Is this man the antidote to Donald Trump?
Short answer: No.
We'll take his money, though.
2
I do not want a 78 year old president. Please come up with another idea.
9
Dear NYT readers, don't listen to this - he's too old narrative. The determining factor is mental ability. Look at Warren Buffett who is 88 years old and is mentally more capable than 99.9% of the readers here.
As far as how much energy is required for this job, just a handful of people in this entire country know how much energy is required and these are the ex presidents. And besides Bloomberg has been an executive for probably 30 years or more and knows how to delegate. So energy required is also not a significant issue. Keep your eye on the ball and vote.
34
Under Bloomberg's watch, NYC became unaffordable for most people of average means, a place where what would be considered a respectable middle-class income in most of the country is essentially lower blue-collar. He himself called NYC a "luxury brand" and effectively said if you're not a rich person, you don't deserve to live here.
So in short, no, we don't needBloomberg to run for president, let alone become president. Were he to run as a Democrat, he would exemplify all the worst strains of the party that have driven people away from it and into the arms of demagogues like Trump, Sanders and Stein. The only difference between him and Trump would be that Trump is an elitist who pretends to be a man of the people, whereas Bloomberg is an elitist who makes no secret that he's an elitist.
23
We should be so lucky.
31
Bloomberg has proven his chops of decency & fair-minded decisions, even while making some not so welcome choices, Nobody does it all right all the time to suit all people, of course not, but I would not object to a thoroughly capable businessman who actually DOES know what he is doing, to recover the country's reputation abroad & set the country back on a sane & moderate path to civilization. Go ahead Mr. Bloomberg, I would trust you and know you would do your best for the country.
49
The patron saint of the Real Estate Board
Who helped gut the middle class in NYC.
Why do I say that, look at L.I.C. studio apartments for 600K. Williamsburg and most of north Brooklyn ruined.
While the rest of the city has 3 families living in a 2 bedroom apartment.
With a subway system that is a tick away from a total meltdown.
He did nothing for small businesses in this city, just up zone up zone up zone.
Who cares about issues with him.
Lets talk reality
24
After what we have been through, not only with the President of the US, but with Hollywood moguls, corporate CEOs, the Catholic Church, and US Senators, we need a woman. Only a woman can inspire confidence that POTUS will keep half the population safe from the other half.
12
I am sick into death of "identity" politics. Give me a Democratic candidate--of whatever race, religion, or sex--who is not a captive of corporate interests, who regardless of personal background has some feeling for those less fortunate and wants to see a rising tide lift all boats, who has experience in high elective public office, and who has the temperament, savvy, and gravitas for the job.
I think I just asked for the resurrection of FDR.
30
FWIW, I think that the Democrats strongest ticket in 2020 is
Biden - Obama
I would also be very happy with Harris - Obama.
9
No.
Seth Moulton, Tim Ryan type candidates are the answer. Electable, likable, not aging, plutocrat New Yorkers. Most of all candidates who lead with a working and middle class economic message and not identity politics. Democrats must get back to their standing up for the small guy roots and ditch myopic, coastal, lifestyle liberalism.
12
I have no problem calling Bernie Sanders "Bernie", but my stomach rebels whenever I hear Michael Bloomberg called "Mike" by folks whom he would no doubt regard as fly specks, i.e. the voters. A man of the people he aint and that's why his candidacy will go nowhere, despite the blatant campaign of the Times. Bloomberg makes Ted Cruz look like the life of the party.
19
Is Trump REALLY a billionaire? I'm not sure we know for certain that he is.
59
Teach me. I have not been paying attention till now. I am that voter who takes in far less information than most, and so I might be representative of middle America more than the very knowledgable people posting here.
And I have to say that I am open to Bloomberg--all the positives listed in the commentaries make me more positive and the few negatives listed have not changed me. And those of you arguing with broad strokes that America won't elect another rich, older white male or that the pendulum is ready to swing again for a younger outsider figure, those are interesting theories but I'm sick of theories and predictions--that got us into trouble last time around.
Even with the terrible "stop and frisk," even as I yearn for a younger candidate, even as I want another Obama, I am now--after reading this article and all the comments--willing to look at Bloomberg, maybe even getting a little excited.
7
I believe Mr. Bloomberg can bring sanity and credibility to our WH.
He is not young, but he knows how to get things done. He could select on of the young lions to run with him and mentor that person for a future run.
He understands how important being positive and moving forward can be for all of us.
It makes a whole lot of sense.
12
Well, if we were determined to elect a New York billionaire as president, this should have been the pick in the first place.
And then I remind myself, trump wasn't elected. Hillary won by almost 3 million votes, that we know of. Not that it matters anymore.
21
No one person - or even the entire elected body in OUR United States of America is going to "save" us, Mr. Bruni.
People have to get over the supposed "superman" and "god" savior ideas.
WE THE PEOPLE - together - are the only ones who can/will "save" ourselves by voting for Socially Conscious Women and men in every election - local, state and national - and telling OUR lawmakers what WE demand on every level. They work for US - not the Koch brothers or the catholic church.
14
No to Bloomberg. We need progressive young Democrats with energy and tenaciousness to beat Trump and the GOP. All the old guard Democrats, get out of the way. You sound good but you are losers. It will take a dog fight to win and Bloomberg's laid back intellectual approach in this distracted, instant gratification country, will not suffice.
7
Power ticket 2020: Bloomberg/Obama (Michelle).
9
God, please send us a billionaire to deliver us from the vile clutches of a billionaire. Good grief! Will this insanity ever end?
20
I love Michael but nationally speaking a black man as President upset the rubes. The country is not like New York sadly.
4
Yeah, sure, a liberal, elite billionaire from NYC for president, why not?
The corporate-media pundits are completely out of touch with the country.
10
@Ed Watters Spot on, Ed.
4
Not another billionaire...
How about Tulsi Gabbard?
4
This will be harsh. Probably won't get published.
1. All rich people are parts of elites that perpetuate themselves.
2. GOP elites play to the socially conservative whites.
3. Democratic elites play to minorities.
Both deliver little to these constituencies but maintain elite grasps on power.
Bloomberg is a fantasy of Manhattan and some other coastal types.
His fatal laws:
1. A clear history of oppressing minorities in maintaining law enforcement control of such. Keep Manhattan safe for liberal elites. So expect little enthusiasm for him from minorities.
2. To be blazing blunt - he is a rabidly anti-firearms Jew. This will unleash a tremendous backlash from Red state voters and those of their ilk in purple states.
3. No appeal to youth or women (some skeletons in that closet in terms of harassment?)
His candidacy is a delusion from columnists.
11
Of all the things this POTUS has wrought, perhaps the only enjoyable thing is his steady roasting of the filthy man who is his AG. They are both made for each other and loathe each other. How absolutely delicious to see that vile bigot roast in the hell of his own making!
8
Extra zing and sting? But who has a certified bite? The Black hornet taking on the yellow hornet? Keep in mind it takes at least five honey bees to take down one wasp. Honey bees are well coordinated, while hornets prefer dive bombing solo runs based on info. from the hive.
I was trepidacious about reading this editorial for fear of overreaching negative views of Bloomberg, whom I consider a fair-minded and accomplished man who served NYC well as mayor but, gladly, Mr. Bruni's comments are on point. Notwithstanding some misfires, Bloomberg's achievements (ushering in same-sex marriage in NYS, environmental issues, gun control, health and safety in outlawing cigarettes in public spaces and calorie counts on menus), to name a few, far outweigh his negatives. If anyone thinks we're gonna get Elizabeth Warren in 2020 they're grossly mistaken. Mike Bloomberg might not be my "100% Everything" but I'd be damned glad to support him if he runs and unlike Trump, he's so rich that he really does feel for and care about giving back to those in need as he has done these past many years through his philanthropic charities. He's not exactly a dream candidate but after so many nightmares currently affecting us, at least he'd let us sleep soundly at night, knowing that a man of great intelligence and willingness to improve our lives and protect our rights was at the helm.
9
@gemli> It occurs to me that if back in the day in Chicago, dead people were casting votes, maybe in the current climate I can vote for a dead person.
Here's the message: gemli's grandma in 2020.
3
Mr. Bruni measures Mr. Bloomberg against Mr. Trump -- and guess what? Mr. Bloomberg comes out on top. So would Donald Duck.
13
The following have been or are "Democrats": Gary Cohn, Lloyd Blankfein, Jamie Dimon, Tim Geithner, Larry Summers, Robert Rubin.
The following have not recently been Democrats: blue collar, rural, white women without college education, heartland residents. The following have been neglected by the Democratic Party: the poor, the lower middle class and those disenfranchised by globalization, automation, the healthcare industry and the general financial fraud that constitutes the American economic system.
When those disparities are effectively addressed, when the Democratic Party is less the darling of Wall Street skimmers and more its self-professed big tent, it can have hope of success, and America and the world can simply have hope. "It's the economic inequality, stupid."
Of course, it must still produce quality candidates and run quality campaigns. Mike Bloomberg is not the answer. First, the Democrats must understand the question... and then actually address it. Actually address it...
15
@Rocky
Exactly! Enough bourgeoise liberalism. Its time we spoke openly about the working class, inequality and providing economic opportunity. What Ds used to stand for.
7
Why are all these comments about Bloomberg? He’d be awful - I’d never vote for him - but are these comments on the right column?
8
A good man whose time has come and gone...
2
Beto is antidote to Trump. Bloomberg is sooo 20th century.
10
Why is the world of columnists and pontificators looking to the generation born in the forties and fifties to lead the nation? We need people in the prime of their life now. And we them them to have personalities that are attractive because for all too many voters that is how they go with their votes. Excitement. Personality.
Right now we’ve got “The Trump Show” going and that alone may cause people to stay away from in November. Of course, if you engage your gray matter you know that is the way to doom but many voters actually see it as a “protest.” It is literally “dumb” as dirt but that doesn’t seem to matter to these non voters. I guess they like their silence even if it is a empty gesture: pointing with one hand, other hand over your mouth!
3
Absolute no on Bloomberg. He runs a white collar sweatshop and let Matt Winkler terrorize his employees for decades. No. Full stop.
8
With all the negative descriptions available to criticize Bloomberg, including his role in putting thousands of economically marginal people in homeless shelters, I don't see why ageism needs to be part of his description as 'old'.
5
You guys need to stop rejecting Republicans simply because they are Republicans. When Every Democrat votes against every Trump proposal, let's be honest, they are not being open minded.
1
My apologies, I don't live in the US, but in my long career have spent a lot of time there and used to love Brand USA. I have also met Michael Bloomberg and think he's the perfect fit for that brand. The current President simply represents everything that has become wrong about your brand. It used to mean stand up to bullies. Don't tolerate lies or prejudice. Act with courage, honour and decency. Truth is a cornerstone. Tread softly, but carry a big stick. But somehow - and I think we all know how, you ended up with quite possibly, the most corrupt country on the planet in the fastest time ever. You will need a great deal of calm, reason and justice to reclaim any right to being a world leader. It saddens the world that this has happened to the world's beacon. It should actually break all of your hearts.
8
“If they’re not, he disembowels them. Ask Jeff Sessions, who probably considers Mel Gibson’s end in “Braveheart” preferable to his endless mortification.”
Great line. I fear many in this country feel similarly.
Bloomberg is the opposite to Trump but is not boring. How could one call an entrepreneur who became a billionaire like Steve Jobs boring? Does he have to wear black turtlenecks to be considered cool? He has a stable personality but that does not mean boring.
3
We don't need any more billionaires in the white house. We need someone who understands how important affordable health care and Medicare are. We need someone who knows how it feels to live paycheck to paycheck, and someone who will fight for Social Security. In short, we need a woman.
8
I long for competent and boring. I'd vote for Bloomberg in a heartbeat.
5
As a former New Yorker, my simple answer is "no.' Bloomberg did nothing about the egregious "stop and frisk" NYPD policies, he has allowed Manhattan and parts of the rest of NYC to become solely the province of other billionaires; and he assisted in making the city livable only for the very rich. Not all of this is only his fault (one can blame a lot on Cuomo and rest of the state legislature)...but....no, no, no.
9
I totally agree with Mr. Bruni that it is going to take a white male (biggerest billionaire) with bravado to go up against Trump in 2020.
Bloomberg will appeal to the Independents and Moderate Conservatives (who we will need!) to overthrow the despot we have now.
Is Bloomberg ideal? No. Next question.
But, compare Booker, Harris, Gillibrand, Warren, et al, and it should be obvious to any one with a brain that 2020 is not the year of the woman/person of color for president. Bloomberg can wrestle the reins back from a would-be king and prepare the stage for a near-future candidate who actually represents the majority of Americans.
I Am Woman, Hear Me Roar!
Just not in 2020.
3
We need fresh blood and new ideas. We don't want drama but we don't boring either. Sorry, Bloomberg does not make the cut. At best, he can in he sidelines advising.
3
Bruni hit the wrong button--too bad. I never thought he would buy such skewed idea. If he reads the responses to his column he will see that very few would like to see a reverse mirror of what we have in the White House now, and most readers opt for new blood, for a consideration of not richmen, for the thought of a potential woman--even if the first attempt was not a win. Anything but a fight of two rich old men on either side of the ring. No, thanks, Mr. Bruni. The world stretches beyond the " rich New York experience."
5
I don't want another old rich guy in the White House. The fact that being rich almost seems a prerequisite for the job is abhorrent.
The accumulation of immense wealth in the hands of a few is at the core of our problems as a nation. We need massive campaign finance reforms, a higher minimum wage, and importantly, a maximum wage.
No one's work in this life is worth billions. And giving them more billions has no bearing on how productive they will be.
Allowing the creation of a cast of Titans who will war over who is the richest and do anything to protect and expand their holdings will destroy democracy and the planet. We the people will become their cannon fodder.
9
Whatever Bloomberg’s personal and administrative credentials, made persuasively apparent in this column, I can’t forget two things:
1. His altering term limits so he could have three terms, and
2. His question, to paraphrase, to the effect of, “don’t you wish we could have more Russian billionaires in New York City?”
Yes, I know the advantage of additional tax revenues, but the buying up of this country by foreign “investors” has got to be attenuated at minimum.
6
I am all in , ready to vote for Michael Bloomberg if He becomes the Democratic nominee.
it is better for Mr. Joe Biden not to rum for Presidency.
The memory of 1990`s Anita Hill`s public humiliation have resurfacing again and Mr. Biden appeared to be weak which changed the history of Supreme Court justices.
Now in 2018 nothing much have changed in the world of While male domination .
Still best for Brett M. Kavanaugh is to with draw his name from this equation.
2
As an ex-New Yorker I admired what Bloomberg accomplished as Mayor. However the impression was that he was the Mayor of Manhattan and could care less about the other boroughs. Hence, de Blasio followed who is the opposite. . How could he possibly appeal beyond the liberal elites?
And...If he won could we still salt our food and drink soda?
4
There are much more pressing and immediate issues that need attention than who might run for president in 2020. I will say one thing we don't need any more old anybodies, male, female, white, or otherwise in the White House. The issues of the moment are the Kavanaugh hearing and the 2018 election. Regardless of Ford's testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee Republicans are going to confirm him. The best case scenario is that as a result of that confirmation Republicans will lose both the House and the Senate in November. At which time a thorough and complete investigation by the FBI could result in the impeachment of Kavanaugh. And there will be a check on this madman president and his corrupt administration. As far as the present Republicans in the Senate their cowardice is unprecedented.
5
I would have to know a lot more about Bloomberg's assessment of the Likud Party before I would consider voting for him. If he thinks Israel should remain in possession of lands captured in the '67 war, and the people of Gaza are being treated appropriately, I could not vote for him.
6
But he won't save us from the rich.
6
I’d vote for him in a heartbeat. Did he make mistakes? Yep. But he’s smart (what a concept), on the right side of history, dignified, super capable and thoughtful. I don’t care about his age that much. I think he’d calm the waters and point the country toward healing. We need a steady hand on the helm next time around. If he didn’t win the nomination, I’d hope he’d take a big Cabinet position. I want him on the team. I’d also want him to get a speaking coach, as he could certainly improve his skills there. He needs to sound as dynamic as he is.
I have little doubt that Mike Bloomberg would easily win a presidential election and he would be far preferable than anyone the G.O.P. could ever dig up. But is he really the ideal choice?
Besides the age issue (dementia and other forms of incapacitation start becoming an increasing possibility as one ages as does death), he is just too pro-business for my taste. Then there is his history of stop-and-frisk with racial profiling as New York City mayor.
Surely the Democratic Party can find a more progressive yet electable candidate that allow Bloomberg to continue spending on worthy causes. We need his money more than is presidency.
2
Smart, competent, honest,
ambitious, decisive, bipartisan...our
country could soar. He is a patriot.
He supports the issues that
could improve the quality of
our lives: healthcare, environment,
education, gun control. He would
appoint intelligent people to
important posts. Our country has
the largest healthcare expenses
in the industrialized world and our
rank is LAST. Our full literacy
is 15%, 14% of our population cannot
read, 21% are below 5th grade level.
We must do better.
3
Trump might well beat Bloomberg. It is doubtful that Bloomberg could energize the Democratic base and boost turnout. Trump revulsion won't be enough. Absent an economic crisis or foreign policy disaster, the 2020 election is likely to be closer than a lot of people think. Why not nominate a Democrat people can be excited about?
3
The oppositions effort should be less focused on taking down Donald Trump and more interested in finding ways of bringing up the establishments politics to a relevancy more suitable for the twenty-first century. Too much time and energy is being devoted to discrediting the present administration with hardly any effort spent in presenting a viable alternative for the voters in 2020. If the trend continues there will not be much opposition available to block Trump gaining a second term as president.
4
I'd vote for Bloomberg in a heartbeat. He was a great mayor of NYC. I didn't always agree with his education policies but he ran the city well and I think he is a guy who learns from mistakes and never makes the same mistake twice. I admire that quality. The rest of the world would respect Bloomberg and could get to work with him on solving some big problems, climate change, for one. Bloomberg is blue ribbon quality. Make Kamala Harris his running mate and I see a winning team. Just thinking about a Bloomberg ticket brings the blood pressure down. He role models excellence. Period. American democracy needs to find its footing in the modern world amid women's rights, immigration, climate change, artificial intelligence, etc. Bloomberg has the chops to help us step up the game in these areas. I also think he could get roads and bridges built and create jobs this way. We need a New Deal like Roosevelt put in place. If Bloomberg put this in place, it is entirely believable that he would follow through. He is Bloomberg after all...
4
Generally speaking, electing the wealthy over and over again to congress, the senate, or positions of power, hasn't resulted in the best outcomes for middle class citizens.
This would be true of most Western democracies.
Maybe we should shelf our obsession with the wealthy and start electing more regular politicians into office? It's been about 40 years since we've tried that. Or is it just coincidence that the world's boom in inequality (and stagnant wages) started around the time we started putting the rich and powerful into office?
6
Pro-Transparency?!
Perhaps Mr. Bruni is unaware that in his last re-election bid Bloomberg gave a couple of million dollars to the Independence Party housekeeping fund that didn't have to be reported before the election that, according to a party official, was earmarked for challenging voters in African-American districts (Bloomberg's opponent was African-American).
That's apparent as transparent as a brick.
And there's his subversion of the voters' will, expressed in two referendums, for term limits. And, of course, rather than taking his chances with democracy in Democratic primaries, he bought the Republican nomination for mayor.
7
The last thing the Democratic Party needs is another candidate who touches all the right bases on social issues but economically is a moderate Republican. Think Hillary Clinton. That is the best way to insure Trump's reelection.
For the next Presidential election, no one to the right of Elizabeth Warren should even be considered , and that includes the NJ, CA and NY types who advanced by cozying up to big money including Wall Street and now want to hide those connections and pretend to be progressives.
14
I would vote for him if I had no choice but I really don’t want to replace one super rich white man with another super rich white man.
3
Bloomberg is 78! Sorry but that's too old for a guy to President. It's a sad state of affairs when the country can't find someone who can clearly speak for the millions of people who are fed up and embarrassed with the rhetoric Trump produces almost every day! The constant images at his rallies where he is safe to stand and spout his stream of consciousness silliness reminds me of early Nazi Germany. He wouldn't dare come to Madison Square Garden or Staples Center. But if Bloomberg was a decade younger, he would be a viable candidate to oppose Trump.
3
Another one percenter? No thanks?
12
Is any man the Antidote for POTUS?
Today, statistics indicate there are 15 female world leaders currently in office, eight of whom are their country’s first woman in power.
One superrich old white guy from New York is enough.
5
From what I've seen of him I like Michael Bloomberg and most of his ideas. However, as an old fart myself, I can say without hesitation the country has had enough governance by old farts. Time to see if the country can do better by electing younger politicians without the baggage of the 20th Century. It is said that those who don't know history are condemned to repeat it, but those who have experienced history seem to repeat it anyhow. So let the naive idealistic young see if they can make a better world than my generation has done.
4
He is Jewish. Wonder if that will gel with the evangelical crowd.
1
@Petey Tonei
Evangelicals love one thing more than their religion.
Money.
You'll notice that they're just fine with Trump et al.
2
@Petey Tonei--Depends upon his position on: (1) all things Israel, and (2) whether or not *his* father had anything to do with the JFK assassination.
2
Trained scientist, self-made billionaire, impressive track record running complex city for 12 years, dedicated philanthropist. I will gladly take a rich, white, older competent guy over Trump. Bloomberg’s effectiveness is proven and astonishing.
2
Bloomberg cannot save us from ourselves anymore than Obama could. What a president can do is inspire, give us hope and lead. It is up to everyone of us to follow and move things along the path with our involvement in our government and we start by voting.
7
Win the darn Congress back for heaven's sake!
9
I'm tired of having to choose between two rich white guys for public office. Why is it always about the money. Can't we find a better way to elect the best candidate?
9
From Middle America
Too old. See @anonymouse
From Middle 'Merca
The man's name is an NRA dog whistle. He's been mentioned in 80% of the calls I've received from them. Want to help NRA raise record funds. Let him run.
3
Well, Frank,
I've no problem with the idea or giving him the respect he deserves, but Michael is also a Jew, and this is America. As I told my wife back in the mid-90s, "We'll have a Black President first, and then a woman but the woman will come from the Right; a Jew? never".
Sorry, I keep my eye on the FBI hate crimes list, and there's a whole lot of land and population outside of NYC.
3
A real plutocrat vs. a sycophantic toady? What's the difference? All he apparently lacks is immortality.
5
Please, no more billionaires!
4
Three pluses for Bloomberg:
1. Lifetime of extraordinary personal and societal accomplishment, evidenced by his philanthropy and advocacy for social justice
2. A (3-term) NYC administration, which began the serious holistic rebuilding of NYC – that had become critical for decades and undeniable after 9/11
3. The substantive consequences of that administration – i.e. why and how many people at all income levels have since decided to come, stay, invest, or leave NYC (too many incoming to list here)
Three minuses:
1. His petulance – noticeable personal trait, not an ideological flaw…He sponsors and promotes equal opportunity and tolerates affirmative action to the extent it flags unequal opportunity of access…From there, it’s what you earn and make of things – or his eyes glaze over...
2. Stop/frisk – categorical shouting point, Progressives will have several for 2020…Flaw of s/f is who gets picked…If more than 2-3% of the population (includes repeats) in a year, and patterns of place or race emerge – unless analysis shows more-compelling criteria (e.g. waving gun, dealing drugs), or witness information (people, cameras) available from some very-recent crime – decision threshold/criteria need fixing…A s/f or firearm discharge while body camera not running and recording – 30-day suspension to termination…
(and Ms Gay should enlighten us on enlightened approaches in Baltimore or Chicago or Detroit, these days)
3. Cathy Black – though De Blasio’s making us wax nostalgic…
1
I’d bet that a lot of people don’t even know who Bloomberg is lol lol . I’d bet half the Trumpsters don’t know lol lol What a mess !
1
"amid the ceaseless slop from the White House and Capitol Hill"
Ha! Then the NYTs should stop creating so much monotonous, shallow slop, and let their talented journalists dedicate themselves to what our democracy needs most: defending the constitution and soul of the union with investigative journalism. That might actually defeat tyranny and voter disenfranchisement.
How are self-serving "politicians" like trump and his minnions dominating positions of governance, which should serve public good and elevate the geopolitical authority of our nation?
Start investigating and exposing, rather than transcribing "news" events from Twitter..
4
Doesn’t the taller candidate always win?
Will middle America, tolerant of Trump’s racism, accept a Jewish candidate?
Are the Dems smart enough to nominate someone who wouldn’t talk about getting rid of ICE, free college, and other winnable issues?
@DD
Sorry, I meant unwinnable issues
It’s time to do without a president. Just out the government on cruise control for a while. We have a cult of President worship.
1
I like Mike. But what the party needs is more Betos. The perfect antidote to an old rich billionaire might be a young, up and coming pragmatist with a clear moral message, who doesn't have gobs of money, who looks more like the future than the past, and has an "it" factor that can rally younger voters, and give older ones like me something to hope for.
12
Bloomberg’s story and political legacy is problematic:
1) He was a Democrat before he was Republican before he was Independent before he was a Democrat again In sum, he’s an opportunist not an ideas man.
2) He spent $261 Million to get elected Mayor of NYC -a record, he wasn’t popular
3) He ploughed through against the two-term limit for the office of NYC Mayor. Instead of putting it to a referendum, he forced NYC City Council to vote for it. Polling showed voters opposed a third term
3) St Vincent hospital, which served the non-insured poor, was closed and sold to one of his real estate friends who replaced it with a glossy luxury apartment-its penthouse sold for over $50 million - launder money heaven
4) He left behind the most segregated school system in the US. As with the Kushner’s, real estate friends had a free grab of property in NYC; rent control laws were ignored, allowing the cleansing of Manhattan from working families.
5) Adopted stop and frisk, an Israeli military habit of capriciously detaining Palestinians without cause, and applied it on minorities. Current Mayor Deblasio stoped the practice and “crime” hasn’t changed.
6) His acquiescence of the land grab by Israel (Jerusalem,) it is clear where he stands vis-a-vis Trump’s policy. Stop & frisk and his silence on Steven Miller’s racialization of asylum seekers in the US southern border should give everyone pause about this man.
