But if Bloomberg really wants to put the billion or so he can spend on a presidential run to good use, he will turn in his new party membership, re-register as a Republican, and do battle with Trump in the GOP primary, not the Democratic one."Good use"? It depends on Bloomberg's conception of the good.
Bloomberg... combines the liberal social views of a wealthy Manhattanite (pro-gay rights, anti-gun, pro-charter school and so on) with the economic views of, well, a wealthy Manhattanite (pro-immigration, pro-trade, pro-corporation), at a time when the party is powered by a young, diverse and populist cohort and trying to figure out how to regain its appeal among lunch-bucket voters in the Heartland.So? There are a lot of people who sometimes vote Democratic who'd like an option like that. In fact, it was the option the Democratic Party chose to nominate the last time around. By the way, I haven't seen the term "lunch-bucket voters" in a long time. It's funny to be touting the young and using such an old-time-y expression. What percentage of living Americans possess an object they call a "lunch bucket"? Even the most lunch-bucket-y item on Amazon is called a "lunch box."
Back to Freelander:
Bloomberg gave as a reason for his party switch that the GOP was out of step on his issues: on climate change, gay marriage and guns.... It is almost inconceivable that Mike Bloomberg would win, and go on to be the Republican nominee. He is surely unwilling to stoop to Trump’s level to win over his base. But it is almost inconceivable that he would win the Democratic nomination either. Far more likely is that his money weakens the eventual Democratic nominee. Bloomberg says that Trump must be stopped at all costs; far better, in that case, that his dollars and his candidacy go to weaken the eventual Republican one.I can see why many Democrats would like Bloomberg to spend his money weakening Trump in the primaries, but how is he a credible candidate after giving all the support to the Democrats? I guess he could say he's just anti-Trump and helping Democrats take over the House was the most effective anti-Trump strategy in 2018. He can say he stands for a good set of values that either party would be wise to adopt, and then the question becomes what's the best strategy for his set of values in 2020. Is it wearing down Trump in the primaries and allowing the "young, diverse and populist cohort" of Democrats to come up with what they can without having to fight Bloomberg? Or is it vying for the Democratic nomination? Freelander says that winning either party's nomination is "almost inconceivable." But Trump's 2016 victory was not just "almost inconceivable." It was inconceivable! Bloomberg is way richer than Trump, and Trump already showed that bizarre billionaire dreams really do come true.
पोस्ट्स
६२ टिप्पण्या:
Bloomberg would win NYC and that's it. He is associated with -- nay, invented -- the nanny state. But I applaud any scheme to part him with his money.
Except for the gun control, Bloomberg seems to lean more libertarian than anything.
Howard Schultz (D. Starbucks) is the dark horse in the Dem primaries.
Expect him to make noises in early 2019.
Spartacus or Starbucks? You decide.
Trump won on anti-media.
i can't see Bloomberg having any more success than Jeb did; and unlike Jeb, Bloomberg would be able to suck up a Grand Total of *ZERO* dollars from republican donors.
Some of the media (like bloomberg businessweek?) would give him air, and the republican voters would COMPLETELY IGNORE him. Seems like The Worst Possible Thing a person could do (other than over using Capitol Letters)
"I can see why many Democrats would like Bloomberg to spend his money weakening Trump in the primaries..."
We're almost into Trump's third year, and finding a way to beat Trump in the next election is the Dem's big problem? I bet they didn't see that coming. Afterall, his brain is smaller than his hands and he resembles an orangutan.
Dave Begley said... Howard Schultz (D. Starbucks) is the dark horse in the Dem primaries.
Wouldn't have to say, that he's the White horse?
Bloomberg seems to lean more libertarian than anything.
No libertarian would support an idiotic soda tax like he did.
To be honest I don't know a great deal about Bloomberg's claimed ideology. I just know that he was a terrible mayor and a hypocritical moralizing plutocrat.
"Trump won on anti-media."
Absolutely.
