November 12, 2019

"Michael Bloomberg is so wealthy he couldn’t fritter away his fortune, even if he tried. But he’ll make a good start if he spends $100 million or more..."

"... to win the Democratic presidential nomination. It’s a fruitless quest. He must be smart enough to know it... Still, the glittering prize of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. dazzles even the shrewdest eyes, and it may have dazzled Bloomberg’s. Running would be a rare mistake in a career that led him to vast riches and the mayoralty of America’s largest city.... The problem is that Bloomberg made the city safer by cracking down on petty criminals... and frisking lots of people to lessen gun violence. Those policies, begun under Mayor Rudolph Giuliani and continued under Bloomberg, worked well—but... [b]eing strong on crime is the surest way to alienate today’s Democratic primary voters.... Bloomberg’s second problem is... that he is not embarrassed by his riches, that he made them in the financial sector, and that he opposes the activists’ anti-growth policies, such as the Green New Deal...  Bloomberg faces other problems, too. He is the opposite of charismatic.... a dull campaigner who opposes the left’s most ambitious programs. He has little support among minorities or public-sector unions. In today’s Democratic Party, that’s an awkward spot from which to seek the nomination."

That's from "Bloomberg Will Hit an Iceberg" by Charles Lipson, an emeritus polisci professor at the University of Chicago.

Isn't this the kind of naysaying the other billionaire attracted 4 years ago? I don't care what's in "today’s Democratic Party." I care about what will work for the people, and many of us don't feel like insiders to either party. Trump saw how to go straight to the people, barging right past the party regulars. Why can't Bloomberg do that too?

I see the black-people-hate-him argument is being used against Bloomberg. Just last week, the black-people-hate-him argument was used against Buttigieg.

Bloomberg could spend a billion dollars on his mission... and why not?! What else can he do in the few years he's got left on the planet? What else can he buy?  I'm not saying he's a big old narcissist, and I don't even think that about Trump. I think that, like Trump, he believes he has some answers and people have gone woefully astray. Bloomberg, with all that money, may think he can instruct us and get us back on a good, sensible track, away from all that left-wing craziness and out of the little hands of Donald Trump.

93 comments:

tcrosse said...

Maybe he could buy Tom Steyer and send him to Patagonia.

J. Farmer said...

Would be more fun if he did a Brewster's Millions-style "none of the above" campaign.

Darrell Harris said...

As a former New Yorker, Bloomberg was a good caretaker of the important parts of Giuliani legacy - especially law enforcement. Compared to the NYC mayors in my lifetime: Wagner, Lindsay, Beame, Koch, Dinkins, he was above average. Giuliani was, of course, the gold standard.

If you're worried about Trump subverting the Constitution for his personal ends, however, Bloomberg should scare the poop out of you.

I remember when the two-term limits for mayors was instituted, with the sponsorship of Leonard Lauder. Bloomberg had no problem enforcing that to get Giuliani out of the way after 9/11, but when he wanted to get a third time for himself out of pure ambition and hubris, he paid off whomever he needed to on the City Council (promised to take care of them post-term IIRC), made a 'gentlemen's agreement' with Lauder, then got his third term.

Bloomberg, unfortunately, is an autocrat who'll just use money, not guns (definitely not guns) to pay off anyone who gets in his way. I wouldn't expect him to be any different were he ever to occupy the Oval Office.

narciso said...

No because trumps causes were the disfavored.

Nonapod said...

Trump saw how to go straight to the people, barging right past the party regulars. Why can't Bloomberg do that too?

Because Bloomberg isn't Trump. Nothing about him seems like he is any kind of a rule breaker... someone who would deeply defy conventional wisdom. He's the opposite. He's a rule maker. He strikes me as a generic progressive plutocrat interested in the trappings of power. Not only is he lacking any kind of real personal charisma, I doubt he would feel comfortable getting down on the muck.

Drago said...

You know who else had $100 Million in "ready cash" and thought that was all he needed?

Jeb!

Wince said...

Trump saw how to go straight to the people, barging right past the party regulars. Why can't Bloomberg do that too?

Trump appealed to the populist wing of the Republican party to barge past the party regulars.

Bloomberg's appeal at best is to independent voters outside both the "party regulars" and the populist wing of the Dem party.

That's an independent/third party play.

gilbar said...