7
How in the world could you compare Bloomberg to Trump its like saying the Atlantic Ocean is a stone throw from the Pacific Ocean .
1
Bloomberg would be the savior of the Democratic Party, unfortunately, he doesn't have a chance to win the nomination.
He would never get the Black & Hispanic Vote, not unless he admits that stop & frisk was a mistake.Which he recently said he still supports.I always dreamed of a Political Party that is fiscally Conservative & Socially Liberal. A Bloomberg Presidency would represent both leanings, & bring together millions that would support such a person.However, it's but a dream.
3
Based on what I have gleaned from his history I feel that he would be the last person who would do well as a president. He is mean, anti-freedom of thought, vindictive to a fault, is anti freedom of action, rich to a fault, has a New York knowitall attitude, does not like personal freedom, hates guns but has armed in public guards because I guess he thinks he is really important, is too short for my liking like Napoleon, has a New York accent, and I’m sure on this thinks he knows things more than he really does. No he would be another pompous jerk in office, so no thanks.
5
Why another man? Outside of Clinton, you mean to tell me there's not a woman amongst the Democratic bunch that could be the antidote? Telling.
1
Ahhhhh!! As a Democrat, I insist on someone under 70. I am sick of the old, White guys running everything. Look at the mess they've made! I will not vote for another old geezer. And, I'm 70 myself. But, that's how I know that one simply isn't as sharp as one used to be, not as willing to accept change, or to admit others know best. Call me ageist if you will, but I hang around with lots of people in their 70's, and I speak from experience. Please, please, please, can we Democrats have someone younger, with spirit, exuberance and vitality who will inject our party with excitement and fervor?
8
You got one thing wrong, Frank. Trump is not a billionaire. He may not even be a millionaire if debts to Russian mobsters is added to his debit column.
3
Bloomberg has the no-nonsense air that I actually appreciated when he was mayor. And he has intelligence. We need that.
To win the Presidency you will need to appeal to Middle America. I trust Bloomberg. Forgive me but I'm one of those former San Francisco liberals who lives in the east. Michael Bloomberg is no Nancy Pelosi... And that is a wonderful thing!
Just last night at a dinner party we had this exact conversation, a al, old rich white guy billionaire vs. populist firebrand for the left. I think like most Democrats, it doesn’t matter, just give me anyone but trump. But we’re not the demographic. The Dems have progressive millennials against centrists. Bloomberg pulls in the right leaning centrists and Warren draws in the left. This is the big 2020 gamble. But the way the primaries are set up it will go to the left and that could kill our chances to take back the Whitehouse. How about Bloomberg as POTUS and Booker as VP?
2
That sounds like a nightmare ticket to me. Booker is bought and paid for by Big Pharma. Bloomberg’s employees were terrorized for decades by Matt Winkler - and he did nothing. No thanks to both.
1
Cory Booker please, with Bloomberg endorsing and advising.
Bloomberg endorsing and advising anyone really.
Except Ms. Warren. Fantastic woman. Love how she galvanizes, but she's too school marm'ish and grating. She'll turn too many off.
(And like B. Maher, I wholeheartedly feel that if Al Franken stepped onto the stage he'd trample Trump with humor. Trump has no sense humor, that's a major handicap.)
4
Booker? No thanks. He’s bought and paid for by Big Pharma.
2
What about half the population (women)? How do Trump and Bloomberg treat women? The same as monkeys in a troop, these two alpha monkeys treat the females poorly. I am Democrat and a woman and would not vote for Bloomberg. I don’t want another female-hating man in charge of this country.
1
Maybe there is some future candidate who could find a way to unite and heal the ugly divisions in the country. A compassionate, caring person who feels the pain and understands the joys of life. They must have a dog. I don’t think that candidate is a man!
1
Trump has constantly exaggerated his wealth. After the author O'Brien wrote that Trump was not a billionaire. "The Don" immediately sued O'Brien.
That was in 2005 after most US banks stopped lending Trump money, and applied for a loan from his go-to Deutsche Bank for millions.
Such loans have to be backed up by some serious financial disclosures by the borrower. Deutsche Bank at that time estimated Trump's net worth at 788 million, most of it invested in non-liquid assets.
After that was reported by the German press and in the US in the mid 2000s, Trump immediately dropped the lawsuit against O'Brien.
Never publishing his tax returns might be not only about the fact that all that cash coming from Russian's investing in Trump properties from golf courses to condo building might be money laundering.
Trump is deadly afraid of being known as just a measly multi-millionaire. It would destroy his fragile but overblown ego like nothing else
2
Frank Bruni's centrism seemingly knows no bounds. How on earth is it possible to have boundless centrism?! I do not know how he does it, but Mr. Bruni types column after column in which he devises novel arguments that the Democratic Party should not become more liberal, much less progressive. I will say this for him: he is creative.
3
Frank needs a break. He sings the praises of a person by comparing that person to Trump! He's gone so low that he must look up to see down. Don't know enough about Bloomberg to dislike him personally, but for starters, wealthy people generally have some unsavory history. Bloomberg should stay in his republican fold and if he's as cool as Frank writes, try and reform his own party.
@tbs: If ever there was a catbird seat for a front-runner to play Wall Street, it would be to supply quotation terminals to all of its top traders.
1
Mr. Bruni wants to sleep, safely tucked in by Mike. It's like a Golden Book fairy tale of good godly kings tending the flock. The fable that great character brings great fortune is thick varnish on basic venality. HIS Excellency's 'name is synonymous with Excellence!' Hosanna! 50 Billion?!?
-don't let it ALWAYS buy your vote. I'm guessing that most of us have contradictory reactions to obscene wealth: 'wealth can only be gained on the backs of others' and simultaneously 'hard work deserves compensation without limit', & 'I too will someday be rich'. It is seemingly painful for us to admit the obvious: wealth is always at the expense of others. The wealthy have always written the laws of governance, but letting them buy office?!, is, yes, business as usual. Please don't fall for philanthropy as a badge of honor. It's just another bedtime story. Sleep, sheep, sleep. Philanthropy would be unnecessary if the philanthropist paid a decent wage, shared the profits to begin with, or even paid reasonable taxes. Bloomberg, Gates, Bezos, Zuckerberg, Koch, et al are just polite 19th cent robber barons at another benefit gala to which you will never be invited. Would they or you ever consider democracy in the workplace where we spend our lives? Have you ever seen that happen? Democracy in the Workplace would preclude obscene wealth. It might even be called socialism. Racism and sexism can now be broached at the dinner table, but the fearful dare not look capital in its lidless eye.
4
Our worst fears about Donald Trump as president are confirmed. Fact-checkers nailed him at over 5,000 false claims since taking office. An average of 32 per diem.
Staffers sent an op-ed describing him as morally and intellectually unfit. Migrant children are living a hellish life on the border. Puerto Rico is not his "unsung success."
In following the Mueller Investigation successes, however, many from the president's campaign had dubious intentions or were involved in varied levels of corruption.
On a solemn morning commemorating 9/11, we saw the president stomping triumphantly to a memorial-- pumping his fists in the air, biting his lip as if going to a rock concert, --or yet another self-aggrandizing rally.
Unfit, unsuited and fit-- we need relief. Welcome to more sensible candidates for presidency, and may they not tweet 24/7 and shake us to our core about their nuclear button.
3
The failing New York president has not yet proved that he is super rich. Until that time, just call him rich (money wise, that is).
Bloomberg would never win . He’s too competent , intelligent and level headed . The american people , unbelievably , voted for Trump who has provided the chaos , anger and confusion that most of them grew up with in their families of origin .
1
I have nothing against Bloomberg but he'll be 78 years old. We need younger people in politics. We need people who have some personal experience of the problems facing this country. Kudos to super rich old white guys for their success but they don't understand what it's like to be middle class (or lower). They don't buy their own groceries so they have no idea what food costs or that you don't need a photo ID to buy food. They don't live in the same world that the rest of us do.
4
First, I think ficus, given little to no encouragement, has plenty of vroom. Second, almost anyone (or thing) looks good next to the Donald. Third, Bloomberg and 'my army' as he put it (the NYPD) behaved badly towards Occupy Wall Street - to say the least. Fourth, as to his sneaky amanuensis, Charley Rose, the less said...
Fifth, Nancy Pelosi ? I'll keep the other hand for another day.
2
Frank,
2018 is the antidote at this time.
Stop talking about 2020.
Everyone.
Just stop.
BTW, the billionaires will not save us.
3
The Democrats would lose every Midwestern industrial state. Bloomberg would be seen as another Mitt Romney.
3
Bloomberg was the best Mayor of NYC. Period.
Were he 15 years younger, taller and not Jewish, he might stand a chance. These are but a few of the prejudices held by the" land of the free".
The age dilemma could be corrected with a dynamic young VP, whom he would surely mentor, but the short and Jewish, as absurd as they may sound, would be huge impediments to his candidacy...most regrettable.
1
No. My company was bought by Bloomberg, eight years ago. And, it wasn't fun thereafter. He is a boring guy. He's an emperor over his company, as is Trump. He even dictates office layouts--the so-called "open" office where you can hear all your neighbors making their dental appointments. And, his "Terminal?" Please. I looked underneath it all and it was, . . . Microsoft Windows. There are plenty of alternatives out there these days.
I don't know why LLCs are allowed. Bloomberg and Trump run LLCs--limited liability companies. No board, nobody to complain about anything. Really a small dictatorship.
9
I long for the day when a boring policy guy occupies the oval office. I’d love to go back to largely ignoring the machinations of the federal government rather than obsessively watching its every move because I’m scared to death of what it’s going to do.
8
Mike Bloomberg is an accomplished, competent guy. Dueling billionaires is a clever hook for a column, too, but it's not a good basis for a political analysis. Bloomberg was mayor of New York fifteen years ago. He achieved some worthwhile goals during his tenure. He also presided over rising income inequality, rising rents and the social costs of gentrification, along with supporting policing policies that unfairly targeted African-America and Hispanic citizens. When it suited him, he used his money and power to overcome term limits to keep his job. That all raises a few questions. I'd like to know what Bloomberg thinks about those same issues now. How does he plan to tackle our economic challenges and the wealth and income disparities that are afflicting the country? What about the pernicious and undemocratic influences of the money in politics? What did he learn from seeing his stop-and-frisk policy declared unconstitutional? I think Bloomberg is probably a well-intentioned person. But that's not enough. And more billionaires won't save us. The deep problems in this country didn't arrive with Trump, and they won't be leaving with him when his sorry era passes. We should know where candidates -- Bloomberg included -- want to take the country before deciding if they deserves support.
2
@Maggie Mae: Bloomberg enabled a construction binge with complete disregard for the infrastructure necessary to support it. All those West Side high-rises will choke on each others traffic when fully occupied, and pedestrians will block access and egress to the Lincoln Tunnels.
5
Mike Bloomberg is the perfect antidote to Donald Trump. Even though Bloomberg will be 78 years of age in 2020, he is brilliant -- a patriotic American who stands for everything President Trump does not. Donald Trump is undisputedly leading Democracy over the cliff into the abyss. Bloomberg has shown all Americans that he is prepared to be our President. Michael Bloomberg has not only run one of the greatest cities on earth (for 12 years, 3 terms), but has the nous and true genius and humility to guide the United States of America on the path back to Democracy.
2
Much like the constitution precludes those under the age of 35 from ascending to the presidency, perhaps a complementary rule should be instituted: set a *maximum* age for new presidents. Say 60 or 70?
Relatively young presidents will be more in touch with their constituents. Sorry boomers: you’re all dying off and being replaced by millennials. Seems to me it would be better for the people to be led by their peers or parents rather than their grandparents.
It would also be preferable to be led by people who are less likely to be preoccupied by dementia, strokes, heart attacks, hip replacements, weekly medical appointments and the other ills that will ultimately befall most of us in our later years.
Go ahead: accuse me of ageism. You’re right. But just like there are rules in place to protect the republic from the inexperienced, there should also be rules in place to protect it from those that can’t even remember what it is to be inexperienced.
1
@Eric No quarrel with the idea of putting a maximum age on new Presidents. 70 is certainly too old for a new President. That is literally the one and only reason I didn't stick with Bernie past an initial campaign donation. 60 might be a little too restrictive, so let's make it 65.
But my question here is why is everyone forgetting Gen Xer's? They--not the millennials--are the next ones to take the reins. The millennials still have to pay their dues; the Gen Xers have.
Jeez, Bruni - your shtick really is to be the centriest of the centrists, huh?
Bloomberg has zero chance of becoming president. At a time when a new generation of Democrats is emerging - more progressive and young - a banker-friendly plutocrat who will be almost 80 by the time of the election is not gonna get the nod. And thank heavens for that - can we please have one party that centers its policies around helping working people? The Democrats aren't quite there yet, but the new blood is a step in the right direction.
By the way, in the bizarro world where Bloomberg won the Democratic nomination, I imagine the 2020 election would go pretty much the same way as 2016. Trump would mobilize his base against the corrupt globalist elite (imagine the anti-semitism in such a contest), and Bloomberg would not be able to energize the Democratic base to get out to vote.
4
Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
1
Nancy Pelosi says? You just gave Bloomberg the kiss of death. The quote demonstrates the out of touch Democratic leadership again too. Anyway, the public needs a president younger than 76 at this point. I'm sure Bloomberg would have been great twenty or thirty years ago. However, the fact of the matter remains: The American public wants new blood even when they agree with an old person's message. This is neither a country for old men nor a few select old women. Trump is an anomaly but the generation of Nixon and Reagan has passed. The surprising thing to me is the old guard's lack of creativity. You could try a little harder.
If Bloomberg hurts Trump in midterms, so much the better, Any serious bid for the White House though will likely buy Trump a second term. Bloomberg's presence in Democratic primary will cause mass chaos on the left. We'll end up splitting the anti-Trump vote and lose the general election when the new left stays home. If you want six more years of Trump, Bloomberg is the man to get you there. Of course, we warned Democrats about Clinton too.
3
@Andy I take it that you supported bernie "I am not a Democrat! I am a socialist!" sanders, who is older than Hillary.
When the "new left" starts supporting real Democrats, we might get the country back on track.
1
Michael Bloomberg would make a great president for sure! But he just mentioned on CNN’s GPS that he is not running. Our lose, and the country’s. That’s for sure, it’s for darned sure!
1
Is this man he antidote to Donald Trump? No. This man, and others like him, are why a large number of Americans distrust the political establishment enough to vote for someone like Donald Trump.
7
Little will do more to unravel Mr.Trump’s mystique more than a man who can buy and sell him a dozen times over. It’s worth a try. He would have my vote.
1
Michael Bloomberg is the model administrator and has been proven time and time again. Anyone that can handle the thousand + programs of NYC while keeping key aspects of those programs readily available without referring to notes is a great master. What is working the most against him is the hate momentum of the gun lobby. Bloomberg is 100% on target on his opinions regarding guns, but sadly, the NRA has a large & influential following. Resume-wise, Michael Bloomberg is highly qualified, as was Hillary Clinton, but because Hillary Clinton was a woman (as well as being anti-gun) she fell victim to both mysogenistic and NRA hate propaganda. Michael Bloomberg can avoid the inertia of one, but not the other. Another thing working against Michael Bloomberg is that he is too dignified and educated in contrast to the gutter-dwelling Trump incumbent. Trump tosses out low-life remarks with great skill, and those inexperienced who respond back in kind look as silly as someone spitting on themselves -- take Marco Rubio for instance. The political fora has become a World-Wide Wrestling exhibition.
3
Bloomberg would be routed by Trump in 2020.
Bloomberg is on the wrong side of the electorate in all the key swing states, on key issues.
Immigration? Trade? Trump got elected - despite being hated by many - because key swing voters disagreed with Hillary's (and Bloomberg's) positions on these (and other) issues.
Anti-gun? Guns are very popular in many swing states. Liberals are living in a bubble. Look how many states have legalized concealed carry, etc.
Being anti immigration and pro gun control, does indeed motivate people to vote.
But it motivates opponents more than supporters.
From NYT's Thomas Edsall:
"..among those who say immigration is their top issue, opponents outnumber supporters by nearly two to one. In this respect, immigration is similar to gun control — both mobilize opponents more than supporters."
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/02/16/opinion/the-democrats-immigration-...
On economics, Bloomberg is the anti-FDR. Democrat's historical FDR economic positions are very popular:
- NO TPP (Anyone who is for TPP, and doesn't know what ISDS stands for, should consider themselves uninformed!)
- Higher minimum wage (70% favor)
- Pro banking regulation
- balanced trade
- infrastructure
- Pro SS (even most Republican voters).
However, so long as Dems run banker approved candidates, they have *zero* credibility on these winning positions.
Sure, win CA and NY by millions of votes, and lose the electoral college in a landslide.
2
So here is the scoop. Approximately 16% of the US population is 65 or over. I fall safely into that catagory. So what in god's name are we doing calling the shots for the rest of America?
As for those voters under the age of 65, it is about time that you grow up and assume leadership roles. When things are tough it's nice to think of how swell grandma and grandpa are or were and to long for their comforting , non-judgmental embrace. But, you are not children anymore, even those of you who are 18. Those of us over 65 have had our moment and now it's your turn. Step up to the plate already!
1
Though Bloomberg would be a great, if boring, President, he is too old. The job requires a vigorous someone able to serve 8 years since it will take that long to clean up Trump’s mess. After all, it took 12 to fix the mess made by America’s Mayor - Rudi.
Instead, Bloomberg should work to help talented and worthy Democrats run, and whichever one wins the nomination provide advice and money.
Our next President must take America out of the ditch and Bloomberg would ideally be a top advisor on what and how to do it.
1
@Carson Drew has my lineup. I also love Corey Booker, Sherrod Brown, Adam Schiff and Kamala Harris. I could enthusiastically get behind Sherrod Brown. But not Elisabeth Warren! Please spare us another candidate who is difficult to listen to and sends us running from the room. I'm hoping to see Seth Moulton get some attention at some point in the future.
While I could live with a Bloomberg, I agree with those saying he may be too old. (About the same age as Joe Biden, by the way.) That said, I know more than a few left-of-centers who like him. It will all depend on who the competition is.
Let's hope Sherrod decides to run. But my guess is he is way too normal a guy to put himself through it.
1
No and no and no.
If the Democrats nominate Bloomberg, they will have learned nothing.
They will continue their 30 year slide into slinking away from liberal democratic principles and remaking themselves into less objectionable Republicans in order to try not to lose to them.
How's that strategy been working out for them and the country so far?
The Republicans and Donald Trump are in power and are taking a wrecking ball to the best in our country and institutionalizing the worst.
Democrats, stop cowering in Republican shadows and pick someone who passionately stands for Democratic values and has the guts to take their vision of the future to the American public for their consideration.
No, not Elizabeth Warren or Corey Booker. But someone who is dedicated to public service and who embodies the best in America - *all* of America - and isn't afraid to challenge us all, from coast to coast, to believe that we can build on those qualities to better our government, our country, and our children's futures.
4
@Teg Laer Who do you see that being? It can't be some newcomer, with no experience or involvement in the Democratic Party.
1
Bloomberg is a smart man and a good administrator. But, Frank, you forget the worst part of his mayoralty -- his awful position on NYC's stop and frisk policy. There is no evidence that this policy helped NYC, but plenty of evidence that it hurt black and Latino teens and young men. Bloomberg defended the policy because, according to him, blacks and Latinos committed the most crimes in the city and were the victims of most crimes. For this reason alone I would never vote for him. People should know this about him.
We have spent the better part of a century with super rich Democrats as president, from FDR through JFK and on the the Clintons, who, to be fair, merely harvested wealth from well connected donors, bypassing the part where you actually have to earn it. ( or maybe they did earn it ).
The era of noblesse oblige was always a little hazy, but those days are long gone. We live now in a world of naked ambition. The idea that Bloomberg would somehow be the cure for Trump is something that must make a lot of sense in Park Avenue drawing rooms with the servants pouring the champagne. "One of our own", continuing the tribalism that is at the heart of the human condition.
We don't need another rich guy, we don't need another tired old firebrand from Vermont, and we certainly don't need another self important grifter who sees her nomination as "her turn".
We need new voters. We need voters who don't dwell in the information silos of opinion reinforcement.
Good luck with that.
2
I think Bloomberg would make a great VP candidate to someone actually qualified like Angus King. Cuomo? Is that a wish for 4 more years of Trump?
If the heart of your essay is to reduce the hard-won lessons and efforts of progressivism to a "breathlessly speculative space" then you're completely missing the point. We don't need "another superrich old white guy" not only in the White House, but in almost every corner of municipal, state and federal governance.
In other words, the GOP is right to castigate elites (albeit in their own special hypocritical way) in their messaging. The Democrats should be doing it too and finally purging their ranks of the board members, millionaires, billionaires, and ivy leaguers who constantly — like Republicans selling Trickle Down theory — browbeat their base into elevating the rich, white, and powerful into higher echelons of power at the expense of what should be "our democracy".
1
I suspect little will do more to unravel Mr.Trump’s mystique more than a man who can buy and sell him a dozen times over. It’s worth a try. He would have my vote.
2
I worked at Bloomberg for 5 years. Much of what you say in your column is discredited by the facts on the ground. As the financial technology industry has grown at record levels Bloomberg has consistently lost market share. Far from recruiting and nurturing top talent, he surrounds himself with sycophants and anyone who dares question him is pushed out. Many of those expats have gone on to launch the startups that are now stealing market share. He is a once brilliant entrepreneur who has been eclipsed. The true miracle is that he's able to persuade columnists like Frank Bruni to perpetuate the myth and overlook the reality of his business.
9
I'm all in with Bloomberg. I was for Bernie and against HRC because of integrity. The Clinton's struggle with it and Bernie has more than the average politician. However I was certainly for HRC and against Trump because of the huge integrity gap.
To me, Bloomberg has great integrity, incredibly important after Trump; and he is a moderate on the issues. To wash the stink of Trump away, going in the complete opposite direction would be divisive. Bloomberg is the perfect, middle of the road antidote.
1
Bloomberg v. Trump a dream match up of billionaires which seems to be a fruition of the Citizens United Dream. Bloomberg would be a serious politician and try to actually confront the issues facing the country. Rather than open the treasury to yet another unfunded tax cut. He recognizes that the Carolina coast will be gone in a lifetime unless climate change is seriously confronted. The NYTs had an article about Sheldon Adelson and his billionaire interference in US foreign policy. Moving the Israeli capital to Jerusalem and bankrolling Netanyahu Adelson has done about as much as one can to obliterate any chance of the Palestinians to get any justice. The Koch Brothers and other billionaires actively run Republican policy making. The Trump presidency should be called the Citizens United Presidency.
Plutocracy is gaining strength. It doesn't matter which party or which end of the what is regarded today as the political spectrum. The obscene amounts of money that are being contributed to the parties and the candidates, reported donations of tens of millions of dollars by individuals, can only indicate that the electoral process and, hence, the governing process is being taken over, again, by the wealthy. Even among those who profess concern for the middle-class, the blue-collar Americans, let along the most needy members of our society, there is a lack of interest in keeping the process open so that the majority of our citizens will have a voice.
Perhaps something can be done to rein in the huge donations made by the few. We obviously cannot depend on the Supreme Court or the legislators in Congress who have joined the wealthy, as have the leaders of both major political parties. We can, though, reject the candidacy of Michael Bloomberg or anyone else who will shamefully use his/her money to fund a campaign for any office. We should also refuse to vote for anyone who accepts funding from the Super Pacs.
The mockery that is the current political situation can no longer be tolerated.
3
Woo hoo! I’m an independent centrist and I’m all in for Bloomberg 2020! I hope he runs as a Democrat and wins the Democratic nomination. Best news I’ve heard on the political front since November 4, 2017.
2
Starting from the premise that America is and has been great, perhaps it is worthwhile considering a reversion to the past albeit with some modifications.
We need energy policy, industrial policy, and substantial reform in our educational system all of which address both the future and the changes in occupational opportunities that have left so many people behind. I don't see the socialist approach, which has never been successful, working for this nation. As Warren Buffet said "you don't see people moving to socialist countries." No, we became great industrially and as a result of innovation. Bloomberg was an innovator.
As to old people: now that I am one, I can attest to the wisdom and moderation that comes with age. As a result I now no longer wonder why our nation's leaders had been older than I.
Finally as to boredom? Gerald Ford, a decent and incredibly middle of the road, boring, person, helped heal the nation after the Nixonian crisis. We could use a dose of that.
1
Democrats win when they inspire. They need passionate and authentic leaders who communicate well and make a personal connection.
There are only two candidates who fit the bill and the need for our time: Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris.
2
I live in a small city with an agricultural economy and yet even here, every election we get to choose which rich person we would like as mayor. That is democracy in the United States.
2
@John: A Congresscritter's salary is equivalent to that of a junior associate at a K Street law firm. One has to be rich to afford elective politics in the US. The US might do better to eliminate 50 other legislatures to raise the Congressional salary to that of established professionals.
1
@Steve Bolger I do not think salaries are the issue; it's the cost of running for office. And I also do not understand why the comparison has to be made with well-paid lawyers. Members of Congress are paid $174,000 and have fantastic benefits. The average household -- that's household -- income in this country is under $60,000.
1
@John Steve Bolger is writing from NYC where $174K a year would maybe be enough for a single person or childless couple to barely get by modestly. I grew up in a city probably not far from yours in the agricultural heart of California. I am now writing from LA which is less expensive than NYC, but that same $174K would require a family to exercise some real discipline to maintain a modest level of comfort. In both places this is mostly because of housing. There is a similar situation in D.C.. This big housing cost gap is one of the sources of disconnect in this country between the folks on the coasts and the folks in the heartland. I often think we should move our national capitol to somewhere in the middle like Kansas City. Your observation about the fantastic benefits for members of Congress is spot on.
Bloomberg is far better and more electable than a lot of what’s out there in both parties. I always viewed him as a centrist, something the country desperately needs right now, and I long for a good, steady, no-drama, boring president who is simply focused on getting the job done in the best way possible. I already agree with Bloomberg on most issues, but I’d be very interested to hear his views on income inequality and his ideas on how to combat it before it gets any worse. He might not be my first choice (who shows no sign of running) but he’s a pretty close second and if he’s on the ticket, I’d happily give him my vote.
6
I will vote for just about anyone over Trump, but what I really don't want is a president who is an advocate of stop and frisk. There are so many better people in the country. Surely we can have the chance to elect one of them.
3
I'm sure that another old billionaire will really energize the youth vote that the democrats need.
5
Bernie did. He’s old too. Not saying I’m a fan of either Sanders or Bloomberg, I’d like to see someone younger and less wealthy come along to lead us through this madness.
Mr. Bruni,
It never fails to lift my spirits to read your column. Bloomberg may not be the answer, as so many have pointed out here, but the fact that you are steering readers to think practically of other options with your everpresent wit, positivity, and razor sharp phrasing gives me hope - yet again - that things could get better.
In fact, I have such faith in your intellect, humility, humanity, and stable rudder that I propose readers mull over the idea of Frank Bruni for president. I am dead serious.
1
A Trump in sheep’s clothing. Another billionaire is not what America needs.
2
@Melanie Loch,
But Frank is not a billionaire? Or perhaps even a millionaire.
No, just say no. Trump has opened the door to the office of the Presidency being the plaything of the uber rich. They will buy it like they buy sport teams. And secondly, and I know I risk the charge of ageism, but how about someone younger. I admire O'Rourke because he exudes that youthful, some would say naive, belief in our better angels. It would be such a relief from the deep cynicism of our present political environment.
12
Trump “opened the door to the presidency becoming the plaything if the uber rich” - what? Roosevelt(s)? Kennedy?
Bloomberg, from humble beginnings, amassed a fortune at least 15x greater than Trump’s. And he did it through foresight, skill, leadership and discipline.
The nuance one must lack in order to conflate Trump and Bloomberg is astonishing even by today’s standards.
6
Frank, as someone who saw the Bloomberg mayoralty from the nearby burbs, I'd give it a B. No major disasters, good views on the environment and guns and choice, and an ability to keep the extremes on both political ends at bay.
But just as today's Republicans would never accept their past nominees for president in that current role, the loudest voices (and darlings of the media) on the Dem left will never accept Bloomberg. Sure, on the stage of House or even Senate candidacies, they'll bite their tongues and accept a centrist. The presidency is another matter. They'd rather lose than accept anyone not certifiably in lockstep with identity politics and academia's latest flavor of the month obsession.
Frank’s column perfectly captures what I and many of my fellow New York City pals have been discussing since Bloomberg announced that he might seek the nomination. He’s highly competent, dignified, fair-minded, and progressive on almost all the important issues.
Of course it would be nice if he were a decade younger. But every candidate has flaws, and the perfect is the enemy of the good. And it is ageist to suggest that a 78-year-old, with a demonstrable history of competence, is not capable of doing a splendid job.
5
@Greg Schwed
'Almost all the important issues' is the sticky wicket, Greg.
Social issues like gun control, racism, and sexism are painless issues for dignified wealth. Politesse at the gala costs little. To challenge the capital that uses social issues and 'philanthropy' to keep us sleepy would not be possible for someone who has bled $50 billion out of his employees. So many vehemently defend obscene wealth as if it were completely benign in a clearly dying world. You will not be invited to the last gala before the fall of Dubai-on-the-Hudson.
Because I fear that a pendulum swing to the far Left at this point would tear Americans apart as badly as the shift to the far Right has done after Obama, I believe that Bloomberg is an ideal candidate to calm the dangerous gyrations we are experiencing now. Run, Michael, run.
3
In light of Trump, Bloomberg sounds like a much needed breath of fresh air. Certainly he should be considered, but then, so should many others.
Whoever is chosen to run needs to present a recovery plan of major proportion. Trump has seen to that.
2
We need a leader with vision, not just competence, though some of that would be refreshing. A new Democratic president might ask Bloomberg to oversee the return of the US to a somewhat normal condition, as a "consulting surgeon" might. Just because he's the opposite of Trump doesn't make him right for the role, only that he's the most qualified NY billionaire for the position.
2
Bloomberg is an effective pragmatist, never an ideologue. He has my vote.
4
He is exactly what a diverse democracy needs. Down the middle is the only way. Protecting the environment and free, but smartly regulated, markets. These concepts unfortunately have escaped my friends from the left wing of my Democratic Party.
Run Michael, run.
3
The last thing the Democrats need is a man who spent a good part of his life re-distributing income from the middle class to himself. He is the embodiment of a competent version of the failed Democratic Party that failed to understand that they did abndon "average" Americans for decades - that social welfare programs corrode the integrity and competence of the citizenry. Richer does not equal better for those who understand what it takes to sustain a democracy.
The plutocracy of corporate, hedge fund America bought both the Republican and Democratic Parties for decades. A competent, non-sadistic autocrat is still an autocrat.
4
Bloomberg's position against breaking up the big banks is a dye marker. He might place doilies under gun control, LGBT rights, climate science, etc., but he will not lift a finger to change the structures that enforce economic inequality. And the latter is job one.
15
If not Mike Bloomberg himself because he may not be the political personality or "too old" (I disagree), and not with the Democrats who are too far left (I agree), then Mike Bloomberg should fund the first real third party in the US that reflects his platform: fiscally conservative, socially progressive, and most of all, based in reality and focused on results, not ideology. This Realitican party would attract the mass of disaffected "moderate Republicans," disaffected "moderate Democrats," and most of all the independents who are not delusional enough to call themselves Libertarians (Tea Party). Who's in?
2
Mr. Bloomberg probably could make a good Democratic candidate for President. However Mr. Bruni mentions two things to hold one's attention.
1. Mr. Trump's appeal to "middle-class and blue-collar Americans":
I see two factors that influenced that: Mr. Trump's authoritarianism, and his (unlikely) campaigning as a putative champion of the working man against the big corporations. The plain thing is that neither the Republicans, nor the Democrats (not even President Obama) really stood on the side of the workers. At least Mr. Trump, for all his bad faith, did appear to do so. By now the falsity of Mr. Trump's campaign has become increasingly apparent to all who care to look.
The thing about Mr. Trump's appeal that might undermine any candidacy by Mr. Bloomberg is that he, for all his support for the Democrats' social causes, never really appears to have cared about the plight of the Democrats' biggest constituency. He really appears to be just another Corporate Democrat, except he never needed much in the way of corporate donations for his campaigns. That could undermine Mr. Bloomberg's campaign if he runs, if he is just seen as another Corporate, Republican-lite Democrat.
2. Mr. Bloomberg's worthiness of an open-minded assessment:
Indeed Mr. Bloomberg is worthy, given his record as New York City's Mayor. I would even go as far as to say his candidacy, if he does run, sets the bar for all other candidates.
Somehow, I don't think that being super rich ought to be a major criterion for electing a president.
Blumberg has a lot of good ideas. His candidacy might be a path toward decreasing the partisanship that afflicts our nation.
I'm less sure about the processes he uses to implement those ideas.
I certainly would applaud trying to diminish the role personality and charisma play in our political process. But how to make that happen?
Would nominating Blumberg do anything at all about the toxic role money plays in our election process?
2
Bloomsburg is an Independent. He's needed in a swing state. I think Cuomo has a good understanding of corporate welfare. My mission was to alleviate poverty in the tiny part of the wood that I live in Frank, that happens to effect NY and PA residents.
Can we talk about policy issues: Euthanasia and our healthcare system? If your promoting virtue ethics I agree with a more compassionate healthcare system.
Would vote for Bloomberg in a heartbeat.
He knows the world and it's frail condition, knows the stock market, has an elegant demeanor - even wants to change public school diets to protect children's health.
I would sleep better here in Switzerland knowing that Mr. Bloomberg is protecting us all at home.
2
I am craving no drama so badly, I would vote for Bloomberg--who you correctly point out would run a competent/no drama presidency. Having said that, baked into his DNA is his belief that private business techniques can solve all governmental problems---his attempts at solving NYC public school problems using data/charters/---was a dismal failure---I do applaud his willingness to experiment, but, public services, like education, do not respond well to constant upheaval and corporate incentive strategies.
8
After the Bonfire of Berners gifted us with Trump, I'd suggest a base-level rule that, to run as a Democrat you have to be a Democrat.
Start from there and, if there's a conflict, potential candidates cam come over and join the Party or the Party can formally vote to go over and join them.
We wrecked our country pretty good last time, trying to shoehorn unwilling partners together. Let's not, anymore.
4
I think you mean, after Hillary’s worst campaign in history (never even stepping foot in Wisconsin in the general!) gifted us with Trump.
1
When the solution is one solitary individual in a world of billions of people the problem must be very simple.
No one person can fix America's problems.
The GOP started tearing America apart in 1964 with the passage of the Civil Rights Act.
We are in the midst of the greatest revolution in human history and instead of finding solutions America clings to a belief in a past that never was and a belief in a future that never will be.
Conservatism is a failure it has no answers to our world's and your country's problems.
The economy will crash. Maybe in a few years, maybe in a few months or maybe in a few days but we all know it will crash and only strong government will be able to stop a global catastrophe.
It is time to understand that we must collectively ameliorate the problems being generated by our economics and our politics and eliminate the forces that are adamant in preventing us implementing solutions.
Before any progress can be made in fixing the USA the ideologues that refuse to acknowledge that change is necessary must be removed from power. As long as men like McConnell, Ryan, Cruz, Murdoch and Koch have power all victories will be Pyrrhic. The marketing department is not the correct department for leading America into the future. It is time for design and engineering to assume their proper role, America is broken and more advertising and hype will not fix the problems. Bloomberg may be better packaging but you really need a change of contents.
11
Concerning Trump's wealth I've been testing voter's intellligence with a simple open book test, take yor time:
If someone has 1 billion in assets and 2 billion in debt, does that make him a billionaire?
The low information voter Trump "loves" (and used to fly over) can use Google to find the definitions. Hint: "asset" has nothing to do with women.
8
I never once voted for Bloomberg in his 3-Mayoral runs. But this man has a record of competent and effective governance.
Can he win over traditional Democratic voters? That's what he did in NYC three times. His policy positions - free trade, gun control, pro-choice - are Democratic positions. I will vote Bloomberg over the other potential Democrats.
2
The election of Bloomberg as president would be a setback to a movement of democracy Michelle Alexander tried to define in We are not the resistance.
4
Bloomberg has one legitimate role, to pump and legitimize other other Democratic politicians.
He himself has the blind spots of all tens of billionaires , he really has no clue of what the average voters needs or wants. He just is incapable of getting it as much as he may have been a good technician of NY City. The National stage needs a much more complete being, the soul of Joe Biden, the mind of Barack Obama, and the heart of a brand new Democrat forged understanding the damage that the Republican billionaire donors class have already done to America.
The last thing we need is is another billionaire running things.
8
Bloomberg has enough money that he doesn't need to lie or hedge about how much he has, Donald is still trying to get it and will never reach that stage. It won't be enough. When Bloomberg left office, he went back to his regular life. Can you imagine any time in the future, even after he leaves office that DJT won't still be tweeting like a fool and insulting people? I believe former presidents are provided some security detail, DJT will need it, claim that it needs to be the "biggest ever" and may be another reason he ran, so he can get something else for free.
Have faith. I'm just waiting and watching. I figure the forces of government are restraining themselves because he's in office right now. But they're lining up, salivating and rubbing their hands together to pursue him, his family and business when he gets out of office. They have patience, long memories and a long reach. Where it might have been somewhat of a secret before that he was a crook, now the whole world knows. Gotta make it more difficult to find people willing to do business with in the future. And having an ex-Prez on your board of directors would normally be considered an honor or sign of prestige. Can you imagine anyone wanting this fool to lend his name to or be involved with their company?
2
Good article over all but I doubt this:
" If they’re not, he disembowels them. Ask Jeff Sessions, who probably considers Mel Gibson’s end in “Braveheart” preferable to his endless mortification."
The fact is, Jeff Sessions is gripped by the strongest and most inescapable manifestation of Battered Wife Syndrome. He'll never walk away, or even want to. All he wants is Trump's love and he'll tolerate any abuse, any humiliation, in the hopes that one day he'll get it.
Acceptable suggestion to a brainstorming session. Just no actors or actresses. Only suggestions of experienced government office holders.
1
Bloomberg?
I'm an old white guy and I must say that I am getting a little weird about being one.
The guy looking back at me as I brush is an old white guy too and when the realization comes to us that we are, in fact, old white men, we quickly look away.
Ashamed for some reason even though we both dislike our current president and the party that enables him.
So I would be very open to voting for an old white guy. A smart, competent, patriotic, experienced, normal old white guy.
Like Mike Bloomberg.
BTW I would be very comfortable voting for an old white woman too.
Sometimes we, my wife and I, brush our teeth together and the four of us are ready for a change. we are all tired of the drama.
We want to brush our teeth in peace.
7
You're kidding. Another traditional Democrat, or someone in their mould, will continue the destructive policies that ended up with trump being elected. What we need is a man who truly believe in and supports the people and their needs, things the Democratic party has ignored for too long: Healthcare for all, tuition-free state colleges, greater control of the banks whose policies largely led to the '08 debacle, and a minimum wage of $15."
5
@JFP
JFP, really, you need it to be a "man" who believes in and supports the people and their needs...??
I'd vote for Bloomberg or Biden in a heartbeat. But since they're both in their 70s, one heartbeat will most definitely fall to the VP. With that in mind, bring back Joe Biden. He's experienced, a well known commodity, personable and loved by voters on both sides of the aisle. The most important thing would be Biden's choice for VP. He could choose any number of up and coming Democratic women to be his running mate. His age becomes a moot point if dems would look to their bench and give women the voice they have earned and deserve. The good old white boys days are at an end. Dems have always led the way in progressive steps forward; let's show them that we are truly the party that will make America great in spite of the republicans efforts to divide us.
2
Biden/Harris 2020
Apparently my simple comment of "No more old white men" did not meet the standard of civility that the Bloomberg machine at the NYT demands.
I am old (70), white, and a woman.
It is time for the generation who will be living their lives during the tumultuous years ahead to lead. Yes, no more old white men. Perhaps it could be endured in another hundred years, if our country can maintain itself after the disaster of this present old white man.
9
No, no, no! He manipulated his powerful friends to put in a term limit for the Mayor and then when he was mayor minipulated the System again to get another term. That is really all one needs to know. When his term was over he moved to London where he had a sweet deal on. He’s committed to Bloomberg. The Presidency is a bauble he wants.
8
We need boring
We need competence
We need bipartisan
We need thoughtful decision making
We need team building
We need respect-from the rest of the world and from ourselves
We need long term thinkers
We need civility
We need a dedication to make government work-to the extent that you want it to work(the role of the legislative branch.
We need to bring stability back to our country so we can focus on an open discussion of issues.
Whether or not, that person is Bloomberg, i don't know-we do not need firebrands from either the left or right. Or self promoting incompetent fools like Trump.
Boring is good!
499
@R
Obama tried to do all the things you listed and look at how that worked out.
Democrats play fair while Republicans don't. Just sayin'
@R
"Boring is good!"
Boring is bad. It puts people to sleep. It destroys turnout. No turnout, no win.
That's the reality of boring.
YES, all of this list. A Fresh Start for America!
The answer to the question posed is no. No. Absolutely no. Never. Basta. Just stop.
8
He's too old, and he's too smart not to know that. Trump didn't declare until 8/15. All this speculation about 2020 is ridiculous.
2
No. I like Michael Bloomberg, but no more men who minimize sexual trauma, rape, harassment, and the like.
4
I offer a few choice words about Michael Bloomberg and clean energy as reported by Elisabeth Rosenthal in ‘Europe Finds Clean Energy in Trash, but U.S. Lags’ April 12, 2010.
https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/2010/04/13/science/earth/13t...
She raised this question: "Why is Europe ahead of the U.S. in embracing clean incinerators that turn garbage into energy?"
She wrote this about Michael Bloomberg: “Even Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, who has championed green initiatives and ranked Copenhagen’s waste-fueled heating on his list of environmental “best practices,” has shied away from proposing to get one built.”
Here is what Professor Nickolas J. Themelis, then professor of engineering at Columbia University and a waste-to-energy proponent, said about that:
“America’s resistance to constructing the new plants was economically and environmentally ‘irresponsible.’
“It’s so irrational; I’ve almost given up with New York. It’s like you’re in a village of Hottentots who look up and see an airplane — when everybody else is using airplanes — and they say, ‘No, we won’t do it, it’s too scary.”
I live 4 km from what is probably the world’s most advanced solid-waste incineration system. It heats my entire city, size of Burlington VT completely! Best I have ever experienced in my long life. In my 23 years here, I have never heard a complaint.
Move back to natural gas MA? Not a chance.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Citizen US SE
3
Esoteric single-issue much?
Bloomberg's 78 now, too old to run in 2020 (or before then, if president Trump unexpectedly leaves our presidency). A leader will rise from the crucible of the Democratic Party, from the ashes of the G.O.P. May the demented white supremacist and nationalist American President be removed (or leave) before he further damages Democracy.
4
Without a doubt Bloomberg should be President. However, I fear anti Semitic thinking by all the god directed and make America great again folks runs deeper and wider than their racism.
Frankly after Trump, Bloomberg would appear a counter intuitive choice. Imagine fairness and logic from a politician, who is, hush,hush, a “A Jewish Billionaire”.
Imagine, a politician who isn’t an ignorant bully, but well educated and thoughtful, running as a Democrat. Thrilling isn’t it!
I fear however our country and our motive centric law makers and their constituents have become so twisted and tribal in nature, that logic and trust can only be seen from candidates like Smith and Wesson.
If this country wants to be great again like it was before Trump, impeaching Trump and getting more men like Bloomberg in office will save our country from it destructive course.
Believe me I’m not kidding!!
1
I'd vote for Mayor Mike.
I'd be happy with Bloomberg as POTUS, Avenatti too, almost anyone in fact. My problem with Bloomberg is his seeming inelectability on the national stage.
As far as old-white guys go, Bernie Sanders is still my man, but methinks he is not our best choice to dethrone the child-POTUS who wants to be king.
Vote Blue in every election!
2
Knowing that Trump is a bully and a name caller, we need someone who's tough to take down. MB could fill that bill.
1
Homer Simpson, Stewie Griffin, Buggs Bunny-take your pick, would be an antidote to the lying, opportunistic Donald Trump. Yeah, I'd give Michael Bloomberg a shot at being president.
He's sane for starters, not a hedonist, nor a psychopathic opportunist, nor a lying voluptuary. And I believe he's a good man, a fair, intelligent man who would, on the whole, make right decisions.
5
If Bloomberg really cared about this country, he should primary as a Republican. Give that party a sane, 21st century version of conservatism as an alternative to ignorance, kleptocracy, and racism.
3
If it's got to be a guy from New York, better Bloomberg than Andrew Cuomo.
3
This article is among those of Frank Bruni's that show us how being steeped in the world of food prepared him well for broader work on the pages of the NYT: he knows and can describe for us the ingredients in two items, two entrees, that might well be on the political menu in 2020, leaving us to think about which of them is more likely to be indigestible and bad for our health. Bon appetit...or, in any event, good luck.
1
Seriously, another white man in his late 70s who is wealthy?
5
He was a lousy mayor who cared primarily about the rich. Plus I wouldn't support any politician who so flagrantly broke with term limits in order to win a third term. A big thumbs down.
2
Hard pass on a 78 year old first term President.
2
Haiku
Look at the choices:
Affluent or effluent...
My nostrils vibrate.
2
I like Mike!
1
I like Bloomberg...But, no more billionaires ...real or imagined...please. How about someone who has a little more in common with every day folks. You know..the people that are in the majority in this country. Michelle Obama gets my vote....
5
Bloomberg makes the rules for himself above all other. He bitterly opposed a third term for the NYC mayors office until he was in power and then changed the rules when the city council was out on summer holiday. He "famously rode the subways, he never managed to seem of the subways." OF course not. I was on a 4 train car once when his body guards and police blocked off a third of the car one stop b before he got on with more body guards. Not really of the subway. Bloomberg feel he knows what's best for us whether or not we agree, the problem looking down from his ivory tower the view may be somewhat distorted. Great possible Sectratary of the ... not president.
3
There's a disease called "Potomac Fever;" it consists of looking at the President and coming to the conclusion that you are better qualified. At a minimum it leads to enormous agita, and at worst you charge off on Ralph Nader political adventures.
The tragedy of our present is that the majority of adults over 35 are vulnerable to it, because Trump is so vile, ignorant, and impulsive.
Bloomberg is indeed a far better man than Trump. He's also been mayor of New York City, and he's richer than Trump. So I completely understand his Potomac Fever.
But he's forgetting the most basic thing: how Trump won and what the war zone looks like as a result.
Trump won by channeling white anxiety and revenge to new heights. He stepped in and usurped the "base" that the Ailes/Murdoch right-wing had been building, ripping it away from their purposes, and creating a true personality-cult authoritarian (aka neo-nazi) movement.
Trump has gutted old conservatism, exposing the fact that no more than 20% of the GOP are anywhere along the Rockefeller to Buckley spectrum.
And Bloomberg's problem is that really ... he's a Rockefeller Republican. Is in the no-man's land now of what has turned into trench warfare.
Bloomberg isn't capable of leading the Democratic party, even though it has become the Anti-Trump alliance. The reason is that he doesn't bring any forces to it, other than a handful of NeverTrumpers.
4
The Democratic Party could do worse than Michael Bloomberg... whoever is the nominee it needs to be someone other than a "Senator." The word Senator is a death sentence.
A crude billionaire democrat-republican opportunistic racist vs a sophisticated billionaire democrat-“Independent”opportunistic racist. The fact that this man is even being considered is why I can never support the Democratic Party.
4
I'm always amused when gentry progressive white guys, like Frank, refer to other white guys, like Bloomberg and Trump, as white guys. Why the extra identifiers? Why is it written or spoken with an affected sense of ennui:"Oh, more white people". The attempt at wokeness is really quite nauseating, and reeks of a desire by the gentry left to be down with the people, even while they move into the people's neighborhoods and replace bodegas with artisanal coffee shops. The left's capacity for self-parody is as reliable as Trump tweeting at 3am.
3
Though Michael Bloomberg has occupied space in multiple political parties, he has the chops of governance, despite some controversial decisions as the mayor of NYC. But that comes with the territory. No one gets everything they want.
Yes, there were law-and-order decisions of questionable merit. But he is a moderate — left of center — Democrat, at least for now.
As a 74 year old liberal with several generations of family liberalism influencing my moral compass, I need some non-drama coming from the White House. I want someone who has loads of respect for, and from, our allies whom Trump has tossed under the bus in favor of autocrats with a knack for assassinating journalists and various opponents.
I look forward to a day when the top stories of the day have nothing to do with Trump. I/We the People deserve a return to decency and pride — though I won't expect that from the Republicans any time soon. I want a president who doesn't compel millions of Americans to fill the streets with torches and pitchforks. I want a president who will tell the hate-filled white supremecists and nationalists to return to the rocks from under which they emerged with Nazi flags and badges.
Bloomberg wrote a book, "Climate of Change," with former Sierra Club president, Carl Pope. If Bloomberg can reinstate the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts, while restoring the Voting Rights Act and preserving Roe v. Wade, I can vote for him.
Kamala and Liz need to keep the flame burning in the Senate.
365
Thinking as a strategist for the Republican party (which I am not) : "'It’s funny: Republican voters came to embrace Trump — and then Republican lawmakers meekly followed suit — though he hadn’t done all that much for the party before. Democratic voters are probably less inclined to embrace Bloomberg, but he has pumped substantial sums of money into initiatives — regarding gun control, L.G.B.T. rights, climate change and more — that matter to them.'" I was thinking if they impeach President Trump Mike Pence could pick John Kasich for his VP in a 2020 run.
As far as smearing goes it's a little late regarding that don't you think?
You have got to be kidding. What would possess anyone with intelligence to actually suggest that some rich guy is capable, by dint of their money, to adequately manage this country. Bloomberg tried to eviscerate public school education by his moronic support of the so called “Ed reformers”. This alone is evidence of his incompetence and poor judgement.
Spare us please from more of this nonsense, please!
6
"...Trump doesn’t really have his hand on the wheel — he just wants to be the shiny hood ornament.'
Donny Jon may want to be a shiny hood ornament but in reality he's a corroded chrome-plated exhaust-pipe tip that he purchased from the clearance table at a Pep Boys store.
https://www.pepboys.com/superior-automotive-chrome-exhaust-tip/product/2...
2
I notice that Frank doesn’t raise the Jewish question, so I will do it.
After Trump, the country will be ready for a Jew or anybody else who promises to restore a little order to this country.
1
Amy Klobuchar for President.
Wonderful, marvelous idea. That collection of hacks and custardheads the Democrats are sporting aren't even in his league.
Bloomberg President, Soros Secretary of State, Bezos at the Commerce, Stallone the Defense, Diddy Combs the Department of Arts and Culture (oh, we don't have one yet?)...Let the rich take over, it behooves the money obsessed Americans to let the rich ones run the shop!
2
The Democrats are so lost in identity politics that I would be willing to bet that they will never again nominate a white man, despite his qualifications or the content of his character.
2
As someone with less commas and zeroes than Fank, Bloomberg has even less interest in my welfare than his.
4
No, 'this man' is not the antidote to Trump. For all the good he may have to offer, the good he may have done, he is a gigantic ego weighed down by far too much money.
What we have now, with better hair.
But you're asking the wrong question, and you reveal the reason it is in your penultimate paragraph: "Republican lawmakers meekly followed suit".
No they did not.
This is what they've been waiting for. This is their dream come true, their wish for permanent dominion.
If there's any meekness here, its their 'pinch me' disbelief this is really happening; their faithless fear they're about fulfill wonderful dreams long nurtured in Conservative bedrooms and dank thinks tanks stinking of sunlight and democratic possibility. This dark hope brought finally into the light by Rush and Newt, the saintly Karl, and The Rain-man of Washington, Bush the Younger.
Even if you inquire about this rogue's gallery of unAmerican lust for one-sided power, you'd be making a big mistake.
