Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 09-13-2018, 04:52 PM
Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 9,418

Former NYC mayor Bloomberg to run as a Dem for president in 2020


from the Times of London. He has $50 bil and started from scratch, no help from Dad.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/w...fied-_-TWITTER

I think he could do well in Dem primaries. I know it's kind of silly , but I think an issue could be his height he's 5-8 and looks shorter when he's around tall people.

Also he's 76 so that won't be a positive.

Last edited by Bijou Drains; 09-13-2018 at 04:53 PM.
  #2  
Old 09-13-2018, 04:57 PM
dalej42 is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 14,709
Hasn’t there been speculation about him every year since about 2008? Not buying it.
__________________
Twitter:@Stardales IG:@Dalej42
  #3  
Old 09-13-2018, 05:03 PM
Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 9,418
just like there was speculation about Trump for a long while until he jumped in for 2016.
  #4  
Old 09-13-2018, 05:06 PM
Thing Fish is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,498
Most of that article is behind a paywall; what I see cites only unnamed "sources" and "confidants". I mean, I'm sure the Times didn't just make this up, but it seems far from clear that he is running.

I predict if he runs it will go nowhere. Democratic primary voters aren't exactly clamoring for a rich old white guy who was a Republican until quite recently.
  #5  
Old 09-13-2018, 05:51 PM
Skywatcher's Avatar
Skywatcher is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Somewhere in the Potomac
Posts: 35,207
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
Democratic primary voters aren't exactly clamoring for a rich old white guy who was a Republican until quite recently.
Bloomberg was a Democrat prior to 2001. The more likely sticking point would be his endorsement of Hillary.
  #6  
Old 09-13-2018, 05:55 PM
Thing Fish is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,498
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skywatcher View Post
Bloomberg was a Democrat prior to 2001. The more likely sticking point would be his endorsement of Hillary.
If having endorsed Hillary is a deal-breaker...well, the field just got a LOT smaller.

Last edited by Thing Fish; 09-13-2018 at 05:55 PM.
  #7  
Old 09-15-2018, 08:33 PM
Skywatcher's Avatar
Skywatcher is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Somewhere in the Potomac
Posts: 35,207
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
If having endorsed Hillary is a deal-breaker
Never said it was, only that it's more likely a bigger deal than him having been elected as a Republican.

Last edited by Skywatcher; 09-15-2018 at 08:34 PM.
  #8  
Old 09-13-2018, 05:20 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 20,981
Just what we need.

Another corporatist democrat whose only distinguishing characteristic from republicans is they don't care about gay marriage and will say global warming is real although they have no plan to do anything about it.
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill

Last edited by Whack-a-Mole; 09-13-2018 at 05:21 PM.
  #9  
Old 09-13-2018, 05:22 PM
Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 9,418
he would do better running as an independent and he has plenty of money to do that, just like Perot in 92.
  #10  
Old 09-13-2018, 05:37 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 20,981
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijou Drains View Post
he would do better running as an independent and he has plenty of money to do that, just like Perot in 92.
That would split the Dem ticket and probably only result in a Trump win. Just like Nader in '00 gave Bush the win and Perot gave Clinton the win.
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill

Last edited by Whack-a-Mole; 09-13-2018 at 05:37 PM.
  #11  
Old 09-13-2018, 05:37 PM
Thing Fish is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,498
However, it says he didn't run in 2012 because he didn't want to split the non-GOP vote, and good for him. That consideration would seem to still apply; I do think that he has no chance of getting the Democratic nomination, but that he would have a small but nonzero chance of winning as an independent (especially if the Dem nominee is from the left wing of the party). However, his entry into the race as an independent would greatly increase the chances of Trump's re-election.
  #12  
Old 09-13-2018, 05:48 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 20,981
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
(especially if the Dem nominee is from the left wing of the party)
So republican light is what you want?

Fuck that.

