Bloomberg polling

If Clinton wins the Democratic nomination, which I think seems most likely, and McCain doesn't win the Republican nomination, which is iffy, then the conventional wisdom is that Bloomberg will run, and he's getting it ready:
New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg has quietly been polling and conducting a highly sophisticated voter analysis in all 50 states as he decides whether to launch an independent presidential bid, associates said Wednesday.
I don't see how Bloomberg would win a three-way race, unless he were to become the de facto Republican nominee, which also seems highly unlikely due to his liberal social stances on things like abortion and gun control. Some might think that Bloomberg has some pull among Democrats, but I recall, being inside the hall that night, when Bloomberg laid a big fat one on endorsing Bush for President in 2004. Roll that one on a TV spot, and whatever support he has among Democrats will wither.


The article goes on to describe some of the micro-targeting polling techniques that Doug Schoen used for Bloomberg's candidacy, and how he might use it for a Presidential run; which is mildly interesting, due to Schoen and Mark Penn being business partners:

Schoen says he is not working for Bloomberg now, but he is part of the mayor's inner circle and makes a convincing and well-researched case in his new book, "Declaring Independence," (about how a third-party candidate such as Bloomberg could run for president and upset the election this year).
It's in the fantasy section.
 



Display:


Bloomberg Run = Democratic President (none / 0)

Bloomberg running will guarantee a Democrat in the White House.


by BigBoyBlue on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 09:58:46 AM EST

Re: Bloomberg Run = Democratic President (2.00 / 1)

I've heard others say the opposite. What's your detailed thinking?


The Wayward Episcopalian
by Transplanted Texan on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 10:19:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bloomberg polling (none / 0)

Those in the know in NYC know that Bloomberg switch from Democrat to Republican for electability. As he is still a closet liberal, how can one agree that he will not take votes away from the Democratic candidate?


Click on Peace, Propaganda, & The Promised Land and learn the truth about the I/P conflict.
by shergald on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 10:11:27 AM EST

Re: Bloomberg polling (2.00 / 1)

Because very few Democrats are looking for Democrat Lite.  On the other hand, a number of fiscal conservatives who are sick of the Terri Schiavo brand of Republicanism would look at Bloomberg.

In my opinion, the sole purpose for a Bloomberg run is to pull the Democratic nominee towards the center on fiscal issues.  That's certainly the purpose of threatening a run.

Just to give you an idea, I voted for Bloomberg and probably fit the stereotype of the Bloomberg Democrat perfectly.  (I can't recall if I voted for him the first time, but I certainly didn't vote for Mark Green.)  I've had very few objections to the job he's done as Mayor.  But I could not imagine, in a million years, voting for him over the Democratic nominee for President.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 10:35:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bloomberg polling (2.00 / 1)

steve -

that's a good point, but we're not talking about dems - we're talking about dem leaning indies. Losing even 10% of those would be devastating.

Bloomberg isn't going to appeal to perot voters. He's different on trade, immigration, everything!


by mcdave on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 12:14:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bloomberg polling (none / 0)

I assume that you are not saying that you are Democrat Lite.

My info comes from a close NY friend who had a relative that worked on the Bloomberg mayoral campaign, who gives some backdoor insights on him. I would say, given your own remarks, that Bloomberg is a Nader-like breaker for the Republican candidate. Fiscal Republicans go for him, the Republican independent; the Evangelical types go for the straight Republican.

I too would never vote for Bloomberg, given any Democrat running, even the dislikable Hillary.


Click on Peace, Propaganda, & The Promised Land and learn the truth about the I/P conflict.
by shergald on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 05:55:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bloomberg polling (none / 0)

Sorry, wrong comment line, responded above.


Click on Peace, Propaganda, & The Promised Land and learn the truth about the I/P conflict.
by shergald on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 05:57:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bloomberg polling (none / 0)

I am a strong believe in third parties keeping the two parties honest. But no way in hell, I am voting for Bloomberg.


by Pravin on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 10:46:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I've voted minor parties (2.00 / 1)

in four of five presidential elections.

Minor parties balance against the establishment.

However, a Bloomberg candidacy is the establishment using a minor party to battle against people powered politics in the major parties.

I don't see Bloomberg having much growth potential.


Rrrinnggg... Time to change the government.
by Carl Nyberg on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 11:48:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bloomberg polling (none / 0)

It's in the fantasy section.

As well it should be.