I see Millionaire Tom Steyer's commercials here in Iowa, every time i turn on the TV,

He's telling people, that:
Trump is a Criminal, therefore:
We should ELECT Tom Steyer, because:
HE will see that Trump is Impeached

If this is the sort of "Logic" that passes for Logic with the Democrats;
I don't see Bloomberg fitting in. He's not "Logical" enough

Bob Boyd said...

The runt factor will work against Bloomberg. He's shorter than any president of recent times.
And he doesn't have good hair.

Birkel said...

I care much more about the nanny-State positioning of Bloomberg. He would sell my freedom cheap. And he would appoint judges to let him do so. That's a non-starter.

Many black folks want enforcement of the laws. The loudest voices pretend it were otherwise. But little old ladies and young kids want to feel safe in their own neighborhoods. Race doesn't play into who is vulnerable. And the vulnerable want protection.

Leftist Collectivists in their secure neighborhoods and gated communities don't understand that simple set of truths.

buwaya said...

Trump has PR skills and charisma and a very tough hide.
Bloomberg has different skills, that made him rich, but not Trumps skills.

Correct about Bloombergs riches. What does he have all that money for? He can't take it with him, and he is an old man.

Drago said...

Wince: "That's an independent/third party play."

I think not as Bloomberg is not going to be pulling any of the Deplorables or rural/Blue collar voters or long-time dormant conservative voters who crawled out of the wordwork in 2016 in the Battleground states to vote for Trump and will crawl over broken glass to vote for Trump again.

A Bloomberg third party gambit would only hurt the dems and I have to believe Bloomberg won't want to hurt those to whom he is culturally and politically aligned in a general election against Trump.

One caveat: If Bloomberg really hates a dem candidate, say Warren, then perhaps he would run just to spite her. This might make sense as Bloomberg could not be more closely aligned with his Wall Street dem pals who are already threatening to walk if Warren wins the nomination.

Michael K said...

Bloomberg is a nanny stater. He lives to make and enforce rules. I also think he is arrogant while Trump, who is seen by the left as arrogant, seems to be more humorous and whimsical. I see no humor in Bloomberg.

Sebastian said...

"away from all that left-wing craziness"

Apart from law enforcement during his tenure, is there any evidence that he isn't on board with half of the left-wing craziness?

Had Trump been more conventional, there would have been room for a Perot-style outsider. Now there isn't, plus Bloomberg apparently doesn't want to go third party.

Of course, there are still "independents" who might like a "serious, competent" moderate, or who at least want to be able to cultivate the illusion that they do, being serious and all, like Althouse, but there aren't enough of them.

The choice will be between left-wing craziness and Trumpian "chaos." So, Althouse, will you fall for the Dem narrative again as you did in '16?

Tommy Duncan said...

"[b]eing strong on crime is the surest way to alienate today’s Democratic primary voters..."

So are the Democrats now officially the crime party?

narciso said...

Yes, why do you think they hated guiliani so much?

BarrySanders20 said...

Several firsts for Bloomberg.

First Jewish president.
First Soda Nanny president.
And the first from the Lollipop Guild.

Bob Boyd said...

I predict Bloomberg won't run.

PM said...

Biden vs Bloomberg.
Warren vs Bloomberg.
Bernie vs Bloomberg.
Gun to head, I'd take the Monopoly Man every time.

Carol said...

Gee, I thought it was black people who demanded we get tougher on crime ,back in the 90s.

Was it just a red herring, to distract from the real problem?

Jupiter said...

"Trump saw how to go straight to the people, barging right past the party regulars. Why can't Bloomberg do that too?"

'Cause he's a gun-grabbing fascist midget.

narciso said...


Tactics are important


https://thefederalist.com/2019/11/11/ron-desantis-proves-matt-bevins-conservatism-wasnt-his-albatross/

Carol said...

Trump as president...LOL that must really chap his ass...

Nonapod said...

Of course, there are still "independents" who might like a "serious, competent" moderate, or who at least want to be able to cultivate the illusion that they do, being serious and all, like Althouse, but there aren't enough of them.

I think there's a fair number of people who generally like what Trump is doing, or attempting to do, but don't like Trump personally. There's also people who might agree with Trump's positions but don't believe he's being particularly effective in executing them as he could be. And there's also a group of more theoretically moderate Democrats who hate both Trump personally and also disgree with at least some of his positions/policies or whatever, but they dislike and deeply disagree with the bulk of the current crop of Dems candidates.

