Michael Bloomberg 2020 – 5 Problems | QT Politics

After initially declaring he would not run
for president in the 2020 election, Michael Bloomberg filled paperwork to qualify for
the Alabama primary in time to meet the deadline. This action, followed soon after by fillings
in other states, has prompted many to speculate that the billionaire is seriously considering
changing his mind about running, and his spokespeople have said he would be making up his mind soon. Were Bloomberg to declare a run, he would
reportedly have at least one supporter: Jeff Bezos, the world’s richest person, who apparently
encouraged his fellow billionaire to run during a phone call earlier this year. To win the presidency, Bloomberg would, of
course, have to begin by winning the democratic primary contest. In this video, I will lay
out five serious problems he would face, if he were to join the race. Now, before I launch into this, I want to
be straight up about my bias. I think that the fact that Bloomberg is even considering
a run is an unsavory indicator of times we now live in. I do not trust the ability of
any billionaire to empathize with, or understand the problems of, ordinary Americans. I find
it incredibly difficult to believe that any billionaire is likely to favor policy that
would help working class people, over the interests of their own economic class, and
the corporations they often own, work for, and/or own stock in. And, I find it difficult
to believe that a billionaire will faithfully act in the national interest of America, over
and above their own financial interests. Beyond that, regardless of their propensity
to support policy that would widen the already unconscionable wealth gap in America, I believe
there are serious symbolic issues with having a billionaire in the oval office. Bloomberg
is the fourth Billionaire, after Donald Trump, Howard Schultz, and Tom Steyer, to seriously
consider a 2020 run. Were Bloomberg to secure the democratic nomination, the 2020 election
would be the first general election contest between two billionaires in American history,
a disheartening blow to the notion that anyone in America can grow up to become the President
of the United States. So, for full disclosure, even if a billionaire
were to propose the perfect policies, and somehow prove a faithful commitment to it,
I would still be hesitant. Michael Bloomberg does not pose such moral quandary for me,
as I am in general disagreement about much of his ideology. But, to be quite clear, I
am biased to begin with. The very fact that he is a billionaire means that even if he
were running on a platform I loved, I would still have to seriously mull over the idea
of supporting him, and ask myself: Is it worth it? To begin with, were Michael Bloomberg to join
the presidential race, he must contend with the fact that he might be a spoiler candidate
for more popular moderate Democrats, like Joe Biden and Pete Buttigieg. I don’t generally
like spoiler arguments, but the fact is that he avoided running in 2016 for that very reason.
He opted to back Clinton, rather than running himself, because he wanted to unite in common
cause against Donald Trump. Were Bloomberg to join the current Democratic
Primary, he does so mainly to oppose progressive candidates like Elizabeth Warren and Bernie
Sanders, both of whom propose wealth taxes for Billionaires like Bloomberg. Theoretically,
were Bloomberg to make the debate stage—itself a somewhat dubious potentiality—he would
use his time to rail against the progressive moment, and perhaps bolster candidates more
favorable to his own ideology. However, were he to draw support, there is
no doubt where he would be most likely to draw it from: Joe Biden, who is similar ideologically
and demographically, and has the most support to lose. So, were Bloomberg to be extremely
successful and become a major contender, he would very likely split Biden’s base of support
in the process, thus improving the chances of Warren and Sanders, the very candidates
he would join the race to stop. That said, splitting the vote is the least
of Bloomberg’s troubles, as it’s a theoretical problem for anyone joining any race. It’s
also not likely to become a real problem, as to split the vote, you have to draw supporters,
and Bloomberg is not likely to do that effectively. One obvious problem for Michael Bloomberg
is that he is entering the race late. John Delaney was the first to declare his candidacy
at the end of July of 2017. By the end of April 2015, all of the major candidates had
already declared. Candidates who declared after Joe Biden include: Bullock, Sestak,
Steyer, and de Blasio, none of whom have so far been able to gain serious traction. One
of them has actually already dropped out, and two of them might as well have, as they
have failed keep pace with the DNC’s rules for making the debate stage. Aside from this anecdotal evidence, there
is good reason to suggest any new comer to the race would have a tough time: an October
YouGov/HuffPost poll found that 83 percent of Democratic voters were already satisfied
with or enthusiastic about the current field of presidential choices. With so late an entry into the contest, among
