from the Times of London. He has $50 bil and started from scratch, no help from Dad.
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.
Hasn’t there been speculation about him every year since about 2008? Not buying it.
just like there was speculation about Trump for a long while until he jumped in for 2016.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 was a Democrat prior to 2001. The more likely sticking point would be his endorsement of Hillary.
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.
If having endorsed Hillary is a deal-breaker…well, the field just got a LOT smaller.
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.
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.
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.
Bloomberg actually has that money.
Yes, Bloomberg’s wad is bigger than Trump’s.
Trump’s only “wad” is the booger he just pulled out of his nostril.
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…