So, given all those groups, there's hypothetically a venn diagram intersection point that could potoentially be exploited by some sort of reasonable, "moderate" candidate. But the problem is it's become pretty apparent that such a candidate doesn't really exist that could actually go up against Trump. Why? I think there's just too many boxes to check in terms of likability, risk taking, the proper network of people to provide a support structure for such a person, celebrity factor, and various other intagibles that combine to make a truly strong candidate that could realistically go toe-to-toe with Trump on any and all stages.

Lurker21 said...

If you have 50 billion dollars, winning and losing may be beside the point.

In states that are overwhelmingly Democrat or Republican, the other party would find some well-meaning millionaire with a familiar family name and run him as a sacrificial lamb. The rich guys and patricians didn't mind. They appreciated the experience of running. It was worth a few thousand dollars for them and the party was that much richer. Because Bloomberg has actually held public office, he's ahead of those guys already. He will probably beat Tom Steyer too, and we can be grateful for that.

Bob Boyd said...

How does Bloomberg debate Trump? "Americans are overpaid and have too many rights."
Mean time the little fucker is standing on a box so he can see over the podium.
I don't see this as a winning formula.

Lurker21 said...

That's from "Bloomberg Will Hit an Iceberg" by Charles Lipson, an emeritus polisci professor at the University of Chicago.

A reference to the old Titanic joke?

walter said...

How much money can (pun intended) the soda and corn syrup lobbies fling at him?

Darrell Harris said...Bloomberg had no problem enforcing that to get Giuliani out of the way after 9/11, but when he wanted to get a third time for himself out of pure ambition and hubris, he paid off whomever he needed to.."
--
Ah..

Ken B said...

Don’t underestimate the appeal of not crazy.
The Democrats do underestimate it, which is why he won’t be the nominee, just like Hickenlooper won’t be.
But he is a stronger candidate than Warren or Sanders or Buttigieg.

Ralph L said...

He should run for the Ginsburg seat on the SCOTUS. Put on a colorful collar and no one will notice.

Michael K said...

Carol said...
Gee, I thought it was black people who demanded we get tougher on crime ,back in the 90s.

Was it just a red herring, to distract from the real problem?


It's the activists, not the real people. I sometimes wonder if these are the Russian bots. Maybe Chinese bots.

San Francisco will be the test case. How will a city, aside from Gaza, do being run by terrorists ?

mikeski said...

"Trump saw how to go straight to the people, barging right past the party regulars. Why can't Bloomberg do that too?"

One word: superdelegates.

Democrats can't win the nomination without both the people and the party bosses... just ask Bernie.

Unless, under this cycle's rules, the people can give 50%+ to one nominee in the first round of voting to keep the superdelegates out of it. I don't see that happening.

JAORE said...

A billionaire beats she who can not fail.
We hates the billionaire, we does.
We needs to beat the billionaire,my precious, we does.
A billionaire is what we need, a billionaire with MORE billions!

Yeah, one factor to rule them all.

Francisco D said...

I predict Bloomberg won't run.

As do I.

He is just trying to get the big money Democrat donors some FaceTime with the current crop. He wants them to dial back the socialist insanity.

Yancey Ward said...

Primary voters are significantly different than general election voters, even if they vote for the same party in the general election. Bloomberg would give Trump the sternest challenge in the general election than the top four candidates in the primary right now, but he can't win the nomination- Lifson is correct. Bloomberg is Jewish, white, male, old, insanely wealthy, and a former Republican. John Kasich would have a better chance of winning the Democratic nomination.

Yancey Ward said...

I find myself very partial to the theory that Bloomberg is only doing this so that when Clinton jumps in, it takes a lot of the heat off of her for getting in late. Which one of you offered that up the other day?

pacwest said...

I'm not speaking to his personal motivations, but since Biden looks like a no go that looks like it's going to be Warren or Bernie. Either one of those are not going to get the backing of the financial institutions for obvious reasons. Bloomberg can. The DNC needs that money. I think he sees a tactical opening.

Skippy Tisdale said...

"I see the black-people-hate-him argument is being used against Bloomberg. Just last week, the black-people-hate-him argument was used against Buttigieg."

Well they do hate everybody. Especially Asians.

narayanan said...

I am physiocrat in economics : a member of a school of political economists founded in 18th century France and characterized chiefly by a belief that government policy should not interfere with the operation of natural economic laws and that land is the source of all wealth.
____________ I would substitute material production for "land"

Trump is also physiocrat >>>> buildings in his case.

