The Bloomberg Factor

[EV_Ares]

by Ed Kilgore, June 21, 2007 02:03 PM EST
_________________________________________

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg's announcement earlier this week that he was changing his voter registration from "Republican" to "Undeclared" has revived simmering speculation that he may run for president in 2008 as an independent. And the New York and Washington media are eating it all up.

The questions about Bloomberg generally revolve around "Will He or Won't He?" (a subject he seems to be fanning with calculated ambiguity), and "If He Does, Who Gets Hurt?" (Pew says Republicans; the New York Post, quoting anonymous GOP operatives, says Democrats; a batch of SurveyUSA state polls say it depends on the field).

To show how rapidly the Mike-o-Mania is spreading in the Big Apple, there's actually a New York Observer article out today rating various prominent politicians as potential Bloomberg running-mates (including, to my amusement, my old boss Sam Nunn, who is more likely to enter the 2008 Olympics as a sprinter).

(((rest of article @ link below)))

http://www.thedemocraticstrategist.org/index.php

[TwilightGardener]

1. Good article--

especially liked the NY Observer link to the VP pick. Colin Powell? Bob Kerrey? I think Bloomberg's run (if he does it) will be very much influenced by his choice of VP, more so than for the other parties' nominees--hard to pin down whether he is centrist-Repub or centrist-Dem without knowing who his VP is. That will tell us which party he hurts more.

[jcrew2001]

2. There are more Moderate-Rep swing voters to steal away

but I can also see many anti-Hillary Dems and moderate Dems defecting to Bloomberg. If Bloomberg can win NYC - he will win NY state in the general election - hurting Hillary.

My guess is that he will pick a republican as VP - there are more republican swing voters in 2008, republicans have always won elections with at least 50% of the vote so there is more to take. With Hagel, he'll be in play in mid-west swing states.

[MADem]

3. Bloomberg is friends with Hillary Clinton though. Some say if she wins the nom, he doesn't run.

Others say if Giuliani wins the nom, he definitely runs.

I still think all that prancing around that Hagel did wasn't just for his own amusement.

The only one who really knows, though, is Bloomberg.

[jcrew2001]

4. Hagel's non-announcement / announcement proves that he will

be open to a 3rd party ticket. Otherwise he would have already jumped into the GOP race by now.

If I were Bloomberg, I would announce an exploratory committee in Dec or January. That could scare off some Hillary support - people who were leaning Hillary but won't vote for her if there is another liberal/centrist new yorker in the race. If those primary voters like Bloomberg better, they would either stay home, or choose another Democrat they actually like instead of Hillary.

The reality of a Hillary vs Bloomberg matchup needs to be fully thought out before January - particulary if Hillary's campaign wants to show how she would be more electable and a better candidate than Bloomberg.

There is no Incumbent in 2008 - so if Bloomberg announces in Dec/January 2008 - he'll be a de facto incumbent since he has a firm place on a national ticket; and the Dems and Repubs primaries will be shaped by which candidate can defeat Bloomberg.

Which R/D candidate would be most effective in beating Bloomberg?

[MADem]

5. The best way to beat him is to encourage him not to run. IMO.

No one took Perot seriously...until they did.

He handed the win to Bill Clinton, in essence.

I think Bloomberg will wait until the last possible moment. He has a lot of things NOT going for him, to include no adoring spouse, he's short, he's Jewish, he doesn't 'look' like a President--but all of those things can be overcome to no small extent with money (look at Perot--who even KNEW who his wife was? He was an unknown who became known in a real hurry--his biggest problem was that he peaked WAY too soon--his 'overexposure' to a national audience revealed that he was a bit, er, grandiose...).

Bloomberg is a liberal with an autocratic streak. He is prochoice, pro-education, pro-gay marriage, pro-gun control, has a Green streak, has a health-conscious attitude (banned smoking AND transfats in NYC) but also didn't hesitate to have his cops round up protesters during the RNC convention with a VERY heavy hand.

All in all, he will take more left of center votes than right of center, unless the GOP candidate is a total far right nutjob. If, further, he runs against an inexperienced field on both tickets, he just might come out looking like the adult in the room.

People who think this election is a "D" walk need to snap out of that mindset. Bloomberg IS a worry to Democratic hopes for taking back the executive branch.

