Does Bloomberg's 3rd party candidacy prevent a Dem victory in '08 ?

[EVDebs]

Desperate GOP, in a effort to appear 'progressive' or even rational before the '08 election, are now trying a Perot-ette political ballet move. Are we 'quaking in our boots' as one GOP strategist thinks ?

[Selatius]

1. YES. Evidence found here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1144937&mesg_id=1144937

[EVDebs]

4. BS, he's with Ahnold who vetoed SB840 when he had HIS chance

for a single payer healthcare system. Bloomberg will do likewise and deepsix anything that removes corporate power from the system. Sorry Selatius, your "evidence" is actually an indictment of his windowdressing for the masses. Reel the suckers in and possibly elect a Republican or Republican-lite ? I don't think so.

[Selatius]

6. There's a sucker born every minute. He will siphon a lot of independent voters off if he runs.

You can't win if you don't win the middle as well as the left. Repubs in the heartland would likely not vote for somebody in favor of gay rights, but I could be mistaken on that front.

[EVDebs]

9. Thanks. GOP strategy is now being done by PT Barnum ! nt

[TahitiNut]

19. A Gore-Bloomberg-Thompson election would be "interesting."

So would a Gore-Bloomberg-Romney election ... to say the least.

[NeedleCast]

2. Impossible to answer, but probably not

Way to early to tell what effect, if any, a Bloomberg run as an indy would have. I know I'd at least take a look at voting for him, as he is a social liberal and I agree with him on many issues. I don't think this is any sort of GOP strategy, as they have - I think - more to fear from a Bloomberg run than Democrats do. Shit, my dad, who is 60 and a life-long conservative, will NOT be voting Republican for the first time in 42 years. The problem is he probably wouldn't vote for many of the Democratic candidates either and probably would vote Bloomberg.

I think there's plenty of evidence out there that he'd draw from both sides.

[EVDebs]

7. That's my point. By election time the GOP candidate drops out, leaving

A Bloomberg vs. ? campaign. GOP flocks to Bloomberg and he's siphoned off the gullible on DU side. Real smart.

Stick to your progressive principle and vote for the party that brung ya this time. We hang together or will all hang separately, if you get my drift.

How would Bloomberg abuse his power once inside ? Further expanding on Bush's domestic spying systems, or reeling back ? I think he'd keep things as they are...the rich man can't fit through the needle's eye.

[NeedleCast]

13. There are a lot of Democratic Candidates

That I wouldn't vote for, so to me, it'll depend on who gets the nomination. I'm registered Libertarian.

As it stands, Bloomberg isn't running yet. If he does, I'll go do some more digging into this fiscal policy. Socially, Bloomberg and I seem to see thing pretty much eye-to-eye. You assume that Bloomberg will abuse his power once inside. I don't. I'm not going to assume he's a bad person simply because he's rich.

[EVDebs]

21. Gov Arnold vetoed SB840 healthcare plan in CA. I take it you live in NYC

Once they're that close to Wall Street and that far from Main Street, you know who's got their ear: Corporations. Fake people, not real people.

[On the Road]

17. GOP Candidate Drops Out?

That is the last thing that would happen. Maybe the independent drops out like Perot.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

3. Who knows??? The American electorate are a fickle and swayable lot.

The Republicans are awash in scandals and Bush is an anchor around their necks. The Democrats are seen as incapable of ending an unpopular and immoral war that they say they are against but vote to fund.

In any event, the quadrennial circus will be highly entertaining, and maddening, this time.

[radfringe]

5. NO, the only one standing in the way of a Dem victory is the dems

meanwhile the WAAAAAAmbulance will be on standby for those needing it

WAAAAAAAAAAH Bloomburg will hurt the dems
WAAAAAAAAAAH Nader will hurt the dems
WAAAAAAAAAAH impeachment will hurt the dems

that being said - I don't like any of the candidates of any party or non-party.

as it stands now, my vote in Nov. 09 will be a VOTE AGAINST the republic slug du'jour on the ballot - however I am not ruling out the very high probability that I may just go with a 3rd-4th-5th party candidate because I can't hold my nose and punch the touch screen anymore

[EVDebs]

8. There you go ! How does the country best put a dagger thru the heart of the GOP ?

Army extends tours of duty
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/062007O.shtml

Since 2/3rds of the military is GOP, let's actively court their vote, eh ?

And now lookie what's happening in KS

http://www.alternet.org/stories/54644/

[EVDebs]

12. I've answered my own question. Running for office with an "R" next to your name means DOOM !

Big switches in KS, and now Bloomberg's toying with us and probably preventing a real progressive from getting office to boot.

[TahitiNut]

20. I agree - it's the Democrats' election to lose - snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

The more the Dems run to the right, the worse their GOTV effort will be. Without turnout, they can certainly become toast.

There seems to be a LOT of practicing ... preemptive finger-pointing ... and that's a recipe for loss, imho.

[OneBlueSky]

10. I'd go with "Probably" . . . all depends of whether Al Gore runs . . .

with Gore in the race, I think it will be a landslide for him, third party or no . . . with any other candidate, it's totally up in the air, imo . . .

[davidwparker]

11. No, it doesn't prevent a Dem win. The Dems will just have to be careful

who they nominate. Someone who will represent all the party, not just the corporatist. Gore, Edwards, and Clark are my top tier choices. Besides, we know Gore can win; he already did once.

[Warren DeMontague]

14. So Bloomberg unapologetically supports gay marriage and a woman's right to choose.

How come WE can't nominate someone who does?

[AlGore-08.com]

15. It depends on who the other candidates are obviously, but he's got a chance because

1.) If he has to, he can self finance a campaign organization as large as the major party organizations

2.) He's already positioning himself as the "outside the beltway" - "big picture" candidate. Given the mood of the electorate, if he "looks like" he sees the big picture and will work hard to solve the major problems, and if the other two candidates "look like" they are focusing on detail, ducking the major issues, or part of the group of morons who got us into this mess to begin with... even if he doesn't win, he could take enough votes away from the Dems to swing the election to the Republican.

[Strawman]

16. I don't see it helping

He'll pull swing voters away from us in swing states. The God, guns and gays crowd of the Republican base will never vote for him and he doesn't have the idiot macho appeal of Rudy to pull enough of those guys away from the Republican candidate.

I don't see him siphoning off any Republican votes in Southern states. Maybe some in swing states, but I think it would the net impact would be worse for us than it would be for them.

[daa]

18. Perot wanted to tinker under the hood

and was mad at both parties. Are voters mad at both parties or do they just hate the lying repugs? Dem's in charge can end the war, what is Blomberg's claim to fame? Perot was a populist, Bloomberg is a mayor that has done what?