So......Mike Bloomberg

[Strongbow]

Despite continued denials that he is planning a Presidential run, new information has surfaced that he is conducting a study of his chances of winning with the goal of making his decision in March. The deadline to make it on the ballot in the state of Texas is May 12.

From what I have seen, I'd say his independent run would hurt the Republican candidate and would insure that the Democrats take the White House in November.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Well if he could insure that I'm all for it

 

[2861U2]

I disagree. Bloomberg's a Democrat, so he'd take more votes from them than the Republican. I bet ultimately he doesn't run, though.

 

[phillyfan26]

Yeah, I'm with 2816 here.

 

[BVS]

I disagree. Bloomberg's a Democrat, so he'd take more votes from them than the Republican.

Now under what ballot did he win the mayoral election?

 

[Strongbow]

I disagree. Bloomberg's a Democrat, so he'd take more votes from them than the Republican. I bet ultimately he doesn't run, though.

I hope he does not run. Although Bloomberg is a lifelong Democrat he did temporarily become a Republican and seems to agree with the Republicans on many if not most of the issues. Because of that, I think he would hurt the Republicans in the same way that Ross Perot hurt George Bush Sr. in 1992. Thats really the only way Clinton became President. Ross Perot took 19% of the popular vote in 1992.

The Republicans already have an uphill battle given that winning a 3rd consecutive term in the White House has only happened once before since World War II. In an election that may be very close, even if Bloomberg only gets 5% of the popular vote, that could have a serious impact.

The last poll done(11/09 - 11/11 2007) on a 3 way race between Giuliani, Clinton, and Bloomberg at the following results:

Clinton 43%
Giuliani 38%
Bloomberg 11%
Undecided 8%

 

[2861U2]

Now under what ballot did he win the mayoral election?

Republican, but from what I understand he switched to R because he never had a shot at getting the Democratic nomination.

He'd certainly attract votes from both parties, seeing as he's liberal on social issues, conservative on foreign and domestic issues.

 

[2861U2]

The last poll done(11/09 - 11/11 2007) on a 3 way race between Giuliani, Clinton, and Bloomberg at the following results:

Clinton 43%
Giuliani 38%
Bloomberg 11%
Undecided 8%

That poll might be true, but it's looking less and less likely that those 2 will be the nominees. They are very polarizing figures, and Bloomberg could do well there. If, for example, it's Obama and McCain (who are much more attractive to independents and even people from the opposite party), I don't see Bloomberg having much influence.

 

[martha]

I can't stand spoiler candidates from any party. If you can't play with the big kids, don't go to the playground.

 

[watergate]

Hopefully Nader will stay out of it. The Greens are trying to draft him.

 

[Harry Vest]

The guy just doesn't "have it" - just look at him. A big wallet and a bigger ego. Just stay out of the race fool and let Obama become President. Geez, you Americans, you cease to amaze me.

 

[martha]

T Geez, you Americans, you cease to amaze me.

We can still amaze each other, too.

 

[martha]

Hopefully Nader will stay out of it. The Greens are trying to draft him.

Did they not fucking learn last time the did that???

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

mike bloomberg is not a republican or a democrat. he's someone who makes his decisions on his own, without having to have a party tell him what to do.

 

[Dusty Bottoms]

More options = a good thing

 

[namkcuR]

mike bloomberg is not a republican or a democrat. he's someone who makes his decisions on his own, without having to have a party tell him what to do.

That doesn't change the fact that as an Independent he will have no chance in hell of winning. That doesn't change the fact that as an Independent he will accomplish nothing other than taking just enough votes away from one side to ensure victory for the other. It will skew the vote. It is an unneccessary excercise in self-ego-massage. Either run in one of the two sides where you have a chance and you won't skew anything or don't run. Period.

 

[Jeannieco]

The guy just doesn't "have it" - just look at him. A big wallet and a bigger ego. Just stay out of the race fool and let Obama become President. Geez, you Americans, you cease to amaze me.

Hey man, don't paint "us Americans" with the same brush.

I didn't vote for Bush in the last two elections... so I certianly don't belong in the category that voted a guy in office 2 times with the IQ of a chia pet.

I know you were speaking in general and didn't mean all of us, but still I hate to be categorized like that. I am speaking for myself, but I am sure there are others that feel the same way.

When I went to Europe recently I apologized left and right for our country and it's actions in the world of late.
So embarassing! I can't wait to be a proud American again.

Also, I think I would vote for Bloomberg before I'd vote for Hillary.
That's how much I dislike her.

 

[namkcuR]

Also, I think I would vote for Bloomberg before I'd vote for Hillary.
That's how much I dislike her.

