Bloomberg's 3rd Party run

With the possibility that Obama and Huckabee win Iowa, I wasn't surprised to hear the political chatter start to talk about Bloomberg. So Rasmussen did a poll in NJ&CT:

New Jersey    

Obama              42
Huckabee           27
Bloomberg          18



Connecticut

Obama             40
Huckabee          29
Bloomberg         18
You'd also have to add in the possibility that Ron Paul runs on the libertarian line, further dividing the Republican vote. Though I'm pretty skeptical that Obama and his campaign would win a one-on-one general election against the Republican machine, this is one way he could win.

Tags: Mike Bloomberg (all tags)

Comments

84 Comments

Re: Bloomberg's 3rd Party run

"Though I'm pretty skeptical that Obama and his campaign would win a one-on-one general election against the Republican machine..."

First, there is little basis for this assertion.

Second, we only remember Bill Clinton because of Ross Perot.

by General Sherman 2007-12-10 04:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Bloomberg's 3rd Party run

That's a myth. Exit polls on November 1992 indicate that 60% of Perot voters still would have shown up, and they would have split relatively evenly between the 2 candidates. In other words, Clinton would have won even without Perot.

by thirdestate 2007-12-10 05:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Bloomberg's 3rd Party run

Obama's far more electable than Hillary Clinton or John Edwards. This I believe.

by crackityjones 2007-12-10 04:39AM | 0 recs
more than Clinton, anyway

I agree with you about Clinton.   If Billary wins the nomination, we'll see a fairly sizeable vote (2-3%+, enuf to swing a couple of key states) for McKinney (or less liekly, Nader).  Could be a smaller percentage with Edwards, but would McKinney attract any more of the black vote against a candidate (edwards) who for some reason doesn't seem to have much traction with Black voters?  Who knows?

by brooklyngreenie 2007-12-10 07:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Bloomberg's 3rd Party run

"Though I'm pretty skeptical that Obama and his campaign would win a one-on-one general election against the Republican machine..."

Agreed Jerome and you speak the truth.

by lonnette33 2007-12-10 04:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Bloomberg's 3rd Party run

Yes Barry is an uppity negro for even trying. I just hope blacks understand, like my friends Jerome and Lonette clearly grasp, what part of the Democratic bus to sit on.

by alarabi7 2007-12-10 05:46AM | 0 recs
What part of the bus shall the women sit on???

by Sandy1938 2007-12-10 05:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Bloomberg's 3rd Party run

Thats totally uncalled for. There's nothing Jerome wrote that implies what you are suggesting.

by desmoulins 2007-12-10 06:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Bloomberg's 3rd Party run

Uppity Negro? You must have gotten that meme from MSNBC's WaPo jounalist Eugene Robinson, because he's the only one that brought that shit up on Tweety's show. Euguene, one of Barry's surrogates, might I add. Get real! You are such an idoit!

by lonnette33 2007-12-10 07:19AM | 0 recs
You newver know

I remember some politician's bitter remark on election night 1960 when Nixon was leading. "It was a Democratic year and they had to run a Catholic."

Democratic years are the time to run a Catholic, or an African-American, or a Latino, or a woman (just not THAT woman).

by antiHyde 2007-12-10 04:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Bloomberg's 3rd Party run

How can Obama beat the Republican machine, look at how poorly he's fared against the Clinton machine.  I guess we are stupid, we just don't see that we need to practice fear of racism to continue racism.

by Piuma 2007-12-10 04:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Bloomberg's 3rd Party run

Clinton has been relatively constrained in her attacks, she does not want to damage herself, the party or the nominee. The Republican will not operate under those constraints.

