Yes I was looking up the history and the example of a “dark horse” given is often Polk, but he as far as I can see he openly was asking for the VP slot and was hedging his bets that he would win if there was a deadlock. Can you name someone who wasn’t running that won the nomination?
I’d vote for Sanders over Bloomberg, but Bloomberg over Clinton. If there are many like me, you’re wrong.
Matthew Yglassias has a great article at Vox.com. 15 thoughts on Michael Bloomberg’s presidential aspirations
Bloomberg’s path to victory is to climb to #2 in the polling, then pivot to become the Stop Sanders or Stop Trump candidacy. For this to work, both parties have to run extremists, or those perceived as such. Since Hillary will probably win the nomination, Bloomberg probably won’t run. Otherwise though, I think this strategy would be viable. I say that as someone who has thought that in the past that 3rd party runs are ridiculous.
The article is worth reading in full, but I guess I’ll pick out number 6: [INDENT] 6) There is, as wet blankets all across the pundit-land will tell you, no precedent for a third party winning a presidential election (and if you understand the politics of the 1850s you will understand that Lincoln is not an exception). On the other hand, for both parties to simultaneously lose control over their own presidential nominating processes would also be unprecedented. So who knows? [/INDENT] That’s it exactly. A Sanders/Trump matchup would be unprecedented. Though unprecedented doesn’t mean impossible: we’ve only had a couple of score elections since 1786 after all.
Being #2 in the polling is the magical number, just as it was for Charlie Crist. If Sanders is in third, prominent Democrats just throw their support behind Bloomberg and Sanders is effectively the third party guy.
Another possibility, especially if Bloomberg enters in March and carries solid polling into early summer, is a unity ticket. Sanders or Trump are the official party nominees, but the establishment of one or the other gets Bloomberg to name one of their own as VP. So Bloomberg picks say, Cory Booker, with the approval of the party elders and they throw their backing to the Bloomberg/Booker ticket, or Bloomberg picks Marco Rubio and the GOP throws their support behind that ticket.
Maybe. But if Bloomberg is thinking of running only if Sanders looks to be the nominee, he could have held off a couple of weeks and marked his beliefs to market. If Bernie wins Iowa, then he’ll probably win NH, and we’ve got a race. If not, then the likelihood of Clinton’s being the nominee approaches 1, regardless of NH.
So I have to assume that Bloomberg is aiming at the space between Clinton and the GOP nominee.
Or that he really just wants to have the attention of toying with running again. And maybe is trying to impact the political discourse some.
From the link in the OP:
That’s one of the thoughts that’s been popping around the back of my mind on this. As the GOP is full on into their less centrist positions and Clinton has been pulled further left by Sanders he’s dropping a threat from the center into the discussion. Candidates can’t just ignore the center because their likely general election opponents across the aisle are. Bloomberg happened to let it slip just before the primary season shifts in to voting mode too. Coincidence? 
IMO the last time the choice of VP mattered in the slightest was before WWI.
If VPs still mattered, then your 2nd paragraph logic would be reasonable. But since they don’t, it isn’t.
Agreed. He’s simply Wall Street’s spokesman.
This is him poking his head in to remind everybody that as much fun as populist extremism is, it’s real bad for the S&P 500 and for their spreads. So if’n y’all know what’s good for ya y’all oughta start drifting to the center. Lest ye be smacked by the adults who’re actually in charge.
As a Sanders fan, I kinda hope Mike Bloomberg does run, and on the pretext that he’s a “Democrat” :rolleyes: who wants to have “Republican” style tax rates. It will give that sort of “Third Way” fan of “managerial” politicians a non-Republican to vote for.
If the GOP nominee is someone like Bush or Kasich, Bloomberg might draw voters who otherwise would hold their nose and vote GOP; if the GOP nominate Cruz or Trump, Bloomberg might even get enough GOP support come in second, ahead of the Republican nominee but behind Bernie.
I welcome Mike’s entry into the race.
I know it’s against the law, but I’d really like to have some of whatever you’re smokin’.
Hillary could be his VP.
:dubious: Fine, nominate Hillary, and pray that the Emily’s List and Third Way turnout gets her in without Bernie’s youth movement. Then, assuming Trump is not your new President, enjoy Hillary’s bizarrely contentious fights over *tiny *incremental changes for the two years she has anything remotely resembling a Democratic majority.
I for one am tired of the “centrist President” who can’t even hold a majority coalition past the first two years. We’ve played it this way twice just since I turned 18. If partisanship demonizes the moderate on the other side as much as the radical on the other side, what is the use? As a progressive, I don’t want the Third Coming and Failing of Bubba; I’m going for the actual leftist this time.
Who is that?
See what Measure for Measure said basically. But elaborating on it, it is that 1) most Democrats either agree with or at least don’t mind most of Sanders’s platform and 2) Democrats know better then to shoot themselves in the foot but voting for a third party candidate especially when he is a reactionary plutocrat of the plutocrats like Bloomberg.
The problem is that those changes actually addressed the real problems even if only partially, otoh banning large sodas is basically the equivalent of using leeches to cure illness-barking in the wrong direction.
