Mike Bloomberg could team up with Hillary Clinton to try to take down President Trump in November — by making her his running mate.
Bloomberg’s internal polling found the combo “would be a formidable force,” sources close to the campaign told the Drudge Report Saturday.
Bloomberg’s communications director did not deny the rumored matchmaking effort.
“We are focused on the primary and the debate, not VP speculation,” Jason Schechter said in a statement.
But minutes after Drudge broke the news, Bloomberg himself posted a coy message about working with female colleagues.
“I would not be where I am today without the talented women around me,” he tweeted. “I’ve depended on their leadership, their advice and their contributions.”
(cont. NY Post)
Before I start, let me just be clear: the only reason I “care” about this at all is because so many of y’all were so antsy to get off a hot take to the internet as quickly as possible with digs about Hillary Clinton. We not just finna drag that old woman every time a baseless rumor pops up because she ain’t did nothing to y’all but try to save us from THIS current shitstorm we’re wading through okay? But let me just go on ahead and let y’all in on all sides of this non-story so you can draw your own conclusions.
Exhibit A: Bloomberg and Hillary like each other.
They were just out and about in December with a group of rich white folks celebrating somebody’s birthday in New York. She was a NY Senator when he was the Mayor of NYC. They’ve run in the same circles for at least 20 years now.
They’re not Obama and Uncle Joe, but they do have public chemistry and you can imagine the two of them working side by side for the next four years.
Put a Plus One in the column for They’re Running Together.
Exhibit B: Bloomberg would need a Progressive.
Remember how Hillary beat Sanders for the nomination and four years later we still have a lot of progressive folks in the party reminding us every chance they get that she stole the nomination from Sanders, that Sanders would have beat Trump, that centrism wasn’t the way to go, etc. Can you imagine the fallout if Michael Billionaire Racist Bloomberg was the conservative “liberal” who beat Sanders this time? And then had the nerve to pick the woman who beat Sanders the last time? Bloomberg is a lot of things, but stupid isn’t one of them.
Put a Plus One in the column for They’re Absolutely Not Running Together.
Exhibit C: Speaking of racism…
Superpredators vs. Throw them up against the wall. These are two very old white people with very inflammatory statements about Black folks in the public record. Hillary’s superpredator comments were downplayed during her run, but I promise you if she linked up with Bloomberg, both of their comments together would be magnified ten times over.
Another Plus One for Not Running Together.
Exhibit D: Trump might actually implode if they were on the same ticket.
Tom Steyer is a billionaire who can get under Trump’s skin. Elizabeth Warren is a wordsmith unafraid of confrontation who can get under Trump’s skin. Michael Bloomberg is a billionaire wordsmith unafraid of confrontation who comes with an added layer of belonging to the same social circles as Donald Trump. He can annoy that man like no other because Bloomberg is what Trump wishes he was — an actual billionaire businessman accepted by New York City’s Elite, not a bumbling buffoon being laughed at by the same people he’s been trying to impress since the 1980s.
For her part, Hillary has just run out of f*cks to give. She has been needling that man for the past two years and he loses it every time. If the two of them together took on Trump, he might actually snatch his wig off and throw a tantrum on the White House lawn.
Plus One for Running Together.
Exhibit E: The 12th Amendment
A lot of people who say Clinton and Bloomberg can’t run together erroneously point to the 12th Amendment to support their conclusion, but most people understand this part incorrectly:
The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves
They’re both from New York so I’ve seen people say they can’t run together because of this, but that’s not what it means. The electors from New York can’t vote for both of them, but the electors from every other state can. This was set up to prevent electors from trying to install “two favorite sons” from their own state in the White House. If they were from a smaller state they may consider running anyway, but because New York has a lot of electors, obviously Bloomberg and Clinton wouldn’t forfeit all those votes by running together as two people from New York. Even though the reasoning is off, the conclusions are still correct in assuming the 12th Amendment would keep them off the same ticket.
Hillary can change her residency before declaring. That’s what Dick Cheney did. He sold his house in Dallas and got a driver’s license from Wyoming where he had a vacation home so he could run with Dubbya and not forfeit all of Texas’s electoral votes. Hillary could essentially do the same thing so…
Put a One in both columns. It’s a wash.
Exhibit F: This is the most important point — Hillary Clinton is more ambitious than this.
There are a lot of things you can say about Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton but “someone who settles for less” is not one of them (and most of the other things I’ll probably ignore anyway because I drank the Kool Aid back in 2000 when she WOULD have run for President if her husband hadn’t screwed up the plan by sleeping with his intern, getting impeached, and making Hillary look like a fool in front of the whole country).