Because we're past time when some person, or gaggle of persons, is the problem.
The problem now is an idea so carefully tended by the dastardly Right, it will take a generation or more to undo.
An idea that leads a significant portion of Americans (so called) to believe it high time Nazis take over and set us straight. A proportion wish to the soles of their work boots Liberals would stop whining about people (and blacks) shot by police, and that Kaepernick boy would just shut it.
1
...and nowhere did he mention "stop and frisk." If Democrats want to have black supporters, Bloomberg cannot be the nominee, period. Deal breaker.
3
What would be the correct temperature for the job? Cool but not reptilian?
I thought Michael Bloomberg was a Republican?
1
Why are we settling for Bloomberg so early on? Because the NY Times and its columnists will always, always demonstrate a preference for the rich. That's their gig.
Please don't let them pull us to the center again. Please.
4
Bloomberg will be elected in 2020.
He is a truly successful business person, an experienced politician and public servant, a good and honest human being, a man who is not driven by a childish, dangerous, dishonest, and hateful ego.
Bloomberg recognized and told everyone from the start, that the Trump character was a con man. Witness the Trump University and Electoral College frauds.
In the past, the fact that Bloomberg is Jewish would be disqualifying. But, ironically, Trump's "Jewishness" can only help Bloomberg. Trump's daughter is Jewish, Trump's son-in-law is Jewish, most of Trump's grandchildren are Jewish. Trump has carried water for Israel's Netanyahu and Israel's wealthiest supporters, including Sheldon Adelson.
Trump's key insiders are Jewish: Kushner, Miller, Mnuchin, et al.
An so, Bloomberg's one vulnerability is out of reach of Trump's hateful name-calling campaign tactic.
Kharma!!
Anyone who begins describing Bloomberg as "another superrich old white guy" doesn't know Mike Bloomberg. Perhaps you may recognize integrity, hands on leadership. He's not a guy who defines himself by his wealth. He has no privileged roots and deserves every dollar he's made. He is not in any wealthy groups pocket which allows him to do what he believes should be done. No, I do not agree with him on all his choices but he has conviction and integrity and those alone would put him head and shoulders above the dangerous clown we currently have in office. He has no great love for the media and values his privacy. So far I'm not having a problem. Imagine
303
@Elizabeth
When I dismiss Bloomberg it's not because all billionaires are alike, it's because buying your way into power in a supposed democracy does the same damage to our institutions no matter who or what the financial interests are.
And what on earth could it possibly mean to "deserve" a billion dollars?
2
@Elizabeth,
Your last word - imagine - opens the doors and windows to a world without Trump. I would love to see Bloomberg (or Warren or O'Rourke) use that as the key word in campaign slogans. For example, "Imagine a world in which clean air and water for our children and grandchildren is a must, not a dream. Vote Bloomerg." Or, "Imagine a government run by calm, stable, competent people who are working FOR the people, not against them."
1
@Elizabeth. Integrity? What about stop & frisk?
1
I would enthusiastically support Bloomberg. My fear is that the neoleftists would not come along and worse would focus on his gender, race and status as being disqualifying. As important to remember with him or any other potential dem POTUS is that we must have control of both houses of Congress. Frankly we need a competent technocrat in the White House and a Congress that takes back its role as the place of good governance. I’m afraid however we will squander this golden opportunity by engaging in social justice, gender, race based posturing and rhetoric.
@Al Cafaro
On the other hand, if rock-ribbed political pragmatists such as yourself would just once address issues of justice and genuinely good governance, the rest of us could finally shut up.
You think we're out here for the good times?
I'm in political no-man's land: I'm a moderate.
I'd not only vote for him, I'd donate, and volunteer for his campaign.
3
i for one would vote for him in a heart beat.
I learned many things about the American Psyche, that I rejected out of hand, until Trump got elected. The racial animus was real when it came to Obama I just chose not to see it. The concept of misogyny was only theoretical until I witnessed the over the top hatred of Secretary Clinton. When weighing the pros and cons of a Bloomberg run, you can't leave out the possibility of antisemitism rearing it's ugly head. Indeed it might be the first thing to scurry out from under the rock if Trump is still the nominee. Listen for the "sneaky Bloomberg" schoolyard taunt.
Can he or, in my wildest dreams, she win? That's all I ask for in the Dem 2020 candidate.
1
No more billionaire presidents.
3
"but he has pumped substantial sums of money into initiatives — regarding gun control, L.G.B.T. rights, climate change and more — that matter to them."
Oh great, this is how you run a country, Frank Bruni, being on the 'right' side of these issues? These are MINOR issues and Bloomberg is a MINOR man. Besides, in a runoff, Trump would make mincemeat of him. In fact, Trump would make mincemeat of every Democrat, including you.
3
@Labete Despite the fact that Trump lost the popular vote in 2016 to a VERY bad candidate, and is now far more unpopular and certainly bound to lose in 2020 to almost any Democrat, what is it about conservatives and "mincemeat"?
Mincemeat is delicious.
@Jack from Saint Loo
And that extra 3 mil or so popular votes were in heavily Democratic districts that went Clinton anyway and would not have made a difference.
Frank, if Trump is a Billionaire, well then I am a 100 pound supermodel. That must be by his own personal, Trumpian math. The same as used with his elusive Tax Returns, and accounting methods for “charitable donations “. As for Bloomberg, sure he’d be better. Along with about seventy percent of our adult population. And a significant percentage of actual Children. It’s time for some new, younger blood. Here’s a clue : If you qualify for Medicare, you’re too old. The risks from another dementia afflicted “ President “ is simply too great. Seriously.
4
“That was the theory behind giving Michael Bloomberg a prime speaking spot at the Democratic National Convention, where his mockery of Donald Trump carried extra zing and sting.”
And did exactly nothing.
And so Bruni recommends another multi-billionaire New Yorker with no connection to the rest of us out here. Fabulous.
2
This is not a knock on Mr. Bloomberg - but the sole reason we have Donald Trump in the White House is because Americans believe, as an article of faith, that if you have some money, you must have an IQ at least higher than the score of an average baseball game.
This is vividly, and painfully, not the case as evidenced by number 45.
It's time we address the elephant in the room: rich people not only don't know better than you, they are disconnected from the daily reality of 99% of the population, and therefore UNQUALIFIED to make decisions that effect your life.
There are certainly thoughtful, smart, wealthy people like Warren Buffet who understand what's wrong with this country. But these people do not run for office, because they are not on a self-absorbed power trip.
It's the bad apples with low IQs like Trump who reach for the brass ring of power, to try and mask their insecurities. This is not who we need making important decisions for the average person.
2
Is Michael Bloomberg the antidote to Donald Trump? No.
Next question.
5
Go ahead, Democrats, get your delusions and disorganization on. Get it done and over with well in advance so you can actually get serious about 2020 and do right by the country and the world.
Get done with all the joke candidates (Oprah, Cuomo, Avenatti, Zuckerberg).
Get done with the Rockefeller Republicans who want to follow in the footsteps of the Clintons and Obama and do Wall Street's bidding (Eric Holder, Terry McAuliffe).
Get all the unelectable legends-in-their-own-minds out of the way (Harris, Booker, Gillibrand).
Get the big-city mayors, not-yets, has-beens and never-was's out (John Delaney, Jeff Merkley, Inslee, deBlasio, Garcetti, O'Malley, Murphy, Tim Kaine).
Get the too-olds, too-much baggage and unelectables out (Sanders, "Busy Hands" Biden, Warren, Jerry Brown).
C'mon, Democrats, you can do better than this. I hope. More importantly, you can succeed. I hope. Amy Klobuchar and Sherrod Brown are the only two so far noted who have the necessary combination of smarts, heart, stability, sobermindedness, and comity that we need so desperately in our leadership. Bullock and Hickenlooper are possibilities... I like Klobuchar. Time to step up, Senator.
So get it all out of your system by next May, Democrats. Then get to work. Serious work. For a change. We're in a knife fight for democracy and sanity. And survival. Grow up, gear up and rise to the occasion.
5
Trump "spastic?" Really, Frank Bruni. Don't insult the legions of disabled people who struggle with coordination while you make your otherwise cogent comparison between our disastrously floundering head of state and a potential replacement. And don't substitute with the word "lame."
2
If he were only twenty years younger!
A breath of fresh air?
1
He'll need a charismatic veep. Someone to excite the crowds while he operates the machinery. Americans want razzle-dazzle, even if it means scampering after an idiot. I was astonished at the way the Republicans embraced Sarah Palin, a useless article to be sure, and look what we've got now.
I miss the quiet hum of government working in the background that we had while Obama was in office. The theatrics and rabid incompetence of Trump are worse than draining, they're destroying us, both in the eyes of the world and literally.
No Democrat has a chance against Trump unless the Mueller investigation thoroughly bloodies him. Which may or may not happen. If it does happen and Bloomberg runs he will have to decide how to respond to the inevitable moniker "Little Mikey." (instead of "Little Marco.") No way can Trump resist using this. If Bloomberg takes the high road, as would be expected from such a rock solid, high achieving, reasonable person, he's toast. Trump is just too good at attacking and demeaning. And Bloomberg basically lacks charisma. But an unexpected low road response completely alters the dynamic and could give Mike the appearance of charisma he would need. No one could look away from a real billionaire making sustained, vicious, well deserved attacks on our vile thug of a faux president.
1
Billionaires are not like you and me. Next.
3
Here is some information about the Wollman rink:
Renovations
In 1974, the Parks and Recreation Department started planning a renovation of the rink, .... the renovations had not been completed by May 1986 when the city decided to use brinewater in plastic pipes. By that time, $12.9 million had been spent, with an additional $2 to $3 million estimated to complete the work by the winter of 1987.
Donald Trump then offered to rebuild the rink at his expense within six months in return for the leases to operate the rink and an adjacent restaurant to recoup his costs. The final agreement was that the city would reimburse him for the costs up to the agreed limit and that he would donate the profits of rink and restaurant to charity and public works.... The work was completed two months ahead of schedule and $750,000 under the estimated costs.
When the rink reopened in November 1987,[5][8] ticket prices were raised from $2.50 to $4.50, and attendance was up from 130,000 in 1980 to 250,000 in 1987. As part of its agreement with the city, the Trump Organization donated most of the profit to charity, among them United Cerebral Palsy, Partnership for the Homeless, and Gay Men’s Health Crisis.
===============
The reality is that Trump is rude and uncouth and heartily disliked here at the NYT but he is not incompetent. The two Koreas are talking to each other and unemployment is down.
Frank, deal with reality and not your image of it.
1
@Ludwig
The Wollman escapade was almost fifty years ago now and, as you boys say endlessly about Kavanaugh, what difference does it make what you did fifty years ago?
Beyond that, Trump was incentivized by scamming the city for income with a no-bid arrangement to hand it over.
More important, Trump then was like Trump now: he did not quietly step in and fix an urgent government problem for the sake of the people, he engaged in a scorched-earth campaign of mockery and ridicule and, in the end, priced those who could really use the relief of a good skating rink out of the market.
Which was OK, I suppose, because he made it safe for the Upper West Side.
Then as now, Trump was all about the rich people, and all about Trump.
Bloomberg will prioritise confronting climate change. That is enough for me.
I would vote for Michael Bloomberg in a second and would sleep well at night. Bloomberg is everything DT is not and that's about all you need to know.
1
The democrats again searching for a candidate who can lose. Another Kerry.
1
What a low bar - he's serious.
Stop and frisk?
1
Bloomberg has no government experience a la Trump.
Nope. If he’s the candidate of the Democratic Party, count me out. Surely in a country of some 330 million we can find someone to run against the current yahoo who isn’t a super-rich white male pre-loaded with a great deal of historical baggage.
2
@VKG
I do not understand your statement about historical baggage. Are we better off electing someone who has no record to base our decision off of? And as for electing a super rich white male I don't care what race our next president is nor how much money they have. I only care that they know what is best for our country and how to there. If that person turns out to be someone other than a rich white male that would be great but our main consideration should always be finding someone with the drive and ability to get the job done.
There are two memorable moments that stand out above all others in the 2016 campaign. The first was when, standing before the Democratic convention delegates, Khzir Kahn waved his copy of the Constitution and wondered aloud if Donald Trump had ever read it. It was doubtful then and has been confirmed multiple times since that he hasn't.
The second was when Michael Bloomberg, before the same group declared about Trump, "I am a New Yorker. I know a con artist when I see him." How wonderful it would be to have a contest between the straight shooter and the Con Artist-in-Chief in 2020.
The problem with Bloomberg is that he is a he. Isn't it time to ditch the Y chromosome requirement for this position?
It is time for the Democrats to usher in a new and younger crop of leaders, Kamala Harris, the Castro twins, Eric Swalwell, Corey Booker, Deval Patrick and Amy Klobuchar all come to mind. Another old white man, no matter how much gravitas he has is not going to cut it. The progressive left, e.g. Elizabeth Warren, is unelectable nationally. But the progressive left does have a role as a leavening force.
More importantly, the Democrats should kill off the Clinton machine and any campaign strategists who advocate a scorched earth policy during the primaries. Bring David Axelrod back. People like Bloomberg and Leon Panetta would make fine senior advisors. Above all, the Democrats have to be for something.
Nancy Pelosi, the Clintons, Steni Hoyer, et al have had their day in the sun, now it is time for them all to gracefully back down and become the elder statesmen/stateswomen of the party.
218
@athenasowl This s the perfect strategy and the perfect list of candidates that will assure a Trump victory in 2020. So called "democratic" socialists may not like to hear it, but the country is far, far to the right of Corey Booker. Nominate a candidate like that and you make an continuation of this nightmare presidency a sure thing.
@athenasowl. “Donors” which can be Independent, then Republican, then Democratic, then Green, then..... are opportunists who have destroyed the country.
@athenasowl
Seems like the last few times the Ds followed the path you recommend it did not turn out so well for the country. McGovern, Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Gore.
Good luck!
Missing from this piece-intentionally- is how "Mayor Mike" used his vast fortune to override the city term limits so can be mayor for 12 years.
Also missing the fact he never once, in twelve years, held a town hall in any of the five boroughs to listen to constituents concerns.
Lest we forget his embrace of racist unconstitutional stop and frisk police policy.
He is unique indeed.
This NYC resident has no interest seeing "Mayor Mike" again in any office.
104
@MorGan
Thank you.
1
Mr. Bloomberg is too old. I still have hope. Hilliary Clinton received 2.8 million more votes than Donald Trump. But I am waiting for the mid term election results. If the Democrats do not show significant victories, well then I am going with Xanax.
No, he's not the answer. Period. We need younger candidates. The GOP is loading up their arsenal with younger people (which in itself is alarming). Fresh ideas are not going to come from an octogenarian billionaire.
2
When are we going to learn, once and for all, that old white men -- regardless of how massive their egos might be -- aren't the answer to the most pressing problems we're facing? We, as a country, need to turn the page.
3
Sadly Bloomberg would be the best and worst choice at the same. Hillary one of the most qualified candidates had little charisma a prime reason why enthusiasm for her and turnout was low. Obama inspired us, Trump entertained the racists, less educated, angry and xenophobic and they all turned out. I fear that the majority of America will not appreciate what a terrific, prepared and qualified leader Bloomberg would be with his low key, technocratic style.
As an apolitical person, I think that Mr. Bloomberg may, for a lack of any better choice, appeal to the WASP-Judaic Democrats, varying in shade from leftist radical to reasonably centrist.
But how could voters trust an elderly turncoat whose candidacy is obviously motivated by the Nitzschean "The Will to Power"?
"...as New York’s mayor, in charge of a complicated city of more than 8 million people." Mr. Bruni, have you ever heard of the City-Time Scandal? The largest in New York City's history. Bigger than the Wedtech scandal. Bigger than the Parking Violations Scandal. Mr. Bruni, do you recall the largest property tax hike in New York City's history? Do you remember the highest water rate increase in New York City history?
Should I continue Mr. Bruni?
1
As a senior citizen myself, I can say this: I love Bloomberg but he’s too old! Geez dems - find some new young blood or you’re going to be dealing with Trump for a second term.
Trump will have been impeached by then... and rightly so.
I have no desire to see Bloomberg run for president. Let Trump usher in the end of White male supremacy. White men have destroyed the earth and countless civilizations, and left death and destruction in their wake for over 500 years. Let us return to a time before 1492 and women and women of color lead. I believe that women of color have the power to put us on a new path minus the racism, sexism, classism and imperialism so rampant in our society.
Outside of the fantasy world of NY Times subscribers, President Trump is very popular.
Even if Bloomberg wasn't ready for an assisted living facility, Trump is going to be impossible to beat
2
No businessman can ever be a good president.
3
Enough with these old, white billionaires who think they are going to save the humanity. There are plenty qualified Democrats who are eager to serve and can connect with our greatly diversified Unites States of America.
2
Very good column. Just a thought for future New York Times columns and coverage: Can you try to avoid the descriptor of "old white guy"? I know it's apt in certain circumstances, but this old white guy, for one, finds it tiresome. Far too often, it's used to pigeonhole and stereotype, as in "an old white guy who supports Trump." Take it from me, there are plenty who do not.
2
If it's going to be a white guy, I'd go with a younger model and consider Mitch Landrieu, former mayor of New Orleans: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitch_Landrieu .
Maybe he's not wealthy enough for those fond of plutocrats, and his recent rankings do not put him high on speculative lists: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2018/07/06/the-top-15-dem... . He is only 58 years old, and he is a legitimate dark horse candidate.
1
Beto O'Rourke, from Texas is the man. When he defeats Ted Cruz, he will skyrocket!
I think the President should be someone who understands the job. We’re seeing what happens when CEO of a private company is the POTUS. While Bloomberg seems to be a decent guy I would not want him to perform brain surgery on anyone just because he’s a multibillionaire.
2
Bloomberg 2020. Count on my vote.
If two rich old men are the best we can come up with, America's in real trouble.
4
Like any other billionaire, Bloomberg can can only eat one steak at a time. Whether this will endear him to those dining on only one plate of macaroni & cheese at a time is anyone's guess. Judging from the electoral choices we've seen from both parties in recent years, he's got as good a chance as anyone.
My eyes were glazing over just reading half of this as ironically I had 'forgotten' about it in all of the nonstop 'chaos' arriving from the US Senate as well as the White House.
Truthfully, I have to disengage from all of this as it's too crazy, too demented, and to wealthy $$$$! I cannot figure out who is whom in all of this, let alone who is now 'out' vs. 'in' and it's all just 'wash, rinse and repeat'.
I am going to just wait till this all fizzles out and pray as one woman friend of mine suggested and hoped, that 'we all make a soft landing' vs. landing on a cratered planet and landscape.
What a serious tragic disaster and reality to have billionaires fighting with other billionaires over our future fate as a country and democracy. This while climate change continues, unemployment, housing and no meaningful health care are even thought out or even discussed by the uber wealthy. Enough is enough, Tell them all to just go home.
2
The fact that the left went bonkers when "evil billionaire" Bloomberg floated the idea of running, and that the right will have apoplexy if the number one gun control advocate in the nation gets the Democratic nod, not only bolsters my belief that the most competent, visionary (though charisma-challenged) mayor in my memory would make an excellent president, but that he has zero chance of achieving that goal.
So hello Beto__or Oprah.
www.newyorkgritty.net
1
No - Bloomberg is boring and last millennia. He's a male Clinton. Trump would mop the floor with him.
David Axelrod has what seems to be the correct theory of elections which predicts everything, at least in the past.
He explains it in a NYT article from 1/25/16:
"Open-seat presidential elections are shaped by perceptions of the style and personality of the outgoing incumbent. Voters rarely seek the replica of what they have. They almost always seek the remedy, the candidate who has the personal qualities the public finds lacking in the departing executive."
You can see how that obviously predicts Trump after Obama, and Obama after the rash Bush Jr, the boring Bush Senior after Reagan, and Reagan after pedantic Carter, the pure Carter after Nixon's Ford, JFK after old Ike...
It should be obvious to anyone that the winner of the 2020 election will be a young Hispanic woman.
Or else Obama.
70
@Fourteen Aside from the charectrrisitcs we would hope are the least important in judging a person's merit for higher office (their race and gender), Bloomberg is the exact opposite of Trump in every respect (competent, self-made billionaire, great managerial skills, visionary, etc.). He is the antidote to Trump that the Axelrod model predicts. The question is whether Democrats will nominate him or someone like him, or will they hand the election to Trump by nominating someone like Warren or Booker who will alienate the vast sea of red in the middle of the country. That's the part of the country that handed Trump his electoral college victory. Winning the popular vote by 6 million instead of Hillary's 3 million votes won't win democrats the presidency. You have to nominate someone who can win in Peoria as well as Manhattan.
@Fourteen
Or if circumstances don't shape up for the vast majority of workers, yet another authoritarian, only competent this time.
@Fourteen You seem to have forgotten that 2020 will not be an open-seat presidential election.
Let Bloomberg be Bloomberg. He's a good man, real intellectual heft and a desire to do well by doing good. He's from Melrose, MA or thereabouts and isn't a hoodlum from the Queens. He's legit. He will at least add to a thoughtful debate on the future of the country, and you know that he reveres our Constitution and the system it defines. If a billionaire can come off as humble, well, Bloomberg comes off as close. He's probably out of the Democratic Party mainstream, but it is a party that must welcome all honest voices. Let the best ideas win. The biggest issues a peaceful and competitive America has to deal with concern the environment and global warming and healthcare, and Bloomberg is very serious about tackling them. He's about real business, delivering product or services that are worth the investment, and not ephemera, bling, and money laundering. Democrats have nothing to lose, everything to gain from adding Mike Bloomberg to their team.
118
@Soquelly Democrats are so focused on LGBQXYZ rights, more taxes and big gov entitlement programs that they don't see how many otherwise moderate and progressive people they alienate. Never a mention of responsible spending, reigning in entitlements, Those are not Mike Bloomberg's goals. Mike needs a different platform to differentiate what he stands for. See my Comment regarding a third party. It's the only reasonable alternative, and he's got the resources, insight and stamina to make it happen.
@Soquelly. Spare us the platitudes. He’s for his personal agenda. His silence on Steven Miller’s racialization of asylum seekers speaks volumes.
1
In the US, the only voters should show proof on income, and get one vote for every million dollars they have. Leave the rest of us out of it. A billionaire with one billion gets exactly one thousand votes.
1
Bloomberg for President? No thonx.
I worked for him briefly years ago when he was a Democrat, before he turned "Republican" to avoid a messy Democratic primary for mayor, and then "Independent." Frank, have you forgotten how Bloomberg essentially bought his way around term limits so he could be mayor for years 9-12?
Yes, he's on the right side of gun control, climate change, abortion rights, etc. But what about the racial profiling stop-and-frisk he championed?
Don't get me wrong, I liked Mike personally when I was his employee, but he felt all good ideas came from him and he was surrounded by people who wouldn't tell him "no," at least not very often. Not a quality we should want in a President.
I don't begrudge Bloomberg his billions - he's certainly very charitable - but an old, white guy to run for the White House? We've already got Bernie or Joe, maybe both. Can't the Democrats find a youthful, charismatic candidate to push more millennials to the voting booth? We went nuts for JFK & Obama, but who wants to vote for grandpa?
Mike Bloomberg can put his money where his mouth is - but please - not on the ballot.
96
I want an energetic, dynamic and progressive candidate to run in 2020.
What is striking is how in this comment and many others people will disqualify someone because they are old. This is a classic case of agism. If someone has politics I agree with regardless of who they are then I will vote for them.
@Anonymouse
It's hard to overemphasize how completely and utterly Sen. Bernie Sanders dominated the youth vote in the 2016 presidential campaign. While Hillary Clinton dominated him among older voters, he dominated her right back among younger voters -- even winning more than 80 percent of their votes in some states against no less than the eventual Democratic nominee.
But this fact might say it better than any: In the 2016 campaign, Sanders won more votes among those under age 30 than the two presumptive major-party presidential nominees combined. And it wasn't close.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/06/20/more-young-peo...
Like other folks commenting here, I think Sherrod Brown has what we need for an election whose importance really can't be overstated. He's walked the walk as a real representative of the working people in this country. And that's most of us. Remember the working stiffs has got to be our mantra for this crucial election and turning point in our history. Not another corporate nominee please.
2
When did Bloomberg do such a good job for New Yorkers? When he brokered a third term for himself against voted term limits by making deals with the city council? When he appointed Cathie Black chancellor of NYC schools? When he installed a cabinet of socialites? When he left major streets in the Boroughs unplowed all winter while dedicating workers using chippers to detail the gutters of Upper East Side streets? When he replaced PEP members who opposed his school closings? We would be trading Caligula for Napoleon. We need a president, not an emperor.
2
Enough with the old white guys, rich or not. Just enough. They've had more than enough time at the helm, and here we are in this unfathomable mess. They need to gather up their testosterone, their egos, and their aggression and walk quietly into the sunset. Young, diverse (ethnically/economically/professionally), and mostly women. That is what we need now.
p.s. Those old white ladies need to go too.
2
Since Citizens United they’re all going to be rich, probably old, probably white. You baked it in.
2
Wow! I am just a bit less impressed than you....gave away a billion so he’s still got 49 left.
1
Every time you look at one of those needle skyscrapers built for Russian oligarchs that are defacing the NY skyline, thank Michael Bloomberg.
1
The short answer to the headline "Is This Man the Antidote to Donald Trump?" is *God No*!
2
“Superrich old white guy”. . . Why is the left so obsessed with money and race. Have you no deeper spiritual values that supersede these superficialities? Is materialism and appearance all that matters to you?
2
The comparison of qualities between Trump and a doorknob gives the knob the head. A general assessment of Cletus the slack jawed yokel and Trump is where it becomes of interest. A true portraiture of Trump yields an amalation of Homer Simpson, Cletus, Monorail Salesman Lyle Langley and Mr. Burns.
How would a 2020 Cabdidate maintain a stage presence? Practice sessions with a doorknob.
Correction: amalgamation, candidate. It would be nice to have a 5 minute "edit" option as the WSJ.
-And Bloomberg didn't borrow his money from Russian oligarchs, he made it the hard way: Trading stocks in his bathrobe.
2
Bloomberg's 78 now, too old to run in 2020 (or before then, if president Trump leaves our presidency). A leader will rise from the crucible of the Democratic Party, from the ashes of the G.O.P. May the demented white supremacist and nationalist American President be removed before he further damages Democracy.
Personally, I don't care who the Dem nominee is going to be; that will not be the problem for the Dems.
The problem for the Dems is the dopes out there that think we need more party(s); we have a two party system, until run-offs are allowed, deal with it. Reality hurts.
DJT in no way can achieve 50% and a feather of any vote.
But what he can do and will do given the opportunity is obtain ~42% of a vote.
But first he needs to get more party(s) into the mix;
Look for that moron Gary Johnson to suddenly appear again as a GOP stringer to shave 3-4 pts off via the promise of free grass and world peace.
If Bloomberg promises to accept the results of the Dem nomination should he not win it and not run as a third party spoiler....good for him
Autocrats obtain their power via splitting groups up so they can sneak in with less than 50% of the vote. We're not splitting the atom here, it's pretty simple.
The Dems must be unified behind ONE person, Bloomberg would not be my first pick, but if he carries the convention I'll vote for him.
If we have multiple party(s) DJT will win again.
1
The USA will elect an African American, a woman and a Mormon before it will elect a Jew.
1
Not only will he have his Bloomberg media empire pumping out his DNC Politburo message, but he'll have New York City's Sovietized hate-Trump mass-media cheering him on ad nauseam. Should be like Hillary, a NYT 93% chance to win the White House. Can't wait.
2
Run Mike run.
The Times is to Bloomberg what Breitbart is to Trump, with both organizations happy to bend the truth to suit their agenda. I knew last week, when this paper floated the "rumor" of a Bloomberg candidacy that the machine was now in gear. The same way they inflated Hillary's chances, Bloomberg was in the process of buying his illegal third term, when Times presented him as an invincible juggernaut, while his own pollsters knew that the public was tired of him and he would manage an unimpressive showing against an underfunded and unglamorous Bill Thompson. As it turned out, beloved "Mayor Mike" squeaked out a 5% margin over Thompson, after spending over $180 per vote.
When we think of Trumps' clueless appointees, Betsy DeVos leaps to mind, yet when Bloomberg was mayor, he chose Cathie Black as Schools Chancellor. Her only qualification was that they frequented the same cocktail parties and she pretended to laugh at his jokes. Like Trump, he's a crony capitalist. "Experts", "data", Ha!
Frank mentions Bloomberg's social liberal checklist but these are all areas which will cost neither him or the other plutocrats a dime in extra wages or taxes. They are the same reasons this paper was the house organ of the Clinton campaign and the reason we have President Trump. The Times will never endorse a true progressive. Even that crook Cuomo got their approval because he's the stooge of New York's oligarchs.
So now Bloomberg's our white knight? How out of touch can you be Frank?
3
Despite the legacy of Judah P. Benjamin, his geneology will preclude support for him in the confederacy.
It sometimes seems to me that this country tends to choose its president by finding someone who is the polar opposite of his predecessor. By that I'm not only talking about partisan differences but also temperamental traits.
We went from the highly competent, somewhat prim George H.W. Bush to the highly outgoing, personally amoral Bill Clinton. Then Americans decided that they wanted a leader they could have a beer with but who would not embarrass them by seducing the office staff. Enter George W. Bush, a man whose incurious, impulsive nature, and Texan aggressiveness seemed a poor match for the job. Enter Barak Obama, thoughtful, articulate, elegant and well intentioned but who sometimes seemed to lack the fortitude and political skills to see his ideas to fruition. Americans again did an about face, this time electing a leader who combines George W. Bush's incurious, pugnacious and impulsive nature with Bill Clinton's abysmal personal morality and Richard Nixon's political ethics.
Good God, what next.
Well, maybe competence might become politically sexy once again and that is something which Mike Bloomberg has in spades.
Politically I'm much closer to another ex-mayor from NYC, that would be Senator Bernie Sanders, former mayor of Burlington VT, but I could easily vote and enthusiastically work for Bloomberg in the general election.
Competence, think about it.
He'd be better off as a running mate to Elizabeth Warren. She is more experienced, more popular, and is not revere people on the basis of their being billionaires.
I would have no problem voting for Michael Bloomberg, despite the fact that I do not agree on all he has done. Stop and Frisk comes to mind.
What he would bring to the Presidency is a deep knowledge, not only about the world at large, but of the organization of a huge entity, political and diplomatic skills, as well as a commitment to those of the less fortunate. He is a believer in a great education for all, equality, economic health and health care for all
These are great qualities to bring to the office of the Presidency.
Qualities that are sorely lacking now.
2
I have always been a registered Democrat but I voted for Bloomberg twice in NYC; I had moved by his third term. I thought he was a terrific mayor. He believes in the facts, in data, in people who analyze the data. I’ll take it, any day.
Of course he made some mistakes. But he made some wonderful decisions about public health with his anti smoking, anti gun campaigns. Yes, I would love to see him evolve a bit on the sexual harassment front. If he gets serious, I would wager he will.
I’d vote for him again. He is a very competent respected leader and we need to restore America's position in the world once we get crazycakes out of office.
120
Better to get a pledge he don't run as a third party if he loses.
Donald Trump is not super rich. He is barely even rich. That is why he will not show his tax returns. Trump built his “success” by succesfully playing at the fringes of financial chicanery. The Trump organization employed only a handful of jobs. Bloomberg is a titan of industry. He built a huge organization that employs tens of thousands of people. He created well paying jobs for people who in turn payed a lot of taxes. He makes money for his shareholders. He built a business with a sustainable competitive advantage. He was a successful mayor of NYC. He is bright, insightful and relatively humble considering his huge accomplishments. There is no comparison between these two men. None.
1
I hope he runs. And I hope he wins. I will vote for a steady, competent, honest hand in the Oval Office.
2
Anyone who seeks a more inclusive America---one that cares about fair wages and equal rights for all of its citizens, and not just about tax cuts and more privilege for its mostly white, mostly male, top 1%---will never support a Bloomberg presidential candidacy in 2020. Look at who were are, Frank: a multiracial, multiethnic country, where women outnumber men. Why not promote someone like Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, or Elizabeth Warren, instead?
1
Bloomberg is from a past era. Frank Bruni doesn't mention one of the important factors----that as mayor Bloomberg increased stop and frisk by cops that targeted minorities. But research actually showed little correlation between his stop and frisk policy and reduced crime.
He and his police chief Kelly refused to accept the judge’s ruling that stop and frisk in NYC was unconstitutional, excessive and biased. Bloomie/Kelly strongly disagreed and appealed, but later dropped it after his term ended.
Bloomberg gave his opinion against the judge's ruling in Washington Post article: "I think we disproportionately stop whites too much and minorities too little. It’s exactly the reverse of what they say"
“His argument was that crime was more of a problem with young nonwhite men. This was during a mayoral election year, and Bill De Blasio made shutting down stop-and-frisk a key part of his campaign. He won.”
After Trump injecting more racism into our politics, Bloomie is not the one to run for president. End of story.
1
I would take Michael Avenatti over Michael Bloomberg in 2020.Avenatti at least recognizes how to proceed when he says, “ Democrats take nail clippers to a gunfight” as he argues a more effective response.
It’s also interesting to note that Avenatti is one person that Trump doesn’t attack because he always backs down to a stronger opponent.
Perhaps Joe Biden has that ability to play the tough guy like Avenatti but Bloomberg doesn’t fit that profile.
Back to the drawing boards on 2020, Frank.
1
n for president, minus about 6 zeroes.
Her name was Hillary Clinton of New York. Has Bruni forgotten that the biggest complaint DEMOCRATS had against Hillary was she was as exciting as a ficus tree, uninspiring, suspect over her positions on social issues like crime ("super predators")?
Have a Democratic President name Bloomberg as Treasury Secretary, he'd do much better there.
" But then, the 2016 election has left me confused about who should, could and does have the ability to connect with middle-class and blue-collar Americans. Many of them saw a champion in Trump."
No wonder you re confused, Frank. Trump was not about addressing the economic anxiety of his base; it was about addressing their racial resentment.
2
Mr. Bruni cites Mr. Bloomberg's love of data and adherence to reality, but he does not mention how Mr. Bloomberg is defying that characteristic: his continued support for stop and frisk, the abusive police tactic of questioning innocent citizens (usually Black or Latinx) on little or no pretext.
The fact is that Bloomberg himself, as mayor, quietly scaled back the stop and frisk program a year in advance of the 2013 ruling that it was unconstitutional. The number of stops in 2013 was a fraction of what it was in 2012, and yet crime continued to drop. The court ruling and the ascension of Bill deBlasio further curtailed stop and frisk, and crime continued to drop.
The Mike Bloomberg I admired (and voted for twice) would have looked at the evidence and reconsidered his position on a practice that is as racist as it is ineffective. That he instead doubled down on it in the same breath as declaring his interest in the presidency, makes it impossible for me to vote for him.
37
@JHC I wonder how Bloomberg would feel if someone came along and proposed to raid the offices of physicians and lawyers once a month or so? Likely find some Medicaid/Care fraud and some unethical legal practices. Or maybe get search warrants for the homes of all the retired cops in New York? The guys running the brothels would have been discovered a lot sooner. Or, how about looking at the business records and tax returns of all the Jewish people in New York. Bet some corruption would be discovered there. And absolutely nothing wrong with doing any of that? How can this guy win by tossing out minority voters from the get go?
He is very accomplished (in contrast to Trump) but his time has passed. He is not the answer for democrats in 2020.
Bruni is a fine man, but Bruni, and many of his peers at the Times and other elite and tepidly liberal institutions, don't understand the salient differences between the America of 1979 and the America of today.
Blumberg should not be president because, as Bruni artfully said, he has all the populism of a golf course. I am defining populism not in the Donald Trump sense but in the Follete and William Jennings Bryan sense, i.e., as a left wing populism that chafes at corporate abuses.
One of the salient difference between the America of 1979 and the America of today is economic. Of course, 1979 was not a great year for the economy (Severe inflation caused by drastic increases in energy, etc. ) but those were the days when middle class and poor people had not yet been pauperized. Nowadays, we are rushing headlong into the abyss of the poverty of the 19th century, of Dickens, etc.
I know college educated people, who do not use drugs and are wholly respectable and amiable, who live in shelters. I know a polite cashier in a Duane Reades who shares a one bedroom apartment with 15 people. These sorts of people never vote. (Their addresses change so much they don't know where they are supposed to register.)
I know radiologists whose income has been decimated because hospitals send MRIs to India and stop hiring radiologists here. I know brilliant professional people who won't start a family because they are too poor. Bernie Sanders, ELizabeth Warren or bust.
2
Our country has gotten itself in a big mess. We have a president who is at least partly corrupt, supported by less than half the country by any measure, who seems to be sending us backward in domestic and world affairs. He has the enabling support of the Republican party that wants to win rather than do the right thing aka compromise and unify. Maybe the Republicans felt the same in Obama's first term. So, we are divided into the bigenders and the littleenders as far as the eye can see. In the meantime we are becoming more vulnerable. Nothing we are experiencing actually make sense and may lead to permanent damage to our country and 40% of citizens support this mishegaas. What is wrong with us. We haven't been this nuts since the Civil War. There is something severely wrong with the electorate due to politics? the fourth estate? social media? GDP and stock market are good so all you readers are happy. But that 40% are angry, don't feel common ground and don't seem bothered by T's corruption. You are right we need someone serious but more than that we need that 40% to come back to civil, well informed polity, in the era of malignant social media. How does that happen?
1
As much as I respect Mr. Bloomberg, I do believe some fresh new faces like Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, Jay Inslee, etc. are the future of the Democratic Party.
While Bloomberg seems like a decent candidate, I think it's premature to think about ANY potential candidate. The very first order of business is to lock down our elections so that Putin can't install another fake president. And so far, I haven't read ANY reassuring news on that front.
New York City lucked out big time by having Michael Blooming at the helm for 12 years. If he could have run for a fourth term he would have won in a landslide.
The nation should be so lucky.
He annoys the far right and the far left. And that is what makes him PERFECT for this big diverse nation.
There is a lot that MB does that I don’t like but I would definitely vote for him. Unfortunately the D party won’t allow it. Policing and meToo will have his candidacy cooked.
1
I am a liberal who is dismayed by so-called new progressives who detest liberal stalwarts like Pelosi and pragmatic progressives like Bloomberg simply because they are old and thus represent the "old" order. So what is new that is not in the liberal menu listed in the old order? Free college? LGBT/minority/women's rights? Income equality? Union protection? Safety net for the poor and the helpless? Health care, etc? The liberal agenda has always been constant. I don't see anything new in the new agenda.
The Republicans have successfully demonized Pelosi simply because they have no woman as strong and willful in the Senate or the House. And they are misogynists to begin with. They have actually turned her willfulness against her in dividing the democrats. I have not seen a democrat who puts his money where his mouth is like Bloomberg who was a Democrat, a Republican, and an Independent. Democrats need more people like Pelosi and Bloomberg.
175
@robert
"I am a liberal who is dismayed by so-called new progressives who detest liberal stalwarts like Pelosi and pragmatic progressives like Bloomberg simply because they are old and thus represent the "old" order."
Really? Simply because they're old??
The low-energy oldster Republican-lites sat in their entitled chairs and napped while the Republicans took the Presidency, the Supreme Court, the State Houses, and both houses of Congress.
In any non-entitled organization - military, private sector, sports team - they would have been replaced unceremoniously.
But not the Democrats. We just repeat the past - the same old, same old past.
If they were winners, age would not matter, but they're repeat losers and change starts with change at the top in any organization that has integrity.
@robert
Yes, Bloomberg put his money where his mouth is. I guess that is why while he said he supported gun control, he was giving large sums of money to local and national Republicans who adamantly opposed it.
It seems he was putting his money where his mouth wasn't.
Go for it, Michael Bloomberg!
I had through we need someone young, a 'fresh face,' with fresh idea. But we are in a dire state. We need to remove Trump & Pence from office. To do that we need someone who has the strength, experience, & tenacity to plow him under.
1
Sorry, but Michael Bloomberg will be 78 in 2020. So will Joe Biden. I'm over 70 myself, and I want a new generation.
2
I'd vote for him - and I think the title to your piece was extremely well chosen. As an aside, could we get a LOT more people from NY/NJ to move down here to SC to help take the blinders off of the straight-ticket Republican electorate!
1
@John it seems that the swamp you are in is of your own, Republican style making. Kick the bums out.
1
Adam Schiff is my choice.He spoke up before anyone did.
1
Nobody will ever know how much, or how little, data-mining of the traffic on Bloomberg's quotation terminals contributed to Bloomberg's own trading successes.
2
But like Trump, Bloomberg also seems to have little patience with things like, oh say, democracy and the constitution. There was so much to like about him, and I really, really wanted to like him, but there are three things I can’t get over: Stop and Frisk, subverting 2 referenda on term limits, and aggressively squashing two major, orderly and totally legal demonstrations - one right before the Iraq War and the Republican convention. For all his great qualities, first and foremost you have to be a true democrat (in the small letter “d” sense) to get my support.
2
I respect Bloomberg for his philanthropy and mayoral service. Perhaps he could hold a cabinet position in a Democratic presidency, but he is too old for the presidency.
My impression:
Bloomberg is very competent and do a lot of good.
Bloomberg will help the rich more than I like.
2
Progressive Democrats dislike successful men, period, unless they pander to their most extreme emotions. Michael Bloomberg would probably be a competent President; yet our progressive friends would rather select a candidate who promised to punish men successful in business. Regrettably, envy and free goodies for everyone with "unmet needs" rules the day with these folks.
Proof? Even normally reasonable Democrats have turned the Judge Kavanaugh hearings into a three ring circus, character assassination of a good and decent man. I'm losing hope in civility, which Mr. Bloomberg would surely bring to politics.
I wish that Lou Reed could be resurrected to challenge Trump to a debate, boxing match or some other type of competition.
Someone of his generation who is his polar opposite would be an appropriate challenger or foil.
What is it with you New Yorkers and billionaires? If we had a progressive taxation system, there would be no need for "philanthropic" billionaires, its just an ego rush. There would be enough money to fund what the people decide through their governments.
I would love to be one and am struggling to be a successful entrepreneur, but like you my zeros after the first useful number is laughably low.
But as I commented in the original Times article it would be good to have Mr. Bloomberg do a Ross Perot job on Trump and form a third political party with the New Democrats and the lost people, the real GOP. If they capture the imagination of the people so be it, we walked into yet another fire with open eyes. They won't get my vote.
What this country really needs is not a socialist, an oligarch authoritarian wannabe like Trump or even another New Yorker, billionaire or a "mere" multimillionaire.
We need, in my opinion, an FDR, Part 2 from another part of the country to make the citizenry respect the country's institutions again and correct the second gilded age problem.
2
I think it could work, but he needs to pick a younger person of color for VP, to pull out youngsters to vote. Frankly, I need the sleep, and Trump has driven me mad, with his wild mood swings. I want a knowledgeable adult for president to restore America’s standing in the world. Now!
1
I hope floating a trial Bloomberg balloon is the last gasp of the sclerotic So-called leadership of the Democratic Party, as the last election clearly showed, we are sick and tired of neoliberal technocrats. Clinton was one such and Bloomberg another. The NY Times last time around did a great job of suppressing the campaign of the Democrat who had the best chance of winning — Bernie Sanders. Floating a Bloomberg candidacy sounds like an early start st the same game in 2020.
2
@Rosary: Bernie is not a Democrat. He is a one man band "Socialist".
I'm almost done reading "Fear, Trump in the White House" by Bob Woodward. This priceless book repeatedly explains why Trump is not qualified to president. I can't imagine anything more important than getting rid of this terrible mistake.
I am convinced Michael Bloomberg is the best person for the job and I'm voting for him. If the Democrats nominate anti-business liberal extremists like Senator Elizabeth Warren or Senator Bernie Sanders then Trump would be president for 4 more years.
2
No please, not another money man no matter how well intentioned. They think they know something about governance when all they know is ‘I did this therefore I’m the greatest’.
3
Another option worth considering: Democrat Gavin Newsom, slated to become Governor of California: moderately progressive (mentored by Governor Jerry Brown mold), experienced (many years as S.F. Mayor, many years as Lieutenant Governor, Calif. Governor-to-be), and a charismatic, exciting campaigner.
1
I agree!
Government on the auction block is the problem. It will never be the solution. Trump is just a symptom of the disease. A much nastier symptom than Bloomberg, of course, but I think most of us are tired of choosing between who benefits from the corruption instead of fighting against it.
2
As a conservative voter, I would vote for Bloomberg in a heartbeat. If we are going to have a CEO president, he's the one we deserve.
@Roger
How about we *don't* have a CEO president?
2
If the goal is the ultimate dissolution of the Democratic party, well, then this is a fine idea. Otherwise, not so in tune with the times. If one wants to resurrect the old Republican party, this may help. Personally, I have no wish for that eventuality to occur.
Uh, no. Very old super-rich men are not the answer to building a better future. Building democracy from the ground up is the answer. And it's happening faster than many realize.
2
Here's why this is one terrible idea. On Bloomberg's first day on the job as mayor, a young staffer was eating his lunch at his desk and playing solitaire on his computer while he did. Bloomberg fired him on the spot for taking a break during the work day. We don't need another billionaire septuagenarian with expensive habits. Bloomberg is more of the same past.
We need the future. We need the likes of Kamala Harris or Maya Wiley, maybe Cory Booker or even Michael Avenatti to run.
2
If you're looking for intellect, charisma, fortitude, vigor, integrity and great understanding of global affairs, go talk to Admiral McRaven.
I strongly suspect he would demolish Cadet Bone Spurs, both in debates and at the polls. He's also a relatively young man.
A bunch of Dems have been proposed as 2020 Presidential timber, male, female, other, while one of America's most productive major politicians has yet to be mentioned, Jerry Brown, current governor of a state that has an annual budget bigger than that of most nations. And he has done it twice. And he was trained by the Jesuits to think before he acted. Jerry Brown for President. We would love to watch him debate Trump.
2
Finally let billionaires take their rightful place in the American Republic. Let true meritocracy rule. The best leadership money can buy.
2
@WJG3: It is runaway positive feedback that will inevitably culminate in chaos.
If Michael Bloomberg challenged the President in a Republican primary for the nomination he could win giving moderate Republicans a chance to reform their party and wrest it from its faux conservatism. If Bloomberg fails to win he likely will have weakened Trump for the general election by exposing Trump's fraudulent record through debates. Should he defeat Trump we would have a lively, honest contest of ideas with the Democratic nominee. In any event Mr. Bloomberg has an opportunity, even as an oligarch himself, to lead us out of the debacle of Donald Trump.
1
Sorry, but Mr. Bloomberg is the LAST thing the Dems need. In 2020, the Dems need a charismatic, young candidate with experience, level headedness, ZERO ethical/legal challenges, the ability to appeal to the CENTER and the left, and the ability to make a plausible appeal to conservatives. Candidates pushing platforms based on blue smoke and mirrors (this means you, Bernie) have no place. Mr. Bloomberg is too old, too bland, and too narrow in his appeal. Unfortunately, other Dems getting most of the attention now are TERRIBLE choices for 2020: too lefty, too old, too transparently ambitious, and/or lacking in charisma. Dems need to look beyond the US Senate to Governors and Mayors. Currently, the candidates I find most appealing are LA Mayor Eric Garcetti and New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu. Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper is also worth a look. But as for people like Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, Corey Booker and (alas) Kirsten Gillibrand, I have to say no. As for Michael Avenatti - I assume his inclusion in any discussion is meant merely in jest. Surely, Dems won't look to match the Republican mistake of nominating someone with ZERO relevant experience. (Right?)
1
Let's drop the age commentary this time around and think about the wisdom of experience and demonstrated, quantifiable RESULTS. Mr. Bloomberg has an impeccable record of public service during the most challenging time in NYC's history, i.e. the 9/11 attacks; decades of financial support for progressive causes; a positive global image and reputation among America's allies; and the respect of leaders who genuinely care about where the US , our Allies and the rest of the world population is headed.
No one is perfect, and if he is a friend of Charlie Rose, he was likely completely blind-sided, as many of us were, when the news broke about Mr. Rose's alleged transgressions. I completely believe the women, but in fairness, the allegations were never adjudicated. Loyalty to one's friends is not a crime, nor a personal failing.
There may be some fine younger candidates out there with good records, leadership skills, educational background and solid professional experience that might make suitable candidates for US President.
However, this next time around, it would make sense to elect one with even more proven experience and a solid team of seasoned bench strength talent to assume command of our Executive Branch, which has disgraced our highest office, alienated our allies, failed to deal effectively with any of our myriad problems, populated agencies with corrupt, self-dealing cronies, fanned the flames of violent socio-cultural differences, etc.
Go for it Mike - God Speed
I'll grant this: compared to Trump, Bloomberg does look pretty good. With the bar set that low...who wouldn't?
2
So a benign oligarch rather than a crazy one? Bloomberg was a progressive mayor in many ways, but when he was expected to respect the two-term limit, well....seemed he wasn't finished. And of course all his progressive ideas about diet and traffic will go against the whims of lots of Trump supporters. His hard-nosed prosecution of Occupy convinced me, it's his way or the highway. We need a real democrat.
2
you must be kidding,Mr.Bruni! Bloomberg
is as much of a populist as I am an aging
astronaut. he owns an estate in Bermuda
and homes in countries all over the world.
he knows as much about the average Joe
and Jane as Trump and strikes me as just
as arrogant. he has no chance ,thank
goodness and that is a very good thing.
we need someone who can connect with
the great disenchanted majority of Americans
who have seen their needs ignored for
too darn long,not another version of Trump.
3
The Dems have to win in 2020. Do your readers understand why Hillary lost? She was compromised by being a Clinton and ineffective when in office. She should also have given the debate stalker a piece of her mind. Alas, Bernie too would have lost.
Many US voters don't care about issues NYers hold dear, nor would they relate to a Jewish billionaire who drones on about them. Bloomberg knows this, which is why he didn't run in 2016, nor should he run in 2020.
The biggest issue as always is the economy, now getting a boost thanks to a 10% jump in the deficit. Despite Trump's sordid behavior, this is making the GOP look awfully good. Dems need a centrist candidate who will focus on what the GOP is doing wrong. I hope the trade wars will help.
What Democrat will defeat the Republicans. You know that bunch, who are either criminals or accomplices to criminals, who will commit treasonous acts and wink at at them for tax cuts for the rich and surrender to the Russian oligarchy who elected our great leader. They are now in the process of destroying what remains of the legitimacy of the Supreme Court and placing the tweeter in chief above the law.
Democrats know how to govern and keep the nation secure while protecting individual liberty while Republicans know how to rig elections and suppress the vote. There are very many competent patriots in the Democratic party while the GOP as it will appear when they ram Kavanaugh down our thoughts against out will cannot find 2 or 3 patriots.
The Democrats are loaded with competent, experienced patriots who put country over party to run to defeat any Republican. Bloomberg and those in the 70's plus have are bucking the onslaught on old age. I am 84 and I can write and understand the issues. But I no where as sharp as I was in my 50's and still trying cases and sometimes I fall asleep at the dinner table and sometimes I forget to turn off a burner on the stove. What I don't forget is to vote and send money to the DSCC.
1
We’ve got to kill this notion that public office at the highest levels is the sole bastion of super rich guys or guys who are backed by super rich guys. PAC and “social welfare organization” campaign finance loopholes, as well as Citizens United, have turned the presidency and Senate seats into just another notch on the uber-rich’s bedpost. They used to like to name college campus buildings, theatres and museum wings after themselves; now they just want to finance their own political campaigns or, even easier, buy a politician who will be beholden to them (see, as but a few examples, Sheldon Adelson (Trump), Norman Bramen (Rubio), the Koch Brothers and Robert Mercer (several)).
Likewise, the related ideas that businessmen make great political leaders, and that businessmen will “run the government like a business”, should also be relegated to the dustbin. Name the last businessman who made a decent president. Recent presidents of both parties heralded as successful by at least some historians were NOT businessmen—Reagan, Clinton, Eisenhower, FDR, JFK and Truman, to name a few.
Heck, the only president of recent times who was also a successful businessman was probably Jimmy Carter. As opposed to Trump, Carter paid his bills, never went bankrupt, didn’t sue thousands of lenders and contractors, and US banks would actually lend money to Carter who, unlike another president we know, never borrowed money from Russian oligarchs who were in Putin’s pocket.
6
If saving America comes down to a battle between billionaires, what’s left to save?
3
Exactly.
@Larry Roth
Perfect comment.
1
Michael Bloomberg wins the US presidency as a Republican? Rejoice Humanity - for the US is restored to sanity and decency!
Michael Bloomberg wins the US presidency as a Democrat?
Abandon all hope - for the US is lost and its position is not recoverable!
Bruni assumes that the country today is interested in intelligence and competence. I'm not so sure about that. I look at the blank faces under the red hats at the traveling minstrel show that is Trump, and I shudder. In my 45 years of voting I've always voted "D". The two parties are more alike than different now. With that said, if Bloomberg runs in 2020 I will support and vote for him with enthusiasm. As the saying goes, "any port in a storm..." We are in "storm" mode here and Bloomberg offers a pretty attractive alternative to General Bone Spurs. Good luck America...you're going to need it.
1
I like Bloomberg and he could win esp with the right VP Pick. But for me he has one main problem, (if you give me some time I'll probably think of some more). He's too rigid & strict when it comes to individual rights. Stop & Frisk is a very questionable policy. I don't think it's constitutional. Also when people protested during the Republican convention, or any protests for that matter, he put them in pens & cages, didn't allow any marches. People were arrested for just walking or riding a bike near the Garden. He's got to lighten up when it comes to dissent. .. He's a smart & pleasant person, and he can handle the media.
1
I like Bloomburg, flaws and all. He is both kind and pragmatic.
The kindness is his salvation; the pragmatism will sink him, since it drives his opinion on things like stop and frisk. To Bloomburg, keeping a child on a playground alive matters more than the loss of personal freedom in stop and frisk. In reality, the trade-off is not so crisp.
But as a Presidential candidate? He will drive a third party Democrat, and might not pull enough centrist Republicans, and we'd be stuck with the freak circus we currently have in the White House.
I'd rather see a Democrat in the White House pull Bloomburg into the Administration for Treasury, or as the leader in international trade and finance, where we'd get full use of his know how, tempered by his kindness.
Bloomburg has a lot to offer, but his timing is off offering himself as a Democrat.
1
Drink The Cool Aid
I remember a power hungry Bloomberg so wanting control after 9/11,he would not let Guliani to remain in office for one second more after his term ended. Yet 8 years later, he felt only he could lead New York City residents through the perils of some bogus financial crisis. Ground Zereo was still burning when he denied Mayo Guliani reasonable request to stay an extra six months. He ignored term limits
I remember NYC after 9/11. Lower Manhattan needed rebuilding. Not rest of the city. By granting developers free rein in their desire to build upwards.Bloomberg create a city of two classes. The Uber rich and the rest of us. After 12 years of his autocratic rule I see a city with too many poor people, too many ridiculous bike lanes and too much growth.
I hope the national voters will have more sense than New Yorkers to allow themselves to be lead by this ancient power grabbing fraud
2
I am a proud liberal Democrat. I don't like outsiders running as a Democrat when they are really don't support the Democratic Party by being a member.
That said, I could become a Bloomberg supporters, but he has some work to do.
Up front we should acknowledge Mr. Bloomberg is smart, principled, self-made, a genuine Patriot who believes in democracy and our republic.
So what does he need to do to win my support? The Democratic Party support?
Mr. Bloomberg needs to declare his party affiliation and he must begin NOW to visibly work to elect Democrats across the country. He needs to get on the campaign trail, give speeches and appear with Democrats running for the US Congress, state governorships, county executives and state houses.
Mr. Bloomberg needs to put his money where his mouth is and drown out the shouting mob financed by the Koch brothers et al.
Mr. Bloomberg needs to call out Republicans and their offensive, deranged president.
Mr. Bloomberg, you want my vote? Get busy and earn it. I know you can.
BTW, I attended Loyola University (when it was Loyola College), a short walk to Johns Hopkins University where I sometimes took advantage of your almamater's superior library. So I know, besides the fact that you are very smart, that you had a great education, having graduated from one of the best universities in the nation (despite having allowed John Bolton to teach there - anyone can make a mistake).
2
Sherrod Brown makes a lot more sense. He has real credibility with the working class, union members and the poor with no whiff of elitism. He is down to earth, passionate, articulate and no nonsense. As a long time Congressman representing rust belt constituents and then as Senator from Ohio he also understands government and how to make it work for us. He also has strong liberal credibility.
2
Michael Bloomberg as President? Well we can do worse (and certainly have), but we can also do a lot better. If by some set of circumstances he winds up on the November, 2020 ballot, I'll vote for him. But it will be for the same reason that I voted for Hillary Clinton, to block an absolutely horrific Republican candidate. And I have no doubt that anyone that bobs to the surface of the cesspool that the Republican party has become will be just that - horrific.
What is this fascination with rich , old white men! Bloomberg was good for New York and with his philanthropies is admirable in every way.How many old, white men are now dominating the news- the occupant of the Oval Office and the oldsters on the Judiciary Committee.Old is not good- trust me, I am old.We need the young and energetic and visionary to lead us into the future.Incidentally, I feel the same way about old women in politics.We worked hard raising responsible children- it is their turn to make democracy work.Let’s give them a chance.I am hopeful that the November elections will produce a crop of inew talent who will become presidential hopefulse tam hoping November elections will produce a crop of future presidential hopefuls.
3
It's past time for a new generation to take over. e Baby Boomers haven't done very well. Time to step aside.
3
I think since Bill Clinton, boomers have done a great job bringing equality to all . We've passed legislation for LGBTQ to marry, receive partner healthcare, trans people are being recognized, women are stepping to the forefront to be heard and minorities are becoming a majority with the help of Democrat supported platforms. I'm a boomer, yes our generation made mistakes. But in the last 50 years, our country has become much more inclusive and looks more like the melting pot that is America.
“That was the theory behind giving Michael Bloomberg a prime speaking spot at the Democratic National Convention, where his mockery of Donald Trump carried extra zing and sting.”
Yea look how that turned out!
The DNC invited on a billionaire Republican during the convention, yet the Clinton campaign told Bernie Sanders supporter Nina Turner that she couldn’t speak.
We already have two parties representing Wall Street and no party representing the people. Since Bill Clinton was president the Democratic Party has triangulated into the Republican Party and the Republicans into the crazy Party. Please Mr Bloomberg take back the Republican Party and so the Democratic Party can be more like under FDR.
4
If I could snap my fingers and swap out Trump for Bloomburg, I'd do it in a heartbeat. As for voting for him in a Democratic primary, probably not.
1
The very premise of this article reminds me that, like another madman, fictional, in the film "Seven", the psychopath is still very much in control. I use term psychopath deliberately and advisedly. Trump will remain in charge so long as we play his game.
I get it Frank, dueling Billionaires, but no. We need new ideas, and that means new people.
2
The last thing the Democratic party needs is another corporate billionaire.
2
After Trump the American people are going to want someone sane and competent. They are not going to take a flyer on Bloomberg.
Maybe Beto can win the Senate seat in Texas and build a national groundswell between now and 2020. My second choice would be Kamala Harris. It is well past time for a woman to get the job.
Whoever gets the nomination better be ready to take the fight right at the bully if Trump is running and take on the evangelicals if it is Pence.
2
Whoever runs to counter Trump (if he survives to run) has to be someone who is not afraid of his insults, not afraid of being given nasty nick names, not afraid of the chaos that Trump makes, not afraid to speak in full sentences and above all - super confident so the candidate doesn't wilt under Trump's constant harassment and repeated slurs and lies (think about what Sessions or Comy or Obama went through - and still are).
Bloomberg fits that picture even if he is a boring speaker, He will match Trump idea for idea, because Trump has no well thought ideas.
What Bloomberg would have to figure out is how to speak to the longings and emotions of the crowds and find a way to match or transcend Trump's constant campaign mode.
This! "But if we’re going to start putting Democrats’ diverse options for 2020 on magazine covers, falling in and out of love with them and floating scenarios sublime and ridiculous, he warrants an iota of oxygen, a small pocket of the breathlessly speculative space..."
I learned a LOT reading the comments, and I'm not done. I too don't want a 70-something in office. I too think Bloomberg could compete in any party, D, R, or I. I've always respected him. If he wants it, it's gotta be now. I sure can't pick anything now. And people thought their vote didn't count...
Gotta say it again -- I'm a huge Bruni fan, adore him. Some great turns of phrase here.
I’m a conservative, who voted Republican in every presidential election from 1980 to 2012. In 2016, I voted third-party, because Donald Trump, who is a bigoted buffoon, will never get my vote, but neither will either Clinton, the most corrupt and self-serving people in politics in my lifetime. Nor will I vote for any left-winger (dare I say socialist), like Elizabeth Warren. However, if the Democrats nominate Michael Bloomberg, I will vote for him over Trump, in a heartbeat. I don’t like a lot of Bloomberg’s nanny-state liberalism, but I agree with Mr. Bruni that this country desperately needs a stabilizing and moderating force like Bloomberg. I would be willing to sacrifice some of my policy preferences to achieve some sense of civility in our body politic. He is also uber-competent and would probably be capable of designing and implementing effective public policies and proposals absent the typical ideological baggage. About four percent of the electorate in 2016 were third-party voters who normally vote Republican, but refused to vote for Trump. By nominating Bloomberg, the Democrats could get those voters and then would almost certainly win.
2
After eight years of divisive drama queen Giuliani, Mike Bloomberg was a welcome breath of competence and calm. In about 2006 or so the Bush administration came out with yet another color-coded terror alert with a threat to the NYC subway system highlighted. The Mayor held a prompt news conference surrounded by NYC police and terrorism specialists. Mike Bloomberg said that the city had detected no plots afoot and reminded us all that we stood more of a chance of being struck by lightening than being a victim of terrorism. He was not a perfect Mayor, but he came close. And I say that as a lifelong Dem. I would prefer a younger candidate in 2020 but I'd vote for Bloomberg in a heartbeat. Imagine-a calm, competent White House!
"Superrich" is the main problem in American politics, walking hand-in-hand with its buddy religion.
Superrich as in both super PACs with iffy donors to shadow characters who influence our elections, like Vladimir Putin, whose net worth is staggering.
Then we have those who plan to use their positions and leverage to become superrich or better yet, superricher (think Koch), whether by Manafort-type manipulations or via the 'gratitude' of political largesse.
Altruism, duty, allegiance to our country, and public service have been shoved aside. We're being bought and sold. And Trump is as inept as a president as he was as a businessman, but he's a master peddler.
6
I have always admire s Michael Bloomberg, but thought the same thing when - another old, white, rich guy. After reading Bruni’s piece, I can see that Bloomberg might be just what we need to right the ship after the tumultuous trip we are on.
Boring, data-driven Mike might be just what we need after 4 years of Trump. Sadly, right now even GW Bush would seem like a breath of fresh air. I read a story about Jeb Bush the other day and incredibly, found myself wondering what calm, rational things *he* might have done if he had become President.
Trump certainly has changed our perspective, hasn't he?
After years of noisy pandering by politicians perhaps a man or woman speaking in a level and calm voice — explaining that trillion dollar deficits won’t help up, that money doesn’t trickle down, that global warming is real, that money isn’t speech, that immigrants are more law abiding than we are, that it’s really very hard to get out of poverty, things like that— might have a shot. Let’s try fact-based truth telling.
Lifelong Democrat. Would vote for Bloomberg in a heartbeat. Have always admired his ethics and values.
Why is it impossible to find a potential Democratic candidate who isn't already collecting Social Security and isn't a member of AARP??
1
Bloomberg, Warren, Sanders, and Biden are all too old and I can say that as someone their age. We need a person around their 50s. I suspect Booker had his chances spoiled by Obama and the fact that he is unmarried will haunt him as the birther business did Obama. The likely candidate will someone not well known at present.
2
Two judgment errors are fused here:
1. America depends on who is president. Elect a not so good guy (GW Bush) and things can fall apart (yes). Elect a good guy (Obama) and they're fixed (except, not if he and his party are weak tokenists).
Actually, the POTUS is only head of one branch (executive) of one level (federal) of one sector (government).
2. Trump was elected through some tragic fluke. Pick a more effective opponent next time and all will be well.
Reality: Trump was elected as a populist "Molotov cocktail" (Michael Moore's term) against establishment politicians. His victory was no fluke. He could have been stopped in the primaries (but Republicans failed) or the convention (Repubs again failed). Or stopped in the general election (almost everyone failed to appreciate how the "spoiler" effect of 3rd party / independent candidates could have worked against Trump; instead 3rd party traditions were universally and foolishly decried as some kind of "3rd rail." Or he could have been impeached and removed for (conflicts of interest, obstruction of justice) within a few months of being inaugurated. That would take 1/2 of House and 2/3 of Senate, e.g. House Dems + 1/10 House Repubs & Senate Dems + 1/3 Senate Repubs.
But both parties have failed to take up impeachment.
Note the pattern. The reining two party duopoly spawned President Trump, the anti establishment politician.
Replacing him with another establishment politician cures the symptom, not the disease.
1
Why indulge in the fantasy that the managerial, intellectual, or executive abilities of a candidate give him (or her) any chance to run successfully for the presidency? As Trump's election (and the demonizing of Hilary Clinton) indicate, it's all about appeal to the unwashed - wonks like Bloomberg won't cut it. We were lucky to see Obama (and Bill Clinton) reach the oval office - but it happened only because they hid their executive competence behind their charisma. Clearly, the latter qualification outweighs the former. What else can be expected from a pitifully ill-educated electorate and a system so thoroughly corrupted by campaign contributions from the super wealthy? Bloomberg can fund his own campaing, but he doesn't stand a chance because the Koch brothers and Adelson will convince voters that they'd rather have a beer with Trump.
2
@Eric Bittman
"Why indulge in the fantasy that the managerial, intellectual, or executive abilities of a candidate"
Democrats still don't realize that 80% of sales is emotion, and it's emotion that drives turnout. No turnout, no win.
I’d vote for Bloomberg in a heartbeat.
At 65 I feel free to say: Bloomberg is too old to run for POTUS.
As a woman, today I also feel free to say: How about a woman?
3
Bloomberg-Avenatti.
Amy Klobuchar or Kamala Harris for AG.
Joe Biden for Secretary of State.
Eric Garcetti for chairing a blue-ribbon panel on America's cities, minimum wage and climate change. Actually I'd happily vote for him for POTUS.
We could do worse.
Actually, we're doing worse now, as everyone knows.
1
American voters swing wildly chasing the right one. Obama a bright,cerebral intellectual replaced Bush who famously did not do nuance. Trump the anti intellectual got elected on the basis of reversing Obama policies in every way possible.If Obama was for it Trump was against it. Morally they came from different planets. And now Bloomberg.What a bright, refreshing change from the empty darkness of Trump. Bloomberg a good choice.
1
No more Baby Boomer old guys!
It's way past time for the people coming up behind us to take over and run the country. They do not care all our angst. They have new ideas. They do not understand racism or bigotry and will not tolerate it. They think of war as a last result. They are not so greedy.
We need to get out of the way. Bloomberg is old news. Resist.
2
Well, Bloomberg has name notoriety, and we know that is critical. It is not the worst idea out there.
Bloomberg is a decent man but NO! His third term was a bridge too far for me.
Billionaires are sometimes smart people sometimes they are just lucky.
2
Bloomberg is anti-2nd Amendment, which means he is against the Bill of Rights, which means he has about as much chance to be elected president as Frank Bruni.
3
@Cjmesq0
It does not follow that because one believes the 2nd Amendment has long outlived its purpose and that said purpose has been twisted and manipulated beyond what its authors could imagine, that one believes the entire Bill of Rights has outlived its purpose.
This country will take a great leap forward when the 2nd Amendment is at last repealed.
1
KUDOS TO FRANK BRUNI! I think that Michael Bloomberg would make an outstanding candidate to run for President in 2020. His description of Trump as a New York con was spot on. Too bad that Bloomberg couldn't have opposed Trump in 2016! By being a candidate! While Bloomberg is Jewish, I believe that he is strongly in favor of the secular state, with a very clear separation of church and state. He's a winner!
Bloomberg is no Democrat. He recently held a fundraiser for my republican, Trump supporting Congressman, Pete King. Liuba Grechen Shirley, a Democrat, is running to unseat him and could have used his support more than King.
3
A president who does not behave like a traitor and who does not conspire with Russia for personal enrichment would be the absolute minimum requirement for me. It would be even better if we could find a person who puts character, ethics and the welfare of the majority of the citizens of this country first. Then add a well educated critical thinker who knows how to work with peers worldwide in a bi-partisan manner. Now that would be what I call a President!
3
Sorry, Frank. Mike is an old-school, establishment Wall Street guy. We're done with that (aka Hillary Clinton). The blue wave is coming. And it's full of angry, energetic young women of color and varied sexual orientation. This is both the new demographic reality and the new progressive political reality, We don't need another authoritarian white male New York oligarch in The White House even if he's sane and somewhat "liberal." His time has passed and we're on the cusp of a new political era that will be more compassionate, more inclusive, more just, more progressive, and more black and brown and more feminine.
5
Mr. Bruni points out the deficits of candidate Bloomberg as not having stump-post “va-va-voom”, and not looking like a populist, i.e. someone with an “ability to connect with middle-class and blue-collar Americans”. But you could have said the same about FDR.
Bloomberg does seem to have managerial ability, basic decency, a sense of the value of objective evidence, and an understanding of the need for a level playing field for everyone, all qualities we should welcome in a democratic candidate, and all lacking in our current commander-in-chief.
3
Bloomberg is a self-made man, and IS a billionaire with a working mind. Trump is a grifting TV personality who was never worth more than $250 million.
Micheal Bloomberg wins the US presidency as a Republican? Rejoice Humanity - for the US is restored to sanity and decency!
Michael Bloomberg wins the US presidency as a Democrat? Abandon all hope - for the US is lost and its position is not recoverable!
Bloomberg?
I'm an old white guy and I must say that I am getting a little weird about being one. The guy looking back at me as I brush my teeth is an old white guy too and when the realization comes to us that we are, in fact, old white men, we quickly look away. Ashamed for some reason even though we both hate our current president and the party that enables him.
So I would be very open to voting for an old white guy. A smart, competent, patriotic, experienced, normal, old white man. Like Michael Bloomberg.
BTW I would be very comfortable voting for an old white woman too, sometimes we, my wife and I, brush our teeth together and the four of us are ready for a change. We are all tired of the drama. We want to brush our teeth in peace.
2
I agree. Bloomberg is the antidote to so many snakebites from fangs in the White House. Frank, you're right to disagree with some of what he did in NYC (overriding zoning a to produce the canyon on 57th comes to mind.) but I appreciate much of what he did in NYC. In a race where size is everything, $50 billion vs $3 billion is attractive. A good running mate (the list is shaping up gradually) will seal the deal.
It is understandingly tempting to think in terms of an antidote to Trump being a specific individual, like Bloomberg, as elections are won by individuals. That, however, oversimplifies the dynamic that elected Trump in the first place, and the fact that Trump, like him or not, harnessed something that resonated with the public. Symbolism alone, and another “uber-rich white guy, aren't going to cut it.
Cynically, Trump harnessed pent-up resentment by disenfranchised white voters, evangelicals and those fed up with the rot that is Washington. While he did not win a majority of votes, he came close, and won in the right places, enabling an all important Electoral College win.
Barack Obama, far younger, far more cerebral, and decidedly not another rich white guy, won by tapping into something similar felt by a plethora of voters, albeit different ones to some extent.
To defeat Trump, a candidate needs to touch voters hearts, while convincing their minds. Too many politicians say one thing during campaigns, shape-shifting after they are elected. Trump, his supporters feel, meant what he said and is delivering it. His base is firmly convinced, while growing numbers are increasingly sick of him.
The challenge for Trump’s opponent is not to be an expensive antidote. It is to convincingly offer an affordable cure that makes us feel better.
3
Real Estate developers like Trump cleaned up under the Bloomberg administration. These two are cut from the same cloth. If we elect Bloomberg, the rich will be dancing in the streets, or more likely in their private clubs. The rest of us deserve the continued erosion of whatever is left of our commonwealth.
1
I'v been in NYC when he's the Mayor. I admire him. He's an excellent candidate. However, I hope he would be younger.
"And though Bloomberg, during his mayoralty, famously rode the subways, he never managed to seem of the subways."
To a reader outside the cozy, insular, and supremely blind sphere of this opinion piece, there is too much objectionable here to waste time on. Fortunately, Anand Giridharadas has already devoted a book-length critique of the seductive allure of the billionaire-philanthropist-savior and its pernicious consequences for democracy -- "Winners Take All: The Elite Charade of Changing the World." Frank Bruni's political calculus -- "Maybe one superrich old white guy from New York can save us from another superrich old white guy from New York" -- reeks in every word with acceptance of suppositions that have produced the greatest inequalities in American society since the Gilded Age and some of the lowest voter participation. When condescending to use public transportation is a metaphor for stage-managing one's democratic bona fides, small wonder that the democracy erected on such Trumpian salesmanship (like Trump hugging the flag) is also a condescending sham.
3
@Vernon Chadwick: Too bad Bloomberg doesn't donate $20 Billion to update the subway's signaling and switching systems.
Don't know why Frank or anyone else would express empathy for Jeff Sessions. Our attorney general is getting to do exactly what he wants to do - keep people of color out of the United States, remove all those already here that he can, and incarcerate as many of the rest as possible for as long as possible while denying then the right to vote. There should be zero empathy, much less pity for Jeff Sessions. Remember, Stephen Miller rose to power in DC under Jeff Sessions.
If you think this capitalist is going to win the nomination of our party you are seriously mistaken. I am a Democratic Socialist who will support a centrist in the nominating process when I think it’s the best chance to defeat the Republican, which is the most crucial thing.
But I will never support a billionaire who, while socially liberal, supports the same old trickle down economic voodoo the Republicans do. He’s essentially a libertarian, a philosophy that is anathema to the left.
He has no chance. Period.
1
Bloomberg would be a terrible candidate for a host of reasons. One, Wall Street. As in Bloomberg is Wall Street, and when it comes to economic issues, Wall Street is the problem, not the solution. Two, white and old. Democrats need to drive voter turnout. The Democratic voters who don’t turn out are the young and minorities. Blomberg is not going to inspire either group to come out and vote. Three, he’s a New Yorker. Hillary is a New Yorker. Trump is a New Yorker. We’re getting a little tired of New Yorkers (in Trump’s case, not just a little tired, but sick and tired). Four, age. As in Bloomberg will be 78 in 2020. That’s just too old to run for president (are you listening, Bernie and Biden?).
85
And about Wall Street....I seem to remember an op-ed article by a former Wall Street executive criticizing Goldman Sachs. Bloomberg rushed to Goldman to assuage their hurt feelings. No thanks, I'm sick of billionaires from Wall Street to Silicon Valley who don't have a clue
Mike Bloomberg has many exceptional qualities, as an entrepreneur, a politician, and a philanthropist. There is much to admire him for, and a bit to criticize as well. But aside from his age (78 in 2020), will the United States be prepared vote for a Jew for President? Donald Trump exposed the underlying racial and religious hatred that has always existed in America. Barack Obama demonstrated that we can overlook historic racial animosity and vote for a good candidate. Can the country put aside its long-standing anti-semitism as well?
I don't know. I'd have to hear what his views are on universal healthcare, unions, the minimum wage, social security, etc. Issues where the views of most billionaires are likely to differ from those in the lower 90% of the income scale.
2
No, Mayor Mike is not the antidote to Trump. The country needs a full body vaccination for that. First, and no disrespect intended, he's too old. He'd be 79 when he's inaugurated. Sorry, but no one has the stamina for the Presidency at that age. Second, he was the right mayor at the right time for one city. He doesn't apply to the rest of the country.
We need younger candidates with fresh ideas and more appropriate government experience than him. In particular, we need someone with the kind of leadership background which would be good for being the Commander In Chief.
I like Mike, but not for President.
9
Democrats should be looking for the best candidates, not the ones with the most money, or those who can most effectively beg for money.
7
A message for Michael Bloomberg:
The 2020 election is the most important one in our lifetimes. The surest path to defeating the incumbent is for a more centrist candidate to take the Democratic Party reins. For all their good intentions, the left wing candidates don’t seem to understand the realities of governance, nor will they be able to attract votes from the center. Many already know that you can actually be an effective president; what even you do not know is can you become a successful candidate. It will be a long and arduous path to get there but if you don’t do it now you will forever regret not trying. If this weren’t such a pivotal moment in American history I wouldn’t care if you ran. But it is, and I do.
7
Bruni has reassured us all that indeed not all billionaires are alike; nice to know there is a spectrum.
But I am sick and tired of the news being centered around stockbrokers, investment guys, real estate developers and the ultra glamorous. Being rich is not an accomplishment worth celebrating. Great that Bloomberg is philanthropic once he covers his personal extravagant (by most standards) lifestyle but we all pay taxes. What the government is doing with our money is more relevant to how our country prospers.
America is overwhelmed by fear, a fear that stems from the futile envy and mooning over of the imaged lives of the rich and famous. That fear is combined with the religious zealotry of people clinging to moral nostalgia.
The conventional candidates that support this narrative are not the answer to taking down the far right Republican driven machine that uses God like a sword.
9
If we're lucky, Bernie will run again. If we're smart, he'll win.
11
@Hmmm I love Bernie and have voted for him repeatedly here in Vermont, and will do so again this November, but considering Bernie's age, the smarter move is to have younger candidates carry his banner and promote his progressive ideas. Create an ongoing progressive movement that will last into the future.
He does and the Democratic party will be fractured yet again and we'll have 4 more years of what D voters, who threw a hissy bc B wasn't the nominee, got.
I imagine that similar things were said about FDR when he ran in the 1932 election. But the people were exasperated by their president who seemed unable to inspire them and get the country moving again. Little bit different this time. The upper classes enjoy all the wealth and perks that go along with the largesse. Republicans have created a ruling class of elites. The wealthy political influencers. Bloomberg may be wealthy, but he has more in common with the common. He belongs to a class that believe there is an obligation to your fellow man. The republicans believe there is an obligation to the fellow members of their country club. The grand old country club.
40
I'd prefer someone younger and more progressive on economic issues, but if Bloomberg were to be the Democratic nominee I would vote for him in a heartbeat. Why? Because Bloomberg knows that we need to act aggressively on the biggest problem facing the world today: Climate Change. Having a president who makes action on climate change his (or her) top priority is what we need right now.
48
@Troy
Indeed, Bloomberg would provide something we are missing in this administration: a rudder for our Ship of State, which is slipping and sliding around the waters with neither rudder nor keel. The captain is a madman with diabolical henchmen such as Steven Miller (with a remarkable likeness and mindset of Goebbles), and cabinet leaders devoted to enriching themselves first.
If PresMike can bring back a sense of calm while running the country with a moderate tone, give him the keys to the Oval Office.
There are many roles Bloomberg can play that will better America and possibly the Democratic Party. His image combines success, competence and more than a measure of daring. He seems able to take a position without testing the prevailing political winds. And, of course, he is the embodiment of anti-Trump.
Securing the Democratic nomination is a journey into the great unknown, but just imagine the degree of civility and imagination he would bring to the fight. His contributions, even if he wasn't the nominee, could be crafting a national debate on things that matter: Medicare for all, including veterans; facing global warming like the threat it really is; a practical program to rebuild our infrastructure; a path for ending our military adventures in the Middle East; a new immigration policy that represents contributions from past presidents and sane members of Congress; across the board justice reforms; an insistence on robust debate of critical issues.
That's the stuff of a Nobel Prize.
20
@Doc
His contributions, even if he wasn't the nominee, could be crafting a national debate on things that matter...
That is exactly what Bernie Sanders has been doing for years now. I don't really want him to run for president, but his work in bringing attention to issues the Democrats have ignored or not emphasized has been vital. The Democratic party should adopt his ideas and move forward without all the stupid labels, etc. and maybe let the message and the accomplishments be carried out by a younger candidate.
1
@Doc
head of EPA?
I would choose Michael Avenatti because he's young, smart, and most of all, tough.
He's already taken on Trump, who has never tweeted about him.
No tweets means that Trump is scared of him, a good start.
13
@Stephen You know little or nothing about Avenatti's politics yet because you imagine him as tough and smart he's your man. Sorry but it's that exact type of knee jerk no thought decision making that gave us Trump. No thanks.
1
@Stephen Why? What does he believe? What experience in government does he have? Does he have a realistic platform? Policy ideas? I've never heard him say anything other than criticisms (warranted) of Trump and glowing tributes to a porn star (warranted?). Yes, he's smarter than Trump (wouldn't take much to cross that Rubicon), but other than that, WHAT is he?
1
I like Bloomberg. He's smart. energetic and proven. He's also too old for my taste. As a 67 year old man, I want to see fresh ideas, dedication to equality, and the ability to step aside and let his department heads achieve and succeed. The President should be the leader of his people and other than that is merely a focal point through which the people he empowers to high positions accomplish their tasks. Bloomberg will be an excellent ally to the Democratic party candidate for 2020, and hopefully will become the designated "Trump eater."
24
If, somehow, DJT is the GOP candidate for president in 2020, democrats would do well to nominate an ex-military candidate in the mold of Eisenhower. I don't think that Pres. Bone-Spurs could even stand on the same stage as someone who has really served our country and seem plausible for even a minute. Also someone who is physically fit would be a devastating contrast. Maybe someone who is actually 6'2" and 239 lbs...
13
@James Levy
But it would be hard to find a woman who stands 6'2".
I like Ike.
The Democratic Party hasn't even developed a salable management plan for the public sector of a mixed economy. If Bloomberg could get it to do that, it would be a tremendous contribution.
The Republican management plan for the public sector is to turn most of it over to the private sector. This leaves everything with payouts in the more distant future unfunded, because these projects are not profitable at discounted present value.
3
We’re doing this wrong. There’s a Peter Principle in American public life that elevates a popular person to his/her level of incompetence. See the current denizen of the oval for clues. What ought to be happening at this stage is for people like Bloomberg and Tom Styer and others to make a lot of noise in the media about the abstracts that make America what it is. Freedom, Liberty (not the same thing), Duty, Responsibility (again different), and Empathy. It’s only by highlighting these things that we can better engage the public to think beyond their own immediate pocketbooks. We need an informal team of rivals driving a serious discussion more than we need another hat in the ring.
10
In retrospect, it is clear that the 2016 election was about giving the perceived elites a kick in the teeth. Why? Because for all of their qualifications and accomplishments and claimed successes, most Americans were feeling insecure about their future. The economy's great! But for most American's it isn't, since most Americans don't measure the economy by the strength of the stock market and the size of the GDP. I voted for Hilary, but Bernie would have won.
So, along comes Mr. Bruni to recommend a technocratic billionaire. Bloomberg wasn't the worst mayor of NYC; he was a great deal better than Giuliani, for sure, but that's not saying much. He turned NYC into a playground for the rich, and it says something that a NYTimes columnist didn't notice how much people who aren't paid upwards of $200k a year are hurting. Housing prices make living in or near the city center impossible for the working and middle class, and homelessness has exploded. Stop and Frisk, which Bloomberg still won't disavow, created an aparthied reality for young men of color.
The school reform movement, which Bloomberg championed, has been almost universally rejected as a sham, just like those rising test scores that Bloomberg and Klein trumpeted until the NAEP showed them to be bogus.
Bloomberg is a top-down kind of guy, at a moment when it looks like America is ready for a bottom-up candidate. Let's not encourage him to play the spoiler. Forget about it, Mike. And Frank.
59
@Thaddeus Paine I don't think Frank is recommending Bloomberg. He's suggesting we take a second look at his accomplishments and not dismiss the idea out of hand. I'm all for thoughtful discourse.
10
@Thaddeus Paine
One line that jumps out at me in your otherwise well worded post is this: "I voted for Hilary, but Bernie would have won." We should not forget that no matter who political parties choose as their candidate, the Republicans will lie through their teeth about them. This goes back far too many years. Who can forget the blatant lies about John Kerry in campaigns past? If the Democrats had convinced Mother Theresa to be their candidate, the crazy wing of the Republicans would have put her out as a pedophile or some other absurdity. Although 95% of voters would have known it was all bull, the 2 or 3% who would believe anything can swing an election. On top of that, the Russian intelligence machine was also fully engaged in the manufacture of false stories about Hilary as well. Until we realize that some portion of lunatics will continue with their made up character assassination techniques and learn to effectively deal with it, no candidate who has an ounce of integrity is likely to ever be elected, including Bernie.
1
Amen. Do we really need another billionaire President?
I'm a very liberal Democrat New Yorker and my husband is a centrist union member Democrat. He would definitely vote for Bloomberg, whatever party he ran on, and I would think hard about voting for him. (Hey we both voted for a really old White guys last Presidential primary, to both our surprise). Bloomberg did a good job as Mayor here and, if he can lead NYC, he could easily lead the country.
11
As is the case with many, I'm a great admirer of Bloomberg and his accomplishments. His record is exceptional and he seems to be a genuinely good human being. But as someone exactly his age, I hope the country finds a leader with the same skills who is a couple decades younger. We don't need a President who would finish his second term at age 88 or so.
17
Mike is pragmatic and competent and experienced.
The Democratic Party has many experienced, highly intelligent, and pragmatic candidates who would be younger and more inspiring and appealing to their base.
The next Presidential nominee will come out of that group and will have less baggage than Mike does.
But I hope Mike supports that candidate and uses his great wealth to promote progressive values and that together the Democratic Party regains control of Congress, the Presidency, and most states. This is required if good and rational policies are going to be instituted.
The Republican Party is extremist, ideological, and hard right. Their policies harm the future of America greatly and will lead to economic and moral disaster.
31
Mr. Bloomberg's time has passed for running for the Presidency. His politics was like the NYC of old, conservative budgets, raised taxes and basically a liberal where it counts among his former middle class voters that all but disappeared after the financial crisis in NYC. Mr. Bloomberg spends his own money on campaigns (he has lot's of it) and has a media organization that is second to none, period to leverage if he wanted to. He would be an excellent President especially in negotiations, geo-political issues and getting the best cabinet and best out of them. However both parties are drastically extreme and neither are his blend of ideology. Age is a factor and he looks his age and can be a complete bore that will not be able to capture daily soundbites interesting enough to get on opinionated cable news programs - Sorry Mr Bloomberg, it's not happening unless calamity strikes and a level headed, experienced leader need apply?
5
Whatever Bloomberg's faults, I thought this anecdote would serve well: one evening after work on my walk to Penn Station, I saw Bloomberg standing near the entrance to a restaurant. Can't remember which one now. He had 2 men with him, obviously a security detail, but a very unobtrusive one. I was able to pass by without more than a glance from the detail who recognized in me just an aging commuter.
In the present era, that a man with power does not have to announce himself at every turn is almost recommendation enough.
46
I might hold my nose and vote for Bloomberg. He did a good job as mayor of NYC, but he turned the developers loose. All things change, but in his own way, Mike was on the side of the rich developers, and indeed, of "law and order." When the RNC came here (2004?), he was delighted to tell us that he had an assembly area for riot police, an area with a "sally port" to allow quick onslaughts by police--onslaughts on people like me. And let's remember, while Trump mutters about prolonging his presidency, Mike actually bought a change in the constitution of NYC to allow him a third term, unprecedented in our time. No, Mike would not be my first choice. Efficient, yes; pragmatic, yes; megalomaniacal, yes.
26
Another plus for Bloomberg vis-a-vis Trump; most banks would be happy to do business with him.
Of course Bloomberg would make a better president than Trump. The neighbor's cat would make a better president than Trump.
But, I think it best for the moment to concentrate on 2018 and getting a Democratic majority in Congress. I think the political landscape leading up to the 2020 elections will be very different than what we're looking at today. Given that, I hadn't thought of it until now, but I think I could easily live with a President Bloomberg.
26
@Ralph Averill. So we pick our presidents based on their likability to banks index nowadays? Awesome! Why not Jemmie Dimond then?
1
Kudos to you. Your case is made primarily on the content and substance of Bloomberg's record instead of ad hominem or identity critique that would disqualify him -- rich, white, and male. Our political discourse need this kind presentation and a whole lot less of other.
15
Bloomberg is indeed a billionaire. No one knows about Trump's assets because he has not shown his tax returns. If Trump was a billionaire then why no banks refuse loans to Donald. It seems that all his assets are leveraged.
25
Elect Mike 2020. Mike Bloomberg would have been my first choice in 2016 when he briefly floated the idea of running in the Democratic Primary and Mike is definitely my first choice for 2020. Team Mike up with a young Eric Garcetti and that’s a winning team for the 2020 Presidential Election to rid our nation of Trump.
Bloomberg served three excellent terms as NYC mayor and provided steady leadership in which NYC and its residents rose from the devastation and destruction of 9/11, recovered from the Great Recession and became the great city it is today. Sure there were policies that were not good and certain decisions that were not the best, but overall NYC and it’s residents prospered under the Bloomberg administration.
12
I like your take, Frank. Have Bloomberg run in primaries as a good sparring partner with the eventual nominee, likely a younger more passionate version of a Biden (candidates abound with this description).
But Bloomberg can toughen them up, sharpen their focus, and develop the Democratic message.
And if, in the process , he should get the nod, then why not? I can just picture Bloomberg debating Trump.
The optics would be great: knowledge versus ignorance, sound data versus wildly inaccurate data, well-honed messages versus hate and resentment, calmness versus undisciplined rants.
Trump will never lose his base but Bloomberg can expand his, as well as attract independents and undecideds.
So, go for it Mike!! its win-win for Dems and even if he did win the nomination, his VP pick could eventually succeed him if Bloomberg only wanted one term (he's be positively ancient in a second term).
I have no problems with Bloomberg as candidate to help shape the Democratic agenda or to run with it.
God knows the Dems need all the help they can get to combat the chaos presidency that's exhilerating the few but exhausting the many.
54
@ChristineMcM
Hi Christine, I'm right here with you and just wrote my own response. Your take on having Mayor Mike act as a sparring partner is spot on, as well as broadening his base. I enjoy your positions and writing style. Keep up the great work. EJ
2
Consider this. In 2016 Hillary had the entire Democratic, Republican, media, business, tech, & global establishment on her side. She had had the most formidable political machine of the past 30 years. She raised more money than any other Democratic candidate for President...over 900 million dollars. She outspent Trump 3-1. She had substantially more troops on the ground. She had President Obama at the height of his popularity not only anoint her as his successor but campaign by her side. She had her husband, as well as Michelle Obama, pleading her case. She won all three debates. Her opponent put his foot in his mouth every time he walked out the door. She had every conceivable edge, more advantages than anyone who has ever run or probably ever will run for President. And she still couldn't close the deal…she still couldn't beat a former reality star who had never held office. Now imagine if the Democrats had the foresight & guts to run Bloomberg instead? Imagine what he would have done with all of these advantages? Is there any doubt that he would have won in an epic landslide. I would much rather have him heading the ticket in 2020 than Warren, Booker or God Forbid Harris who would be very divisive and unable to unite us as a country much less win a crucial election. I don't know if Bloomberg is interested in running. But if he has the drive and the heart is willing then any goal attainable. Trump vs Bloomberg...the Battle of the Billionaires is a race I would like to see!
18
@Bill Brown
100% agree. Hillary Clinton ran the most inept, campaign for national public office ever.
2
@Bill Brown: " the entire Democratic, Republican, media..." In what parallel universe?
A Bloomberg v Elizabeth Warren Democratic primary would be even more divisive than a Hillary Clinton v Bernie Sanders primary. The last thing the Democrats need is another bout of fratricide that hands the election to an unworthy opponent.
Get behind one or the other NOW, to give him/her sufficient time and resources to get the message out.
7
@Hamid Varzi because... 'annointing' worked so well last time?
Hillary had an insider's advantage vs late-to-the-party Bernie. However, when she exploited those advantages, she only antagonized other Dems and independents. (Hard job herding cats who can hear dog whistles...) This time there will be no default leader. That is probably a good thing -- if the Democrats can remain relatively civil and collegial.
So yes, support your favorite now but expect them to be willing and able to debate and defend their positions, and adapt and adjust as appropriate.
3
@Hamid Varzi: "Now" is not the time to get behind a national standard bearer. We have an election to win in November. To anoint a national leader now would hand the midterms to the GOP because their sludge and drudge machine would go into overdrive.
2
For those of us who hope that the Republican presidential candidate in 2020 will be someone other than Donald Trump, there may not be a need for a counterweight like Michael Bloomberg heading the Democratic ticket.
Bloomberg is an extremely capable, decent person with the right instincts about what being an American ought to mean, how a strong, honest government should behave and what its duties are to our most vulnerable fellow citizens.
For now, let’s keep Michael Bloomberg in reserve and, given his age, start planning on the Democratic vice-presidential slot and which woman would best fill it.
4
I lived in NYC during the Bloomberg years and always thought he was an effective mayor for the most part. There were certainly policies I did not agree with but I believe he was a much better mayor than Giuliani. Bloomberg is, unlike Trump, a truly successful business man (tax records prove that one) and he has demonstrated through philanthropy a sense of duty to community (unlike Trump). With that said, I think he would be best tapped to get behind an extremely serious and competitive Democratic candidate and offer whatever advice and guidance he can. And if that is successful perhaps he can assume a serious cabinet position or something like that. I personally am weary of and alarmed by super-rich people getting into politics and running for office. We already have too many of them -- the Kochs, the Uehelines, the Adelsons, the Mercers, etc, etc -- pulling the leavers of government and successfully bending US policy to their whims and beliefs.
23
When Frank Bruni first became a Times columnist, he was a breath of fresh air -- taking unconventional positions not for their own sake, but because he was genuinely trying to resist the intellectual sclerosis that had overtaken so much mainstream media
How sad that he has now deteriorated to this
The issue is not Bloomberg per se
He obviously has a lot of strengths, as well as several substantive and political weaknesses
But it's disturbing to see Bruni ignore not just the explosion in inequality during his reign, but, even more, the massive deterioration of the subway and other mass transit -- the governor's role notwithstanding
This necessarily raises the issue: to what political and economic problems does Frank Bruni think Bloomberg is a solution?
Yes, he's not Trump -- but neither was Hillary Clinton, who was programmatically almost identical to Bloomberg
Beyond that, Bloomberg hardly offers solutions to the problems any Democrat MUST solve -- a collapsing / expensive / non-patient-responsive health care system, and ever-increasing income inequality
It makes me sad to see the toll our wretched situation has taken on Mr. Bruni
But though his exhaustion is understandable, his descent into utterly banal thinking is yet another indication of the sad state of our public discourse
I'm not saying other candidates on the horizon offer visible solutions to our real problems -- but the problems for which Bloomberg is any kind of solution have long been superannuated
18
As Gregory Bateson once asked, "Are we wise?"
As impossible as that is to answer, that's the only relevant question. But I sure know one person who isn't.
4
Anyone who saw what he did for New York as mayor would realize that he would be a highly viable Democratic candidate for president. Given where the Republicans are he does certainly count as a Democrat. He is far from perfect (think about stop and frisk) but we almost certainly won't do as well as we would by having him. He won't be my first choice for Democratic candidate or even my second but he would set a rather high base standard.
4
Later for Bloomberg. It's time for fresh, new, younger faces and ideas. I'm sure the corporate types and Wall St. love him even though he claims to be tough on them. In the end he will be another conservative Dem who plays to the middle. Same old story.
15
@Magan But what is wrong with the middle? It's the extremes that keep causing most the trouble. It's not a matter of it being an "old story" but rather a wise old philosophy.
19
@Jim Cricket
"But what is wrong with the middle? It's the extremes that keep causing most the trouble."
False equivalence.
The extreme right is causing All the trouble. The extreme left is working to fix that trouble.
Foolish to think the extreme right is equivalent to the extreme left just because of the word "extreme".
Furthermore, the so-called extreme left is not extreme at all - it's in the center of what should be normal - and is normal in the most successful and happy countries that put people before profits.
The "extreme" left is Good (tell me one thing they represent that is bad). The extreme right is all Evil (tell me one thing they represent that is good).
Maybe you think the far left wants everything for nothing; that they can't budget? Is that your bad? What they prescribe has a Very High ROI, like free education and healthcare.
They're investments, not costs.
But what about the trillions the extreme right spends on the big banks, and big pharma, and corporations, and the tax giveaway to the rich, and out of control military spending?
So trillions to the rich are okay, but not trillions for the people? Whose money is it anyway?
The so-called extreme left is the cure for the disease of the extreme right.
Don't confuse the cure with the disease.
And what's wrong with the middle? They're the ones who sat twiddling their thumbs as the extreme right destroyed everything good. In Germany they looked away as their neighbors were taken.
@Jim Cricket Can I get an amen!
Bloomberg has in the past strongly opposed the legalization of marujuana and has even mocked medical use. He's simply not a viable candidate in the West where voters have chosen legalization at the polls.
Dianne Feinstein recently had to cave to CA voters on that issue and reverse her longstanding opposition to legalization.
She's well-entrenched in California politics. Bloomberg is an outsider. His opposition to legalization means he's toast on the West Coast and in Colorado.
7
Enough with the "super rich guys will save us" routine. Trump can't manage, and Bloomberg is done at his age. Mark Cuban also expressed interest in running for President. Based on what? A bloated stock market twenty years ago?
The government does not have to make a profit, so those who can do that do not necessarily have skill sets that translate to success. And so when I evaluate somebody's ability to be President, making money is not one of those skill set qualifiers.
64
@PB neither is their race!
I can't imagine Bloomberg getting the nomination or winning the election, but he could be an great one-termer for returning normality to the Executive Branch. He'd readily attract the best.
21
Don't count out Ficus---he was easily the most liked character in the short-run sit-com "Quark." That aside, Americans choose their presidents based on three criteria: height-taller candidate wins, thirst--drinker of most water during debates loses, perceived economic direction of the country. Bloomberg may be a moderate, but he is too short towin against Trump, too resistant to calls for police reforms after various incidents, and finally, too cozy with real estate interests too win the democratic nomination.
3
Bloomberg initiated the ‘stop and frisk policy,’ and still supports it. This will only exacerbate the over population in our prisons.
I think, after watching the documentary about Mr. Kalief Browder, that our first duty should be to protect children from prison. His story should be seen by all of us who plan on voting in November.
We need prison reform. It cannot begin by police having the right to invade our privacy.
16
@-tkf
Agreed. I found out here: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/10/06/before-the-law
2
@-tkf Giluiani initiated it.
I welcome Michael Bloomberg's interest in running for POTUS role. And he should do so a GOP candidate in the primaries. Mr. Bloomberg is a highly successful businessman- politician who would be right at home in the "normal" GOP party, and our nation would benefit from the expected political debates
15
Currently, Bloomberg is an independent, previously having been both a Democrat and a Republican. Although he ran as an Independent in his last NYC mayoral campaign, he still ran on the Republican ballot line.
Trump also switched parties to run for the Presidency. Why couldn't Bloomberg primary Trump?
This might actually be better for the country than if Bloomberg campaigns for the Democratic nomination.
First of all, if Democrats take back the House or the Senate or both, Republicans should be ready to ditch Trump. He'll be toxic by 2020.
Second of all, with Bloomberg facing a possibly Progressive Democrat, Putin won't have a candidate to back.
34
@Robert Henry Eller
In NYC, running as both a Republican and an independent isn't that strange. John Lindsey ran on both the Republican and Liberal tickets (at the same time) for mayor.
Ignoring Staten Island (Richmond County), NYC is a liberal city.
1
@vacciniumovatum disagree completely. Wall Street and real estate own NYC politicians. REBNY will put ANY NYC mayor in its pocket, including this current "liberal" one.
@Robert Henry Eller
Interesting chess move...hmm.
But what if Bloomberg loses to Trump in a GOP primary?
Remember that the GOP includes too many Trumpist goons, bullies, ignorant, right-wing, mysoginist, racist, religious hypocrites, scoundrels, intolerants, morally corrupt sycophants...etc.
What's the next move?
1
If Bloomberg runs against Trump in 2020, both will be candidates of advanced age, mutually canceling out that traditional negative. President Bloomberg would not need to live forever — just long enough to return us to the dignity exhibited by most American presidents; to the respectful treatment of our allies; to a foreign policy informed by experts, not whims; to a respect for the rule of law; to the civil treatment of those with different political views; to financial transparency and not using America’s highest political office for personal financial gain — all of the norms that Trump has trampled.
“Don’t let perfection be the enemy of good” is an old saw that applies here. Democrats need to Win the presidency in 2020. Let’s not squabble our way to another defeat.
19
If the Democratic Party keeps hiking merrily on its path of supine fecklessness and selects another presidential candidate of such limited appeal as the last one, then Bloomberg should run as an independent, with a curse in both traditional parties.
I am hoping that the Democrats select a strong, fair, intelligent, experienced and honest candidate who puts her country abive herself or her Party. I am particularly impressed by Amy Klobuchar.
14
@John lebaron Clinton got a 2.8 million plurality in the election. Not at all limited appeal. A decisive win in another election.
Facing a Cruz or Rubio she would have crushed them. But having done stuff in the real world she had had her Benghazi moments that could be exploited by those willing to chant "string her up" with Trump.
@Vid Beldavs
Right on . Hillary was an excellent and experienced and very dignified candidate.
Many voters found her appealing. She was a victim of a very tainted and troubling election and Comey’s intervention likely cost her another 4 million votes. Over 2 million Americans went to vote primarily in swing states and their votes were not counted due to Republican voter suppression policies
as well. I feel without that and Fox News and the Russian propaganda machine
she would have won by a landslide too.
She would have been an outstanding and astute President. No one is more unfairly maligned.
1
@John lebaron
If Bloomberg runs as an Independent, it will hurt the Democrats far more than the Republicans.
1
Yes, Bloomberg for President in 2020, undoubtedly then followed by Jeff Bezos,in 2028, and, of course, by Mark Zuckerberg in 2036.
But will our roads ever be fixed by people who travel mostly in private jets and helicopters, will our schools ever be improved by people who only send their kids to private schools, and will taxes ever be raised and loopholes closed at the high end by people who seem content with the present laws.
And do we really want people who can potentially discourage alternative candidates with the threat or reality of being able to financially drown out their voice?
183
@Hadel Cartran
You’re probably too young to remember FDR.
1
As much as Bloomberg has in his favor for his past accomplishments and current stances on issues we face in this country, at 71, I feel I have the right to be a bit age-ist; Bloomberg's money does not render him immune to the calendar.
6
@Glen
Personally, I know many people, men and women, in their 80's and 90's who are quite spry.
9
As do I, Andy, but, while I enjoy excellent health, I am not physically as durable as I was at 50 or even 60, and the presidency is an exhausting position in every way: physically, mentally, emotionally and spiritually. At least it is if you do it right, so Trump is hardly an example to use. Any number of articles have been written with photos showing how much presidents have visibly aged over the courses of their terms. The ideal candidate should as mature and intelligent as possible yet as far from death (actuarially) as possible as well.
@Glen-Many members of Congress are in their 70s and 80s.
Democrats need a young, strong, charismatic leader to campaign for the presidency, not someone who would reach his 80's during his first term. It's not ageist to acknowledge that the human body becomes more frail with advanced age, and Alzheimer's becomes more of an issue too. We deserve a leader who won't keel over simply because he's old. There are many roles Bloomberg could play to help win the country back from Chaos, becoming President isn't his only option.
32
@Bob G.
No, it's not ageist. I agree. Especially after seeing both parents out. And WATCHING SENATE HEARINGS and other workings of gov't! Yes, there is valid ageism. There are also many valid concerns about the elderly, even beyond the fact that many, especially women, don't want people of an older mind set in power. I'm in my mid-fifties and realize my prejudices against many choices and tastes of younger people. All those old white men on the Judiciary committee? NO THANKS.
Unfortunately, Trump and his supporters have taught us to be fairly cynical about what makes a person a potential winning candidate AND good president. After all, one of the most qualified candidates in U.S. history, Hillary Clinton, couldn't get elected under our system so to rate Bloomberg a potentially good candidate one has to look for something other than his obvious ability, experience, and success credentials.
Yeah, I could vote for him and maybe even a majority of American voters might but it seems that's not what it takes to win. Maybe after a couple more years of con job in the White House a qualified candidate like Michael Bloomberg could win but certainly not now. And right now 2 years seems like an eternity away.
5
@Robert Brown
Don't forget that it was the party politicians who put
Trump in office. The American PEOPLE elected Hillary by a margin of 3 million VOTES.
The oppositions effort should less focused on taking down Donald Trump and more interested in finding ways of bringing up the establishments politics to a relevancy suitable for the twenty-first century. Too much time and energy is being devoted to discrediting the present administration with hardly any effort spent in presenting a viable alternative for the voters in 2020. If the trend continues there will be not much standing in the path for Trump to gain his second term as president.
9
Bloomberg is from a past era. As mayor he increased stop and frisk by cops that targeted minorities. But research actually showed little correlation between stop and frisk and reduced crime.
He and his police chief Kelly refused to accept the judge’s ruling that stop and frisk in NYC was excessive, biased, and unconstitutional. Bloomie/Kelly disagreed and appealed, but later dropped it.
Bloomberg quote in Washington Post article: "I think we disproportionately stop whites too much and minorities too little. It’s exactly the reverse of what they say"
“His argument was that crime was more of a problem with young nonwhite men. This was during a mayoral election year, and Bill De Blasio made shutting down stop-and-frisk a key part of his campaign. He won.”
Let's find someone else to push for laws on climate change, gun safety and gay rights. Bloomie shouldn’t run for president. End of story.
16
Our elections are now the most expensive and profitable among the democracies. So why did America bother having it’s famous revolution? We have an aristocracy, calling the shots in the 21st century.
Ex Pres Jimmy Carter said the US is becoming an oligarchy since it costs so many millions to run for any office. On most issues, lawmaking favors preferences of moneyed elites, not the citizen majority.
We could have stayed a colony of Britain, under the king and aristocracy, as Canada did. Saved thousands of lives. Canada has had guaranteed health care for all since the 1960s, and we still don’t have it in 2018.
Today we turn our elections over to the usual corporate mega doors for subsidy, who force both parties to compete for donations. The 21st century elites set our political norms. Yes we have a constitution, but the elites and their judges interpret it for their gain and our loss.
In Citizens United the justices said big money in politics is free speech protected by 1st amendment. That was a whopper worthy of Trump. The mass of citizens misses out on that protection since they can’t afford it.
So why not just have the moneyed elites run for office? They can ride the subways and say Hi to us as we go to work. Some say letting the rich run things avoids corruption--- sort of.
We’ll hope we pick the best and kindest from our moneyed 'aristocracy' as the nominees, and then we’ll stand in line to vote for the one we think will hurt us least.
42
Thomas Jefferson wrote of changing the inheritance laws as the governor of Virginia to avoid a "future aristocracy of wealth."
2
Credit this idea first to Ralph Nader, his book titled, "Only the Super-Rich Can Save Us!"
It is sad, and sick, and probably true. We've fallen that low. Money has bought that much of our politics.
27
@Mark Thomason
The irony being that Ralph Nader's 2000 quixotic stab at high political office is what gave us most problems from which we need salvation!
@Mark Thomason
"Only the Super-Rich Can Save Us!"
Wasn't that what Trump said?
Realistically for a Democratic candidate to win in 2020 both the platform and candidate need to show a new face to the voters. The platform needs to deemphasize some of the favorite liberal goals, eg gun control, universal health care, and open immigration/citizenship. Investment in our infrastructure, support for lower mortgage rates and down payments for non-single family homes, (condos co-ops). Better COLA for seniors on social security along with a tightening of the rules for receiving social security disability. Farm subsidies tied to distribution of overproduction to the elderly and needy. Universal free school lunch program. Insofar as the candidate ideally he should come a conservative voting state, with his running partner being an outspoken woman. Neither should be over sixty years old. Whit I am suggesting may appear to be a move to the right, but what is more important it is a recognition of the issues and citizens who got Trump elected. Democrats must recognize it's time to push the pendulum back. The more liberal the platform and the more liberal the candidate the less chance Democrats will have in regaining the Nation's helm.
9
@CareyFor inclusion in the platform: Investment in our infrastructure, support for lower mortgage rates and down payments for non-single family homes, (condos co-ops). Better COLA for seniors on social security along with a tightening of the rules for receiving social security disability. Farm subsidies tied to distribution of overproduction to the elderly and needy. Universal free school lunch program
5
At this point no democrat (and it won't be long before it's republicans too) is going to stand a chance without offering some type of universal heath care plan.
17
In answer to Mr. Bruni's question, instead of a weeping game, I might venture a guessing game, where former Mayor Bloomberg would rule with an iron fist, little popularity and take no prisoners. His interest does not rest in setting fires, but stamping them out before they turn into infernos.
Steady and hawkish as he has proven to be in the past, he commands respect from those who work for him and they are loyalists. He is a challenge in the right sense of the word to his opponents, and these are many. And, while he has little tolerance for nonsense, he is reputed to have an affable presence when attending social events, courteous to women and honorable.
For this American, he might have the capability and acumen to make some of us want to pitch in, and give us a sense of direction. True, he is less volatile and entertaining than our current president, and shows the profile of a moralist.
In summary, and from a subjective perspective, Bloomberg has my support, and I do not give two pins whether he is running as a democratic or a republican.
36
@Miss Ley “Mayor Bloomberg would rule with an iron fist, little popularity and take no prisoners.”
Ah, yes. Exactly what one wants from a president in a democratic country.
If you want a iron fist to rule you, there are plenty of other countries to live in.
2
@citybumpkin,
You may be right, but Bloomberg has a strong dislike for sloth and sloppiness, while knowing when to duke it out and has high standards for his fighting gloves.
You might wish to revisit the Past and contrast Wellington versus Napoleon.
@Miss Ley Uh, well, my time machine is broken at the moment. But again, the United States is a constitutional democracy. We don't have emperors or dukes, and we aren't an army where the average soldier gets flogged by their officers.
As a recent piece in the Times pointed out, elections are more often decided on charisma, not policy or competence. I would nominate astronaut Mark Kelly any day over the very competent Bloomberg.
4
@MikeG, Or how about his wife Gabrielle Giffords?
1
I've been wondering, with increasing anticipation, who could emerge for the Democrats in 2020, and win.
Yes, regrettably, the tallest candidate ALWAYS seems to win, yet I would love to see Bloomberg give it a shot, and blow the mold as Trump has otherwise. He could tower over the incumbent in crucial ways.
I looked at Joe Biden as a unifier of the party; however, current recollections of Anita Hill-Clarence Thomas have sullied that hope for me. There are many other worthy candidates. Let Bloomberg's gambit at least get them to improve their game.
19
Yes. The New York theme needs its New York antimatter. A perfect equation.
If only it could set the clock back as well.
8
"Bloomberg, 76, probably doesn’t stand a chance."
Age alone should rule Bloomberg out. Trump is now too old, too.
But Michael Bloomberg could be in a Democratic cabinet, as secretary of the treasury, vice president, or what have you.
Bloomberg know how to take shots at Trump and the Right.
It will take a team effort to take down Trump. Bloomberg can help.
267
I don't know about anybody else. For me the notion of a Democratic Bloomberg candidacy is making my head explode. As I sit here in my favorite cafe on this particular Saturday late afternoon. Too much of importance has been happening too quickly and almost all of it will change the lives of my family and friends. Outside across the road in the cemetery a wet breeze is rustling the leaves. Some of them are already red. Mother-of-pearl clouds are shifting in a wet and murky sky eastward toward the mountains. I am a Democrat. Though I am more progressive than he is, I have always been fond of Bloomberg. I would not necessarily be opposed to his candidacy. But have a care, Frank. Once our heads explode, will we still be allowed to vote in November?
13
Michael Bloomberg is the single greatest manager of government that I have ever had the pleasure to witness. I cannot think of a single objective measure on which Bloomberg left the City worse off than he found it. Everything got better during his tenure — and he ran a budget surplus, to boot. Though political reality is that Bloomberg could not today win a nominating primary for either party, we would be lucky to have him as our President.
134
@R.S.I have admired his managerial style for years, and his values/goals line up with mine; I would vote for him over any of the other (very good) names being put forward.
4
@R.S. I guess by leaving every single municipal union contract on the table for your successor to settle helps acquire a budget surplus, then yes, he was a "great manager." If maintaining a "stop and frisk" policy that proved to be highly ineffective to its mission, then yes, he was a "great manager." If not investing in public transportation while offering obscene tax incentives for developers of high rise luxury condos in neighborhoods that desperately needed affordable housing, then yes, he was a "great manager." If vacationing at one of your many homes while your city takes days to dig out from a December snowstorm, then yes, he was a "great manager!"
2
@R.S. He left many thousands worse off who were racial minorities. The judge ruled his stop and frisk was racially biased, excessive and unconstitutional. He tried to appeal the ruling.
Michael Bloomberg should challenge Trump for the Republican nomination in 2020. As a highly competent individual and a decent person, Mr. Bloomberg exactly the kind of politician the Republican party is going to have to attract if it wants to re-build itself after it gets destroyed electorally approximately 6 weeks from today.
But no, Mr. Bloomberg should not run as a Democrat. He's a good man but clueless in ways that would not endear him to the Democratic base.
30
@Bret - The idea of Mr. Bloomberg competing in the Republican primaries is fantastic, but his anti-gun ideas and policies will quickly shut him down among Republicans. Sad!
1
Just because the Republicans ran a reputed* billionaire businessman for president is no reason for the Dems to follow suit.
Businessmen don't run their affairs democratically, and they bring authoritarianism with them into politics. Bloomberg did it as Mayor of NY (and his contriving a third run at the office may yet inspire trump, if he gets that far).
And forgive me for doubting that a record of philanthropy, however impressive, is a qualification for the highest office in the land. At this time in our history, what most philanthropists give back is but a fraction of their gains from a friendly taxation system that they have invested in promoting, as Anand Giridharadas writes in "Winners Take All: The Elite Charade of Changing the World". And they pick their charities, too.
It's just possible, I suppose, that once in office Bloomberg would become a traitor to his class in the image of FDR; but the signs are not there. If he won the nomination and campaigned without demanding actual sacrifices from those who can most afford them, trump, whose lies have stood him in good stead, would eat him for lunch.
* as for trump's net worth, in the absence of evidence either way, it's quite likely to be negative, with Putin and his buddies as creditors.
101
Anyone's better than Trump
But Bloomberg on us you would dump?
A second rate Mayor
On entitlements, fair,
And no ball of fire on the stump.
54
Why do you label Donald Trump as "superrich"? There is no evidence for that claim whatsoever.
We know Michael Bloomberg is super, super, super rich. He gives away hundreds of millions of dollars a year without pause.
But Trump? He just SAYS he is superrich. I have a guy on my block who says he is Abraham Lincoln. I'll take his word over Trump's.
Donald Trump does indeed see the presidency as a way to become superrich. I'll give you that.
Stop playing Trump's game. Until we see tax returns and an independently audited net worth statement I'm quite skeptical that the six time bankrupt has more than his Russian backers' monthly allowance.
646
@Will.
Word. I've long believed the grifter has nothing more than an allowance from his Russian financiers.
Real billionaires don't fly rickety old 757s.
They fly Gulfstreams and Falcons.
@Will. Thank you! We know Trump is a pathological liar, his word about his personal wealth means less than nothing.
It's quite possible he has a negative net worth. Many people live a glamorous lifestyle and are in debt up to their ears. It's irresponsible for anyone to suggest Trump is rich without having access to reliable financial records including tax returns.
@Will.
I laughed out loud. Thank you.
There is no antidote to the president, just wait until after the election if the senate is more Republican and real change at a better pace will occur.
@vulcanalex
If you mean real change as the movement to a monarchy I hope you are wrong.
The Democrats need to find a young moderately liberal candidate who can help the high school dropouts be able to find a living wage (the ideas of Eisenhower) and help save the world from shortsighted populations.
2
Bloomberg should have been the Democratic nominee in 2016 and the chances are that he would have beaten Trump.
However, there's no way that the Democratic machine (including the Times) was going to let that happen.
13
We seem to be in the era where persons who are eligible for Social Security and Medicare are most likely to be candidates for president. Maybe that is another backlash against President Obama.
4
OK, fine, but comparing him positively to Trump is like shooting fish in a barrel. Other than being a multibillionaire, most of Bloomberg's qualities cited by Bruni can be found in several other Democratic politicians. Sure let Bloomberg run in the primary to give people a choice among a range of options - but I'm not sure he deserves Bruni's endorsement just yet.
12
@Larry Figdill....yes most of the good qualities can be found in several other Dem candidates. And who wouldn't push extreme, racially biased stop and frisk policies, that the judge ruled were unconstitutional.
Does the US have such a lack of future candidates in this huge country, that we have to accept an egotistical, elderly billionaire to beat Trump?
@Larry Figdill: Where did you see endorsement?
Sorry Frank, there are far too many other potential candidates who are more simpatico with my values and excite me far more than Mr. Bloomberg. Rahm Emanuel said in 2009, that you never want to waste a good crisis, and I believe the current atmosphere opens up the opportunity for the Democratic Party to nominate the first true progressive standard bearer, since Mike Dukakis in 1988.
27
I for one have wearied of excitement and would find a competent, steady, liberal if not quite progressive candidate, who would follow presidential norms, treat people (at home and abroad) with respect, and get rid of corruption in the cabinet, quite welcome. Exciting the voters has proven to be a negative attribute. I don’t want to be yelled at you the right or the left.
12
@Jeff Sack....good point...the many current crisis we're going though opens up opportunities for progressives to make their policies more centrist in America. Example is health care affordable for all is still not achieved here, but is centrist policy in dozens of other capitalist democracies. Our taxes must subsidize insurance profits. Then to reform this is labeled 'left wing'.
3
@Jeff Sack
The "true progressive standard bearer" Dukakis lost by seven million votes and won all of ten states. I could do without a repeat performance of Democratic ineptitude in 2020.
3
I would love to vote for Michael Bloomberg but he's run before and has yet to light a fire in the electorate. Donald Trump knows how to light fires, plenty of them simultaneously. Ted Cruz is supposed to be this master debater yet Donald Trump wiped the floor with him.
Two years is forever in politics. But one thing is sure, taking on Donald Trump is not for the logical thinker. Unless Mr. Bloomberg can push back with a lot more force than in past we need more spark. Beto O'Rourke is probably not quite ready but that work ethic and personality is needed.
Elizabeth Warren is a better street fighter. After all, without Pocahontas Lewis and Clark would barely be footnotes in history. If that's all he's got, she's good to go.
45
If Elizabeth Warren wants to run, she needs to up her international involvement. She’s great on domestic issues, but if she has any interest in international affairs, I haven’t seen it. We need someone with the savvy, let alone diplomatic skills, to clean up Trump’s messes and restore some respect for our country. Bernie didn’t have it, and I’m not sure about EW; I think Bloomberg could do it.
2
@Pshaffer I don't disagree. I was speaking of push back ability. She's a Harvard professor and can certainly get up to speed on foreign politics and hire quality people to restore trust. That doesn't concern me at all. For now, her "thing" is consumer protections.
2
@Kathy
That was Sacajawea. Pocahontas helped save the first colonists from starvation at Jamestown; sometime around 1603 if I remember my grade school history lessons correctly.
As an Australian I have no relevant view on whether Democrats should entertain the prospect of another NY billionaire, or how long - but, maybe for the time it takes to read this piece?
I do have a view on the street metaphor for loyalty - one way, two way. It doesn't work for people like Trump. For them, the loyalty of others is more like bath water. They use it, they luxuriate in it, then they let it out. Most likely they have someone else let it out.
46
It's all relative. On the zero to ten scale re qualified or likely to be a success.
1- Trump is a minus ten.
2-Lincoln was a ten.
3-Bloomberg would be somewhere's near a five.
His age is the biggest thing going against him.
62
Bloomberg would be running at age 78. It's a demanding job-- imagine the US relying on the judgments and performance of an 83 year old in his fourth year in office. Is there a single successful CEO in his 80s? Bloomberg should find and back a younger, charismatic candidate who is more likely to be able to perform the job of President, with all its stresses and time requirements. By backing such a candidate, Bloomberg could better help bring his favored policies to fruition.
296
@SunscreenAl It is only a demanding job if you make it so. Obama read briefing books, I bet Trump never does that. Your travel is in a great system, you live in a great place, if you actually delegate and make decisions based on input from competent individuals or to keep your promises it is not that stressful.
1
@SunscreenAl, it doesn't seem to me that Trump is using up many calories, or atp in his current role as commander in chief. I think Bloomberg shows more intellectual capability, and perhaps will up until his mid nineties, than Trump at his prime.
2
@SunscreenAl
This is ageism, pure and simple. Aging is a very individual process and many in their 80’s still have plenty of vitality. I don’t want charisma, (Trump actually has that to his followers), I want some dignity, experience, and someone who respects data over a FoxNews inspired “gut”.
2
One of my favorite Bloomberg quotes was when he said something like, 'Heaven help us if Trump runs this country like it were his business.' Very prescient from a person who, as both a businessman and a political leader, is of a caliber far beyond Trump.
Is he the one to defeat The Donald? Well, one thing at a time. Bloomberg certainly deserves to toss his hat in the ring. We don't know what the political temperature of the country will be in 2020. We don't even know how the midterms will play out. But Bloomberg's messages are worth a listen. He can take on Trump for a war of ideas - and win - at any time.
145
Given that my late cat could (and still can) do a better job as this nation's chief executive than the one currently occupying the Oval Office, I'm not of a mind to send Mr. Bloomberg or any other billionaire to Washington to represent the citizens of an erstwhile democracy whose values and principles have been violated by money. It was, of course, Mr. Bloomberg who bequeathed unto our fair city the policy of stop and frisk and under whose auspices so much of this metropolis became downright unaffordable. But, most of all, I remember the Mayor's being all warm and fuzzy over the concept of income inequality, proposing that taxes be raised on all New Yorkers irrespective of their means. How would that idea play in a national election? There are decent human beings among the nation's most affluent but it's high time that we elected ourselves a president who can empathize with the poor and the middle class, either because they haven't left that world behind them or because they can, at the very least, remember what that world was like.
189
@stu freeman If my heart has cockles you've warmed them.
6
stu freeman--I agree. Give me a regular person who's had some real knocks in life, real down to earth experience, not a life of luxury. I am sick to death of the rich.
1
@Larry Eisenberg: Thanks but that doesn't rhyme...
As Barack Obama famously quipped at one of those annual White House correspondents’ dinners when pointing Bloomberg out in the audience, he was (then) a guy who really WAS worth the $5 billion he claimed he was worth. So, it may be that it takes a billionaire to know a billionaire, but how does Frank know that it’s a relevant observation in this case?
As Frank points out, Bloomberg is a counter-intuitive choice for Democrats to make for 2020. But it remains that he would be an inspired one. Regardless of how the overall outcome of the 2018 midterms plays out for mastery of the House, I suspect that except in overwhelmingly “safe” districts for Democrats far-left extremists such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are going to be bloodied. The Democratic leadership is FAR more extreme in its commitment to socialism than Democrats generally in America. And both Cory Booker and Kamala Harris, sooner or later, are going to come off to Americans as the opportunists they are, and I suggest that this will prove to be a serious turn-off – at least for 2020. Indeed, as they become more visible in the run-up to 2020, I expect to be aiming more than a few darts at them here on this issue, assuming that I’m still vertical.
In truth, Bloomberg is a Rockefeller Republican who supports insistent big-government and liberal social issues. Such a “Republican” already is about as close to being a Democrat as you can be and still just barely miss the mark by a whisker. He could serve as a …
6
… rational alternative to Democrats, one who offers proven managerial, intellectual, ideological and glandular counterpoints to Trump, and he could be elected.
Frank parses an ideal as the eventual Democratic choice. But, as Republicans discovered in 2016, it’s often not the ideal that we’re offered but the most electable among the available options. Elizabeth Warren, Booker or Harris are hardly ideals, for different reasons. Biden is likely, if you want a talker and not a doer; and Cuomo is wounded by recent events. But Frank’s right: Democrats should seriously consider Mike Bloomberg, who would fight for a lot of what most of them believe, and he would win a lot of what he fights for.
5
@Richard Luettgen
"… rational alternative to Democrats, one who offers proven managerial, intellectual, ideological and glandular counterpoints to Trump, and he could be elected."
The Democrats had this candidate. A New Yorker named Hillary.
Didn't work. No wonder you people think Bloomberg is a good choice, it would insure at least 4 more years of the destruction of our democracy at the hands of adversarial foreign nations.
@Richard Luettgen "Assuming that you are still vertical?" if you believe that you are one day approaching the horizonal, do let us know so that we can pre-mourn your demise.
3
Bloomberg's mix of views are not really right for either party but he would obviously be dangerous in the primaries because of his vast resources. I would imagine every other serious candidate would prefer he not run.
12
@Frunobulax: "... twisting their ankle on behalf of a little ice-cream cone" Kinda sums it all up, no? Always been a favorite line, and song, of mine.
An empty chair in the Oval Office could do a better job than the president. It wouldn’t lie or say stupid things. And if it were to squeak, it would make more sense than does our idiot in chief at his best moments.
So while Bloomberg may have his flaws, the prospect of anyone other than the current malevolent lying narcissist would be a reason to celebrate. I suspect that if Bloomberg were president, I wouldn’t have a wrenching feeling in my guts every time I turned on the news.
Policies are one thing, but I can’t imagine Mr. Bloomberg creating policies that would embarrass us on a world stage, or insult hurricane victims or cage children.
Maybe he’s not the best choice, but frankly we can never use the term “best choice” again in this country. We’ve plumbed the depths, and virtually anyone would be an improvement. My grandmother would be an improvement. And she’s been dead for thirty years.
I want a president whose bad decisions make me concerned, not make me want to move to Canada. I want to be able to understand what my president is saying, even if I disagree with it. I don’t want to be so distracted by the inartful, disjointed and moronic twaddle that comes out of his mouth that I cover my ears and leave the room.
Mr. Bloomberg probably isn’t our dream date, but anything would be better than what did come knocking.
798
@gemli I want me for president, you would have a stroke. I would be cleaning out directly many employees either firing them or removing them from doing anything until they left. Better no activity than those that won't support the new path. Perhaps Trump will get moving after the election.
Again, here is the lowering of the bar... A huge danger, I now see.
@gemli, you have captured the situation perfectly! We cannot afford, again, to make the perfect the enemy of the good, as happened in 2016 with disastrous results.
Bloomberg was the best mayor of NYC in living memory. Especially in comparison to his successor, who is even worse than Dinkins. But you got it right when you state that he would never pass the ideological litmus tests of the more left-leaning wing of the Democratic Party, who would be at odds with his data-driven decision making. For example, Bloomberg still defends stop and frisk on the grounds that the data support his position. No amount of data or analysis will cause that policy to be supported by leftist Democrats. That said, I suspect he would get the support of many Republicans who are wary of Trump. I’m sure Bloomberg is analyzing the data to see if he has a shot. I for one would be delighted with President Mike, although I expect I would complain mightily about his nanny proclivities if he’s elected.
42
@Shiv....data shows no correlation between stop and frisk and crime rates. See various articles on this including--
Washington Post--- "The facts about stop-and-frisk in New York City" --- with graphs. September 26, 2016.
Violations of the civil rights of many thousands of innocent citizens resulted in a lawsuit. The judge ruled that the stop and frisk policies of Bloomberg and police chief Kelly were unconstitutional, excessive and racially biased. The data and ruling will never change the minds of Bloomberg/Kelly on this.
4
Based on what happened in 2016, Trump's entire campaign against Bloomberg would consist of accusations that he's short. Running in contrast to a genuinely successful businessman would drive Trump even more insane.
As fun as that would be to watch, the Democrats don't need an interloper to represent us. We have excellent candidates of our own. I can't wait to watch Kamala Harris wipe the floor with Brett Kavanaugh next week. I also love Corey Booker, Sherrod Brown and Adam Schiff. And there are others.
336
@Carson Drew
Sherrod Brown and Patty Murray. In either order. Both very hard working, intelligent AND blessed with great common sense. Just what we NEED.
11
@Carson Drew
At this point in time the Democrats need to nominate the person who absolutely has the best shot at winning. Now is not the time for gambling. We might not survive another 6 years of trump. I think we are at a crossroads and even our very lives may depend on wresting control away from the ideological fanatics that have taken control of our government. I like the people you named but winning has to be top priority.
7
@Carson Drew
"Democrats don't need an interloper to represent us..."
Amen. Been there, recently done that.
The problem was not simply Bern's ego-needs and general bumptiousness, the problem was his storm troopers, willing to accept only victory (however undeserved), and happy to give us Trump in their still-running-hot fit of infant pique.
Once was enough.
And thanks again, Berniots.
3
Pelosi is correct that Bloomberg is synonymous with excellence, but at 78 years old in 2020, it would be important whom he picked as his Veep. (not an ageist statement as we're 60+)
But it is of concern that Bloomberg had promised to only be mayor of NYC for 2 terms - then decided the City couldn't do without him for 4 more years, and ran again.
As well, Bloomberg would need to do some repair work on his 2013 comment that it would be 'a godsend' for more Billionaire$ to descend upon the City and call it home. There will be a lot of Progressivism needed to repair what the Trumpists (they are no more GOP;ers) are rendering, with taxes needing to be raised back up on 'elite' corporations and ultra-wealthy, in our super-gilded age.
To wit: corporations aren't bringing home much of that $3+ Trillion$ in cash to invest as a result of having their taxes lowered:
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/yes-corporations-have-brought-home-cas...
Bloomberg might be too oriented towards big biz and neo-iberalism to get the Democratic nod.
28
In a word: No.
180