The Bloomberg Threat

[Meldread]

I have been a member of these forums since 2002, and as much as I love each and everyone here, we suffer from the same condition that plagues Washington D.C. Democratic Underground and the netroots in general, suffer from groupthink. We often find ourselves speaking in an echo chamber with people echoing our own views back at us, which inaccurately distorts our perception of reality. It is easy to forget that outside our bubble there are people, nearly three or four times our number, who may not be actively engaged but possess equal voting power in the election process.

We know these people. They are our friends, our brothers, our sisters, our parents and our co-workers. They are not consistent voters, but now more than ever they have a reason to go out and cast their vote. It is not often that the average voter can draw a direct correlation between the actions taken in Washington and the impact it has on their daily lives. The American people as a whole have made one thing clear: They want change. More of the same is not good enough. The Democratic Party benefited from that in 2006, and we are expecting to benefit from it in 2008 as well.

However, what if there is a viable alternative to both the Republican AND Democratic Parties?

There is speculation that Michael Bloomberg could throw his hat into the ring and run as an Independent. The Green Party is attempting (and will fail) to get him to run on their ticket. Bloomberg has been heard asking how much it will cost to fund a Presidential Campaign, and being one of the wealthiest men in America, could actually out spend both the Democratic and Republican Nominee and still remain a multi-billionaire.

In the 1992 Ross Perot is single handedly responsible for delivering Bill Clinton the presidency. Without him George H. W. Bush would have won the election. Perot received 19% of the popular vote, making him the most successful Independent presidential candidate in terms of the popular vote since Roosevelt in 1912. He even managed to finish second place in two states.

Now, envision a man wealthier than Perot that has been known to shell out private donations that costs roughly the same amount to run a presidential election. Imagine him having the equivalent experience of Giuliani and then you have Michael Bloomberg. He has friends on both the Republican and the Democratic side of the isle, with Republican Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska openly saying he would abandon the Republican Party to run with Bloomberg.

I do not think there is doubt in the minds of anyone that we are going to see a large turn out for the Presidential Election, perhaps the largest turn out in recent memory. After two terms of George W. Bush even traditional Republicans are burned out. There is a real chance that Giuliani could be the Republican Nominee but in all truth he is not a threat.

Just imagine how the Heartland will react when they get treated to Rudy in drag with Donald Trump thrusting his face into his fake man-boobs. I can assure you homophobic heartlanders will not be amused. Throw in a caption that questions his ability to be president and no amount of spinning will save him. The Christian Right will not even turn out to cast their votes and Jerry Falwell will turn over in his grave.

Rudy can shout terra, terra, terra and pretend to be the strong man all he wants, but it is rather hard to appear like the strong man when every time you open your mouth people picture you wearing a dress. Average Joe six-pack will not be amused by Rudy and his drag induced lascivious ways. If it is just a two way race I would imagine the election map may very well end up looking like the 1984 map between Reagan and Mondale. The whole drag scandal and general Republican fatigue will push many to either stay home or vote Democratic.

However, throw in Bloomberg and you have an interesting picture. He could have cross over appeal to those who would otherwise stay home and to more traditional corporatist Republicans. Furthermore, he comes from outside of Washington; a plus in many books, and has a similar resume as Giuliani minus some of the baggage.

If we are running Hillary on our side then the divorces for both Bloomberg and Giuliani become moot points due to the past Clinton scandals. If Hillary attempted to breech that subject most would balk at her in disgust and tell her that she should tend to her own marriage first before poking at others.

Furthermore, Bloomberg may pick up support from traditional Democratic quarters as well. As I mentioned above the Green Party is attempting to field him as their candidate, and although I am fully confident he would reject the Green Party preferring to run as an Independent instead, he would still gain the parties support and the support of many traditional third parties due to their hatred of the two party system.

This could be further fueled by anger at the Democratic Congress for refusing to end the war in Iraq, FISA and their refusal to stand up to the Bush Administration in general. As much as Bush is hated throughout the country, the democratically controlled congress holds a MUCH (by far) lower approval rating. This is bad for Hillary as she has wrapped herself in her legislative experience. She is also viewed by many, including people in her own party, as a living symbol of "more of the same" in large part due to her last name.

Do not forget there is an up and coming generation of young voters, the very people who have been hurt most by Bush's policies as they are the ones fighting in Iraq, who have only known Bush and Clinton Presidents, with some holding a vague memory of Reagan. For many under the age of thirty it is a very real reality of knowing people who have died in Iraq, and as such they may be reluctant to support Hillary who voted for the war or a Republican whose party as a whole still supports it.