a field of highly-liked candidates, Bloomberg would have to have an incredible plan to gain
sufficient momentum to secure the nomination. According to his adviser, Howard Wolfson,
however, Bloomberg’s plan would be to not campaign in early caucus and primary states
like Iowa and New Hampshire, but instead focus on Super Tuesday. The last time a democratic candidate won the
nomination without winning one of the first two state contests was in 1972. And that was
a strange primary contest—McGovern won the nomination despite the fact that Humphry won
the popular vote—and it was a very different time: the second contest was Florida, and
half the states did not have a caucus or primary. I’m not going to say that avoiding the early
contests is a stupid idea, but history shows that no one has ever won by skipping straight
to super tuesday, since super tuesday began in 1984. So, were Bloomberg to join the race, he’d
be joining astoundingly late, competing against already-popular competitors, and doing so
with an implausible strategy. To pull off a victory in the face of all this, Bloomberg
would have to capture a kind of magic that transcends conventional thinking. But does
Bloomberg represent what Americans love? Mmm, not so much. If you made a list of things all Americans
love, that list may look something like this: Nowhere on anyone’s list would we see Wall
Street, the Mainstream Media, or Power-hungry Billionaires, yet Bloomberg manages to be
all three in one person. Michael Bloomberg began his career on Wall
Street, and made his fortune largely through the Bloomberg terminal, the financial information
computer that became a fixture of Wall Street trading floors. Selling these terminals, Bloomberg’s
company became massively successful, and he became one of the wealthiest people in the
world. He then conceived of Bloomberg Business news,
originally as a way of expanding the services provided through his terminals. Before long,
Bloomberg had a small media empire—Bloomberg Mediagroup–with magazines, a 24-hr business
news network, a radio service, and online platforms. Not satisfied by the power he accrued in the
worlds of finance and media, Bloomberg also began a political career, becoming the 108th
mayor of New York in 2001, and served three terms. He also teased making a run for president
in 2016 as an independent, before eventually endorsing Hilary Clinton. If Bloomberg’s threat of running as an independent
in 2016 sounds familiar, it may be because another billionaire, Starbucks CEO Howard
Schultz, tried the same tact this election cycle, before realizing that there was no
clamour for an arrogant, inexperienced billionaire. He announced he would not run in September
2019. But as veteran GOP propagandist Frank Lunz
points out, “Howard Schultz is not Mike Bloomberg. Mike
Bloomberg has shown his willingness to invest in the campaign. He’s shown his willingness
to be tough enough to be able to take the criticism, which Howard Schultz was not,” Still another billionaire, Tom Steyer, is
investing significant swaths of his own money, backing his own run for the Democratic nomination.
Despite massive spending, he is currently polling in 12th place, at 1.0% in the RCP
averages. Meanwhile, two of the top three candidates, Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders,
have largely built their political brands railing against the undue power of the billionaire
class. Together Sanders and Warren represent 38% of Democratic support, a full ten points
ahead of the front-runner, Joe Biden. But one thing that separates Bloomberg from
Schultz or Steyer is the fact that he’s been a politician before. A mayor has never made
a direct leap to the oval office before, but there is no doubt that Bloomberg’s experience
as NYC Mayor makes him at least as prepared for the presidency as South Bend Mayor Pete
Buttigieg, who is currently polling in fourth place. So, while Bloomberg’s political experience
may be distinctly less substantial than typical presidents—who tend to have experience as
Senators, Governors or Secretaries of State—his mayoral experience may clear the bar, perhaps
substantially lowered in light of the fact that the current president—also a billionaire—had
zero experience in politics when he beat the candidate Bloomberg backed in 2016. (Hilary
Clinton). Bloomberg’s ties to wall street and the mainstream
media may be negative indicators for his potential in this race, as would his billionaire status.
But as far as billionaires go, he is not likely to be quite as clownish a candidate as the
billionaires we’ve seen so far: unlike Steyer and Schultz, Bloomberg can call himself an
experienced politician. But as far as experience goes, his may not be the kind the Democratic
electorate is looking for. As with most things, experience is more about
quality than quantity. Valuable experience for a politician means having accomplishments
to boast about, or at least, a track record of making the right decisions. When it comes
to decision-making, Bloomberg has many vulnerabilities. He supported George W Bush for president,
he supported the Iraq conflict, and has been a staunch supporter of free trade with China,
