Why do people keep describing Warren and Sanders as “Far Left?” They are more like a return to the 1950’s, when taxes on the Rich were high, unions and the Middle Class were strong and propaganda was mitigated by the Fairness Act. Anyone opposed to plutocracy and corporate rule are now branded “extreme Left” by everyone from the Republicans to the NYT. The so called “Green New Deal” is described as Far Left or Radical, while the guaranteed destruction of our ecosystems and society are thought of as sensible and conservative. Destruction of our life support system is “cheap” and smart, whereas avoiding that outcome is regarded as “expensive” and a luxury. NYT is not far off from Fox News on th “far left” trope. They just keep repeating those Republican talking points.
19
Superb!
Dear editors: please publish thoughtful essays. These columns of chitchat are more worthy of middle-school weeklies.
5
Elizabeth Warren is my SENATOR and she's done an excellent job and I want her to remain my senator. I was thrilled to hear Michael Bloomberg is trying to run. I wanted him to run in 2016!! I think he'd be a very good President and the entire WORLD will breathe a sigh of relief when he wins. And his running mate can be the President after he retires! So who will be his running mate?
3
Bloomberg & Buttigieg....Bloomberg for four & Buttigieg for eight!
3
Brett, your endorsement of Gail's prior statement "impeach the sucker" absolutely made my day. Thanks for announcing this here.
3
It's chilling how blithely and smugly you two dismiss and gloss over Bloomberg's suspension of civil liberties and the constitutional right to privacy.
What other shiny, middle-class trinkets might a politician bedazzle you with in order for you to willingly throw out any semblance of freedom so that this country might look like a UK or Chinese surveillance state? Billionaire Democrats and their supporters, too, are ready to embrace fascism in all but name.
3
I would love for the center of the political distribution curve to organize and put candidates in office, lots of candidates, and push both the extreme right and extreme left into fringe seats in Congress. Of course neither of the two dominant parties here wants that to happen.. so they actually collude together to keep anyone not D or R out of national politics.
And the far left Democrats lobbying to "purify" the party at all costs..... you are playing directly into Trumps hands with that sort of extreme prosecution of political beliefs.
1
Has anyone mentioned Bloomberg's well-documented misogyny, horrendous objectification of women, inequitable treatment of female employees -- I could go on and on, so just read this:
https://gawker.com/5979679/id-do-her-a-brief-history-of-michael-bloombergs-public-sexism
2
I love reading these "conversations." "Impeach the Sucker" should be on everyone's bumper sticker or forehead. I keep asking myself if there's any (declared or likely) Demo candidate I wouldn't vote for against the Great Satan, and I have to admit I'd vote for "any of the above," give the terrible stakes. That includes Bernie, Liz, Joe, Mike, etc etc, maybe even Tulsi....but that's a stretch, I have to admit.
While Bret was busy jumping on the Bloomberg bandwagon there was an interesting development in the Iowa poll: Mayor Pete knocked Senator Warren into third place! He's apparently risen 14 pts. since August. Maybe he biked the Ragbrai this year or toured the Bridges of Madison County, but I think it's more likely that voters there have decided to support a more centrist candidate.
Latest Monmouth poll results in Iowa (margin of error 4.5): Buttigieg 22, Biden 19, Warren 18, Sanders 13, Klobuchar 5 . . .
There's been some speculation in the comments that a Bloomberg candidacy would negatively impact Biden. so wouldn't a Buttigieg win in Iowa do the same to Senator Warren?
1
So many people who live in NYC are saying that they think Bloomberg would be an excellent candidate because he did a great job as mayor.
As an ex-New Yorker I think that those who live in NYC tend to forget or don't even realize that America is not NYC and vice versa. I always like to say that I wasn't born in America... I was born in NYC. It was only after I left diverse, cultured, booming, exciting, robust, Democratic, liberal, modern NYC and moved to sleepy, boring, Republican, Trump-loving Upstate NY that I got a clue about what living in America is like. NYC is NOT America. It has almost NOTHING in common with America. Nothing!
Bloomberg is Jewish... very common in NYC and the metropolitan area. Not so in most of America. And Trumpists tend to be White Nationalists -- they don't appreciate Jews or any people who hail from NYC (yes, I realize the irony of Trump being from Queens but Trump is mostly reviled in NYC). In NYC we considered anyone who owned a gun to be a criminal (yes, I'm serious), and I still think most gun ownership should be criminalized. But everywhere else in America people are avid gun worshippers. Bloomberg is for reasonable gun safety laws.
In short, Bloomberg is a total New Yorker for better and for worse. The rest of America has no use for such people. Bloomberg could NEVER have even the slightest chance of winning the presidency. Why do so many people from NYC fail to understand that? It's patently obvious to me.
4
This time next year we will know whether or not we chose the right candidate to beat Trump. We have got to get this right. Right now my gut is telling me we need an amalgam of all the Democratic candidates. I love Elizabeth Warren's enthusiasm and intelligence, but I really do think her agenda and that of Sanders is too far left to be doable. Even if we win the Presidency and both Houses of Congress, remember there are Democrats in both Houses who are right of center, and will not go along with universal health care. They just won't. It took a miracle and a lot of hard work for Nancy Pelosi to get the ACA passed under those circumstances, and that was when we were far more progressive than we are now. I like Pete Buttigieg, and many of his ideas are more centrist, but he is too young etc., etc. Now we have Bloomberg entering the race. I think he is that amalgam we need. IMHO, I think he can beat Trump - even if he does not carry the Red states. IMHO, I really think he can win enough of the electoral college votes to win the Presidency. He is a billionaire yes, but he has been a humanitarian as well. He has spent millions on gun control and environmental advocacy. He did a good job running New York, with the caveat that stop-and-frisk was a bad idea. He is centrist in his views with a slight tilt to the left. That is most likely the very best we can hope for. We have to get back to where we were in 2016 before we can move forward. We have to appeal to more voters.
1
Bret really needs to listen to Stephen Bannon's Warroom.org every day in order to clear up his confusion about what really happened between Trump and Zelensky. But most likely he won't, or as Gail said of all Americans, their opinion about Trump is already set in stone. Meanwhile the two of them are doing a good job of reminding heartland Americans how snobby, condescending and downright nasty the Coastal Elites can be toward them. We know how that plays out.
Fun fact, even though Joe Biden is no longer VP he can still be impeached.
https://spectator.org/what-about-a-biden-impeachment-inquiry/
Is this a lovefest between two Democrats?
I was distressed with the septuagenarian status of Biden, Sanders, and Warren. Now my new favorite old timer is Bloomberg. But, America needs a President with stamina and endurance. Sadly those four are all past their primes and we need to nominate a candidate from a different generation. I'll vote for Daffy Duck against Trump, but, we can do better than this crowd.
1
Liberal NY Republicans like Lindsey, Javits, and Bloomberg are nice but the world needs a real problem solver like LaGuardia who pushed FDR to do the right thing. Elizabeth Warren is more like La Guardia, but even if elected, will not be able to make progress without the people on capitol hill and the courts on the same page. Republican billionaires already throw their money to the GOP candidates because its profitable. Liberal and moderate billionaires should use their money on the senate and congressional races because its the right thing for the country.
1
Bloomberg's best policy was his stop and frisk policy. If President I hope he can implement it on a nationwide scale.
1
Mayor Pete is the new front runner in Iowa and ex Mayor Mike is the new entrant. Dems are rocking.
1
I love watching you two grow into a comfort level with each other that makes the column better every time I read it. Thank you.
1
Today reported by Axios, Pete Buttigieg now leads the Iowa polls. He's passed Joe Biden and the rest of the flock. It means little in terms of the nomination, despite all the corn dogs eaten, Iowa's primary (caucus) results seldom predict the winner. But it does show that Biden's support is softer than polls have suggested. That may give Bloomberg an opening for the centrist vote. I'm feeling more at ease casting a vote for Bloomberg than any of the current Democratic candidates, none of whom are as competent and qualified, but realize that it's a very long shot for him to obtain the nomination.
1
NYC , although a quintescential American City, remains isolated from America. NYC holds a distinctly warped opinion of everything west of the Hudson River....mildly tolerating upstart Chicago and, of course, hypnotyzed by its alter ego that it created in Hollywood.
The rest of the USA is to be tolerated even if they refuse to accept that NYC is superior in every way.
////
We have just about survived one NYer President....Donald Trump.....and now you narrow minded NYTs Editors are proposing we elect yet ANOTHER New Yorker to be President????
2
Invite Charles Blow to this conversation.
2
If the Democrats could get Tom Hanks to run, the'd win all 50 states.
But Tom Hanks is smarter than that.
2
How nice that the columnists representing the right and the left agree that Bloomberg was a great mayor and would be a good president. NYT, how about some diversity of opinion?
1
“And, as you say, Bloomberg will have to find a way to mend fences with African-American voters.” Typical “liberal” view of the Black vote. First you dramatically underestimate and downplay Bloomberg’s reign of terror against the Black community, then glibly presume that he can wipe it all away now that HE wants something from us. Funny, it wasn’t so long ago that Giuliani was acclaimed “America’s mayor.” Not to us. Never to us.
2
Every time I hear or read someone say, "people love Pete Buttigieg, but he's too young . . ." (or some disclaimer/dis-qualifier about any of the current field of candidates), I simply think, "sorry . . . standards of any kind no longer apply." With a compulsive serial liar, malignant narcissist, sexual predator, failed businessman, racist, trivial, ex-reality television show host who has exhibited unprecedented vindictiveness, pettiness, cruelty, criminality, along with a complete lack of curiosity about and awareness of the world -- and who thinks the state of Colorado borders Mexico currently occupying the Oval Office, it's clear that "too young" is a ridiculous, fallacious measuring stick. I think it was Mr. Stephens who posted a column some months back about all of the Democratic contenders in which he assigned each a dis-qualifying attribute -- the point being that there is no perfect candidate out there, Michael Bloomberg (unknown and untrusted to a large swath of the people dwelling beyond the west bank of the Hudson River) included. "Too young?" Given everything else Pete Buttigieg has going for him, I say "bring it on." Bring any of it on. We must rid the land of this pestilential scourge.
4
Rich Guy Thinks He Can Win Presidency Because He's Rich
7
Gee Brett, Women are "unelectable" if they are "unlikeable"
but a completely disgusting, dishonest and "unlikeable" man is easily "electable."
Guess that's are Republican thing.
1
“ Our first Jewish president! I’m kvelling already.”
Funny how this paper as a whole is “kvelling” over the prospect of our first Jewish president, now that the Jew in question is not Bernie Sanders. The editorial party line: Sanders, as a Jew, can’t win in “flyover” country (despite wiping the floor with Clinton across most of middle America In 2016) but America will love a Jewish candidate, provided they are also a billionaire (despite the fact that Bloomberg is actually polling at 4%).
Absolutely shameful racial coding. Oh, but wait: Jews don’t count as a racial minority, according to this paper.
4
Let's talk about Bloomberg.
He supported the Iraq war.
He supported unlimited Israeli attacks in Gaza (currently being investigated for war crimes).
He supports racist laws in the US.
He supports unbridled capitalism.
Is this the man America would want to replace Trump?
5
Once again...Anyone except a competent woman.
6
Finally. Thank you for saying "Impeach the sucker." Just when I thought that common sense had left the Earth in one of Musk's wadded up balls of high-tech tinfoil.
He will never be nominated at a convention, so this is moot. The writer merely expresses ethno-identitarian solidarity which consumes his journalism. Otherwise lady macbeth has yet to enter stage right.
1
don't forget about Bloomberg's history of sexual harassment. plus look at lichtman's 13 keys. If key 6 flips, it doesn't matter who the Dems run.
Dream on folks ... think any red-blooded know-nothing evangelical will vote for a Jewish candidate? And you really think he can win without minority support? Keep dreaming.
If it ends up Bloomberg vs the goon, I'm not voting. Better to rot and hit bottom faster so we can rise sooner.
2
Bret: I don’t get to the theater very often, but I fly a lot
Oh good. Then can you Bret just fly away. Anywhere is ok, just don’t continue to besmirch the NYT. Have you considered Fox News.
2
Mayor Bloomberg is, with the arguable exception of Joe Biden, the best qualified candidate. His years of running this city are the most impressive achievement of any candidate. He has sound positions on pretty much every issue. He can afford to hang in the race while others’ resources dwindle. I hope he will be the Democratic nominee and the next President of the United States. I certainly plan to vote for him and will also contribute to his campaign to get him onto the debate stages.
3
"Today’s Democratic Party is much more ideologically left-wing than what it was in the 1990s."
I love how Bret gets to define wanting a small percentage tax on billionaires and wanting to provide a better, more secure, more humane health care system as "left-wing."
See how this country has gotten pushed to the right? It's abundantly clear.
7
It would really be nice to see a presidential candidate who did not inherent money, not the wife of an impeached president, who has been a very successful politician, vote getter, very attractive to people of color in NYC, executive in the public sector, and actually accomplished something in the private sector. What is called a mensch. That would be Bloomberg.
2
538 has a piece on Tulsi Gabbard’s support. Apparently the overwhelming majority of her supporters are men.
I was all in for Warren when I thought the center of gravity of her campaign was undoing most of that whole Reagan Revolution/Milton Friedman/Powell Memorandum thing. I’m not jumping ship because of Pocahontas - believing your parents and grandparents about family history seems normal to me - or because of likability. Her campaign is mired in stuff like Medicare for all (when the time is ripe for a public option and we can then see how that works out) and free college (when the time is ripe for going back to affordable college).
Now I’m leaning towards Senator Klobuchar. As of now I have no reason to think the “horrible boss” problem is anything more than someone with a lot of responsibility not suffering mistakes or foolishness gladly. I understand Ike and LBJ were that way. Bob Bullock, a late 20th Century Texas officeholder, was famous as a Texas patriot who was a demanding boss with a volcanic temper.
I don’t remember people treating Al Gore, John Kerry, Barack Obama, or for that matter Barry Goldwater with kid gloves and due respect. Maybe it’s time to rethink the ideas that male politicians are treated more gently than female politicians and that America won’t elect a woman.
2
Maybe I'm alone on this, but the thought of seeing Trump on a debate platform with a fellow worth fifty times as much as he is, all without a single bankruptcy or bailout from dad is too much to resist.
And that's before even mentioning a trillion dollar budget deficit. Or stealing $2M from veteran's groups.
"Little Mike" vs. "Deficit Don."
I can't wait.
5
The problem with Elizabeth Warren is her Medicare solution. Eliminating thousands of jobs in the health insurance industry will certainly insure that all those people will vote the other candidate. Telling people that they will be out of work is not a winning strategy.
3
@Greg H.
Sanders plan does the same thing.
2
To all those believing that left-leaning Democrats like Sanders or Warren can win this election, don't delude yourselves. There are simply too many Democrats who would not even vote for them due to their extremist social and economic policies. Have you read Warren's ideas on how she plans to support Medicare for all? Some of them are completely unrealistic. Democrats need someone who is fiscally wise and supports other "liberal" views such as abortion, gun control, and climate change to defeat Trump - i.e., Bloomberg could be that candidate. And since when did having a lot of money mean that a President cannot run the country with regular folks in mind? Didn't FDR have money? Yet he was still able to implement policies that supported the "average" folks. I am tired of extreme liberals touting their view that only far-left candidates who have an extreme aversion to capitalism and money are worthy of their support. Being "against" ANYONE who has a lot of money is short-sighted. Bloomberg is a self-made man and would likely be fiscally wise. He has the skills to get us out of our financial mess, rather than implementing fiscal policies that are going to make things worse. He would have my vote if the Democrats have the common sense to nominate him, which would at least give us a chance of beating Trump. IMHO Warren and Sanders will not defeat Trump - voters are not yet ready for their extreme policies.
5
@ME
I don't think any of Warren's proposals are "unrealistic". You need to expand your mind and possibilities is the problem.
5
Oh, sure, those Times predictions on electability are as right as ever.
Just ask President Hillary Clinton how it worked out for her.
6
Two points, the second is the most worrisome:
Bloomberg won’t get traction. You have to be in a bubble to believe otherwise.
Nothing will change the support for Trump among his base and most of his GOP defenders because of the clout of the amoral right wing media.
273
@Joel Sanders Trump supporters will never switch to Bloomberg; they are lost to Trump. What a Bloomberg candidacy mighty do is bring out people who would not otherwise vote. That is how David Duke was defeated twice in the 1990s. Meanwhile, I've soured on Warren and Sanders, both of whose campaigns I've previously supported as a donor. While all the attention is on raising taxes on the rich to pay for Medicare for all, I'm fed up with their lack of background on other affairs. For example: Warren flitted in to Chicago and wrecklessly trashed our new progressive mayor without understanding the local politics and went for appearances instead. And is Bernie really supporting South American dictators? Sorry, both might be able to win the nomination but not the general election. With Bloomberg, if he has a chance, it's the opposite: if he can win the nomination, he had the general election in the bag.
14
@James Joseph - Hard to believe Bloomberg can capture the core voters which every Dem since 1976 has needed to win - female African Americans.
This glaring deficiency will be partially disguised by his skipping the South Carolina primary.
10
Bret & Gail,
Your Bloomberg tête a tête fails to mention, it is Joe Biden who beats trXmp significantly beyond MOE in the swing states. Joe has the broad demographic coalition, including the AA, independent & republican-lite vote necessary to win the Electoral Vote.
Gail:
Warren holds zero appeal to this white, educated, female. Her radical healthcare, open border & ultra protectionist policies will not resonate in the general election. I don't find her persuasive nor am I impressed by the many hours she spends on selfie lines. In short, I simply dislike her. It's a disservice to turn her failings as a candidate into a feminist call to arms.
1
@Aejlex
Yes, this white women says the same thing. And really her decriminalization of border crossings, getting rid of Homeland Security (or major overhaul) getting rid of ICE (at a time when the Mexican cartels just won a showdown with the Mexican military and slaughtered 9 Americans) as well as her positions on letting prisoners vote and advocating tax payer funded sex change surgery for trans-prisoners. Next to all that the M4A is rather benign and moderate.
2
A centrist billionaire is better than a fascist one. Any day. What is his program?
I don't say I'd vote for him; however bashing someone because he's a 'billionaire' isn't reasoned or honest (att: Bernie and Elizabeth!) it's ad-hominem and what the current politics calls classist-in-reverse.
5
He should use his money to buy Fox News and fire all the nut jobs.
8
"How many Americans have an opinion about Donald Trump that isn’t already set in stone?" A lot of young and middle-aged adults with kids, a mortgage and two or more jobs have not watched Trump like Gail and Bret have--they get paid to do so. These are the people who have not made up their minds because they have not seen the evidence. They are the ones who can be swayed by public hearings--if they see even sound bites of them. We must remember that at this point in the Nixon fiasco public opinion had not coalesced against Nixon. It can still change with Trump too.
2
You all in NY City are tripping if you think anyone else cares a dribble about a Bloomberg candidacy. End of story.
4
For Gail: Etched in stone. (Set in concrete.)
2
Bloomberg should spend a billion saturating the airwaves with anti-Trump messages. Just showing Trump in his own words denigrating women, blacks, hispanics, Jews, Catholics, the handicapped etc, while praising Putin, Kim Jung Un, etc., repeated tens of thousands of times should peel off enough votes so that Trump will be blown out of the water.
95
@Alan Kaplan You mean do all that while not being a candidate himself? That would be brilliant.
10
@David Currier My thought as well.
4
@Alan Kaplan
I agree with David that it is brilliant. I immediately wondered why he's not doing this already, and I reached, at least tentatively, an unsettling answer:
Perhaps Bloomberg's liberalism is so tepid, an attachment to his billions and allegiance to the billionaire class so strong, that Mr. Bloomberg may prefer Trump to Sanders and Warren.
Maybe this ought to be the touchstone on whether Mr. Bloomberg"s candidacy in the primary should even be so much as acknowledged: even granted that he's somewhere in the center on economics and taxes... Is Bloomberg closer to Trump or to Warren and Sanders?
If Bloomberg isn't clearly closer to Warren and Sanders, he shouldn't be on the Democratic stage. Let him admit he's a Republican, whatever his feelings about guns, LGBQT....
10
Great article.
1
I love these columns.
On this specific one, I'm a Mayor Pete supporter but i would love to see Bloomberg get into the race...I see him as much stronger (at the national level) than Warren or Sanders. And he should choose Kloubcher as his running mate.
3
Bloomberg brings the right balance to the Democratic field and a much needed spark to burn the extremists.
6
Gail, Nice name that. This question is for you. Just who has ever qualified as a likeable female candidate? Angry is the traditional male adjective that is used to keep women out of power. Some of us are getting awfully long in the tooth waiting for the men to move over and let a woman do the job.
4
I so love these NYT's 'debates' or 'discussions'. Two 'opinion' columnists who could hardly agree more. Liberals (and yes, Stephens is merely a 'straw man' as far as conservative go) talking to other liberals and imagining how correct and influential their chatter is.
Outside of the elitist / globalist bubble --- not much.
3
@Ami
Haha, yes Stephens is NO conservative. He just wants to make sure the US stats in a position of global dominance. He doesn’t care about the people or our struggles. The whole socially liberal, fiscal conservative thing is the biggest hoax ever. The only people who have those positions are billionaire and multinational corps.
2
November 12, 2019
Excellent discourse on the matter of how this Trump impeachment will move forward and yet having a Bloomberg to step up to offer his talents and save the national reputation with his gentlemen sophistication and with his honor to service -
2
The Democrats were emboldened to take a floor vote on impeachment, several weeks ago, because electability polls—not impeachment polls—have turned in their favor, with a 10% edge nationally and 3% in the battleground states, according to a recent Times report. Even Democratic members of Congress from purple and red districts see their chances of reelection improving.
Voters in the heartland may poll against impeachment, but the fact of Trump’s corruption may nevertheless be seeping into the national consciousness. It’s still early days. Let’s see what the public hearings bring.
3
Defeating Donald Trump is the only thing that matters regarding the 2020 election, and it has nothing to do with policy proposals - saving our country from a mentally-unfit seven-year-old boy living in the body of a seventy-three-year-old man and restoring America's fundamental dignity around the world is the real issue at stake, and it is beyond vital. It would be nice if we could place the issue of economic inequality (along with many other issues) on the back burner until 2024, when we can (hopefully) engage in normal policy discussions about issues the way we used to.
However, for the record - Bloomberg supports making the tax code more progressive, as well as an expanding the earned income tax credit. Additionally, he was against the Tax Cut and Jobs Act of 2017. On fiscal issues surrounding working-class Americans (not to mention climate change and gun safety, two issues where he is staunchly progressive), Bloomberg is far more liberal than virtually any Republican, including the so-called "moderates" of the party. Centrist Democrats, who might also happen to be billionaires at times, are not the problem. In fact, they are not a problem at all. Grover Norquist, along with the entire Republican Party that he controls, is the real enemy at hand.
5
I am all in for Bloomberg. He is the right candidate at the right time for our country.
5
Bloomberg has two huge problems: 1) stop-and-frisk and 2) that he thinks young people are not interesting.
He still believes firmly in stop-and-frisk despite the data showing that it is, was and will be a campaign of fear and terror. With a 1-ish% rate of finding something illegal, I see now way to view it other than unconscionable. Bloomberg likes it.
He thinks young people are uninteresting and what the country needs right now is to understand how badly trickle down has failed us, especially our youth. The system needs to be fixed for the benefit of the young, and Bloomberg seems ready to come off as uninterested in what youth have to say and by extension, what they need.
Bloomberg has as good a chance as Howard Schultz.
3
Well, I think Bloomberg could hand the election to Trump. How? Well he's going to peel a lot votes off of Biden, but I don't think Bloomberg has a prayer of winning the primary.
Maybe Bernie drops out, in which case Warren wins the primary by a landslide. Even if Bernie stays in, I think Biden fades and loses votes to Bloomberg and Warren wins.
In the general election, Warren gets crushed by Trump, one-two-barbecue. Trump and his ilk are prolly warming up and practicing their Native American racial epithets even as I write this!
Many writing here are predicting a trump victory should the Democrats insist on going to much further left.
I am horrified by 4 more years of the orange menace, but even more horrified that he'll choke on piece of KFC and leave us with "my wife is my mother" pence.
I'm retiring in 2022 and this election is going to decide where I reside. Because when the governing party has trampled every vestige of American principles, it's time to find another home. Luckily for me, I like cold weather and Canada is just up the road.
3
How does Mike Bloomberg do better in a general election than Joe Biden? Does he have better name recognition? Is he a better candidate? Does he have stronger appeal to working class and minority voters? To more conservative voters?
The answer is no. Plus I don't think the American people are crying out for a race between two rich old white men from New York.
4
Well put Brett. Impeach the sucker. And while at it, Lock him up.
5
Good grief! Another article with Bret Stephens a conservative Republican pontificating about the Democrats! How about you and Ross Douthat concentrate on your own party, Bret?! How about calling the Republicans to step up and uphold their oaths, support the impeachment of this criminal president?!
I know....crickets!
2
Bloomberg.
Yawn.
Turn page now.
3
Yes, Impeach The Sucker! Count me in!
3
Bloomberg siding with Wall Street after the financial crisis was a great disappointment for me. Elizabeth Warren is 100% right that the rules are tilted in favor of the wealthy, allowing them to accrue disproportionate wealth, sometimes at the expense of the middle and working class. This is not an extreme opinion. It is reality. Unregulated capitalism heavily rewards those with wealth - whether people or corporations - and evenRepublicans like Bret, who are disgusted by Trump's self dealing - are apparently OK with gov't operating the same way - on behalf of the wealthy. Why else aren't these never Trumper's incensed at Trump's failure to release his tax returns?
As for those polls showing Warren's unelectability - I went from depressed to angry pretty quickly. The Democratic candidates haven't campaigned in most of those states yet, so basing your judgement on who is electable at this point is like deciding on a verdict before one side has even presented their argument. It is outrageous, and basically amounts to an effort to discourage Democrats from even making the case for their values and approach.
Does Gail really believe people's opinions on Trump are set in stone? I have been doing canvassing in NH, and there are plenty of people there who haven't yet formed an opinion on the candidates, or say they are not "political" or don't normally vote.
I don't think Trump supporters truly understand that he is a cheater who is cheating them.
2
Impeach the Sucker works! Count me in!
1
Truly one of my favorite Opinion sections in NYT. Both perspectives are utterly enjoyable, always, regardless of agreeing with either or not.
I for one think Bloomberg would trounce Trump precisely for the reasons Mr. Stephens sites.
If given a chance, I will vote for him.
1
Americans, especially Trump's core (40% of the electorate) must ask themselves "Is Trump's version of America, an America that reneges on its commitments to allies, an America that debases her men & women serving in the military in front line positions by quickly withdrawing them and leaving allies to their fate, an America that will soon be working to deport 700,000 persons who were brought here as children & 90% of whom are employed and educated, an America that rolls back basic safety measures (EPA) that provide air and water free of hazardous levels of well documented toxic substances (e.g. lead, cadmium, sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, nitrates) . . .Americans need to consider what is best for the nation as a whole?
Another 4 years of Trump-Pence, what will remain?
@Jim I believe Trump’s core is motivated primarily by anger and hatred of the left. Your list of American values currently under siege by the White House is meaningless to them. And Fox News aims to keep it that way.
4
I agree that people should love Michael Bennet. I wish he could get more attention from Democrats.
3
Loved the Santana vs Axl Rose line.
1
Colins: "It’s kind of exhausting to be thinking about Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden every single day. "
If you are thinking about him every day, how about WRITING about him? Looking back six months, I don't see a single column by you that is primarily about Sanders.
3
@Nick , are you sure you want that?
Where did they hide the gong from the Gong Show? We have seen enough of the Don's performance to send him packing.
1
There is no way that Bloomberg can appeal to all the voters he needs to get the nomination. I'm no radical, but I surely see that the last person we need as president is one who will never, I repeat never, restore oversight of monopolistic behavior or Wall Street excess, or most important, work for tax reform so that he and his ilk (a favorite word!) pay their fair share! That goes for corporations, too, not just the gazillionaires.
1
I'm struck by a critical oversight on Bret's and Gail's parts. I agree that Bloomberg is a strong supporter of many issues important to all Democrats. I agree that he has the potential to be a good president. I agree that if he were the nominee
he could rally Democratic "moderates," independents, and never-Trump and defeat Trump. But he will never be the nominee. What will happen if he decided to run is that his candidacy would split the so-called "moderate" vote with Buttigieg, Biden, and Klobuchar and hand the nomination to Sanders or Warren. And I don't think either of them could defeat Trump. It's the socialism thing. And Bret, as you once said, you would not be able to vote for Sanders. Which means millions of never-Trump (or almost never-Trump) Republicans would make the same decision. How could you two fine people overlook this likelihood If Bloomberg jumps in?