In the end, I believe if Bloomberg runs he has a very real chance of actually winning the election if it is a Hillary vs Giuliani vs Bloomberg race. At worst he will at least top Perot's numbers, pushing him up to at least 20% of the popular vote.

The real question is if Bloomberg runs who will he hurt more the Republican or the Democrat?

[rpannier]

1. Just as a note on Perot

Exit polls by CNN showed that around 40% of those who voted for Perot would have voted Clinton.
And almost 1 in 10 would have stayed home.

Clinton still would have won.

It's a myth that he handed the election to Clinton

[Meldread]

3. Maybe so, but it's irrelevant to what I posted.

People make the same arguments about Nader and Gore in the 2000 election. It is irrelevant at this point in time. What IS relevant is that there is at least a 60% chance Bloomberg could step into the race after both parties have chosen nominees and he eyes up his chances. He likely will not enter unless he thinks he has the possibility of a win.

In essence what I was saying is that in a Clinton v Giuliani v Bloomberg race that I believe he has a very good chance of winning the election. This is simply based on the fact that there are many people, including people on these forums, who view the Republican and the Democratic Parties as two sides of a single coin. They would cast a "rebellion vote" for Bloomberg.

[AtomicKitten]

2. A Bloomberg candidacy is a wild card.

it could go a number of different ways

[Totally Committed]

10. I agree. I think it depends who else is on the ticket, to be honest.

But, if he does run, it'll be interesting.

TC

[godai]

4. Very well stated

The frustration of many voters with the current candidates makes Bloomberg a viable alternative, IMHO. He must have polling data to give an indication of how such a 3 candidate race might turn out and this will guide his decision making as to possibly entering the race. It's interesting that he could fund his campaign entirely from his personal wealth. That removes a lot of potential conflicts. He's a much more viable candidate than Perot ever was.

If Bloomberg were a Democrat (he was) would he be a strong candidate for the nomination? From what I've seen, I think perhaps he would be. This raises an interesting question for me. Is it the label (D,R,I) that's most important? Does an Independent (Lieberman aside...) rank higher in acceptability than a Republican?

[Meldread]

5. Well, not around here.

If it doesn't have a D next to their name they can't be supported on these forums. These forums are for Democratic Candidates only, so it would be a poor indication of how much support Bloomberg has by looking at these forums. However, even here he would have support.

He has taken interesting positions. He has openly professed his support for gay marriage, but at the same time has tied up New York in legal battles over the issue. He is effectively talking out both sides of his mouth. If he were to come out openly in favor of gay marriage, with Hillary's recent statement that she STILL supports DOMA I can see many gays switching sides.

If Bloomberg promises an investigation into the Bush Administration once he is President that could steal roughly half of the Democratic base away from Hillary as it is doubtful she would make such a promise. (And even if she did I think few would actually believe her.)

I wouldn't call Bloomberg a 'strong' candidate if he were running as a Democrat but certainly a viable one. However, as an Independent I think his chances are much higher than as a Democrat and I think he knows it as well.

Bloomberg poses an interesting problem for both Democrats and Republicans. He is Republican enough to woo over traditional Republicans, especially those fed up with the "Bush Party". He is liberal enough that he is actually more progressive than some of our Democratic Senators. He has friends on Wall Street (he's Mayor of New York and a Multi-Billionaire). He's Jewish which means he could swing Florida in his favor, not to mention he'd almost get default support of the Israel Lobby.

[rinsd]

12. "not to mention he'd almost get default support of the Israel Lobby"

Think about what you wrote there.

Would it be ok to assume Obama gets the default black vote, Clinton the default woman vote, Richardson the default Hispanic vote.

"with Hillary's recent statement that she STILL supports DOMA I can see many gays switching sides"

Except she didn't say she supports DOMA. She was talking about its strategic importance to fight against Constitutional amendments. Though I think if Bloomberg came out for full gay marriage rights (Hillary stops short fo the word marriage) if could garner him some votes.

"If Bloomberg promises an investigation into the Bush Administration once he is President that could steal roughly half of the Democratic base away from Hillary as it is doubtful she would make such a promise."

How would Bloomberg promise an investigation? He would need the aid of whoever is controlling Congress.

