January 23, 2016

"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."

Write Alexander Burns and Maggie Haberman in The New York Times.

He is kind of a combination of Trump and Sanders, isn't he? America wants Bloomberg... it's easy to extrapolate, no?

Could you see yourself voting for Bloomberg?
 
pollcode.com free polls

123 comments:

Bay Area Guy said...

Bloomberg will siphon more votes from Bernie or Hillary, than Trump. Go for it Michael.

Michael K said...

Does he have another issue besides "big gulp" drinks and guns ?

Oso Negro said...

Yes! The clown show that is America needs as many New York billionaires as possible running for president this year.

EDH said...

I can't wait for the Bloomberg version of the hackneyed exclamatory campaign poster: Mike?

mccullough said...

Bloomberg will do well with upper class whites.

Original Mike said...

I'm stocking up on salt.

rhhardin said...

Radio Derb this week does a nice job on National Review, and why Trump.

And, you could infer, why Bloomberg will sell you out.

rhhardin said...

Bloomberg will siphon votes from Perot.

chickelit said...

I think a nationwide ban on supersized sodas is a bridge too far and I think Bloomberg wouldn't stand a chance.

You should ignore him, Althouse. You'll only encourage him.

Sdv1949 said...

You need an option like this...

Won't be voting as I am tired of voting 'against.' I want to vote 'for' someone again.

EDH said...

Coincidence? A movie about a farting corpse with an erection was just previewed at Sundance to mixed reviews.

David Begley said...

Trump, Queens. Bernie, Brooklyn. Hillary, Rikers Island. Bloomberg, Manhattan.

New York values.

Adamsunderground said...

Who needs the National Popular Vote when New York supplies us will all we need: Brooklyn Bernie, former Senator Clinton, Trump, now former Mayor Bloomburg?

Saint Croix said...

I like Trump more than Bloomberg.

Not even close.

mccullough said...

Bloomberg is much wealthier than Trump and his company employs about 10,000 fewer people than Trump's company.

Bloomberg's wealth is from information/technology and Trump's is from real estate development.



mccullough said...

Bloomberg grew up in the Boston area.

Saint Croix said...

The NYT kind of buried the ugly bits. Let me highlight.

Mr. Bloomberg was also sued in 1997 by a sales executive who claimed that after she became pregnant, he urged her to have an abortion, telling her, “Kill it!” Mr. Bloomberg adamantly denied any wrongdoing and settled the case out of court for an undisclosed amount.

gspencer said...

"Michael R. Bloomberg has instructed advisers to draw up plans . . ."

Love the elitist way this guy thinks. "I'll get my people on this ASAP!"

My people!

Touche to the peons of America!

Lyle Smith said...

This election year is a hot mess.

Adamsunderground said...

...he urged her to have an abortion, telling her, 'Kill it!'

I imagine him more as the father of "kill it, kill it with gun-fire!"

Patrick said...

Is this what National Review had in mind when they did their symposium issue? A number of the contributors have said they'd go 3rd party if Trump were the nominee.

JAORE said...

Go Mayor Mike, GO! America NEEDS you like (fill in the blank).

mccullough said...

Bloomberg would do well in New England and probably the West Coast. He'd lose the Midwest/South/West/Southwest.

The House will be controlled by Republicans who might have to select the President. They would pick Trump over Sanders or Bloomberg.

Laslo Spatula said...

Bloomberg believes that if a billionaire is going to be President it deserves to be him.

The National Review Pajama Boys, Bloomberg: it is hard to dislike Trump when he upsets the right people.

I am Laslo.

Saint Croix said...

Okay, I'm ranking Satans.

1. Bernie
2. Hillary
3. Bloomberg
4. Trump

If you think I'm going to mock Christie now, hell no. Christie's great. Love you, big guy! I hate to say I would vote for Jeb in this scenario, but how could I not? I'm a Rubio man, but shit brother, I'm ready to jump on any semi-decent bandwagon at this point.

