Bloomberg will make the Northeast competitive and hurt Hillary

[jcrew2001]

Just like Perot hurt the GOP in the South, Bloomberg will appeal to Northerners and force Hillary to spend money there.

Rudy is the worst nightmare for the Hillary campaign - that's why they're trashing him.

And now, they are trashing Bloomberg because he's Rudy 2.0 - a better, wealthier, and more dangerous than Rudy.

Mike's defection from the GOP will grow his appeal toward left-leaning/centrist male swing voters, especially in the northern states.

Mike will be competitive in NY, NJ, PA, NH, ME, OH, FL, and with Hagel in CO, NV, AZ, and Nebraska.

Hillary can only rely on the West Coast, and the GOP nominee (Thompson) will likely win the South.

So it will come down to who wins the Mid-West.

Bill was lucky to get 43% of the popular vote in 1992 - Hillary will do worse in a 3-way.

I used to think that any Dem could win in 2008, but Carville is right - the Dems are fully capable of talking themselves out of it. There are just too many stronger candidates than Hillary - with Bloomberg and Rudy being two of them.

[soothsayer]

1. He's a non-threat.

[jcrew2001]

2. i was expecting a Hillary supporter to say that

but you have to spread the propaganda. But in reality, a Bloomberg candidacy will directly affect Hillary's home base of support in the previously reliable northeast. Say if Bloomberg weakens Hillary in some states - either for his won win, or helps the GOP nominee win.

Does hillary have the 40-50% support in those states? If it drops below that, she'll lose the state.

Since 2000 was a 50/50 tie, the prospects of a 1/3 tie is very real.

[Skip Intro]

12. bloomy would weaken rudy, not Hillary.

he was a Dem then a puke then an indie - can you say flip flop?

let him run, Dems win if we remember to tie whoever the repuke nom is to bushco, makes me a little sad it won't be mccain, that pic of him and bush embracing would have been great in a Dem ad.

but rudy, or whoever the repub nom is, will be hurt most by bloomberg, who I doubt will be a major draw anyway

[jcrew2001]

21. Does Hillary even have 43% of voters to lose ???

Of course Bloomberg will hurt Rudy - there are more Republican swing voters to take. The Democrats haven't won an election with over 50% of the vote in 30 years.

So, Hillary can keep her 35-40%; and Bloomberg will fight it out with the GOP for the winning 38%.

Will Hillary keep the Kerry voters - or will Male swing voters refuse to vote for her ???

[Tellurian]

4. Yep, I agree..

Bloomy is feeling irrelevant...

[calteacherguy]

7. You won't be saying that in the Fall of 08'.

If Bloomberg runs, he has a 50/50 chance of winning, in my estimation. The Republican and Democratic candidates would each have about a 25% chance.

[Tellurian]

9. ....

:rofl:

[calteacherguy]

10. Bookmarked.

:-)

[madrchsod]

3. what exactly is thier differences? i have`t heard

anything about his stand on the issues.

[jcrew2001]

23. Voters will vote for a Democrat, but they won't vote for Hillary

If Bloomberg matches Hillary on the issues - he can effectively take away Democratic votes and keep the male swing voter and ex-republicans.

The male swing voter wants a Democrat, just not Hillary.

[illinoisprogressive]

5. If Hillary is nominee, he will jump in and we will have deeper problems

[Tellurian]

8. Thats what life is all about; solving problems!

[FogerRox]

11. Um, the Convention is in... what.... August ?

thats 2 months or so before the election. If we were talking school board elections that would be fine.

[karynnj]

20. The nominee will likely be known in February 2008

unless things break in thirds which will be a mess - with Democrats fighting up to a brokered convention.

[bluestateguy]

6. He has said he is going to finish out his term as Mayor

I think this is just all speculation from a news media that has decided they are bored with the field of candidates. That's a consequence of the permanent campaign and all of this front loading of primaries. I'm still angry over not getting any downtime after the 2006 elections.

[TwilightGardener]

16. No, he's serious about running--had a team looking into it for two years now--

also he's been in talks with Unity '08. BUT he won't throw his money away, so he's holding out to see what transpires with the D and R races.

[TwilightGardener]

13. Laura Ingraham and Sean Hammity

were brainwashing their audiences--"He's a liberal Democrat! It doesn't matter what he calls himself--he'll only hurt Democrats, because he's LIBERAL"--the defining of him is beginning. We Dems need to start saying: "He's still, deep down, a Republican! He supported GWB! He raised money for Repugs!" to counter their meme and make it acceptable for GOPers to consider voting for him.

[jcrew2001]

25. Voters know that he is the republican mayor from NYC

so the democrat label won't stick - but he's a liberal New Yorker - people in the South distrust all New Yorkers in general, regardless of party.

[samfishX]

14. Rudy is a threat?

LAAAAAAAWLZ!
Please! Bring Rudy on! The guy has more skeletons in his closet than he left buried at Ground Zero after he recovered all the gold. On top of that, Americans aren't as willing to fall for Rudy's fear mongering on steroids, from what I've seen.
If Rudy is Hillary's worst nightmare, that just shows how stunningly out of touch they are.
I mean, if you think the prospect of pro-war Hillary being the Democratic nominee will demoralize those of us on the left, just wait until you see what a Gulliani nomination does to the right's morale. Ditto Romney.

