32 Comments
 
"DickFuld"

I think it's unlikely he will actually run. However, if he did, I would vote for him.

He's a bit too paternalistic for my tastes, but I probably would too. He's a better choice than Hillary, Bernie, Trump, or Cruz.

Commercial Real Estate Developer
 

Considering the field, he'd have my vote. Still waiting on Romney..

“Elections are a futures market for stolen property”
 
"Esuric"

Considering the field, he'd have my vote. Still waiting on Romney..

sniff I miss him

Commercial Real Estate Developer
 

Interesting comments and opinions above. When I read that he could be running, I immediately assumed ( and got excited) that he was going to be running on the Democrat ticket because Hilary is so weak.........since he's looking for an independent run, I don't think he has a chance. I think there's a strong appetite in the Dem field for a Hillary alternative and a lot of deflation once Biden decided he wouldn't do it.

 

I hope so. The only votes he would be getting would split the democratic vote.

Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please.
 
"REPE8"

Would Americans really vote a Jewish Person as President? This coming from a Jewish person.

America voted for a guy with the name Barack Hussein Obama 5 years after deposing a guy named Saddam Hussein. I'm pretty sure we could vote for a Jewish guy. I pray that the Jewish guy isn't the insufferable jackass, Michael Bloomberg.

Array
 
"REPE8"

Would Americans really vote a Jewish Person as President? This coming from a Jewish person.

Maybe I'm just reading the landscape wrong, but I think they would. I can hear my girlfriend's southern evangelical extended family justifying it now.

"Jesus was a jew too, you know," "They might have killed Jesus, but at least they ain't Muslim terrorists," etc.

Who knows though. Her grandma cried when I said I was raised Catholic. Didn't have the heart to tell her I (and her granddaughter) don't go to church. It's a different world down here.

Commercial Real Estate Developer
 
"adapt or die"

OP, isn't there some AUS election you should be hyper focusing on?

Discuss

Last election, we voted in some Christian evangelical nutcase as Prime Minister. Needless to say, he was swiftly ousted before the end of his term and replaced by an ex-Goldman MD. Since then, everything has been going smoothly. I'm sure WSO would approve.

 
"QGKZ"
adapt or die:OP, isn't there some AUS election you should be hyper focusing on?Discuss

Last election, we voted in some Christian evangelical nutcase as Prime Minister. Needless to say, he was swiftly ousted before the end of his term and replaced by an ex-Goldman MD. Since then, everything has been going smoothly. I'm sure WSO would approve.

In the context of Australian politics, that "evangelical nutcase" was about 10 times more rational than his counterparts on the Australian left.

Array
 
Best Response

If Trump and Sanders become the nominees in their respective parties, I think there is a viable path for a third-party candidate to at least force a 12 amendment election in the House.

Bloomberg would likely have difficulty in southern and lower-midwestern states. But he doesn't win the election by carrying the south. He wins the election by carrying states like NY, PA, NJ, OH, MI and IL in the face of a Sanders nomination. Those states alone are worth 104 electoral votes. It's likely that this would be enough to prevent any candidate from receiving the 270 electoral votes necessary for a majority, which would require the House to convene a single delegate from each state to choose the president from the top-three candidates. At that point, it is anyone's guess as to how these state delegations vote, and it's possible they caucus around the most moderate candidate, which would be Bloomberg given a Sanders/Trump scenario.

I obviously don't think this is likely to happen, but it has a better chance than at any point in probably the last 100 years, given how polarizing politics are today.

 
"CF1988"

If Trump and Sanders become the nominees in their respective parties, I think there is a viable path for a third-party candidate to at least force a 12 amendment election in the House.

Bloomberg would likely have difficulty in southern and lower-midwestern states. But he doesn't win the election by carrying the south. He wins the election by carrying states like NY, PA, NJ, OH, MI and IL in the face of a Sanders nomination. Those states alone are worth 104 electoral votes. It's likely that this would be enough to prevent any candidate from receiving the 270 electoral votes necessary for a majority, which would require the House to convene a single delegate from each state to choose the president from the top-three candidates. At that point, it is anyone's guess as to how these state delegations vote, and it's possible they caucus around the most moderate candidate, which would be Bloomberg given a Sanders/Trump scenario.

I obviously don't think this is likely to happen, but it has a better chance than at any point in probably the last 100 years, given how polarizing politics are today.

The x-factor in your scenario is gun rights. Ironically, Sanders has been very friendly to gun rights and Michael Bloomberg has a view on guns akin to an 18th century monarch. States similar to Pennsylvania could easily swing to Sanders in a scenario where he was going up against Bloomberg.

Array
 

"The x-factor in your scenario is gun rights. Ironically, Sanders has been very friendly to gun rights and Michael Bloomberg has a view on guns akin to an 18th century monarch. States similar to Pennsylvania could easily swing to Sanders in a scenario where he was going up against Bloomberg"

This is true, and essentially disqualifies him from taking any of the southern states. However, this is where his status as a non-ideologue can help him-- he can easily walk back his stance on guns, saying that he only took a hard stance because it was best for NYC at the time. He won't have to get raked over the coals in a primary race with ideologues, who use issues such as gun rights or abortion as loyalty tests as to who’s a “true conservative” (or “true liberal”).

Romney didn’t really have this opportunity vis-à-vis healthcare in 2012: he had to completely denounce Obamacare despite passing similar legislation as the governor of Massachusetts. This made him seem disingenuous among independent voters.

Bloomberg can say that he supports “common sense” gun control (a loaded term of course) but won’t apply NYC’s restrictive measures to the rest of the country.

I also disagree that PA democrats will support Sanders under any scenario. I see the blue-dog democrats that exists in places like PA as voting for Trump over Sanders, given his stance on free-trade. Once Trump goes around to these old factory towns in PA and Ohio talking about how politcians sold them out to Mexico and China, I don't think a guy like Sanders has a chance. I think this is what gives Bloomberg such an advantage in the aforementioned states; the democrats here are very different than the progressives who support Sanders, and he will have a major contrast to Trump.

 

highly unlikely, and therefore an irrelevant topic of discussion

_______________________________________ http://www.drmarkklein.blogspot.com/
 

Voluptatem id at impedit nisi veritatis molestiae. Harum inventore distinctio aut sit illo. Voluptates nemo laborum iure. Nostrum voluptas voluptas voluptas nam. Ullam in tempore atque ullam vitae atque.

 

Sed tempora recusandae quis sed sed et debitis. Aut ullam et dicta provident sed eligendi. Ad dolores sit aut itaque ut dolor animi.

Dolorem earum et dolorem ratione ut omnis suscipit neque. Numquam aliquid facilis dolor exercitationem accusamus repudiandae et. Quo numquam omnis at nostrum optio. Recusandae quae magnam amet molestiae nemo.

Qui qui iste quibusdam. Omnis numquam expedita repellendus quidem ut ut.

Voluptate et eius perferendis vel enim doloribus cupiditate. Quia atque ratione sed laudantium sapiente. Ea eligendi quam sapiente reprehenderit provident magnam. Ipsam qui ut dolor vel fugit ut.

Career Advancement Opportunities

June 2026 Investment Banking

  • Evercore 01 99.4%
  • Moelis & Company 01 98.9%
  • JPMorgan 01 98.3%
  • Guggenheim Partners 01 97.7%
  • Morgan Stanley 07 97.1%

Overall Employee Satisfaction

June 2026 Investment Banking

  • Moelis & Company No 99.4%
  • Morgan Stanley 02 98.8%
  • Evercore 01 98.3%
  • BMO Capital Markets 12 97.7%
  • Banco Santander 01 97.1%

Professional Growth Opportunities

June 2026 Investment Banking

  • Evercore 01 99.4%
  • Moelis & Company 01 98.9%
  • Morgan Stanley 05 98.3%
  • JPMorgan No 97.7%
  • Goldman Sachs 02 97.1%

Total Avg Compensation

June 2026 Investment Banking

  • Vice President (14) $434
  • Associates (44) $258
  • 3rd+ Year Analyst (8) $210
  • 2nd Year Analyst (22) $179
  • Intern/Summer Associate (13) $156
  • 1st Year Analyst (79) $150
  • Intern/Summer Analyst (73) $101
notes
16 IB Interviews Notes

“... there’s no excuse to not take advantage of the resources out there available to you. Best value for your $ are the...”

Leaderboard

1
redever's picture
redever
99.2
2
kanon's picture
kanon
99.0
3
BankonBanking's picture
BankonBanking
99.0
4
Secyh62's picture
Secyh62
99.0
5
Betsy Massar's picture
Betsy Massar
98.9
6
dosk17's picture
dosk17
98.9
7
DrApeman's picture
DrApeman
98.9
8
GameTheory's picture
GameTheory
98.9
9
CompBanker's picture
CompBanker
98.9
10
bolo up's picture
bolo up
98.8
success
From 10 rejections to 1 dream investment banking internship

“... I believe it was the single biggest reason why I ended up with an offer...”