Bizarre, Media, Politics

Bloomberg’s Big Gulp Running Mate? Campaign Downplays But Does Not Deny Consideration Of Clinton As Vice President

The Drudge Report set off a firestorm on Saturday with a story headlined: “EXCLUSIVE: BLOOMBERG CONSIDERS HILLARY RUNNING MATE.” The story reported that “[s]ources close to Bloomberg campaign tell DRUDGE REPORT that candidate is considering Hillary as running mate, after their polling found the Bloomberg-Clinton combination would be a formidable force….” After a frenzy, the Bloomberg campaign weakly downplayed the story while notably not denying it. The story follows reports of various Clinton allies discussing a way for her to take the nomination in a brokered convention in a panic-driven move to block Bernie Sanders, again, from securing the nomination.

I am not a never-Bloomberg person. I believe that he has had great success in both politics and business with proven leadership and insights. I have also on occasion been critical, particularly over his signature law banning “big gulp” and sugary soft drinks. At the time, I said that I thought it would be struck down and it was. The law has remained a source of mockery.

This story however raises the possibility of the ultimate “Big Gulp” nominee. On one level, this is not surprising. The Democratic establishment remains inundated with Clinton allies who still do not understand why so many voters rejected their chosen candidate in 2016. Even when polls showed that voters wanted someone outside of the establishment, the party elite rigged the primary to guarantee the nomination of the ultimate establishment figure. While popular with some in the Democratic base, polls showed that she rivaled Trump as one of the most unpopular figures even to run for the presidency. Without that baggage, Sanders would have beaten Trump as would have a number of other candidates.

Nevertheless, the short-term calculus for Bloomberg may be irresistible. In opposing Sanders, he has a natural ally in Clinton who hates Sanders and blames him for her loss in 2016. He could claim that the combination would represent a unity ticket of reconciliation and consensus. More importantly, with Sanders surging, Democratic leaders are planning a convention takeover of the nomination. Bloomberg could have the next largest delegate count. If he added Clinton as a running mate, he could secure the nomination and many believe Trump would have the greatest difficulty with Bloomberg as an opponent.

The problem is that Bloomberg is already driving away young voters who support Sanders and view him as buying the nomination. He would add one of the most polarizing figures of our times and, again, the ultimate establishment figure. So Sanders would be blocked in favor a ticket with a running mate who both Sanders and Trump voters despise. That requires a Big Gulp in an election which could well turn on just a couple states.

I admit to being a longtime critic of the Clintons, who I believe undermined the Democratic Party, crushed any dissenting voices, and corrupted its long-standing principles. This move would secure a nomination at the possible cost of the election — as was the case in 2016. New York added a warning on soft drinks a few years ago reading “SAFETY WARNING: Drinking beverages with added sugar(s) contributes to obesity, diabetes and tooth decay.” This plan should have a similar “ELECTION WARNING: Nominating Clinton contributes to division, distraction, and voter decay.”

110 thoughts on “Bloomberg’s Big Gulp Running Mate? Campaign Downplays But Does Not Deny Consideration Of Clinton As Vice President”

  1. Democrats Have No Obligation To Surrender To Bernie

    These “Poor Bernie” columns are becoming a Paint-By-Number exercise for Professor Turley.  With each entry in this series Turley sounds increasingly disengenous.

    The Democrats spent Obama’s 8 years implementing The Affordable Care Act.  It was an epic project requiring all the political capital Democrats could muster.  Yet Bernie Sanders was all set to junk Obamacare and try for something even ‘bigger’!

    And here Professor Turley tells us Democrats had an ‘obligation’ to acquiesce to Bernie who had little chance of succeeding with Medicare for All. In this regard Professor Turley is totally irrational.  Why would a party let an outsider take over to destroy its signature achievement??

    Currently polls show Americans are fine with Universal Healthcare as long as they can keep the private plans they already have.  But Under Bernie’s Medicare For All, private plans would disappear.  In other words the public doesn’t want Medicare For All.  We just want healthcare for  those who need it; which is essentially Obamacare.

    Medicare For All would also require tax hikes on every working American (a fact that Sanders refuses to acknowledge). And again polls show that tax hikes on every income group is a political loser.  So where does Turley get off with his continued claims that Democrats are obliged to roll over for Sanders???

