to lead to more Trump or a worse more competent Trump stand-in either from the right or left down the line.

You mean like Bloomberg?

He's basically what Trump tries to tell people he is, minus all the superlatives. He's a billionaire businessman. I can't imagine why he would want to be president. I mean really the power is all that there is. He already has everything else. It just seems like an unnecessary hassle. It does make me wonder.

[malchior]

You don't have to buy into Bernie's revolution but thinking the system just needs a steady hand is only going to lead to more Trump or a worse more competent Trump stand-in either from the right or left down the line.

You mean like Bloomberg?

Haha fair enough.

Meanwhile, on the other side of Hazzard County - the NY Times shows it hasn't learned a thing from 2016.

Via @ClareMalone, there are currently 8 stories on the NYT politics page about Bloomberg, and 0 about Buttigieg who (i) is actually on the ballot in the next two states and (ii) is in first place in pledged delegates so far.

[Combustible Lemur]

It was "The Bloomburg campaign *insert an interesting title here!*" so I guess Bloom All is an interesting title.

We can do better. I mean, not me, personally, but someone here certainly can. Come on, people!

How about "Bloomsday?" Anyone? No?

No Joyce fans?

Ahoy! Bloomberg, right ahead!

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

[Kurth]

You don't have to buy into Bernie's revolution but thinking the system just needs a steady hand is only going to lead to more Trump or a worse more competent Trump stand-in either from the right or left down the line.

You mean like Bloomberg?

Haha fair enough.

Meanwhile, on the other side of Hazzard County - the NY Times shows it hasn't learned a thing from 2016.

Via @ClareMalone, there are currently 8 stories on the NYT politics page about Bloomberg, and 0 about Buttigieg who (i) is actually on the ballot in the next two states and (ii) is in first place in pledged delegates so far.

To be fair, listening to NPR this morning, it was all Bloomberg, Bloomberg, Bloomberg. The only mention of Buttigieg or Klobuchar is that they are polling in single digits nationally compared to Bloomberg's 19%.

[malchior]

They are always chasing the shiny object. The national poll surge as the source of interest makes sense but Pete is still in the damn lead and and he has been banished to obscurity when contests he is competitive in (and Bloomberg isn't even on the ticket for) are right in front of us. It indicates how impactful media influence is in our nation. On top the use of money to distort this election is odious.

[El Guapo]

They are always chasing the shiny object. The national poll surge as the source of interest makes sense but Pete is still in the damn lead and and he has been banished to obscurity when contests he is competitive in (and Bloomberg isn't even on the ticket for) are right in front of us. It indicates how impactful media influence is in our nation. On top the use of money to distort this election is odious.

This is also something that Nate Silver has been hammering on lately. People complain about Bloomberg "buying the election". And his ad bombs are no doubt part of the story, but in a lot of ways that lets the media off the hook, because a big part of Bloomberg's rise is the 'earned media' part of this - that major media outlets have been covering him disproportionately (and, at least until recently, pretty favorably).

[YellowKing]

Relax. Nothing can come of the media disproportionately covering a wealthy New Yorker who doesn't have a chance in hell of winning the nomina----oh wait.

[Lagom Lite]

Relax. Nothing can come of the media disproportionately covering a wealthy New Yorker who doesn't have a chance in hell of winning the nomina----oh wait.

Difference being, Donald Trump is backed by scores of enthusiastic supporters. You know, people. Actual voters.

[LawBeefaroni]

Here's a primer that is kinder than I am but still in the right neighborhood.

All this should serve to remind people that Bloomberg is essentially just a wealthy Republican in the mold of, say, Mitt Romney. He's disgusted by Trump's personal conduct, and by his inaction on the climate crisis and gun violence. (Romney, in fairness, doesn't give a shit about climate change. Bloomberg's record on that front is strong.) But Bloomberg basically thinks the system as presently constructed is working, that it is delivering fair and just results for our society, that the powerful people within it are nearly always right and deserve to be where they are, and that the powerless are where they are because of their personal failings. Also, as mayor of New York City, he had something of an authoritarian streak.

Bloomberg would almost certainly be a better president than the current one, if only because he seems to have full access to his cognitive faculties and is not a two-bit grifter with shady financial connections that sprawl across the multinational underworld.
...
Bloomberg's rise is rooted in his astroturf strategy, a campaign which seems to exist only in the commercial blocs between television programming segments and in the corniest precincts of social media. In the latter case, part of his strategy seems to be to bait Donald Trump into personal back-and-forths, so that America can get what it truly deserves: two alleged New York billionaires—only Bloomberg's status is truly assured in that department—arguing about their comparative heights, intelligence, and facial complexion in order to determine who should run the country. Thursday brought Exhibit A—or maybe J.

I've read through that Esquire primer and a couple other pieces on Bloomberg. I get the principled distaste for a billionaire plutocrat, and I need to know more about the allegations of racism, but I don't really see anything in there - or in other pieces I've read - that's disqualifying for me. In fact, there's a lot that is kind of sort of favorable to Bloomberg:

Bloomberg is essentially just a wealthy Republican in the mold of, say, Mitt Romney. He's disgusted by Trump's personal conduct, and by his inaction on the climate crisis and gun violence. (Romney, in fairness, doesn't give a shit about climate change. Bloomberg's record on that front is strong.) But Bloomberg basically thinks the system as presently constructed is working

Bloomberg would almost certainly be a better president than the current one, if only because he seems to have full access to his cognitive faculties and is not a two-bit grifter with shady financial connections that sprawl across the multinational underworld.

With Bloomberg, people might feel they won't have to pay attention to politics all the time anymore, which could appeal to professional-class coastal liberals who, like Bloomberg himself, generally like the economic status quo and are tired of being mad.

Bloomberg is positioning himself as the Anti-Trump Candidate now that Biden is really starting to slip. Unlike Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren or even fellow billionaire Tom Steyer, he is not running on the basis that much of anything outside the Oval Office is broken in this country. Only Amy Klobuchar has anything resembling his singular focus on Trump, and getting rid of El Jefe is the number-one concern for Democratic voters. It could work, particularly because Bloomberg is unlikely to meet the same fate as either of those onetime Anti-Trump Superheroes. He is not a gutter-brawling grifter in the Avenatti mold, and he seems a little more lively than Mueller did in those congressional hearings in which he so reluctantly participated.

To this professional-class, coastal liberal who cares about the environment and doesn't buy into Bernie's revolution and feels like the number one threat to this country is Trump and his utter lack of respect for our democratic norms and institutions, all of the above doesn't really sound so bad.

Well yeah. Compared to Trump rule a lot if things don't sound bad. The best thing Bloomberg has going for him is he's not Trump.

[El Guapo]

Relax. Nothing can come of the media disproportionately covering a wealthy New Yorker who doesn't have a chance in hell of winning the nomina----oh wait.

Difference being, Donald Trump is backed by scores of enthusiastic supporters. You know, people. Actual voters.

Your supposition being that Bloomberg voters are pretend?

I mean, Bloomberg's support could well wane as he undergoes actual scrutiny in the primary. But in a scenario where Bloomberg is the nominee, that means that he received millions of votes (presumably the most votes) from "actual voters".

[pr0ner]

Super Tuesday is in two weeks. We'll find out something then.

[Lagom Lite]

Relax. Nothing can come of the media disproportionately covering a wealthy New Yorker who doesn't have a chance in hell of winning the nomina----oh wait.

Difference being, Donald Trump is backed by scores of enthusiastic supporters. You know, people. Actual voters.

Your supposition being that Bloomberg voters are pretend?

I mean, Bloomberg's support could well wane as he undergoes actual scrutiny in the primary. But in a scenario where Bloomberg is the nominee, that means that he received millions of votes (presumably the most votes) from "actual voters".

There are no Bloomberg voters yet. If Bloomberg does get a competitive bunch of votes throughout the primary, I'll admit I was wrong.

[gilraen]

Super Tuesday is in two weeks. We'll find out something then.

