Why is there so much dislike for Michael Bloomberg?

[GP270watch]

He settled 40 sexual harassment lawsuits against him.

Why Is Bloomberg's Long History of Egregious Sexism Getting a Pass?

[Forward]

He settled 40 sexual harassment lawsuits against him.

No. Please stop spreading lies from far-left Twitter. There have been 40 sexual harassment lawsuits against Bloomberg’s company, not Bloomberg himself. None of these lawsuits allege Bloomberg the person of sexual harassment. Every large corporation is going to have people who commit sexual harassment.

[Forward]

-He's said that the 2008 financial crisis could be attributed to the fact that politicians ended redlining

No.

It seems like as a society we've collectively decided to go full rabid and pretend that Michael Bloomberg is the dumbest guy in the room and thought the 1968 Civil Rights Act efforts to combat redlining was the proximate cause of the 2008 financial crisis.

In reality, Michael Bloomberg talked for another seven minutes straight after the end of the twitter clip to give his explanation of the 2008 financial crisis.

In his full remarks, it's clear that he's introducing the necessary-but-not-sufficient condition of banks offering high risk mortgages to people with bad credit, and he was using redlining as an example of one of the ways we've generally been encouraging and supporting this practice for many years as a matter of public policy.

He goes on to explain how high risk mortgages normally work in a healthy market, discussing the insurance-like risk aggregation and how the stable housing market ensures the bank is able to foreclose to get their money back if the homeowner defaults.

Apparently, his take on the financial crisis was that both of those things failed at once: First, the collapse of the housing market drove up default rates and resulted in the collateral losing value so banks lost a lot of money on a growing number of foreclosures. Second, he believed that banks mismanaged risk through the trading of sophisticated mortgage-backed securities that he suspected even the bankers themselves didn't fully understand, resulting in a few particularly aggressive firms becoming dangerously over-exposed to the highest-risk subset of mortgages when the housing market crashed.

But no. Apparently we've decided to drink the kool-aid and go along with the narrative that he thought it was because banks were forced to lend to black people.

Sometimes I hate politics.

[GeneralMacArthur]

He settled 40 sexual harassment lawsuits against him.

Also a lie.  Those lawsuits were against his company and he probably didn't even know about them.

[GeneralMacArthur]

Watching the BidenBros become Bloomers has to go down as one of the most pathetic things I've witnessed on this site. If any of you had ever believed in Biden for any reason aside from 'electability', you would not be jumping ship this quickly. It speaks to the shallowness of Biden's campaign.

We get it, you have a strawman that we're only supporting Bloomberg because of ads and you won't listen to a damn thing any of us have to say otherwise.

Can you at least stop posting about it ten times a day?  It's just the exact same comment formulated slightly differently.

Or, maybe try reading some of the responses and realize that we're not supporting Bloomberg because of his money but because he's a proven pragmatic moderate who can pass bipartisan legislation, build a winning coalition, and crush Trump.

[John Dule]

Watching the BidenBros become Bloomers has to go down as one of the most pathetic things I've witnessed on this site. If any of you had ever believed in Biden for any reason aside from 'electability', you would not be jumping ship this quickly. It speaks to the shallowness of Biden's campaign.

We get it, you have a strawman that we're only supporting Bloomberg because of ads and you won't listen to a damn thing any of us have to say otherwise.

Can you at least stop posting about it ten times a day?  It's just the exact same comment formulated slightly differently.

Or, maybe try reading some of the responses and realize that we're not supporting Bloomberg because of his money but because he's a proven pragmatic moderate who can pass bipartisan legislation, build a winning coalition, and crush Trump.

Oh no, am I annoying you by making repetitive posts? Gee, I'd better stop then.

[Forward]

https://slate.com/business/2020/02/mike-bloombergs-redlining-comment-was-it-racist-and-wrong-or-just-wrong.html

Here’s a recent Slate piece from a BERNIE SUPPORTER who still admits that the “hurr durr Bloomberg blames ending redlining for the crisis” was a disingenuous smear. Even a Bernie supporter acknowledges that Bloomberg did not praise redlining.

[GeneralMacArthur]

Watching the BidenBros become Bloomers has to go down as one of the most pathetic things I've witnessed on this site. If any of you had ever believed in Biden for any reason aside from 'electability', you would not be jumping ship this quickly. It speaks to the shallowness of Biden's campaign.

We get it, you have a strawman that we're only supporting Bloomberg because of ads and you won't listen to a damn thing any of us have to say otherwise.

Can you at least stop posting about it ten times a day?  It's just the exact same comment formulated slightly differently.

Or, maybe try reading some of the responses and realize that we're not supporting Bloomberg because of his money but because he's a proven pragmatic moderate who can pass bipartisan legislation, build a winning coalition, and crush Trump.

