It's in the realm of policy, however, where I find Bernie intellectually quite dishonest, and Hillary pretty damned honest. When you scrutinize his policy ideas, as wonky liberals have begun doing (finally) in the last couple of months, those ideas don't stand up, on a bunch of different levels.

One of those levels is political--as in there's no way, in the foreseeable future, there will be sixty votes in the Senate, much less support in a likely GOP-controlled House, to pass single-payer health care, or break up the big banks, or reform the political campaign system, or provide free college tuition for every student. You can excuse that by saying, Well, that's his vision, his end goal, maybe not achievable in his first term but possible over time, especially if we get the "political revolution" he calls for.

But there's a deeper level at which these policy ideas are intellectually dishonest. Even if you could somehow get them passed, practically they either wouldn't work or would be recklessly disruptive or both.

Or will he listen to Bernie Sanders who, as he did in the Fox Town Hall, calls Hillary Clinton's objections "nonsense"? And claims that she is trying to "frighten people"?

After having given a long-winded Wall Street-blaming non-answer to a member of the audience, about how he will get support from Congress the moderator rephrased the question a bit:

BAIER: So how do you convince that Republican Congress to do exactly opposite of what they believe?

SANDERS: In two ways. For a start, if I become president, it will mean that there will be a massive voter turnout.  And that's what we're seeing just the other day in Maine, where I got 64 percent of the vote in the caucus, broke their caucus record for turnout.  In Kansas, broke their caucus record.

If I win, it will mean that young people and working class people are coming out in large sums.  If that happens, the Republicans will not continue to control the United States Senate. They'll have a lot less seat in the House.

SANDERS: But here is the point.  If the American people begin to stand up and fight for their rights - for example, there's overwhelming support in this country, Bret, to raise the minimum wage. Republicans don't want to do it. But if Republicans look out and millions of people are engaged and say, you know what? You are going to raise the minimum wage, or you're going to learn what unemployment is, you know what will happen?

SANDERS: Minimum wage will go up.

Since Ross Perot last ran for president 20 years ago, our two major parties could at least agree on one thing, and they made damned sure that it's no longer so easy to qualify for the ballot anymore as an independent presidential candidate.

What Bloomberg effectively needed to do here was set up 50 state organizations from scratch, of which each would function as a de facto political party in each state, in order to support his independent candidacy. In turn, each one of those organizations would have needed to qualify for the ballot on his behalf in each state by springtime of this year.

That's what gives those who run as a presidential candidate in one of our two major political parties an edge. Democratic and Republican candidates already qualify automatically for the primary / caucus ballot in all 50 states by virtue of their respective memberships in either party. They don't have to spend an inordinate amount of time (and money) mounting 50 statewide petition drives, which is an absolutely enormous and daunting undertaking. That why Bernie Sanders chose to run as a Democrat, and not as an independent Socialist.

I'm afraid that all Bloomberg did was waste a lot of money on consultants. If he was really that serious, he'd have really been much better off rejoining the GOP and running as a Republican.

Dozens of media consultants, pollsters and campaign strategists, a prospective running mate and millions of dollars in ad buys weren't going to cut it, when Bloomberg actually needed several million people at the ready across the country to sign the necessary petitions in very short order in every single state. That was unlikely to ever happen, given the short time frame here.

I respect the fact that you're very knowledgable about the "nuts & bolts" of political campaigns. Michael Bloomberg, I'm sure you'll agree, is also. So, the question is, why would a guy whose had this tremendous amount of experience in big-time politics, and, an almost endless source of personal funds, go on a quixotic journey that's, as you claim, virtually, impossible to be successful? Doesn't he know what you know?

If your answer is, "yes," then we're back to the question, " why did he do it?" My answer would be to simply take the reason he gave at face value. He factored in the difficulties that you described, knew they would be very hard to overcome, but, in the end,  were doable. But, before pulling the trigger, he couldn't resolve to his satisfaction, the ultimate dillema. Would his entering the race prove more beneficial than harmful to Donald Trump?

My GF put it to me the other day, "I simply don't like Hillary Clinton".  I agree.  I can't quantify it and I don't think others can either.  She is excellent on paper, but when I see her on the TV, I cringe at the prospect of having her as President for 8 years for no other reason that i don't like her.

I do think it's funny to read people who like/dislike a candidate try to explain why others feel differently.  They tend to connect with people who feel the same way, but rarely manage to accurately explain why.

Actually, what noone seems to notice re the now infamous exchange, he butted in first with his

Well, I -- If you are talking about the Wall Street bailout, where some of your friends destroyed this economy ...

Oh well, at least he didn't do it mid-sentense, so I guess that gives him a pass? Or something.