[Meldread]

17. He's talking out both sides of his mouth right now.

On the issue of gay marriage he's flat out said that he personally supports gay marriage. However, when the courts came and said, "Okay time to make it legal" he tied it up in the courts. Politically speaking it was a brilliant move of triangulation. To gay people he basically said, "Hey, I'm with you." And after years of being beleaguered fighting off the anti-gay crowd gays were happy for the sign of ANY support. Activists began wondering if he could be turned. To the anti-gay crowd it was basically, "Hm. Well at least he's on our side! He's fighting with us!"

I am aware of how Hillary referred to it. However, that doesn't change the fact that she supports DOMA, even if she supports it only for strategic reasons. Bloomberg could twist the situation to his advantage, and while the LGBT vote normally is not a huge block in a close election between three candidates it could make a difference. After all in Florida it came down to 500 votes and in such a situation LGBT people could throw an election.

As for my comment on him getting the Israel Lobby all he has to do is prove himself viable. It's not anti-semitic. It's realistic. Israel spends HUGE amounts of cash to lobby candidates. They are probably one of the strongest lobbies here in the United States, I would argue that they even more powerful than the NRA. If Bloomberg can prove he is viable as a candidate, it is highly likely that he could woo them to his side. It might be a difficult choice but it is in the realm of possibility.

I mean, seriously, think about it. How would it look for an Israel Lobby to stab one of their own in the back? As a gay man I would almost always gravitate toward a gay candidate. It's simply showing support for my community. There is nothing wrong with doing that because as a minority you learn that you have to stick together. Also, do not forget that one of Gore's main reasons for taking Lieberman as a running mate in 2000 was based simply on the fact that he was Jewish. Lieberman was supposed to win him Florida. Gore won Florida but Lieberman didn't pull his weight, the Joementum just didn't exist except in his head. Gore didn't want Lieberman as his running mate and lives to regret it.

How would Bloomberg promise an investigation? He would need the aid of whoever is controlling Congress.
The Democratic Party will almost certainly gain a larger margin of control in both the House and the Senate. Do you honestly believe they would openly block an investigation into Bush's crimes? Assuming Bloomberg wins it would be solely on the fact that the Democratic Party as a whole didn't take a strong enough stand AGAINST the man. Why would they continue stabbing themselves in the eye by showing Bush support?

(FYI I don't think Bloomberg would actually go through with it, but simply making the promise could be enough to steal democratic voters in large enough numbers to win the election. The simple possibility of finally getting the chance to stick it to Bush is enough for liberals to over look Bloomberg's corporatist nature. That is what makes him dangerous.)

[rinsd]

20. "Israel spends HUGE amounts of cash to lobby candidates."

Israel spends nothing and is forbidden from doing so by law. And AIPAC doesn't do candidate donations though its members certainly donate to candidates.

"How would it look for an Israel Lobby to stab one of their own in the back? As a gay man I would almost always gravitate toward a gay candidate. It's simply showing support for my community. There is nothing wrong with doing that because as a minority you learn that you have to stick together."

You are speaking in generalizations which are uncalled for. You don't find it insulting to be described as a monolithic voting bloc devoted to your own?

"Also, do not forget that one of Gore's main reasons for taking Lieberman as a running mate in 2000 was based simply on the fact that he was Jewish."

Where do you get that? He picked Joe Lieberman because he was seen a socially conservative Democrat who was critical of Clinton's peccadillos.

"Lieberman was supposed to win him Florida."

Why? Jews are not the majority in FL, not even close.

You has some seriously warped perceptions of Jews.

"Gore won Florida but Lieberman didn't pull his weight, the Joementum just didn't exist except in his head."

Joementum was coined during his Prez run in 2004. No one thought of Lieberamn as anything more than a counterweight to the Clinton legacy.

[Meldread]

22. Not at all!

"You don't find it insulting to be described as a monolithic voting bloc devoted to your own?"
Not at all. In fact, I would plead for a LGBT voting bloc because it is the only way we could get a voice on matters. Why do you think AIPAC exists? They exist to lobby for Israel, the same way the HRC exists to lobby for LGBT people. The difference being, of course, AIPAC has more leverage. Way more. I could only dream of LGBT people having that type of power in this country.

I don't see it as an insult. If a LGBT candidate was running, unless he was a rabid Republican I would feel OBLIGATED to vote for him/her. The only way such a candidate would lose my vote is if he or she basically decided to throw their own people under the bus (Cheney's daughter for example). If that were the case the candidate would be ostracized by LGBT people, just like Marry currently is, and viewed as a traitor. Minority groups tend to stick together because if they didn't the majority would run right over them.