Colorado is one of the Super Tuesday states. Since last week, I've been getting text messages on my phone - from Bloomberg and Steyer campaigns. Nothing from any other Dem presidential campaign. Shows you who has money to do this stuff here.

[Drazzil]

Relax. Nothing can come of the media disproportionately covering a wealthy New Yorker who doesn't have a chance in hell of winning the nomina----oh wait.

Difference being, Donald Trump is backed by scores of enthusiastic supporters. You know, people. Actual voters.

Your supposition being that Bloomberg voters are pretend?

I mean, Bloomberg's support could well wane as he undergoes actual scrutiny in the primary. But in a scenario where Bloomberg is the nominee, that means that he received millions of votes (presumably the most votes) from "actual voters".

There are no Bloomberg voters yet. If Bloomberg does get a competitive bunch of votes throughout the primary, I'll admit I was wrong.

I'd take Biden over Bloomberg. But I hope you're right. It's just that I have yet to be disappointed betting on the the stupidity of the average american voter. I guess I have to lump myself in there too.

I would guess that as a businessman you don't invest 200-500 million dollars on a campaign without expecting to make your money back somehow .

The average American voter doesen't know this. I fear for our future if Bloomberg gets the nod.

[Kraken]

He is not a Trump alternative, he is a less evil, less stupid version of the same thing. If it came down to Bloomberg vs. Trump, I'd have to go Bloomberg but I'd be well aware that it would be another shitty 4 years.

Seeing as how my vote is only symbolic anyway, I won't darken either top-line oval. I'll leave it blank or give it to a throwaway, if there are any on the ballot, or write in Warren if there aren't. I will not hold my nose and vote for the anti-reform, anti-democratic, egotistical Bloomberg. If I lived in a swing state I suppose I'd have to wrestle with that decision.

I don't know that that's true in this election (though it's generally been true). There's a real risk that Trump will refuse to recognize the results of the election and refuse to leave. As a result, as Mayor Pete has said well, it's important that the election results be decisive enough to be "outside of cheating distance" (which is a great phrase to use in this context). Not that the popular vote matters that much, but every anti-Trump election result will help (so being able to say "The Democratic nominee won by 8 million votes nationally" would be another helpful point to press).

If the choice is between Bloomberg and Trump, I don't care how it turns out.

[Drazzil]

He is not a Trump alternative, he is a less evil, less stupid version of the same thing. If it came down to Bloomberg vs. Trump, I'd have to go Bloomberg but I'd be well aware that it would be another shitty 4 years.

Seeing as how my vote is only symbolic anyway, I won't darken either top-line oval. I'll leave it blank or give it to a throwaway, if there are any on the ballot, or write in Warren if there aren't. I will not hold my nose and vote for the anti-reform, anti-democratic, egotistical Bloomberg. If I lived in a swing state I suppose I'd have to wrestle with that decision.

I don't know that that's true in this election (though it's generally been true). There's a real risk that Trump will refuse to recognize the results of the election and refuse to leave. As a result, as Mayor Pete has said well, it's important that the election results be decisive enough to be "outside of cheating distance" (which is a great phrase to use in this context). Not that the popular vote matters that much, but every anti-Trump election result will help (so being able to say "The Democratic nominee won by 8 million votes nationally" would be another helpful point to press).

If the choice is between Bloomberg and Trump, I don't care how it turns out.

Maybe Bloomberg would leave the social safety net alone? That said. That's kinda how this voter felt in 16.

[Skinypupy]

He is not a Trump alternative, he is a less evil, less stupid version of the same thing. If it came down to Bloomberg vs. Trump, I'd have to go Bloomberg but I'd be well aware that it would be another shitty 4 years.

Seeing as how my vote is only symbolic anyway, I won't darken either top-line oval. I'll leave it blank or give it to a throwaway, if there are any on the ballot, or write in Warren if there aren't. I will not hold my nose and vote for the anti-reform, anti-democratic, egotistical Bloomberg. If I lived in a swing state I suppose I'd have to wrestle with that decision.

