Bloomberg and his billions are what Democrats need to beat Trump

[left-of-center2012]

Mike Bloomberg is not going to spend hours in selfie lines. He would probably rather not kiss your baby, and he would pass on that funnel cake at the Iowa State Fair. The case for the billionaire businessman, philanthropist, and former New York City mayor to be president of the United States isn’t that he gives you a warm fuzzy feeling. It’s that he is an experienced executive who has the resources to win. He has the biography, bravado, and bank account to beat Donald Trump at his own game. And Bloomberg can help the Democratic Party gain ground down the ballot.

Mike, as his campaign slogan says, can get it done.

Bloomberg, 78, was at the helm of a city with more residents than 38 states for 12 years. The path to the presidency typically doesn’t run through City Hall. But if there ever was someone who could make the trek, it would be Bloomberg. Bloomberg steered the city’s recoveries from both the 9/11 attacks (he was inaugurated in January 2002) and the financial crisis. He took control of the city’s school system, rezoned and worked to develop the Manhattan and Brooklyn waterfronts and other parts of New York, and pushed for climate-conscious and green initiatives. Under Bloomberg, New Yorkers’ life expectancy increased by about three years.

The case for Bloomberg goes beyond his mayoral record. He has poured millions of dollars into fighting climate change and illegal guns, and has injected funds into federal and state elections that have made a difference — in 2018, 21 of the 24 Democratic congressional candidates Bloomberg gave money to won. That’s quite a winning streak and shows he knows how to put money in the right places. A similar strategy and spending push could be critically important in 2020 when Democrats try to hold the House and take back the Senate. In December, Bloomberg gave $10 million to House Democrats being attacked by Republicans over impeachment and $5 million to Stacey Abrams’s Fair Fight effort to protect voting rights, demonstrating his commitment to boosting the party.

According to a January poll from Gallup, health care ranks as the top issue for American voters heading into 2020. While Bloomberg may be caricatured for trying to ban giant sodas and impose a “nanny state” in New York, the public health initiatives he undertook generally made a difference. He implemented a smoking ban across city restaurants and bars in 2003, and while it was rather unpopular at the time, it’s now become commonplace across the US and the world. His administration made efforts to fight obesity, such as requiring chain restaurants to disclose calorie counts. And his efforts achieved results: Life expectancy for New Yorkers went up.

Bloomberg has said he is open to spending up to $1 billion to defeat Trump in 2020, and that he’ll put the force of his operation behind the 2020 nominee whether or not it’s him. Bloomberg injected $110 million into the 2018 midterms, and where he played, he overwhelmingly won: Of the 24 House races he sought to influence, Democrats won 21, and about half of those districts had been considered Republican-leaning or toss-ups.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2020/2/18/21135149/mike-bloomberg-democrat-polls-debate-new-york-mayor-record

[BusyBeingBest]

1. He's not huggable like Obama and Joe, that's for sure.

But that is a strong editorial for his case.

[left-of-center2012]

11. Nice and fuzzy won't beat Trump.

[mdelaguna]

31. I kind of like that about him!

[ancianita]

2. Why do party leaders go w/ the candidate w/ the most money? Is that what electability is all about?

If so, why did they field TWENTY candidates up front??

Why have these last four gone through so much before Bloomberg waltzed in??

Here's the winning democratic socialist frontrunner being taken over by the corporatist?

Is this really our party?

What the hell is going on? JUST winning?

Then what about AFTER that?

[stopbush]

3. Elizabeth is a millionaire.

Millionaire, billionaire. Meh. 97% of us will never see that kind of wealth.

Warren and her husband have a net worth of $12-million. AFAIK, Bloomberg’s über-wealth is no more disqualifying than Warren’s mega-wealth.

[ancianita]

4. Then why isn't she held up as Mike's electability equal? Hm? Mills ain't mega-wealth. Bills is.

[stopbush]

7. To the average wage earner, you're splitting hairs.

Liz isn’t as electable as Mike. Neither is Pete. Neither is Amy. My opinion, of course.

[ancianita]

16. So you say the average wage earner votes for the money?

[stopbush]

23. I'm saying a candidate's personal wealth isn't an issue to the average voter.

No matter that millionaires like Warren and Sanders try to make it so when the candidate is worth more than them.

[ancianita]

24. Do you believe that if media tells them it's an issue, they take that into account? If Sanders and

Warren make it an issue, do they take that into account?

Otherwise, how has it come to be that Sanders is a frontrunner with no corporate money behind him? Or Warren hanging in since the original 20 appeared?

Where candidates' money comes from must mean something to their campaign staffs of hundreds, right? Do those campaigns reflect or not reflect the average voter, some of whom are even leaving their party to vote for them?

