Michael Bloomberg Considers Run for President Against Trump

[Mr. Invisible]

It's a sign of the weakness of the USA that Twumpy The Clown Show is the best the USA can produce.

Trump isn't the best the US can produce, in fact, we've rarely had that in our history as so much of politics is controlled and guided by those with money. It isn't who's the most legitimately competent, rather its who has the most campaign money, the most media connections, the best speech writers, and whatnot. People who would actually be good at being President probablt don't want the job and then when you throw in how money runs the show, we get kakistocracy.

 

[Mr. Invisible]

But Bernie isn't a member of their Kabal.

Definitely. But the ironic part is that he is their only hope to win 2020.

More billionaires should be running, but we can save that for after the election.

Please tell me you are joking.

 

[ttwtt78640]

As you probably know I do my election forecasts. For that reason I follow independents real close. Not so much Republicans and Democrats, history has shown they vote for their party's candidate 90% of the time regardless of who that candidate is. Independents aren't really attracted to any of the big three as of now. But Biden performs better than Sanders and those two better than Warren among independents, I actually prefer the non-affiliated swing voters.

So Bloomberg may have a point. Way too early to tell. The problem for Trump, he isn't liked by those non-affiliated swing voters either. Shades of 2016 seem to be beginning to appear. I think most of the non-affiliated swing voters expect more than three tired old white candidates from the Northeast. Perhaps they were like me, hoping for a fresh young face.

Among independents, Trump is at a minus 18, meaning among independents Trump's favorable rating is 18 points below his unfavorable rating. Biden minus 16, Sanders minus 19, Warren minus 21. These numbers are very dynamic and change all the time. Next week they will probably be completely different. But what these numbers do show and have shown for six months or more is that Trump and the big three Democrats aren't much liked by the non-affiliated swing voters.

I also agree with Bloomberg that Biden seems to be faltering. But campaigns have ups and downs, sometime huge ups and down.

Sanders newest pitch to go full tilt open borders (ala Beto) with blanket amnesty is going to sink him. When (not if) that happens Warren rises to the top of the left lane with sole possession. Biden will continue to sink (but not tank) with the center lane being Biden, Buttigieg and (soon likely) Bloomberg. Biden has the edge with the black vote.

The great unknown is how taking Warren off of the campaign trail during the Senate impeachment "show trial" (which could last quite a while) during the early primaries possibly through "Super Tuesday" will change the left and center lane balance. My prediction is Warren prevails in the DNC primaries over Biden, who was weakened by Buttigieg and Bloomberg, and loses to Trump in the general.

 

[Roadvirus]

It's a sign of the weakness of the USA that Twumpy The Clown Show is the best the USA can produce.

Meh. Sort of.

The Best (and sane) won't run because they don't want to have their lives infiltrated by the vultures of the media.

 

[Roadvirus]

Sanders newest pitch to go full tilt open borders (ala Beto) with blanket amnesty is going to sink him.

Full welfare, dismantle immigration enforcement and throw open the borders...

The asshole might as well have said "I agree with Beto! We need cops to do a door-to-door gun confiscation". The Bern just burned himself.

 

[Perotista]

Sanders newest pitch to go full tilt open borders (ala Beto) with blanket amnesty is going to sink him. When (not if) that happens Warren rises to the top of the left lane with sole possession. Biden will continue to sink (but not tank) with the center lane being Biden, Buttigieg and (soon likely) Bloomberg. Biden has the edge with the black vote.

The great unknown is how taking Warren off of the campaign trail during the Senate impeachment "show trial" (which could last quite a while) during the early primaries possibly through "Super Tuesday" will change the left and center lane balance. My prediction is Warren prevails in the DNC primaries over Biden, who was weakened by Buttigieg and Bloomberg, and loses to Trump in the general.

I do think at the moment Warren is the weakest candidate among the big three when it comes to independents. The trend over the last month shows Warren slowly rising, Biden remaining steady, Sanders slowly sinking along with Harris. Buttigieg has risen from 4 to 7 points. The biggest loser has been Harris who dropped from 11 points down to 5.