Seriously? If it were a three-person race with Bloomberg as an independent, Hillary as a Democrat, and whoever as a Republican, you'd vote for Bloomberg before Hillary? When voting for Bloomberg(or any Independent) is essentially flushing your vote down the toilet and making sure it doesn't count for anything? You'd rather give a spoiler a vote, and put the Republican candidate one vote closer to being elected, than just gritting your teeth and voting for Hillary because no matter how much you dislike her she can't be as bad as the Republican candidate?

 

[martha]

Also, I think I would vote for Bloomberg before I'd vote for Hillary.
That's how much I dislike her.

Then you might as well vote for whichever Republican gets the nomination. It's the same thing.

 

[martha]

More options = a good thing

Vote splitting to get the Republican in office= good thing?

 

[phanan]

Seriously? If it were a three-person race with Bloomberg as an independent, Hillary as a Democrat, and whoever as a Republican, you'd vote for Bloomberg before Hillary? When voting for Bloomberg(or any Independent) is essentially flushing your vote down the toilet and making sure it doesn't count for anything? You'd rather give a spoiler a vote, and put the Republican candidate one vote closer to being elected, than just gritting your teeth and voting for Hillary because no matter how much you dislike her she can't be as bad as the Republican candidate?

I was thinking the same thing. I thought we learned this lesson back in 2000.

 

[Jeannieco]

Seriously? If it were a three-person race with Bloomberg as an independent, Hillary as a Democrat, and whoever as a Republican, you'd vote for Bloomberg before Hillary? When voting for Bloomberg(or any Independent) is essentially flushing your vote down the toilet and making sure it doesn't count for anything? You'd rather give a spoiler a vote, and put the Republican candidate one vote closer to being elected, than just gritting your teeth and voting for Hillary because no matter how much you dislike her she can't be as bad as the Republican candidate?

I know I know I know, I'd be helping the Republicans. accchhh.

I am just really miffed at her and Bill right now and praying I won't have to be forced to vote for her.

I shouldn't have said it that way... don't worry I will calm down by Nov. at least I hope so but I REAAAAAAAAALLLLY don't want to vote for her.

 

[financeguy]

Bloomberg has achieved an awful lot of admirable things in his life, and if the US is electing a chief executive then there aren't too many more capable people.

So if he wants to spend his money on a Presidential bid, then I say more power to him.

But this is a Presidential election, not a board election.

Unfortunately, on foreign policy issues he has his head stuck up his *** (though not quite as bad as that loon Giuliani).

He is the ideal 'Wall Street' candidate. I have the distinct impression that ordinary Americans don't want a 'Wall Street' President.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

... and as long as we continue to have a simple two party system without more viable options, we'll continue to put ideological douchebag special interest butt boys (or girls) into office.

whoopity doo, yay america.

 

[anitram]

... and as long as we continue to have a simple two party system without more viable options, we'll continue to put ideological douchebag special interest butt boys (or girls) into office.

whoopity doo, yay america.

If you want viable options and something that is not a 2 party system then you need to come up with a viable 3rd (4th, etc) PARTY which would have the funds, the organization, and the drive to get something done. Not these independent tickets that pop up once every 4 years and accomplish absolutely nothing in the long term.

 

[U2democrat]

If presidents were elected based on the popular vote, Bloomberg getting in the race could get interesting.

Since it's based on the electoral college he'll just act like spoiler for whomever (most likely the dems)

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

fair enough points both... but he's still got my vote locked if he jumps in.

if we could have had a viable third party candidate every year since perot first popped up on the radar, perhaps by now they'd actually have a legit chance at winning the whole shebangybang. if we continue to discourage third party candidates from entering because we don't want them to be "spoilers" then we'll never get a viable third option. ya gotta start to chip away sometime.

 

[anitram]

if we continue to discourage third party candidates from entering because we don't want them to be "spoilers" then we'll never get a viable third option. ya gotta start to chip away sometime.

But it's an asinine and ineffective place to chip away from. You should take a look at countries with a plurality of parties and take lessons from them. When a new party pops up (provided it isn't merely a faction of one party splitting up), they usually make inroads at the local level first. The point is to win a few seats, whether municipally or on a provincial/state basis. And then you start expanding outwards, because suddenly you have organized support and media coverage.

Third party presidential tickets are absolutely useless, both in the short and long term. People who run on them yammer on about choices but seem largely uninterested in actually making a change that goes beyond their own hide getting elected. You never hear them talking about how to succeed on a local or state level, or anything of the sort. I hesitate to say it's 100% about their vanity, but it sure looks like it a lot of the time.

 

[Bluer White]

I agree. Independents need a grassroots movement, from the bottom up.

Something comparable to the Christian fundamentalists, or the pro-choice crowd.

Now that's some political hor$epower.

 

[ntalwar]

I agree. Independents need a grassroots movement, from the bottom up.

But independents want to remain just that - independent of any party. The leading candidates of both parties are centrists for a good reason - to capture the vote of independents, who are much larger in number now than in the past. A good unaffiliated candidate is a real threat to the party-affiliated candiadtes.