General Question

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

24 Answers

stanleybmanly's avatar

If he were the choice opposite ANY current Republican candidate my hand would be forced. It’s actually insulting that we’re compelled to play the game just the way the 2 parties prefer it.

jca's avatar

I liked him when he was Mayor of NYC.

Jak's avatar

Hell froze over.

elbanditoroso's avatar

If you look back about a year on a previous politics question, here on Fluther, I said that I would welcome a Bloomberg candidacy.

That is still true. If he announces, he has my vote.

He’s smart, he’s reasonably honest, and he did a fine job leading NYC.

CWOTUS's avatar

Only if he had already been elected, and in that case my support would consist of abstaining from conspiracies to do him actual harm. Mostly.

janbb's avatar

I think it would make for a very interesting race. Not sure who I’d support; just know at this point whom I don’t!

Cruiser's avatar

Under the current circumstances I would vote for him because all the candidates scare the hell out of me. This is why I would vote for him…

“Being a fiscal conservative is not about slashing programs that help the poor, or improve health care, or ensure a social safety net. It’s about insisting services are provided efficiently, get to only the people that need them, and achieve the desired results. Fiscal conservatives have hearts too – but we also insist on using our brains, and that means demanding results and holding government accountable for producing them.

To me, fiscal conservatism means balancing budgets – not running deficits that the next generation can’t afford. It means improving the efficiency of delivering services by finding innovative ways to do more with less. It means cutting taxes when possible and prudent to do so, raising them overall only when necessary to balance the budget, and only in combination with spending cuts. It means when you run a surplus, you save it; you don’t squander it. And most importantly, being a fiscal conservative means preparing for the inevitable economic downturns – and by all indications, we’ve got one coming.”

— Michael Bloomberg, speech to UK Conservative Party, September 30, 2007[77]”

ibstubro's avatar

If the current crop of front runners is an indication of what the ultimate race will be, Michael Bloomberg can’t get a billboard in my yard fast enough.

“All the candidates scare the hell out of me”, too, @Cruiser.

JLeslie's avatar

If he ran I would definitely give him serious thought. I think he causes more trouble for the Democrats than the Republicans.

I would love to see him spar a little with Trump. Just for fun, and I would be interested in their take on trade and the economy. I’d like to see him in a ring with Hillary and Sanders too, on education specifically.

ibstubro's avatar

Spar with Trump?
“Never wrestle with a pig—you get dirty and the pig likes it”

“Keep America Great”
I’d put it on beanies and hand them out by the 1,000’s.

Actually, I kinda like “Never wrestle with a pig—you get dirty and the pig likes it”. lol
Folksie Billionaire charm.

LostInParadise's avatar

Bloomberg is a Clinton clone. He probably would not run if she was nominated. His fear seems to be of Sanders being nominated. In that scenario, I would vote for Sanders. Although Bloomberg would take votes from Sanders, he might do damage to Trump as well, by casting himself as the saner of the two billionaires.

johnpowell's avatar

That he has waited so long means that this is pretty much about Sanders doing so well. And Sanders scares the fuck out of him and his billionaire buddies. I think he would do the minimum needed to run to siphon of enough Sanders voters in the election to secure a Republican president. It would only take a few percentage points.

Really, if he has waited this long it is because he doesn’t like the options. He has no actual interest in being president. He just thinks it is a way to tilt the election into a outcome he prefers and he is willing to spend a lot of money to essentially buy the presidency for someone that isn’t him.

janbb's avatar

@johnpowell I would think a Trump presidency scares him as much and that he would pull from both constituencies – i.e., the center – if he runs.

ibstubro's avatar

I agree with @janbb that the power elite are as scared (if not more) of a Trump presidency as they are Sanders.

WTF is Sanders going to do that a Republican Congress can’t counter? Sanders is an old, old-line career politician that’s used to coloring within the lines. Congress currently defines those lines. Obama was able to circumvent (some somewhat) those lines by executive order because he was a young politician from the rules-are-for-putzes state of Illinois.

Trump would have a forum that could send us into WW 3.
With a stock market that’s already swinging wildly a wrong word could send the US back into recession.

Sanders has lofty ideas. So what?
Trump is the Reality TV candidate, concerned only for his ratings.

Personally, I don’t think Bernie Sanders scares many people.
I think Hilliary scares some people, and make a lot more people uncomfortable.
IMO Trump scares the shit out of any clear thinking person.

Bloomberg has enough money, prestige and clout to counter anything Bernie Sanders has without a run for President.
Running for President may be the only way Bloomberg can be assured that Trump won’t plunge the US into chaos.

Cruiser's avatar

Actually @ibstubro the talking heads on the morning shows laid it out how Bloomberg in the race would fracture Sanders base more than Trumps and actually help Trump. I also suggest you look beneath the layer of the media sound bite circus that enables you to say Trump would lead us into WW3 and that Trump somehow has magical powers that would cause the stock market to lead us into a recession. Those are simply false assumptions with no factual base to back up those comments.

