If McCain is the Republican nominee, I don’t see Bloomberg, Obama or Hillary being able to take him if there will be two of them (non-Republicans) running. A run by either Bloomberg or Obama in the wake of a Hillary nomination will only be a spoiler campaign.
5-4 Fighting Yes, Dan Doctoroff is who I was talking about. As for the cops, they don’t like him because they wouldn’t give him the pay raise when the NYPD is one of the lowest paid forces in the country. As far as the real estate stuff goes, I think that perception is there. I think he will be seen as the rich person’s candidate, which is why he wouldn’t work well with Obama’s populist message. That’s all. Not that he’s a bad guy, or even a bad mayor. In my opinion he’s been a decent mayor, done a fairly good job of maintaining things without shaking too many trees, but the fact that Harlem is pretty much done for is indicative of the changes that have been made over the last two mayors.
I wonder if Bill Richardson would count as a Latino for purposes of being a Vice President? A lot of people don’t even realize he’s Hispanic. Though in the general, I can’t imagine any Republican candidate making people passionate.
[QUOTE=Pochacco]
Nonsense. This isn’t the 1990’s. The country is facing a number of serious challenges – Islamic terrorism, Iraq, recession, global warming, oil prices, the deficit. The last thing we need is a “steady as she goes” steward in the White House.
Partisanship is good for the country. It means that people have real choices at the voting booth and puts a wider range of opinions in play. Frankly, a lot of us think that the reason so many things are fucked up right now is because modern conservatism has FAILED as an approach to governance. Trickle-down has failed. Militarism has failed. A laissez-faire approach to the environment has failed. The free market approach to health care has failed. I don’t want some millionaire bureaucrat who’ll spend the next four years treading water. I want a liberal leader who will work with the increasingly liberal Congress to get the country back on track.
[/QUOTE]
I can’t speak for Damuri Ajashi, but what he/she might have meant instead of or in addition to “partisanship” is a “personal, god-driven agenda.” There’s nothing wrong with good government and responsible stewardship balanced with partisanship. Aside from the partisanship quibble, what you say your second paragraph is quite valid, except I don’t think someone with the leadership skills of Bloomberg would be treading water, just because he’s not always making a big splash.
I like Bloomberg a lot. I disliked him going in, and I’ve actually disagreed with probably his three biggest (or at least best-known) initiatives: the smoking ban in bars/restaurants, the West Side stadium, and his congestion pricing plan. In spite of that, though, I couldn’t help but be won over by his pragmatism, intelligence, and lack of vanity.
A typical politician answers a question about a public policy problem by stringing together a bunch of tired platitudes about strong leadership and the need for the community to come together as one (and, by the way, my solution is the obviously correct one and my opponents are proposing alternate plans for selfish and/or otherwise immoral reasons). Bloomberg just never (or virtually never) talks like that. He acknowledges the complexity of the issue, talks about said issue and the various, legitimate competing interests in an intelligent manner, then strives towards his conception of a practical solution.
All that said, he has no shot of getting onto a presidential ticket, let alone winning a national election as an independent. I happen to find the quietly efficient use of resources to be inspiring, but the vast majority of people seem to crave the sort of rah-rah rhetorical crap that every serious presidential candidate I can remember has employed.
Heheh – Obama/Bloomberg. A black guy and a New York Jew who happens to own a media empire. Would the number of Secret Service agents have to quintuple, or merely quadruple?
[QUOTE=spoke-]
Simple. If the choices the major parties put forward are Hillary and, say, Huckabee or Romney, there will be a large segment of voters looking for a “none of the above” choice.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, but the odds are better that those people just won’t vote when they discover that Bloomberg isn’t a perfect candidate.
In fact, that feeling is already out there. A poll in California already shows that 62% of registered voters would “definitely” not support Bloomberg. Those who would “definitely” or would “consider” voting for him are a mere 25%.
Those numbers make Hillary Clinton look like John F. Kennedy. Seriously, a dark horse, more or less little known candidate for which a decisive majority in a major state have already made up their minds against? This turkey won’t get off the ground. (Unless the Republican and Democratic nominations unexpectedly wrap up quickly and the media is left with little to talk about until the August conventions, in which case I’m sure there will be some over-eager coverage of a third party candidate in an effort to sell more newspapers and ad time.)
