Ray Jay wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:

Sassenach wrote:I must admit I'm not really a fan of Michael Bloomberg. His variety of nanny-state liberalism doesn't really do it for me.

Exactly. This is why him getting in is golden to me. He is, in almost every respect, a Democrat--and one who believes there is nothing the government doesn't know how to do better than the individual does.

As it relates to gay marriage, abortion, and gun control, Bloomberg is a Democrat. But as it relates to economic policy he is not a Democrat. It's rare that you will agree with a politician on everything; Bloomberg is the best fit for me.

For impact on the race, I think you have to go state-by-state. If Cruz or Trump are up against Sanders, Bloomberg would take some Republican votes and many independent ones.

Sassenach wrote:A question for those of you who know more about this than I do: What would happen in the event that Bloomberg runs and manages to win a few states ? I realise this is very unlikely to happen,but let's say that every state goes the same way as 2012 except Bloomberg wins New York and California. At this point nobody would have enough delegates to form a majority. What's the mechanism for resolving that situation ?

Sassenach wrote:I think Bloomberg would take plenty of votes from Republicans if Trump were the alternative.

Doctor Fate wrote:He won't take many Republican votes. What kind of Republican wants restrictions on sodas?

Sassenach wrote:Ah, so in effect that would give us President Trump by default ?

Sassenach wrote:I think Bloomberg would take plenty of votes from Republicans if Trump were the alternative.

geojanes wrote:

Sassenach wrote:I think Bloomberg would take plenty of votes from Republicans if Trump were the alternative.

I agree. Trump scares the crap out of a lot of smart people. And Bloomberg, you can say a lot of things about him, but he's not scary.

Many times I have posted in these forums speaking favorably about Bloomberg, and I will say that by the end of his third term my opinions had switched a bit. He was a great administrator, and really built a responsive government, but by the third term, when he never had to run for election again, his administration really pushed things Bloomberg wanted to get done, regardless of what people thought. The relationship between the electorate did seem to change from citizens to subjects and I was actually glad to see him go (although no one seems to like his replacement.)

Doubt it this will be an issue, but if he does decide to run and we have Trump on one side and Hillary on the other, Bloomberg has a chance, if only because he has vastly more money to spend than either of them.

geojanes wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:He won't take many Republican votes. What kind of Republican wants restrictions on sodas?

He gets a lot of flak for this (which never did pass BTW,) but his motivation was something a fiscal conservative can really appreciate.

NYC and NYS spend enormous amounts of $$ on Medicaid, which is health care to non-senior, non-veteran, poor. Those numbers were giant and getting bigger, and one of the reasons is type II diabetes in young obese people. One (of the many) causes of obesity is drinking empty calories in sugary drinks. These also cause real problems for people who have untreated diabetes who are ending up in emergency rooms and having parts of their bodies amputated until they die a terribly expensive premature death. So these people cost a fortune AND they get so sick so early they can't really ever be expected to be a productive member of society.

Bloomberg's primary motivation was fiscal. Less soda, less obesity, less diabetes and complications, less public money spent. You may not agree with it, but it was a motivation that the fiscal conservative republicans can understand.

Doubt it this will be an issue, but if he does decide to run and we have Trump on one side and Hillary on the other, Bloomberg has a chance, if only because he has vastly more money to spend than either of them.

Just like the NYC cigarette taxes won't stop people from smoking. Draconian measures like this just result in people avoiding them.

NYC and NYS spend enormous amounts of $$ on Medicaid, which is health care to non-senior, non-veteran, poor. Those numbers were giant and getting bigger, and one of the reasons is type II diabetes in young obese people. One (of the many) causes of obesity is drinking empty calories in sugary drinks. These also cause real problems for people who have untreated diabetes who are ending up in emergency rooms and having parts of their bodies amputated until they die a terribly expensive premature death. So these people cost a fortune AND they get so sick so early they can't really ever be expected to be a productive member of society

bbauska wrote:I thought the "left" wanted to get money OUT of politics.

If the soda issue needed to be implemented, it should be only on food stamp dollars (just like cigs). That way the people can make the choice on whether to be on the program or not, with all of its restrictions.

Ray Jay wrote:

bbauska wrote:I thought the "left" wanted to get money OUT of politics.

If the soda issue needed to be implemented, it should be only on food stamp dollars (just like cigs). That way the people can make the choice on whether to be on the program or not, with all of its restrictions.

Regardless of whether you and Dr. Fate are right on the merits, I think it would be a mistake to define Bloomberg on this one issue. The most important issues of the day are broad economic policy (extent of regulation / tax policy), international perspective (interventionist vs. isolationist), and social perspective (abortion rights, gun control, immigration). I guess taxing soda informs us on the 1st and 3rd, but I wouldn't define Bloomberg based on this one issue. In general he has been against excessive regulation and high taxes.