Bloomberg is vapor merchant >>>> finance ; securities etc

YoungHegelian said...

Trump saw how to go straight to the people, barging right past the party regulars. Why can't Bloomberg do that too?

I think that one advantage Trump has in the "Very Rich Guy Category" that neither Bloomberg nor Romney had is that Trump does something for a living that the average citizen understands, i.e. Trump builds shit for a living.

What do guys do who make their money "in finance"? That strikes me as a good question, especially after guys like Jeffrey Epstein made many millions & yet no one, even their entourages, knew exactly how he did it. What did Romney do at Bain, explained in a meaningful sentence, you know, the businessman's "elevator speech"?

I think the average guy on the street sees "The Finance Industry" as somewhat of a scam for the elite to soak up money. I can understand why they see it that way.

Howard said...

It's the demonrats in denial of the chaos necessary to get the Orange Man out of office.

Bay Area Guy said...

Whether Bloomberg runs in the primary isn't relevant - the question is, what effect will it have on the General?

I posit that it helps Trump. That Bloomberg is even floating his own name means that the NY Dem money guys (you know, the billionaires hated by Bernie) think that Biden and Warren are both losers.

So, Bloomberg enters and he attracts moderate Dem votes from Biden, not Bernie. Great! This further splinters the Primary vote, almost guaranteeing a brokered convention in June. Great! At that point, Trump will be sitting on an $800 Million war chest, ready to steamroll the hapless Dem nominee.

Bloomberg is 77 years old. He may have a few billion in the bank, but he ain't buying any green bananas, if you get my drift. If he "buys" the Dem nomination, Bernie & his Socialist bros stay home or splinter off into a 3rd Party run, as Trump coasts to reelection.

Hilarity ensues!

iowan2 said...

Someone pointed out the Bloomberg is a media mogul. His editorial vision is in every financial institution in the nation, (world). He commands a sequestered audience 24 hours a day. That editoral vision is inoculated into the world of money, and handed down the ladder, into the lowliest person on the street setting up their retirement savings plan. Maybe a much broader influence than I am able to consider.

Lurker21 said...

Politics were more fun back in the old days. The nominee wasn't decided until the convention. If all you had were delegates from Indiana or Oregon or Arkansas, you could roll into town ready to do some horse-trading. You could become ambassador to Austria, or Postmaster General, or even take all the marbles and end up at the top of the ticket. Nowadays, longshots are termed "losers" from the beginning and it's downhill from there.

African-Americans may not like Buttigieg or Bloomberg, but I get the feeling that they could respect or fear or even grudgingly like Bloomberg a little. It would be harder for Buttigieg to achieve that. I'm not sure it's the gay thing. It's that Buttigieg doesn't come across as a substantial character. He seems more like a lightweight, a babe in the political woods. Little Giant Bloomberg has at least some achievements to his name.

Iman said...

China-lover Bloomberg has fallen out of favor with the Chinese leadership... all due to Bloomberg News running a less than butt-smooching story. Margaret Hoover had an enlightening interview with Bloomberg on Progressive Bullshit (PBS), where she kept peppering Bloomberg with questions about China's current leadership and Bloomberg couldn't bring himself to agree that Xi is a dictator. He amusingly claimed that Xi has a population that he must keep satisfied by meeting their needs, keeping them happy to remain in power. As if China held elections.

And I'm being charitable, it was much worse than that.

Skippy Tisdale said...

"What do guys do who make their money "in finance"?"

Well Bloomberg made a lot of his money due to the proliferation of Bloomberg terminals beginning in the 1980's. Every VP of Finance (or Investor Relations) had one in their office. And they still do...

"Bloomberg Terminal is the most expensive among financial data providers, at $24,000 per year. For customers with two or more subscriptions, Bloomberg charges $20,000 per year. By comparison, a fully loaded version of Eikon costs $22,000, and a discounted version costs $3,600."

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/052815/financial-news-comparison-bloomberg-vs-reuters.asp

Automatic_Wing said...

I think the difference between Trump and Bloomberg is that everyone knew that there was large bloc of working class Republican voters that weren't being served by mainstream Republican politicians like the Bushes, McCain, Romney etc. Trump swooped in from outside the party and scooped those voters up. I don't think an equivalent bloc of voters exists in today's Democratic party. In fact, you have to say that Democrats have been pretty good at delivering the goods to their base.