Humperdink said...

So Nanny Doomberg wants to jump on the pinko clown car. Oh the visuals!

Mr. D said...

I prefer any Republican to Bloomberg. Hell, I prefer Bernie and Hillary to Bloomberg. Bloomberg is the most sanctimonious person in American politics. No thanks.

Danno said...

Blogger David Begley said...Trump, Queens. Bernie, Brooklyn. Hillary, Rikers Island. Bloomberg, Manhattan. New York values. 1/23/16, 9:21 AM

Excellent synopsis. I'm really glad I didn't have a mouthful of coffee when I read that.

Freeman Hunt said...

Out of everyone running for President, Bloomberg would be my last choice.

khesanh0802 said...

@mccullogh "upper class white Democrats" is a better description. Most Republicans outside NY know this guy is still a nanny state Dem no matter what he professes.

AReasonableMan said...

You need another option: No.

Humperdink said...

I know there is a citizen requirement for president. And an age requirement. Isn't there also a height requirement? Don't you need to be able to see over the desk?

Kansas City said...

Found results remarkable. Like 85% for any republican. Is the readership of this site so heavily skewed republican? So funny, since Ann is basically a liberal [I think], although an honest one. I"ve always thought an honest liberal could secure some respect. Kristin Powers is another example. Very liberal, but honest and smart, so I respect her.

Anglelyne said...

Michael K: Does he have another issue besides "big gulp" drinks and guns ?

Open borders.

Kansas City said...

Loved St. Croix ranking Satans. He ranked:

1. Bernie
2. Hillary
3. Bloomberg
4. Trump

I don't see how Hillary could not be number 1. Bernie apparently is a true believer he would harm the country. Hillary would harm country for her own selfish ends. Don't know enough about Bloomberg. Don't like Trump, but maybe, he has best interests of country in his heart.

Saint Croix said...

Normally in the primary season I think, "who do I like the most?"

Sometimes I say to myself, "Who is most likely to win?"

This campaign season, I ask myself, "Who is not a baby-killing seize-the-banks police state waiting to happen?"

aritai said...

Bloomberg as a pTb? Perhaps, if he comes out as strongly against the establishment as pTb, speaking brutal truth to power. Else he’s lost the Millennials, workers, and the election since they know both parties as exist today can never represent their interests as long as they are controlled by the donor class, the grasping left and dogmatic conservatives. How can the establishment discard everything old and with it their lies and the dogma? Where pTb is the anti-GOP, can Bloomberg be a peer, the anti-Dem? If either of them are elected the establishment, K street, dogmatic conservatives and their donor class enablers and their captive media will be gone. What will be born out of these ashes is a truth-telling libertarian realist electorate and their representatives that have had enough. They may choose to recycle their party's name, or may start from scratch. Since they’ll have the priorities and goals, a merger lowers costs and speeds progress. Expect to see a reactionary party born in opposition to any change in class and status. Leninism reborn. “what, me change? Never!” NZ got it right when they ran out of money and fools who’d loan it more in the 80s. Search Maurice McTigue Rolling Back Government for how straightforward this is when we reach the point where bad or foolish people must do the right thing. Mr. Gore may deserve a better legacy than court jester.

tim maguire said...

Know what I like about Bloomberg? He's a self-made billionaire who's also dumb as a box of rocks.

He gives hope to the rest of us.

William said...

Unlike the other candidates mentioned, Bloomberg has successfully governed. He is, if not the most conservative choice, then surely the safest choice. I think he would be supportive of a strong military, a sensible budget, and reasonable taxes. On all other issues he would be a reliable liberal.......He has absolutely no chance of winning, but I would pick him over Bernie and Hillary and he is far less of a gamble than Trump.

MayBee said...

DiBlasio is on tv warning parents not to let their kids play in the snow, or to stay with them and let them be outside only for a very short period of time.