I don't know that that's true in this election (though it's generally been true). There's a real risk that Trump will refuse to recognize the results of the election and refuse to leave. As a result, as Mayor Pete has said well, it's important that the election results be decisive enough to be "outside of cheating distance" (which is a great phrase to use in this context). Not that the popular vote matters that much, but every anti-Trump election result will help (so being able to say "The Democratic nominee won by 8 million votes nationally" would be another helpful point to press).

If the choice is between Bloomberg and Trump, I don't care how it turns out.

With Bloomberg, there’s at least a chance that the continued destruction of both the environment and our system of governance could slow. If not entirely, at least somewhat. Trump has proven that both of those will not only continue, but significantly accelerate if he is re-elected.

You’re saying there’s no difference for those two options in your mind? I find that difficult to believe.

[Kraken]

He is not a Trump alternative, he is a less evil, less stupid version of the same thing. If it came down to Bloomberg vs. Trump, I'd have to go Bloomberg but I'd be well aware that it would be another shitty 4 years.

Seeing as how my vote is only symbolic anyway, I won't darken either top-line oval. I'll leave it blank or give it to a throwaway, if there are any on the ballot, or write in Warren if there aren't. I will not hold my nose and vote for the anti-reform, anti-democratic, egotistical Bloomberg. If I lived in a swing state I suppose I'd have to wrestle with that decision.

I don't know that that's true in this election (though it's generally been true). There's a real risk that Trump will refuse to recognize the results of the election and refuse to leave. As a result, as Mayor Pete has said well, it's important that the election results be decisive enough to be "outside of cheating distance" (which is a great phrase to use in this context). Not that the popular vote matters that much, but every anti-Trump election result will help (so being able to say "The Democratic nominee won by 8 million votes nationally" would be another helpful point to press).

If the choice is between Bloomberg and Trump, I don't care how it turns out.

With Bloomberg, there’s at least a chance that the continued destruction of both the environment and our system of governance could slow. If not entirely, at least somewhat. Trump has proven that both of those will not only continue, but significantly accelerate if he is re-elected.

You’re saying there’s no difference for those two options in your mind? I find that difficult to believe.

Nah, that's despair talking. They're both bad options. If the Dems become the party of Bloomberg, the country limps back toward sanity for four years while the party loses its soul. But at least I'll get my Social Security 3.5 years from now, so Go Bloomie, I guess.

[Holman]

Maybe Bloomberg would leave the social safety net alone? That said. That's kinda how this voter felt in 16.

You voted Trump in 2016. "What I did in 2016" should very obviously be a red flag for you.

[Drazzil]

Maybe Bloomberg would leave the social safety net alone? That said. That's kinda how this voter felt in 16.

You voted Trump in 2016. "What I did in 2016" should very obviously be a red flag for you.

I get the feeling that this is one of those things that I'm never going to be able to live down...

Spoiler:

here. The communities gotten quite a bit smaller since my last long absence. Which would lead others to think I was maniclly shitposting (I mean, besides the fact that I was...in retrospect... manically shitposting)

Cooked is cooked. Doesen't matter if its boiling water, or in the oven.

[Drazzil]

I wonder what the odds on Bloomburg pardoning his old golf buddy if he gets elected. I wonder if theres some sort of "gentlemens agreement" in place.

[LawBeefaroni]

Mike Bloomberg is not the lesser of two evils

To start with, it is not at all obvious that Bloomberg would even be a better president than Trump. As Alex Pareene writes at The New Republic, he is a right-wing authoritarian with nakedly racist views who constantly violated civil rights laws during his time as mayor of New York City. He locked up thousands of protesters during the 2004 Republican National Convention (where he gave a speech warmly endorsing George W. Bush, and thanked him for starting the war in Iraq), and a judge held the city in contempt for violating due process law. He created what amounted to a police state for New York Muslims, subjecting the entire community to dragnet surveillance and harassment, and filling mosques with spies and agent provocateurs. The city had to pay millions in settlements for violating Muslims' civil rights. (All this did precisely nothing to prevent terrorism, by the way.)

