In my second example of wishful thinking this morning I heard Matt Dowd on ABC News expressing skepticism that there was room in the Democratic presidential candidate roster for Michael Bloomberg, noting that 75% of Democrats have said they are satisfied with the present group of candidates.
The problem is that Democrats will need to settle on a single candidate. Democrats can’t vote for the roster and at this point each of the leading candidates has some serious issues. At best Joe Biden is a mediocre candidate. Bernie Sanders is an angry old man and I find the notion that a non-Democrat would be the party’s standard-bearer incredible. And Elizabeth Warren has just published what I have heard waggishly called “the longest suicide note in American political history”. Will enough Democrats vote for “anybody but Trump”? Will there be enough crossover votes to elect “anybody but Trump”?
Not to mention that there is always room for a Democrat with a track record and the ability to finance his own campaign.
The idea of two arrogant NYC billionaires running for President has a certain kind of sick appeal (for the lulz as the kids would say) and would pretty much confirm we are in a new gilded age.
It has a sort of “Oh, yeah?” quality to it, doesn’t it? Our billionaire can lick your billionaire. Only Michael Bloomberg is really rich. By comparison Trump is just somewhat rich.
We have already seen this movie in Illinois. In the last election we had incumbent Bruce Rauner (R) with a net worth of around $500 million vs. challenger J. B. Pritzker (D) with a net worth of around $3.5 billion. Pritzker won. The key point, as I alluded to above, is that they can finance their own campaigns.
I keep telling you that we have gone from having the wealthy buying influence to just directly ruling instead. I think that they got tired of having to work through middle men. ( I would also add that these are two arrogant New Yorkers, a special breed among the arrogant.)
Steve
Ok, cant resist. If we have to have a billionaire running the country, shouldn’t we at least have someone competent? Someone who wasn’t born rich and actually created wealth? Someone who cares enough about others to donate Billions (as opposed to donating pictures of himself to charities)? The big overlooked concern here is that he trained as an engineer. A little apprehensive about putting one of those in charge.
Steve
steve,
A requirement for political competency would rule out Bloomberg.
Have to admit it would be quite enjoyable to watch the partisans on both sides do a 180 on emoluments, tax returns, divestment of business in office, conflict of interests, etc; if Bloomberg won as a Democrat.
Bloomberg is also 77, literally in between Sanders and Biden in age.
“Bloomberg is also 77, literally in between Sanders and Biden in age.”
Just what we need! Maybe he should adopt #okboomer as his slogan.
“A requirement for political competency would rule out Bloomberg.”
Based on? The city seemed to run better during his tenure than it had before. It went from billions in debt into surplus with his getting rid of thousands of city workers along with some tax increases. A perfect mayor? Nope, but in comparison to past mayors and to other current leaders I dont think he comes out so badly. What were you thinking of?
Steve
“Have to admit it would be quite enjoyable to watch the partisans on both sides do a 180 on emoluments, tax returns, divestment of business in office, conflict of interests, etc; if Bloomberg won as a Democrat.”
I would support his having to show his tax returns, divest business, etc, but you know what? That is all in the past. Trump has shown it doesn’t matter. Trump has essentially removed ethics and personal behavior as considerations for election.
Steve
Dave: The Democrats finally have themselves a credible candidate. And to Bloomberg’s credit he didn’t f**k up NYC in his twelve years at the helm, so he’s competent politically. He won’t however peel away very many 2016 Trump voters or future 2020 voters due to his 2A and nanny-state positions, and his wealth isn’t going to get the Occupy and ANTIFA crowd worked up for him. He’s the establishment Democrat candidate. Whether he can defeat the lunatic left in the primaries is another matter. I see Stacy Abrams as a VP pick. That combo will make Trump work hard to win, but I don’t see Bloomberg beating him. HRC is the wild card, she knows she won’t have another chance and being President is all consuming for her.
steve,
To be honest, I haven’t looked at Bloomberg’s record in NYC and most of what I’ve read was the more outrageous policies that made more national news. So my perception is probably not a good or fair one.
I didn’t read a couple of retrospective in the NY Times this morning and they seem to think his record was kind of mixed.
As always, the biggest considerations for me in evaluating a Presidential candidate are how they would run the federal government and foreign policy.