I'm with you on Warren. Especially if Sanders continues to slowly fade, his supporters will most likely go to Warren causing Warren to finally over take Biden. A Warren-Trump match up is something I can only shake my head at. I'd say against Trump, she's the democrats weakest candidate. Shades of 2016 are beginning to pop into my head.

I'd add that this time around the electoral college is on the democrats side, not Trump's. Not to take anything away from my forecasts which I plan on posting the beginning of December, I figure using the generic Democrat that the Democrats are starting with 248 electoral votes to 205 for Trump. I also think there are only 5 states in the toss up column amounting to 85 electoral votes. They are Arizona 11, Florida 29, North Carolina 15, Pennsylvania 20 and Wisconsin 10. I don't think Trump can pull another upset in either Pennsylvania or Wisconsin. That both states revert back to their normal blue status. That gives the generic 278 electoral votes without even considering Arizona, Florida and North Carolina.

A caveat here, not knowing who the democratic nominee will be I will be using the generic Democrat until I get a better idea. Now folks usually consider the generic democrat as the democratic candidate their for. So the above might be a bit too much in the democrats favor. But I'd say it is pretty close.

 

[MauiMan]

Come on in, Bloomberg. The water's fine. Please, please, please run.

Michael Bloomberg Considers Run for President Against Trump

Bloomberg...good god!

 

[Parrish]

Too rich, too old and too self-serving. He's afraid of Warren and paying his fair share even though he is philanthropic.

 

[Jredbaron96]

Please tell me you are joking.

Well, since you said the magic word...

 

[uptower]

Exactly! I don't get why they want centrist candidates when this is obviously not the time for that ****! They'd rather lose to Trump again then have someone like Bernie, who is probably the only person who can beat Trump, win. It's insane.

Who's 'they'? The billionaire elites want Bloomberg, nobody else. He is the least popular 'Democratic' candidate.

 

[TurtleDude]

I sure wish White Privilege was true.

Obama and the left wanted to place a tax penalty on citizens not wanting to buy health insurance, but then give it to illegal aliens for free.

Where is the privilege in that? The privilege to pay for others?

never heard of "white man's burden" ?

 

[Hamish Howl]

Bloomberg will split Biden's primary vote. I'm okay with that.

 

[GreatNews2night]

Initially I welcomed this news. But when I realized that Bloomberg is 77 years old, I was less sure.
Dammit. The Dems don't seem to be able to find a compelling, youngish candidate, like they had Obama in 2008 and 2012.
The closest to this is Pete Buttigieg, but he happens to be gay, which WILL be a shortcoming. A lot of bigots will say in polls that they will vote for him, but then in the secret of the ballot box, they won't.

Saint Michelle Obama, please save us.

 

[GreatNews2night]

Who's 'they'? The billionaire elites want Bloomberg, nobody else. He is the least popular 'Democratic' candidate.

That article you linked to, is funny and very truthful. I guess I initially got enthused when the news broke that Mike would be running, because I'm so desperate with the dismal Dem primary field. And the article is right about something else too, the impeachment thing. I always feared that it would suck up political capital and decrease the Dems' chance of beating Trump in the ballot box. That's why the savvy Pelosi was against it too. But then the Ukraine call came up, and it was so outrageous that even Pelosi had to jump in. While it's justified and it's exercising the House's constitutional mandate, I still sometimes think that it is a big mistake that will give us four more years of Trump.

 

[uptower]

That article you linked to, is funny and very truthful. I guess I initially got enthused when the news broke that Mike would be running, because I'm so desperate with the dismal Dem primary field. And the article is right about something else too, the impeachment thing. I always feared that it would suck up political capital and decrease the Dems' chance of beating Trump in the ballot box. That's why the savvy Pelosi was against it too. But then the Ukraine call came up, and it was so outrageous that even Pelosi had to jump in. While it's justified and it's exercising the House's constitutional mandate, I still sometimes think that it is a big mistake that will give us four more years of Trump.

I think the impeachment won't dent the Dems chances: that's a right-wing talking point that somehow scares even the mainstream.

Poor electioneering on the other hand, such as what cost Clinton 2016, that's a real possibility.