What is considered the "left wing" of the party today used to be mainstream a few decades ago. The "center" has been pushed to the right.

Seems to me Bloomberg aims to be a spoiler. He can't win but he can screw over a left candidate who would otherwise win by splitting the ticket and I suspect that is his only goal.
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill
  #13  
Old 09-13-2018, 09:37 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 11,005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
So republican light is what you want?

Fuck that.

What is considered the "left wing" of the party today used to be mainstream a few decades ago. The "center" has been pushed to the right.

Seems to me Bloomberg aims to be a spoiler. He can't win but he can screw over a left candidate who would otherwise win by splitting the ticket and I suspect that is his only goal.
Bloomberg would actually know how to govern the country, which what separates him from Che Sanders.
  #14  
Old 09-13-2018, 09:41 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 11,005
I personally wish Bloomberg had run in 2016. He would have given Bernistas an education and they wouldn't have been able to complain that he makes money by giving speeches to Wall Street (like that was ever really an issue).
  #15  
Old 09-13-2018, 11:12 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 20,981
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
Bloomberg would actually know how to govern the country, which what separates him from Che Sanders.
You mean the guy who has been a politician for over 35 years including mayor of a (semi) major city, in the House of Representatives and a senator has no idea how to govern?

If he doesn't then who does? How does Bloomberg, in your view, have a better claim on being able to govern? (Can't wait to hear this.)
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill

Last edited by Whack-a-Mole; 09-13-2018 at 11:14 PM.
  #16  
Old 09-14-2018, 06:06 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 11,005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
You mean the guy who has been a politician for over 35 years including mayor of a (semi) major city, in the House of Representatives and a senator has no idea how to govern?

If he doesn't then who does? How does Bloomberg, in your view, have a better claim on being able to govern? (Can't wait to hear this.)
What major city was Sanders the mayor of?

Being the gadfly of the Senate is different from being an executive of a billion dollar empire and one of the world's largest cities that has a population larger than most American states.
  #17  
Old 11-07-2019, 09:01 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,490
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
So republican light is what you want?

Fuck that.
This is not the time for pushing radical agendas. Lets fight about that after we have decisively settled the issue of whether pandering to white supremacists is politically viable or not.

Quote:
What is considered the "left wing" of the party today used to be mainstream a few decades ago. The "center" has been pushed to the right.
Really? Because decades ago, gay marriage would never have gotten any traction.
Decades ago, there were a significant number of pro-life Democrats.
Decades ago, many of Bernie Sanders' proposals would be considered socialist if not communist.

Quote:
Seems to me Bloomberg aims to be a spoiler. He can't win but he can screw over a left candidate who would otherwise win by splitting the ticket and I suspect that is his only goal.
Then noone will vote for him.

People are voting against Trump, not FOR any particular candidate. We just need a candidate that won't scare off voters to put up against Trump.

Right now that looks like Biden and I don't see what advantage Bloomberg has over Biden and Bloomberg can use his money without running for office.
  #18  
Old 09-13-2018, 05:53 PM
Thing Fish is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,498
No, I personally want a left-wing progressive. But it seems obvious to me that such a candidate would be more vulnerable to a well-funded centrist independent candidate than a moderate would be.

And a reminder that, per the OP, his current plan to is run as a Democrat, so there's no concern about splitting the anti-Trump vote.
  #19  
Old 09-13-2018, 06:18 PM
Scumpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 14,316
Whether or not you agree with the NRA, they will pull out all the stops on opposing Bloomberg. There is a not inconsiderable number of Democrats who will vote 3rd party, not vote, or vote Republican based on that.

Last edited by Scumpup; 09-13-2018 at 06:19 PM.
  #20  
Old 09-13-2018, 06:35 PM
Thing Fish is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,498
No chance the Democrats nominate anyone remotely acceptable to the NRA. They will lose some votes by pushing hard for gun control, but I think they'd lose more by not doing so.
  #21  
Old 09-13-2018, 06:46 PM
John Mace's Avatar
John Mace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 85,197
It's high time we had a billionaire businessman from NYC as president! It's a novel idea, and I think it would do the country good.

