Battle of the billionaires: Trump could face a super-rich challenger in 2020
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
As some of the Democratic Party's heavyweight contenders start announcing their intention to run for president, there remains a chance that President Donald Trump will square off with a fellow billionaire come 2020.
But does anyone on the left want a candidate from the private sector as their nominee at a time when some in the party are running hard against big business, corporate greed and Wall Street?
Entering the cycle, three billionaires appeared poised to seek the presidency: Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg (Forbes estimated his wealth at over $46 billion); Starbucks founder Howard Schultz (Forbes pegged his riches at $3.3 billion); and ex-hedge fund chieftain and impeachment activist Tom Steyer (Forbes ball-parked him at $1.6 billion), who has since removed his name from contention.
Trump is worth $3.1 billion, according to Forbes.
Early polls showed none of the three would start from a position of power. A December straw poll from the liberal advocacy group MoveOn found Bloomberg in eighth place among 2020 contenders while Steyer finished a distant 23rd and Schultz found himself in dead-last.
If any of the mega-wealthy potential candidates "look like they're running simply because of their own ego or they like their names in lights, their candidacy will never get out of the gate," Jesse Ferguson, a high-ranking staffer on Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign, told NBC News.
But, he added, if any candidate can "present an authentic, believable antidote to Trump," they can resonate with voters.
Steyer, one of the Democratic Party's most prominent donors and an advocate for climate change action, told NBC News that business acumen and a big bank account should not be a roadblock to the Democratic nomination simply because Trump ran a campaign claiming that he was the world's best deal maker.
"Look, as far as I know, Mr. Trump never succeeded in any business other than inheriting money, which he was quite good at, and being a reality TV star," Steyer said. "As far as I can tell, that was the extent of his business success."
As for his billionaire contemporaries, Steyer said it's too early to say whether he would support Schultz or Bloomberg or someone else. He said Bloomberg has been "a good partner" on climate-change initiatives.
If one of the super-rich potential candidates were to jump in, he'd look at "the basis on which they intend to run...including whether they believe this president should be impeached and removed from office."
Schultz and Bloomberg, who's teased a presidential run several times in the past but never declared, are mum about whether they will run. Schultz, who declined an interview for this article, is embarking on a book tour this month and The Washington Post reported Saturday he is considering an independent presidential bid. Bloomberg, who also declined to comment, told NBC's " Meet the Press " he will make up his mind by February.
Bloomberg has ramped up his schedule, speaking on climate change — a signature issue and an area where he's drawn a stark contrast with Trump. On Monday, the former mayor of New York spoke at the National Action Network's Martin Luther King Day breakfast in Washington — an event that will be attended by fellow potential presidential contender and former Vice President Joe Biden.
In acknowledging Biden at the event, Bloomberg said: “Whatever the next year brings for Joe and me, I know we’ll both keep our eyes on the real prize and that is electing a Democrat to the White House in 2020 and getting our country back on track.”
While speaking at the University of Toronto last week, Bloomberg said a potential candidate like himself — not only a billionaire, but a white man over the age of 50 — shouldn't be discounted.
"Somebody the other day said: 'If you're over 50, white and male, forget about it. You're never going to get elected in America ever again,'" Bloomberg said. "We've gone a little bit too far in some of these things in terms of thinking that the world's changed. People still want somebody with maturity and experience and accomplishment."
Some believe that with such an expected large Democratic field in such a Trump-disrupted political environment, anything is possible.
"Looking at these guys, I don't think there is really an intrinsic benefit or problem of their being rich. It will help them get the message out," said Aaron Fritschner, communications director for Rep. Don Beyer, D-Va., adding that it is unclear what type of coalition of primary voters a candidate like Bloomberg or Schultz will appeal to.
"The problem is formulating the message and fitting it to a constituency that can win in battleground primary states," he added. "While I have a lot of trouble imagining what it might look like, it's still early and nearly everything I expected to happen in 2016 was ultimately proved wrong."
One of the party's leading contenders — Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts — has already taken the potential billionaire candidates to task over the issue of self-funding their candidacies. She said on MSNBC's "The Rachel Maddow Show" this month that Democrats should say "no to the billionaires whether they are self-funding or whether they're funding PACs."
Bloomberg said days later that he would self-fund his candidacy if he runs.
Bradley Tusk, founder and CEO of Tusk Holdings and Bloomberg's former campaign manager, said he understood why Warren made those comments.
"You know, fundraising is probably a bigger challenge for her than it is for some of the other candidates, let alone some of the self-funded ones," Tusk said. "So she's putting out a view of the world that is good for her and one that fits with her narrative."
Steyer, who would've had the ability to provide significant self-funding for a presidential campaign, said he agreed with Warren "where she is concerned about money in politics."
"I think the hostile corporate takeover of our democracy is a central issue," he said.