I would give anything for LGBT people to wield similar power as AIPAC, because if we did you sure as hell wouldn't see all these anti-gay amendments on Constitutions or anti-gay politicians. There is a reason America is largely pro-Israel and its largely because of AIPAC. If they abandoned Bloomberg (assuming he was viable) they should be ashamed. IMO you should never stab one of your own in the back.

It's not about politics. It's about loyalty.

[earthside]

6. What I've Been Predicting

I've been saying for months that the downside to front loading the primaries so very, very early is that it makes the prospect of a credible independent presidential candidacy much more likely.

Imagine that Clinton (or Obama or Edwards) has the nomination for all intents and purposes wrapped-up by early March. That person will have to endure five to six months of pounding by the Republicans and pundits before the nomination convention. Of course, the same is true for the radical Republicans.

By summertime, the American electorate may very well be so tired and so weary of the prospective Dem and Repug nominees that they will be begging for someone new and different.

A guy with Bloomberg's resources can wait until late spring to get into the race -- especially if he has an organization like Unity '08 to be doing the necessary state ballot access work for him.

That's the only possible reason Bloomberg would consider the Green Party: ballot access. But I'm not sure that the Greens would consider Bloomberg ... he seems kind of antithetical to Green values. However, a Bloomberg candidacy would seem to make a Nader bid (Green or indpendent) unnecessary -- Bloomberg would be the kind of party-crasher Nader might be able to endorse.

Frankly, I think a Bloomberg/Hagel ticket might capture the imagination of a lot of unaffiliated voters and nominally registered Democrats and Republicans. With Bloomberg's millions, his experience holding office, and a real credible running mate (like Hagel) -- this would be an independent candidacy more akin to what Teddy Roosevelt did in 1912. In other words, Bloomberg could win, he could make it a very close race ... in my opinion under this scenario, I see the Republican candidate coming in third place ... just like Taft in 1912.

Furthermore, with things like the Dem capitulation to Bush on the FISA vote and articles like Paul Krugman's last week, 'A Test for Democrats' ... the Democrats had better take a threatened Bloomberg candidacy seriously. (And that is the possible upside for Dems, a Bloomberg candidacy might finally stiffen their resolve to pound Bush/Cheney into the dust where they belong.)

That's how I would handicap a Dem/Repug/Bloomberg presidential race in 2008 right now.

I think a Bloomberg candidacy is very, very interesting. He's too rich and too corporate for my tastes, but the whole prospect sure is intriguing.

[Meldread]

7. We're of the same thought.

With Bloomberg in the race I can see the Republican Nominee (whoever it is) coming in third place and Bloomberg at least a close second if not first place. Bloomberg's biggest known issue is his divorce, but really Hillary isn't much better off in that regard and neither are the two most likely nominees for the Republicans.

Bloomberg is also a bit too corporate for my tastes, but really if we're honest it's not as if he could be a bigger whore for corporate America than either Republicans or Democrats already are and I think most people will see it that way. Bloomberg could completely finance his whole campaign himself and distance himself from his corporate nature, turn his wealth into a good thing, "I'm only beholden to myself and the American people who vote for me!"

I think the Democratic Party as a whole is in trouble if Bloomberg gets into the race. Just imagine him painting the Republican Party as filled with corruption, the Democratic Party as their enablers, and presenting himself as the only option for change. He can't be marginalized like Nader. He will be able to get into all the debates, and if not he has more than enough cash to buy TV time just like Perot did.

Over all, the Media will drool all over him because his entry into the race will be exciting and boost ratings. Do not be shocked to hear Chris Matthews salivating over his manly smell. Most of America is looking for a way out. I don't see him winning by a landslide, but I do think he can win. It could change the whole political dynamic of the entire country.

If he promises to end the two party system, and encourages all third parties to vote for him toward that end, he virtually has the support equivalent of a major political party. (All the registered people of third parties across the country almost equal the number of registered democrats I believe.)

If he promises to investigate any criminal wrongdoing that took place in the Bush Administration then he could virtually cripple Hillary's campaign. Rudy has no chance no matter how things play out.

If he looks at the polls to find out what is popular and promises it to the American people (universal health care, fixing social security, getting out of Iraq ASAP) then he could pull in as much as 40% of the vote.

Bloomberg - 38%
Clinton - 35%
Giuliani - 27%

I wouldn't be shocked to see something like that happen.

[Meldread]

8. kick

:kick:

[CK_John]

9. For months I have been saying he will run and Melinda Gates will be his VP pick. n/t

[rinsd]

11. A Bloomberg candidacy could change the race in a number of ways but he is not winning.

I don't see a 3rd party candidate winning any time soon.