Last edited by John Mace; 09-13-2018 at 06:46 PM.
  #22  
Old 09-13-2018, 09:44 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,641
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace View Post
It's high time we had a billionaire businessman from NYC as president! It's a novel idea, and I think it would do the country good.
See, what I think is so great about this is the idea of Democrats running a very moderate, administratively-minded, very wealthy candidate with ties to Wall Street. Why didn't we think of that before?!
  #23  
Old 09-13-2018, 10:20 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 11,005
There's nothing wrong with being rich. The Roosevelts were rich and they were still a family of the people. The Kennedys were rich, and they were still a family of the people. If the Democratic party goes to Sanders, this whole country is fucked. I like that he's raising awareness of issues and pushing the party left, but he and his ilk are gadflies and nothing else. They couldn't turn a profit on a lemonade stand.
  #24  
Old 09-13-2018, 11:10 PM
Wesley Clark is online now
2018 Midterm Prediction Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 22,476
Roughly half of democratic primary voters are liberals now. Unless he can win them over, I don't see him winning a primary.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion
  #25  
Old 11-08-2019, 07:53 AM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 9,399
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace View Post
It's high time we had a billionaire businessman from NYC as president! It's a novel idea, and I think it would do the country good.
Hey, what ever happened to this guy?
  #26  
Old 09-13-2018, 08:34 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 20,981
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
No chance the Democrats nominate anyone remotely acceptable to the NRA. They will lose some votes by pushing hard for gun control, but I think they'd lose more by not doing so.
If the dems nominated a liberal, lifelong gun proponent (they do exist) the NRA would oppose them.
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill
  #27  
Old 09-13-2018, 08:47 PM
JXJohns's Avatar
JXJohns is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Middle of the Midwest
Posts: 2,497
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
If the dems nominated a liberal, lifelong gun proponent (they do exist) the NRA would oppose them.
Just curious of who a liberal, life long gun proponent might be if they do exist. I'm coming up short...
  #28  
Old 09-13-2018, 09:21 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,591
Quote:
Originally Posted by JXJohns View Post
Just curious of who a liberal, life long gun proponent might be if they do exist. I'm coming up short...
Bernie Sanders. At least, I think that's what Hillary said.
😀
  #29  
Old 11-07-2019, 09:07 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,490
Quote:
Originally Posted by JXJohns View Post
Just curious of who a liberal, life long gun proponent might be if they do exist. I'm coming up short...
Bernie Sanders is not as bad on guns as some of the others.

The NRA is going to be out in full force no matter what because the NRA is no longer a single issue organization. They are now a partisan organization. They now have opinions about unions and taxes.
  #30  
Old 11-07-2019, 11:08 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,591
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
Bernie Sanders is not as bad on guns as some of the others.
If only someone had said that last year, immediately after.

Though, I seem to remember fact checking myself and seeing Sanders didn't generally get a good bgh grade from the NRA.
  #31  
Old 11-07-2019, 09:04 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,490
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
No chance the Democrats nominate anyone remotely acceptable to the NRA. They will lose some votes by pushing hard for gun control, but I think they'd lose more by not doing so.
You may be right, but the votes they would lose by pushing gun control will be in swing states and the votes they lose by not pushing gun control will be in blue states.

We don't need to win California by 5 million votes again only to lose the rest of the country by 2 million votes.
  #32  
Old 11-08-2019, 07:36 AM
JKellyMap's Avatar
JKellyMap is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 9,784
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
You may be right, but the votes they would lose by pushing gun control will be in swing states and the votes they lose by not pushing gun control will be in blue states.

We don't need to win California by 5 million votes again only to lose the rest of the country by 2 million votes.
I agree. The Dem candidate should be an absolute gun nut. Goes hunting every weekend.

