If one wants to know how Mike Bloomberg might govern as President take a look at where his money has been concentrated in. These are all issues close to the Progressive heart. He has my vote just for his efforts to reduce gun violence!
2
Bloomberg is a very smart, complicated, self-made man with a controversial and often questionable history. Instead of running for president, it would be great to see him do some real good for the country. When the democratic frontrunner emerges would be the time to step up and back that candidate to the hilt. Using his wealth, intelligence, his crack advertising team, his connections he could help that candidate, whoever it may be, become the 46th president of the United States and win the gratitude of hopefully the majority of us.
2
On the other hand, this commenter WON'T vote for Bloomberg over Trump:
"If it's Bloomberg against Trump, my vote and support will go to Trump..."
Trump is counting on there being a lot of voters who think like this one.
1
This commenter will do what's required:
"... but if ... Bloomberg vs. Trump ..., I'd go Bloomberg. But I wouldn't be enthusiastic..."
There's no "enthusiasm meter" in the voting booth. Every vote counts the same, whether or not the voter is enthusiastic.
1
I've never heard what this commenter writes:
"Donald Trump is handing out envelopes of cash to black people to try to buy their support ... "
Is it true, or did the commenter just make it up?
Bloomberg seems to have an unbelievably large 'footprint' in charitable giving and its primary focus seems to me to address the scandal of America leading the world in gun deaths. That sounds good, of course. So the question that occurs to me is:
Why then hasn't Bloomberg's primary charitable foci not had more success? After all, America also leads the world in the turndown in expected length of life and in low value for money spent on healthcare, both fields in which Bloomberg's giving to John Hopkins U are very notable (and therefore sound good also).
Is there some factor in Bloomberg's style of operating that are ineffective in bringing about truly good changes in US communities? Are they actually in this late-blooming Democrat phenomenon that is Michael Bloomberg?
Perhaps the personification of the approach that assumes 'money can buy anything and everything of value just so long as you have enough of it' is reaching beyond itself in the US? Often saying "our checkbook is our values" doesn't make that true. If that were actually true, my values, I must confess in all honesty, would scarcely be noticeable.
So what values do you want in a president?
It doesn’t seem like rocket science to me. A guy who is smart enough to trust science on climate change, gun violence, health care, has a good head on his shoulder for finances and management, and has a conscience. With experience on the world stage. Who else but Bloomberg ?
4
What is Bloomberg's footprint?
lots of myopia here. Take a longer viewpoint: Bloomberg/Klobuchar ticket for 2020, again in 2024, or Klobuchar/Butigieg in 2024.... and certainly K/B in 2028... Taking a long view would allow a reversal of the Trump damage to the court system. I sure with the Democratic party leadership would learn to play chess instead of checkers....
2
Mike Bloomberg has donated millions to Planned Parenthood, an organization that has performed more abortions than any other provider. He has also donated millions to Emily’s List, a promoter of abortion. He gives money to all sorts of progressive causes and of course is looking for support from those organizations. He does not hesitate to buy his way into the presidency. He did this with his third term of mayor and will do it again. Do not let him fool you. He is an opportunist.
2
If Bloomberg wants to help defeat Trump, the best thing he could do it run against him as a Republican candidate. That would represent the most largess he could donate to the Democratic Party.
1
Donald Trump is handing out envelopes of cash to black people to try to buy their support -- OK. Michael Bloomberg is doing exactly the same thing with more reach and sophistication --using donations to various groups to buy the support of people who would have no rational reason to support him on the basis of his record alone. (And since Bloomberg is not only flooding the airwaves with ads but also paying social media "influencers" to talk him up --we need to use whatever means we have to stop him). If you're considering supporting Bloomberg because you somehow think his wealth makes him more "electable" against Trump -- please reconsider. Don't solidify the oligarchy.
2
An alarming number of the comments frame this as Bloomberg vs. Trump already, completely skipping the rest of the primary season. I am very alarmed that we are so ready to trade one billionaire for another, even if Bloomberg is a 'better' billionaire. That still means giving up on a real democracy, and surrendering to plutocracy. The tax system creates huge benefits for billionaire charitable giving, but instead of say donating to a fund whose donations are decided by a board of community members, the guy who made billions on Wall Street, which itself causes growing inequality, short-sightedness in areas like climate change, among other ills, he gets to pick his pet causes. I personally like most of Bloomberg's causes, but the system that allows them is rotten.
Also, in addition to stop and frisk, Bloomberg has a long and ugly history of sexual harassment and fomenting a hostile work environment for female employees, including a court case in which numerous witness saw him tell a pregnant employee to "kill it". The Washington Post just published a lengthy article about it.
I will not vote for Bloomberg in the primary, but if it does indeed come down to a Bloomberg vs. Trump contest, I'd go Bloomberg. But I wouldn't be enthusiastic about it.
2
I can't read the article as they only show the map. But I'll say this. Bloomberg needs to show himself. Get interviewed. Answer questions. Otherwise he will look like a coward. He has to show himself or it's over.
1
Has anyone been reading the horrible things this man has said openly to and around employees in his company. When he found that one employee was pregnant he said: "Kill it", loudly so many could hear. Then, "I guess that's 16!". Bemoaning the loss of profit due to the women who had become pregnant and would miss time laboring for his company. When a woman complained about getting childcare, he said: "What's the big deal? You change the baby, feed the baby, maybe go for a walk. Just get some Black for that." (paraphrasing but the "Get some Black" s a quote. Plus many references to oral sex and general misogyny all the time. And setting up a "frat house" environment where his executives went after young female employees for sex like that was the purpose of the work. Two sexual abuse complaints were held up in court by his employees. Is this the person we want in the White House??? Not me!
5
Haven't we had enough businessmen as Presidents - GW Bush, Trump, and now Bloomberg. If we haven't learned anything, you can't run a country like a business, and besides he still thinks there are too many corporate regulations. Better for the environment and maybe gun control, but would that be worth it? Sanders can't beat Trump, but another business guy. I don't like it.
The Democrats will make a big mistake in their search for the perfect 'woke' candidate that promotes far left policies that have emerged over the last 10 years, most tied to identity politics. First, most citizens do not want a woke, far left candidate. Second, moderates and independents do not want to radically transform the US to a socialist or communist country. Yes, most believe in helping those in need, but most do NOT want to create a government supported mass of able bodied workers that don't work. Yes, most believe that immigration is a good thing, but not open borders and not immigration that results in masses needing social programs because they are uneducated, illiterate, or entitled.
I agree with enhanced policing and enforcing laws; broken windows and even stop and frisk were not evil policies, but instead policies designed to stop escalating criminal behavior. The pendulum never seems to stop in the middle, but I'm hoping the Bloomberg stops apologizing for his past policies.
Bloomberg's sensible responses to issues that get exaggerated because they're trending, may be anathema to official positions taken by Democrats and liberal institutions. Which may be why elections keep getting won by alternative politicians, including those who perpetuate truly bad behavior and views when it comes to those issues.
On this side of the Pond Mr. Bloomberg appears as the only Democrat capable of beating president Trump. And that's good news for the USA, and for the EU too, and for transatlantic dialogue, and for the return to the practice of diplomacy in American foreign policy.
2
@G. Pec. I am not sure how you have come to this conclusion. This article certainly does not talk about any international awareness of Mr. Bloomberg. We, the rest of us, are adapting to America First so no worries.
In the event that Mike Bloomberg wins the Democratic party nomination, one can only hope that the Bernie supporters who sat out the 2016 general election or voted for Donald Trump or Jill Stein as a protest vote rather than vote for Hillary will not repeat the same colossal mistake this time around. With our Constitution and democratic institutions under daily siege, defeating Donald Trump should be the overriding priority of all voters who seek to restore and protect our democracy.
1
I have a hard time understanding why Michael Bloomberg deserves to be criticized for spending his own fortune to defeat Trump. The same Democrats who criticize him for trying to buy an election are out fund-raising from others as fast as they can to raise as much money as they can, in large or small chunks, to buy the election for themselves through evers-larger campaign spending, widely considered a key parameter of success. Why is that hat-in-hand pleading for dodnor cash purer or preferable to spending your own self-made, lawfully made wealth? Is it, by some inversion of common sense, better to be beholden to others who've supported your political ambition than to be beholden to no one but the person you see in your mirror? The wealthy who're lavishly financing some Democratic aspirants' campaigns are no different from their predecessors; they expect their money will someday buy them access if they need it. The Democrats can't afford the naivete of pretending otherwise if they hope to end the Age of Trump.
2
While some are attacking Bloomberg because of his great wealth, it's helpful to remind those who call themselves 'progressives' recognize that, in terms of American political progress, the very rich presidents we've had have done more to promote progressive causes and reform.
Of course one can begin with George Washington himself who was, in his time, likely the richest man in America...not just the leader of the Revolutionary Army defeated the British. As a one presenter of those days, he could have opted to become a king. That was a real possibility offered by the Congress. But he refused and he set the standard for all the statesmen/patriots who followed him.
Theodore Roosevelt brought great trust busting reforms to the lives of working class people and children, and he came from one of the richest families in America at the time. And, of course, his 5th cousin Franklin Roosevelt came at a crucial time with his efforts to cheer a discouraged and depressed people and then guide the nation through a terrible war while creating the programs of the greatest expansions of the Middle Class in the history of the world.
And the Kennedys whose leadership inspired a generation of Americans to civil rights and service to country followed by the very wealthy LBJ whose Voting Rights and Civil Rights acts brought unequaled opportunity to millions of people of color.
Maybe rich people aren't so bad after all. Bloomberg is a real billionaire, not a fake one like Trump.
3
The fact that someone can buy their way into contender status in the democratic primary is extremely concerning. Bloomberg has a lot of baggage from past policies and statements he’s made (redlining, stop-and-frisk, #metoo etc.), has not been tested on the debate stage, will be 79 years old by the time the next president will be inaugurated, and was a Republican until 2018!
I keep seeing comments where people say they prefer another candidate but are voting for Bloomberg because they think he can beat Trump. This type of over-analyzing could cost Democrats the election. History has shown that we’re not that good at predicting who is “electable.” We’d all be better off if everyone voted for the candidate that inspires and excites them the most, and whose ideas and policies they support. Then we’d get the candidate that inspires and excites the most people, instead of the candidate that people (mistakenly) believe their neighbors will be willing to vote for.
A man with wealth of >60 Billion dollars gives <10% of it to charitable causes. Does anyone believe that isn't money spent for his own political gain? Why not donate it to other's campaigns? Others have given their lives to public service. I'm voting for one of them, even if they can't beat Trump. The worth of one's life isn't measured in USD.
If there are other articles like this for Bloomberg without acknowledging the lives of public service of the other candidates given at least as much light, there is not much reason to continue to subscribe. I hope the Times does better.
1
@Leroy Bloomberg has donated more than $500 million to Democratic political candidates. He has pledged that if he isn’t the nominee he will keep his network in tact for the nominee and donate as much as possible to defeat Trump. Read up a little more.
3
I very much enjoyed the front page article on Bloomberg this morning. I fully support him because I believe he is the only candidate who can beat Trump. He also might contribute to flipping the Senate. I hadn't known before that he had helped so much to flip the House.
I do think however, that he should select Amy Kobachar as vice president. then we'll have a woman president in a few years!
2
Bloomberg may have been elected mayor of NYC three times but it's doubtful there is a single, small midwestern town he could win once. Banning Big Gulps, coal plants and demonizing gun owners isn't a winning message anywhere outside the coastal enclaves he shelters himself. His record of demeaning women as reported in the Washington Post certainly won't play well with suburban women and his bigoted view of young minority males won't play well in traditional democrat urban areas.
Clearly he prefers to stay behind the scenes, spending millions of dollars running ads against state attorneys general and politicians who represent their constituents instead of his personal agenda. A half billion dollars worth of scripted, fawning ads can project an attractive persona but he can't hide behind them forever. Soon, voters will witness his patriarchal condescension in front of live cameras. When they do it won't take much to knock him off the elevated platform he demanded the debate committee provide him.
A lot of Democrats have attacked Ralph Nader and Bernie Sanders, claiming that they are destroying the Democratic Party.
But it is Bloomberg's overt corruption that is openly destroying the Democratic Party by exposing its rank money driven politics.
2
Bernie isn't "electable" because he's 78 years old. Bloomberg is 78 years old. Bernie has described himself as a Democratic socialist; Warren was a Republican; those are strikes against them. Bloomberg has been a Republican, an independent, and a Democrat, but that's okay. Obama, Pelosi, Kerry, Hillary Clinton and other Democratic heavy hitters have made it clear that they don't want Sanders. There's a reason Bloomberg would prefer to avoid being on a stage with the remaining candidates. His persona is robot-like, and his sarcasm wears thin quickly. What played in NYC isn't going to be attractive to 18 to 40 year olds in most states. Bernie Sanders has changed the rhetoric and thrust of the Democratic Party over the last four years, but the DNC seems to prefer an extreme capitalist to a moderate socialist. Where's Bloomberg's policy platform? So far all I get from him is that he can buy the election and is the "anti-Trump."
2
So we ought to run a Republican who recently became a Democrat against a Democrat who recently became a Republican. What a combination. Then we have the next best choice of someone who's never been a Democrat as the Democratic candidate with almost no chance to win.
Reply to Mark Kessinger: I think the premise of your post is incorrect. The Democratic candidate doesn’t need a single Republican vote. She or he merely needs Democratic and independent voters to actually turn out and vote. I suspect Bloomberg will appeal to many of us who are horrified and disgusted by the current administration. (I rather like the bumper sticker: “Any adult in 2020”.)
2
Chilling. Regardless of whether you agree with his policies (I agree with some, not all) the idea of a president who got there by literally buying everyone out (and silencing those who disagreed with him) is scary. Dems, is this the best we can do?
3
Beware of Bloomberg he’s a shifty character: During the 3 N.Y. City mayoral races he won he constantly shifted parties.
In 2000 he was a Democrat and in 2001 he shifted to the Republican party, then in 2007 he shifted-back to the Democratic party. Finally, he became an Independent in 2009 for the last N.Y. City mayoral race.
Now he has shifted-back once-more to the Democratic party to run for President!
2
Nobody is perfect, as is noted here.
However, those currently in power, for their personal self-aggrandizement, their dishonesty, their destruction of our country, our democracy, our earth, and the future for our children, for themselves, I am grateful that there will be some potentially viable opposition for our future, before all of our lives and our country and earth, are forever destroyed.
1
I appreciate this article. It is clear eyed. It shows the good with potentially the..."un-woke" aspects of the man. If it's a hit piece it doesn't completely work. It also shows what is human about Mr. Bloomberg. The Sanders surrogates have tried to paint him as an oligarch and he doesn't appear that way - he gives too much of his money to causes oligarchs gnash their teeth over. Causes I agree with.
I want to beat Trump. I want the Citizens United-bought Republicans out of office. I want our world to achieve progress in the crisis that faces us all - the climate crisis. I want someone who can end-run the NRA and do something about the proliferation of guns in our cities, and someone who back quality education that lifts whole communities. I don't think Bloomberg is gonna get into the White House and then rub his hands together like Lex Luthor. He seems bent on doing good in the world. If the Democratic purity test is having a hard time wrapping its mind around his candidacy, that's a shame. We are none of us perfect. I am strongly considering voting for Bloomberg.
2
Face it; we are in an age of money-driven politics. I would rather have a pragmatic President who made his money by really building a Financial Empire that one who made his money by, Cheating, lying, and stealing from others.
I also think he could truly work with both sides of the aisle to get things moving again. This stagnation created by lobbyists who want to keep the status quo is really not helping the country move forward. If he would support Senatorial term limits, then I would vote for him no matter what party he ran with.
1
Can he beat Trump? That is the only thing that matters. He is a saint compared to the current occupant of 1600 PA Ave. I don't think a macho work place environment, some profanity and stop and frisk for which he has apologized for should be the only criteria here. Democrats need to put their purity tests on the back burner and concentrate on saving our democracy. Bernie the socialist may be able to, but just as easily may NOT be able, to win enough states but Bloomberg probably can.
2
If Bloomberg really does support all of these causes, why did he back Pat Toomey in the PA Senator race, helping to give Mitch McConnell a majority in the Senate? Because literally nothing having to do with guns, healthcare, climate or anything else is going to get past this Senate, not to mention all of the right-wing judges that Bloomberg has now helped get seated.
Putting your money where your mouth is, is a good thing.
Defending Charlie Rose against charges almost impossible to believe (until he admitted them) is not a bad thing.
Spreading your charity instead of concentrating it is a good thing.
Working with people you know and trust is not a bad thing.
Committing your Golden Years to public service is a good thing.
Opposing gun violence is a not a bad thing.
Supporting climate change research is a good thing.
Comparing Mike Bloomberg to Tom Steir on only one dimension is unfair. Suggesting that wealthy President's should not have run is not defensible.
Stop and frisk is what happens everytime you fly with an airline or enter a foreign country.
Supporting women political candidates is not good or bad.
Mike Bloomberg has done nothing wrong. And there are more than a few things to like.
1
The race for president is dominated by white males, who are getting older and older. I am somewhat disgusted. I fear that Bernie Sanders will have another heart attack sometime between now and swearing in, if he wins. Or maybe it will be in the first couple of years in office. I like what Bernie Sanders is fighting for but why couldn't we get this in a younger package? And worse, Bloomberg is just as old. Sigh.
Bloomberg is very intriguing, because he is already perturbing Trump. He came out fighting. I like that. If he does not win the nomination, he would be a great running partner.
I would love to see these attributes in someone different from an 80-year-old white male. That is why I am making Warren my first choice. Bernie's intense personality will be self-lethal. Unless he plans on choosing a young running mate, this will be a major weakness.
As a moderate, I pledge to vote for any of the current candidates, if they win. Some will make me grimace as I vote, but they are all yards better than what we get with Trumpism.
53
I enjoyed this. My liberal friends have adopted the Sanders mantra that Bloomberg is suspect because he is a billionaire. He is self-made (unlike Trump), has devoted several billion to charity AND spent 12 years doing public service. I get angry with the idea that because of his wealth he is suspect. What are people really saying? You should not be successful based on your intellect and intelligence? Seems like after becoming successful, he has done everything one could expect...served the public, worked diligently of excellent causes (gun control, sugar). Are we are now at the point that simply being wealthy based on your own efforts makes you a "bad person". That is really sad.
77
@NYT reader But, you forget to mention the many lawsuits filed against Bloomberg & Co for fostering a workplace climate of sexual harassment and degradation. We already have a President of that ilk--we certainly don't need another one. And then there's Bloomberg's controversial stop-and-frisk policy while he was the NY city major. That is also sad.
12
@NYT reader I agree. Mr. Bloomberg has epitomized noblesse oblige, something our founding fathers believed in. He has the right to put his money where is mouth is and if it buys him good will so be it. As for the idea that he is "buying" the election, so is every other candidate, he's just doing it with his own money. This appeals to me and probably scares the heck out of a lot of influencers because they can no longer buy their way to owning the President. He will owe only the voter.
15
@NYT reader
Bloomer has been a Democrat since 2018! Less than 2 years.
More than his wealth is suspect. He could enlist an unwholy Republican cabinet. I appreciate his anti-Trump spot-on ads. But he appears to be another bored billionaire. He may not be entirely bad but his campaign is that of another narcissist.
Bernie, Biden, and Bloomy had their time. They made good. They might be excellent advisors, but they can't serve a whole, let alone 2nd term. Trump is even physically older. All four are in denial.
I am 63 and agree with Jimmy Carter, age matters.
6
"Empire of Influence"? Is that some New York way of saying he bribed a lot of people to see things his way? Bloomberg is a wolf in sheep's clothing. He's a spoiler for the Dems and will put Trump back in his Out House when he splits the delegates. If Bloomberg was serious about this thing he would run as a Republican and fight Trump. But he doesn't have the backbone. He can't be trusted.
One individual amasses $60 billion in their lifetime, and is lauded for being “successful”. From a different vantage point one sees another capitalist robber baron, exploiting working stiffs, and politically corrupted corporate regulatory, tax, financial and legal systems to maximize personal profit. Billionaires don’t become billionaires by dint of their “labor”; it’s all about shamelessly exploiting other peoples labor and money.
Bloomberg continued and supported Giuliani's stop and frisk as good policy and the key factor in reducing crime, when stats clearly show crime rates dropped universally in the 90s in all major American cities whether or not stop and frisk was policy. In the end, Bloomberg gets no black vote and no Latino vote. Gamer over. Move on.
1
NYTimes thank you for this article. I was beginning to fall into the trap of "anyone but Trump" and that Bloomberg could win and give Trump a run for his $. Now I am thinking, it's not okay to buy the presidency! I don't want a president who was and is willing to use unconstitutional, unlawful, racist actions for any reason at any time. NO EXCUSE. We got this.
1
Bloomberg, a Democrat since 2018? Because of Trump?
Or naked ambition like Trump?
I love his video spot anti-Trump ads. Thank you, MB for those. But buying the Democratic votes for your current fancy isn't helping much. Would you then seek a Republican cabinet?
We already have Biden and Bernie, (also not a Democrat), too old to scold candidates. You could be worse than Trump and the Russians.
I will cast a vote for real Democrats in all 3 houses.
We have to face a certain reality. and we have done our very best to ignore a sad fact. We the people, are a giant mess. We have lost our humanity, our kindness, our sense of pride and purpose. I used to blame it on 9/11, but now I just blame us. Period. Trump has become our excuse when he is the actual poster boy for reflecting what a shallow mess we have created.
I do know that Trump has not fixed it and I do not believe any progressive hand-outs will fix it either.
We need somebody to make us face what a puddle of submission and exhaustion we have climbed into. We started out fighting back , but now we sit silently quiet while the parade of truly giant messes rolls past us.
I do not believe any one person can be the solution. but, at least with Bloomberg, he will NEVER be the problem and I can take comfort in his activism and desire to keep this Democracy healthy and viable.
And, one last bit of applause for not allowing the tweeter in chief to bully, insult or humiliate him without his own retribution. It is downright inspiring to see someone refuse to be Trump's victim for the day, the week or the month. Should help us remember that we too, can fight back. We need to stop allowing ourselves to sit down and shut up. I think Bloomberg might give us back our voices. We shall see if they still work.
1
There are points that get lost in this debate.1. What Federal policies is Bloomberg promoting ? So far they are similar to other Dem candidates if not as encompassing Sander's and Warren's.2. Does being filthy rich automatically mean you are bad and does being poor make you 100% good and worthy? 3. Should the Democratic party split after we get rid of Trump,( that is, if we do?) Into moderates and progressives? Israel, for example, is a Democracy with many parties. My moral self prefers Bernie,who is unlikely to get his more radical plans through congress, but my anti- autocrat self says it takes a billionaire to know one and Bloomberg stands the best chance of beating Trump. Plus he is obviously smarter as well as richer.
1
I think I located Trump's philanthropic contributions: it's the little dot between $2 and 3 under "2018."
What we are learning is that Michael Bloomberg is a great manager with a lot of terrible ideas.
Can you please add an annual estimate of Drumpf's thievery? Just for contrast.
This is such a disingenuous article. What looks like a critique is blatant press for Bloomberg's donations to liberal causes, which the majority of moderate Times' readers will see as a positive.
The guy buys his friends and buys off his foes, the guy is buying the election and dems are okay with this because he is status quo, pre-trump, republican lite-- especially the media. His policy stances on racial profiling and housing would be considered racist if it came from a republican-- even though he is a republican.
The choice is clear: will moderate dems support a republican billionaire because he is now "woke" and apologetic and because he has invested billions in his political career through donations? The investment has paid off.
"Little Mike" will be destroyed by Trump in the general and in any debate. Bloomberg has no chance of winning swing states, and just wait until more information keeps popping up. Think about how much we've learned in just one week.
Moderate dems and corporate media want the most moderate candidate to beat Trump instead of a candidate that is: 1)Popular, 2)Energizes the base, 3) Has a chance of winning independents.
I forgot, these candidates always lose and it's the moderate dems who always win.
I'm done with republican lite policies and dem politicians.
1
Aren't many of Bloomberg's mega-"charitable" contributions tax deductible? Is giving him tax breaks for his powerbuilding how voters get skin in his campaign -- like it or not? By, for and of the money. No thanks.
Just because a billionaire donated money to good causes doesn't in any way, shape, or form mean they are fit for office. Buying the WH is EXACTLY what we need to buck against. Especially from a Republican in Dem clothing. Let's not swap one swamp for another.
Mike Bloomberg once stated that his last wish will be "to bounce the check to the undertaker." In Mrs. Robinson we were told "every way you look at it you lose" — but not this time — Mr. Bloomberg may not be the "perfect candidate" for POTUS (has there ever been?), but all things considered, he may be perfect for the moment.
2
Hmm, Trump or Bloomberg? Darned if we do, darned if we don’t.
Those defending Bloomberg has somehow seeing the "light" on stop and frisk He is STILL lying about it. He issued a press release saying he reduced it by 70% which is patently false. He claimed 90% of the crime was committed by young men of color also false. One key thing people need to know ( and New Yorkers should know) When taken to court by the ACLU for both Stop and Frisk and spying on the Muslim community, Bloomberg attacked the judges who ruled against and compared the ACLU to the NRA. I understand people want to defeat Trump but Bloomberg is basically a kinder. gentler , richer and smarter Vs of Trump an arrogant rich man who does NOT care about working people and will do or say anything to get elected.
The only differences I see between Trump and Bloomberg is that Bloomberg is richer and more arrogant than Trump if the latter is even possible. I was planning to vote for and support the Democratic nominee whomever that might be except for Bloomberg. If it's Bloomberg against Trump, my vote and support will go to Trump as the lesser of the two evils.
12
@Mike F. Well, we can all hope that the majority of the electorate has a better informed definition of evil.
46
@Mike F.
Both are Donny and Mike are bored rich narcissists but Trump is far and away more evil and illiterate.
Bloomer became a Democrat less than 2 years ago? Trump changed his party affiliation 5x since he decided to run for POTUS in 1987. Ask what the individuals running's motivations are?
Biden, Bernie, Bloomy and Trump don't pass the smell test and likely can't physically make it successfully through one, let alone 2 terms with the demands of the job.
Jimmy Carter warned us. I am 63 so you can't say I don't know either. You can't ignore Trump's unfitness.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=-Ue5F57dZMU
5
@Bob Simple solution... Avoid the situation by voting for someone other than Bloomberg in your state's primary.
3
People, people, get a grip! All this speculation about Bloomberg as Democrats' savior is completely divorced from political reality. Hillary didn't lose because she couldn't count on liberals. She lost because working-class people in swing states were fed up with living on crumbs from the Establishment's table. They threw caution to the winds and bet on an outrageous charlatan populist. What does billionaire Bloomberg have to offer these critical voters that Hillary didn't?
30
@farmerdave You perhaps are making the wrong comparison. This is 2020, and what Bloomberg represents versus the incumbent is honesty, competence and integrity. If that's not enough to win your vote, you apparently have learned nothing in the last three years. You were the victim of a con man.
20
@Bob Uhh, I don't think you get my point. If Bloomberg wins the nomination, I will of course support him. But the virtues you attribute to him [and I'm not sure any others than competence apply] are not anything like enough to win the critical battleground states. I applaud some of his causes, but I seriously doubt he offers anything to draw the votes, rather than the contempt, of economically-challenged youth, minority and working-class voters.
5
I would love to see Bloomberg debate Trump. It would be a spectacle for the ages.
And a huge comic relief.
For that alone, he should get the nomination.
Get Trump out of office. We can righten policy and democracy once that happens.
I believe this is the man who brilliantly know how to do this.
He knows how to fight Trump on his own turf. On any turf really.
He can flip the man in so many ways.
49
Warren refuses to get tough on illegal immigation, so she is out of the picture.
Bernie wont win.
So lets take Mike. He is a strong decent man. He has form.
Go mike .
2
Bloomberg should drop out. Who does he think he is?
The influence of corporate, personal and philanthropic largess is a serious problem for our democracy. We've seen the Kock brothers exert their influence. While I admire Mike Bloomberg from his being an Eagle Scout to an extraordinary successful business man and generous philanthropist, I am wary of philanthropists who use their generosity to advance their personal personal political goals.
Bloomberg is another wealthy racist, misogynist, like Trump, and would be an oligarch if elected. His presidency would be the final nail in coffin of democracy.
Michael Bloomberg is a mid level multi-billionaire submissive to multi trillionaires. Those who control the minority but controlling shares of the US-Federal-Reserve, Bank-of-England, Bank-of-International-Settlements, World-Bank & International-Monetary-Fund, issue money to submissive underlings.
Etymologies show us how low/anti-social we have devolved as an oligarch owned & commanded society.
'Money' (Greek 'mnemosis' = 'memory') is meant to recognize the contributions which are made to our collective wealth as part of the accounting of all humanity's worldwide 'indigenous' (Latin 'self-generating') ancestry. Recognizing everyone's contribution through accounting was expressed in an integrated system of: a) Capital (L 'cap ' = 'head' = 'collective-intelligence'), b) Currency ('flow'), c) Condolence (social-security), d) Collegial mentored-apprenticeship educational Credit, e) time-math Communication, f) professional Costume & much more. The indigenous period of human empowerment lasted 100s of 1000s of years. Exogenous institutions indoctrinate us to be amnesic of our heritage & how to collaborate peacefully & abundantly, systematically across whole continents, hemispheres & the world. This system of Economic Democracy within the universal progressive ownership of the ~100 person Multihome-Dwelling-Complexes & specialized Production-Society-Guilds formed an Economic Democracy. https://sites.google.com/site/indigenecommunity/relational-economy/8-economic-democracy
Can someone please tell me why the NY Times despises Bloomberg so much? Is it out of fear that their favorite socialist, Bernie will fade (if he has not started so far)? Or is just out of spite? All of a sudden there seems to be a plethora of anti-Bloomberg stories and opinion pieces here. Or is just me? Is it too early for a Scotch, or too late?
2
I'm shocked and appalled to see this article gain so much support from the readership. This is clearly another one of Bloomberg's media usurpations - pay enough money and people will say nice things about you. This is gross. Bloomberg is a racist, he made life in NYC hell for millions of POC during his reign of stop and frisk terror. It's sad to see the NY Times readership support this behavior. OR maybe it shows the privilege and hypocrisy of the Left. We need Bernie, not another hypocritical white guy in office.
1
There is no comparison between Bloomberg and Trump. None. We will be far and away better off with Mr. Bloomberg. Not having to beg for funds from special interests or mislead Main Street with unrealistic promises is a big ace in the hole. He has been generous and smart in his charitable giving. I think that says a lot about the man. And while I don’t agree with his entire platform I am for him. Bet he’ll pick a Cracker Jack running mate too.
