In the last year, former mayor of New York City Mike Bloomberg has either made a series of brilliant moves that will bring him the Democrat nomination for president or he has been the star in an ongoing clown show that reveals both his unsuitability for the office and the sorry state of Democrat politics. Here are just a few of his moves:
1. Bloomberg announced last spring that he would not be running for president. He stayed on the sidelines for many months only to change his mind just a few months ago. By the time he flipped, it was already too late to compete in the first four states of Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina. There's no way of knowing if Bloombergs avalanche of political ads would have propelled him into or close to the lead in any of these early states. Certainly that strategy didn't work for Tom Steyer who has spent roughly $15,000 of his own money for each of the few votes he got in the first two contests. Bloomberg did give Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren time to see their candidacies implode. Also rans like Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, Julian Castro and the others have also been cleared away without any involvement from Bloomberg. That's a positive for Mike. On the other hand, candidates like Buttigieg and Klobuchar who could never have kept up with Bloomberg and his limitless source of cash have managed to establish themselves as real candidates in the first two contests. Bernie Sanders has also been able to get the Socialist portion of the base firmly in his camp. Bloomberg's delay most likely gave his main rivals time to dig themselves in so as to withstand the flood of Bloomberg ads.
2. When he announced, Bloomberg decided to jettison some of his main positions from his days as mayor. One thing for which Bloomberg was known in New York was keeping the crime rate in the city very low. Bloomberg not only continued the policies put in place during the Giuliani years, but he also intensified them. Stop and frisk and variable community policing were the two main components of his policy. Stop and frisk gave police the right to stop and frisk people if the policeman had reasonable cause to believe that the subject might be illegally armed or else about to commit a criminal act. That meant that a guy wearing gang insignia or lurking in the wrong place could be frisked. Community policing used computerized statistics to put extra police into neighborhoods where there was any uptick in crime. The idea was to stop crime before it got a foothold in a neighborhood. The combination put more police in minority neighborhoods who then stopped and frisked people they though looked suspicious. The far left (which in New York City means most Democrat politicians) said the programs were racist because they "targeted" blacks and Hispanics. Bloomberg, however, actively defended these policies. He pointed out that they got thousands of guns off the street either by confiscation or by convincing young men with illegal weapons that it was foolhardy to carry that gun because they might get frisked by the cops. The end result was that New York became the safest large city in the country. That meant, as Bloomberg said many times, that literally thousands of lives -- mostly minority lives--were saved. As Bloomberg put it, the program was not racist, rather ending the program would be consigning many blacks or Hispanics to being murdered and THAT is what would be racist.
About the time that Bloomberg announced his candidacy, he also announced that he had changed his view on stop and frisk. He apologized for ever supporting it. The program was racist according to Mike's new view. So, in other words, in order to try to get the support of the far left base of the Democrat party, Mike threw away and even denounced perhaps his greatest achievement as mayor.
I'm sure that Bloomberg had done poll after poll after poll to determine what course to follow to attract Democrat votes. Still, the question remains, how has this played? How many voters really would stay away from voting for Mike because he supported a program that cut crime in his city in dramatic fashion. Was it really racist to save black and Hispanic lives from murder and communities from crime? Would Democrat voters looking for authenticity support the guy who threw away a program he supported for 12 years or would they prefer a guy who put forth a defense of that program and announced that as president he would always analyze what to do based upon what was good for Americans rather than what the loud mouthed protesters were shouting. We will have to wait to see how this plays out. This is especially true since now all sorts of video is surfacing of some of the things that Bloomberg said as mayor in support of these programs. Even after having apologized for the programs, Bloomberg is still being denounced for his supposed racism.
3. Bloomberg leaked to Drudge that he is considering naming Hillary Clinton as his candidate for VP. I've written about this previously, but now I want to look at it with regard to how it will affect the race for the nomination. Just who are the voters who are going to be attracted to Bloomberg because he might pick Hillary as VP? Is Mike trying to pick up the black support for Joe Biden as that campaign disintegrates? But hey, isn't Bloomberg a racist supporter of stop and frisk? (Just kidding; he apologized.) Seriously, what actual voter is going to select his or her candidate based upon who that candidate might pick for VP? My guess is that Bloomberg would pick up the votes of Chelsea and her husband and also maybe he could get the vote from Bill Clinton, but who else would care enough about a possible VP to make their selection on that base?
Wouldn't the voters know that Bloomberg will never pick Hillary? All those scandals would be back on the front page. Even the new ones would be pushed to the front. Would Bloomberg really pick a candidate with such a strong connection to Jeffrey Epstein and that whole mess?