3
Democrats will NOT vote for Bloomberg just because he shares their values on reproductive rights, gun control, and climate. On fiscal/economic matters. Mr. Bloomberg is not a moderate when it comes to fiscal/economic matters. He is far to the right of all 5 leading Democratic candidates. His views pretty much reflect the Republican line, a party which is also now more ideologically right-wing than previously.
At the Democratic convention, no candidates name should be allowed to be entered into nomination unless and until they have released an unedited copy of at least their last 3- 5 years tax returns. So far, Mr. Bloomberg has given no indication of a willingness to do this.
2
Thank you Gail and Brett for taking a few moments to have a polite conversation about people and politics. Keep up the good work. Please!
3
How well did being an "electable moderate" work for Hillary? What makes people think it will go differently a second time?
I will simply vote for the candidate that I want to win. As should everyone else. I'm tired of the "electability" talking point. Trump may well have been the least "electable" candidate ever by most standards, yet here we are.
5
Bret: "Today’s Democratic Party is much more ideologically left-wing than what it was in the 1990s."
No.
The right-wing has moved so far in the reactionary direction that it only looks like the Dems have moved.
It is an optical illusion.
The rest of the developed world has universal health care, which Stevens abhors Warren & Bernie for. It's in the very center, worldwide, not radically left-wing. It's Steven's views that are so skewed.
12
Bloomberg knows he will not get the minority vote, and if he runs anyway, he is counting on Democrats turning their backs on a large part of the population. If that's not divisive politicking, I don't know what is.
3
I'll be very interested to see how Bloomberg does in Iowa and NH. If California were an early primary state he'd be gone in a New York minute. So many democrats are such punishing purists. The epitome of self-defeating. Even Bernie made over a million dollars in 2016 and 2017. The USA is a brutal, cold, capitalist country. Critiques of the system are needed. Change is long overdue. But to deny the fact that every dime that gets deposited into a bank is directly linked to the whims of the stock market is to deny the reality of America. We are a capitalist country. It sucks but its true.
1
Hey, Gail and Bret:
How about we not talk about Bloomberg. Ever again. Starting now.
4
Bloomberg is a crony capitalist of the highest order. It's true, he can't be bought with cash, but he can be bought with the gratitude and admiration of others in his class; being considered as first among equals has long been his goal. Bloomberg rezoned huge swaths of prime NYC riverfront property and doled them to his cronies in the real estate cabal like a feudal lord granted provinces, and for the same reasons. When Goldman Sachs made the absurdly hollow threat of moving their HQ to Jersey City, Bloomberg apparently was the only person on Earth who actually believed them, and gifted Lloyd Blankfein a billion dollars in subsidies to "remain". Whether a politician is bought with a wad of thousand dollar bills, or a cupcake they are still corrupt. Bloomberg has made it quite clear where his loyalties lie, and we should take him at his word. The man is dangerous.
7
You think Bloomberg would be "a uniter in an age of division", and that Elizabeth Warren’s policies are "radical"?!!! What kind of parallel universe are you living in?
Winston Churchill is supposed to have said "America always does the right thing, after it has tried out all the alternatives". I know he was talking about other stuff, but I have to be an optimist and hope that someday soon Americans will end this silliness, and realise as they have before, that socialism is a big part of the answer to their problems. Idolising hoarders of wealth and tolerating monopolies is the cause of those problems, and certainly not the solution.
I also find this section curious: "Trump won the last election thanks to a perception by many average Americans that the coastal elites looked down on them. And Bloomberg is not a guy who suffers fools gladly." So basically you're saying average Americans are fools!
With this sort of thinking it's hardly surprising Trump won last time, and since no lessons seem to have been learned, I guess we can look forward to another 4 years, if we can survive them.
7
PS. Joe Biden leads all of his competitors with African-Americans, which are the largest Democratic outing block. IF Mike Bloomberg wins and becomes the nominee, the African American community will not turn out in large numbers. So, Bloomberg throws the election to Trump!
NOPE, stay home Mike.
2
remember 1968 when the Democrats got Richard Nixon elected?
1
I usually expect much more from Gail but this stuff is weak. And Bret? He seems to have a command of popular music and little else. Many empty words here. Waste of time.
1
I'm with Bret on this one. He did say he was voting for Carlos Santana, right? First hispanic President!
First President to be sworn in wearing a Che Guevara inspired tux. I can see it now.........
2
Bloomberg & Buttigieg: It's time.
1
@Jon Bloomberg & Buttigieg: It's time... to vote for Trump.
I too like Amy K. and don't understand why more people don't. She is spirited, open hearted, honest, and smart without being condescending. Warren isn't condescending either but one senses that she has to work at it. Anyway, she is too progressive to gain the support of enough Americans to overcome the divisiveness that has taken hold of us. The Dems won't have achieved much if all they do is pull a 'reverse Trump' on the other half of the population. Mayor Pete is wonderful and never boring but who is he going to waltz with at the Inaugural Ball? Cory is not contrived so much as over wrought. Still, very likable and would do well in the Oval. As for Bloomberg, his money doesn't bother me so much as his lack of experience as a normal person [i.e. someone with an auto loan]. I could never vote for a man who has never pushed a cart down the aisles of his local grocery store.
2
Why not waltz with Chasten? His husband could learn the part the same as he could.
1
Pretty sure Mayor Pete would dance with his husband.
Presidential politics? Whatever. Instead, I take issue with Stephens' comment:
"Comparing Bloomberg to Giuliani is like comparing Carlos Santana to Axl Rose: One of them definitely did not get better with age."
Just as a reminder to Bret Stephens, Axl Rose is still in the midst of one of the most profitable tours in music history. Santana can occasionally sell out the Beacon. Pffffttt!
25
I mostly agree, but my feeling is that Stephens forgot to insert ',yet.' at the end of that sentence.
As if profitability trumps musicality
13
"Gail: Not going to divert us with a comment on today’s Republican Party. Go on."
Wonderful. The verbal equivalent of a pointed look.
3
Do you want to change the narrative? Then stop saying "Quid Pro Quo" and use Extortion and Bribery. The latter are impeachable offenses that all Americans understand. Quid Pro Quo? Not so much.
11
For Gail, you are not alone. I delete everything too, but it doesn't stop the junk mail. I'm just tidy.
I volunteered for him during his third Mayoral campaign. He is a class act. I would volunteer for him for any position for which he would choose to run.
From the stage the night of his acceptance, he first thanked the women in his life. Is that class or what?
He led New York well. He briefed us in both Spanish and English whenever there was a major incident the City.
I’d vote for him happily.
4
Bloomberg has adopted the Rosie Ruiz strategy. All current Democratic candidates are going train their guns on Mike.
Also, it's not just fools he doesn't suffer gladly, it's anyone outside his coterie. Notoriously short fused and easy pickings for rival candidates.
He would however, make an excellent candidate for Emperor.
2
Pretty sure "considerably enriched" isn't a pun, Bret. What's next, "It's hard to tell whom is going to run"?
Sorry bedbug, but voting with our hearts and voting with our heads intersect at Elizabeth Warren.
5
Whether or not I see the 'facility' of Mr. Stephen's reference ... "Comparing Bloomberg to Giuliani is like comparing Carlos Santana to Axl Rose: One of them definitely did not get better with age" … it made me think that one vote and then another for trump would be like favoring first Milli and then Vanilli for election to The Rock 'n Roll Hall of Fame.
Gail ? Really ?
How good here was at his job?
After his 12 years as mayor
the transit system and public housing both hit lows ?
Along with miles and miles of empty retail store fronts.
Sorry no he only worked for the 1 % and was proud of it.
6
Gail and Bret - You guys are forgetting that the Democrats don't vote as a block. There is a serious divide between those over 40 or so and those under. It is possible that this old white man you propose will be no better at getting their vote than the other old white man, and I don't think anyone can be elected without them.
1
“Bret: As for my political forecasts, I’ve learned over the years that they aren’t worth much more than a bag of dirt.”
That’s been my observation too Bret
6
Retail politics is not just about seeming to find mere voters interesting or admiring butter sculptures while eating corn dogs. It is demonstrating some understanding of other (lesser?) lives. I have a vivid memory of Mayor Bloomberg at the dedication of the Whitehall Ferry Terminal in 2005. The old one burned in 1991 (the architect called the new terminal his "bar mitzvah" building). The mayor noted the escalators and elevators and advised Staten Islanders not to use them, presumably so they could remain healthy and slim, like him. For 14 years, ferry riders had been held hostage by political games (thank you, Mayor Giuliani and Borough President Molinari). Many were quite adept at running for the boat, sprinting up the stairs, dashing for the closing slip door. But other ferry riders were struggling with strollers and small children or were heading home exhausted from jobs that were physically demanding, or simply dealing with the effects of aging. Bloomberg wants to avoid retail politics because he is lousy at it. So, that's who Democrats should put up against Trump? No, thanks. I'll up my monthly contribution to Elizabeth Warren.
8
People seem to forget that Bloomberg manipulated the system to get himself an illegal 3rd term as mayor of NYC.
Given that you hear rumblings of "what if Trump won't leave the White House if he's defeated and/or at the end of his 2nd term" I'd say Bloomberg has proven that he is willing to ignore the LAW on that issue, so if he got elected (and lived long enough) we might be facing Bloomberg wanting to remain president beyond an 8-year limit. He's already done it once - no reason to think he wouldn't try it again!
8
The easiest way for a billionaire to do good is to spend some of their billions doing good. They typically only spend smalls pittances (as a percent of their wealth) as a way of signaling their virtue, while maintaining their robber baron methods.
They will not spend their money to do good, so they do not want to do good. They want to get more wealth because they have an illness that makes them need more and more and more and it is never enough. The fact that they are so animated now that Warren and Sanders are doing fairly well in terms of supports just illustrates that point.
I do realize that the people will vote for serfdom every time, since they are brainwashed cult members, but I do like that the billionaires are whining like the little babies that they are. If
I were to lose 90% of what I have I would be devastated financially. If a billionaire loses 90% they will still have 100 million dollars. If both occurred, it would be the billionaire who would be crying.
Liberalism will die because the people prefer slavery to freedom. The people prefer a cruel master to the results of their own poor decisions. They want a king so that they do not have to think. Sure, they whine a lot, but they will never have the courage to stand up for truth or the law or justice. They don't actually want that anyway.
3
@Chris
"They want a king so that they do not have to think. " Are you sure you're talking about liberals?
1
I think the non-billionaire people supporting Mayor Bloomberg are kidding themselves. The billionaires have a candidate who is probably more palatable than the possibly-fake billionaire currently in place. Everyone else has ... what, exactly?
5
Bloomberg can't be a "sure thing" and "the only moderate that can beat Trump" AND need to learn retail politics, mend relationship with African-American voters, find a late path to even win the nomination, and ....
With all those negatives, how could he be better than Joe Biden?
7
If African Americans will not vote for Bloomberg or Warren or Mayor Pete, they are dooming themselves and everyone else to four more years of Trump, which actually hurts Blacks and Latinos far more than whites. We simply cannot afford identity politics in 2020. The stakes are far too high.
3
@VCS, if you don't want identity politics, don't nominate a candidate who has already alienated a third of the party.
4
Why do we keep hearing the media trumpet that Pete Buttigieg is too young? Too young for what - retirement? He's a mature adult, phrases his sentences completely and completes his thoughts (compared to current POTUS and others), has conviction and has good ideas with substantive support to everything he says. Who started this 'too young' thing anyway? Was JFK too young when elected? Does 6 year gap make the difference to call one too young and the other just right? Stop, just stop writing and saying this in all media, because that's what everyone does these days, repeat what the media says, and not think for themselves.
Let's think who is the best candidate in substance and conviction. Why isn't the media screaming that Joe Biden is too old? How is it realistic to elect leaders from our grandparents' generation - they don't think like us, they don't feel like us, yet they speak for us, make decisions of global magnitude for us and we live with the consequences. Maybe it's time the youth of this country take a stand and vote for someone who truly represents them, who believes that healthcare and education are human rights, not a privilege.
And maybe Michael Bloomberg will pull it off - wouldn't that be wonderful, but not before the Democratic Party shifts a little to the middle, keeping all it's integrity to deal with climate change, and gun control, and racial divisiveness. That smidge to the center will serve them a long way....just saying.
6
So tired of hearing the media say “of course Mayor Pete is great but he is too young”
Why is that a bad thing? Why so dismissive? Why aren’t more reports saying the exact opposite?
Bernie has had a heart attack, he is too old. Elizabeth Warren is too old and young women don’t like her. Biden is too old and comes with so much baggage. Why are members of Congress hanging on to power well into their 80’s? Democrat and Republican leadership is well past their prime.
It is time to let a younger generation lead.
3
All the kids voted for young, hip Bernie Sanders in 2016. So much for that theory.
4
The “too young” comments are so unbelievably dismissive. Buttigieg served in Afghanistan, has executive experience, forms coherent sentences, and passes the age limit required by our constitution.
What exactly is the magical qualification that he needs to get taken seriously by the media? I dare them to try to answer that and then apply the same rules to the current president.
3
I think Stephens makes the false assumption the far left is going to turn up and vote for any Democratic candidate, even a centrist one. Interviews I've heard with Bernie and Warren voters indicate otherwise and they sure didn't in 2016.
5
If the far left stays home next November because the Democratic nominee is not Warren or Sanders, they have just given Trump 4 more years and our republic considerably less.
4
@Paul Baker I like Bloomberg but I think one of his weaknesses is he will fail to attract fewer from the far left than Buttigieg or even Biden.
1
In a president, moral virtue comes to evaporate in the heat of the job. I really don't trust the sanctity of any of the Democratic virtue-bearers, especially those with pie-in-the-sky ideas of economic redistribution. Bloomberg might be quite adequate -- the cold captain at the tiller. And oh by the way -- quite a bit of cash in his wallet.
@Fred , if you're a democrat, you're in the wrong party. The "mock virtue, love money" party is the one where that avatar of the seven deadly sins huddles in the West Wing over his cell phone. If that's the "cold" Bloomberg's way, too, he should run on the republican ticket.
When reporters interviewed working class Trump supporters waiting in line outside his rallies, they said the same thing over and over again: Trump couldn't be bought. They saw him as a unicorn, someone rich enough to eschew the other wealthy elite yet somehow identifying with their working class values.
They were wrong about the latter part, but at least Trump talked the part. He talked about how wages had stagnated for a few decades. He even at least once said that hedge-fund managers would have to pay more in taxes. (He didn't deliver on that, but he campaigned on it.)
And here comes Bloomberg, the avatar of the wealthy elite East-coaster. He's polite, reasonably charming. He'd never talk like Trump.
And those stagnating wages; the profit produced by increased worker productivity went right to people like Bloomberg, the Wall Street masters of the universe. And then they crashed the world economy and blamed on working class people who wanted to own a home.
The idea that Bloomberg would win independents in the middle America is absurd. He's exactly what they don't want.
Bret Stephens hasn't yet figured out why Trump beat every other Republican nominee, and then Hillary. He doesn't understand why Obama beat Hillary and then McCain and Romney. He doesn't understand why AOC beat Crowley.
4
Wait...Bloomberg is a republican. And a majority of the political media now promoting him so effusively are actually lifelong republicans who got their party snatched away from them while they weren’t looking. I get it. It is human nature for these lost sheep to now demand that the Democrats nominate an old style republican, using the time tested cliche that their candidate offers the most likely road to victory. We lifelong Democrats say to them, go build your own party. You can’t have ours.
17
The truth is that the average voter isn't really up to the task of electing the best people to office. Today, the Democrats were blaming both Johnson and Nixon for the Vietnam War, totally leaving out the fact that it was John F. Kennedy that sent advisers into the country, and then through the MAAG program in 1963, he had sent 16,000 troops there before he died. So, if we ignore the whole truth about understanding history, those who are running, and what their ideology is, we miss the opportunity to have both competent government, honest government, and limited, but necessary foreign policy abroad. If you fast forward to why people voted for two terms for both George W. Bush, and two terms for Barack Obama, and one is honest about their abilities, especially when it comes to foreign policy, and war, neither one had any experience at all in that arena. Then the fact that there policies allowed millions to be killed, millions of refugees left on the doorstep of Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and western Europe with trillions spent, still being spent, it was all a horrific disaster. A limited mission of two years in Afghanistan with enough troops on the ground would of done the job, and no false mission into Iraq. A moderate like Michael Bloomberg is not timid, but he understands policy implications for the long run, and is interested, not in his own ideology, but in solving problems, maintaining order around the world, through first diplomacy, and then short military missions.
2
A question for Bret, and at the same time Bloomberg and Gates: how can one seriously reduce inequality without creating an economy where billionaires' fortunes are heavily reduced, and/or in which the rules of the game are changed to make such wealth formation impossible? If you can't reconcile yourself to serious redistribution, you can't really propose any meaningful remedies to inequality.
6
Stephens maintains that Democrats will vote for Bollmberg "because he isn’t Trump, and because he shares their core values when it comes to reproductive rights, gun control and climate change."
Important values, to be sure. Unlike many in the commentariat, however, Warren and Sanders understand they become less important when many, many families can no longer count of the basics that defined the middle class standard of living: home ownership, quality medical care, and affordable education.
Under both Democratic and Republican administrations, these once-stable standards of living have suffered immensely since 1980. America needs a president who can successfully challenge the concentrations of private wealth and influence that make candidates like Trump and Bloomberg possible.
9
I'm tired of hearing how Democrats need to cater to the alleged center, as the Republicans for years have been moving further to the right, and have moved the goalposts for what counts as centrist so far that the current definition of a centrist, i.e Biden and Bloomberg, is now equal to where Republicans were in the 80's.
We rarely see Republicans catering to centrism. Instead, they double down on their agenda, even if it appeals to less than 45% of the country, and they win by rallying turnout and exciting the base. Republicans have figured out that confidence and unwavering devotion is more effective in rallying the vote than compromise. Democrats have not.
I've had it. I'm tired of getting burned by the feckless Democratic party. I'm tired of voting for Democrats only to get traditional Republican policy dressed up as Democratic. For instance, In '09-10, Democrats, with unprecedented super majorities, abandoned a Public Option out of fear of being labeled socialist. Democrats then proceeded to adopt subsidies for the purchase of for-profit health insurance, a Republican plan developed by the Heritage Foundation in the 90's. The result? Republicans labeled Democrats socialists anyway, and Democrats were clobbered in the '10 mid-terms. Our health premiums have increased continued +~6% per year well beyond inflation and now cost over $20,000 per year for a family plan.
Sorry, but a "Not Republican" candidate is not a good enough reason for me or anyone to vote Democrat.
10
“It’s her radical policies and unelectability that worry me”
Taken as a whole, I think most political analysts consider French voters to be on the conservative side, and inclined to vote with their “wallets,” Well, after decades of universal affordable healthcare and other progressive schemes of the kind Elizabeth Warren would like to bring to ordinary Americans, Brett would have a hard time convincing the people here that such policies are “radical” and extremist. They should be as normal as they are in most western democracies.
13
Bloomberg would wipe the floor with Trump in a general election match up. But that's not going to happen. The hard left is firmly in the driver's seat in this Democratic party and they are in full blown 1972 mode. Has anyone paused to ask why the GOP has been so very quiet during the Democratic debates and primary battles so far? Napoleon Bonaparte once observed "Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake. It's bad manners." The GOP is busy recording all of the insane promises and one liners from the various Democratic would be presidents who are campaigning as though the only states they need to carry are California and New York. I expect them to start hitting the playback button right around the time of the convention.
Trump may be unpopular, but Warren and Sanders are so far outside the political mainstream they will drive the political center and otherwise disaffected Republicans back into the Trump camp. If either of them is the nominee I predict Trump will be re-elected carrying somewhere around 40 states (give or take maybe two).
4
@John C. Completely disagree. The upper midwest (or those swing states everyone likes to talk about) is firmly in the Bernie or progressive camp. They are the ones that rejected Hillary and voted 3rd party because they are tired of centrist, corporate (and in Bloomberg's case, former Republican) candidates who have consistently passed policy that puts them in the poor house. Trump knew this and used it to pick up disenchanted voters. Run another milquetoast candidate and you just might have Trump again. Give the people something to vote FOR that isn't a wall street lacky, and you will win those swing states with huge margins. Just look at the rally sizes of the progressives compared to the centrists.
(Also- do we really need another New Yorker who switched parties to get elected? And one who ignored term limits so that he could stay in power? Isn't one NYC mayor mucking up the White House enough for a few years?)
3
The key to political power for the Democrats is to seek common ground with a majority of the American people.
2
So having heard, seen, and considered the democratic field go through the harrowing campaign thus far, it's time for a white male billionaire to cut in line. I don't like stereotypes, but the symbolism of that really does reflect the spirit of the times. I am worried about running progressives--but just when will we turn from the crushing of our nation in the grip of the wealthy? We can't go on losing ground. The days are near that massive poverty will come--the destruction of pensions, a fair minimum wage, full-time work, and more ensure it. All to make over 600 billionaires comfortable, not to mention the millionaires whose hired helpers work tirelessly to get them more. At some point, we will have to change the course we're on--before we can't. It may be time to tell the billionaire line-cutter no. We need to tell a lot of them no. I'm now leaning toward Warren. Thanks to Bloomberg for helping me decide.
201
@jb
Oh, ok. As opposed to two white millionaires. Yes, the progressive candidates are just two regular joe’s drinking coffee at the dinner. Please!
3
@jb I'm a Bernie fan, but I'm shifting to Warren day by day. I think Pete is too young and I feel his proposals are too timid - he fears to challenge the status quo, that he might appear too progressive. And I wonder about his ties to Wall Street which I feel must be reined in.
5
@Kaylee , there's no comparison of relative wealth there. Not worth pretending there is. That said, it's not about just personality. It's the clear differences in whom their policies will aid that matter. People who work multi-jobs and struggle, people whose professions were made contingent-- or those who use their power of wealth to cut in line and take profit of everything they can. The progressive candidates are the only ones I see committed to facing and fighting a wealth class that is out of control.
7
Billionaires, can't stand the fact that the others might benefit, from a real tax hike, it's the reason, they are not in favor or any kind of tax, selfish and sadistic....
2
How is it more radical for Warren, or Sanders, to propose health insurance for all of US than for t rump and his republican party to propose taking health care away from millions of US?
But I am sure that Stephens would not have been a fan of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, either.
14
As past Mayor of NYC he should chose his successor DiBlasio as his running mate so he can learn how to drop out of the race.
1
@Danny Boy Or ask his predecessor how to "get in" to the White House. Enough of these NYC mayors!
I can't think of a better candidate to beat Trump.
Yes, he's from New York - so is/was Trump. Yes he's very wealthy (about 17 times Trump's net worth). Yes, he's brash and doesn't suffer fools - Sounds like Trump without the self aggrandizement.
Now the other side is that Bloomberg didn't come from wealth, he earned it the old fashioned way. Isn't that what Trump's base wants? A candidate who pulled himself up by his own bootstraps.
Sure he has the "stop-and-frisk" legacy, but most of that doesn't register with the average voter outside NY.
Bloomberg's biggest obstacle will be filling the Vice Presidential slot.
Given his skill and personality, Bloomberg will fill that slot with someone who helps overcomes the far left distrust of anyone born before 1990 and who can be groomed to run and win in 2024 and 2028.
My perfect candidate - always and always will be.
5
@William
Amy Klobuchar was born long before 1990, but at 59 seems young in comparison to Biden, Sanders, Trump and even Warren. IMHO she would be the ideal Bloomberg running mate.
1
Yes if it is Bloomberg vs Trump, I will vote for Mike. But I can't see my vote ever going to Mike in the Primary. Heck, I'd vote for the other billionaire, what's his name, begins with a S or something, good enough for me!
Re: Elizabeth Warren: it may be objective to talk about whether or not her policies are "radical."
When you come to "electability," however, you enter the squishy area of what will OTHER people think of someone... which allows entry of all kinds of sexist concepts like "likeability," "does she look like a leader," etcetera. Let's leave that out of this conversation, for now.
I still want Al Franken. In spite of the #MeToo accusations, that Jane Mayer dealt with so well in the New Yorker, I think he could win. He's smart, liberal and at least as (if not more) media savvy than Trump. If only ....
1
@Nancy
The July 22 New Yorker had an excellent investigative article detailing how Sens. Gillibrand and Schumer railroaded Franken out of the Senate without a fair investigation of the facts.
Yes, his shtick was to be a lecherous creep, but people voted for him spite of that.
"Beating Trump would be the easy part"?
You cannot be serious.
He won't get the nomination, but if he did he would not win back any of the rust belt states that Clinton lost, and additionally he would likely lose a bunch of others that Clinton won.
He would get trounced.
And your "kvelling" because he's Jewish? I'm a Jew, and I couldn't care less what he is, we need somebody to beat Trump, and he isn't it.
5
On the contrary. For all the sturm und drang of the on-line Left, have whites suffered materially under Trump?
"Impeach the sucker". For a return to decency, honesty, respect for America and Americans Where can I buy the hat?
3
It is becoming more and more depressing that the Democrat's apparent death wish may hand the election to our worst President, who threatens our society. You had me until the last sentence, though. Impeach the sucker? He's not the sucker, that's the American electorate.
3
I'm all for this Bloomberg run.
2
What the neck, Gail, I don't expect Bret to mention Kamala Harris but I'm shocked you didn't - especially when talking about African American appeal - and Kamala Harris just picked up major endorsements from Higher Heights and AKA. This is erasure of a major Black candidate and it's unacceptable whether it's in a news article or an opinion/humor piece. Do better.
Bret is right, impeach the sucker. Both Gail and Bret miss something that has glared at us from the beginning of Trump presidency, which is, his son in law Jared a Kushner, with no experience whatsoever was given full security clearance and allowed to free willy nilly do whatever he wanted to do, supposedly in the pursuit of peace in the Middle East. No questions ever asked and those who dared to, found themselves outside the WH gates before they could say Javanka! Are you both asleep?
3
If we are only going to elect old rich white guys then we should take a look at one of the Koch brothers. A much better scenario.
"I also see Bloomberg easily winning Florida. Our first Jewish president! I’m kvelling already."
Well, Bernie Sanders would also be our first Jewish president. Still kvelling, Bret?
6
If he's in, Bloomberg should be an easy winner on he merits, but look where that got Hilary. A 77 year old Jewish billionaire from New York with a history of "stop and frisk" approval will have little appeal to large segments of the voting public. Unfor-tunetly prejudices run deep in our country. Dem's need voter turnout. He's not the candidate to do it.
1
Bret and Gail: What a great column! Hats off to both of you.
Bret's 'someone', Shakespeare, also said (slightly altered):
Pluck down my officers, break my decrees;
For now a time is come to mock at form-
(CurrentOccupant) is crown'd. Up, vanity:
Down, royal state. All you sage counsellors, hence.
And to the (American) court assemble now,
From every region, apes of idleness.
The most loyal and long suffering base of the Democratic Party is black African American. Particularly black African American Protestant females.
And the lesson that Democrats 'learned' from Mrs. William Jefferson Clinton's loss to Mr. Melania Knavs Trump was to have a triumvirate of white European America Judeo-Christian70+ year old's polling at the top of their primary candidate team. Along with the long closeted 37 year old mayor of the 4th largest city in Mike Pence's Indiana.
Biden twice crashed and burned on take-off seeking to be POTUS. Bernie lost his place in line and has a bad heart. Harvard Professor Warren already stumbled and fell into the Trump buffoon caricature trap. Michael Bloomberg is a 70 + year old dwarf political partisan chameleon.
America is not a business and the President is not a businessman.
America is a nation state and the President is the head of government and state.
Neither condescending paternalistic liberal white pity nor condescending paternalistic conservative white contempt accepts the divine diverse individual accountable humanity of black Africans in America.
1
There is no such thing as Judeo-Christian. You're either Jewish or Christian--not both.
1
"Bloomberg won nearly half the American-American vote in 2005"?......2005? A Bush or a Clinton could have easily won an election back then too.
That's before stop and frisk's evil zenith
Before Black Lives Matter
Before the economic crash
Before the bailouts
Before Occupy Wall Street
Before that stolen third term
Before Sandy
Before Ferguson
Before Me Too
Bret, either you think, (unlike white men), people of color, women and (non-white) working class people don't evolve or don't age, or are simply stupid.
2
"I also see Bloomberg easily winning Florida. Our first Jewish president! I’m kvelling already.
Gail: He’d be the first-whole-bunch-of-things. Time for a change!"
As far as all that goes, Bernie could be our first Jewish president and our first-whole-bunch-of-things.
4
Jeez, like Bloomberg much? I feel like these Gail-Bret comments are Bret mansplaining and Gail commenting. I'd like to see the opposite happen sometime, where Gail states her opinion first and Bret responds. Maybe then I wouldn't have to read such fawning over a billionaire who sold New York out to developers and set the police on its black population....
1
Bret sure loves his plutocrats. How about he takes some time off and go fix his party the GOP, before trying to remake the Democrats. As he said his opinions are "worth a bag of dirt."
1
Jeez another white guy over 75. I'd prefer him over Biden or Sanders, but that doesn't say much.
Indeed, impeach and remove.
Stephens’ belief a Bloomberg would win Florida is without foundation. Partially Jewish Miami Beach is not the state of Florida. Bloomberg won’t appeal to Latino voters any more than he does to African- American voters ( and you can’t “mend” a bridge that’s never been built). Bloomberg will not read like anything but an arrogant New York rich guy anywhere in the US outside NYC —that is clearly a tag of his that bears some truth. I’m also concerned that nominating a landsman, whether Bloomberg or Sanders - will unleash a torrent of first covert then overt anti-Semitism. Beyond that, Trump is considerably taller than Bloomberg, and Americans, I’m sad to say, stupidly vote for height.
1
I wish Gail would run for POTUS.
1
" . . . the poll that we published last week — the one showing Trump competitive with, or beating, Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders in six battleground states. . . . "
What battleground states, ? Does this mean Trump v. biden, Warrren and Sanders together or separate? What the heck does any of this mean and, it is almost a year before the actual election. Surely people who write for a newspaper know how what they say often influences what other people do. . . ?
In 2016, the NYTimes "prediction" comparing the election with a football field goal kick & it's odds of completion-or something similar-convinced millions of voters to not bother voting for the Democrats, who, they felt, had "sold out" to Wall st. by taking its money and , by having lunch with some of them.
By now, it ought to be obvious that the better part of being a responsible newspaper writer is not to make people more confused than they already are.
However, It seems the Times and it's stable , having discovered the power of the pen-have merely "doubled down" and are trying to be more influential than they think the Russkis were.
A curse on all your houses!
Remarkably out of touch conversation.
1
Dems: We need to set some ground rules for former Republicans trying to find a home in Democrat’s house.
While it’s great that former Republicans are finally seeing that their party is a total wreck, where were they when their party was heading off the cliff? It’s totally understandable that homeless Republicans would seek a new home. However, if they want to move in with Democrats, they need to understand they don’t get to set the rules.
The pundit class if full of former Republicans lamenting the fact that Dems seem to be leaning toward progressive candidates. That’s what Dems do. If Republicans want a party that actually functions as a true conservative party, they shouldn’t have let their own party go to hell and a hand basket.
Take some time off, former Republicans! You guys messed up your own house. Maybe it’s time to figure out what you did wrong, instead of trying to mess up our house. You’re welcome to join us, but don’t try to take charge without first figuring out why Dems are so excited about progressive candidates.
1
Bloomberg/Klobuchar would be an unstoppable ticket, in light of Klobuchar's moderateness, midwesternness, and femaleness. I was very impressed with the way she stood up to Kavanaugh's evasiveness during his hearings, without grandstanding. At 77, we have to consider the odds that Bloomberg won't make it to 2025, and at 59 Klobuchar would be able to step in easily.
5
socialism - any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods... Merriam Webster dictionary.
So how do any of the ideas promoted by any of the Democrat candidates come even close to socialism? US production is privately controlled and distributed but by and large, services are seen as a public responsibility. Emergency services, roads, public infrastructure, military defense, weather forecasting, regulation of critical activities which history has demonstrated are unable to regulate themselves. I could go on but you get the point. Heath care is an outlier in that it is a warped construct that puts this service in the private realm and considers it a profit enterprise much to the expense of its recipients.
Even the Scandinavian countries most often considered socialist aren't even close as the production and distribution of goods is privately controlled for profit. I guess the closest we could come would be the Soviet Bloc which tried and failed but nobody I know has even come close to suggesting that kind of experiment. It is a simple fact that there are some services that public institutions are simply better at but that doesn't make them socialist.
Bret makes the excellent point that Bloomberg's financial support could help flip the Senate and potentionally increase the Democratic majority in the House. This would be of huge significance in actually implementing Democratic policies, and undoing the damage wrought by the Trump and the GOP. But if Warren won the Presidency and the Republicans still controlled the Senate during her term, how many of her plans would actually happen?
Choosing between Bloomberg and Warren (or Bloomberg and any of the others) might come down to a head/heart decision.
Bloomberg's not late, I think he just waited for the herd to thin. As much as some seem to have an issue with a more centrist candidate, I think that's what is needed to win. Of the Democratic front runners, Biden will be hamstrung by his son and Sanders and Warren are looking to make seismic shifts that will make enough of the electorate skittish that they won't get elected. Likability isn't the issue for Warren (it is for Sanders), it's that for every problem, she thinks the federal government is the solution.
As a technocrat, Bloomberg won't get pulses racing, but he can take a pragmatic approach to improve access to healthcare, adjust the tax system and introduce a more competitive environment to the tech sector.
2
"Today’s Democratic Party is much more ideologically left-wing than what it was in the 1990s."
That's true. Also true:
Today’s Democratic Party is much more ideologically centrist than what it was in the 1990s.
Today’s Democratic Party is much less ideologically right-wing than what it was in the 1990s.
Today’s Republican Party is vastly more ideologically right-wing than what it was in the 1990s.
I wish I had the wisdom to know who is the best candidate to beat Trump. Even though I support getting to Medicare for all eventually, there are too many people, like me, who are satisfied with their health insurance. Nor do I think there will be sufficient support in Congress to pass it in the near future. I wish Elizabeth Warren had shown more restraint before doubling down on the idea. She also showed poor judgment by endorsing an unqualified, radical candidate for Queens District Attorney.
We need a Congress who will reverse the decades long reduction in taxes on the rich, but it doesn’t have to happen all at once.
I’m not sure we lost in 2016 because Hillary was a moderate; we lost because she was a deeply flawed candidate who couldn’t see that taking six-figure paychecks for speaking engagements before corporate America was a bad optic.
Mike Bloomberg, despite his substantial skill set, is the wrong candidate for the time. We are tired of billionaire politicians, even real ones. I also believe, that at 77, he is too old, as is Bernie and Biden. There are people that age who might be able to do the job, but the odds are against it.
I still have no idea who I will vote for in the primary; I will support whoever wins, but I simply have no idea who is the right candidate to beat trump. It makes my head hurt to think about it.
3
I think these conversations are just first rate, including how they see the other side. The issue of sex bias in politics is not one problem, but many. For example, who can doubt that Klobuchar -- properly respected in this column -- suffers from the sound of "President Amy," not to mention the pronunciation crisis she shares with the "just too young" male mayor. But I'm still back with the other Mike, Bennet, who evidently suffers from a low rating in the race for eccentricity. Possibly the fallout from Trump's eruptive reign must be said to include the eclipse of acceptability.
1
"Today’s Democratic Party is much more ideologically left-wing than what it was in the 1990s."
No, Mr. Stephens. Compared to all other OECD nations the Democratic Party is ideologically centre-left, while the centre-right parties of those nations would be considered smack in the middle of the political spectrum.
As to the our dear Republicans, they have already started collectively marching in goose-step to the abyss of fascism, starting with the election of President Obama.
To most of us born in Europe, this nation is more akin to the last breaths of the Weimar Republic, not the supposedly greatest country and oldest democracy of modern times.
13
In the 1990s Russia was joining the world democracies. The
belief was that America was the World Leader and would lead us into the future. The Clintons were a little bit this and a little bit that but followed the American success story or being members of the American school of philosophy they were pragmatic.
America is no longer pragmatic it has not educated or informed its citizens of the realities and like althoughs species that were the end of the line it is far too big and powerful to survive.
I am reminded of Dr Samuel Johnson's 1775 letter to the American Congress Taxation No Tyranny.
https://www.samueljohnson.com/tnt.html
When ideology rather than politics became the norm America's lack of a future became self evident and the writing was on the wall.
America has no future all that remains to see is whether in its death throes it takes the world with it.
2
@Montreal Moe
My apologies. I await a new supersized keyboard and new glasses to help my one eye to see a little better.
My ancestors fled the Pale a century and a half ago not knowing that Ukraine in 2019 would be the leader in trying to re-establish democracy in a world roiled by tyrants, plutocrats, oligarchs and all manner of amoral anti intellectual fiends.
Moe knows New York and Moe Knows Mississippi and Moe knows never the twain shall meet.
I am reminded of the comedian and philosopher Diogenes who left Crimea to seek "fame and fortune" around the Mediterranean.
Diogenes survived into his 90s eating table scraps, living in a barrel and comporting himself like a dog but who can forget his greatest witticism with Alexander the great. Alexander the Great must have taken great pleasure in his quip to Diogenes purportedly the world's smartest man. Alexander said to Diogenes if I were not Alexander the Great I would choose to be Diogenes.
Diogenes retorted if I were not Diogenes I would choose to be Diogenes.
Unlike the Monty Python Crew Montreal Moe always expects the Spanish Inquisition whether it be the ethnocentrism and arrogance of America or the heavy boot of Russia, the Spanish Inquisition has always been knocking at the door begging to be let in.
2
Imagine a Trump-Bloomberg debate. Turn off the sound. Doesn’t look good.
Relax everybody. Warren is running for the nomination now. You always run to the left in the nomination fight is a Democrat. Once you get the nomination you tack to the middle. Warren is a consummate politician. She will tack to the middle. She will beat Trump.
Poor Ross is worried that a real liberal will get elected. Remember Ross doesn't even like the Pope. He is a dyed in the wool conservative. He got hired by the times as clickbait. Unfortunately, doesn't work very well. He really should be on the religious page.
Gail is doing great. We need her humor. Thank the New York Times for a little humor now and again. These are troubling times and all of our blood pressure are too high
@Stuart Phillips It's not her positions, it's her demeaner. Her school marm speech and mannerisms just aren't going to cut it. Perhaps that is sexist, but it's also the truth.
@laolaohu. I think it’s both Warren’s scolding, know it all demeanor AND her overreaching plans. The federal government is not the solution to all of life’s problems and anyone who thinks her tax increases will be limited to eight figures and above, is smoking something
@Stuart Phillips Maybe you should read the column before posting. Ross Douthat had nothing to do with this one. And Bret Stephens doesn't even look like him.
Bloomberg’s problem is that he will be viewed as a “coastal elite”? I find Ms. Collins’s views on this issue somewhat strange.
What is Trump? A good old boy from south Phylly with a coal miner’s father and a peanut farmer uncle from Georgia?
I am with Mr. Stephens. Our priority should be first and foremost to get Trump OUT. And if it takes a billionaire from New York to unseat another billionaire from New York, so be it. I’ll take the one with a brain and with at least a few positions that I like ( climate change, guns, more progressive tax system) every day of the week and twice on Sunday.
3
I’m not voting for Bloomberg
1
Okay, lots of smart people here so this is a genuine question looking for a response. Where is Amy Klobuchar and why isn't she in the ascendency? Sufficiently, liberal, moderate, from the midwest, funny, smart and with solid experience from her time in the Senate. Oh, wait, she's a woman! All of that taken together beats Joe Biden, and Ms Warren. Is it a lack of African American support? Seriously, what am I missing?
7
@Cal
Klobuchar's "problem"? She's not good clickbait.Much like Steve Bullock. I'd be happy to vote for the two of them, with either at the top.
But such will not happen. As Stephens correctly observed, "Apollo 11...is a nice reminder of a time when cutting-edge tech meant firing giant rockets into space, not depositing mental clutter into cyberspace."
4
Bloomberg is too old.He was a great mayor especially when you compare him with the disaster who holds the title today.Stop and frisk is not racist and the most effective way to get guns off the street.In Chicago most of the killing is a black on black crime.What do you expect the racial breakdown of stop and frisk will be.Warren is the Dukakis of today.I liked the man Dukakis was but he would have been a lousy president.t would be a pity if Warren ,whom I dislike as a phony opportunist ,gets the Democratic nod and gives us a Trump landslide victory.
1
Mayor Mike and Mayor Pete. A dream ticket that will be a nlghtmayor for Trump. I am not on any hallucinating drugs legal or otherwise. My fantasy and wish for America. Their average age is perfect.
1
I absolutely love these columns so thank you. My question to Bret is aren't you at all concerned about Bloombergs age? I wanted him to run years ago but now... geez he's old. Where are all the 50 year olds?
Cue Amy Klobuchar.
I am not going to weigh in on the merits of a Bloomberg run, that has been thoroughly debated here. But I will say that those who preach against ever voting for him due to his past support of stop & frisk (I'm looking at you Charles Blow) are going to lead us to another four years of Trump. This is the problem with the Democratic party -- always sacrificing good for perfect. There is no perfect. Yes, Warren and Sanders lean too far left for most of the country, Buttigieg is too young and inexperienced but come on, all of these candidates are vastly better than Trump. Pretty much anyone currently or even thinking of running is better than Trump. We can't afford to be idealistic folks - this election is about one thing and one thing only-- ridding the country of the worst president in the history of the nation. If Bloomberg can win, he's got my vote.
Rudy G as Axl Rose to Bloomberg's Carlos Santana - best musical-political metaphor of the year!
Mister B can sing "You've Got to Change Your Evil Ways" to Trump, while Rudy intones "Welcome to the Jungle"!
In any case, a tip of the hat to the NY Times' own Lennon and McCartney of tag-team political commentary, Collins and Stephens!
1
Hmm, let's see -- small in stature, giant in pocketbook, whiny, thin skinned, took every weekend and flew to his compound in Bermuda but refused to actually say where he went, Jewish, divorced, late 70s, pro-choice, anti-gun, enthusiastic about harassing minorities -- yup, you couldn't create a better candidate in a lab! What isn't worth a bag of dirt is Brett's political instincts.
1
Already too late for me.
Left undiscussed is did Bloomberg enter the race to protect his billions? And, does the fact that he is Jewish play well in the still-somwhat bigoted South? Regardless, I would vote for Mike over Trump in a millisecond.
I'm kvelling about our first Jewish President--but it's NOT Bloomberg!
My Jewish President is winning hearts and minds right now in the middle west. Sanders beats Trump (and all the democratic candidates) in an average of polls-- CNBC November 5.
76
@Karen DeVito Bloomberg accomplished something in the real world in the private sector, actually has some executive experience in the public and private sector, and unlike Bernie does not constantly whine about being brought up in a tenement -which BTW is not true. As his neighbor, it was a fabulous neighborhood.
3
@Karen DeVito
Right, Bernie's the guy. Go home, Mike. And stay home.
1
@Karen DeVito thank you! Amen
1
I wish Bloomberg had not waited this long to step into the race. Now everyone is trying to guess what his ideologies might be. And when you live a long time, it is entirely plausible to change your way of thinking.
Warren is not for the middle class, she is about destroying America’s advantage, the top heavy industry with large companies. It is not her healthcare dreams that bother me, those will never pass any muster, considering the millions of ‘ordinary’ people who are now dependent on this system, via employment in hospitals and insurance companies. It is nonsense that folks spout how the unemployed will be employed by government. Our government would be scarier than any large corporation we have now. It is the fact she will destroy innovation by seeding corporations with ordinary folks on boards. Folks who may be well meaning but have no clue what it takes to engineer or run a business on a global stage. Already Asian countries are creeping ahead of us in business and research mostly because rules, ethics and laws are not as enforced as here. She is rigid, seems determined to prove herself right and is feeding the divide within the democrats. The folks who are not so well paid vs those who are. The reason behind this, more education, seems to be conveniently glossed over. The billionaires are the folks who feel motivated enough to seed money back into the country. Why would we remove our avenues of being gainfully employed by removing such incentives?
1
@Meena Sorry, trickle down isn't working all that well. The billionaires' donations are not seeding our education system at all. "America's advantage, the top heavy industry with large companies"? That's unique. The US is suffering from sclerotic industrial performance because of the ever-decreasing number of ever-expanding companies and their corrupting influence on public policy decisions through lobbying.
1
I don't want Bloomberg to win, but I'd favor him over Biden.
Bloomberg has the skill to lead the nation, but he'd lead it in the wrong way. He has a skewed view of society.
Not everyone knows this, but he has a degree in Electrical Engineering, the same as me. But he has some sort of genetic kwirk that allows him to be a pure capitalist, that is essentially a social Darwinist.
We don't need social Darwinism anymore. It's a model for a failure of society. But 8 years? We've been living with social Darwinism for many hundreds of years, 8 more years won't kill us, but it's just putting off a better world for 8 years.
We have better choices. Warren and Sanders.
1
I'm at the Tampa airport heading north after a visit with my dad. He loves Trump and is very plugged in. His friends feel the same way. Wherever we went Fox played constantly. My sister and I accompanied him to a Vetetans Day ceremony--very moving, but definitely a pro-Trump crowd with vets representing Korea and Afghanistan and every war in between. They're all diehards-- I was definitely in the political minority, as was my sister who was down from Boston. In the midst of our visit the news broke about Bloomberg. My Dad's response was to grouse but I could hear a tinge of admiration. People were stirred up. So will my dad ever vote for Bloomberg? No, he's too hardcore. But the appeal of the self-made man carries weight and will likely bring others in, especially idependents. It seems like elections are won in the margins. So Bloomberg is a yes for me because I want a democrat back in the White House. Florida has been a very good reminder that we have many invisible populations in this country including vererans. Let's encourage our future nominee to reach out to them in a more public way.
2
@Jmc Every "independent" motivated by Bloomberg will be matched by a Bernie supporter who will either vote for Jill Stein (or whoever) or will stay home.
1
Gail and Bret - I so appreciate your chemistry of mirth and mutual respect: avoiding sharp-edged absolutism and acknowledging what you don't know.
It's refreshing punditry given today's political climate.
Thank you.
The most astute and important observation in this piece: "Apollo 11...is a nice reminder of a time when cutting-edge tech meant firing giant rockets into space, not depositing mental clutter into cyberspace." Long after Trump is gone, we will be saddled with the pernicious effects of the internet, drones and self-driving cars creating massive unemployment among suicide bombers, the abolition of privacy, and eventually a rain of heavenly shrapnel, compliments of unfettered corporate satellites.
As to politics and, especially, Bloomberg: Stephens and Collins will not get much support here, not simply because of all the trolls, bots, etc. issuing comments and pumping up "recommends", but because they are eminently reasonable, that concept currently an epithet equivalent to "terrorist" a decade ago and "communist" a half century ago.
2
I bet the people who say Warren can't beat Trump are the same ones who said McGovern wouldn't stand a chance against Nixon.
5
@Allen Rebchook , you don't have to go back that far. Until 10 p.m. on election night, most people were utterly sure Trump wouldn't stand a chance against Clinton. And that speaks to the citizenry now.
3
Let's not.
2
Gail, you never fail me. I will be laughing for the rest of the day thinkng of Bloomberg admiring butter sculpters at the Iowa fair. T
2
Has anyone already mentioned that Mr. Bloomberg has credentials re. environmental issues? He chaired the Climate Related Financial Disclosures Task Force for the Financial Stability Board, which is all about making business aware of their global-warming related risks so that the wider business community gives more credence to global warming as a problem. And the work he did to reduce pollutants in NYC was impressive in its policy intelligence and real-world impact.
5
I have to laugh at the notion that "People love Pete Buttigieg, but he’s just too young." Hands up all who feel that the top-heavy gerontocracy of the Democratic candidates are just too old.
My hand is raised so high that snow is swirling around my index finger.
7
Just what we need, another rich white man.
4
I agree, impeach the sucker.
3
Thank goodness for Deval Patrick, whose entry in the race will dilute some of the criticism of Bloomberg as a candidate-come-lately.
He has some problems, but on the other hand :
he is honest - pays his debts
he is rational - and can talk coherently
he is a genuine philanthropist and does not steal from veterans
he has not paid off any porn stars (that we know of)
he made his own money
we could go on.
I would like to hear what he plans for health care coverage, and how he will extract us from our never-ending wars. But I am sure I will soon.
1. "He is jumping in the race very late and will tick off some voters for seeming like an opportunistic Johnny-come-lately."
My thoughts on Bloomberg notwithstanding, there's something broken in our system if entering a race within 11+ months of an election is considered late.
2. "I like her political moderation and find her obvious intelligence and slightly nervous stage presence both reassuring and refreshingly human."
In any extended interview, Amy Klobuchar seems very confident and not "nervous" at all. I think Bret's assessment points to a second shortcoming of our political process -- while the debates (which have devolved into ratings-fare showbiz) are the surest way for a candidate to reach the most voters simultaneously, the format rewards screen time to those who receive the most questions or interrupt others. That leaves valid candidates looking nervous or less-than-optimal when they must maximize their minutes squeezing in as many of their talking points as possible.
I would take any Democrat over Trump, but the process we/they have to endure just to reach the election needs a major overhaul.
234
@D Price: Your comment is first rate! I’ve stopped trying to psych out the NYT moderators and what they “pick,” but I can’t, for the life of me, figure out why your brilliant thoughts weren’t among those chosen.
13
NO to Bloomberg, so sick of rich old white men screwing things up, especially sexist and racist types. NO to Klobuchar because "As Ms. Klobuchar joins the 2020 presidential race, many of these former aides say she was not just demanding but often dehumanizing — not merely a tough boss in a capital full of them but the steward of a work environment colored by volatility, highhandedness and distrust." One dehumanizing male is enough, we don't need a dehumanizing female. #Warren2020
2
@Sheila - You know what *I’m* sick of: the phrase “rich old white men” (or any combination of those words in this context). It’s sexist, racist, and ageist. There are many white men, of all ages, who are protecting our democracy right now. And some of them are old and some are rich. I wish people didn’t feel it’s okay to use that phrase.
1
All together now: "I'll vote for Blumberg if he's the Democratic candidate."
But I'm damned if I'll send him money.
9
@writeon1
You and 160,000 or so others will have to send him at least a few dollars, under DNC rules, if he is to get into the primary debates. It would be well worth it.
The main issue is to defeat Trump, even if Americans have to hold their nose for 4 years until the country is in a better place and we can hold sane elections.
Republicans should vote for the Democratic nominee, just to get their party back from Trump, Nationalists, Evangelicals and corruption.
Democrats are too busy trying to cut each other down to realize that the plethora of candidates and the" in-sniping" isn't helping the core issues--get rid of Trump and rebuild the middle class. It is doing the opposite.
Warren's proposals have to go through Congress, they will be pared down, but she will focus on the middle class, rid the Presidency of corruption, end the wars in the Middle East, and get the country looking in the right direction, etc.
The conversation about a national health plan has been going on since the early 90s and it hasn't happened yet.
All the trashing-talking about Warren, especially from her own party, is mostly misogyny, scare tactics from tax-dodgers, and people like Brett.
I attended two Warren meetings in CA. The diversity among the attendees was stunning--men who fought in Vietnam, LGBT, families with young children, Asian, Black, White, and Hispanic, wealthy retirees, college students, seniors, working professionals, etc.
The polls can peddle what they want, Warren is resonating with the average American/non-tax-dodger.
2
Bloomberg can be someone that appeals to so many rational, middle class voters. Huge numbers of moderate people will never support Warren or Sanders. and Biden's performance on the debate stage doesn't offer any comfort - he does seem "old".
1
@BC In Oklahoma, Sanders won the primary in 2016, not Clinton. People in the "middle" are getting squeezed so hard that they're looking for change. Warren offers that, and the shock that Trump won should have worn off enough for you to consider that we need a candidate who does offer change. Warren can win--maybe not Oklahoma, but other midwest states. We were populist long ago, and on the left. We can well be so again.
2
How does Bloomberg appeal to Obama-Trump voters in Wisconsin, Michigan, and PA? I believe these are disaffected Democrats who thought Trump would shake things up in a way Obama did not. I'm not sure they related to Obama, but they were solid-ish Dems then, so he was their candidate. Now, they are not solid Dems, at all. Bloomie's not going to get their vote by cultural or personality identification with him. He's only going to get their vote by convincing them that he's for the working people. Hmmm... tough sell. Or, he could forego their votes and create a groundswell of youth and Blacks to vote. Hmmm... tough sell. I don't know where Stephens gets the idea that Bloomberg would trounce Trump in the general. It's really just about, seems to me, certain constituencies in those upper Midwest states. And the connection between them and Bloomberg is very uncertain.
3
As a young leftist who first voted in the 2016 election (for Clinton), I am incredibly tired with the patronizing claim from liberals that people like me "really need to vote with their heads", as if everyone who doesn't agree with you makes choices about who to support based on emotional impulse, and not the fact that the difference between the policies of economically conservative neoliberalism and the policies of reform leftism will have a significant and tangible impact on my life. I remember hearing the same thing in 2016- all of us just needed to support Clinton, because even though we liked Sanders' policies better, Clinton was the one who could beat Trump. And the important thing is just to support the most centrist candidate possible, to never promise real reform or structural change, to never scare the people controlling the power structures of this country, because that's the way to win.
But in 2016, "Vote with your head" was a lie. Clinton lost. Voting with our heads and going for the center didn't work then, no matter how much we compromised. So now it's your turn, Bret and Gail, to compromise with the people who have vision and ideas. I won't hear another word of discussion about how radical candidates are too unelectable until you both acknowledge that your idea of a centrist consensus candidate is delusion.
4
@Max Cassell Agree. My first political contribution in 2016 was to Sanders whose policies I loved. But I switched over to Clinton, thinking she was the more realistic choice. I'm not going to do that again. This time it's between Sanders and Warren in the primary voting booth and I may not decide who until I'm in there. All those supposedly "more electable" candidates are not even in the running. In the general election I will "vote blue no matter who" but I'm going to try for a candidate I truly believe in this time.
Agree. Maybe a panel of Presidents Mondale, Gore, Kerry, and Hillary Clinton could reassure us of the wisdom of trying to vacuum up those centrist voters?
The republicans and those who assisted Trump in his wild and unthinkable hijacking of the nation's sanity--they had effrontery, they had nerve. We haven't had that. Our pensions were taken under Reagan and poured into the pockets of the bosses. We didn't fight. Our medical benefits were removed while costs soared, and we didn't stop them. Full time work was destroyed in favor of legal exploitation of contingent labor, and we didn't strike. Now we are in throes of clinging to the last vestiges of a middle class, while the billionaires and millionaires continue to hire the clever, bend the law, and vote their cronies into office. Social security and medicare are under the gun. While we quaver and refuse to see that the time has come for boldness. A time to fight at last. If not now, when? When social security is gone? If we haven't seen what the course before us is yet, when will we?
The right wing and its helpers were bold, and they have taken cruel and damaging action. While we are counseled to elect a billionaire to "help" or "moderate" the slide to destitution. I didn't see it until now, not so clearly. The coming of Bloomberg to cut the line to the presidency has been an epiphany to me. I do see it now. Let the fight commence. Warren 2020.
6
I doubt Mr. Bloomberg would do any better in the swing states than the other candidates. I don't think he could win them. It all boils down to the Electoral College. He might have a chance if the economy tanks, but that's not happening today; and my economic crystal ball is quite cloudy--and always has been. I'm sure Mr. Trump will find a solution to the China tariffs just in the nick of time, unfortunately.
How have businessmen done as President?
The most successful businessman to become President was Herbert Hoover.
Warren Harding was a businessman.
Both Bushes were businessmen.
The only businessman who was a decent President was Harry Truman and he only ran a small haberdashery, and he was terrible at it.
Then, of course, we have Trump.
There's a good reason for this. Businesses run on the same economics as your family, i. e. kitchen table economics. Neither your business norr you family has a printing press which enables you create as much money as you need out of thin air. The federal gov does.
Furthermore the object of business is to make a profit, take in more than it spends. The federal gov has to spend more than it takes in, because it has to supply the money we need to conduct commerce and banks need as reserves to make loans.
History tells us that ALL 6 times there was a period in which the federal gov made a profit large enough to pay down its debt just 10% or more, the country fell into a terrible depression.
Bloomberg certainly falls into this category as he has many times said we have to pay down the national debt. Trump has said he will completely pay off the national debt in 8 years, but he is so inept, I don't think we have to worry.
So if you want another depression with people living in tents on the Mall in DC, vote in the primary for the businessman, Mike Bloomberg.
2
You can tell the difference between "honest dislike of someone's personality to thinly veiled sexism" if that person is just unlikable. Senator Warren, when she's out of campaign mode and into working politician mode, can be very unlikable with those she is unhappy with, as any review of old C-Span footage will attest. She acts exactly as any upper middle class person does when they get snippy with the help because something is not done exactly to specifications, or they're told their bag has to be searched at the airport by some lower ranking person. That's unlikable, and it's not restricted by gender.
2
@David Godinez And trump in contrast, is likeable? Just looking for basic integrity and intelligence, not a beer buddy.
I like Bloomberg's stance on many of the issues confronting us today (environmental, gun control, etc.) but he's got more problems than stop-and-frisk going against him. I just finished an article detailing the horribly sexist atmosphere and behavior exhibited by Bloomberg and others at his business. Additionally, after teaching in NYC for all 12 of Bloomberg's years as mayor I've got to say he was despicable to teachers, the union, and knew very little about education, as evidenced by changing curriculum every other year. Another rich guy who thinks he knows it all. That being said, I'd grudgingly vote for him over trump. One other thing - people who are horrible bosses (and I had 6 of them in my 25 years in the NYC school system) provide a demeaning, demoralizing, abusive atmosphere that does not elicit the best in employees. I liked Amy Klobuchar until I heard about that. And yet, I'd still vote for her over trump.
