Would a President Bloomberg use his wealth to seek a third term if he wanted it?

[Tom Rinaldo]

Seeking to repeal the 22nd Amendment could be costly. A Congressional and 50 State campaign to do so might run ten, twenty, or potentially thirty billion dollars. If the latter figure proved true that would plummet Michael Bloomberg's personal wealth down to his last thirty billion dollars...

If you think this is a purely abstract concern, take a close look at what happened after Michael Bloomberg secured his only elected office, as Mayor of New York City. Any Democrat who has ever expressed outrage over the effects that the Supreme Court ruling on Citizen's United has had on American politics; Anyone who thinks that the ability the Koch Brothers showed to personally finance local political initiatives on a national scale for far less than a tenth of the above figures, should think long and hard about supporting an attempt by anyone, no matter how well intentioned, to buy his way onto the ballot by tapping obscene amounts of personal cash.

[no_hypocrisy]

1. Bloomburg bullied the City Council until they changed the Bylaws to allow him

to run and serve an otherwise unlawful third term as mayor (two term limit).

[thesquanderer]

14. Right, he didn't even have to put all that money into it! (n/t)

[lapucelle]

37. How did he bully the City Council? N/T

[no_hypocrisy]

43. A lot of behind-the-scenes pressure on certain Council members.

https://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/23/bloomberg.third.term/

It was a 29-22 vote, which reflects a lot of opposition.

All he needed was a few more votes in favor of what he wanted.

[lapucelle]

47. That article doesn't say anything about Bloomberg bullying the City Council.

As a matter of fact, it lays the responsibility for the change squarely at the feet of the City Council which rejected calls for a public referendum. We who live and work in NYC remember it well. There was no bullying.

The bill allows most elected officials, including the mayor, to serve a third four-year term. Previously, New York mayors had been allowed to serve only two four-year terms, meaning Bloomberg would have been required to leave office at the end of next year.

The vote followed two hours of lively debate in a packed room in City Hall, where Public Advocate Betsy Gotbaum frequently admonished council members for going over their allotted time to speak. The chatter in the room prompted her to bang her gavel several times to call for order.

The vote also came after the council nixed efforts to put the measure to a public referendum.

[Fresh_Start]

51. the city council did it in there own self-interest

more than half of them were facing term limits so changing the rules was to their own benefit.

[lapucelle]

56. New Yorkers are well aware of that fact. The talking point that Bloomberg "bullied"

the City Council is fake revisionism being pushed by Trump who is scared to death about a Bloomberg candidacy.

[Fresh_Start]

57. I assume that everyone on DU is not a New Yorker

so they might not realize the City Council had a lot to gain by removing term limits.

[lapucelle]

58. Thank you for setting the record straight.

[Tom Rinaldo]

63. The Charter was restored to limiting Mayors to two terms after Bloomberg left office. n/t

[patricia92243]

2. I can't imagine he would even try for a second term. Remember

he and most of the other candidates are old. That is one reason they need to pick a really good VP.

[Tom Rinaldo]

18. There have been aged Presidents returned to office elsewhere in the world

In a best case scenario there was Nelson Mandela, others have not been so noble. Of course we are in new territory now with men and women in their 70's either in the White House or seeking to enter it. None of them show any indication of only wanting one term, so there's a good chance America could reelect a President in his 80's in 2024. Why stop there? FDR died in office during his fourth term as President.

Of course any elderly Presidential candidate would be wise to have a popular younger candidate running for or serving as VP. And I agree that should be a concern of any of our Democratic candidates, aside from Pete Buttigieg (who could get away with picking a talented running mate from a larger age pool.) But for the sake of argument, if a President Michael Bloomberg chose a VP he was grooming as his personal heir, and the public was well aware of that, he could easily seek a third term if he remained reasonably healthy and he thought that his nation "needed him". And multi-billionaires tend to have healthy egos.

But even if you think Bloomberg personally would want to call it quits somewhere in his mid 80's, what does it say about our democracy if vast personal wealth can be directly translated into the highest level of political power?

[patricia92243]

21. Personal wealth.

"But even if you think Bloomberg personally would want to call it quits somewhere in his mid 80's, what does it say about our democracy if vast personal wealth can be directly translated into the highest level of political power?"