Regardless of what the early polling says, Tusk said it would be wrong to make any assumptions about how the field — which could feature 20 or more candidates — could shape up at this point.
"The best thing we can do is have a really robust primary with lots of elections and lots of candidates and lots of debates and lots of everything and see who actually connects," he said.
NBC news
Tags
Who is online
92 visitors
The promising thought for 2020 is that there are plenty of people who would make a better PotUS than Trump. The question, of course, is will they run? The next question, given 2016, is can they win?
I would like to see R primary opposition too. Unlikely, but (again), just looking for both a D and an R candidate better than Trump.
In short, could we please have a real choice for 2020?
There will always be somebody better than Trump from either side. The only question is who? Personally, I do not see Bloomberg as a viable candidate for president. Yes he is extremely rich, but in many ways he is just as divisive as Trump. I doubt he could hold enough disparate groups together to form any kind of a coalition, but hey Trump got elected so who knows?
Two main reason Trump won:
1.) Hillary
2.) He wasn't a politician
Bloomberg won't be able to take advantage of either of those gambits. Not like Trump did anyway.
Trump would not have beaten Bloomberg, and on present trajectory would not beat him now.
If Democrats remember that elections are one in the middle, not on the party extremes, Trump could face some real difficulty.
Fortunately for him, there is little evidence that their intellect is going to overtake their emotion.
I disagree. I think that since Bloomberg is already showing in the 8th spot without even announcing yet, kind of shows that there has been a change of heart in the electorate. The man is super smart, articulate (if not a bit boring), and totally ethical. How refreshing that would be. And he'll do the job for free.
I want very much to be wrong about this. So I hope we revisit this sometime in the future and I'm able to say "Perrie, you were completely right."
Well that, and it's a MoveOn poll, which is less likely to be impartial.
You're not wrong.
Polling, as we saw from the last election, is highly questionable... I will not disagree with you there Jack. Time will only tell. And he is a smart guy, so he is not going to bother trying if he doesn't feel he stands a chance of winning.
Actually, as far as that goes, Trump is already doing the job for free. Legally, he has to accept the paycheck, but so far, he has donated 100% of each check to charity.
If Bloomberg wins the nod expect it to get ugly really fast.
It would've blown up in 2016 if Bernie got the nomination...
There is still a lot of intra-party momentum for a woman on the ticket. Warren and Harris are both strong candidates. Beto is too young and too inexperienced. I like Joe Biden but Trump would take his lunch money. He, Bernie and Hillary are too old. Sorry, but they are. Corey Booker is a wild card candidate. Sherrod Brown has lots of potential but has not sought any attention. John Tester has some support. Secretly, a lot of more left Democrat's dream candidate is Jerry Brown. Lots more to mention but those are plenty. Twenty nine year old Alexandria O'Casio-Cortez is way too young to even run In 2020 but she already has way more gravitas than. Donnie Trumpy Pants The Short Fingered Infant Terrible King of Vulgaria...
No way. Biden would beat Trump to a pulp. Joe likes a fight.
That is what everyone has to do if they take the job of President for free. I am only pointing out that Bloomberg did it first.
I think we should start thinking in terms of who is the best PERSON for the job and get past what that person is.
That is a pretty good analysis of what is going on with the Dems, which is why I find Bloomberg so intriguing a candidate.
They are almost all that way.
I don't see him as a candidate either, but I will state unequivocally right now.
If Bloomberg is the candidate they choose it WILL cause me to rejoin the republican party......
YOU only think the democrats have put up a progressive leach till now, nominate Bloomberg and you will find out they have an actual progressive leach.....
A Bloomberg candidacy and I will do everything I can to see he doesn't win.
I totally disagree, and sorry you feel that way. There is nothing in his record that shows him to be a progressive, much less a progressive leach. For most of his life, he was a Republican. I doubt many others agree with you, even if they don't like the man.
That's funny. He has the opposite reaction on me. But you would have said the same thing about any Dem, so it really doesn't matter.
It's the nature of the beast, sadly.
If it came to a fist fight Biden would kick Trumps ass from here to next week
One thing is for sure. If Trump were to end up running against Bloomberg in the general it would put to rest any of that bullshit about the Democrats being antisemetic and the gop being pro-Israel some around here keep repeating. Trump would go way ugly way fast. The evangelical right was ugly as hell about the mainstream faith of a staid Methodist matron0. You have seen nothing compared with how hair on fire krazy ugly the fundie evangelical small c christian majority will go against a Jewish candidate...
Td do that, they would alienate Israel and they need Israel for the second coming, so I think they will swallow what they have to.
Now you are just being flippant. I lived and worked nearly all of the last 60 plus years out in middle America and, again, have studied the polls which still show that the vast majority of Americans remain steadfast that they simply will not ever ever ever vote for a non-Christian for President. That is especially true among republicans but is still par for the course for many voters across the political spectrum...
