This is my dream come true. Not only because I am nearly on point with Bloomberg’s ideology, but also because I like people who rock the boat.
Bloomberg cannot win the presidency. I don’t see how a third part could win under the Electoral College (a three way race would be unlikely to produce an electoral majority which would send it to the House and Senate).
But I like that he may spend a billion dollars for a few lines in the history books and to force the parties to kiss the ass of the moderate majority.
But who would a Bloomberg hurt most?
Generic GOP or Generic DEM?
Hillary or Guiliani (three candidates…all New Yorkers!)?
Obama or Thompson?
Bloomberg is no Perot. Perot was Rich and unstable. Bloomberg is a smooth, metropolitan candidate with a background of good government.
Plus, he could find a decent running mate.
Namely,
Hagel, who I like, is a little out there at times, but he is a sitting US Senator who would do well in the debates. He would not be “out of bullets.”
Personally, I would much prefer that they remain Republicans, and take the lead in the effort to restore some measure of dignity and sanity to the GOP. We need an honest conservative party like a car needs brakes, we need an opposition to keep us honest, and to prevent a takeover by unscrupulous and ambitious creeps.
Well, yeah, we probably do need an “honest conservative party”, but Bloomberg’s not conservative by pretty much any standard. He just became a Republican before the mayoral primaries because there was a weaker Republican field than Democratic one and getting the nomination was easier.
I’d rather he wait so I could vote for him as the Republican nominee in 2012 than as a third party candidate now. This presumes Guiliani does not get the nomination this year, which, win or lose, would kill Bloomberg’s chances.
I can see a fiscally conservative (if that’s an accurate description of his record) social liberal doing well with either side. At the moment, though, I think Republicans are less sold on their candidates than Democrats are. It’s getting more likely that Newt Gingrich is running, from what I hear, which could split the GOP-leaning vote - since I think Republicans who could vote for Bloomberg aren’t so likely to support Gingrich.
It will hurt the Pubs more, by draining more of their potential base than the Dems’. Furthermore, based on other stories about this bid I’ve read, the main stated impetus is that Bloomberg and Hagel are dedicated to ending the Iraq War – which will distinguish them from the Pub nominee, whoever it might be, while shoring up the credibility of the withdrawal position, thereby helping the Dem.
I forgot to give my take in the OP. I agree with the assessments of Marely and BrainGlutton. I think Bloomberg would peel off a large layer of dissatisfied, suburban Republicans who vote with that party because of pocketbook issues and not social issues.
I think the first Perot bid hurt Bush more than Clinton. Similarly, I think Bloomberg could hurt the Republican a lot more than the Dem. nominee. I think a lot of the votes Bloomberg could get would be those of Republicans who are fed up with gay marriage, abortion, stem cells, and evolution being the main issues debated by Republicans. Those who aren’t eager to vote for a Dem but are sick of the Religious Right having so much power in the party.
I don’t know who it would hurt more. Bloomberg is not Fiscally conservative. He raised property taxes by 19% early in his term as Mayor.
He was a Democrat originally and switched to Republican because there was no credible Rep following Giuliani and he Ferrer and Green was a very poor choice of candidates.
He would probably be ok as a President. I’m a fan of his CEO Executive style, Giuliani’s anti-Cabaret crusade was rolled back somewhat during Bloomberg.
He is unelectable for two reasons. He is short and has a lisp.
Alright, 4. Though I think a Mayor of Philly would be more easily electable than New York. I think New York and Boston are the most difficult towns to come from when dealing with the South.
If Thomson, Mitt or Newt wins the Nom, I hope Bloomberg goes for it. If Rudy wins the Nom, I hope Bloomberg stays out of the way. I no longer see McCain as a factor.
I think he would hurt the Republicans more, but he also might hurt Hillary the most of the Democrats. He would draw off independent votes she might get that were voting against the republican candidate more than for her.
I like Bloomberg, but Rudy, especially with his backbone reasserted, has a chance to shake up the Republican Party. This is something the country desperately needs. We need the party to move from the Right and we need the Religious Right to be marginalized again.
If Rudy fails, I would like to see Bloomberg lay the foundation for a 2012 run.
In 2000, I found it interesting that nobody seriously objected to having a Jew on a major-party ticket. (Well, not out loud, anyhow.) In 1960, JFK got shit just for being Catholic.
I have trouble understanding how an another anti-war candidate could help the democratic candidate. Iraq is still going to be a major issue in 2008. Bloomberg could peel off a lot of moderate voters who can’t vote for the Republican party candidate over the war.
That said, I don’t have much patience for third party candidates. If this man on horseback is just the savior the country needs, then why exactly can’t he get the nomination of one of the major parties? Bloomberg isn’t a fringe candidate, so why can’t he seek the nomination of either the Republicans or the Democrats? In Bloomberg’s case, the answer is that he can’t seek the nomination from the Democrats because, despite being a lifelong democrat, he left the party because the weak Republican field assured him the Republican nomination. And he can’t run as a Republican because he’s been a lifelong Democrat, and all his positions are better suited to the Democratic party.
Which is why he can’t run for the nomination of either party. Which leads to the question, why does he think he can win as a third party candidate, then? Answer, he can’t win. So why is he running? To “influence the national debate?” Why can’t he spend a billion dollars of his fortune to influence the national debate without running?
Any serious candidate that doesn’t fit well with either major party will join one of the major parties anyway, and transform the party so that it DOES fit.
Lemur866 Bloomberg isn’t part of the party hierarchy. I personally find the notion that the parties have anything special intrinsically to be dubious. A candidate not beholden to one party or the other could be good. If you’ve followed his career at all, he doesn’t have close ties to either party.
I’ve GOT to take issue with this. Too often ‘fiscal conservative’ is used to mean ‘tax cutter’ when it should actually mean 'forcing people to live with taxes sufficient to pay for the level of services they demand.
Given that proper definition Bloomberg may well qualify. I don’t follow NYC politics enough to comment. Just just raising taxes doesn’t take away the ‘fiscal conservative’ label.
