His running a media company, as catatonically boring as it is, and being a finance guy could create some interesting narratives to respond to.
The democratic candidates are all underwhelming and its making their supporters extra mad. Break out Michelle or Oprah and take this election over already. Talking crap about conservatives is not going to change our stance.
I honestly don't think Democratic candidates should try changing the minds of conservatives and don't think most will put up the effort to do so. To be fair, it's not like Trump and the current day conservatives try to change the minds of liberals either.
more on Bloomberg https://www.realclearpolitics.com/a...seen_as_slam_on_current_dem_field_141703.html
Overall I like Bloomberg but I don't think he can win a general election or even the Democratic primaries. He's too much of a nanny state guy and I just don't think he's that charismatic.
hard to argue with this https://www.wsj.com/articles/mike-b...-buy-the-knicks-11573660235?mod=hp_listc_pos2 Mike Bloomberg Wants to Save the World. He Should Buy the Knicks. A billionaire ex-mayor preps a late bid for the White House. But what if there’s an even higher calling? By Jason Gay Updated Nov. 13, 2019 10:55 am ET Mike Bloomberg wants to be President of the United States, and I get it—it seems like one out of every three people is running for president these days. It’s really become a thing to do, like cutting the cable cord, or bragging to all your co-workers that you’ve gone Keto. I appreciate the temptation: leader of the free world, big house in Washington, Camp David, the cool airplane, the G-7 summit, the egg roll on the lawn—all that stuff, blah, blah, blah. Even for a wildly wealthy person, the job has an allure. But if Mike Bloomberg really wants to change the planet, he shouldn’t run for president. He should buy the New York Knicks. Reasonable people can agree this is a reasonable idea. The writer Tommy Alter pitched it on Twitter, and he’s not the only one to do so. It makes a whole lot of sense. I believe momentum will build. The president does wield a certain power—the ability to set not just policy, but a tone for the country, to establish national priorities, and create a legacy for the future. If you do it really well, they might put your face on some money. But buying the Knicks? And saving the Knicks? You’ll be the King of the World. Think about it. It’s one of the great human challenges left. Put a Courtyard by Marriott on Mars, and fix the Knicks. No matter how you feel about club’s current leadership—and they have defenders!—you’ll agree the team needs help. Sometimes, it’s as if the Knicks can’t get out of their own way. The 2-9 franchise is amid yet another a self-inflicted turmoil, and the finger-pointing has already started. It’s like watching people inside a car that’s run out of gas argue over who forgot to fill up the tank. A refresh might be nice. Bloomberg has the scratch to make this happen. The Knicks are not for sale, and have made a point of saying they’re not for sale—let’s put it in capital letters: THE KNICKS ARE NOT FOR SALE—but come on. This is New York. Everything’s for sale. I’ll sell you this lousy sports column for the right price. Make me an offer, pal. What would it take? Well, Steve Ballmer paid $2 billion for the Clippers, Los Angeles’s lesser-known basketball club. Speculation is that the Knicks—one of the great name brands in this city, despite everything—could fetch at least twice that. What about $10 billion? A crazy figure, but I think $10 billion could get it done. Bloomberg can swing it and have plenty left over. more at the link
lol far left cringes at the thought of a billionaire white guy running. Good luck with that.... they're super racist and sexist against his kind.
Looks like I was wrong here - Bloomberg apparently set to announce soon: https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/24/politics/michael-bloomberg-2020-election/index.html Will be interesting to see if he gains any traction and who's votes he takes.
Also, he is saying he won't accept any political contributions (apparently he never has before either). But that would also make him ineligible for any Dem debates, since they all have a donor threshold.
I guess Bernie is toast as Bloomberg will take all his votes. lol Bloomberg makes us look like Italy or something where the richest billionaire/ media figure wins. This raises the question which of the billionaires is willing to spend the most? Steyer or Bloomberg? Trump might even be an actual billionaire after using the Oval Office to enhance the family fortune.
It also avoids all the unseeming questions about what he wants to do. Just control the messaging by 30 second to 30 minute spots.
Why do they go through the charade of acting like they haven't made the decision yet? The whole time of so and so may also join the race. His ads are running full blast since Saturday and his are the only candidate ads i have seen
Bloomberg's ethical quandries. and IB4 someone says whataboutTrump: "Bloomberg News decided that it would grant Bloomy’s primary opponents an exemption from investigative coverage but couldn’t grant that sort of exemption to a sitting president, setting up a double standard in which Democratic candidates get a free pass while the Republican nominee is scrutinized. That’s the sort of unworkable ethical nightmare Mike Bloomberg created for his own news agency by choosing to run despite having no realistic path to the nomination." https://hotair.com/archives/allahpu...s-itll-stop-investigating-dem-candidates-not/ excerpt: If you haven’t followed the Bloomberg News saga, it boils down to an enormous conflict of interest that was created for a major American news agency when its owner, you-know-who, decided to jump into the Democratic race. What was the Bloomberg News team supposed to do about covering Michael Bloomberg? It could treat Bloomy like any other candidate and start sifting through his financials and personal relationships, although it hasn’t done that in the past when he’s run for office for fear of the awkwardness if it uncovered something. Or it could grant the other candidates the same exemption from scrutiny that it grants to Bloomberg and declare that it won’t investigate them either so long as he’s in the race. Both options are terrible. In the first scenario, the agency would be duty bound to sink its own boss by publishing any damaging information it uncovers. Who knows how vindictive he’d be afterward? In the second scenario, the agency would be neutered. Good reporters would be forced to sit on their hands if they got a hot tip about one of Bloomberg’s opponents lest they be accused of doing de facto oppo research for their employer. To make matters worse, the president of the United States is a *potential* Bloomberg opponent. How are they supposed to treat him knowing that any Trump scandal they uncover now directly benefits their boss by improving his chances of winning the presidency in the highly, highly unlikely event that he wins the Democratic nomination? If they grant Trump the same exemption from investigation that they’ve granted to Bloomberg’s Dem opponents, it would mean Bloomberg News has an official policy of not publishing embarrassing information about the head of state even if doing so is in the public interest. Bloomberg News decided that it would grant Bloomy’s primary opponents an exemption from investigative coverage but couldn’t grant that sort of exemption to a sitting president, setting up a double standard in which Democratic candidates get a free pass while the Republican nominee is scrutinized. That’s the sort of unworkable ethical nightmare Mike Bloomberg created for his own news agency by choosing to run despite having no realistic path to the nomination. Today the Trump campaign struck back, saying that if Bloomberg News can’t investigate — or won’t investigate — all candidates equally then they’ll no longer be credentialed for Trump campaign events. more at the link
They should investigate everything but quash any negative bloomberg stories like ABC did epstein. Its not rocket science.
