quote:

Originally posted by r0gue:
The most dangerous job in the world is being President with Hillary as VP. Man, I wouldn't take that gig for all the tea in China.

Won't happen. Bloomberg couldn't stand having a running mate who is as much of a control freak as he is.

Her Andrew Wang is no doubt larger than Bloomberg's.

Cant see her stooping to be anybodys #2. I don't think her ego can handle that.

I know her ego cant take losing to DJT, again

quote:

Originally posted by Lord Vaalic:
Cant see her stooping to be anybodys #2. I don't think her ego can handle that.

I know her ego cant take losing to DJT, again

I don't think she can afford a second nervous breakdown.

https://hotair.com/headlines/a...g-candidates-matter/

It’s tempting to follow this chapter of the Democratic race by watching the polls, for signs of bounces and momentum.

But a grim truth is that Democrats should be looking at another metric—money—that says much more about where this race is going. And barring huge surprises or upset comebacks in Nevada or South Carolina, the money suggests something rather obvious: The Democratic primary is careening toward a head-to-head clash between Michael Bloomberg and Bernie Sanders, currently the only two candidates with the cash and constituencies to push their candidacies beyond the first four states and Super Tuesday.

Who else can scale up? “This is a huge issue,” said David Axelrod, the former Barack Obama adviser. “The cost of competing across 14 states is astronomical and the remaining candidates will expend most of their limited kitties to get there. For Bloomberg, the Super Tuesday ante is lunch money. He will be able to communicate at a high level everywhere.

Bernie has a reliable, renewable war chest and universal recognition. For the others, they have to hope to catch a wave of publicity and dollars off of unexpected showings in Nevada and South Carolina.”

Rufus Gifford, a Democratic fundraiser who held senior finance jobs for both of Obama’s campaigns, said he thinks there will be three finalists for the nomination in the end. “But Bernie and Bloomberg are definitely going to be two of them,” said Gifford. “It’s because they have money. They have resources. It’s hard to think of who else will be viable.”

He would be dead in 3 months.
They have a pretty good body count.

quote:

Bernie and Bloomberg are definitely going to be two of them,”

there's just a huge amount of cosmic delight, in a race between a billionaire who got that way by knowing how to hang on to his money; while the social communist knowing how to bilk taxpayers out of their funds, and promises to do away with billionaires.....

This message has been edited. Last edited by: signewt,

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
the only two candidates with the cash and constituencies to push their candidacies beyond the first four states and Super Tuesday...

“The cost of competing across 14 states is astronomical and the remaining candidates will expend most of their limited kitties to get there...Bernie has a reliable, renewable war chest and universal recognition. For the others, they have to hope to catch a wave of publicity and dollars off of unexpected showings in Nevada and South Carolina.”

Maybe they're right, but it sounds like people are making a whole lot of assumptions, at least one of which I'd be willing to bet will turn out to be utter nonsense.

I don't know who Axelrod's trying to butter up, but Bloomberg's money and "universal recognition' haven't really achieved anything yet. Nor has there been any other activity (massive attendance at rallies, for example) to indicate that Bloomberg's building a large group of at least vaguely enthusiastic fans.

I also think Axelrod's assuming that Bloomberg and Bernie are going to be particularly successful on Super Tuesday precisely because they can afford more air time. To be fair, Bernie's been opening more offices in more states, so at least he seems to be genuinely getting foot soldiers in the street to gin up excitement. But I can't begin to understand how Bloomberg thinks a candidate who hasn't attracted much attention or support yet is somehow going to be catapulted to a number of top three finishes just because of advertising.

These clowns also seem to think that it's unlikely for other candidates to get great boosts from the Nevada and South Carolina primaries. That, of course, will be perfectly true - for anyone who doesn't do well in those primaries. Those one or two candidates who do well will get headlines and be able to convince big donors to open their pockets somewhat.

I would also point out that the candidates have a week before Nevada, two weeks before South Carolina, and two and a half weeks before Super Tuesday. Many Super Tuesday states are pretty close to Nevada (California and Utah, with Colorado being on the way from Nevada to South Carolina) and South Carolina (North Carolina, Tennessee, and, I would argue, Alabama). There's still time to slip in personal appearances in Super Tuesday states, and strategic personal appearances have had more of an impact than ads in the past.

What I think is utter nonsense is that Bloomberg will be in at the running at the end of the campaign. Why? Precisely because there are no signs out there that he's actually building momentum among the donkeys (as opposed to the media, which has dumped other candidates as "front runners" in a flash and may be about to do so to Bloomberg - see http://www.yahoo.com/news/form...mberg-173100774.html ). If his ads have provided no tangible results yet (and his entire campaign seems to be nothing but a massive air war), why would anyone believe that they'll produce massive tangible results on Super Tuesday or any results at all in subsequent primary elections?

As for Bernie, I can only look at the upcoming election calendar and say "we'll see". Maybe he can win or place in North Carolina, Alabama, Arkansas, Texas and California. Maybe he doesn't play so well outside of the northeast and upper midwest. Remember, too, that there are six more primaries on March 10th (ID, MI, MS, MO, ND and WA), three more on March 17th (AZ, FL, IL and OH), and six more on April 28th (CT, DE, MD, NY, PN and RI). Bernie's got some interesting hurdles ahead of him, and other candidates could do pretty well in those states.

All of this is kind of a long-winded way of saying that I think Axelrod and Gifford are either in the bag or trying to climb into the bag for whoever wins the primary. Axelrod in particular is in an interesting position given his ties (former ties?) to the Clintons; I imagine it'll be a lot easier for him to butter up Bloomberg than it will be Bernie.

Bloomberg being just a "regular guy"

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/...e-to-voters-n2561360

At a campaign event in North Carolina on Friday, the billionaire revealed one such problem the candidate has previously struggled with, and it is one that surely everyone in the audience could relate to somehow. It was the problem Bloomberg had with a housekeeper purposefully throwing rounds of Scrabble in order to let Bloomberg's mother win the game.

Bloomberg recalled the conversation he had with his mother about the incident.

"Every day I'd say, 'what did you do.' And she'd say 'well, I played Scrabble today.' And I said, 'who'd you play with.' 'The housekeeper.' 'And did you win.' 'Yes, of course.'

And I said, 'mother, the housekeeper works for us. They're throwing the game to you.'

'That's an outrage,' and she finished by saying, 'if you learn to play Scrabble you'd learn how to spell.' I said, 'mother, at my age I'm never going to learn how to spell.'"

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

video at link

listen carefully he almost says "throwing the election"

what an average guy, right ?

Re-release of an older story about Bloomberg
--------------------------------------------
Employee Allegedly Told Bloomberg She Was Pregnant. She Claims Bloomberg Told Her: ‘Kill It!’

As Democrat presidential candidate Mike Bloomberg continues to ascend in the polls, more and more questions are beginning to surface about his treatment of women in the workplace.

The Washington Post highlighted several of the allegations made against Bloomberg, the most disturbing of which involved Bloomberg allegedly telling a top saleswoman at his company that she should “kill” her baby while she was pregnant.

The woman, Sekiko Sakai Garrison, says that she told Bloomberg that she and her husband were having a baby and that Bloomberg told her to “kill it.”

In a lawsuit Garrison filed against Bloomberg, in which he settled with her, she said the following happened:

On April 11, 1995 at approximately 11:20 a.m., Bloomberg was having a photograph taken with two female Company salespeople and a group of N.Y.U. Business School students, in the company snack area. When Bloomberg noticed Garrison standing nearby, he asked, “Why didn’t they ask you to be in the picture? I guess they saw your face.”

Continuing his penchant for ridiculing recently married women in his employ, Bloomberg asked plaintiff, “How’s married life? You married?” Plaintiff responded that her marriage was great and was going to get better in a few months: that she was pregnant, and the baby was due the following September. He responded to her “Kill it!” Plaintiff asked Bloomberg to repeat himself, and again he said, “Kill it!” and muttered, “Great! Number 16!” suggesting to plaintiff his unhappiness that sixteen women in the Company had maternity-related status. Then he walked away.

The Post interviewed former Bloomberg employee David Zielenziger, who said he witnessed Bloomberg making the comments and that Bloomberg’s behavior was “outrageous. I understood why she took offense.”

“I remember she had been telling some of her girlfriends that she was pregnant,” Zielenziger said. “And Mike came out and I remember he said, ‘Are you going to kill it?’ And that stopped everything. And I couldn’t believe it.”

“He talked kind of crudely about women all the time,” Zielenziger added.

The Post said that Bloomberg refused to be interviewed for the story and that a spokesperson for Bloomberg said that he would not release anyone from confidentiality agreements and would not release depositions from cases where he was sued.

Garrison also said that Bloomberg told saleswomen about a male colleague who was getting married: “All of you girls line up to give him [oral sex] as a wedding present.”

Garrison said that Bloomberg also repeatedly made derogatory remarks about women who were pregnant, including telling one woman, “What the hell did you do a thing like that for?”

Bloomberg allegedly told another woman who had trouble finding a nanny, “It’s a f—— baby! … All you need is some black who doesn’t have to speak English to rescue it from a burning building.”

Bloomberg learned after the incident that Garrison was upset by what happened, at which point he called her and allegedly left her a voicemail.

The Post reports that Bloomberg said the following in the voicemail:

“When you have time, give me a buzz or stop by,” the CEO said. “I didn’t even know you were pregnant until the other day.” Bloomberg said that another employee had told him “you were upset.” He said that “whatever you heard wasn’t what I said and whatever I said had nothing to do with pregnancies.” Bloomberg concluded the voice mail by saying he “couldn’t be happier you are having a child” and “I apologize if there was something you heard but I didn’t say it, didn’t mean it, didn’t say it.”

Garrison said that management at the company allegedly threatened to fire her if she did not drop the issue and told her to “forget it ever happened.” Bloomberg eventually settled the lawsuit she filed against him.

https://www.dailywire.com/news...yqXUQ&_hsmi=83417637

I get a warm and fuzzy knowing he’s pissing his money away. Can’t wait to see the skeletons come out of the closet.

He should relax and take an Ocean Cruise before things get busy. Maybe take Hillary along and discuss strategies...

Even if he makes it to challenge Trump no way will he be able to keep up with Trump when it really gets going.
DJT worked his ass off in 2016 - partially why HEC lost.
Bernie may get some decent crowds but he doesn't have Trumps stamina either.
Going to get interesting.

Bloomberg, the 78 year old billionaire ex-Republican from New York wants to team up with a 72 year old millionaire Democrat from New York, Hillary, to defeat a 78 year old millionaire socialist/communist from New York, Bernie, so they can run against a 73 year old billionaire ex-Independent from New York, Donald Trump.

Seems a bit strange.

His vision for the USA
----------------------------

Bloomberg Said Leftist Disaster California ‘Can Serve as a Great Example’ for US

I wonder if there’s a different version of California for liberals — an alternate universe version where everything is working smoothly.

Maybe they don’t see the troubled part.

After all, most of what out-of-state politicians see is swanky affairs at homes in the Hollywood Hills or in the better neighborhoods of Silicon Valley — the kind of shindigs like the scene at the beginning of “Bullitt” where the supercilious senator played by Robert Vaughn first meets Steve McQueen’s character.

Michael Bloomberg is the second major politician I’ve seen talk about how wonderful the Golden State recently.

Granted, the most recent was its Democratic governor, Gavin Newsom, who went on “The View” and basically told us all how his state was some sort of template of how a post-Donald Trump America should look.

The problem is that Newsom isn’t alone.

In January, we had the specter of Bloomberg telling us how California “can serve as a great example” to the rest of America.

Bloomberg is a guy who normally wouldn’t need to be talking up the Golden State.

He’s the former mayor of New York City, a metropolis where the residents look down on California as a land for those with an unserious mindset, a people who have managed to somehow combine slacking and striving into the same general ethos.

There are two reasons why Bloomberg is suddenly putting forth a failing state as the kind of place that can set an example for all of us.

First, as per his Super Tuesday blitz strategy, he desperately needs to win and win big in California. If he doesn’t, I hope he kept his receipts for his presidential run.

Second, some of the failed policies that California is fond of? Bloomberg’s actually pretty fond of them, too.

“I think that California can serve as a great example for the rest of this country,” Bloomberg said at the opening of his campaign headquarters in Los Angeles last month, according to the California Globe, adding that it’s “something the rest of the country looks up to.”

We do?

Well, Bloomberg did mention the whole housing crisis thing and the fact the state’s homelessness is out of control, “as well as other issues California is currently trying to solve,” the Globe said. (If he listed those other issues, the speech would be ongoing.)

But then there’s the reason why he thinks California is doing quite well for itself: “Bloomberg noted that California’s efforts on climate change, gun control, and criminal justice reform were second to none, and that the rest of the nation should follow their lead,” the Globe reported.

Ah yes, there we go. California, a state that has a prohibitively high cost of living and wants to get to 60 percent clean energy usage by 2030 and 100 percent clean usage by 2045, according to Quartz, something I’m sure won’t have a negative effect on the the state’s electricity costs.

As for gun control, yes, the state constantly tests the limits of its least favorite amendment repeatedly. Much of this change has been goaded on, mind you, by Bloomberg-astroturfed groups like Everytown for Gun Safety.

As for criminal justice reform, let me point out that this is a state where a Democrat is currently proposing a bill under which offenders under the age of 20 could be charged as juveniles.

This’ll all play very well in California, mind you.

“Bloomberg was a late entry into the Democratic race, so he didn’t get a foothold in states like Iowa and New Hampshire,” former political strategist Casey Larkin told the Globe.

“California is his line in the sand and he’s going all in on it, similar to how Rudy Giuliani always started with Florida in previous Republican primaries.

“He’s saying this simply as a way to get California voters on his side. Notice how he specifically praised California’s gun control and their stance on global warming. He may personally believe it, but he mentioned the issues the resonate the strongest among California democrats who live in major cities. That’s who he’s going for. It’s a New York City strategy to target urban areas and miss the rest.

“He’s also going after the bases of the other candidates, all of whom aren’t here. They’re in Iowa mostly. He wants to get a lot now to make it a surprise when they get back here and make it an early shock with to carry momentum. So it’s also a play from George McGovern’s ’72 playbook.”

Technically it’s a reverse play.

For those of you who aren’t political junkies and/or Hunter Thompson fans who’ve read “Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail ’72,” here’s a TL;DR: Back during the 1972 election, long-shot far-left candidate George McGovern campaigned out in Iowa before the Iowa caucuses mattered that much while everyone else was in New Hampshire, which led to him posting a better-than-expected finish in the Hawkeye state that put him among the top tier of candidates.

Combine that with an establishment favorite who stumbled badly (Edmund Muskie, a jowl-tastic senator from Maine) and a Democrat electorate ready for an insurgent, and McGovern managed to win the nomination.

He then lost the general election to Richard Nixon like the worst XFL team last weekend would lose to the Kansas City Chiefs.

There’s your political lesson for the day, millennials. You’re welcome.

Beyond questions of whether this works (kissing up to the left in California as a gamble doesn’t seem like such a hot idea in hindsight when the only candidate who’s built up momentum thus far honeymooned in the Soviet Union), that’s kind of not the point — this is who Mike Bloomberg is.

Bloomberg may put himself forth as a moderate, but he’s also an inveterate nanny-stater — and those two things work at cross-purposes. If he believes the government can achieve something, he won’t try to get there by halves.

This is something the people of New York City found out.

He didn’t like sugary sodas, so he tried to ban sodas from being sold in large sizes. (The courts, thankfully, had a little word with him.)

On smoking, Bloomberg hated the habit, so he did everything in his power to eradicate it.

New York’s gun laws were practically draconian.

This is what he did in a city.

He now wants to do it for (or to, if you prefer) an entire nation.

In 2009, the late polemicist Christopher Hitchens wrote a piece on New York City’s petty regulations, spurred on by how they’d mushroomed under then-Mayor Bloomberg.

“In fact, the law these days is very clear. It states that New York City is now the domain of the mediocre bureaucrat, of the inspector with too much time on his hands, of the anal-retentive cop with his nose in a rule book, of the snitch willing to drop a dime on a harmless fellow citizen, and of a mayor who is that most pathetic and annoying figure — the micro-megalomaniac,” Hitchens wrote.

And now that micro-megalomaniac wants to remake America in that image, and he thinks California would be a “good example.”

California, with its unaffordable over-regulated housing market, rampant homelessness, streets strewn with fecal matter, Second Amendment-baiting gun laws and elected officials who are either gleefully proud of these things or oblivious to the extent of the problems.

Some moderate.

In California, ordinary people can leave — and they do, in droves.

As ordinary Americans who love this country, our options are much more limited. We can be thankful, however, that our government is too, as are Michael Bloomberg’s chances of becoming the Democratic nominee.

However, chalk him up as yet another Democrat who can’t help but see an alternate reality version of California that simply doesn’t exist.

https://www.westernjournal.com...tent=libertyalliance

California has become the England our founders left, and fought, to be free.

Mark Dice on Bloomberg trying to meme (or pay for them)

bloomberg's campaign response on speculation of hillary as a vp...

https://deadline.com/2020/02/b...ing-mate-1202860922/

remember guys, it's all about the swing states. MB doesn't need a running mate to help win more votes in California or New York -- those are solid Blue no matter what.

Whoever he chooses for a running mate will be someone who he thinks will help him win one or two of the key swing states. That won't be HRC.

quote:

Originally posted by kramden:
He polled about 6% of potential democrat votes at one point. Outside of NY I don't think he'll do much.

Please, don't lump NY together! Other than the big cities, he won't get the time of day from us rural folks!!