I am not being negative but just pointing out a big pitfall you minimize...
In what way?
We would have ended up with "President Trump", and the party would have screamed at each other for months. I'm not sure we would notice the difference.
Not for the mainstream, they're not.
As in "older and more experienced than Barack Obama in 2008".
Hillary is 5 years younger than Biden....who would do much better against DT than Hillary did.
He's 80.
How am I being flippant? Didn't they say the same thing about Kennedy and that was the 1960's. You do realize that evangelicals don't even consider Catholic Christians, right? At least they feel that they need Jews for the second coming. And we are talking more than 60 years later.
That's not so prevalent any more.
You could pick a random name off the Newstalkers membership list and the chances are very high that person would make a better president than Trump.
Better candidate? Well, to a large extent that is in the eyes of the beholder. Trump won because he was able to bamboozle enough (barely) people into believing he was the man, even though it was 100% clear before he started that he was a con man, crook, fraud, misogynist, racist, and of course, habitual liar. Was he a "good" candidate? Not in any objective sense (for example he is a terrible public speaker), but racism , xenophobia, and "white grievance" against snowflakes, SJW , and political correctness carried the day.
Your comment reads as though you are trying to debate me on Trump.
Maybe from your extreme partisan position you do not recognize this, but my position is pro someone else in 2020. You reply to my comment with a 'rebuttal' of sorts which implies that I was making an opposing point. Or maybe you were just adding on. Hard to tell.
Given my comment:
Do you agree?
My main response was to your statement that "just looking for both a D and an R candidate better than Trump."
They're all better than Trump. It was not an effort to debate you about anything.
No, he won because the Dems put up a worse candidate plain and simple. Trump was the lesser of evils to many voters. Myself, I did not really like either so I voted 3rd party...
Utter nonsense.
Last time I knew, she did not win did she? If she had been the better, she would have won...
So did HRC, but who is currently in office. She just wasn't good enough. If she had been, she would be sitting in the big chair in the Oval Office right now...
You can repeat yourself all you want to convince yourself if you want. That still does not make what you say true...
What the Democrats need, and all the Democrats need, is a candidate who can both offer Democratic, mostly progressive proposals, and also handle Trump in the harsh way which will be necessary in a campaign.
I think there are a few national Democrats that could do that, the one that most comes to mind is Joe Biden. He can both talk about the issues and pound on Trump. His problem is that he will be almost 78 years old come election day 2020. The fact that trump will be 74 at that time may mitigate Biden's problem a little, but I think he's still a long shot for the nomination.
Trump does not have the same advantage he had in 2016 where he could make all sorts of claims. For example, if he were to make a claim such as: 'we will build a wall and Mexico is going to pay for it' you would hear the collective eye-roll from the electorate. That is, Trump is now a politician who must run on his record, not on bullshit and the fact (at the time) that he was an 'outsider' and a 'non-politician'.
He has far fewer supporters nowadays.
Whatever...
Hillary is not the topic here.
Yep.
As would I. Normally, I would say that would be a very bad sign for the party either in the White House or Congress, but these are not normal times. I'm just not sure who it would be. The only one who seems like he might be willing to try is John Kasich. I don't think that's going to cut it.
I have to agree that I would like to see a fresh start for the Republicans, too. I think you might be surprised who would run, if given the chance.
I do not think Kasich is going to try and I do not think he has a chance of unseating Trump. Unfortunately I am getting used to disappointment with our political parties and the nomination process in general. It is most likely that Trump will be unopposed simply because there is not a clear winner in the visible ranks.
Didn't Hillary prove that money wasn't a major factor in winning a Presidency?
Sunshine,
You can not compare Hillary to Bloomberg. You may not like his politics (he was a republican most of his life, though), but the man has integrity. That was the issue with Hillary.
Either Bloomberg or Steyer would be a light years improvement over Trump, although I am not generally in favor of rich people running our government. Bloomberg is a conservative/moderate who has no history of truly supporting economic justice.
I don't think either of these two people will be in the top tier of Democratic candidates once the ball starts rolling for the 2020 election season. .
Bloomberg may be richer than Trump, but that does not make him a good candidate. In many ways, Bloomberg is just as divisive as Trump
How?
There is not a politician out there, that will please everyone. When he was mayor of NYC, ( I lived there at the time), the man had integrity. That is something short these days. I know that there are a few issues like gun control, that will bother some, but he does what he says he will do, and there are very few people out there in government that do that. He made the city the safest city in the US, and that is something when you are talking about a city of 8 million.
This just my opinon, but he seems to throw his money and power around and is a rather petty individual. Just one small example was his big thing about the size of soda fountain drinks for everybody in NYC. He tried to bully people about that. Maybe that is not how it seemed to the residents there, but the perception was very different in the rest of the country. I do not want to get into a protracted discussion on this, so I will just ask that we just agree to disagree and amicably let it go at that. You have a good day Perrie.