Oh no, am I annoying you by making repetitive posts? Gee, I'd better stop then.

You never even respond to replies.  You just divebomb in to tell us we're all pathetic and make you depressed, and then leave.

[John Dule]

Watching the BidenBros become Bloomers has to go down as one of the most pathetic things I've witnessed on this site. If any of you had ever believed in Biden for any reason aside from 'electability', you would not be jumping ship this quickly. It speaks to the shallowness of Biden's campaign.

We get it, you have a strawman that we're only supporting Bloomberg because of ads and you won't listen to a damn thing any of us have to say otherwise.

Can you at least stop posting about it ten times a day?  It's just the exact same comment formulated slightly differently.

Or, maybe try reading some of the responses and realize that we're not supporting Bloomberg because of his money but because he's a proven pragmatic moderate who can pass bipartisan legislation, build a winning coalition, and crush Trump.

Oh no, am I annoying you by making repetitive posts? Gee, I'd better stop then.

You never even respond to replies.  You just divebomb in to tell us we're all pathetic and make you depressed, and then leave.

I had no idea that my behavior was irritating you. If I had known that, I would have altered my conduct accordingly. The last thing I want is to make other people's experience on this site frustrating due to my stubbornness.

[GeneralMacArthur]

Watching the BidenBros become Bloomers has to go down as one of the most pathetic things I've witnessed on this site. If any of you had ever believed in Biden for any reason aside from 'electability', you would not be jumping ship this quickly. It speaks to the shallowness of Biden's campaign.

We get it, you have a strawman that we're only supporting Bloomberg because of ads and you won't listen to a damn thing any of us have to say otherwise.

Can you at least stop posting about it ten times a day?  It's just the exact same comment formulated slightly differently.

Or, maybe try reading some of the responses and realize that we're not supporting Bloomberg because of his money but because he's a proven pragmatic moderate who can pass bipartisan legislation, build a winning coalition, and crush Trump.

Oh no, am I annoying you by making repetitive posts? Gee, I'd better stop then.

You never even respond to replies.  You just divebomb in to tell us we're all pathetic and make you depressed, and then leave.

I had no idea that my behavior was irritating you. If I had known that, I would have altered my conduct accordingly. The last thing I want is to make other people's experience on this site frustrating due to my stubbornness.

Being stubborn is fine, just be constructive in your stubbornness instead of repeating the same thing over and over and over without engaging with anyone about it.

[John Dule]

Watching the BidenBros become Bloomers has to go down as one of the most pathetic things I've witnessed on this site. If any of you had ever believed in Biden for any reason aside from 'electability', you would not be jumping ship this quickly. It speaks to the shallowness of Biden's campaign.

We get it, you have a strawman that we're only supporting Bloomberg because of ads and you won't listen to a damn thing any of us have to say otherwise.

Can you at least stop posting about it ten times a day?  It's just the exact same comment formulated slightly differently.

Or, maybe try reading some of the responses and realize that we're not supporting Bloomberg because of his money but because he's a proven pragmatic moderate who can pass bipartisan legislation, build a winning coalition, and crush Trump.

Oh no, am I annoying you by making repetitive posts? Gee, I'd better stop then.

You never even respond to replies.  You just divebomb in to tell us we're all pathetic and make you depressed, and then leave.

I had no idea that my behavior was irritating you. If I had known that, I would have altered my conduct accordingly. The last thing I want is to make other people's experience on this site frustrating due to my stubbornness.

Being stubborn is fine, just be constructive in your stubbornness instead of repeating the same thing over and over and over without engaging with anyone about it.

Bloomberg supporters deserve the same treatment that Trump supporters got early on in 2016: Derision. Better to nip this in the bud before it goes anywhere.

[GeneralMacArthur]

Watching the BidenBros become Bloomers has to go down as one of the most pathetic things I've witnessed on this site. If any of you had ever believed in Biden for any reason aside from 'electability', you would not be jumping ship this quickly. It speaks to the shallowness of Biden's campaign.

We get it, you have a strawman that we're only supporting Bloomberg because of ads and you won't listen to a damn thing any of us have to say otherwise.

Can you at least stop posting about it ten times a day?  It's just the exact same comment formulated slightly differently.

Or, maybe try reading some of the responses and realize that we're not supporting Bloomberg because of his money but because he's a proven pragmatic moderate who can pass bipartisan legislation, build a winning coalition, and crush Trump.

Oh no, am I annoying you by making repetitive posts? Gee, I'd better stop then.

You never even respond to replies.  You just divebomb in to tell us we're all pathetic and make you depressed, and then leave.

