Don’t underestimate the Bloomberg candidacy. It looks like a long shot, but at this point in 2015, the psychopath looked far less likely to win the nomination, much less the electoral college.
It’s true the left doesn’t care for Bloomberg. And that’s the point. He is actually in the middle of today’s political spectrum. A teensy bit to the left on guns and climate change, but not by much, would be how political scientists would put it.
Against the psychopath, he would likely win. What businessperson wouldn’t support him vs. the psychopath? The left and most Americans of color understand the existential threat the psychopath poses, so they’d grumble and moan, but vote for Bloomberg if he were the nominee.
Bloomberg is a pragmatist. When running NYC, he was famously reliant on data to drive decisions. And those decisions were usually pretty reasonable, though not always popular. New Yorkers are a fractious lot.
He IS tone deaf on a whole series of issues…but I would imagine he would “evolve” those opinions over time. He already apologized for stop and frisk.
Then there’s the money. He doesn’t have to fundraise, so he really isn’t owned by his contributors. It’s ironic, but refreshing given the sanctioned bribery that now passes for “campaign finance.”
He can’t be called a socialist, can he? But he won three races in NYC, a very “blue” place. Why? Because he’s effective in managing complex organizations. Not to everyone’s satisfaction, to be sure. But look at NYC under De Blasio. It’s a mess. He’s feuding with the governor and has a hard time even making the subways work.
So don’t count Bloomberg out. He’s not my favorite candidate—that person doesn’t exist. But he’s well positioned to surprise everyone.
Don’t underestimate the Bloomberg candidacy. It looks like a long shot, but at this point in 2015, the psychopath looked far less likely to win the nomination, much less the electoral college.
It’s true the left doesn’t care for Bloomberg. And that’s the point. He is actually in the middle of today’s political spectrum. A teensy bit to the left on guns and climate change, but not by much, would be how political scientists would put it.
Against the psychopath, he would likely win. What businessperson wouldn’t support him vs. the psychopath? The left and most Americans of color understand the existential threat the psychopath poses, so they’d grumble and moan, but vote for Bloomberg if he were the nominee.
Bloomberg is a pragmatist. When running NYC, he was famously reliant on data to drive decisions. And those decisions were usually pretty reasonable, though not always popular. New Yorkers are a fractious lot.
He IS tone deaf on a whole series of issues…but I would imagine he would “evolve” those opinions over time. He already apologized for stop and frisk.
Then there’s the money. He doesn’t have to fundraise, so he really isn’t owned by his contributors. It’s ironic, but refreshing given the sanctioned bribery that now passes for “campaign finance.”
He can’t be called a socialist, can he? But he won three races in NYC, a very “blue” place. Why? Because he’s effective in managing complex organizations. Not to everyone’s satisfaction, to be sure. But look at NYC under De Blasio. It’s a mess. He’s feuding with the governor and has a hard time even making the subways work.
So don’t count Bloomberg out. He’s not my favorite candidate—that person doesn’t exist. But he’s well positioned to surprise everyone.