What is the difference between Mike Bloomberg and Bernie Sanders?

[Renew Deal]

Last edited Fri Nov 8, 2019, 01:18 AM - Edit history (1)

Bloomberg is a registered Democrat.

https://www.businessinsider.com/michael-bloomberg-changes-voter-registration-to-democrat-2018-10

[rpannier]

1. It's not the only difference and I'll still take Sanders over Bloomberg in a heartbeat

[ZZenith]

2. About 51.9 billion dollars?

[True Blue American]

6. Mike made his money.

He is a real billionaire going against a fake. He can only help the party.

[ZZenith]

8. He's an opportunist who switches party affiliation when it serves his interests.

[Cha]

18. Oh dear.. imagine that.. going back and forth

switching parties when it serves his best interests..

[NurseJackie]

21. IKR?!!

I can't trust candidates who switch parties to serve their own personal interests no matter who he (or she) may be.

[Cha]

22. Yeah, you

get it.

[ZZenith]

25. So there's no difference between Sanders and Bloomberg

Other than about 50 billion dollars? Is that what you’re saying?

[Cha]

47. omg lol

[Funtatlaguy]

34. Hillary and Elizabeth were Republicans at one time.

[NurseJackie]

37. Yes, I know. Everyone knows. Do you have any info about whether they switch back and forth...

Hillary and Elizabeth were Republicans at one time.

Yes, I know. Everyone knows. Do you have any info about whether they switch back and forth between parties to suit their own ambitions.

Do you know of any politicians who have done that? I'd definitely have difficulty in trusting anyone who had a history of doing so. I think it's fair to conclude that anyone who plays those peek-a-boo games is doing so for his (or her) own personal benefit.

All I'm saying is that loyalty and commitment (rather than flip-flopping back and forth) are important to me and that's something I look for before deciding to support a candidate.

[Funtatlaguy]

39. Warren and Clinton evolved. Bloomberg goes with the trendy wind.

[NurseJackie]

40. He doesn't impress me...

Bloomberg goes with the trendy wind.

He doesn't impress me either. I think he's in it for the headlines, he knows he has zero chance of being the Democratic party's nominee. I'll always be suspicious of the motives of any politician who switches parties (back and forth) for personal or political gain.

[Hortensis]

45. Just saying things about people doesn't make them true.

Regarding evolving and labels,

Hillary was a Repub as a teenager because she grew up in a conservative home and neighborhood, especially her dad, and was already "evolving" to a label that aligned with her core self by the time she was a freshman in college.

Warren "evolved" to the Democratic label as you put it in middle age. But it'd be far more insightful and accurate to say she was and is socially liberal and moderately conservative economically and that it was the Republican Party that evolved into a RW socially and economicaly extremist party, and in the process created huge economic problems that caused her to call for much larger structural fixes. An "evolution" in what she sees as needed fixes for some issues, absolutely. But she's still herself, never an emotional invertebrate who didn't know what to think.

And Bloomberg? He's as self directed as the other two, not a weak sister chasing a meaningful personal identity by aligning with a leader or label, and as we've seen not even for public consumption.

Bloomberg true label is himself. Easy to see how one of the wealthiest men on the planet, who among other things owns a media empire, might be in the enviable position of being able to adopt or shuck the support of big-group labels others cannot. He just buys the votes he needs, buys term limits gone, and is a prime example of a huge problem we must fix.

"We can have democracy in this country, OR we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." Democratic Speaker Nancy Pelosi quoting pre- New Deal Justice Louis Brandeis to the nation at the opening of the 116th congress.

[Dem4Life1102]

11. Yes there is many things he.can do to help the party

Running for the nomination isn’t one of them. That is just to feed his ego.

[PatSeg]

12. I agree

There are so many ways that he could use his money to make a difference. Running for president is just a vanity trip and pointless diversion. Also, we need true public servants, not businessmen/women in the White House.

[Doodley]

29. There's no evidence it is just to feed his ego. If he was another Donald Trump who had never

shown he cares about helping others or helping the environment and never put billions of dollars of his own money where he mouth is, you might be true, but that isn't the case.

[Dem4Life1102]

44. The evidence is that he is running.

And let's remember that in 2004 during the GOP convention he had protesters detained so as not to embarrass Bush. He instituted the racists stop and frisk policy. Then overrode the will of the people to buy himself a third term as mayor.

[pangaia]

13. not by running, however..

[JoeOtterbein]

3. As If!

[Hoyt]

4. Ouch.

[Cha]

14. ..

[BootinUp]

5. Ha!

[True Blue American]

7. What did Reagan say?

I did not leave the party, the party left me. Of course that was after he did not need the Union he led any more.

[melman]

9. Only one of them ruined New York City

[jrthin]

41. Bingo. nt

[Buzz cook]

10. One is a social democrat

And one is a billionaire center right kumbaya, can't we all get along and pass a moderate republican agenda, while gutting women's and civil rights in the name of comity, short sighted inside the belt way wonder kinde,

[wcast]

31. +1000

[Funtatlaguy]

32. Bingo.

[Devil Child]

15. I'll always go with the independent from VT over a billionaire

Bloomberg will only advance the interests of Wall Street and I doubt he gives a shit about us little people.

[BlueMTexpat]

16. It'll take a LOT more

than mere voter registration for me to consider Bloomberg as a candidate that I would support.

He's WAY down at the bottom of my ranked choices.

[Eric J in MN]

17. One of them, Bloomberg, spent money for Republicans.

Michael Bloomberg supported Congressman Dan Donovan (R-NY) and US Senator Pat Toomey (R-PA) “whom he spent $10 million to re-elect in 2016.”

Senator Pat Toomey (R-PA) was re-elected in 2016 by 1.5% points. We’d probably have a Democrat in that seat if Bloomberg hadn’t spent $10M for Toomey.

https://www.businessinsider.com/michael-bloomberg-reasons-he-didnt-run-for-president-2019-2

Michael Bloomberg never served in Congress.

Bernie Sanders is a member of Democratic Senate leadership and has served in the Democratic Caucus since his Congressional career started in 1991.

[Cha]

19. Sanders to run as an independent in 2018

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/356650-sanders-to-run-as-an-independent-in-2018

[MrsCoffee]

43. And 2024.

https://www.npr.org/2019/03/04/700121429/bernie-sanders-files-to-run-as-a-democrat-and-an-independent

[Cha]

48. Oh that's right..

smh

[Squinch]

20. Bloomberg hates unions. Just throwing that in there. As a member of a union that he screwed.

[PhoenixDem]

23. Bull's eye!! n/t

[thesquanderer]

24. Bloomberg manipulated the system to get a third term he wasn't entitled to run for

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-newyork-bloomberg/ny-council-extends-term-limit-so-bloomberg-can-run-idUSTRE49M70J20081023

and, BTW, Sanders has been much more supportive of the Democratic party, principles, and agenda over the years than Bloomberg has.

Actions speak louder than labels.

Yeah, I know, the post was a riddle/joke, but seeing the responses, I figured it was worth posting that...

[samnsara]

26. and he doesnt yell at me..?

[samnsara]

27. not my first nor my last choice but if hes the Dem nom hell YES he will get my vote!

[evertonfc]

28. old white dudes.

Bernie is more liberal. Mike made his money in private sector, Bernie made his in govt. Both nice men and far superior to Trump. No reason to tear down either.

[Funtatlaguy]

33. Bernie is barely a millionaire. Mike has over 50 BILLION.

[evertonfc]

35. ok

So the difference is one has a lot more money. Good for Mike. As long as he uses it for good things, I don't hate. I have nothing against rich people. I know several. Mike is on our side. I don't support him but I don't judge his character because he made a lot of money

[Funtatlaguy]

36. Bernie is more liberal economically. He's a Democratic Socialist.

The S word scares the s out of Bloomberg.

[Doodley]

30. One can win over many Republicans. The other terrifies Republicans.

[Hortensis]

46. Not exactly. Sanders does NOT terrify his populist following

Last edited Fri Nov 8, 2019, 01:10 PM - Edit history (1)

and Bloomberg won't either. They have more potentially in common than might be imagined.

Remember, Sanders has been famously trying to draw populists away from Trump in both elections. And vice versa. Remember trolling for followers on Fox and elsewhere? Most populists have at least a streak, and often a big one, of social conservatism to go with their belief in government programs that benefit them. Most trumpsters actually really want progressive programs for deserving people like them. The dominant social conservatism among populists would probably cost Sanders many/most of them if he gave AA what they wanted from him, and running to keep a woman out of the WH didn't exactly hurt him with these people. Remember, at the end a full 12% of Sanders' supporters, remaining populists who hadn't already left Sanders for Trump during the primary, voted directly for Trump in the GE.

So Bloomberg's past as a Republican will not hurt him with most populists. I'm predicting he will draw away at least some of Sanders' populists, though probably not his genuine far-left supporters, the ones who truly believe in universal solutions. It's likely that most would see Bloomberg as an opportunity to kick the Democratic "establishment" in the teeth, all if he targets that theme at them (a big if), whether they took it or not.

Being obscenely wealthy and powerful is no bar at all to most populists properly spun. Anti-establishment, anti-elite populists tend to choose leaders from the hated elites, ones they are taught to view as oppositional outsider elites. . U.S. Senator Sanders, billionaire Trump, and billionaire Mayor Bloomberg all fit that roll. Notably, though Bloomberg isn't nearly as widely disliked and disrespected by his peers as the other two, he has a better record of achieving his goals. Populists like winners. Money is power, and Bloomberg's something like the 14th wealthiest man on the planet.

Populists also typically like at least some strong-man authoritarianism in their leaders, and all three project that to various degrees. Populists like strong men who can kick up and down against groups they don't like. Bloomberg has a history to suggest he could be that for them.

Populists are typically repelled by too much socially liberal egalitarianism, even resentful (like those famous white working men), and even though they're both socially liberal, Bloomberg's record famously compares with Sanders in various offences against minorities, especially AA.

How many populists Bloomberg might draw (from Trump also) would depend on his strategy. He might choose to cast a net wide over the mainstream instead and just pick up some with collateral campaigns. But abandoning already weak principles and good sense to indulge resentment and antagonism makes populists very easy targets for those with big checkbooks and election pros who know just what buttons to push. Bloomberg's choice.

[Autumn]

38. About 50 billion dollars, Bernie doesn't mind paying taxes and Bernie was never a Republican?

[bluedye33139]

42. That actually weighs in my thinking.

After 2016, I no longer believe in ideological purity. I really hated 2016. I determined that I would support the Democratic nominee and that I would try to be kinder to candidates who didn't represent my viewpoint exactly.

If Bloomberg is the nominee, I will vote for him.