I wonder why Stayer's personal wealth is getting him nowhere?

[Tom Rinaldo]

28. He's not spending as much, and he can't promote a record of political accomplishments, and

he hasn't been funneling money to other Democratic campaigns around the nation in years past.

[patricia92243]

31. You do realize you are complimenting Bloomberg?

[Tom Rinaldo]

64. I generally think Bloomberg is an honorable man and I've said so here before

He has a substantial political record, some of it positive, some of it not, viewed from my perspective, but he has a proven record and he has personal integrity. While he does not represent the policy agenda that I support in a Democratic President, for me this is not about Mike Bloomberg the person. It is abut the dangerous intersection of politics and money in America and the corrosive effect on our democracy when any individual is able to wield that magnitude of power through use of their personal fortune.

[former9thward]

102. Your own post argues against the point.

FDR died in office and not suddenly. He had been severely ill for months. The U.S. changed to two terms so that would not happen again.

[madaboutharry]

3. Really?

Is this a new conspiracy theory?

Is this where we are - insinuating that Bloomberg is disrespectful of The Constitution and a complete megalomaniac?

Please don’t do this. For the sake of people’s sanity just don’t.

[thesquanderer]

17. He DID manipulate his way into what should have been an unlawful third term as Mayor.

No, I don't think he would do what the OP says, but I do think his history here tells us something about him.

[dchill]

24. So many things about Bloomberg should help us...

...form some logical conclusions. IMO.

[Bendim]

39. Wow wow wow

The rationalisation of so many posters here supporting Bloomberg is astonishing, quite simply astonishing.

I can’t imagine how so many posters who have cried foul against the slightest perceived racism or sexism of any politician or even celebrity, are ready to so easily abandon the same in favour of supporting Bloomberg because he has 60 billion dollars to spend in this election. WOW, just WOW.

We’ve seen in the past how our country can be convinced to throw away their skepticism in support of an illegal war by Bush because of fear, but it was this site that was started simply because we didn’t want to give into Bush out of fear, yet now we are witness right on here on DU to posters ready to abandon anything in the pursuit of supporting Bloomberg out of fear of Drumph. What a sad state of affairs.

[dchill]

44. What we're dealing with here is...

...practically, a Wolf of Wall Street in sheep's clothing. THIS, my friends, is the REAL "no Democrat."

[Squinch]

45. Welcome to DU. If you are not terrified, above all else, of a second

term for Filthy Donnie, you are not paying attention.

[Bendim]

49. Oh but I am.

Oh, I like everyone here is terrified of a Trump second term, but there is no way I could ever let fear make me abandon my core beliefs.

Precisely because it’s a very slippery slope even if just done one single time in pursuit of a higher goal, principles and core beliefs aren’t something you can drop and pick up whenever it is convenient to do so, once you abandon them for any goal, not only do they cease being principles and core beliefs, but who will ever take you seriously again when you are ready to take a stand against injustice again.

[Squinch]

55. Well good for you. ETA: Where does Sanders's support of

Last edited Sun Feb 16, 2020, 12:20 PM - Edit history (1)

a crime bill that resulted in the unwarranted incarceration of thousands of young black men sit in your moral code?

[Bendim]

87. Big big difference

Sanders voted for a bill, and has spent decades after fighting for and advocating for minorities and the disenfranchised.

Bloomberg instituted a racist policy and fought the courts to keep it in place, not to mention we have countless quotes of him not only defending that policy for years and years all the way up until really recently when the reward is a possible democratic nomination.

[Squinch]

89. Bloomberg also reduced the numbers of murders of young black men in the neighborhoods by

50% at a time when it had been growing astronomically and seemed unstoppable.

What did BS get with his "fighting fors" and "advocating fors"?

And PS, exactly HOW did BS fight for and advocate for minorities? That has never really been made clear, has it? Except for his marching with Martin Luther King, which is his stock answer.

[Bendim]

91. Really?

Wow, you really just made that justification for ‘stop and frisk’ which focused on targeting black men.

You know if we take away everybody’s constitutional rights, not just black men in NYC , we can eliminate all crime completely (that was sarcasm)

My question to you now is: is there anything that Bloomberg has ever said or done or could say or do, that would be too far for you to support him in the primary?

