Mock Election: Bloomberg Vs. Clinton

[Tiggeroshii]

If you had to vote between Hillary Clinton as a Democrat or Michael Bloomberg as a Republican, who would you pick?

[GreenPartyVoter]

1. This poll smaple is a bit skewed, I should think.

[Tiggeroshii]

2. lol

Of course, just seeing who would vote for Bloomberg if he got the Republican nomination. I could have asked it another way, but since I didn't I was obligated to put third party candidates down in consistency with the "mock election" style.

[GreenPartyVoter]

3. Well I don't imgine too many folks here would say yes to Bloomberg, except maybe

lurking freeps

[Tiggeroshii]

4. He's pretty much a liberal though, isn't he?

I believe he was endorsed by the Liberal Party of New York.

[GreenPartyVoter]

5. How does that make him a liberal? I'd need to see a lot more about him than that

for credentials.

[Tiggeroshii]

8. There's a lot

For instance, he's for universal healthcare, wants to legalze gay marriage, supports a living wage, is pro choice, in favor of strict gun control laws, and strict environmental regulation. Anything else? :shrug:

[ChairmanAgnostic]

11. and pro med marijuana

Hillary doesn't support that.

[Tiggeroshii]

12. He's far more liiberal than Hillary, by a longshot.

[Smarmie Doofus]

21. Hmmm... Has he done anything to facilitate the use...

... of medical marijuana in the city that he's governed for the last 5 years?

[Smarmie Doofus]

13. He wants to what?! In fact , he ordered city attorneys

>>>>wants to legalize gay marriage,>>>>

to argue *against*, ( a-g-a-i-n-s-t) against, gay marriage in NYC. They argued *successfully*.



>>>is pro choice, in favor of strict gun control laws, and strict environmental regulation. Anything else? :shrug:>>>

If he's so in favor of these why, then, did he raise more money for BUSH 2004 than *any* other single individual in the United States? You know,Bush, the president whose administration has worked *feverishly* to undermine *everything* you just mentioned above?

These are public *positions*. You have to say these things to be electable in NYC. The positions are means to an end.

[Tiggeroshii]

14. That's interesting.

So do you think if he is (somehow) elected president, he would stay true to these positions, in action, or probably not?

[Smarmie Doofus]

16. There is no evidence to suggest that he would. There is ...

*some* evidence to suggest that he won't.

Bottom line: beyond advancing the interests of the Bloomberg financial empire.... and the interests of Bloomberg the political narcissist, I don't think he has political goals.

It doesn't matter to him, on a visceral level, whether or not gays can marry; he doesn't have a *personal* stake in maintaining the abortion option ( despite his celebrated "kill it" comment in his pre-political days.) What does he care about or know from "gun control"?

OTOH, he's very anti-union; this is a consistent theme of both his private corporate and public official incarnations. Think 'robber barron'; think 'gilded age'. He's also consistently pro-Israel (or *thinks* he is; actually 'pro- Likud' would be more precise). The later informs... or should I say 'misinforms'... his foreign policy views.

These are issues that touch him emotionally and about which his behavior as president can reasonably be predicted, in my opinion.

[sabbat hunter]

18. bloomberg

is very liberal.

so he is pro-israel, what is wrong with that?


he actually has no day to day say in the bloomberg corporation. He gave all that up when he first ran for mayor. Also he has said that most of his wealth is going to be donated to charities to help the less fortunate.

[Smarmie Doofus]

20. An empty assertion, seems to me, unless you....

>>>>bloomberg
Posted by sabbat hunter
is very liberal. >>>>>


.... supply evidence.

[sabbat hunter]

22. liberal proof

1) pro choice
2) gave property tax relief to homeowners, a great benefit to the middle class.
3) pro gun control
4) pro gay rights
yes he did order city attorneys to enforce current law, however he said the law should be changed, something that has to happen on a state level.

[Smarmie Doofus]

24. 1. He's had no power to impact this issue pro or con...

... in his capacity as NYC mayor. He advocates abortion rights. He'd be unrealistic, politically, to do otherwise.
I doubt that his commitment runs deep. If it did he wouldn't have campaigned so intensely to reelect Bush, knowing, as all casual political observers did , that Bush would use a second term to scuttle Roe v. Wade. OK, he's "pro-choice"; just not particularly interested in legal abortions, apparently.

