What he did with the NYPD scares me a bit but I think overall he was truly responsible for cleaning up that city (physically). He also implemented the first "Data science" team for a city, which was used to prevent building fires and sewage pipe bursts, among other things [1].

[1]: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/24/nyregion/mayor-bloombergs-...

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B003NX7OA0/ref=dp-kindle-re...

I'm torn on this.

- I would LOVE to see a significant voice in politics outside of the two parties.

- He would only be capable of mounting a campaign outside the two-party system due to his billions of dollars, which is exactly the problem.

When Trump started gaining momentum I realized how poetic his success was. Democrats couldn't say he was in it for the money and Republicans who thought it was ok to have unlimited campaign spending couldn't complain either.

Plutocrat candidacies are the legacy of Citizens United.

> Plutocrat candidacies are the legacy of Citizens United.

Wouldn't he be able to self-fund his campaign even without Citizen United?

Yes but I think we'll see more plutocrats running now. There's no possible limit on them using their own money.

This doesn't make any sense. Citizebs United had nothing to do with self-funding a campaign. If anything a reversal on Citizens United would incentivize more self-funded campaigns, as political speech by third parties is what would be limited.

The concern with big money in politics isn't about the spending of the money itself anyway, it's the alleged connontation of what that money is buying for the other party. A self-funded candidate would be more insulated from such influence, as such a candidate cannot exactly buy their own influence.

> Democrats couldn't say he was in it for the money

People run for president for the money?

Yes. Just not necessarily their own.

I guess Ross Perot was just 18 years ahead of his time?

That is simplistic explanation, how would you explain Bernie's raise on the Left. People have a feeling of being used and cheated, same talk about women's rights or Pro life, same debates over and over, but the rhetoric has never translated to action on the Left or Right. So, people are flat out hungry for the "unconventional", whether it is Cruz, Trump or Sanders, that is the state of affairs. Citizens united is one in the many in this tapestry. If Citizens United was really the thing, Ted Cruz has no chance in winning in TX, but he won, because of his timely and very strategic attack on Republican establishment, especially when he was outspent by a lot.

It's not an explanation of his success. His success is emblematic of campaigns with unrestricted money.

The system is rigged enough that the third party candidate can at best come second. Getting on to the ballot is a massive exercise and both parties have armies of lawyers to delay or deny certain privileges. Even Bloomberg cannot mount a winning campaign says a lot about the state of affairs.

Unless the establishment of both parties wants you to win.

I'd love to see how well Trump, Sanders, and now Bloomberg, could do as independents against the official candidates of the two parties in a 5-way race.

@chamath called it? https://www.quora.com/What-should-we-do-about-Trump-How-bad-...

It seems like there are way more interesting candidates this election than in the last few.

I wouldn't mind if either Trump, Rand Paul, or Bernie Sanders win. A glance at his stance on the issues shows I probably wouldn't mind Bloomberg winning, either.

Regardless of how it splits the vote, I have a hard time arguing against anyone who pins their flag to the !Trump platform.

If he does, he's just handing the election to Trump.

how?

By enabling him to win New York, which would otherwise be a Democratic lock.

Why? Isn't he a republican? So, if he ran, he would be stealing primarily the votes that would go to the Republican candidate.

Bloomberg's views on guns are such that many Republican voters would refuse to vote for him.

But many Democrats would and many Republicans appreciate his pro-NSA stance, his calling for the prosecution of Edward Snowden, and finally his pro Israel government stance. Ultimately he is pretty right wing and his anti-guns thing is consistent with all of the above.

Is pro-NSA a Republican stance?

Yes, I do think so: When Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, Donald Trump, Scott Walker, Arguably Ted Cruz endorse NSA meta data collection, yeah, it's a safe bet that it is a Republican position.

http://mashable.com/2015/05/20/nsa-2016-candidates/#5BXfYekf...

Donald Trump Stance here: http://truthinmedia.com/trump-supports-reauthorizing-patriot...

There is absolutely, positively no way Trump will win the election. He's the entertainment.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com