Billionaire Mike Bloomberg is gonna get pounded by the Democratic 2020 Presidential candidates….
I MEAN POUNDED….
The media attention ‘Money Mike’ is getting ain’t gonna help him….
Me?
I can’t see Democrats wanting to pick a Billionaire Presidential candidate next year…
It just doesn’t seem right…
Especially with Donald Trump’s flaunting HIS money which is nothing compared to Bloomberg…
The other rich guy running with Democrats, Steyer isn’t going anyplace either ….
Bernie Sanders insists he has nothing personal against Michael Bloomberg.
“I really don’t.”
He just thinks he’s trying to “buy an election,” is demonstrating “the arrogance of billionaires” and, as Bloomberg opens his near-bottomless wallet to pay for TV ads, is complicit in “undermining” American democracy.
One day after Bloomberg announced his late entry into the Democratic presidential field, Sanders and his progressive allies aren’t holding back.
“What he believes — and this is the arrogance of billionaires: ‘Hey, I can run for president because I’m worth $55 billion, and maybe I’ll take $1 billion out of that $55 billion’ — not a lot, when you’re worth that much — and … start running a massive amount of TV ads in California and, in fact, all over this country,” Sanders told reporters after a town meeting with union members in New Hampshire on Monday.
Earlier in the day, it was Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s turn, when she told a crowd in Iowa that Bloomberg was “making a bet about democracy in 2020: He doesn’t need people, he only needs bags and bags of money.”
She said, “I think Michael Bloomberg is wrong, and that’s what we need to prove in this election.”
Bloomberg, the former New York mayor, announced his campaign on Sunday, positioning himself as a moderate alternative to former Vice President Joe Biden. But his self-funding — including an enormous, initial $34 million ad buy — has drawn fierce criticism from progressive Democrats, including Sanders and Warren.
The criticism of Bloomberg’s spending is not new, and began even before he announced his campaign. In response, he has emphasized his middle-class upbringing and the large sums of money he has spent on Democratic causes….
image…commondreams.org
Sanders is right. The wealthy have way too much power in determining who should be president, or even who gets elected to all but local offices. But as much as I want that to change, it won’t happen in the next four years. Hell – it was only about two years ago that Republicans were able to pass a tax cut that targeted the wealthy even though it was funded by borrowing.
Thinking that the wealthy have too much influence in how laws are written is a different issue than deciding who should president. I think Bloomberg will appeal to more people than any of the other Democratic candidates. I have my doubts about the electability of all of them over Trump. I’m confident Bloomberg would win the general election.
But at this point, he is clearly a long shot to win the Democratic nomination. His message that the wealthy should pay more in taxes is identical to Biden and Buttigieg. But unlike those two, Bloomberg can commit that he won’t offer ambassador posts to large contributors.
He understands both business and government and would be an effective president – in addition to being electabke.
I agree with the above.
I basically agree with Zreebs. Bloomberg, with all his liberal “nanny state” issues can win the election if he could get nominated.
But the ridicule factor would be very high.
I find Bernie’s billionaire bashing amusing for a millionaire. Bloomberg was a billionaire before Bernie, at 40, got his first real job. Folks like Bloomberg, Steyer, and Soros put their money where their mouths are. All three gave hundreds of millions to help flip the House last year. And, all three would gladly pay a higher tax rate.
How much did Bernie give, or even raise, to turn the House blue last year?
There’s a lot I like about Bloomberg but when it comes to “electability” there are certainly some factors Zreebs has overlooked.
How will the mayor who wanted to ban large sodas play in middle America?
Seems trivial sure but never underestimate the power of Republicans to focus on petty shit to drive a wedge between working class voters and candidates who will actually help them.
I am aware of Bloomberg wanting to place a larger tax on soda, I am not aware of him trying to ban them.
To me this makes perfect sense. People who buy sugary drinks should have to pay more to reflect the additional cost burdens, such as obesity-related health care costs that people who buy these items have to pay. And in addition, the higher taxes for these goods decrease consumers consumption of them and therefore reduces the health care costs that the city has to pay.
Bloomberg can argue that the soda tax was just one tax, but that if you look at taxes in the aggregate, he did a good job at controlling tax increases.