Here's where he shakes out, thus far, on the issues: http://www.ontheissues.org/Mike_Bloomberg.htm



A moderate libertarian liberal--Bill Maher will probably endorse the guy....

[eridani]

7. Perot was batshit crazy. Bloomberg isn't.

That's why he's a serious threat. He won't drop out because he gets pissed at a lot of public scrutiny and uses the excuse that the Republicans and the Black Panthers are getting together to screw up his daughter's wedding.

[MADem]

8. 'Grandiose' was my polite way of saying 'batshit crazy.'

And even batshit crazy, he had a massive following.

Imagine what he might have done had he had all of his marbles? And look what he did, despite missing a few of them?

Bloomberg is a worry. A bigger one than some realize, I think.

[jcrew2001]

44. Perot got all the southern voters while Bloomy will get the northern

voters - split with Hillary and (maybe) Rudy.

[Milo_Bloom]

10. Perot didn't WANT to be President

Perot reminded me a Brewster's Millions. He ran for a purpose other than wanting the job (in Perot's case a slightly less frivilous one).

Perot wanted to have a voice in the national debate. He wanted to effect the issue in a significant way.

When Perot took the lead in the polls, he dropped out of the race. HE DIDN'T WANT THE JOB! He wanted to force the candidates to talk about important issues. He came back into the race only after bowing to pressure from all the people who had put in so much time to his campaign and knowing that he now stood no chance.

Bloomberg, it seems, WANTS to win, big difference.

[MADem]

11. He didn't drop out. He stopped campaigning, and then started up again.

And this is how a rich guy can capture almost twenty percent of the vote. Imagine if he wasn't a bit flaky: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_Perot

These developments had an adverse impact on Perot's campaign and his approval rating in opinion polls was no longer rising. On July 16, 1992, Perot reconsidered running for the presidency, even if he was placed on all 50 state ballots. At that time he was only on 24 state ballots. He was encouraged by the selection of the Democratic party ticket of Bill Clinton and Al Gore at the Democratic National Convention.

Nevertheless, in September he qualified for all 50 state ballots. On October 1, he announced his intention to start running again. He explained his earlier withdrawal by claiming that Republican operatives had attempted to disrupt his daughter's wedding, and he wanted to spare her from embarrassment. He campaigned in 16 states and spent an estimated $65.4 million of his own money. Perot employed the innovative strategy of purchasing half-hour blocks of time on major networks for infomercial-type campaign ads.

[Milo_Bloom]

13. No, he DROPPED OUT.

I remember when he made the announcement on Larry King that he was no longer seeking the office. Cher even called in and begged him to reconsider.

When it was clear he could no longer win, he re-joined the race and ran his commercials ("Chicken Feathers, Voodoo Economics and the American Dream") calling attention to the issues he felt were most important and were getting lost in the campaign.

To say he didn't drop out, but just stopped campaigning simply isn't true. He announced that he was no longer seeking office... that is dropping out.

[MADem]

15. Well, you can call it what you want, he dropped out and dropped back in

And he got almost twenty percent of the vote.

[Milo_Bloom]

17. Yes, and point was he didn't WANT to win.

If Bloomberg goes into the race, it will be because he WANTS to win, unlike Ross Perot.

[MADem]

18. You coulda fooled me. I think he backed off because he didn't think he could win

and jumped in when his supporters begged him to.

And if he didn't WANT to win, why did he run again in 96?

I think you're projecting a bit, frankly.

And he's actually toying with running this time, too, the old fool. He's getting into NuttyNader territory at this late stage.

[Milo_Bloom]

19. But the facts suggest otherwise.

He was in the lead in the polls at the time he backed out. How can one suggest that he backed out because he didn't think he could win?

By 1996, it was about the Reform party, which had earned a platform based on its previous performance nationwide. The party was on the ballot and to keep it viable, they needed a national candidate who could continue to attract sufficient support to keep the party viable for the next election cycle. Remember, the party had to beg him to become the candidate the second time around.

He then refused to run in 2000, despite numerous requests, which allowed the loonie tunes to overtake the convention and destroy the Reform party by nominating Robertson.

[MADem]

20. Look, you have a perception that isn't supported by the written records.

He made noises about suspending his campaigning because of the nekkid pictures of his daughter, and because, most likely, he was also a bit of a flake. He might have also worried after his poor performance at the debates that he might lose, and less was more. Then his supporters put him in a bubble, and encouraged him to the point that again, he thought he might win, especially when the battle of the Jennifer/Gennifers was on (Fitzgerald v. Flowers). For a time there, he was ahead of both mainstream candidates.

Ross Perot was all over Teheran in 78 and 79--we knew him when. He took good care of his employees, I'll certainly give him that.

But for a guy who didn't want it, why does he continue to flirt with it, even now, announcing that he "may run" on Larry King?

Strangely, the news media also misperceived Perot, not as an outsider but as a declared presidential candidate. When he exposed a campaign dirty trick involving a fake nude photo of his daughter, journalists ridiculed him for believing anyone would do such a thing. Oddly, the media knew better than the public that Perot was very experienced in recognizing such covert activities. Perot claimed that if the photo had become public, it would have ruined his daughter's impending wedding. The dirty tactics of his would-be opponents and the biased treatment by the media caused him to reconsider whether he would run. Although he had not yet announced his candidacy, the news media accused him of abruptly withdrawing from the race after getting supporters' hopes up. When Perot later announced his candidacy, the media ridiculed him as a vacillator, conveniently forgetting his promise not to run until he was on every state ballot. As a result of the media's irresponsibility, Perot lost the support of confused voters. Nonetheless, on election day the $57 million of his own money spent on the campaign got him nineteen percent of the vote, the highest percentage for a third party candidate since Theodore Roosevelt.

In 1995, Perot announced the formation of the Independence Party (now called the Reform Party) and said it will attempt to qualify candidates in every state. The next year, Perot won the Reform Party nomination for president, beating former Colorado Governor Richard Lamm by a two to one margin. This time, instead of financing his campaign himself, he accepted contributions and matching government funds. But strange things continued to happen to his campaign. Lamm, seemingly upset by his party's nominating process, refused to endorse Perot. Then he was refused a spot in the presidential debates because debate sponsors decided his low poll numbers disqualified him as a serious candidate. President Clinton wanted him in the debates, Republican opponent Bob Dole did not. In the election, Perot won eight percent of the vote. http://www.famoustexans.com/rossperot.htm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Indeed, by the middle of the summer before the 1992 elections, Perot, who had technically not yet declared his candidacy, was in a statistical dead heat with Bush, and had a ten point lead over Clinton. Polls and pundits predicted Perot's presidency. One group projected that by election day between 43 and 51 percent of voters would support Perot, and that he would "easily win." APSA president Lowi called Perot's support "unprecedented."


Perot's undeniable success left the Commission on Presidential Debates with no choice but to include Perot in its nationally televised debates. For the first time, the presidential debates had three participants. Perot's performance actually did not help him. His political inexperience was clear, and his popularity began to slip.

In the November election, Perot received more than 19 million votes, although he failed to win a state, and therefore received zero electoral votes. He won nearly 20 percent of the popular vote, which is the highest received by a 20th Century third party candidate, other than Teddy Roosevelt, as a Progressive, in 1912.

The Reform Party's relative success created waves. It drew immediate and desperately needed attention to the nation's disillusionment with and distrust of its government. Deficit reduction became a major campaign theme, and it suddenly turned into the nation's top legislative priority. His campaign's focus -- outsiderism, infomercials, grassroots organization -- fundamentally altered the political landscape, and paved the way for future presidential and congressional businessman-candidates, including Steve Forbes, and outsider-based campaigns..... http://www.geocities.com/dave_enrich/ctd/3p.perot.html

[Milo_Bloom]

21. Wrong.

Here is the problem, you are taking things said AFTER he came back in the race and using them to claim his motivation BEFORE and ignoring the things you said before that weren't true.

The debates were AFTER he had left the race and come back. (Remember, Bill Clinton wasn't even an official candidate yet when he dropped out).

You need to check the actual written record, instead of pulling random facts and trying to make them fit.

