So it's gonna be Obama vs. Huckabee vs. Bloomberg vs. Paul.
Oh god, oh god, oh god! I can't wait! What a giant clusterfuck that will all be.
I can't wait to see how the electoral math works out on that one!
A four-party election? Wow. Who wins?
Paul takes mostly away from Republicans and pinhead Naderites. Advantage: Dems. Bloomberg takes away from....who? Who the hell is going to vote for him? Not most Republicans; maybe some of the old-guard Northeast Rockefeller Republicans, if there are any left. I think he hurts the Dems. But can a billion dollars buy credibility? I don't think so. If he spends that much on TV ads, he's just going to look kooky, and oversaturate even people who are disposed favorably towards him. Chance of winning: zero. Chance of screwing up things for everybody: fair.
Huckabee's not going to win the nom. He's going to end up in fourth or fifth place. It's between Romney and McCain for the Rs.
This electoral season is wide open to a third party candidate. Approval ratings for Bush and the Congress are very low. Bloomberg could pull votes simply by not being more of the same. The person with most to lose from a Bloomberg run is Obama.
You really think "no torture" McCain can pull out to a two-way race?
In the four-way race proposed @1 (Obama vs. Huckabee vs. Bloomberg vs. Paul.), I would vote for Bloomberg in a minute.
Wikipedia says Bloomberg met with Obama on 113007 to discuss running as VP.
i would vote bloomberg in a heartbeat. there is no one i would rather have run.
I'd also consider voting for Bloomberg. He's 100% pro-gay rights and the environment and was always a RINO that they hated anyway.
Plus I don't feel much but revulsion and disgust for the Democrats after the miserable performance of the failed Democratic Congress, and a third party may be the only way to get our insane country back on track.
agreed with 8 & 9. I would vote Bloombery with no hesitation. The man is smart, Poe probably thinks he's sexy, and he is fiscally responsible while still maintaining civil liberties.
Goddamn I hope he runs. Would make the Reps and Dems actually take a STANCE.
I would vote for Bloomberg if I were allowed. The first problem with this democracy is the two-party system, but any scenario that might end with the RNC getting stronger frightens me. I'm still not convinced that Rove and Cheney's plan ends with peacefully turning over power.
His campaign slogan could be, "Bloomberg: another Mayor of New York, but better"
"You bet I did... And I liked it."
and he is fiscally responsible while still maintaining civil liberties.
Unless the civil liberty in question involves smoking a cigarette.
People talk about money poisoning politics, but Mayor Mike (and I was living in NYC when he squashed Ferrer for re-election) simply took the attitude that he was funding himself and was thus incorruptible. Did whatever the hell he thought was right, and let the chips fall wherever.
given those options I would vote obama or bloomberg. I would need details... does bloomberg have a health plan?
I see this happening if Clinton wins the nomination. With her negatives, it opens up a lot of opportunities for getting the votes of people who really do not want to vote for her. People like me.
JMR, smokers are last on the list of people whose civil liberties need protecting. Oh no, you can't exercise your right to ingest nicotine in a way that is convenient for you, wah wah wah. no slippery slope problems either.
A third party would definitely make things more interesting. I would probably stick with Obama or Edwards, but Hillary vs Bloomberg would make me stop and think.
Like @16, I want details. What ARE his plans for health care? And what is he planning to do about the vanishing middle class? I'm glad he's gay friendly and pro-environment, but how he stacks up against the eventual Democratic nominee on a number of issues is what will influence my vote.
Help us Draft Mike Bloomberg at http://www.uniteformike.com ! We need a strong Independent option!
um, he's gay friendly-ish. he had the power to start offering marriage licenses and yet he decided to keep pushing it to the supremes where we got fucked over.
Why would that be a disaster?
God forbid we should have more than two parties that half the time seem like the same party.
@9: The Democratic congress has failed because they need 60 votes in the Senate to overcome Republican filibusters and Presidential vetos. The answer to this is not to vote against Democrats; it's to elect more of them so they get the needed supermajority.
I have zero confidance the Dems would do any better with a supermajority, they'd still be spineless millionaire corporate lap dogs only paying slightly more lip service to the people of this country or what is best for the country than the fundie nutbags.
@24: Well, we'd have more money for children's healthcare and a deadline for troop withdrawal by now, if they had enough votes to override a veto. I suppose that's probably not good enough for you, but it's hard to argue it isn't "better."
The more the merrier. I personally think Mike Bloomberg will make a great president. But no matter what one's political leanings are, people all over seem very unhappy with their choices. A third party run that breaks the two-party duopoly control of the US Government would be good for everyone (except the career politicians). Michael Bloomberg has the money to do his on his own, and that is the only way it could be done. He is the right man at the right time. Run Mike Run.
I hope Ron Paul gets in the race too. We need more and better options.
Comments Closed
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).