Ps I’m a Republican
71
Mike Bloomberg has given billions of his money away to progressive causes with the hope of getting something in return. This is buying his way into the election. It will not work. He has to first win the Democratic presidential nomination and it will be difficult. He has a lot of competition and he will not have an easy time at the debates. The other candidates are just waiting to pounce on Mike Bloomberg. It will not be easy on the debate stage. And then if he should ever get the nomination which is doubtful he will be up against the greatest debater of all time Donald Trump. It will not be an easy task.
@KMW DJT the greatest debater of all time? Is KMW another alter ego of DJT? Have you emailed the NY Post lately to see if they have the latest gossip on Trump’s sexual conquests? Trump is a terrible debater? He comes across as childish, petty and uneducated. He speaks in big platitudes followed by “and only I, i alone, can solve this.”
I support the way Michael Bloomberg has incorporated philanthropy with his political issues. Whenever I hear about new billionaires, young people in the tech world--I notice that none of them use their wealth to help their communities or to address some of our country's urgent needs. Too many of our children grow up in poverty, without enough to eat or a safe place to live.It is about time, no it is urgent for the latest nouveau riche to use their wealth to help others.
3
I see in these comments a lot of support for Bloomberg.
I am and always have been as disgusted by wealth and income inequality as just about anyone. I am hyper skeptical of billionaires and find that level of wealth obscene. I love Warren's idea of a wealth tax -- maybe finding it too modest -- but at least politically doable. I like most of what Sanders champions but am a bit less convinced of him as a candidate than I was in 2016.
Bloomberg will not get my vote in the primary. But if he's nominated, he's my man. As several have indicated here, I will support him fully and vote for him in a heartbeat for POTUS.
Keep in mind this would be a way of separating him from yet more of his billions, beyond his philanthropy, for a great cause: removal of that disaster sullying the White House. And just think, it would create a lot more good-paying jobs for campaigners.
4
So, Bloomberg's smart, not stupid. He puts his money where is mouth is. And, he's all in. If not, why bother?
3
To the skeptics of Mike Bloomberg's competency, including the press, what would you have him do with his money. Sit on it while corruption rules the government?
A billion dollars ($1;000,000,000) is the equivalentof 1,000 millionaires combined, each with $1,000,000). Multiply that by 50 and you have Mike Bloomberg's wealth.
Stop and Frisk. How about the White House "stop and grope" policy.
Don't hold a grudge.
Don't throw out the baby with the bath water.
Don't cut off your nose to spite your face.
Mike Bloomberg is the only one who understands that you don't trounce Trump with policy, you do it by smashing his ego; his fake hair and beauty parlor sessions, his fake sun tan, his huge rump, his cheating at golf, his failure with women he doesn't pay, his fairlures in business, his cheating his contractors, and, it looks like he has fake veneered teeth, similar to his entire familar.
13
@Samm aka ego annihilation. It can be done.
1
Remember the time Trump walked in to some charity “do” and took a seat on the dais as though he were a big honored donor—when in fact he’dnever given the charity a cent? And how Trump’s own charitable foundation was shut dow because of all his self dealing!?
It looks from this like Bloomberg, in his charitable giving in addition to his self made wealth, really is—as an NYT pundit observed—“everything Donald Trump pretends to be.”
9
@Steel Magnolia
Lets hope that he does not emulate "The Donald."
Bloomberg doesn't pay y'all to write positive shill for him at all does he? I mean he is not even close to the frontrunner. I defy anyone to find a positive story about Sanders (he isn't a billionaire, so he is selfish) anywhere in the Times or Post. He is presently the frontrunner, but you won't even find constructive criticism of his policies, just constant lies and total hysteria. I am just about done with the Times.
4
@Dave I agree such a disingenuous article that is blatant press for Bloomberg. Most of the Times' readers will see it as reason to support Bloomberg. Bloomberg will be destroyed in the general, let's not be delusional.
the graphics on this story are completely annoying & prevent the reader from actually reading the text.
PLEASE:
some of us know how to read & read the paper because that's what we want to do: READ.
enough with the namby-pamby, show-off graphics.
7
@ABullard: Totally agree. NYTimes graphics are getting more and more complicated and completely indecipherable to me. I just scroll past them, but in this piece they seemed to go on forever.
Shame on the New York Times for this pathetic effort to try to rationalize bad behavior as long as Michael Bloomberg spends his money to help elect female candidates. Please. Why don't you read your competition, about how Bloomberg's telling his female employees who got pregnant to "kill" their fetuses, and his so-called book of sayings in which he gives misogyny and womanizing a bad name. You really shouldn't do this. You so badly want anyone but Trump you would promote someone with a worse record? This takes it all.
4
Take the money and defeat Donald Trump.
Everything else is gravy.
2
Bloomberg is a CCP apologist. Vote for Bloomberg if you want to vote for China.
4
Can dems be bought? Mike believes they are for sale.
3
Adelson vs Bloomberg....who ill buy the Presidency
1
Mr. Bloomberg is one of the great philanthropists (big word- means lover of man) of the last 100 years. You can criticize him for other things but you cannot criticize his great humanity. Among his many gifts, when JOhns Hopkins had a major donor pull out from a gift to support research into the immun system and cancer, Mr. Bloomberg stepped forward and gave $50 million at a moments notice. Contrast what he has done with the actions of the Donald whose meager charitable organization was court mandated to be dissolved because he was not using money for charity but for his own gain. The contrast between Mr. Bloomberg and the so-called president is stark. One is a phil-anthropist (see above), the other is a rat.
5
[[...Bloomberg is now asking Democrats to make by anointing him their presidential nominee.]]
"Anointing"? Really?
Democrats are going to "ceremonially confer divine or holy office upon" Bloomberg?
2
Bloomberg is a worse option than Biden -- both are status quo Democrats, or worse. Wake up, USA country! It's not only way past time to be rid of Trump (although with all he's done + the ridiculous Republicans glued to him, really being "rid" will take eons) but it's time for mega change! ...to be a better place for Americans and within the world.
2
Bloomberg's campaign needs to be hobbled immediately. His racist policies and views, his sexism, his oligarchic approach... it is the opposite of where this country needs to go. His campaign is an insult to all working people. #NeverBloomberg
1
He bought New York City.
He's bought philanthropies.
He's bought his accusers' silence.
He's bought his own media.
He's bought influencers.
He's bought consultants.
He's bought your screen.
He's bought your friends.
He's probably bought your dog.
He will spend what it takes to buy America.
4
@Josh: He hasn't bought anything from me yet, but if he wants to pay top dollar for my baseball card collection, I'll take it!
2
Trump is not qualified to be president. He lies cheats and steals
how do you explain this to hyour kids.
2
At his stage of trump Presidency, Mr. Bloomberg is our only hope !
Shameless trump needs to be defeated by someone and Mr. Bloomberg is the one who is capable of doing it.
trump is drooling at his mouth to run againse Bernie Sanders, because some of us believe Sanders if the nominee , hw would be defeates by trump.
That can not happen.
So Mr. Bloomberg please don`t mess it up for thre sake of saving the Country.
5
I'll probably vote for Klobuchar on Super Tuesday, but I would happily vote for Bloomberg in November. A humane establishment plutocrat is better than a nascent fascist. *The* lesson of the history of the 20th Century is, given a choice between a fascist and anyone else, pick anyone else.
6
This article fails to mention Bloomberg's biggest source of laundered campaign resources: his media empire, which relentlessly pushes an open-borders agenda and mocks struggling American workers.
Also, everyone on this thread getting money from Bloomberg should disclose themselves. But that would go against marching orders, right?
3
On one hand Bloomberg is a desperation vote for black voters and for me.
I'm white and nothing separates me from black who are sophisticated, savvy,
forgiven and very hopeful & kind people.
Just like all other spectrum of human colors, they come in many different shades.
So Bloomberg is a big dilemma for everyone who votes.
Maybe we should be more pragmatic just like black people, who have it in abundance through every stage of life and struggles for equality, but I have a feeling, that now they reached the moment of taking power in their hands,
just like all rainbow of all our colors...
We all feel this big moment in time, and we bracing and fear the wrong choice.
I trust the black people wisdom and will follow the Bloomberg desperation vote, if he wins...even I'm truly progressive.
But Bloomberg understands how to shrink trump to his real lilliputian, dwarf size...he just called him fat and stupid in response to his small-minded tweets.
His fortune plays a huge role and let's address issue of money in politics after 2020, after we beat trump...
But we should vote for anyone who wins!
We will prevail!!!
1
Despite what he has given away, Bloomberg is still the 8th richest person in the United States (look it up if you don’t believe me). Clearly, he has not given away “enough” of his “clearly ill-gotten” money to satisfy folks like Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, AOC and the rest of “the squad.” Bernie and Warren will go after “greedy” people like him. The mainstream media will help with daily articles about how hard-working and successful people are really “mean and greedy.” We need to tear down “successful” people like Bloomberg and make them as “equally miserable” as the rest of us. Let’s make America into Venezuela! Let’s make America into Cuba! Feel the Bern people. Feel the Bern.
Please can we set the record straight. He didn't JOIN the Democratic party in 2018. He REJOINED in 2018 having been a member for 40 years before leading up to him switching parties because he didn't want to deal with corrupt New York unions in the Mayoral race. You can take issue with that but it is not true that he JUST became a Democrat. He was born in Massachusetts to a Jewish family. What party do you think he grew up as? Seriously...
5
CONTEXT always matters: surveillance of suspected radical muslim entities occurred right after 9/11-a hazy memory for some, but not for me as I saw tanks (!) on my streets and had to breathe in the dust of the incinerated. Stop and frisk was implemented during a higher crime era-and was lauded by many in the black community who were crime victims. Policies that needed to be changed, yes, but seemed reasonable at the time.
1
Bloomberg, for US President? No. Tulsi Gabbard? Yes, please.
2
Telling. When I first saw this graphic at a glance, I thought it was a map of coronavirus outbreaks.
This outbreak in enforced thralldom to Bloomberg is akin to a virus. It's spreading absent rational thought and deep deliberation. Patient zero was Friedman. Because he began banging the drum everyone felt obliged to pick one up without pausing to think.
The very same people howling that Biden and Bernie and Trump are too old seem to have breezed right past the fact that Bloomberg is the exact same age. The very people concerned about Joe's missteps in the past appear to have donned the worlds biggest most opaque pair of blinders to overlook Bloomberg's identical missteps on the exact same issues...women and race. The very same people shrieking about DJT's malign economic influence seem happy to roll in Bloomberg's pile.
Fellow liberals, stop and think rationally. You are not being consistent. Much more important is the mentality, on his and his supporters side, that allows a candidate to ignore all of the stepping stones to win; instead they seem to want to back a fixed game.
Twenty runners begin a marathon and slog it out. A shiny, black Jaguar breezes past them and deposits a "runner" a mile from the finish line. Guess who "wins"? Guess who loses...everyone.
Enough of the games, the fix, the cheating. Let's play it straight and choose someone rationally. No one, no not even someone on our team, should be allowed to buy an election.
It's terrible precedent.
8
@AhBrightWings - I couldn’t agree more and voted (with my heart) for Klobuchar in the primary. I know she won’t get the nomination. If Bloomberg does, I’ll hold my nose and vote for him in November.
We are experiencing 40+ years of Koch money manifest now. Just think about it....Koch agenda money vs Bloomberg money (see the graphics included) and where do those roads lead? Just sayin'...
1
Sorry I can't be bought.
4
Mike has a brain but does not claim it is the smartest in the universe. He makes mistakes but he learns from them. He has a ton of money and uses it for the good (climate and gun control are two of my favorites) He does not lie every time he opens his mouth. He is self made and does not steal from the citizens. He knows Trump and will not kiss his behind. He has my vote because he is not a dictator and can put Trump in the ASH Heap where he belongs. He will put the pieces of this Republic back together again and lead us out of the darkness. Come on people we need to work together. He has my vote because it is the best way to stop Trump and get back to a much better country and future.
4
What do you mean Hillary lost the primary in your graph? She lost the election, but she won the primary. More media sexism.
2
Americans are insane if they let this man buy an election. We need campaign finance laws that prevent this blatant corruption. I'm a democrat and disgusted by this latecomer billionaire co;ing into the race with his money> He's not even a democrat at heart. Where are the principles behind this country? How did we get here? To have to choose between the dictator Trump and this hollow billionaire? We need to tax these money hoarding people and not allow them to unduly influence our lives.
3
Please put up a digital visual of trumps giving next to Bloomberg’s. That would be interesting. Also, mention must be made of his dipping into his charities to fund , what? some gilded hamburger?
1
And this is why The NYT With its purity tests will never be able to figure out a proper course for this country. It is entirely possible for Bloomberg to support Emily’s list and question the allegations against justice Kavanagh. We have to learn to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time. Failing one purity test should not disqualify you from any other public good. Pete Buttigieg once worked for McKinsey. Klobuchar yelled at a staff member. Sanders may have one said something to Elizabeth Warren that we want to disagree with. Nobody is perfect. and now The NYT Is going after the way Bloomberg has spent his money. Sure he is spending money to gain advantage in the election. And he spending more than anyone else. This is disturbing. But you have not shown one example of how it might negatively impact his performance as a leader.
3
Trump promised to populate his Administration with “only the best people” and bragged he knew “more than the generals” and “all the best words” and on an on with endless narcissistic lunacy. He lied and has become a global embarrassment and a national disgrace. Mike Bloomberg actually does know all the best people and works with them daily in his business and philanthropy. He could recruit an Administration that would be smart, efficient, effective and fully expose the current one for the gross incompetence that nepotism and sycophantic hires usually produce.
3
Why bother having an election for President? Why not just crown the richest man interested in the job? Never mind his record of terrorizing people of color, disparaging women as body parts, caging and penning anti-Iraq war protestors, privatizing public education and opposing fair taxation of billionaires. Forget all that. It's inconvenient to remember. Forget about building and nurturing a ground up mass movement for social change that empowers youth and people of color to invest power in working people, rather than an oligarch. Hail to the king. Kneel to the overlord. You are nothing before him.
4
America! Bloomberg is more of the same old same old. Don't be tricked.
4
Quite the chessboard you’re working, Mr Bloomberg. In the end, I want the winner WHO WILL CRUSH AND SLAY (with love)
A Trump rally will drain a couple hundred thousand from a city to provide space and security. Why doesn't he pay his way?
Wonder how much does he pay in taxes ?
2
Blaming the effort to end redlining for the 2008 financial crisis gives cover to the corrupt bankers who manipulated the system, and unfairly casts the blame on minorities. I don't know how much more racist you can get! Bankers separated the profits from the making of these bad loans (and walked away with those profits), from the losses created by the defaults on these loans, by repackaging these bad loans into mortgage backed securities which they then sold to unwary investors (after manipulating the credit ratings - Think Arthur Anderson), who took the losses when things blew up. Millions lost their homes, whites and minorities alike, and THEY get the blame??? Sorry, but Bloomberg may have given away a bunch of money he never needed, but this cannot make up for the harm the banks created and he is trying to cover over. I hope someone like Elizabeth Warren (or other Dem candidate) can better explain the issues with line of reasoning
4
Mike has a brain but he does not say it is smartest in the Universe. He makes mistakes but learns from them. He has tons of money but he uses it for good (climate change, gun control being two of my favorites). He does not need to steal from the citizens. He does not lie each and every day multiple times. He absolutely has my vote because he has not promised the the moon, is extremely self made and can see right through Trump and will not kiss his behind and will return this country to a Republic. Wake up People.
1
We trade one racist maybe billionaire for a racist real billionaire and call it progress? I'd say it is more like the end of the illusion that the US is not an oligarchy.
3
Let's elect a President who hasn't bought the job with his billions. Then a special task force can be set up to fight climate change and Bloomberg can head it up.
The Washington Post's publication of "Wit and Wisdom" a booklet of Bloomberg's quotes reveal him to be a mysogonist with his Trump-like crude remarks about women and sex.
My opinion of the man has changed drastically. Let him put his money and energies into climate change - we don't need another billionaire President.
2
Mr. Bloomberg:
We need your help. Please donate to the Social Security Trust Funds to protect them from Republican avarice.
2
@Daniel F. Solomon
Just have the government repay in full, all those IOUs in lodged the SS trust fund.
Truly a conundrum and the symptom of wealth and power in America.
The facts are that in control of wealth the reality equates to power, but true too is that power most always leads to corruption, some opaque and some obvious.
Bloomberg probably can win the next election, he has the money, experience and the power to do so. The entire democratic field requires the power of money to fuel their election, but with monetary gifts come fulfilling the agendas of the donors. This dynamic is thanks to the Supreme Court and Citizens United.
His opponent, trump is entirely corrupt and has surrounded himself with self-serving sycophants that are on a trajectory to destroy this nation. The Republican party too has been corrupted by power, so corrupted that they refuse to perform their duties within our Constitution, certainly, they see the truth but have been bought by the quest of power.
The reality is that we can not give trump four more years if we wish to continue the American experience. So where do we go from here?
Philanthropy is how evil people try to buy goodness.
Bezos should stop buying that mansion in California and install more bathrooms in his warehouses. Don't worry. In twenty years or so his philanthropy will try and kill memories of his treatment of his employees.
If Bloomberg and Hilton are Democratic candidates, AGAIN the Democrats will loose by their own corrupt choices.
America is dying. I don't think there's enough non-corrupt people in politics to save it.
1
@Alice Who's Hilton? Paris Hilton?
Mr. Bloomberg - you and Stacy Abrams would be my “Dream Team”!
2
Sometimes when you finish buying something and you're going to wheel it out of the store on a cart, the cashier puts a piece of colored tape on it so people will know the merchandise has been "bought and paid for." I wonder if we should put something like that tape on the shoulders of people who have received Bloomberg's largesse when they say effusive things about his candidacy. Sure, they may be honest and sincere in what they say. On the other hand...
2
@DJY
OK. Let's make sure to order enough "bought & paid for" stickers for all the people supporting Sanders & Warren in exchange for "free" healthcare, college, and student loan forgiveness. At least Bloomberg is buying support with his own money!
So, is this a case of ‘the lesser of two evils’?
2
Bloomberg can buy the presidency. Is that how we want our presidents elected from now on.
I want to know Bloomberg's views on foreign policy. Right now I feel I'm being offered a pig in a poke. Is he buddy-buddy with Putin? Did he OK Putin's seizure of Crimea? Does he believe China's Xi must respond to the people of China and not just the Communist party? What amount of his money comes from foreign countries hostile to America? What does he believe should be done about North Korea? Does he support the Jared Kushner Peace Plan for Israel and the Palestinians?
Aren't we entitled to know something about that? How can people support him without knowing? Do we want to jump from the frying pan into the fire?
1
@Matt Connolly
But the very same questions you pose are the very same answers trump has given except that he hasn't said or shown how much of his money comes from Russia. And of course, if the SCOUS agrees with him despite the law on the books we will never know. Trump seems obsessed with the sums earned by Hunter Biden while ignoring the much larger sums being earned by his daughter - a member of the government - from China.
When it comes to the issue of the filfty rich, one needs only ask this . . . how was the wealth earned ?
Bloomberg appears to have honestly earned his wealth, whereas President Fearless Leader there appears to be multiple issues of thief, manipulation, laundering and other issues all pointing to possible criminal activities.
So who do you trust ? Because this is the only real issue of character to judge them by.
1
This is a man who blamed African Americans for “95% of your murders”, holds them responsible for the 2008 financial crash, opposes raising the minimum wage and has a toxic attitude to women. He should be the Democratic Party nominee? Because he's using his vast fortune to buy media, politicians and civic organizations? An alternative to Trump? Has our democracy become so corrupt that we are seriously considering this man? Thanks to the Times for the great piece of journalism!
2
As the controversy over the Attorney General shows, we have a president whose presence in the White House threatens to unravel the fabric that holds this country together. He is the Enemy Within personified, a malignancy that, unlike the Japanese after Pearl Harbor or Al-Qaeda after 9/11, can't be defeated militarily but only by American citizens who turn out in Election Day in November. Michael Bloomberg is the Democratic candidate with the best chance of eradicating this scourge of democracy. Right now, that's all that should matter.
2
Bloomburg is the only one who can beat Trump...and remember its not just it,we need to keep the house and get back the senate...this is a emergency...we must at all cost be delivered from Trump if re elected he could cause so much more devastating damage to the country and the world...
2
Bloomberg has given very generously to Johns Hopkins University. The murder rate in Baltimore continues to be one of the worst in the nation. Sometimes money isn't the cure.
1
@Mary Chapman
Are you blaming Johns Hopkins for the murder rate in Baltimore? For God's sake be sensible.
Is there a Mr or Mrs unblemished candidate in either party? Unfortunately, there is no perfect candidate who has not, at some point in his/her past, said or done something at minimum inappropriate. In one case, such as Trump, he has been extremely dishonest, illegal, unethical, greedy, mean and downright filthy his entire life. He is a reflection of a majority of his base.
Actions speak louder than words. All except for Trump have learned from their past mistakes and apologized sincerely for past errors. Trump just keeps stealing, lying, and behaving like the subhuman slimy creature he has always been.
I lean toward toward supporting Mike Bloomberg because I am of the opinion he understands the low life Trump and can beat him soundly. Being a successful long-term Mayor of a large city like NYC comes as close to managing the U.S. as it can get. Go Bloomberg!
2
This is why Trump and that phony so-called ‘Socialist’ Bernie Sanders are afraid of Bloomberg. Bloomberg is the only chance the Democrats have in removing Trump from his throne.
1
Perfect is the enemy of good. Just like Nancy Pelosi is the right individual to be the current Speaker of the House, Michael Bloomberg is the right person to be President. In spite of all the rightfully so criticism of the stop-and-frisk policy, it no where begins to equal the damage this administration, republican senators, and republican house members are doing to our constitution. I don't want my family and kids to live under an authoritarian/banana republic government.
2
In a political era that is regrettably money soaked, a reality is that money fuels winning campaigns. This article backs up that argument. What is heartening to me is Bloomberg’s principled giving to causes which do not win him votes. That type of giving is a measure of a good heart, and that can overcome the evil that is personified in Trump.
Bloomberg represents what is wrong with this country. He believes that he can buy anyone and everything including american democracy. He is corrupting everyone in this elections with his money. I'm not impress with his charity donations because I know he doesn't pay his fair share of taxes. His is life long Republican and his views on Wall Street and economy has not change. This guy is a life threat to democracy. And the fact that so many people in media are so thrilled by him shows they are willing to put democracy on the line just to avoid higher taxes and more regulations under someone like Bernie Sanders. He is becoming the ultimate defense of modern crony capitalism.
BTW He would lose to Donald Trump. The millennials, gen Z and the left of the party will not come to vote for him. He is everything that they despise. He will decrease base turnout even worse then Hillary did.
1
Regardless of the few allegation against Blumberg, he stands a chance to defeat Trump and will surely do a finer job than Trump could ever achieve. Trump ,who only revers wealth the kind he never made and never will could become his undoing. Bloomberg is the viable chance to defeat an unqualified , an unstable vindictive Trump. The other qualified democrats I fear stand no chance against him n his GOP sleek machine.
1
When you have Bloomberg’s money the grace saving idea of putting one's money where one’s mouth is is mooted of its grace! This because at any given point in time one can allow one’s mouth 360-degrees of freedom!
Not corrupting the process? Is this why the Democrats profoundly narrowed their impeachment case against Trump?
1
No wonder Trump has become the POTUS when the perverse idea that being a philanthropist is somehow a disqualifying condition! Look, besides a few minor idiosyncratic items, Bloomberg is pragmatic middle-of-the-roader.
His hesitancy to get in early if Biden has a chance makes him another "thumb up!"
Finally, he has stated he would continue to support another candidate should he fail to obtain the nomination so long as America can boot Trump out of the WH makes him the only genuine and authentic candidate
2
I am a Democrat. I will vote or any Democrat who I think can beat tRUMP. I think that Bloomberg is that person. The PC crowd can nitpick Bloomberg, but I don't care. We need a win.
3
What is wrong with giving money to causes one believes in?
This reporter is assuming everything Bloomberg did is for his ambition for a presidential run.
If Trump was not the President, Bloomberg would not have run and what would this reporter say about Bloomberg's decades of giving? Ridiculous.
Yes, Bloomberg has made mistakes, including stop & frisk, but he is a pragmatic leader who has shown more by giving (for education, public health, environment) than mere words.
We are the 99.99999%!
A few thousand billionaires now own half of the wealth in the whole world. They own half of everything. They own as much as the other 7 billion of us.
A few thousand people did not create half of all wealth. The richest .000001% did not create as much wealth as the 99.99999%. That would make them a million times more productive than a normal human.
Global billionaires own controlling shares in corporations around the world. Global banks that they own have been caught committing fraud after fraud, with emails showing their employees stealing from us and joking about it. Their punishments are always less their their take from the fraud.
The original Tea Party started because Obama was protecting the banks, not the homeowners. (Then Glenn Beck and Fox got a hold of it.)
Occupy Wall Street chanted "they got bailed out. We got sold out."
For decades the Party of the Rich has been saying that welfare recipients have been defrauding the government. In other words, the poor people stole all the money.
Math says that the people that have the money, stole the money.
"Which billionaire is stealing from you?" History says that the productivity of the people that actually do the work is being siphoned off with every transaction.
No one made the bankers sell exotic balloon mortgages to first time home buyers. They should have given them fixed loans.
The opposite of Capitalism is Fair Markets that are not rigged to loot us.
Moderates must chose a side.
2
Do we really want a fabulously wealthy man to control the political destiny of this country? Should Bloomberg essentially buy the presidency with his personal wealth, that would hugely erode belief in democracy among progressive Democrats and Trump Republicans - a near majority in this country. Bloomberg's political legitimacy would be fatally weakened, there would be Bloomberg Derangement Syndrome making it almost impossible for him to govern.
1
America is for Sale to the Small group of Billionaires. If Bloomberg
Handed out Hundred Dollar bills at Voting Precincts on the day of Election People would vote for him. Most indiviguals if they vote at all do not know what a Candidate represents on issues. If you were to ask 10 people who are the Republican and Democratic choices for President ,probably Less than half could tell you.
When Election Day arrives most people will ask two question...
1. Am I better off today than 4 years ago and 2. I know what Trump Is and Not What the others say they Are.
1
Do not forget that FDR was also rich and called a traitor to his class. The social safety net we live under was his accomplishment.
3
Isn't it interesting that the frontrunner, Sanders, has zero attention paid to him and his platform on the Sunday edition of the NYT while Bloomberg, currently with zero delegates and zero primary wins, is given a warm and glowing analysis, a few stories. Billionaires can give away a lot, buy a lot.
3
Character assassination has many tentacles, all leading back to the RNC.
A true hypocrite. Criticized Giuliani when he tried to extend his mayoral duties in the midst of 911 crises to his third term only to
extend NY City's term limits law and run for a third mayoral term.
Ran on the Republican party NY mayoral nominee ticket even though he's a admitted "social liberal".
Outspent his Democratic rival 5-1 on getting elected. Under New York's archaic "fusion rules", which allows a candidate to run on more than one part line, he also ran on the Independence Party ballot which allowed him to combine all the votes received on both Party lines. Even then he only won by a 50%-48% margin.
To learn that a man who has given more than any other person in history to get women elected to office came within an eyelash of being denied a chance to speak at a women’s function because he expressed doubts about the #metoo movement is almost laughable. It exposes the conceit of that movement: only true believers are tolerated. This, of course is very similar to the conceit of our current president.
1
It is breathtaking what he has done. Of course not everyone is going to agree with everything that one does and one will quibble, but he has done stuff and spent his own money doing it, not other people's money (even if it is only less than 5% of his net worth). He is the only one with any hope or prayer to be able to stand up to Trump and beat him in November. The NY Times should put him side-by-side on each public issues that the NY Times considers most important instead of inferring substance by reporting on back room discussions on whom to invite to give a speech.
We all realize that the NY Times cherishes balanced reporting, but it should so only if substance supports the balance. If the balance isn't there, the NY Times should not be simply using ink to create that balance. It did this in 2016 and look what we got for it.
1
The second most important election is between Mitch McConnell and Amy McGrath.
Let's hope that Mr. Bloomberg directs a few million to Amy's campaign in Kentucky. (And I have faith he will)
4
No need to vote for an economically right-wing oligarch to access Bloomberg's billions and all his zeal to defeat Trump, right? After all, hasn't Bloomberg sworn to back ANY Democratic nominee with all the resources at his disposal? How could he defend not backing Bernie, if Bernie's the people's choice? Or are his promises not worth the hot air they are made with?
1
I think we are about to get scammed again. The whole Democratic vs. Republican struggle is a phony one. The real struggle is between the ultra rich and huge corporations and the rest of us. Yes, it is class warfare and the rest of us didn’t start it but we’re going to lose it if we don’t wise up.
Unfortunately, because we have a political system that is controlled by two parties, we have to live with one of them in charge. At this point, the lesser of the two evils is the Democratic party. We have to elect it to office and then work within it to wrest power from those moneyed interests that now control it. Electing the Republican turned Democrat (see how easy it is?) Bloomberg won’t do it.
3
Hmmm. Aren't all you fellow Democrats excited that our party is in the process of becoming every bit (not that there wasn't too much corporate influence before) as beholden to extreme wealth and corporate power as the extreme right-wing Republican Organization?
If Bloomberg gets the nomination, this will prove what the cynics say: The system's rigged and we live in a plutocracy.
It will destroy the party. I'm disturbed by how much the billionaires love Biden and Pete, but this is a whole different level of dangerous.
And people frown down on Bernie supporters. We're always being asked to show up and support the candidate even if it's not a lefty. On that note, I have a question for my centrist friends: Will you support the candidate, even if it's Bernie?
Perhaps we should recognize the extend to which 40 years of bipartisan neo-liberalism broke our politics. Perhaps the world would be a better place with more Bernie's, AOC's and Ilhan's in Congress. Perhaps we should mount a serious opposition to the dangerous and authoritarian Republican Crime Syndicate rather than emulate everything that's wrong with them.
Even if Bloomberg could win (short of bribing electors, he can't, but I wouldn't count that out), does anyone want this highly authoritarian Feudal Lord as president?
Wake up people! Bloomberg is the richer and more intelligent version of Trump. Where Trump fails to establish dictatorship, this conman will succeed.
1
I was not too keen on Mr. Bloomberg's candidacy, mainly because he brings to the table only his wealth and possibility of defeating Mr. Trump. I had no idea where he stood on environment, health care, immigration, or another US war in Middle East.
But as I become convinced that the other Democratic candidates do not have what it takes to defeat Trump, Mr. Bloomberg started to look better and better.