...
Bloomberg's newfound commitment to progressive policies is so transparently fraudulent that his campaign apparently plagiarized huge chunks of his campaign platform. He is just trying to trick the Democratic electorate with a tidal wave of cash (with evident success).

Now, Bloomberg does have a legitimate history of supporting gun control and climate policy. But it is exceedingly unlikely that he will be able to get past a Senate filibuster on gun control, especially given his sneering know-it-all approach. And given his politics and personal wealth, his climate policy would probably look a great deal like Emmanuel Macron's diesel tax in France — a carbon tax whose revenues would go towards cutting taxes on the rich. Macron's move sparked violent protests and was quickly abandoned.
...

On the other hand, in some areas Bloomberg would likely be worse than Trump. As Mehdi Hasan writes at The Intercept, Bloomberg is a committed and pitiless warmonger — he supported the war in Iraq and repeated the Bush administration's lie that Saddam Hussein had plotted 9/11. (In January he said he had no regrets about doing so.) He opposed President Obama's Iran deal, and had few complaints about Trump's assassination of Iran's Qassem Soleimani. While Trump has escalated conflicts across the globe, he appears to have at least a mild hesitation about starting new full-scale wars of aggression. The chances of a shooting war with Iran probably increase if Bloomberg wins in 2020.

Given his wretched politics, even Bloomberg's superior competence is a mark against him. Right now one tiny silver lining of the Trump administration is that the people trying to commit atrocities through the federal bureaucracy are so inept they keep fumbling the legal procedures and getting stopped in the courts. Bloomberg is sure to appoint competent authoritarian maniacs.

Don't agree with it all 100% but I do agree that we are screwed if he gets the Dem nomination.

[Drazzil]

Mike Bloomberg is not the lesser of two evils

To start with, it is not at all obvious that Bloomberg would even be a better president than Trump. As Alex Pareene writes at The New Republic, he is a right-wing authoritarian with nakedly racist views who constantly violated civil rights laws during his time as mayor of New York City. He locked up thousands of protesters during the 2004 Republican National Convention (where he gave a speech warmly endorsing George W. Bush, and thanked him for starting the war in Iraq), and a judge held the city in contempt for violating due process law. He created what amounted to a police state for New York Muslims, subjecting the entire community to dragnet surveillance and harassment, and filling mosques with spies and agent provocateurs. The city had to pay millions in settlements for violating Muslims' civil rights. (All this did precisely nothing to prevent terrorism, by the way.)

...
Bloomberg's newfound commitment to progressive policies is so transparently fraudulent that his campaign apparently plagiarized huge chunks of his campaign platform. He is just trying to trick the Democratic electorate with a tidal wave of cash (with evident success).

Now, Bloomberg does have a legitimate history of supporting gun control and climate policy. But it is exceedingly unlikely that he will be able to get past a Senate filibuster on gun control, especially given his sneering know-it-all approach. And given his politics and personal wealth, his climate policy would probably look a great deal like Emmanuel Macron's diesel tax in France — a carbon tax whose revenues would go towards cutting taxes on the rich. Macron's move sparked violent protests and was quickly abandoned.
...

On the other hand, in some areas Bloomberg would likely be worse than Trump. As Mehdi Hasan writes at The Intercept, Bloomberg is a committed and pitiless warmonger — he supported the war in Iraq and repeated the Bush administration's lie that Saddam Hussein had plotted 9/11. (In January he said he had no regrets about doing so.) He opposed President Obama's Iran deal, and had few complaints about Trump's assassination of Iran's Qassem Soleimani. While Trump has escalated conflicts across the globe, he appears to have at least a mild hesitation about starting new full-scale wars of aggression. The chances of a shooting war with Iran probably increase if Bloomberg wins in 2020.

Given his wretched politics, even Bloomberg's superior competence is a mark against him. Right now one tiny silver lining of the Trump administration is that the people trying to commit atrocities through the federal bureaucracy are so inept they keep fumbling the legal procedures and getting stopped in the courts. Bloomberg is sure to appoint competent authoritarian maniacs.

Don't agree with it all 100% but I do agree that we are screwed if he gets the Dem nomination.

If Bloomberg gets the Dem nod I hope someone goes third party scores grassroots funding and goes it anyway. Because in moments of despair I too cannot see the difference and I don't think the American public will either. I don't believe we have another four years before something apocalyptic happens.

[Kraken]

Here's another in the same vein: Bloomberg is not the answer to Trump.

It may look as if Bloomberg is simply joining the presidential race a little later than the others. But what he’s really there to do is shut down the presidential race entirely. Yes, everyone running wants to win. But the other people in the race are asking voters to choose them. Bloomberg is asking—or telling—the public to give up on the idea that anyone really has a choice.

Everyone in and around the Democratic field shares the understanding that Donald Trump represents a crisis of democracy. The candidates are all, to a greater or lesser extent, running on the message that they are each the singular person best positioned to resolve the crisis, by defeating Trump and what he stands for: Bernie Sanders because of his mass mobilization of supporters, Elizabeth Warren because of her policy acumen, Pete Buttigieg because of his bright-eyed affection for unity, Joe Biden because of his long-established public profile, Amy Klobuchar because of her feisty moderation.

Bloomberg’s message is that it’s too late for any of that. Michael Bloomberg is the only person who can beat Donald Trump, because he has the power to beat Donald Trump, because he has the money. The voters’ preferences don’t matter. The crisis is too urgent for that. He alone can fix it.

A broad swath of the media and political establishment is lining up behind this message of inevitability, just like it did last time. So far, this would-be consensus is struggling to overcome Bloomberg’s long and well-documented record: He is, after all, an enthusiastic authoritarian, and a sexist bully and boor. He ruthlessly wielded the power of the state against black and Latino people, and against Muslims. He’s a glib technology enthusiast who sees labor and craft as pointless and obsolete.
...
It’s true, as people feel compelled to say, he’s not as bad as Trump. Single-minded profit-chasing is not as bad as a lifelong career of high-stakes fraud. Allegations of harassment are not as bad as accusations of rape. Life under a neoliberal control freak would almost certainly be more comfortable than life under a thief and bully with a taste for fascism. But to accept that argument—to take Trump as the benchmark—is to surrender any claim on affirmatively setting the nation’s political values. It’s to accept that the republic deserves nothing more than what Michael Bloomberg is willing to give it.

[Victoria Raverna]

Mike Bloomberg is not the lesser of two evils

To start with, it is not at all obvious that Bloomberg would even be a better president than Trump. As Alex Pareene writes at The New Republic, he is a right-wing authoritarian with nakedly racist views who constantly violated civil rights laws during his time as mayor of New York City. He locked up thousands of protesters during the 2004 Republican National Convention (where he gave a speech warmly endorsing George W. Bush, and thanked him for starting the war in Iraq), and a judge held the city in contempt for violating due process law. He created what amounted to a police state for New York Muslims, subjecting the entire community to dragnet surveillance and harassment, and filling mosques with spies and agent provocateurs. The city had to pay millions in settlements for violating Muslims' civil rights. (All this did precisely nothing to prevent terrorism, by the way.)

...
Bloomberg's newfound commitment to progressive policies is so transparently fraudulent that his campaign apparently plagiarized huge chunks of his campaign platform. He is just trying to trick the Democratic electorate with a tidal wave of cash (with evident success).

Now, Bloomberg does have a legitimate history of supporting gun control and climate policy. But it is exceedingly unlikely that he will be able to get past a Senate filibuster on gun control, especially given his sneering know-it-all approach. And given his politics and personal wealth, his climate policy would probably look a great deal like Emmanuel Macron's diesel tax in France — a carbon tax whose revenues would go towards cutting taxes on the rich. Macron's move sparked violent protests and was quickly abandoned.
...