    It’s hard to believe a prominent law professor really thinks that Democrats must surrender to a suicide bomber.  One can only suspect that Turley, like most Republicans, sees Bernie Sanders as a landslide victory for Trump.  A landslide to give Trump the legitimacy he has lacked till now.

    1. “becoming a Paint-By-Number exercise ”

      Paint Chips, how appropriate a term for one that is the expert in Paint-By Number activities. Trump is very legitimate, are you? Bernie Sanders is a communist and all Democratic candidates but Tulsi have followed Sander’s lead.

    2. Obamacare is Romneycare the republican plan since Gingrich!

      80% of Democrats want single payer healthcare system and a majority of republicans support Medicare For All!

      Winston Churchill was proud to have created the NHS and JFK wanted national healthcare!

      Listen to JFK argument for national healthcare

      https://youtu.be/14A1zxaHpD8

      Medicare For All is cheaper and more efficient than what we have.

      Medicare For All saves trillions!

      New w study by Yale epidemiologists:

      #MedicareForAll will save $450 billion and prevent 68,000 unnecessary deaths – each and every year

      In other words, #MedicareForAll does not cost $3-$4 trillion more a year – it saves $450 billion a year & improves care
      Improving the prognosis of health care in the USA

      Prof Alison P Galvani, PhD
      Alyssa S Parpia, MPH
      Eric M Foster
      Burton H Singer, PhD
      Meagan C Fitzpatrick, PhD

      https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(19)33019-3/fulltext#%20

      1. Emma Peele,
        When JFK made that speech in the early 1960s, American per capita spending on health care was probably about $200.
        Today it is about $12,000 per person. With the subsequent institution and growth of MediCare, MediCaid, and other government-run programs since the mid-1960s, at least 50% of U.S. health care spending comes from those government programs.
        That should at least raise a question about the supposed cost savings of tranferring the other 50% (if that) of health care services into a government program.
        There are numerous articles that estimate the actual future costs of the MediCare for All plan, and anyone actually interested in the issue can easily find them.
        Outside of those articles, there have been comments and exchanges here in these threads dealing with the actual costs of a program like MediCare for All.
        Voters also need to keep in mind that if and when that MediCare for All program is established, it’s not likely to be reversed; every American will be stuck with it.

    3. Seth Warner,
      The column is primarily about the pros and cons of a Bloomberg-Clinton ticket.

  2. This is from 2016 and weekend reading for Natacha who doesn’t seem to remember Obama telling us to “get used to only 1% growth” and that Obama jobs were not ‘good’ jobs ———–>

    “A new study by economists from Harvard and Princeton indicates that 94% of the 10 million new jobs created during the Obama era were temporary positions.

    The study shows that the jobs were temporary, contract positions, or part-time “gig” jobs in a variety of fields.

    Female workers suffered most heavily in this economy, as work in traditionally feminine fields, like education and medicine, declined during the era.

    The research by economists Lawrence Katz of Harvard University and Alan Krueger at Princeton University shows that the proportion of workers throughout the U.S., during the Obama era, who were working in these kinds of temporary jobs, increased from 10.7% of the population to 15.8%.

    Krueger, a former chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, was surprised by the finding.

    The disappearance of conventional full-time work, 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. work, has hit every demographic. “Workers seeking full-time, steady work have lost,” said Krueger.

    Under Obama, 1 million fewer workers, overall, are working than before the beginning of the Great Recession.

    The outgoing president believes his administration was a net positive for workers, however.

    “Since I signed Obamacare into law (in 2010), our businesses have added more than 15 million new jobs,” said Obama, during his farewell press conference last Friday, covered by Investing.com.”

    https://www.investing.com/news/economy-news/nearly-95-of-all-job-growth-during-obama-era-part-time,-contract-work-449057

  4. the “demise” and ultimate ‘death of this nation is just a matter of when … not if …”GOD” chooses our leaders . for “HIS” ultimate purposes … not ours … we will ‘learn ‘ soon enough … humanity … fools governed by bigger fools …….

  5. Big gulp running mate? I honestly can’t picture Hillary gulping anything let alone “running.”

    You also overlook the obvious: Bloomberg knows of no one, off-hand, he feels worthy or capable of filling the VP spot within the party.

    Also this: If you think stories of the Clinton Global Initiative, which no doubt introduced them to some of the most nefarious characters in the world, and the politically-timely demise of rivals, are not considered credible, or have somehow evaded the likes of billionaires like Bloomberg, you are sadly mistaken. In my opinion, that would not be a reasonable assessment.

  6. I have often said in this blog that the photo used here again today of the Clinton person is ugly and disgusting. I hope Bloomberg reads this website.

  7. Bloomburger cuts his political throat and the Stupid Party follows under the whiplash of the
    Pelosi/Schumer Socialist Autocracy.

    This is better than Biden or the other wanna be never wills as the Remnant Party lines up to get shoved off the cliff.

  8. My immediate reaction to this idea is that Hillary would rather be dead than run as ANYBODY’s VP. I think she is probably incensed by the talk of it. The publicity about it may just give her the added excuse to toss her hat in the ring. I think it’s killing her to know that this is her last chance! I don’t think she can let it pass her by. She has until a few days before Super Tues. Coming up fast. We’ll see.

      2. Barbara, judging from that tweet you linked, you confuse delusions of grandeur with backbone. Tulsi at 2-3% at best is no threat to anyone.

  9. If the mainstream Democratic leadership had any sense, they would hibernate for four years and let Bernie win the nomination or maybe the queer. Whichever. Then, when party gets clobbered and loses the House, they can emerge in 2024 with a viable candidate and maybe a quieter bunch of Leftists. Plus, we are overdue a severe financial depression, and they can blame that on Republicans.

    Sometimes you are better off strategically to pull back and let events transpire.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    1. “Sometimes you are better off strategically to pull back and let events transpire.”

      Unfortunately they’re totally committed to a scorched earth policy.

      1. Can you be specific Margot? It’s a political race that is the Democrats to lose. Mr 43% was last routed in the 2018 off year election and tries everyday to inflame the debate. You haven’t noticed?

        1. “Can you be specific Margot?”

          From my point of view, by, almost every move against Trump by the unholy alliance of the democrat party, Never Trumpers, mainstream media, partisan bureaucracy and lawfare attack dogs comprises the scorched earth policy, starting even before the election, with the FISA warrant spying and dirty dossier, not to mention the threatened violence of Chicago and the actual violence in San Jose against Trump supporters. The phony Russian collusion hoax. The impeachment, and now a second impeachment in the works. The use of the courts to harass and jail supporters.
          And that’s just for starters. The violence, both physical and psychological, continues.

          The Trump meme is really true, the one about “In reality, they’re not after me, they’re after you. I’m just in the way”. This is not lost on those of us who support him, who voted for him. You wish to deprive us of our vote. Period. If legal means won’t serve, physical means will do just as well, I guess.

          2. OK Margot, and despite my previous pledge to welcome your comments and stay polite, your response, starting with the infantile insistence on mis-naming your opposite party – as if we couldn’t mock “Republican” if of a similar mindset – strikes me as as slightly uhinged. Maybe taken apart we can reasonably discuss them.

            To start with, Comey, McCabe, Rosenstein, and Mueller are, or were Republicans. Ah, but you’ll object never-Trumpers, a group that once included virtually every Republican. The difference of course being not a principled choice by the likes of Cruz (he of the ugly wife and assassin father), Rubio (“little”), or Graham (“disgraced nut job”). How could it be given that Trump has no principles. Surely you won’t argue that. That leaves the conclusion that any principled Republican is never Trumped. By the way, the IG found no political intent in the opening or pursuit of the FBI investigation of the Trump campaign, and in fact, at the same time as Comey kept that investigation secret from voters, he announced the new one into Hillary 2 weeks before the election, an event which the 538 blog found cost her 3-4% of the vote and the election. The IG also found that there was no spying on Trump or his campaign beyond its limited focus on Russian interference. Did you hear McCabe has been cleared by the Barr DOJ?

            I don’t know about Chicago or San Jose, but I know FBI director Wray has stated that right wing extremism has been the leading cause of terror in the US for the last 2 years, that we had a TruMp fanatic sending bombs around the country, that one murder executed WalMart shoppers, inspired by Trump’s immigration rhetoric, while another killed 9 in a synagogue who thought he was on the right track but too tolerant. A WaPo in depth article I linked to yesterday found over 300 incidents of school bullying – some of it organized – against minorities using Trump rhetoric as threats. Some of it appears at school sporting events.

            As to depriving voters of their rights, must you be reminded of GOP voter suppression rights which are designed to hit Democratic leaning demographics or the fact that Trump became president against the vote of most who went to the polls, that the SC remains conservative though you have lost the presidential vote 6 out of the last 7 times (the President has authority to nominate SC justices with the advice and consent of the Senate), and the recent Senate vote to not remove Trump carried with senators representing 16.5 million less Americans than those who voted to remove him. And you want to complain about unfair representation?

            Your turn.

            1. “OK Margot, and despite my previous pledge to welcome your comments and stay polite, your response, starting with the infantile insistence on mis-naming your opposite party – as if we couldn’t mock “Republican” if of a similar mindset – strikes me as as slightly uhinged. Maybe taken apart we can reasonably discuss them.”

              I don’t have an opposite party, since I don’t have a party affiliation. Yes, I am a Trump supporter, but that doesn’t mean I am a republican. But, please explain how I mis-named, oh, wait, I just looked it up. I see that leaving off the -ic is supposed to be some sort of epithet these days. I honestly didn’t know that. My bad. I will be more careful in the future. I’ve been using the term democrat for years, no one ever objected. Good Lord.

              “To start with, Comey, McCabe, Rosenstein, and Mueller are, or were Republicans. Ah, but you’ll object never-Trumpers, a group that once included virtually every Republican. The difference of course being not a principled choice by the likes of Cruz (he of the ugly wife and assassin father), Rubio (“little”), or Graham (“disgraced nut job”). How could it be given that Trump has no principles. Surely you won’t argue that. That leaves the conclusion that any principled Republican is never Trumped.”

              I really can’t speak to this, since I am not republican.

              “By the way, the IG found no political intent in the opening or pursuit of the FBI investigation of the Trump campaign, and in fact, at the same time as Comey kept that investigation secret from voters, he announced the new one into Hillary 2 weeks before the election, an event which the 538 blog found cost her 3-4% of the vote and the election. The IG also found that there was no spying on Trump or his campaign beyond its limited focus on Russian interference. Did you hear McCabe has been cleared by the Barr DOJ?”

              I’m aware of all of that.

              “I know FBI director Wray has stated that right wing extremism has been the leading cause of terror in the US for the last 2 years,”

              Only 2 years? I’ve heard that bilge out of the FBI for longer than that. You, of all people, ought to find ANYTHING that issues forth from the FBI suspect, given your involvement with the civil rights movement.

              “As to depriving voters of their rights, must you be reminded of GOP voter suppression rights which are designed to hit Democratic leaning demographics or the fact that Trump became president against the vote of most who went to the polls, that the SC remains conservative though you have lost the presidential vote 6 out of the last 7 times (the President has authority to nominate SC justices with the advice and consent of the Senate), and the recent Senate vote to not remove Trump carried with senators representing 16.5 million less Americans than those who voted to remove him. And you want to complain about unfair representation?”

              I said deprived of my vote, not my right to vote. There’s a difference. Once again, I am not GOP. But let’s talk about the SC for a moment. Bork, Thomas, Kavanaugh. It was not lost on me that democratics (yes, I did that on purpose) put on the show they did with Kavanaugh solely to hit Trump. It was a very pointed warning to anyone who might support Trump, or who might be supported by Trump, that “we will make your life miserable, and how”. For the record, I personally did not support Kavanaugh, given his record with the Bush administration. And there was plenty to dredge up there. But did they? Naw, not really. I would have preferred Amy Coney Barrett. Or even the Prof, for that matter. I did not want Kavanaugh to be confirmed, but I did NOT want it to happen the way it did. That was vile. Basically a repeat of Long Dong Silver and pubic hair on the soda can.

              With that said, I believe Kavanaugh will be a huge gift to the democrats/liberals in the future. Yuge.

    2. What a pathetic bigot you are, Squeaky. I find that the biggest anti-gay bigots are the ones most likely to be a shame-filled closet wannabe. Really pathetic.

      1. Why do you say that??? “Q” for queer has become a part of LBGBTQetc hasn’t it??? Plus, I am free, white and 21+, so if I have little or no respect for them, that is my right. Personally, I think gay men are a horrible bunch of people who care so little for their “lovers”, they won’t even get HIV tested. Even Mayor Pete would rather have sick or dying gay men before he would criminalize people failing to disclose their HIV status. Does that sink in with you at all??? These are a group of people who would rather expose their “bottom” to HIV than to put on a condom. You can have warm fuzzy feelings towards them if you want, but I think they are a predatory murderous crew.

        Squeeky Fromm
        Girl Reporter

  10. The Clinton Big Gulp is the least of Bloombergs’ problems.

    Think of how much fun Trump will have with:
    He was a Democrat before he was a Republican before he was a Democrat…..
    He has said Xi is not a dictator and is responsible to the Chinese people….
    He has said that California should be a model for the nation….
    He has said he sent ALL of the police to black and Hispanic neighborhoods because that’s where ALL of the the crime is.

    1. “Think of how much fun Trump will have with:
      He was a Democrat before he was a Republican before he was a Democrat…..
      He has said Xi is not a dictator and is responsible to the Chinese people….
      He has said that California should be a model for the nation….
      He has said he sent ALL of the police to black and Hispanic neighborhoods because that’s where ALL of the the crime is.”

      But FIRST, Trump will talk about the soapbox. I can even see him leaning back to check if Bloomie is standing on it.

      2. “Vince Foster just rolled over in his grave to make room…..”

        OK, that was funny.

    3. Anyone who’d choose to be the last person between HRC and the presidency is sure suicidal.

  13. Bloomberg would be a FOOOOOOOOOOOL to allow the Clintons back in. Corruption Inc.

  14. Big risk for Mr. Bloomberg with Hillary Clinton in his midst, her ambition would be his eventual downfall.

    1. OT, can I suggest the Panera chain if you have them in Washington State? The CAVA chain is pretty good too. Also, when it’s within your budget, Thai and Indian places.

      1. DSS, I love Asian food, but… A friend of mine was a food inspector and he said he would never eat in an Indian restaurant because they were so dirty. I still eat Indian but that conversation sticks with me. Chinese food used to be wonderful until it passed to the next generation and I find that happening somewhat with Thai food as well. Popularity and ratings may not be as accurate as many think. Many years ago one of the best and most popular Chinese restaurants was using cat in its dinners.

        Restaurant economics dictates a food cost as a percent of total price. At 25% which is high for some restaurants that means a meal out has to be expensive or the food cheap.

  15. John Hinderaker at the Powerline Blog had this to say, in a short post:

    ANOTHER REASON WHY BLOOMBERG WILL NEVER BE PRESIDENT

    https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2020/02/another-reason-why-bloomberg-will-never-be-president.php

    “The Democrats still don’t seem to understand what a terrible candidate Clinton was in 2016. She was unlikable, she had nothing new to offer on the issues, and she was not physically up to the rigors of a campaign. And now she is four years older. A Bloomberg/Clinton ticket would average over 75 years old on Election Day, 79 at the end of a hypothetical first term. Not gonna happen.”

    1. Margot, good thing the GOP is not running an unliked senior citizen who also has spells of talking gibberish and 75 extra pound of blubber.

      1. “spells of talking gibberish”

        One of the commenters at ZeroHedge said a Bloomberg candidacy would be worth it just to hear the crazy crap that Trump would get Bloomie to spout during the debates.

        1. The man who is chuffering about politicians talking ‘gibberish’ is all for Biden this year.

          1. Oh, you mean Biden. My bad. I’m pretty sure he’s out of the game now, though.

            Unless you mean Nancy. She does have a way with words, but the only way she’d ever be president is if Trump and Pence both got taken out some way.

            (again, just funnin’ with ya, by)

    2. Bloomberg also has a strong China connection at a time when Hunter Biden’s dealings with Ukraine and China might rise to the surface along with a few other prominent names (Heinz being one.). I don’t know that Bloomberg’s financial China connection should be a factor but while Trump (pre-election) stated our problems with China Bloomberg was busy making all sorts of comments about Chinese leadership even claiming Xi was NOT a dictator. Add to that Hillary’s dealings in China, Russia, Ukraine and the rest of the world and it seems that there might be sentiments that would keep Democrat excitement over the election low especially as they look at the American economy under Trump.

      1. I know we’re talking presidential candidates, but let’s not forget Feinstein and Pelosi’s connections, and god knows who else sold us out to China. If I were part of Trump’s team, I’d be making commercials with head shots of the miscreants surrounded by coronavirus halos. I see Schumer and his merry band of attack dogs are up on their hind legs trying to harass Trump with the coronavirus. Now would be an excellent time to produce and release that commercial:

        https://www.zerohedge.com/political/senate-dems-question-trumps-response-virus-very-grave-threat-world

        1. We were sold out to China by multiple administrations. They sold us short elsewhere in the world. A lot of people are scared of confrontation but do like to complain about things that affect their pocketbooks. Trump doesn’t worry about confrontation and by doing so takes away the reason to complain.

  16. Once we Repubs stop laughing, we – all Americans – should consider the implications for the republic.

    The primaries are the (imperfect) means by which Americans pick their candidates for president.

    The fact that the party elites would even consider subverting the system to pick a “dream team” is frightening.

    The combination might win, but if so, it should be presented to the voters as an alternative, not as a manipulated outcome.

    Guys, time to quit our partisan bickering and focus on the fact that there is a group of people considering subverting the nomination of the Democratic party.

  17. The question I have is, would Sanders peel off and run as an independent? Or would he accept a payoff to bow out?

    1. Margot, option 3 is he supports the Democratic candidate as he has recently sworn to do and as he did in 2016. He’s not going to somehow help Trump, though that’s the oft exhibited wish of our host and most posters here.

      1. “he supports the Democratic candidate as he has recently sworn to do and as he did in 2016. ”

        So, payoff then?

        1. Margot, if that makes you feel better, let your imagination run wild. Bernie is not a money grubbing huckster like the GOP candidate and actually has political principles and goals.

          1. “Bernie …. actually has political principles and goals.”

            You mean, like, lobster tail for lunch?

            (just funnin’ with ya, bythebook. It’s difficult for me to take any of this seriously. Much as I don’t care for Bernie, I think it’s terribly unfair for him to get squeezed out by Bloomberg just because Bloomie is doing a leveraged buyout of the DNC. Then again, Bernie is not a Democrat, strictly speaking. He is a Socialist and as such, had no business running as a Democrat and no expectation of fair treatment.)

            1. Margot, I agree with all of that except:

              1. All the Democratic candidates have the same beef with Bloomberg.

              2. Despite Bernie Bros and GOP propaganda, Bernie has gotten a fair shake from Democrats.

              3. He might prefer a Vermont delicacy for lunch. If they had any. I can come up with boiled potatoes, cheddar cheese, and maple syrup on snow.

              1. “maple syrup on snow.”

                I LOVE maple syrup on snow. I lived in Vermont for a couple of years. I actually liked it, great place if you enjoy winter sports. A real hippie haven back in the day, certain parts of it. That dry cold can be deceptive, though.

  18. Here’s a hypothesis:

    1. A member of Bloomberg’s staff is trolling the media for his own amusement.

    2. The reporter in question made it up out of whole cloth.

    3. Bloomberg himself is trolling HRC for some esoteric reason.

    She would be useless in an electoral contest, doesn’t bring a skill set to the table that might matter (what Carly Fiorina said, “activity is not accomplishment”), and would be a source of infighting. If he is seriously considering her, that’s a sign of mild cognitive decline.

  19. Isn’t there a Constitutional prohibition against both candidates on the ticket (President and Vice President) being from the same state?

    1. One of the original Drudge Report stories covered that very question. Bloomberg is willing to change his state of residency to Colorado or Florida where he also owns homes.

      1. Bloomberg changes his mind on everything else so why not change his mind as to where his residency is.

    2. I don’t know if it is a prohibition, but from what I was reading yesterday, it would create some sort of problem with the electoral college. Bloomberg owns property in other states, Florida being one of them, and could switch his residency to one of those states.

      So watch for that move, it’d be a big tell that Hillary would be his running mate.

    3. The prohibition is on electors casting a ballot for two candidates from the same state. What they’d have to do is instruct the Democratic electors to cast ballots for local decoy candidates, then have the Senate elect the VP after the election. Of course, the Democrats would have to take the Senate in order for this gambit to work.

  20. OMG, just when you thought it couldn’t get worse……the Clintons are coming back 😱😱😱!!!

    1. Lol, yes, and the jokes have already started about how Mike would all of a sudden have a heart attack and Hillary would then be president.

      On a more serious note, some have speculated that, if elected, Mike could step aside after a year and let Hillary have “her turn”.

        1. “With Hillary as VP, Bloomberg should take even more precautions to avoid a “heart attack”.

          Exactly. It wouldn’t be Bloomberg’s style to commit suicide by two shots to the back of the head.

Comments are closed.