Posted on 01/23/2016 6:54:19 AM PST by Drew68
Galled by Donald J. Trump's dominance of the Republican field, and troubled by Hillary Clinton's stumbles and the rise of Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont on the Democratic side, Michael R. Bloomberg has instructed advisers to draw up plans for an independent campaign in this year's presidential race.
Mr. Bloomberg, the billionaire former mayor of New York City, has in the past contemplated running for the White House on a third-party ticket, but always concluded he could not win. A confluence of unlikely events in the 2016 election, however, has given new impetus to his presidential aspirations.
Mr. Bloomberg, 73, has already taken concrete steps toward a possible campaign, and has indicated to friends and allies that he would be willing to spend at least $1 billion of his fortune on it, according to people briefed on his deliberations who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss his plans. He has set a deadline for making a final decision in early March, the latest point at which advisers believe Mr. Bloomberg could enter the race and still qualify to appear as an independent candidate on the ballot in all 50 states.
He has retained a consultant to help him explore getting his name on those ballots, and his aides have done a detailed study of past third-party bids. Mr. Bloomberg commissioned a poll in December to see how he might fare against Mr. Trump and Mrs. Clinton, and he intends to conduct another round of polling after the New Hampshire primary on Feb. 9 to gauge whether there is indeed an opening for him, according to two people familiar with his intentions.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Hmmm.
Given that the libs call Tea Partiers, "Teabaggers" maybe we can start calling Hillary supporters Carpetbaggers (as in, carpet munchers).
And here we are. Ten months out from a presidential election there’s a real possibility that we’ll have the choice between three white septuagenerian milionaires/billionaires from New York City.
Maybe the founders were wrong - maybe we can’t govern ourselves.
Me too - his over inflated self will be humiliated. He has a smaller constituency than Pataki.
Little arrogant napolean sh##
hillary for sure
Sanders is (amazingly) a viable candidate.
In a certain sense, "Obamacare" was designed, purpose-built, to bring about full nationalization. It was NOT designed to fail in 2016, but it is failing.
If you think Sanders can't win, you underestimate the desire of people for free (and yes, I mean "free") medical, nursing, and hospital services.
I don't think militant Islam will give Bernie the room he needs to run on free healthcare ("Medicare for all").
But if they do, he can actually win, because he knows what he wants, is transparent, and in some sense the people want it, too.
So, the Ole Big Gulp nanny stater just can’t stay on the sidelines. He has an uncontrollable desire to run our lives, therefore he’ll no doubt rationalize his dictatorial impulses as helping the unwashed masses because they’re too ignorant to know what’s good for themselves.
Bloomberg should run. Just not for office.
Sure, why not? Afterall, bloomberg is much richer than trump. So, doesnt that make trump a “loser”?
And bloomie has switched parties fewer times. And wasn’t the worst mayor of NYC.
Just what we want, rule by billionaires. After all, “they can’t be bought.” Isn’t that the asinine, simplistic meme that’s current?
I thought we had a word for this.
Oligarchy.
Heck, he could buy trump nearly ten times iver. Compared to bloomie, trump is such a loser.
bloomie IS an oligarch.
He has more money than trump (by a lot), but has less ego than trump (by a lot).
Run Bloomberg, run!
Potential campaign promise:
If elected, I promise to sign an executive order banning fountain drinks in cup over 31 oz. as my first order of business on DAY ONE of my presidency.
Gotta be the Dems. Any 'Rat win scenario always includes NY's electoral votes (along with CA). Bloomberg can't win but he might split the Dem vote in NY and turn it red (temporarily?). I don't believe Bloomberg will garner enough votes to have any effect anywhere else in the country.
Some might say Bloomberg could take more votes from Trump than Hillary - I don't believe that but even so, the Republicans aren't counting on winning NY anyway.
He can team up with Bush for a solid 3.5% RINO vote.
That is what keeps me awake at night.
The Constitution now says whatever the hell five out of nine Supreme Court Justices want it to say. Four Justices will be over 80 years old next year. Two of the remaining five are young far left wing Obama appointees who will be legislating from the bench for the next 30 years.
Republicans, even Reagan, historically have batted no better than 50% picking conservative Justices while Democrats always bat 100% picking liberal Justices. If even three of the four octogenarian Justices are replaced with liberals then a far left wing oligarchy of Supreme Court Justices will rule over every aspect of our lives for the next generation to come.
Does anyone believe that Trump will do a better job at picking reliably conservative Justices than any Republican president has since Herbert Hoover? That is what it will take in order to prevent a complete far left wing takeover of the Court.
Run, Bloomie, Run!!
“When pitted in a three-way race with former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg, Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump gets 37 percent of voters, Democrat leader Hillary Clinton gets 36 percent and Bloomberg, an independent, gets 13 percent.”
https://morningconsult.com/2016/01/new-poll-could-bloomberg-win/
This is why Karl Rove should have been ... well, *you* fill in the blanks.
P.S. Jeb swallows.
Gun-grabber Bloomberg would take votes away from democrats, which would make someone like Trump even more likely to win, one would think.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.