Wally,
Of all the people in the world that don't need Soros's money, it's Bloomberg. He can buy and sell Soros. Besides, they don't share ideologies.
Perrie, you sound like you might be a Bloomberg voter. He will be almost 79 years old on election day 2020 (78 yr, 9 mo.). What do you think?
Where are they very different?
both are leftists
both support progressive income tax and estate taxes
both support liberal social issues
both are anti gun rights
both are at war with conservatism
I might be Bloomberg voter. 79 is the new 60. He is only a few years older than Trump.
LFOD,
I would try to talk to you, but you have only one mantra and that is anyone who strays a little from what you believe is a leftist.
I will say this. Bloomberg was a republican most of his life. He is hardly a leftist.
OK.
That means you are about 35. Cool.
I wish. more like 45, which would be OK with me, too.
Ed,
You can't make a comment and then tell me not to reply (even if you do it politely). That isn't even an impasse.
You brought up the sugar drink ban (which didn't go through).
There was a good reason for that, even if . NYC has the largest public health system in the nation. Obesity and its friend diabetes the city billions a year in treating. He was trying to bring that under control with by making it harder to get sugary drinks that are a major cause of the problem. He didn't throw his money around in trying to do this. He tried laws. It didn't work. End of story.
Now you may reply or not. That is up to you.
He never did that as mayor, so why even pretend that is what he would do if he was president.
Please accept my apologies as I worded my commens wrongly. I did not mean to imply that you not reply. I should have said I did not have the proper info to put across a valid point and I realize that now. I was not using the soda issue to justify myself, but rather to cite a example. Again my apologies
No biggie Ed. You are a really nice man.
Shhhshh, please don't let that get out. I would not want my reputation ruined with those on NT that think otherwise...
Please, sshh. I would not want that to get out and ruin my reputation on NT with those that think otherwise...
OK, it will be our secret
Yeah he was a liberal republican, and with this nations politics shifting leftward he had no choice but to become a democrat. A hard core progressive democrat....
That man should never get any closer to the presidency that T-rump should have been able to....
And yet we have Trump.
I am not sure where you are getting a progressive dem. He is a moderate and that is something this country seems to have forgotten what that is.
Yeah we do. simply cause he wasn't an establishment candidate...... Many others I would have chosen over him.
WE haven't forgotten what a moderate is, the politicals have run so far away from moderation it's hard to identify what they are nowadays...
I look at their actions and what they claim to support and Bloomberg supports all the hard core progressive democrat causes..... hard gun control/banning, climate change/ carbon taxing, universal government paid for education, Increased taxation in general to pay for it....
No moderate there... Hard core leftist. Will he bend knee to the democrat political establishment, only till he gets control, then no, he will make them his own.... Much like the Clintons did.....
the only difference between him and the Clintons?
He has the money already to buy anyone he wants, he doesn't need the foreign donations to fake charities....
If there is one guy out there that could definitely make me get back in, it is Bloomberg...
He is not for banning guns, but gun control. He has never said he believes in gov paid education. On economics and foreign issues, he has tended towards a conservative or moderate stance. Economically, he supports government involvement in issues such as public welfare, while being strongly in favor of free trade, pro-business, and describing himself as a fiscal conservative He balanced a city budget.
And I'm sorry, but he is nothing like the Clintons. And Bill was not a liberal, but a neo- con, who did balance this nation's budget and gave us our best economic time.
And go for it if you hate him that much. I think you are worried that he could win. I mean really of all the possible dems that are out there that you should hate, you pick him, and that leaves me to wonder why. Personally, I find him refreshing in that at least he doesn't lie about who he is.
Nope, right now he has a snowballs chance, a lot has to change in Democrat politics for that to happen.....
You want the real issue, he will bargain with the devil and he is an experienced politician. That would make him the most dangerous candidate they could nominate.....
He knows how it works behind the scenes..... As did Donald Trump....
T-rump would be a halfway decent president if he understood how it works in public..... How to manage appearances.... He doesn't so he comes across as and actually acts like a jerk most of the time..... He pokes (read aggravates) the other side way too much also......
Yep, that is my take, Bloomberg would be the most dangerous candidate the democrats could nominate.....
I would fight him tooth and nail...
LOL, I'm 60 again...This is great and I feel like 50....
Kavika for president. Fry Bread in every pot. Tippecanoe and Kavika to.
You realize you said the same thing to me that you said to me the last time. I said fine, if that is the way you feel. I totally disagree and I said you do what you feel you have to do and so will I. We can agree to disagree, right?
I'm voting for you! Love your slogan.
I commit a kazillion $'s to your campaign fund (plus court costs when you try to collect the pledge).