Sure, tons of conservative and libertarian voters would just swoon to vote for the gun-grabbing, nanny-state epitome, salt-fetishizing, demagogging, soda-restricting Democrat in disguise because we are just so goddamn stupid.
Do I have their impression of Republicans right?
Bloomberg could run as the Sane Democrat, but I'm not sure that has much traction in a party that doesn't seem to want Sane. As for the lunch-bucket crowd - well, at least he doesn't actively detest them the way the last Democratic nominee did.
I'd bet there are a lot of pictures of Bloomberg as Mayor arm and arm with Trump. Not that it's inconsistent then to oppose him for the Presidency, but it's a bit much to adopt the "stop him at all costs" language of the hysterical left after embracing him as a developer and job creator in NYC.
And agreed, Bloomberg is far from libertarian, he's a complete nanny state liberal.
Whenever I want advice about how the Republican Party can win the next Presidential election, my first move is to read articles by David Freelander.
Bloomberg can fund the third party I'm looking for: The Boring Party.
Althouse said...
"You can't know what the 'backfire' is unless you know what way he's aiming the metaphorical gun."
Jackie Boy: This isn't funny. Don't anyone laugh. I got friends you can't imagine. Everyone in here is going to burn.
Dwight: Hang it up, Trump's just playing with you. You're only making it worse.
Jackie Boy: You shut the hell up.
Dwight: Don't pull the trigger, she blocked the barrel. It'll backfire.
OK. The sole issue in American politics is now Trump. Are you loyal a supporter of this great America First President, or are you a committed One World Socialist, dedicated at whatever the cost to eliminate stupid Lunch Bucket Americans who own things,and replace then with a new docile work force of peasant immigrants owning nothing and roaming a planet without National boundaries?
Can you imagine Bloomberg running for the GOP nomination and trying to hold a public rally anywhere but NYC? He'd get immediately booed off the stage … if he was lucky.
A wealthy guy who can raise a lot of money but who is going to win only a tiny handful of Republican delegates.
They want Michael Bloomberg to be Jeb 2.0
Trump more famous 30 years ago than Bloomberg is today. Bloomberg is four years older, and he isn't President, so he's not going to catch up.
Trump, out of a desire to unite the country, should offer the next VP slot to Hillary Clinton. She'll take it - glass ceiling broken and all that. Trump of course, will need multiple food tasters, but you can't have it all your own way.
Bento-box voters, maybe.
You can't know what the "backfire" is unless you know what way he's aiming the metaphorical gun.
Bloomberg can't win the Dem nomination, but he'd spend a billion explaining how crazy he thought the winner was.
Bloomberg can't win the Rep nomination, but he'd spend a billion explaining how crazy he thought the winner was.
You can see why they're begging him to run as an R.
Bonus points if he does: the Dems can claim the "moderate" candidate couldn't beat Trump so off to the fringes we must go!!!
Almost by definition most billionaires are ambitious. After Trump, most billionaires will look in the mirror and see a potential President......After Obama, most fiirst term Senators started handicapping a Presidential run. Beto has taken a quantum leap forward and started considering a Presidential run after a failed run for first time Senator.........Both Obama and Trump came out of left field to win the Presidency, but, having done so, their left field is no longer left field but a breeeding ground for Presidents.......We need a new left field. I'm recommending Michael Avenatti. We've never had a pornstar's lawyer as President before. The fact that he's a now a disgraced pornstar's lawyer makes his run that much more unexpected and attractive to those who want to try something new.
I'm reading "Yes, Mike, run — as a Republican: If Bloomberg tries to become President as a Democrat, it'll backfire" by David Freelander (Daily News). I wonder who it will "backfire" on? You can't know what the "backfire" is unless you know what way he's aiming the metaphorical gun.
Do guns backfire? Cars used to. Firefighters use "backfires" to create a firebreak in a forest fire. But a gun? Not familiar with the expression.
Perhaps it comes from lack of knowledge of guns? Or perhaps because Bloomberg is so closely associated with gun control?
Seems like a poor metaphor.
Bing agrees:
VERB
(of an engine) undergo a mistimed explosion in the cylinder or exhaust.