This is what New Yorkers like in a mayor, and Bloomberg started it. No thank you.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Wow. I like the wide open field that's gotten so many outsiders into the fray but his adding him on top of it would really make things into a free-for-all.

Saint Croix said...

Althouse, or anybody else, remind me what happens when nobody gets enough electoral votes.

Does it go to the House?

Quaestor said...

In the event of a tie in the College the decision goes to the House, with the Speaker serving as POTUS pro temp.

Humperdink said...

Don't lose sight of the fact that Nanny D forced the amending of the election laws so he could run for a third term. Oh so typical of the pinkos. (Hello Vlad)

Yeah, that's what I want in a president.

Saint Croix said...

thanks Quaestor

From the 12th Amendment:

if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President.

Quaestor said...

Bloomberg should be encouraged to run. He'll do a Perot on Hillary.

Rhythm and Balls said...

I honestly don't understand the Bloomberg hate. Please explain, hate-mongers!

Did he do something to make NYC worse off, or something? Raging King Kongs? He's just the wrong kind of rich guy, or something? Pragmatic, independent moderates are now somehow less appealing to you than socialists, suddenly? I don't get it.

Saint Croix said...

I honestly don't understand the Bloomberg hate. Please explain, hate-mongers!

R & B, let's say you are walking down a street. You see a pregnant woman. You snarl, "KIll it!"

Some of us do not like that.

Humperdink said...

I normally do not respond to you R & B, but I will make an exception.

Picture banning 32 oz. sodas and confiscating guns, will eating caviar and a having a personal security force armed to the teeth.

Anglelyne said...

William: He is, if not the most conservative choice, then surely the safest choice.

"Gun control champion". "Open borders enthusiast". "Safest choice."

One of these phrases doesn't belong with the others.

Mark Caplan said...

Michael Bloomberg insists America needs open borders to keep America competitive.

Saint Croix said...

Of course Bloomberg has nobody on the ground in Iowa. He has done zero prep work. He has no serious desire to run for the Presidency. I think there is no conceivable way he could be elected. It's ridiculous.

So why do it?

I think, upon reflection, that he is scared by Bernie Sanders. It would be cheaper for Bloomberg to spend millions trashing Sanders, then what would happen if we elect a socialist.

This is why Bloomberg is not calling himself a Republican. He has no desire to fracture the Republican side. What he wants to do is offer a viable, pro-choice, liberal Democrat alternative to the socialist and the felon.

I will try to bite my tongue. And, for all I know, he is actually motivated by patriotism and a desire to save the Democrat party, which is imploding far worse than the Republican side.

Bruce Hayden said...

I welcome him to the race. My expectation is that he would run well in NY, maybe CA, and not that many more places, and these are deep blue bastions, which means that they could actually be in play. Both gun control and his ban on choice in soft drinks would not play well in most of fly-over country. And, those who would consider him, would likely be voting for the Democrat already.

Quaestor said...

Bloomberg is an embryonic totalitarian, his insane efforts to regulate the private lives of NYC residents -- the "big gulp" ban, for example -- are just a hint of what he would do to the nation if given the power of the Presidency. There are lots of nanny state types who always vote for the Democrat, and very few libertarians in the ranks of the Democratic Party, therefore the biggest impact on the election will be felt by the Democratic candidate.

BTW, I favor a constitutional amendment to reduce the power of the President to pseudo-legislate through executive order, and to reduce the power of the courts to legislate from the bench. The delicate balance of our triune government needs to be restored.

Quaestor said...

You beat me, Bruce. We think alike on this one.

JAORE said...

Michael K: Does he have another issue besides "big gulp" drinks and guns ?

In addition to the issues noted above, he's the kind of mayor that sics the cops on non-tax paying cigarette sellers then undermines the cops he sends out. And he warns his son, who happens to be black, that cops are not to be trusted.

Yeah, yeah, I know he claims that wasn't his message. Too little, too late.