"Inexperienced and naive" is mild.

by souvarine 2007-12-10 05:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Bloomberg's 3rd Party run

"Inexperienced and naive" is mild. Inexperienced and naive is perhaps the turning point of this election.  Inexperienced and naive turned into an election based on change, real change.  That was the start of Clinton's downfall.

by Piuma 2007-12-10 05:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Bloomberg's 3rd Party run

'Naive and irresponsible' invites a backlash once people figure it out.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-12-10 08:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Bloomberg's 3rd Party run

What in the world makes you guys think Obama cannot win one on one?  And you think Clinton can?

by Socks The Cat 2007-12-10 04:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Bloomberg's 3rd Party run

I'm not an Obama supporter, but I'm not even sure what him losing 'one on one' really means. Doesn't the other 'one' matter? He'd lose to Tancredo?

I can see him losing to Giuliani, but to Romney? No. To Huckabee? Extremely doubtful. To McCain? Maybe. (And I'm still betting McCain will be the R nominee, so take my opinion with a grain of ... well. Just dismiss it entirely, I guess.)

by BingoL 2007-12-10 05:16AM | 0 recs
Dear God!

Not another bullshit "electability" argument...

by moreaxe 2007-12-10 04:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Dear God!

you must understand...that hillary is the only person who can win against a republican.

all the people that have negative feelings about her are going to change their minds and sweep her into the white house.

she is simply the only electable democrat.

by d 2007-12-10 07:06AM | 0 recs
Facts?

There are no real facts which support your assertion that Obama would unable to beat the Republican machine.

Obama has fantastic approval ratings among all voters and has shown a draw for Republicans who want change.

Most importantly, Clinton has been attacking him and he has demonstrated the ability to hit back without looking vicious.

He is exactly the candidate we need to win the general election.

by Obama08 2007-12-10 05:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Bloomberg's 3rd Party run

The fun part about this election is that I suspect we will get to test Jerome's skepticism about Obama's chances.  He's gonna win the nomination folks and then he's going to beat the tar out of whoever the GOP nominee is.  

by HSTruman 2007-12-10 05:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Bloomberg's 3rd Party run

Frankly, I think one of Obama's best lines covers how he will strike back at the Republican slime machine.  Hit back fast, repeatedly, and TRUTHFULLY.  I also believe that slime is likely to be the least effective against someone that people tend to like and respect.  I expect Obama to have much more "slime teflon" than Clinton (who more than 50% are already wary of, or worse) or the 2007-08 version of John Edwards.

Is it just about race?  In that sense, I see Obama as uniquely transcendent (sp?) - much like Oprah (oddly enough).  Obama doesn't come across as an "Uncle Tom" to African Americans or as "the other" to white folks.  I'm not certain whether America is ready for "a" black candidate for President.  But I do think it is ready for "this" one.

by NC State Dem 2007-12-10 05:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Bloomberg's 3rd Party run

Very well put.

by crackityjones 2007-12-10 05:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Bloomberg's 3rd Party run

If Huckabee gets it, I think it will guarantee that a lot of the GOP's corporate elite will bail, making a Bloomburg candidacy more likely(not that he needs the money). I think he will do it if its clear that he won't throw the election to the GOP and these intial polls seem to indicate that he wouldn't.

by alexmhogan 2007-12-10 05:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Bloomberg's 3rd Party run

I'm sick of all these race-based anti-Obama comments.

"I'm not voting for Obama because he's black. No, you see, I'm not racist, but I'm afraid the rest of the country is. And nominating a woman's a little iffy, too."

And honestly, Jerome, if Obama can beat the Clinton machine and come out smelling like roses, why do you think he'd fare worse in the general election? Or do you think that any Democrat would lose a one-on-one race in 2008?

by Kal 2007-12-10 05:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Bloomberg's 3rd Party run

He's winning in every national head to head poll against Republicans when all most of those people know about him is he's black.  Every state where they get to know him and hear him he goes up and Clinton goes down.  He has raised more money than any candidate, has more people donating money, and has more people volunteering.  Colin Powell showed that the right Black man, the one with crossover appeal who does not come off as threatening to the other side, has the potential to win the election.  But we must fear, fear, fear.  We hear it.  It is all about fear. We put up these white, male, centrists who lose again and again but we must fear.  That road is rapidly aging.

by Piuma 2007-12-10 05:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Bloomberg's 3rd Party run

The GOP will have no better attack lines than Clinton.  Naive and irresponsible didn't work the first time and will sound trite if used by the GOP. Romney, a one term unsuccessful governor, can hardly claim he is more experienced than Obama, and Huckabee has no foreign policy experience.  

