First, there's little that's Independent about Bloomberg, who's more of a leftist, straight down the line, than he is anything. His past record of cutting debt and deficits in the Big Apple is a positive, but not much else.
And I'd think (although for different reasons) that American leftist 20 percenters (the base of the modern democrat party) might be on my side here, since there's a chance that a Bloomberg "Independent" run -- with Mikey as a sort of Bernie-Lite likely to steal more votes from the democrat party than gop-ers -- could cost the democrat party the election and hand it to the gop-ers (in much the same way Ross Perot cost the gop-ers the election in 1992, and how a Trump "Independent" run could cost the gop-ers the election this year).
Put another way: Very few gop-er devotees would vote for this guy, so who would be voting for him? Maybe a lot of Independents, but maybe also a lot of democrat party people.
Finally, thoughts on 8 years of a Bloomberg presidency: I see Bloomberg paying only campaign lip service to cutting debt and deficits, leaving us with a healthy $25-30 Trillion National Debt at the end of his regime. And as a special added attraction, for 8 years all Americans will get to slurp their sugary soft drinks out of 16-ounce cups. Please do us a favor, and just stay home, old man.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/23/politics/michael-bloomberg-president-2016/
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/24/nyregion/bloomberg-sensing-an-opening-revisits-a-potential-white-house-run.html?_r=0
Postscript: This whole conversation is admittedly quite academic, in all likelihood, since Hilary, despite recent stumbles, remains the odds-on favorite for the democrat party nomination, and it appears there's no chance Bloomberg runs if she's in the fold. I guess that would be one positive of the corrupt, dishonest old ball-and-chain getting her "inevitable" nomination.
Posts