I had no idea that my behavior was irritating you. If I had known that, I would have altered my conduct accordingly. The last thing I want is to make other people's experience on this site frustrating due to my stubbornness.

Being stubborn is fine, just be constructive in your stubbornness instead of repeating the same thing over and over and over without engaging with anyone about it.

Bloomberg supporters deserve the same treatment that Trump supporters got early on in 2016: Derision. Better to nip this in the bud before it goes anywhere.

So you're determined to be derisive and unconstructive rather than actually contributing to the forum.  Got it.

[Nightcore Nationalist]

So you're determined to be derisive and unconstructive rather than actually contributing to the forum.  Got it.

Bruh, he's mocking you for throwing stones in a glass house w,re: stubbornness.

I will admit that Mike's ads would be convincing for lower-info voters... They are quality ads (as they should be given the expense.

[GeneralMacArthur]

So you're determined to be derisive and unconstructive rather than actually contributing to the forum.  Got it.

Bruh, he's mocking you for throwing stones in a glass house w,re: stubbornness.

I will admit that Mike's ads would be convincing for lower-info voters... They are quality ads (as they should be given the expense.

Oh trust me, I get it.  He's using sarcasm and insults to avoid actually responding, I'm just choosing to ignore it.

[randomusername]

Why is there so much dislike for Mike Bloomberg expressed from red avatars? When you look at the policies he's putting forward in this campaign, there is much to be liked if you're left of center. Higher taxes for upper incomes, a 15$ minimum wage, comprehensive immigration reform including a pathway to citizenship, DC and PR statehood, expanding healthcare and lower drug prices. He's also been a longtime advocate for gun control, LGBT rights and climate change. Even if you think he doesn't go far enough, his policies would make peoples lives better if enacted. Even though stop and frisk was terrible and he should have apologized much sooner, he took at least some responsibility, in stark contrast to the current occupant of the White House. Nobody's record in this race is perfect here, even Bernie has regretted some things (and I give him equally credit for that).

If you think his wealth is the problem, remember that he's basically self-made and he doesn't need to ask for money from special interest groups, while he can outspend Trump very easily. I wouldn't say he wants to buy the presidency since he has committed to pump in tons of money regardless of the nominee to defeat Donald Trump and Republicans in congress. He pledged to support the nominee, even if it's Bernie. So why should a billionaire, who knows full well Donald Trump is a fraud and dangerous, not be allowed to use his money against a lawless president? Especially when he himself has government experience and thinks he'd so a better job?

Maybe I'm wrong, but a lot of the Bloomberg dislike seems to come from the fact that he's so rich. However, I believe at the end of the day, it should only matter what solutions he's offering and that he's an experienced and stable leader, who's capable of running the federal government without embarrassing himself on daily basis on the world stage. I think Mike doesn't have the right be the nominee or president because he's a billionaire, but neither should he be excluded due to this fact.

I'm not saying every Democrat should just support Bloomberg at this point and do understand Bernie's message is appealing to a lot of folks, but I don't understand the dislike for Mike. He's not just a million times better than Trump, he's easily better than almost any Republican currently in office.

Thoughts?

In no particular order

- If you believe that Trump was an anomaly, a Bloomberg presidency normalizes billionaires running for President. I mean what's next Zuckerberg 2024, Bezos, etc?
    - Unlike Steyer and Yang who also are/have ran, they had to follow the rules about donors to get on that debate stage. Bloomberg has essentially bought his way through.
- I think his electability argument is overstated because he alienates two constituencies that the Democrats need to turn out for them. While Trump also supported stop-and-frisk, considering he's in the Republican party that's more of a plus than a negative for him. However, Bloomberg will likely lose African-American voters when he gets hammered on that. Not to mention Bloomberg's soda ban will turn off WWC voters in the Midwest.
- He's getting a pass on racial issues. People hammered Biden for saying he worked with segregationist senators and on busing nearly 50 years ago. Bloomberg has said way worse things regarding POC as recent as five years ago, yet doesn't seem to be generating the same level of controversy.
- How can we be so sure about his sincerity on issues, such as minimum wage (youtube v=t3AoIMtrYGs (sorry still haven't been around enough to be able to post links). I mean that's a really shocking turn-around from his current position.
- You also have to admit he has some authoritarian tendencies (See the New Republic Article titled: Michael Bloomberg’s Polite Authoritarianism). To add on the fact that he ran for a third-term as mayor, and then changed the rule immediately back so no one else would benefit from that law but himself.
- His surveillance of Muslim communities is incredibly concerning.
- Klobuchar mentioned that she believed that a woman with the experience of Mayor Pete would have been held to a higher standard than he is. Bloomberg's entry into the race and conduct thus far is much worse and he definitely would not be getting as far as he is if were scrutinized like a female candidate.
- If you're a moderate, Bloomberg's entry into the race is just further splitting that moderate vote and increasing the likelihood of a Sanders nomination. Which contradicts the whole reason why Bloomberg entered the race.
- If nominated, it would be a middle-finger to progressive voters.


