If Bloomberg runs as a third party centrist ...

[welshTerrier2]

What effect, if any, will a Bloomberg, Third Party in the center, run for President have on the two major parties?

Bloomberg has enough money to pretty much run any kind of campaign he wants to. Who would get the VP pick?

Is McCain a possibility? His campaign looks like it's dead. Or is McCain "old news" with not enough mileage left on him?

Imagine a centrist party forming with huge amounts of funding and the entire "gang of fourteen" jumping ship to join as charter members.

Imagine an "anti-major party" theme that argues the Centrist Party will put "partisan politics" and all the hate speech and all the "ineffective bickering" behind us. Will this sell?

Imagine Bloomberg for Pres, McCain for VP, Lieberman for Sec. of State and Warner for Sec. of Defense. Will that sell?

And, even if it wouldn't sell enough to elect a candidate, what effect would it have on the major parties? Suppose this party did run some Congressional candidates and some of them won. Could they "hold the balance of power" and effectively "blackmail" the major parties to support their centrist agenda? Does anyone think this is somewhat the position Lieberman is currently in because he could switch parties and give the republicans control of the Senate?

And, if the Democrats and republicans did have to "play ball" with this new political party, what impact would it have on their "big tents"? if the Democrats moved even farther towards the center and the republicans did the same, what effect would that have on those further left in the Democratic Party and those further right in the republican party? Would further party splits become a possibility? In a scenario like this, could we actually end up with 5 parties from the original two?

It's easy to argue the system is heavily biased towards a two-party system. And it's easy to point to the anemic history of third parties. Does that mean they absolutely can never happen? And even if you believe that, what would happen if Bloomberg could get a successful centrist party off the ground?

Any thoughts?

[bunkerbuster1]

1. Short answer--I'd have to see some polling to have a clue.

I really don't know if Bloomberg would pull more from Dems or Rethugs. Probably dependent upon the level of disgust among voters at the time.

Right now, that wouldn't look good for the Dems, although I firmly believe this Congress has the time to pull its thumb out and start making good on their promises.

[Cosmocat]

21. It won't be good forf the democrats ...

The right is nothing if not loyal ... That Bloomberg has a good reputation in regards to money won't matter one itoa, they will sheeple in line behind the zeolot screaming about "keeping us safe" and who will appoint "strict constructionist judges" to the Supreme Court ...

Meanwhile, any bloomberg ticket will likely suck votes from the middle, the very fringes of the center of the right, and far too many left center voters depending on the democratic nominee ...

[madfloridian]

2. Al From and Harold Ford have both met with him.

Just saying.

[welshTerrier2]

3. interesting ...

i wonder whether they're encouraging him to run or "making certain concessions" to discourage him from running.

a centrist party all their own might just be a DLC dream come true ... i know it would be for me ... good riddance to them ...

[Totally Committed]

5. Figures. Madfloridian, you have the best info, I swear!

We don't need anymore bleeding "Centrists" -- third-Party or otherwise, fercripessake. We need an honest-to-god populist Leftie who can win to run.

TC

[wyldwolf]

7. ...but did you mention why?

[NoPasaran]

9. Division of labor

Bloomberg: Trial balloons
Ford: Pie in the sky
From: Diabolical schemes

[wyldwolf]

10. the meeting was arranged at the request of Bloomberg's people..

...to discuss the feasability of an independent run. Bloomberg has met with many on this topic.

But DUers can't have it both ways. Either From is in cahoots with Bloomberg or he's pushing Clinton.

The conspiracies here can be amusing.

[Totally Committed]

13. What difference does it make? They took the meeting, and he's a Republican, last I checked...

that says it all for me.

TC

[wyldwolf]

15. makes plenty of difference to me.

[Totally Committed]

19. I was kind of looking for you to sort of share your wisdom on it with me,

because I really am curious what you think. :)

Why does it make a difference to you?

TC

[OHdem10]

4. Boomberg -Hagel ticket is what I have heard.

Hagel said on a Sunday AM show about 3 weeks ago.

Would it be something for a boy from NY and aboy from
Nebraska to join forces..........

It was widely reported that Hagel and Bloomberg were
seen lunching and the whispers began.

[ellenfl]

6. i heard someone on tv (who claimed to know bloomberg)

say that bloomberg would not run if he would be a spoiler, only if he really had a shot at winning.

ellen fl

[rurallib]

8. No sense spending a billion if you may not be able to buy

what you want. Nice to know some billionaire thinks he can buy the presidency. Shows you where tings are at in America, 2007.

[ellenfl]

11. nothing new there. the gummint has always been for sale.

it's just more expensive now . . . which is EXACTLY why we need public financing. the more expensive it gets to run, the more beholden the candidate is to the special interest money . . . but this is no news flash.

ellen fl

[rurallib]

12. But now they flaunt the auction in public with no shame.

"I will bid 1 million for that house seat."

[ellenfl]

14. too true. eom

[saltpoint]

16. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) and David Boren (former D-OK) have been

mentioned as possible running mates, but Mayor Bloomberg is keeping his cards close to his chin.

He's left on social issues, respected as a money manager, and has top-drawer executive experience (I'm counting being mayor of New York as a pretty tough job).

