As I’ve mentioned, I hope NY City Mayor Michael Bloomberg runs because we need more choices for Top Dog. But there’s nothing extraordinary about him.
As Glen Greenwald points out:
Bloomberg is basically just Rudy Giuliani with a billion or two dollars to spend to alter the election. When it comes to foreign policy, war-making and government power, he offers absolutely nothing that isn’t found in destructive abundance among the most extremist precincts in the Republican Party, while his moderate to liberal stance on social issues would prevent him from actually winning the support of his natural GOP base.
Exactly.
Practically speaking, it’s hard to see how he wins more than about 7%, the number John Anderson got back in 1980 when Reagan beat Carter. And it’s hard to see Bloomberg winning any states for the electoral college.
He would run strongest in New York. But even there, it’s unlikely he would win. His only real impact might be if he took enough Democrats in NY to throw the election to the Republican in a state that, otherwise, like California, now is solidly in the Democratic camp. If that happens — he makes NY go GOP — his actual influence on the election might be to throw the whole election to the Republican.
But I doubt if he’ll go that far. By summer, polls will show that he’s a loser. Then he’ll not want to waste more of his billions and billions and will quit, saying something like, “The people want me to continue being the best mayor I can be of the greatest city in the world, New York.” He didn’t get rich being stupid.
It always amazes me that rich guys like Bloomberg are so unimaginative. He has no original ideas. Even though he made his money in the financial sector, Bloomberg lacks the economic insight of Ron Paul, who’s self-taught in economics and is the only candidate of either major party offering what we need: a return to the gold standard.
In a similar fashion, two of Bill Gates’s big hobbies are population control even as populations around the world are declining fast and funneling money to America’s failed government schools. How unimaginative.
And Warren Buffett is obsessed with population control and tax increases. He’s the opposite of his father, the great Howard Buffett, the Ron Paul of the 1950s; Howard Buffett favored vast cuts in government, returning to the Constitution, and personal morality.
At least Bloomberg’s crash will be amusing. He would be a great foil for Ron Paul, should Paul be nominated by Republicans.
(Keep up with my blog. Sign up for my RSS feed. And click here to hire me for your writing projects.)
Posts
Bloomburg is not Giuliani with billions: he’s much more civil, and concerned about competence and effectiveness more than loyalty and power. Giuliani liked to get things done, but he liked to get things done for the glory more than anythin else. Also, Bloomburg works through consensus building and pragmatism of working with, not against people; unlike Giuliani who is a divisive ideologue.
What fantasy world do you live in where Ron Paul gets nominated by the Republicans? Bloomberg is actually putting himself out there calling for results, not talking points, how does that not appeal?