4
This sentence is what democrats need to keep repeating.
"The president of the United States sought to besmirch a political rival, extort an embattled ally, subvert the will of Congress, lie to everyone about everything and then brazenly insist there is nothing wrong with any of this."
nothing else. just this.
8
Come on, Bret. The idea that Bloomberg has any chance of winning is absurd. He's not winning the Democratic nomination at a time when anti-billionaire feeling is ascendant, and he is not winning a general election given that he's known as "the guy who is gonna take away your guns" in much of the rest of the country.
In order to win an election, you need more than well-off Beltway and NYC pundits (Bloomberg's natural constituency) to find you appealing.
3
Smart Republican senators will vote to convict so they can run on a ticket with Pence rather than Trump.
2
Obama and Clinton ran as moderates but put thru so called radical left issues. Clinton passed into law the family leave act where employees can take time off for the birth of child or sick family member and not lose their job. The right said this would destroy the economy. Clinton was the leader of the Don't Ask Dont Tell that drove the right crazy and was the start of normalizing gay people. Clinton tried Health Care but the right said it was communist idea.
Obama came out in support of Gay right to marry, Obamacare, support of women right to control their own body, equal pay for equal work, VA right for private treatment if doctors aren't available.
2
While I admire Bloomberg’s business acumen, 1) he has already doubled down on “stop and frisk” (read Charles Blow); 2) there have been credible accusations of misogyny against both him and his company; 3) he will not balance the budget by increasing taxes on corporations and the wealthy, which he has already posited may be unconstitutional; he will balance the budget by cutting spending, not necessarily a bad thing, but his budget balancing will cut services that Americans are in favor of. It is HE who is unelectable, not Elizabeth Warren. And never underestimate the power of anti-Semitism.
3
Mr. Stephens,
Do you think another billionaire, especially one who thinks he knows everything, in the White House, is the answer?
Bloomberg is an elitist of the worst kind because he is so smug and sure of his positions - even after he changes them he can't believe anyone could think the way he once did.
5
I say this with love and as a moderate liberal Democrat: Only a true elitist northeasterner could possibly think that a short 77 year-old non-Christian New York Wall Street billionaire with no national base of support is the answer for beating a tall 73 year-old "Christian" New York non-Wall Street fake billionaire with a huge national base of support. Bloomberg has virtually ZERO name recognition outside the New York bubble.
Bloomberg will have almost zero impact on this race -- and any he DOES have will be harmful to Democrats' prospects.
3
"The facts are clear: The president of the United States sought to besmirch a political rival, extort an embattled ally, subvert the will of Congress, lie to everyone about everything and then brazenly insist there is nothing wrong with any of this."
Yep, that's why I finally decided 'impeach the sucker' , rather than wait for the election, and then suffer the inevidability of Trump's prancing around claiming total vindication, when the Senate Republicans write another chapter in 'Profiles in Spinelessness'.
1
"Comparing Bloomberg to Guiliani is like comparing Carlos Santana to Axel Rose"
The most perfect thing I have read today. So true.
2
Please persuade him to buy Fox News. I've seen this suggestion several places in the last 24 hours, and it is clearly the best idea for what to do with > $50 bn.
3
If getting Trump out of the White House is essential to saving the world, the Democrats have been spending a lot of time and energy holding a casting call for the hero who can boot the dragon out of 1600. Biggest issue with Mike Bloomberg is whether he can compose a message for the folks in the hinterlands. Wonder what The odds are in Vegas. Thanks for giving us some hope that Trump will be retired in 2020.
1
Opinions don't have to be right and are often terribly wrong like here where Collins suggest she is expert on how the African American Community ( the large community painted as
all having the same mind ) feels about Bloomberg and police department tactics were the most important and singular concern .
According to Collins Blacks in New York City were unaware that Bloomberg won the Office on Broadway due to spending a lot more money than his opponents could along with his base support from business and the Jewish Community .
So, anyone " doing the math " would expect that a Billionaire like him would be the type of Mayor out of touch with the needs of most New Yorkers just like he proved to be, but according to Gail he lacked support from the African American Community due to a " Stop and Frisk Policy most people even now remain unaware of.
I guess she assumed that protests like Black Lives Matter represented the concerns of all African Americans like Save The Whales might be for all White Americans . What's " undoubtedly " as she suggests is one should not assume expertise in matters you have little if any in .
The Jamelle Bouie op ed today gives a strong new appeal to Warren's running (Who's Afraid of Elizabeth Warren?)
2
If Biden stays as sharp as he was at last night's CNN town hall Bloomberg should save his money. Biden would has a share of the African-American vote that Bloomberg can not get. Stop and frisk is 30 years fresher than busing
2
Oh, please let's not talk about him, but say we did, ok?
2
Bret's about as open-minded as Trump's tax returns wanting America to mind our own business.
That said, if those tax returns disclose criminally not paying taxes, MIKE's our guy!
If they disclose legal tax evasion (more cantilevered than Trump's combover), ELIZABETH's our gal!
Regardless, why continue bothering with anything that's never enough (Bret's bent on money) when something that's always everything (Gail's genuine love) is all that matters?
Oh Bret, you sweet child of mine, we do not wish to cancel billionaires, we wish to cancel the tax laws that unfairly advantage them. The money will trickle back to them anyway since they are the investment class, and then they are taxed again and round and round she goes. It's not black magic, man.
6
The more the billions, the more the conflict of interests. However, probably Bloomberg will show his income taxes and put his assets in blind trusts.
What he will not be able to do is to have selective amnesia at the time of regulating and forget how those regulations would impact his fortune. Let us leave him out of the White House.
1
The polls show that most Americans want higher taxes on the wealthy, which would suggest they may not support a billionaire who comes out against higher taxes on the wealthy.
Stephens tries to scare us by reminding us of George McGovern, something that happened over fifty years ago, and reminding us of how bad we felt after the 2016 election--when a moderate Democrat--that is, like Biden and not like Warren--lost.
Stephens is a self-proclaimed conservative Republican. Why do his thoughts on who the Democrats should run have any credence? of course he would like to have Bloomberg, who ran NYC as a member of the Republican party. Why doesn't he encourage Bloomberg to challenge Trump in the primaries? Or, as long as parties don't matter, why doesn't he encourage Tulsi Gabbard or Beto or Bernie to challenge Trump in the primaries?
I should find something better to do than read Stephens, even when he writes with the wonderful Gail Collins.
2
I wonder if the Bloomberg strategy is to run hard, hopefully get the nomination and then select a VP candidate he can hand the baton to partway through his first term who is reasonable but might not be able to carry the general election on his own (Mayor Pete anyone?) Just thinking... Bloomberg is a strategist and a pragmatist above all. You don't build (truly successful) multi-billion-dollar companies without being able to think strategically.
@VZ, MD
That's wishful thinking. I've never heard of a billionaire seeking to lead an organization in order to give the reins to someone else. No one voluntarily cedes power without a threat.
@mzzmo A girl can dream...! Plus I think he KNOWS he is too old to hold power for a full two terms (as is Trump, of course, although he would never have the self-awareness to realize it let alone plan for it). But I think Mayor Mike could see this as a route to an incredible legacy at a critical moment for the Republic. Warren scares his Wall St friends, it's true, but I believe there is SOME element of striving for the greater good here. He always said he would only get int the race if it looked like Warren or Bernie was going to grab the lead because he felt those positions were untenable on a macro scale... and here we are.
Independents and turnout. As far as I'm concerned, that's all we need to beat Trump. Most of my Democrat peers disagree, with few offering an alternative viewpoint. Bloomberg can bring Independents over in droves because he's proven he's a fiscal moderate who won't back programs that put the country at economic risk -- like Medicare for All.
I believe completely in the prospect of Medicare for All, but we need to win and stabilize first. He'll put that and other budget-draining programs off until a second term while supporting almost every federal social program. I wanted his entry from the beginning and was disappointed when he didn't run. As a result, I became a Buttigieg guy. Two level-headed human beings.
A Bloomberg/Buttigieg ticket can win, so long as both men can convert the minority vote, which will require direct, withering confrontation and validation. Buttigieg can do that. Bloomberg probably can't. Many of my minority friends -- most of whom do not live in NYC -- find his stop and frisk policy unforgivable and won't respond to crime reduction stats. This problem comes with whomever he would partner, though -- and each candidate has at least one giant anchor around their neck.
I'm confident his platform will be solid. He can cream Trump in any debate (which I'm sure Trump will avoid). People who vote with their heads, will vote for Bloomberg.
Also, the tone of this article seems a little too cocktail party for an above the fold placement. Topic is spot on.
There are three billionaires I would vote for in a heartbeat: Gates, Buffett, Bloomberg. These men represent not only the talent for making money but also possess an understanding of the critical importance of more equitable wealth distribution. I would endorse Bloomberg for president without reservation but for his ill-conceived stop and frisk policy he implemented as NYC mayor. Still, his experience as an executive was largely positive and he would be impossible for Trump to brand as a socialist. My first choice is Buttigieg but either he or Bloomberg would be the most formidable candidate to unseat Trump. I love the passion and messages of Warren and Sanders but their Medicare for All proposal will not resonate with enough voters.
1
I disagree with Bret Stephens on most things, but he's right about the Apollo 11 documentary, which is great, and worth catching on a big screen if you can.
I realize that's tangential to the discussion, but it's nice to find common ground these days.
2
There's much to like about Bloomberg, not the least is how well he would stand up against Trump. He's been around long enough to have accumulated some baggage (stop and frisk) making him toxic to some people. But that shouldn't tank him as much as his real Achilles heel - his lack of charisma.
This of course, is not his fault. It's the fault of the electorate, and America is not the only place where flash wins over substance. Trump won over Clinton largely because of the emotion he incited in his people. He made them feel part of the narrative. That they weren't, aren't, or will be under his reign if he succeeds again, doesn't make a difference to the 40 percenters. He is their man no matter what.
Some of the world's best men and women don't survive the political arena where gladiators prevail. If Bloomberg can't muster the fire in his belly to ramp up the nation and the crowds, he's going to have a tough time beating Trump.
I often hark back to a line in Joe versus the Volcano, "I know he can get the job, but can he do the job," defines Trump to a T, while "I know he can do the job, but can he get the job" defines Bloomberg. It's too bad. He's the dark horse that can come right up the middle, take it all, and save us all from another four years of dangerous insanity.
Bloomberg is a great business man, former mayor and philanthropist. He's in his 70's like the rest of the democrat leading candidates. I question his ability to lead us forward, but I don't question his ability to restore sanity to the Oval Office.
He's just adding to the turmoil that we get when the presidential campaigning starts three and half years before the election. People complain that he's coming in late, but really, campaigning shouldn't start until January and the primaries shouldn't be held until the spring anyway. Think of all the money candidates could save by not playing the media's ratings game.
He should enter the republican primary where he would do the most good. Being one of a dozen eggs in the democratic box is unbecoming to the dignity we are trying to restore in the presidency.
1
I must say, Brett is really convincing on Bloomberg. But what about Deval Patrick? Moderate, pro-business, and African-American. (But I still think and hope Warren will win.)
Voters have to remember, the United States isn't New York City. Bloomberg doesn't have a city council that he can strong-arm, nor can he threaten workers by denying their pensions and quality of life raises. He can't gentrify the rust belt by handing it to developers or get rid of guns with a national stop and frisk policy. His style of autocratic, daddy knows best leadership doesn't work in Washington. However, he CAN continue to bolster plutocracy, as the skids are already greased for that. Everything is set up for Bloomberg being a far more effective Republican than Democrat. Perhaps that's fine, if that's what Democrats really want.
2
Income tax rates on the wealthy need to revert back to 1968 levels.
2
After New Yorkers voted in support of a two-term limit in 1993 and in 1996, Bloomberg, claiming the city needed him for third term to manage the economic crisis, bought enough votes on the City Council with campaign contributions to overturn the will of the people, 29-22.
He won't get my vote in 2020.
6
I take issue with the Carlos Santana/Axl Rose comparison... Carlos Santana was great to begin with and has aged quite nicely (though I found Supernatural to be cloying). Axl Rose, on the other hand, has mellowed with age and become a welcome foil to Donald Trump on Twitter.
1
"I’m sure she’s totally fine as a person. It’s her radical policies and her unelectability that worry me."
Well Bret, over the last 50-or-so years you and yours have worked us into a situation where there are no easy solutions. At the same time you've you've also shifted the Overton Window further and further to the right, so that what was seen as moderate in 1970 is now described as radically left-wing.
So you and your masters have successfully pulled off a double-whammy; you've created an economic climate more akin to a third-world nation with a shrinking middle class and at the same time you've made discussing solutions to the problem seem dangerously radical.
Congratulations.
12
Trump did not try to besmirch Biden. He simply asked that his son’s employment be checked out. If there was nothing remiss, the checking him out would not have mattered. After all, Biden may become our next president, we should know if he was or is beholden to an other country.
If Biden was not running for president, then asking would not have mattered. I don’t blame Trump that after two years of Witch-hunt he wants to find out who instigated it. You can’t impeach him for that
3
@Marian But don't forget, Trump had no interest in Burisma or Hunter Biden in the first three years of his presidency. It was ONLY AFTER Biden announced his run for the Presidency that Trump got the idea to use the power of his office to get dirt on a likely opponent for 2020. That is why he wanted Ukraine to issue a PUBLIC statement of looking into the Bidens - for propaganda purposes - not to actually do something about corruption in Ukraine which all of the testimony has indicated was improving and hence the money and support was approved to go to Ukraine right away.
4
Nice try. let's check out Trump to see if the corruption claims are true.
Take some comfort that in the three previous impeachment events-including Nixon-the impeaching party won the next presidency. The credibility of the defenders was too wounded to win.
2
Brett...smh...OK whatever you are:
"Today’s Democratic Party is much more ideologically left-wing than what it was in the 1990s."
a) that is now approaching 30 yrs ago - a generation or more
b) tax rates were higher; there were fewer billionaires; health care was more affordable; and probably a more equitable economy
c) there was no Trump and the Republicans weren't crazed
d) and given what's transpired, how did that all work out?
4
"Independents will vote for him because he isn’t Trump"
Too many here have so convinced themselves of their own demonization of Trump that they over rate it among others, and for its longer term.
There are those not in Trump's base who are uncomfortable with this extremism, as for example the high honor of stealing papers off the President's desk. They really don't feel comfortable with that, and the wild celebration makes them even more so.
Political trends don't last. They peak and subside. They are overtaken by new trends. Most of all, events don't entirely play out as hoped by those most supporting a trend. The election is not tomorrow, or during the House impeachment hearings. It is a year from now, after the Senate defeats impeachment, and after Republicans take their best shots at counter attacks.
Democrats will now always hate Trump. Such things are not new, and we saw such determined hatred against Andrew Jackson and others long before. But the middle is not the extreme, and it is where movement happens in opinions and trends.
Just "not Trump" did not work for anyone to keep him from the nomination. Too much focus on "I'm not Trump" didn't work for Hillary either. Don't presume that third time is the charm on that.
Trump can be defeated. It is by the hard work and good ideas we see from people like Warren, not by "they'll never vote for Trump." They did, remember, and you didn't like it then either. You thought that was impossible then, too.
4
I read the Times closely every day and listen diligently to the Daily. The back and forth between Gail Collins and Bret Stephens is my single favorite thing you do. Thanks to them and the Times.
5
How is Stephens allowed to get away with saying that "the poll we published last week" shows "Trump competitive with, or beating, Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders in six battleground states"? It actually shows Biden beating Trump in Florida, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Arizona.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/04/upshot/trump-biden-warren-polls.html?module=inline
Whether you think the poll results will hold or not, the fact remains that "Mr. Biden holds the edge among both registered voters and likely voters, and even among those who cast a ballot in 2016. He has a lead of 55 percent to 22 percent among voters who say they supported minor-party candidates" And he has increased his advantage over Trump among college educated voters compared to Hilary Clinton.
Stephens is presenting alternative facts here.
2
Yeh, Yeh. This article reads as a disguised attempt at setting an example for some good natured, academic, political banter. It comes off flippant to me. Saying nothing about Bloomberg's Oligarchical tendencies as a politician. Believe me, Bloomberg is by his very nature an Oligarch. Oh, he may be very good at soft-soaping the public on his policies and down playing his radical decisions, but he is not democratic. Oh, and gee whiz Brett, I'm glad you're finally convinced about Trump.
5
"I know primary voters like to go with their hearts but 2020 is a year Democrats really need to vote with their heads." Isn't that what we tried in 2016?
5
America's system of government is broken. When a guy like Mike Bloomberg, who's a proven talent for administration and organization, doesn't stand a chance of getting elected President, but a guy like Donald Trump, who's legendary incompetence and corruption stands a pretty good chance of getting re-elected, you know the system is BROKEN.
It reminds me of the story about the TV music group, "The Monkeys" when Davy Jones remarked to his manager about all the in-fighting and bickering amongst the group members... "it's over isn't it?"
"Yeah", the manager agreed. And sure enough it was over.
America might consider that little parable as it goes to the polls next November.
"Bret Stephens: Who knew I had so much influence?"
Well done Mr. Stephens. Thanks to you Mike Bloomberg will be our next president, the best president his country ever had.
Liberal extremists, we need you people to grow up and face reality. Your socialist ideas will never be accepted in this country. If you nominate Warren then Trump will win, and it will be your fault.
Bloomberg is Jewish. Anti-Semitism is alive and well under trump. It would be very doubtful , number one, that Bloomberg will even be the one who runs against trump. Number two, Bloomberg, a divorced man, may not be inclined to decorate the White House for Christmas either. Chew on that for awhile.
Even if Bloomberg manages to mend fences with African Americans and get the nomination, his demands for draconian gun control will produce a Trump landslide in all but the bluest of states. Gnashing of Democratic teeth about the ghastliness of guns is pointless; this is a reality. He has made himself unelectable.
3
Mr. Stephens: I applaud your enthusiastic call for the President's impeachment! At the same time, I dismiss your confident assumption that Bloomberg could easily defeat Trump.
You, like much of the Democratic establishment, take the progressive base of the party for granted. These voters are still nursing bruised feelings from the abuse they suffered in 2016 when leaders of the DNC favored HRC over Bernie Sanders. Many, like me, held their noses and voted for Clinton despite our distaste for her neocon tendencies in foreign policy and her coziness with Wall Street. We won't be brushed aside and taken for granted once again.
At the very least the ticket must feature a moderate at the top with a progressive VP. I could vote, without enthusiasm, for Joe Biden if he committed to a single term and ran with Stacey Abrams as his running mate. Michael Bloomberg? Never!
1
Bret Stephens notes attributes of Bloomberg that are so sorely needed in the White House: unity, honesty, ethics, charity, and intelligence. Those are the attributes voters should focus on, not that he is a billionaire and not that he doesn't have support of blacks -- blacks, who represent about 10% of the voting population, are attracted to those attributes as well.
It's enlightening that Bret describes the Democrats and their concern over income inequality as the party that wants to “cancel billionaires".
2
You know that Trump would be intimidated by Bloomberg, a true billionaire.
1
Bloomberg's stop-and-frisk policy, inherited from Guiliani, was racist to the core. Other than that, and the fact that as a billionaire he thinks he can buy the nomination, what's not to like?
2
If Bret thinks Warren is radical wait till he hears about that Jesus guy! "Centrism" means status quo. People dont want that.
2
A question for Mr. Stephens. If Bloomberg is in so good with African-American voters, why when he ran against a black man in his 3rd campaign did he give $2 million under the table to the Independent Party to hire poll watchers to challenge voters at primarily black and Latino precincts.
Bloomberg was so committed to keeping this secret that when an Independent Party official stole a significant part of the money, neither Bloomberg nor the party said anything about it.
1
The raw partisanship of the Republican Party is what has created the left lean of the Democrats Mr. Stephens. Again if you want to find the source of your unhappiness, I advise looking in the mirror. As to Bloomberg, I thinks he should run as a Republican against Trump. He has enough money to disrupt and harass the party of no moral or ethical principle.
2
Bloomberg's entry should be as a Republican candidate because that is exactly what he is.
2
"The facts are clear: The president of the United States sought to besmirch a political rival, extort an embattled ally, subvert the will of Congress, lie to everyone about everything and then brazenly insist there is nothing wrong...."
Yes, but how can Bret leave out extorting a foreign power to concoct a false criminal conspiracy to influence and undermine a presidential election...again? Besmirch a rival is hardly the issue. This characterization of extraordinary criminality is deeply troubling.
1
Bret and Gail,
There is a growing divide between the democratic party and most people. The democratic elites in my town are now moving to make 16 the legal age to vote and to give voting rights to anyone living here, REGARDLESS of citizenship. Yes, the pioneer valley in Western MA is filled with voices of the progressive politically correct.
What is given to little thought is how that comes about - do you know what it is?
it is quotas - quotas - 50% men, 50% women. Heavy promotion by sexual orientation or race. The result goes beyond identity politics.
People with a zealotry for encompassing fairness and values are pushed aside for seats reserved for those with specific identity politic agendas. the quota system exaggerates this propensity.
I've been to the American Civil liberties union who have poo pooed the objection.
Look to removing the quotas to opening up freedom of expression. this is the only way a new generation of people who can think outside the box will have a chance to be heard. Otherwise the politically correct will beat them into submission.
1
@Ben Ross If you are talking about a fringe movement in Western MA then please do not generalize it to all Democrats. Besides, it will never happen that individuals without U.S. citizenship will get the right to vote in US elections. Many politicans are taking actions to suppress U.S. Citizens of their right to vote that voting will never be expanded to non-citizens. So what you are complaining about may be a real movement in your neck of the woods, but reality demonstrates that it is not applicable to the majority of Democrats.
@Bj
thanks for responding. its not a fringe movement in our area - local cities and towns passed proposed legislation for state of MA.
my neck of the woods is often a spear head for what follows along future party platforms. our dem leader even brags about it.
but you are right all of these won;t fly - the REAL CONCERN is how quotas are pushing out those with practical views, and leaving a core of individuals who view everything from an identity point of view - which is how they get their delegate seat to begin with -- so just normal crazy (the human condition) which can handle the compromises and transcendental value that some laws while unfair to individuals collectively are fair.
ie if one person throws garbage on the street, not a problem - when everyone throws garbage on the street a problem -
requires a level of community awareness that leads to what is called civilization -
PC seems to block the ability of many people to make the leap
Dear Bret. Ideas will flip the Senate and Governorships. Not money.
2
Gail and Bret, New York City mayors have a lousy record of running for president. Look at "The World's Mayor", Rudy Giuliani, President Trump's shadow foreign policy advisor who ran for Pres. in 2008. Look at Bill De Blasio, New York's present mayor, who just pulled out of the 2020 race, and look at former 2+ term Mayor Mike Bloomberg, who is throwing his hat in the ring. The French say "jamais deux sans trois". Never two times without a third.
And look who's on the cusp of announcing his Democratic candidacy for president, former 2-term MA Governor, Deval Patrick, born in Chicago (Michelle Obama territory) and a wow possibility to replace Trump in 2020!
Meanwhile, let's all pray for President Jimmy Carter, our oldest living President, who at 95 years of age, has been hospitalized in Atlanta this morning. Such a great American patriot who served our nation and people selflessly for 77 years!
2
Brett Stephens, the Rs have created this mess, which has been a long-range undertaking to establish a theocracy and to make Americans serfs. Why do the Ds have to fix it? Also, why do Rs hate America? Can it be that Rs are jealous of our freedom? Discuss.
1
Remember when everyone believed Trump was "unelectable"??
2
It's a sex bias to bring up the story of Klobuchar and the "fork" incident.
How do we know this?
All men have to do to be a "good" and "competent" boss is to keep their hands to themselves. That's how.
3
Gail for the win with "Not going to divert us with a comment on today's Republican Party." Laughing out loud at my desk!
1
The commentators fail to mention that Bloomberg was a Republican until about 10 minutes before his announcement. He is also your basic, run-of-the-mill, neoliberal plutocrat on economic issues, completely out of step with the Democratic Party. I think he may attain the “strong fourth” of a Buttigieg, mainly because of cheerleading by the corporate media.
2
"Impeach the sucker" is right! Why not bail on Trump now, a shrewd crooked opportunist that is keeping his 'base' emotionally enslaved to his criminal whims? Why are so many set against the evidence, perhaps sorry to admit having spent all their valued time in applauding a shrewd demagogue? Afraid to admit how wrong they were, and are, in not thinking for themselves...and act accordingly? Sorry I didn't pay more attention to Bloomberg, no doubt an 'honest' billionaire, but with slim chances to convince the electorate he is the savior we were looking for. Still, he ought to be welcomed into the political fray, and infuse it with values we may feel comfortable with...as compared to Trump's awful cruelty 'gratis', and temper tantrums, only proper in a two year-old child, still convinced he is the center of the universe.
Bloomberg got 50% of the black vote in NYC because they thought stop and frisk deterred criminal activity by the other 50%. It seems to have proved to be ineffective, but at the time there was strong belief in S&F by many people. Whether blacks should hold the policy then against Bloomberg now (as Blow insists in yesterday's op-ed) seems iffy to me. Clearly some turned against Clinton because of laws passed under her husband.
I'm with Bret and would prefer to be able to vote for Bloomberg, with Klobuchar and Buttigieg alternates. Anyone else from the current lineup will earn Trump my reluctant vote.
1
Have we forgotten Michael Dukakis?? Can you see Bloomberg and Trump in a debate? The visual of it is horrifying: Trump towering over this tiny man who speaks in complex sentences. People - get a grip! There is no way Bloomberg is going beat Trump.
I honestly can't understand why billionaires whining about Elizabeth Warren is a negative. She is the only one who is strong enough to beat Trump. Let go of the sexist double standards! When the billionaires start to whine, you know she is on the right track.
2
@RL
The mere fact that Warren won't go for an interview on Fox because it would be profiting a right wing political voice is appalling.
It is the attitude of the politically correct.
She could insist on a live uninterrupted interveiw. She could insist on being given full reign to speak on whatever she wants for a minute at a time - as if it were a debate forum.
But to not show up on a platform upon which milllions of people listen - this is not the stature of a president. This is the kind of actions that our society permits in women but that if a man were to act that way in life would get him fired.
Women lose by not getting into scuffles on the playing field as children. Boys getting knocked about by other boys gets them to listen to the other side fairly or not, and it is a good habit that is carried into adulthood. (Bill Clinton's biography includes a good example of how it got him to knock look down or preach down to others)
"Beating Trump would be the easy part"
Is that a fact? Bloomberg is misreading the tea leaves. Republicans love the idea of a billionaire in the White House because they would all love to be one. A rich businessman isn't going to resonate with the majority of Democrats, plus the stop and frisk issue is a colossal loser for Black voters.
1
Two mostly asides and a bit on Bloomberg.
Bret seems to be very interested in Gail's advice. How to tell when criticism of a female candidate is legit versus showing bias against her gender. And he gives her credit, which I think is sincere, for reversing his position on impeachment. Very rare and nice to see from a columnist, who usually have to appear to be so certain about things, however murky, complex, or wicked the topic.
A lifestyle article in yesterday's Times advised on how to sound more confident and be more persuasive. I think, instead, we need to focus more on admitting what we don't know, learning from others what they might that we do not, and together trying to figure out answers to problems for which no one really knows the solutions. Certainty, or trying to give the impression of it, get in the way.
Wouldn't be so bad either for Bloomberg to show as conceding some mistakes and blind spots would complement his otherwise mostly competent time in office, and at least some of the progressive exceptions he has shown to how billionaires are supposed to be.
On the other hand, both columnists use "dirt" metaphors in conventional, but ecologically obsolete ways: "dirt on your political opponent" and "aren't worth much more than a bag of dirt."
Last I heard, we grow most of our food with it. It may also hold part of the solution for climate change. These, along with "drain the swamp," need to go away (uh oh...I remembered "there is no away"). Time for new metaphors.
2
In Bret's summary of what Trump has done, he left the part out about withholding military support from a friendly country when that country was being invaded by Russia, which many in the US still consider a serious adversary. What is Putin's hold on Trump?
2
@Grindelwald He did say "extort an embattled ally."
Electability seems to be the big factor in evaluating the candidates, and something the pundits probably base on their own preferences.
As far as media predictions - a pox on all their houses.
2
We really don't need another billionaire as president. What we need is a president that will protect us from them. The concentration of wealth in the hands of these men increases each hour. This is because they have rigged the system in their favor so they can continue to get richer.
Meanwhile the average working guy can't get ahead, has to struggle to get decent health care and housing, and can't afford to educate his/her kids. No thanks, I am not going to vote for a continuation of a regime of extreme greed.
We need a president who can change the system to provide all Americans with the basics of good health care, decent housing and a good education for our kids. The system needs to change so that it works for all of us not just the billionaires.
