Can Bloomberg become the Democratic nominee?

Jul 23, 2017
1,304
911
31
That's why you voted Obama 2012, right?

:hat
Lets start with sugary drink tax in Chicago. Repealed after 2 months. Toni Preckwinkle who came up with the bill and was backrolled to the tune of 2 million by Bloomberg took a beating at the hands of Lori Lightfoot at the mayoral race
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/10/10/why-chicagos-soda-tax-fizzled-after-two-months-and-what-it-means-for-the-anti-soda-movement/

His aggressive "stop and frisk" policy in New York, which studies shows targeted mainly African American and some Latinos. Realizing how important the African American community is to Democratic Party, Bloomberg came out just as he was about to announce his candidacy apologizing and trying to distance himself from that very policy which he stood by for 3 consecutive terms as mayor of the city of New York.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/17/us/politics/michael-bloomberg-speech.html

His overzealous gun control policy which intends to limit gun rights of law abiding citizens. And have been struck down in many places around the country. To show you what a cunt this Bloomberg is take the Plaxico Buresss cas for example. Plaxico Burrress served 2 years for a self inflicted gunshot (I know he's a dumbass). Mind you no one else was hurt by the gunshot and the only way NYPD found out about the incident was on ESPN. To show what a piece of shit Mayor Bloomberg is, this motherfucker went out of his way to condemn the NewYork–Presbyterian Hospital for not reporting the incident, and urging that Burress be punished to the full extent of the law.
https://www.nraila.org/articles/20191024/nra-and-gun-owners-win-bloombergeverytown-lose

.
 
Last edited:
Reactions: Beefcake
Jul 23, 2017
1,304
911
31
Black voters would pick him over any Republican. That’s a nonissue.
History says so but he won't have a high African American voter turnout after African Americans outside of New York begins to vet his record as a public servant.
The same thing applies to Joe "I can't keep my foot off my mouth" Biden. MSNBC and CNN have also been reluctant to hold Biden accountable for that 1991 Crime Bill. They're busy blaming the Russians, not understanding why their was a low Black Voter turnout for Clinton last election.
Telling Black voters at Town Halls what a racist Trump is not going to cut it, we know he is. It might work against those from the civil right era, but with Millennials, that shit ain't cutting it.
 
Last edited:
Reactions: Beefcake
Jul 23, 2017
1,304
911
31
Pros:

* Infinite money, and he is willing to spend it on both his own campaign, and on helping down-ballot Democrats as well.

* A long record of competence in government, leading massive organizations, dealing with a lot of complex data, and juggling competing interests.

* Turned NYC around. Bloomberg is strong on economics, and surrounds himself with capable professionals.

* He will get under Trump's skin, and negate a lot of Trump's "strengths". Bloomberg is a self-made guy, his daddy didn't give him $400 million to get him started. He's a REAL business titan, his net worth is more than 10x even Trump's most ludicrously inflated claims of wealth, and he made it all himself.

* He's a steady hand. People who are tired of the circus, Bloomberg is not a circus ringmaster. He's an actual grownup whose persona is one of patrician competence. People who just want to not think about the President every single day can get behind him.



Cons:

* Has a big, BIG problem with black voters because of stop and frisk.

* He's a Jew.

* He's not a charismatic guy.

* Twitter warriors will try to destroy him because of allegations of a sexist culture.

* Made his billions by inventing a device to make Wall Street cunts get much, MUCH richer.




Could he win? Its impossible to tell. But for the "Establishment centrist old guy" vote, he beats the shit out of Biden. The sheer amount of money he brings to the table is a factor that hasn't been seen before. He is at least 5x richer than every other candidates put together, including Trump and Steyer (probably 10x richer), and he is willing to spend huge. That factor is massive, but what effect it will or could have is currently unknown.

:hat
Stop with that bullshit you cunt, Bernie Sanders is highly regarded by Black Voters, especially millennials.
 
Last edited:
Reactions: Beefcake

Duo

Bosomus Maximus
Jun 14, 2012
7,446
4,185
That disingenuous asshole shithead slammed Robert Atkins in lying about how Atkins died, while his mother went on to live to be 98 following her son's ketogenic regimen and untimely death from slipping on an icy sidewalk and whacking his head during a springtime snow storm which took 18 lives.