[Squinch]

92. No, actually, I did nothing of the sort. But I doubt you can be convinced of that.

You know, if we expand the crime bill that Bernie voted in, and incarcerated everyone, we could eliminate all crime too.

Before I will address your flying goalpost of a question, I'll ask again: Exactly HOW did BS "fight for" and "advocate for" minorities.

[Bendim]

94. You wrote:

You wrote:

‘Bloomberg also reduced the numbers of murders of young black men in the neighborhoods by
50% at a time when it had been growing astronomically and seemed unstoppable’

Why would you even mention this in response to someone calling out his racist ‘stop and frisk’ policy if you aren’t using it as a justification.
There is no possible reason to even suggest such a thing other than to point out the ‘good’ that came from a racist policy.


Again, Bernie voted for a bill that at the time he didn’t realise the ramifications of, but then spent decades after fighting for and standing for minorities and disenfranchised people.
How did he do this? By advocating for decades policies that would benefit the economically disenfranchised people, which includes a lot of minorities who the economic system discriminated against and he is still doing it to this day, not too mention calling out and wanting to completely overhaul the private prison system that also discriminates against minorities.

Now your your turn to answer my question.

[Squinch]

96. Ahh! The old favorite bro answer that economic policies solve all minority issues. Kay.

So really he has done nothing specifically for minorities at all. Which I knew. I just wondered if you did. And clearly you did.

And no, I was not justifying stop and frisk. I have never tried to justify it. It was wrong. And he has said it was wrong. As opposed to BS who has never admitted to any wrongdoing in voting for a crime bill that resulted in the unwarranted incarceration of untold young black men.

I was saying that, despite the failure of stop and frisk - and it was a failure. In addition to its immorality and unconstitutionality, it had no statistical effect on reducing crime - Bloomberg instituted other policies that DID go far in reducing violence against NYC minority citizens. A 50% reduction in the murder rate of young black men in NYC was an undeniably valuable accomplishment, especially to the families of those young black men, I imagine.

[Bendim]

98. Putting words into my mouth I never wrote.

I didn’t say economic policies solve all minorities issues, don’t puts in my mouth I never said.
I said that he has been for decades advocating economically for the disenfranchised which as we all know includes a large portion of minorities in it.

Look, there is systematic racism built into the system, ranging from civil rights to economic issues to incarceration, and Bernie was on the front lines in his college days standing with the civil rights proponents, advocating economic reform that most minorities also suffer from and calling for the complete end of private prison systems that profit off the incarceration of minorities, so yeah he has been advocating most his life for the disenfranchised, both minorities and anyone else.

Now again, will you answer my question, you seem to be avoiding it.

[Squinch]

99. Oh, god. Not this shit again. Bernie in college marching with Martin Luther King. Got it.

Since then, nothing. Except the "rising tide raises all boats" argument, which essentially can be translated to, "if a policy is good for the bros, surely it's good for minorities too."

Now, what is your question again?

[Bendim]

100. My question.

Bernies done much more advocating for minorities than Bloomberg has ever done!

In fact, this following is a direct quote from Bloomberg:

“I think we disproportionately stop whites too much, and minorities too little".

Nobody says something like this for shits and giggles, to even put those words together in a sentence you have to firmly believe it in your heart.


So my question again, is there anything that Bloomberg has said and done, or could say and do that would stop your supporting him in the primary?

[Squinch]

101. If voters coalesce around another candidate other than BS very soon, I will vote for that candidate.

If not, I will vote for Bloomberg. And, as a New Yorker, I probably know a lot more about things he's done, both good and bad, than most people.

[Bendim]

103. I guess that's something.

Well, at least I’m encouraged by the fact that you prefer other moderates above Bloomberg, even if you still prefer him and his despicable views over someone like Bernie who I firmly believe strives to make the system work more everyone else too and not just the rich who have been exploiting it for decades.

One thing that Bloomberg candidacy has done for me is make me appreciate all other candidates a little more even if my choice is Bernie or warren with a progressive agenda over a moderate one which I don’t believe is bold enough to even begin the task of fixing things.

Anyway, I appreciate the discussion, best of luck to your favourite candidate as long as it’s not Bloomberg

[Squinch]

104. And yours as long as it's not BS.

[Locrian]

77. you're not alone....

Been here a long time but this is just stunning to me to see people lining up behind someone like Bloomberg.

People liked trump so they could "stick it to the libtards"
Bloomberg's appeal is similar: A (perceived / false) chance to "stick it to trump" but at, wow. What a price....

Selling your soul (democracy) is not a good deal.

As I said in another post - he's a smart (devious) version of trump.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/bloombergs-sexist-remarks-fostered-company-culture-degraded-women/story?id=67744180
https://newsone.com/3902452/michael-bloomberg-racist-quotes-through-years/
https://www.ft.com/content/cb390bbe-07ed-11ea-a984-fbbacad9e7dd

[marble falls]

20. Yep.

[philf99]

4. He needs to win a first term

Before we can even think about it.

[betsuni]

5. Mommy, there's a billionaire under my bed!

[Amimnoch]

9. OMG! ROFLMAO!

Thread winner imo.

[Squinch]

16. .

[IADEMO2004]

53. Yes to this. Let's win the day folks.

[Devil Child]

62. I'm more concerned about billionaires in the Whitehouse than ones under my bed

[calguy]

6. The Bernie misinformation campaign continues

Flooding the message board with useless and irrelevant posts in a feeble attempt to drown everyone else out.
It's not working.

[floppyboo]

50. I especially like the spin that Sanders' supporters are criticizing Bloomberg's stop and frisk.

You know who criticized it big time? The courts. They criticized it and deemed it unconstitutional.
So please, misinformation??? Who's spreading misinformation? Was it even remotely believable when Bloomberg said he didn't realize stop and frisk was causing a very lopsided painful situation for families of color? After marches protesting the program had arrived at his door years before the Court - not him - dealt with this travesty?

[Squinch]

61. How about the crime bill that Sanders supported?

Where does the hugely disproportionate incarceration of young black men fall on your woke meter?

Yes. Bloomberg was wrong. He's said he was wrong. He is being held accountable for it. He needs to do more to convince all of us that he gets what he did.


But I'm a little over BS and his supporters acting like his hands are even a little clean on racial matters.

[floppyboo]

95. You've seen Sanders on the floor re. his vote on that, right? If not, let me know

I should have thought it was overplayed by now, but maybe you've just given me another chance to promote my favorite candidate?

[Squinch]

97. You mean where he says, "Yes I voted for it because reasons" That one?

[floppyboo]

106. Ya. That one. You don't think reasons count?

[Squinch]

109. Do those reasons justify the unwarranted incarceration of thousands of young black men?

They really don't. Just as whatever reasons Bloomberg had for continuing and increasing stop and frisk don't justify the policy.

However, there were reasons at work for Bloomberg just like there were for BS.

Stop and frisk was immoral and unconstitutional, and in the end it was completely ineffective. But it was part of a series of measures that were put in place for very good reasons.

The murder rate of young black men in NYC was skyrocketing and nothing anyone was doing was stopping it. Bloomberg instituted a lot of policies. Stop and frisk didn't work and shouldn't have been used. But other policies did work. There was a 50% drop in the murder rate of young black men in the city during his tenure.

So BS had reasons. So did Bloomberg. But in the end Bloomberg gave something significant back to the group he wronged. What did BS give back?

[floppyboo]

111. That 50% drop was after he discontinued the program at the very end of his 3rd term.

And he was defending it 5 years ago.
Bernie had misgivings casting his vote before the bill was passed 26(?) years ago. I agree with you. It was a mistake. But I don't agree that it is a deal breaker.

I'm looking at the vote details, and applaud Maxine Waters and John Lewis for rejecting this Clinton bill. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/103-1994/h416

Reasons from a recent CNN interview:

“Sometimes you have legislation which includes very good stuff and very bad stuff,” Sanders explained further. “That legislation included very bad stuff. I had to make the choice whether I voted to ban assault weapons, something that I promised the people of Vermont I would, and I also had to vote to make sure that we had a Violence Against Women provision in there.”

[Squinch]

112. The 50% drop was occurring throughout his administration and, by all accounts had nothing to do

with the program. As I said, stop and frisk was a policy failure as well as a moral one. The efforts to reduce the murder rate of young black men, however, were a resounding success.

But what I hear you saying is that reasons excuse Bernie's racist position, but not Bloomberg's.