habitually turning a blind eye to Chinese protectionism and currency manipulation. But, of all the policies associated with Bloomberg,
one stands out more than any other: stop and frisk. The issue has been talked about in
recent opinion pieces about Bloomberg that have come out in the New York Times, and the
Washington Post, and will thus be likely to be talked about ad nausium by cable news pundits,
should the billionaire declare himself a presidential candidate. When the constitutionality of stop and frisk
was challenged in Federal court, the presiding Judge Shira Scheindlin considered statistics
of police stops between 2004 and 2019. Here were some of those: “52% of all stops were followed by a protective
frisk for weapons. A weapon was found after 1.5% of these frisks. In other words, in 98.5%
of the 2.3 million frisks, no weapon was found.” “In 52% of the 4.4 million stops, the person
stopped was black, in 31% the person was Hispanic, and in 10% the person was white.” “In 23% of the stops of blacks, and 24%
of the stops of Hispanics, the officer recorded using force. The number for whites was 17%.” “Weapons were seized in 1.0% of the stops
of blacks, 1.1% of the stops of Hispanics, and 1.4% of the stops of whites.” “Contraband other than weapons was seized
in 1.8% of the stops of blacks, 1.7% of the stops of Hispanics, and 2.3% of the stops
of whites.” After assessing these statistics, Judge Scheindlin
ruled that the procedure itself was not unconstitutional, but the way the NYPD carried it out was. “Targeting young black and Hispanic men
for stops based on the alleged criminal conduct of other young black or Hispanic men violates
bedrock principles of equality” In response to the ruling, Bloomberg wrote
a Washington Post editorial called “’Stop and Frisk’ keeps New York Safe,” in which
he called that judge “an ideologically driven federal judge who
has a history of ruling against the police” He also tied the stop and frisk policy directly
to saving lives, writing, “Never once in the judge’s 197-page opinion did
she mention the lives that have been saved because of the stops those officers made.” And he claimed, “when it comes to policing, political correctness
is deadly” Bloomberg’s fear mongering about the need
for stop and frisk is not substantiated by recent crime statistics. The NYPD’s own data
has found no increases in serious crime as a result of declining numbers of police stops.
As Politico reported, “The number of reported police stops have
dropped by a total of 98 percent since their peak in 2011. In that time, homicides have
decreased 43 percent, while major index crimes have declined 9 percent.” Perhaps more politically damaging than the
fact that Bloomberg was absolutely wrong about stop and frisk, is the fact that the policy
is poison to black and latino voters. As the Atlantic reported in 2016, “In a 2012 Quinnipiac poll, seven in 10
black New Yorkers opposed stop-and-frisk. In 2013, Marist found an even higher proportion,
75 percent, wanted an overhaul.” In a primary contest where reparations are
being discussed, and multiple candidates have proposed plans for dealing with systemic racism,
Bloomberg will very easily seen as part of the problem. Were he somehow to become the Democratic nominee,
over the objections of Black and Latino voters, Bloomberg’s nomination would very likely clear
the way for a Trump victory. As Jonathan Cape of the Washington Post explains, “Trump was the first Republican to win Wisconsin since
1984. He did so by about 23,000 votes. Black voter turnout in that state plunged from
74 percent in 2012 to 55.1 percent in 2016. Voter suppression efforts played a part, but
so did distaste for the candidates.” It is difficult to imagine how the Democrats
could beat Donald Trump without recovering at least part of the rust belt states, which
voted for both Obama and Trump. To do so, the party must inspire greater turn out from
Black voters, a task that would be virtually impossible with a candidate so inextricably
tied to the NYPD’s stop and frisk policy. This is a double blow to Bloomberg’s chances
in the democratic primary race. Opposition from people of color (and their allies) doesn’t
just meaning losing their votes in the primaries, it also means losing the votes of whites who
take electability to be a determinative factor when choosing a nominee. Losing the votes of people of color would
enough to end the presidential ambitions of most potential Democratic nominees. The only
thing more fatal to a potential campaign would be to alienate a full 50 percent of the American
electorate. When it comes to his past with women, Bloomberg may have already done just
that. Michael Bloomberg boasted in his 1997 autobiography
that he kept “a girlfriend in every city” during the 60s and 70s, and has claimed “chasing
women” to be one of his favourite things to do. In a 2013 feature in New York Magazine, Bloomberg
is quoted as responding to being thanked for his positions on gun control this way: “Without even acknowledging the comment,
Bloomberg gestured toward a woman in a very tight floor-length gown standing nearby and
said, ‘Look at the ass on her.’” In 1990, colleagues gifted him a booklet called
“Portable Bloomberg: The Wit and Wisdom of Michael Bloomberg.” One piece of wit