Hillary Clinton has been one or two steps from the Presidency multiple times. She was Secretary of State and her husband’s number one policy adviser. She would not take a demotion just to be less powerful than she’s been before. She would not jump into the lion’s den of criticism and not-so-thinly-veiled disdain for a thankless title. Hillary has been dragged by journalism for her hair, her face, her ankles, her attitude, the sound of her voice, and her audacity(!) since the 1980s. This is a woman who changed everything about her public image — including finally taking her husband’s last name, which she hadn’t originally — because the public made it very clear to her that she was not wanted the way she was and if she wanted the top job (her goal was always to be President) she would have to accept the beatings, make changes, and press forward.
She has pressed forward as far as she is going to press. She tried to turn the position of First Lady into a political post by putting forth healthcare legislation. It didn’t work, so she played the role the way America wanted it to be played to wait out her time and run for President once her husband was on his way out. It didn’t work, thanks to Bill, so she ran for Senate instead to use that as a springboard to the nomination. It didn’t work, because no one could’ve beat Obama, so she accepted a Secretary of State post in his administration to use that as a springboard to the White House. It didn’t work, because we elected Trump instead. The political trajectory has always been aim higher, do more, use this setback as a step UP to the next position. Hillary Clinton would never step DOWN to Vice President.
Plus One in the column for They’re Not Running. Plus Three in that column. Plus One Hundred in that column.
Hillary Clinton would never run for Vice President. Period.
Go drag somebody else for awhile and let that lady have her tweets and her soundbytes. She plays coy with the press because it gives her something to do. Your retired grandma is just as messy but without the national spotlight, so Nana Hillary is alright by me.
Joe Manchin doesn’t want to give money to people who need money.
Conservatives are so intent on giving money to people who already have it.
When you’re rich, you see money as a reward as opposed to a necessity to live. Joe Manchin is worth over seven million dollars so he has no frame of reference for what a $300 credit is to someone with a child. To him, $300 is pocket change you get as a thank you, not the difference between cooking healthy meals or going to McDonald’s.
Extending the enhanced credit is included in Democrats’ massive social spending bill. But Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia — whose support is needed to pass the legislation — has said he wants to once again require parents to work in order to qualify for the credit, a shift that could exclude millions of the nation’s poorest families.
The impact this would have on children isn’t up for debate. The monthly payments that started in July have kept 3.5 million children out of poverty. Child poverty is expected to be cut in half by the end of the year and low income families with children have seen a 25% decrease in food instability. (x)
But a credit for parents isn’t just about being able to buy food for your children. Almost half of the recipients used some of the money to buy groceries, but others paid bills, which also allows you to provide food for your family.
Poor people know that any money coming from anywhere that goes to anything helps you put better food on the table. If you work two jobs to make ends meet, you don’t always have time to cook. You go to McDonald’s on the way home because that’s the only way you can feed your family. Cutting one job down to two, or even cutting some hours from your second job, gives you more time to feed your family with better food.
Poor people who live or have lived in food deserts also know what that extra money can mean to your family. I’ve lived in a food desert in Bed-Stuy and in Harlem. I’m young, able-bodied, and childless. If I have to walk half a mile to the nearest grocery store with fresh vegetables, I’m able to do that. There are so many low income families who do not have that option. Extra money means a used car so you can get to a grocery store or even just a Lyft once a week so you can stock your refrigerator.
Money gives you options and choices. It gives you ways to be a better parent and provider. So what’s the problem? How could you possibly have an argument against helping parents be better parents?
Once again, rich people are concerned that poor people will get something they didn’t work for. Let’s be clear about Joe Manchin: he did not work for $7 million. He’s been an elected official for the past 40 years. That is his job and you do not amass $7 million on the salary of a public servant. He founded a coal brokerage firm and gave it to his son, but the company still pays him dividends as he stops clean energy bills from passing. That’s where Joe Manchin gets his money, from coal trading that he doesn’t even do. He has $7 million dollars from not working.
So it is absolutely enraging that a rich person who does not work wants to keep $300 from reaching parents who desperately need it because some of them may take it as an incentive to not work, or to work less. To that I say: so what if they don’t work? If $300 a month is enough money to keep you out of the job market, then the job you were doing was grossly underpaying you in the first place. It was probably demeaning work for pennies, and if you can save a bit of your self worth thanks to the federal government, that is a good thing. That is a happier American citizen. That is a better parent raising the next generation.