I don't think they excuse either.

But as I said, Bloomberg gave something undeniably significant back to the group he wronged. What has Bernie given to minority voters to atone for the wrongs of the crime bill?

[Squinch]

7. The people of NYC were free to vote against him for that 3rd term.

No one held a gun to their heads.

But they voted for him. With 8 years to get to know him, they still wanted him for their mayor.

NYC. Not exactly a bastion of conservatism.

[thesquanderer]

26. The people of NYC were still deprived of a different alternative to Thompson... moreover...

...the Dems were deprived of an opportunity to run against someone who did NOT have the inherent advantage of running as an incumbent.

It doesn't matter that he won. His pursuit of a third term was bad for Democrats, and bad for the rule of law.

And you know, people voted for Trump without anyone holding a gun to their heads, too.

[Tom Rinaldo]

27. With essentially token opposition his margin of victory shrank dramatically for his third victory

Few Democrats wanted to run into the teeth of his money mill. And Bloomberg distributed money freely (legally) to win friends and influence people inside the Democratic Party, harvesting endorsements in the process.

[Squinch]

34. Lots of reasons why that win was not acceptable to some here,

but he still got the majority vote.

And yes. Trump did win. If we don't learn the lesson of that, the Democracy is over.

We have one job in this election. Only one.

[catbyte]

60. Which is exactly the tactic Bernie Sanders uses in Vermont. He runs in the Democratic primary so

there's no opposition then refuses the nomination and runs as an Independent. I think that's sleazy and cheating, too, which is a big reason why I dislike Sanders. How can you defend it? And why the Vermont Democratic party agrees to it I'll never know. He calls himself a Democrat when it's convenient for him. He's a squatter in the Democratic party. why aren't we good enough for him?

[patricia92243]

33. Bingo!

[Amimnoch]

8. US Constituition is clear.

Your.. concern.. is noted though.

Bloomberg 2020

OR

ANY Democratic Party candidate BUT Bernie 2020

[Tom Rinaldo]

22. So was the New York City Charter. It got "amended". n/t

[Amimnoch]

36. Yeah.. that's the same.

You might want to look up what it actually takes to amend the US Constitution.

Beyond absurd that you think the 2 can be compared.

[lapucelle]

42. Are you against "amendments"? Why the scare quotes? N/T

[Tom Rinaldo]

65. It got amended right back to the way it was after Bloomberg left office

That should tell you something.

[Demsrule86]

10. No, he would be above 90 then...and it would be impossible to get through congress...however,

the question that should be asked is ...will Trump give himself a third term after he defeats Sanders in a General if Sanders is the nominee? If it is between Sanders and Bloomberg, I will vote for Bloomberg. I want to win a General. And while I would vote for any Democratic nominee including Sanders in a General, I do not believe Sanders can win the states we need to defeat Trump.

[Fresh_Start]

105. +1000 NT

nt

[Polybius]

108. Not true

He'd be 86 at the start of his third term in January 2028.

[Demsrule86]

115. And that's different? Such nonsense...we have an amendment you couldn't just enact a law...all this

carrying on because he could win.

[Polybius]

116. "No, he would be above 90 then"

That's the only part I meant that wasn't true. The rest I'd tend to agree with. Repealing the 22nd Amendment will be no easy task.

[bluedigger]

11. You think he wants to be President until he's 90?

I think I'll spend my time on more likely problems.

[Tom Rinaldo]

25. I think it highly unlikely...

...but the fact that it is very doable for a man with as much personal wealth as Bloomberg I find alarming. He did this before as Mayor of NYC. I don't take great comfort from the fact that Bloomberg not being ten years younger than he is, is what we now count on to limit how money like his could potentially corrupt how our democracy functions.

[honest.abe]

12. I think it's more likely Sanders would try to extend to a third term.

[Botany]

13. What is this whack ball conspiracy day?

On MSNBC this AM some host was repeating a Drudge Report that Bloomberg will pick
HRC to run as his V.P.. The Trump campaign has a multi million dollar "death star*" to
promulgate disinformation in the election are we now seeing it going to work?

Please don't repeat obvious fake stories that agreement to divide us.

