Why Bloomberg's presidential candidacy might be a great thing for our country

[LBJDemocrat]

Bloomberg today announced that he is leaving the GOP (http://wcbstv.com/topstories/local_story_170181024.html). This suggests he's distancing himself from the party in order to position himself as an credible independent in his presidential run.

Many DUers, as I've seen, are afraid that a Bloomberg candidacy could detract from the Democratic Party's supporters in the election by luring in swing voters disappointed in Bush's foreign policy.

But there's also a benefit to Bloomberg's candidacy. Bloomberg would, to some extent, strip both parties of their libertarian factions (the Giuliani wing of the GOP and the DLC wing of the Democratic Party). The GOP and Democrats would become increasingly influenced by the Christian right and fiscal liberals, respectively.

In 1992, when Ross Perot served as the voice of fair trade, the free trade factions of both parties ended up being stronger than ever before. I hope that Bloomberg's candidacy does the opposite.

[Renew Deal]

1. Good point

I think we might actually get a contrast of positions AKA a debate.

[BobRossi]

2. And he may get my vote!

I may be back in the game! I will not support the current crop of DINOs.

[LBJDemocrat]

6. Tell me please

In what way is arch-free trader Michael Bloomberg preferable to ANY of the Democratic candidates, including Obama, whom I strongly dislike?

[BobRossi]

8. He aint a DINO and he ain't a puke.

And he is in nobody's pocket.

[Virginia Dare]

14. He's in the billionaire's pockets..

and he was a DINO before he was a RINO...n/t

[Inuca]

42. He IS a billionaire

apparently willing to use his billions, or at least one of them. Not meant as a defense or support of Bloomberg, but IMHO somebody who is already extremely wealthy and is less likely to be in anyone's "pocket".

[onenote]

38. Not a DINO? He was a freakin' RINO.

How do you define a DINO anyway?

[TwilightGardener]

9. He's NOT preferable. ESPECIALLY to Obama (says the Obama fan).

[PurpleChez]

18. As someone who is neutral about Obama

I am interested in the source of your dislike. Despite liking to think of myself as well-informed I still just don't know a lot about most of the candidates. I like the "idea" of Obama, but I just don't know enough to feel strongly one way or another.

[LBJDemocrat]

25. Replied via private message

Don't want to deviate from subject of this thread.

[bigdarryl]

3. he's not RUNNING!!!!! JESUS

[Renew Deal]

4. How do you know that?

Did you talk to him today?

[TwilightGardener]

7. Then why bother to switch affiliations, while the world watches? Come on.

[Virginia Dare]

15. Maybe he's just sick of being associated with the..

criminal repukes?....:shrug:

[TwilightGardener]

22. Can't say I blame him--they're psychopaths! Any sane person should leave immediately.

[calteacherguy]

5. He would have a better chance than Perot of actually winning.

I can hardly believe I said that...chance of winning.

[Hart2008]

10. According to the '92 CNN/Gallup exit poll, Perot preferred over Clinton and Bush.

William Schneider, CNN political analyst, on the September 21, 1996 broadcast of "Inside Politics," aired this exit poll result:

In 1992 the actual vote was:
Clinton 43%, Bush 38%, Perot 19%

CNN 1992 Exit Poll:
"Would you have voted for Perot if he had a chance to win?"
Yes 36% No 64%

CNN 1992 Exit Poll
The vote for Perot if voters believed he could win
Perot 36 percent
Clinton 34 percent
Bush 30 percent

Voters would have changed their vote if they had thought Perot had a chance to win.
(Perot was leading in the polls and Clinton was third of three when Perot withdrew from the race in the summer of '92.)

So you think Bloomberg has a better chance to win than Perot?

Will Bloomberg be the only major independent/third party candidate?

[sandnsea]

13. Bloomberg isn't nuts

He isn't likely to have a melt down in the middle of the campaign, or choose someone like Stockdale as a running mate. He could easily win.

[Hart2008]

20. The stakes are higher running for POTUS. He doesn't understand all of the traps, snares and tricks.

and that assumes he catches on and poses a threat to someone.

IMHO, Hillary, with her sky high negatives, can't win without a three way race, but she could lose that too.