If pissing away hundreds of millions could win a nomination, Jeb Bush would have destroyed the GOP field with his unlimited funding in 2016. Instead, he was done after SC.

Every dentist, physician and chiropractor I've known who's lost weight and kept it off did it on Atkins (following his first book), going back to the 1970's.

Bloomberg can drop dead of a heart attack, the way he falsely lied about how Atkins got killed.

No, one doesn't win a nomination by disrespecting voters like Bloomberg, or going against DNC machinery.
 
Jun 4, 2013
7,877
3,633
Albuquerque, NM
That disingenuous asshole shithead slammed Robert Atkins in lying about how Atkins died, while his mother went on to live to be 98 following her son's ketogenic regimen and untimely death from slipping on an icy sidewalk and whacking his head during a springtime snow storm which took 18 lives.

If pissing away hundreds of millions could win a nomination, Jeb Bush would have destroyed the GOP field with his unlimited funding in 2016. Instead, he was done after SC.

Every dentist, physician and chiropractor I've known who's lost weight and kept it off did it on Atkins (following his first book), going back to the 1970's.

Bloomberg can drop dead of a heart attack, the way he falsely lied about how Atkins got killed.

No, one doesn't win a nomination by disrespecting voters like Bloomberg, or going against DNC machinery.
So your main gripe is his bad mouthing Atkins?
 

SwollenGoat

Deicide
May 17, 2013
60,720
20,549
The House that Peterbilt
He has very little chance of getting the Demotard nomination, much less beating Trump. As long as the economy stays solid, Trump will win. As it is said, people vote their pocketbooks.
:rofl


Low unemployment isn’t worth much if the jobs barely pay


Each month, the Bureau of Labor Statistics releases its Employment Situation report (better known as the “jobs report”) to outline the latest state of the nation’s economy. And with it, of late, have been plenty of positive headlines—with unemployment hovering around 3.5%, a decade of job growth, and recent upticks in wages, the report’s numbers have mostly been good news.

But those numbers don’t tell the whole story. Are these jobs any good? How much do they pay? Do workers make enough to live on?

Here, the story is less rosy.

In a recent analysis, we found that 53 million workers ages 18 to 64—or 44% of all workers—earn barely enough to live on. Their median earnings are $10.22 per hour, and about $18,000 per year. These low-wage workers are concentrated in a relatively small number of occupations, including retail sales, cooks, food and beverage servers, janitors and housekeepers, personal care and service workers (such as child care workers and patient care assistants), and various administrative positions.

Just how concerning are these figures? Some will say that not all low-wage workers are in dire economic straits or reliant on their earnings to support themselves, and that’s true. But as the following data points show, it would be a mistake to assume that most low-wage workers are young people just getting started, or students, or secondary earners, or otherwise financially secure:

  • Two-thirds (64%) of low-wage workers are in their prime working years of 25 to 54.
  • More than half (57%) work full-time year-round, the customary schedule for employment intended to provide financial security.
  • About half (51%) are primary earners or contribute substantially to family living expenses.
  • Thirty-seven percent have children. Of this group, 23% live below the federal poverty line.
  • Less than half (45%) of low-wage workers ages 18 to 24 are in school or already have a college degree.
These statistics tell an important story: Millions of hardworking American adults struggle to eke out a living and support their families on very low wages.

What should be done? Some suggest that education and “upskilling” is the answer, arguing that if these workers got more education and increased their skills, they would move up to higher-paying jobs.

That is partially true. The majority of low-wage workers (77%) have less than a college degree, and we would never bet against education. Increasing the quality and accessibility of skill-building opportunities is an excellent goal, and part—but certainly not all—of the solution. We need additional funds, a commitment to change the status quo, toward more student- and worker-centric models.

These statistics tell an important story: Millions of hardworking American adults struggle to eke out a living and support their families on very low wages.
However, imagine that everyone without a college degree suddenly earned one. The jobs that pay low wages would not disappear. Hospitals would still need nursing assistants, hotels would need housekeepers, day care centers would need child care workers, and so on.

We need to think not only about workers, but about the work they are doing. What kinds of jobs are we generating, do they pay enough to live on, and to whom are they available?

Other research from Brookings Metro and the Federal Reserve suggests that there are not enough decent-paying jobs for people without bachelor’s degrees. This matters—workers without bachelor’s degrees make up not just the majority of the low-wage workforce but the majority of the labor force as a whole, so the shortage of such jobs has wide-ranging consequences.