 

[GreatNews2night]

I think the impeachment won't dent the Dems chances: that's a right-wing talking point that somehow scares even the mainstream.

Poor electioneering on the other hand, such as what cost Clinton 2016, that's a real possibility.

Well, for one thing, impeachment will rev up Trump's base and motivate them even more to come out and vote.
And it could also have an impact on poor electioneering... when the whole nation is riveted upon the impeachment inquiry and actually pays little attention to proposals and ideas for the nation from the Dem candidates. That's precisely why the GOP was commemorating a delay due to a ruling by a federal judge. They actually want to drag this on and on, because Trump thrives in controversy, and they can keep pushing the Witch Hunt angle.

I think that there are also chances that the inquiry will expose Trump so much that more independents and moderates will turn against him.

But I don't know what effect will predominate.

The bottom line is, I think that impeachment is a two-edged sword. We don't know to which side it will cut. One thing we do know: it won't remove Trump from office since the Senate won't convict, so, if there is a point to it, it's electoral (and yes, saying so is no shame - all impeachments are ultimately a political process, as lavishly demonstrated by the GOP impeaching a good and competent president who was leading a great economy, over lying about a blow job - it certainly distracted Clinton and made him less effective, despite his popularity, in helping Gore). So, what remains to be seen is if impeachment will be an electoral advantage for the Dems, or for the GOP. I hope it's the former but sometimes I'm afraid it's the latter.

And certainly, I'm not saying so because of anything the right-wing is saying. What they say only disgusts me; it doesn't influence me. It's out of my own concerns and attempts at analyzing the situation, that I fear the worst. I mean, at one point, polls showed a majority of Americans being against impeachment, and that's when Pelosi was frontally against it (while idiots like AOC were pushing for it). Now, the tide is turning and an almost absolute majority is for it. But this can still change, depending on who is most skilled with the narrative. If the GOP succeeds in pushing the version that it's a groundless witch hunt, it might actually hurt the Dems. If the Dems can expose Trump's abuse of power, then advantage Dems.

 

[uptower]

Well, for one thing, impeachment will rev up Trump's base and motivate them even more to come out and vote.

They are and have always been revved to the max. The question is whether he'll get anyone else. For a guy who lost the popular vote by 3 million and has never made plurality for a day of his presidency, I don't expect he'll pick up new supporters. The question is more whether the Deem candidate can inspire swing voters and previous non-voters

 

[GreatNews2night]

They are and have always been revved to the max. The question is whether he'll get anyone else. For a guy who lost the popular vote by 3 million and has never made plurality for a day of his presidency, I don't expect he'll pick up new supporters. The question is more whether the Deem candidate can inspire swing voters and previous non-voters

The question is more whether the Dem candidate will TURN OFF swing voters, previous non-voters, AND moderates. Some of the extreme positions of some of the candidates risk to do just that. Maybe Trump's total votes won't change, but the problem is, maybe the Dem's candidate's total votes will be even lower than Hillary's.

If you tell 160 million people that they will lose their private health insurance plans in favor of a still-to-be-defined public bureaucracy, they will look at how poorly the Veterans Affairs healthcare is run, and will be afraid (even if maybe the proposal would indeed end up being good for them; but people, especially the silent middle of the political spectrum, are shy and resistant to radical change). If you tell them that illegal aliens will have free elective healthcare on their dime, this will alienate a lot of people, and not only the racists who are already definitely in Trump's camp. If you tell them that convicted felons like the Boston Marathon bomber will be allowed to vote, that will turn a lot of heads to the other direction. If you tell them that their taxes will be several thousand dollars higher, that will scare a bunch of people too, even if you tell them that this will be offset by free healthcare.

I think the Dems are doing their very best to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory... again.

Trump, four more years. That's where we're headed. The Dem candidate is likely to be Elizabeth Warren, and Trump will have a field day with her.

 

[uptower]

The Dem candidate is likely to be Elizabeth Warren, and Trump will have a field day with her.

Either way, no need to get a hard on for Bloomberg. He's a non-starter.

 

[Nap]

Bloomberg will split Biden's primary vote. I'm okay with that.