"In the end, I believe if Bloomberg runs he has a very real chance of actually winning the election if it is a Hillary vs Giuliani vs Bloomberg race. At worst he will at least top Perot's numbers, pushing him up to at least 20% of the popular vote."

At worst you have him with the 2nd highest 3rd party total in our history for a man most famous for being rich and banning smoking in NYC?

"As much as Bush is hated throughout the country, the democratically controlled congress holds a MUCH (by far) lower approval rating."

All that means is you are unaware of Congress traditionally having miserable approval ratings (40% is jumping for joy). People hate Congress so much the incumbency rate is around 90%.

[Meldread]

14. If Bloomberg jumps in I am going to say he is going to at least get second place.

If Giuliani is the Republican I think Bloomberg has a good shot at coming up second (no matter who we run). I can't imagine a scenario where the whole drag issue doesn't show up at least in the heartland. It might not matter as much in the more liberal states, but being from Virginia I can tell you flat out if someone attempts to burn that image into voters brains he is screwed. If you want to put the nail in the coffin run a commercial with Ronald Reagan in contrast at the Berlin Wall and asked the voter, "Is this how you see your President?" Boom. Dead. Swift boated with no chance of recovery. With the way Republicans are falling over themselves to compare themselves to old Ray-gun toss in a line from Hillary or Bloomberg at the debates, "I knew Ronald Reagan, you sir are no Ronald Reagan!" And it's the kiss of death.

Maybe that's why I have all my fingers and toes crossed that Giuliani gets the Republican nomination. It would be like handing the election over to us on a silver plate. Giuliani could make the Bill Clinton years of scandal appear tame in comparison.

That is, of course, if Bloomberg doesn't run. A traditional third party candidate would have no chance, but Bloomberg just has so much damn money and so many damn connections that he actually becomes a serious challenge. He will be forced to run as an outsider and that means putting him against Hillary could be dangerous because out of all the candidates, her and John McCain are both seen as the two most well connected insiders.

Bloomberg doesn't just have to rely on his own money though. He could easily claim the entire Jewish Lobby, he's tossed a bone to gays (which is more than Hillary who basically has come out and supported DOMA once again), he could claim Wall Street and grab donations there... he could definitely be the most serious third party challenger we've had in nearly 100 years. If he makes a pledge to investigate the Bush Administration's criminal activities how many people will he get from this website alone, how many people will cross over? He'd be stealing directly from the democratic base and I just don't see Hillary making the same pledge. (And really, it wouldn't matter because I don't think anyone would really believe her if she did.)

It would be easy for him to capitalize on the Democratic Party's support of FISA and the war in Iraq. It would be easy for him to point to a Democratic Congress and simply say, "Look! You voted for them in 2006 and what have they done for you?" For every good thing they have given us the bad things get more attention and it will be what the electorate remembers. Third Parties have traditionally been fringe elements, and most people have ignored them due to the fact that they didn't want to throw away their vote. Bloomberg could actually poll high enough to make people believe, that he actually has a chance, and if people believe that they might be willing to cast their vote for him in rebellion against BOTH political parties.

All I am saying here is that there is a huge opening for Bloomberg to attack. The party as a whole should be more concerned about him than any of the Republican's who will be lucky to win part of the South regardless of who we run on our side. By the time 2008 gets here people will be so sick of Bush they will take it out on his entire party and that is what Democrats seem to be counting on. So they appear to be sitting back and letting him do his thing while drawing attention to the worst of his KNOWN deeds (I shudder to think about what we DO NOT know). However, by not actively doing ANYTHING about it they could come off as enablers which would play right into the hands of a Bloomberg candidacy.

It is important to focus on this now so that we realize the problem, rather than waiting until the moment he jumps into the race. By then it could be too late.

[rinsd]

16. Again with the Jewish lobby. WTF is that all about?

Now unto your other points

While I think Rudy will have problems in the South if he's running against Hillary and that other Yankee, he will get the default vote. What would be interesting is turnout.

"If he makes a pledge to investigate the Bush Administration's criminal activities"

Again, how would he do that? Congress is the one who does such investigations.

"how many people will he get from this website alone,"
how many people will cross over?"

"He'd be stealing directly from the democratic base and I just don't see Hillary making the same pledge. (And really, it wouldn't matter because I don't think anyone would really believe her if she did.)"

But they'll believe Bloomberg someone who they liked will have never even heard of until the election?