So I don't see room for someone like Bloomberg to come in and upset the apple cart. He is a man with substantial accomplishments, but the accomplishments are things Dem primary voters hate, like making billions on Wall Street and maintaining law and order in NYC.

dbp said...

If Bloomberg's fear is that the Democrats will nominate either someone too far to the left, like Warren or Sanders or will nominate Biden, who hasn't been playing with a full deck for decades, then he should enter the race. But what he should do is only attack these top three and openly support people like Buttigieg, Yang and other (by comparison to most of the others) non-crazy leftists.

If he gets the nomination, great! Anybody who gets the nomination has a chance of winning. And if he causes a relative moderate to get the nomination, also great, because it gives the Democrats a better chance of victory--which is Bloomberg's stated goal in the first place.

Bloomberg is old and what else is he going to do with his billions?

rcocean said...

IF Bloomberg has a constituency its the "Althouse Democrats". Middle class/well-to-do folks who are socially liberal but don't want any Left-wing "craziness" on Economics or Foreign policy. But that lane is currently taken by Biden and Buttigig. We don't need Bloomberg.

Then there's bloomberg himself. Who compared to Trump is a zero as a campaigner. He's a billionaire, he's from NYC, and he DOES NOT have the common touch and is dull. No one's going to stand in line for a "Bloomberg rally" in order to hear attacks on Populism and "medicare for all". Support for the 15% Capital Gains tax may bring them to their feet cheering in Beverly Hills, but its not going to play in South Carolina.

walter said...

He has 2 daughters and some grand-kids...Like Zelda Violet "Frissberg" and Jasper Bloomberg.

"The day after Bloomberg announced he wouldn't seek election, Georgina took to Instagram to express her feelings on the matter. The post showcased a photo of a fake Bloomberg campaign sticker, which read "Bloomberg: Because fuck this shit."
https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/money-and-power/a25804827/michael-bloomberg-georgina-emma-daughters-children/

Beasts of England said...

If Bloomberg comes up - dare I say - short, Deval Patrick is considering a primary campaign.

rcocean said...

Bloomberg LOST the African American vote in 2009, 75-25.

Bay Area Guy said...

Deval Patrick and Eric Holder and Michael Bloomberg - come on in! The Clown Car beckons.

hstad said...

"...He[Bloomberg] is the opposite of charismatic..." That's not as bad as Romney is more charismatic versus Bloomberg - LOL.

Freder Frederson said...

I think that one advantage Trump has in the "Very Rich Guy Category" that neither Bloomberg nor Romney had is that Trump does something for a living that the average citizen understands, i.e. Trump builds shit for a living.

Actually, Trump doesn't build much at all (he did earlier in his career, and a good chunk of the properties ended up bankrupt). He is more a reality tv star and is good as marketing himself as a brand. Most buildings with his name on them simply license the name.

Bay Area Guy said...

We really need Hillary to jump in. Can you image her first televised primary debate?

"You losers suck! I beat that asshole last time, and I'm the only one who will beat him this time. Bite me!"

Bay Area Guy said...

Imagine not image

Brian said...

One word: superdelegates.

Democrats can't win the nomination without both the people and the party bosses... just ask Bernie.


Which is why Trump ran as a Republican...

The RNC always controlled the nomination through money. I.e. who locked up donations. See Bush, George, and Bush, Jeb!. Trump didn't need their money.

Beasts of England said...

’...a good chunk of the properties ended up bankrupt.’

I eagerly await a quantification of ‘good chunk’ and a few examples of claimed bankrupt properties.

Big Mike said...

Isn't this the kind of naysaying the other billionaire attracted 4 years ago? I don't care what's in "today’s Democratic Party." I care about what will work for the people, and many of us don't feel like insiders to either party. Trump saw how to go straight to the people, barging right past the party regulars. Why can't Bloomberg do that too?

Yes, it is exactly the sort of naysaying Trump dealt with, and handily disposed of. The elitists of the two parties (and the Libertarian and Green Parties, too, for that matter) seem to be wildly out of touch with the ordinary people of this country. But, no, Bloomberg cannot do that because he is as out of touch as the parties’ insiders. For instance, there are 18 million concealed carry permit holders in this country and nearly every one of them will vote against Bloomberg.

Tom T. said...

"A reference to the old Titanic joke?"

Iceberg, Bloomberg, what's the difference?

Michael K said...

Freder is going to list the properties that Trump built and went bankrupt.

Aside from the Atlantic City casinos and the air shuttle, none of which he built, I can't think of any but I'm sure Freder has a long list.

YoungHegelian said...

@FF,

Most buildings with his name on them simply license the name.

Silly me! I was operating under the illusion that Trump himself laid the concrete, did the high-iron work, the electrical, etc. Rumor had it he could wall out a whole skyscraper floor all by himself in a day!

Freder, what else do building firms do other than slap their names on the finished product in order to "brand" it?

hstad said...

Blogger Freder Frederson said...11/12/19, 12:47 PM

LOL - of course Freder has a private look at Trump's financial statements which confirm his thesis. What B.S.!

Tina Trent said...

Bloomberg will have to buy their bullshit to buy their votes.

Math problem.

Kirk Parker said...

"What does [Bloomberg] have all that money for?"

Well, he's using far too much of it to try to disarm me and mine, and turn us into virtual serfs--wards of the state.

God damn him to hell, and I say that as someone who considers none of those words to be meaningless abstractions. Bloomberg, Steyer, and Hanauer would make a nice set of companions for Brutus, Cassius, and Judas.

Drago said...

Field Marshall, International Security Expert and Real Estate Expert Freder: "Actually, Trump doesn't build much at all (he did earlier in his career, and a good chunk of the properties ended up bankrupt). He is more a reality tv star and is good as marketing himself as a brand. Most buildings with his name on them simply license the name."

LOLOLOL

Provide a ratio/definition (using either raw project count or relative value weighting) for "a good chunk of the properties" relative to all Trump construction/licensing agreements.

Thanks in advance for not knowing the first thing about what you are talking about.

BTW, Trump at the time of his inauguration was the owner of over 500 distinct business entities per IRS records. I'm sure Freder has them all figured out and analyzed.

Just think, Trump was the owner of over 500 distinct business entities yet the dems/left/marxists/LLR-leftists spend ZERO time talking about that portfolio.

Why, its almost as if they know it would only make Trump look even better if they ever dared to draw attention to it.

Drago said...

BTW, for Freder and ARM and Paul Krugman and the antifa types, just this morning it was announced that the US has more people working than ever before in its history while SIMULTANEOUSLY we have rising wages across all quintiles (with the largest wage increases in the lowest 3 quintiles) along with record unemployment WHILE THE REST OF THE WORLD IS EXPERIENCING AN ECONOMIC DOWNTURN.

600,000 manufacturing jobs that the lefties/dems/marxists/LLR-leftists said would never come back have already come back or been created.

ARM and Freder are going to have a very difficult job convincing the American workers in those jobs that those jobs don't exist! I can't wait to see how they try that one!! I would expect Freder to go full Bundy Case Liar Mode....with approximately the same degree of "success"....(zero).

There is so much other great economic news that time precludes me from listing it all.

LLR's everywhere hardest hit.

Francisco D said...

Actually, Trump doesn't build much at all (he did earlier in his career, and a good chunk of the properties ended up bankrupt). He is more a reality tv star and is good as marketing himself as a brand. Most buildings with his name on them simply license the name.

Freder,

Do you have any experience in real estate development? I am guessing not.

In my consulting days, I worked for a couple of famous Chicago real estate firms. It would be extremely unusual for Trump to completely manage and finance a big $$ project. No one takes that kind of risk. The partnerships are very complex. Democrats want to get his tax returns in order to unravel those partnerships and punish those people. It is what you totalitarians do.

I did not respond directly to your statement because it was based on utter ignorance of how the industry works. It is far more complex than you can imagine and more than your DNC/MSM talking points can address in a coherent fashion.

However, I appreciate your continuing failed attempts to be relevant.

Drago said...

BTW lefties, the World Economic Forum now lists the US as the world's most competitive economy.

Your import-Venezuela-to-the-US fever dreams hardest hit.

Drago said...

The US is number one global producer of oil and gas. We are net exporters of gas and oil.

Islamists, Putin/Russia and US leftists/liberals/LLR's hardest hit.

robother said...

"Frittering."