[MADem]

22. No, I'm not. I've provided three cites in this thread that disagree with your assertion.

These cites say he never "dropped out" because he hadn't officially declared, and wasn't going to, until he was on the ballot in all fifty states. When he "dropped back in" (as reported by the press) he was in fact declaring for the first time. He "suspended his campaign" when that business with his daughter came up. The media did not report his activities accurately, so say these cites. This isn't out of my ass, these are written citations.

Please read the cites, and the underlined portions, specifically. They refute your assertions. What you say, and what these citations say, are two different things.

In any event, that isn't the primary point. You said he didn't intend to win. Only Perot knows for sure what he meant when he said he was suspending his campaign, and if he really "meant it" when he said he wouldn't officially declare until he was on the ballot in all fifty states.

But you don't spend tens of millions of dollars of your own dough if you aren't in it to win it. In 96, with taxpayer dollars, maybe, but not in 92.

You're telling me what you remember, or what you think you remember, but you aren't providing any citations of your own in contravention.

My recollections and cites differ from yours. You haven't changed my mind by repeating the same thing over and over again.

[Milo_Bloom]

23. No, you haven't.

You can play word games all you want; however, the facts are what they are.

He was campaigning, holding events, pushing forward. We can always try and play the "well he hadn't officially announced" game, kinda like Howard Dean in 2003, who didn't officially announce until 8 months after he had already been campaigning, but that is entirely dishonest and you know it.

After campaigning for months, rising to the top of the polls and being the candidate to beat, he then went on Larry King and announced that he was no longer seeking the Presidency. Cher, who was working for him, called in and begged him to reconsider. He spent several months out of the race entirely and then rejoined. Nothing you have cited states otherwise; however, you have twisted facts to try and fit some faulty image that some have tried to claim.

"But you don't spend tens of millions of dollars of your own dough if you aren't in it to win it. In 96, with taxpayer dollars, maybe, but not in 92. "

Sure you do. Tens of millions of dollars to Ross Perot isn't all that much... PLUS (if you want to be cynical) it grows the "BRAND" of Ross Perot. I read an article recently which pointed out that Bloomberg could spend 1 billion on a campaign and probably come out AHEAD of the game, because HE would be more valuable after the run. After spending the equivalent of a few hundred dollars on his campaign, Ross Perot became more valuable as a commodity.

Go check your facts... check your dates and use some logic, instead of an emotional reaction.

He didn't WANT the job and it is fairly obvious.

[MADem]

24. Excuse me. There are three links upthread. Now, you can ignore them if you want, but they're there

Three links with paragraph after paragraph of cited excerpts from the articles isn't an "emotional reaction." That's called backing up what one asserts. I haven't seen you do that yet.

Refusing to acknowledge the existence of the three links that I provided, ignoring what they said because they don't jive with your memory, and responding with the same pouting responses over and over, as though I didn't even post them, though, IS an emotional reaction.

I have no comment as to the "honesty" or "dishonesty" of Perot's announcement about when he wanted to declare. See, I'm trading in facts here. I'm not especially invested in a viewpoint. I remember what I remember, and I provided citations to back up what I said, unlike you. You respond by saying I'm "emotional" because I don't agree with you. Which is a pretty "emotional" way to discuss a topic, IMO.

Have a nice day. Enjoy your vivid rememberings.

[Milo_Bloom]

25. The links actually prove me RIGHT

If you read them in order and in context, which is what you have been refusing to do here.

First you try this silly "he didn't drop out, he stopped campaigning". What exactly does this mean? So, if Obama announces tomorrow that he is no longer interested in being President and stops campaigning, he didn't "drop out"?? Your support is a wikipedia article that doesn't dispute what I said.

Second, you try and draw some nonsensical destinction between "announcing" and "running" and I have no idea what. You are somehow getting caught up on official "announcements" as if they actually represent someone's intentions. And you know this. Was Obama not a candidate for President before he "announced". Was Howard Dean not a candidate for presidnet before he "announced". I am not even sure if half the people at the debates have officially announced yet. So the fact that he was having campaign events and had paid campaign workers... well, that is all meaningless... he hadn't "officially announced" yet.

So, let's deal in reality, shall we?

Since you love wikipedia for your source... here:

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

"A Gallup poll showed Perot with a slim lead, but on July 16 he suspended his campaign"

As I said... he was ahead and then quit for several months.

