Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    23 Jan '16 19:36
    Former New York City mayor and gazillionaire Michael Bloomberg is considering an independent run for President in 2016:

    Bloomberg has advised friends and associates that he would be willing to spend at least $1 billion of his own money on a campaign for the November 2016 election, the Times said, citing sources briefed on the former mayor's thinking.

    Bloomberg, 73, has given himself an early March deadline for entering the race, the Times reported, after commissioning a poll in December to see how he would fare against Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, the Republican and Democratic frontrunners.

    No independent has ever won a U.S. presidential election. But Bloomberg, who has close Wall Street ties and liberal social views, sees an opening for his candidacy if Republicans nominate Trump or Texas Senator Ted Cruz and the Democrats nominate Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, the Times said.

    Bloomberg, who has long privately flirted with the idea of mounting a presidential run, served as mayor of New York City from 2002 to 2013. He switched his party affiliation from Republican to independent in 2007 and in recent years has spent millions on national campaigns to tighten U.S. gun laws and reform immigration.

    One anonymous Bloomberg adviser told the Times the former mayor believes voters want “a non-ideological, bipartisan, results-oriented vision” that has not been offered in the 2016 election cycle by either political party.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-bloomberg-idUSKCN0V10MY

    IF he should run, what effect would it have on a Trump/Cruz v. Sanders race (he seems OK with Hillary)?
  2. Standard member Soothfast
    0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,
    23 Jan '16 20:58 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Former New York City mayor and gazillionaire Michael Bloomberg is considering an independent run for President in 2016:

    Bloomberg has advised friends and associates that he would be willing to spend at least $1 billion of his own money on a campaign for the November 2016 election, the Times said, citing sources briefed on the former mayor's thinking. ...[text shortened]... hould run, what effect would it have on a Trump/Cruz v. Sanders race (he seems OK with Hillary)?
    I was just reading about this. Basically I see him as a moderate Republican -- the kind we thought was extinct at the national level. No one really knows, but, I think he would tend to split the Republican vote nearly down the middle with Trump/Cruz, and shave off some more conservative Democrats from Clinton/Sanders. The end result in the Electoral College? Trump/Cruz would win the deep red states, Clinton/Sanders would get California, Oregon, Washington, New England, some Mid-Atlantic and Great Lakes states (Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Michigan), and D.C. Maybe Bloomberg would manage to get purple states like Virginia, Colorado, Ohio, Missouri, and Nevada. Texas?

    It would be chaos. If Bloomberg gets up to 30% of the vote, probably no one would quite get a majority in the Electoral College. But it's also possible Bloomberg would only get about 20% of the vote, like Ross Perot in 1992 -- advantage: Democrats....maybe.

    Usually independent candidates are out-of-the-mainstream types. If Bloomberg is up against Trump and Sanders, he'd be selling himself as Mr. Mainstream. That turns everything on its head.
  3. 23 Jan '16 22:09
    I live in NYC and normally vote democrat.I'd vote for Bloomberg
  4. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    24 Jan '16 01:01
    Originally posted by Soothfast
    I was just reading about this. Basically I see him as a moderate Republican -- the kind we thought was extinct at the national level. No one really knows, but, I think he would tend to split the Republican vote nearly down the middle with Trump/Cruz, and shave off some more conservative Democrats from Clinton/Sanders. The end result in the Electoral Col ...[text shortened]... rump and Sanders, he'd be selling himself as Mr. Mainstream. That turns everything on its head.
    I think Bloomberg might be more formidable than Perot; he's better known, has government experience, can take advantage of looser campaign finance rules than there were in 1992 and 1996 and the Republican candidates in particular are running pretty sharply to the ideological fringe of their own party. I think he'd have a real shot of making Trump in 2016 into William Howard Taft of 1912.
  5. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    24 Jan '16 02:37 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Soothfast
    I was just reading about this. Basically I see him as a moderate Republican -- the kind we thought was extinct at the national level. No one really knows, but, I think he would tend to split the Republican vote nearly down the middle with Trump/Cruz, and shave off some more conservative Democrats from Clinton/Sanders. The end result in the Electoral Col ...[text shortened]... rump and Sanders, he'd be selling himself as Mr. Mainstream. That turns everything on its head.
    I disagree. Bloomberg is very close to a mainstream Democrat on a national level and is probably more liberal than mainstream Dems on social issues. Only in NY was he able to run as a Republican and he only did so because the Dem primary was too crowded.

    I think he'd pull more votes from Clinton/Sanders than from Trump/Cruz.
  6. 24 Jan '16 04:56
  7. 24 Jan '16 05:16
    SH76, who do you like better, no1marauder or kazet naggora? For president that is...
  8. 24 Jan '16 11:23
    He might have a real shot at the Presidency if the eventual nominees are Trump and Sanders.
  9. 24 Jan '16 11:25
    Originally posted by joe beyser
    SH76, who do you like better, no1marauder or kazet naggora? For president that is...
    Unfortunately for you guys, I am not eligible.
  10. 24 Jan '16 13:34
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Unfortunately for you guys, I am not eligible.
    I have always felt the whole concept of eligibility is antidemocratic. If the people want you, why should it matter where you were born, what nationality you are or how old you are?
    I understand term limits but other than that I see no reason for any eligibility requirements whatsoever.
  11. 24 Jan '16 14:31
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    I have always felt the whole concept of eligibility is antidemocratic. If the people want you, why should it matter where you were born, what nationality you are or how old you are?
    I understand term limits but other than that I see no reason for any eligibility requirements whatsoever.
    No, there shouldn't be term limits either. But neither should there be one person who wields significant power. It should be diluted across several people and/or groups, representing the diverse interests within society. Instead of introducing term limits for the US president, they should have just taken away the president's power to veto laws, to appoint cabinet members and to command the army.
  12. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    24 Jan '16 14:39 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    No, there shouldn't be term limits either. But neither should there be one person who wields significant power. It should be diluted across several people and/or groups, representing the diverse interests within society. Instead of introducing term limits for the US president, they should have just taken away the president's power to veto laws, to appoint cabinet members and to command the army.
    Would the "diverse interests within society" share command of the armed forces? Would the timing and distribution of forces for D-Day for example been left up to a public debate and vote?
  13. 24 Jan '16 14:44
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Would the "diverse interests within society" share command of the armed forces? Would the timing and distribution of forces for D-Day for example been left up to a public debate and vote?
    Would the "diverse interests within society" share command of the armed forces?

    Yes, in the sense that the appointment of army command would be under their control.

    Would the timing and distribution of forces for D-Day for example been left up to a public debate and vote?

    No.
  14. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    24 Jan '16 15:11
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    [b]Would the "diverse interests within society" share command of the armed forces?

    Yes, in the sense that the appointment of army command would be under their control.

    Would the timing and distribution of forces for D-Day for example been left up to a public debate and vote?

    No.[/b]
    I fail to see the logic; the People already elect the commander in chief of the Armed Forces.
  15. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    24 Jan '16 15:13
    Roger Sherman at the Constitutional Convention proposed that the President be replaceable at the will of the Congress as it was their laws he would be enforcing. It's interesting to speculate how American history would have been different if this proposal had been enacted.