"a car backfired in the road"
synonyms:
misfire
(of a plan or action) rebound adversely on the originator; have the opposite effect to what was intended.
"overzealous publicity backfired on her"
synonyms:
rebound · boomerang · come back · have an adverse effect · [more]
NOUN
a mistimed explosion in the cylinder or exhaust of a vehicle or engine.
NORTH AMERICAN
a fire set intentionally to arrest the progress of an approaching fire by creating a burned area in its path, thus depriving the fire of fuel.
A viable 3rd Party candidate always makes it interesting. I'm talking Teddy Bull Moose Roosevelt (08), George Segregation Forever Wallace (68) and Ross Highest Priority Perot (92).
Bloomberg can't wrestle the GOP nomination from Trump, but could go 3rd Party. And it's not clear which party he hurts or helps more. My gut is that he hurts the Dem party more.
Also, we need Bernie to run 3rd Party too!
I finally watched Bannon's Oxford Union speech last night. Thank you Ann for insisting I do this. It was really great. Now I have to look to see if there are more Bannon speeches and what else he is up to.
He says Bloomberg is forming a 3rd party, a fusion party of him and a dem. He mentioned Biden. He says that Bloomberg has committed $100mm to doing this. He is worth $33 billion so that isn't even couch change for him.
Re the Bannon speech I thought the one woman was interesting when she said that democracy was in peril in the US (it has never really existed in the UK) and Bannon responded with something like 135mm voting in the recent mid-term.
The woman's response was priceless. Just because people vote, she said, doesn't make it a democracy. There was a bit of back and forth where she made progressively less sense. I got the impression that her definition of democracy required that her side win control.
I wished he had said something about her being a "subject" of a hereditary monarch and, until they get rid of that, and the queen appointing the Prime Minister, England has no claim to being a democracy.
And they ought to get a constitution, too. If they want to be a democracy.
John Henry
hawkeyedjb said...
Bloomberg could run as the Sane Democrat, but I'm not sure that has much traction in a party that doesn't seem to want Sane. As for the lunch-bucket crowd - well, at least he doesn't actively detest them the way the last Democratic nominee did."
Well said. So far the only apparent choice the Democrats are offering is either an unindicted criminal or all but in name Communists. They should stick with a Bloomberg as it doesn't appear that the electorate is ready to elect a criminal or a Communist as president.
That’s how Nanny Bloomberg won the mayorship. The dem field was too crowded so he switched out an R after his name and Rudy fell in line.
young, diverse, and populist... age, color, and numbers
backfire (n.)
1832, American English, originally "a fire deliberately lit ahead of an advancing wildfire to deprive it of fuel," from back (adj.) + fire (n.). As a verb in this sense, recorded from 1886. The noun meaning "premature ignition in an internal-combustion engine" is first recorded 1897. AS a verb, of schemes, plans, etc., "to affect the initiator rather than the intended object" it is attested from 1912, a figurative use from the accidental back-firing of firearms.
Bloomberg represents something Mr Trump has made obvious: a business mind is a valuable commodity in the White House. Had lunch with a close friend of his last week who said he thinks Bloomberg's Jewish heritage is a stumbling block. Meh. If anything, two New Yorkers in a row could be a cause for pause.
You'd think that a liberal democrat turned Republican turned democrat turned Republican, would have zero chance with Republicans.
But you'd be wrong. NEVER underestimate the ignorance of the Republican primary voter.
In 2008, 2/3 of all SC Republican primary voters thought McCain was "Strong" or "Very Strong" on Border security and opposed Amnesty.
Bloomberg is only a "Sane Democrat" when compared to the NYC crazies.
"George Segregation Forever Wallace (68)"
Wallace didn't run on segregation in 68. that was a dead issue by then. He ran as a populist who was for "Law and Order" and a "Win or get out" Vietnam policy. On economics he was a standard "For the little guy" tax/spend liberal.
If he hadn't been shot, he might have gotten nominated in 72 or 76 as a D.
Bloomberg should run in both parties' primaries. And he should call himself "Mike!"