Also this scenario need the GOPer to be losing in a 3 way tie because potential ship jumpers would be all too aware of Nader.

Now I think if anyone is going to run 3rd party they have to be

a) very visible

b) incredibly wealthy.

Because as you said above "A traditional third party candidate would have no chance, but Bloomberg just has so much damn money and so many damn connections that he actually becomes a serious challenge."

Bloomberg has b and b could help with a but that doesn't mean he poses a serious challenge.

[Meldread]

18. I answered most of those questions in #17.

So I'll answer here what I didn't answer there.

"Also this scenario need the GOPer to be losing in a 3 way tie because potential ship jumpers would be all too aware of Nader."

Nader never once polled above 5% and only got 2.75% of the popular vote. That was almost all entirely made up of Green Party with a very small smattering of angry Democratic voters who had Clinton fatigue. A committed Green Party activist isn't going to vote for a Democrat unless it's someone like Dennis and even then it's iffy. Right now they are actively courting Bloomberg to run on their ticket. Nader had a bigger chance of winning the Presidential Election than Bloomberg has of joining them, but the simple fact they want him to speaks volumes. If everyone accuses Nader of costing Gore in 2000 imagine what a Bloomberg campaign would do? Nader may have been able to pull in as much as 10% of the vote if he had adequate funding. After all if Perot could pull in 19% there isn't a real reason Nader couldn't pull in 10% with the equivalent amount of effort.

Bloomberg unlike Perot and Nader is more main stream. He's actually held elected office. He's the current sitting Mayor of one of the largest cities in America. It isn't as if he could be attacked as not having experience by Giuliani as that would be shooting himself in the foot. By a Democratic Candidate certainly, but not by Giuliani who would be forced to defend him as it would also be chipping away at his own record.

Do you live in the South? I do. I live in Virginia which could be a swing state in 2008. I can tell you with certainty that if people here got a glimpse of Rudy in drag he has no chance. There are way to many insecure men around here to vote for a man who wore a dress. Throw in the fact that there is tons of postulation to "look" Presidential (however the hell you do that), there is no way Rudy could look Presidential after that. If you add that to Republican fatigue and all the other skeletons... well... the man just doesn't have a chance. It turns Rudy into the third party candidate.

As for turn out? I don't know. That is the real question. I expect it to be higher than any presidential election in recent memory, simply because people want to cast a vote AGAINST Bush. That puts any Republican in the race automatically at a disadvantage. Hell even the die hard Republicans aren't excited about their own candidates. Most of them have already conceded to a Democratic victory and we haven't even done the primaries yet.

Do you think it will be any better as the next year and a half rolls by and we're STILL in Iraq? Where things are STILL getting worse? With MORE Bush scandals coming to light? The Republican's ONLY hope is to run AGAINST Bush and it is unlikely they'll stab their own sitting President in the back.

[BeyondGeography]

13. Many politicians would jump at the chance to run against Bush and Clinton simultaneously

This is post-ideological America; personality-driven politics are the rule, and running hard against two of the most unpopular figures in America at once might just give a third party effort a chance in 2008. I think a President Bloomberg would be an exercise in soulless technocracy (Ilive in his city), but he is capable of positioning himself as above it all; enough to get many Americans to listen to him at least.

Bloomberg could say the Republicans are a mess and the Democrats are stuck in the 90's, time to move on. Many here might disagree with it, even violently, but there is huge potential market to be tapped here. And, no, this is not pro-Obama spin. I just think it should be obvious that any 3rd party effort coming from the center does better with Hillary as the nominee because of Status Quo Fatigue and her negatives.

[DrFunkenstein]

15. I Have Heard That He Would Not Run As a Spoiler (or against Obama)

Personally, I think he is mostly a novelty for the media. I like him as my mayor, but he hardly has the personality to command the nation's attention in any significant way.

As a second note, I have it heard it speculated among the beltway know-it-alls that he would run as a uniter of the parties, and would not run if Obama was nominated in that function. Take that for what its worth, which is not very much.

Thirdly, third-party candidates don't have a chance anytime soon, and I believe that Bloomberg will learn this lesson before throwing his hat into the ring.

That said, I think I'd be comfortable with Bloomie on the bottom of the Dem ticket. Truth be told, I imagine that is what he is angling towards.

[Meldread]

19. That is interesting.

I hadn't thought that Bloomberg might actually be angling toward the VP slot for Democrats. I'm not a huge expert on the man, but really, I hope he doesn't get it. I'm personally crossing my fingers and hoping for a Edwards/Obama or Obama/Edwards ticket as I think that could tie us up for the next sixteen years for Presidents (two Presidential terms for both). It will take that long just to undo all the damage Bush has done.