Let's face it. Trump acts as a Mafia don and goes after his enemies using the mob's modus operandi. So, who can counter him better than someone who is very familiar with the mob and know how the mob operates.
1
I don't know if Bloomberg can pull this off or not. Need to see him in a debate. Can he bring enthusiasm and vibrancy to the campaign? He looks good in his TV ads and he has a excellent digital presence. I believe he could hold his own with Trump.
He is not the ideal Democrat but neither is the slate of candidates that we have now.
Bloomberg does not have to attract hard-boiled Trump supporters. He could bring the Republican anti-Trumpers, independents who are sick of Trump, Republican business people who like the economy but hate Trump policies and other Republicans who may see Bloomberg as not your run of the mill Liberal.
No candidate's past is ideal but it is the future we need to be concerned about. Can you take 4 more years of Trump?
@John Christoff: But will Bloomberg attract the white, black and Latino workers who've benefited from Trump's economy and seen their wages rise? Or the unemployed who now have jobs? Or the retirees who've seen their retirement accounts go through the roof this past year? Or the law enforcement and military personnel (and their wives) who know Trump has their back? Why would any of them want to take a chance on Bloomberg?
The cultivation of shills (whether private, corporate or charitable) is all part and parcel of the modus operandi.
3
Bloomberg often jokes about changing the law to allow him to run for a third term. I notice he had done this several times in front of groups where people would laugh. I see that as no laughing matter. Matter of fact that's how leaders stay in power in Africa, and countries like Cambodia and even Thailand where the military junta took power, ousted the prime minister in 2015, put her her trial then changed the law then now the military leader of the coup is now prime minister. All this just at the time when they have no accountability for a soldier removing arms from a military base and murdering 29 people in a Terminal 21 shopping mall in Thailand and wounding scores of others. No accountability. Maybe Bloomberg, if he becomes president, could also find a way to do away with the two terms limits for president.
@Wayne
Not if Trump declares himself as "President fo Life."
Contrast Bloomberg's philanthropy with Trump's Foundation charade, where he purported to raise money for Veterans in Iowa in 2016 and then used the funds for his campaign. Trump was clear-cut guilty of fraud, and his foundation was shut down. But the Iowa escapade proved that Trump didn't really have money. Bloomberg is a real billionaire. I think Trump fears Bloomberg more than anyone.
1
He would seem to qualify as the single most generous person in our history. He's donated more than the $10 billion Trump claimed he was worth. What has Trump donated? Even Trumps nonprofit foundation seems to have been a fraud.
1
If we elect Bloomberg, won't Congressional Democrats live in fear of opposing him just as Republicans fear the Kochs?
2
I find the article makes a persuasive case for Bloomberg -- warts and all. He has been spending lavishly and for years to support causes I support (on a very much more modest scale). He is focused, brings people and organizations together, smart, effective...everything our current president is not. The headline and lede story about Emily's List (to which we contribute) imply base motives, but the bulk of the article makes no case for that interpretation.
The list of Democrat big donors who are "do as I say" people but "not as I do" is enormous. Bloomberg is just one of them. Say the right things (sometimes) but then the actions belie the words.
3
Thank goodness for wealthy individuals doing good as they see it. He certainly spends his money more efficiently and for more good than the government does. And the other candidates on the Democratic side would take his money from him and give it to the government.
1
I'm not sure Trump has even given a single dollar to something that wasn't actually a "Profit For Trump and Family" situation.
How many court cases has Trump lost for using his own foundation for personal gain. There's three I know of, and all with court orders to correct it or face criminal charges.
1
Extreme wealth and inequality destroys democracy. Especially when there are no collective controls on the propaganda spending, allowing just about every dodgy financial entity political influence way beyond the individual citizens.
In the US supermarket "democracy" the consumers might be persuaded to "buy" the best marketed "product", but kindly note, there's no consumer protection to force the marketed "candidates" to uphold the promises. And hardly any democratic checks and balances left, as recently demonstrated by your Senate and Supreme Court. Only continued false marketing to divert attention from the divide and rule tactics of the moguls virtually in charge of the US.
It is a huge challenge merely to have independent ordinary citizens running for any kind of public office, and even multi billionaires like Mr. Bloomberg probably can't match the money and influence from the international far right collusion of off shored dodgy money and international media moguls supporting the Trumpster.
In a functioning democracy it is much preferable to tax the moguls and force them to contribute to the society on which they prey. And prevent them from buying your democracy.
1
It appears the vast majority of Mr Bloomberg's largess goes to Centers of Socialism in the US. Don't mistake me, it's a great thing that the very wealthy make these types of contributions. But it also smacks of Nanny State. After all he's well known for pushing statutes in what he considers to be the "right" thing. Which is antithetical to the American way - freedom for all to pursue life as they see fit. No Nanny State dictating what we do.
1
I would love to see every billionaire in the US donate as much money to charitable institutions as Bloomberg has. He could have been busy the last twenty years buying and mortgaging hotels and trying to be a movie star. Instead he's making lives better. If it was an error to stop obesity and tooth decay by banning sugary drinks, his heart was in the right place. I'm glad he stopped the smoking in public areas. He could have been talking about banning guns while accepting donations from Smith and Wesson. We shall see in the next debate whether the man can hold his own against a future Trump debate. And if he does, and if he chooses a woman as running mate, he'll be our next president.
1
One of the better arguments pro Bloomberg is that assuming he is no better than the status quo, at the very least his motivation is not greed but philanthropy, as he has widely demonstrated with his generosity.
1
By way of comparison Bernie Sanders has never revealed his full income tax returns. Neither has he divulged where ALL of his campaign money is coming from (much of it from Republican and overseas sources). Many Sanders supporters stayed home or voted for Trump in key swing states in the last election and will do so again if their candidate isn’t selected. A more phony so-called ‘Socialist’ like Sanders would be hard to find.
2
My concern is that we'd be trading one autocrat for another.
That said, the quote below makes a salient point; we'd have Bloomberg's financial support in races other than the presidential race (of course, those people would be beholden to him, but that is far preferable than reelecting Trump.
“If Mike Bloomberg is the nominee, he will ensure that the Democratic Party has the greatest funding in its history,” Mr. Wolfson said, describing a plan to guarantee “all 50 states have the resources that Democrats need to compete up and down the ballot.”
1
I think we all have a difficult time understanding how much a billion dollers really is. Bloomberg has $60 billion more or less according to media reports. As a percentage of his net worth these figures are not that much. Which is why this buying his way in is really disturbing. He can keep this up for a very long time.
1
@JM: To paraphrase a line I said in CITIZEN KANE: "I gave away a billion dollars last year, a billion dollars this year and I'll give away a billion dollars next year. At this rate, I'll be out of money--in sixty years!"
One way to look at it is that Bloomberg is a balance for the Koch donations but with Bloomberg we hear the intent from him directly because he is running. He is "behind the scene" but also is out front.
So many commenters seem to hold personal wealth against people. Are they jealous, and disappointed that good fortune has skipped them? Please stop looking for the negative in everyone whose bank account is larger than yours. Every society, since recorded time, has had people at the top and bottom. If you want us all to be equal, I don’t think there is a successful model for that. Bloomberg is not perfect, who is, but I bet he is much more generous with his wealth than many others would be.
How much of the "problem" is big spending on political campaigns, and the proven impact it has on the way people think and vote, and how much is our naive belief that democracy leads to optimum choices?
We recently seem concerned about how advertising, true or false, skews our perceptions and actions. That leads some to wish for control of the information stream, either through out-spending our opponents or by legal constraints. But if voters are that susceptible (and irrational) then, to be blunt, what good are they?
Every single day, I am bombarded by requests for donations from political campaigns and issues or advocacy groups that operate within my interest area. I am told that my giving is vital to their mission and called upon to listen to my better angels and give as much as I can. Yet, when private citizen Bloomberg gives generously to his interest areas and candidates of choice, his giving is deemed nefarious. Similarly, the media applauds billionaires who sign The Giving Pledge, yet lament Bloomberg’s giving. We should applaud anyone who is willing to contribute billions as a private citizen, whether we agree with their points of view or not.
Until America is prepared to rescind Citizens United and publicly fund elections, I am much more at ease with someone spending his own money to get elected than with those who will later be called upon to pay the piper. There is no free lunch in politics...Mr. Bloomberg has decided to pick up his own check. Bully for him. The voters will decide what comes next.
1
It appears there are several Billionaires vying to continue the Trump Wall st domination of the nation. You can't escape the appearance of a fixed election when the two big spenders are both Television Billionaires opposed to one another to assure a Wall Street win. I do believe this is America's hugest Hostile Takeover ever. Trump scorns at least half the nation and Bloomberg has a record of herding "Occupy Wall Street" demonstrators with what he called "My Private Army", the NYPD. After reading the lengthy article and thinking about it overnight, I'm convinced Bloomberg wants to control the population, more than help it. He is literally, buying a government loyal to him with his money, person after person, who are then in fear of losing position, power, or finance. I wonder if he is a Wall Street Trojan Horse as Trump has shown much to guess.
1
Bloomberg could use his wealth against Trump without also running for President. He could run completely truthful ads in conservative media that show how Trump has failed to deliver on the promises he has made to the middle class.
Simple example: Trump says he is "not touching" Medicare, then proposes a budget that cuts the program by close to $1 trillion.
Anti-choice voters will be unmoved. White nationalists will be unmoved. But if there is such a thing as a swing voter, they will be moved.
In the November election, low-motivation voters will find it difficult to distinguish between two old white New York billionaires who were historically both Democrat and Republican. Because of the inherent advantage Republicans have in the Electoral College, low turnout will favor Trump.
If Bloomberg is serious, he should support Democratic candidates for the House and Senate. He does not have to be the center of attention.
1
When will we learn that cities are not businesses? Why do we believe a successful corporate CEO is the perfect qualification for political office? Cities are much more complex with contradictory if not incompatible goals and do not flourish under the single-minded Bloombergian technocrat data driven free market approach.
Bloomberg should read the "Innovation in European Cities" study published by Bloomberg Philanthropies, a fascinating competition of cities to devise and implement creative, intelligent, and resourceful approaches to urban challenges.
Not one winning city suggested, as Bloomberg did for NYC, that more Russian oligarchs buying overpriced condos to launder their ill gotten gains was a viable solution.
Under Bloomberg NYC's homelessness rose to an all time high as did childhood poverty. The public education system deteriorated and affordable housing remained unattainable even though he oversaw the allocation of million of dollars of tax exempt benefits intended for new construction of affordable housing that often benefitted developers of luxury housing. He allowed developers and Housing Courts to disregard the rent stabilization laws resulting in a record number of evictions and a further degrading the rule of law.
Nevertheless, the fact that Bloomberg's billions have made the Democratic party viable as well as his commitment to dumping Trump elevates his candidacy. The prospect of watching these 2 narcissistic titans debating makes me weep.
2
It's interesting that this article uses the same style graphics to depict the spread of Mr. Bloomberg's financial influence as the graphics used to depict the spread of the Coronavirus.
1
Surprise, there isn't one single candidate who is 100% perfect.
I'm rooting for Bloomberg. I like it that he doesn't need my money or your money. What I don't like is someone who will take away my health insurance, which I'm very happy with. I could never support or vote for Sanders. I'm tired of some of them bragging about how they have "soared" in the polls. The polls change in a nano second and there are so many different polls; fun to watch.
3
As I've read this article and some of the rebuttal arguments, we often get caught up in this 'Bernie is for the people' and 'spread the wealth' cycle.
From my limited view of politics and civics, the only way the wealthy can be 'held accountable' is to change the tax laws.
But for that to happen is not via executive order, but via the passage of tougher Federal tax laws via the House and Senate.
Also remember that individual states, counties and cities and towns have THEIR OWN tax laws.
The people in our FEDERAL legislative branch of government are chosen at the state level by people of their individual state and BY THE PEOPLE IN THEIR VARIOUS DISTRICTS
There are so many people who have no idea who their reps and Senators are nor what congressional districts they even live in.
The same can be said at the state level also.
Unless we start paying attention to how our laws work and why, in 20 years from now, we will still be having this same argument.
And bemoaning the plights of our state of mind.
Bloomberg will run as a third party candidate,
OR
he is buying control over campaign manpower and intelligence so that he can deny or reward the Democratic nominee those services.
Both scenarios depends on whether or not he approves of the Democratic nominee.
He is paying his campaign workers until the election day in November. So between now and election day, he controls them.
1
I volunteered for Mike's third mayoral run and was on the stage the night he won. I'm a retired educator from NJ. The reason I volunteered was because I was deeply impressed by what his administration had done for the education of kids in all five boroughs.
The night we won, his first words were, "I want to thank the women in my life. I've just left my mother's bedside and we had a glass of champagne to celebrate."
This Mayor may have made mistakes, as do we all, but he is an adult and a proven successful politician and manager. I'm voting for him.
2
If might help Bloomberg's chances -- and the entire US political system -- if he pledged to overturn Citizens United and reform political campaign financing in general once he is in office.
4
YES, the abolition of Citizens United is essential to restoring, at least to an extent, our one person-one vote democracy.
@Stephen B
Still won't compensate for the gerrymandering and the voter suppression of these republicans.
No surprise to me that Bloomberg gave generously to Emily's List. He also gave generously to the Sierra Club and after doing to there was an interesting initiative that focused upon "diversity," which seemed more designed to divide people along issues of race and gender that then unite them with the common agenda that everyone already shared.
The way for the rich and powerful to control the working class is to divide them according to race, gender, and religion and encourage them to promote conflict between one another rather than focus on the issues that unite them. The key message promoted in this kind of training is that micro-transgressions are more harmful than inequality of income, access to education, affordable housing, and health care. It is a very clever tactic within a strategy that dates from the earliest complex societies, when people were first divided into classes based upon a divison of labor.
We can see this strategy throughout history in all cultures. It should be noted in the first chapter of every political science text book, but of course it is not.
7
@Robert Scull: And it's something we see every day in the Identity Politics of the left, judging people by the color of their skin, their ethnic identity, their sexual orientation, their religion, etc. Every group declares that they've been "marginalized" and then designates itself the victim and every other group the oppressor.
It may appear that he is generous, but how much of his gifting comes from Trumps tax cuts?
1
@MF
His "gifting" started way before trump was in the picture.
Also, remember Bloomberg's daddy didn't give him any money. He is a self-made highly successful business man, unlike trump whose daddy gave him money that he squandered and to his credit went bankcrupt 6 times.
So yes, Bloomberg is generous.
Thank you for this excellent article. From my vantage point it’s a perfect recitation of why I will vote for him in the CA primary. He is leagues more sophisticated than the other candidates and certainly has a much clearer vision of what the key issues are than the current occupant of the White House. Some people deride the fact that with his great wealth he has only given away a small percentage of it. How many people in the world have put $10B into the world through personal philanthropy and political giving? This guy has a specific agenda and he’s one of the few people on the planet that can actually make a difference just by doing what he’s been doing. His record speaks for itself - warts and all. He certainly isn’t perfect, but he’s a far better choice than anyone else. And, considering that Team Trump has a $1B+ war chest to spread lies, rumors and general disinformation, Bloomberg is THE ONLY CANDIDATE with the cash and stomach to fight the coming war/election.
7
@Sherman
Your last sentence says it all. Bloomberg is the only candidate with the means and the grit combined to fight and win against the Trump juggernaut.
Not to rain on your parade, but I can't imagine how Bloomberg could win with his stance on guns, which I don't address here either pro or con. It's just that most Americans have guns, most are law abiding, and when they hear Bloomberg wants to require licenses of all gun owners nationally, there will be far less votes for him than Trump. That's just the facts.
2
@PATRICK Actually, most Americans don't have guns. The surveys I've seen have put the number at around 30% of adults. And most of those only have one or two guns for specific purposes. The people with large collections are rare.
Republicans are more likely to have guns, but it's still only about 45% off them.
1
@PATRICK
Sounds like a Plus for me. I will be voting for him especially because of that. After all, all drivers have to have licenses.
2
Bloomberg is willing to give back in accordance to his priorities but what is he willing to give up to ensure better lives for all citizens?
Carried interest loophole?
Elmination of tax benefits for non-profits?
Imposing an estate tax?
Elimination of tax loopholes for owners of private jets and yachts?
What structural changes in our tax law will Bloomberg propose so the wealth of our country is spread among its citizens as opposed to being hoarded by the wealthy?
4
On first appearance, it seems his recent years escalation of giving was intended to build a good reputation to gain voters, but, in his quest to elect many with money, it appears his goal is control over voters with a network of loyal political leaders.
1
As I read this article, it seems to say Bloomberg uses his wealth to gain personal power. All his donations are to those that can help him, whether it be charitable, or political. It is to gain influence and power for himself. He succeeded. Ms Taeb is told to basically whitewash a chapter she is writing in a report or get rid of it all together. Mr. Bloomberg might get upset about what it says. When she gets involved in Virginia politics, he leaves a message that he wants to sit down with her and tell her why he should be president and "what he’s done with the Democratic Party." Not what he did "for" the party. One might think he is saying he bought it and owns . This is not that just popped up. He has been buying influence and power for years.as this article describes. He may be betting on Super Tuesday to demonstrate is vote power. But even if his success is not what he intended, it's doubtful he will drop out. There may come a time that prospects are so low, the DNC will find a way to change the outcome of the nomination process. If that happens, Bloomberg could succeed. But it c come at a terrible cost to the democratic party. The memory of the DNC actions to suppress Sanders in 2016,, has not been forgoten. It is doubtful he will ever debate for the democratic nomination. These candidates rip and tear with no concern who they go after. It may happen anyway if he manages to get any significant votes in the upcoming primaries.
4
If the Democratic Party politicians and leaders of advocacy groups think silencing criticism of a funder is acceptable, our democracy is in grave danger from within.
What this article did not mention is how Bloomberg's spending on advertising dollars has influenced the press.
5
@CFB
Well if that line you've written is the case, how come I've been seeing all these hit pieces on him the last several days?
1
The critical difference among the people on the list of the top ten self-funders of presidential campaigns is that only one of them won, or even came remotely close. That would be Trump, by accentuating core values of border security, caution on the world stage, and going back to the notion that the business of America is business.
As for Bloomberg, he is free to spend on his progressive views in ways that he imagines will advance those views. He is free to buy a soapbox to stand out (and up) in advancing his own candidacy. He may have some successes here and there, but he will probably not move any meters appreciably.
It's amazing that a guy who has made so much off of the capitalist system is being embraced by so many progressive Democrats as some kind of a savior for the Democratic Party. As silly as she can sometimes be, AOC is right that the Democratic Party is internally inconsistent, and has internal fissures that could well kill the party. We have seen major party realignments earlier in the nation's history keyed to individual leaders striking out on new paths. It looks as though we are due for another realignment after a long period of political party duopoly.
The parties are dead. Long live the new party leaders, heroes in their own minds. As much as I disdain AOC's "vision" for an America without energy and vitality, I defend her right to make her own party -- and then lose.
This is manufacturing consent. To make it look like a billionaire is a good idea.
4
Bloomberg has bought his way into this race. So what. Good for him. After Super Tuesday it will be over for him anyway. Of concern is the fact that the DNC changed the rules to allow him onto the debate stage in Nevada. A state where he is not even on the ballot. It seems unheard of. It begs the question of what is going on with the DNC establishment elite. It smacks of the corruption we have come to expect from them. The DNC as we know it is in its death throes and grasping for straws and gasping for air. You can't replace a well oiled, highly organized and energized grass roots campaign like Bernie's with a 30 day fire drill represented by Bloomberg. The reality is its time for a change not more of the same.
6
I hope when Mr. Bloomberg is on the debate stage, and when he is interviewed, there will be questions about how he feels about pushing Pennsylvania into the Republican column by his support for Toomey and Fitzpatrick in 2016.
3
My wife and I already voted by absentee ballots for Bloomberg last week for the Democratic presidential candidate. After reading this article I know we made the right choice. If elected he will be a great president.
7
If Mr. Bloomberg is worth $60 billion, and he adhered to the traditional rule of giving 10 percent to charity every year, every year he would have donated $6 billion to charitable causes. He has never even remotely reached that percentage. It seems incredibly easy to me to donate many hundreds of millions or billions when you're that rich (and I do wonder how folks like him got so incredibly rich) and doesn't deserve accolades--though I know full well that the vast majority of millionaires and billionaires are not as philanthropic as Mr. Bloomberg.
5
Leaving aside the possibility of Bloomberg beating Trump, why do we as a nation as diverse as we are want to elect another president that feels in his heart of hearts that some of those people are less worthy of the protection of the law than others simply because of the color of their skin. He made that blatantly clear in his speeches of only 5 years ago. Todate he has not apologized for those comments, he has only sidestepped the issue by saying that was 5 years ago and he thinks differently now.
2
@Dan in Ohio
Bloomberg will have to explain a few stances from the past, and I hope that, unlike Trump, he is capable of apologies, but compared to Trump he is heaven sent, as opposed to where I think you know Trump lives. Given the choice, many, many voters will choose Bloomberg with a sigh of relief.
What are any one person’s motivations for charitable giving and political contributions? They are the same whether it be Joe Shmoe or Mike Bloomberg. The difference is Mr. Bloomberg’s political aspiration. But that difference is additive and neither shameful or immoral. He wants to put his wealth to work for public good during his life and has immersed himself within that plan. To label that less than noble is the risk of entering politics, a profession that lacks any form of nobility.
2
His commercials need to reach working class Americans with the message that Trump could care less about their economic security. A commercial that shows a recently retired from XYZ corporation worker. The worker paid say $8000 in federal taxes last year while XYZ corporation paid $0 federal taxes. If re-elected the Trump administration plans to cut social security and Medicare by hundreds of billions. This is money this worker paid into every paycheck. This is how much Trump cares about the average American.
3
@Renate Stach
But you've got to tell that to those nincompoops who still support trump.
The most irritating, and oft repeated concepts, of Bloomberg's NYC campaigns was that because of his wealth he wouldn't owe anyone anything, so therefore he was above the fray of the normal political discourse. What didn't get discussed in his 3 runs for Mayor, and l think is once again happening, is that he would have political and community organizations bending to him exactly because of that enormous wealth. Organizations both for and not for profit, politicians, political organizations and local underfunded communities wanted a piece of that Bloomberg money pie, so why would those entities buck him? Mostly they didn't. Therefore we had more stop and frisk, more suppressing of 1st Amendment rights during the protests against the invasion of Iraq and the Republican convention for GW Bush's reelection, and the expansion of charter schools, ultimately diminishing the City public school system, which would have greatly benefitted from his support. Had he been so benevolent to have lent his voice to strengthening New York City's public schools, we might have different educational outcomes today. Alas, alas, Mike Bloombreg, like any big cheese, stands alone.
4
Yes, Mike is a billionaire, may be the first one, who tries to vie with others for the Democratic nomination.
Yes, a collection of Bloomberg’s “reflections” published by the Washington Post and given to him as a present for his 48 years old birthday, do not gather appreciation: some of them remind a Trumpian approach to people.
But this is the point: Mike has got only some shades of the Global Warming Denial In Chief, but not enough to be a photocopy or a caricature of the incumbent Potus.
And, by the way, Bloomberg’s reflections were made years ago; now the man, although still shows an ebullient personality (he is an Aquarius) will have, for sure, matured: suffice to say that he is, in his intentions and programs, the most updated in tackling the Global Warming effects.
At the end of the first mandate he will be 81 years old, and as USA is “No country for old men”, I’m sure he will be intelligent enough to pass the helm to another, younger, Democratic nominee, found in the meanwhile by the Democratic National Committee in those fours years.
Mike - another “larger than life” personality - will beat Trump. Americans, as a whole - Democrats (Centre and left), upright Republicans and brave Americans - in the end, will support him with their votes. The World, soon after will breathe a sigh of relief.
In Europe, Bernie Sanders is not considered either a Socialist or even a Communist, but a welfare champion who just cares about workers. In any case: God bless America!
3
This article shows Bloomberg buys influence with his vast fortune, and his influence is large. Those who benefit from his largesse fear to criticize him because they need his money.
One non-profit was forced to eliminate a chapter in a book they published on Bloomberg-supported Muslim surveillance by the NYPD, or lose funding.
But what about the man, Bloomberg? Why did he switch from lifelong Republican to neophyte Democrat? Ego? This article shows where his money went, but doesn't enlighten on his character, what motivates him, what makes him tick.
If President, he can't spend taxpayer dollars like he spends his personal fortune--Congress must approve his budgets. As President, he must divest himself of ties to his businesses and philanthropies.
Without money to buy influence, what positions, beliefs and stances will he take to motivate Congress and world leaders? Why should they listen?
"I'm very rich, and a newborn Democrat" are not a Presidential qualifiers.
3
Being a rich philanthropist and a newborn Democrat are flimsy Presidential qualifiers.
This article shows Bloomberg buys influence with his vast fortune, and his influence is large. Those who benefit from his largesse fear to criticize him because they need his money.
One non-profit was forced to eliminate a chapter in a book they published on Bloomberg-supported Muslim surveillance by the NYPD, or lose funding.
But what about the man, Bloomberg? Why did he switch from lifelong Republican to neophyte Democrat? Ego? This article shows where his money went, but doesn't enlighten on his character, what motivates him, what makes him tick.
If President, he can't spend taxpayer dollars like he spends his personal fortune--Congress must approve his budgets. As President, he must divest himself of ties to his businesses and philanthropies.
Without money to buy influence, what positions, beliefs and stances will he take to motivate Congress and world leaders? Why should they listen?
Bigotry is not a mistake nor is making excuses and employing money to seduce forgiveness .
These are actions of intent and a reflection of the content of one’s character
Bloomberg has dark spots and no amount of strategic deployed amnesia money can change one’s identity
BLM
2
To all the Democratic Bloomberg naysayers, imagine a rich and powerful person in favor of improved health care, who fights the gun industry head-on, is passionate about slowing climate change, supports big cities and arts & culture, all the while empowering female political candidates. The Horror, the Horror!
4
@Tamarine Hautmarche
And favoring charter schools, which undermine our public school system.
1
@Tamarine Hautmarche
Great satire. Thank you.
We are watching another egotist like Trump---Bloomberg’s manipulative, calculating campaign. Bloomie's just less mentally unbalanced than Trump.
I didn't think things could get worse, but then I read about Bloomie's past and his exploitive attitude.
Here’s some contrast with today. Right now on Cspan is a 'Reel America' series program tracing the career and presidency of Republican President Eisenhower.
He wasn't an exploitive profit making billionaire using PR to manipulate his way to power in politics.
He was the supreme commander of the WW2 allies in Europe and of D Day.
As president he would today be labeled too left wing. In the 1950s, the tax rate on the highest portion of wealthy incomes was 91%. In Ike’s term the S. Court outlawed racial segregation in American public schools.
He financed the federal government's biggest infrastructure project across the nation----the Interstate Highway System. The middle class was expanding with it.
GOP Ike did not insult ordinary people to inflate his ego. He favored unions and social security, and was opposed to any influence in politics of the rw wealthy. See his letter to his brother, Edgar online--- stunning, compared to today’s Republican party norms.
He didn't think the extreme right could get powerful, but he couldn't foresee today's situation.
The contrast with today's ruling political exploiters and its norms is stark.
2
If you give away a few billions and still have $60 billion left, it doesn't seem all that philanthropic. In Democratic terms, "he's not giving away his fair share". He only became a Democrat in October of 2018 when he announced he was a candidate for the presidency. Now, after spending hundreds of millions of dollars, the Democrats are starting to embrace him. The only thing most Democrats, outside of New York, know about him is what they see in his paid ads. He's not been subjected to intense debates like the other candidates. And the media, fearing Sanders may be the nominee, are doing their best to shine a favorable light on Bloomberg. I find his becoming a Democrat just to run for president and dumping a bunch of money into biased ads to win the nomination to be disgusting. He may be in the next debate and we'll see how well he holds up to negative attacks. He has a lot of negatives in his background that he doesn't address in his ads. Imagine that!
3
Let's look at Michael Bloomberg. He grew up Middle Class and turned himself into a self-made multi-Billionaire. He donates freely to causes that have a positive effect on our Country. He was Mayor of New York City for 12 years. What does this all add up to? An intelligent and generous man with Governing experience that wants to help Our Country. Sounds good to me!!
6
@alan
I’ll buy that. Let’s hope enough Americans do.
2
This article is very well researched and written. Thank you! Hats off to the graphics wizards who designed the moving charts - so helpful in supporting the narrative - really beautiful. This article alone has rationalized my subscription to the Times for 2020. Everything I read for the rest of the year is just icing on the cake.
2
Despite any of his "not-quite-so-liberal" views on some issues, Bloomberg is a saint compared to Donald Trump. He has supported many very critical causes to protect health and the environment. Trump created a fake charity to enrich himself. Bloomberg really cares about the future and others. Trump is all about today and himself. If you want to believe he is buying the election, go ahead. It is better that he buy this election than to let Trump steal it.
6
@Doug
Yes, if Bloomberg wins the nomination, our votes will come down to comparing personalities (as well as issues). This article says a lot about Bloomberg’s convictions as underscored by his giving. Let’s see, how do we compare that to Trump:
Malignant narcissist
Sociopath
Mafia (like) don
Bully
Borderline personality
Paranoid personality
Charity cheater
I could go on....
Chris Hatfield, the astronaut, notes in his biography that "in a profession (and in life) there are minus 1’s (people who take away and detract from whatever is going on), 0’s (people who neither detract nor add value), and plus 1’s (true value creators). Mike Bloomberg is clearly a plus 1+. What better qualification can there be for president.
3
How is Bloomberg different from the Kochs? These billionaires waging a "philanthropy war," are distorting the entire system of democracy by strategically "investing" to secure their private interests and community adulation. This is how an oligarchy works. Lincoln would be appalled.
3
@janjamm
Bloomberg is different because his investments do better the common good. He has invested in things that are unpopular but needed, and not at all to his political advantage, such as AIDS research and care in Africa. And he clearly does have great talent as a leader/manager. I can believe he would make a very good president. That doesn't change the fact that he shouldn't be able to buy an election.
As another reader noted, if he would make overturning Citizens United and the reform of campaign financing elements of his platform, then he might win over more of us.
2
If Bloomberg, in his first public appearance next week at the debate (assuming he makes the last hurdle), were to state that, due to his age (79 at inauguration), he will be a one-term president, and that he will name a young moderate as his VP pick (whether currently running for the top spot or not), he would have my vote in a heart-beat.
That would make him the earliest "lame duck" in history, but, with the hoped-for Democratic Congress riding in on his coat-tails behind him, it would not matter.
89
@The Lone Protester Your point is well taken. I wish to point out that Bernie, Biden and Warren are also in the 75+ demographic. That if any of them are elected President they will in all probability be one-term presidents. If any of those 4 become president it will be incumbent on them to create a deeper bench than currently exists.
