Bloomberg Fizzles

Last night (2/19) the most recent Democratic Presidential debate was held. Qualifying were the usual suspects: Biden, Warren, Sanders, Buttigieg, and Klobuchar. But this time, there was a newcomer to the stage … Michael Bloomberg.

Up until last night, I had high hopes for Mr. Bloomberg. Yes, he definitely has some black sheep running around in his backyard, but I felt he was the one who could stand toe-to-toe with Trump.

Now I’m not so sure.

It wasn’t so much that the other candidates slapped him silly with questions about his past actions (and possibly present beliefs) … although that definitely played a part. But what really disturbed me was that he was a wimp in standing up to them.

For all the bluster he exhibits in his TV ads, he came across with little more than “Uh … well … I … but …” responses to hard questions from the other candidates.

And this is the guy who’s going to blow smoke in Trump’s face?

I was so disappointed. Nevertheless, I’m going to give him the benefit of the doubt since this was his first time going head-to-head with much more accomplished debaters … and will trust he’ll spend some time with a debate coach.

Or something.

Let me add this. It’s not that I’m totally sold on Bloomberg’s political stance. I’m not. I do like some of what he supports (climate change, gun control, foreign policy) and I do like the idea that he has (true) business acumen. But there are also some things about him that I’m not real excited about.

And, quite frankly, there are two other candidates that I like far better.

Nevertheless, I still cling to the idea that Bloomberg could beat Trump. But ONLY if he gets his act together which, hopefully, will take place before the next debate.

One more point. As I’ve said many times before …

I. Will. Vote. Blue.

Even if Mickey Mouse is running.

34 thoughts on “Bloomberg Fizzles

  1. I too had high hopes for Bloomberg. It’s disappointing to watch the Dem candidates attacking each other rather than addressing the nations downfall under the present president. Sanders is making promises to our young people that he he knows he can’t keep, Warren as well. In my eyes that’s as deceptive as Trump.


    • I agree with you. From the questions being asked by the moderators, it seemed like this entire debate was designed for sniping. This is NOT what needs to take place at this stage of the game. It’s one thing to disagree with your opponent on the issues, but not to the point of insults and personal attacks.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Hello Jeff. Take heart the worst is not yet cast in stone. There is many variables in play still. We know tRump and crew will play dirty and cheat. What we do not know yet is how our side will respond, how we will turn out, who will put their chips on the table to win it all. Hugs

      Liked by 1 person

        • yep. I used to think getting older and keeping active was quite an accomplishment, and I looked forward to more of the same, if slower. =)

          But now. Sweet jebus now. I’ve had the feeling for a very long time that that sly smile of Putin’s wasn’t pleasure in meeting an “old” friend, but calculated glee that he had finally found someone self-centered and dopey enough to fall right into the punchbowl.

          if Trump wins, Putin wins. Tump doesn’t know that. And worse, no matter how much we vote, and cheer and ‘get out the vote’ and vote as blue as we can, if Hillary can lose with a 3 million vote lead, it won’t matter who votes for what. It doesn’t mean Im not voting, it just means I’ll be surprised if it makes any difference at all.

          I was never a fan of Bloomberg, just something about the man. He is, obviously, a ‘money talks’ man, as as such is successful. And when you’re that successful at sitting back and letting your money talk for you, you just don’t impress folks who expect rhetoric and out-loud speechifying. I like Butitgrieg but if he ever gets close enough to encounter Mr. Trump, he’s dead. I think we know that. If Trump can villify and crucify a dead miliitary hero, think what he can do to Butitgrieg. The name alone is a flag. =) And Warren comes across, the little I’ve seen of her, as just borderline hysterical in her pronouncements. I realize she is being emphatic, but women often forget that emphatic doesn’t necessarily mean waving your arms like a windmill and shouting.

          Mickey Mouse is looking better and better.


          • You wrote … I’ll be surprised if it makes any difference at all.

            I TOTALLY understand your skepticism, but we simply cannot think this way! It’s thoughts like this that worm their way into the minds of those that are already disgusted and discouraged … and so they shrug their shoulders and say, “I think I’ll just stay home (or throw out my ballot) because my vote isn’t going to make a difference anyway.”

            In this election year, we need EVERY vote we can get. Like you, I’m not overly thrilled with any of the candidates … and even more than that, whoever it ends up being, I worry whether that person will be able to stand toe-to-toe with Trump and not falter. As I said in my post, I think Bloomberg could do it … but NOT unless he gets his act together. Words on a billboard and/or in TV ads are not a substitute for face-to-face.

            Anyway, let’s hope Mickey Mouse isn’t our final choice. 🤞

            Liked by 1 person

            • I think Trump during the last campaign changed the rules about debate. Up until then you were polite, you were courteous, you debated, applause applause, and you went home. Once Trump got started he did nothing but belittle, demean, and accuse. When you’re faced with that sort of behavior, you can attack, or you can behave and try to rise above it. Sadly, neither of those work with him.
              But it changed the rules, didn’t it. It was suddenly okay to pick on the other guy.

              Oh, don’t get me wrong. I’ll vote as many times as they’ll let me, but Im not getting my hopes up. I’ll be good. I won’t fuss.

              Liked by 1 person

  2. Hello Nan. I also was surprised at how meek Bloomberg turned out to be, but then I realized why. In the circles he travels in your wallet speaks for you. It is the size of your bank account that raises your voice or demands respect. So he is simply use to people treating him with great respect and accepting what he says as words from on high. If you watch the clips of him he is with people who nod and accept whatever he says but he is not a great speaker in those either. I don’t think he will improve much, at his age it is too ingrained in him that his words have the weight of 57 billion dollars behind them.

    I disagree with those who say our candidates shouldn’t argue and contrast each other. How are we to pick between them if they all hold hands and sing kumbaya while congratulating each other on being perfect. This when they should be pointing out differences in plans and policies, in ideas and practices. I do agree there is a line a personal issues that shouldn’t be crossed, but prior actions and statements are clearly with in bounds. I would rather find out now what is in their closets rather than when tRump blasts them for it in the general. Plus I, like you, am looking for the one to go head and toe with tRump. Clinton lost when she failed to push back on tRump coming up behind her as a stalker trying to intimidate her, and then walking over in full view of everyone and looking at her notes. Not that he could read them but the point was clear. He was saying he was in charge and owned the stage. She should have rounded on him and demanded her space and made it an issue. She might have won the election. That is the candidate we need this time. Someone who is willing to knock down the bully. Warren showed that this last debate and I was impressed. Hugs

    Liked by 3 people

    • This when they should be pointing out differences in plans and policies, in ideas and practices.

      I agree with this in principle. However, IMO, I think a couple of them crossed the line last night. Personally, I was getting very turned off by their arguing and wanted them to get back to explaining WHY they support the various issues. No, they shouldn’t all smile and (as you put it) “hold hands and sing kumbaya.” But there are ways of debating without arguing and letting your emotions get the best of you.

      Now, having said that … I will slightly qualify it. Right now it’s a race between several individuals. Once it gets down to Trump and “whomever,” then I will fully support the gloves coming off!

      Liked by 1 person

  3. I had no hope for Bloomberg. His rise in the polls was based solely upon his political ads, which cherry picked issues sure to attract poll numbers. But at some point the real Michael Bloomberg had to show up and when he did his numbers would drop precipitously.

    I suggest that his poll numbers are more reflective of people’s dissatisfaction with the current crop of candidates. Just as with the Elephant herd of GOP candidates last time, people feel “Is this the best we can do?” Back when there were real political parties, the parties hand-picked a small set of viable candidates and there was less confusion. People now think that someone pulling 25% of the vote, surely can’t beat Trump. Well with a dozen candidates splitting votes, that’s what you get.

    Remember last time when Trump couldn’t possibly get selected and then Trump couldn’t possibly win against a seasoned campaigner like Hillary Clinton?

    I would prefer more structured campaigns. Structured in that the candidates needed to have statements about all of the issues important to voters, so you could call up at any time, every candidates position on X, Y, or Z and compare them. Maybe within one week of the general election we locking in all of those positions and require the candidates, if they run for re-election that they run on these points first.

    This zoo of candidates leads to horse race politics that lead to abominations like President Trump, someone who does know anything, doesn’t care about things people care about, and place their egos in front of the national interest.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. I have to admit, I am having trouble understanding the US political system. Here in Finland a party names their candidate for presidency and then the people votes for their favourite candidate. If no candidate gets clear lead in the first round then there will be a second round between the two highest scoring candidates. These days our president holds very little political or legistletive power, but the word of the president is highly respected throughout the society. He is more like the peoples tribune, rather than the imperator as is the role of the US president. The prime minister leads the Finnish government, but can make very little descisions on their own.