Enoch, Winning with Wilkie.
Run it through my PAC.....Paranoia accepted complacency.
Now there's a PAC I can support!
of course, isn't that what friends do when they disagree vehemently in opinions?
Your good with me girl... Always have been....
PAC Man.
Eats all day.
Never gains and ounce.
That I can support all day long!
E.
"A December straw poll from the liberal advocacy group MoveOn found Bloomberg in eighth place among 2020 contenders while Steyer finished a distant 23rd and Schultz found himself in dead-last."
The "Ocasio-Cortez"...."Billionaires are Immoral".... Child like EFFECT (mooooom, Sarah has more Barbie's than I do) !
"Liberal ADULTS" seem to fall all over that "Sugar and Spice" mantra.
Well he did take on soda.
Gotta luv those …… "Which way the wind Blows" kinda folks !
Bloomberg was a wanna be "Liberal" DINK !
Wasn't he a stop and frisk proponent? That is going to come back and bite him in the ass.
Yes and so was Giuliani and that is why you can walk through NYC, without fear. The law has been modified over the years, but it's been around since the 1980's.
He was.....But "Giant Ogre" and "Sanctuary Man" have been doing what they can to put a stop to it !
He was.....But "Giant Ogre" and "Sanctuary Man" have been doing what they can to put a stop to it !
Who are you talking about?
de Blasio and Cuomo.
What do they have to do with Bloomberg? Nothing.
Thinking OUTSIDE the "Box" does wonders for some !
"Ogre" and "Sanctuary" will make sure he, Bloomburg, (Fake Liberal) has an uphill battle, especially if either of those two actually run too.
Bloomberg is his own man. He never said he was a liberal. He has no choice but to run as a Dem, since there is no independence party that could win in US election. And btw, Dem does not mean liberal, just like Republican does not mean conservative.
De Blasio will have nada to say if he runs. Cuomo might run. Neither will have an effect on Bloomberg.
No he's not.
Michelle's "Let's Move" program = 2011
Bloomberg's tax and ban on sugary drinks = 2012 and 2014
He fell Hook, Line and Sinker to Michelle's "Evil Spell" !
Bloomberg does what he feels he has to do, not because he is in someone's pocket. You may not like what he does, but that doesn't mean he owes someone. He doesn't. That is what makes you, your own man.
But nice graphic.
I didn't say Bloomberg was "IN" someones pocket, I was proposing that Bloomberg does what the "Wind" tells him to do !
That's NOT thinking on ones own when one "Follows" the Blathering "Winds" !
He will have to make his empty promises of free stuff to get the Sander voters.
That describes the guy in office right now pretty well Well, unless you're one who thinks Trump is someones puppet.
Like his ego would allow for that ....
I would have to disagree. Watched the man for 12 years and he always did things his way and never once went back on his word. I didn't always agree with him, but I did feel that he had integrity, which is a lot more than I can say for most politicians, including Trump.
That's a "Given" for all....and I mean.....ALL the Democrats running for President, if they want to have a chance within their own party.
He was never going to get Sander's voters, so I don't think he cares.
I don't think that Trump is anyone's puppet. I also think that he has proven to not know how to do the job.
OK besides the little laughing guy that is there to annoy me ( he doesn't) who's ego are you talking about? Trump's or Bloomberg's? I don't think there is any shortage there.
Trump is doing exactly what he said what would do when he ran in the 2016 Presidential race.....up front. Folks are just shocked that he's doing what he said he would. They aren't used to that !
by the way…. "Illegal" isn't a race of people. (winky Face)
Trump ..... and If laughing guy doesn't annoy you why mention it?
I thought laughing guy rather accurately shows the hilarity of Trumps ego allowing him to be someones puppet. In that he ain't got an ounce of that in him. Being someones puppet that is.
Trump's only success was moving our embassy in Israel. Other than that, we have a gov shut down over a wall. He has no real international policy and he still doesn't have a cabinet. He doesn't understand government.
Did I mention that? No, I didn't.
Just to let you know, that I know.
OK, so we are talking about Trump. Thank you for the clarification. No argument there.
Actual "Life" (not political life) shows itself differently. My State is a boomin' right now ! Luv it !
"we have a gov shut down over a wall"
So !
Trump stated that there WILL BE a "wall" during the election....and upfront too ! He's fulfilling a promise.....Again !
Just because the Democrats don't like a "Wall"...… NOW, doesn't MAKE IT Trumps fault, but Trump said he'll take the heat, but he NEVER said he wouldn't comment about others over it !
"Did I mention that?"
Trumps NOT a racist ? That's about all the "Left" has against him (Constant howling)....besides him not doing what the Law doesn't say he has to do (Tax Returns).
Oh......and he's a "Billionaire". Almost forgot that one.