But the most important point is that even GOP strategist say this is a change election.  Every GOP candidate is running for Bush's third term, something republicans don't even want.  And Obama, all polls show, represents change.

And it certainly matters who the GOP nominee is.  Mark McKinnon, former Bush media strategist and now with McCain, said last week that the GOP nominee will be either the winner of Iowa or NH, at this point that means Huckabee or Romney.  Huckabee will run strong in the south, but has really little chance anywhere else.  Romney would lose probably 40 states.  Republicans really dislike him and independents hate him.  Giuliani might be the toughest, but the scandal with his mistress is too much even for NYers.  

And for those to whom polls matter most, Obama leads all republicans in lilly-white Iowa, by greater percentages than Clinton and Edwards.  So the one place in the US where all the candidates are well-known, Obama wins.    

Finally, the race card.  While it is strickly opposition to anyone not white for some (which voters are unlikely to support any Dem nominee) it is more about what black means.  But regardless of what it means in other contexts, Obama is different.  First, because he is biracial and multi-cultural.  Second, he is in my estimation the smartest person running for president.  Third, and this is purely superficial, he is handsome.  That is to say, Obama is not "scary," he's intellectual and charming.

by Javier Doval 2007-12-10 05:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Bloomberg's 3rd Party run

Exactly.

The reason blacks have had a hard time getting elected is because of the popular image of what goes for "black politics." That is Jesse/Al, and the the sort of greivance politicians that tend to emanate from majority black districts. Indeed, I blame the rise in majority black districts for "distorting" the image of the "black pol."

Obama doesn't even begin to resemble that. As an African-American, I can finally see a black politican that I can relate to. Honestly, I see what goes for the current "black agenda" to be quite narrow and ignorant of entire swaths of black America.

I don't think people here are racist in that they harbor animus against blacks, but some do seem to think that we're all interchangeable. Hell, if Al Sharpton was about to get the nomination I agree with y'all. But Obama....no.

by General Sherman 2007-12-10 05:45AM | 0 recs
Well thats a valid argument,

and Obama does come across quite conciliatory, espescially compared to the other aa politicans you mentioned.

The only thing is, I honestly think we need a fighter rather than a professor type.  Thats the main stereotype that people will hold against him (lofty, out-of-touch intellectual), imo,  just like they did with Kerry.  

I dont believe that his race effects his electablilty though, for all the reasons you mentioned.

by Sandy1938 2007-12-10 05:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Well thats a valid argument,

Please don't make the mistake of analogizing Obama and Kerry.  Kerry is certainly smart, but he was often hard to understand and came across as kinda phoney.  Obama has, dare I say it, that Bill Clinton ability to come across as smart while also being able to communicate his message clearly.  Obama does not come across as professorial at all at a rally, but he does at a debate (where you would hope the conversation would be elevated).  I would agree that in the debate setting he needs to bring more of his conversational style.

by Javier Doval 2007-12-10 06:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Well thats a valid argument,

Right. Some people have a bad habit of find pre-existing categories in which to place people in.

by General Sherman 2007-12-10 08:04AM | 0 recs
Re: White Women vs. Blacks-Reality!

your premise is just ridiculous.  Maybe a little of it has to do with the difference in the total numbers of white women in the country vs. the total number of african-americans.  or the traditional difference in the level of opportunity for white women vs. african-americans...

If Hillary supporters can claim any criticism of her as sexism then this is certainly racism...

by Jim Engler 2007-12-10 05:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Bloomberg's 3rd Party run

I don't buy the unelectablility line either.  Right now, I would guess "generic Dem" has a structural advantage in all of Kerry's states plus OH, CO, NM, and IA for sure, and possibly even states like VA, KY, and FL.  That's just based on the current political mood and the 06 election.  It would take a candidate that is actively despised by a large segment of people to blow that lead.  I don't think that Obama is that person.  If anything, Clinton is that person, but I don't believe that even she wouldbe at a disadvantage against any GOP nominee, especially given that the GOP doesn't have anyone that all of their currently fracturing factions are excited about.

