• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Michael Bloomberg Considers Run for President Against Trump


It's worse than that. Not only the tax issue, but threats of bringing down the private health insurance sector (160 million Americans use it, 600,000 directly work for health insurance companies - think of 4 people in each household and you get 2.4 million people who depend on those jobs), not to forget that 16 million people work for the healthcare sector at large, and they'll be afraid of being uprooted and downsized in the midst of a chaos. Sure, maybe it's meant to be replaced by something better... but people still remember the "you can keep your doctor" debacle and they won't necessarily believe the Dem candidate trying to reassure them that their healthcare will be just fine. So, the proposal with M4A is to create the ultimate mega governmental bureaucracy to handle healthcare for all Americans... but people look at the Veterans Affairs Administration and see that their bloated system provides really ****ty healthcare to veterans, a much smaller chunk of the population, so how will they feel confident that a much larger and much more complex operation will get to run smoothly?

People fear abrupt change, especially the older Americans who depend on healthcare, who are, by the way, the most reliable voting segment, the people who actually do show up to vote.

Then, there is the issue of extending free ELECTIVE health care to illegal aliens. Only the most progressive and far left people are for this. This will feel offensive to the VAST majority of Americans, right, center, and a good chunk of the left.

Add to this, blunders like proposing the felons like the Boston Marathon bomber should vote, doing away with deportations all together, and other unpopular ideas: the Dems are doing their VERY BEST to alienate the center (and even some people on the left), and remember, in our polarized political climat, it's the center that decides elections.

Trump is the incumbent. His economy is seen as good. Dislodging an incumbent who presides over a good economy is very hard. People assume that Trump will do worse than in 2016. He actually may do better. And they assume the Dems will do better than in 2016. They actually may do worse.

All the leftists' talk that "it's in the bag" smells of lessons not learned from 2016.
 
uptower said:
Unfortunately framing in in those terms is not as widely accepted as many Republicans would like to think. The people who are that afraid of 'takers' are already in the bag for Trump. Those in the middle are open to some experimentation.
Click to expand...

Maybe in blue states, the rest of the country not so much. In the swing states Trump needs to win he is beating Warren and running even with Sanders.
 

I think Biden is the only one of those three who could clearly beat Trump, but he may be too damaged by the primary. Sanders has always been on the coo-coo train, and doesn't have support of establishment Democrats. He'll never get near the nomination, and if he did, he would turn off enough independents that we'd be in the same place as the last election - two bad candidates - and the incumbent would win. (Bloomberg would have the same issue). Warren never has gotten traction, or been described as 'inspiring' - I think she'll get knocked out at some point.


He is the incumbent, and like him or not, he's performed well on many fronts. Unless Democrats give him a death blow with the impeachment efforts, he's going to come out stronger, and they'll be weaker.


The impact of gerrymandering is overstated (and it's a concept that Democrats have never opposed). Regardless, it has no impact on a presidential race. Dems DO need a halfway decent candidate, and while they have a couple, they are caught under the steamroller of the impeachment effort. They can't get their message out, or gain any real traction in their own primary. Their only option is to hang on, and hope this comes to some kind of conclusion before the primary gets into full swing.
 
I can see it now. A Big Gulp on Trump's podium at every rally. With big, obnoxious slurps at every applause line. Talking about how Little Mikey, this armed bodyguard protected billionaire doesn't think people are to be trusted with a 32oz of soda never-mind a .357 mag...
 

Impeachment will weaken the president, even if his first term "survives" it. It will bring out so much dirt and everyone whose not a partisan will know if the Senate let's him off, it's not because he deserves it. And it is not the Dem's only card to play. Biden is strong because hes "not Trump" and offers a return to normalcy, if no new ideas. But the ideas of Sanders and especially Warren poll very well. Medicare for all? Anyone who's not a die-hard conservative likes the sound of that. Bernie's populism? remember all the disaffected Bernie Bros who went for Trump just because they felt the DNC had cheated them out of their preferred candidate and foisted Clinton on them? Given another chance, they'll vote for him.

The key demographic - or archetype perhaps - is the elusive "swing voter". They are not Trumpettes just because they voted for Trump once; his presidency is a disaster for them as well (only solid conservatives, billionaires and evangelical right-wingers can call his record any kind of a "success"). It was a few thousand votes in a handful of counties that will decide Trump's fate. Encumbency is only a benefit when things are going well. If his opponent can be more inspiring than Clinton (not a hard act) then he's in trouble.

But all that is after the primary. Bloomberg doesn't really have the mettle to get that far. If he did, yeah he'd probably still beat Trump. Truth is he's not selling anything new though and he won't pass the primaries.

Now if he runs as an independent, maybe that will suck some air out of the Dems...but it could just as easily get some moderate Republicans.
 

Well, if he wants to jump in the boat with Nader and Stein, I don't see how anyone can prevent that.
 

No, impeachment weakens the democrats. If they don't succeed (the likely outcome given the Senate) - they look ineffective and weak. If they don't come up with a smoking gun they'll also look petty and vindictive. Look at what happened to Republicans after the trial of Bill Clinton - and he did everything they accused him of. Worse, if they win (or Trump steps aside) they face a relatively clean Pence with no remaining ammunition. It's a lose-lose scenario that Pelosi and others tried to avoid.

Bernie has no chance of winning either the primary or the general and Warren is not much better. We'll see if Biden emerges intact, or someone else emerges. But they're not going to have much time to build a platform beyond 'dump Trump'.
 

The Republicans won the next general election after impeachment.
 

Oprah does not have the same business experience. About half as much in time, and a lot less in scope.

And Michelle LIVED in the White House. She didnt run it. Youre stretching. Just because you like someone personally doesnt make them a good executive.
 
uptower said:
The Republicans won the next general election after impeachment.
Click to expand...

yes because al gore and his locked box was about as thrilling as watching paint dry.
 

yeah i think this sums it up about Michelle,
just because she was screwing obama doesn't make her a good run for president.
i think i will take a line from bill burr on this one.

NSFW(language)
 

Not really Oprah's show was good and everyone liked it.
when she went out on her own and created the OWN network it was flopping worse than a fish.
the only thing that saved it was the fact SHE went back on the air.
 
ludin said:
yeah i think this sums it up about Michelle,
just because she was screwing obama doesn't make her a good run for president.
Click to expand...

Michelle Obama is well-liked outside of right-wing circles of course. However she'snot going to run, she is not likely to win the nomination and the only reason she gets mentioned is because it triggers right-wingers and they need a black woman to rally against. Exhibit A above.

But given the choice between her and Trump you'd be surprised how many people choose her.
 

lmao obama is only well liked by leftist. she is rude, crass and well only proud of her country when she gets what she wants.
no he isn't going to run she isn't qualified.

doesn't trigger me at all your projection fallacies are just that fallacies.
has nothing to do with her skin color. your race card is worn out get a new argument.
just like not voting for her husband had nothing to do with his skin color.
 

There's absolutely no reason to dislike Mrs Obama. She is completely harmless. Not voting for her husband is a matter of policy disagreements I get that. But making her into some imaginary personal enemy serves no purpose. I've never seen her act publicly 'rude and crass'.
 

your a leftist nothing she could do would make you think that.
 
ludin said:
your a leftist nothing she could do would make you think that.
Click to expand...

It will never matter who you think I am, so just stick to the topic.

There's no rational reason to dislike the woman. The hatred from the right is uncalled for. It's like crazies on the left who hated Laura Bush. She's never done any harm, whether one agrees with her husband's policies or not. In fact as first lady she didn't do much of anything. Therefore I contend a lot of the hate directed toward her is partly rooted in who she is, not what she does. And we all know for a lot of the screaming right wing, color is a factor in that.
 

I don't hate her. See that is the problem with the left. they hate anyone that doesn't agree with them.
I don't hate her i find her policies and her view on the american people in general to be rude and crass just like her husband.

Just like her comments the other day 100% unjustified. yet she doesn't see a problem with it.
nor would she apologize for them either.

yes she had a lot of bad policies as well. her school lunch program was an abysmal failure cost schools tons of money and food waste is at an all time high
and kids go hungry. The quality of the food is disgusting. yet didn't affect her kids so she didn't care. she has a let them eat cake mentality like most leftists.
 

Just ignore the trolling.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…