Honest.....pinky swear ?
Was Putin listed on Trumps tax returns ?
No, he is not fulfilling a promise. The promise was that the Mexicans would pay for a wall. They are not. He said he would shut down the gov if he didn't get his way.. and we are still shut down. Don't blame this on the Dems. He called for the shutdown.
That whole topic is irrelevant to this discussion.
Humm Trump's net worth *with no verification* is $3.1B and Bloomberg's (with no help from his daddy) is $53B.
I knew that was coming.
The "NEW MEXICAN DEAL" !
Did it save us money this time ?
"Humm Trump's net worth *with no verification* is $3.1B and Bloomberg's (with no help from his daddy) is $53B."
Hmmmmmm…...a "B" is a "B". At least that's what I was taught anyway ! Was that a "My "B" is better than your "B"" type comment ?
Putin is not the topic here.
"I" ……. didn't bring it up. Wrong person !
The new Mexican deal is not what he promised. He does not get a pass.
And yes, how one makes their billions does matter. There is a big difference between getting a ton of money to start up, from one who did it all himself.
He Promised ……. "Money". Not giving the Mexican Government what they are used to getting anymore, is money in this COUNTRIES Pocket instead !
"And yes, how one makes their billions does matter."
I really don't care how one makes it. A "B" for Billions, Is still a "B" for Billions.
No, he promised the wall would be paid by Mexico. He said it throughout the campaign. NAFTA was never discussed in the campaign. Here let me remind you:
Of course they do, especially when they make it their sole mantra. And none of that other stuff matters, since he didn't do the one thing he promised to do. The discussion is if a man is as good as his word, and you seem to forget that is what did in Bush 1, when he said "Read my lips, no new taxes", and then couldn't follow through. The difference is he had no choice. He understood he had to raise taxes due to unforeseen circumstances.
Hillary didn't care either.
He better care, Sanders turned Trump voters where vital to his win in three key states.
Sunshine you misunderstand me. I think he knows better than to redo Hillary's mistake.
I know what he said !
Offtopic: Obama promised "Health Care for all, and Keeping your doctor" was mandatory !
I'll take Trumps 25B over Dumbo's 1T + cost any day of the week !
The "Papers" are whining about the Mexico Trade deal not being in effect yet, but they sure seem to say they KNOW EVERYTHING about it !
Every savings being funnelled to other countries, is more in our pocket to fund OUR security !
Liberals are all for "Security.....until they aren't for politics sake !
Bloomberg/Kamala Harris would be my choice...Bloomberg, the billionaire that is self made and not given $$$$$$$ from being a 2 year old from his crooked daddy and Kamala Harris, a leader also self made..
Guys,
This isn't about Hillary. Please stay on topic.
Like pouring water through a sieve.
While conservatives see Bloomberg as someone on the left, he will have a difficult time persuading the radical left movement in the Democratic Party that he can satisfy their agenda
they will either go with one of their far left candidates or the money will take over and put Biden in as the safe candidate to appeal to the middle
As I said before, he is never going to get the extremes of either party, and he knows that. He is going for those who are sick of polarizing politics and want someone who is not bought and knows what he's doing when it comes to running a country.
You are right about the radical left and the ultra conservatives, but that is not who is interested in Bloomberg. It is the rational middle that is. And the best part is that he doesn't need anyone's money. His only main flaw is that he is rather dull when publicly speaking.
In order to actually win the nomination, Bloomberg would have to be the only centrist candidate in the Democratic race. I don't think he could beat out Biden and I don't think he could beat out Amy Klobuchar. Julian Castro from the Obama administration would fall into the centrist category too I think. Maybe Gillibrand too , although she will likely try and position herself as more progressive than she really is.
Bloomberg would be a longshot, even though he has the name recognition and the money. Strikingly dignified looking man too.
John,
Your assumption is that he only attracts Dems. Mine is that he attracts those who thought they were going to get change with Trump and didn't get what they thought they were getting. That is a big part of the country.
Bloomberg might beat Biden in a general election. He's not going to beat him in primaries, even with some independents voting.
I think Bloomberg might be more vulnerable out in Middle America than we want to think possible in 2019. There is still that uncomfortable sleeping gorilla lurking around out there and sadly Trump would poke the intolerant beast to no end if he felt it would benefit him. it is time we get over it but for a great many voters their faith identity, um, trumps all reason..
Not sure John.
There is still no way that someone too left will win. This is something that the Dems better get their head around if they ever want to get rid of Trump.
I do not disagree. I think you are totally dismissing the fact that Bloomberg is not Christian and that every single poll ever taken on the subject indicates that this is a much bigger problem with middle American voters than you want to believe. No Democrat would capitalize on this but Trump definitely would. He would ride it right back into the White House. I think Bloomberg could probably beat Trump but so could several other actual Democratic candidates. As a member of the DNC I also think you underestimate the resistance a non-Democrat would receive this go round. Bloomberg's best chance is as an Independent or even better to run as a Republican against Trump in the gop primary. At least if Bloomberg beat Trump early in the gop's primary it would headoff any chance of another Trumpaduncey...
