Oh, no. Just as I was looking forward to the Democrats weeding out the deadwood, another useless narcissist steps forward to enter the race: Michael Bloomberg. Ugh.
“As a former business magnate and mayor of New York City, Bloomberg has the two qualities essential to enter the presidential race at this late stage: money and name recognition,” Dr. Thomas Gift, a political scientist at University College London, told Newsweek.
Money? Seriously? How out of touch is this guy? Bloomberg is a billionaire 50 times over. The plan is to tax a big chunk of that away, and if he resists, to put his head on a pike on Wall Street, as a warning to the others. He is the antithesis of what progressives want.
As for name recognition…maybe in New York. Not out here in the “heartland”.
“For that reason, I think Bloomberg can immediately become a heavyweight in the Democratic primaries. Beyond the attention he’d garner with his announcement, there’s plenty of space for Bloomberg to position himself as a moderate voice, especially with Joe Biden’s candidacy stuck in neutral.”
Gift said Bloomberg may appeal to moderate Democrats “looking for a reasoned and pragmatic approach to policy, especially someone with a proven track-record of competence.”
“Unlike Elizabeth Warren, he also radiates electability, which is important to many Democrats who, above all else, prioritize beating Trump in the 2020 election,” Gift said.
Right. Let’s replace Trump with an obscenely wealthy New York real estate mogul. New boss, same as the old boss.
Also, when I hear the word “electability”, which is just a code word for “conservative supporter of the status quo”, I start thinking we’re going to need more pikes.
brucej says
Seriously it’s on 3% of your fortune above the first billion dollars, and if you’re not making more than 3% on your money above the first billion, you’re too stupid to have that kind of money. So this isn’t even going to do more than reduce, slightly the rate at which they’re gaining wealth.
You pay taxes on your wealth, so do I…because as middle-class homeowners most of our wealth is in our homes (whether or not we actually own it or the bank does, we don’t pay a percentage of property taxes based on how much of our house we’ve paid off, after all) and our income is taxed a a much higher rate than their incomes.
Heck, just resetting capital gains taxes back to the rate they should be (ie: the same as wages and salaries) would go a huge way to rectifying the vast gulf of inequality, and shake out money that could be used to improve everyone’s lives.
What I don’t understand is why these Masters of the Universe don’t understand that, say spending a trillion or so to fix out antiquated, broken infrastructure would make them a lot of money. If Amazon didn’t have to pay as much in vehicle maintenance for their delivery trucks alone, Jeff Bezos would probably make enough more profit to pay for Elizabeth Warrens taxes. A Green New Deal would save them a ton of money in insurance or rebuilding costs for facilities that don’t burn down, or get flooded.
Wealthier serfs, I mean ‘consumers’ make them more money.
PaulBC says
I think his name recognition is way overstated, though he is probably pretty well known at Johns Hopkins, where he donated billions of dollars. He might very well be a shoo-in for governor of Maryland. President, I don’t think so. (I could be wrong.)
kurt1 says
Unlike Elizabeth Warren, he also radiates electability, which is important to
many Democratsabout 150 or so op-ed writers in major news outlets.Going with “electability” in the age of the most unelectable president in history requires some serious brainworms.
Artor says
To be honest, if Ghouliani hadn’t made such a name for himself recently, I would have a hard time telling him and Bloomberg apart. “Electability” my ass!
Marcus Ranum says
Does this mean there may be a boom market for hand forged custom damascus pike heads? Asking for a friend..
Lynna, OM says
Cross posted from the Political Madness Thread. Link
Some media outlets are pushing the idea that Elizabeth Warren is not electable. They are making her unelectable by pushing that bogus story. Reprehensible. The “electability” issue is skewed to favor older white men, and it is being pushed further and further toward that restrictive attitude by the news coverage.
From Laura Clawson:
Me too. And, frankly, that’s an embarrassing move on Joe Biden’s part.
Oh, fer feck’s sake. The “angry woman” meme. Really?
ikanreed says
Radiates beta decay.
Artor says
Re: likability. Warren reminds me of my favorite aunt. I like her better than anyone else in the race, by a solid margin.
PaulBC says
@8 I agree that Warren is likable. She seems down to earth and earnest in her speech. But apparently, that’s not the “narrative.” Biden is a glad hander whose best gig was playing Ed McMahon to Obama. Also, his politics are straight from the Clinton era.
The Vicar (via Freethoughtblogs) says
In reality, this is proof that Warren and/or Sanders are more viable as candidates than Biden. Bloomberg would not be joining the race if he truly believed that Biden would win.
Ian King says
‘Electability’ is the same nonsense that put Clinton against Trump in 2016.
It’s genuinely amazing that people are so completely unable to learn such clear lessons.
Unless of course they know full well it’s nonsense, but would much prefer someone like Bloomberg to run and lose than for someone like Sanders to run and win.
chrislawson says
Another observation on the stupidity of the American political discourse: A multi-billionaire who wants to eviscerate any attempt to tax a tiny percentage of billionaire fortunes is described as a ‘moderate voice’.
Nemo says
Personally, I’d rather beat Trump in the impeachment trial. Yeah, I’m a dreamer.
Lynna, OM says
Comments excerpted from an article by John Cassidy:
New Yorker link