Even with sunny job statistics, the nation’s economy is simply not working well for tens of millions of people.

Labor market conditions are not acts of God, nor inevitable. They are shaped by policies, investments, and institutions. As we grapple with structural changes in the economy—globalization, the effects of technology, the shift from production to services, declining union membership, the fissuring of the workplace, increased concentration of market power—we need to remember that the rules of the game are not set in stone.

We should look at individuals—not national averages—as the unit of analysis, and ask: Are wages adequate? Can people support themselves and their families if they work full time?

Currently, the answer is “no” for a distressingly large share of the workforce. This is not controversial or disputed. There are a variety of indices—the United Way’s ALICE threshold, MIT’s living wage calculator, the Self-Sufficiency Standard, and EPI’s Family Budget Calculator—that show basic costs of living (housing, food, child care, transportation, health care, taxes) frequently outpacing earnings from low-wage jobs, even in families with more than one worker.

Looking at the broader economic picture, taxation expert Edward Kleinbard offers a useful formulation: Are markets friendly to workers and serving society’s best interests, or are they a hostile force? Wages for most workers (except those at the top) have stagnated or declined in recent decades, even as costs for basic inputs to a stable life—such as health care, housing, and education—have skyrocketed. Market failures abound: Education and health care are out of reach for many, child care is often prohibitively expensive (even as child care workers are woefully underpaid), and decent, affordable housing is scarce in many regions. If society’s best interests are served by having people employed, housed, educated, and healthy, then we need to rethink the fundamentals of our economic and social policies.

We should look at individuals—not national averages—as the unit of analysis, and ask: Are wages adequate? Can people support themselves and their families if they work full time?
Federal, state, and local governments can take a number of steps to improve workers’ economic security. Boosting wages through tax credits, a higher minimum wage, or supporting sectoral bargaining; supporting families with high-quality child care; and giving workers more control over their time via stable scheduling are just a few options.

The monthly jobs report provides critical information on the state of the economy. But too often, we focus only on toplines and trends, when we need to keep our eye on baseline employment conditions. As economist Jared Bernstein noted, we must focus not just on wage trends but on wage levels. Economist Heather Boushey, too, wrote that we should move beyond the averages—which can mask many disparities—and look at how people at all levels of the earnings and income spectrum are faring.

Regardless of whether the unemployment rate tics up or down, let’s keep the following numbers front and center in discussions on workers and the economy: 53 million people earn low wages, with a median of just $10.22 per hour. That’s nearly half of the 18 to 64 workforce. If we don’t face the reality of the labor market, we can’t make it better.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2020/01/08/low-unemployment-isnt-worth-much-if-the-jobs-barely-pay/


youve not drunk the Kool-Aid

Youve dived into a pool of it and fucking drowned
 
Reactions: Beefcake

Haggis

CHB World Championship People's Champion
May 16, 2013
40,312
17,132
Crazy that people still think this way.
Standard practice for Trump supporters. Joe regularly links to garbage Holocaust-denying conspiracy blogs, and Clarence thinks that the Christchurch mosque massacres were carried out by a team of Israelis.

And I'm not even kidding. The stupid, paranoid and racist is DEEPLY embedded in the Trump base.

:hat
 
Reactions: Beefcake
Dec 7, 2016
5,764
2,091
57
He probably has an outside chance because the Democrats are such a shit show. I have a hard time believing that he would do well in the General Election as there is nothing to get excited about.
 
May 8, 2013
8,914
3,857
He probably has an outside chance because the Democrats are such a shit show. I have a hard time believing that he would do well in the General Election as there is nothing to get excited about.
His tiny stature is a problem too. In general little men do not do well with promotions, elections, etc.
 

Haggis

CHB World Championship People's Champion
May 16, 2013
40,312
17,132
His tiny stature is a problem too. In general little men do not do well with promotions, elections, etc.
Yeah, if he was a couple of inches taller he might have cracked the top 10 richest men in the world, instead of just being a pathetic 12th with only $50+ billion self-made dollars. :lol:

:hat
 
Aug 2, 2013
10,940
5,174
It would be quite a feat to pull off the nomination without participating in any of the debates. If he was really serious, he should have started a lot earlier.
 
Reactions: Major Pain