So what are you thinking about a Bloomberg run?

[pnwmom]

Who benefits? Who's at a disadvantage? Is Bloomberg going to take most of his support from the Rethugs or from Democrats?

[annie1]

1. i'm torn about the whole thing. i think it help the republicans. don't know how i feel about if..

bloom wins. i love him as my mayor, and i'm sure he'd get a lot of things done as pres, but he'd be way too friendly with republicans and too many aspects of their agenda.

[skipos]

2. I am thinking DUers need to head over to Rasmussen and see how poorly Bloomberg polls

and how he doesn't hurt the Dem nominee. He polls mostly from Repub voters.

[sniffa]

5. but how is Al Gore polling?

[annie1]

7. but did republicans yet know who he is? how liberal? that he raised....

taxes and how socially liberal he is? that he's pro-gay marriage, pro-amnesty, etc?

[pnwmom]

9. Thanks, I'll check that out.

It kind of makes sense to me that he might hurt the Rethugs more, since their field is so poor. But I was afraid that was wishful thinking.

[TwilightGardener]

13. To be fair, I don't know that the rest of the country knows him yet--

He's not nearly as much of a national figure as Rudy or Hillary, and if you're not running (yet), then people don't take you seriously. It's hard to say, until he announces and puts that billion, and his new political ambassadors, to work.

[skipos]

20. He doesn't do well in NY either. I assume that state knows him pretty well. nt

[annie1]

24. do you have a link to how he would fare in the state? i only saw the national..

poll with this support at 11%

[skipos]

27. Here are polls from a couple of states, including NY.

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/poll_surveyusa_16_3way_general.php

[annie1]

29. :D. i just found that too and was abouit to post. :D. thanks

[TwilightGardener]

25. There's no way to tell, until someone actually runs. And even in NY, Rudy

and Hillary are celebrities compared to Bloomberg--I don't know that upstate people would be that familiar with him. I have relatives near Jamestown, and they have nothing to do with NYC. It all remains to be seen.

[RDANGELO]

3. All the polls that I have seen, show Boomberg hurting

the Republicans. Run Mike Run.

[sniffa]

4. most likely

death to the Dem nominee.

however, depending on the 2 candidates, he could pull it off. it would have to the perfect match up.

[liberalnurse]

6. I'll not speculate too much just yet.

They are only meeting. I know Bloomberg is obscenely wealthy, but I bet he wants to stay that way. They can not win.......only divide.

[bunnies]

8. If Bloomberg runs, the Dems are screwn.

How much we are screwn will depend on our nominee.

[annie1]

10. if obama wins the nom, they're saying he won't run.

[cali]

12. who is "they"? frankly, I caution against putting too much stock

in "they"

[annie1]

16. blitzer just practically said it on the news, but also...

i think it makes sense. Hillary is a fierce target of so many and can be so shaky as a candidate at times. well, i guess time will tell. wish it were over. i'm gonna need a new hobby, this is gonna stress me out. :D

[cali]

21. wolf blitzer?

hmmm not what I call reliable. I think Bloomie will run if he thinks he has a chance- and I don't think he gives a fuck about anyone but himself.

[annie1]

22. ah, good to know about the blitz.

[bunnies]

15. Yet another reason to back Obama then, imho.

We cant afford a Bloomberg run this time around. As socially liberal as he is (and economically conservative)... I dont see a situation where he wouldnt damage our chances.

[TwilightGardener]

11. I don't think he's out to wreck Dems, but he IS out to win--

I think the Repub disarray is helping him mightily. They have no front-runner and weak candidates--total vacuum. I think he'll hurt the Pubs more, even though his strategy is: NY, CA (with the help of Arnie), and FL (with the help of the transplanted Northeastern Jewish population).

[Inuca]

31. Correct

It is obviously impossible to predict a win/loss with 100% certainty, but I am sure he will not run just to make a point (whatever that point may be), and definitely will not do it just for the fun of being a spoiler (I do not think he is THAT bored) and help whichever side. He is not a flake like Perot, and he does not seem to surround himself with flakes. The announced meeting just before the NH primary is clearly meant to send a strong signal. Whatever disagreements one may have with Nunn, Hagel, Hart, Cohen, etc., they all are serious people, with solid expertise on many issues, and I would guess also a good grasp of the political game. Whatever the final outcome, it will be interesting to follow the process.