Bloomberg can fund the third party I'm looking for: The Boring Party.
Elon should be his VP then...he already founded the Boring Company.
Bloomberg would come far closer to winning the Democratic nomination than the Republican one, so Freelander's article is already horseshit on that alone. Bloomberg was never really a Republican- he only ran as one in NYC because he was riding in on the successes Giuliani had as mayor- once he had the office, he was free to go back to being a Democrat.
Now, what would happen if Bloomberg ran as a independent? That would be interesting to see, and I am not so sure Freelander would like the result.
@rcocean,
Fair point. Wallace did pivot to run his national campaign.
Campaign quote by Wallace:
What are the Real issues that exist today in these United States? It is the trend of the pseudo-intellectual government, where a select, elite group have written guidelines in bureaus and court decisions, have spoken from some pulpits, some college campuses, some newspaper offices, looking down their noses at the average man on the street.
Sound familiar?
Darkisland wrote:
"He says Bloomberg is forming a 3rd party, a fusion party of him and a dem. He mentioned Biden. He says that Bloomberg has committed $100mm to doing this. He is worth $33 billion so that isn't even couch change for him."
This would be a disaster for Bloomberg- a "fusion party" would have to be with an actual Republican. Kasich might be sufficient, but even that isn't certain- a fusion with Biden would just be a second Democratic Party ticket, and would likely ensure Trumps easy reelection.
"What chance does a five-foot-seven billionaire Jew who’s divorced really have of becoming president?" asked one Michael R. Bloomberg to a reporter in 2006.
Of course, divorced and billionaire aren't deal-breakers these days.
Jew? Depends. Not prohibitive, probably a hindrance at the margins.
Five-foot-seven? Forget it. Not since McKinley. Picture the poor guy up on the stage with Trump, and guess Trump's moniker for him.
(eaglebeak)
There's a thing called charisma, and Bloomberg doesn't have it. Neither did Hillary. Obama did (he seems to have misplaced it) and Trump does.
Trump v. Bloomberg would be a walkover, not least because Trump is about a foot taller than Bloomberg and could practically step over him.
Yes, if Bloomberg wants to help elect a Democrats in 2020, his "fusion" party would have to lean right. If Bloomberg were the nominee, he would emphasize his business background and his pragmatism on issues like crime, and his running mate would be an anti-Trump conservative. Honestly, though, I don't think Bloomberg could win over very many disaffected Republicans. He's too closely associated with nanny state liberalism and, on a deeper level, all his anti-gun activism signals a cultural incompatibility with conservatives. A person can be moderately pro-gun control but otherwise conservative. Bloomberg is basically a fanatic on the issue and people on the Right would likely think Bloomberg hated them.
Frankly, the only way I can see a viable third party making noise in 2020 is if conservatives decide Trump is more trouble than he's worth. If that happens, and a primary challenge fails, maybe Romney and others put together a third party candidacy.
Despite all their huge divisions, I don't see Democrats splintering much as long as Trump is president. He's a unifying threat.
Bloomberg can fund the third party I'm looking for: The Boring Party.
@Althouse, how lacking in self-awareness are you?
Do guns backfire? Cars used to. Firefighters use "backfires" to create a firebreak in a forest fire. But a gun? Not familiar with the expression.
Perhaps it comes from lack of knowledge of guns?
You THINK?!?!?
I'm trying to imagine an opponent Trump would have more fun with in the primaries than Bloomberg. Kasich? No, he could at least command some establishment GOP support. Flake? No, Trump would dispatch him after the New Hampshire primary. Bill Kristol? Maybe, but it'd be too easy.
Mike
"I don't see Democrats splintering much as long as Trump is president."
You don't know many Democrats, do you?
Mike
I have it on good authority Nikki Haley is going to primary Trump in 2020 and nobody else need bother.
What difference does it make what you're aiming at? If the gun 'back fires' you get shot.
If the gun 'back fires' you get shot.
The gun may be pointing at you. The same "double" jeopardy does not exist with scalpels, vacuums, etc, which are strictly unidirectional devices.