On the other hand, in some areas Bloomberg would likely be worse than Trump. As Mehdi Hasan writes at The Intercept, Bloomberg is a committed and pitiless warmonger — he supported the war in Iraq and repeated the Bush administration's lie that Saddam Hussein had plotted 9/11. (In January he said he had no regrets about doing so.) He opposed President Obama's Iran deal, and had few complaints about Trump's assassination of Iran's Qassem Soleimani. While Trump has escalated conflicts across the globe, he appears to have at least a mild hesitation about starting new full-scale wars of aggression. The chances of a shooting war with Iran probably increase if Bloomberg wins in 2020.

Given his wretched politics, even Bloomberg's superior competence is a mark against him. Right now one tiny silver lining of the Trump administration is that the people trying to commit atrocities through the federal bureaucracy are so inept they keep fumbling the legal procedures and getting stopped in the courts. Bloomberg is sure to appoint competent authoritarian maniacs.

Don't agree with it all 100% but I do agree that we are screwed if he gets the Dem nomination.

If Bloomberg gets the Dem nod I hope someone goes third party scores grassroots funding and goes it anyway. Because in moments of despair I too cannot see the difference and I don't think the American public will either. I don't believe we have another four years before something apocalyptic happens.

You want 4 more years of Trump?

[Jeff V]

Bloomberg isn't a first choice, but I wouldn't shy away from voting for him if he were the nominee. If more preferred candidates bow out before the Illinois primary, I'd consider him over either Sanders or Biden.

[Drazzil]

Mike Bloomberg is not the lesser of two evils

To start with, it is not at all obvious that Bloomberg would even be a better president than Trump. As Alex Pareene writes at The New Republic, he is a right-wing authoritarian with nakedly racist views who constantly violated civil rights laws during his time as mayor of New York City. He locked up thousands of protesters during the 2004 Republican National Convention (where he gave a speech warmly endorsing George W. Bush, and thanked him for starting the war in Iraq), and a judge held the city in contempt for violating due process law. He created what amounted to a police state for New York Muslims, subjecting the entire community to dragnet surveillance and harassment, and filling mosques with spies and agent provocateurs. The city had to pay millions in settlements for violating Muslims' civil rights. (All this did precisely nothing to prevent terrorism, by the way.)

...
Bloomberg's newfound commitment to progressive policies is so transparently fraudulent that his campaign apparently plagiarized huge chunks of his campaign platform. He is just trying to trick the Democratic electorate with a tidal wave of cash (with evident success).

Now, Bloomberg does have a legitimate history of supporting gun control and climate policy. But it is exceedingly unlikely that he will be able to get past a Senate filibuster on gun control, especially given his sneering know-it-all approach. And given his politics and personal wealth, his climate policy would probably look a great deal like Emmanuel Macron's diesel tax in France — a carbon tax whose revenues would go towards cutting taxes on the rich. Macron's move sparked violent protests and was quickly abandoned.
...

On the other hand, in some areas Bloomberg would likely be worse than Trump. As Mehdi Hasan writes at The Intercept, Bloomberg is a committed and pitiless warmonger — he supported the war in Iraq and repeated the Bush administration's lie that Saddam Hussein had plotted 9/11. (In January he said he had no regrets about doing so.) He opposed President Obama's Iran deal, and had few complaints about Trump's assassination of Iran's Qassem Soleimani. While Trump has escalated conflicts across the globe, he appears to have at least a mild hesitation about starting new full-scale wars of aggression. The chances of a shooting war with Iran probably increase if Bloomberg wins in 2020.

Given his wretched politics, even Bloomberg's superior competence is a mark against him. Right now one tiny silver lining of the Trump administration is that the people trying to commit atrocities through the federal bureaucracy are so inept they keep fumbling the legal procedures and getting stopped in the courts. Bloomberg is sure to appoint competent authoritarian maniacs.

Don't agree with it all 100% but I do agree that we are screwed if he gets the Dem nomination.

If Bloomberg gets the Dem nod I hope someone goes third party scores grassroots funding and goes it anyway. Because in moments of despair I too cannot see the difference and I don't think the American public will either. I don't believe we have another four years before something apocalyptic happens.

You want 4 more years of Trump?

Do you?

[Victoria Raverna]

Do you?

No.

If there is a third party candidate and people vote for that, Trump is going to win.

