AP-GfK Poll: Voters show little interest in Bloomberg bid
NEW YORK (AP) — Most Americans, regardless of ideology, say they have no interest in voting former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg into the White House.
That’s according to a new Associated Press-GfK poll.
Six in 10 Democrats and Republicans alike rule out Bloomberg in a general election. The total saying they wouldn’t vote for him is the highest level for any candidate in the field.
The media billionaire is set to decide next month if he’ll launch a third-party bid
https://news.yahoo.com/ap-gfk-poll-voters-show-little-interest-bloomberg-140428530–election.html;_ylt=AwrC0wwqu81WqXQAd.3QtDMD;_ylu=X3oDMTBybGY3bmpvBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMyBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzcg–
I would vote for him!
Trump, Cruz, Rubio, Clinton or Sanders – I would vote for Bloomberg. He is intelligent and even tempered. He know more about the world than most billionaires.
Lord have mercy.
Nanny state… Bloomberg’s mentality was type 2 diabetics in NY where overwhelmingly in the lower income strata… as in taxpayers paying for medical care based on lifestyle choices… kind of like our tax $$ pays for the results of junk food in red states…enjoy your big gulp patriots..
The problem I have Paul is where does it stop. Does Mr Bloomberg tell us that we can only have on child because of global warming and the dwindling natural resources or because you are over 65 years old you and cost the government to much money for medical assistants so they will refused any treatment.
Paul Smith, you appear simultaneously to hold both a negative view of an all-encompassing role for government (viz. your use of the derogatory term “nanny state”) and a positive view of same (based on your unwillingness to participate in the tax-fueled funding of medical care for southern folk whose diets you view as unhealthy). This must be debilitating psychologically. How do you cope?
40% wins a 3 candidate race. Anybody but who we have in the race now – please.
Bloomberg would be better than any of the candidates currently running.
Why would Bloomberg be any better? The role is a President. Not a King. Yes, he’s a very smart guy, but would he be able to coordinate change for the better? This is something Obama has failed miserably at, while his friends, the media, have deflected his incompetence by saying the fault lies with Congress. The art of a great President is being able to sell an agenda, but also be able to craft compromise. As for Mike, well, he might go over well in NYC and San Francisco, but most of America would dismiss him in a heartbeat.
7:16….I didn’t mean it in a derogatory manner. My issue is that people want to govt off their backs and when they suffer the results of their lifestyle choices the first thing that happens is that we taxpayers pay for them. Demographically type 2 diabetes related illness is tied diet and lifestyle in the lower income strata. I thought he was right to tax sugary drinks. Yes I can cope as well.
He wasn’t trying to tax sugary drinks, he was trying to ban sugary drinks in volumes greater than 16 ounces. Literally OUTLAW the big gulp rather than simply tax it into oblivion
Originally it was a sugar tax proposed then a size limit. They tax tobacco and alcohol, why not sugary/hftc drinks.
Has anyone else noticed that those who support the concept of intrusive, all-encompassing government proudly provide their names when they comment on TheRidgewoodBlog? Yet strangely, those who find such governmental activity odious and directly contrary to our way of life as Americans always remain anonymous when they leave their comments. The clear conclusion is that in today’s environment, government supporters are inclined to try and curry favor from elected and appointed officials while those who criticize government actors believe that they need to remain anonymous to avoid personal retribution. Does anyone else hear the faint echoes of a British drummer boy, together with his dazed and dejected mates surrendering their fortified positions at Yorktown, playing “The World Turned Upside Down”?