ah, nice. curious if you think Bloomberg might hurt the Dems more if the Republican nominee were more conservative. the conservatives would have 1 candidate while the moderates to liberals would have 2 to split from.

It is worth thinking about for a few moments, but only a few moments.

As opposed to Hillary and Giuliani who have begun to introduce themselves to voters, Bloomberg has not.  We don't know what platform Bloomberg would run on but I'm guessing it would be one of successful, non-partisan leadership.  I am guessing that he would actually fall in line with the Democrats on many of the biggest issues today; those include the Iraq War, Immigration, and Healthcare.

I think that it is important to remember that he switched his political affiliation from Democrat to Republican to win the NYC mayoral election.  He ruled as what we would see as a DLC variety Democrat if he were a Democrat.

Wow, every state has Hillary supporters ready to jump ship for somebody who woke up this morning as a registered Republican.

I would like to see Obama numbers - I bet he holds against Bloomberg better because they'll split the indie.

And it's going to help Edwards and Obama the mostin the northeast, of course if the Republican candidate is one of the top 3 (non-Thompson). Moderate Republicans and Independents and swing, especially in the New York area (PA, NJ, CT, and of course NY) who would normally be much more open to vote for Guiliani in places like this, would instead vote for Bloomberg, making it much harder for Guiliani to win any of these states.

How this would play in the south (Rudy McRomney ticket) versus the other 2 remains to be seen. In addition, it remains to be seen if it would hurt or help Obama+Edwards in the midwest where they are strong, and Edwards in the South where he is competitive in some areas (KY and VA for example).

Regardless of his party affiliation, if the Mayor runs for the presidency I would like to see him address the United States' commitment to the United Nation's Millennium Development Goals, which call for cutting world hunger in half by 2015 and eliminating it altogether by 2025. Indeed, it is estimated that the expenditure of a mere $19 billion would eliminate starvation and malnutrition worldwide. In a time when the current defense budget is $522 billion, the goal of eradicating world hunger is clearly well within reach and it is my hope that whoever becomes president in 2008 addresses this pressing issue.

So we could be looking at three New Yorkers in the final race for President. . .ick.  Sorry guys but that's a little bit too much East Coast bias.  

On the other hand, Bloomberg would single-handedly fuck over Rudy.  I agree with the other posters that a more conservative Rep might not be as affected.  Hell, any GOPer outside of Rudy wouldn't be affected by Bloomberg that much.  But Rudy's central point is that he was the mayor of New York on 9-11.  And if Bloomberg is running ads about the job he did in NYC, that makes Rudy look bad.  Plus, Bloomberg gets to brag that the terrorists didn't kill anyone on his watch.

I think a Bloomberg candidacy takes votes away from Obama Democrats.  A lot of the Obama supporters seem to think he is running a campaign beyond the Democratic primary and one geared towards independents.  Jerome said as much in his post earlier this week.  Given the choice between a true independent progressive (Bloomberg) and a Democratic progressive (Obama), I think there will be at least a split between the voters.  Hillary has been running strong Democratic campaign, and I still think most of her supporters are strong supporters, and will stick with her throughout the Primaries (and hopefully the general) regardless of whomever enters the race.

I dunno, I figure Mayor Mike wants to be the next Governor of New York.  But maybe that's just me.

I think if Bloomberg runs, he should be our candidate.  He's way more progressive on most issues than Hillary or any of the Democrats.  If we're really about changing the political system and introducing progressive policies - why not shake it up and make people pay attention?  As it stands, I'd vote for Bloomberg over any of the other Democrats, unless it's clear he'd throw the election to the Republican.

However, I do agree with some earlier comments that once Bloomberg is introduced to the country, his liberal positions on a lot of issues will attract more Democrats than Republicans.  He could end up pulling a Nader (even though this poll shows him moving some states from R to D).

Bloomberg is a problem. He has the money and the credentials to run a top-tier independent campaign. And since he's a liberal democrat, especially on social issues, he's guarenteed to siphon massive votes from the Democrat candidate. That could very concievably tilt the election to the Republicans.

Bloomberg is far more dangerous than Nader could ever be. I really hope he doesn't run, though I can't say that he won't. The guy could drop $2 billion on the presidential race tommorow, and he might not win, but the whole political landscape would be dramatically altered.