[quote=“FlikTheBlue, post:96, topic:743981”]
I’m assuming that if he runs that means that Sanders won the Democratic nomination and Trump or Cruz the Republican nomination. In this scenario I think that Trump/Crus would win easily. The overall impact on the total vote would probably be something like 40 to 45 percent for Trump/Cruz, with the remainder being split not evenly, but enough so that Sanders wouldn’t win. I think Trump/Cruz would carry all the traditionally red states. Sanders would win in highly liberal states like Vermont and Hawaii, while Bloomberg might win in places like New York and New Jersey.
**
Yes and you get people who think Jewish lizard aliens shot JFK and caused 9/11 call into talk shows as well and such people are probably more representative of the average American than our elitist friend Brad. Most Americans are angry (and for good reason!)-the only people who are content with our current rotten, corrupt atomistic society is the overclass. The conservative element of the white working class will vote TRUMP and the liberal element Sanders (ofc none of them will be so idiotic and lacking in self-respect as to vote for their class enemy Bloomberg) while minorities will stay true to the party and vote overwhelmingly Sanders. The only opening Bloomberg might have is with the college educated whites and here the SWPL types will vote for Sanders and plenty of them will vote Trump so even here Bloomberg will win only a tiny minority.
Those are trivial issues in comparison to the great questions of socioeconomics. Indeed the elimination of anti-abortion and pro-gun Democrats from the party has been a great disaster, increasing its reliance upon the subversive suburban bourgeoisie elements.
Thankfully neither the country nor the Democratic Party is moving to the right on this issue anymore-or else it would have been proven our Republic is indeed one of mindless slaves worse then even the most despotic of ancient Oriental empires. There was a danger the Democratic Party would have heeled and cucked for the nobliberal shills on some socioeconomic issues a decade ago (hence the talk of the awful phenomenon of that self-evident oxymoron “Libertarian Democrat”) but after the cataclysmic economic disaster wrought by the plutocrats, the party, I trust, is sufficiently redpilled not to white knight for the think tankers quite as unthinkingly as before.
Only partially and as indicated above, it looks like the trend is reversing. Once the party is purged of its criminal plutocratic element, it will be even better.
Not really-Sanders himself’s moved to the right from being a nobody New Leftist activist in the late Sixties and early Seventies to a wily, populist local mayor of Burlington with fairly mainstream progressive views. In may not necessarily have been the mainstream Democratic view but it certainly was a view with a large faction of adherents ever since the days of FDR.
Such as…?
Except Sanders isn’t a socialist, he’s a left-social democrat.
Maybe but not as much as Michael Bloomberg.
Nonsense, without the racism encountered by Obama, Hillary Clinton would have won around 55-56% of the vote and captured states such as Missouri, Georgia, Montana, West Virginia, and Arkansas.
Yes and does Bloomberg speak for the centrist voter who hates Wall Street and loves guns?
Bloomberg appeals to moderates who want a little government control, especially of things they consider unsafe, along with fiscal conservatism. I’m not sure it’s a big group, but I do think it would appeal to more than you would think given the ideological extremes of the major parties at this point.
Even for me, a guy who considers himself Tea Party, Bloomberg is an attractive candidate given the alternatives.
A Tea Partier who like Kasich? Now I’ve seen everything.
Many Tea Partiers get fooled by people who sound like fighters. Trump is no conservative. Kasich is a longtime conservative from the conservative wing of the party. No one has a better chance to bring about real conservative change than Kasich.
We may have misunderstood each other. I too am a progressive, and have been for decades.
It seems you think Bloomberg would split the Rs. IMO Bloomberg entering the race has a lot more opportunity to split the D vote and hand the race to the R’s than vice versa. That’s a result to be avoided at all costs. Hence I prefer Bloomberg out, not in. My thinking here is that Bloomberg is likely to be particularly successful in the northeast. Which is an arena the Ds need to win to take the nation. If Bloomberg splits that part of the country, the Ds are all-but doomed.
You also seem to think that Bloomberg only runs against Sanders, not against Hillary. I’m not well-informed enough to have a firm opinion, but I wouldn’t put it past Bloomberg to run against Hillary too. It’s unclear to me how the timing for filing, etc. would work in either case. I doubt he can wait to after the D convention is over to decide to get on the national ballot as a third party. So he may end up running against Hillary by mistake.
I agree with your implied point that Congress will fight a President Hillary’s initiatives tooth and nail just because she’s the person behind them. The error IMO is in thinking that A) President Bernie will get a meaningfully more respectful hearing (he won’t), and that B) Because President Bernie will propose more radical things, he’ll get more total stuff done versus President Hillary’s relative incrementalism.
Many people who are not skilled negotiators liken it to a tug-of-war or an inverse football game. Each team starts near their goal line then they push and shove until impasse is reached. And therefore the smartest strategy is to start as far extreme towards your end as possible so when both teams eventually meet someplace in the middle, that “middle” is as close as possible to your end.
The truth is negotiations don’t actually work that way. The team that stakes out the stupid extreme corner usually comes away empty-handed. This is even more true when the status quo is more acceptable to the other side than it is to the extreme side. In the case of President Sanders that might look like him introducing legislation for totally free college for all and getting a simple “No.” back from Congress. And there it sits for 4 years. Whereas something more incremental to clean up the swamp of conflicted interest in the student loan industry and something to reduce tuition inflation might well be passed, albeit with some watering-down from the initial proposal.
Could we really have two Jewish guys from New York running for president? Oy vey!!