Also he's loaded and could likely finance three or four presidential campaigns without blinking an eye.

For a Democrat or Republican to be his veep nominee would likely mean someone who isn't currently in office, or who is willing to bolt from his or her party on a once-and-for-all basis. Hagel's pissed off so many Republicans that his own Senate seat is being challenged in a primary, and Boren's long ago out of office. Either would be in-zone.

Gary Hart would likely prefer the top spot but might be willing to become a major variable in the public dialogue by joining an extremely well-financed campaign. And Hart knows a thing or two about national security and foreign policy. He always had an independent streak to him. I regret that he lost the nomination to Mondale, frankly. I think he would have been a stronger candidate.

No matter which candidate we nominate or which moron the GOP nominates, Bloomberg is in a unique and potent position to shake'n'bake the 08 election.

[welshTerrier2]

17. thanks - very interesting analysis

the only part you didn't really comment on was the "gang of fourteen".

how likely is a real centrist movement? would both Dems and repubs jump ship to build a party structure in the center. btw, like Lieberman, this doesn't necessarily mean they wouldn't continue to caucus with their respective parties. that could be the new political model for Congressional centrists.

btw, I agree with you about Hart and Mondale. Hart had "big mo" until he didn't ...

[saltpoint]

20. I slipped on the 'gang of 14' part -- sorry about that.

I don't really know. That's the problem.

I'm just not sure how it's going to turn out. I know pretty much what to expect in a Jackson Pollack painting, but I'm about as clueless as they come on the '14' aspect of your question.

As usual, you're asking mighty good questions on these boards, welshTerrier2, and I applaud that. This is the kind of thread that builds up awareness and interest for all of us. Nice one.

[welshTerrier2]

27. thanks, OC ..

i really value that ...

it's sad to see what we've become here ... discourse is almost impossible now.

we're all so forceful on our views that it's almost impossible to even acknowledge that someone you disagree with has raised a few valid points.

the truth is, i almost didn't even post this thread. i thought it would get maybe just one or two responses.

[Hart2008]

22. Hart generally regards the VP slot as not worth a warm bucket of spit...

I doubt he believes that Bloomburg has the qualifications to be president, but I can't speak for him. (He has said the Rudy is not qualified to be president, and I don't know how Bloomburg is more qualified than Rudy.)

No, Hart hasn't ruled out a presidential bid. Gary Hart has not declared yet, but hasn't ruled out running either.

Same as Gore and Clark.

He is presently the chairman of The American Security Project:

"Letter from The Honorable Gary Hart

The American Security Project has been created to develop a national security vision and strategy for the twenty-first century, building on America’s strengths, restoring its international leadership, and seeking solutions to the new realities of the 21st century before they become crises.

American national security policy is adrift. In the five years since the attacks of 9/11, the United States has toppled autocratic regimes, cast-aside collective security alliances, put its military into the field, expanded its covert battle against terrorists, and simultaneously lost its moral standing in much of the world. While American activism has not always met with approval in the international community, there once was a time when American action made us stronger. Today, however, anti-Americanism is fueled by actions that are seen as diversions from America’s historic path, accepted standards of international behavior, and common sense.

The issue at hand is the appropriate purpose and use of American power. Where the United States has needed strategy, we have been offered tactics. There has been little development of grand strategic thought since the end of the Cold War.

The so-called “war on terror” has dominated every discussion of national security since September 11, 2001. But the war-paradigm—while convenient for political mobilization—is dangerously imprecise and counterproductive in the fight against extremists. The American Security Project seeks to clarify the nature of the struggle the United States faces against violent-extremists in order to produce more effective policies and strategies to meet the threat..."

http://www.americansecurityproject.org/about

:patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot:

[saltpoint]

23. Yes, I acknowledge that Hart would prefer the top spot but

again, having his voice in the mix for a national election would be invaluable.

If no other route opens -- and the Democratic field is already jammed with good candidates with a good handful of others listed as possible -- that might be a very useful avenue for him, historically speaking.

In any case, I like the guy and hope he is influential in public discourse generally and in foreign policy especially.

[Hart2008]

25. Yes, we need his voice in this campaign, but it won't be as anyone's VP. n/t

[LBJDemocrat]

18. Ahhh, Bloomberg

the free traders' candidate. With Hagel, who has something like a 100% CATO rating, they'll reap lots of corporate dollars. I'd vote for a Buchanan-style repuke before I'd vote for these assholes.

[TwilightGardener]

24. I don't think Bloomberg is interested in a "Centrist" party or movement--

I think he's just interested in being President, and he can't really get the Repub nom. McCain lost his "centrist" status with his embrace of Iraq/bomb bomb Iran and his primary run to the right. Joe Lieberman is politically toxic to Democrats, so Bloomberg wouldn't want to ruin his chance to draw off Dems to his cause (although I think they are friends). John Warner is pretty dang old. So I don't think any of those three will figure in his run to a great extent.

[paulk]

26. if Bloomberg runs, he will hurt the Democrats

and give the election to the Republican candidate.

Which is why I don't think he'll run - he wants to win, he doesn't want to go down in history as a spoiler. He knows that 3rd party candidates can't win enough electoral votes to get elected.