We could have three New Yorkers, all quite elderly, running for President in the general election. The South should boycott.
HRC doesn’t count as a New Yorker. I’m talking born and bred, with the accent to prove it! And NYC, not some upstate, upscale place like Chappaqua.
ZOG finally moves into the open. So it begins…
Guess that better get a smiley ----> 
John, you’re a few days late to the thread. See post #31 below. 
And my response to Dseid
Yeah, this is what Krugman was implying when I first heard about it. “Vote for Hillary or Bloomberg jumps in!” I considered it. I then concluded that Bloomberg’s base is largely the sort of Democrat who would otherwise hold their noses and vote Republican to stop Bernie Sanders–and if that’s true, that means Bernie is probably better off with Mike in the race.
As for your other point, it really does veer off the thread subject, but in brief:
The President does not merely negotiate with Congress as he does with a foreign power, or as one does with a private business. A President who uses the pulpit of the office can change constituents’ minds, and constituents can push Congressmen. His coattails can change the makeup of Congress. Granted, this backfired for Obama, the poor guy.
So an additional real question is whether it’s easier for a White Anglo-Saxon Hillary to do all that than it has been for Obama or will be for a Jewish scold (either one). And, you know, maybe it is.
But the Jewish scolds seem more likely to blatantly try to change public opinion, which may mean they get more done because they actually tried to challenge received wisdom.
Will Hillary try to nudge opinion, have proxies argue for her while she seems to merely follow, or actually just be a follower? I can’t say for certain. If the last, then she will merely be a caretaker. If the other two, she may be highly effective. What does her history imply to you?
Good points all. I can’t fault your logic.
It comes down to questions of judgment and about all I can say is: “we’ll see what happens”. Meantime it’ll sure be interesting in the Chinese sense.
In that scenario my gut tells me Sanders is the least likely to end up President. With Bloomberg hypothetically second I’d expect it to end up in the House when nobody gets a majority of electors. If it does, it gets tricky predicting what happens then. One we’ve got the House election results to guess at. Two each rep doesn’t get a vote. Each state gets one vote adding another layer of uncertainty to our predications. If we look at the map of who controlled state delegations after 2014 we see Republicans dominate control of state delegations by a bigger margin than they do on a by Rep basis. If I counted right the split is 32-18.
That’s an ugly map for Sanders if it ends up there. He’s got to have coattails that swing a lot of states.
Before he was ever in, he’s out.
He’s worried that if he were to enter, it would secure a Trump victory.
Or Cruz.
[QUOTE=Michael Bloomberg]
As the race stands now, with Republicans in charge of both Houses, there is a good chance that my candidacy could lead to the election of Donald Trump or Senator Ted Cruz. That is not a risk I can take in good conscience.
[/QUOTE]