« Fauntleroy Place |
Bring It On, You Racist Chumps »
on December 30 at
Stop worrying about a Ron Paul third-party run. Start worrying about Bloomberg. (Via The Note.)
Could anything on earth be less unifying than a “Unity” candidate?
If Bloomberg were to run after Romney picked up the nomination, the Republicans would be slaughtered. The born-agains would sit out (or field Roy Moore), and Bloomberg would easily slice off the independent-thinking economic conservatives from the Republican ranks.
However, in a Huckabee/Clinton matchup, it could spell doom for the Democrats...
Please oh please...run as an independent Ron Paul...and Bloomberg...and Nader as Green...
run all of you...give us something to think about for 10 months next year besides the same old boring two party nothingness.
Real democracy...not just a duopoly.
Can't be worse than this hope-crushing, two-party, lesser-of-two-evils bullshit. Let a thousand flowers bloom.
Bloomburg knows he has no chance to win, he would just be running to raise "awareness" of the issues that are important to him.
Spoken like true Naderites. You remember them - the folks who handed the Presidency to Bush on a silver platter?
One person who's less unifying: Hillary Clinton.
@1, I think you're close, though I think it can only hurt Clinton. Hillary is playing up her centrist cred. Bloomberg would steal that. And Bloomberg's from New York. I think if the Democrats are foolish enough to nominate as divisive a character as Clinton, they're gonna lose all the independents, even the Bush-haters. Clinton's left with an uninspired base who's not too happy with her independent streak as it is.
Remember, once the primaries are over, all the Republicans are going to swing back to the center. They'll start distancing themselves from Bush. Clinton's vote for the war means she loses any advantage any democrat might have. It'll become a race on character (Bill's) and likability (Hillary's). Yikes.
As someone who believes that Hillary will lose no matter what, I'd welcome a viable independent like Bloomberg. He may not be great, but he'd be a lot better than Romney, Giuliani, or Huckabee. Those guys scare the shit out of me, and I think any of them beats Hillary going away.
Like it or not, there's really no room for third party candidates in American elections. Since the winner only needs a plurality of the votes, a two party system is the only one that works reliably. A third party candidate will inevitably pull more votes from one candidate, giving the other an advantage. Unless an instant runoff or proportional system is put in place, the two party system is here to stay - as it should, since even though it may be counterintuitive, it's ultimately more representative than the alternative.
Bloomberg's interesting, though. I've read that he could be willing to invest up to $1 billion of his own money in a run, which would dwarf what the other candidates end up spending combined. It'd be a good test of the effects of money on our elections, but I'd prefer to leave that one untested.
Im sure you are right. If we do something different we might get a different result.
Then the platter would be handed to the politician that attracted the public to their campaign not away from the lesser evil.
Whatever you do, don't push for a change, just keep doing what you are told because the system in place is serving your interests. Isn't it?
Whatever. Why would Bloomberg want his name associated with this group of losers and has-beens? The list of these "supporters" should keep him out for now. He has to retain some credibility in business, he's not a wack job like Perot.
Bloomberg would be amazing. I would vote for him over any Dem in the race. But I agree it could be doom for the Dems, and another GOP prez.
National Unity Party? What is Bloomberg’s angle, and what are the politics of the men backing him? What are they trying to save? This country is due a hard turn to the left, because the right wing policies of both parties in power have driven us to the brink. After the republicans are tossed onto the shit pile of history in the next election, are these guys going to take up their mantle? I like Edwards hard ass rhetoric of late, and I assume a lot of us want republican blood in the next election, is Bloomberg trying to be a spoiler for the right?
Comparatively speaking the current system is working just fine. Problems sure, but essentially making the presidency a crap shoot isn't going ot help.
The fact is the parties are the most democratic organizations we have. One can go from their local LD up to the national org simply by convincing people they should. No need for money, or commercials, or anything. Hell if enough people entered in they could completely flip a party (It’s happened before)
Unfortunately people are far too lazy for such work so they prattle on about third party weirdos and pretend that makes them part of the solution.
Beyond that the parties actually do represent the majority of people in this country. While there is a desire for more progressivity, it is not to the extent that the greens and ‘socialist alternative’ types think. There is also little reason to think that non-voters differ substantially from voters. Sure they are probably a bit more leftist, but again not nearly to the extent some think.
Of you really want to evoke change, actually get involved with a party, run for local office, go work for a senator, or something else equally as useful.
i'd love to see hillary vs. rudy vs. bloomberg.
pick your poison, america - but it has to be NY poison.
at least we wouldn't have a southern protestant male in the white house.
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).
All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave
Seattle, WA 98122
Contact Info |