Nominate Huckabee and you have a pro-business Bloomberg 3rd party candidacy.  Nominate Giuliani and you've got a Bible banger 3rd party candidacy.  Nominate McCain and you've got a "kill all Mexicans" 3rd party candidacy.  They are really coming apart at the seams.

by NJIndependent 2007-12-10 05:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Bloomberg's 3rd Party run

Don't forget the possibility of a Ron Paul 3rd party run. He's going to raise more money than any other GOP candidate this quarter.

by animated 2007-12-10 08:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Bloomberg's 3rd Party run

Obama loses in OH. Clinton does better in KY than Obama. Clinton wins in FL and Obama loses.

by Ga6thDem 2007-12-10 11:10AM | 0 recs
did we already have the election?

I guess i missed it.

by d 2007-12-10 11:12AM | 0 recs
Re: did we already have the election?

I'm using the most current polls.

by Ga6thDem 2007-12-10 03:31PM | 0 recs
And this is bad for Obama how?

Jerome, I'm waiting for the anti-Obama punch line...

by thenew 2007-12-10 05:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Bloomberg's 3rd Party run

A woman at the South Carolina event yesterday was interviewed for a radio story and she said that she normally votest Republican, but doesn't like any of the GOP candidates this year.  She's taking a look at Obama because of the Oprah endorsement, she trusts Oprah more than any politician!  
by evap 2007-12-10 05:53AM | 0 recs
Ha!

Yes, because Hillary's campaign has shown such strength so far. I wonder what Rudy wrote in kindergarden?

And Edwards? I love the guy, but his campaign has been nothing short of pathetic. He can't raise money, can't get any media hits, etc, etc.

by wahoopaul 2007-12-10 05:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Bloomberg's 3rd Party run

Jerome,

In the past few weeks, the number of pro-Clinton and anti-Obama posts have been ... well, gobsmackingly silly. The Arkansas poll was the most comical of them.

My response? I'm not going rant, you can do what you like on your blog. I'm simply to follow mydd.com anymore. You probably don't care.

by shaesin 2007-12-10 05:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Bloomberg's 3rd Party run

I'm pretty skeptical that you can say anything even remotely objective about Obama. In Iowa Obama is up ablut 20 points over the GOP candidates and that's the state where everyone knows the candidates the way we all will come next November.

by nevadadem 2007-12-10 06:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Bloomberg's 3rd Party run

I'm an Obama supporter, but to be fair I think all Jerome is saying is that Barack hasn't been very aggressive against Hillary. It's a legitimate concern that he'd be vulnerable to race-baiting and swift-boating. I don't agree with this calculation (I think Obama would probably do a little better than Hillary), but it's not craziness or racism.

by thirdestate 2007-12-10 06:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Bloomberg's 3rd Party run

This diary is just another of Jerome's anti-Obama diaries. Thats all it is... .Now why Jerome, who was a pretty respected blogger,has decided to go in this direction is something we don't know. Its odd though... When Obama is being blasted by so called progressives its very weird (many of these progressives are now trying to stop Obama by writing that because he is black he can't win! Now this is a very strange brand of progressivism; "The country are racists and will not vote for a black man so we must not either!")...Maybe its because he is not willing to suck up to them and be "their" candidate. He is trying to appeal to a broader swatch of America. This is precisely why he is electable. Where he to pander to MyDD/DailyKos then I don't think he would be very electable. But we've heard these electability arguments before. Howard Dean was not electable but Kerry would take it in a walk - we were told- because Kerry was innoculated against attacks due to his service... We know what a load of crap that turned out to be much like we know this diary is a load of crap.

People ought to vote for whom they like not for whom they think "others" might like.  

by crackityjones 2007-12-10 06:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Bloomberg's 3rd Party run

If Obama win's the nomination he will then prove that he can win the GE. Winning IA a state that is 96% white will prove his crossover appeal as will NH if he win's that state.

Hillary is limited at about 46-47% OF THE ELECTORATE BECAUSE OF HER HIGH NEGATIVES. iF SHE WIN'S THE NOMINATION, SHE WILL NEED A bLOOMBERG CANDIDACY TO WIN THE GE.

Finally I guess Jerome is finally acknowledging Obama's momentum and chance be-grudgingly to win the nomination.

by BDM 2007-12-10 06:24AM | 0 recs
well, I'll say this

If Obama wins the primary, I want to see him pick a VP who will help win a crucial state -- someone from Ohio, Virginia, Colorado, Missouri, etc.  I'd say the same for the others too.

by John DE 2007-12-10 06:23AM | 0 recs
Re: well, I'll say this

WEBB is perfect, needs a tough SOB to watch his back and helps him big time in VA. Plus he has foreign policy experience and advances his bi-partison but progressive approach to governance. can't imagine him not being the pick.

by nevadadem 2007-12-10 06:25AM | 0 recs
Re: well, I'll say this

I completely agree.  The tough sell would be a pair of freshmen senators but so be it.  Webb would be perfect, and likely deliver Virginia.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-12-10 08:10AM | 0 recs
Re: well, I'll say this

I completely agree. Pick a guy who can deliver a state. Thats the way to go.

The fact that Ohio has a democratic governor stands out.

by crackityjones 2007-12-10 06:34AM | 0 recs
Re: well, I'll say this

well I think Strickland will be Hillary's pick.

by nevadadem 2007-12-10 06:38AM | 0 recs
Re: well, I'll say this

She really should. For her Strickland is an easy pick no matter all this talk about Wesley Clark. For Edwards/Obama not so much.

by crackityjones 2007-12-10 06:42AM | 0 recs
Re: well, I'll say this

Strickland has said he is not interested.

by Javier Doval 2007-12-10 07:00AM | 0 recs
he just became governor.

It is very unlikely he would leave that so soon.  It might offend many voters in Ohio that just voted for him to become governer.

by d 2007-12-10 07:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Bloomberg's 3rd Party run

CT and NJ know who Bloomberg is, and these numbers are signs of Bloomberg's regional appeal.  But how would these change in Arkansas or Mississippi?  Would Missouri Republicans vote for Bloomberg?  And what of conservative Democrats in the South?  Would they abandon the Party for Bloomberg?

These are the questions we should be asking.  And no, I am not impressed with the Obama campaign's relentless battery of Jerome Armstrong.

by truthteller2007 2007-12-10 06:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Bloomberg's 3rd Party run

I don't think the Obama campaign even knows who Jerome is? What are you talking about?

by crackityjones 2007-12-10 06:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Bloomberg's 3rd Party run

you know what??  you are just straight-up crazy.  

half the time what you're saying doesn't even make any sense!

by bluedavid 2007-12-10 01:40PM | 0 recs
I'm pretty skeptical...

...that Clinton and her campaign would win a one-on-one general election against the Republican machine.

After all, her husband never won a majority of the vote.

by d 2007-12-10 06:32AM | 0 recs
Re: I'm pretty skeptical...

He got 49% in a three-way in 1996, I'm pretty sure, he would of gotten 50% without Perot.

by RJEvans 2007-12-10 06:40AM | 0 recs
I think your prediction is correct.

But the fact still remains that he didn't make it to 50%.

by d 2007-12-10 06:56AM | 0 recs
Re: I think your prediction is correct.

It's not a prediction, it's logic. But, you're right, the fact is he did not get 50%. But, you also cannot deny that if Perot was out of the race in 1996, a good chunk of his 8% would have gone to Clinton.

by RJEvans 2007-12-11 09:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Bloomberg's 3rd Party run

Bloomberg will take more from the Democrats, NOT Republicans. Once the country finds out he is an ultra liberal New Yorker who is anti-war, his votes will come from Democrats. Ron Paul will also take a good chunk of Democrats because of what he preaches.

by RJEvans 2007-12-10 06:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Bloomberg's 3rd Party run

I just want to echo what you said about Paul-- he WILL pull a fair number of Democrats.  A poll a few weeks ago showed this, and I remember kos laughed it off.  That's a mistake that shouldn't be made.  I go to school that is very liberal, yet the Buzz here for Paul is pretty intense.  