"What do we want? Dead cops!" And then it happens. CYA follows immediately.

The Cracker Emcee said...

He's surely joking. Unless he's living at a Jeb!-ian remove from reality.

Quaestor said...

Michael Bloomberg insists America needs open borders to keep America competitive.

Absolutely. We'd be insane to scotch the flow of undocumented engineers and scientists who surge across our southern boundary every hour of every day.

Rhythm and Balls said...

I'm sure people have as much right to complain about no 7-liter sugared drinks as they do about keeping GMOs from being labelled but it is just a bit funny the things sugar-water drinkers hold to be most dear when conceptualizing their sense of liberty. Maybe it has something to do with that apocalyptic stockpiling mentality. Soda will save civilization! Save yourselves! Save the soda!!!

But in all seriousness, paranoia is a very important quality to maintain in a democracy. I totally get that, I guess.

Humperdink said...

As an aside, I see Doomberg's blood brother, C. Christie is closing bridges again today.

Humperdink said...

Completely miss the point, R & B.

Bill, Republic of Texas said...

Crap! Sam's Club was already out of the 50lb bag of popping corn. I guess everyone else already heard the news

MayBee said...

but it is just a bit funny the things sugar-water drinkers hold to be most dear when conceptualizing their sense of liberty

Liberals used to understand that liberty is not just about protecting the things you personally hold dear.

M Jordan said...

Oh, please, please, please, please make it come true. Please run, Mr. Bloomberg. Please! Nothing would give me greater satisfaction than to have this little prick get rejected by America. Plus, he'd hand the election to Republicans. It's win win wins as far as rhe eye can see.

MayBee said...

Kids have been successfully playing in snow since people have existed where it snows.
But today's New York City mayor has to get on tv and warn people against it.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Completely miss the point, R & B.

Nah, not completely. I didn't address what you said about banning guns while maintaining (if it's true) an armed entourage that's somehow bigger than any other elected official's because I'd find that to be at least a potentially legitimate point to make.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Liberals used to understand that liberty is not just about protecting the things you personally hold dear.

I actually LOVE sugar water and keep at least a few of my favorite soda six-packs, etc. on hand whenever I can. But I didn't say I wanted to ban what other people personally hold dear; I just asked why it is that the container size is such a dear thing. It was a question.

Anyway, government has always regulated consumer products. It's not about to stop and the constitution doesn't provide a way for it to stop.

tim in vermont said...

I would love to see him run, but wouldn't vote for him even as an ironic joke.

Fritz said...

Blogger Michael K said...
Does he have another issue besides "big gulp" drinks and guns ?


Salt. He doesn't like salt.

tim in vermont said...

I've cut my salt intake as I have gotten older because my blood pressure seems to track it pretty good, but when I was young, my blood pressure was fine and I loved salt on certain things, corn on the cob slathered in butter comes to mind, or on a vine ripe tomato slice. Why the fuck Bloomberg seems to think this is any of his business is anybody's guess.

Cacimbo Cacimbo said...

Bloomberg's refusal to abide by the term limit law should exclude him from the Presidency. Does anyone doubt he would also feel entitled to a third or maybe even fourth term as President.
Bloomberg's $$$ bought a lot of goodwill in NYC. He personally funded many initiatives and gave big donations to all the proper institutes. That is what allowed him to buy a third term.

AJ Lynch said...

Bloomberg was the Republican mayor of NYC right? Did he endorse McCain or Romney or did he support and vote for Obama? Anyone know?

Rhythm and Balls said...

I've cut my salt intake as I have gotten older because my blood pressure seems to track it pretty good, but when I was young, my blood pressure was fine and I loved salt on certain things, corn on the cob slathered in butter comes to mind, or on a vine ripe tomato slice.

Those sound good and I like them myself. Not that I'm saying it's my business what you eat, just that I agree.

Why the fuck Bloomberg seems to think this is any of his business is anybody's guess.