So you decide. Is Bloomberg a genius or a clown. I know where my vote goes. Personally, I think Mike is going to look really silly in those big floppy shoes.
1. Bloomberg announced last spring that he would not be running for president. He stayed on the sidelines for many months only to change his mind just a few months ago. By the time he flipped, it was already too late to compete in the first four states of Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina. There's no way of knowing if Bloombergs avalanche of political ads would have propelled him into or close to the lead in any of these early states. Certainly that strategy didn't work for Tom Steyer who has spent roughly $15,000 of his own money for each of the few votes he got in the first two contests. Bloomberg did give Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren time to see their candidacies implode. Also rans like Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, Julian Castro and the others have also been cleared away without any involvement from Bloomberg. That's a positive for Mike. On the other hand, candidates like Buttigieg and Klobuchar who could never have kept up with Bloomberg and his limitless source of cash have managed to establish themselves as real candidates in the first two contests. Bernie Sanders has also been able to get the Socialist portion of the base firmly in his camp. Bloomberg's delay most likely gave his main rivals time to dig themselves in so as to withstand the flood of Bloomberg ads.
2. When he announced, Bloomberg decided to jettison some of his main positions from his days as mayor. One thing for which Bloomberg was known in New York was keeping the crime rate in the city very low. Bloomberg not only continued the policies put in place during the Giuliani years, but he also intensified them. Stop and frisk and variable community policing were the two main components of his policy. Stop and frisk gave police the right to stop and frisk people if the policeman had reasonable cause to believe that the subject might be illegally armed or else about to commit a criminal act. That meant that a guy wearing gang insignia or lurking in the wrong place could be frisked. Community policing used computerized statistics to put extra police into neighborhoods where there was any uptick in crime. The idea was to stop crime before it got a foothold in a neighborhood. The combination put more police in minority neighborhoods who then stopped and frisked people they though looked suspicious. The far left (which in New York City means most Democrat politicians) said the programs were racist because they "targeted" blacks and Hispanics. Bloomberg, however, actively defended these policies. He pointed out that they got thousands of guns off the street either by confiscation or by convincing young men with illegal weapons that it was foolhardy to carry that gun because they might get frisked by the cops. The end result was that New York became the safest large city in the country. That meant, as Bloomberg said many times, that literally thousands of lives -- mostly minority lives--were saved. As Bloomberg put it, the program was not racist, rather ending the program would be consigning many blacks or Hispanics to being murdered and THAT is what would be racist.
About the time that Bloomberg announced his candidacy, he also announced that he had changed his view on stop and frisk. He apologized for ever supporting it. The program was racist according to Mike's new view. So, in other words, in order to try to get the support of the far left base of the Democrat party, Mike threw away and even denounced perhaps his greatest achievement as mayor.
I'm sure that Bloomberg had done poll after poll after poll to determine what course to follow to attract Democrat votes. Still, the question remains, how has this played? How many voters really would stay away from voting for Mike because he supported a program that cut crime in his city in dramatic fashion. Was it really racist to save black and Hispanic lives from murder and communities from crime? Would Democrat voters looking for authenticity support the guy who threw away a program he supported for 12 years or would they prefer a guy who put forth a defense of that program and announced that as president he would always analyze what to do based upon what was good for Americans rather than what the loud mouthed protesters were shouting. We will have to wait to see how this plays out. This is especially true since now all sorts of video is surfacing of some of the things that Bloomberg said as mayor in support of these programs. Even after having apologized for the programs, Bloomberg is still being denounced for his supposed racism.
3. Bloomberg leaked to Drudge that he is considering naming Hillary Clinton as his candidate for VP. I've written about this previously, but now I want to look at it with regard to how it will affect the race for the nomination. Just who are the voters who are going to be attracted to Bloomberg because he might pick Hillary as VP? Is Mike trying to pick up the black support for Joe Biden as that campaign disintegrates? But hey, isn't Bloomberg a racist supporter of stop and frisk? (Just kidding; he apologized.) Seriously, what actual voter is going to select his or her candidate based upon who that candidate might pick for VP? My guess is that Bloomberg would pick up the votes of Chelsea and her husband and also maybe he could get the vote from Bill Clinton, but who else would care enough about a possible VP to make their selection on that base?
Wouldn't the voters know that Bloomberg will never pick Hillary? All those scandals would be back on the front page. Even the new ones would be pushed to the front. Would Bloomberg really pick a candidate with such a strong connection to Jeffrey Epstein and that whole mess?
So you decide. Is Bloomberg a genius or a clown. I know where my vote goes. Personally, I think Mike is going to look really silly in those big floppy shoes.
No comments:
Post a Comment