9
@The Lone Protester
Problem with announcing before his election that if he wins he will not run for reelection, if succesful his political capital and influence decreases significantly. That is why incumbents in general do not announce their reelection intentions until the last minute. Also if he does change his mind and runs anyway, then he gifts talking points that will be used negatively by his opponents.
8
Better to have Biden with Warren. Bloomburg could have a large role. Tired of entitlement linked to wealth. The Country very much appreciates Michael Bloomberg's successful efforts to oust the Republican's hold on our Congress!
4
Michael Bloomberg is an amazing guy. This man will give everything he owns (and more) to improve the human condition. Just look at what he has contributed to (as illustrated in the NY Times article from February 15 2020), during his lifetime, and you can see a man committed to unity and the betterment of civilization.
We live in a global world, and have a deeply divided country. This man can pull us all together. And with the right vice president (Amy Klobuchar perhaps?) he can pull votes from independents. Civility, decency, and a common commitment to help make all Americans, and all people for that matter, better. He has philanthropically demonstrated his commitment to improving healthcare/public health, focusing on climate change, fixing gun violence, and helping community development. He is best suited to tackle a potential viral pandemic and minimize its impact on our country's citizens (as well as those of the rest of the world).
Has anybody else, done so much giving in their lifetime? And if so who? He is best fitted to unite this country and tackle the tough problems. He has been a republican and a democrat and can embrace all sides. In return, we should embrace this kind of passion, and help Mike become our next president!
6
To say Mr. Bloomberg is generous is an understatement. I know for certain with the publication of this article there will be critics who have problems with various causes he has supported with his money.
The bottom line is, he is unselfish with his billions and has supported numerous charities and causes related to health and the environment. We should be grateful.
5
Bloomberg's tax on the rich is far less than any other candidates "wealth tax" and does not come close to our progressive tax rates in the 1970's when we had a thriving middle class that was the envy of Europe. Simultaneously, the wealthiest taxpayers over the last 40 years have found multiple creative ways to reduce their taxes to a fraction of what they should be paying. So an actual "wealth tax" that is like 2 cents on every dollar of wealth beyond $50 million only makes sense because you are dealing with slippery tax-dodgers. Economists have praised Senator Sanders approach that refocuses our government tax spending in support of the needs and success of people first, rather than the needs and success of global corporations based in the USA. I am one of 6 million people, who are donating small amounts of money to elect a leader of a grassroots movement to take back control of the US Congress that has been bought and is controlled by people like Mike Bloomberg. Together we have raised $95 million so far -- It's a record amount raised by any other candidate. Then you have Bloomberg utilizing his one-man's wealth to fund $400 million from day one to buy TV advertising and deploy hundreds of paid staff to canvas California for votes. If he becomes the Democratic Party nominee -- after being a Republican until 2018, it will be a party disaster (with or without Hillary Clinton as VP.)
5
Bloomberg' wealth is somewhere in the reported range of 50 to 60 billion. Most likely at least 75% of it is in the form of stock ownership in his own companies and investments, at a minimal rate of return of 5%. He earns more in one day than most people earn in a lifetime. These investment returns , just within the Trump economy, probably surpass his charitable giving and contributions to political organizations. Who really knows without financial statements and tax returns.
Yes super billionaires give to charities in large amounts. But is this more of a testament to their generosity than a need to feel elevated about themselves.
The political contributions for worthwhile causes also appear admirable. But as this article demonstrates, their is a relationship between these and his need for political power. What can be the greatest ascent of power other than the Presidency.
Bloomberg still can give as he currently does, with a wealth tax and much more extensive taxes on the rich. Here is where is political muscle, sense of himself as super worthy, collide with his charitable givings.
3
Bloomberg has said that he has been a lifelong democrat who when first running for NYC mayor could not run on the democratic ticket so he went over to the republican ticket. then for another term he was an independent and a third term a democrat which he is and also the unofficial bank of the Progressive causes and the Democratic party. Your article says he is a Republican. Where's the fact-checking?
6
Very few people ultimately will care about stop and frisk. Many of those affected by it don't vote. No, people vote their self-interest. It is in our self-interest to prevent the planet's destruction. You can't believe in climate change and give Trump four more years. It doesn't matter if I like Mike Bloomberg or not. It does not matter how he has used his philanthropy. It is in my direct self-interest to stop a madman.
9
I supported Bernie during his first run. I voted for Clinton, though I found it distasteful. Now with Trump in power-- damaging our republic-- I am seeing the only candidate capable of restoring order in this county is Michael Bloomberg.
I can only hope he is the Democratic nominee.
Paul Antram
11
I keep hearing this refrain that Mike Bloomberg is the only Democrat who can beat Trump. Who says? The Bloomberg campaign? Hair-on-fire Centrist Dems panicked about Bernie Sanders? Paid influencers on social media? Politicians who have been recipients of the former mayor’s financial largesse? There’s nothing at all inevitable about Bloomberg’s electoral success. Who honestly thinks he’ll win the enthusiastic backing of the majority of black voters? There are lingering questions about his personal and professional relationships with women. And many Sanders supporters — who represent a quarter or more of Dem voters judging from results in Iowa and N.H. — have said openly they’d prefer to sit on their hands than vote for the richest of three oligarchs in the race. Does this sound like a recipe for victory? From my perspective, Mike’s quest for the White House looks more like Hillary 2.0, with perhaps even more catastrophic results. He’d be advised to take his cue from the popular vote in the upcoming primaries, and then with his enormous resources get behind whoever the Democratic nominee is when the process is complete.
4
Impressive Story, Impressive Graphics !!!!
Congrats !!!!
3
@Kyle Also impressive that all this information is out there to be reported. Meanwhile the wannabe mob boss in the White House is fighting to prevent the release of his tax information.
1
Thank you Mike for funding the CDC and the WHO.
6
Right now, Bloomberg is on cspan at his event in Richmond Va. My TV sound is off.
On stage with him is a smiling 11 year old girl.
A cspan caption says-- "viewers may find some language in this video offensive".
Wonder what that was all about. I'm not that curious. I switched channels.
5
Bloomberg has been a Democrat for 5 minutes. Do not forget that he helped flip the US Senate for Republicans and helped them maintain control of it....including right wing judges, blocking healthcare legislation, blocking climate change legislation and fund raising for people that do not accept climate change or gun control. This guy is a neoliberal. Don't be fooled by big bribes.
5
Best bet to take on Trump. The rest meh!
Bloomberg for Prez!
2
The idea that voters or votes can be bought makes the unwarranted assumption that voter are either stupid or just plain naive. What follows is that they need to be guided by morally all knowing superior beings that know what's good for them.
Utter hubris. Money or not the voters will decide what they think is best for the.
1
If Democrats turn their back on a candidate with this kind of record, firepower, and vision, then Trump will turn out right: we're losers.
6
Thanks for these excellent graphics! I especially like the ones showing Bloomberg's many outlays to worthy causes. I like the comparison of wealthy candidates who ran for president near the bottom of this article. So many of these wealthy men lost their bids. That should tell us something positive about anyone's chances of buying the presidency. Like I said, Super graphics!
3
As I read this article, it seems to say Bloomberg uses his wealth to gain personal power. All his donations are to those that can help him, whether it be charitable, or political. It is to gain influence and power for himself. He succeeded. Ms Taeb is told to basically whitewash a chapter she is writing in a report or get rid of it all together. Mr. Bloomberg might get upset about what it says. When she gets involved in Virginia politics, he leaves a message that he wants to sit down with her and tell her why he should be president and "what he’s done with the Democratic Party." Not what he did "for" the party. One might think he is saying he bought it and owns . This is not that just popped up. He has been buying influence and power for years.as this article describes. He may be betting on Super Tuesday. But even if his success is not what he intended, it's doubtful he will drop out. There may come a time that prospects are so low, the DNC will find a way to change the outcome of the nomination process. If that happens, Bloomberg could succeed. It is doubtful he will ever debate for the democratic nomination. These candidates rip and tear with no concern who they go after. It may happen anyway if he manages to get any significant votes.
4
Yes Republicans will vote for Mike Bloomberg over Trump - so will independents and Democrats. There are lots and lots of former Republican voters looking for an alternative to AOC and Bernie and Trumpism.
10
Maybe Bloomberg's philanthropy has increased, not as a strategy for running for president, but because he is approaching his 79th birthday. It requires a lot less cynicism.
7
I believe Mr. Bloomberg in his sincerity and long standing commitments to do the most forward and decent thing he can imagine. But therein also lies a structural problem.
He did wonders for NYC's economy and safety, but failed to embrace the needs of affordable and middle income housing. The idea that the market will take care of such issues if left alone, is deeply flawed. I see little evidence of his investing in the social infrastructure and places where the markets are inadequate and the role of government ought to be profound.
Another deep unease is the usurping of the democratic process itself. Yes, the lay public has long become the pawns of who can raise the most money to be elected. If Mr. Bloomberg would commit to getting rid of Citizens United and related campaign finance reform, it may be enough to overcome my queasiness.
This may be the one moment when it takes someone like Mr. Bloomberg to course correct the country. But what guarantees do we have that in overcoming Trump we won't end up with a wholly different (although conceivably better in key areas) skew? How messed up in the other direction would we be?
In terms of radical shifts I still believe Bernie Sanders has the right attitudes. Its been a long standing myth that president's are responsible for the economy during their tenure. It works on its own trajectory.
Still, if Mr. Bloomberg can assure and provide for the increasingly abandoned middle and deprived, I'll take him seriously.
1
It is a Victorian absurdity brought to us by the past two generations in this country that are obsessed with words, and politically correct cant, that we even focus for a second on someone's speech at the expense of their deeds. Who cares what Bloomberg says about this one or that one- I certainly don't. But I do care, as do many others of older generations, what he does with his money, his time, who he supports, and his values re: climate issues, gun control, and human rights.
(BTW, it is absolutely necessary to assess his stop/frisk history as mayor). But, with the loss of basic civics classes in schools and the over emphasis on 'protecting' children from 'bad' speech, or insensitive expressions (whatever that is supposed to be) we have relegated our youth to being assessors of verbal naughtiness, instead of the more important task of judging individuals by their endeavors, both social and political. We have reinforced such hypersensitivity in the youth, that they are virtually unable to do anything but evaluate simple speech at the expense of more complex moral actions.
2
In other words he is a brilliant tactician who, at the same time, promotes good.
I’ll take it!
11
Turns out 64 women have sued him for either discrimination or inappropriate behavior. No matter what he spends on issues, his legacy isn't looking good. Did he think we wouldn't find out?
6
@karen Beck ....wow, 64 women sued him? I've been reading about his unsavory past, and insults to women but didn't see that.
Maybe the media can give us a chart, to compare Trump with Bloomie on the same criterion. And maybe with Bill Clinton's record too.
Yes, keep a running record of how many lies and how many lawsuits.
3
Democracy in the US has lasted about 230 year. It seems to be decaying now.
Bloomberg would not normally be a good choice. But the other available choices are even worse.
On the one hand we have Trump. Bloomberg certainly beats Trump.
On the other hand, the Democrats have been marching ever further to the left.
This article mentions Bloomberg addressing women dressed in black to demonstrate solidarity with Christine Blasey Ford, who had accused Brett Kavanaugh of attempted rape 35 years ago when he was in high school.
The Senate did an investigation and there was essentially no corroboration of the accusation itself, just character witnesses who claimed that Kavanaugh had used beer and exhibited other juvenile behaviors when in school.
Memories are not terribly accurate going so far back. And Ford had talked about what happened with therapists who have been know to plant false memories.
How can we be certain that the accusation was accurate? I believe it is likely that Kavanaugh was innocent of the charge. Susan Collins argued that the evidence did not make the charge "more likely than not."
The Senate vote was almost exactly along party lines. What does that say? That being a Republican is relevant in determining guilt in a charge of rape?
It seems to me that Bloomberg was right to express reservations about the Me Too movement.
And I suspect many Republicans and independents share that view.
The bottom line: His position probably helps him defeat Trump.
5
Can’t get myself to read the article in case I feel even more dejected. But honestly maybe the answer is to fight fire with fire. Trump against an even richer Trump. Red Trump against blue Trump. I’d vote for blue Trump. Even as a woman.
Democrats 2020
5
Give me a break. Michael Bloomberg's "charity" is completely self-serving and often for dirty purposes. His "charity" to the Doe Fund a decade ago was effectively a bribe to influential people to help convince other influential people Bloomberg was also bribing to abolish NYC mayoral term limit laws. After that appalling display of dictatorial corruption, which helped permanently exile his henchwoman Christine Quinn back to New Jersey, Bloomberg without explanation reinstated term-limit laws. When questioned about it, he angrily replied something to the effect that he'll only address serious questions. The guy is a snake. New Yorkers, for all their supposed education and streetwise savvy, apparently have very short and selective memories.
9
The huge personal funds now being spent by Michael Bloomberg or other wealthy candidates is allowed by our current law, Citizens United which was promoted by the Republican Party.
The presidency of the United States must never be for sale, however, the Republican Party and it's law. Citizens United,
are the reasons that our beloved United States of America, is now going down the tubes.
M.W. Endres
1
@M.W. Endres ....right, they've taken advantage of Citizens United equating big money with free speech per 1st amendment. Using our own constitution against us.
Have you read NYT editorial Feb 1?
“More Money, More Problems for Democracy --- Countering private campaign funding with public funding is the most viable way to limit the political influence of the wealthy."
It's the 10th Anniv of Citizens United.
3
It's shocking that more readers in these comments aren't horrified by Bloomberg trying to buy the Democratic nomination. (Or are all the positive comments from influencers on Bloomberg's vast payroll?)
If Bloomberg were to succeed, the US would no longer have any claim to be a democracy. It would be a full-blown plutocracy.
Nothing - not even Trump as POTUS - illustrates the sickness at the heart of US politics more than this racist, sexist, Iraq War-supporting Republican being considered a viable Democratic opponent to Trump.
6
@Jane .....I agree--- there are an amazing # of pro Bloomie comments here and to other articles. I thought these pieces inspired the pro Bloomie voters to write a comment, but that this didn't reflect most voters. But maybe these positive comments are paid by Bloomie.
You're right his election would amplify our anti democratic trends lower our standards further. He'd just be less mentally unbalanced than the one we got now. And hide his faults better---like apologize, then find another way to do same.
3
@Jane Yes, I am shocked as well. I lived through Bloomberg's three terms as major of NYC and watched in horror as he (with the help of Giuliani before him) turned a metropolis rich with truly diverse neighborhoods and businesses into a glorified shopping mall. Bloomberg is a corporatist and a flattener. He has little genuine sympathy or empathy for many, many segments of the population who are different from him -- less rich, less male, less white. It is dismaying to me that the two poles of the Democratic primary now appear to be Bloomie and Bernie, with little sane middle ground, and with many partisans on both sides refusing to yield one inch of turf. Divided we fall.
1
@MKD500 Hello, that is interesting about Bloomberg's effect on NY. Agree re. his lack of empathy and character. In some ways I fear his presidency more (or at least as much as) Trump. Trump is appalling but at least he is a buffoon - someone with Trump's values but also a degree of competency is a worst prospect.
It's interesting you view Bernie as an extreme. As an Australian, Bernie seems very sane. Nothing can describe my shock when I found out only a few years ago that the US did not have universal health care - I actually couldn't wrap my head around it for days. Like, 'America lets sick people die if they can't afford insurance?!' It's barbaric. It was like finding out that you don't have running water or roads. Please don't misinterpret me - Australia has many problems and is far, far from perfect. But universal health care is just a given in most countries. Bernie's policies are framed as extreme, but are standard for the rest of the world.
These fancy graphics flipping all round make it all but impossible for me to read the text and be informed.
3
America's gun fetish was created by Television, movies, and video games. Do you think Bloomberg, being a Television Billionaire, is going to tackle the root of the problem?
As a man who's hoped for a woman President, I've unfortunately concluded Bloomberg is the right candidate for this election cycle because of Trump. I realize this is a second round of disappointment for those of us hoping for a female president. Thus I’m strongly hopeful Bloomberg is nominated and names a female VP.
While I personally find the concept a big negative, too many Americans seem to find themselves subconsciously drawn to the “alpha dog”. This is precisely the game Trump plays. To put it bluntly, Trump’s calling other people childish names is functionally equivalent to the alpha dog urinating on the other dogs to show who’s boss. To the extent he gets away with it generates a subconscious image of Trump being the “alpha dog”.
Watching the videos of Bloomberg in interviews, etc, confirms what I suspected he’d be able to do. Bloomberg is the “alpha dog” in the relationship with Trump. Bloomberg quietly and intellectually slaps Trump around, and there is little Trump can do about it because Bloomberg really is the alpha. Bloomberg projects an attitude toward Trump of “you’re being a petulant little boy and stop annoying the adults.”
6
@Keith Have you had not read the recent reports about Bloomberg’s appalling history of sexual harassment? The Washington Post published a detailed story on this the other day, and other news outlets have covered his awful behavior towards women in recent weeks. Bloomberg is as bad as Trump in this regard. Even though I loathe Trump, as the mother of a young woman, I will never cast my vote for Bloomberg, since he exhibits the same repugnant attitudes and inclinations as the current occupant of the White House.
1
Bloomberg and Warren, perfect.
4
@John Young I love Warren, and wish she were the presidential pick, but that's an oil-and-water combo. Also, if Bloomberg prevails, he is going to need a woman of color to engage nonwhite voters, with whom he is and may very well remain in serious hot water.
If you like gun control, action on climate change, and women in politics, you have only one choice. Mike Bloomberg.
8
I think we focus too much on who 'they' are. (the "Candidates"), than who we are. We exist in a vacuum.
Which party/media spout has the most expensive Hoover?
This: https://youtube.com/watch?v=-Ue5F57dZMU
I know when left is right, and right is wrong and most
of us really care about the same things—the eye on
the prize is success for everyone.
make it great now,
as it never has been.
The sad thing is that if other billionaires also donated 1/80th of their wealth every 5 years, Bloomberg's money wouldn't get him so far. They wouldn't even miss it. Bloomberg won't miss the money either but if it is an investment strategy, as the article supports, it's a poor one for a candidate with a natural base of a small sliver of one percent of the population and zero in-person charisma.
Part of the bet must be that his advertising can create a vaguely powerful, ethereal winning persona without his having to face voters personally at all. Sort of a Wizard of Oz candidacy.
2
Two strands run through these comments: An appreciation of how Bloomberg has spent some of his billions, and resentment at a system that allowed him (and others) to accumulate so much while others have so little.
Similarly, I appreciate the Times' effort in identifying the many causes and organizations Mr. Bloomberg has funded over the years. However, I wish it were the case that those billions had gone to many, many others, whose individual contributions would have been far less newsworthy.
Democrats should make clear that, even in opposing Donald Trump, the Democratic Presidential nomination is not for sale, no matter how well-intentioned the buyer. A truly democratic party should be able to succeed on the merits of its ideas, not on the backs of billionaires.
I hope that someone else, not Bloomberg, wins the Democratic nomination. I hope that afterward, Bloomberg will continue to give as generously.
3
Since Citizens United, the U.S. has steadily slid into being a plutocracy. Elected officials are beholden to the very wealthy that helped elect them; we can simply look at the 2017 tax cuts, of which the vast majority went to the super-wealthy, for proof of this slide.
Now we have someone - one of the wealthy himself - wanting to be president, and desiring to directly (and obviously) influence the direction of the country. Folks are objecting to one of the wealthy buying the presidency, yet how is that different than what has been happening for years, just one degree removed?
8
@Dr. M
Correct.
At least Bloomberg is transparent about it.
I’ll take it.
Mike 2020.
3
Thank you for this informative article and with great graphics.
My question is why is he even running?
When he is able to do all these good things for America.
Once in office, he will have to abandon all charitable giving - and definitely not fund his own campaign.
So, he will be into a territory that he has no idea about or even cares about.
So, while he may be successful at giving away billions - will he be successful the way our country actually runs - that is Congress ultimately doles out.
And even his very very large give aways pale substantially in comparison to what Congress gives away.
Our POTUS has already found out that just because he is a POTUS and thinks when he says "jump" - people should only ask "how high?"
But we know the reply he gets "says who?"
I wish the ex Mayor would continue to do all this good - without getting into dirty and nitty gritty politics of compromises or triangulation.
And looking at the rich folks who attempted a run - of 10 - only one succeeded - and he spent less than a quarter of Bloomberg spending so far - and we are not into a final election campaign yet.
While a man if his stature does not want to be Wizard of Oz for ever - but there is something about the wizard hiding behind the door - when he was most powerful.
If people cared about ads and spending, Steyer who has run ads for the last 3-4 yrs would be leading the pack. I do not know anyone who cares about ads, rallies etc., or goes in person. Sure, there are lots of people who go to rallies in small towns because there's nothing better to do, but are elections really dependent on how much you spend? I don't think so. I think the media makes us think it matters because their incomes depend on it, nothing else.
2
The huge personal funds being spent by Michael Bloomberg or any other wealthy candidate is allowed by our current law, Citizens United, which was promoted by the Republican Party.
The presidency of the United States must never be for sale however, the Republican Party, with its leaders Donald Trump and Mitch McConnell, along with their law, Citizens United, are four reasons why our once beloved United States of America is now going down the tubes.
7
There seem to be two markedly different types of comments:
1. Trump must be defeated, and I'll back Bloomberg if he can do that.
2. Voting in Bloomberg would be like voting for Trump. He's got too much baggage that can't be explained away.
Trump probably will be re-elected, and he certainly will be if very many commenters are in the second category.
3
I recommend that anyone tempted to support Michael Bloomberg as the Democratic nominee read Anand Giridharadas's Winners Take All or, failing that, follow him on social media and listen to him wherever his commentary may be found.
3
@Susan S ....yes I also wrote a comment here citing the best selling book by former NYT columnist, Anand Giridharadas- " Winners Take All: The Elite Charade of Changing the World."
Asks… “Why should our gravest problems be solved by a rich philanthropist upper crust instead of the public institutions it erodes by lobbying and dodging taxes?
He has a cspan video with Robert Reich on their books. Most apt now.
No question about one thing:
Michael Bloomberg and Tom Steyer were the largest donors to Democratic Party nominees and causes in 2018, 2016 and 2014. In 2020, they are spending much more on their own candidacies than on others (though both say they will continue to donate to others).
This has to affect (negatively) Democratic candidates in other races, though it may be worthwhile, on balance, if one of them gets the Democratic Party nomination.
Democrats, "there you go again". Loosing, but with an excuse. Several months ago the mantra was we need a candidate who can beat Trump. Well, that seems to be petering out.
Yes Bloomberg is pro choice, pro gay rights, for gun restrictions, for healthcare improvement. But he's made himself rich, a sin.
He's a realist. We need an adult in the room, the oval office. He's also the smartest guy in the room.
The only score to settle is getting Trump out of office. I hope Democrats, independents and open minded Republicans will take their responsibility to protect democracy seriously.
12
The last paragraph explains why I'm voting for Mike.
“We know who he is — he’s a successful executive in business, he’s a successful executive in public life as mayor,” Mr. Peters said in an interview, adding, “We often say our checkbook is our values, and it was evident through his philanthropy that he shared my values on issues like gun safety and immigration and climate change.”
11
I'm a progressive (Bernie/warren supporter) but I sent $$ to Pete and Amy today because I just can't believe the we could be choosing this man who is essentially buying an election. What have we come to? I am so so sad and disappointed by the Democratic Party. I can't believe I am thinking this, but I am honestly considering not voting if Bloomberg is the alternative choice
1
@Ellen I fundamentally agree with your sentiments (I prefer Warren, not so much Bernie), but if Bloomberg buys the nomination, and he very well might, I think anyone who cares about our fundamental survival as a species has to vote Bloomberg in, if only for his stances on climate change and gun control. Also, Ruth Bader Ginsberg is 87 and has had health struggles. For the sake of the next Supreme Court appointment alone, personal ideals need to be set aside for a greater good, much as it pains me to even type those words.
I do -- they can't:
"I have no idea how the candidates can write off their presidential campaign spending on tax return."
Mike is a good man. He is a great innovator and philanthropist. He has made some bad decisions in his political career but I believe he is a man who learns from his mistakes.
I'm pleased that he is not only throwing his hat in the presidential ring but also pledging to support the ultimate Democratic presidential nominee, regardless of who it may be.
He will help the USA rid itself of a corrupt president who hasn't a clue about leadership.
8
I always thought the universal fantasy was to have unlimited money and then use it to improve the lives of everybody. Seems to me Bloomfield is close to doing that and yet he is being criticized from all over.
6
The only real question is whether this commenter votes (or not) for the Democratic Party nominee, even if it's Mike Bloomberg:
"I have little to no faith that [Bloomberg] is the right [person] ..."
The choices, of course, are:
1. Vote for the Democratic Party nominee, even if it's Mike Bloomberg.
2. Vote for Trump.
3. Stay home.
@Commenter: The Electoral College will probably make it feel as if we did stay home in New York City.
1
I’m not convinced of the conspiracy theory being drawn here by the Times. Bloomberg’s annual giving increased over time? So does many people's, as their income and capacity to give grows. His political spending increased dramatically in the years leading up to his announcement for president? Mine did, too; as did that of millions of people! We see what is going on in our country under the currently insane GOP, in thrall to Donald Trump, and how many of us have not been moved to increase our donations to the people and causes we want to protect and strengthen?
Shame on the Times for ignoring the most obvious and rational interpretation of the facts in favor of something much more speculative.
2
He's buying fealty. Think of all that giving as chits he can call in at any time. That is corrupt and corrupting. Get money out of politics, for crying out loud. That's why I'm voting for Bernie!
6
It would be in the best interest of the United States for the Purity Party to come to the realization that there must be a fierce tactical response to the current administration which is intent on destroying our country. I believe Bloomberg has the ability to beat Trump and do not believe he is doing this for his ego or for power. I fear, however, that Bernie has a huge ego and if he does not win the nomination he will not get behind Bloomberg out of spite and enable Trump to win. If Bernie does win the nomination I will vote for him. Will the Purists vote for Blue not matter what? That is the question.
3
I am so disappointed right now. Bloomberg paid the DNC to get rid of their own rules to let him in the race, and now he's most of what we are seeing in the media , trying to get us all used to the idea and wanting us to vote for him. This is as bad as electing Trump again, that the major newspapers/news outlets don't see this is a problem for me. Why didn't Bloomberg follow the rules, file the paperwork, join the debates, and run a fair race. Shame on the whole system.
4
OK....now let’s see Trump’s philanthropic stats.
Dear American friends, dear Democrats,
You to choose your objective #1, be it apply a more social policy or kick Donald Trump out of the WH.
Bernie Sanders is clearly more social than Bloomberg would be and that's the problem. For the sake of our planet, pick the objective of kicking DJT out, and for this Mike Bloomberg is the best option, voting for Bernie Sanders, without denying his strength and commitment, is the wrong answer to the good question. Only Mike Bloomberg hits DJT on the battle field. He can and will make it, please be wise and patient, select Mike Bloomberg as the democratic candidate.
2
I bet Bloomberg would make his tax returns public.
3
Look at the map on the left. Bloomberg cares. Can we say the same for Trump? He has started charities with other folks money and spent the money on himself. What more do we want? Even the Pope has problems, and he is a good man.
3
What was it "trump" famously said about not paying taxes? 'that makes me smart', right?
He also "gives" money to charity/philanthropy, it's just that he doesn't actually give the actual money. Same notion, I imagine.
He would laugh at Bloomberg for being a chump.
1
After reading this article (twice) and all of the comments I'm pretty sure Bloomberg (mistakes and all) is going to be the way we may have to go in order to right this current ship of fools.
2
Do Democrats want to be 100% “correct” or do they want to be happy? Have we learned nothing from 2016?
Mayor Bloomberg has a proven track record of commercial, government, and philanthropic success. His NY attitude seems a good foil to mix it up with the President. On any metric he far surpasses the current occupant of the White House.
As James Carville puts it so tartly...”it’s time to get relevant people”. The stakes are too high to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
4
Get ready for the new sport of Billionaire Mud-Wrestling.
And Go Mike!
4
Who would not prefer a benign oligarch to a cruel tyrant? America rises to the challenge.
4
@woofer Because we fought a revolution to defeat oligarchy and establish a democratic republic in which every person has one vote. Trump is awful. Letting Bloomberg buy the presidency would finish off what’s left of our democracy.
2 articles on the front page about the candidates: Bloomberg & Buttigieg. The rest? Chopped liver. That tells us who the media will continue to push.
2
We will need the biggest guns available to beat Trump and his machine.
Mike will get it done.
He is a far better person than anyone can know and 100% better than Trump.
2
Do we have a solid figure on how much the Trump foundation contributed to any causes?
I have the feeling that Bloomberg participating the race is to defend Sanders and prevent Biden or other undesirable candidates to be the Democratic party candidate.
I have no idea how the candidates can write off their presidential campaign spending on tax return. But with all that kind of money that Bloomberg has, money spent on presidential election is the best way to keep name on the news and draw friendly hello from fellow candidates.
1
Great article.
We're living in a second Gilded Age, no doubt about it. Bloomberg is a modern day Carnegie or Rockefeller. Those men held outsized influence and their philanthropic activities made a remarkable impact on the world for the better. They were also artifacts of a time of unchecked greed and power in industry.
It's hard to criticize giving away ten billion dollars, even if you want to view it as peddling for favor.
I still can't quite figure out how I feel about Mike Bloomberg as a presidential candidate, but he at least has a strong interest in doing some good work with his fortune.
7
@Dan
He can continue to do some good with his billions.
He doesn't need to be a, and shouldn't be, President to do such.
3
Why would we go for a billionaire who can choose what our "benefits" might be based on his opinion alone?
Why not vote for someone like most of us - who earned his way in the world working for the good of the public?
Bernie Sanders is leading in California - with the biggest issue on our mind being homelessness. If billionaires hadn't made it all but impossible to afford to live here, we wouldn't be in this fix (all around the country) is
8
@EB: In the US, home prices are generally limited by what local wages can support, except where the relatively wealthy congregate and bring in "unearned" money from financial assets.
1
@Steve Bolger
Steve - I agree. It turns out that a lot of those wealthy want to live in the little beach town where I live. They tear down little beach "shacks" and put up giant houses that challenge the height limit and go right to the very edges of the property. We fight a rear guard action, attempting to at least slow the gentrification here.
2
No thanks to billionaires.
I've already received four fancy flyers from Mike Bloomberg.
As a former teacher, always being paid in a minimal way, and as someone barely scraping by out here, I'm with Bernie all the way.
