There doesn't seem to be a Bloomberg thread, so here's one.
A Bloomberg campaign manager made an interesting point in a TV interview: As far back as the '70s, Iowa and New Hampshire have played a primary role in deciding who can run for President. If somebody can't do well in those small, very atypical states, he loses the support and money he needs to go on. But Bloomberg plans to run a national campaign: He will buy ads and assemble staff in every state. He doesn't need Iowa to permit him to run in California and Florida.
I'm not sure Bloomberg should be President, or even that he's the best nominee the Dems can find, but he's certainly in a position to make his own rules, and he has a more of a record of concrete accomplishment than most of the legislators in the race.
A Bloomberg campaign manager made an interesting point in a TV interview: As far back as the '70s, Iowa and New Hampshire have played a primary role in deciding who can run for President. If somebody can't do well in those small, very atypical states, he loses the support and money he needs to go on. But Bloomberg plans to run a national campaign: He will buy ads and assemble staff in every state. He doesn't need Iowa to permit him to run in California and Florida.
I'm not sure Bloomberg should be President, or even that he's the best nominee the Dems can find, but he's certainly in a position to make his own rules, and he has a more of a record of concrete accomplishment than most of the legislators in the race.
via International Skeptics Forum https://ift.tt/2rDeG03
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire