I was listening to something quite interesting on the radio regarding the apparent revival of the Michael Bloomberg for President campaign. I remember hearing about his possible campaign months ago, but that he wasn't sure. He still isn't 100% sure, but he has a remarkable amount of support going for him to run as an independent.
I remember, when I was a kid, all the hype surrounding the Ross
Perot candidacy. But, then again, the media made the decision for the people by not inviting him to major debates. Perot, a very bright man, is mostly remembered for his big ears and bar graphs. But Perot, like Bloomberg, had a ton of money that he poured into his campaigns in 1992 and 1996. In 1992 he won almost 19% of the votes for President. That's saying something, considering he was running against Clinton and George H.W. Bush.
And Perot doesn't have the political clout that Bloomberg has, and Bloomberg is a media mogul. I typed in "Bloomberg" in Google News just a minute ago. The first result was an article from the Wall Street Journal entitled "President Bloomberg?" and the second was an article about the stock market from Bloomberg Media. On top of that, he's done a great job as Mayor of New York, and he has even more money than Perot ever had (nearly 3 times as much). Some say he could devote $1 billion to his campaign. He has the resources.
But could Michael Bloomberg win? I think so. His big thing would be that he'd be the anti-establishment guy by default. People eat that shit right up. I don't know if I'd vote for him yet, but he is fiscally conservative, which is a good thing. I don't really care all that much about some of the social issues, but he seems to be doing a solid job in a major executive position. And, since there seems to be no clear contender in either party, why not now? I think, if anything, it would be an interesting Presidential election later this year.
I remember, when I was a kid, all the hype surrounding the Ross
Perot candidacy. But, then again, the media made the decision for the people by not inviting him to major debates. Perot, a very bright man, is mostly remembered for his big ears and bar graphs. But Perot, like Bloomberg, had a ton of money that he poured into his campaigns in 1992 and 1996. In 1992 he won almost 19% of the votes for President. That's saying something, considering he was running against Clinton and George H.W. Bush.And Perot doesn't have the political clout that Bloomberg has, and Bloomberg is a media mogul. I typed in "Bloomberg" in Google News just a minute ago. The first result was an article from the Wall Street Journal entitled "President Bloomberg?" and the second was an article about the stock market from Bloomberg Media. On top of that, he's done a great job as Mayor of New York, and he has even more money than Perot ever had (nearly 3 times as much). Some say he could devote $1 billion to his campaign. He has the resources.
But could Michael Bloomberg win? I think so. His big thing would be that he'd be the anti-establishment guy by default. People eat that shit right up. I don't know if I'd vote for him yet, but he is fiscally conservative, which is a good thing. I don't really care all that much about some of the social issues, but he seems to be doing a solid job in a major executive position. And, since there seems to be no clear contender in either party, why not now? I think, if anything, it would be an interesting Presidential election later this year.
No comments:
Post a Comment