"When the 1996 election season arrived, Perot at first held off from entering the contest for the Reform Party's nomination, calling for others to try for the ticket. The only person who announced such an intention was Dick Lamm, former Governor of Colorado. After the Federal Election Commission indicated only Perot and not Lamm would be able to secure federal matching funds – because his 1992 campaign was as an independent – Perot entered the race. "

As I said, he wasn't interested in being President and was FORCED to run the second time, as that was the only way to get the party started.

Again, check your facts... read them in context and stop playing silly semantics to try and prove a point we both know is faulty.

[MADem]

27. Ooooh, he SUSPENDED HIS CAMPAIGN. Which is what I said, above.

That's not DROPPING OUT, like you asserted.

But hey, whatever.

You like to fight. I don't. I provided cites, you ignored them.

Enjoy.

[Milo_Bloom]

28. Its the SAME THING!

And as I proved, your cites, proved my point correct. He quit. He left the race. He dropped out. he stopped campaigning. Choose whatever series of words you want to choose that make you all warm and fuzzy inside, they all come to the exact same place.

Answer this, if Obama announces tomorrow that he is no longer interested in being president and will not be campaigning anymore, what would you call it?

[MADem]

30. No, it isn't.

[Milo_Bloom]

31. Yes it is, infinity.

Answer the question I asked and it leads you to the only possible conclusion.

[MADem]

32. No, it doesn't. They don't mean the same thing, no matter how much you want them to.

[Milo_Bloom]

33. Yes it does... infinity.

Answer the question.

[MADem]

36. What question? I gave you facts, you gave me your imperfect memory. NT

[Milo_Bloom]

37. Your, "facts" proved me correct.

Answer the question I asked you three posts ago, before you descended into infant land.

If Obama announced tomorrow that he was no longer interested in seeking the presidency and was no longer going to campaign, would he be dropping out of the race?

[MADem]

38. Infant land?? Look who's talking. You're being childish and obstreperous.

Obama can say what he wants in your little mind, but Perot NEVER SAID those words.

Ooops. !!!

You have a nice day. And hope you grow up, eventually.

[Milo_Bloom]

39. Yes, he did.

Actually, Perot did use those words AND you didn't answer the question.

I suspect you will try to retort with "no he didn't", but you will offer no real proof, except to try and make some nonsensical destinction between when someone makes an "announcement" and when they are just running for office and then some even more nonsensical destinction between "suspending campaigning" and "dropping out"

Since you like quoting articles so much, I'll quote a few.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0NEW/is_1992_Oct_2/ai_12738337

"Ross Perot, when he dropped out of the race, was in some polls slightly ahead of both Governor Clinton and President Bush, but by the time he dropped back in on Thursday he had lost all but a few supporters"

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761555236/Perot_H(enry)_Ross.html

"After leading both Republican president George Bush and Democratic front-runner Bill Clinton in early public opinion polls, Perot dropped out of the race in July."

http://www.observer.com/2007/if-bloomberg-runs-who-will-run-him

"But after Mr. Perot dropped out of the race in July and re-entered in the fall"


Guess all these sources have a "faulty memory" as well, right?

[MADem]

40. Actually, they do have a faulty memory. The PEROT CAMPAIGN, and the candidate, disputes them.

In his own book he took issue with the way the media characterized his suspension of campaign activities. He himself said they lied.

But you go on, think what you'd like.

[Milo_Bloom]

41. You gotta be kidding me...

Still can't answer that question, can you?

Let me get your new story straight... we are supposed to believe the interpretation of the person who doesn't want to be labeled as a "quitter", rather than the actual facts? Yeah, a politicians spin is ALWAYS the reliable source of information. :eyes:

MSN Encarta, The Observer, all wrong... but let's run with the spin.

[MADem]

42. Your question is a stupid one. There ARE such things as stupid questions.

And pay no attention to the cites I provided you yesterday.

You like arguing, don't you? Don't have much of a life, hmmmmm?

My sympathies.

[Milo_Bloom]

43. Your, "facts" proved me correct.

All your "cites" did was prove me correct... I referred to them over and over again.

Then provided you several more. Which you ignored or tried to spin away.

"You like arguing, don't you? Don't have much of a life, hmmmmm?"

Said the person who keeps responding, despite overwhelming facts proving their assertion incorrect.

[KittyWampus]

26. you are incorrect. He'll take moderate righties because there are a LOT who dislike the pull

fundies have. This includes corporate types who are sick of the GOP money-grubbing and power grab.

Further, there are precious few Dem's who are going to vote 3rd party.

Just not going to happen.

[MADem]

29. I'm going to disagree with you. Those moderate righties don't like a JEW

A RICH Jew. A Rich Jew with a GIRLFRIEND.

A short, rich JEW who likes to weekend in the BAHAMAS with that girlfriend....!

A short, rich Jew who likes to weekend with his girlfriend in the Bahamas, and who likes to raise taxes to reduce deficits and pay for social programs!

I can hear the ghost of Nixon now, doing a Dan Ackroyd-like "Jewboy...Jewboy!!!!!"

They don't allow them in their country clubs, they aren't going to want one in the White House.

And I'm not being cruel, I'm being realistic.

The unswerving support for Israel notwithstanding (because see, they regard THOSE Jews as cannon fodder on the front lines of the Middle East), they're not gonna leap for joy at the prospect of electing a former Democrat who switched parties to GOP to avoid a primary, and is now an independent. They know he's not a rightie--except when it comes to keeping the streets of NYC pacified. And they could give a shit about NYC--it's full of those elitists, foreigners, gays and...oh yeah, those JEWS!!!!

This country is not a fifty - fifty proposition. It's more like one third D, one third R and one third Whatever Way The Wind Blows. I've seen more "I'll take my ball and go home" whines here, on DU, than I have anywhere else. He'll make a move for that mushy middle of independents and undecided, and then he'll peel off the Green taxi loving, transfat/cigarette hating contrarians who just HAVE to be different on the left. You know, the ones who just can't vote for Hillary/Obama/Edwards for whatever dire reason...I've seen them here--they're vicious. They claim they'll waste their democratic vote by writing in some lameass loser, rather than vote for the nominee, if it's someone they happen to hate. They are the ones who will go into the booth and pull the lever for Bloomie. They may even come back here and lie and say they didn't do it, but they'll do it...and we all might be in for a horrible surprise. No White House for US! And that would SUCK.

Bloomberg won't take from the right, because he's Mister Social Programs. He LIKES doing things like RAISING PROPERTY TAXES to reduce deficits (that's in the link I provided, FWIW). He LIKES gun control--again, that's not going to endear him to the NRA or the right. He likes to fully fund schools, to mandate Green taxicabs, to take away your cigarettes and your transfats, to insert the firm and heavy hand of government interference into daily life for the common good--and that's NOT a rightie perspective.

Fucking potheads will vote for the guy because he is quoted as saying he smoked pot and enjoyed it.

Righties don't like that social programs/heavy-hand shit. Lefties, centrists and moderates do. Plenty of people who claim to be center-leftists, but who don't like "the woman" or "the Black" because they're secretly prejudiced against females and Africans (and even Jews, but they won't admit that, either) are gonna give that Jew the once-over, and ask themselves "Is he SECULAR enough???? Is he the best of a bad lot?" And they just may decide that he is....

If Mitt Romney gets the GOP nod, those righties will hold their noses and go with businessman Mitt. The fundies will listen to his Mormon bullshit and decide that he's a MILD Mormon and he's better than that JEW! Or they'll stay home. If they don't stay home, though, the race could end up between the GOP and the Independent, because the left just aren't lockstep bastards like the righties are.

The Fundies are probably not going to get "their" candidate this time on the GOP side. They're hoping they are going to get one they can deal with, but probably not a mouth-breather or a dinosaur lover. They could end up, worst case, with RUDY, and that would increase the odds of Bloomberg running (and winning, because they'd stay home). That shit is personal.

Ross Perot got 20 percent of the vote in 92, and that was AFTER he fucked up. He was actually beating Bush and Clinton in the early stages of the campaign. Bloomberg is studying Ross's campaign, and he's not stupid. He won't make the same mistakes--he's got more political experience, more money, better advisers, better stage and TV presence, and he's more measured, too.

I find him VERY worrying. He COULD win this thing, if he plays it right, and the stars align in his favor--hell, I've never seen more people complaining about Congress, blaming the Democrats, while not understanding that if you can't override a veto, you can't win shit--it's that bunch that he'll appeal to, the ones who don't think it through. Or he could throw it to the GOP.

If he gets in the race, though, it is BAD NEWS for the Democrat, whosoever that may be. It will be a long, uphill climb, and it might not be a successful one. That's my take, and I'm sticking to it.

[StudentsMustUniteNow]

6. I don't give a fuck about Mike Bloomberg. Neither should anyone here

Let's stop giving him the "buzz."

[MADem]

9. You'll give a fuck if he's President Bloomberg. He'll be the first president of the US who

ran, OPENLY, as--for all intents and purposes--a Fascist. In the "corporate-government melding" sense of the word, mind you. The Jewishness of the man, given his corporate bent, is just supremely ironic--he'll cheerlead the military-industrial-government complex, certainly. It's how money gets made.

Many Americans can get behind his stances on the issues--who doesn't think education is important, and should be well funded? Pro choice, pro gay marriage, green, healthy, he's left of center on all of the social issues. This guy is a LIBERAL, except where he sends the cops out to maintain law and order--then, he's putting the hammer down....

This isn't a question of "buzz"--this is a guy who can afford to BUY the office of the President, and he has more money than Romney to do it. He has access to media and bottomless pockets.

Look to history, at Ross Perot, a guy no one ever heard of until his money made sure EVERYONE knew who he was. And who almost took the prize, without the assets Bloomberg has, except he cracked towards the end of his run.

You ignore him at your peril.

[StudentsMustUniteNow]

12. I'm just sick of people cheering him on here

In our crooked system, it's all about the cash anyway. Bloomberg never did anything extraordinary politically, yet he's being treated as though he's royalty. I share your fear.

Watch how the idiot masses fall for his faux-pragmatic corporate fascism.

[EV_Ares]

14. I understand what you are saying. I think it is because so many are

totally upset with our congress as it is. We all expected so much when we won the house & the senate. Then, it seems to us (or so many anyway) the Dems are weak and don't seem to be following through on anything expect threats, words, then nothing.

Not a good excuse but trying to do some rationalization as I don't think Bloomberg is the answer to anything either.

I think a third party would help but don't see that in the cards either.

[MADem]

16. I'm not cheering him on. I'm fucking sick about the possibility, frankly.

I sit here and watch every son of a bitch who is backing their candidate bashing and trashing the other candidates in an effort to give their pick a leg up. I shake my head and think "Damn, what's wrong with your choice, that you can't boost them by telling us how great they are?"

I am still undecided (but if Gore gets in the running, I am on his team). I still have no favorite amongst the field, but I see things I like in all of them. I will vote for whichever Democrat wins the primary. I won't whine, cry or take my ball and go home. I will WORK for whichever Democrat wins the primary, be it Kucinich or Clinton, Richardson or Edwards. I will phone bank, GOTV, drive people to the polls, whatever. I will talk up the winner with ENTHUSIASM.

That's how bad I want to see a Dem in the White House.

This Bloomberg business is worrisome. I don't know that everyone's cheering him on, I think they're SHOCKED and they're trying to figure out what kind of guy he is (the short answer: He's great on social issues, except for that pesky first amendment--then he's an authoritarian sumbitch who will lock your ass up if you foul his city with your messy demonstrations; he doesn't think the melding of public/private interests is a bad thing; he's a FRIENDLY Fascist). I would hate to see him split the Democratic vote and hand the election to Romney...and I keep having a sick feeling about that. All it takes is a couple of key states, and we're outta business....I just don't think the country can survive another fucking GOP "businessman" for four long years.

The "worst" Democrat, whosoever one may think that is, is better than Bloomberg. Because the worst Democrat won't veto the shit that the Democratic Congress sends over...we won't NEED those annoying sixty, veto-proof votes anymore. We'll be able to get some shit done, no matter how small our majority, at long last.

[democrat2thecore]

35. Mayor Mike a FASCIST? That's name-calling to the extreme -nt

[democrat2thecore]

34. Al Gore sure has nice things to say about him -nt