Yes it is an easy game.
Gross and inaccurate oversimplification. This is a good rundown, and while it leaves plenty of room for criticism, it still isn’t what your reduction claims.
And to be clear, I don’t like the guy. In fact, I wrote him off entirely the second he had the City Council vote to give him an extra term in office, because I just find that kind of power grabbing so utterly disgusting, but we might as well talk about shit accurately.
You forgot the “because he’s a bad person” part.
Borowitz is a clever one…I wouldn’t be surprised if that’s true haha
I don’t know that he is a bad person. Other people here in these parts scream that Sanders is a bad person. A few that Klobuchar is. Even poor Biden’s gotten it from time to time. And I don’t know that any of them are bad people, and have never claimed that any of them are. Not Sanders either.
Lyndon Johnson was said to be a hideous person and he was a vocal racist and he delivered the Civil Rights Act. Go figure.
It’s not a purity test. I’m not going to go around yelling our sexist, racist, authoritarian billionaire ruler isn’t as disgusting as your sexist, racist, authoritarian billionaire ruler is.
Bloomberg is not a democrat. He’s not a liberal. His administration was indistinguishable from Giuliani’s. He backed the Iraq war. He endorsed George W. Bush, he gave tons of money to McCain. He bankrolled Scoot Brown against Warren. All of this while being disgusting in his words and deeds as NYC mayor. He’s an asshole and the idea that we’re going to hand over this party to Republican-sort of lite out of fear of Trump is pathetic beyond the speaking. We are supposed to be better than this.
Bloomberg is not a rule of law candidate. He refused to pay the Central Park 5, blasted judges who ruled against Stop and Frisk, got election laws changed so he wouldn’t have to leave office, violated the Muslim community’s civil rights with ridiculous spying programs, locked up thousands of people illegally during the RNC in NY in 2004.
It’s not purity, it’s denouncing letting a republican take over the party out of fear of Trump.
People who think billionaires care about inequality are the useful idiots of the 1%.
If Bloombergs was serious about anything other than himself he’d put his money into helping the Dems win Senate races and take back state houses.
That’s a major argument against Sanders for many people. Do you agree that Sanders should be eliminated because he’s not a Democrat?
If Bloomberg Is Serious About Inequality, He Should Add These Principles To His Platform
And if Sanders is serious about health care and education reforms, he should add reality to his platform instead of faerie dust.
“purity test” is just becoming a phrase for centrist to demean anyone on the left who doesn’t agree with them anymore.
With “centrist” being a dog-whistle from the left to mean anyone who prefers someone else over Sanders. See how we can all play this?

Gross and inaccurate oversimplification. This is a good rundown, and while it leaves plenty of room for criticism, it still isn’t what your reduction claims.
You actually seem to believe a word Mike Bloomberg says in this campaign. Here’s what he said on this subject in 2012, when he wasn’t running for the Democratic nomination for president.
Bloomberg said in his endorsement that although Obama campaigned in 2008 as a postpartisan candidate, he “devoted little time and effort to developing and sustaining a coalition of centrists, which doomed hope for any real progress on illegal guns, immigration, tax reform, job creation and deficit reduction.”
“And rather than uniting the country around a message of shared sacrifice, he engaged in partisan attacks and has embraced a divisive populist agenda focused more on redistributing income than creating it,” Bloomberg said of the president.
That, to be clear, was from his endorsement of Obama.
Sanders is too liberal to be a democrat according to himself and some of his backers. Bloomberg is a republican pretending to be a democrat. I’ve been pulling for Warren since she got in this thing, but if those two are my only choices, I’ll vote for the obnoxious liberal over the republican in sheep’s clothing every day of the week.
Bloomberg is not serious about any progressive economic issues. He is running to protect his fortune and the status quo. For the Democratic Party brand he is worse than Trump. If you believe otherwise you are insane, clueless, or have ignored my repeated warnings not to drink the bong water…
Actually “centrist” describes a set of political positions that doesn’t count on what candidate you support or not. “Centrist” can support Bernie or not and still be centrist.
Borowitz is a national treasure.

Bloomberg is not serious about any progressive economic issues. He is running to protect his fortune and the status quo. For the Democratic Party brand he is worse than Trump. If you believe otherwise you are insane, clueless, or have ignored my repeated warnings not to drink the bong water…
Everyone drink!
Well, that certainly fits the theme of this piece. Why not just imagine Bloomberg doing good things, despite, say, all the bad things he’s done and said for decades?
Come on. He did good things in New York too. We loved to hate him here, but he did.
If your argument is nothing but a combination of “I just don’t believe him” and “here’s something I dredged up from 8 years ago that isn’t on point or relevant to the substance of what we were talking about, but I think should make people resentful”, then let’s just avoid the argument.