You want to consider scary…truly consider what a Sanders Presidency would do to America. Those who have (like me) considered the potential ramifications of Sanders policies don’t lose sleep over it or even get excited over it if Sanders some how by a complete miracle got elected….just the opposite because if you think the Republicans pushed back hard against Obama, you ain’t seen nothin compared to what the Republicans would do to a Sanders led Presidency and it is clear by Trumps popularity that the thinkers, movers and shakers are behind him because they I are truly fed up with a do nothing Congress and only want someone anyone who can get those in Congress to play nice and get shit done for once. Sanders, Clinton, Cruz are not going to make that happen. You clearly don’t like Trump and even articulated you are scared of him but IMHO for all the wrong reasons. Our mission at hand is to work together as a country and as citizens and representatives of the whole country and not just the special interests who are bleeding us dry.

Personally I kinda like the thought of Bloomberg leading our country but here again you have to look why he was considered a good mayor to NYC….his biggie was turning a 6 billion dollar deficit into a 3 billion dollar surplus and did so by applying the conservative principals of passing a balanced budget which also meant cutting of services and lowering taxes for some and raising others. Exactly what Trump is promoting. So those that support Sanders and hate Trump like you, would be more inclined to support Bloomberg and why those on the morning shows think Bloomberg will hurt Sanders chances than Trumps. And with Bloomberg being this late for the early show would not enable Bloomberg to get enough traction this far into the race to again do much to affect Trumps growing popularity with the conservatives and only eat away more at those that support Sanders because they don’t trust Hillary anymore.

This is how I see things now and my personal views could easily change greatly as the endorsements come and or candidates make mistakes.

ibstubro's avatar

Here’s the beauty of my thoughts, @Cruiserthey are my own.

I don’t know what the talking heads, say, and I don’t care. They get paid to say something, anything show after show, and if they don’t mix it up a bit, there are poor ratings and they lose a job.
Similarly, endorsements mean nothing to me.

Reality check: Bernie Sanders has a snowball’s chance in hell of enacting the most fundamental of his policies with a Republican controlled Congress.

Donald Trump is a vicious, misogynist pig.
Janet L. Yellen is Chair of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Now, if Yellen sets a course for the Federal Reserve that doesn’t suir President Trump and he comes out swinging with half truths and sexual innuendo, are domestic investors going to just ‘stay the course’? What about foreign investors?

Donald Trump lies, and he has no governor on his mouth.
Change “I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue, shoot somebody, and I wouldn’t lose any voters” to
“I could send a drone to take out Kim Jong-un tomorrow, and I wouldn’t lose any support in the international community”
and you have the potential for WW 3.

I base my opinions on observation, and I look for multiple, reliable sources before I allow an opinion to form.

stanleybmanly's avatar

@ibstubro On one hand you’re correct, Sanders faces the same opposition from the Republican Congress as Obama. The thing that makes Sanders a BIG threat as President is that he (like Trump) has no incentive to be bought off. Bernie is certain to propose and advocate measures popular with the man on the ground, yet decidedly opposed to the current glaring abuses trailing laissez faire capitalism. More importantly, there is no louder megaphone for trumpeting the lessons on how things REALLY work in the country than the bully pulpit afforded the President. The other big advantage Sanders will have over Obama is that he will harbor no illusions about his Republican opposition when it comes to reason.

ibstubro's avatar

Obama and crew were relatively new, skilled manipulators, from the take-no-prisoners state of Illinois. Many of the gains they made were short-term end-runs around Congress. “Executive Actions” are relatively easily undone.

Sanders is a tired old career politician that has colored within the lines for decades. I believe he would try to make substantive changed in the government, which he cannot do without Congressional support.

Despite the fondness I have for Jimmy Carter, I don’t believe he had an effective administration and I think Sanders has even less of a chance.

stanleybmanly's avatar

I think Sanders stands a reasonable chance of changing the popular perception on just what it is that’s ailing the country. And that alone makes him exceedingly dangerous.

SecondHandStoke's avatar


I don’t need a nanny.

JLeslie's avatar

Bloomberg loves NY. I always thought part of the reason he doesn’t run for President is he would have to spend a lot of time in DC. I doubt he will actually run, but you never know.

As a side note: it would be interesting to have two Jewish people running, not that I think religion matters, just it’s another first.

I would really like a Hillary Bloomberg ticket. I don’t think Bloomberg would consider VP though.

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

Because I can not think of any reasons why not, or reasons why other candidates would be better.

SecondHandStoke's avatar

If only one could have greater faith in congress.

If I could I would be less worried about things like Bloomberg’s preference for a nannystate, and misuse of the tax system in an attempt to price people out of their chosen indulgences: cigarettes, alcohol, and freaking large sodas.

ibstubro's avatar

Fundamentalist darlin’ Texas actually has the highest sin taxes by far, @SecondHandStoke.

Answer this question




to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther