Tuesday, November 27, 2018

The Worst Democraps Who Want To Be President-- Part III, Michael Bloomberg


The image Democratic primary voters are looking for?

So, we have this series about the worst Democrats who want to be president-- Part I was Tulsi Gabbard and Part II was Kirsten Gillibrand-- and people have been asking me why it's taking so long to include Michael Bloomberg, obviously the worst of all. Well... is he a Democrat? I remember him running as a Republican and then as an independent. Is he pretending to be a Democrat now. His net worth is something between $46.3 and $51 billion-- which everyone knows should be taxed, above the first million, at 90%-- so how can he be a Democrat?

Anyway, a couple of weeks ago, I noted in a different post, that Bloomberg was strutting around the Bohemian Grove over the summer telling one and all that he's running for president. Kate Albright-Hanna did a terrific essay about his upcoming play to buy the presidency and why Democrats need to stop him. His recent moves," she wrote, "warm the hearts of centrist pundits who believe his orderliness, love of data and great wealth are 'antidotes' to Trump." I was born and raised in New York. It’s my home town. I stopped going there because of what Bloomberg did to it. Did, like in ripping out its soul and making it a Disneyland for the super-rich. But, I know, I know... he deserves a prominent place in the series. But look at it from Wall Street's view; they love him. Does that make you feel like supporting him?

Over the weekend, Vanity Fair published a piece by William Cohan, "I'd Vote For Michael In A Heartbeat": Wall Street's Case For President Bloomberg. First, though, can we all agree he's probably not as bad as Trump?

Cohan noted that Bloomberg donated $100 million to support a host of Democratic candidates in the midterm elections, helping to pick up 40 seats in the House, and purchasing plenty of goodwill in the process." His money was mostly wasted on making corrupt consultants richer. The only congressional candidate who actually won because of him is Kendra Horn, who you-- admit it-- probably never heard of, and is, like Bloomberg himself, a politically pointless, centrist mush likely to do more harm than good.

Like many #NeverTrump Republicans, he's been a good anti-Trump speaker and, in fact, when he made a big show of switching his party registration last month, he said Democrats can "provide the checks and balances our nation so badly needs" but didn't say anything about-- nor give any indication he understood-- Democratic Party values.

A theme you will hearing a lot: "he is the anti-Donald Trump. He is philanthropic, where Trump is not. He is actually very, very rich-- with a net worth of more than $50 billion and counting-- whereas Trump mostly pretends to be. He has meaningful and relevant experience as the chief executive of a global company and an international city, while Trump was woefully unprepared to be president and seems always to be learning on the job, and poorly at that. Unlike Trump, who at 72, claims to be the healthiest person who has ever served as president, Bloomberg, four years older than Trump, may actually be among the healthiest. In any event, he has some serious longevity genes: his mother lived to be 102 years old."
Being the anti-Trump in nearly every way, shape and form [-- because as you know, Michael Bloomberg is really a blue collar black lesbian--] could prove extremely useful politically for Bloomberg should he decide to run in 2020. And there is little doubt that whoever the Democrats nominate to face Trump, the plan will be to draw as sharp a contrast with him as possible, hoping that by then a vast majority of Americans, as well as the Electoral College map, will have had quite enough of Trump and his presidency. The only unanswered question is whether the Democrats will nominate someone from its liberal progressive wing-- in the Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Kamala Harris*, Beto O’Rourke* mold-- or whether the nominee will be from the party’s centrist progressive wing, in the form of, say, Bloomberg or Deval Patrick, the former governor of Massachusetts who has been a Bain Capital partner for the past three years.

[moderates but don't tell Cohan who, apparently doesn't know anything about either]

No surprise, on Wall Street, Bloomberg has vast reservoirs of support. “Think he would be great for America, and therefore for Wall Street,” one senior banker e-mailed me the other day. “Can’t think of anybody else I’d rather see win frankly.” Added Christopher Whalen, the founder of Whalen Global Advisors, an investment banking firm, and an astute economic analyst, “Oh, I’d vote for Michael in a heartbeat because he’s competent. In most areas you and I care about, he would do a good job.”

But for both men, the question remains: can Bloomberg win? The senior banker thinks Bloomberg could win the popular vote, although he’s less sure about the Electoral College. “The number of voters who would want almost anybody (except Hillary) over Trump exceeds the number of core Trumpers,” he wrote. “Bloomberg vs. Trump: he gets all of the Democrats and a big slug of Republicans as well.”

[Really? All the Democrats? Maybe not the ones who don't want to vote for conservative multi-billionaires... but the rest.]

Still, what works for Wall Street [see photo] doesn’t necessarily resonate on Main Street. Whalen worries that Bloomberg doesn’t have the “public persona” to run for president-- he’s just not well enough known beyond the Hudson-- and may come off as “preachy,” on such topics as gun control, smoking, and the consumption of sugary drinks. Large swaths of the American electorate obviously don’t like to be told what they can and can’t do and what may or may not be bad for their health, despite the fact that Bloomberg is probably correct about the dangers of smoking and consuming too much sugar, to say nothing about the need for comprehensive gun control.

...The inside word on Wall Street is that Bloomberg will announce his candidacy in February. And that’s when the trouble for him will start, and not just from Trump, who many believe Bloomberg can face down in ways that his rivals for the Democratic nomination cannot. No, the problem for Bloomberg will come from the progressives to his left. “Oh God, please don’t run,” read one characteristic response in the New York Times comment section in September, after the paper ran a piece about the prospects of a Bloomberg presidential bid. “I respect him tremendously on gun violence prevention and on the environment. But this is a man who ran and governed as a Republican. He is not what Democratic progressives want or demand at this time. And let’s not overvalue the middle-- Democrats playing to the middle for too long is partly to blame for two branches of government now being in Republican hands. He will do nothing to inspire people who often don’t vote and help us get out the Democratic vote. Getting out the Democratic vote is what it’s all about.”
Howard Wolfson worked for Hillary's campaigns in 2000 and 2006. Before that he was Schumer's comms guy and worked for the DCCC before that. You can probably deduce some stuff about him from that. He's Bloomberg's chief political advisor now and last night he announced his 76 year old client is going to Des Moines, ostensibly to screen a film about climate change. Bernie's going to have to face some establishment centrist in the primary. I suspect he'd prefer Bloomberg; what progressive wouldn't? Is there a better foil before going on to Trumpanzee? Anyone know if African-Americans, who I hear are important in Democratic primaries, have forgiven Bloomberg for shooting them in the streets of New York while he was mayor?

Labels: , , , ,


At 2:15 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

once again, not a democrap. just another rich elitest who wants to buy another office. He'll do to the country what he did to NYC -- make the rich own everything and ratfuck everyone else.

oh wait, maybe he *IS* a democrap.

At 2:54 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Stop & Frisk alone is enough to justify denying the White House to Bloomberg.

At 3:53 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

you're going to have to do 2 a days on this series or you'll run out of days before the primaries.

Like I said on part deux, maybe you'd be better served to start writing about a new truly left movement and a viable path to take there. That would actually be useful.

Reminding all those disaffected lefties why all these corporate whores and republican opportunists are so despicable is... redundant?

Besides, won't you look like an asshole when one of your "worst democraps" is nom'd (by fraud, most likely) and you then exhort everyone, again... still... to hold your nose and vote for him/her/it?


Post a Comment

<< Home