the volume contained, was the following “hilarious” joke: “If women wanted to be appreciated for their
brains, they’d go to the library instead of to Bloomingdale’s.” Look, I’d be perfectly happy to accept an
offensive joke, were the joke discernibly funny in anyway whatsoever. While I’m not
particularly offended as supporter of women, I am, in the words of Jerry Seinfeld, “offended
as a comedian”. Here’s another piece of Bloomberg wit: when
he noticed a sales representative at his company wearing an engagement ring, he is alleged
to have said to her, “What, is the guy dumb and blind? What the
h-e-double-hockey-sticks is he marrying you for?” That’s according to a suit filed by that sales
representative in the 1990s. She also claimed that when she told Bloomberg that she was
pregnant, he replied this way: “k it!” Bloomberg denied that he ever made those comments,
but did concede that he said of her, and several other women at the company, “I’d do her.” There have been far too many discrimination
and harassment suits filed against Bloomberg and his company to sufficiently detail here.
Several suits of this nature were filed in the 1990s and beyond. In 2008, at least 58
women filed a class-action lawsuit against Bloomberg LP, alleging pregnancy discrimination,
including demotions, cut salaries, and other mistreatment. In 1998 woman filed a suit against
Bloomberg after an executive allegedly forced himself on her. Bloomberg claimed he wouldn’t
believe the woman without an “unimpeachable third-party witness”. A similar case was
filed in 2013, with another female victim and another Bloomberg executive. The suit
alleged the multiple attacks she suffered were assisted in part by a hostile work environment
and a pattern of discrimination and harassment from multiple leaders in the company. It would be unreasonable to hold Bloomberg
responsible for the the worst acts of vylense against women perpetrated by executives at
his company. But it does seem to me fair to hold him at least partially responsible for
the apparently perpetually misogynistic culture of his company, and 100 percent responsible
for his personal history of demeaning and misogynistic comments. After learning about the history of Bloomberg
and his company’s treatment of women, it would be difficult to imagine that any kind of enthusiasm
for his campaign would come from well-informed female voters. But forget how Bloomberg’s past will affect
his popularity going forward. With relatively high name recognition, current opinion polling
about Bloomberg already paints a pretty vivid picture. According to polling by Morning Consult, Were
Michael Bloomberg to join the race today, he would be polling in 6th place, between
Kamala Harris and Andrew Yang, with 4% of the vote. Given the large field overall, and
the fact that candidates tend to experience a surge after declaring their candidacy, these
numbers don’t look altogether horrible for Bloomberg. After all, we saw Pete Buttigieg
rise to fourth place out of almost total obscurity, and he’s currently polling in 2nd place in
Iowa. But, while unknown candidates can join a race
and gain significantly in the polls as people learn who they are, Bloomberg’s single-digit
status has little to do with a lack of name-recognition. Again, according to Morning Consult: “If he were to run, Bloomberg would enter
the 2020 Democratic contest with higher name recognition among the party’s electorate than
11 current contenders, including fellow billionaire Tom Steyer of California. But Bloomberg does
have baggage, with a quarter of likely Democratic primary voters expressing unfavorable views
of him—higher than any of the 15 candidates currently in the race.” FiveThrityEight data confirms this: while
his name-recognition is on par with Cory Booker and Kamala Harris, who enjoy net-approval
ratings in the mid-thirties, Bloomberg’s net-approval is less than a third of theirs, at +11 points. So, not only does Bloomberg already have high
name-recognition, meaning he has little room to grow beyond the 4% support he might already
enjoy, were he to join the race, he would be beginning his run as the most hated candidate
in the field. For a years now, Michael Bloomberg has been
teasing presidential runs. There is no doubt that he wants to become the president. But,
to even have a chance of winning, Bloomberg would have to give up a great deal of privacy,
face enormous criticism, expend a small fortune of his personal wealth, and submit himself
to an exhausting process: with debates, rallies, interviews, and the behind-the-scenes efforts
of building an effective campaign team. All this, and he would still face incredibly long
odds for even becoming a top contender for the Democratic nomination. Were he some how
able to secure that, he would then face the even more exhausting process of running in
the general against a notoriously vicious and energetic rival. Not to mention, actually
being the president is a stressful, mostly thankless task. Bloomberg may very well want to become the
president, but given all he would have to go through to even have a remote chance of
winning the prize, I wonder if he has asked himself… Is it worth it?

