Bloomberg for President?

[Bob001]

There doesn't seem to be a Bloomberg thread, so here's one.

A Bloomberg campaign manager made an interesting point in a TV interview: As far back as the '70s, Iowa and New Hampshire have played a primary role in deciding who can run for President. If somebody can't do well in those small, very atypical states, he loses the support and money he needs to go on. But Bloomberg plans to run a national campaign: He will buy ads and assemble staff in every state. He doesn't need Iowa to permit him to run in California and Florida.

I'm not sure Bloomberg should be President, or even that he's the best nominee the Dems can find, but he's certainly in a position to make his own rules, and he has a more of a record of concrete accomplishment than most of the legislators in the race.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'm not supporting him at the moment, but he can beat Trump and the rest remain a bit of a gamble.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

I don't see him do it, but Bloomberg might make for a fun VP, mostly to upset Trump.

 

[JPK]

Good morning. Since the GOP have totally accepted that foreign governments can help a candidate in out presidential elections, Bloomberg should announce that he will be hiring the best investigators to look into Trump's business deals. Also ask for the leaders that have spoke to Trump to release their transcripts of calls that they have had with him. The few transcripts that have been released have been pretty bad. I'm thinking of his call with the Australian PM and the President of Mexico where he said that he really didn't expect Mexico to pay for the wall, he just wanted the Mexican President time at that they would. Just like with Ukraine. He didn't care if there was an investigation, just that the Ukrainian President made a public announcement that they would investigate. It would make for an interesting campaign.
I am glad to see Bloomberg using his money to help the Dems in some Of the other elections coming up.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Uncovering tons and tons of dirt on Trump might indeed be Bloomberg's best path to the voter's heart.

 

[wasapi]

Realistically, what are the chances of him actually winning?

 

[JPK]

Good morning wasapi

Realistically, what are the chances of him actually winning?

What were the chances of Trump winning? Apparently 100% using 20/20 hindsight goggles. I don't give Bloomberg much of a chance of winning but he could use his money to go directly after Trump. Nothing bothers Trump more than a real successful business man, unlike himself who just played one on TV.

My point being, one of the reasons that Trump got elected is that a large portion of our country only knew him from The Apprentice. There has always been segment of the population who felt we need a business man to run our country who also distrust politicians. Trump looked like he did that role. There are also those who actually admire those that get away with white collar crimes and not paying taxes because they think that makes him smart.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Good morning wasapi


What were the chances of Trump winning? Apparently 100% using 20/20 hindsight goggles. I don't give Bloomberg much of a chance of winning but he could use his money to go directly after Trump. Nothing bothers Trump more than a real successful business man, unlike himself who just played one on TV.

My point being, one of the reasons that Trump got elected is that a large portion of our country only knew him from The Apprentice. There has always been segment of the population who felt we need a business man to run our country who also distrust politicians. Trump looked like he did that role. There are also those who actually admire those that get away with white collar crimes and not paying taxes because they think that makes him smart.

What If He could go after Trump, Propoganda and Mitch McConnell at the same time, with the Truth?

 

[ChristianProgressive]

I'm not supporting him at the moment, but he can beat Trump and the rest remain a bit of a gamble.

Tom Steyer has just as good business credentials and is more populist.

 

[ChristianProgressive]

Good morning wasapi


What were the chances of Trump winning? Apparently 100% using 20/20 hindsight goggles. I don't give Bloomberg much of a chance of winning but he could use his money to go directly after Trump. Nothing bothers Trump more than a real successful business man, unlike himself who just played one on TV.

My point being, one of the reasons that Trump got elected is that a large portion of our country only knew him from The Apprentice. There has always been segment of the population who felt we need a business man to run our country who also distrust politicians. Trump looked like he did that role. There are also those who actually admire those that get away with white collar crimes and not paying taxes because they think that makes him smart.

I call it the Ferris Buler Effect.

 

[Bob001]

Tom Steyer has just as good business credentials and is more populist.

One difference is that Bloomberg was the successful, thrice-elected mayor of one of the biggest cities in the world for 12 years. He also built a multi-billon-dollar business with thousands of employees from scratch, including developing new technology that dominates that market. Steyer made his money as a hedge-fund manager, basically taking a slice off the top of other people's deals, and he has zero political experience. Much of his pitch for himself seems to be similar to Trump's: I'm rich, so I'm smart. Steyer is also is asking for donations; Bloomberg's paying his own way. And calling Steyer a "populist" opens a debate about what that even means; by some measures, Trump's a populist, too.