* https://www.salon.com/2020/02/11/how-should-democrats-fight-back-against-trumps-billion-dollar-death-star/

[Tom Rinaldo]

19. This isn't a conspiracy theory. Look up "conspiracy" in a dictionary

This is political speculation grounded in Michael Bloomberg's literal prior behavior in political office. But more important than that it is illustrative of what can happen when the Super Wealthy are free to spend billions of dollars to promote themselves. Bloomberg has spent almost 400 million dollars already on TV ads alone.

[marble falls]

23. One man's conspiracy theory is another man's political speculation.

[Botany]

32. Is it conspiracy theory or political speculation that the Big Foot Caucus in New Hampshire are ...

... just really Bernie Bros in sasquatch outfits?

[redstateblues]

52. He also spent a ton in 2018 to help take back the House

How many that Bernie backed won? I think it was 0

[democratisphere]

15. Wouldn't THAT make republican's heads explode.

I can hear the uproarious whining now!

[Hoyt]

82. LOL. Great response.

[Zolorp]

29. OFFS!

Why would you disparage a Democratic Candidate with this BS?

[Tom Rinaldo]

67. I disparage the power of concentrated super wealth over our American Democracy

I like Steyer's platform a lot but I can't support him, in a primary, either.

[Zolorp]

68. Sanders is the only viable candidate that terrifies me.

We have a real chance to throw out Mitch MCConnell here in Kentucky this year but that chance is over if Sanders is nominated.

[Tom Rinaldo]

70. I won't fault you for being terrified by what terrifies you

I have never expressed strong concerns on this forum this cycle about the implications of our nominating any potential viable candidate other than Mike Bloomberg. While I have some differences with Joe Biden, and Pete Buttigieg, and Amy Klobuchar, none of this is about ideology. I am not troubled by the precedent that nominating any of those would set. I will unite strongly behind any of them should they win the nomination. Despite my real reservations, that goes for Michael Bloomberg also.

[Zolorp]

71. I am troubled by the consequences of nominating Sanders

I am completely convinced doing so will result in the utter destruction of the Democratic Party.

Will still vote for him, but with utter despair in my heart.

[treestar]

30. If he could pull that off, could he also buy

an amendment to get rid of the Electoral College?

[Squinch]

41. Or Citizens United?

😳

[beachbumbob]

35. really is pure fantasy as no way the admendment would be changed

[Devil Child]

38. I'm sure he would calculate the costs and would proceed if feasible

[OnDoutside]

40. Would a President Sanders solve the farm crisis by

nationalize all farms, and create collectives ? See, we can all make stuff up.

[brooklynite]

46. Yawn...

The burden of changing the Constitution to allow a third term is substantially higher than changing the NYC Charter ( with the support of the overwhelmingly Democratic City Council.

[Tom Rinaldo]

73. True. It would probably take one of the world's richest individuals to finance an effort like that

Look, my point was not that it is likely to occur. It isn't. More immediate is the effect that bypassing retail campaigning and dumping hundreds of millions a month on ad buys out of one's own pockets has. But if we slip into an era where the super wealthy believe that it is now their destiny to save our nation by occupying the pinnacle of political power personally, be that for principle, ego, power, or greed, all future bets are off. Do any of them really need more than the paltry single billion or two that Donald Trump allegedly owns to fulfill all their earthly desires? The rest can be used to finance their ambitions. It was an act of raging hubris IMO for Mayor Bloomberg to believe that NYC needed him and him alone to govern into a charter busting third term. Anyone who has tens of billions of dollars in fully disposable income warps the gravitational field of politics if they chose to go all in. I oppose any movement toward normalizing that trend in our democracy.

[Renew Deal]

48. This post reminds me of Sanders chances of becoming president

It’s a fantasy that will never happen

[NoMoreRepugs]

54. Sunday morning DU Kabooki Theatre.

The scope of Democratic purity tests has now expanded into fantasies.

[Duckerington]

59. Too early

He hasn't even won and yet we are already creating what ifs?

[uponit7771]

66. YES !!!

[Tom Rinaldo]

69. Ten Friggin' Years Is The Only Thing That Makes This Scenario Implausible

If Mike Bloomberg was closer to the age that he was when he first ran for Mayor there is no basis to argue that he couldn't do exactly what this OP asks. Yes, he could. He then would be around Biden's age now when his second term ended.

I'm not really worried about Michael Bloomberg possibly running for a third term, it's pretty unlikely given his age. I'm worried that so many good Democrats don't care that our political system in continuing to morph into one where the super wealthy can buy the outcomes that they want. It's amazing what the expenditure of tens of Billions can accomplish. Just like it's amazing that anyone can spend tens of billions on political pursuits and still have tens of billions left to live on. Anyone here making a monthly pledge of $25 to a candidate that they believe in is making more of a personal financial sacrifice than Mile Bloomberg has by spending half a billion of his bucks by mid February. Unlike you and me, Bloomberg has billions more where that came from.

We used to think that internet small donor fundraising could level the field after Citizens United unleashed the checkbooks of the super wealthy in America to buy the policies they support. But even record breaking levels of small donor giving can't effectively counter the effect of one man deciding to drop several hundred millions on an ad buy whenever the spirit moves him. Fortunately for us, Michael Bloomberg is a generally decent man ,who historically sides with Democrats a little more than he sides with Republicans, who wants Donald Trump out of office. But where is this heading. Will Bill Gates want to run for President some day? If not, might one of his heirs?

[doc03]

72. I don't know but I am positive Trump will. nt

[Recursion]

74. He'd be 86 at that point

his track record on this issue is, obviously, not stellar. But it's low down on my list of worries.

[Tom Rinaldo]

76. Understood. I used this to make a point which I explain more in post #69 above n/t

[BlueIdaho]

75. Oh for Pete's sake! nt.

[Tom Rinaldo]

79. The fact that Buttigieg would likely benefit by a decline in Bloomberg's fortunes

(unless he spends those fortunes on ads opposing Pete) is not why I wrote this piece

If you are serious about a discussion read #69 above.

[Drunken Irishman]

78. Bloomberg would be going on 86 at the end of his second term lol

This is just silly. He's not going to push for a third term, taking him into almost 90 by the end of it, if he wins in November.

[Tom Rinaldo]

80. You miss the point. Read post #69 n/t

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

81. You think he could *buy* a Constitutional amendment? Seriously?

Anyhow, he's already 78. If he served even two terms (that itself would be unlikely at his age) he'd be 86 at the beginning of that impossible third term and 90 at the end of it.

Please.

[Pachamama]

83. +1000000

A ridiculous thread....thank you for stating the obvious Velveteen Ocelot....

[Tom Rinaldo]

85. Hypothetically, yes. But only if he was a popular President during troubled times

We went a long time honoring the two term precedent that George Washington set before FDR shredded it, and he did so under the above conditions. In a hypothetical scenario Bloomberg would have to start laying the foundation for repealing the 22nd Amendment after a resounding victory to start off his second term. And in Bloomberg's case (like FDR's) he would likely not attempt it if he did not feel his conditioned rule was indispensable to the nation.

But I actually agree with you (and others) that his age makes all of the above extremely unlikely. My point, which you directly address which I appreciate, is that it could be done, and would not seem nearly as implausible were Bloomberg just ten years younger than he happens to be now. That scares me.

[33taw]

84. Really, the attacks against other dems aren't working. Bloomberg is gaining because he attacks

Trump. Time for other candidates and surrogates to refocus. The circular firing squad is a failing effort.

[Tom Rinaldo]

86. Honestly I am not so much attacking Bloomberg as the role of money in politics

past, present, and future. I do not want to see Bloomberg "buy" the nomination, and yes that is how I will view it if he gets the nod over a Biden, Buttigieg, or Klobuchar who similarly have solid moderate credentials.

[33taw]

113. I think it is his approach rather than money.

He knows the target and is zeroing in on it.

[BlueJac]

88. No

You have to win one before two and then you can start worrying! Relax three will not happen , but you should worry more about Trump winning again. VOTE democratic!

[Tom Rinaldo]

90. We fully agree on your closing sentiment n/t

[totodeinhere]

93. I don't support him but I doubt it. If he got the Constitution amended and ran for a third

term he would be 90 when he finished his third term.

[Polybius]

107. The 22nd Amendment needs to be repealed anyway

It has only hurt Democrats. Clinton would have won in 2000 and Obama would have won in 2016. The only Republican it might have helped would have been Reagan in 1988, but I don't think he would have ran again, with his health. Besides, we lost anyway that year.