Because our nation's (and I presume, his city's) dietary habits suck in terms of direct health consequences and whether anyone likes it or not lost productivity due to illness self-inflicted or otherwise is just one of those things that a government is going to take an interest in. The only way you can prevent a government from taking an interest in the citizenry's health and productivity is if you suddenly made it lose interest in the economy. And that ain't gonna happen. Or is it?

traditionalguy said...

Query: Why does everybody want Trump to be a liberal. He is cleaning their clocks by being a strong Conservative. And now they want to prove he is really a great Liberal lover. It sounds like a serious case of Sour Grapes because he can get along with Liberals so well and the Cruz Cult can't do it.

I guess Trump will have to be two people at once but still not please them.

Instead of a Compassionate Conservative we will get a hard nosed Conservative with who can deal with Liberals and with Russia using two skills at once.

And I bet The Donald donates his salary as President to Disabled Veterans.

AJ Lynch said...

If Hillary gets indicted, I think Bloomberg will run as a Dem not 3rd party so we should not get our hopes up.

MayBee said...

But I didn't say I wanted to ban what other people personally hold dear; I just asked why it is that the container size is such a dear thing. It was a question.

I didn't recognize it as a question.

Why should a container size be bannable? Why is it dear to the regulators? Why not juice? Why should a truck driver or a college student or a family not be able to purchase a big container of soda (again, not all "sugar waters" were banned) if someone is willing to provide it and they can pay for it?

Sure, regulations can exist. But liberals used to understand they should be used lightly, not frivolously or because they make other people feel like they can control the lifestyles of others.

tim in vermont said...

I have a slogan for Bloomberg: "Because morons should live forever!"

whswhs said...

I can't choose any of your options. I'm not voting for Bloomberg; he's not any improvement on any of the front runners, all of whom are pretty appalling. I'm not voting for any of them either.

Humperdink said...

R & B. No, its not guns, its not soda. It's freedom. That's the point you miss.

tim in vermont said...

The only way you can prevent a government from taking an interest in the citizenry's health and productivity is if you suddenly made it lose interest in the economy. And that ain't gonna happen. Or is it?

In 1984, all citizens were required to exercise daily in front of their telscreen so they could be monitored. Who knew the justification was the commerce clause? I love my treadmill, it has made me feel a decade younger. But I would never feel it was the place of the government to force other people to exercise. Let them die young and save social security.

Rhythm and Balls said...

R & B. No, its not guns, its not soda. It's freedom. That's the point you miss.

The point you miss is that not everyone sees freedom in a "special" container size - which is all I asked you to explain. But thanks for the slogan; I was already aware of it.

And I'd already left the gun issue alone. But I guess an educated citizenry being crucial to keeping a free democracy you'd rather focus on slogans and demagoguery than reading what your other free citizen actually wrote.

Myself, I see freedom in pencils. #2, graphite pencils, to be specific. With yellow paint and pink eraser on the end. Because, I tell you, as far as consumer products go, those are the ones that make me the most free. If they go then it's one stop on to gulags.

And lint rollers. There's just no way you can be free without one of those around the house.

But oh well. At least we'll always have large soda containers. You can judge your freedom by how large your soda container is.

Rhythm and Balls said...

In 1984, all citizens were required to exercise daily in front of their telscreen so they could be monitored.

Thanks for the ridiculously rhetorically excessive demagoguery. Is the government making you do that and practically is there even any way to do that? Of course not, so why bring it up? I had a feeling you couldn't resist! And they say the Republican party has nothing real to fight for any more!

Who knew the justification was the commerce clause?

Well, seeing as how it isn't, I guess no one. (Except you and the other martyrs without a cause). It's not happening, not even proposed, not defended by anyone - but, hey. If throwing out a ridiculous slippery slope helps you feel that you made a logical and persuasive point, I say go with it. The worst you can do is fail to convince yourself, right?

