Does Bloomberg have a plan to help Hillary win the WH?

[jcrew2001]

In order for Hillary to win the WH, she will have to stop the 5-10% of the population who won't vote for her, but who stuck with Perot in 1996, from voting for the GOP candidate.

If Bloomberg wants to become a national figure, or a Senator, if not President, he may secretly be trying to secure a Hillary victory so that he can take her Senate Seat.

For those 5-10% of independent Perot voters, Bloomberg will announce his 3rd Party candidacy and take those votes away from the GOP candidate, thus securing a Democratic victory.

No Democrat has won the WH with 50% since JFK, or with some help (Carter had Nixon's pardon, LBJ had JFK's death). While Bloomberg won't take as many Southern votes like Perot, he may be able to give Perot voters an alternative to the GOP, guaranteeing change in the WH, and giving them a reason to elect a Democratic President without having to vote for one.

Those 5-10% of voters who would never vote for Hillary or a Democrat would have an "out" where they can still practice their American voting rights, demanding change, but not having to actually vote Democrat.

Its a win by Default, but I think we'll take anything at this point.

(Those 5-10% Perot voters abandoned Dole in 96, but went back to Dubya in 2000 and 2004).

[wyldwolf]

1. where exactly are you getting those "stats" from??

[jcrew2001]

2. I saw that 18 percent voted for Perot in 1992

and 8% voted for Perot in 1996. But its been a decade, so some of those voters have died.

In 2000, it was about 50/50, so those Perot voters went back to the GOP.

I was being generous with the 5% against Hillary, but its likely closer to 8-10%

They didn't vote for Bill in 1996 either, so they probably just hate all Democrats.

[wyldwolf]

6. why do you think those voters rejected Clinton and not Bush and Dole?

[jcrew2001]

7. I think they hate all Democrats and would never vote for a Democrat

and saw the "out" by voting for Perot. Since they detested voting for Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996, my guess is that they will detest voting for Hillary as well.

Hopefully Edwards or Obama could peel off some of them, but that's uncertain.

IMO, there seems to be a 49-50% ceiling for Democrat voters. If Billy J. couldn't reach over 50%, I seriously doubt Hillary can.

[wyldwolf]

9. All evidence suggests Perot voters took votes from Bush and Clinton equally

:shrug:

Cuts your percentage in half.

[jcrew2001]

13. Bill got 49% in 1996, he only got 41% in 1992

So he went up by 8 points. Perot got 18% in 1992 and 8% in 1996 - so there are still 8-10% who strongly chose not to vote for Bill.

[wyldwolf]

16. they also strongly chose not to vote for Bush and Dole

:shrug:

[CK_John]

3. IMO, if Bloomberg gets in he will run to win. n/t

[jcrew2001]

4. But does he really just want the vacant Senate seat?

If he enables Hillary's victory, he will then spend even more money winning her vacant Senate seat - unless Spitzer screws him over.

Is there a conspiracy between Hillary and Bloomy?

Those 8-10% Perot voters will be "guilt-free" in electing Hillary to the WH if they vote for Bloomy. But then they'll likely vote for JEB in 2012.

I think this is a realistic scenario.

[CK_John]

5. He could help her with an endorsement and pushing all his fortune 500 friends and

save himself a lot of money and effort. Also, if he doesn't run there will ample 3rd parties on the ballot to throw away your vote. Here in NY we have 6 or 7 parties on the ballot.

He may want the Senate slot and Spitzer could do it, since he now is a IND. I would rather see Bill Clinton get the seat.

But if he runs, it's all him.

[jcrew2001]

8. I would rather see RFK get the seat

Bill doesn't want it - he doesn't want the Senate bickering and it will be a strange/maybe unconstitutional separation of branches if Hillary was in the WH.

Besides we need Bill as Co-President, serving his unofficial 3rd term. But IMO, he should just be allowed to serve a real 3rd term without the backdoor entry.

[CK_John]

10. I think we have gone around the constitutional question and there is none for Bill being a Senator.

I know you feel differently. So be it, but Bill hasn't called me so I don't know what he wants. But I think with him NY and Hillary in the WH, it would let each lead a political life and let Hillary put her own stamp on the WH. I can't see Bill playing fourth fiddle to VP, Chief of Staff, the Cabinet or arranging dinner parties.

[jcrew2001]

11. As the First Spouse, that should be his primary duty

There are nepotism laws that prevent him from other jobs. He really can't have any other official jobs, maybe UN rep.

[CK_John]

14. IMO, you seem to be mixing moral ideas with legal ideas.

The Doles had the same situation when she became Senator and he was running for president. I don't see it as problem, you do.

This also has nothing to do with Bloomberg running or helping Hillary as you stated in your post. It's late and I'll leave it at that.

[ShortnFiery]

12. When Bloomberg was interviewed by Wolf Blitzer, he commented that

he probably would NOT run if HRC won the nomination. That seriously creeps me out, but I guess the Ruling Classes, be they financial or political, have to stick together. :(

[TwilightGardener]

17. I hadn't heard that--I thought he wasn't discussing a Prez run, just letting

his staff leak info? I had heard he would run if the nominees had high negatives.

[tigereye]

15. can you really see someone like Bloomberg being involved in something

like that - something that puts him in the "back seat" so to speak?

This makes no sense to me. The guy was able to buy the NY mayor's office, why not the Presidency? :shrug:

I hate when we posit Dems winning only when there is a 3rd party option. It makes us look powerless and there is little benefit to that.