    I do not understand is why the fact that a candidate has “business acumen” would have any weight on wether they are a good leader of a nation? Far more likely it means, that they represent the interrests of a very small portion of the people. Even more likely it means that they have a lowered capacity for empathy. Rich people are distanced from the actual problems of the common people, not to mention the poor, who are in the position, that they need the help of the government more than others.

    I can see, that people might vote for somebody for having business acumen though. We had a prime minister lately, who was chosen because people thought he had business acumen, and he messed everything up, because he thought he could run the country like a business company. But a nation is for the people, while a business company is for the shareholders. If a nation only serves the people it sees as the shareholders, and the leading politician imagines he can order people around like he was the boss of a company, everything will fail, nothing works and the rich share holders will rip off what they can from the nation, just like they tend to do to their companies. Is that precisely what Trump has done and how he has failed as a leader and how he has failed his voters and the entire USA?


    • You’re correct. Business acumen doesn’t really mean much … BUT … it played a very big role in Trump’s election as many people were “impressed” by the fact he was a successful (?) businessman. They felt his business background gave him what it takes to run a country. Of course we’ve all seen the fallacy of that belief. Anyway, this is why I even mentioned it.

      BTW … just an FYI … Bloomberg LP is privately held and does not offer or trade its company stock to the general public on the stock market exchanges. It’s all offered, owned and traded or exchanged privately or over-the-counter.

      Liked by 1 person

      • It seems to me, that this Bloomberg character has more in common with Trump, than just some business acumen. They have both swapped political parties. I think, it is a good sign in general, when a person is able to acknowledge their mistake and change their perspective when they have aquired new information. However, it seems also that this is not the sole reason people like them jump parties. I have the impression, that there might be a lot of opportunism derived from that business acumen behind the reasons for this change of political views.

        I mean, it does not take a genius to be able to recognize the political and ideological differences between the Democratic party and the Republican party. Does it? If one did not see them before one first chose their party, what was wrong with the method of making the choise? Or is it, that really the two main parties in the US are not, after all, so very different? Both try to get the votes of the people who belong to the middle class, or who would view themselves as part of that group, because the surrounding culture tells them, that your value as a member of the society or even as a human being comes from some amount of social and economic success. Neither party is talking to the poor people who form the majority of the nation, exept in populist outbursts about how the other party is ruining their job opportunities. (One has to offer the slaves work, or otherwise the slaves shall lose their meaning of life.) It would be ridiculous, that a super rich man who advertizes himself for having a good “business acumen” like Trump, would appeal to the poor by blaming the social elite for ruining the country. He himself is part of that elite, and his policies have precisely benefited the elite, not the poor, if it was not a succesfull tactic. In reality both parties are parties run by rich people like Trump and Bloomberg and they act for the benefit of the rich building the facade, that the rich deserve their riches by providing jobs and wellbeing for the people. The main difference being how much are they going to let the wealth “trickle down” from the tables of the super rich to the rest of the people.

        Liked by 1 person

        • The following is from Heather Cox Richardson’s latest (2/21) newsletter:

          Hiring people based on their loyalty to Trump means that the competent leadership has been replaced by people whose major skill is their ability to please a man whose interests do not run to deep understanding. This is consistent with the GOP idea that government is useless and should be dismantled, and that businessmen should control the levers of power instead of politicians.

          — (emphasis added)

          One other thing … while I agree with your take on “the rich” running the country, the very fact that Trump was elected indicates that even the poor and destitute have some sort of misguided idea that a “rich guy” is going to make things all better because … after all … he must have done something right to have so much money. I agree it’s a very misguided way of thinking, but nonetheless, it’s quite common among those who voted for Trump — and who MIGHT consider voting for Bloomberg for the same reasons.


      • one thing that interests me: he is accepting (and basically buying with pardons) money from convicted felons who just happen to be wealthy crooks. And we’re not talking small change. If he’s so god-awful rich, why is he accepting money from these guys? Or is it a case of ‘he knows people who know people?”

        It has been said that a successful business man does NOT make a successful President. Not sure why,except that in a business you are at the top, and your word is sacrosanct. As a President, you may think you’re the boss, but you have to convince an awful lot of ‘underlings” to get your way. That may be it.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Unfortunately, yes. Trump most definitely considers himself as “the boss” and as such, has been quite adept at “convincing an awful lot of ‘underlings’ to get his way.”

