Thursday, February 4, 2016

Major Indication That Michael Bloomberg Will Enter the Presidential Race

Douglas Schoen, Michael Bloomberg's pollster, is out with an essay in today's WSJ titled, Why Mike Bloomberg Can Win: Record numbers of voters are independents—who won’t be satisfied with Clinton, Trump or Cruz.

Schoen writes:
Who is appealing to the center? Most Americans, the new silent majority, do not share the aims of the activist caucusgoers. The share of voters who identify as independents hit 43% last year, a new record according to Gallup. Only 26% were Republicans and 30% Democrats. Moreover, 60% of Americans told Gallup in September that the Republicans and Democrats “do such a poor job” representing them that they want to see a third major party emerge. That’s up from 40% when the question was first asked in 2003.
Who fits the bill? Michael Bloomberg, a centrist with a clear (and arguably unique) record in business as an entrepreneur and in politics as a three-term mayor of New York. 

Bloomberg a centrist? Well, I guess maybe, when he is compared against Stalin. Mussolini and Mao, but I don't think they even thought about regulating sugary drinks.

It is real scary but it looks mor and more like Bloomberg will enter the race,

Schoen again:
As America becomes more polarized, the desire grows for a candidate in the center focused on building consensus and getting results. This is the hidden message of Monday’s caucuses, the one that Mr. Bloomberg is contemplating as he considers a run for president.
The numbers bear this out: Shortly after the 2014 election a poll by this newspaper and NBC News showed that 63% of Americans favored compromise, not confrontation, to achieve policy goals. A majority, 52%, wanted the government to do more problem-solving. These attitudes suggest a constituency for a candidate who eschews partisanship and produces results. That’s exactly what Mr. Bloomberg did in New York, and what he has advocated for 10 years in speeches on reforming the political system and fixing Washington.
Bloomberg is a very scary guy, the ultimate central planner. As I have written before, I would prefer even Bernie Sanders over Bloomberg.



  1. I wonder what he will be more likely attacked on; Stop and Frisk from Hillary and Sanders or his food bans from the Republican field

  2. I disagree. I'm a resident of NYC and lived here over the course of his political tenure. Firstly, the city was effective in delivering services. Far from perfect, but drastically better than the previous administration or the current one. Secondly, Michael Bloomberg is a big time fiscal conservative not just on the municipal level, but as a outspoken advocate of simpson bowles deficit reductions on the federal level. That alone puts him in rare company as no other candidate has brought any attention whatsoever to this giant problem. I'll take smaller drink sizes any day of the week and Sunday over a fiscal catastrophe which we're all but guaranteed to have with any other president. He may be restrictive of 2nd amendment rights, but he's very protective over 1st amendment rights (really we should all be equally vocal about all bills of rights). He's an incredibly successful CAPITALIST and has proven himself to be extremely capable in both the private and public sector. Yes, there are lots of policy positions with him that I do not agree with, but overall, particularly in comparison with the other candidates, he would be a HIGHLY competent commander in chief and one that would yield the best economic outcomes for our country.

    1. Oh boy, talk about New York values, how did you ever find this site. Look, maybe some of the raving leftist lunatics in New York make Bloomberg look relatively sane on a few issues, but step away from that and Bloomberg is not just awful but scary: someone with zero respect for liberty, a total statist and crony capitalist.