But that’s just giving Manchin’s position a level of truth it doesn’t deserve anyway. Of the people who have received child credits, only 5% of them decided to work less. Joe Manchin, like so many other Conservatives, will screw the majority just to make sure a minority isn’t “getting one over” on him. Instead, his rationale is to give a credit to people who already have jobs. Joe Manchin, like every other Conservative, wants to give money to people who already have money because, in America, having money means you are morally better than someone who does not have money. It all goes back to the foundation of American Christian Prosperity Gospel Capitalism: rich people are rich because they are good people who deserve it and poor people are poor because of their own moral failures. You can extrapolate that principle out to a host of social policies Conservatives refuse to support.
And if you can get rich by doing absolutely no work at all, kindly forget that you did nothing. Just pretend you worked super hard and the Money Jesus smiled upon all of your endeavors.
Vote or Don’t Vote for Charles Graham…but know why.
A good ad does not a good candidate make.
Earlier this week, NC State Rep. Charles Graham announced his run for the US House of Representatives, hoping to unseat Republican incumbent Dan Bishop in North Carolina’s 9th Congressional District. And he came in guns blazing with this campaign ad featuring the KKK…
I’ve never seen a campaign ad for a Congressional race go viral on social media so quickly, but less than a day after it was released, it was all over Twitter. I reposted it too. And then I found out Charles Graham was the only Democrat in the NC House to vote in favor of NC’s HB-2, the state’s infamous transgender bathroom bill.
Back in 2017, Republican state lawmakers wrote a bill that required people to use the public restroom in accordance with the gender they were assigned at birth. Republicans cited their false intention to protect women and children from predators (a thoroughly debunked premise that I don’t need to spend time on), and Charles Graham was the only Democrat to vote in favor of it.
I deleted my Retweet immediately.
Later, I did more reading, and Charles Graham had issued an apology for his vote, and as far as political backtracking goes, this is one of the more sincere and believable ones I’ve come across.
Text of the above screengrab from Charles Graham’s website reads:
I believe human dignity is a human right. It’s a value I hold dear – but five years ago I failed to uphold my own value when I voted for HB2, and it was a mistake. It was a bill written and voted on within 24 hours, with the conversation surrounding protecting children and women, but I should have done more research to completely understand the impact of the bill. After the hurried vote, I spent the following days talking with colleagues and transgender-rights activists about the impacts of the bill – I became a full supporter of recalling the bill and worked across the aisle to fully repeal it. To the LGBTQ+ community, and specifically to the transgender community who suffered real pain from this bill and the rhetoric that surrounded it, I am sorry.
I have always tried to do what is right, but I am not perfect. I’m running for Congress to stand up against hatred and ignorance, and I expect to be held accountable when I fail to live up to my own principles.
I believe him. That said, you don’t have to. There are people making the case that if he were truly apologetic, he would have released this apology at any point between 2017 and now, that if he were truly in favor of trans rights, he wouldn’t have waited until his campaign ad went viral and his voting record on the issue was called into question. I don’t disagree, however, he admitted that he didn’t really have a full grasp of the issue when he voted, and once he had a greater understanding, he worked to repeal the bill. That to me is more than just lip-service — that’s action to undue something you did.
So. I decided to post his ad again, but I took a beat. I’d already made the mistake of supporting a candidate (from afar) based on one campaign ad without really looking into his record or what he supports, so I did my due diligence and it’s not great.
NC-9 has been very dramatic these past few years. In 2016, a US District Court ruled the gerrymandering in North Carolina was so heavily and obviously prejudiced toward Republican candidates, the state had to redraw the lines. Before 2016, NC-9 looked like this.
Democrats still argue that the partisan lean toward Republicans continues to be out of sync with the actual population of the state so they’re looking to have the lines drawn even more equitably, but for now, this is NC-9.
Before the lines were redrawn, incumbent Robert Pittinger won that slivery snake of a district with 94% of the vote. He lost his primary bid in the election following the restructuring of his district and Reverend Mark Harris won the Republican nomination. His Democratic opponent, Dan McCready, is a successful businessman with a solar clean energy fund called Double Time Capital. Far from the forgone conclusion of the 94% win by Pittinger, the race between Harris and McCready went down to the wire (I wonder why…) and Harris came out on top with roughly 900 more votes than McCready.
However! (Drama!) The bi-partisan state election board declined to certify the results because campaign operatives for Harris committed fraud on multiple occasions (which included tricking elderly Black voters in rural areas into filling out absentee ballots for Harris). The election was voided and Dan Harris was not the Republican nominee the second time around. State Senator Dan Bishop won the Republican primary and went on to defeat McCready by two percentage points. In the last cycle, Bishop won re-election by a larger margin against Cynthia Wallace, the first Black chairperson of NC-9’s Democratic Party, in a lackluster race that didn’t garner much attention.