Iím pro-gun control, but Iím confident that better gun laws can happen despite the Presidentís preferences/leisure activities. Much more important now is securing those 100,000 non-Trump votes of people living near the Great Lakes.
  #33  
Old 11-09-2019, 10:52 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,490
Quote:
Originally Posted by JKellyMap View Post
I agree. The Dem candidate should be an absolute gun nut. Goes hunting every weekend.

Iím pro-gun control, but Iím confident that better gun laws can happen despite the Presidentís preferences/leisure activities. Much more important now is securing those 100,000 non-Trump votes of people living near the Great Lakes.
I agree. The only priority. The ONLY priority! should be getting the current resident out of the white house.

No issue is more important. NO issue is more important.

I don't give a shit whether they are in favor of a public option or full on single payer health care. Just tell me which candidate is going to win more electoral votes.

I don't give a shit whether they support government financing of abortions.

I don't care where they stand on guns.

I don't care where they stand on invading Iran with nuclear tanks.

We can hash all that out later.

We have to beat this guy and not just by a little bit, it has to be embarrassingly lopsided. Texas and Georgia has to go blue.

We can ignore the woke SJW liberals because they will turn out no matter what. Not only will they turn out, they will canvas the streets for whatever candidate is running against Trump. Even if they don't adhere to woke SJW liberal orthodoxy. They don't need firing up.

We can ignore the socialist and communists because they similarly support whoever is running against Trump. They are not a swing vote this election no matter who is running against Trump.

We should deliberately ignore all of them and try to win back the middle because it's not enough to win by a few electoral votes, we have to turn the whole goddam map blue. The loss has to be so complete that noone ever nominates someone like Trump again.
  #34  
Old 09-13-2018, 06:49 PM
elucidator is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,100
Bloomberg actually has that money.
  #35  
Old 09-13-2018, 07:09 PM
John Mace's Avatar
John Mace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 85,197
Yes, Bloomberg's wad is bigger than Trump's.
  #36  
Old 09-13-2018, 07:55 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 85,446
Trump's only "wad" is the booger he just pulled out of his nostril.
  #37  
Old 09-14-2018, 06:44 AM
Lord Feldon's Avatar
Lord Feldon is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ohio, USA
Posts: 6,614
Oh good. A budget-balancing entitlement-cutting deficit hawk. Exactly what people are clamoring for right now. *snooze*
  #38  
Old 09-14-2018, 07:58 AM
JRDelirious is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Displaced
Posts: 16,007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Feldon View Post
Exactly what people are clamoring for right now.
That's where a lot of the problem lies. Does anybody actually know what enough people to win an election ARE clamoring for.
  #39  
Old 09-14-2018, 08:00 AM
Textual Innuendo is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 485
I hear monocles and tophats are really popular with young voters now, thanks to Mr. Peanut and the monopoly guy.

Bloomberg should definitely hit the campaign wearing tophats and monocles - it will give him mad street cred, and let them know that he's "cool" and "with it."

Or it will just emphasize what a Republican-lite, DINO, card-carrying member of the 1% and corporate elite he is. But hey, either way! Our country NEEDS more 1%-er politicians who are completely out of touch with the issues affecting the middle and lower classes!

I mean, right now that's only 97% of Senators and Congressmen, and every President since Truman!

(and all but 7 others in the time prior to Truman)
  #40  
Old 09-15-2018, 08:06 PM
foolsguinea is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Tornado Alley
Posts: 15,844
Quote:
Originally Posted by Textual Innuendo View Post
Our country NEEDS more 1%-er politicians who are completely out of touch with the issues affecting the middle and lower classes!

I mean, right now that's only 97% of Senators and Congressmen, and every President since Truman!

(and all but 7 others in the time prior to Truman)
Could you maybe not throw Ike and LBJ under the bus like that? Thanks!

As for Mike Bloomberg, I agree with--basically everyone but asahi?--that Bloomberg is a terrible candidate. Mike is the less charismatic Ed Koch. I daresay his record in NYC is not going to be reassuring to the folks in Cleveland, Flint, Detroit, Columbus, & Milwaukee that you actually need to volunteer for a campaign.

Last edited by foolsguinea; 09-15-2018 at 08:06 PM.
  #41  
Old 09-14-2018, 09:26 AM
Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 9,418
Trump's problem is not only his management skills but he's also a total sleazeball - bashing people for no good reason, not paying contractors, cheating on wives, lying, etc. All of those things were present way before he ran for office.
  #42  
Old 09-14-2018, 10:00 AM
John Mace's Avatar
John Mace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 85,197
I don't think Bloomberg would be a bad president. He'd probably be an OK one, maybe even a good one. The question is, will he be a good candidate, able to the beat the Republicans? That, I don't know, but it sure would be fun to see him go at Trump, if Trump runs again!
  #43  
Old 09-16-2018, 01:35 AM
China Guy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 11,709
Let's just run Matlock instead? Christ, Reagan was a few days short of 70 when he took office, and Trump was close to 71. Biden, Bloomberg, Warren, isn't there a democrat in their 50's? Christ, I'm pushing 60 but I really want someone in their 40's or 50's that are reasonably in touch with all generations. Trump, and to be fair this can easily be Trump specific, is stuck in an idealistic 60's or 70's view of the world (coal is good, manufacturing are jobs, etc).
  #44  
Old 11-07-2019, 05:45 PM
JohnT's Avatar
JohnT is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 23,822
Well, he's back.

Quote:
Michael Bloomberg To Announce He’s Joining The 2020 Presidential Race: Report

Billionaire businessman Michael Bloomberg is reportedly preparing to join the 2020 presidential race this week, after previously announcing that he would not run.

The former mayor of New York City is expected to file paperwork that would designate himself as a Democratic primary candidate in at least one state, Alabama, which has an early filing deadline, people familiar with the plan told The New York Times on Thursday.
  #45  
Old 11-07-2019, 05:52 PM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 36,300
Fuck
__________________
*I'm experimenting with E, em, and es and emself as pronouns that do not indicate any specific gender nor exclude any specific gender.
  #46  
Old 11-07-2019, 06:06 PM
Locrian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Valley Village, CA
Posts: 4,364
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
Fuck
Hang on. This may not be bad. All those voters who think rich=smart might flip to the Dem side.
  #47  
Old 11-07-2019, 06:13 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 11,005
Clearly a shot at Warren and Bernie's popularity. I'm just glad that some narcissistic "centrist" billionaire hasn't decided to run as an independent...yet.
  #48  
Old 11-07-2019, 06:18 PM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 9,399
Nice strategy, Bloomberg. Wait until there have already been lots of debates, and everyone has trashed each other, and others have dropped out. Then hop on in. I sez fuck off. Try again in 4 more years, dickhead. I promise not to vote for you then, either.
(Unless you somehow end up as the only one up against Trump this time. Then you've got my vote. Asshole.)

Last edited by bobot; 11-07-2019 at 06:21 PM.
  #49  
Old 11-07-2019, 06:34 PM
Wesley Clark is online now
2018 Midterm Prediction Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 22,476
Seeing how half of democratic primary voters want to vote for Warren or Sanders, what value will Bloomberg bring? The public are clamoring for reform.

As long as he doesn't run as an independent.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion
  #50  
Old 11-07-2019, 06:13 PM
JohnT's Avatar
JohnT is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 23,822
Lol, in trying to stop Warren, he just immensely helped her by:

1. Showing the powerful are actually scared of her*
2. If he continues, he'll merely split the moderate "why can't things be like the 90s" voters with Biden, Buttigieg, and others, thereby helping Warren seal the nom.

Politickin' is hard.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:24 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017