          Obviously, it’s NOT the “acceptable” way to run a country, but it’s Trump’s way and so far, no one has displayed any courage in stopping him.


          • The list of people who opposed him, either in policy or behavior or whatever are now no longer involved with him in any fashion. If you disagree, you walk. Opposition means ‘you’re fired, get out”.

            Liked by 1 person

  5. I had no hopes for Bloomberg, for frankly he is my least favourite of the remaining six candidates, but after watching Wednesday night’s debate … he sunk even lower in my esteem. Rather than simply admit to his past mistakes and say, “I was wrong, but I’ve learned”, he attempted to justify his racism and misogyny. So, I went in search of and what I found is a man who is just as lurid and vulgar toward women as Trump is. Is this really what we want? Sigh. Sure, if he is the nominee, I will vote for him, but please let it be Warren or Sanders!

    Liked by 1 person

  6. How many debates have there been since June? How many of those on stage this time have had bad/poor nights during past debates?
    How many past poor (or not at all) debate performances still resulted in winning elections? (Most, but thinking Nixon and Trump.)
    Mike B was predictably attacked because he rose to #3 in polls after 10 weeks, overtaking some big names. That pissed them off.
    I did not feel that it was a good night for any of the candidates, for the Dem Party, or for me, but Trump is riding high. Can the world survive five more years? Yes. Can I? Not so sure.
    I have a favorite from the debate. I’ve had others. But (dang it) it’s time to vote. Oh, dear, what now?

    Liked by 1 person

  7. I think at this point we have to forget who, and concentrate on what:

    No matter if Bernie is old and a bit scattered, no matter if Elizabeth Warren is a windmill and also getting up there: no matter if Biden is perceived as whatever he is perceived as, the point is, they are all Democrats and we need to focus on that, and focus on not only who gets elected but who their running mate will be, in case the new Democratic President keels over with excitement at the inaugural.

    Liked by 1 person

  8. One last thought and probably off topic (sorta). It’s the phrase “the American people”, which I hear flung about like confetti, these days, most notably by the president. It has bothered me for some time, and I think I understand why, suddenly.

    We use a phrase like that when we refer to other countries: the French people, the Irish people, the Italian population–it says, them guys over there, they aren’t us. It seems odd for a President to distance himself from his own countrymen by using such a phrase when speaking about his own countrymen, and I think that’s how he sees us–as a group of people he is not really part of, not connected to, above us all.

    Something to consider, the next time he says it. I don’t think everyone who uses it now realizes that, but it’s defintely a distancing comment.


    • Not sure that I share your connection … but yes, I can see where it would probably be more effective if he referred to “us” in a more personal term. Perhaps the citizens or the people of this country?


  9. I guess the connection that strikes me is that this is the President referring to “the american people” not “my fellow americans’. It puts him on a different, higher level, psychologically, at least in his own mind.
    Roosevelt, Kennedy, Johnson, I can clearly hear saying “my fellow Americans’. It says a great more about the way they connected with the people they were speaking to.
    In his speeches, Trump is addressing us as citizens, and yet he refers to us as if we were all at one remove from him. Not important, the way he is.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Brendan, I don’t necessarily support Bloomberg. I’m well aware that he carried out a shitload of highly disgusting things during his time as mayor. But when push comes to shove, why are his acts any different than some of the things Trump did (which, of course, he totally DENIES or LIES about).

      I’m NOT saying this in Bloomberg’s defense!!! All I’m saying is if he were put into the position of going toe-to-toe with Trump, I think he could hold his own. He’s a MUCH more successful businessman and has considerably more money than Trump.

      As to whether he would be a good president? Chances are he would do good things and bad things … just like every president before him (with the exception of Trump who has done mostly bad things).

      In any event, at this point in time, his chances aren’t looking all that good so none of this may matter in the long run.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Yeah, I just noticed that you’ve been posting some about Bloomberg lately, so I thought you might’ve been interested with what I had to say on Bloomberg.

        I think that’s part of the problem that many have with Bloomberg, that he shares a lot of similarities with Trump. I’m not convinced he would hold his own, but we’re also only in February and besides, he may not even be the nominee in the end.

        Liked by 1 person

Don't Be Shy -- Tell Us What You Think!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.