I mean I am no fan of Hillary Clinton, but I'd rather have her be the nominee again in a brokered convention than have Michael Bloomberg anywhere close to the Presidency.

[GeneralMacArthur]

Trump wasn't an anomaly purely because he was a billionaire.  We've had wealthy presidents before.  Most of our early presidents were extraordinarily rich, as were the Roosevelts.  Trump is an order of magnitude wealthier than them, but Bloomberg is several orders of magnitude wealthier than Trump.

The reasons Trump was an anomaly include

• He had zero experience relevant to the job
• His previous experience, including bankruptcies and selling out to the mob and Russian oligarchs, indicated beyond any reasonable doubt that he would be a terrible president
• He was astonishingly ignorant on virtually every subject, and refused to learn even the basics of his future job description, and revealed this at every opportunity given
• He was boorish and cruel and treated everyone around him like crap, indicating a complete lack of character or leadership skills
• He was extremely bigoted and repugnant in every way imaginable, in ways that would have singlehandedly disqualified any previous nominee
• He was tarred with a menagerie of outrageous scandals, any one of which would have sunk previous campaigns
• He lied more than every past nominee combined, and his hypocrisy on virtually every policy was glaringly obvious to even the most dimwitted of voters, something voters had previously indicated they cared about (see: Kerry '04)

[Calthrina950]

Let's see

-He's trying to buy the Presidency
-He's said that the 2008 financial crisis could be attributed to the fact that politicians ended redlining
-Stop & Frisk
-The highest office he's ever held is Mayor of a major city
-He was donating to conservative Republicans as recently as 2018
-He enthusiastically endorsed George W. Bush
-He's worth over $60 billion
-He has called himself a fiscal conservative
-The current President used "I'm rich" to capitalize off of a phony populist message and has done absolutely nothing for working class people

should I keep going?

Being Mayor of New York City is no easy job, and is by itself qualifying for the Presidency, from my perspective. New York City isn't just a major city-it is the most populous and probably the most important city, economically and culturally speaking, in the United States. The Mayor of New York City is responsible for over 8 million people, more people than in several states, and for a vast governmental bureaucracy and municipal budget that also outstrips that of several states. To be Mayor of that city is to be almost a state governor.

So this isn't a legitimate ground to object to Bloomberg to. Some of your other points, such as his being such a wealthy billionaire, his "stop and frisk" tactics, and his trying to buy the nomination, are valid, and I agree with them. I will also add that Bloomberg's "nanny-state" tactics, such as his infamous (and failed) ban on soda sizes, are something that repels many.

[Rookie Yinzer]

If I have to in November I'm voting for his ass to get Trump out of office. Democrats are too diverse for us to develop a hive mind for Michael freakin' Bloomberg. He will be voted out if he doesn't do what we want.

[CookieDamage]

- Buying his way into the election
- Terrible NYC policies. Stop and frisk + encouraging gentrification
- dozens of harrassment allegations
- did I mention he's purchasing his place in the primaries?

[darklordoftech]

There are things I like about Bloomberg (I think he supports trains and opposes the death penalty), but they aren’t well-known.

[Florida Man for Crime]

I mean I am no fan of Hillary Clinton, but I'd rather have her be the nominee again in a brokered convention than have Michael Bloomberg anywhere close to the Presidency.

Well said. Bloomberg is that bad.

[Arizona Iced Tea]

The thing is no one actually likes Bloomberg as a candidate, his policies are pretty lame and he has quite a bit of dirt. People only want him because he can outspend Trump because he is a mega billionare.

[Progressive Pessimist]

I don't hate him but he does kind of deserve it. I'll gladly embrace him as an ally in the cause of defeating Trump, but I don't think his legacy is undeserving of its mixed reception or skepticism, especially if he wants to be the leader of the Democratic Party.

[Joe Republic]

Let's see

-He's trying to buy the Presidency
-He's said that the 2008 financial crisis could be attributed to the fact that politicians ended redlining
-Stop & Frisk
-The highest office he's ever held is Mayor of a major city
-He was donating to conservative Republicans as recently as 2018
-He enthusiastically endorsed George W. Bush
-He's worth over $60 billion
-He has called himself a fiscal conservative
-The current President used "I'm rich" to capitalize off of a phony populist message and has done absolutely nothing for working class people

should I keep going?

I’m no Bloomberg fan and I agree with all points except this one.  New York City has a larger population than any of the constituencies of the other elected officials running for the nomination.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Because he's a more PC version Trump, basically.