9
I do not agree with stop and frisk. i do not support the charter school movement. On most other issues, I agree with Mr. Bloomberg. Whereas most of our 'leaders' contribute to climate change with their hot air, Bloomberg puts his money where his mouth is and has made a positive difference. He has faults, too. I might prefer Mr. Sanders or Ms. Warren, but please! Anybody but Trump.
2
These comments are absurd, short sighted, & self-centered. There is one issue in this presidential campaign. Trump must be defeated. Health care, immigration, climate control, corruption, etc. must wait. Trump must be defeated. That should be our only focus & we should be prepared to use any method (no violence) necessary to defeat him. For now, the normal issues that might concern us must be put aside. We must defeat Trump & Bloomberg has the resources, both financially & intellectually to get the job done. It's time we get focused on the only issue that is truly before us - Trump must be defeated. Now let's shut up & get the job done!
6
@Peter
Bloomberg has claimed he'll use his monies either way.
Then let him be a patriot, support our chosen nominee and our down ticket candidate.
He doesn't need to be, and shouldn't be, President to continue his philanthropy.
2
This is like a Mulberry Street extortion racket where one powerful mob boss promises to protect us from another.
Bloomberg has his pet political causes but none of them represent the middle class.
All these donations to women's causes and African American churches and organizations were calculated purchases for his own political self interests.
If you like public money going to private schools vote for Mike. If you like high taxes on lifestyle choices vote for Mike.
Mike Bloomberg. The billionaire's billionaire.
9
After carefully reading this NYT article, I'm so glad I voted for Bloomberg in my (already mailed in) absentee ballot in Florida. Four more years of this president would be a disaster for our Democracy. I think Bloomberg can defeat him.
4
@dew really? I saw that exact post on WaPo. Same guy?
1
You would think that Bloomberg would represent what Democrats, liberals and progressives despise about America. Outlandish wealth, power, influence. and the ability to use his money to buy votes with a media blitz that is unprecedented in American political history. Yet here he is, surging in the polls, despite his documented defense of the stop and frisk tactics that targeted African-American youth while he was mayor of New York City. Does his apology as a presidential candidate forgive his avowed position as mayor? The ability of Democrats to forgive the very sins of their own candidates that they constantly attribute to Republicans, simply to defeat Trump, are hypocritical, and dumb founding. But not unexpected.
5
Will the Bloomberg's billions win the 2020 Elections?
Great to see Bloomberg's social media army out in full force today, on this comments'section.
Sure, he's a selfless billionaire who wants nothing more than world happiness and is an expert on every subject, even the ones he knows nothing about.
There's a bridge in Brooklyn you might be interested in....
6
I refuse to get on the Bloomberg bandwagon.
I have been saying for months that he represents the very things liberals purport to want to change. Friedman, the merry leader of this band, is wrong. Choosing the billionaire just because a handful of pundits keep telling us he's the only choice is the problem not the solution.
On Friedman's article, I pointed out that all that's wrong with Joe and the other too elderly candidates applies to Bloomberg. As with Biden, statements made decades ago, when the social mood was different, are already coming back to haunt him. In two days, we've had to contend with more racist statements and sexist ones.
Again, personally,I understand that these men came of age in a different time when the social patter was glib, off the cuff commentary that routinely, unconsciously demeaned women and African Americans. I've long believed that we have to let bygones be bygones and forge ahead, and I embrace the belief that we all need to allow candidates to admit they were on the wrong side of history and change. Don't we want to be flexible?
That said...while *I'm* of that mindset, younger voters may not be and they may well be right in not being so forgiving. These older men have had their turn. They've shaped our country profoundly in ways both beneficial and problematic. We need younger candidates who don't have embarrassing records to explain away.
Most important, we can't make the case that this isn't buying a candidacy. Because it is.
4
That the Democratic Party cannot oust someone like Trump, says it all. They pushed Hilary and that failed- now they will fail again with Bloomberg. What hypocrisy by the Democratic Party.
The worst news of the day came from MSNBC reporting a rumor that Hilary could be his VP.
The failed Democratic Party does it again, handing the Presidency to Trump on a gold platter.
6
I have no idea as to how seriously Michael Bloomberg practices his faith however it is apparent upon reading this article that he like many Jews is a believer in the concept of Tikun olam
He clearly has an aspiration to behave and act constructively and beneficially in using his wealth to fix a broken world and make it a better place for all .
A President Bloomberg does not look awfully bad to me especially considering the alternative.
2
I am sick of the PAID people pushing Bloomberg influence along with his billions. A quick search will show him to be misogynistic and racist. I can not support him when there is a much more qualified person who did not buy her way in. Amy Klobuchar appeals to the same demographics, has all the relationships in D.C. already and people want to work with her. I do NOT agree that billionaires should be able to use their own money to come in late, hire a full staff, propaganda pushers all over social media, tv ads in ever big city, when others have had to campaign and debate for a year to earn the same!
Read the GQ, Rollingstone articles, listen to the audio on stop and frisk, and the read the opinion pieces in the New York Times and stop switching one old, white, misogynist guy for another. I am FED UP. If this was all about beating Trump, he could have spent his billions buying TV ads and a staff for a candidate who has been earning their way for a year.
40 lawsuits for discrimination and sexual harassment can not be ignored.
I want to vote for a moderate who earned her way in, and has a proven track record, Amy Klobuchar. If Bloomberg becomes the front runner, I will vote for Sanders in the primary.
5
You are all making a terrible mistake by overlooking Bloomberg's myriad personal failings. He is NOT progressive and he's barely a Democrat (remember this is the guy who endorsed George Dubya in 2004). His stop-and-frisk policies ruined an untold number of lives by saddling ordinary black Americans with unfair sentences, many of which are still being served today. He offered a halfhearted non-apology when it was politically-expedient for him to do so but he's done NOTHING to make up for all the damage that his cruel and thoughtless policies caused. He's a craven opportunist with no real principles. If he goes up against Donny, he will lose. The general public will have a choice between a two right-wing billionaires, and they'll choose with the one who presents himself as "anti-establishment."
If any of you have any doubts, you should take a gander at this video detailing his numerous and non-negligible shortcomings:
https://youtu.be/eqiRvjKhNm4
9
A billionaire buying his way to the White House. Is this the kind of country we want to live in - oligarchs in charge of everything?
It sounds like Russia, to me.
7
Bloomberg will not win the nomination. Thank you NYT for showing why so many people in the white corporate media are attempting to sugar coat Bloomberg's time as Mayor of NYC. Bloomberg will fail. I will enjoy the thought of him heading into a lonely corner when March the 4th arrives.
Stop and Frisk is his legacy. White people may not want to accept that but it is and he will fail because of it. Black men like myself have long memories.
7
@Jonathan I fully understand but politics is about pragmatism not purity if we want to move this country in the right direction. I cannot stomach another 4 years of Trump and as much as Bernie has some great ideas, a socialist with a heart attack history running against an incumbent with record low employment doesn't stand a chance in the key states that will decide this election which are Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Indiana and Florida. Bloomberg is already #1 in Florida and rising fast in the others.
1
@Jonathan
I truly understand your issues, but this election is about more than your valid concern. It's between dreadful and not perfect. Please don't waste your vote.
1
@Brian Lancaster .... Your counter argument is a trope. Bloomberg was an elected official whose record of racism against African American males is documented. On the other hand, Donald Trump does not have an elected official record of being a racist towards African American males. Indeed, I will vote for Donald Trump because he will not infringe on my right to keep and bear arms. You may not like his style but as you said one should be practical.
I don't trust him any further than I could throw him. He's a wolf in sheep's clothing. He could run as the savior of the Republican Party and run against Trump but he doesn't have the backbone to do that.
6
Bloomberg's worst critics are Democrats. College professors have taught the Millennials to hate the rich. The Bernie Bro's hate the rich, so there goes that segment of voters. Bloomberg's anti-minority tape is a problem for many, and it's hilarious to read numerous posts by those who'd excoriate and never forgive a republican for saying those things, but because the Left is SOOOO desperate we now hear: "Well, it wasn't that bad, and you know, he said he was sorry, so OK!". Nope, poor Bloomberg won't get enough Lefties to vote for him. And his anti 2nd Amendment stand isn't likely to get many Trump voters. Democrats have already done in Bloomberg.
2
I'm in Sarasota, Florida today. The response to Bloomberg office opening was impressive - 100 expected 400+ show up. This is the candidate to lure the mid to upper income voter to the polls to vote Democratic. He is admired for his business acumen and philanthropy. DJT has a lot of explaining to do when compared to Bloomberg.
3
@jb
So proud of our people in Florida, must win state, where Mike is leading in the polls over everyone.
Mr. Bloomberg should immediately release his tax returns. Transparency will win against Mr. Trumps refusal to release his own.
2
He build a very vigorous business and the money kept pouring in.
Now what to do when just a portion of it satisfies all your worldly needs and then some?
Throw it in the street or use it to support humanistic goals? He has chosen the latter.
If anything should be investigated, it is his business practices: how he treats the communities that house his offices, how he treats his employees, how he has grown the business, and how careful he is with investments in his business and others.
I'm soooo glad I'm not in Bloomberg's predicament.
Wealth begets power, even if that power is not directly used in a malicious way (and what does "malicious" mean?). It may be that "power" is no more than ability to influence; to push the needle one way or another; all in the name of the "common good." It is this...tendency or temptation, I don't know which...that the Founding Fathers surely considered when they devised a power-sharing form of government, in which one body (or one individual) didn't hold sway over the others. Trump, of course, has ridden rough-shod over that balance, though that doesn't alter the intent of our founders.
This is why I cannot vote for Michael Bloomberg. Yes, it is true that he's done much good with his money. But the sole check on what he does is limited to his personal moral compass. This can be dangerous. With the financial wherewithal to stand above the give and take that a democratic society requires, a president Bloomberg would be subject to the temptations that could make him king, especially in times of great national distress. This frightens me.
I'd rather have the Oval Office occupied by someone who balances the checkbook every couple weeks, as I do. I doubt Mr. Bloomberg even knows how to do that.
3
@OldPadre The vague possibility that "a president Bloomberg would be subject to the temptations that could make him king" is nothing compared to the near certainty that Trump will absolutely do so given the slightest chance.
2
@OldPadre: Publicly funded philanthropy has many interests to satisfy, as well as technical and legal departments with strict criteria to apply to it.
The other five democrats left in the race either are too ideologically left to win--Sanders and Warren, or are too weak and will be eaten alive by the brutal efficiency of Trump and his machine. While Pete Buttigieg seems like a fine future prospect he lacks the resources and history of connecting with a diverse America that Bloomberg has. Mike Bloomberg is the only candidate, with all his money and his record as a truly self made success story, that can give lie to Trump. This article shows that he is committed with his money and leadership skills to undo the last four years. I know that moderate independents like me finally have someone who we can finally embrace for 2020.
3
@Forgotten Voter: I suspect, if there is another free range presidential debate, Trump will stalk Mike as he did Hillary.
There is a lot of good data in this article on where exactly Bloomberg's money has gone, but the author seems somewhat obsessed at finding the dark secret of this money and how it is exerting undue influence or buying a narrative. Even a bit less likely considering Mike did not announce for presidency since recently, but we are rehashing his contributions since 2010.
I especially find it hard to believe that his health related contributions are related to buying the presidency. Who are the secret people who say consider his Johns Hopkins contributions as political? Maryland is solidly blue and won't vote for Trump. World Lung Foundation, or Vital Strategies ? Then we have culture and arts (at worst a vanity project), Boston Science Museum, the Sierra club ...
And as others have stated we can only look at these contributions vs the secret Koch contributions or similar .. Koch in particular keeping us stuck on what is a unsustainable carbon rich global warming path for the gain of a small number of people (including those 30K coal miners). Vs Mike giving the UN money when Trump irrepsonsibly stepped away from the climate agreement.
I think many upper middle class and very rich people are willing to pay more taxes .. and Bloomberg is one of them. I am not sure many of these folks really want to take their chances on Bernie's massive re-imagining of our economy.
Mike is also smart and listens to experts .. a good thing.
3
I assume most of Bloomberg’s net worth is in Bloomberg LP stock, which is a private company.
Who does he sell stock to when he wants to raise cash? Or does he just use his stock as collateral for loans?
What about his company’s dependence on China for future growth? Won’t that impact his decisions should he become President?
2
Excellent article. Let's see what happens but I believe Michael Bloomberg is a strong contender. For the most part he represents more good even with all the faults being noted.
3
Bloomberg also spent $12,000,000 to re-elect Pat Toomey, a Senate Republican, in 2016. Toomey beat his Democratic challenger by 1.5 points. After Doug Jones won in 2018 that meant that Democrats would have had enough votes to block Kavanaugh from the Supreme Court. Thanks Mike.
4
If the most you can donate to a candidate's campaign is $2,800, then the most you can donate to your own campaign should also be $2,800. Back to back billionaire presidents would be an oligarchy, not a democracy.
7
@mike Trump is certainly no billionaire. Bloomberg would be the first one as president.
2
Let’s compare and contrast Trump’s philanthropy, like when he used donated funds from his foundation to purchase an large portrait of himself.
We don’t need a perfect candidate, we need one with the drive and money to win. Go Mike!
4
The Republican hit squad trying to undermine every viable Democratic presidential candidate is bad enough, but I am tired of reading attacks on the Democratic candidates by the political correctness woke squad.
Bloomberg correctly points out that in an attempt to over correct for redlining banks were put in a position to make predatory loans that could not be repaid, leaving victims more destitute than when they started. The woke squad accuses him of supporting redlining.
He correctly points out that crime in minority neighborhoods are perpetrated by young black and Hispanic males carrying weapons. He attempts to make minority neighborhoods safer by getting these weapons off the street and he is accused by the woke squad of "targeting innocent minority youths."
He correctly tells young women that if they take time off of a blossoming business career to start a family they may interfere with their professional development and he is accused of, I don't know what, sexism of some kind.
Does this woke squad really want four more years of Donald Trump? Is there any comparison between the flaws they find in the major Democratic candidates and the actions of our current criminal in chief?
5
@PETER EBENSTEIN MD
Hmm...they both refuse to show their taxes.
They both have offshore their monies.
They both have masses amounts of sexual harassment lawsuits against them. They both settle out of court for undisclosed amounts and force NDA's upon the victims.
They both have an inordinate amount of job discrimination lawsuits against them.
They both practiced racist policys.
They both did everything possible to harm, besmirch and demean the Central Park 5, even after they were released and found innocent.
Both have accountants being investigated by the Feds.
Is this enough or should we continue...?
Do we get into how they both ran in the same circles?
How Bloomy had 5 different phone numbers with Jeffrey Epstein?
How both spent time on his island, on Bloomies Bermuda Island and vacationed together?
We don't want or need Mike Bloomberg as President of the U.S. If he wishes to continue buying his ticket into heaven, then he's welcome to do good with his billion$. He's claimed he'll support whomever is chosen for the nominee. Then hold him to it. His monies and advice will still be in play.
But we DON'T want/need him as POTUS.
1
Earning $60M honestly from scratch is a huge achievement. Giving it away, thoughtfully, is another massive achievement Compared to the fraudster in the White House, Bloomberg is a smart giant. Lets compare Bloomberg and Trump's tax returns for starters. Then 12 years managing a complicated city. We have a smart, generous, experienced guy with a solid track record willing to tackle tough problems. I can live with his very few missteps. President Bloomberg does not have to be Angel Bloomberg.
4
I think he's a great guy. Is he perfect, nope but he's a lot closer than the current resident of the White House and he's shown that he can get things done.
He has my vote.
3
Citizens United decision has steered our elections towards the wealthy. What is the difference for Bloomberg to use his own money or other candidates to court small or large donors. Everyone in this race is trying to buy the election. We are a sad state. I want the right candidate and most importantly, a candidate to beat the monster in the White House.
3
The photo of Bloomberg speaking at the NYPD captioned "Mr. Bloomberg discussing policing in 2012, when he was mayor of New York" is rather conveniently placed between the Center for American Progress "chilling effect" paragraph and the kicker stating that the chapter was removed -- making it impossible to screenshot.
Also, this paragraph farther up:
"Over the past week, Mr. Bloomberg’s campaign was on the defensive over past recordings that showed him linking the financial crisis to the end of discriminatory “redlining” practices in mortgage lending, and defending physically aggressive policing tactics as a deterrent against crime."
doesn't once mention the racist intent/effect of both of these problems!
3
Thank you for this article. Very enlightening.
Whatever. Voting against the incumbent. Period.
2
Vote for a President that
1) can unite the country
2) has a track record of delivering something of value
3) listens to advise of people who have more knowledge and experience
4) is sensitive to the needs of those who are the weakest
5) is good to invite for a BBQ or when your boat is sinking
A person who is 'solving' problems by finding who to blame for it should be avoided like the plague.
2
Great. 239 years after the American Revolution, our society is reverting back to rule by a small, privileged class of billionaire aristocrats.
5
Dems can keep looking for the perfect candidate - like Jesus is will be one, one of these days - in the meantime, every other candidate they knock down, is a vote for Trump - the real person they want to replace.
1
Michael Bloomberg has donated billions to support progressive causes? What a monster! For those of you who want to obsess over his expression of some views on some topics that don't align perfectly with the purities of the Bernie wing of the party, get over yourselves. Most reasonable people in this country, including the vast majority of those who want to support a progressive agenda and will be critical to getting any of it over the finish line, have a range of views on these topics that also don't align with your litmus tests. Bloomberg isn't a progressive saint, he's a pragmatic politician whose policy priorities line up remarkably well with the progressive agenda, and he has the resources and the chutzpah to stick it to Trump. And that's EXACTLY why he's our best chance to end this national nightmare. Wake up people.
11
@Michael Hogan He knows it’s a street fight. The other D candidates have no idea what that means.
2
Michael Bloomberg has donated billions to support progressive causes? What a monster! For those of you who want to obsess over his expression of some views on some topics that don't align with the litmus tests of the Bernie wing of the party, get over yourselves. Most liberal-leaning people in this country, including the vast majority of those who want to support various parts of the progressive agenda and will be critical to getting any of it over the finish line, have a range of views on these topics that also don't always align with your litmus tests. Bloomberg isn't a progressive saint, he's a pragmatic politician whose policy priorities line up remarkably well with the progressive agenda, and he has the resources and the chutzpah to stick it to Trump. And that's EXACTLY why he's our best chance to end this national nightmare. Wake up people.
2
In the recent New Hampshire primary, Trump received only 85%, in spite of having only one weak opponent. 15% of Republicans rejected Trump. This proves that there are many Republicans and Republican-leaning independents who would eagerly abandon Trump if there was an acceptable alternative. Bloomberg is exactly such an alternative. This makes him the strongest Democratic candidate - the one with the best chance to beat Trump. And his proven record of competence and integrity indicate that he would make an excellent president.
5
In the financial world, Bermuda is an esteemed offshore banking center.
1
The guy gets it about climate change which is and soon will be the horrendous monster out of the closet. During the next four years, this monster will begin to rear its ugly head. It will be critical that the government focus on creative solutions and begin the shift from fossil fuels. Imagine how many vital jobs Bloomberg will promote via the war on climate disaster.
He is human. Mistakes have been made. But his practical understanding of the real issues at hand is highly favorable, albeit crucial going forward.
6
Bloomberg-just another NYC billionaire buying a public office. If buying the “leadership” of a political party is a prerequisite that’s okay. The Mike and Don Show. Billionaires that share this--not producers ala Henry Ford but rentiers ala Milliken. On issues that affect oligarchy wealth, no difference. On other matters say environmental but not on working class matters, Mike makes ‘nicer’ noises. His pronouncements on marijuana and his bigoted and discriminatory law enforcement policies suggest he is close to Don. In 2016 a vulture capitalist former Democrat money captured a morally bankrupt Republican Party and bought an Emperorship err I mean “Presidency”. In 2020, a vulture capitalist, former Republican is attempting to money capture a morally bankrupt Democratic Party in order to attempt to buy an Emperorship err I mean “Presidency”. Trumpberg or Blump--no real difference-- Mike keeps the mask on his inner class warfare wolf more firmly. Credit to Don for dropping the mask so all can see how "business" really governs what was once one of humanity’s better shots at a functioning large population democracy. In more than a few ways this is Oligarch Street's err I mean “Wall Street’s” final takeover of both parties. It used to own, 1 and a half political parties, now it will have two.Oh, and another superficial, though insignificant [since Mike’s charity is all tax deductible and thus costs him nothing] Mike keeps his word. Why not when it costs nothing.
2
From outside of the US, I am a keen observer of its politics. Why is Bloomberg suddenly on the front page and the subject of expensive data viz articles? Is it because Sanders appears to be the Democratic frontrunner? American elites are terrified of Bernie Sanders winning. This is corporate America at its very worst, and I'm sad to include the New York Times in this assessment.
4
@Jake Morrison: Politics really is for nuts in the US.
Goodness, what a sad shock to see all the condescending righteous cynicism on display here - mostly in snide, holier-than-Mike reader comments, or quibbles about minor issues compared with replacing your Fake President with someone who actually has a moral compass, well documented in the article - which reads to me in places like a Stop Mike advertisement from a rival.
Unlike those oh-so-pure American readers and journalists turning up their noses against the guy because he's made a fortune - honestly, through imagination, decisive pragmatism and efficient management - a lot of us without a vote but highly dependent on your votes for the good of our countries and the world as a whole (starting with the global Climate Emergency) just want someone who can end the current Nightmare on Pennsylvania Avenue.
In your crazy power-for-sale system, I'll take an honest philanthropic billionaire with a good understanding of the role of Reason, Fact and Ethics in government, over any fantasy perfect candidate (there is, and never will be a real one) destined to nobly lose.
Politics is the Art of the Possible.
As a European progressive (in American terms, a crazy socialist) I'm mightily relieved that a real, practical, alternative to the sociopath currently in charge has become available at this late stage.
PLEASE don't carp and reject him because he's not perfect.
Right now he's easily the best available option for you.
And for the billions without a vote.
6
@Martin
My god, a pragmatist makes a comment! Thank you, Martin, for putting plain commonsense into a few sentences--a quality sadly lacking in U.S. of A.
2
If he can beat Trump, I'M IN !! especialy if he takes seriously the effect of fossil fuel emissions on our planet. SOMEBODY has to deal with this imperative life saving situation, and NOW.
If he does this, he's a good man; otherwise, forget him.
NOONE can be as wretched as Trump and his ilk, and the GOP.
Lets get past the Lindsay Grahams, the Barrs, the Guilianni's and all of Trumps weird followers, and get to what a DEMOCRACY is all about. Havent' we had ENOUGH already ???? The world is laughing at us that we can't find anyone else!!! God help us all.
3
@richjacq7: The Republicans already own God in the US.
Ok Let's look at this clearly. Do you think any of the current Democrats running can beat Trump? I do not know and I do not want to chance giving Trump another term. I need to be sure that the person running against him
can turn him out of office.I can only have a high degree of confidence with Michael Bloomberg, He has my vote because I absolutely do not dare to have Trump in the Oval Office ever again. Vote against a Dictator. Vote for our country.
4
The horror of it all. A self made billionaire self made who puts his money and now his time and influence where his mouth is to improve the health, educational opportunities and lives of Americans, fighting climate change, supporting women candidates, LGBT rights, gun control and my G-d, sometimes reaching across the aisle to - horror Republicans - to get something done that advances issues like gun control that he cares about. How dare he? I suppose if Mr. Bloomberg had never built a billion $ company but rather just got on his soap box and took money from special interest groups on the right (banks, corporation) and/or left (e.g. unions) like all the rest of the candidates and started unrealistically spouting about making everything we all want free, he would be more appealing to some. Or perhaps if he was a homogeneous idealogue who always takes an ideologically pure, left wing position on all issues without getting anything done or reaching across the aisle ,he would be more attractive to some. PLEASE. Folks get over it. Last I heard we lived in a capitalist society with a messy complicated political system that requires precisely the type of effective pragmatic leader that Bloomberg is to advance many of the causes that Democrats hold dear. PS Watch Spielberg's movie Lincoln if you want to see the influence buying, horse trading, compromises, that Abraham Lincoln, considered one of America's greatest statemen, used to save the union and defeat slavery.
3
@Brian Lancaster: The present US Federal Government is skeletal remains of slavery.
So the US has the best government that money can buy. I suppose we can be pleased that Michael Bloomberg is among the shoppers. After all, so are Koch, Adelson, and others among the shoppers. Bloomberg is not my preferred candidate, but there could be much worse results in the presidential election. Much worse.
3
@Dfkinjer: This is the government God revealed at the dawn of history.
Bloomberg would lose against Trump because the progressive base will not vote for him. That base is the strong and cannot be taken for granted this cycle.
1
I consider myself to be a progressive, however I am not inclined to be a purist in this election and cut off my nose to spite my face. If Bloomberg wins the nomination, I will absolutely vote for him. Anyone who cares about our democracy should commit to doing the same. Will you feel that the country is in better hands with the current occupant in the White House for four more years, along with his criminal cabal? This has nothing to do with taking anyone for granted. It is about the majority in the party voting for a particular candidate. If the base is strong enough, it will prevail. If not, then refraining from a vote due to spite seems counterproductive and immature. While it is certainly your right, I don't understand how that helps anything.
2
@Leah Sirkin I think the opposite can be said as well. Many Democratic moderates would otherwise stay at home or even consider voting for Trump.
1
Wow, how is he going to survive after donating 3% of his his money?? Poor guy, only has 62 billion now. What a hero.
3
New Boss same as the old Boss. R or D aside. And since party designation doesn’t mean much to either, it would seem both are not beholden to any particular partisan platform; instead each is too busy with their own personal brand (best money can buy).
“... no one described being threatened or coerced by Mr. Bloomberg or his money. But many said his wealth was an inescapable consideration — a gravitational force powerful enough to make coercion unnecessary“
1
The article implies that all this giving is a run up to his presidential run. I disagree. He gives because he wants to make our world and country a better place. He is running now because the Democratic Party is driving off a cliff.
4
@Philip: Biden flamed out. I think he was Mike's pony in the race.
In the first comparison chart the blue circle represents $401 million spent on the Bloomberg 2020 campaign and it shows a same size green circle representing donations to Johns Hopkins University.
In the article, the authors write that he gave approximately $3.3 billion to Johns Hopkins.
Why are those two circles the same size?
The man puts his money where his mouth is, and what he says is based on data and research, are we seriously questioning that? He is appalled at what Trump is doing to our institutions and cannot sit idly by. You make him out here to be someone who might be putting his dollars in places that would impact a positive run for President. That is a limited and foolish way to look at how the Foundation works. And had Trump not been elected he would STILL begging away billions to the cause he feels need to be supposrted to keep our democracy alive. And I would vote for anyone who had Patti Harris behind the throne. No other candidate has anyone as good as she is.
5
@margit linnea: Equal representation for all at the federal level has never been the case in the US, and nobody even looks to that as a driver of division in the US.
I don't understand why Bloomberg's wealth even enters the equation. He , unlike Mr. Trump, has earned every penny! Wealth does not negate honesty or democratic ideals. This must be the projection of Mr. Trumps' insecurities.
It's ironic that a special 'intake process' has emerged for Giuliani, ignoring the father of 'stop and frisk' but attacking Bloomberg for a policy he has since refuted and apologized for!
The Russian Trolls are alive and thriving in the corrupt Trump administration!
3
Mike Bloomberg is competent. He knows what he wants and takes action to make it happen. He respects other experts. And he’s sane. His philanthropy Re climate change alone is enough to get my vote, but it’s really that he’s effective. What good does it do to have excellent ideas, but no strategy to get them implemented?
He has shown that he can adapt to new information and knowledge. While I am closer to Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders re-policy, I don’t see either of them as having the level of effectiveness and strategic thinking that Mike Bloomberg has. I’m voting for Mike.
9
I believe Mike Bloomberg understands that his campaign finance model of self-funding his campaign is also beneficial to the campaigns of his competitors for the nomination. Every dollar that he might have taken from grass roots donors who desired to see him as the Democratic nominee is a dollar that could alternatively have been given to other contenders for the nomination. Likewise in a general campaign where other national (Senate and House), state, and local races are important, Bloomberg's choice of self-funding allows all of those other races to benefit from the donations of grass roots donors who might otherwise have channeled their donations or at least a portion of them to a Presidential candidate. I would be very surprised if Bloomberg's spending on the 2020 election was not only focused on his own campaign but that of other Democrats as well. His potential to be the key to a widespread victory for Democrats and a progressive agenda in the 2020 campaigns up and down the ballot is clear.
In this, the most important election ever, I believe Bloomberg is not only important but essential to a compelling Democratic victory. And, we will all benefit greatly from that.
5
Some of the candidates should not be seeking the presidency but still, be leading. The structure of the exec branch is in need of trimming and fertilizing.
I think we need elder statesmen that act as a board of directors keeping the CEOOTUS on track for US. A Supreme Board of presidential directors. Age requirement over 70. Seven members all elected to express legal and ethical opinions that provide guidance and checks to the top.
I’d rather see Bloomberg supporting his own campaign and contributing to causes I believe in than corporations, lobbyists, and PACs buying candidates and offices.
5
@Elka Grisham I see this line of thinking over and over again in these comments. What you and the others fail to grasp is that he IS the special interest. The corporations, lobbyists, and PACs buying the candidates? Guess what? That's Bloomberg. His entire campaign is run by lobbyists that have worked for companies like Uber, Purdue Pharma, MoneyLion (an internet payday loan provider). If you think these politically motivated advisers won't influence a Bloomberg presidency, you need to wake up and smell the coffee.
1
Every single Democrat who endorses or otherwise supports Bloomberg should be primaried or otherwise purged from the party.
Every. Single. One.
8
@Patrick Yes, of course, purges work out so well, historically speaking. Nothing smells quite so much like losing as a purity test for Democrats. Purity tests and purges are for Republicans. And, maybe, Bernie supporters?
I had no idea this guy had done so much, mostly in progressive causes. Plus he looks to have the moxie to run over Trump. So maybe he is a godsend and we should all fall in line. Also, he sounds like he is such a force as to sway the Senate into a more Democratic color. That would be a blessing.
9
l really do not know for whom to vote in this election. Yes, I am one of those who wants someone to beat Trump. I am a registered democrat in order to vote in the primaries. I am actually non- partisan and vote for whomever I believe to be the best for the public weal. I have only actively supported one candidate who was African American and wished to be elected congressman in a white district . He asked for my support as I was known as a non partisan city-wide community advocate. I carefully reviewed his credentials and his beliefs about the role of government and then I got personally involved with all the voters in his district. An important factor in my decision was also that he was African American and my district elected white persons. I have always believed in equality and here was an opportunity to put my action where my mouth is. He was elected and was a good congressman.