I actually don't think that it would have any bearing that Bloomberg is Jewish. After all, they said the same thing about Kennedy being Catholic. In fact, evangelicals love Jews. If anything, I think that Jews are uncomfortable with the idea of a Jewish President. They feel that he will be held to a different standard.
Bloomberg could never win as an independent. No indie has, and this is coming from an indie. Sadly, you need a real party behind you, and there are only two parties at the present. To win voters, he has to run as a moderate Dem. This is something that the Dems are going to have to come to terms with. They are too far too the left for most of the country. And I am not saying that the Repubs are not to far right, but the reason that Trump won, was because he came across as an outsider and that is something that Bloomberg can pull off, too.
I think Amy Klobuchar (Minn. U.S. Senator) is the sleeper that could surprise. She is very smart and seems tough enough and is starting to expand her national profile. She's going to fall under that centrist label too.
Sorry, both of you. The only way a Republican might beat Trump in the primaries is if Trump is under impeachment at that time. It is the Trump Party right now, not the Republican Party.
As far as Bloomberg running as an independent in the general, it would most like give the election to Trump. Bloomberg would take more votes from the Democrat than he would from Trump.
Why do you think the gop wanted Bernie to get the Dem's nomination?
It was not because he was a liberal. You don't know fundies like I do...
You are being naive to dismiss how big an issue Trump would make it.
Internal Democratic polling showed it would have been a huge handicap to overcome for Sanders in the general election in 2016 had he won the nod. The same would be true for Bloomberg. It is different in NY but it would be nigh onto impossible for a Jew to beat Trump in the many many many swing states out in Middle America needed to win. Hillary lost those states, too. The primaries will settle it anyway. The thing is, again, no Democratic candidate will go there. Trump will...
We get it. You like Bloomberg. I do, too. Do not be so naive though...
I am of the sensible opinion that those olde as Trump are too olde...
I love Joe. He is a lot like my Dad and about as old. He died of old age.
It is time for younger blood. Those older than us need to move along...
I think everyone who is serious has to go to those states and that was Hillary's big mistake. I don't see Bloomberg making that mistake, and I don't think that being a Jew will make or break it, if they like the message.
Do some digging into polls on the subject and get back to us then...
What you "think" does not bear out in the numbers. If Bloomberg runs he will face a big field of Democrats in The Democratic Primaries which will not be decided by Independent voters who cannot even vote in many important Democratic primaries. Since 2016 the Democratic Party has made it even more difficult for an Independent to win The Democratic Primaries. If Bloomberg runs and wins the The Democratic Primary then I will wholeheartedly support him in his very likely losing general election bid against Trump...
Because he's a crazy raving leftist old geezer who hates money.
No...it's because he's a leftist.
It would backfire on him. His devotees are going to follow him no matter what, but he can't win the election with just those votes. The centrists....the people who actually decide elections....would be repulsed, and DT knows that.
I'd be curious to see that data.
I think you would be pleasantly surprised. I think if he came out and claimed the center he would do very well. Clear messages like "Medicare for All is a fantasy" and "we're not raising taxes to 70% because that's stupid", coupled with intelligent education and immigration programs would be very popular in a lot of places. The problem is, as you say, he won't win the nomination talking sense like that.
Why do righties think they know more about Democrats than Democrats?
Let me assure you Democrats will pick their candidate sans your approval.
We get it. You, a far rightie, wants Democrats to nominate Bloomberg...
I am sure Democrats will consider that when choosing a candidate. /S
Have you even noticed that it is only hard core extra partisan goppers commenting here who are as enthusiastic for Bloomberg to be the Democratic nominee as you are? Why? They believe he will lose badly against Trump. It will be Democrats choose the Democratic nominee and not Independents and especially not the far right of the gop. That seems reasonable enough...
I totally disagree. The only person that I have seen here who is right and thinks Bloomberg is good is Jack. The rest don't like him, and nowhere man went out of his way to tell me that he will actually join the GOP if Bloomberg runs. That tells me the complete opposite.
Here's the thing Bloomberg will not run, unless he feels he can win and I think he is a pretty smart guy so his ego will not override his intelligence in this. He is doing his homework to see if there is a possibility of his winning.
Because you're predictable.
Don't be too sure. Texas is an open primary state. If I have a chance to help put Bloomberg on the ticket instead of some angry raving lunatic like Booker or Sanders...you bet your ass I'm voting in that primary.
Our country needs to be saved from the appalling judgement of people who can't recognize a centrist.
See what I mean about "predictable"?
Somebody says something you don't like....totally unrelated to you personally....and you start name calling and having a tantrum.
I would like Democrats to nominate Bloomberg because I would like to maintain my 100% record of never having voted for Trump.
If Democrats go into "stupid emotional child" mode and nominate somebody like Bernie or Booker or Warren, then I'll vote for Trump as the lesser evil by far.
If they go into "responsible adult mode"....which is the opposite of everything AOC.... and nominate a semi-responsible adult like Bloomberg or Biden or Klobuchar or even Beto, then we can put this whole Trump episode behind us.
Now that I can agree with and makes a LOT of sense. Heck there are dozens and dozens of personages on the democrat side that are floating trial balloons. Like Jay Inslee the gov of Washington. He's floating a tax and cap environmental agenda....
A TAX & CAP AGENDA?
He just tried floating that to his own state in the last cycle and it failed 3-1..... YEAH! failed 2-1 in Seattle....
This is the time, since there are not a lot of leaders prominent in the democrat party that a lot of election pretensions are going to be flattened.... Egos get busted, grandiose political schemes get deflated...
They are going to sort themselves out over the next 6 months to find the next candidate....
This is just the start of the process....
Bloomberg is NOT a centrist....
Not even close... I'm a right leaning centrist, Reagan was a right leaning centrist..... and Bloomberg far, far to the left of me....
I'm with you Jack.
He is certainly more of a centrist than most of the other Democrats being discussed.
He also understands how to actually be a responsible person as opposed to an angry, hyper-idealistic teenager (Warren, Sanders) or just a pandering sleazebag (Booker).
Of all the Democrats being mentioned, he's the least likely to seriously screw up this country.
The Portion Cap Rule was rational?
Read my explanation here @ 3.1.11
It didn't pass and for good reason IMO.
Government sticking their nose into personal choices like this is rarely a good thing. Sooner or later some know it all bureaucrat will get the wise idea to ban some liberty you hold dear. I like Bloombergs positions on a lot of things but this one vexed me. If he was willing to propose this, what else would be willing to push?
Uncomfortable for those of us who hold our liberties very dearly.
Sparty, I didn't agree with it either, but I can understand why he tried to do it. And obviously, he knew it was not going to pass through. I think he was hoping to make a point. Our public health system in NYC is very overburdened by really poor eating habits. He wanted to bring that out to the forefront.
I'm hard-pressed to think of a candidate - rich or not - to whom that description would not apply.
By the way, it's not as if Trump spent his way into the White House. Hillary raised and spent way more money than he did, and she still lost. Kind of ironic since you hear Democrats doing the most complaining about money in politics. Just imagine the outcome if they actually spent less money than Republicans for a change.
Tracking the 2016 Presidential Money Race
Trump won the presidency because Hillary ran a horrible race. They were neck and neck and had she tired a little harder the outcome would have been different. I guess something the Dems will be careful about this time around.
In part some of that is true but Trump ultimately really won the Presidency because with internal gop polls and the Trump campaign's collusion Putin's Troll Army was able to identify and influence a relatively small group of vulnerable voters in a few states. Mainly by driving down the Democratic vote in a just those few swing states Trump managed a 60,000 vote EC win despite Clinton receiving over three million more votes. Trump would have beaten Bernie Sanders even worse in 2016...
For about the 4th time.. No more Hillary.
Now that I know it is going to be a battle of the billionaires for the Presidency it will be necessary for me to make other plans in 2020 to re-enter the job market.
Its O.K.
I wasn't really interested in part time, temporary (projects in four year contracts) work anyway.
Enoch, Applying for Full Time Employment Involving Paper Hats and Asking, "You Want Fries with That"?
Did you forget that your 50% owner of...Kosher Winnebagels Inc. and a silent partner in ''Frizza'' franchises?
Kavika countin' the change.
Dear Brother, Friend and Business Partner Kavika:
Shhhh.
I never made our tax returns public.
LOL.
E.
Oh no, but you promised....LOLOLOL
BOL
Say that Bloomberg runs against Trump...(if he won the dem primary) the possibilities are endless. A meme dream world.
Round 1...Bloomberg to Trump...My pocket change is more than your entire net worth by 10 fold. (Trumps head explodes)
Round 2...Bloomberg to Trump...My house and hi rise apartments are bigger, better and more expensive then yours..Another explosion.
Round 3...I just bought Fox News, your fucked...(Head completely melts)
Actually I would love to see Bloomberg win the nomination just for the entertainment value of the debates.
It would entertaining true, but I personally would be in DC doing everything I could to see that the republican won. (whoever it would be) So I wouldn't be able to partake of the rejoinder....
To bad, cuz I'd be doing everything I could to see that Bloomberg won.
And that is one of the wonderful things about our system, we all have the rights to act on our individual beliefs.....
Have at it I say!