[Fla Dem]

5. Not sure when the Democratic party leaders went for candidates with the most money.

At least since JFK. Carter was a Georgia peanut farmer owner and former governor. Don't believe he was rolling in dough. Clinton also a former governor who wasn't exactly exactly rubbing elbows with the rich and famous. President Obama and Michele both still owed money on their college loans when they were campaigning for president.

OTOH the Republican party does elevate wealthy candidates, Trump, GW Bush, GWH Bush, Reagan.

Also, have not heard where the Democratic party leaders have endorsed anyone.

,

[left-of-center2012]

9. "have not heard where the Democratic party leaders have endorsed anyone"

Why would they, during the primaries?

[Fla Dem]

14. I agree. I was responding to the question/statement above by "ancianita"

Why do party leaders go w/ the candidate w/ the most money?

[ancianita]

13. Thanks. So it's media pushing the endorsement-by-$ issue. This is the Big Buy of Electability Hype.

Hype don't govern anymore.

Hype don't look out for the BEST interests of Americans.

Hype is out of touch with the realer, bigger America.

Hype calculates.

Hype tries to be agency. Hype fights against all other agency.

Get hyped about Hype, get played.

Don't believe the hype.

Campaign finance reform will never happen unless we stop believing the hype.

I want a boring campaign and government, not media hyped horse race drama.

I want a solid, stable nation full of actual solid, stable geniuses, not hyped ones.

[Fla Dem]

15. OK.

[ancianita]

17. Just my opinion. Venting because something doesn't smell right about all this. Sorry to go on and on

[Squinch]

18. Because whether we like it or not we live in a post Citizens United world.

[ancianita]

19. It's OUR world to make, not Citizens United.Rule #1 from Lessons in Tyranny:Do Not Obey In Advance.

[Squinch]

20. And do not surrender in advance either. Use every weapon at your disposal.

Don't willingly make yourself a sitting duck.

[ancianita]

21. Please explain. I'm talking corporate hype for a corporate candidate in a corporate captured nation.

THIS party isn't supposed to go for corporate candidates; candidates who get corporate funding aren't corrupt, but they're constantly tempted to do corporate law against the interests of The People's Republic.

We've lost that Republic under IF45.

We now have a chance to regain and re-establish it. It will not come from corporate money that hypes that it will look out for us.

ALL Bloomberg does is sweep in with Big Moola, buy his way into beating down a dictator, then proceed to govern by corporate interests, which are:

-- to end Medicare and Social Security
-- to end any attempts at a wealth tax
-- to keep the appearance of a Republic while serving the interests of global bankers, financiers, etc. and put The People back to sleep, make them sell out to what the rich say are in their BEST interests.

This will not go well. The tyranny of corporations will go on until we stop it.

Warren is the greater threat to corporate will than Bernie. She knows how to stop corporate rule. He doesn't. He knows THAT he'll try. But Liz knows HOW.

[customerserviceguy]

25. I've taken money to forget stuff

but I always had to convert it to beer first.

If we don't stand for something, we fall for anything.

[ancianita]

26. I've taken money and NEVER forgotten stuff. Money can't buy mind. We must stand for our power

over sellout politics.

I hope all the voters who've taken money just turn around and vote according to their best interests, not because they got paid.

[customerserviceguy]

27. I was being tongue in cheek there

I had hoped that my last line in that post told you where I really stand.

However, money can indeed buy weak minds. There's an entire advertising industry devoted to that.

[ancianita]

29. I did get the spirit of your post.I just wanted to say that others might actually do what you joked

about.

Thanks for your response.

[squirecam]

6. He's not going to take selfies or answer questions.

Which is why the NV debate matters so much.

[left-of-center2012]

8. "He's not going to ... answer questions"

Where's you get that?

[squirecam]

10. CNN invited him to the candidate town hall days ago

He didn’t accept.

https://www.uspresidentialelectionnews.com/2020/02/nevada-caucuses-cnn-town-hall-schedule-and-will-bloomberg-debate/

[left-of-center2012]

12. Is he running in Nevada?

No.

[squirecam]

22. The debate is in NV too.

Nt

[ancianita]

28. He can't deal with real people in large numbers except through script. He won't do town halls.

He couldn't explain his past. He couldn't justify his ad messaging, because he wouldn't be convincing to a live audience.

All they'd have to do is bring up Zucotti Park. Stop and Frisk. Sexual harassment suits. His comments about black people. His positions about Medicare and Social Security.

Because he'd really come across as not giving a damn what the average American thinks. Just corporate goals through government. He'd lose votes because he's not trustworthy to look out for the nation's best interests.

[walkingman]

30. IMO - if that is what it takes.....so be it. Absolutely no one could possibly be worse than Trump.

Other than maybe Dick Cheney or Rick Perry