I do not believe the present leading democratic candidates could beat Trump. I really like some of what a few stand for and it would be great to see a woman president. Do I support Bloomberg because i think the others could not beat Trump and maybe he could. My ex-students and friends would be unhappy with me, and they matter to me. But then, In government I was called a maverick. It is a conundrum and I am torn.
2
I just voted early for Bloomberg in the NC super Tues primary.
Although I’m a far left progressive I see the man as the best chance we have of ridding the scourge on our democracy of Trumpo and his sycophants and enablers.
No he’s not perfect but he’s a paragon of virtue compared to Trumpo.
If he pulls this off he’s entitled to occasionally dine with the Founders when his worldly work is done.
5
Pacs, Kochs, Mercers, it would be relevant to see ALL sources of campaign funding besides Bloombergs.
ALL sources. American or not.
3
This is a good article in many respects, but I think you should compare/contrast Bloomberg ‘s support for “liberal” issues with the Koch and Mercer efforts on the right. One key difference is Bloomberg’s willingness to stand up publicly and get involved directly in politics, while the others hide in the background.
As a footnote, your article talks about “more radical ideas like banning assault weapons” — that’s “radical?”
6
Bloomberg has given away more money than Trump is known to be worth (by several publications).
5
It’s true that as mayor, Bloomberg did some bad things. Stop-and-frisk, and his encouragement of real-estate-developers-gone-wild are two such items. Nonetheless, in the forty-plus years I have lived in NYC, there has never been a mayor who matched him in organizing and managing the city’s bureaucracy as effectively. The city government post-Bloomberg more closely resembles a well-run business than the sleazy, incompetent fascistic mess that he inherited from Giuliani. His talents as a technically-astute manager could be a big plus in turning around the recent dismantling of the “deep state” by the current Trump crowd. I doubt he can survive the purity tests the Democratic party will put him through, but if he did he could likely be effective running against Trump.
7
[[Bloomberg is now asking Democrats to make by anointing him their presidential nominee. ]]
He probably did the same math I did.
BIDEN - Non-starter. Flat. His time has past. Riding Obama's coattails.
WARREN - Missed her shot when she stepped aside for Clinton in 2016. Sincere but not forceful.
BUTTIGIEG - Can't scale up.
SANDERS - Can get it done, but disagrees on ideology.
3
To believe that Michael Bloomberg could be viable against Trump requires believing that a certain number of Republican voters will bew attracted to him. But ask yourselves: do you seriously believe Republicans will abandon Trump, who enjoys such strong support among their ranks, in favor of a former NYC mayor whose ban on 32 oz. and larger soft drinks at certain concessions positively reeks of the so-called "nanny state" Republicans so despise, and who has been known nationally until now mostly for his aggressive advocacy for stronger gun control laws? Seriously?
Look , okay, there might be a very few Republicans who would do so . . . but all five of them live in Manhattan!
77
@Mark Kessinger I have many Republican friends, mostly from the Midwest and Mountain West, who despise Trump but who would never vote for Bernie (for that matter, the message from the primaries is that even most Democrats would prefer not to vote for Bernie). They all - every single one of them to whom I've spoken about it - have said they would gladly vote for Bloomberg if given that option. If the option is Bernie, a few of them are patriotic enough that they would vote for him, but most of them would just stay home.
87
@Mark Kessinger - I'm not sure the Dem nominee would need to attract any Republican voters.It's more about turnout. With historic turnout from young people and black and Hispanic voters, Trump loses. The question is: who can inspire that? I'm lobbying that Stacey Abrams be named VP. I think she would be a huge difference-maker.
40
@Mark Kessinger If you get out of New York more often, you might be surprised at what you'd find. Yes, we R's aren't crazy about Bloomberg's propensity for nannyism. but we also notice that he doesn't appear to be for open borders or against effective law enforcement, doesn't threaten public takeover of huge hunks of the private economy, and doesn't belabor us that we and the country we love are hopelessly racist. We know he has been a competent manager of huge private and public enterprises. More than five of us would give him serious consideration if he is the Democratic nominee.
By the way, have you given any thought to how many Ds will sit at home in November if Sanders is the nominee and how many will sit at home if he isn't the nominee.
67
Read this article and weep for the future of American democracy.
When self-funding billionaires can buy their way to become plausible presidential nominees, elections will be fought over a few issues of vaguely defined "bipartisan agreement": gun control, climate change, education (defined as public money for charter schools). So why support Republican Pat Toomey for the Senate? He's for "gun control!" That was 2018. But he voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act! And not to impeach Donald Trump! But they do agree on this:
“I think income inequality is a very big problem. But the bigger problem is, you can take money from the rich and move it over to the poor. If you do it too much then the rich stop producing and everybody loses,” Bloomberg told International Monetary Fund managing director Christine Lagarde during a Q&A at the IMF’s Spring Meeting."
That great wealth is by definition job-creating ("the bigger problem") is a familiar refrain among tax-avoidant centrists and Republicans, which Bloomberg was until 2018. And it doesn't bode well for the depth of his recent assurances of concern about inequality.
Donald Trump's greatest achievement, by far, has been getting into the heads of the Democratic establishment. If MB is the Democratic nominee I suspect that whether to vote will be a tough Election Day decision for many lifelong Democrats. And a slap in the face to what remains of their self-respect.
4
@jcb
As a life long supporter of many ideals that the Democratic party has put forth in the past I was not a supporter of Hilary Clinton in the last election. Having lived in New York City for the past 70 years and being very familiar with how Mr. Bloomberg ran the city I would vote for him in a heart beat.
The truth about the national electorate is that the majority of voters are Democrats and Independents. When push comes to shove Mr. Bloomberg will win the nomination and go on to win the White House and it will be by a significant majority.
The problem last time was that the Democratic ticket was frankly very weak. Mr. Bloomberg is anything but weak he is very intelligent unquestionably organized and on the right side of many issues confronting this nation and the world. After the last three years of chaos in the executive branch he will put the nations nerves at ease and guess what Wall St. will love him too go figure.
2
Amy, Bernie, Elizabeth, Joe, and Pete have survived the marathon to date. They've honed their skills and their platforms as they've met numerous times on the debate stage and with voters. As they've taken their turn at the head of the pack, they've fended off attacks with varying degrees of success. They have earned my admiration and respect.
To me, Mike Bloomberg is who the Democratic Establishment turned to when the progressive wing demonstrated its strength. The Establishment chose to put its finger on the scale in the Intra-Party debate between the Moderate and Progressive wings (simplistic labels well explored in the New York Times dual endorsement of Elizabeth and Amy, which I've now read 4 times).
We need to be narrowing the field, not enlarging it. I'm not interested in another rich white male who has baggage in his treatment of women and minorities - one who gets there through money when money in politics is the problem.
Thank you, Mr. Bloomberg, for all you do to combat climate change and all you'll continue to do by using your money to defeat Trump.
Now. please leave it to the soldiers in the trenches to see the process through. I put my faith in the candidates I've seen on the debate stage, and in the voters. The energy in 2018 came from women and minorities. Let us all choose our Party's candidate unencumbered by your money's outsize influence.
5
Mike is not the most altruistic person to walk the earth. But, I have always tracked the causes that he supports with his philanthropy the world over. I don't think most Americans understand the breath and depth of his philanthropy. He supports more progressive causes that the Clinton Foundation and the Carter Center combined. Presidential aspirations aside, this man will leave a bigger more positive impact on progressive causes than all of the Democrats and Republicans combined. Just google "Bloomberg Philanthropy Partners." It's mind blowing.
6
NYTimes seemed to imply that Bloomberg should NOT benefit from people, connected to causes he had supported before now he is running for president. he is a pragmatic businessman/ philanthropist, trying to use his money to make our world better place to live. he also tries to work in bipartisan way, which we desperately need, especially after trump administration. the contrast: a REAL billionaire who put his money where his mouth is vs the so-called "billionaire" using the position of presidency to benefit himself. nobody agrees with another person 100%, including our parents and spouse. Bloomberg is the only person tough enough to take on Trump's insults and HIT right back. yes, my vote for Bloomberg !
6
Michael Bloomberg gave $2 million to a recent candidate for Governor in Colorado, about twice as much as that candidate was able to raise from within the State. That type of influence is inappropriate. The candidate finished third.
3
@jfdenver
Which shows that having lots of money and using it does not in any way guarantee success.
More power to him.
3
Let's suppose Bloomberg won the nomination and beat Trump, will that finally propel McConnell and his accomplice to cooperate with Democrats and pass laws for presidential candidates to release tax returns, and for requiring concrete steps for POTUS to limit conflict of interests, nepotism, etc.?
2
For some perspective after reading this article I highly recommend something by Anand Giridharadas. (Or watching one of the many excellent videos on YouTube.) A former columnist for The New York Times, Mr Giridharadas provides piercingly clear exposes of how the philanthropy game is played in this country. In his book Winner Takes All "he argues that members of the global elite, though sometimes engaged in philanthropy, use their wealth and influence to preserve systems that concentrate wealth at the top at the expense of societal progress. (wiki)" Sound familiar?
3
While Bloomberg was giving away millions of dollars of his wealth to foundations and cities, Donald Trump was stealing it from foundations and cities.
That tells me a great deal about their ethics.
3
I think the past few publications, other than an Op-Ed, of the New York Times, has focused on how Bloomberg's billions should almost disqualify him from the race. I think a more interesting set would be how campaigns that are not self-funded are then influenced by vested interest and how this vested interest then causes stagnation on many policies, especially concerning the environment and gun regulation, the issues two of Bloomberg's philanthropic ventures.
4
The highest priorities:
1) Defeat Trump
2) Combat climate change on every front (requires defeating Trump)
3) Bring the country closer together
I believe Bloomberg has the best chance at all three, but will 100% support the nominee. Bloomberg has put his money where his mouth is and supported, women, climate, arts, education, etc. These outweigh stop and frisk by a long shot.
6
Let's keep this really simple. Eye on the ball Dems, please, for once.
We have an existential threat to our Nation, probably for the first time since the Civil War. That threat is named Trump and the enablers that comprise most of the GOP. They have taken over the White House and the Senate. They are cutting regulations on the environment, running up a trillion dollar plus debt each year, and slowly destroying institutions like Justice, the EPA, the intelligent services, and the Military.
Michael Bloomberg is the only candidate that can defeat Trump. The only one ! He will draw moderate Republican support throughout the Country, especially in purple leaning states like Texas, North Carolina, and Arizona.
As a result, he will put the Senate in play and keep the House secure.
We also have a candidate that has supported gun control, gay marriage, women candidates for office, and climate issues.
And we are worried about 'stop and frisk'? Or that he is a Billionaire (a real one !). Or that he is 'buying' the Election?
For once Dems, please, stop getting 'Merrick Garlanded' by the GOP. It's nice to go high when they go low, but this time we need to go high, low, and whatever it takes to rid this nation of Trump and what he stands for.
9
I'd rather trust the multi-billionaire who is giving almost all of it away than the politicians who have taken from those who have billions!
3
Next let’s see what Georgina does in the way of philanthropy vs the Trump critters. Her compassion for animals and what she does for them is awesome. And they don’t vote.
All I know is, I'm voting for either him or Amy Klobuchar. I want Trump gone.
At least we know not only where Bloomberg has spent his money, but also where his money has come from---his own pocket.
Why do so many people think there is something wrong about that? Does anyone think they know where all that money from PAC donations to candidates comes from? The laws governing our bizarre PAC systems make their funding sources effectively unknowable. But the general public seems to think that is just fine.
11
The conundrum to me is that Bloomberg is a force for support of progressive issues and his money is required in today's politics of wealth. But the fear of losing his contributions as expressed in the reference to the report by the Center for American Progress and others is a negative factor. It's not that he has exacted any direct fealty from the recipients of his donations, rather it is the failing of those recipients to remain unaffected by his money. He is not an ideal candidate and I for one will not wish him the winner in the Democratic Primary.
4
Though you may be concerned when a politician changes parties, Bloomberg leaves the Republicans because the party is now the party of Trump.
Lest we forget, Ronald Reagan switched from union leader democrat, to the Republican party. He claimed, "I didn't leave my party, the party left me."
The Republican party did well after that, following with trickle down economics, union bashing and the greatest transference of wealth from the middle class to the oligarchs.
Let's hope Bloomberg's move will enable the middle class to regain its economic position pre-Reagan.
7
@Underdog
Bloomberg left the GOP in 2007, long before trump was even a gleam in the party's eye.
1
@Underdog
Everything you wrote up until that last line was spot on! But unfortunately like many others commenting here, you mistake much of Mike Bloomberg’s perceived altruism, some of it, as highlighted in this article, entirely self-serving.
But even where Mike Bloomberg’s progressive interests align with yours, say on our climate crisis or gun violence, his views on a whole host of economic issues and policies are wholly opposite to your progressive leanings.
Make no mistake about it— Mike Bloomberg is a self-made billionaire technocrat Republican. His own policies have displaced experienced workers with cheaper labor. He is not obsessed over income inequality like every other Democratic candidate —including Tom Steyer.
His policies towards women and blacks have been cruel and indecent. He lacks patience and any semblance of appreciating the day to day struggles of the middle class or the poor. I have little to no faith that he is the right man for the job of bringing America back to the American people.
1
@Underdog: Reagan must have been a fake union leader. He didn't just fire the air traffic controllers, he blacklisted them.
I was hoping that this article would be an exploration of how Bloomberg's wealth skyrocketed during his second mayoral term. I wonder how many of his decisions, especially since he bypassed city standards such as multiple competitive bids, were self-serving. I think his desire to be at the reins for a third term was fueled by the hit his fortune took in 2008. Amazingly, his wealth again skyrocketed again during his third term as mayor. I believe the petty larceny committed by Trump when he has taxes pay for stays at his golf courses and hotels is small potatoes in comparison to what Bloomberg did.
5
@Lawrence Zajac: It helps to have one's finger on the pulse of financial markets.
This is not a comment meant to necessarily support one candidate over another. It is meant to address the issue of money in politics, generally.
The only candidates who have taken funds just from small donors are Bernie and Liz. Bernie has had his "machine" going for the past five years, and he should be commended for being the front runner (at this point) on nothing more than small donations. But he must consider that it will be much more difficult to fund a general campaign this way, especially against an opponent with unlimited funds.
That said, I fail to understand the allure of a Pete Buttigieg, while those same voters denounce Mike Bloomberg. Pete Buttigieg will be beholden to the 1%. This is where he is getting his money, and this is what, if he wins, will propel him into the White House. He is the quintessential servant to incredibly rich people in this country.
Mike Bloomberg, on the other hand, is spending his own money. And he has put his money where his mouth is, for many charitable causes. He is beholden to no one, unlike Pete, whose donors will expect to get "their money's worth" from him.
Now, this state of affairs is no doubt caused, in large part, by Citizens United. But if my choice is between a candidate who has to go hat in hand to the moneyed class to continue his campaign, and a candidate who is spending freely from his own wealth (wealth he created in large part, and not inherited, as Trump did), I'm going to pick Mike Bloomberg every single time.
19
@Roland Deschain: Normally the extremely wealthy operate through professional politicians. They don't consider politics a do-it-yourself proposition.
@Roland Deschain
That Sanders and Warren are funded by only small donors is a myth.
Sanders campaign is supported by dark money. An FEC complaint has been filed against one of the groups , Our Revolution, for violated campaign finance law by accepting donations in excess of federal limits while boosting Sanders' White House ambitions. In 2016, FEC flagged Sanders for excessive contributions and illegal contribution from foreign nationals in 639 pages! VTdigger, reported many wealthy, powerful, well-connected donors who supported Senator Sanders.
Warren gained access to DNC voter database after a millionaire donor paid $173,000 for her (BussFeedNews 7/15/2019). Warren also benefited from ads campaign paid by dark money group (Politico 11/15/2019). While Warren does not do private fund raiser, her campaign treasurer and allies do it for her, and she does accept contributions from billionaires.
Buttigieg accepts only donations from individuals, and that is capped at $2,800 by law. By the end of third quarter, Buttigieg has raised over $76 millions from over 700,000 individual donors. Contributions from 40 billionaires amounts to $112,000, which is less than 0.2% of $76 millions. It is laughable to think anyone is beholden to $2,800.
I have been following reports on Buttigieg, and by all account, he has been hard working to lift up his community. With his credential and abilities, he does not need to serve the rich, he could be very rich on his own.
2
The difference between true philanthropy and selfish influence peddling and buying is the fact that he is a candidate, therefore, don't be too impressed by his appearance of caring. Yes, in some respects, but self promotion seems to be driving him in just the last couple of years. I remember his police abuse of the "Occupy Wall Street" demonstrators and how he called the NYPD, "My Private Army" in NYC. I just can't vote for him.
12
As an Independent, I find the Democratic infighting troubling. Here in Texas, the policies Mr. Bloomberg lists in his many TV and newspaper ads are all appealing: expansion of Obamacare, environmental improvements, reasonable gun control, etc. And especially removing Mr. Trump. I realize Bloomberg has had controversaries, but he is now willing to spend a lot of his massive wealth to improve the country.
"Mike Bloomberg is the best candidate to defeat President Trump in November ... Bullies cannot bully Bloomberg. He won't be cowed by a few tweets from Trump. Further, Bloomberg's ability to finance his own campaign means he can compete aggressively against Trump's massive political machine, which has been stockpiling money and organizing supporters since Trump's first day in office." (Sam Donaldson, CNN, 15Feb2020)
17
@Steve Kennedy Those ads are not running in Blue states at this time.
@beth The ads are running a LOT here in Texas, on the network TV affiliates, full pages in the Houston Chronicle, the same even in the little suburban newspaper in my area. Mr. Bloomberg has also made numerous visits to Houston recently, a city that went for Obama along with Dallas, and San Antonio. Beto O'Rourke gave Mr. Cruz a close race for U.S, Senate last time, so maybe Texas really is turning purple. 38 electoral votes vs. Iowa's six.
Bloomberg built his wealth because of his competence. He did not come from wealth. We need proven competence in the White House.
15
"no one described being threatened or coerced by Mr. Bloomberg or his money. But many said his wealth was an inescapable consideration — a gravitational force powerful enough to make coercion unnecessary."
I'll readily agree that Mr. Bloomberg is a huge improvement on Trump - but that's not much of a hurdle. Seems to me a man who uses his wealth to silence criticism or opposition s simply an intelligent and relatively polite bully instead of the ignorant and loud one we currently have. Bloomberg, just like Trump, uses his vast personal wealth to subvert democracy.
6
@KenC: This ersatz democracy was subverted by slavery from its inception. It still has many loopholes.
1
This is the literal definition of oligarchy.
If you don’t find this disconcerting, then you should.
Our oligarch Is more benevolent than your oligarch isn’t a great campaign slogan.
There are, in fact, worse things than four more years of Trump.
I prefer Sanders. I will vote for Warren, Biden, Buttigieg, or Klobuchar if they are the nominee.
I will vote Green Party over Bloomberg.
Call me whatever names you want, but oligarchy is oligarchy, and I will not vote for it.
21
Since before Al Gore ran for president, climate change has been my #1 issue. The question is who is most likely to make a difference right away? (The world is on fire!) What do we need to make that happen?
1. A congress that is solidly Blue (and who are on board with solving this problem).
2. A president that is Blue (ditto).
3. A way to prevent fossil fuel industry from interfering with efforts to change it.
4. A good plan AND a practical strategy.
5. A president who knows how to negotiate and who will influence other nations, since the U.S. is only about 15% of the problem.
I've always said that I'd vote for a Republican if I thought s/he could do this, or begin something solid. I've voted in every election, including local millage ones, and only once, decades ago, for a Republican.
It's looking more like Bloomberg is the one likely to do this. Warren was initially my choice. I've waffled on Mike as the one who could most likely beat Trump.
This article gave good evidence that he'd be most effective in dealing with climate change. He'd be more likely to do all of the above things.
This would include, for example, negotiations with Africa so they don't purchase and run China's second-hand coal technology as China rapidly transitions to renewables.
At this point it is imperative for our country to stop Trump. Imperative for the world/planet to stop/curtail climate change. The world's on fire!
11
We have a crisis unfolding that threatens our democracy and we need to back the strongest candidate to save our country. Mike Bloomberg is that candidate. It is that simple.
Bloomberg is the only candidate in the race who can take the fight immediately to Trump, and he is already doing that to great effect. In this battle of titans he can punch harder, louder and with more effect than all of the other candidates combined.
And while Mike spends his own money to take Trump down, the rest of us can focus on flipping the Senate. No other democractic candidate offers us this hope.
64
@Act Now! Yes, flipping the Senate is my number one priority. Solidifying the House is number two. President is number three. If we had the first two, even if Trump won, he'd be hamstrung.
@Act Now!: Easy 'Chicken Little'. We don't solve a 'crisis of democracy' by electing an oligarch, a plutocrat or anything of the sort. Empowerment of the masses is the only means of real, sustained, systemic change.
4
@Act Now! And the chance of taking the Senate is much improved when the candidate at the top of the ticket is someone like Bloomberg. Our dear friends far to the left are great on ideals but not too savvy sometimes on playing the actual game at hand.
1
Let’s face reality. The rules of the game changed when the Supreme Court decided on Citizens United. Money in politics moved from being normally money-driven to billionaire money-driven. This fact gives Mr. Bloomberg a tremendous advantage over all other Democratic candidates in the most important issue we face as a country – the defeat of the Putin/Trump ticket (not the Trump/Putin ticket). Yes, Mike Bloomberg is trying to buy the election, but so is everyone else. If that is the key strategy, then who do you think has the best chance? Trump must be defeated along with his cast of miserable characters that make up the current administration and the various mayors, governors, and weak-kneed US Republican congressional members.
Those who steadfastly oppose the notion of buying an election are to be admired, but none of us can afford to lose this election. We all must come together and use the current rules to our advantage. You cannot change anything if you are in the minority. So, let’s win the whole deal big time, and then fight to overturn the culprit – Citizen United.
You can rightly criticize Bloomberg’s policing policies, but do you really think he will impose that on society as President? No way, not possible!! But he will bring to the oval office crucial policies on climate change, guns, health, the economy, and many other issues that Democrats support, as proven by his years of donations to so many worthwhile causes.
15
@HW: All the best political talent has probably already been approached.
1
Every bit of this "philanthropy" is money he and his army of accountants take off his taxes as charitable contributions. The ONLY reason he is running for president is because he doesn't like Trump. That's not good enough.
8
@Matt Actually, it would be good enough for me if he could win. However, he has shown that he is on the right side of climate change and that he knows how to get things done. Yes he has problems, but so do the others.
7
@Matt Friend, he's 78 years old and has $62 billion. Taxes are not his driver. And he's been pushing good causes since he was mayor of NYC and Trump was a failed casino promoter and TV clown, so not liking Trump is not his (only) motivation either.
1
The next time Bernie Sanders (or one of his cult followers) complain to you about billionaires buying the election and how bad they are. Show them this article. Bloomberg is a billionaire but an even bigger philanthropist.
Billionaires come in all stripes. The nation is lucky to have a Bloomberg around.
17
It is striking that Trump tried to have us believe that he gave to charity, when, in fact, he used charities for his own glorification. Bloomberg also uses charities strategically, but in multiples Trump is incapable of, financially and morally and effectively.
8
Bloomberg isn't perfect, but he has supported a lot of progressive causes. Most billionaires don't. Our pretend billionaire, Clown in Chief, doesn't even give significantly to any charity.
Every modern President has "bought the office." I think I prefer someone who buys it with his own money rather than Big Oil, Big Healthcare, Big Machinery of War, etc.
The difference between a President Bloomberg, supporting gun control and working with the rest of the world on climate change, and the Clown in Chief is far greater than the difference between Bloomberg and any other Democratic candidate.
12
This piece is a balanced, data-driven and sophisticated assessment of Bloomberg. Thank god for the politics of the possible, the pragmatic, and the incremental. I admire this man - can’t we all honestly look back and say, “wow, I can’t believe I thought x, when y is so clearly the smarter / more enlightened / compassionate view”?! Or be glad that we weren’t be recorded when we said the 1000s of dumb things we’ve said in life?
“Ideological consistency” over time is highly over-rated. It means “for all my life experience, I have learned nothing”.
7
All I hear in the medial landscape is 'billionaire, stop and frisk and now redlining.' As an African American the latter two concern me; yet, I know as a three term mayor he has a legacy and accomplishments beyond this. I'd like to hear or read about it beyond everything being framed around just money or controversy.
11
Perhaps Blooomberg could be "preimpeached" ahead of time for using money to sway influence on political rivals.
What's also laughable is how billions have gotten him from 3% to 10% in polls. Trump didn't have to spend a dime on ads.
Perhaps the people could also preimpeach him for his position on the 2nd Amendment and sodas in which Americans negotiate away their freedoms.
New nickname: Swamp Thing.
2
IMO, Sanders doesn't have a very strong case/chance against Trump. Bloomberg will demolish Trump. In any case, any Democrat will do for me. And for Bloomberg - who would support my dog Lucky if necessary to beat Trump.
5
To all those praising Bloomberg welcome to America's oligarchy. There is no fairness in an election process when the Super Rich can buy an election even the Presidency. It undermines the very concept of a democracy. Here is the litmus test if Bloomberg were not a Billionaire the idea of him even running let alone winning the Presidential nomination would be laughable.
Bloomberg's only possible way to win the Democratic Party nomination is to buy it as he clearly is trying to do. The only way Bloomberg became Mayor and stayed Mayor of NYC is he bought those elections. He spent more per vote in NYC than anyone ever spent to win any major election in history. Bloomberg spent $174 per vote in 2009 as reported in The New York Times.
Do most Americans want to live on Michael Bloomberg's benevolent plantation. I sure hope not !
12
No. Just no. He can not buy my vote.
10
Playing the future guessing game:
Coronavirus outbreak will shift the supply chains toward US, which solidifies as the stable world economic region. An influx of domestic and Chinese capital will come and boost manufacturing. Chinese and Asian money will be pumped into real estate at higher rates starting in 2020.
If Trump plays a card to benefit from such a scenario, and tames his behavior, it will be a tough nut to crack.
The philanthropy is excellent, but he's still buying the Presidency to unseat one Wall street Television man with himself, also a Wall Street Television man. I was also very disappointed to read there was a Disney executive on his board. All in all, I just have no urges to vote for him and I suspect many will sit out the election for the simple reason that it appears as a battle of Wall street titans. Our democracy is collapsing when such a rich man buys his support. That's just like buying voters.
11
Did millions of Americans sacrifice their lives, health, and property so we could have a "benevolent plutocracy"? I don't think so.
It's fine if one of the wealthiest people in the world wants to RUN for the Presidency. But he isn't RUNNING for it. He's clearly attempting to BUY it. His unlimited spending has already bought him endorsements, national name familiarity, and legitimacy--uncontested so far.
If elected, he would be unaccountable to the Democratic constituencies and the public. For example, if he wished to cut a deal with the GOP to reduce Social Security, over the objections of Democrats, he could count on his wealth to repair his legacy.
As a GOP Mayor, his police stopped young Black & Latino men 5 million times. This occupying army tactic--opposed by many police chiefs as a detriment to public safety--was stopped only when a Federal Judge stopped it (after Bloomberg appealed it). Bloomberg's understanding of our Constitution is narrow & dangerous,
Bloomberg endorsed George W Bush's re-election & lauded him at the GOP Convention. This was a year after Bush started the Iraq War under phony pretenses that millions understood--the worst US foreign policy debacle in decades. Bloomberg would be a dangerous President.
Bloomberg raised funds for Mass. Sen. Scott Brown in 2010 when he ran for re-election in a special election against Elizabeth Warren. In 2008, Brown flipped the Senate majority from Democrats to the GOP 2 years after Obama was elected.
13
@Kraig H At the risk of boring people with history, but on your mention of American lives sacrificed, let's remember FDR was president during the war against totalitarianism, in which so many Americans lives were sacrificed for democracy. He also brought us the New Deal, for example Social Security. Yet he too was a plutocrat, the 1940s equivalent of today's billionaires, and a hereditary one at that. It's not disqualifying.
And then you have to weigh all your good points against the possibility that the most idealistic candidate might not have the same ideals as others, and we get Trump II instead. Like McGovern, 1972, wonderful man, ahead of his time, but his nomination gave Nixon a second term. Just imagine Trump II.
@Stephen G. FDR ran for office. He didn't use his wealth to buy endorsements. And his record in NY was, for the time, modestly progressive--unlike Bloomberg's on race, unions, and economics.
As for Trump II, Bloomberg cannot beat him. Money won't turn out enough votes for a Dem. Trump would defeat a "Wall St. billionaire who wants to buy the election." Trump won, remember, with small donations and few resources against Hillary's mega-$. Bloomoberg is exactly the "establishment" he can beat.
So many of the letters below, suggest that Michael Bloomberg is 'buying the election'; Encased in this notion is that any political message when powered by massive funding will be persuasive and the more frequently and the more loudly stated, the more it will convince. Let us suppose that there is some truth in this idea.
The democrats will this year, no matter which other candidate is nominated, will come up very short against Republican funding. Then the unfortunate reality that the Republican message will prevail is then an idea that the politically pure of heart will now have to credit.
But then to the politically pure of heart, may I ask if they will accept with equanimity four more years of Donald Trump and Co., consoled in the knowledge that their ideological purity has not allowed Bloomberg's money to 'buy the election'? Some consolation; some country.
Yours ever,
Alan N. Stone
South Dartmouth, MA
6
I find it curious that so many view his wealth as a liability and have issue with it. Many of our cherished institutions, national parks, antitrust regulations, safety net and retirement programs are the direct result of Presidents who came from wealth (Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt come to mind). Let’s not forget the largesse of others such as Carnegie, Rockefeller and others who with their generosity and a sense of community have given us so many museums and other cultural and educational gifts. Not all who are wealthy are evil or corrupt. Michael Bloomberg has been generous and it is certainly conceivable he has done what he has done for reasons other than a Machiavellian strategy. Capitalism isn’t perfect but I still think it is preferable to the alternatives.
8
I'm all for Bloomburg giving money to Democrats and causes. I just hope when Bernie wins the nomination he keeps his promise to support the Party.
6
Do I wish the democratic nominee to be a self funded billionaire? No. But at least Bloomberg has donated to many of the right causes. He has spoken and done many good things yet is certainly not Gandhi, but he's certainly eligible. My vote, my choice, must be to defeat trump. The most competitive candidate will get my vote.
7
I'll make my choice based on facts, the debates and Bloomberg's actual policies before I choose.
2
I still haven't made my mind up about Bloomberg but if he funds his own Presidential campaign, "poorer" Democratic donors can focus on Senate races.