Anyway, I'm not defending Bloomberg. I like Warren this race. Even if elected and re-elected in 2024, he'd be 85 in 2028. I doubt he would want to run again.

[democrattotheend]

117. 3 years ago I agreed with you

I even made these bumper stickers:
?rvtype=content

But now the idea of a president being able to seek a third term absolutely terrifies me.

[Polybius]

122. I doubt we would have to worry about Trump again

He might not even win a second.

[tritsofme]

118. Reagan almost certainly would have run and won in 1988.

1992 would have been harder, but there is no doubt they would have tried to “match” FDR’s fourth term. Could they have propped him up for 1996, despite his failing health?

The idea of having an Alzheimer’s ridden Reagan president until 1997 or even 2001 is enough of an endorsement of the 22nd amendment for me.

[Polybius]

121. Even if he ran in 1988, it wouldn't have been any worse than under Poppy Bush

Maybe no Iraq war. Reagan talked tough but he never got us involved in major wars. I doubt he would have ran again in 1992, since his health was very bad. By 1996 he could barely speak. 1994 was his last public appearance where he spoke.

[emmaverybo]

110. Bloomberg has said in times of necessity we might have to "change our laws or our interpretation

of the constitution.” That should send chills.

[Tom Rinaldo]

114. This really wasn't a trick question. Most responders blew right past the obvious answer.

Lots of people noted Bloomberg's age today and how old he would be at the end of a second term as President. That speaks most directly to the second part of the OP question; would he want to seek a third term? At that age I too guess no, Bloomberg would not want a third term. When he wanted a third term as NYC Mayor, despite the City Charter forbidding it, Bloomberg was a younger man. In my opinion the best answer to the question I posed in the OP is: Yes he could, but it's quite unlikely Bloomberg would want to seek a third term as President. And that would be for two closely related reasons. 1) He probably would not want to run for nor begin serving a third term by the time he was in his mid 80's for purely personal reasons related to his age. 2) He is savvy enough to recognize that it might be difficult to rally the public behind a proposition intended to leave a man nearing 90 still occupying the oval office.

What I personally find chilling about all of the above though is that the only real restraint I see stopping a mega billionaire like Bloomberg from personally financing a campaign to repeal the 22nd Amendment so that he could remain in office, turns out to be virtual happenstance. Bloomberg waited to make a run for President until he was in his late 70's, and so the clock will run out on him. That doesn't stop him however from dumping a few quick billions into the primary process to help secure a major party endorsement

To me, it is cold comfort at best that Michael Bloomberg is unlikely to attempt having the Constitution changed to extend his own hold on the presidency. I used to worry that the spiraling cost of running for office in the era of Citizens United would usher in a back door era of American pseudo royalty; where increasingly only the sons, daughters, spouses and grandchildren of previously well known political figures would inherit the mantle of wide spread public recognition needed to gain traction for runs at higher office. Only more recently the idea of "celebrities" with no political experience to speak of having an inside track in politics has started to worry me as well, but fortunately they have had a checkered track record at winning, and even they at least have to convince both regular citizens and/or the donor class that investing cold hard cash into their crusades isn't a waste of money. It didn't occur to me that literal central figures of the "donor class" might just dispense with the "middle men" (meaning standard political candidates to align with) and reach for the Golden Ring themselves.

We are watching this become normalized right before our eyes. Republicans in Congress rightfully earn our ridicule when they abandon all principles when it serves their short term partisan interests. Trump is "their guy" and so it is OK to them. I accept that Michael Bloomberg is one of "our guys", but no it is not OK to abandon our principles and become complicit in a system that rewards the super wealthy with leadership, because of the money they can bring to the table.

[applegrove]

119. He'd be 90 at least.

[Tom Rinaldo]

120. Actually 86. But that misses the point again. See the post above yours n/t

[LanternWaste]

123. I see no objective evidence he would.

Can you offer any evidence pointing to that end, or is yours just simplistic conjecture... like when I wonder if Naomi Watts will ever call me back?

[Tom Rinaldo]

124. Read post 114, for example, to see evidence supporting the validity of the literal question I posed

Too many skip right past the issues I raise and focus instead on the likelihood of Bloomberg wanting a third term as President at age 86. That is not the point.