Bloomberg should give Trump $80M to join a third party.
"If the gun 'back fires' you get shot."
That shows it was a bad metaphor in the first place. Bloomberg himself will not be hurt. What is the "backfiring" the columnist is talking about? Hurting the Democratic Party. If I accept the faulty metaphor, it's intended to mean that Bloomberg's target is Trump. But maybe not. I don't think Bloomberg would be for the new radical lefties trying to get control of the Democratic Party. I think he'd like Trump to be opposed by a strong moderate, so it's not crazy versus crazy in the 2020. What's the best path for that?
If it's crazy versus crazy, Trump will win again. I think.
So, you're Bloomberg, and you oppose the extremists on both sides. Which is the best approach? I really don't know, and I can't imagine what he is thinking. Maybe he's thinking about who he wants to be seen with while he's spending his own money in support of his own cause.
"you oppose the extremists on both sides"
Huh?
As a Republican, Bloomberg was the extremist--on the extreme left of the party, so left he became a Dem, favoring Dem causes and politicos. I will leave it to Dems to decide if he is an extreme-right Dem.
The GOP now revolves around Trump -- who himself is pretty moderate on social issues, has coopted liberal criticism of free trade, and could be mistaken for a let's-not-meddle isolationist.
Anyway, charges of "extremism" are always a smear tactic used for political effect, rarely an accurate estimate of actual positions on an actual spectrum. You could call it extremism bullshit.
You could call it extremism bullshit.
Pretty much this.
In many cases I think categorization of extremism are often objectively untrue if you look at the actual position of the person in question and compared it to the greater mainstream public opinion.
A perfect example of that is categorizing anyone who wants to greatly reduce or eliminate illegal immigration as an "extremist". In fact, it's a virtual certainty that a clear majority of Americans would most likely agree that illegal immigration should be reduced or outright eliminated. True, individual people might disagree on how serious an issue it is and how specifically it should be dealt with. But just because a given politican or public figure talks about it as a problem does not actually make them as extremist or a xenophobic racist or whatever.
There are 50+ candidates on the DNC starting line. Get one or two of them to run third party. Bloomberg would be great!
(I can play the game, too)
Let's look at the possibilities.
1) Bloomberg runs as a Democrat, loses the primaries, but damages the eventual winner. Bad for Democrats.
2) Bloomberg wins the nomination, but loses to Trump. Bad for the Democrats.
3) Bloomberg forms 3rd party and drains more votes from Democrats than from Republicans. Bad for Democrats.
4) Bloomberg runs as Republican and loses the primaries. Probably doesn't do any more damage to Trump that is done every day in the media, but he doesn't damage the Democrats.
5) Bloomberg wins the Republican nomination. Yeah, right.
Bloomberg is pro choice, anti gun, pro jihadist, (his advisor was the father of the new mexico cell, which was training suicide bombers) pro amnesty,
@EDH, I followed your link and looked at the “Sin City” clip. In real life what would happen is that the cylindrical bar would shoot out the barrel at about 400 to 500 ft/sec, with the bullet following much more slowly. Or the barrel would explode.
Trump actually ran - and won! Overnight Bloomberg went from making appearances on Celebrity Apprentice to whining that Trump is crazy. Yes, Trump's deregulation agenda must be annoying to Nanny Bloomberg, however, I suspect good old fashioned jealousy is the real motivator. In the tiny competitive world of billionaires they are all furious not to have been the first billionaire President. That third party ticket might get a little crowded with Cuban, Zuckerberg, Oprah....
"Backfire" is not a metaphor about guns or where they might be pointed. It is about gasoline igniting in an exhaust system of a vehicle or igniting prematurely in a cylinder.
Gonna be easier for a pro-life candidate to win the Democrat nomination than for a gun-grabber to win the Republican nomination.
Bloomberg flushed millions of dollars into 501(c)(4) anti-firearm sock puppet advocacy groups. And he's Jewish. So who seriously thinks he has any chance to become president?
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा