I’d prefer not to vote for a businessman/woman either. I really hate the notion that government ought to “work like a business”, so Bloomberg fails on that score for me too.
I don't understand why this concept that the public sector should be run more like private businesses won't die in the dumpster fire that it is. I'd take Bloomberg over Trump, mainly because I think Bloomberg is at least (to quote the late, great, Douglas Adams) halfway as sane as an emu on acid. But I don't think he's the solution to what is ailing us, economically or socially. But this is not be a choice I want to have to make. And Bloomberg has a lot of "skeletons" in his past--nasty ones with fangs, and they are too recent and painful to have even retreated into closets yet. Stop and Frisk comes to mind.
I still like Warren, because she's the one who has actually detailed some manner of plan for financial reform. What happened to all that rage over the bank bailouts in 2008 and all the frustration over the way our government coddles and protects Wall Street at everyone else's expense?
One thing I wonder about is why young liberals, who adore Sanders, are so indifferent towards Warren, who is probably closer to him in terms of plans and positions than the other candidates. Is it because she used to be a Conservative (but Sanders wasn't always the person he is now either--people do change, thankfully), or because there's still a double standard about the likability of older women vs older men? Something else?
I'm not a big Sanders supporter, but one thing that interests me about all the doomsaying is how it runs 180 degrees off the narrative that predominated after Hillary Clinton lost in 2016. She was too moderate, not appealing enough to younger voters, and some people who voted for Trump as a protest vote, because he was an outsider, actually preferred Sanders. How disgraceful it was that the Democratic Superdeligates fell into step with Clinton instead of supporting a candidate who had fresh ideas. Blah, blah, blah. There's also a weird idea that Sanders, should be become the candidate and POTUS, would actually be able to push legislation as far to the left as he'd like. What POTUS (before Trump, anyway) has had 100% support from Congress, even within their own party? The fact that the Democrats are still a broader party ideologically than what the GOP has become is precisely why it probably matters less who gets the nomination (in terms of ideology and eventual policies anyway) than many of us suppose. Compromise and consensus will have to be established, even if the Democrats take both houses.