5
@Nana2roaw This could be seen as a matching funds deal. We donate to the congressperson of our choice to match the funds he's using to run. I normally donate to the presidential nominee, but if he's the one, they'll get my money. (Already have).
1
Mr. Bloomberg, like many wealthy people, contributes a lot to charity because he can, and that is a good thing. He can give to causes he cares about and is smart enough to understand how to make change happen. Perhaps he figures he might as well run for President, since he has a limited number of years left on the planet and wants to contribute to the world in a positive way. I applaud him for using his wealth to help us get rid of the completely amoral person who, unbelievably, inhabits the office currently.
10
@Carolyn I do think people of his age think about the world and how to benefit it. It seems clear to me that he's done that with his philanthropy. My initial impression was that he was running for that reason, too.
4
This is influence peddling pure and simple. Sure, worthy causes might benefit, but at what cost?
4
Reluctantly, I've come to the conclusion that Bloomberg is the best choice the Democrats have. Sanders bloviates. He has never described in any detail how any of his far-reaching proposals (medicare for all, free college education, cancellation of student debt, etc ad nauseum) none will be funded even if the Democrats take the Senate. The hyphen in his party affiliation will sink his ship should he be the nominee. He's the only nominee that will hand the presidency back to Trump. Warren is the most cogent candidate IMO but she has too many plans and not enough personal charm. More like Clinton and less like Klobuchar. I like Klobuchar but she is relatively unknown unknow with too little $ and is too late to the dance. Mayor Pete is too inexperienced and has skipped too many steps in crafting a Presidential CV. Democrats will need a ton of $,a seasoned candidate with a lot of political goodwill and first-hand knowledge of our maniacal President. Let's not make the perfect the enemy of the good.
9
Who would I rather support for president? A "billionaire" who stole from his "charity" or a billionaire who has been confirmed to have contributed billions to charities? I will go for the guy who has demonstrated concern for others as evidenced by his charitable work and his position on gun control, the environment and global warming, etc.
8
I have read all of the thoughtful comments that have been written questioning Michael Bloomberg’s motives for giving away a gazillion dollars to all sorts of causes, many of which will have little impact on how people might vote in the upcoming presidential election. Much of that money is doing a lot of good for various public needs.
Instead, I choose to concentrate on the person who has the clear overriding ability to rid ourselves of a man who should never have been elected. So Bloomberg is buying his way into the nomination? So what? He has strength and smarts. Bernie Sanders, who I greatly admire, would never be able to overcome the vitriol and venom that Trump will unleash on him. We need to think about that.
13
When people complain about Bloomberg using his wealth in political ways, I hope they pause and make some adjustments to their opinions. Think about all the monstrous activities of the Koch brothers.
7
RE: "There are, after all, numerous dimensions to Mr. Bloomberg’s persona and record that give Democrats pause."
This sentence should more correctly read
There are, after all, numerous dimensions to any individual's persona and record that give Democrats - always in search of moral and ideological purity - but never Republicans, pause.
8
I am not convinced either Bloomberg or Sanders can win the Presidency. Bloomberg may appear, to the anxious Democratic electorate, to be the only match for the president in the “Battle of the Billionaires”. But he doesn’t have the support of 40+/-% of masses who idolize the president. Nor does he have the overwhelming enthusiastic support of young Americans. Bloomberg’s is a top down candidacy. So how does he graduate from the Electoral College? Sander’s, on the other hand, is a ground up candidacy, with at least as challenging an Electoral College problem: short on rural & suburban votes. I am currently a Sanders supporter because I believe the time for wealth and power distribution is overdue. However, if you accept that this is not possible in our country or don’t particularly care about it, then Bloomberg is your man, as addressing climate change, gun control, women’s rights, etc. would be great. Just don’t expect your cost of housing, health care, or student loan payments to diminish, nor tax liability to become equitable with another billionaire in the White House. There is no Bloomberg groundswell, just his media advertisements and the network of supporters your article has enlightened me about. Whatever happens, I will support and vote for the Democratic nominee.
8
@John
Sanders is the safest best here in spite of his radical (by American standards) policies. He has genuine charisma and grassroots support, and he's able to channel the anti-establishment resentment roiling the country far better than any of the other front-runners. He polls better in states that Donny won. Bloomberg is not a good choice. He's the epitome of the cold and distant establishment politician, which is precisely the thing people DON'T want right now.
5
@John: I don't think it helps to be Jewish in US presidential elections. Selecting Joe Lieberman for his VP probably sank John Kerry.
Consider this: It is all well and good that Bloomberg is a philanthropist. But just think how far that very money he has spent on himself and his own presidential ambitions can go if he were to instead help out EVEN MORE the growing challenges, inequities, and struggles of too many people in this nation. Frankly, I would be more impressed if he were to shed more "sweat and tears" like our other candidates rather than money on "Michael Bloomberg for President."
9
@Kathy Lollock
Bloomberg puts money down for charitable causes because 1) it helps his public image and 2) he gets a tax write-off for doing so. It's rather naive to assume that this is powerful right-wing billionaire who supported George Dubya in 2004 is doing any of this out of the goodness of his heart. This is purely mercenary.
7
@Kathy Lollock: Mike may spend enough money on this election to equal the needed federal contribution to the un-built train tunnels under the Hudson.
2
@Gagnon But giving away $10 billion at NYC-resident top tax rates means you save $5 billion in taxes, leaving you $5 billion poorer than before. That's not a tax strategy.
There is a significant gap between, wanting to run, willing to win, having the resources to do it, winning and being a good president. Each raises the threshold.
In term of resources, seems 350 million or more is now the bar. It will take billionaires support to advice this level.
Bloomberg signed the giving pledge (wikipedia The_Giving_Pledge) to give all his fortune away during his lifetime.
I agree Trump gave a bad rep to the word "billionaire", and that are portraid as enemies of the working class. So, if one broke it badly, let's hope that another one can fix it. Having a revolution every 4 years may not be the solution.
7
"Oh he is such a wonderful man for giving away so much!! "........... Meanwhile, millions of single parents, teachers and people that clean public toilets every day, give away a bigger percentage of their wealth than our rich philanthropic "heroes", and then get evicted by Wall Street bankers. Question what they tell you. That $2.3 billion he gave away is 3.7% of his present day wealth of $62 billion. For our consumerist economy to work, we have to fawn at the feet of the rich, and we do. They are the gods we worship, for we all want the wealth they have --- even if it is just to decide where that excess wealth should go. But that excess wealth should be the community's decision, a democratic decision --- not an individual one. Ayn Rand was wrong. It is we, not I. Our species survived for hundreds of thousands of years because of cooperation, not competition. We are in a matrix charging the batteries of the rich so they can turn the natural resources of our environment into profit. And we don't have a clue; we're sedated in the quest of more things.
285
@Newell McCarty
True, but I just don't want to wake up. The myth is just so seductive and mesmerizing and comfortable and ... z-z-z
10
@Newell McCarty: My late elderly retired school teacher living next door donated about half of her measly annual income to charities. The IRS audited her for it.
32
@Newell McCarty. When Trump ran for President, people who want abortion to be illegal and who want to make America white again put their likely distaste for the kind of person he is on hold to get what they want, and Trump delivered. Now, when Bloomberg, who has many fewer negatives than Trump, and a lot of positives both personally and on the issues, runs, it is incredible to me that people will dismiss him, and favor a candidate more doctrinally pure, even if that person has less of a chance of defeating Trump. Do people not understand that our house is on fire? It is not time to linger at the wardrobe mirror, picking neckties.
183
It seems the difference between Bloomberg and Bernie is whether we want a society where people pay taxes and their wealth is distributed throughout society to all sectors, or pay very little in taxes and spread their wealth on their own terms through charitable giving. The latter approach gives a few individuals a whole lot of power, and turns the rest of us into beggars.
487
@alcatraz When you have $60B and pledge to give almost all of it away, is it a pledge from the heart or buying favors?
Without the Buffet, Gates, Bloomberg and others, our country would be worse off.
No financial set-interest from Bloomberg.
70
@alcatraz -- Just by way of clarity, Bloomberg has stated his intention to raise taxes on billionaires like himself. He uses it as a lead-in to joking that Trump doesn't have to worry because the tax will only be for actual billionaires.
232
@alcatraz
How does a billionaire's wealth turn you into a beggar? Which billionaire is stealing from you?
73
If Bloomberg has any cause he can claim that drives him, and one needs to struggle to find one, it has to be gun control (I’m assuming we can aspire for loftier goals than curbing big gulp).
If so: why did he back gun-loving Republican Scott over Elizabeth Warren for MA Senator back in 2012??
It’s self-preservation. It’s all about Mike. That’s why he’s running. So that Warren’s wealth tax doesn’t take away his wealth. It actually makes more financial sense for him to run a campaign than pay a wealth tax.
Our democracy is on the line, America.
6
@Patrician— You are right, with 4 more years of Trump there will be no democracy left.
3
@Jorge
A primary is meant to choose the candidate who inspires us.
To be sure, in the general election: I will vote for whoever the Democrat nominee is.
But, I will not help Bloomberg win the primary by trying to scare us into voting for him.
1
Wow, if Bloomberg can accomplish all of that for under $2 billion in philanthropy, imagine what can be accomplished when he and others like him are forced to pay the many, many more billions in fair taxation they will have to cough up under the Sanders Administration. Philanthropy doesn't impress me. Representative taxation does.
I'll be voting for democracy, not the Democratic Party. Sanders 2020!
14
@Andrew wealth redistribution is not democracy it’s socialism.
@Andrew Of course even if a vote for Sanders doesn't turn out to be a vote for Trump, taxes won't rise as you're suggesting unless he brings the Senate. Maybe the debate should distill down to which candidate can conceivably swing the Senate. I see Bloomberg just polled strong in Florida...
1
@Andrew Of course even if a vote for Sanders doesn't turn out to be a vote for Trump, taxes won't rise as you're suggesting unless he brings the Senate. Maybe the debate should distill down to which candidate can conceivably swing the Senate. I see Bloomberg just polled strong in Florida...
The priority is to save our Democracy. I was a big Bernie supporter in 2016 and all for Medicare for all. I can wait on that any many other issues. Democracy is what I’ll be voting on and I believe Bloomberg will beat Trump. That’s why I’ll be casting a vote for him next month. I hope he wins. If Trump wins again I’ll be leaving the state and going to the bluest state in the union. It’ll get real nasty. I still can’t believe I’m witnessing the possible fall of our Democracy. :-(
25
@Lou
I would characterize a vote for Bloomberg more as a vote for benevolent plutocracy than democracy.
2
@Lou Please look closely at his record. He has plutocratic and technocratic, not democratic, tendencies. Vote for one of the other democrats.
1
@Ellen I appreciate the response and I have. I believe Bloomberg is the only person who can beat Trump. If Trump wins it’s over, sad but true. Tough decision for sure
This might be an interesting analysis but the circle sizes are misleading. Data visualization should serve to facilitate, not complicate, comparisons between the measured data points.
For instance, the circle representing spending on the 2020 campaign is smaller than the composite circle comprised of all circles representing prior political spending. This is despite the fact that the actual dollar amount for 2020 is almost twice as much as for the years leading up to it. Similarly, the relative size of the composite circle for overall spending is too large. That spending adds up to about 2.8 billion, about 7 times as much as for the 2020 campaign. But the composite circle has about 14 times the area of the circle for 2020 campaign spending. There are some gaps in the composite circle, of course, but not enough to explain the discrepancy, especially since there are also overlaps to cancel out at least some of the gaps.
Perhaps you scaled the diameters of the circles linearly by the dollar amounts they represent. That would be a problem because the area of a circle grows quadratically, not linearly, with its diameter.
3
@Andreas Thanks for this explanation.
Climate change is the most important issue facing humanity at this time. Bernie Sanders has a serious, detailed plan to address it and Bloomberg is on the right side of the issue too. Trump is actively working to make things worse. I'm a staunch Bernie supporter but if he can't win I'll gladly vote for Bloomberg. My children's children will be glad I did.
21
@Dave P
agreed except for the happily part. Hoping that any other candidate but Bloomberg seals the democratic nomination.
Bloomberg represents calm leadership with a long history of success vs hysterical leadership by Trump, or for that matter, Sanders and Warren.
13
@ADP When you have hegemony over the money system and its accoutrements, like Mr. Bloomberg does, then you can afford to be calm and not hysterical. All the rest of us need a sense of urgency to save what's left of our democracy. And I would do fine, financially, under any president, including Trump, so I don't have any axes to grind there.
Philanthropy can be a complicated arena for the wealthy. For some, like the family of Education Sec. Betsy DeVos, it is about self-serving interests such as the suspicious for-profit "colleges" and technical schools, and privatizing K-12 education by using public tax revenue to support for-profit "public" schools and schools of religious organization.
The Koch Brothers were early supporters of PBS. But when expository stories about the Vietnam War aired in the early 70s, the Koch brothers leveraged their financial support to put an end to such investigative reportage on PBS. They insisted PBS should only be about education and general interest stories.
Then, there is Trump. He has not only lied about his cash infusions into charities and non-profits benefiting our veterans, he used his own Trump charity fraud as a piggy back to pay down presonal debts, and even to purchase a full-length photo of himself for his office.
Aaahhhh, if any of us were perfect by any measure. While Trump, DeVos and the Koch Brothers were all born on third base with a silver spoon in their mouths, at least Bloomberg is self-made. He, like the rest of us, has his own flaws.
But this time around, the Democratic Party is not just playing for a return to power. We are fighting to hold onto our democracy before Trump, Trumpism, and the lost party of Lincoln burn our Constitution and the Rule of Law on the way to authoritarianism.
If Bloomberg is the only candidate who can beat Trump, I'm in.
14
@David Ohman All fine until your very last statement, which is an assumption and not based on historical data.
1
There are two adages to consider when analyzing the character of Michael Bloomberg: “Follow the money” and “Put your money where your mouth is.” Bloomberg’s trajectory over the years has not only been proactive in a positive sense but also has embraced philanthropy at its most desirable. Yes, he is buying his way to the top. But we can not deny that his purchases have helped in causes which improve the status and welfare of others both nationally as well as globally. Now let us juxtapose this billionaire with another mega-rich individual unfortunately taking up precious oxygen in the Oval Office and the environment in general. When it relates to wealth well spent Trump is at the nadir with his companions of greed and corruption. Bloomberg is atop the mountain’s peak. The jury is still out as to whether he should be our final choice for POTUS. I have my own preferences, but I would still give it my all to support him as fate should have it.
10
The one thing that most of the comments and this article overlook is Bloomberg’s track record as mayor. He did an outstanding job running New York City, pursuing policies not on ideological or party lines but rather on what worked. He didn’t care whether those he hired were Republican or Democrat, rather whether they were talented administrators. The City thrived under his leadership.
13
@A. Rothstein I see him as a pragmatist. And he's been pragmatic in support of climate change. I'm breathing cleaner air today, and tons of carbon are not being released every year because of him.
Everyone has a plan for climate change, but he's done more to actually slow it than any of them. If he puts the best team together to work on it and negotiates with/influences other countries, that alone will help everyone on the planet. He's got a proven track record on my top issue.
All the other issues are important, but if we don't have a livable planet, they won't matter in the long run.
He does need to get rid of Donald Trump first, though.
1
Very laudable but the fact remains that we move towards an oligarchy - rules by the les plus riches
5
@John Agreed - thanks for pointing this out, which would have been my response to both Ms. Lollock and A. Rothstein.
1
Bernie is espousing policy that has worked in all the Nordic states for over 50 years. These governments are all true democracy's (unlike ours) and they are all capitalist market economies. They are also the most educated,healthiest, and happiest people in the world. That could be us if you just don't buy in to the red baiting propaganda...most people don't anymore that's why Bernie's winning ....
5
He might beat Trump, but I don't think he will beat Bernie. The national conversation has shifted to wealth inequity and how to right it because an old hippy from Vermont via Brooklyn speaks to the greater good he can do for everyday Americans. I will cast my one vote for Bernie as will millions similarly disappointed by the failure of centrist policies influenced by big money.
4
The root of most problems in our country are income and wealth inequality. Nominating Mike Bloomberg to tackle them is like electing Al Capone to root out organized crime.
This is the time for Democrats to show courage and not to sell out to big money in the fight for the middle class.
8
The saying "put your money where your mouth is" applies to Bloomberg. He has created and financed ads and PACs to support gun safety, education, health care, and the environment, including climate change truth.
I feel very comfortable in believing that these are the policies he would champion from the WH.
10
Mind boggling that the party of the people would consider a billionaire candidate who is looking to buy the office.
9
Elections funded by the public would be a big help to the process.
10
Compare Bloomberg's philanthropic generosity to the fiasco that was the Trump Foundation and you realize once again that Trump was, and is, entirely out for his own interests.
9
@Paul
Lol you call this"generosity"? He has 62 billion dollars! This is nothing but a tax gimmick.
1
@Paul or Bloomberg School of Medicine vs Trump U.
"find his views troubling" ! The fact that he is trying to buy the presidency is what is really troubling - but "liberal" columnists prefer to criticise Sanders. Why?
3
This puff piece actually spells out how Bloomberg expressly and openly took positions political and philosophically diametrically opposed to left and progressive organizations and then bought their subsequent support regardless of standing in direct opposition to organizations like Emily's List and civil rights groups.
This isn't how the presidential candidate "built his influence", it's about how he "bought his candidacy". Ugh.
7
In some ways Bloomberg is a mirror image of Trump. He may be the best one to debate Trump simply because he knows more about Trump than Trump knows about Trump.
In reviewing the comments section, I read that Bloomberg will point out Trump’s lies, frauds and, outlaw behavior. The point is that the Trump base is in and of itself the biggest group of liars, frauds and practitioners of outlaw behavior in the country. The base wants to emulate Trump because he personifies their view of the world.
For example, Jim Jordan, the former assistant wrestling coach at Ohio State, who has been accused of condoning sexual abuse. Talk to Trump’s core base and they tell you that it is a lie made up by Nancy Pelosi, or Hillary Clinton, or even President Obama.
What we should look for is regaining a 66% majority in the Senate. If the Democrats completely turn the Senate, they and the House can override vetoes and drive Trump even further into the dark tunnel of insanity where he now dwells.
The other advantage of owning the House and Senate is the ability to bring anyone in the White House (hear this Bernie?) to the middle of the road.
Let’s let Bloomberg buy the nomination and see what happens, let’s concentrate on the more important objective of controlling the congress.
10
As long as we have this system of unlimited political spending, courtesy of Citizens United and an out of control Supreme Court, we must deal with the system we have. It does no good to lament and condemn the millionaires and billionaires. We need to win elections with the system we have or go down in flames while congratulating ourselves on how pure we are.
Mike Bloomberg has chosen to help the Democratic Party win elections. He recognizes that we have a national emergency as long as DJT is in the White House. In an emergency, we should be pragmatic enough to help him help us.
14
Seeing people slowly come around to Bloomberg has been one of the single most disheartening developments in recent memory. Where does one even begin? The racist policies as mayor, the sexual harassment accusations, the blatantly buying our democracy, the fact he was a Republican until just recently — Bloomberg is the candidate for people whose opposition to Trump is entirely superficial: his cruel policies aren’t the problem, only his style, tweets, and vulgarity.
Trump did not fall from the sky. He was an inevitability due to everything from our education, healthcare, campaign finance issues, etc. Voting for and nominating someone who is a lite version of him is not how you save democracy: it’s how you continue to ruin it. We are witnessing people being bought in real-time. Bloomberg’s wealth and how he’s using it is the entire problem with this country and democracy in a nutshell. It is not a strength. It is saying that the richer you are, the more influence you have. The more people you can buy. The more votes you can win. We are a failing democracy because of that, not Donald Trump alone. You don’t replace one oligarch with another to save democracy.
This is a primary and you have choices. But you can’t pretend to care about sexism, racism, money in politics — heck, any progressive value — if you would choose Bloomberg at this stage. There’s also no evidence that he is the only person who can beat Trump, on the contrary. It’s time people wake up.
7
Bloomberg is going to get the nomination and his money will certainly help him get it. The far left will scream and yell and the rest will just pull the lever for Bloomberg.
Time to cue in the limousine-liberals. I wish Tom Wolfe were around to write a nice cryptic yet highly cynical essay about the "New Progressives".
Michael Moore will make a movie about it. He'll have a beautiful montage of the 1968 Democratic Convention, which introduce his Bloomberg documentary.
5
@P&L
Oh lucky day! At last I come upon a commentator who can look at the big picture and capture this whole episode — depicting it as the farce it already is now, while also predicting its eventual tumble down the rabbit hole into the absurd!
Tom Wolfe is surely shining his light of praise down upon you! You literally nailed it with “The New Progressives.”
And in keeping with that Tom Wolfe vibe, I would throw in a bit of campy Sarah Palin and her “lipstick on a pig still being a pig” line by stating the obvious — Mike Bloomberg is a self-made billionaire technocrat Republican, who just happens to champion a couple of progressive causes involving our climate crisis and gun violence.
Yet underneath that perceived altruism, Mike Bloomberg is still a misogynistic, racist, indecent, uber-privileged, soulless man, with limited ability to appreciate economic misfortune or inequality. In Sarah Palin’s words, he’s still a pig — of the Republican kind. He’s not even worthy of the term “limousine liberal.”
As to Michael Moore’s documentary, I predict it will be more of an ode to Bernie, a nostalgic could have, should have, would have. I might just have to skip it. I envision popcorn catching in my throat as I proceed to choke.
Please do spin more of your magic high on your perch in Cap Ferrat. The climate is doing wonders for your imagination. I am feeling the need to return myself. My creative mojo has been in full bloom since the start of the new year! Adieu!
2
George Washington was said to be the richest man in the United States, and a slave holder as well.
FDR was cursed as a traitor to his class
Some one has to lead the charge against the crazy carnival barker and take the hits. Someone who can punch back with devastating counter blows. And still be standing. And laughing having punked Trump.
I would guess that less than one tenth of the interest earned on charitable donations made by Bloomberg in the leanest year of donations is more that the total sum dispersed to charitable causes by the trump charities.
Johns Hopkins, or Trump University certificates available in the toilet paper section of the dollar store.
Michael Bloomberg is the sort of "Shock Army" that is needed to turn the tide. Maybe some other general will get the victory after Bloomberg has lead the charge.
I am amazed at how people have the chutzpa to tell Bloomberg to strategically spend money. His dad was a bookkeeper for a dairy farm and here he is today.
And then they bash him for wearing an inexpensive Timex watch. As if Mike has to impress someone with a timepiece.
10
@Lawrence I once worked very briefly for someone who was a multimillionaire. He was the cheapest person you could imagine. He drove an old car, if you saw him walking down the street you would think that he was some scruffy old guy living near the poverty level. No overt show of wealth, in his living arrangements or anything else.
He left all of his money to establish a medical school at a state university. That school flourishes today, and I still think of him when I hear of it.
When I heard Mike was running, I thought of him. I don't see eye-to-eye on politics with either of them. But, still, admirable.
2
Some of these comments are truly, well, baffling. First off, Bloomberg built his own business and wealth from scratch, unlike the current president. Also unlike Trump, the guy has given billions of his fortune, without a ton of fanfare and beginning long before he ever decided to run for president, to noble causes and non-profits.
You can not like his political views and that's fine. But certainly he is a quintessential American success story and there is much to admire there. And he can spend his money on whatever he wants and yet he has chosen to spend billions on charity and another billion or more on evicting a dangerous, racist tyrant from the White House. For those two things alone I give him a standing ovation.
Some of the commenters should just admit they are resentful and distrustful of anybody with money, irrespective of their politics, and that nothing will change their minds on that point. The French readily admit it; the rich-hating fist-shakers here should, too.
16
Here we are, stuck with a president who cannot even run a relatively small charitable foundation without it being declared corrupt, fined and shut down. Bloomberg is showing us there is another way to manage wealth. His effort to leave a legacy that will improve the lives of generations has earned my support.
15
This guy is not about true governing. I wish NYTimes would not give him the time of day. Money is like putting out fires. Throw some cash at it, and then what else can be manipulated? Ignore the past troubling experiences trying to control women, people of color and what is next?
2
This creeps me out. Even though I agree with most of the policies he supports, no one should have this much power.
5
@KarenAnne
He has little actual power outside of his businesses - what he does have is lots of disposable income.
Is the White House in an auction, to be claimed by the highest bidder? Is this how American democracy works?
6
Bloomberg's philanthropic arm is pervasive, and it's imperative we shine a light on the kind favor it can curry among party leaders, thought leaders, and more broadly, the ruling class. One need not look any further than the biweekly column of the New York Time's very own Thomas Friedman in order to find a case in point. He has written two columns in the last three months endorsing Bloomberg as the only potential Democratic nominee that would be capable of defeating President Trump in a general election. It was only the second column (published three days ago, 'Paging Michael Bloomberg') that contained a footnote disclosing the fact that Bloomberg Philanthropies was a major donor to Planet Word, a museum founded by Thomas Friedman's wife, Ann Friedman.
5
This article has been posted for over an hour and in that time it's pulled fewer than 100 reader comments. This is almost certainly an indicator of reader interest in Bloomberg; it may be an indicator of voter interest in Bloomberg. My concern about Bloomberg as the Democratic nominee is voter turn out.
4
For significant portion of the progressive electorate, a Bloomburg Trump matchup would be like choosing between cancer or heart disease. If Mike’s money hijacks the nomination, it’s the end of the Democratic Party & Trump will most likely be re elected.
2
What is disconcerting is everything Bloomberg touches turns softer. “A normal person would never be able to that.”
1
And this is why "Citizens United" must be repealed and all local/state & national elections must be publicly funded.
Doesn't seeing some rich guy 'buying' his way into Our Democracy, creep anyone else out?
2
@kladinvt See @KarenAnne. and yes, it creeps me out, too
Compare that to Trump, who STOLE veteran donations to buy pictures and football memorabilia.
7
Bloomberg donates over $320,000 to the DNC and they change the rules so he can be in the debates , ignoring the others who had to bow out because of the DNC rules - this is very corrupt. The oligarchy is trying to get what it always wants a Republican vs a crazy Republican. A Bloomberg win is the death of the Democratic Party.
5
Call it what you will, but since we’ve let it come to this, I’ll take the benevolent billionaire over the phony fool who claims to be rich.
This penchant for Democrats to have all these purity tests is a problem. I’m a lifelong liberal--who is lately becoming less so, but I have a number of issues with #MeToo--and anyone who unconditionally believes every woman verbatim--as if memory is a video recording untouched by life’s experiences and other factors. I’m not calling anyone a liar, just not buying into the popular (and inaccurate) perception of memory.
5
Trying to whitewash a candidate?
3
Trump is the precisely the kind of man you don't want your son to become
Bloomberg is exactly the man you want your son to become.
7
Does anyone want to watch a battle of the billionaires for president?
1
FDR was super wealthy and he made one of if not our very best president. So please, get off your high horse or do not complain at Trump year 5, or 6, or 7.
You have a pretty good idea of what those years will be like for the planet.
11
Whether you like his policies and politics or not, he is in the ages old, great and noble tradition of the Jewish giver.
He is a mensch.
His mother must have kvelled a lot over his success and philanthropy! Too bad she can't see what her kid is doing now.
Whether or not he'd be a good president is an entirely different matter for discussion.
5
“Money often costs too much.” – Ralph Waldo Emerson
3
@Zareen Beautiful!
Mike Bloomberg is an imperfect human being and flawed candidate. The perfect human being is not running for President. Place his credentials, record, and beliefs next to Donald Trump, the choice is obvious and compelling. Bloomberg is a choirboy when compared to Donald Trump.
I pledge to vote for anyone on the ballot, short of Satan, running against Donald Trump. And if the choice was between Satan and Trump, I'd have to think to think long and hard who I would vote for.
10
Despite some pretty ugly political baggage -- stop-and-frisk, buying influence, autocratic tendencies -- he could win it all if he chose Stacey Abrams as his Vice President.
Highly qualified and extremely popular, she would dilute, if not destroy, his baggage. For how can he be a racist or sexist if he has a black woman as his successor, which she would be, maybe in the first term? He is, afterall, 78.
Mike's shrewd enough to realize this wise maneuver. And in many ways, he would provide just what America needs: a good house cleaning. Or, better, a good Senate cleaning.
(Sadly, in this half-clean world, you must get your hands somewhat dirty to maintain the status quo, if ethically acceptable, or improve the degree of cleanness possible. Rose gardens were never promised.)
4
@Jim Muncy
Kamela Harris might be the better VP nominee because she's held city and statewide public offices.
1
@Cordelia
She has her own pretty ugly political baggage: Miss Lock-'em-Up-and-Throw-Away-the-Key.
She looked pretty bad in the debates. Stacey has none of that to deal with, plus she's very impressive in all areas: experience, knowledge, intelligence, likability, and electability.
Amazing how the New York Times frames this as some sort of investigative expose
The man is giving away billions of dollars to fight climate change, shut down coal plants, provide good educations to underprivelaged kids, promote women's issues and become the number one advocate for gun control.
Bloomberg is a great American. He will make a great president,.
8
Yep, the guy who tried to ban soda is a surefire bet to win over Republicans.
This dude has made his money and doesn't have to be in politics. I'd say he is patriotic and loves his country.
9
Noticeably absent is Bloomberg's long time support of Israel's right wing extremists along with their illegal and immoral policies and actions in the West Bank and Gaza. Is the violation of human rights now acceptable in the Democratic Party?
7
Can someone from the NYT please justify giving the front page headline to a candidate who does not have a single delegate? There are fantastic candidates who are already doing well, including two brilliant women.
5
Bloomberg's candidacy is a disaster for the Democratic Party and will ultimately be a disaster for the country by enabling Trump to be re-elected. His deep ties to Wall Street, his Republican-like positions, his unacceptable support for racist policies, his horrible disdain for public education and his unapologetic attempt to buy the White House will ultimately alienate and lose the support of the base of the party, of minority voters and of the energetic grassroots movement. He won't win the nomination and he will then use his money and his delegates to deny Sanders, the likely leader heading into the convention, of the nomination. That despicable lack of respect for democracy will lead to a fractured party and Trump will clean up. Ironically, Bloomberg will be happy if Trump is re-elected because his profits will go up. Under Trump, he will easily make back everything he has spent on this exercise in narcissism.
4
"Their draft included a chapter of more than 4,000 words about New York City police surveillance of Muslim communities; [bloomy] was mentioned by name eight times in the chapter, which was reviewed by The Times.
When the report was published a few weeks later, the chapter was gone. So was any mention of [bloomy]’s name."