5
When Bret Stephen's talks about Bloomberg "enriching" the race, he is talking about horse race nonsense. Namely, that Bloomberg would bring more money into the race and help win Senate seats and governorships. Certainly winning elections is important, but that is only if we elect people who serve our interests. Does Bloomberg actually enrich the race in terms of his ideas? I doubt it.
I think I'm starting to get what "centrist" Democrat means. It means an establishment type who will maintain the status quo in terms of who has power. Someone who is socially liberal on LBGTQ and abortion, but otherwise is fiscally conservative. Sorry, I'm socially moderate relative to the current climate; I support gay marriage, legalizing weed, and abortion rights but I do not support policing language and social justice. However, I do want to heavily regulate both finance and Big Tech. (Er, Big Tech-bacco.) I want someone to raise taxes on the rich, especially billionaires. I agree with Bernie, we shouldn't have billionaires, certainly no one as wealthy as Bloomberg. I want someone to restore the economy to something that supports the hard working middle class and working class and supports families, not just an economy where GDP grows as a few get rich and everyone else is a struggling workaholic. I don't think Bloomberg is the guy I'm looking for.
If the Democrats nominate Bloomberg, I will vote for Trump to protest the Democrats not serving my interests.
3
We have several qualified candidates now, and isn't it time for a change from, sorry to repeat, old white men? Many of us think so. We had one eight-year stint with someone who wasn't and the country was the better for it.
The fact that Bloomberg is a billionaire is just one more reason to pass. Billionaires haven't a clue what life is like for the rest of us, all they're ever interested in is tax cuts for the rich and corporations. Clue: Trickle down economics doesn't work for anyone but those getting all the tax cuts. Let's pass, it's time to elect a woman in this country. We have a few to choose from, all of whom are more than qualified.
3
Bloomberg was born in 1942. That makes him even older than Trump! The idea of people this old running for President is not realistic - they don't have what it takes to do the job. Biden and Sander, too - not only lacking in energy, but living in the past. Eventually we're going to have to get some new politicians, although I can see why the younger set are considered lightweights.
How do you write these conversations? Do you just email back and forth and come up with the responses naturally? They are delightful, and I love reading them but always have wondered how you do them. Thanks!
One of the things about Trump's presidency that's a positive for me, at least, is that it's made me in some ways less tribal. I am a Democrat because I think income disparity is too large, we need to balance good social programs with robust capitalism, Social Security taxes should not be capped, we need affordable health care, and what one columnist maligned as losing America's common identity is finding it again by remembering that we are all created equal, not just white men of European ancestry. I also think there needs to be push back and critical inquiry: what are the unintended consequences, how much will it cost? But I don't care what the letter is and I have become aware that all of us are inconsistent and true believers of any stripe scare me. In other words, while I would have liked Clinton to win, right now, I would be so freaking happy to be griping about Mitt Romney.
I’m tired of the complaints that people don’t like Warren because she is a woman. She and Bernie have similar positions and have been close in the polls. Correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t Bernie a male?
As far as likeability, I find Warren warm and smart - but I dislike her (and Bernie’s) far left “everything is free” policies. I like Klobuchar but was similarly dismayed by her whining about the hardship of being female - she trails Buttigieg because he’s a much more inspiring candidate.
And as far as Buttigieg being too young - well, not according to the constitution.
Let’s judge the candidates on their merits not on their age, race, or gender. Or, since the left believes gender and race is fluid anyway, perhaps Mayor Pete can identify as a man, woman, and multi-colored - then I guess problem solved.
8
Bloomberg should run as a republican. A test to see if there are any moderates left in that party. Or he should run as a 3rd party candidate to give moderate republicans a voice. Main point - never trump. That is where he can really make a difference.
6
@Wayne If this was 2016 or earlier, I might agree. Trump owns what was once the GOP as we knew it. Ideologically, Bloomberg is neither pre-2016 Repub nor Dem; he should run as an independent, but he understands that would help Trump win. Although I'm uphappy with his stop and frisk history, I have come to believe in recent weeks that he's one of the few candidates who can beat Trump, but only if he can win the Dem nomination. Living here in Chicago, seeing how Sanders and Warren responded to the recent teacher strike--and threw our progressive mayor under the bus--I'm convinced that those who did not vote in 2016 and and may not in 2020 are part of a silent majority with day to day concerns rather than the extremism of Trump or Sanders.
1
Bret, here's what it means to "cancel billionaires": taking their money, almost all of it. No one should have multiples of more assets than other citizens. The accumulation of wealth, like all "accomplishments", is the result of a combination genetics and luck, and society must remove that accumulation from individuals like Bloomberg and distribute it to all.
4
@Kim Bloomberg is far from perfect, but he, like a few others, have used their wealth to help causes that are on the left. Money isn't evil...it's power to do good or evil. I think many here under-appreciate the good that Bloomberg has done with his wealth.
2
Those who describe Elizabeth Warren as "unlikeable" are not reflecting the opinion of the electorate. They are trying to create a self-fulfilling narrative. I don't agree with some of her positions, but I like her, a lot. I might add that male candidates aren't ever described as "unlikeable" - only women.
8
I will vote FOR the Democratic nominee for President. No matter who that becomes.
I do want Michale Bloomberg for all the Bret and Gail positive reasons. He CAN beat Trump. He WILL bring over moderates. He WILL NOT appoint radical evangelical right-wing Federalist Society judges. He WILL begin to bring back normalcy. He WILL be respected broadly her in the US and abroad.
Let us make him our Democratic nominee for President. And then let's Win.
Let's filter in the GOOD progressive ideas which I fully support, through Bloomberg who can BEGIN them with broader support.
9
Gail, I thought Warren's plan does not involve Bret or Michael Bloomberg losing 2% of their wealth. It involves losing 2% of income over and above whatever the current max. Am I wrong? It is called a wealth tax by many. Maybe it is b/c ,Lord knows, that billionaires have ways of avoiding income tax we don't. That's why the rest of us fund everything. And that's why there's estate tax. Get it at the end before it's gone for good. Pay as you go is better. But I can live with a little wealth redistribution. It's still capitalism. But we don't have to genuflect and thank the billionaires for letting some scraps fall our way after their families have gorged.
4
The election is going to be won by the middle, not by the Trumpers and not by the Progressives.
Bloomberg will beat Trump like a drum.
Time to consider the better alternative for the next 4 years.
Go Bloomberg!
2
Business people are don’t know the first thing about government. Sure, a lot of New Yorkers like Bloomberg, but I think you give him too much credit in the rest of the country.
3
@Blueinred/mjm6064 At least Bloomberg has executive experience as a former NY mayor.
Bloomberg has a God complex. He did not believe that a law on term limits should apply to him, and he got the law changed so that he could have an extra term. He needs to stay as far away from the presidency as possible.
8
Funny, but I can’t tell the difference between centrist Democrats and Never Trump Republicans.
5
We need another candidate like a fish needs a bicycle. Bloomberg’s popularity is much higher in his head than it is among the voters. It’s time to coalesce around candidates which have a legitimate shot at this.
That’s not Bloomberg, and it’s not Deval Patrick. It’s not the ones who haven’t qualified for the last three debates, either.
5
These conversations between you two are getting boring. Can you move to a once a month schedule, or just do it on holidays when there are plenty of others around who don't make forever sense?
4
It’s odd to see the Collins/Stephens discussion of impeachment disconnected from their analysis of the 2020 race. Hearings go live tomorrow. Of course Trump’s base won’t move from their support of this president. But, thankfully, the base isn’t large enough to re-elect him on its own. If seeing and listening to witnesses has the same effect as live hearings did during Watergate, a significant number of independents will be putting “Impeach the Sucker” bumper stickers on their cars—in which case it should hardly matter who Trump runs against in the general.
1
I should never drive and listen to NPR at the same time. But listening to an NPR interview of Evangelicas the other day almost landed me in a ditch---a victim of DUT (driving under the influence of Trump). Listening to these god-fearing individuals justify all manner of bad and illegal behavior with the throw away line--"yes, he is a questionable character, but look at what he has done for religion in this country," again, almost lost control of my car.
8
The two pundits have mentioned sexism with regard to Klobuchar and Warren but not Bloomberg. Some believe that Bloomberg has attitudes towards women as retrograde as Trump's. I do not myself think so. They have attitudes consistent with their generation. In any case most men are still teenagers when they learned these attitudes, as most women are still school girls. Forget gender and be an equal opportunity misanthrope as I am.
Michael Bloomberg has some baggage, but seems to be a well thought out speaker and despite the "stop and frisk" seems like a genuine ,caring person who knows how to counter punch Trump's rhetoric. One more Democrat for people to throw against the wall to see if he sticks. Why not?
Corey Booker seems contrived because that is exactly who he is.
1
I wish Warren would acknowledge the massive job loss that would be caused by destroying the health-insurance industry.
1
@Lee Cross What about the horse carriage industry? And the coal industry? And let us not forget all those blacksmiths who went out of business in 1900.
Bring 'em all back.
5
What job loss?
The work isn’t going to disappear. Just a different payer.
Bloomberg immediately goes to the top of my list. A moderate with business cred and a philanthropist. He would wipe Trump out.
This is the strangest and weakest Democratic field in years. Two far left candidates, a bumbling septuagenarian and a gay mayor of a small city lead the pack. It's too bad Biden doesn't to be up to it - he'd be the perfect candidate to beat Trump - but he's clearly not.
How in the world did did this happen?
Go Bloomberg, Klobuchar or Harris - go somebody, anybody who could win.
4
"As for my political forecasts, I’ve learned over the years that they aren’t worth much more than a bag of dirt."
I would gladly offer Bret 5 bags of dirt, (or sand) to refrain from political forecasts for the next 11 months.
5
Only two narratives reliably work in American politics: blame the “other” (immigrants, people of color, etc) or blame the rich. Trump owns the first and even captured the second narrative from Hillary Clinton because of her ties to Wall Street. Bloomberg IS Wall Street. Trump will do to him exactly what he did to Hillary.
3
We have a saying down here under the Southern Cross: "Too many cooks ruin the puchero (South American New England boiled dinner)."
These are desperate times. Certainly in the US - very desperate - but desperate all over the world. Short list: Bolivia, Chile, Mexico, Argentina, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Ukraine.
Now that America has abdicated its role as a leader in the international community - in favor of short-term political gains for oligarchs, corporations, and the corrupt politicians who are their paid agents - that international community is devolving, spinning out of control.
And while all this is happening - this unraveling - you have a pack of Democrats with their pet knee-jerk liberal issues - race relations, women's rights, the environment, increased regulation, global warming, gay rights - that swing voters don't give a flying fig about and I'm not even sure the liberals do either - that much.
Bloomberg is a Republican in sheep's clothing. But that's all right with me if he can just beat Trump - which is no slam dunk - while all the real Democrats dither on the sidelines.
The gem in this weeks' convo - a Bloomberg/Klobuchar ticket, even with Bret repeating the meaningless "nasty boss" canard. How Mayor Mike gets the nomination is the real challenge. Even then, Trump has a solid shot at re-election.
2
"People love Pete Buttigieg, but he’s just too young."
This is a strangely unsubstantiated comment for on intelligent individual!
On the day he takes office, Pete Buttigieg will be four years older than the constitutional age limit, so how can he be too young??
You might argue that he is too immature, which btw is certainly the case with the present occupant of the WH. But not true of Mayor Pete. He has shown an unusual maturity, professionalism, intelligence, efficiency and charisma as mayor, and even more so as leader of his presidential campaign. This is illustrated in the seriously talented group of advisors he has attracted to the campaign and in the extraordinary series of well argued, nuanced, well-informed series of policy proposals, he has launched.
It seems lightweight of you as a supposedly clever commentator not to look at the causes of Pete Buttigieg's success.
4
Continuing to use gender as a reason why a female candidate is unelectable does more disservice to the candidate than the misogynist does who truly feels that way. Do Elizabeth Warren a service by telling her the real reason she can't win. Her policies are ridiculously expensive particularly for a government that isn't coming close to paying for it's current spending. She seeks to punish the successful when everyone dreams of becoming a success. When she can't get enough tax from the over $50 million, does she tax the $25 million households? How soon before she is at $10 million? Then she is getting to the successful entrepreneur and small business owner, members of all our communities. Winning in 2020 is everything. Warren's ideas won't win any states in the south and few if any in the midwest. And it has nothing to do with her gender. Sanders won't have any better chance with these ideas either.
Unlike Trump, Bloomberg really would hire the best people. (JSK for Transportation Secretary!)
1
Conservatives, even the relatively sane types like Bret, love to arouse fear among uninformed voters.
According to their narrative, progressives want to take all the hard-earned money away from the wealthy, take all the guns away from God-fearing Americans, take all the "good" health care away from families, and turn everything over to the inefficient "gubmint" hacks who don't do anything as well as the beneficent corporations.
All those things are false and their constant evocation is an impediment to social progress.
1
Does Bret Stephens think “radical” when he thinks of Canada? I don’t - I think of a country with much better healthcare and health outcomes for everyone at far less cost per person. Only a selfish oligarch would look at advocating for trimming the fat from our healthcare dystopia as “radical.” Please just go back to your Republicans, Bret, and stop trying to keep this country generations behind the rest of the Developed World.
6
"His money could also help flip the Senate for the Democrats, win some governorships, and expand the majority in the House. "
Isn't the at the core of the rot in American democracy?
1
What really needs to happen no matter who gets into the race is some of the current entrants need to look in the mirror and see that it's not in the cards for them. If you are stuck below, say, 5% in the polls after months of campaigning and debating then drop out and give your support and money to someone else. Take one for the team. The last thing I want is to be pointing the finger at a Democrat after the election and saying "If you had only" as we watch Trump win. Put your ego aside for once and do what needs to be done. Many of you are young enough to run again and for the 70 somethings.....work on getting some of your ideas into the party platform. Unless , of course, it's more about you than your ideas. After all, this is a lot more than getting single payer enacted. To get it enacted we have to save the country first. For Democrats to lose this election, the consequences are enormous.
1
I am ready for decency, respect and integrity to return to the White House. Many of us are tired of trump's madness and chaos. Each day we wake to another circus. Frankly, I am exhausted.
I welcome Bloomberg to the race.
1
No more billionaires to save us please. Thank you very much. This one is just as power hungry and vainglorious as the rest.
3
Impeach the sucker! That's use to be called "Getting to Yes" it hink.
Utterly exasperated with the "Warren is just unlikeable" routine, or with complaints that she "talks down" or lectures people. Mostly male people. I suggest therapy. Seriously, how about reporters asking those crickets to give examples or explain exactly what they mean?
Bloomberg - that but about not suffering fools gladly - is him. There was a story somethwer in yesterday's ( or some day's) collection of items which reported o how he attended a funeral of a 9/11 fireman, didn't it quietly, and break down while giving a eulogy. He does feel - absolutely unlike Trump - but never speaks in terms of feelings. He was perfect for Mayor of NYC during a time when residents were tired of constant talk and emoting with no results. How will it play out in the country at large? He needs to address the issue of wealth and returning to more progressive income and estate taxes - - to demonstrate that he is not just a Republican out to preserve his own wealth.
For my theater of the absurd running mates - Warren and Bloomie. They both know something about money.
Thanks for a couple of laughs — Carlos Santana versus Axl Rose and Bloomberg’s feigned admiration of butter sculptures. Maybe Bloomberg could use two percent of his wealth to buy Fox News. That would be money well spent.
2
Biden/Bloomberg?
What one needs the other one has. The African American vote, Money, Florida, retail political skills, financial gravitas.
Brett and Gail could be suffering from "Gotham Myopia ". It' s time they put Michael Bloomberg out of their minds. There is absolutely no way that a billionaire, ex mayor of NYC, who obsessed on big gulps, increased racial profiling, and happens to be Jewish, can possibly win the votes of working class white or black voters in the key battleground states. He should give Democrats his cash not his candidacy. Elizabeth Warren's existential problem is that the smartest girl in the class is never elected prom queen. Bernie is still the old, angry, irascible guy. Mayor Pete is the young prodigy in a political PHD program. If Joe Biden can avoid gaff immolation, or bouts of spontaneous political glossalalia, he is still is the strongest Democratic candidate.
2
Democrats want to protect our environment and provide health care for everyone but republicans insist that’s radical. What’s radical is the buffoon dismantling every environmental protection we have and proclaiming he will attend the Soviet May day parade. Does Bret think abandoning the Kurds in Syria increased Israels security, even Bibi was alarmed.
1
I meant to bring this up on another editorial the other day, with the subject being broached over Bloomberg's electability, because he's Jewish (same can be said for Sanders). We almost had a Jewish Veep(remember Joe Lieberman?) We almost had two female Veeps (remember Geraldine Ferraro? I'll give you a "pass" on Sarah Palin).
Warren; Klobuchar; Harris and Gabbard are all women, who have been following in the heels of Hillary; vying for POTUS.
And, while we've had an African-American POTUS in Obama, maybe those who initally brought up the subject of the electability of a POTUS candidate, based solely or partially on the basis of gender; race; or religon, were either not around/ too young to remember; or simply forgot the myth that a Roman Catholic was also unelectable.
Do the initials JFK ring a bell?
2
Trump's impeachment will be perfect.
2
@Technic Ally The best in the history of the universe.
Bret: Universal health care is not radical, it is actually closer to the norm in every single other industrial country. And in an awful lot of third world countries.
Your VA health seems to mostly work as does Medicare.
America stopped the Nazi's, flew to the moon, and built a national highway system.
Your lobbying effort for the private sector medical industrial complex seems contrived. Have you no faith in the American can-do attitude of the past? Do you have a vested interest in maintaining the fundamentally unsustainable status quo?
Editor’s note: This comment has been anonymized in accordance with applicable law(s).
3
When will we hear anything from Bloomberg himself?
Michael Bloomberg's one success was to create a Media Empire that reports on other folks Success....
I am certain that Bloomberg News has reported on Donald Trump many times in the past.
.....
Why...what a strange coincidence!? Bloomberg News is suddenly filled with articles about how awful a business man Donald Trump has been......that's strange. Isnt it?
....
Mr. Bloomberg has done little on his own. His MO is to take credit for successful work done by others before him.....Rudy Giuliani must be given credit for the Herculean Task of "cleaning up NYC"....whether you like the Law and Order Tactics or not......NYC is back,,and Rudy gets the credit......even while Mike Bloomberg TAKES the credit.
...
Then having paid to change all the election rules, Bloomberg gets a 3rd term and still accomplishes little beyond keeping Rudy's achievements in place. Oh....and he eliminated Jumbo Slurpies from the Streets of NYC>
Bret says It’s her radical policies and her unelectability that worry me.
I think he's wrong on that. I do think he might be right when he says his own predictions amount to nothing more than a bag of dirt.
4
Just imagine.... two billionaires fighting for the little guys!! I feel better already!
/s
5
Jeez, like Bloomberg much? I feel like these Gail-Bret comments are Bret mansplaining and Gail commenting. I'd like to see the opposite happen sometime, where Gail states her opinion first and Bret responds. Maybe then I wouldn't have to read such fawning over a billionaire who sold New York out to developers...
2
Never has one of these convos ended better than this one with Bret's summary - and apparently, he needed Gail's convincing earlier in the series - of Trump's weakest moment.
And yes, that's saying quite a lot. But his buffoonery, mendaciousness - even his dalliance with bigots & bigotry - strike me as slightly less odious than this "l'etat c'est moi" moment.
This goes beyond self-preservation and self-aggrandizement to what others have always known - Donald either never learned ... or studiously un-learned truisms like "ours is a nation where LAWS are more important than the men or women elected to - AND SWORN TO - uphold them!"
Caesar was killed for less egregious violations. Let's just hope that Trump joins Joe McCarthy in the recycling bin of history - even though he's already ruined more lives than anything other than opioids and HIV.
We've had enough of New Yorkers running things
1
Warren is not likeable and she's a sneaky liar, e.g. telling the Texas Bar that she's an American Indian; falsely claiming on multiple occasions that she was let go because she was pregnant.
With Biden's fumffering he is defeating himself throwing into doubt his lucidity and mental acuity.
Klobuchar and Buttigieg come off as intelligent but not necessarily electable at this time versus Trump. The rest of the field are unelectable clowns.
That leaves Bloomberg. He has a track record of successes. He is well spoken and he is and will not be beholden to any contributors so we would get a cabinet and appointments and ambassadors who attain their positions based upon merit.
2
We're openly talking about sexual bias and we completely skip religious bias. "Our first Jewish president!" You don't think this presents a bit of a problem. To date, we've had exactly one Catholic president and exactly zero Jewish presidents. In fact, we've come closer to having a Mormon president than we have a Jewish one. [Insert Mitt Romney dog joke here]. We're talking about the religion that only reluctantly recanted polygamy under threat of US military intervention.
The issue isn't just about Bloomberg either. I've repeatedly mentioned the silent creeper for Bernie Sanders is faith. Either he's too Jewish or not Jewish enough. Either way, people are thinking specifically about his faith while evaluating his positions. I also suspect faith had a role in diminishing John Kerry's election chances. Yes, he got swift-boated but the smear took hold with surprising ease. I don't think that's coincidence.
Which brings us to Trump, an openly bigot president. Somehow a certain portion of the electorate is undecided over a leader who celebrates white supremacy and Nazis marching in Charlottesville. If you think the anti-Semitic slurs directed at Clinton were bad, just wait. Bloomberg and Sanders are both in for a ride.
I wish America were better than our Protestant prejudice. However, I'll sadly acknowledge we aren't that sophisticated. I imagine we'll see a second black president or our first female president, even our first gay president, before we see a Jewish president.
Ya, a 77 year old billionaire from NYC who isn't even really a Dem is exactly what the Democratic Party base is looking for. LOL.
2
"Impeach the sucker." Is that really punishment enough for a man who has probably stashed away millions in some bank account and made endless "deals" for when he leaves office. Meanwhile, we, the People, have a country and our institutions scattered about in shambles, our allies dismayed, our future uncertain in so many areas (climate, Nato, EPA, negligence of usual duties). So, no, impeach will not suit me. I want criminal charges for this Mob Boss and his cronies.
2
When opinion pollsters ask questions about policies, lower college costs, access to health insurance, gun control, etc., liberal policies usually win. When opinion pollsters ask questions about people, "liberals" usually lose. I wish someone could explain that.
1
If we start out by assuming that Bloomberg is a very smart politician, we must reject the notion that his goal is to ensure that Democrats won't lose to Trump by nominating an extremist like Warren. In the race for the Democratic nomination, the major impact of a Bloomberg entrance into the race would be to draw away votes for centrists like Biden, and to thereby improve the prospects for Warren. That would be just fine with me. But the nightmare scenario would be for Bloomberg to come in second after Warren and to then launch a "third party" campaign for president. By attracting the votes of both Romney Republicans and Biden Democrats, I think Bloomberg would actually help Trump -- whose solid base consists of perhaps 40% consists of voters who would never vote for either Warren or Bloomberg.
1
Dear Gail and Bret,
I'm sure you guys remember the 12 years Bloomie was our mayor, the first 4 years being ok. But after that he became another spoiled billionaire. Do we really want another out of touch billionaire president. I don't think so, at least for me. They always seem to advance their own wealth and themselves without even trying. Remember Bloomies fight to change the law so he can run for mayor for the third time and of course his Stop and Frisk policy?
Now we get to do this again on an even greater scale?
No Thanks...
2
I don't care how much the rich don't want to pay taxes I'm not voting for Bloomberg. He's a northeast republican to me. Skipping all the early states so he can jump in on super Tuesday and try to buy the nomination is even less appealing.
If Warren is "unlikable", come on guys are you really using Trump philosophy on the readers. Bloomberg is considered "unlikable" so instead defending that your trying to attach the word to an opponent to muddy the water. Kind of sad.
She's going around talking to people face to face in attempt to win. Along with all the other Democrats going for the nomination. What is Bloomberg's plan. Jump in on super Tuesday and blowing tons of his money to buy votes. Sounds like he's scared to meet people face to face cause he's out of touch, cold and can't relate.
America doesn't need another out of touch rich guy who thinks he's better then them. We already have that candidate if your look Bret, his name is Trump. He'll keep your taxes low.
1
A moderate is what it will take for the Democrats to win the next election. There are none in the field. Bloomberg isn’t wrong.
Gotta laugh at when stop and frisk is brought up, Bret brings up Bloomberg’s electoral results from before that disastrous policy. Or how he thinks Joe Biden has the politician’s gift, like Bill Clinton. The man’s every word drips with condescension. Leave it to Bret to have that sail right over his head.
Bloomberg won’t win anything but our contempt, period. Bring on the primary, moderates.
6
When one considers the combined support of Warren and Sanders, a third party may be finally in the making. The sigh of relief by the Democratic establishment as more billionaires enter the race is the tell. Warren and Sanders are building a movement for the long haul.
5
I’m pulling for Elizabeth Warren. But I would vote for Michael Bloomberg. A danger to his general election candidacy, I fear, is Democrats who opt for self-absorbed political purity and vote for a third-party candidate or not at all, failing to have learned the lessons of the past, and thereby plunging us into four more years of a Trump presidency, from which the nation and the world as we knew it likely will never recover. In my eyes, a vote not cast for the Democratic nominee is a vote for Donald Trump.
2
I am impressed with Mr. Bloomberg's generosity to Johns Hopkins. One of my daughters went there as a Bloomberg scholar where Mr. Bloomberg's scholarship fund guaranteed to meet her financial need. His largess is evident all over that campus - Bloomberg School for Public Health, Bloomberg Science Center. She has done well on her own but without the Bloomberg money, who knows. Is Johns Hopkins better for Mr. Bloomberg's generosity? It certainly didn't hurt. I agree with both Ms. Collins and Mr. Stephens that there is no doubt that Mr. Bloomberg could defeat Trump and do the job. I am so afraid of another 4 years of Trump and his criminal cronies that I would vote for anyone who is not Trump. That being said, Mr. Bloomberg seems to be the best choice for the country in today's world. In the best of all worlds, I would love to see what Elizabeth Warren could do.
3
Highest level of inequality in 100 years, 80% of the population is just one major medical event away from bankruptcy. Lack of infrastructure investment over the last 30 years due to the need for big tax cuts.
Solution: a billionaire running for president. Makes good sense to me.
5
I am sick and tired of hearing how, " Today’s Democratic Party is much more ideologically left-wing than what it was in the 1990s." Today's Dems have not hatched their positions in a bunch of corporate funded think tanks. They are responding to the fact that, over the past 25 years, they - and this nation and world - have become vastly more ideologically challenged by extreme right-wing actions than could have been imagined with the ascendance of Clinton in '93. Our ideological and consequent pragmatic responses are in direct reaction to these threats. Want to keep blaming the Democrats for trying to save us from (fill in the blank)? Better you should concentrate on the source of what we've put ourselves up against.
8
Medicare is not free to the elderly. We pay at least $135 out of our Social Security checks every month for Part B (physicians). And we're also responsible for 20 percent over all.
So, Medicare-for-All does not mean free healthcare, at least not as Medicare stands today.
How is the being addressed?
11
@Panthiest
I, too, pay for Medicare and have asked the same question. If every recipient pays what we do (I thought it was $138, but I’m not getting the paperwork out), then Medicare for all could work. So far, Warren and Sanders have been silent and not elaborated.
Individual contributions are necessary if Medicare for All is to be implemented.
Who cares who Bret Stephens supports for the Democratic nomination? He’s a Republican (and so is Bloomberg, who is polling right around Yang and Harris in single digits with the highest negatives among Dem voters of any candidate). If they can’t fix the enormous nightmare that the GOP has become then why in the world do they think we want them to come and try to move our party (even further) to the right? So we can choose between two Republican New York plutocrats for President? But one’s nice, right? One’s good?
11
"Democrats will vote for him because he isn’t Trump, and because he shares their core values when it comes to reproductive rights, gun control and climate change. Independents will vote for him because he isn’t Trump and because they know he will be a good steward of the economy and a capable champion of American interests and values. "
Every single Democratic Party candidate meets those criteria. Every. Single. One.
15
Boomberg was a bad mayor, and would make a bad president. In some ways, he is similar to Giuliani and Trump. All disregard the majority of the voters, and do what they want. As was said about Giuliani, "My way or the high-way." All three are threats to democracy: Trump and Giuliani, because they are demogogues, Bloomberg, because he is a technocrat. He has no problem with buying elections. That has worked for him in the past.
6
Hey, let's not overcomplicate this.
1.) Nominate Bloomberg
2.) Witness him beat the incumbent 60%-40%
3.) Bask in the afterglow of a "landslide"
4.) Enjoy good governance for a change
It's just that simple
5
I was initially very pleased with all the great choices of candidates in the Democratic field. By now though, we should be down to two or three strong candidates to put our money and support behind. With so many still running it appears that the voters might not be as satisfied with the field of candidates but I think that it's only because we still have so many candidates that it appears that way. Voters who are fed up with Trump will coalesce behind the candidate even if that person wasn't their first or second choice. We need to get down to one person as quickly as possible so that Dem candidate can have the next year to campaign full tilt with all the money and support behind them.
7
I love it when the pundits on the East Coast predict with absolute certainty that a certain candidate is not "electable" in the states that will determine the election results.
Affordable health insurance not tied to employment is a real problem in WI. Sanders ran very well here in the Democratic primary of 2016. Trump only won WI by 20,000 votes.
In any event Warren as President will propose Medicare for all after she fine tunes issues like the cost and reimbursements to physicians and hospitals.
Congress will decide what is actually in the bill that becomes law.
Lobbyists from the health insurance companies, drug companies, hospital and physician organizations will descend on Congress like locusts in a grain field. What actually becomes law will almost certainly be different than what Warren proposed.
9
There were positives for NYC and negatives. On the positive side 311 was created giving communication for the public. On the negative side he implemented a policy of frisking without a warrant. Basically he checked what African Americans and Hispanics were carrying in low income neighborhoods. Many families were embarrassed in front of their children for frisking.Never heard of any wealthy area having checks or any wealthy areas in nyc or Brooklyn bring frisked.Bloomberg and the police department seemed racist at times. On the positive side he pushed for a healthy diet. Yet on the negative he allowed for the weakening of construction unions which helped his wealthy friends which went on to create a huge homeless population as the politically connected real estate industry forced many low income and middle income tenants out of their apartments which we now know was illegal. So they could build overpriced condos. Bloomberg stood by and watched from fifth avenue as homelessness soared.
5
As usual Gail and Bret make some of the best points. Yet they fail to see that Bloomberg is not only everything Trump is not, but that he has access to the biggest Angels this side of heaven - The Billionaires Boys and Girls Club (BBGC) which could allow and unheard of - but desperately needed change in American attitudes which would result in moving much of Trump's base to the other side. The answer? Out-Social (Care) the so-called Socialists in the Democrat Party and instead, using the absolute failure of President Trump to meet any promise he made to the forgotten men and women who are his base. Instead he gave the BBGC somewhere near $4 trillion to add to their unified $5 Trillion in assets that allow them to have as much money as 50% of the nation's total Annual Budget. That means that Bloomberg might convince The Club to come together with one or two trillion in private capital to sponsor needed policy changes for the less fortunate White, Black, Brow, etc. Americans - on their own, not through nasty-based taxation. Wealthy people are not evil. They demonstrate their care for our nation more than in any other country. yet perhaps they go to far with favorite charitable giving rather than necessary giving programs which they pay for and manage that will give the homeless a small cottage in which to live their lives and a guaranteed income when they fail. That could be just a start. Maybe in years to come the Club could private basic and life-saving health care too.
That's why we don't have affordable healthcare, affordable childcare, affordable higher education, and stagnated salaries despite the huge number of billionaires.
9
Brett - You are a smart guy. When will you admit that the plans of the more radical progressives will not get past the Senate, if either Warren of Sanders were elected? And, I don’t see AOC becoming Speaker of the House any time soon.
A relatively unbiased look since 1900, shows that the two Republican presidents who were the most effective for the people of this country were Roosevelt (TR) and Eisenhower. Nixon did some good for the country, but was too damaged by his paranoia to be considered in their tier. Since Nixon’s Southern Strategy, the GOP has moved farther and farther rightwards. This has dragged the political center to about where Nixon was, or a little bit farther right.
Look at the presidents since Nixon. Ford was too constrained by the crimes of Nixon to be effective. With Carter, it turned out he was not prepared for the presidency. Reagan shifted the country towards the hardline conservative. His first main action was to destroy a union. Bush 41 was rendered ineffective by the eventual economic downfall of Reaganomics. Clinton would have just fit in on the leftward side of the GOP of the 50s and 60s. (Remember all the talk about how Clinton eased regulations on the financial sector so he got a chunk of the blame for the Great Recession.). Bush 43 was a disaster, both with the wars and the economy. And Obama was too constrained by the economy and Congress to be progressive.
So, a progressive, constrained by Congress, does not look so bad.
7
Leave it to Republican Mr. Stephens to champion an election featuring wealthy Republican businessman Trump, on the Republican ticket, vs. wealthy Republican businessman Bloomberg, on the Democratic ticket. How generous.
No more autocratic billionaires. If Bloomberg is so intent on being a savior, he should run in the Republican primary vs Trump, where he belongs. Or he could use his considerable clout to support one of the other Democrats in the race, who've already put sweat equity into campaigning. Many New Yorkers remember, and don't forgive, Bloomberg's imperial third term, secured by pressuring city council to change the charter without the required public referendum. Horrible stop and frisk policing disproportionally targeting latino and black men. Unqualified Cathie Black (Betsy DeVos?) as schools chancellor. Rampant luxury developments eroding the character and affordability of neighborhoods, displacing longstanding mom & pop businesses. Locking up peaceful protestors at the RNC convention (First Amendment, anyone?). Snowstorm that went unplowed for days, when the mayor enjoyed sunny Bermuda...
No, Mr. Stephens, No.
14
Bret, in the poll you cite Sanders beats Trump in the 3 states eveybody says are crucial. But the media says "look over here." They say look anywhere--Bloomberg, Biden, even Mayor Pete, and that tells you all you need to know.
We progressives have an uphill battle. Fox news is against us and you guys are too. The rich just refuse to part with a small bit of their wealth for the sake of their countrymen (and women). They'd rather buy politicians to do their bidding and hope nobody notices their tax havens and loopholes.
Where are the investigative journalists and whistleblowers? Are Sanders and Warren the only ones who tell it like it is?
11
I think Bloomberg has a bit too much of Al Gore to win, I can still remember Gore's eye rolling at the debates, technocrats just don't sell. Obama was warm enough to overcome that, but the last thing anyone is going to call Bloomberg is warm. That and a billionaire railing against tax increases in this day and age is going to help, not hurt, Warren and Sanders.
5
So to be clear, some Democrats think: a) We should put a halt to Warren's growing popularity and surging momentum, both among Democrats and among independents in swing states, and b) the one to do that is a billionaire oligarch Republican convert?
Also, don't they realize that Bloomberg entering at this point likely just takes votes away from Biden, and actually helps, no hurts, Warren?
These are the same people who still think Hillary was a great candidate in 2015-2016.
7
Mayor Pete is not too young. He is inspirational on so many levels and is the breath of fresh air we all need after the suffocating presidency of Trump. He will be a great Commander In Chief and really cares about people and our country. Bret, please stop saying his youth is to his detriment. It is the very thing that makes him so much more invested than any other candidate, because after all, he will be alive when all the other have passed. If we focus on age might as well eliminate anybody older than 60 and younger than 40. And where would that leave us? Pete has earned my confidence with his ideas, demeanor, speaking ability and just plain human decency. Let's bring that to the Oval Office.
12
As I read the two US major newspapers daily
It is easy to note bias. I detect an undercurrent of candidate support that
Is premature.
Let us vote.
Then I go to european publications including
Swiss ,german , and northern Irish and question how far a Warren would appeal.
Four more years of Trump would kill off any respect we may still find abroad.
We live in a much bigger world than this election and its infighting.
Let us vote.
3
Stephens opines "Today’s Democratic Party is much more ideologically left-wing than what it was in the 1990s." Well, this may be true of the actual voters who identify as Democrats or "lean Democrat" but certainly not of the party's centrist core of DNC members and Wall Street enthusiasts who continue their attacks in Warren, Sanders, Buttigieg and any others who draw attention to rampant economic inequality here in the US.
The Democrats need, desperately, a nearly historic voter turnout to win in 2020. They need progressives, young voters, and minorities of all stripes and persuasion to emerge with at least the presidency and the House. The continuing drumbeat in favor of a billionaire from Manhattan, who as of today, is too coy to join the fray, is not going to cut it with groups clamoring for meaningful change in their own lives.
A bought and sold Bloomberg nomination will create the greatest schism among the Democrats in the party's history as those to the left of Walter Mondale and Hubert Humphrey throw in the towel and walk away as new independents or to the party's horror, begin a third, progressive party.
12
You have convinced me that Bloomberg should run for the Republican nomination, or start a new conservative party and mount a write-in campaign in the general election.
13
I have nothing particularly against Michael Bloomberg, in fact agree with him on many issues. And the fact that he's very wealthy, while off-putting, isn't necessarily an automatic disqualifier. But, as a purely practical matter, it's a mistake to believe that he would 'trounce Trump' in the general election. His views on guns, abortion, the environment, and so forth would create problems for him with precisely the same voters in precisely the same states that cost Hillary Clinton the election.
11
Bret Stephens, normally astute in these matters, has temporarily lost his strategic sense. If election strategists of the Giuliani-Putinist sort set out to invent a candidate who would help Trump they couldn't do much better than Michael Bloomberg. He has just enough appeal to weaken Biden but not enough to win the moderate vote and go on to beat Trump. The Rudy strategy, as evidenced by Trump's Ukraine shakedown, is to favor a Trump-Warren matchup.
86
@G C B Bloomberg is a thousand times better than trump but he is a Republican and they want him to run but not with their party. They want him to run as a Democratic. The GOP has no guts they should throw trump out and support Bloomberg.
19
@G C B -- There is a fundamental flaw in that thinking. Biden is Hillary 2.0 in this thinking. That didn't work last time.
9
@Mark Thomason: What worked last time was the Republican campaign to convince young leftist voters that Hillary was really a Republican in disguise. It worked as those same young leftists abandoned Hilary to either refuse to vote or votes for third party candidates who didn't have a prayer of winning. Reading NYT comments, it looks to me the the young leftists are going to hand the election to Trump again.
8
Worthy of Apple, Reston, Rosenthal, and Gail Collins are these lines from Bret Stephens:
"Bloomberg’s appeal to Democrats must be along the lines that he’s a uniter in an age of division; that he made his fortune honestly, ran his business ethically and has given billions back; that he’s ready to be president on Day 1; that he will restore sanity and sobriety to our politics; and, above all, that he is the only moderate in the race with a sure shot at the election."
2
Bloomberg's reputation has been indelibly stained by his support of the stop-and-frisk policy during his stint as mayor. The fact remains, however, that Democrats will have to choose from among flawed candidates, and Bloomberg's moderate stance on most issues may attract more voters than Warren's more liberal but controversial positions. Personally, I would prefer to see her in the Oval Office, but her refusal to compromise on a wide range of issues defies the basic democratic principle that, wherever possible, elected officials should view their opponents as partners in government, rather than as adversaries to be vanquished.
Given the character of the contemporary GOP, this ideal may seem naive, a relic of less partisan times. But our political history confirms the conclusion that all majorities lack permanence, that laws which move the country too far in one direction, politically, almost inevitably provoke a reaction that weakens the initial thrust. Even the New Deal suffered conservative modifications after 1953, especially in labor policy.
A President Warren would have to compromise to achieve anything. Better to signal her willingness in advance, to assure independents. Otherwise, Bloomberg would prove the more prudent choice.
153
It's funny that you see Warren as someone who 'refuses to compromise' considering that most progressives see her as a much more willing to compromise version of Bernie. It's insanity to me that people expect compromise on the campaign trail. Starting from the compromised position weakens our hand. As far as these polls go, they were all done on landline and conducted mostly on Boomers and Gen Xers, get young people out to vote and Warren or Bernie will trounce Trump in nearly every state. The best way to get young people to the polls is to have either one on the ticket.
40
@James Lee - I don't recall Jimmy Carter stating that he was willing to compromise on his principles following the downfall of Richard Nixon. On the contrary, the American public was more than willing to vote for the antithesis of Nixon's corruption. A Christian man who vowed to disinfect the Oval Office from the stagnant backroom cigar smell of Nixon's backroom deals.
24
@James Lee
Compromise with fascists should not be a “tenet of democracy”. History shows it to be a way for democracy to fail.
19
It is very telling of what "centrism" really is in this country, when all the billionaires are running as Democrats: They support most socially liberal policies, but are vehemently against anything that reflects an economically just society. That is what centrism is, and why we have to expunge it out of the Democratic Party, back into the "moderate" side of the Republican Party where it belongs. Right the country: That means put the moderate right wingers back in their party to fix it.
303
@Bret This is the best response!! Thanks!
21
@Bret And meanwhile, while we're working to keep the Democratic Party ideologically pure by sending moderates like Bloomberg away, Warren gets crushed in the 2020 election because she couldn't appeal to swing state moderates and we get four more years of Trump. No, thank you.
25
@Bret I'm fine with billionaires as long as they pay their fair share of taxes and pay their workers a healthy, livable wage. Why can't we work toward a more just world with health care and good benefits, including middle class jobs without shaming wealthy folks who are on the same side. When I give more to charity myself, I'll start shaming folks for being too wealthy.
16
Bret is spot on. What progressives will never understand is that Anti-left” will always beat “Anti-Trump” in most places in the U.S. but especially in swing states. Our best chance is to run from the center. Last Tuesday's election results are in. You have to be blind to not be able to read these tea leaves. Voters, especially swing voters are rejecting Trumpism but endorsing moderates. If the Dems nominate a far-left candidate they will lose in 2020. There's no progressive majority in the U.S. & never will be. The numbers are not there. There certainly is no progressive Electoral College coalition in the U.S. that could get to the needed 270 votes. This point can't be emphasized enough: almost every progressive candidate in whom Dems invested tremendous time, money, & emotional energy in 2018—O’Rourke, Gillum, & Abrams— lost. Almost every progressive ballot initiative in this country was voted down. If this election is about kitchen table issues: jobs & affordable education there's no way the Democrats lose. If it's about reparations, felon voting rights, & immigration there's no way we win. Warren & Sanders wants to provide free health care for illegal immigrants, which would be paid for by raising taxes on middle-class Americans. This is the only issue that would compel independent swing voters in say Kentucky & Virginia to hold their nose & vote for Trump again. A moderate like Bloomberg gives us the best chance to win in 2020. We can win with or without progressives.
341
@Bill Brown Democrats need a moderate at the top of the ticket with a running mate that will help to turnout the more left base. I don't see a path for Bloomberg to get the nomination. I'm holding out hope that the good people of Iowa will still give Klobuchar a good look. She would make the perfect candidate for the upper midwest battleground states.
39
@Bill Brown I agree with most of your post, except for the part describing independent swing voters. They aren't going to hold their nose and vote for Trump, I would speculate they are just sitting this one out and in serious numbers
19
The certainty of this widely shared sentiment is a bit confounding since we have never had a major party far left candidate run for president, and the moderates who have run are only batting .500.
voters will vote for someone they can trust as well as on issues. That and voters are smart enough to know that what a candidate wants and what they can get are two different things. Another point worth noting is that at this point in the process it is almost impossible to know how the candidates will perform head to head in the general election.
23
The plutocracy - appalled at all the loose talk about their finally being subject to something approaching just and equitable taxation, has hastily shoved forward one of their own to make sure that never happens.
If it means 4 more unthinkable years of the horrendous trump, then so be it. Money is all they know and all they care about.
167
@Plennie Wingo Stop the hysteria about Warren and Sanders trying to take all the billionaires' money away. People carry on like they want to march the rich to the guillotine. They just want fairness, rather than the rich paying taxes at a lower rate than a lot of the middle class and corporations paying taxes instead of being subsidized. Why have so many Americans become so frightened of fairness and equality?
127
@Carole A. Dunn
I don't believe that Americans are frightened of fairness and equality. I believe the real issue is that Americans are justifiably cynical that the government will deliver fairness and equality just because politicians trying to get votes say they will.
Let us not forget that the State and Federal Government both knew of the Flint Michigan lead contamination for over a year and did NOTHING because of bureaucratic ineptitude. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/19/us/flint-water-crisis-epa.html
Promises are just that - promises. It takes real dedication to actually deliver and right now I can't see Warren or Sanders delivering.
I don't doubt their desire to help; I just find it impossible to believe that they can deliver without decimating the working class and the middle class through significant tax increases. And don't try to tell me that major tax increases on employers don't translate to major taxes on working and middle class Americans. I'm no economist, but I know where most of our paychecks come from. When businesses suffer, people working for those businesses suffer.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/11/06/us/politics/elizabeth-warren-policies-taxes.html?searchResultPosition=13
6
@GenOregonTrail And what would your friendly billionaire president have done about Flint's water? Nothing.
9
It is hard for me to consider candidates like Warren and Sanders "extreme," especially when compared to the current White House resident. Trump may the most extreme and unqualified president in American history. Warren and Sanders would return our tax policies back to post-WWII levels, when unions were strong and households could easily survive on one income. You know, before the rich oligarchs perverted the system to their own benefit.
706
@KenF
I agree that Warren and Sanders should not be considered as extreme since both are focusing on the have not much instead of protecting the 1% ers. What is extreme to some is how they will pay for their plans. The answer is the dirtiest word in politics, taxes. Odd that we gave huge tax breaks to millionaires, exploding the deficit and that is not extreme.
57
@KenF
Amen to that. It can be done. Hope will never die!
10
@KenF
So-called rich oligarchs did not pervert the system; the economic changes since WWII are primarily a result of globalism, something neither Sanders or Warren can reverse.
7
Two thoughts:
1. Right on. Impeach the sucker.
2. On the Democratic contest: I still like Warren because we really do need systemic change in America. However, we need to remember (despite the countervailing example of the current WH occupant), a presidency is not a coronation. Good or bad, whatever a president wishes to do does not happen by fiat. It takes a compliant Congress and Judiciary to go from idea to realization.
The current president may have bashed institutions badly but most of his policies have either failed to launch (see: Wall) or crashed and burned (see: Ukrainian extortion/impeachment).
I remain hopeful Warren will put out one more plan--a plan for transition from our current Rube Goldberg health care chaos to bridge the way to Medicare for All, perhaps calling it Medicare for Any. If we cannot construct a better and cheaper system for Americans to pry them loose from insurers, we deserve our place in the OECD cellar for health costs and health outcomes.
4
If Bloomberg really wanted to do damage to Trump's 2020 candidacy, he'd run as a Republican, just as he did in New York the two times he (legally) ran for Mayor.
This is just arrogant mischief, and to the extent that he's going to draw votes from any of the other candidates it's going to be from centrist candidates like Biden and Buttigieg. He's not going to "save" us from the dreaded "radical"progressivism of Warren and Sanders.
12
Wow. This may be the single-most out-of-touch, insulated conversation I've heard in a long, long time. And that's saying something. Anything but real change! Trump is our only problem, and if he's gone, everything will go back to normal!!!
Good Lord. The working class in this country, of which I am an active member, are screaming for real change in Washington and for the government to help them, to work for them, to champion them. I know you all hate to hear it, but it's why Bernie and Sanders are so wildly popular. And Sanders beats Trump (as does Biden) in most of the key states. But to acknowledge that would be to potentially threaten the neo-liberal status quo.
9
I think Stephens and Never Trumpers should stop interfering and commenting on the Dem primaries, and for goodness sake stop threatening to blame Dems for their choice if heaven forbid Trump wins again. That is not on us. That is on the millions of Reps who did and will vote for him no matter what.
9
Think of the absurdity that Bloomie - a former Republican, Independent, come Democrat is now the savior of tyhe Blue party? Smart- check; Socially progressive - check; Fiscally conservative - check.
The question remains can a non Christian get votes off of the two coasts?
Bloomie, or whomever is our next POTUS will have a daunting task in trying to simultaneously repair and re-unite our nation after four years of active grifting.
I guess that I can vote for Bloomie over Dishonest Don, but my heart wants Liz - it wants somebody with a passion to make life better for We The People.
Thanks again to Gail and Bret - BTW I believe that Klobushar eating yogurt with a comb is just as disqualifying as was Seamus roof surfing on the Romney Vacation to Canada.
4
Just LET BLOOMBERG BE BLOOMBERG. It worked in "The West Wing", so maybe we should let Sorkin be his campaign manager.
CONSIDER THE MAN AND HIS ACCOMPLISHMENTS; what he has done and where he stands. That record is unsurpassed by anyone except perhaps Obama. The fact that Michael Bloomberg is a multi-billionaire is irrelevant except that he will not be swayed by outside financial interests like Trump (whose "fortune" is as fake as he is and who has zero ethics). THAT is very important in this corrupt state of affairs and the antithesis of Trumpian non-governance.
I like the other Democratic candidates - they're good people and very smart. Unlike them, however, Bloomberg has a long lifetime of incredible competent and compassionate governance AND more business knowledge than almost anyone. That's what he does and it's that knowledge that can truly guide our country.
Bloomberg is smart enough to assimilate the best of what the other candidates have proposed without going off the tracks and HE CAN TROUNCE TRUMP - there is no comparison there. Even the feckless Republicans would profit from a Bloomberg Presidency bye having a country that works. Nunes and his crew can stick it - they are worthless anyway.
6
Bloomberg has way too much friction which his money cannot lubricate away. His success in New York City will not translate to the rest of the country. He failed on his national gun control efforts.
Where is the vote of the under 40 crowd here? Are they the oil we need to spin this election's engine?
5
Mr. Stephens apparently does not understand the simple truth that nobody earns a billion dollars. The system that produces billionaires (there is no such thing as a "self-made billionaire") is profoundly undemocratic, perverted, and corrupt. None of this seems to matter to Mr. Stephens, who displays little interest in governance or policy beyond their standing in polls.
6
Yes they do. Bloomberg invented a terminal that delivers market information that as many as 20 million users willingly pay $25,000 a year to use. Jobs did the same with Apple, Gates the same with Microsoft. All three of these individuals in turn created thousands of multi-millionaires. We need more individuals like this not less.
1
At whose expense though? How many rivals with equally good ideas did they crush along the way? How many jobs could have been created with more competition for all of the companies you reference?
1
Not so. I know several “self-made” billionaires, in electronics manufacturing, tech/software, and services sectors.
Bret, I have two bones to pick with you.
First, "Comparing Bloomberg to Giuliani is like comparing Carlos Santana to Axl Rose: One of them definitely did not get better with age." I'm not a Guns 'n Roses fan, but it's totally unfair to slander Axl Rose by comparing him to Giuliani.
Second, your "concerns" about Warren seem very petty "I’m sure she’s totally fine as a person. It’s her radical policies and her unelectability that worry me." Exactly what policies has anyone else proposed that you're happier with? She's the ONLY candidate who seems to have given these issues any real thought. She's smart enough to know her policies wouldn't be implemented "as is" but at least she's putting a stalking horse out there.
And, by the way, the "extremism" of her views is resonating with a lot of people. The most who are most upset are the very wealthy and the pundits. When was the last time you engaged in "retail politics" and got down with the "average American?" I'm guessing your views stand unassailed by reality.
9
Oh, good, yet another billionaire populist humanitarian philanthropist. Yes, and let’s make stop and frisk a national standard, coast to coast. For the rest of those not stopped and frisked, a limousine in every garage and a lobster in every pot.
7
Hey! Out here. "Swing" state...
"Individual 1 competitive with, or beating, Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders in six battleground states — surely had a lot to do with his move"
No, no and no. This is meaningless at this juncture. The candidates are so focused on Iowa and N.Hampshire they have hardly dipped a toe into our area. So don't take this to heart. Just the get the candidates out to talk to the people.
We DO NOT need a character like Bloomberg. No one out here in the swing states is going to say YAY to the former mayor of NYC. Especially not the filthy rich one. We aren't big fans of the rich out here. We do, however love the practical. Which lets out Warren AND Sanders, who are absurd.
I'm a Pete Buttigieg supporter myself but could vote for Klobuchar. I could vote for several people. Not Biden, like Bloomberg too old and too not of this century.
Talk to people in the middle. I've lived in NYC, SFO and LA. I get the coastal mentality. And I'm telling you, you are wrong.
6
"Also, Donald Trump won the last election thanks to a perception by many average Americans that the coastal elites looked down on them. And Bloomberg is not a guy who suffers fools gladly."
The way these two statements conflate to me is that Bloomberg considers average Americans fools. Either that, or Ms. Collins does.
1
Mr. Stephens needs to read. His assertions aren't much better informed than my friends who only watch Fox News talk shows.
Bloomberg is strong on leadership and weak on policy. Warren is a die-hard capitalist with some unrealistic proposals that stem from her unwise commitment to having a proposal for everything. Bloomberg has announced zero proposals but Stephens likes him because he's rich and better than Guiliani?
Iknow this light fare, but both Brooks always made me think by using informed reasoning rather than knee-jerk conservatism.
1
Warren, that unrealistic, radical, socialist, leftist, unlikeable communist, and her crazy plan to copy the healthcare system used in the civilized countries, and make college affordable! No, what America needs is another moderate, old, rich, white guy who will preserve the status quo. He can win!
Give us ranked choice voting already! Let the people decide who best represents their interests. I’m voting for a Democrat, let me choose which one. The current nomination system is divisive, works against the party that has the most educated, thoughtful, and politically astute voters, and favors the party of loyal, unthinking followers.
4
The sole criterion by which I will judge a candidate is the ability to beat Trump. I have always been one of those “vote your heart in the primary, vote your head in the election” liberals, but Trump is an existential threat to the country and the world. Anyone would be better, no one could be worse.
7
He is the perfect candidate. His real desire is to serve his country. Warren and Sanders are out of touch with mainstream moderate America. They are writing checks to the small radical wing of Demo-Socialists who scream the loudest, but will never be able to be cashed. Trump? Enough said. Bloomberg knows the country is so very tired of being lied to.
Stop calling the U.S. Dems left wing. By global standards we are middle of the road aka modern, efficient, functional, and dealing with realities of science, medicine, and the environment issues. Some conservative Dems look downright backward tho not as backward (or crooked) as the GOP.
3
@poslug Those candidates are running for President of the Unites States, not the world. The NYT is merely stating what polling reflects: the current Democrat candidates are too far left wing to win the general election, ie they are too far left wing for America.
2
@ejones so here in America we have gotten too far right for our own good, so much so we don’t recognize what centrism really means..it’s way right of center by any standard.
2
Getting advice on Democratic candidates from Brett Stephens is like getting advice on sheep farming from the big bad Wolf. He has, shall we say, a bias.
I was really struck by his comment that “2020 is not the year to take chances“. Oddly, this was also true in 2008, 1992, etc. When exactly then can we vote for our own ideals, Bret?
4
Note to Bloomberg: if you need to make a difference, buy Fox News and change it. You'll have a lot more fun / less stress than running for United State President and have a profound effect on the country / world.
9
This is the best comment on this thread!
"And Bloomberg is not a guy who suffers fools gladly."
Neither does the typical urban elitist. Four more years of Trump might learn them but I doubt it, they're to smart for that.
1
100% agree with Brett. There are loads of Republicans that voted for Trump, even though they believed he was an idiot because:
a) they thought Clinton was just as corrupt (lots of baggage with Bill), b) Trump aligned himself with small government and conservative judiciary.
Bloomberg can win them over with reasonable taxation and trade policies, moderate health care proposals and a sense of outside the beltway political motivation (a version of drain the swamp). Anyone that can be branded as a "socialist", regardless of accuracy, will lose in the electoral college. Warren's policies are simply too scary for most Americans not living on the coasts. Biden will wither under Trump assault.
And....stop calling Mayor Pete too young. Yes he's young. but he's not TOO young.
5
Just so predictable! “I’d vote for a woman, just not THAT woman,” followed by “I like the woman I find reassuring.”
1
Will “never Trump” Republicans, along with mainstream media outlets now ignoring several viable candidates, ever stop telling Democrats who to nominate? “Hey, how about this elderly white billionaire who is really an establishment Republican? That would make us comfortable.” Go back and fix your own profoundly anti-democratic party, now lurching straight into the Russians’ eager arms. Democrats don’t need your suggestions and we certainly don’t need your lectures.
3
Why doesn't Bloomberg run against Trump in the Republican primaries? Now there would be a real service for the nation. Make the sucker defend his policies in each and every state.
4
Would that we could impeach voters who would vote for an impeachable president. We are in grave danger as a country - very grave danger, and it will not end with the end of Trump, however that comes about. As long as so many voters don't care about having a president as heinous and criminal as Trump, we will stay in grave danger.
1
This is a graphic representation of an echo chamber.
Apparently Bllomberg is going to turn the Senate, the WH and governors blue, pick up everyone"s guns and save the planet.
But the biggest laugh was about him capturing the Liberal vote.
Liberals will not vote for a rich old white straight man. They cannot conceive voting the middle ground, some one who can deal with the right or compromise, or who does not pass their purity tests.
Centrists like me, yes we will.
Left fringe Liberals, never.
2
I was a bit stunned last Saturday at the reaction a buddy of mine had at my mentioning Bloomberg's entry. A few guy's get together to have coffee at BN and talk politics.
He's black an ex-paratrooper and paramedic. He wanted to jump from Dallas to NYC to tell Bloomberg to mind his own business.
"Heaven help us if he runs as an independent!"
He was not angry about "Stop and Frisk". A this juncture some anti Trumpers see him as an interloper, who may muddy the waters.
I'm Jewish, a retired EE, perhaps with a cognitive bias and was elated about his joining the race. But, let's hope he doesn't do the independent thing!
2
"Comparing Bloomberg to Giuliani is like comparing Carlos Santana to Axl Rose: One of them definitely did not get better with age."
Quote of the Month - thank you Bret!
I don't think the country needs yet another Democrat candidate for President. I do think that wealthy wannabe-candidates like Steyer and Bloomberg would better serve the country by using their wealth and influence to support the most likely candidate to beat Trump in the 2020 election. Whatever one's political leanings I dare say beating Trump in 2020 is the most important task in preserving America's democracy. Making America America again should be everyone's goal. Trump's "eviction" from the White House would be a good beginning.
257
@Cristino Xirau
I want to know how wealthy men will deal with systemic poverty, failing infrastructure, climate change and affordable healthcare for all, while of course protecting their own wealth. If they came out with a Warren Buffett type plan to tax the richest, I might consider voting for a billionaire.
21
@Cristino Xirau No, defeating Trump is not the first priority. Trump is a mere symptom. The rich are the problem. The real enemies are Wall Street, Big Pharma, and Big Tech. The real enemies are the 1%. And the real enemy who we absolutely most defeat are centrists Democrats who maybe socially liberal but ultimately serve the interests of the obscenely wealthy. If we elect a centrist Democrat, the middle and working classes will continue to be exploited. Trump is merely an unprofessional and embarrassing nuisance.
If the Democrats nominate a centrist, I will vote for Trump in protest of the Democratic party.
3
@Cristino Xirau -- "I don't think the country needs yet another Democrat candidate for President."
True. But the Republicans do. They need a primary fight.
5
Perhaps Bloomberg and Tom Steyer should fund Admiral McRaven. He is a serious, sensible, thoughtful, honorable man who like Eisenhower has a long history of noteworthy service to the country. I think he would easily defeat Cadet BoneSpurs in a debate or any other demonstration of true intelligence or prowess.
2
Failing to convict Trump in Senate can only have a negative effect on the Democrats especially in a highly charged election year. Yes, Mr. Trump deserves impeachment but is that in the best interests of actually replacing him. In the history of the republic only two have made it to a trial in the Senate and neither were convicted. Americans are split on impeachment mainly due to the fact that Democrats have been trying to get Trump removed since he first took office. Remove him by electing his replacement in less than a year from now. It is impossible to gauge the blow back from a failed impeachment. Blatant obstruction and perjury didn't get Clinton convicted and helped the GOP in the following election. Impeachment is a political minefield and no one knows who will suffer most.
2
Bret please read Piketty’s, "Brahmin Left vs. Merchant Right: Rising Inequality & the Changing Structure of Political Conflict”. The country has rebelled against their upper class overlords and are searching for a candidate that speaks to their reality of stagnant wages, disappearing jobs and lack of a safety net. Bloomberg would be doubling down on the neo liberal attitudes that got us where we are today. Piketty says that their is an opening for an internationalist populist that could win the electorate. If you truly want someone to beat Trump, look outside the Manhattan bubble.
12
Bret Stephens opines: "He is jumping in the race very late and will tick off some voters for seeming like an opportunistic Johnny-come-lately."
Very late? Opportunistic? Really...?
I remember the 1976 presidential primary campaign, when Gerry Brown & Frank Church(!) jumped in during the middle of the spring as part of the ABC ("Anybody But Carter") Movement. Caucuses had already been held, states had already run primary elections. The big electoral prize — California, where Brown was governor (the first go-round) — was still up for grabs in June that year.
Bloomberg is testing the waters in early November 2019. Caucuses that count are two months away, Super Tuesday five months away. Not a single delegate has been chosen for a convention that will be held in mid-July 2020. Think of it — someone could get pregnant _today_ and deliver a full-term baby _before_ the Democratic Party formally choses its nominee.
This is a "very late" entry only in our distorted political universe of 24/7 news-cycles & unaccountable social media, much of which is hyper-partisan; unlimited campaign fundraising by PACs, dark money pools filled by industrial magnates, and small-sum individuals contributing via the Internet; and so-called "debates" that are just televised cattle-calls reminiscent of early rounds of "Survivor."
If we want saner politics, cap the duration of campaigns, overturn Citizens United, and publicly finance candidates. We can learn something from Canada & even the UK on this.
30
Just now in my way of transiting from deep sleep to coffee, I realized precisely why the Republicans are and have been packing the courts of law with servants;
The Republicans fully intended to break the laws of our nation.
After having their political power bought for them by the wealthy class, the Republicans have been repealing far reaching laws and regulations. Everyone's outrage is slowly evoked day to day with dangerous actions. The Republicans not only wanted in-the-pocket Judges to get away with their agenda of deregulation and power grabs. They fully intended to pack the courts by premeditated desires to break the laws.
We will no longer have truthful redress in the courts, including the packed Supreme Court that is in on this.
It's all about Wall Street, isn't it?
35
@PATRICK "The People grew fat and got lazy. And now their vote is a meaningless joke. They babble about Law and Order, but it's all just an echo of what they've been told" - John Kay/Jerry Edmonton (1969)
Stephens writes, "Today’s Democratic Party is much more ideologically left-wing than what it was in the 1990s." Then why is Bloomberg running as a Democrat? He should run as an Independent. Then I might consider voting for him, but I have reservations about his support for many liberal causes. One reason that I am a staunch supporter of Donald J. Trump is that he is not a Democrat nor is he a Republican in the sense of Lincoln but rather one in the sense of Teddy Roosevelt or Ronald Reagan in his fervent Nationalism. In other words, Trump is not part of the Establishment. Bloomberg is not part of the Establishment either, but given that he is independent, would the Establishment mount impeachment against him if he were to be elected? After all, that's what the impeachment of Donald J. Trump is all about. Either Hillary Rodham Clinton or Jeb Bush should be in the White House, continuing the Bush-Clinton-Obama political dynasty that began in 1989. Yet in 2016, the people decided that they had enough of the Establishment candidates and that they wanted their government back. Donald J. Trump has returned the government to the people and unleashed the greatest economic engine of a lifetime. Wonder if Bloomberg could do the same despite his penchant for liberalism? Cheers!
4
@Southern Boy
trump is more of an anarchist than affiliated with any particular political viewpoint. He doesn't understand enough about American history, civic norms or the Constitution to hold a cohesive view. He also personally has no moral core from which to hold a cohesive view.
And I have a very large disagreement with your view that "he returned the government to the people." trump is a rich coastal elite who is making changes that primarily benefit the rich coastal elite, especially himself. It is codified in his tax "reform" (research how it benefits real estate developers). He has done nothing for the average American.
13
Trump unleashed nothing. Periods of expansion under Obama were greater. Trump was just lucky enough to inherit a healthy economy, unlike his predecessor.
7
@Southern Boy
"...given that he is independent, would the Establishment mount impeachment against him if he were to be elected? After all, that's what the impeachment of Donald J. Trump is all about."
The impeachment inquiry into Donald Trump is not about him being independent. It's about him being a criminal.
7
Our institutions are under constant attack from Trump and his cult followers - I imagine some might find this column amusing - but these times are deadly serious. The Trump presidency must end with impeachment and removal from office. Otherwise Trump, with GOP support, will challenge any electoral defeat as a deep state coup and refuse to leave office - he's already said as much.
14
"lost in trsnslation". one of the best movies I've ever partially watched 10 times.
1
You left out that Bloomberg is running t o protect the tax cuts and tax breaks for the 1% and people like himself. He is not running for the good of the 99%. The only difference between he and Trump, is that Bloomberg actually speaks and act like he has intelligence. As opposed to Trump which looks like he never absorbed any knowledge since the sixth grade.
What ever the case, if Bloomberg wins the nomination, and the presidency, while he will restore order to the White House; 99% of Americans will still feel left out. He will be a one term president (if he makes it that long), and probably cause the legislative branch to go back to the GOP.
Finally, Bloomberg better choose a very capable vice president, because chances are good, that person may end up being president.
13
@Nick Metrowsky
He's running to protect his own wealth?
Sure, and he's spending about $1 billion of his own money, to finance his campaign.
Look at this charitable contributions over the years. (Much better than taking $ into own's own charitable foundation and then spending it to acquire paintings of yourself!)
You better hope the Dems pick him. He's likely the best and only candidate to beat Trump.
1
I am concerned that Bloomberg will split the ‘moderate’ primary vote among himself, Buttigieg, and Biden - and then Warren or Sanders will win with a plurality. And Warren or Sanders may not win those necessary states like mine (Pennsylvania) in the general. We need to be smart about the Electoral College or we will get 4 more horrific years of Trump.
9
This thoughts played somewhat for laughs still shows all of media following the status “quo” of a corporate view of democracy, that view says all dem candidates are left wing because they try to slow down the corporate corruption. the american political system is even before citizens united horror. What ever big money wants it gets any one who points it out is shrill and fringe.
We cant afford health care because the care and rx policy have been bought by insurance and pharma. We pay double what most any country pays for broadband as well. Simple old school drugs like asthma meds Keep doubling in price. We used to have antitrust laws against mergers not anymore, wages go down costs and profits way up, we are ruled by their power and congress allows it, their biggest friends. Gop made it an art form under tom delay
17
I have seen Elizabeth Warren up close campaigning. I found her extremely likable, engaging, and down to earth. Do your homework, Bret Stephens.
96
@Dissatisfied
And, who's going to pay for her policies?
The majority of the populace will not vote for medicare for all at the expense of abandoning their own health care options.
The majority of the population will not want to also afford elimination of college debt. (Yes, reform it, but not eliminate it).
You want Warren as the nominee? Then you better get ready for 4 more years of Trump as President. She scares the 'bejeezus' out of the middle of the electorate and that is who's going to decide the Presidency.
2
@Dissatisfied her puppy Bailey is adorable too!
2
It is her policies that Bret disagrees with, not her “likability” or her methods of campaigning.
Let's talk about Bloomberg. He's basically a Republican who is liberal on social issues like gay marriage, gun control and abortion.
He was elected as mayor because after eight years of Guilliani's racism and divisiveness a technocrat like Bloomberg was a welcome relief.
And in his first term he basically focused on making the wheels of government run more efficiently. In a city as large and complex as New York that was an accomplishment.
But by his second term his class allegiances and elitism began to guide policy. New York would be remade in the image of Paris.
Manhattan would be the central hub for art, culture, banking and finance. The outer boroughs would house the workers necessary to make Manhattan's elite comfortable and Bloomberg's real estate friend would gobble up every inch of space to build housing that most New Yorkers could never afford.
With his usual technocratic efficiency Bloomberg sought to concentrate the wealthy and powerful, fill the coffers of the real estate giants and make the banks and Wall Street happy.
The rest of us saw public housing slowly starve to death. And why not? Private landlords have always coveted public housing space.
Bloomberg also firmly believed that the sacrifice of the constitutional rights of black and brown folks was a small price for us to pay for the psychic comfort it provided to his new army of gentrifiers.
Some of us thought this was institutional racism on steroids. When he left we were happy to see him go.
42
@Drspock
Yes to all of your comments. I was personally involved in a two year battle in State and Federal Court, and in the court of public opinion, against Bloomberg and his elitist friends. His racism was troubling because he doesn't think that he is a racist, in fact, he thinks the opposite about himself.
I am not outraged that Bloomberg is running for the Democratic nomination. I am outraged that Bloomberg will spend $100M+ of his own wealth (not grassroots support) to subvert the democratic process and buy the nomination for himself. If we are justified in worrying about foreign bad actors clouding voters' hearts and minds with social media ads/posts, why are we not similarly worried about a billionaire burying every other Democratic candidate's voice?
Bloomberg did not vie in the Democratic marketplace like all the other candidates. Other candidates, facing the fire of debates and retail politics, displayed the very weaknesses that Bloomberg himself might have displayed: signs of age, Republican leanings, lack of detailed plans, character flaws, careless slips of an unwary and exhausted tongue. We voters will not know if Bloomberg would have displayed himself to be as unelectable as he thinks the current candidates are. All we will have is the murky mix of what we see and what his money tells us to see.
32
IF -capitals on purpose- Bloomberg can get into a debate with the other candidates, I think he could do very well on the stage. And I think a lot of people across the country would be impressed.
Until then, however, he is - believe it or not- a more-or-less totally unknown guy outside NYC and DC. Even here in Philly, not that we are part of the NYC Level Elite, Bloomberg is just another guy.
He was Mayor of New York. So what?
He is a smart, self-made guy. So what?
It is undoubtedly true that many Democrats are yearning for another person to announce for the nomination.
Her name is Michelle Obama.
2
Why Bloomberg has not publicly apologized for the proven ineffectiveness, racism, and harmful legacy of NYC's enhanced stop and frisk policy under his watch is beyond me. What's there to lose but a bit of face? Such a statement of regret would help to mend fences with the Black and Latino communities. This policy was adopted in other cities because it was touted as being effective in NYC. That he has failed to apologize, but has instead defended the policy in the past, will be his downfall. Even if by some slim chance he wins the Democratic nomination there is no way he can win the election without such an apology. People might stay home rather than vote for him and take their chance on Trump. I know I would vote for him but not willingly.
4
If nothing else, Big Mike's candidacy will add some ingredients to the campaign that will likely hurt little donald unlike what we've seen so far (little donald has to know deep down he's a fool and Big Mike, as you have said, does not suffer fools). Yes, it's unfortunate that Warren is getting more than her fair share of heat, but she is so wedded to the one issue that will turn as many people off as it turns on that I fear she'll wither when it comes to a smack down with little donald. We just can't afford four more years of him.
It may also be that the more people who jump in against little donald will, in and of itself, help the opposition to spread the word and gain support. I wouldn't mind at all if Rosie O'Donnell, LeBron James and Robert DeNiro all jumped in. That might make the conversation get real interesting.
2
The more I read about the angst of Democrats over their Presidential candidates, the more I'm reminded of an ancient but still relevant aphorism: don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
16
I think and utter this aphorism on a daily basis!
While I often disagree with Bret Stephens, I do appreciate that he has been willing to change his mind on impeachment. Not so long ago, at the very beginning of the Ukraine imbroglio, he was arguing for censure of Trump at most, and against impeachment. On this issue, anyway, welcome to the side of progress.
18
Mr Stephens: If Warren or Sanders get the nomination, will you vote for either of them? Encourage your readers to vote for either of them? I think we know the answer. You'd rather have Trump than either of them. Tell me that I am wrong because I'd love to be wrong.
9
Fellow Democrats: I find it very hard to believe that there are voters who are "on the fence" but they do exist. Bret is an example of it. Our ultimate goal is to get Trump out of office. On the fence voters are making it very clear that candidates like Bloomberg will get them to move away from Trump.
As much as I disagree with most Republicans, I understand that they are very tired of being lectured. They find Warren and Sanders hard to accept, and though I don't totally agree, I can see where they are coming from.
So take what you can get and support the moderate candidates. Otherwise we will have four more years of Trump. And what is worse, four years of Trump or four years of Bloomberg (or Buttigieg, or Klobuchar, or Biden)? I think that is a very simple question.
12
Bret is Rep, I don't understand why should Dem accommodate Reps. What else should they do to woo people like Beer? Another tax cut for rich? Dismantling SS? Ignore the healthcare problems? Bret has his party to fight for, and it will be good for the country if he does that instead of invade another party. If he manage to put moderate in Rep party, there will be no need for Den to compromise on their vision of America.
The Bloom has offered Democrats an opportunity to create a team approach to the next election- with Mike as the quarterback and Stacy Abrams learning the signals -- perhaps he can include almost all of the candidates in some blueprint for a new age where cabinet positions are held by people who both know what they're doing and want to build rather than destroy public service. I think he could sell a Bloomberg presidency as a major cleanup and a return to action on behalf of the many. A coalition needs to be built, and a smart public health major who actually built his own fortune has a decent chance of telling a better story and getting stuff done than the all or nothing anger coming from the extremes - the art of the possible.
5
My family has been politically divided for years. For family unity politics off limits. Guess what, last weekend the table talk was all about Bloomberg entering the race. People on both sides of the aisle were either for him or at least looking at him. It makes me think he is on to something.
14
It seems moderates / centrists are upset that progressive candidates are running for the Dem nomination.
They seem even more upset, or surprised that Sanders / Warren are actually among the top 3 contenders.
However, not one primary vote has been cast yet, and winning the nomination is required before speculation about how any candidate might compete against Trump a year from now.
Until then..
If you are a moderate / centrist, go ahead and vote for Biden, Bloomberg, Buttigieg, or Klobachar in your state's primary election.
If you are a progressive, go ahead and vote for Sanders, or Warren in your state's primary election.
May the best, (most popular, or most wealthy) person win.
That's how primary elections work.
Then, accept the outcome of your fellow Democrats, and support the winning candidate in the General.
19
'Wait, hold the elevator!' and in sprang the chairman of the bank at Rock Plaza, where we exchanged a smile of understanding (on further reflection, It's the wind in the willows here, where these powerful men are reminiscent of Badger, Otter and Mole, holding the globe of financial markets).
Courteous, civil and brilliant; some republican-minded, others comfortable on the democratic side, they are movers and shakers, not to be underestimated by their naysayers or opponents.
By now the campaign managers for Biden and Bloomberg have probably connected, and perhaps reached a gentlemen's agreement.
Bloomberg has been in the picture for the last two decades, with thoughts of running for the presidency. Biding his time, it has arrived, throwing fine democratic candidates in a state of anxiety, where plans may take place to unite at last.
Strong, measured and contained, with a constitution of steel, he commands respect if not fear, holding his own in this dispersed and fractured field of democrats.
Only a year remains for American voters to go to the polls, with one choice only, for the leader who will give us safe passage into 2020.
Planning to test the political waters with Mr. Potter, a staunch generational-republican from the working-class, he might show a swaying for Bloomberg, while the wheel of impeachment hearings continues to turn slowly, reaching the ears of Alabama and all good States throughout the Nation.
2
This conversation omits, as most do, discussion of competence to function as president. We look at what candidates propose to do or what they've done. We don't consider and debate how competent they are to do the most difficult of all jobs.
4
A portrait of Bret Stephens in his own words.
"How do you tell the difference?"
"Today’s Democratic Party is much more ideologically left-wing than what it was in the 1990s."
"His money could also help flip the Senate for the Democrats, win some governorships, and expand the majority in the House."
"As for me, I’d happily vote for Amy Klobuchar, even though she has a reputation as a horrible boss, because I like her political moderation and find her obvious intelligence and slightly nervous stage presence both reassuring and refreshingly human."
"It’s her radical policies and her unelectability that worry me."
4
Nicely done! Only women get permanently welded to “even though she’s a horrible boss” in these ostensibly innocuous ways. Kind of proves the point that sexism is baked into the larger system and rules of the game. How many men in various positions of leadership from politics to tech to finance to media and the even the arts have been and continue to be horrible bosses??
1
Gail - stop letting Bret get away with hyperbole on
Elizabeth Warren. First - universal healthcare is not radical, all 1st world countries have it. Second - how can she be unelectable at the same time she has risen in the polls more than any other candidate.
165
Universally mandated health insurance is a feature of many countries, but single payer method of delivery is not.
15
@NB
Glad you're from Maine, because it's way too easy for us in NY & CA to miss the fact that "good ideas" often sound like "radical ideas" to those far away from SF & NYC.
And - glib though it may be - you MAY live in a bubble in a state that had a Governor like Trump several years before Trump managed to fool however many millions of people it took for him to win the Presidency.
I *love* the comments section - and not just because it's a convenient soap-box! A while back, I remember reading someone "right here" saying, "What many forget is that we are a fundamentally conservative country."
We're not alone, of course. And one gets nowhere saying, "But surely people cannot vote FOR someone who shafts them left, right & center ... or vote AGAINST someone whose programs would dramatically improve their lives and those of their families." Happens more often than not!
Years of education does not confer enlightenment, but we still have more voters WITHOUT college degrees than have them.
And... WHITE WOMEN preferred (in terms of their votes in 2016, surely) Trump to Hillary Clinton.
Gail "called" Bret this time on "likability." I think I agree with you that Bret's like a Democrat from Kentucky or W. Va. - just as they vote the NRA way when the chips are down, Bret is truly "carrying water" for the very, very rich in our country... and for the tens of millions who really WOULD *not benefit* from M4A.
EW = Four More Years. I pray we don't all get to see that axiom prove out!
2
@NB But you see people like Bret snub the polls, he still thinks the elite should rule and tell the rest of us what to do. Are you kidding me the riff raff have any say on how the government should run? For the people, ho ho ho. For certain people namely the rich and everyone should bow to their greater wisdom, after all by hook and often crook they were smart enough to take advantage of the workers so they get to call the shots. Remember how the elite was so sure that Hillary would win and paid no attention to the polls pointing else where and still pay no attention to the fact that Bernie was 12 points ahead of Trump and would have won. Yes of course Warren is ahead and not far behind is Bernie he has won New Hampshire and I believe Nevada. Yeah the people are radical in the polls too, over 70 percent want, are begging for Medicare for all and most of what the progressives offer. Can you blame them? So if Bret is going to call Warren radical because it disturbs his comfy status quo then he is calling the majority of voters radical too. I don't mind, after all the people who started this country were revolutionaries. We the people are in good company, they would have supported us, but not Bret, Bret is the British.
8
I'm not worried about the billionaires that run for President. I worry about the politicians who become millionaires in while in Congress.
99
@Mike : I can worry about more than one thing at a time.
1
It sure seems obvious to me that Democrats are very unhappy with their lineup of candidates for 2020. And after watching the debates and hearing them on cable TV, it makes sense to me. I think the progressives understand that when they get to Chicago the bigwigs and superdelegates will shove Joe Biden down their throat‘s whether they like it or not. The Bloomberg candidacy will go nowhere. He is very unpopular or unknown in the swing states When they realize he is basically for gun confiscation, they will like him even less.
8
I won't be voting for him, I would think most Texans don't like someone coming in thinking they are the automatic winner. He needs to get in line with the others who have been working hard to win our votes. To me it would seem Bloomberg cut in line of the race after it started...
13
@Missy
I don't much care for Bloomberg either but may I suggest that if Bloomberg is the Democrat's candidate for the Presidency you hold your nose with one hand and vote for Bloomberg with the other. Preventing another Trump mis-administration is the most important consideration in the 2020 election.
4
@Missymonths
Cutting in line? The line formed way too early. We have 11 months to go! Other countries do this start to finish in 3 months, and even that is tiresome. There are problems with old, white, rich, Bloomberg, but cutting in line isn’t one of them.
2
@Cristino Xirau I'm an Amy Klobuchar fan and donor. If at the end there's nobody else but Bloomberg, then I'll vote for him. Seriously Klobuchar and Buttigieg should team up now with Buttigieg being the VP choice. He's too young to be president, but in 8 years after VP he would make a fine president.
1
"I also see Bloomberg easily winning Florida."
He doesn't need to win it, he could jut buy it.
"I think he could trounce Trump in the general."
Disagree.
"As for my political forecasts, I’ve learned over the years that they aren’t worth much more than a bag of dirt."
Agree. One of the few times I completely agree with Bret.
17
Does Bloomberg have any popularity at all nationally? He's just a local candidate with a TV channel nobody watches.
I understand why the local paper takes him seriously. But nobody elsewhere does.
He's just a mayor/tycoon with a worse profile (literally and figuratively) than Buttigieg, who's had a long time to ingratiate himself with voters and is not doing so hot in the polls anyway.
7
I think the thing that disturbs me the most when I read what Bret Stephens writes is that he is so ignorant of the true reasons for the left's power in these elections. He doesn't understand the pain and hunger and desperation of the millions trying to figure out how to get their families through the next years with housing costs, college costs, food costs, medical costs, all impossibly high.
Frankly, it reminds me of a conversation I had with a really privileged person a while back, someone who assumed an air of superiority and bewilderment that others didn't see the genius of listening to money.
Money isn't speech, it is, in America, a conspiracy to game the lives of the poor and the powerless for the profit of the 1%. Just like all of our wars since 1955.
Bernie gets it. Bret never will.
Hugh
61
@Hugh Massengill
All true except the wars in service to the 1% go back WAY before 1955, excluding WWII, which was necessary, but which also profitted the uber rich.
What we need more than ANYTHING is for the right and left to resume having conversations such as this.
6
'Also, Donald Trump won the last election thanks to a perception by many average Americans that the coastal elites looked down on them.'
I presume by this that Gail means that Mr. Faux Opulence, a 'New Yorker', so definitely 'coastal', is not an 'elite'.
4
@two cents
Thank you for bringing this up. It has long puzzled me that Trump’s ‘base’ doesn’t seem to recognize that DJT is the very epitome of elitist. Rich daddy to bail him out of whatever trouble he got into, financial and other. Best schools at which he reached the very heights of mediocrity. Expensive doctors to swear to his bone spurs. Early childhood lessons is how to stiff contractors and avoid taxes. I’ve long believed that, without daddy, DJT would be on the dole today.
Bloomberg at least built his company from the ground up. Whatever your feelings about billionaires, he got there honestly.
2
@two cents
Progressives who think they know everything and believe that they are always the smartest people in the room even when they're not, are a more obnoxious kind of elite. I think those are the elites average Americans most dislike.
@two cents
Archie Bunker was also a New Yorker. In other words being a member of the "elite" is not a universal trait of New Yorkers. As for winning the last election, Hillary won the popular vote. Trump was thrust upon us by the Electoral College - an anachronism we might well be rid of. As for Trump being a member of the "elite" he is right up their with Al Capone and don Corleone. Give the devil his due as the saying goes. Under Trump the US government is coming more and more to resemble the Mafia.
1
As a woman, and an old one at that, I would love to live to see a woman elected as president.However, Ms.Warren is just as strident on insisting that Medicare for all would work(it wouldn’t)as Trump was that there had to be a Wall for thousands of miles to keep immigrants out( it didn’t).The Mexicans would pay for the Wall-Ha-and the billionaires would pay for Medicare-Ha.We need a clear eyed, competent candidate who can do a lot of repair after the Trump EF5 tornado and address climate change and gun violence-that would be Michael Bloomberg.The climate threat is so dire that I would suspend my reservations regarding old billionaires just to get someone in charge who will vow to do what it takes to mitigate the threat we face from climate changes and its threat to our lives and address the gun violence which makes shopping malls and schools unsafe.
15
I wonder if Bloomberg could run for the Republican nomination, after Trump announces he is tired of the presidential abuse and will not seek re-election?
5
@WDP
Why not just run on the Republican ticket in any case?
3
Don't know why it's jarring to hear a Santana reference from Stephens...
Warren seems to be handling "likability" better than Hillary did. Hillary tried to force it and made herself un-genuine. Still the media's fault for allowing her to be pilloried over lunch menus and travel itineraries (but her email). I digress...
But Warren's approaching populist levels that trouble even pretty leftish people like me. If Pete can figure out a broader appeal... still a few months before the field gels.
1
@br
Youth and appearance do have broad appeal but both are only superficial. Depth is far more important but it comes from experience. That's not something you can conjure up. I hope Pete figures that out.
Americans do not know how to vote and this is the fundamental problem. All (all) non- Trump votes would be needed in order to beat a Republican candidate. This includes all democratic voters and, this is more complicated, all Independent voters. This is not possible with a standard democratic candidate. In order to win this particular election the DNC needed to pick a front runner, hopefully a celebrity. Think Tom Hanks. Think Clooney. Anyone who is not a politician. The public will nickel-and-dime any political candidate. There can never be enough support, because of this reason and that reason. Bloomberg cannot win because he is Jewish. Lest we not delude ourselves there is plenty of anti-semitism within the Democratic populace to keep that from ever happening. No, dems have lost the opportunity for a win. Predictably. Merely because America believes it can "vote its conscience". Trump will win.
1
@Douglas
Americans know how to vote. Unfortunately they often vote against their own best interests, Trump in the White House being a prime example.
Warren’s competence is so obviously superior to the rest of the field. Gail is right.
18
@Diane
I appreciate Warren's competence but, unfortunately, the American voter is too often turned-off by competence or the appearance of being a member of the elite or being anything else considered to be "superior." A pity this. This "just us folks" attitude doesn't encourage excellence let alone even simple common sense when it comes to governing. Every so often America is blessed by a true person of class - a President Kennedy or a President Obama. More often than not, however, we are stuck with a Dick Nixon or even worse, a Donald Trump. On the other hand the country was also blessed by a Harry Truman which just goes to show that sometimes heaven will smile rather than frown. (If mistakes didn't happen Trump wouldn't be in the White House.)
Is there a point to this conversation? Two elitist writers one from the supposed left and the other from the right - do either of you know anything about what it's like to struggle? The last thing we need is another billionaire who decided that NYC's term limits didn't apply to him. Sound familiar?
23
A solid, meaty conversation presenting a nice first draft of what’s going on presidential race-wise and impeachment-wise with the impending onslaughts of Bloomberg and the public impeachment hearings.