[Smarmie Doofus]

21. Three double-talking NY centrists. Put a bag over their heads...

... at the debates and you won't be able to tell who's who.

I wouldn't worry too much about this scenario, frankly. Ain't gonna happen like that.


And as far as B-berg being influenced by polls: not as much as he's influenced by the calendar. Next birthday he'll be 66. Next presidential election, 71. He's term limited as NYC Mayor. What else is a millionaire narcissist to do? It's now or never.

[Alexia Wheaton]

28. The people in those dark red areas will not bother voting...

if this is the case. That is: "Three double-talking NY centrists"

[Smarmie Doofus]

29. Ditto a lot of us in the dark blue areas.

Three prowar corporatists. The Green Party will cleanup.

Don't worry though, it won't happen.

[Meldread]

30. Heh, true.

"Three double-talking NY centrists. Put a bag over their heads at the debates and you won't be able to tell who's who."

That may end up being the case. Really, at this point too much is up in the air. It is certainly on the table, though, which means he is giving it serious consideration. Since he is taking it seriously, I think we should as well.

[calteacherguy]

23. I think Bloomberg would have a better chance than the Democrat or Republican candidate.

He has a proven record of administrative competence in NYC, and folks are tired of partisan politics.

If he runs he'll have a great chance to win.

[LordJFT]

24. Bloomberg has some baggage too

He's been accused of making some O'reilly-like comments to co-workers. Not saying that makes him unelectable though.

[Meldread]

25. Yep, heard that as well.

I think he got in trouble for saying something like, "Yeah, I'd do her."

Really, though, that isn't going to hurt him. Not in the heartland. Joe Sixpack will be able to relate. Jane Sixpack will just see it as the usual courting ritual. And of course, if things get really ugly over it Bill Clinton and Monica will be dragged into it.

The thing is, no matter how bad his baggage is the Clinton baggage and Giuliani's baggage (his own kids refuse to talk to him) are far worse.

[OHdem10]

26. You are correct--watch Bloomberg. Last week, Sam Nunn ex

Senator from Ga. Conservative Democrat from Ga; aahighly
respected--probably one of most respected Democrats on War Issues
and Foregin Policy. Any way Bloomberg and Nunn met last
week and according to an article I read--both not to happy
with election thus far.


Here is a question .

Even if Bloomberg ran and won, the Congress and Senate will
be populated with those there now with few changes.

One of the problems we have now is the dysfunction in the
Congress. How can a President change this???

What concerns me also. Other than Al Gore(met with Bloomberg a
while back) all the people who meet with him seem to be arch
conservatives. This makes me suspicious. I am willing to
wait and see.

[Meldread]

27. I didn't know that.

Thanks for letting me know. I also have the same concerns. Bloomberg does seem to be meeting with a lot of arch conservatives, but really it shouldn't be shocking over all. He is a corporate whore and sadly so is every major politician in both parties. It just seems more obvious with him due to the fact that he is insanely wealthy.

I am not sure how Congress will react. We see how they've reacted to Bush. They roll over. At the rate things are going the next person who inherits the Presidency won't have to worry about a Congress. All the power will be in the Executive Branch.

It is hard for me to imagine Bloomberg as President, but given the right conditions I think it is possible. If nothing else I think the party should prepare for it, and I think the best way to prepare is to begin hammering Bush directly instead of the low hanging fruit.

[flaminbats]

31. Perot got on the ballot in every state

but this wasn't easy in 92 or 96, in the last two elections Ralph Nader wasn't on the ballot in my state.

if Bloomberg or another candidate like Sam Nunn appear on the ballot in every state, IMO this could only have a positive effect on the democratic process. I believe that Clinton could have won in 1992 even without Perot, but it would of been a really close race like in 1976 or 2000. Perot was the front-runner when he first entered the race, but when he briefly dropped out, Clinton received a huge boost in the polls. most of this was just good timing, because Clinton picked Gore as his running mate in the brief period that Perot wasn't in the race.

but Perot's most important effect in the race was his appearance in the Presidential debates. Perot forced both candidates to address issues they normally succeed in ignoring, like deficit reduction, the need for tax increases, and problems with NAFTA. without an independent in the race, I fear that both parties will nominate stale candidates too chicken to confront the flaws with the Patriot Act, the tax increases needed to balance the budget, or how to end this quagmire in Iraq.