You make a silly assumption to say Thompson will win, though. I'd put more money on McCain, Rudy or Romney winning the nomination than Thompson. They'll swallow their pride like the Dems did in '04 because they'll want to pick a candidate who can "win" and will play better with the majority of Americans..
Right now, the right-wingers have an infatuation with Thompson...but that's about it. Nobody even knows where the Hell he stands on many issues! It's Sheeple-Syndrome at it's finest. Even George Will thinks he's a joke. It's only a matter of time before the Wing-Nuts realize Thompson is just a turd covered in glitter. We're already starting to see this within the right-wing Punditocracy Sphere.

And frankly, depending on where Bloomberg stands on national security and defense, I'll probably take him over Hillary. If he isn't on his knees for the Military Industrial Complex like Hillary is, I see little reason NOT to support the guy. Both him and Hillary will take a piss on labor either way, so it's really a bit of a crap shoot.

Sadly, Ralph Nader is actually right this time, methinks. If it comes down to Hillary vs. McCain, Rudy or Romney, there really ISN'T a fundamental difference. The war mongering will continue, "free" trade will keep going on just as strong and given the liberal tendencies of the GOP's Big 3 contenders, we'll at least see SOME action on climate change, I bet. Not nearly enough, though. I doubt they'll nominate HARD-right loons to the SCOTUS like Bush did, either.
Are there differences? Of course. I'll take Hillary over those 3 mad men in a heart beat. But at the end of the day, we'll still not have the changes America so DESPERATELY needs.

Of course, that's assuming Hillary is the nominee. I still say that if Gore gets in (50/50, at this point), he cripples her. He's a proven winner, has none of her negatives and has never been more appealing to people.
Although even with Gore in, all the problems proposed to Hillary by a Bloomberg run will exist for Gore, too.
If those of us on the left are SMART (and we're not, sadly), we'll start talking NOW about how Bloomberg isn't very liberal at all and is -*gasp!*- ACTUALLY A REPUBLICAN!
Instead, though, we're sitting around wailing about how bad this is.

[TwilightGardener]

17. Yep--your last 2 sentences--read my post above. I agree. We need to frame him

as a Repub (at heart, if not in party).

[jcrew2001]

24. But isn't Bloomberg the same as Hillary on many issues

if they are the same - then I think many voters would prefer Bloomberg. That's his strategy - he knows voters want a Democrat, so he will take Democratic stances on the issues and voila he will win the election.

[TwilightGardener]

26. I don't know for sure if his strategy is to "steal" Dem issues or

shape himself into a Dem alternative--since he's so middle-of-the-road overall, which way he leans will be determined by his choice of running mate: A Repub VP might mean he's trying to appeal more to R's/a Dem VP = more appeal to Dems. I don't think he's out to "spoil" it for Dems and hand victory to the R's (he likes Gore, and seems to prefer the company of renegade Repubs like Schwarzenegger and Hagel), although that may be the effect. He and Hillary do seem close on social issues--it may come down to likeability and party loyalty.

[jcrew2001]

27. Exactly, and he will choose Hagel as VP because there are more swing

voters in the Republican party in 2008. The male swing republican is looking for anyone else and is sick of the GOP. Bloomberg can steal those voters (just like Perot in 1992) and if he can mimick Hillary on the issues, he will get a fair share of centrist Democrats who hate Hillary.

Hillary won't get 43% that Bill got in 1992. All Bloomberg needs is 38% of the state votes in order to win some states and win the General election. There's enough purple and northern states for him to win.

[CK_John]

15. If he runs he will be competitive in all 50 states, strongest in the midwest. Why because

by March 08 we will have been hit by a 50% market meltdown to 6500 and troop death toll over 10,000.

[Hippo_Tron]

18. I'm waiting for polling before I decide who Bloomberg hurts

All of the pundits say that he's only going to take votes from the northeast, but I'm not convinced.

[karynnj]

19. Do you have any backup analysis that this would hurt Edwards or Obama less?

At this point the idea of a possible Bloomberg run is new enough that no one has really assessed the impact. There are many possible combinations of Republican and Democratic nominees to include in a three way comparison. To my knowledge, this hasn't been done.

As an Edwards supporter, you are ignoring that though the NE is "Hillary's base", it is also the Democratic parties base. I know in 2004, there was little Edwards support in early 2004 in NJ. Our primary was too late to be useful in measuring this - so that is based on what I heard as a Democrat and polls. I could see Bloomberg hurting Edwards as much as or more than Hillary.

Bloomberg may or may not run. If he does, this will affect all Democrats - not specifically Hillary. I also think the greatest impact will be on swing states where our normal margin is smaller. There he could be a spoiler, taking more from the Democrats than the Republicans. This would be states like NH or PA.

[jcrew2001]

22. Edwards will win some Southern states

that Hillary won't - thus negating Bloomberg's strength in the northeast.

Edwards also does better in the midwest.

The west coast is the Dem strength also.