Not sure what this poll proves since it shows a race against another pro-choice NYC mayor and a NY senator - a very unlikely pairing in my opinion. I'd like to see this poll done with Gore and Thompson (my guess at this point for the Gen Elec matchup)

Bloomberg has continued many of Giuliani's policies in running NY (police brutality, limiting peaceful protests, supporting developers over just about everyone else etc.),and yet he managed to get a huge vote from Democrats in 2005 (WTF, people?).  The only major differences I can see are Giuliani's gruff personality and right place right time on 9/11 v Bloomberg's billions and business acumen.  They have identical liberal stands on gay rights, gun control, and abortion (2 out of 3 of these issues may put the Dem nominee to the right of both)

OK, I have a dasterdly statement to make: Bloomberg could win the electoral college.

Requirements:

1) Dems and Reps nominate a candidate from their bases (Hillary against Fred Thompson, for example).  If Rudy is the Rep nominee, then he splits the national moderate vote with Bloomberg and Hillary wins (as shown above in the original posting).  But the logic of all these postings dos not follow if Rudy is not the Republican nominee -- and he's falling in the polls already.

2) The Iraq war is still going on. Independent voters are furious with this unending colonial occupation and are irked at the Democrats' mealy performance in Congress since January.  This is a "gold mine" opportunity for a third party candidate.

3) Bloomberg, AS A CANDIDATE, speaks up for the West and the states along the Canadian border --not the eastern seaboard and NY.

If MB does that, he can spend 500M to 1B to move Ross Perot's 20-percent-plus states in 1992 to, say, 36 to 38 percent and win.  The states for which Perot got more than 20% of the vote in 1992 total 261 electoral votes.  Move those numbers above 36% in a country with an ongoing, badly planned war, and Bloomberg would only need one more state -- Indiana (Perot/92 = 19.8%?)  Florida?  Michigan?  Pennslyvania?

Bloomberg won't get in the race, whine about the press, get out, and then get back in again as Perot did.  Perot got 19% doing that against a wooden Republican and a Clinton.

Either Bloomberg won't run or he'll run a first-class campaign.  The thing that could derail him would be a moderate candidate nominated by the Reps or Dems.  And that's unlikely.

"This country cannot afford to tear itself apart on a partisan basis on issues so vital to our national security."--Henry Kissingerit

It is time we face the cold hard facts - people across the US are fed-up with partisan politics. Voter participation is at an all time low. People across the US feel as though their voice and vote doesn't matter. With more than 38% of the active voters identifying as Independents/unaffiliated it is time we begin to understand and face the facts. A change is coming.

Continuing to beat the drum for partisan politics is becoming the anthem increasing the peoples call to return the power to the people. Whether or not Bloomberg runs, the fact that he has registered as unaffiliated inspires and validates thousands of people across the country that their voice and desire for change is being heard. I am one of those people!

Like it or not it is a type of leadership that has been missing from American politics.
The key success to the elections is not going to be in the drum beat of partisan politics it is who can inspire and motivate hundreds and thousands of voters to turn out to the polls to vote FOR someone.

People are seeking someone with a fresh perspective who is not pointing the finger or blaming another group of people for the astronomical economic and social failures within our broken system of overburden governmental systems.

People are seeking someone who is interested in addressing the systemic issues and not just applying a band-aid.

Times - they are a changin'..... power to the people not the parties!

I think it's clear from the polling, as well as the posts I've read here and elsewhere, that Bloomberg will draw the most votes from disaffected voters regardless of their partisan affiliation. Right now poll after poll indicates that the party with the highest portion of disatisfied voters is the Republican party. Remember how liberal voters were complaining in 2000 that there wasn't a real difference between Gore and Bush and that was why they supported Nader? I'm simply not hearing those sentiments from the left anywhere these days. Conservatives, on the other hand, are desperately searching for a 'none of the above' candidate. I think they'll be willing to vote for Bloomberg in droves-regardless of his positions-simply because he's an alternative, non-Democratic candidate. Having said that, the Dem candidate most likely to create more disaffected Dem voters is Hillary. As we all know, she faces the highest proportion of Dem and Dem-leaning voters who simply don't like her. Hillary would help a Bloomberg run the most.

I wonder if Arnold was to back Bloomberg and campaign hard with him, if he could carry California with a narrow plurality?  If so, regardless of what he did to the Democrats in other states, that would make it nearly impossible for a Democrat to win a majority of electoral votes would it not?