[rpritchard]

14. Both

I think Bloomberg would pull from both sides of the aisle and in the long-run have little impact, unless of course his message were to catch on. If the Republicans are smart and nominate McCain, and the Democrats are smart and nominate Biden, this will be completely irrelevant because Bloomberg won't run. That's my hope at least.

[TwilightGardener]

17. I think he might run even if McCain is the nominee--McCain is a very

delusional neocon about the Middle East, and aside from environmental issues, is not a moderate--he even violated his own campaign finance reform ideals to raise money this year. He's limited to matching funds, IIRC. Plus, he's old and mentally unstable. Hagel won't even support McCain (at least not yet), and he was McCain's campaign co-chair last time around. Biden's not going to be our nominee, but Obama might keep Bloomberg out.

[AndyTiedye]

18. It Would Throw the Race to the Repiglicons

He wouldn't win, but he'd take enough votes from us to throw it to the Repiglicons or allow them to steal it again (Nader 2000 redux).

[Warren Stupidity]

19. Perot carved out votes from the middle.

Basically negating any effect on either Bush I or Clinton by taking independent voters equally from both sides. I don't think a Bloomberg candidacy will have the draw that Perot's first run had, but he will get some independent votes and is clearly trying to 'run from the middle'. Third Party candidates in the middle, unless they outright win, have essentially no effect. Third Pary candidates on the right or the left can have an effect by hurting their closest half of the duopoly, even if they have no chance of winning the election. Have I ever mentioned that our election system is an archaic piece of shit? The president of the republic ought to be elected in an instant run off direct election by a majority of the citizens of the republic.

[saltpoint]

23. I think he's in for three reasons.

He can afford to mount a formidable campaign almost overnight with all that dough.

He has that Eagle-scout thing going from his youth that I don't think has left him, and he genuinely wants to make things better, at least as he sees it.

He doesn't have a damn thing else to do. He's term-limited and likely looking for projects.

[Didereaux]

36. probably a fair assessment.

[TwilightGardener]

37. I agree--I don't think he's a devious or evil corporate devil, scheming

to privatize America so that corporations make even more money at the hands of the common people, as many are suggesting. I do think he's corporate-friendly, and probably belongs to the free-market worship club, where the (idealistic) thinking is that business and industry growth lifts everybody's boats, raises standards of living, and allows innovations and technological advancement and helps us compete globally. He's willing to impose regulations, raise taxes, and use government to address certain problems, though, so he's not as nuts about it as Ron Paul. He's mostly going into it (if he does) because he truly believes he's as good and qualified a guy as anybody running, and I don't see any sign that he has bad intentions beyond ego fulfillment. Not sure I'd support him even if Hillary was the nominee, but the fear that this is some kind of corporate-control plot is silly--most of these folks he's with are well-known for foreign policy, military, and environmental knowledge--pretty respectable folk.

[saltpoint]

44. Hi, wienerdoggie. Yes. I get a generally pro-corporate drift but not a

wholesale slavemaster mentality, as we've seen with Bush and his cronies.

There isn't the stench of Haliburton to Bloomberg at all. I was for his opponent, Mark Green, and Green almost won, but I'll concede that Bloomberg is a vast improvement over Giuliani.

I guess that's damning with faint praise, but you know, Giuliani really is abominable. I hope Iowans have the wisdom to bury him alive this Thursday. The less we hear of him in 2008, the better off we'll all be.

[TomClash]

26. As a New York I can tell you Bloomberg definitely hurts us if he runs

By national sandards, he's socially fairly liberal and fiscally moderate. He's a competent manager, but about as exciting as watching paint dry - a cold guy. If you are loyal he rewards you but if you cross him he is done with you.

And he could throw $1 billion into the race and not miss it. Make that $2 billion. He cannot be bought, but he can buy whatever he wants.

On foreign policy? Who knows? I doubt he would rock the boat. Israel will get whatever it wants, but I'm not entirely sure the military-industrial complex would be so lucky. He's term limited at the end of 2009 so politically he has to find something to do. Nancy Soderberg is giving him lessons, but I don't think he's made the obligatory CFR speech yet.

He's an ex-Dem who ran for Mayor as a Repub and then recently became an independent. He has many Dems in his Administration. Most NY Repubs are to the left of the National Repuke Party.

His constituency is the middle class, upper middle class white independent voter.

He favors a carbon tax and is trying to get NYC to adopt congestion pricing, like London.

[Cha]

41. I like that part about

not feeding the military complex War Machine. How does Bloomberg feel about the misbegotten War On Iraq and enablin' the bushites?