 

[Brainster]

One difference is that Bloomberg was the successful, thrice-elected mayor of one of the biggest cities in the world for 12 years. He also built a multi-billon-dollar business with thousands of employees from scratch, including developing new technology that dominates that market. Steyer made his money as a hedge-fund manager, basically taking a slice off the top of other people's deals, and he has zero political experience. Much of his pitch for himself seems to be similar to Trump's: I'm rich, so I'm smart. Steyer is also is asking for donations; Bloomberg's paying his own way. And calling Steyer a "populist" opens a debate about what that even means; by some measures, Trump's a populist, too.

At least early on, Steyer was just asking for $1 donations to get him over the donor threshold for the debates. Bloomberg has apparently decided to forego the debates.

 

[theprestige]

Uncovering tons and tons of dirt on Trump might indeed be Bloomberg's best path to the voter's heart.

Nobody wins people over by pointing out their idol has clay feet.

People who already want to get rid of Trump will love it, of course. But their votes are already secured. Spending millions to win their hearts would be redundant, and a waste of money.

The real question is, how excited do voters in swing states get, about a billionaire running a billion dollar dirt digging campaign on a candidate those voters already know is dirty.

We've established in the Yale group thread that 2016 voters had enough information to make an informed decision about voting for Donald Trump. Lecturing them about stuff they already assumed was true and already took into account is kinda patronizing, and could backfire.

Also, one percenters using vast wealth to go after political enemies is likely to turn off a lot of people.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Realistically, what are the chances of him actually winning?

I think they are pretty damn good. Why would people prefer a fake billionaire to a real one?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Tom Steyer has just as good business credentials and is more populist.

So?

I support Steyer fully. If his campaign takes off I'll be on that bus.

In the meantime, I remain undecided. But Bloomberg is outshining Steyer because Bloomberg is more aggressive right now.

 

[theprestige]

I think they are pretty damn good. Why would people prefer a fake billionaire to a real one?

Maybe people just prefer an anti establishment douchebag to an establishment douchebag, this cycle.

At least a fake billionaire hasn't actually made billions. Which is problematic for the billionaire. Maybe bloomer is just better at the kind grift that Trump is trying to work.

 

[JPK]

Good morning theprestige.

Nobody wins people over by pointing out their idol has clay feet.

People who already want to get rid of Trump will love it, of course. But their votes are already secured. Spending millions to win their hearts would be redundant, and a waste of money.

The real question is, how excited do voters in swing states get, about a billionaire running a billion dollar dirt digging campaign on a candidate those voters already know is dirty.

We've established in the Yale group thread that 2016 voters had enough information to make an informed decision about voting for Donald Trump. Lecturing them about stuff they already assumed was true and already took into account is kinda patronizing, and could backfire.

Also, one percenters using vast wealth to go after political enemies is likely to turn off a lot of people.

I agree with much of what you say. The real fun would be watching the reaction of the rest of the GOP Reps and Senators. Will they continue to agree that it's ok for a candidate to ask for help from foreign leaders to investigate a political opponent or do they cry foul?

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Bloomberg seems like a uniquely weak candidate to run against Trump.

He's hated among the progressive and black wings of the Democratic party for his racist and blatantly unconstitutional stop and frisk policy while mayor of NYC.

On the right, he is best known for being a big-money anti-gun crusader and the nanny state mayor of NYC who instated a soda ban.

Faced with the fact that he pulls very little support, despite tremendous name recognition and huge spending on his own behalf, he isn't even bothering with the first few primaries.

His grand plan: Go into Super Tuesday with dismal results from Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina (where he isn't even trying to win) and someone clutch victory.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Trying to win over Trump voters is a lost cause: if someone hasn't jumped the Trump ship by now, they would rather drown with him than admit that they have been conned.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Trying to win over Trump voters is a lost cause: if someone hasn't jumped the Trump ship by now, they would rather drown with him than admit that they have been conned.

There are winnable voters that voted for Trump that could swing back to a Democratic candidate. These people aren't MAGA chuds.

The MAGA chuds that make up Trump's base are only a small faction of those that voted for him. Everyone should assume these fanatics are unwinnable and we shouldn't be creating policy with them in mind.