Michael Bloomberg on Other Dem Candidates: ‘Donald Trump would eat them up’
“Then I watched all of the candidates, and I just thought to myself, ‘Donald Trump would eat them up’.”
Democrat presidential hopefuls Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Bernie Sanders (I-VT), both lowly millionaires, have taken aim at late entrant former NYC mayor Michael Bloomberg (D-NY) for being a billionaire.
This is so ridiculous on its face that Bloomberg all but dismisses it by noting that any of the current crop of Democrats vying for their party’s 2020 nomination will be “eat[en] up” by President Trump.
I’m so old that I remember when Bernie railed against “millionaires and billionaires.” Over and over, for decades.
Until he became a millionaire, that is, and his schtick suddenly changed to include just “billionaires.”
He’s a bit touchy about his status among his once-reviled “millionaires and billionaires” club, however, and advises people to “write a best-selling book” if they want to be a millionaire like him. He says this knowing, of course, that his privileged position, including multiple failed runs for the presidency, has given him the name recognition and following to achieve a goal that most people, even better writers and thinkers, never can.
Both millionaire candidates are United States Senators, not exactly among we peasant classes, so it’s rather amusing to see these moneyed elitists try to tag Bloomberg as some kind of . . . moneyed elitist.
Bloomberg is a longshot to win or meaningfully compete for the Democratic nomination, but his decision to run immediately blew open the party’s battle over the influence of money, and the wealthiest Americans, on the political system.
For Sanders and Warren, Bloomberg’s campaign brings with it both an opportunity to sharpen their messages and an existential new threat: a billionaire prepared to reach deep into his near bottomless pockets in an effort to derail them, their agenda and a style of politics that more deeply engages the electorate.
The progressive senators, who have forsworn big dollar contributions, condemned Bloomberg out of the gate, with Sanders last week calling the billionaire businessman’s initial outlay an attempt to “circumvent the political process.” Absent grassroots support, Sanders said, candidates like Bloomberg had “no business running for president.”
. . . . A few days later, Warren took the unusual-for-her step of calling out Bloomberg by name in Iowa.
“I am here on Day 2 of Michael Bloomberg’s $37 million ad buy,” Warren said to laughter in Ankeny on Monday. “Michael Bloomberg is making a bet about democracy in 2020 — he doesn’t need people, he only needs bags and bags of money.”
. . . . Meanwhile, in New Hampshire, Sanders kept up his own attacks on Bloomberg.
“I understand the power of the ‘1%,’” he said at a rally in New Hampshire. “You’re seeing that right now literally with Mayor Bloomberg, who has decided to use part of his 55 billion dollars not to buy a yacht, not to buy another home, not to buy a fancy car, but to buy the United States government.”
There’s plenty to dislike and distrust about New York City’s Big Gulp-banning, would-be gun-grabbing busybody former mayor, but his being more wealthy than these millionaire senators is not at the top of the list for normal Americans.
Bloomberg, from what I can tell, has not directly responded to these ludicrous—considering the sources—attacks; instead, he’s noted that none of the current crop of Democrats can win against President Trump.
Democratic presidential contender Michael Bloomberg said in an interview that aired Friday that he believed President Trump would trounce any of the other Democratic presidential hopefuls in a head-to-head match-up, saying Trump would “eat them up.”
“I looked at our national government getting worse. The way we were behaving overseas and domestically, led by our president. I said back in 2016 he is the wrong person for the job. He doesn’t have the temperament, the ethics, or the intellect to do the job,” Bloomberg told Gayle King on “CBS This Morning.” “I watched and I said, ‘we just can’t have another four years of this.'”
“Then I watched all of the candidates, and I just thought to myself, ‘Donald Trump would eat them up,'” he continued.
According to the report, “Bloomberg later hedged on the statement, saying that he believed he was the best candidate to take on Trump in a general election. ‘Let me rephrase it. I think that I would do the best job of competing with him and beating him,’ he said.”
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
It appears that Bloomberg is oblivious to the fact that Trump will also eat him up 🙂
Bloomberg is going to get rolled because this is a national election not a NYC Mayoral election. His Bloomberg News edict of “print only bad information about Trump or you’re fired” won’t play well in Peoria. Neither will his position on firearms.
I guess someone advised him to come out swinging on limiting the First & Second Amendment rights of republicans because it seems that’s what he’s doing.
Well Bloomberg has dealt with enough politicians, regulators, city council critters and other skanks that he knows that you are either at the table—or on it. And he’s right that most of the Dem candidates don’t have the gravitas, power or brains to sit at the table. So somebody is going to eat them up. The question is whether Bloomberg can remain “at the table”.
Kamala harris’ problem was that for too long she has been literally the table (desk, actually) servicing Willie Brown.
Correct that: it should have read:
Kamala harris’ problem was that for too long she has been literally UNDER the table (desk, actually) servicing Willie Brown.
If it turns out that he can get more votes than them, then by definition his style will be shown to more deeply engage the electorate than theirs does.
That’s ridiculous. The US government is not for sale. He’s not paying people to vote for him. He’s paying for access to people, to make them aware of his candidacy and his message, and then he hopes enough of them will actually like his message and vote for him. Maybe they will and may be they won’t, but either way this is the political process.
The fact that access to voters’ attention costs money is a fact of life; Bloomberg didn’t create it and none of the others dispute it. They’re spending money too, but not having it they have to get it from others. And I understand their point that raising significant amounts of money from any one person or small set of people leads to a risk of corruption, or at least of the appearance of corruption, so those who’ve forsworn large contributions deserve some credit for that.
But obviously funding your own campaign does not carry any such risk. There is simply no ethical reason, if you have the money, why you should not spend it in this way. I understand that this makes things difficult for those who haven’t got their own money and have decided for good reasons against raising it efficiently, but surely that is their problem. Complaining about it is just the same as complaining when those with money use it to do enormous good that ordinary people can’t afford, like building hospital wings or providing clean water to third world villages, etc. Nothing is free, including the opportunity to do good, and including the ability to get people’s attention to a worthwhile (one hopes) message.
I’m actually quite happy that he’s wasting his money to try and get traction in the Democrat Parade of Hopeless Candidates. That way, he’s going to have less money to spend promoting them and other liberal candidates nationwide once somebody finally gets the nomination.
“The US government is not for sale…”
Where have you been since the elections of bill clinton and obama?
Tell me, from whom did they buy the government, and for how much?
He’s going to eat you up too, Mr. Soda Man.
What’s with the purple shirt and green tie? Can’t he afford someone to help hiom dress?
He is trying to self identify as a black man?
His policies in NY were terrible. His vision for the US is terrible. He is a control freak who thinks he has the right to create legislation to control all aspects of your life, “for your own good”… which means he and his party decide how you should live.
I hope people will soundly reject this turd. As they should if they care about the remaining freedoms we still have. That goes with removing Democrats from any form of power.
He was a wonderful mayor for NYC. Now that he isn’t actually responsible for anything, he says he’s realized his stop and frisk policies (and other non-lefty policies) were wrong. But they were a large part of the reason NYC was great under his mayorship.
Bloomberg is kind of like Bush I and Clinton, in the sense he inherited the amazing work of those before him. In Bush and Clinton’s cases, it was Ronald Reagan’s economic miracle (cut taxes, cut lefftist regluations) and Reagan’s winning of the Cold War.
Bloomberg inherited all the work Rudy Guillani did to undo the work of that utter moron David Dinkins who was mayor before Gulliani. Guilliani completely destroyed the corrupt elements within the NYPD, unleashing its 40,000 member force on criminals, instead of the NYPD being a cash cow for the NY mafia and other organized crime elements.
Bloomberg had an easy ride. So he thought he was the Second Coming, and started to regulate soda consumption and the like. With NYC’s murderous crime under control because of Guilliani, Bloomberg being the liberal he is, stated dismantling Guillani’s work.
Then came that raging idiot de blasio, who rivals obams in treason.
Yup, what we need is a squish like bloomberg, to continue to corrupt the nation and steer it back into the hands of the obamas/de blasios/pelosis etc.
Bloomberg was not a wonderful mayor. But compared to most Democrats he was reasonably sane. I voted against him at every R primary (twice in 2001, since they cancelled the first one), and in 2009, when the Dems put up a reasonably sane and not-too-corrupt challenger in Bill Thompson, was the only time I have ever voted for a Democrat.
He had Black kids searched without probable cause and he expects to get the Black vote?
Probable cause is not the relevant standard. Reasonable suspicion is.
Whether you’re right or wrong, how does that affect the black vote? I think “stop and frisk” would hurt him in the Dem primaries and even in the general election, sending some of the black vote to Trump.
That probably is a reasonable expectation on Bloomberg’s part for 2 reasons: 1) The voters, particularly liberal voters, tend to have very short memories. 2) The media talking heads will be silent on this issue. In fact, they will not use the words “frisk” and “stop” in the same sentence until after the election.
I guess Bloomberg’s plan is to be the fallback at a brokered convention. He can’t seriously be trying to win the primaries without showing up in person, and he’s not going to look good, getting old, being Mr. “stop and frisk” in NYC, and frankly being too short for a presidential candidate.
But he could be giving the Dem party elders a way to nominate him at the convention.
I suspect no one’s going into the Democrat convention with a majority of Democrats. And the second ballot won’t nominate anyone either. The horse trading to get a national candidate, any candidate, well be terrific to watch. And the final nominee will be unacceptable to at least 25% of the Democrat base who will think their preferred candidate (or 2nd choice candidate) got screwed. Think Bernie Sanders fa base if he’s not on the ticket in either spot. Do you think they’ll be happy?
He’ll buy bernie sanders a fourth house and get him off the ticket.
It works for everyone else, so why not bloomberg.
Quite a racket sanders has going, isn’t it?