It is really to early to tell without seeing who the other candidates are for the GE.

[CK_John]

11. He will definitely focus the debate and clear the 2nd tier of candidates in a hurry. n/t

[sandnsea]

12. Green Democrat Republican

I tried to tell the Greens to create a strong left so that when the Republican Party split, the Dems could pick up the Sensible Center and leave the country with two strong left parties. But noooo. So now we risk a weakened Dem Party made up of primarily Greens, while the center goes Independent with a guy who will pick up the social liberal, free traders.

Does the OP understand that combining the Giuliani and DLC wings would be a majority? Bloomberg has an excellent chance of winning, and that would not be good.

[Virginia Dare]

16. Where is his appeal in middle america...

and the south? He has none. I don't think he would do very well anyplace other than in the Northeast.

[TwilightGardener]

24. He'll pick a middle-American running mate, I'll bet.

[BestCenter]

39. And that would be... Hagel? (n/t)

[LBJDemocrat]

26. I had the same thought

In that sense, he could force the Ds to campaign more aggressively in traditionally D states.

On the other hand, you never know what the media can do to manufacture appeal outside of the north.

[sandnsea]

29. He's not a rabid right winger

He's a great alternative to the far left who are perceived as having no moral boundaries at all, no desire to defend the country from attack, distribute the wealth, dump on the rich, etc. He's also a great alternative to those who are not against all abortions, support civil unions, support responsible government, believe in America as superpower - who aren't Ron Paul or Pat Robertson. If he can convince people on terrorism, if he's got no skeletons, he could be very competitive.

[Virginia Dare]

41. Anecdotal to be sure...

but I use my s.o. as a gauge for a lot of these candidates. He doesn't consider himself a member of either party, and votes the person, not the ideology. He mostly votes for moderates of both parties. There is no way in hell he would ever vote for Bloomberg.

Maybe I'll be surprised and he will be able to garner broad appeal, but my gut tells me most people outside of New York and the northeast have no idea who he is and will mostly yawn at his candidacy.

[karynnj]

43. I agree with your analysis

I can see him as appearing to be the "middle" candidate. Fiscally prudent, but compassionate (remember this is how Bush sold himself - though he he has been neither).

To many, he might seem to be the lost main street Republican. He might seem to them like Major Lindsey. I know many people both in the area I was raised in - Chicago area Indiana - and in affluent suburban NJ who would find him attractive. (In NJ, I met many of these Republicans who voted for Kerry, but who would not vote for Clinton.

[natrat]

17. bloomberg/edwards ticket !!!!!!

[xchrom]

19. a political home for left and right libertarians?

good.

[enid602]

21. Arnold

I have a feeling Schwarzenegger might not be too far behind him.

[jcrew2001]

23. U mean Arnold Kennedy-Shriver?

nt

[sandnsea]

30. Bloomberg - Schwarzenegger

Yep, that would just about do it. *sigh*

[Hart2008]

31. Ahnold is ineligible for the office. He was not born a US citizen. n/t

[sandnsea]

40. There's been talk that it isn't specified

He couldn't become President if the President died, but that doesn't necessarily mean he couldn't become VP. My understanding is that it isn't specified for VP.

[sampsonblk]

27. What is a fiscal liberal?

nt

[Hart2008]

28. Keynesian economics.

The theory that balanced budgets aren't all that important and that the government should use deficit spending to stimulate the economy during economic down turns.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_economics

[sampsonblk]

32. If that's what he was talking about, then I object

There has to be a more accurate term to use. I know its a side point. But language does matter.

[Hart2008]

34. It's not that deficits are good. Only that they are sometimes necessary...

during recessions to increase demand.

Conversely, when the economy is prospering, the government should run a surplus to curtail inflation. (The converse almost never happens.)

Of course, this is only a theory, and adapting it to the new global economy is still evolving. (The Humphrey-Hawkins Act mandating that the government pursue full employment is still the law of the land.)

How does this work when our government has been exporting jobs and importing workers?

Try to figure that one out!!

Remember, if you took all the economists in the world, and laid them end to end, they still couldn't reach a conclusion!

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[jcrew2001]

33. Friedman sucks

nt

[sampsonblk]

35. This doesn't seem to be a widely used term

I understand keynesian theory. I have never heard the term 'fiscal liberal' used to describe anyone who believes in keynesian economics.

[Hart2008]

36. Would you call John K. Galbraith a consrevative or Milton Friedman a liberal?

"Some of Galbraith's Ideas
In The Affluent Society Galbraith asserts that classical economic theory was true for the eras before the present, which were times of "poverty"; now, however, we have moved from an age of poverty to an age of "affluence," and for such an age, a completely new economic theory is needed.

Galbraith's main argument is that as society becomes relatively more affluent, so private business must "create" consumer wants through advertising, and while this generates artificial affluence through the production of commercial goods and services, the "public sector" becomes neglected as a result. He points out that while many Americans were able to purchase luxury items, their parks were polluted and their children attended poorly maintained schools. He argues that markets alone will underprovide (or fail to provide at all) for many public goods, whereas private goods are typically 'overprovided' due to the process of advertising creating an artificial demand above the individual's basic needs.

Galbraith proposed curbing the consumption of certain products through greater use of consumption taxes, arguing that this could be more efficient than other forms of taxation, such as labour or land taxes.

Galbraith's major proposal was a program he called "investment in men" — a large-scale publicly-funded education program aimed at empowering ordinary citizens. Galbraith wished to entrust citizens with the future of the American republic."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply-side_economics

Hence, economic liberals advocate government intervention in the economy.

Economic conservatives think that the market works magic:

"Supply-side economics is a school of macroeconomic thought that argues that economic growth can be most effectively managed using incentives for people to produce (supply) goods and services, such as adjusting income tax and capital gains tax rates. This can be contrasted with the classic Keynesian economics or demand side economics, which argues that growth can be most effectively managed by controlling total demand for goods and services, typically by adjusting the level of Government spending. Supply-side economics is often conflated with trickle-down economics.

The term was coined by journalist Jude Wanniski in 1975, and further popularised by the ideas of economists Robert Mundell and Arthur Laffer. Supply-side economics is controversial because its typical recommendation, reduction of the higher marginal tax rates, offers benefits to the wealthy, which commentators such as Paul Krugman see as politically rather than economically motivated.

Supply-side economics developed during the 1970s of the Keynesian dominance of economic policy, and in particular the failure of demand management to stabilize Western economies in the stagflation of the 1970s, in the wake of the oil crisis in 1973. <2>

It drew on a range of non-Keynesian economic thought, particularly the Austrian school, e.g. Joseph Schumpeter and monetarism.

As in classical economics, monetarism proposed production or supply is the key to economic prosperity and that consumption or demand is merely a secondary consequence. Early on this idea had been summarised in Say's Law of economics, which states: "A product is no sooner created, than it, from that instant, affords a market for other products to the full extent of its own value." John Maynard Keynes, the founder of Keynesianism, summarized Say's Law as "supply creates its own demand." He turned Say's Law on its head in the 1930s by declaring that demand creates its own supply. <3> However, Say's Law does not state that production creates a demand for the product itself however, but rather a demand for "other products to the full extent of its own value." More simply, it is only after we "produce" and have income to spend that we can "demand.""
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply-side_economics

[sampsonblk]

37. I see where you're coming from-nt

nt

[Hart2008]

45. The party needs to return to economic liberalism. The term is important!

I don't mean that they should continue W's obscene budget deficits or return to the 70's era notion that big government programs will solve all of the world's problems.

However, on the big issues of the day, i.e., health care, outsourcing, gluttonous consumerism, the government has a role to play. These things shouldn't be left alone to "market forces" to resolve.

If we embrace economic liberalism, i.e., that the government needs to intervene in the economy to provide a level playing field, than the middle class should thrive.

Instead, we have allowed the party to be defined only on social liberalism, abortion, affirmative action, gay marriage, gun control, etc. So while the neocons have been shrinking the economic pie for the middle class, they successfully played divide and conquer on these social "wedge" issues. As a result, the great American middle class has suffered.

[Renew Deal]

44. I agree with this point of view completely.

I think the bottom line is 100% no matter what the outcome is. It will force everyone to actually debate positions, and if you read Gore's book, you know that's a good thing.