This backstory is necessary to understand why the Democratic Party should put its weight behind someone other than Charles Graham. Charles Graham is a Conservative. He’s absolutely the kind of person/politician who is aligned with the Democratic Party not because he agrees with most of the platform but because he disagrees with the other side, and that’s an important distinction. Because we have a two party system, we have a lot of people who belong to to the Democratic Party by default, not by choice. If you’re a politician who hates Donald Trump and supports funding for education, you’re not allowed a voice in the Republican Party. Even if you take issue with some of the Democratic platform, you’re still allowed a place in our Big Tent, and that’s who Charles Graham is.
…critics began pointing out Graham’s more conservative voting record in the General Assembly, including his support for some abortion restrictions, in favor of allowing firearms on school grounds, and opposing a statewide mask mandate — all votes largely in keeping with the prevailing sentiment in his conservative district, which has begun trending more Republican as rural voters sour on Democrats due to culture-war issues.
Firearms on school grounds and abortion restrictions and no mask mandates are the positions of a Republican. We don’t need another “Democrat” of this kind in Congress, so reflect back on the recent history of NC-9. If this were the snakelike sliver of the past where 94% of the vote went to a Republican and we suddenly had a chance to flip the seat, it might make more sense to focus on a Conservative Democrat. In a district where one Republican had to cheat to win, and still only won by a few hundred votes, you don’t need to run a Conservative Democrat. In that same district where the the election was voided and the next Republican won by 2% partly because of his alignment with Donald Trump, you don’t need to run a Conservative Democrat. In that same district where Donald Trump won the state for reelection and a Black woman still managed to grab 45% of the vote, you don’t need to run a Conservative Democrat. A clean energy businessman narrowly lost while Trump was in office and a Black woman grabbed a huge share while Trump was winning the electoral votes. You can run the same kind of candidates against that Trump-supporter again and win if you mobilize the people to vote.
Look at this way: People who voted for Republican Dan Bishop because they like Dan Bishop are going to vote for Dan Bishop again. They are not going to suddenly vote for a slightly more liberal version of Dan Bishop just because that version has a good backstory about fighting the KKK and taught special ed. Your goal is to grab the people who don’t like Dan Bishop, so why would you run Dan Bishop-lite? Run an actual alternative who can grab the people who didn’t vote for him while also catching the attention of the people who didn’t vote at all. Nobody who voted for Dan McCready a few years ago or Cynthia Wallace last year is suddenly itching to vote for a Democrat In Name Only. Charles Graham caught a couple of headlines with a good campaign ad, but that’s about as much attention as he deserves from national politics going forward. Save your donations for his primary opponents.
(Sidenote: I do believe Charles Graham evolved quickly on trans issues and his statement was genuine. I believe it because he has not apologized for his votes on abortion. He probably believes in his heart that women do not have the right to choose, so he has nothing to apologize for. If he were an opportunist, he would just apologize for that too and keep it moving.)
Rolling Stone: Rudy Giuliani Whines About Fox News Ban to Steve Bannon
Rudy Giuliani was reportedly “really hurt” that Fox News banned him from appearing on the network. He turned to Steve Bannon to elaborate on Friday, telling the former White House adviser that the ban is “outrageous.”
Fox News is perfectly fine with peddling lies and booking commentators who peddle lies, but they’re not okay with losing money. When Dominion Voting Systems filed suit against Giuliani *and* sued Fox News for $1.6 billion partly because Giuliani kept going on air to say Dominion was part of the rigged system to give Biden the election, Giuliani’s relationship with Fox News was suddenly in jeopardy.
You can lie all you want to destroy our democracy, but don’t you dare cost us any money.
Hot Takes: Queens
Joe Manchin doesn’t want to give money to people who need money.
Billy Porter’s Ego would like for you to know he wore dresses before Harry Styles.
Album Review: Candiace “Deep Space”
Tina Turner cashes in.
Hot Takes: Malignant
Race1 year ago
How to respond to “riots never solve anything!”
LGBT1 year ago
Niecy Nash ties the knot with singer Jessica Betts.
Pop Culture2 years ago
Today I Learned: Betty White Gave Arthur Duncan His Start
Race1 year ago
Why don’t we say “Ebonics” anymore?
LGBT1 year ago
Valentina Sampaio, Sports Illustrated, and trans women under the male gaze.
On Television1 year ago
The story behind Hottie and that microwaved chicken.
Race8 months ago
Gen Z slang is all AAVE.
Pop Culture3 years ago
Aubrey O’Day is a blowup doll and I love it.