is higher than Hillary's

he's at 70%

This diary makes no sense.  All you are showing is that Bloomberg also draws some from Democrats, which would hurt all Democratic candidates to an extent.  

Polls have shown that Democrats would actually benefit from a Bloomberg entry if Clinton is the nominee.   If Obama is the nominee the picture is a lot less clear and probably hurts Democrats more than it helps.  That is so because Bloomberg appeals to Independents strongly, which is also one of Obama's larger constituenties.  It also stands to reason that Bloomberg won't even bother to run if Clinton is our nominee, because in that event he would not see a "Pathway to victory" due to Clinton's relatively higher base support she won't be below under any circumstances (approx. 39%.)   He is actually more likely to get involved if a candidate with lower base support like Edwards somehow gets the nomination, as he would see a better chance to actually win against a weaker Democratic nominee.   In that event I agree with you that Bloomberg would hurt our nominee more than he helps, which is yet another reason to root for Clinton to be the nominee.  

I explained all of this in this diary here:

http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/6/23/1733 52/607

Check it out.  

Bloomberg willhurt the Democrats in 2008 the way George Wallace hurt the Republicans in 1968.

Simply suggests that you are incorrect.

I am to tired to do this justice, so here is a snip from Salon:

If Bloomberg does run for president next year, he will have some explaining to do. Two billion dollars would buy a lot of television advertising, but no amount of money will stop voters from asking questions.

For instance, voters will want to know why he joined the Republican Party after a lifetime supporting Democrats. And they may not like the answer when they learn that he essentially bought the New York Republican mayoral nomination from the party's leaders and then narrowly won the election by spending an unprecedented $70 million. In a stunning act of overkill, he spent even more to win reelection against a hapless, hopelessly underfunded Democratic opponent two years ago.

Voters will also want to know whether he suddenly left the Republican Party only because its prospects are so dim. Only three years ago, he heartily endorsed the reelection of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, even vowing to carry New York City for the ticket. Those were the days when he was still an enthusiastic Republican booster and generous party donor, and was praising the GOP as the party of "honesty, efficiency, compassion and inclusion." That sounds ridiculous now, of course, but was he cynically mouthing those banalities, or did he believe them? It is hard to say which would be worse.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/200 7/06/22/bloomberg/

Opportunistic rich man only beholden to himself (not We The People). I don't want election BOUGHT or stolen!

Progressive Blue

Ummm... sounds familiar.

That article says nothing even related to Bloomberg hurting democrats. I'm so sick of people blatantl cherry picking small things and blowing it up like t totally destroys the other candidate. Seriously shut up and grow up.

No one reads the Washington Post to find out what Democratic voters actually think.  Au contraire.

You may not be quite aware of this, but Bloomberg is pro-Iraq war, pro-GWoT.  The Lieberman line.  Good luck selling that to Democrats and Democratic leaners.  As a group Democratic leaners are pro-choice but aren't seriously pro-gay marriage, either.

IOW, Bloomberg is the Independent-qua-Republican thing we've seen quite a bit of recently.

Democrats have 45-48% just about committed voters, with a ceiling around 53% or 54%.  Republicans have a ceiling around 47%, with about 42% committed voters.

So Bloomberg has a max of 13% of the national vote, with only 5-6% really available voters.

This sounds like it is saying that gays will vote for Bloomberg because he is the only one who supports gay marriage.  Won't happen.  Gays are smarter than that- they are not going to vote on someone who cannot win to make some "fleeting" statement and risk having another Republican anti-gay administration in office for the next eight years. How dumb would that be?  They won't do it.