than other national polls, because Bloomberg's name ID outside NY state must be very low.

Also, Rudy is not going to be the GOP nominee.

I would not want to see Bloomberg in the race, particularly if Hillary is the nominee. I know some pro-choice Republicans who have voted for Democrats occasionally in the past, depending on how retrograde the GOP nominee is. I think that kind of person would choose Bloomberg over Hillary in a heartbeat.

I heard a disturbing rumor yesterday (merely hearsay from no one who is in a position to necessarily know) that Gore has met with Bloomberg about a possible running mate slot. If Gore gets in, could he possibly have such a tin ear about a running mate AGAIN?

Are the Clintons doomed to always win three-way races for president with only a plurality and a superwealthy businessman as the independant? Why couldn't Wallace, Anderson and Nader have been superwealthy businessmen? ;-)

I forget who was writing about it, but I thought someone had made an interesting point regarding Bloomber as kingmaker.  Basically, the theory goes that Bloomberg has no interest in winning the presidency, but rather in affecting policy.  By entering the ballot in only a few key states, he may be able to shore up enough electoral votes to swing the election towards whoever offers him the best deal.

I'd like to see some polling that doesn't include Billary or Giuliani-time, as I don't think either will get the nomination.  Bloomberg's name recognition outside of the NYC area is minimal, and I think his relatively decent strength in national polls is due for a desire for a 3rd party or independent candidate.  Bush and congress(on both sides of the aisle) have lousy approval ratings - there is a groundswell available for anyone who is not a D or R politician as usual.  

Wacko-Perot got 19% during peacetime, imagine what a Billion dollars will do for a pro-choice, pro-development, pro-environment, anti-war candidate who is not a Dem or a Rethug (even tho he has been both in the last 10 years), and who will likely get the endorsement of the Governor of the largest state in the country?

Also missing from these polls are other candidates.  Assuming Ron Paul doesn't get the R nom, and if Hillary or another centrist/pro-war dem gets the Dem nom, then there will be well-funded and vibrant Libertarian and Green candidates, especially if Bloomberg gives the 3rd party candidates cover as spoilers.

I don't want him in because he allows the GOP an out.  The last time we thrashed one of their unsuccessful presidents with a generation and paradigm changing victory, they were able to whine that the only reason we won was because there was a third party candidate in the race.

I don't want that this time.  I want the American people to deliver a rebuke so overwhelming, so stinging, so unmistakeably punishing to the Republican Party that it takes them 25 years to recover.

I want realignment.

An all-New York election. Gag me with a spoon.

A Bloomberg candidacy would be a big problem for the Democrats.  The polls right now are essentially meaningless, since very few respondents know what his stance on the issues will be.

If he comes out as a strong anti-war candidate, as expected, he could split the anti-war vote with the Democratic candidate, particularly if it is Senator Clinton.  

Bloomberg has supported Iraq.  And with Iraq being the biggest issue going into 2008; Bloomberg hurts the other pro-Iraq candidates more.  If he was the same guy yet significantly anti-Iraq, then he would hurt Democrats.

Bloomberg is a New York City candidate. He has switched parties twice in the last few years. I don't think he is a threat. He is more of an opportunist. A very rich one but an opportunist nonetheless. Just like Lieberman.

We already have one personality candidate running for President. I am not sure we can handle another.