Well, my opinion is that Bloomberg would make a great president. I really like his attitude in general, but I believe he has no chance at winning it all these days. I think he’d do much better running against a HRC or a GWB who is incumbent. I’d also prefer to keep him here in NYC!
But really, Bloomberg has no chance to win now. He is too vunerable on his party-switching and he doesn’t have much of a national name. Rudy 9iu11iani is trying to run as a New Yorker and we see where that gets him.
Anyway I don’t see much for Bloomberg. Great guy but I just don’t see him getting much traction
[QUOTE=mswas]
5-4 Fighting
I wonder if Bill Richardson would count as a Latino for purposes of being a Vice President?
[/QUOTE]
Interviews and ads with him speaking in Spanish in Spanish language media would probably make it clear.
[QUOTE=Merkwurdigliebe]
. . . . I’d also prefer to keep him here in NYC!
[/QUOTE]
I don’t know if this is simply a wish, but term limits makes this second term his last as mayor of New York.
[QUOTE=DSeid]
Interviews and ads with him speaking in Spanish in Spanish language media would probably make it clear.
[/QUOTE]
I’m wondering if, without this information, that aspect of his background would be generally clear though.
[QUOTE=Pochacco]
Nonsense. This isn’t the 1990’s. The country is facing a number of serious challenges – Islamic terrorism, Iraq, recession, global warming, oil prices, the deficit. The last thing we need is a “steady as she goes” steward in the White House.
Partisanship is good for the country. It means that people have real choices at the voting booth and puts a wider range of opinions in play. Frankly, a lot of us think that the reason so many things are fucked up right now is because modern conservatism has FAILED as an approach to governance. Trickle-down has failed. Militarism has failed. A laissez-faire approach to the environment has failed. The free market approach to health care has failed. I don’t want some millionaire bureaucrat who’ll spend the next four years treading water. I want a liberal leader who will work with the increasingly liberal Congress to get the country back on track.
[/QUOTE]
I guess I should have said fiscal discipline and economic acumen.
[QUOTE=Phlosphr]
I don’t live in New York, I live right next door in Connecticut, and from what I know of my friends and collegues in New York they are divided down the middle. Some love him and others don’t. Of my upper east side friends I think they believe Bloomberg would make a great veep, however, for reasons like Bildo and mswas said, he would have a hard time enticing the Luv-Handle Americans to come to his side and see what he stands for. Does that make any sense? His demographic is not the run of the mill jack and jane American, it’s the upper tier folk.
After SC and Barack crushing the others and getting endorsements from the Kennedys and others, he’s going to have to get a Latino Big Gun and some middle American endorsments to be able to keep up the momentum. I really hope he does, but in my opinion I think a ticket with Obama and Bloomberg would ultimately not work.
[/QUOTE]
I agree with you if Bloomberg enters the race, the route he takes would need to look something like this. Sans a McCain nomination I still think an “on-paper” pairing of Michael and Barack could be finessed, strategy-wise.
What’s the “Luv-Handle Americans”? If it means what I think it means (I will look it up later), it makes sense. Bloomie has more mid- and lower-tier appeal, even in heavily striated New York, than one would think.
[QUOTE=Anduril]
If McCain is the Republican nominee, I don’t see Bloomberg, Obama or Hillary being able to take him if there will be two of them (non-Republicans) running. A run by either Bloomberg or Obama in the wake of a Hillary nomination will only be a spoiler campaign.
[/QUOTE]
Wow, we agree on something.
[QUOTE=Anduril]
If McCain is the Republican nominee, I don’t see Bloomberg, Obama or Hillary being able to take him if there will be two of them (non-Republicans) running. A run by either Bloomberg or Obama in the wake of a Hillary nomination will only be a spoiler campaign.
[/QUOTE]
McCain’s nomination would definitely put a serious damper of this hypothetical; Romney or Huckabee not so much.
Since it’s starting to appear McCain might be the nominee, in reality, I sincerely hope no third party candidate enters at this point. Obama or Clinton, as the Democratic candidate with strong support from the DNC and all also-runs can beat him.