And short too (I think).
Perot got 18.9% of the vote in 1992. You’re not going to win with that. And he had kind of a folksy demeanor that connected with people, Bloomberg doesn’t. If you’ll recall, I mentioned Bloomberg’s height and his lack of charisma, not just is height.
Bloomberg is 5’8”
Perot was 5’5” (used a stool at the debates if I remember correctly)
Impressive for third party though he ended up with 0 electoral votes. In 1968 Wallace received 13.5% and 46 EV.
I think I prefer Bloomberg to Perot in terms of personality, though I acknowledge I’m not typical in that regard. Are you of the school of thought that political elections are essentially popularity contests (I admit I sometimes think that when I’m in a cynical mood)?
$5 and 0 electoral votes will get you a Vente Latte at Starbucks, but not a 4 year lease in the White House.
I find Bloomberg’s nannyism to be off putting.
Certainly won’t buy you farmers’ votes. Trump’s got Bloomberg there.
I don’t like the nannyism either but in terms of pure personality I don’t mind him. He seems relatively intelligent.
Agriculture only accounts for 1.3% of US employment, so I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make.
That’s just it. Farmers are hurting and Trump is subsidizing them. How can we miss this voter base?
Nannies That gave me a good chuckle although i think it may be close to the truth. Bloomberg is the epitome of Nanny State politicians who don’t even trust the average joe to decide what size soda he may want to drink. Certain sizes of fountain soda were banned in NYC under him.
Do you have any policy examples were he repudiated that old position?
No, you don’t.
At least with Trump we have evidence to back up his change in position.
That old position was the policy example, and he apologized for it and repudiated it.
Considering how well is old policy position worked for him,
I think he’s just pandering for votes with his ‘change of heart’
Should he resign?
What he said was actually true for NY, where non-whites are over 95% of the perps and the victims.
The old stop and frisk worked fairly well. If minorities felt they were hit more, that would have to be a function of FBI statistics that don’t lie regarding the degree of crime in their neighborhoods vs crime elsewhere.
Now my friends back in California tell me thanks to the new law regarding punishment for sub $1000 thefts (there isn’t any anymore), shoplifting has gotten off the charts bad there. The thieves know exactly what they can get away with and there are literally no real consequences coming to them for it. So the word spreads, come to California, come steal from the stores and make a living fencing that online. Beats having to actually work for a living. Add to that the New York no-bail laws and we’re getting some serious disorder here in the other two of the three largest cities in the country.
But all we hear is more gun control and more gun prohibitions, firmly aimed at the law abiding folks while the criminals have all the fun getting off scot free for minor stuff and (in NYC getting no bail for serious offenses). Bloomberg is very firmly part of the problem with this repudiation.
What the heck are they thinking, stop enforcing the laws because feelings?
NYC is very different from the FBI averages
In NYC, only
5% of murder victims are White,
3% of murder suspects are white, and
3.3% of arrestees are white