If you don't want Trump, you have to vote for whoever that Democratic Party nominates to have a chance of winning.

[Blackhawk]

Man, it seems like the Republicans are almost set up to have both Presidential candidates.

[Drazzil]

Do you?

No.

If there is a third party candidate and people vote for that, Trump is going to win.

If you don't want Trump, you have to vote for whoever that Democratic Party nominates to have a chance of winning.

I flip back and forth on this... All the time... But I can't see a way to pull the lever for Bloomburg and remain sober. I won't vote for someone I find deplorable just because he "isin't Trump"

Thats what the establishment expects us to do. Besides if something really horrific comes down the pike in the next four. I'd kind of like the correct party to go down.

Maybe this thinking will get me killed, but I after (some) contemplation... won't do it.

I'm not voting for Trump again, or any Republican ever for as long as I live, but I won't vote for an a$$hat like Bloomberg.

PS: Thank goodness I remembered to register as a Democrat.

[Blackhawk]

I'm not voting for Trump again, or any Republican ever for as long as I live, but I won't vote for an a$$hat like Bloomberg.

If he's nominated, then you can't have both. You vote for Bloomberg, or you vote for Trump

[El Guapo]

Man, it seems like the Republicans are almost set up to have both Presidential candidates.

This is WAY overstating it. Bloomberg's platform (though still developing, to be sure) is entirely consistent with the general center-left Democratic platform - a wealth tax, aggressive action on climate change, aggressive action on gun control, heavy government intervention and regulation to promote universal access to healthcare (though stopping short of M4A), etc. Is there more reason to doubt Bloomberg's commitment to this stuff than (say) Warren's or Sanders's? Sure. But as a Democratic nominee and then President, Bloomberg is going to be dependent on Democratic Party supporters, voters, infrastructure, etc. There are reasons why, despite also having reasons to doubt Trump's commitment to the Republican platform during 2016, he has policy-wise mostly governed as any other Republican president.

[The Meal]

Super Tuesday is in two weeks. We'll find out something then.

Colorado is one of the Super Tuesday states. Since last week, I've been getting text messages on my phone - from Bloomberg and Steyer campaigns. Nothing from any other Dem presidential campaign. Shows you who has money to do this stuff here.

Interesting. I've only been hearing from Bernie Bros.

[Defiant]

Bloomberg’s Progressive College Plan
It takes on both cost and quality.

I’m eager to hear what higher education experts have to say about Bloomberg’s plan in coming days. I asked Sandy Baum and Michael McPherson — two experts I trust — for their initial reaction yesterday, and they praised the plan. There are some reasons for concern (like the possibility that Pell Grants would move too far up the income distribution), Baum and McPherson said. On the whole, though, Bloomberg’s plan seems likely to do more good than the other candidates’ plans.

[Skinypupy]

Super Tuesday is in two weeks. We'll find out something then.

Colorado is one of the Super Tuesday states. Since last week, I've been getting text messages on my phone - from Bloomberg and Steyer campaigns. Nothing from any other Dem presidential campaign. Shows you who has money to do this stuff here.

Interesting. I've only been hearing from Bernie Bros.

Same.

[Drazzil]

I'm not voting for Trump again, or any Republican ever for as long as I live, but I won't vote for an a$$hat like Bloomberg.

If he's nominated, then you can't have both. You vote for Bloomberg, or you vote for Trump

I do not accept that binary choice for a variety of reasons. All of which I have gone over here.

[gilraen]

I'm not voting for Trump again, or any Republican ever for as long as I live, but I won't vote for an a$$hat like Bloomberg.

If he's nominated, then you can't have both. You vote for Bloomberg, or you vote for Trump

I do not accept that binary choice for a variety of reasons. All of which I have gone over here.

None of which actually matters. You are either voting for the Democrat candidate, or you are helping Trump stay in office. That's the way things are, and your "protest vote" only matters to the voices in your head. Grow up.

[The Meal]

He's voting in Oregon.

[Drazzil]

He's voting in Oregon.

I'd ESPECIALLY not vote for B if I was in a swing state.