Maurice Vega

100 Responses

  1. Fuck Jeff bezos man, trying to save his wealth by sending Bloomberg to run honestly, the only reason he’s not running it’s because no one will vote for him because he is evil

  2. Sources:


  3. Big shout out to all the patrons, who help make these videos possible! You can join them in supporting question time @ http://www.patreon.com/questiontime

  4. Yes but remember that he wasbt born with a silver spoon and is self made so it dosent despeale the fact anyone can be president

  5. I think it's interesting how much older politicians in the states are getting. The average age in the senate is about 63 I believe, the oldest in History.

    The main presidential candidates are:

    Trump: 73
    Biden: 76
    Bernie: 78
    Warren: 70

  6. Make a video on different types of BBQ Sauce, as a relaxing break from your usual content, you deserve it. Also it might surprise you there's quite a bit of variety-you could even jokingly compare them to 2020 candidates.
    Or maybe I'm craving BBQ Sauce, I don't know.

  7. Michael Bloomberg is bad. Full stop.

    As a moderate Dem, if Bernie takes the nomination, he MUST fall in line behind him. We need a broad coalition to troll Drumpf.

  8. Here’s a good question: why does it seem like every New York City mayor and every Massachusetts Governor has an obligation to run an unsuccessful campaign for president?

  9. It's good that you can recognize your biases against billionaires, but I think you need to work on looking past them. It isn't about how much money someone has, it's about how they got that money and how they use it. I won't pretend that there aren't immoral rich people in the world, but your biases generalize and make assumptions about all billionaires which is a bad thing.

  10. Please do a video on the UK general election debate happening tomorrow or just the GE in general. I’d love to hear your take on it

  11. QT posted a video which means it’s a great Saturday! It’s like you play hard to get with us. Making us wait, and then giving us only 20 minutes of attention 😭

  12. He'll end up being VP or Secretary of State for Biden.. in fact a Biden/Bloomberg ticket could be billed as "Bill and Bloomy: No More Gloomy"

  13. Great video as always and i love that you state your opinion (even if its exactly the same as mine) with the disclaimer that its your own opinion! Loved your videos since the day i found you and i hope you will keep doing these great videos!

  14. I'm not sure about all Americans loving gluten. Unfortunately it's become controversial to like it. I love it, but those Californians are trying to spread anti-gluten propaganda. Shameful

  15. #6 – He has no skills at aspirational rhetoric. His speaking style inspires no one and reeks of entitlement, privilege, and condescension. Money can't change that, especially in 2020.

  16. Thanks for making videos that express your world view but still sticks the facts, even though I don't agree with your opinions I still very much enjoy your videos especially when you make fun of boomer humor!

  17. This man is the definition of douchebag. Remember when he had that whole makeshift library torn down during occupy wallstreet?

  18. Look Commie, I'm a moderate Democrat and I've lived in New York City during Bloomberg as mayor, which was, I think some of the best years in reference to the Government of the city. He proposed amazing economic policies and initially carried them out which resulted in a blast in industry and entrepreneurship in the city. His economic policies does not favor the wealthy, he favors the working class American, as he started out that way being relentlessly rejected from Wall Street Businesses in the early years of his career. He did so much to expand the economy, cleanliness, and overall quality of life inside the city. And if you think Bill de Blasio is a better fit for the champion city of the empire state, you can get the fuck out because you are pretty stupid. Bloomberg 2020

  19. I don't think beeing a billionaire yourself should disqualify you from running. I think Ross Perot was the last great candidate for US president. But the millionaires and billionaires running today don't look like they want to bring in new ideas.

  20. What do you mean with the part about a billionaire ruining the idea that everyone can becone president? 2 billionaires don't discount the hundreds of "normal" folks who have run for president.

  21. Thank you for being an OBJECTIVE and RATIONAL progressive. I'm one of those MODERATES that likes Bloomberg but I'm not supporting him over Joe…I only wanted him to run while Joe wasn't in it yet. And his purpose of trying to stop a progressive makes absolutely no damn sense as you said…lol!

  22. I love how these billionaires are always the ugliest, dumbest, shittiest people.

    There's no proof that most billionaires even did anything that special. They created products with insanely bread appeal or ones that sold to other rich people.