Clinton wasn't able to pass healthcare reform even with a Democratic Congress, but I think an independent or a progressive Republican President would give Democrats in Congress the courage necessary to break a filibuster. Someone like Bloomberg could make a connection between keeping Medicare solvent for the babyboomers, while covering every taxpayer under the same system.

IMO if Bloomberg runs, he'll help both parties..and do this by forcing both nominees to provide voters with some answers. even if a Republican wins with the help of an independent in 2008, neocon attacks and broken promises will only make such an incumbent more vulnerable for defeat in 2012.

[Meldread]

36. I am sure Bloomberg could get on the ballot in every state.

I believe if he were to run his main problem will be convincing voters that he can actually win the election and persuading them that he'd do a good job as President.

I am not normally against third party candidates, but I typically always hope for the victory of the Democrat. However, if Bloomberg runs I am of the opinion that it will hurt Hillary the most out of all the other candidates. Not only is she also from New York both Bloomberg and Hillary will be viewed as being in bed with corporations. (Though in truth this is true for every major candidate, Hillary suffers from the fact that a lot of people have that perception of her already.) That would be a Democrats main attacking point against Bloomberg, and one that Hillary couldn't really use against him effectively.

EDIT: I should also point out the Democratic Candidate in the best position to attack Bloomberg is John Edwards. He's been "sticking it to the man" as it were in the Primaries, and he could paint Bloomberg out to be the embodiment of "the man" that he is fighting.

[Meldread]

32. The tension behind Democratic Party lines is building.

Since I've made this thread I've been keeping my eyes open for die hard followers of the party to see what the general sentiment is...

Check out this thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1524940

The replies to the thread are what is important to note. The majority seem to feel that the party is heading in the wrong direction.

Check out this over at Kos: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/8/5/102932/8097

This is a poll from Kos and as you can see the numbers of those who either MIGHT vote third party or WILL vote third party completely out number those voting for a Democratic Nominee.

It is difficult to tell how many people will follow through with the threat, but certainly the sentiment exists and as a result it is dangerous for the party. If Bloomberg were able to energize those people, or at least capitalize on their dissatisfaction (by either getting them to stay home or getting their rebellion vote) it could throw the election.

[Meldread]

33. Wall Street Journal Online: MOST AMERICANS FAVOR a third-party White House bid.

MOST AMERICANS FAVOR a third-party White House bid.

Some 53% back the idea of building a third party to mount presidential candidacy. Support is strongest among men, those younger than 50, professionals and Northeasterners.

Seven of 10 say an independent would enhance the presidential campaign, and just 11% say they wouldn’t consider voting for an independent. Yet in hypothetical independent bid against Clinton and Giuliani, New York City Mayor Bloomberg draws just 16% from self-described independents.

Link: http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2007/08/02/governor-not-vexed-by-taxing-hedge-fund-executives-more/

I wish there was more polling data, but if I understand it correctly Bloomberg is already polling (in a Clinton v Giuliani v Bloomberg race) at 16%? That is damn good considering he lacks serious name recognition compared to them both and is a third party candidate.

[Solon]

34. That question is too vague...

Most American voters don't like the 2 party system, but that doesn't mean they would vote for Bloomberg, just that they wish there was a viable alternative that is closer to them on the issues. Those who voted this way, if they follow the general population, would be broken up as about one third on the left, one third on the right, and one third in the middle. Given this, Bloomberg is more likely to pull the middle vote rather than the votes from the left or right. Again, this also greatly depends on who he picks as a running mate.

[Meldread]

35. I agree it is too vague.

There needs to be more in depth polling on the issue. I would like to see the following match ups:

Obama v Romney v Bloomberg
Hillary v Romney v Bloomberg
Edwards v Romney v Bloomberg

Obama v Giuliani v Bloomberg
Hillary v Giuliani v Bloomberg
Edwards v Giuliani v Bloomberg

Obama v Thompson v Bloomberg
Hillary v Thompson v Bloomberg
Edwards v Thompson v Bloomberg

That should cover all the most likely candidate combinations. My focus would be on how high Bloomberg polls when compared with different Democrats and Republicans. Knowing the traditional party affiliation, age, and other demographic information would also be useful.

Even though the poll seems to be vague I find it somewhat shocking that Bloomberg is polling with 16% considering how badly he lacks name recognition. Without more data on the poll, though, it's hard to say how accurate it is... but I would like to see a very large sampling.

[sarcasmo]

37. Bloomberg does have a better chance than the other three candidates.

You sure are right about the Group think.