As a comparison, I remember walking on campus as a freshman in the Fall of 04 and seeing all the "Dean for America" stickers remaining on lamp posts, bulletin boards, kiosks, etc.  This year?  Campus is littered with Paul paraphernalia. It's not quite to the extent Dean's was, but he easily has the most visible presence on campus.  People are talking about him and are excited about him... much of what he preaches IS indeed appealing to Dems.

by Penn08 2007-12-10 07:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Bloomberg's 3rd Party run

I could not agree more.

Ron Paul has appeal and wait til the numbers come out December 17th. He is going to break every record in the books for one day fundraising.

by crackityjones 2007-12-10 07:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Bloomberg's 3rd Party run

Of course campus may be full of Ron Paul supporters, but the school probably wouldn't even have existed if Ron Paul had been in charge.

If democratic voters actually vote for Ron Paul, well, then I guess there some really confused people out there.

by d 2007-12-10 07:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Bloomberg's 3rd Party run

you know i live near columbia, and i have been surprised at how much ron paul paraphernalia i've been seeing near their campus.

i think part of it is how crazy people are just more visible ( you know, how they stick out at protests... )

but his appeal is totally weird and could well siphon off the votes of  some dems.  recently i read an interesting analysis that part of his popularity derives from the fact that people know very little about him and so can project the qualities that they want onto him.  

at the same time...once most dems realize that he's pro-life, i think that could be a dealbreaker.  except maybe in the south...  

by bluedavid 2007-12-10 01:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Bloomberg's 3rd Party run

Then we better nominate a Democrats who has been against the war in Iraq from the start, eh?

by Kal 2007-12-10 07:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Bloomberg's 3rd Party run

good point...

by bluedavid 2007-12-10 01:43PM | 0 recs
Actually

There is strong skepticism not only from white democrats,
but an ever higher doubts among Black voters.

The internals coming out of South Carolina don't support this at all.

by horizonr 2007-12-10 06:44AM | 0 recs
really?

There is no chance that Barry Obama could win the presidency?

There is no chance that he could win any swing state?

Really?

by d 2007-12-10 07:01AM | 0 recs
Let's just pick a white man from viriginia.

that's what the greatest number of pur presidents were.

oh...wait...I forgot...Hillary convinced Mark Warner not to run for president.

by d 2007-12-10 07:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Bloomberg's 3rd Party run

Jerome, This is a clear-cut case of constipated thinking.

The same kind that said Kerry was best in 2004.

The same kind that said the 50 State Strategy was a waste of time.

The same kind that keeps Democrats from leading.

Obama will win the nomination.

He will win the general election in a LANDSLIDE.

by ArkansasLib 2007-12-10 07:35AM | 0 recs
Jermone's vandetta against Obama

Man, I am really starting to get upset about Jerome's unreasonable sniping of Obama. Just because they call you the blogfather doesn't mean you have to act like the mafia. Obama got big without the netroots and that is the real reason Jerome is being a dick about his rise. The big name bloggers like to fashion themselves kingmakers and don't appreciate when candidates make it without first kissing the ring. Get over yourself Jerome, it is getting pretty lame.

Imagine how you'll feel when/if Obama wins the nomination and/or the election? In the inimitable words of Chris Rock, "Do you want to look back and say, why did I support that white [guy]?"

by Ozymandias 2007-12-10 07:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Jermone's vandetta against Obama

I think Jerome has slipped into "Blogfather: Part III" territory now.

by Kal 2007-12-10 07:52AM | 0 recs
They surveyed NJ and CT

Outside of the tri-state area and maybe southern NE, where would someone like Bloomberg have any support? I doubt many even moderate Ds are looking for someone outside the party, and all the major R candidates are pretty moderate (election related conversions not withstanding). I feel like the real third party constituency with nationwide appeal is the Lou Dobbs, nativist, anti-immigration, anti-trade coalition that Perot strung together. People compare Bloomberg to Perot, but they have almost nothing in common.

by Ozymandias 2007-12-10 07:48AM | 0 recs
i agree with this.

