...and now the systemD vitriol makes sense.
Michael Lewis' the Fifth Risk highlights this pretty well.
Maximizing-liberty libertarianism would say that an impartial government is necessary to enforce rights for all citizens, even if that's the right to information to vote efficiently.
Trump wanted to tack hard away from the center and to tear down the Republican establishment and rebuild it with a more populist vision. Bloomberg is running to stop the Democrats from tacking away from the center and to 'protect' the party from those threatening to tear it down and rebuild it with a more populist image.
Trump ran as an outsider populist, Bloomberg as an insider technocrat.
Neither candidate believes in compromise or their own fallibility. In either case, we would be choosing to forfeit the ability to decide for ourselves going forward.
There are no candidate that signals fallibility and or possibility of compromise. Why should they, anyway?