Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on Enter the Bloomberg

1

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!

Posted by el ganador | December 20, 2007 3:39 PM
2

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.

Posted by Fnarf | December 20, 2007 3:41 PM
3

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.

Posted by Fnarf | December 20, 2007 3:42 PM
4

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.

Posted by blank12357 | December 20, 2007 3:44 PM
5

You really think "no torture" McCain can pull out to a two-way race?

Posted by vooodooo84 | December 20, 2007 3:52 PM
6

In the four-way race proposed @1 (Obama vs. Huckabee vs. Bloomberg vs. Paul.), I would vote for Bloomberg in a minute.

Posted by josh | December 20, 2007 3:55 PM
7

Wikipedia says Bloomberg met with Obama on 113007 to discuss running as VP.

Posted by blank12357 | December 20, 2007 3:57 PM
8

i would vote bloomberg in a heartbeat. there is no one i would rather have run.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | December 20, 2007 4:01 PM
9

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.

Posted by Original Andrew | December 20, 2007 4:20 PM
10

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.

Posted by Original Monique | December 20, 2007 4:38 PM
11

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.

Posted by left coast | December 20, 2007 5:08 PM
12

His campaign slogan could be, "Bloomberg: another Mayor of New York, but better"

Posted by Colton | December 20, 2007 5:22 PM
13

"You bet I did... And I liked it."

Posted by High-Rise | December 20, 2007 5:22 PM
14

and he is fiscally responsible while still maintaining civil liberties.

Unless the civil liberty in question involves smoking a cigarette.

Posted by JMR | December 20, 2007 5:33 PM
15

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.

Posted by JMR | December 20, 2007 5:38 PM
16

given those options I would vote obama or bloomberg. I would need details... does bloomberg have a health plan?

Posted by jkjk | December 20, 2007 6:20 PM
17

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.

Posted by Phoebe | December 20, 2007 7:00 PM
18

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.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | December 20, 2007 7:07 PM
19

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.

Posted by RainMan | December 20, 2007 7:51 PM
20

Help us Draft Mike Bloomberg at http://www.uniteformike.com ! We need a strong Independent option!

Posted by Andrew MacRae | December 20, 2007 10:03 PM
21

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.

Posted by boo | December 20, 2007 10:10 PM
22

Why would that be a disaster?
God forbid we should have more than two parties that half the time seem like the same party.

Posted by chi type | December 21, 2007 8:28 AM
23

@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.

Posted by Orv | December 21, 2007 10:49 AM
24

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.


Posted by K X One | December 21, 2007 11:02 AM
25

@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."

Posted by Orv | December 21, 2007 11:06 AM
26

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.

http://www.RunMikeRun.com

I hope Ron Paul gets in the race too. We need more and better options.

Posted by Michael Bloomberg | December 30, 2007 1:34 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).