i know she's running on the right and everything. but, bloomberg doesn't excite anybody she needs to swing. he just irritates progressive voters. it's one thing to focus on trying to win missouri, it's another to go out of your way to poke northeastern liberals in the eye like that.
new york is not in play. well, unless she bleeds dramatically to stein. which is what something like this facilitates.
my guess is it's some kind of reaction to giuliani or something.
nobody cares what rudy giuliani thinks, says or does. he's widely seen as a fringe idiot.
she's better off ignoring him.
that's what everybody else does.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B--WKtgngBg
http://downtrend.com/robertgehl/bloombergs-poll-shows-people-hate-michael-bloomberg
wait.
did she want giuliani?
ugh. just point me to the nearest fucking wall...
you know what it is, though? it's all this neo-con bullshit out of 9/11, this idea that america needs an enemy to fight against. it's right out of fucking leo strauss. so, because she buys into all that nonsense, she sees the giuliani endorsement as a threat.
there's no other rational reason why she should care what giuliani thinks at all. the state is not in play. he's not actually particularly popular, or well regarded by anybody beside the lunatic fringe on the right. it's just the narrative that came out after 9/11 about how he was some kind of leader. when? between spraying the city with malathion and pushing racial profiling from city hall? nobody actually thinks that. it was just some bullshit floated on fox news.
in fact, he's been eaten alive by somebody with some actual influence on popular opinion: jon stewart. stewart destroyed the guy. he couldn't get elected dog catcher after the hatchet job stewart did on him.
but, she doesn't have any kind of meaningful connection to popular opinion. she just gets her perspectives from these shielded right-wing think tanks, and they never really dropped the bullshit.
ok, ok - it's very deductive of me to conclude that she's bringing in bloomberg to counteract giuliani. but, i mean, do you have a better explanation? both as to why she would want to be seen in public with bloomberg, and why she would think what giuliani thinks is at all important, if the connection is actually accurate?
it's consistent, anyways. and hillary is in fact consistent - both when she's lying and when she isn't.
but, note something else: she's reacting. she's not leading. again.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jan/25/michael-bloomberg-no-chance-of-being-president-third-party-candidate-alienate-voters