There may be a third party vanity candidate on the left because a select group of liberal and moderate people couldn't stand the thought of a female or black president.  In the end, though, i don't see this candidate drawing enough votes to influence the election. Democrats really want to win this election.

The real chance for a third party candidate to draw actual votes will be on the right.  Republicans are not as motivated to win this election.

The Republicans are very demoralized and may think that their only road back to power is to just let the Democrats screw everything up.  They are very conifident that the Democrats will screw up worse than they have.

by d 2007-12-10 08:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Bloomberg's 3rd Party run

I've posted this before - but why do people keep saying Obama's race will hold him back and ignore Clinton's gender? Every poll I've seen shows people are twice as likely not to vote for a woman as for a black candidate.

I think both of them can win, but there's something disingenuous about hearing the race argument from people who support Clinton.

by animated 2007-12-10 08:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Bloomberg's 3rd Party run

Because 51% of the population is women. If there were more African Americans I don't think anyone would be raising this argument.

by Ga6thDem 2007-12-10 10:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Bloomberg's 3rd Party run

If you didn't know the magazine this was in, would you think it conservative?  The idea that whites do not find Obama appealing is dead wrong.  

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Pu blic/Articles/000/000/014/463haksg.asp

by Javier Doval 2007-12-10 08:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Bloomberg's 3rd Party run

This kind of politicaly saavy analysis would have us throw away our natural advantage on the Iraq War by nominating someone who either voted for the War or even worse, co-sponsored it.  This professional analysis thinks saying you made a mistake which cost people their lives is a sellable concept.  This analysis would have us lose voters to a 3rd party campaign by either Bloomberg or Paul who would be more correct on the War than our candidate.   Is there any better proof than this that the same old textbook politics just won't do?

by Piuma 2007-12-10 10:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Bloomberg's 3rd Party run

The war is not the only issue out there.

by Ga6thDem 2007-12-10 11:15AM | 0 recs
Reality Check

Obama could not win a general election.  He could not carry one Southern State.  

by nzubechukwu 2007-12-10 12:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Reality Check

hello!!  neither have any other (white male!) democrats recently...

by bluedavid 2007-12-10 01:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Bloomberg's 3rd Party run

you know, i feel there's a lot of artfully-veiled low-level racism floating around this topic and it really bothers me coming from a group that considers itself "progressive."  keeping someone at arm's length just because you're afraid of what others may think of your association with them is a pretty cowardly position-- personally or politically.  

(also, a convenient way to disguise your own prejudices....)  

by bluedavid 2007-12-10 01:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Bloomberg's 3rd Party run

one more thing...bloomberg is NOT running!!

as a nyc resident, we've been hearing this story floating around the media for ages!  he has said without equivocation that he is not going to run.  (the only people still not convinced seem to be gray's papaya...)

personally, i feel that he probably was planning on it for some time, but decided to sit out when he realized that he might just be a spoiler for the dem.  

however, in the freak occurrence that he does decide to run, the enormous difference he has with other potential 3rd party candidates is that he is fucking LOADED.  He basically bought his first term, and i don't think he would have any problem dumping hundreds of millions of his own cash into a pres. run.

by bluedavid 2007-12-10 01:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Bloomberg's 3rd Party run

The USA can elect almost anybody; as long as they are gazillionaires or have access to gazillions.

My God, it even elected George W Bush in 2004.

And then there was Reagan and Nixon and poor old HW, even US Grant.

So it could elect Obama; particularly if he gets Tiger Woods to go along side Oprah.

by malc19ken 2007-12-11 01:23PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads