Bernie Sanders. At least, I think that’s what Hillary said.
Bloomberg would actually know how to govern the country, which what separates him from Che Sanders.
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).
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?!
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.
Roughly half of democratic primary voters are liberals now. Unless he can win them over, I don’t see him winning a primary.
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? [sub](Can’t wait to hear this.)[/sub]
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.
Oh good. A budget-balancing entitlement-cutting deficit hawk. Exactly what people are clamoring for right now. snooze
That’s where a lot of the problem lies. Does anybody actually know what enough people to win an election ARE clamoring for.
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)
You made the claim that Bloomberg knows how to govern and implied Sanders does not despite Sanders having 35+ years in public office.
And can we ever dismiss this notion that rich people are, by virtue of being rich, ideal leaders? When has this ever proven true? Running a country is not the same thing as running a company. Exhibit A: President Trump
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.
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! 
Bloomberg ran America’s largest city for 12 years. Effectively. Competently. Perhaps the best mayor in that city’s history. From Bloomberg L.P. through his political career, he’s a proven administrator and manager. Sanders? He was mayor of Burlington (pop. 38,000) ages ago and since then he’s been a senator. Senators don’t govern.
What would a Sanders presidency look like? Bernie: I’ve got all these great ideas. This is what I want to do! Congress, both R and D: No. The end.
Being rich, in and of itself, shouldn’t disqualify Bloomberg or any other rich guy for office. The Kennedys and Roosevelts were rich, and they were also generally progressives in their time. A president doesn’t have to be poor; he just needs to understand the needs of the poor and be a champion for their causes.
What separates Bloomberg from other billionaires who talk about running for office - Mark Cuban, for example - is that he’s demonstrated he can work with diverse constituencies and complicated politics to achieve results. He also clearly understands that running a government is not the same as running a corporation.
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.
Never said it was, only that it’s more likely a bigger deal than him having been elected as a Republican. 
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).
Sounds like a great choice; billionaire of inherited wealth vs. billionaire of inherited wealth. Got the real peoples’ touch about it.