Another wonderful archaic term, invoking my memories of The Music Man. Concern about their chirrren frittering, yes, they'll be frittering away their hours (on pool) was the Professor's pitch for the funding and training of a marching band.

narciso said...

one of the fellows on the intel committee, jim himes, from greenwhich, was a sandalista, who wrote a Nellie ohr type dissertation on the regime,

narciso said...

is this still a thing:

https://twitchy.com/gregp-3534/2019/11/12/molly-jong-fast-declares-bret-kavanaugh-a-legendary-sexist/

walter said...

50 billion could buy a lot of fritters. But at some point, you have enough fritters. Time to spread the wealth around.

President Toilet Paper Shoe's Perfect Phone Call said...

Trump saw how to go straight to the people, barging right past the party regulars. Why can't Bloomberg do that too?

Because unlike Trump, Bloomberg isn't just about doing whatever gets an immediate reaction. This susceptible descent into rank demography that I can't tell if you're following is very disappointing.

I see the black-people-hate-him argument is being used against Bloomberg.

Why wouldn't it be? Getting out the vote is the most important part of an election.

And why would Bloomberg's love of stop-and-frisk not warrant a deeper comment from you, a former law professor? No constitutional issues worth resolving, there? Surely the blacks and latinos disproportionately targeted by it would say otherwise. But I guess they just don't count as people. Even though they can and will need to vote next November.

President Toilet Paper Shoe's Perfect Phone Call said...

Silly me! I was operating under the illusion that Trump himself laid the concrete, did the high-iron work, the electrical, etc. Rumor had it he could wall out a whole skyscraper floor all by himself in a day!

That's just what he wants his supporters to think. And it seems that they lack just the right amount of information to believe it.

Freder, what else do building firms do other than slap their names on the finished product in order to "brand" it?

In his case, not paying the builders - among other things. Very much an important part of his "brand." He's no sucker! Paying bills (including taxes) is for suckers!

narciso said...

Bloomberg is a technocrat, probably the closest European parallel, is Mario Draghi, formerly of goldman sachs, a string puller behind the scenes,

Big Mike said...

The four parties’ elites are the only ones out of touch with the electorate. Add Freder to the list of the out of touch.

Josephbleau said...

Is the Bloomberg company reporting dirt on his political opponents? IMPEACH! Is Hillary running? Begone, before someone drops a house on you, too.

Tom said...

Trump as Woo and Bloomberg does not have Woo. And there’s not amount of money that will buy him Woo.

The more America gets to know Bloomberg, the more it will realize that he wants to tell us what to do.

Trump may have one redeeming quality - he made his entire campaign and presidency about treating working class Americans with respect. He’s worked his tail off for the working class vote and I’ve seen him in front of steel workers — they love him in a way they’d never love Mitt Romney or Bloomberg.

DarkHelmet said...

"Still, the glittering prize of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. dazzles even the shrewdest eyes, and it may have dazzled Bloomberg’s"

The presidency should not be considered a glittering prize. It should be considered a burdensome duty undertaken only by dedicated, wise, public spirited individuals who intend to serve their fellow citizens capably, but humbly and then return to their private lives.

It would be better to choose a president by lot than the current method we use.

Iman said...

“ one of the fellows on the intel committee, jim himes, from greenwhich, was a sandalista, who wrote a Nellie ohr type dissertation on the regime,”

You’ve just reminded me why - other than being a Democrat - I have such a visceral dislike of that smarmy sonuva bitch. Thanks, narciso.

(Col. Haiku)

FullMoon said...

Most buildings with his name on them simply license the name.

Really? Why?

cubanbob said...

If I were in the political consulting and or advertising business it would be a wet dream for a mega billionaire to drop huge money in a Don Quixote campaign.

Skeptical Voter said...

I dunno. I never was one to drink 28 or 32 or 64 ounce Big Gulps, and I rarely use a straw. But I'm not fond of a man who tells me I can't do that. Just sorta goes against the grain.

narciso said...

Youre welcome coronello.

Curious George said...

Althouse's This is how Bloomberg lost me.

Bill R said...

I have a lot of problems with Mr. Global Warming Nannystate, but unlike anyone else running for President at the moment, he's got a long record of achievement in both public and private life and he's not batshit crazy.

Think about it. Of all of them, who would do the least harm?

Greg the class traitor said...

Trump saw how to go straight to the people, barging right past the party regulars. Why can't Bloomberg do that too?

Trump saw that Jacksonians are a significant part of the GOP coalition, and were being totally blown off by the GOP Establishment. He also saw that a lot of them were responding to that blow-off by voting Democrat, and figured he could pull those over, too

He went after them, got them, and won with them.