>>2. gave property tax relief to homeowners, a great benefit to the middle class.>>>

Interesting... and I was personally gratified to get a 400+ dollar rebate a month and a half before the mayoral election but I'm not sure where this would fit on the liberal-illiberal continuum. The money, by definition, is coming from somewhere else. Seems to me your making a point about his Machiavellian ism, not his liberalism.


>>>3) pro gun control>>>..... Political survival in NYC; see #1. He doesn't spend a lot of time worrying about it. It's an issue that effects the little people. If he ran nationally ( !) he's have little difficulty 'modifying' his stance ( and a 'stance' is exactly what it is).


>>>4) pro gay rights


>>>yes he did order city attorneys to enforce current law, however he said the law should be changed, something that has to happen on a state level. >>>

Is this Bloomberg's version of he 'voted for it, before he voted against it, before he voted for it again'? Double talk in its *entirety*. Google ESPA's analysis and debunking of Bloomberg's circumlocutions and evasions on this issue. Another 'stance' of absolutely *zero* lasting significance.

[benEzra]

26. #3 isn't "liberal proof"--William J. Bennet is anti-gun, and Sarah Brady

herself is a Reagan Republican.

Bloomberg may or may not be a liberal, but I suspect that his stance on the gun issue stems from the fact that he is quite the elitist.

Where does he stand on the "Patriot Act" and similar nonsense?

[GreenPartyVoter]

15. Thank you, that's the sort of thing I would want to know. But why would he ally himself

with the Rs if they are against all these things he is for?

[Smarmie Doofus]

17. 'Cause he's not really 'for' them. n/t

[Tiggeroshii]

19. It's actually an old New York tradition.

...that is slowly dying. Ever since Nelson Rockefllor, there have been spawned hundreds of liberal Republicans in the northeast, much like the conservative Democrats in the south(pro segregationist, etc). Since party loyalty has become a major issue with politicians lately, I think you'll see less ofRockefellor's kind in the future. That is a sad thing, I think, because it would only lead to the further polarization of tbe two parties...

[TheFarseer]

31. Why is he Republican then? n/t

[NJ Democrats]

6. Um

Bloomberg would be an Inde, and perot wouldn't run. BTW, Bloomberg is very liberal(prob more so than Sen. Nelson of Nebraska), in fact was a Dem until he ran for mayor

[Tiggeroshii]

9. Yeah

Well his getting the nomination, in my mind would be along the same lines of Guiliani receiving the nomination,though Giuiliani seems to come off a little bit more pro establishment than Bloomberg and is far more likely to receive the nomination. They seem like similar politicians though. I should be clear, this is all completely hypothetical, and not quite in line with say, reality.

[Smarmie Doofus]

10. Ya oughta find out more about him. Fer starters...

he's *adamantly* pro-war. Additionally, he believes first amendment liberties are 'granted' by the civil authorities ( like the right to assemble in NYC, for instance) as opposed to being *guarantees* a that he, as a public official is obligated to safeguard.

He's not 'liberal'. Rather, he 'takes positions' that inoculate him politically in NYC; but anyone can 'take positions'. Working to see them turn into policy is something else entirely; this Blomberg will not do.


He buys political support from the media and other pols with money and jobs. His actual record as mayor is mediocre, notwithstanding the mythology to the contrary that he has purchased from the NYC media.

[Smarmie Doofus]

7. Ya got four dismal choices there....

... I believe I'd sit that one out.

No difference between Clinton and Bloombucks morally, ethically, or policy-wise. We have the narcissist Nader to thank for the last eight years. And Perot is.... well, Perot.

[GreenInNC]

23. where is none of the above?

[benEzra]

25. Wish "none of the above" were an option. (n/t)

[NoPasaran]

27. Since it's one of the choices

FUCK NADER!

Hillary all the way.

[Catchawave]

28. I didn't vote in your poll only....

Because Bloomberg is one of those that interests me. I mean, any billionaire politician who takes the subway to work and donates his salary (a closet liberal?) is worthy of a look-see.

My Hillary just spent 30+ million on a campaign she could have stayed in bed for!
Tch-Tch.

Guess I'm more into people than party than I thought :grouphug:

[NJ Democrats]

29. Not only his salary

but I belive about $500m of his fortune

[NJ Democrats]

30. Not only his salary

but I belive about $500m of his fortune

[Catchawave]

32. He donates to the city?

Sorry, I think I missed a beat :hi:

[NJ Democrats]

33. No, charity

[Catchawave]

34. Thanks, that's nice :) n/t