    Amazon or Starbucks or Home Depot are all very much not major inventions. They are businesses that started in the right place at the right time and got fucking lucky.

  23. Not one, but TWO billionaires running for the nomination. So much for the Democratic Party being the party of the working class.

  24. I hate it when we bash rich people for simply being rich. A lot of them, especially those in Silicon Valley, have made companies that make our lives 100 times better (like Apple, Google, Microsoft, Amazon….) Besides most of them can be sympathetic to the little guy like you and I because 80% of millionaires are first-generation rich, meaning they did not inherit their wealth.

  25. 🇺🇸⭐️⭐️🇺🇸 Soda control, gun control. Do you really want this honyock from clown central (Bloomberg) to be president. He will only be voted for by the 2 or 3 people that are for banning big gulps.
    Kiss My Gritz on youtube

  26. you do not trust billionaires to put policy over interests, but all the millionares are fine? Bernie's net worth is nearly 2 million.

  27. In terms of the general, his history of stop and frisk would be an even bigger issue. Trump loves to make disingenuous statements about his competitors despite being far worse than they are in regards to the criticism being raised. Unfortunately, he has been very adept at making it a 50/50 issue. If you are 5% bad on an issue and he is 80% bad on that issue he will still hammer away at it. Traditionally, candidates don't attack other candidates in areas where they themselves are weak. But Trump has honed this as a way to dismiss criticisms of himself by never backing down.

    In this case, Trump will claim "I gave the blacks their lowest unemployment rate EVER but Bloomberg wanted them to be stopped and frisked."

    While that claim is tenuous and Trump is clearly terrible on the issue of race, that line of attack would likely be effective. I'm not saying that a plurality of black people would be convinced by such a stupid line of attack. But it would be effective because Bloomberg would no longer be able to attack Trump on the issue of race because Trump will effectively turn it back on Bloomberg and ask about his own history.

    Don't get me wrong, I think that Trump is far worse on the issue of race (through Bloomberg is still very bad.) But if Bloomberg were to somehow become the nominee, Trump might be able to spin the media narrative such that he is actually less racist than Bloomberg.

  28. Anyone in America can grow up and be a billionaire. That’s what is great about this country. It’s might not be as easy for all of us but it can be done.

  29. How is this guy a democrat he doesn’t stand for anything the party should be standing for he would fit in nicely with the GOP

  30. You are wrong about Biden. His core support has been older african American voters for months now, the upper class white Liberals have been moving over to Warren and Pistol Pete over time. While Sanders obviously benefits from Bloombergs entry way more than anyone else due to his extremely committed and diverse group of supporters, polls show that Biden is not faring badly either. Yes, Bloomberg would cost him a little bit not his direct rivals, Warren and Pistol Pete, are losing even more so inadvertently he does benefit from it.

  31. One of the only channels whose videos I ALWAYS look forward to and ALWAYS like and comment. Truly this is the content I have been searching for. Thank you.

  32. From an uninterested perspective, I think that if Bloomberg were to join, there simply has to be a strong incentive for him to do so, especially so late in the campaign. Bloomberg is not a fool. Regardless of whether you like him or hate him, he is not the same type of billionaire as Donald Trump. Therefore, if Bloomberg runs now, and not earlier, that seems to mean that there are more reasons to run now than there were to run before.

    Moreover, spending 100 million dollars on ad campaigns is not something that is done lightly, not even when you own billions. 100 million dollars is still 100 million dollars. Thus, there has to be a strong potential in spending such a large sum of money even if there is a risk of it not giving back "dividends" for his run.

    I have no idea how Bloomberg would fare among the Democratic electorate. He is such a particular candidate that he could be successful or may as well pass completely unnoticed in the polls. I personally think Bloomberg could be more successful in a Republican primary but since the Republican Party de facto became Trump's Party, I don't even think anyone could defeat Trump in a primary challenge so strong is the voter loyalty to him personally. Unless Ronald Reagan comes back from the dead but that seems a little unlikely…

  33. None of what you cited justifies Bloomberg being called 'misogynistic'. Being attracted to and chasing women in not misogyny. Discriminating against pregnancy in the workforce is not misogyny it's greed. Misogyny is defined as hatred of women for the simple reason they are women – usually as a result of bad experience with them. Average heterosexual non feminist male is not a misogynist.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post comment