I think he could impact the Democrats the most, I could imagine him winning only New York State with its hefty 33 electoral votes that usually go to the Dems, especially if Clinton doesn’t receive the Democrat’s nod.
He could also be a factor even if Clinton is the Democrat’s candidate, because it would upset the traditional wisdom that she wouldn’t have to campaign hard in New York – her home state plus a solid Democrat stronghold. She would need to put more resources back here in New York, spreading herself thin in other areas of the country.
I hope he doesn’t run. It’s as simple as that, really. If he runs as an independent, he’ll simply prevent the Dems from winning by taking New York. Now the fact that he’s willing to use a billion dollars, that’s impressive. Maybe he COULD win then…If the Republicans throw up some awful dude, and the Dems do too, then I can certainly see him winning the presidency. I’d really love that, to be honest. Ross Perot won a lot more than he should, being as crazy as he was, but he had a similar amount of cash to throw around.
He’s essentially all of the good things about Guiliani without the bad. He should simply pick a party though. The only reason he’d have to run as independent anyway is because he chose the Republicans based on political expediency. I’d welcome him to the Democratic party. I’d vote for him regardless. I think it’s great what he’s been doing for NYC so I’d be willing to get that going elsewhere.
My nightmare though, is that he wins NY and this causes the Dems to lose, which also causes the Republicans to win. He can’t run as a Republican though, because he’s probably not a hawk with regards to Iraq. I would say his foreign policy is what will determine things, but his social policy seems very Democratic to me.
But yeah, a billion dollars for a man with a huge home state, loads of good karma and very experienced. It seems like a winner. Only problem is that he can’t be a democrat. He isn’t really a Republican. Maybe he can switch to the Democrats?
But remember, he’s a Perot that isn’t crazy and has accomplished things in politics. Now, I’ve just read about Perot’s campaign (I was a bit too young to know) and I have to say that it was well reasoned, actually. Perot actually led in some polls at one point. However, the problem as I see it was that he was a bit too cooky and the media made a joke of him as they tend to do at times. I don’t think that Mike Bloomberg will be that kind of target. I see him as generally well-respected.
He would not draw off democrat extremists, he would draw off independent voters and moderate dems. He would also draw Rockefeller/Roosevelt Republicans like myself away from almost any Republican candidate.
He is not a liberal Democrat, in fact he is a registered Republican.
If you think that Mayor Bloomberg is closer to Feinstein & Schumer than Rudy Giuliani, then you either know very little about Mayor Bloomberg or are further to the Right then the current Bush.
By the way, would you therefore consider Nixon to have been a liberal?
Dude, this is getting off track. Your political viewpoints are pretty obvious to me now. I’d consider you far right, but the thing is on this board you won’t find many Bush supporters. There are conservatives, alright, but you won’t see many that support him still. Now you can classify yourself however you want to, and it’s pretty pointless to argue what point is what, really. If you are comparing Bloomberg as very liberal compared to yourself, then you’re probably correct, but I’d say your at least a bit to the right of the political spectrum. Now I myself know that I am very Liberal, but I’m not liberal on everything. I am not exactly on the linear scale. I have some libertarian leanings in some areas as well.
And it seems like you’re basing your opinion solely on guns, since I haven’t seen you mention anything about anything else. If that’s your beef, then there’s a few things to consider. Just because he went to great efforts to do what he did in NYC doesn’t mean that he’d do it nationwide. Local politicians have more leeway, Especially NYC mayors to do things that are a bit more drastic.
That’s really the only way I can consider him very liberal, and since he hasn’t stated a national position on it, I’m waiting. I’m sure he won’t be loved by the NRA but I don’t know if it will be as bad as you think.
The anti-right crowd? That’s a stupid crowd to go for, since it’s not very big. I don’t know anyone who’s anti-right, only anti-bush. And his numbers are not so hot now anyways, so that’s a majority of us. But I’d be happy to see a guy like Ron Paul win. He’d shake things up and may do us some good. I realize he has a few weird policy issues, but I think, with the temperance of congress, he’d get some good stuff done.
I don’t know if I qualify as an “extremist” but Bloomberg has no appeal to me whatever and isn’t about to “suck me off”. You may wish to avoid phrases without vulgar alternative meanings.
That’s true, but another big question would be what his strategy regarding Iraq would be? His foreign policy will be a big part, as I haven’t heard him say much about it.
The truth of the matter is that he needs to come back to the Democrats. I never felt like he had a specific reason other than political expediency in the first place…