I love my treadmill, it has made me feel a decade younger. But I would never feel it was the place of the government to force other people to exercise. Let them die young and save social security.

Setting aside the fact that you're repeating yourself, your final statement is a real clincher. You resent a government concerned with the people's health but advocate (seriously?) for one that promotes early death.

Yep, I can see why the GOP and its governing philosophy is in shambles.

Mom said...

Let's not forget our history, starting way, way back before even Rome (but their case is most illustrative.) As civilizations crumble, the general quality of leaders declines from stellar to wonderful to competent to inept to criminal. Given this trajectory and the flailing insanity of our two major parties, Bloomberg is sure to get into the race. There is no longer anywhere to run away from the abominations; might as well just buy more popcorn and beer.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Mom brings up a good point. Rome may have had big, huge aqueducts, but we have Big Gulps.

Take that, Cicero!

Cacimbo Cacimbo said...


How do you like Bloomberg in shorts? Clinton?


http://joshsailor.photoshelter.com/image/I0000CjqIJMAttEE

Skeptical Voter said...

You know the first thought that popped into my head this morning when I woke up was, "I want Mike Bloomberg". Well the thought was not complete--it was really, "I want that billionaire narcissist to stay the heck out of the election". He's just another New York businessman. Now he's made a lot of dough--but so has Bill Gates, and I don't see Bill throwing his hat in the ring.

OTOH Bloomberg is looking at a race where one party has a ranting old socialist and a sociopathic liar as the leading contenders; and the other party has a New York businessman, an aging Mama's boy, and a couple of Hispanic Americans as the leading contenders. Kasich couldn't sell refrigerators in the Saudi desert; Carly Fiorina is smart and witty, but hasn't got much traction yet. Rand Paul and Chris Christie? Please.

So Bloomberg may think it's time to hire a white horse and charge into the fray.

Unknown said...

I don't have a clue who he is other than this posting.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Why would it matter if it's minorities or otherwise who are driving up the costs? They're all citizens. Whichever citizens are driving up E.R. costs etc. purple, beige, indigo, etc., if it costs the city it costs the city and driving down those costs is important. If he didn't raise it as a racial issue then I don't see how it becomes one. Maybe it's an uninsurance issue, or tied to race that way. But still, not his doing and nothing to call him a racist for if he wants to address it. The city's achievements count no matter the race of who's doing it and it's woes count no matter the race of those afflicted. Even if "affliction" is partly a result of bad decisions.

Quaestor said...

Rome may have had big, huge aqueducts, but we have Big Gulps. Take that, Cicero!

It's a snow day at PS-126, ergo the plethora of comments by the perennially jejune Rhythm and Balls.

JAORE said...

"JAORE, just a point of fact, that's DeBlasio, Bloomberg's successor."

D'oh... Of course it is. And thanks for the deserved correction.

My "best" excuse is I've been watching the current Mayor of NYC on the news all morning talking about clearing streets. DeBlasio on the brain. (Yeah, THAT's the ticket.)

mccullough said...

Bloomberg was a democrat who ran as a Republican because Giuliani cleaned up NYC. Bloomberg, unlike DiBlasio, didn't fuck up the gains Giuliani's administration had made. Bloomberg then changed to an Independent and supported Obama twice. Unlike Giuliani, Obama has done a poor job. Bloomberg is a globalist like Obama and Hillary.

I think he would be, by far, the worst president of any in the field. He would be Obama on steroids. Sanders is a goofy socialist but he is at least concerned, in the abstract, with working class Americans. Bloomberg doesn't give a shit. The working class to him is the group whose kids fight and die in the many interventions the Davis crew believes in. The guy is less American than Obama

sunsong said...

I'd love to see Bloomberg get in. He'll have to act soon though if he is serious. It's a job to get on the ballot in all 50 states.

MayBee said...