But, the only reason why he won was that the fight came down to him vs. Ted Cruz. The GOP Establishment decided they'd "rather lose with Trump, than win with Cruz", so they kept people like Rubio in long past any point were those candidates had any prayer of winning, just to keep Cruz from winning.

Who provides the "underserved core" in the Democrat Party for Bloomberg to go after? Jews? There's not enough of them. I suppose Bernie could be the Cruz analog, but Bernie has more supporters than Bloomberg can find in the "outcasts", so that won't help Bloomberg.

Short of the Networks and Tech Companies deliberately, aggressively, and opening censoring President Trump every time he talks about his opponents weaknesses, none of the Democrat candidates has a real chance in 2020.

Biden: Biggest threat, because he could pull a bunch of the WWC vote back from Trump. But, not after Trump is done pointing out all the corruption the Bidens have engaged in.

No normal voter is going to believe that Hunter Biden was worth $50,000 a month to Bursima, other than as a bribe to get his dad to do corrupt things for them

Warren: "Vote for me, and I'll take away your health insurance." Please, PLEASE nominate Warren. The Dems will get slaughtered at every level

Buttigieg: This guy has said that "no true Christian" opposes same sex marriage, or believes that homosexuality is wrong. And that he will be happy to use the power of the Federal Gov't to crush any "fake Christians" who try to use the First Amendment to protect themselves. He would be about as much of a disaster for the Democrats as Warren. Warren would force the "suburban wine moms" back to the GOP for at least 2 more years. Buttigieg would assist Trump with his attempts to pull minority voters away from the Democrats. Long term, he might even be worse for the Democrats than Warren

Bloomberg: Pisses off a significant part of the Democrat coalition so much they'd stay at home rather than vote for him. Would drive the WWC and other WC voters over to Trump, because Bloomberg is the evil of Romney, squared. All the lines the Democrats used to keep the WWC voting for Obama one last time in 2012 would work even better aimed at Bloomberg by Trump.

Trump: I build things, Bloombergs just forecloses on them


The polls don't mean anything now. People aren't paying attention, and the ads aren't running. But they will be, and the Democrats will be destroyed once they are

Greg the class traitor said...

Yancey Ward said...
Primary voters are significantly different than general election voters, even if they vote for the same party in the general election. Bloomberg would give Trump the sternest challenge in the general election than the top four candidates in the primary right now

How?

If you're a black voter in MI, WI, PA, or MN, what does Bloomberg have to offer you? Bloomberg is literally the personification of the financial industry. He's the "big banker", he "The Man", the guy who's been screwing you and your people over for the last 50 years

If you're a WWC non-union worker, you're voting for Trump in 2020. If you're a WWC union member, you might vote for a Democrat. But Bloomberg is NOT a Democrat you're going to be willing to vote for. He's going to ban hunting, take you guns, ban beer drinking, and ban soda.

And he's probably going to foreclose on your home, too.

Who loves Bloomberg enough, to make up for these loses?

Greg the class traitor said...

Freder Frederson said...
I think that one advantage Trump has in the "Very Rich Guy Category" that neither Bloomberg nor Romney had is that Trump does something for a living that the average citizen understands, i.e. Trump builds shit for a living.

Actually, Trump doesn't build much at all (he did earlier in his career, and a good chunk of the properties ended up bankrupt). He is more a reality tv star and is good as marketing himself as a brand. Most buildings with his name on them simply license the name.


Doesn't matter.

1: He did build things.
2: He's got lots of real things in the physical world with his name on them
3: He will have been President for 4 years come election day. And, during those four years, he has aggressively supported the people who build real things

And he's the first President since Reagan for whom that is so. Bill Clinton talked a good game, but he didn't actually do.

"Are you better off than you were 4 years ago?" 90%+ of the working class people are going to answer that "yes". And it will be the first time in a while for which that is true

Greg the class traitor said...

Drago said...
BTW, for Freder and ARM and Paul Krugman and the antifa types, just this morning it was announced that the US has more people working than ever before in its history while SIMULTANEOUSLY we have rising wages across all quintiles (with the largest wage increases in the lowest 3 quintiles) along with record unemployment WHILE THE REST OF THE WORLD IS EXPERIENCING AN ECONOMIC DOWNTURN.

That's awesome. Got a specific link I can use to rub people's faces in that?