[TomClash]

52. He ducks questions about the Iraq War nt

[CK_John]

28. I've noticed nobody seems to factor in the economy in their posts. Like what will be the price at

the pump on election day? Will the market be below 10,000? Will citibank be in business? Will any bank be open and will withdrawal be prohibited?

These are the things that will decide the elections.

I also note that no candidate to date has addressed and of these things either.

[Inuca]

32. A bad economy

will help Bloomberg in a big way. I am sure he is taking this into account.

[TwilightGardener]

33. The economy just surpassed Iraq in polls as the biggest concern--

this helps two people, IMO: Mittens Romney and Bloomberg.

[Inuca]

35. It may also help clinton

nostalgia for the "good old days", without stopping to think and understand that things are very different now than they were in the 90s.

[Didereaux]

34. been posting now for some time that economy was THE issue for the general n/t

[Joe the Revelator]

30. If he runs, and Hillary is our nominee, I'll just be happy that

we'd have a real liberal in the race.

[Cha]

42. I hear ya

dude. Someone who wouldn't feed the War Machine!

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

38. Helps pugs. Bloomberg is civilized, so he splits the civilization vote.

[annie1]

39. So well put. so true.

[BeyondGeography]

40. Hillary obviously means a third party run if she's the nominee

because the center would be completely up for grabs. It's personal, not ideological; independents and moderate Republicans are dying for an alternative to her. There might be some high-minded impulses behind all this, but it doesn't get off the ground if Bloomberg and his allies don't think he can win. She gives them this hope, as does every Republican except McCain.

[pnwmom]

43. I thought everyone around here thinks HRC is too centrist. n/t

[calteacherguy]

45. I think to have a chance to win against that we need Obama, and the Republicans best shot is McCain.

I really think Dems need to wake up to what's going on outside of our own Party.

[no name no slogan]

46. He'd do a Ross Perot-- remember what happened in '92

Without Perot, Clinton would not have won in 1992. He effectively peeled off enough of the moderate/liberal Republican vote to keep GWB from winning.

If the GOP nominates somebody like Huckabee, it's an easy Dem win.

[calteacherguy]

49. Perot was by himself. This one is a well organized effort

with many current and former members of both parties.

It would be wise for us not to lightly dismiss the possibility of a winning independent run this time.

[no name no slogan]

50. But he still doesn't have the party infrastructure

He may have some party bigwigs, but they are still no replacement for boots on the ground-- which the do NOT have. And, given the fact that the general election is 11 months away, it's highly doubtful they'd have time to do the party-building necessary to do much more than be spoilers.

Candidates don't will elections. Campaigns (made up of people, not just public figures) win them.

[calteacherguy]

51. They will if they decide to give it a go.

11 months is plenty of time, don't doubt it for a moment.

[no name no slogan]

53. No it's not. It is nearly impossible for a 3rd party candidate to win the presidency

Eleven months is enough for a campaign, but not enough for a political party. Sure, they will probably get a few people from the two major parties, but the "real" pros are already in place. Plus, they don't have anybody else down-ballot-- which will be a bid draw this year.

Republican John Anderson did something very similar in 1980, and was able to attract some big-name support from both parties, but it was still not enough to win a single state. Because of the electoral college system, it's doubtful MB will be able to win a single state, either.

Bloomberg will be little more than a spoiler.

[Forkboy]

47. I'm thinking it's going to piss LoZo off BIG time.

:scared:

[Nutmegger]

48. Bloomburg helped LIARman

He even campaigned with him. That's all I need to know about Bloomberg. Screw that shit. :puke:

I think he'll hurt both parties, equally.

[Didereaux]

54. I really, really believe that a Bloomberg run will split the REPUBLICAN Party, maybe permanently!

It will leave them with only the ulra right wing Neo-CONS and the twirly-eyed religious zealots. The second group are very cyclic and are due for a downturn in popularity. The Neo-CONS are more akin to a militant priesthood, they do not breed and reproduce they depend upon recruitment, which requires power. The Neo-CON power($$$) is OLD oil men and a handful of fringe Defense Industry complex thieves, whereas the middle of the party is old time Fortune 500 types with longevity. These latter do not like war or chaos, status quo and predictability are their mainstays, they are the blood enemies of Neo-CONS and disruptive zealots.

Again for those reasons I say that gutting the moderate Republicans will have the effect of destroying the NeoCON REagan/Cheney et al Republican Party. The OLD Party will then have a new name and we can all go about hating them, but without so much fear of the bastards nuking us.