Problem: ER Costs are high
Solution: Ban certain sizes of certain kinds of drinks with sugar

Well, why not? After all, regulation is legal! (although this one was struck down by a court)

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Confiscate all the guns and open the borders up...that'll win 'em over, for sure.

MayBee said...

I want a president who keeps me from eating salt, even though there is nothing harmful about salt.
It just seems so proactive!

Birkel said...

"Rhythm and Balls" says we cannot use slippery slope arguments because while Leftists wish to enact the logical end of their arguments, conservatives will not let them.

Noted.

Michael K said...

"Don't you need to be able to see over the desk?"

We had a shorter president but not by much.

A bunch of Silicon Valley billionaires decided to set up a political operation called "The Alliance." They hired a woman with some experience in politics to be CEO. At an early meeting, she joked about her experience dealing with the members. She said, "What is the difference between a terrorist and a billionaire ?" The answer was "You can negotiate with a terrorist."

She was fired a week later. True story. It's in Fred Siegel's book, "Revolt Against the Masses."

tim in vermont said...

for one that promotes early death.

So failure to compel people to live the way one thinks is best for them is to kill them? OK, and as for the rest of your answer, I am sorry that you are so literal minded, but I suppose it helps you in your job.

If you really find it such a stretch to compare using the commerce clause to justify laws that are the most tangentially related to interstate commerce to a justification for regulation of human behaviors, restrictions on human freedom, based on lost productivity and negative effects on the GDP, I just don't know what to say but that maybe you aren't as smart as you are convinced that you are.

averagejoe said...

Another pitch-perfect progressive democrat party candidate: The billionaire leading the populist argument against the 1%, to go along with the feminist slut-shamer and rapist-defender, and the socialist "outsider" who's been in government since Nixon was president. LOL! What a despicable gaggle of anti-American hypocrites and liars that comprise the democrat party.

jr565 said...

awesome! another REAL conservative is jumping into the fray. its tough determining of the two who is the more authentic conservative. has we witnessed such shining examples of coservative thought matching action in our lifetime?

grimson said...

Left unanswered is why he would run as an Independent instead of as a Democrat. It would be helpful if Republicans from deep blue states could clarify for us why they identify as Republican instead of Democrat.

Fabi said...

Is he tall enough to be president? Rubio could probably dunk over top of the Big Gulper.

Seriously, though, he'd take voters from both sides if the ledger, but many more from the left. Go fort it, Mike! Try and get your picture made in a tank, too -- voters love that shit!

Saint Croix said...

The guy is less American than Obama

that was so funny I had to retweet it

Saint Croix said...

I'll bet they eat dog in Davos. I'll be it's a delicacy!

cubanbob said...

Maybe I missed it but has anyone seen the public clamoring for yet another New Yorker to run for president?

DavidD said...

From whom does a Bloomberg candidacy draw away votes?

mccullough said...

Bloomberg will draw Hillary/Obama voters who don't like socialism: upper class whites who vote Democrat. They fancy themselves global citizens, don't associate with working class or low income blacks or whites and hire illegals to raise their children.

mccullough said...

Their children age 18-26 will vote for Sanders

Michael said...

R&B
"Because our nation's (and I presume, his city's) dietary habits suck in terms of direct health consequences and whether anyone likes it or not lost productivity due to illness self-inflicted or otherwise is just one of those things that a government is going to take an interest in. The only way you can prevent a government from taking an interest in the citizenry's health and productivity is if you suddenly made it lose interest in the economy. And that ain't gonna happen. Or is it?"

So the Bloomberg intervention in New Yorkers' desire to fatten themselves excessively with the wrong kinds of drinks in the wrong sizes was done in the interest of the economy?

The Government's interest in the productivity of the citizenry has a certain ring to it that sounds familiar. Kulaks beware.

Rhythm and Balls said...

So failure to compel people to live the way one thinks is best for them is to kill them?

People are already dying early and you thought that was funny anyway - meaning that you don't take the prospect seriously enough to care for a good-faith conversation on the government's role in disincentivizing against one's slow suicide and the costs you're willing to pay for those attempted suicides.

OK, and as for the rest of your answer, I am sorry that you are so literal minded, but I suppose it helps you in your job.

If you really find it such a stretch to compare using the commerce clause to justify laws that are the most tangentially related to interstate commerce to a justification for regulation of human behaviors, restrictions on human freedom, based on lost productivity and negative effects on the GDP, I just don't know what to say but that maybe you aren't as smart as you are convinced that you are.


One thing's for certain, you're obviously not smart enough to make it through law school or pass the bar. The kinds of "tangential" things the commerce clause has been used to justify and upheld by SCOTUS are legion, Mr. Armchair Freedom Fighter. And with much more wide-ranging effect than a fucking soda size. In fact, it's the way this shit really gets your goat as opposed to much more intrusive and disturbing breaches that makes your party impossible for sane people to take seriously.

Rhythm and Balls said...

The Government's interest in the productivity of the citizenry has a certain ring to it that sounds familiar. Kulaks beware.

People aren't buying the billionaires' bullshitting any more, Yuppie Man. No penalty-free expectation of paid parental leave, sick leave or vacation time in this country and you think Americans will continue hoping that corporations with voluntarily implement a decent standard with those changes? You're hilarious. You just want the opportunity to work your labor to death, treat them like shit, and then lie to them about how the government's going to instead do worse to them than the Soviets did. The hyperbole fits the desperation of the case you'd like to get them to believe.

Rhythm and Balls said...

With the GOP front-runner something other than the kind of "conservative" interested in Country Club Conservatives like Michael, it's going to be interesting watching him trying to keep up the corporatist cliches. He'll have an interesting time coping with his pleas of "But what about the billionaires?" in 2016. Sad.

Fabi said...

Sounds like R&B bought himself a Big Gulp full of strawmen!

Paddy O said...

If Bloomberg enters the race, I'm going to get worried that future elections will become like the America's Cup. Instead of the billionaire's clashing egos through yachts, they'll clash with campaigning for President. Larry Ellison is probably already making plans.

Humperdink said...

One of the better Nanny Doomberg videos. Jason Mattera confronts the mayor, Big Gulp in hand. About 1 minute.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JdUYREt55U

Unknown said...

----You just want the opportunity to work your labor to death, treat them like shit, and then lie to them about how the government’s---

Sounds like the bad pole part of bi-polar is kicking in.

Michael said...

R&B

As usual you miss the point. I make money regardless. Perfectly fine for me to have Sanders in the drivers seat. Who do you think raises capital for these zany socialist projects? I could give less of a shit from a business perspective who the president is. I happen to know Trump, have met Cruz a couple of times, have contributed to Hillary, to the fat man and to Rubio. Should Sanders get the nod I will give him money as well. You are such a rube. A naive rube.

walter said...

Bloomberg's soda announcement with transcript

Freeman Hunt said...

The race doesn't need a bossy hall monitor.

walter said...

One of his bits was incentivizing installation of showers at workplaces to encourage biking to work.

EMD said...

Have a Facebook friend championing Bloomberg.

I commented "Whither Big Gulps nationwide?"

His response: "A world with small sodas and no smoking sounds great to me."

Why are people so into controlling other people's lives?

tim in vermont said...

R&B, you don't even seem to be trying.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Should Sanders get the nod I will give him money as well. You are such a rube. A naive rube.

I've traveled a few places extensively and never noticed "kulaks" in socialist Western Europe. For a guy who who keeps trying to convince everyone he's a Master of the Universe, you sure don't seem to have seen very much of it. What's the matter, does your private plane need better upkeep? The more likely explanation is that just like everyone sheltered by the bubble of his own little aura of projected greatness and "success" deserved or otherwise, you start to believe your own bullshit. You get paid for speculating, and can't imagine that the safe harbor applied to your forward looking statements doesn't make them true.