I think the more important question is would you be okay with him running as an independent should either Warren or Sanders win the nomination and effectively giving Trump the White House. Considering the wealth tax being proposed by Warren/Sanders it would be smart of him to do so as it is a win/win for him.

 

[GreatNews2night]

Either way, no need to get a hard on for Bloomberg. He's a non-starter.

Yeah, probably so. But who can beat Trump, then? I'm not implying that Bloomberg can. He's probably too old, too white, too male, and seen as a bore. So, yeah, scratch him. but actually, I think, nobody in the current Dem field can beat Trump, regardless of what early polls say. The Dems are trying so hard to alienate the vast majority of American voters who are not ultra-progressive, that I think the Dem candidate may end up with fewer votes than Hillary Clinton (after proportionally accounting for population growth).

 

[uptower]

Yeah, probably so. But who can beat Trump, then? I'm not implying that Bloomberg can. He's probably too old, too white, too male, and seen as a bore. So, yeah, scratch him. but actually, I think, nobody in the current Dem field can beat Trump, regardless of what early polls say. The Dems are trying so hard to alienate the vast majority of American voters who are not ultra-progressive, that I think the Dem candidate may end up with fewer votes than Hillary Clinton (after proportionally accounting for population growth).

Warren or Sanders, or both on the ticket. Even Biden has a chance of luring away rust belt swing voters who went for Trump last time, because they just didn't like Clinton. The middle class will not retreat to the Republicans as a safe haven from 'socialism' this time. There is no safe haven on the right for anyone other than white nationalists and crazed bigots. The party has been hijacked by extremists. For those in the middle anything is better than Trump; for those on the left, several candidates are more inspiring than Clinton was and more likely get voters off the couch.

Remember last time it wasn't that more people voted for Trump - he maxed out his potential. Not enough voted for Clinton, they stayed home. It wasn't her policies it was her personality, reputation and poor campaigning. If trump's opponent runs a decent campaign and offers more than the milquetoast standard corporate Democrat fare, they should have it in the bag.For Trump to win, it has to play out more or less the same as last time: almost as unpopular opponent with a last minute scandal; apathy, gerrymandering, voter suppression; hidden investigation of Trump himself, no political history, fake news and Russian interference: they all have to come together much as they did in 2016. Without that perfect storm, I don't think he can pull it off.

He can already strike half those off the list; gerrymandering has been eroded, Dems hold more state legislatures than last time; people are wary of foreign influence, trump has a political history - a brutal one now - and he's under investigation. So it's not impossible, but it could be even less likely than 2016. All the Dems need is a halfway decent candidate and they have several. The field is not so weak they need to fall back on Bloomberg. He probably could beat Trump in a general election under the current circumstances, but I don't see how he could beat the other nominees to get there.

 

[sjmay]

Warren or Sanders, or both on the ticket. The middle class will not retreat to the republicans as a safe haven from 'socialism' this time. .

Sorry, I gotta laugh if you think either of them have a shot... You severely underestimate how bad the messaging is going to be in the national election when the message is going to be, Warren/Sanders want to take your hard earned money and give it to someone else..., REGARDLESS of how true that is or NOT, for some reason you think that message won't resonate, that's absurd.

 

[uptower]

Sorry, I gotta laugh if you think either of them have a shot... You severely underestimate how bad the messaging is going to be in the national election when the message is going to be, Warren/Sanders want to take your hard earned money and give it to someone else..., REGARDLESS of how true that is or NOT, for some reason you think that message won't resonate, that's absurd.

Unfortunately framing in in those terms is not as widely accepted as many Republicans would like to think. The people who are that afraid of 'takers' are already in the bag for Trump. Those in the middle are open to some experimentation.

 

[sjmay]

Unfortunately framing in in those terms is not as widely accepted as many Republicans would like to think. The people who are that afraid of 'takers' are already in the bag for Trump. Those in the middle are open to some experimentation.

Like I said, good luck with that, the framing is freaking simple, you don't need that much money, so we are going to take some of it, and give it to someone else....

If you think that is gonna resonate with anyone in the middle, good luck, hope you want another 4 more years of Trump.