Bret’s journey from never-impeacher to impeach the sucker has been fascinating. I am left with the faint hope that the road he has traveled becomes at least a little more populated as this crucial week unfolds.
2
I think an extremely revealing comment by Gail is when she says that she was reminded about what good a mayor Bloomberg was and a bit later saying. he doesn't have a lot of support among African Americans because of stop-and-frisk.
As if African Americans are the only people upset about that. Why not her also. Well she might be upset, Sort of. But she can live with it. She won't be stopped-and-frisked. So she clearly can can live with it. The extreme gentrification and class contempt heightened by Bloomberg are not even worth a mention. Why?
A decent good humane somewhat privileged left of center columnist can live with a lot of things that many of the rest of us can't.
7
@Robert Roth
While Gail does not need me to defend her, it is simply accepted orthodoxy that the Democratic nominee will need the support of the African American community to win the election. It is also a truism that, after ‘stop-and-frisk’ it will be hard for Bloomberg to get that.To be fair, Gail didn’t express an opinion on the policy itself.
2
@Robert Roth Thank you for this. Those willing to trade their neighbors' civil rights in order to win an election -- even this election -- are beneath contempt. If Trump had put stop and frisk into action they'd scream bloody murder and congratulate themselves for doing so. But Bloomberg can get away with it? The banality of evil, indeed.
2
@Robert Roth
I would rather be stopped and frisked than live through another four years of Trump. If Bloomberg becomes the nominee, I won’t be happy, but I’ll vote for him. I hope you will also.
Bret - Bloomberg doesn’t just need to “mend fences” with the African American voters, there are others of us that are not Black or Brown that were and continue to be horrified by the stop and frisk policy. I like to consider myself an ally and as a first generation Jewish German - the stop and frisk sends chills down my spine - this is not a minor issue.
32
@Laura it’s not difficult to understand people like Bret. They are ok with wealthy old Jewish guy (Bloomberg) running for President but they are not ok with a low middle class raised old Jewish guy (Bernie) running for President. Double standards. Something must be amiss in the way Bret was raised by Jewish women who somehow taught him to adore wealthy Jews and abhor not so wealthy ones.
1
Both of you are missing the youth vote.....they are organized, smart, savvy, and have money. They want change they have seen how they can effect change and they are on a mission. Bless them one and all
8
Um... it's mid-November, and Dems haven't got a clue about a) who stands a chance of beating Donald Trump, and b) who they'd prefer, if he or she could beat Donald Trump, to do so. Not looking good.
3
@Ken
All the betting sites favor Trump. Money don’t lie.
Bret Stevens is a Republican who’s favorite activity is advising Democrats on who to vote for. It is no surprise that he advises us to vote for the most conservative Democrat, or in the case of Bloomberg, former Republican, who is running. He isn’t a neutral reporter giving us just the facts—I find his position disingenuous. As a Republican who dislikes Trump, were he acting in good faith, he’d address himself to how his party brought us Trump. I worry that Gail is inadvertently giving Stevens cover, i.e., if Gail can tolerate his politics, he must be a reasonable man... uh, no, he supports and vigorously promotes the right wing economic agenda that has made the lives of a huge swathe of Americans truly miserable.
35
@SB
Yep. In spades. Collins reminds me of Alan Colmes, Hannity's feeble foil. But Colmes, to his credit, damped the bells on his fool's cap with his attempt to whistle in a hurricane. "Time for a change" Collins laments, supporting a billionaire Manhattan was happy to see go.
2
Maybe no mayor but at least a couple of governors have. If the democrats cannot figure out that mr Bloomberg is the best hope for saving the democrats from themselves and this nation from its trump era schizophrenia, then we deserve another four of the trumpster. Let’s see, where did I put those bomb shelter plans.
1
Bloomberg and his kind are terrified we will drain their wealth, they are correct.
6
Essentially, Gail Collins and Bret Stephens are giving approval to a Fat Car Billionaire BUYING a political office.....and out of the other side of their disingenuous mouths they DISapprove of a Fat Cat Billionaire buying a political office.
The Exercise in Pretzel Logic is Impressive.
3
A lot of discussion of Bloomberg, very little discussion of his policies.
HOW will he move the needle on healthcare? Climate change? Inequality? The ever shrinking middle class is definitely not high on his list of concerns. As for me, guns and reproductive rights won’t be sufficient to get my vote... ALL the Democrats have similar positions on those. But none have stop-and-frisk in their past.
No Bret, I won’t vote for Bloomberg just because he’s not Trump, just like you won’t vote for Sanders or Warren just because they aren’t Trump.
The fact is, we know what Bloomberg is doing in the race.
He’s investing to keep the Democrats from increasing his taxes. And to make Republicans happy with a “reasonable” Democrat. Meaning one who could run for office and win in the Republican Party of a generation ago. And look, lucky thing, Bloomberg DID run as a Republican! Maybe he should again. After all, given the choice between a real Republican and a DINO, voters will choose the real one every time.
As for the joy of having a Jewish president... Bret, there is always Sanders. That would make you happy, that would make me happy... agreed?
6
For our next magic trick, a Republican dressed as a Democrat. How many people will vote for the illusion?
12
Bloomberg has changed his spots from Independent to Democrat as matter of convenience only; his behavior over the decades shows him to be pretty much a rightist in spirit.
According to The Atlantic magazine (Oct. 2015), in 2008 Bloomberg told a New York TV station "I think an independent candidate [for President] couldn't win." This wise observation led to his switch to the Democratic Party.
In his favor, Bloomberg has a wry sense of humor, unlike the current incumbent, also noting in the same interview that a "short, Jewish, divorced billionaire can't win, either."
But then there was Bloomberg's habit, when he was Mayor of New York, of leaving town for the weekend or longer without telling anyone where he was going, claiming he needed some private time. Many New Yorkers thought that was pretty arrogant, and I think many other Americans would, too, if a President were to disappear from time to time claiming a need for self time. (I know, surely there is nothing less private than being President of the US.)
I think Bloomberg's real problem in running for President is that he is too old and too conservative. Now maybe if he could hang in there a few years, long enough to make Alexandra Ocasio Cortez his running mate....that would be quite a pair.
3
@Mon Ray -- Doesn't Trump disappear ALL the time to play golf and to bill the US for his flights, the Secret Service's golf carts, etc.? Where are all the people up in arms about that scam?
3
If it was not sad it would be amusing to read these chat between two proud 'intellectuals'. They are educated people, it seems, and yet at least one of them would prefer a billionaire as a president rather than a brilliant economist, outstanding senator, profound thinker and quick on her feet.
Both of them think that the billionaire was a great NYC mayor. Interesting that they make no comment, not even a passing one, to an article of a colleague
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/10/opinion/michael-bloomberg.html?searchResultPosition=1.
I find it heart breaking how you can be an opinion writer in the NYT and have no real idea that it is possible to have civilized capitalistic societies with social program and care for all of us. And meanwhile year after year the US lags more and more in quality of life behind north-western European countries.
18
Why do some people keep saying Mayor Pete is too young to be President? First of all, he’s not too young from a technical standpoint. You can be President at 35. Second, he’s smart as a whip, steady as a rock, articulate, thoughtful, a military veteran, and a slightly left of center moderate. What’s wrong with that picture? C’mon Gail and Brett. Stop with the reverse ageism!
5
A contest between two guys with dough
When each is the other’s perfect foe
Is Bloomberg versus Trump
And with them on the stump
We’ll be watching the world’s greatest show
Still waiting for someone to explain why we need Bloomberg when we already have Biden. It would be nice if Bloomberg supported Biden; jumping in to split the moderate vote seems to help no one but trump.
13
Just what we need! Another billionaire businessman so we can have a race between 2 billionaires for president. Each thinking he is so great that he does not have to listen to anyone else and is able to do what he wants because he is rich. I want Trump gone but don't want liberal Trump to replace him.
16
It's really hard to pull out what part of the occasionally virulent antipathy directed at Warren is fear of a socialist nation versus fear of a female-led nation.
But I do detect a strong strain of misogyny; Bernie does not seem to get quite the same virulence--more often than not he is just dismissed as a kooky tilting-at-windmills dreamer.
That whole "likability" thing for female candidates seems to translate into "don't remind me of my stern mother who wouldn't let me have any fun like attaching electrodes to the cat" and/or "don't remind me of the smartest girl in class who wasn't interested in impressing or being impressed by me".
Would Amy or Kamala not suffer as much from this? Maybe, but I think they'd still suffer from it some. Hillary certainly suffered from it plenty.
We've always been anti-intellectual in this country, but we're a lot more anti-intellectual towards women who are smart and won't apologize for it.
49
Proposing a new 20 trillion dollar government program is enough to scare me away. I would vote against anyone who sees government as the answer to every problem.
@Jack S: Warren wants to replace something that currently costs 32.5 Trillion per year with something that costs 20.5 Trillion per year and have the middle and working classes keep the difference while having medical coverage for everyone, just like in other civilized countries. I never understood the willingness of Americans to pay more for less when it comes to their health insurance.
22
@Jack S
Yet you're on Medicare and collecting Social Security, right?
4
I don't think that Bloomberg has a chance of winning in the primaries. I think he is setting himself up as a possible compromise candidate emerging from a deadlocked convention (quite possible).
And if he were to get the nomination he would need to run with a someone who would get the progressive wing on board. Bloomberg-Abrams?
2
Bloomberg looks great on paper, to a certain slice of the population, but I just don’t understand how we are SURE he will be the best one to go against Trump.
I watched him speak at the DNC back in 2016, they gave him a slot on one of the earlier nights of the convention. Having heard a lot about him and with some doubt in my mind about Hilary, I watched his speech carefully. I have to say, was not impressed. He didn’t have a ton of charisma, wooden delivery, and very proud of himself for being the moderate in a room full of liberals.
2020 is going to come down to a enthusiasm and I just have a hard time imagining Bloomberg holding command of a big, excited coalition.
12
I am a dead center moderate independent voter. If Warren got the Democratic nomination I would take some anti nausea medicine and vote for her, knowing in my heart she will lose to Trump. I think about all those swing state voters who voted for Trump because they could not stand Clinton personally. Warren is different, her main problem is that she is inflexible and will not moderate to win the election. Sanders is no different. They will lose voters who are not very different from me, but vote for Trump, or just not vote. Warren and Sanders are like children who want all the toys, or they run home crying. They cannot win. Give me Bloomberg, or Biden if need be. Give real moderates a chance to make a difference in this election, or take a look at America in 2024 and see what you’ve done.
5
@Barry
Bloomberg would require anti-nausea medicine for a majority of Democrats.
A genius move to skip those absurd early debates. Such a gift for efficiency is standout. Bloomberg makes Democrats reevaluate the candidates. Warren’s arm-waving schemes seem even less practical. Bernie’s sincerity more lovable, but raggedy edged. Biden’s inside -track candidacy of congressional, executive and international mastery more presidential.
4
@Prunella , if Warren's schemes were impractical, you wouldn't need to say "arm-waving" to attack them. Not to mention "raggedy" about Sanders. I'm not even getting into their politics--but neither are you. If you have a case to make, make one.
15
I remember the Manhattan stadium debacle. Bloomnberg's words in defense of that terrible project: "Manhattan is for millionaires." That about sums it up. We need ordinary people with common interests. We don't need wealthy tycoons.
79
He WAS talking about ordinary people.
What’s a million these days?
2
@Captain Nemo , more than the vast majority of the population has. That's what.
6
Not impressed by this cutsie dialog.
Bloomberg is only strong on addressing climate change from a neoliberal viewpoint - e.g., all we need are efficiencies through techno-salvationism and our markets and wallets will grow forever. It will be fantastic! The definition of unsustainable, anachronistic thinking.
76
Would/ could Bloomberg president? A bag of rocks would be better than Trump. Amazes me how Dems quibble over so many things that a second Trump term would obviate and make moot.
Boomberg or Biden --- either have my vote. I don't care. Warren and Sanders will go down like Dukakis, Mondale, McGovern. Sanders and Warren supporters would do well to remember that depressed feeling of the day after the election, 2016.
62
@Grover A second term , with an emboldened Trump, would free the Manchurian candidate from all restraints. A nightmare scenario that should scare everyone more than anything in Bloombergs past. The plain truth is: Warren is likable, but unelectable.
12
@Grover You might remember that in 2016, the Democrats ran a moderate. Isn't there some saying about doing the same thing and expecting different results?
20
@Grover
I remember the feeling of the day Bernie lost California. I cried because I knew Hillary would lose. We won’t be fooled again.
8
My premiums are 0.00 dollars per month, my coverage is 100 per centand the national cost of care is half, half of the American system. Yes I may take a bit of a hit on my tax bill, but I will never go into debit, bankrupt or die due to lack of insurance. I make a decent wage, and could probably pay health insurance premiums. However I sleep better at night knowing that my fellow citizens, even the destitute homeless ones have unfettered access to good health care.
I am often amazed when Americans vote so consistently against their own best interests. I usually ascribe this to the uneducated (as Trump calls a sector of your population) it surprises the heck out of me when an apparently well educated pundit seems not only willing to vote against self interest but to actively encourage others to do the same.
what is the deal with that?
Editor’s note: This comment has been anonymized in accordance with applicable law(s).
660
@Bruce, I'm Canadian/American and live in the states, my uncle would be dead +10 years early due to heart blockage that he came immediately to the states to treat because Canada told him to wait 6mos. Have countless other stories of family/friends dealing with the system. Yes it's only higher taxes, so free according to you, and yes you get what you pay for...
6
@Bruce
Because he is advocating on behalf of his right-wing patrons for whom our health care system is an enormous source of profit.
25
@WilliamG Canadians have access to private insurance for a small additional fee.
25
Good. We all agree that Trump should be impeached.
Now, back to Elizabeth Warren's health care. Let's be honest for the moment, and not just focus on the horse race. A Medicare for All-type health care system will have to be the way of the future. The present system has been collapsing and most of the population is on to the tricks and denials as well as high cost of this mess we now have. So the question is when will the new system be implemented and how do we get there. Clearly, sticking your head in the sand as Stephens is wont to do will not get us there. Warren and Sanders are forcing us to take the issue seriously. If they are not dimwits then they will be able to adjust the timeline and the implementation process as needs be.
The next step will be for Warren to back-track a bit and at the same time fend off Stephens and others mouth-frothing attempt to berate her for adjusting her position. She will have to say that the transition will take longer and the process requires more finesse.
As for Bloomberg. Let him continue to do good from the sidelines. We need all the hep we can get. But we need someone at the center who will tax us back into solvency, and tax us fairly (a large tax on the very wealthy and a moderate tax on the middle class) in exchange for infrastructure work, transition to the new medical system, a robust foreign policy of diplomacy and foreign aid, and comprehensive immigration reform.
Done.
141
@Just Thinking’
Warren best start backing down soon. The $20 trillion health care plan will be a cudgel for the Republicans. Do The starry eyed liberals really want four years of Trump in order to show their ideological stubbornness, or can they let the universal health care be developed gradually...which is the only way it will happen anyway regardless of a Warren presidency
4
@Grey
Please! There is no $20 trillion in the sense of additional costs. Whatever the amount it is a paper move from one sort of expense to another -- from premiums, deductibles, co-pays, co-insurance, and drug costs to taxes. So lets discuss the realities and not fabricate or misrepresent things. Our health care system is complicated enough without adding nonsense. And most likely the actual change will be a reduction in cost, lots more people covered, and simplification of paperwork for patients and doctors.
7
@Just Thinking’
Yes indeed. Medical insurance is becoming unaffordable for everyone in the 99%. People who can get insurance through their employer are starting to turn it down because they can't afford their share of the monthly payments.
3
Can we rush through a constitutional amendment banning people over 70 from the presidency? The nation would be much better off if all of the following left the stage: Trump, Biden, Sanders, Warren, Bloomberg.
14
@LewisPG
I wish there was a don't recommend button. I don't recommend ageism.
7
I’m 67 and agree wholeheartedly! I want the next generation to step up and take on the world. Get noisier, more obvious, in the streets.
3
"It’s her radical policies and her unelectability that worry me."
Bret, the voters said the same thing about Trump during the primaries and general election. And no one has any idea how this election next November is going to turn out.
I'll stick with Warren for now, she has the organization, detailed plans, and a solid following. Not to mention, some great ideas to rejuvenate a middle class.
358
@cherrylog754 The best that can be hoped for with Warren is a nail-biter win and the worst is, who knows, the end of democracy? With Warren, the Senate does not flip and her agenda is dead-on-arrival. Listen to Pelosi on the political toxicity of Medicare-for-all. Read Paul Krugman's latest column where he expresses misgivings about the political wisdom of pushing this idea.
19
@LewisPG , read all he's written about Warren, while you're at it. He's not at all positing the kind of post-apocalyptic scenario you are. A Warren win would almost certainly be accompanied by democratic wins in the Congress. Not sure where you get your assertions, not at all. They make no sense.
20
@jb I am a faithful reader of Paul Krugman. My assertions are based on the fact that Warren is a well-enough known candidate that when I see her weak polling numbers against Trump in battleground states, I worry about the nightmare of a second Trump term. Take a look at how Democratic candidates in purple states treat the Warren agenda. They run away from it. That's Pelosi's point. When a party's presidential nominee and its congressional candidates run on divergent platforms, that is not a recipe for a sweeping victory.
It is often said that politics is the art of the possible. I agree personally with some of Warren's agenda. In fact I would like to see Medicare-for-all. But I recognize that nominating a candidate where M4A is the centerpiece makes Trump's reelection much more likely.
9
Bloomberg's entry is a(nother) transparent attempt to make the world safe for Billionaire$, same as Romney's attempt, and 'Individual-1's successful attempt.
Don't forget how Bloomberg shut down Occupy Wall Street, claiming the protestors were "trying to take the jobs of working people."
170
@R. Law
Sorry to tell you no matter why you dislike Bloomberg he's still 1,000 times better than Trump.
2
@Butterfly - No great bar to clear; so is literally every other candidate running - GOP'er or Dem - as is my outside consultant/editor Catbert (who sleeps half the time), any fish from a nearby aquarium, or any number of potted plants many readers might name.
6
@R. Law
Except Trump isn’t (really) a billionaire. Like everything else about that bombastic fool.
2
It seems the conversation starts with the assumption that "Bloomberg will be a good President," then backtracks to cover all the reasons that may or may not happen. Hint: go back and take a hard look at your assumptions.
31
@Concerned Citizen Exactly. Ask NYers about Bloomberg (those of us who survived him) and we'll tell you the same as we say about Giuliani and Trump: NO, NO and NO.
1
@Sam I think it's safe to say he would be better than Trump. He could talk to foreign leaders without them thinking he was a moron. He isn't likely to be insulting people on Twitter. He would probably pick judges who were qualified.
Great conversation. Note: there’s no debate he’d be an excellent president. But considerable concern we Dems will mess this up ourselves by nominating someone too left to hand Trump another term. Even if I like Medicare for all, this is a two step process guys: normalcy then pivot more left.
Run Mike. Apologize for stop and frisk as out of date. Say income inequality went too too far and tax the wealthiest while saving the middle class. And Bernie Bros who sat our voting for Hillary, we haven’t forgotten the harm done.
The GOP doesn’t play fair. Bloomy the moderates want you. I like Bret’s candidates too but his assessment of the moderates running officially is right. Michael Bennet or Pete Luke have done it
Dems, don’t mess this up.
25
@ModerateinSF
"there's no debate he'd be an excellent president."
Wrong.
35% of the democratic base--those who vote by the millions in primaries-- will NEVER vote for him. Millions of others have just invested time, money and energy into alternative moderates (Biden, Buttigieg).
Most importantly, he hasn't been asked "why did you target black and hispanic youth as criminals and violate their constitutional rights?" OR "why did ignore the democratic will of the majority of your constituents and overturn term limits?" Cause rich people are special? Why did you starve low income housing in NYC and push middle and working class families out of Manhattan by the 10s of thousands.
I don't give a hoot what moderates want. You had your pick last time and she stank. It's going to be a progressive in 2020. Get on board or get used to four more years of Trump. Up to you.
2
@ModerateinSF what makes you think that the electorate wants or needs another New York billionaire, one who will be close to 79 if inaugurated, who is jumping into the race solely because he sees that the interests of his class are not be protected? And, I hate to say this, but there are plenty out there who will never vote for him because of his religion.
The candidate America needs is one who can both dispense with Jabba next November and lead the country and the world to a more harmonious and just state of affairs over the next four Novembers. Both tasks are utterly vital.
I was initially enthused about Mike B, thinking his imperfections were less problematic than those of other candidates, but have reconsidered for numerous reasons, not least the NYPD business. Jennifer Rubin's column in the WaPo about better things Mike could do with his money also moved my opinion. And the fact the Bret Stephens is so happy about Bloomberg is a sure sign that my enthusiasm was misplaced.
For both the election day and post-election requirements, I keep having to come back to Joe Biden. Despite his flaws and baggage and age, he's the only player in the race who really possesses the traits necessary to accomplish both vital tasks.
20
In 2016, to great fanfare, Trump held a benefit for the vets. He raised about $2 million. And he kept the money for himself. In short, Trump stole from the vets. Proof? He’s admitted this as part of the settlement of a lawsuit over the matter. Stealing millions from vets is about as low as it goes in pretty much everybody’s mind. Why isn’t more being made of this?
951
@Steve— Check out the comment now just above you in the reader picks. It posits that right wing media is the answer. Sounds about right. Hannity, Ingram & Co. need reigning in. They wrongly feel that they can lie with impunity indefinitely. They’re dead wrong on that.
51
@Steve Bloomberg has changed his spots from Independent to Democrat as matter of convenience only; his behavior over the decades shows him to be pretty much a rightist in spirit.
According to The Atlantic magazine (Oct. 2015), in 2008 Bloomberg told a New York TV station "I think an independent candidate [for President] couldn't win." This wise observation led to his switch to the Democratic Party.
In his favor, Bloomberg has a wry sense of humor, unlike the current incumbent, also noting in the same interview that a "short, Jewish, divorced billionaire can't win, either."
But then there was Bloomberg's habit, when he was Mayor of New York, of leaving town for the weekend or longer without telling anyone where he was going, claiming he needed some private time. Many New Yorkers thought that was pretty arrogant, and I think many other Americans would, too, if a President were to disappear from time to time claiming a need for self time. (I know, surely there is nothing less private than being President of the US.)
I think Bloomberg's real problem in running for President is that he is too old and too conservative. Now maybe if he could hang in there a few years, long enough to make Alexandra Ocasio Cortez his running mate....that would be quite a pair.
13
@Steve
Exactly correct. Part of the problem is that with Trump a scandal like this is just another day and will be forgotten within 24 hours when the next one arises.
20
Real "moderates" say "I will vote for whoever the democratic candidate is. It is only those Trump supporters who pretend they are not Trump supporters, the ones who voted for him and lied about it to their spouses, who say, 'If it is Warren or Sanders I will vote for Trump."
23
I love the civil conversations between Gail and Bret. Gives me hope the dinner conversation at Thanksgiving will be alright with my Trumpy parents. A gal can dream!
55
I'm delighted by the potential of a Bloomberg candidacy. The reality may be less appealing, but we'll see.
What disturbs me about Warren and Sanders, aside from having little expertise in foreign policy, is that their campaigns are based on anger and blaming. They are not that different from the Trump campaign in fundamental strategy: "These people are responsible for all your problems and I'm going the get rid of them for you." Disgusting.
I agree that concentration of money is a central problem, but it's a systemic problem. We're all part of the problem, actively or passively. Blaming a handful of inordinately successful people, who just happen to also be inordinately powerful, is not going succeed.
Big Money isn't going to listen to Warren, Sanders, or any of the other current candidates. As nominees and as president, they would only produce more cultural and economic war and gridlock.
Maybe Bloomberg can find a way. He'll have to convince the rest of us that he has a way to move us all forward to a more equitable society. I think he might. I think he's the only one who has even a slim chance.
Good luck, Mike.
54
@Observer
maybe saying, "These people are responsible for all your problems" is too much. How about, "these people are responsible for most of your problems," so we will reintroduce good regulations to protect ourselves and our environment, we will fix the tax system so that the extremely wealthy who have been fixing the system for their own benefit will finally pay their fair share and their wealth will be used for society's good. Fewer yachts, more healthy food and good schools for our children!
27
@Observe
We know from Wickleaks and Donna Brazile's book that the DNC rigged the 2016 primaries in favor of the centrist candidate who was supposed to be an easy win for the presidency, and look what happened to us.
Billionaires dictate policy, own senators and representative, and rig the system in their favor. They shouldn't but they do. They will vote for Trump, rather than allow the people one crumb from their richly laden table.
Tell me who was the genius that thought it was a good idea to export the industrial base of the USA to a "Communist" country. We didn't just lose the good paying union jobs, the R&D, the economic multiplier that manufacturing adds to an economy. Now we are left to taking out each other's laundry and by the way created a hostile superpower just so a few "masters of the universe corporate CEO's could kill unions and become billionaires. And a great big shout out to SCOTUS for their money is speech, and corporations are people decisions. Without a progressive correction, there is nothing for the working class but continued immiseration.
13
@Observer
"Big Money isn't going to listen to Warren, Sanders, or any of the other current candidates." And therein lies so much of the problem. We accept a corrupt political system backed by big money. In doing so, we assure no tackling of environmental issues, obscene healthcare costs and staggering student debt.
16
re: skipping Iowa & New Hampshire - The reason most candidates need to win early is to raise money for later races when the big delegate counts come up. For Bloomberg that just doesn't matter. How refreshing that there might be a candidate who doesn't need to kow-tow to ethanol fuel.
30
@Mark
Remember Trump boasting I'm so rich I don't need other people's money to win. He took it. So will Bloomberg is he makes it. And Wall St. will happily open their wallets.
25
@Mark , so onward to the oligarchy, huh? Where anyone who has a few billion can hope to be president. Might as well, I guess, admit we've come to that.
30
@Mark
When it is all about money vs character, the Constitution and what democracy is all about, yes lets vote the flip side of the coin in and disregard the people who wasted there time at meet and greet.
Lets go on about how Warren is to far to the left because she is telling the truth about Wall Street and money men. Oh by the way she is a white woman and white men hate white women who dont worship them.
Lets forget about Bernie who wants to ensure that when American get sick the whole family isn't in the poor house because of medical bills because we need to ensure that the CEO;s have plenty of money.
No one needs Bloomberg or Trump or any other brilliant management leader, the country would not be in such bad shape if ever white man in charge was so brilliant.
Bloomberg is a bigot and nothing is different with him than Trump, minorities were shiftless and needed to be arrested and public school money should go to Charters, and housing projects dont need upkeep.
Bloomberg should not declare and lets really talk to the issue vs slogans Trump is a criminal and you white guys better read the Constitution he is not coming back to the white house. Done, cooked, gone
1
Bloomberg would be the smartest and most qualified president in modern American history. So of course he has no chance to win the Democratic nomination, and the Democrats will once again help Trump win the election.
23
@Mark Nuckols
Well what do you care your not a minority . We will have every minority out voting and in protests against a criminal president. He is a criminal and he will be forever tainted with an impeachment inquiry.
There are people who believe in America and democracy who do not want to be cult members
1
Bret Stephens lives in a fantasy world and is incapable of seeing the hypocrisy of being socially liberal and economically conservative. His views are as paradoxically absurd as seeing Grover Norquist at Burning Man in a loincloth.
How can one believe in LGBT rights, and other fundamental freedoms while gutting social safety nets, a living wage, affordable housing, education and more?
What is the point of being socially liberal if you are strangling the creators of the culture economically? The two, cultural and economic realities, are interdependent.
432
@Internet Hampster It is curious, indeed. But entirely consistent with liberals today, yes? They are educated enough to know that they don't want to appear racist, sexist, or classist, so they push the left to the right, and then vote "Democrat" because voting Republican has all sorts of unpleasant associations. But at the end of the day, money often wins out over values for these people, so if they have to vote Republican, they will do so....but quietly.
9
@Internet Hampster Humankind is full of contradictions. Republicans are more likely to be socially regressive, but more likely to donate their money/support to non-profits, secular or not. Democrats are more likely to be social activists but less likely to volunteer their greenbacks toward safety nets.
Such are the complexities of the human and his/her politics.
3
@Doc Republicans only are bigger givers when you count money given in church donations, which I believe should not count - it is more like political donations these days than truly charitable giving.
8
Love this conversation. I don't know a lot about Bloomberg yet but I'm desperate for the Democrats to nominate someone I want to vote for not just someone they want me to vote for because they aren't Trump.
17
@Kent Strayer
The Democratic establishment wants you to vote for Bloomberg, not Warren. Last time, they wanted you to vote for corporate candidate, Clinton, not Sanders. Seems nothing has changed.
42
@Kent Strayer Examine the candidates more closely. I like Pete and I want to vote for him. I don't agree with everything he says, but I agree with a heck of a lot of it. Take the time. You'll find someone you want to vote FOR, and I hope it's Pete.
7