Yenno how we and fellow Sane people said that the loser didn't need to SAY there was a crime to commit one, or vocalize a threat or order to make one? Remember those quaint times? Yep, same applies here. No one should have to be so fearful of speaking truth to power, whether that power pretends to be a billionaire or actually is one.
Here's another time he evidently had unspoken influence, in more than one sense, in that you don't get to hear Colbert speak bloomy's alter-ego name. I have seen one or two other Late Show clips obviously edited, but apparently to cover up stutters or similar oddness, not nearly so deliberately to appease a target. https://youtu.be/Uve_Cl-Kcvk?t=20
It all harkens back to his second year as Mayor, when first appeared this New York Lottery TV ad. "Does it matter that he BOUGHT the team?" "Next question." https://youtu.be/MiZ3Uo-wUH4
Everyone is aware, (aren't they?) that Bloomberg is paying for likes, recommends, and social media presence?
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-51493403
If you'd have noticed, yesterdays Bloomberg Op-Ed was flooded with pro-Bloomy supporters,(all new names to the comment section) with over 1200 recommends in the first hour, going to the top ten comments. Yet, after one day, only less than 700 comments.
Folks, the Democratic's are being astroturfed. Just as the Koch Bro's made and funded the Tea Party Movement, so is Bloomberg.
DON'T sell our Republic to the highest bidder.
Don't believe the propaganda and marketing that is flooding ALL the media and social media sights. 98% of it isn't real.
This is a major astroturf stunt.
You are being played.
It won't end well for America.
https://www.salon.com/2020/02/14/mike-bloomberg-is-paying-social-media-influencers-to-post-fake-messages-to-make-him-look-cool/
8
In short what Mayor Bloomberg's detractors are accusing him of trying to buy his way to the White House is factually true. That by itself should not disqualify him from joining "The Swamp" in the corridors of power if he brings good ideas and ability to the job,but he would have to be a lot more concrete & concise in his presentations and not like many smooth talking predecessors who are very good at speaking with a "forked tongue".
3
Mayor Mike. You can bribe some of the people some of the time. You can bribe some people all the time. But can you
bribe all people all of the time?
Why not use your money to take voice and elocution lessons.
Your voice and self expression are VERY annoying. Plus,
you are NOT a Democrat.
Put your money towards affordable childcare for working
families. Make every student literate with private tutoring
clubs in all low-performing public schools. Make it fun and
desirable.
Leave the Presidency to be won by Elizabeth Warren.
6
Bloomberg is a racist, sexist oligarch with a long history of supporting republicans (he was one) and a more recent history of buying democratic support. His policy record on every issue besides guns is horrific (his environmental giving has strings attached that prevent it from being used for any forward-looking objectives) and he is unable to articulate so much as a good-faith apology for the ways his mayoral tenure damaged black and brown communities. No candidate is perfect, but Bloomberg is a perfect nightmare.
6
If Bloomberg becomes the nominee, I’ll vote third party or Trump. We cannot let a billionaire oligarch usurp the Democratic Party. The sheer number of moderates who wish to live in Bloomberg’s plutocracy makes my spine chill.
So the antidote to one corrupt racist millionaire oligarch is another corrupt racist billionaire oligarch? I have seen enough. It’s time to declare the death of American democracy.
2
@Shamanth
Four more years of Trump is a far greater menace not only to our democracy, but also to the world and our planet.
I would think eighty times over before casting my vote for a third-party candidate or Trump this time around.
3
Interesting - how much did that other "Billionaire" Trump give to charity?
Oh wait, he ran a scam charity that took funds from vets and sick children and had to pay $2.0 in fines.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/10/nyregion/trump-foundation-lawsuit-attorney-general.html
6
You can be a devoted feminist, a promoter of equality, and a defender of women's rights, while still opposing the knee-jerk, reactionary witch-hunts of the Me Too "movement."
Thank you, Emily's List, for not bending to the mob.
6
Michael Bloomberg's human rights record is abysmal, whether it be against the blacks and browns of NYC or the indigenous peoples of Palestine.
For this reason he should not represent the Democratic Party.
5
I can't get over his expanding this humiliation policy of his to throw young black people agains the wall, redlining housing issues are very alarming, Central Park 5 settlement that took him to 10 years to settle, thousands of ruined young lives.
I have to see Netflix "When They See US"
Bloomberg Dilemma...
2
I don’t understand the point of this article. Is it to draw a connection between Bloomberg’s philanthropy and political interests? If so, there a number of loose inferences leaving it to the reader to conclude if his philanthropy was politically self-serving, with no definitive evidence either way. Was the point of the piece to illustrate how the Bloomberg model goes well beyond check-writing to actually engage politically in the issues he’s passionate about, eg climate, education, gun safety, all issues that have stalled legislatively and may have benefited from a more politically savvy approach? Was the objective to drill down on some of Bloomberg’s philanthropic interests and assess whether he’s had an impact in the areas where he’s invested? If so, that would be an interesting read, yet there is no attempt to evaluate whether the $10 billion he’s donated has had a meaningful effect. While we have to sift through a lot of anecdotes with nuanced suggestions of political and philanthropic ‘win-wins’, we never get to much substance. I for one would love to learn more about Bloomberg’s overseas giving, to areas like polio eradication, traffic safety, tobacco cessation, and malaria control, none of which is winning him votes back in the U.S. but which seem to be vastly overlooked in this piece.
9
@Joe Cerrell: It is a pity that all the philanthropy devoted to inoculation and nutrition didn't come with education that reduction of disease and extension of life call for reduced birth rates.
1
@Steve Bolger Healthier families = smaller family sizes/lower fertility. It’s been the case for hundreds of years.
1
Let us hope that presidential elections don't permanently become "Who is the Best Emperor" contests. Fortunately, one of this year's super wealthy candidates has a long record of support for basic survival and dignity.
5
I'm sensitive to the "we don't want the election bought by a billionaire" comments but unfortunately its the reality of how our current election system is set up.
As a long time supporter of Bloomberg and his ability to get things done that matter with and with out his personal capital, I believe he is the only candidate to get it done for our country. He is also the only candidate with resources to take on Trump with his giant and growing war chest.
And if you are highly concerned about the dual crisis of climate change and ecological overshoot as I am, he is the only candidate with a long and verifiable record on the topic, not just lip service but actual on the ground work.
Like all candidates his history is not perfect, but this is the candidate that can win and unify our eroded democracy.
16
Philanthropy sometimes has more to do with tax deductions and public image, than with moral ethics. The proportions in Bloomberg's case are for the voters to decide.
2
"Bloomberg has long mingled support for progressive causes with more conservative positions on law enforcement, business regulation and school choice."
That kind of ideology suits me just fine. Very wealthy people know as should the rest of us that great wealth means power and influence. In what society has it been any other way including our revered institutions, like religious, academic and social.
Egalitarianism will always be one of the great human aspirations but that does not mean such a goal cannot be fostered by people with great wealth, strong moral fiber and critical reasoning skills. Mr. Bloomberg possesses all three.
23
@AGoldstein
I really take issue with the last paragraph of your comments here. You seem to equate Mike Bloomberg’s altruism and philanthropy with being conducive to leading this country. But, as this article details, oftentimes his philanthropy and donations come with a significant price — as in, shut up, take the money, and keep quiet for fear of being expelled from your organization.
In terms of his strong moral fiber, I think you honestly believe that just as Mike Bloomberg believes that of himself. But there are so many factual accounts of him behaving and speaking in sexually inappropriate ways, not valuing his female employees, and castigating them for pregnancies. Likewise within the black community, some of Mike Bloomberg’s policies as mayor are morally suspect —not just the horrific stop and frisk, but the delay in compensation to the Central Park Five by 10 years. These to me are all evidence of a man who is somewhat amoral and lacking the humanity, decency and compassion to put himself in the shoes of another.
Lastly, you heap praise on Mike Bloomberg’s critical reasoning skills. Make no mistake about it — Mike Bloomberg is a self-made billionaire technocrat. He is impatient, obstinate, accustomed to having his way, unwilling to compromise. You won’t see his altruism when it comes to his sense of dollars and cents on economic policies or employee compensation.
In the end, Mike Bloomberg is just a Republican wearing a few progressive causes on his sleeve.
3
I'm all for whatever B can knock trump out of the West Wing...(Bernie, Biden, Buttegieg), but from here in Ohio a fourth B....Bloomberg seems to have the best shot.
Call it B+ (Bloomberg and Billions).
I'm curious, though, if he will allow American voters to see his tax records.
17
@Mailman: He probably deducts his charitable contributions.
2
There is no question that Mike Bloomberg has donated to any number of causes and has what he perceives to be the public good foremost in mind. Likewise he has extensive experience in government and in business. Like most other candidates, he carries baggage regarding his positions. No question little Mike will give as good as he gets with Donald Trump, and his recent conversion to the Democratic Party isn't, to me at least, a bar to being the standard bearer. Finally, his wealth in and of itself is not an issue. Were it, I would have to reject, among others, FDR. If he is the Democratic nominee, I will, of course vote for him.
My objection and under any other conditions it would preclude me from voting for him is that, as this column notes, he is dependent only on himself. His charitable donations are wonderful, but they are not a substitute for a sane and fair tax system that will allow for governmental support for research, for a government policy that publicly addresses climate, for real educational and healthcare funding, for a strong safety net that protects us all. Likewise, his to date entirely self-funded campaign is no substitute for campaign finance reform, for reversing both Citizens United and the less-well known Buckly v. Valeo. As I said, should he get the nomination, I will very reluctantly vote for him. I am not, though, ready to hand democracy over to the oligarchs, even if, generally speaking,"our" oligarch is better than "their" oligarch.
8
@tomg: The public donates a portion of every donation deducted on tax returns.
1
Electing Mike in November is as important as electing Abe in 1860 as much is at stake. He did a great job as Mayor of NYC I voted for him all three times. He can defeat the Trump Monarchy I do not believe any of the other Democrats progressive or moderate can.
He will form a Administration that will attract talent as he did as Mayor there will be new vision and ideas Infrastructure will get done along with a workable Healthcare Plan.
34
@James mCowan Wouldn't you say the Abe comparison is an overstatement? Bloomberg allegedly fostered a problematic workspace for women, expanded stop-and-frisk, has expressed admiration for dictators across the world. That seems very similar to Trump.
3
As I read this article, it seems to say Bloomberg uses his wealth to gain personal power. All his donations are to those that can help him, whether it be charitable, or political. It is to gain influence and power for himself. He succeeded. Ms Taeb is told to basically whitewash a chapter she is writing in a report or get rid of it all together. Mr. Bloomberg might get upset about what it says. When she gets involved in Virginia politics, he leaves a message that he wants to sit down with her and tell her why he should be president and "what he’s done with the Democratic Party." One might think he has either bought it or intends to. This has not just come up recently. He has been buying influence and power for years. He says he is betting on Super Tuesday. But even if his success is not what he intended, it's doubtful he will drop out. There may come a time that prospects are so low, the DNC will find a way to change the outcome of the nomination process. If that happens, Bloomberg could succeed. It is doubtful he will ever debate for the democratic nomination. These candidates rip and tear with no concern who they go after. Just ask Biden.
3
@Ron: Beyond a certain level of comfort and secure income, getting wealthier is about becoming more powerful.
1
That extremely wealthy people like Bloomberg are philanthropists is all well and good, except for one importantant thing. In feudal times there were wealthy landowners whose wives did charity work for the poor. This is not new.
In a modern democracy money should not "trickle down" from the rich to the poor as charity. It must be part of government policy. It is the duly elected government's role to set up a tax system that distribute wealth as a matter of policy.
Bill Gates and Bloomberg might be nice men with good intentions but they can write all that money off, lobby for lower taxes for themselves and applaud one another for their generosity.
We live in the age of oligarchs. This is not what America needs.
28
@Yvon Masicotte
America needs Trump out. And the world needs Trump out. That's what we need.
And Mike can officially escort Trump out the door of the White House and our lives.
11
@Yvon Masicotte
The job is to get rid of the phony, constitution and foreign government beholding corrupt "Oligarch" that is holding our country hostage right now.
I'm voting for Bloomberg in my state's primary.
9
@Yvon Masicotte
Bravo! Yvon. You wrote quite succinctly the key issue here. While it may be true that my progressive values coincide with Mike Bloomberg when it comes to gun violence and our climate crisis, I part ways with him on education policy and privatization of government functions in general.
For those here who are applauding Mike Bloomberg’s altruism, please remember that his causes and yours on a whole host of issues may be vastly different. I am willing to bet most progressives here would not be very happy on Bloomberg’s economic values which place great emphasis on hiring as cheaply as possible. Be prepared for another Cabinet filled with the wealthiest entrepreneurs and capitalists from Wall Street and Silicon Valley. Another businessman running our government as a business, instead of as a nation of diverse thriving individuals.
Make no mistake about this. Mike Bloomberg is a self-made billionaire technocrat, a stubborn obstinate man who is used to getting his way and is impatient with the likes of nearly all the rest of us. He is surrounded by subservient sycophants who carry out his wishes. And he lacks any true decency or humanity. He lacks a soul.
7
We are to conclude that Bloomberg’s years-long charitable giving as a nefarious plot to win influence? Apparently it is shocking news that money buys influence.
I suppose that in a perfect world, that wouldn’t be true. Yet we do not live in a perfect world.
I look at the reporting here of Bloomberg’s years of giving away money and leap to a different conclusion: even if he has ulterior motives, his giving has been generally doing good. He clearly has a record of strategically donating to accomplish positive ends, and has been thoughtful about it.
Contrast this with Trump, who likely is not actually a billionaire, and who doesn’t have a selfless bone in his body. Bloomberg is a breath of very fresh air compared to Trump.
Money does, indeed, buy influence, but it isn’t that difficult to make a judgement about the trajectory of that influence. Bloomberg apparently has been strategic in his giving, both to increase its effectiveness and to maximize his influence. Effective leadership can emerge in many ways, and accumulating wealth is indeed one powerful indicator. Yes, he is wealthy, and yes he has worked to increase his influence. The real issue is not that he has used his wealth to buy influence, but whether he has used it towards positive ends. His record shows that clearly he has.
46
@Marshall Doris
Indeed, being wealty is not a crime. Unfortunately, there are lot of millionaires and billionaires whose road to wealth reads like a crime novel. Not so with Mike.
And I will bet that his media company has decades of investigative stories about Donald Trump the grifter who "settled out of court," to avoid paying his contractors and partners in full. It's called "million-dollar poker" in the profession of litigation. Trump has always been a mob boss and Bloomberg knows where all the bodies are buried.
Last year, my money was on Warren until she hitched her campaign to the far-left Bernie Sanders. Then, I was all in for Biden but, unless he survives with a win in SC, he may be done. Too bad. Joe's got the experience and the heart to be a fine POTUS.
Bloomberg, warts and all, may be the only candidate who understands exactly who, and what, Trump is, and how to defeat him. This election has less to do with regaining power for Democrats, though we need it. Instead, this is all about saving our democracy from authoritarianism. If it takes Mike Bloomberg to end this nightmare, so be it.
12
It is possible and recommend that we be able to separate the money spent and the person running. Not all billionaires must be dismissed. Fact is, if we don't get a Democrat in office, our values and goals will not only not be possible they will continue to be demolished under Dt. Bloomberg is not my first, second or even third choice. But, I also feel pretty sure he'd take Dt on pretty successfully. If Dt is NOT defeated, not a lot else matters. That is the reality. And yes, I'm working hard for the senate, HOR, and as many down ballot issues and candidates I can.
8
I've heard the argument about "electability" in regards to Bernie Sanders and his semi-socialist positions.
To be quite honest, Bernie is not a socialist. His positions map pretty closely to the social democracies of Northern Europe (e.g. Norway). In those countries, and many more around the world, the kinds of policies that Bernie is advocating for are NOT radical.
Only in the United States do I constantly hear that these policies "could never happen, would never work, there needs to be compromise, blah blah blah etc."
I don't have time to waste pretending that it's okay that we live in a society where billionaire capitalists can buy elections and use their fortunes to leverage a way for the same patriarchal, white-supremacist, eco-destructive capitalism to continue on forever and ever.
Have we gotten to the point where it's not only expected - but allowed - for a billionaire to buy the presidency? And yet it's Bernie's ideas that are too radical for us to handle. To recap:
Billionaire as president: Okay! Actually, let's do two in a row!
Green New Deal: Impossible, too expensive
Medicare for All: Impossible, too expensive
We need to get our priorities straightened out. Billionaires are unacceptable.
I am 22 years old. I can tell you that people my age and younger are terrified and traumatized by the reality we live in. The writing's on the wall - capitalism is nearing its end. We're not going to accept this patriarchal, racist, eco-destructive regime any longer.
20
Quinn, I am thankful that you (and so many in your generation) are so politically active. I was a disinterested registered republican (in Texas) at your age. Later as I grew more independent and then progressive, I frequently threw away my votes in protest. I hope that IF Bloomberg or anyone other than Bernie turns out to the the Democratic candidate, you will not stay away from the general election, or cast protest votes like I once did. Our society needs you, this year and for the future.
4
It is great that mayor Bloomberg has a record of philanthropy but while he will not succeed in buying the white house, it would be even greater that instead of wasting his billions on ads he spends it on creating jobs for his campaign by hiring African American youth, unemployed people, homeless and others and compensating them appropriately. He could also spend on homeless shelters, free medical consultation clinics, hospitals to treat cancer, biomedical research, senior care centers etc. I think that will be a more productive use of his billions and will be memory of his being one of the great philanthropists even if he does not get into the white house.
Spending billions unsucessfully at trying to buy the white house after a dirty mud slinging campaign that exposes his own past blunders, will be a colossal waste of wealth that he will regret for the rest of his life.
7
My wife and I are progressives. My wife suffered serious heart failure this year. She was transported to Johns Hopkins medical campus from a regional hospital where she nearly died. She received world class care and her prognosis is excellent no small part to the care received at Hopkins. Mike Bloomberg’s philanthropy helped make that possible. We are eternally grateful.
We don’t like Mr. Bloomberg’s record on profiling and his statement that anti-redlining law created the 2008 mortgage defaults driven financial collapse. That is an absolute lie perpetrated by Republicans in an attempt to racial animus. Those beneficiaries of anti-redlining laws had lower default rates.
We are concerned by Bloomberg using his wealth to buy his way in. But the Koch brothers and Adelson are doing the same thing.
We prefer Sanders, but Bernie is very vulnerable. Do we support Bernie and risk the unthinkable? Or support Mike warts and all? Bloomberg’s position on gun control, climate and environment protection, and women’s reproductive rights are good. His philanthropic action bodes well. His past racial bias is troubling.
We’re in conflict.
13
@Conflicted many years ago.
I am glad your wife is well, but Hopkins was for many decades one of the best hospitals in the US and ultimately it is due to the doctors.
I share your mixed feelings.
Bloomberg broke the fundamental law of NY, comparable to the Constitution, when he ran for a third term. The councilmembers who helped him do that are like the senators who violated their oaths last week.
And it is probably fair to say that money influenced them all.
He was also willing to use force and racial discrimination in the past.
How far can we trust him? Less than Bernie, much more than the present criminal-in-office.
6
@Conflicted I'm glad that your wife is alright and understand why you would be conflicted. But nobody would need philanthropy for medical needs if Medicare for all was implemented. Healthcare is a human right and should not be a favor that elites hand down to regular folks. If all the wealthy people in this country were taxed fairly, we would have such a healthcare system.
5
Instead of the hidden moneyocracy controlling candidates like marionettes in the past, with Trump, Bloomberg, etc., the moneyocracy is full-frontal in the 2020 campaigns.
Of course, for us who believe in political equality, where each person has equal power, whether an under-employed mom fearing homelessness, an undocumented immigrant, an innocent person in prison or an uber-rich investor, the government's electoral system remains illegitimate.
7
It's admirable he puts his money where his mouth is (and even where it will be). I'm just not sure I want him to put MY tax money where his mouth is.
4
@DCBinNYC
Whereas Trump puts your tax money towards a border wall, Secret Service overtime pay to secure Mar a Lago and Air Force 1 entourages too numerous to count flying down to Florida to promote Trump's resort on a near weekly basis.
If Bloomberg is the Democratic nominee, it will prove beyond all doubt that democracy is dead in this country. It will just be a question of which billionaire buys the election and rules the country. Yes, Bloomberg is better than Trump if oligarchy is inevitable. But is it?
13
@Glassyeyed
Yes, it is. We have seen Trump and the entire Republican Party unravel the Constitution and the Rule of Law for too long. If Bloomberg is even a stop-gap (one-term) POTUS to keep us from being dragged off the ledge into pure authoritarianism by Trump and Trumpism, I'll give Mike a chance to end the madness.
Because, I am afraid the current crop of candidates are all looking vulnerable to a Trump campaign of endless lies and false promises. He is a con man and always has been. Lincoln was the right candidate for the job in 1860. Perhaps Mike is the right candidate for 2020. Nothing is more important than beating Trump.
6
I voted for Mike yesterday and dropped it into the ballot box. I hope to do the same in the Presidential election. He can debate Trump, he can beat Trump, and he can help get Mitch McConnell out as the Senate Majority leader.
And THEN we can see some real progress on the courts, including the Supreme Court, climate change, infrastructure, and protection of women’s rights. His causes are my causes and I am thrilled to support Mike Bloomberg!
73
@Sandra I’m waiting to see what excuse Trump has for getting out of a debate with Bloomberg. Trump would be so outmatched on so many levels, that if he actually did participate in a debate, he would go to his immediate defense mechanism of name calling and the repeating of any points his people have fed him to attempt to muddle any possibility of an intellectual and logical debate.
9
I would like to see an in depth look at how Bloomberg made his millions. Even the Robber Barons of the Gilded Age were philanthropists. As a retired public school teacher, I have a big problem with his support for charter schools. I'm also troubled by stop and frisk, and comments on red lining. If he is the nominee, I'll vote for him, but I don't like the idea of a multi-billionaire buying the election.
17
@Edie Clark
It's billions, and a simple online search will show you exactly how he did it. And, unlike Trump, he didn't need 500 shell corporations to amass a fortune. He did it the old fashioned way, he earned it through ingenuity and honest hard work.
19
@Edie Clark He got so rich because his financial information technology solution costs $20,000 a year. It's practically a must have solution, kind of like the way everyone has to read the Wall Street Journal everyday because if you don't know what WSJ is saying you become out of touch.
A Bloomberg account gives financial people instantaneous information. You can even message other brokers rapidly, see trends etc.
He even has subscribes in China which will probably come up as a conflict interest. In fact, they are already pounding Bloomberg hard at Fox News about this.
1
@Edie Clark same here, I will vote for him without a doubt and I might vote for him in the primaries as well
3
I could be wrong, but I suspect that FDR was the richest man to become President. He also became the most effective change agent to reduce social inequality in our Nation between the wealthiest and the poorest citizens. His support for labor and the NLRB helped grow the influence of labor unions which propelled millions of workers into a Middle Class. The Social Security Act was responsible for insuring that our retired citizens and disabled citizens had enough income to live on. He led our Nation out of the Great Depression and made America the global leader that it was at the end of WW2. It's not wealth per se that is evil, it's what some billionaires do with it. Bloomberg seems to believe that it must be used to stop gun violence, wage war against consumerism and obesity, fight the energy companies that are destroying our planet and fight the merchants of death be they Big Tobacco, Big Pharma, or Big Defense. I will certainly vote for Mike if he is the nominee.
62
@Vicki Farrar
NO, FDR was not rich. He came from an old family but they had come down in wealth for a long time. You can look up the numbers but a tour of their house showed me that while it had a great location they had not been able to maintain or modernize it for decades.
3
@Vicki Farrar
Every great achievement of FDRs was one based upon economic opportunity and creating systems for fairer labor and employment policies.
Mike Bloomberg is not that guy. He is a self-made billionaire technocrat Republican. He is impatient, obstinate, willfully determined to get his way, unwilling to bend or compromise. He is not a symbol of empathy for those in the middle class or the poor. His own policies at his company did not protect senior employees from losing their job to cheaper labor.
Don’t confuse Bloomberg’s altruism — much of it self-serving — or his interest in certain progressive causes as being sufficient to cure the income inequality in this country.
To borrow that Sarah Palin line pointing out the obvious — that in putting lipstick on a pig, the pig still remains a pig — Mike Bloomberg can invest in a handful of nice progressive causes, but that doesn’t change the fact that he’s still a misogynistic racist soulless billionaire technocrat. He’s very much still a pig — of the Republican variety.
Any of our Democratic primary candidates can defeat Trump. Stop letting people who got it all wrong the last time tell you otherwise.
5
@Vicki Farrar
It's not that Bloomberg is rich. It's that he is using his money to buy an election. Just read about how he is already overpowering the other democratic candidates as he is driving up prices for ads and social media. Beyond that, his $$ through his donations to other candidates etc buys political influence. This is one of the primary issues that democrats have been fighting against. I can't believe how people in this party are jumping onboard with this. Please read about what he did in NY. He did keep the streets clean, but he really did not support working Americans, teachers, low wage workers and communities of color. I praise and support his philanthropy but he should not be president.
2
It’s already clear that money can buy a lot of political access and political optics. Imagine if Michael Bloomberg was a prominent Democratic politician with the same history of support for stop-and-frisk but was worth only millions rather than tens of billions of dollars. If he did not have the sheer amount of cash to throw around, can anyone imagine him surrounded by supportive groups of African American political leaders on the stage as he apologizes for his past mistakes? With all that money, even young activists and adorable children are on the stage with him. I know we live in cynical times, but is everything in American democracy for sale?
4
The more you allow unlimited political campaign funding, the less democratic your country becomes.
13
@Greg You are right. However the Republican stacked Supreme Court has declared campaign financing, no matter how over the top, is protected free speech.
5
Take close look at Bloomberg's positions regarding the Middle East and you will see where his ethical posture come apart.
7
It blows my mind left-leaning voters are applauding Bloomberg's rise and injection of yet more money from American royalty into the American political process. If we don't stop this arms race of billionaire spending, when will elections ever stop being about money?
Bloomberg opposing Trump is beside the point. Endless corruption is what lead to Trump in the first place.
13
@Todd Bollinger There is not a corrupt bone in Bloomberg's body. Some times hard work and savvy decisions actually lead to success. Bloomberg is a major example of that. He will make an impressive role model for the children of the world. And as far as campaign funding... most of us agree. It needs reforming. But when in a fight, you play by the rules your given. I want the 800 pound gorilla with the heart of gold leading our team!! Mike2020!
4
As a point of reference for everyone, I remember that when I lived it New York City the "Stop and Frisk Program" began during the administration of former Mayor Rudy Guliani. Check the internet to verify my claim.
13
@Jose P.
Stop and frisk is a law enforcement tool that's been used around the country for decades and decades. It was held to be constitutional by the US Supreme Court in 1968 in an 8-to-1 decision in the case Terry v. Ohio.
In sum, if police have a reasonable suspicion that person is about to commit, has committed, or is committing a crime they have the right to stop the person to make reasonable inquiries and can also pat them down to make sure the person isn't carrying a weapon.
While it's true the practice was overused during Bloomberg's tenure and directed primarily at people of color in poor communities, it also led to an impressive reduction in gun violence on our streets.
Unfortunately, violent crime in New York City is on the rise again, especially crimes involving the possession and use of handguns.
5
@Jose P. You failed to confirm or mention that it was indeed Rudy Guliani that started the practice of "Stop & Frisk". A Washington Post story dated 9/21/2016 acknowledges that Trump, credited Guliani with said program.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/09/21/it-looks-like-rudy-giuliani-convinced-donald-trump-that-stop-and-frisk-actually-works/
Arguably, we have Bloomberg to thank for helping to flip the House of Representatives.
17
@Richard
Bloomberg spent more than $41 million on 24 House races and 21 of them were won by Democrats. The majority of the candidates in the races were women.
6
When we're reduced to selling the presidency to the highest bidder, we've committed ourselves to admitting that democracy has had it's day. I don't care how good a mayor he was. The candidacy of Mike Bloomberg is even more undemocratic than the current occupant in the WH. Swapping out billionaires isn't any resolution at all because Bloomberg, for the most part, swims in the same seas as Trump does.
9
The old cliche. Put your money where your mouth is. Bloomberg has plenty of money and lots to usefully say about America’s future. Limit guns. Deal with Global warming. The challenges of income inequality. Higher taxes on the wealthy. And spare the country from four more years of Trump. Michael Bloomberg is the whole package.He will spend his money wisely to bring dignity and grace and character back to the White House.
32
As illustrated here, Bloomberg is, by magnitudes a far better option than Trump.
Mike is also not the appropriate standard bearer for the party that differentiates itself from the GOP, as being the party that represents the middle and lower classes, every day workers that make up most of the US population.
Mike is also not necessary as the standard bearer; he has promised to financially back whoever is the nominee.
Democrats have an excellent group of non-billionaire politicians to choose from, who are each very well suited to the presidency and party leadership. Since there has to be money in politics at this present time due to Citizens United, let Mike play his role as financial supporter, not as the nominee. He has offered, Democrats should take him up on it.
With this strategy, they can maintain the integrity of their platform, the spirit of the party, and also win.
8
@Lleone Why must the Democratic party EXCLUDE groups of voters to "maintain integrity?" Bloomberg has shown over and over his support for all "classes". We need to include anyone who shares our values and supports and believes in Democratic issues. Any other approach weakens us and makes it an endless inter-party war. Bloomberg is a giver in the truest sense. Why turn the Democratic party into a party of takers who exclude from our leadership those who are successful and truly are willing and want to share? Heck no. Bloomberg makes me proud he's a Democrat. I won't exclude him and just take his money.
3
@ainsworth20001 I would refer you to Mr. Douthat's column in today's paper.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/15/opinion/bloomberg-trump-2020.html
It's troubling that Bloomberg is so rich, but he has contributed so much to charities and political causes to make his wealth less worrisome as a political candidate for president.
The Democratic party is in a crisis mode because the Republicans have won the race to influence elections and gain power through the passage of large tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations, which then pass large amounts of money to influence and buy elections. The Republicans gave us trickle down economics and unfettered capacity for corporations to buy our government.
When I worry about Bloomberg's wealth I think about Republican's Citizens United which held that corporations are people and their money is "free speech."
Bloomberg's wealth will help to counter Citizens United.
It's for sure he will not be looking to enrich himself while he is president -- unlike Trump.
I say, let's give Bloomberg a chance. He is a brilliant man and a great organizer.
54
@Underdog
You write:
It's troubling that Bloomberg is so rich
Well, would you rather have someone who is not superrich funding the campaign?
Let's get real here, folks.
We are fighting the Koch Bros, GOP, etc. etc. They have gobs of money and are currently pouring it into a campaign to reelect Trump.
I want to use the biggest guns we have.
I like Mike.
1