Right now, the political center is NOT an underserved market.

There are two underserved political markets these days, and both are at the Congressional level.

One is for a party occupying roughly the same space on the political spectrum as the GOP, but that would negotiate in good faith with other parties, in search of the common good.

The other is for a party occupying roughly the same space on the political spectrum as the Democrats, but that would stand up to the GOP as it presently exists.


by RT on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 10:12:33 AM EST

Re: Bloomberg polling (none / 0)

How many MyDDers would support Bloomberg over Clinton?


The Wayward Episcopalian
by Transplanted Texan on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 10:19:20 AM EST

Re: Bloomberg polling (none / 0)

I wouldn't be so quick to jump on the Bloomberg wagon myself quite yet, but it really depends on this all plays out.  If it honestly gets too ugly between Hillary v. the Rep. nominee, Bloomberg will be able to play the fall guy well and take in all those voters who are tired of the way elections are run in the country (i.e. dirty tricks).

Who knows.  He has to get the votes first.  Then I guess we'll see where it all goes from here.


by Big Haircut on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 10:33:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The Naderite Clinton haters might. (2.00 / 1)

But they are a lunatic fringe who like the poor are always with us.  


by ottovbvs on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 10:39:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Naderite Clinton haters might. (none / 0)

   Not likely. The Naderites would want to vote for purity troll type candidates, not wishy-washy centrists. The Green Party will be running in many states where they have ballot status including California. Their most likely nominee is Cynthia McKinney, former Representative from Georgia. There is even a chance that they go with Nader again, but I think the nominee will be McKinney because she is a fresher face for them: younger, not a white dude, and a former elected official. Ralph has done a lot in his life for better or for worse, but he has never been elected to anything.


by Zack from the SFV on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 10:49:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bloomberg polling (none / 0)

I will.  Clinton sold herself to the corporate lobbyists


Listening comes first
by Moonwood on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 10:45:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bloomberg polling (none / 0)

Wow.  You'd vote for Bloomberg over Clinton because of...corporatism?  How do you get more corporate than Mike Bloomberg?


"It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for subtlety". Salvor Hardin
by Denny Crane on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 11:15:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bloomberg polling (none / 0)

Bloomberg = corporatism / business elite.

I really can't see it, though weirder things have happened.


by Coral on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 12:12:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bloomberg polling (none / 0)

Really, other than the dynastic thing, the main reason why many of us oppose Hillary so much is the Iraq war thing. So why would we vote for Bloomberg?


by Pravin on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 10:48:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bloomberg polling (none / 0)

I'm not so much looking at the why as the what. Since when have people needed a reason to do anything? I've spoken with several active NH Democrats who have quietly told me they would strongly consider Bloomberg.


The Wayward Episcopalian
by Transplanted Texan on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 11:10:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bloomberg polling (none / 0)

My #1 issue is the war, and specifically ending the warmongering against Iran and ensuring that the current disaster does not get expanded even further.  I have no idea what Bloomberg's stance is on the war, but Hillary's "all options on the table" veiled threat language against Iran is unacceptable to me, so I would consider it if Bloomberg's stance is unequivocably that we will not go to war with Iran unless directly attacked first.  Again, I don't know what his position is, so this all may be a moot point.


NJ Hussein Independent
by NJIndependent on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 11:51:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bloomberg polling (2.00 / 1)

Bloomberg isn't Lieberman, although they're good buds.  But he's definitely right of Hillary on the Middle East.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 12:03:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bloomberg polling (none / 0)

If that's the case and Hillary doesn't do a 180 on her position, then I'd probably have to look at the Libertarians or something.


NJ Hussein Independent
by NJIndependent on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 12:13:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bloomberg polling (none / 0)

I am glad you bring that up, because with the way Bush has been speaking about Iran the past two days is the same type of rhetoric he used before we went into Iraq.  And with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard in the Persian Gulf incident, I am sure the Clinton campaign hope the Bush admin. doesn't do anything stupid.  Because no matter what side you agree on in terms of her vote, it will get spun by her opponents on either side as a big, fat "i told ya so".  


by Big Haircut on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 12:51:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bloomberg polling (none / 0)

Great post, gladiatorstail.

For me, Hillary polarizes the Democratic party in such a way that if she's the nominee and Bloomberg runs, you might see serious conflict in groups of Democrats on who to vote for come election day.  Obviously, if anything, this would hurt Hillary the most.  I am an Obama fan, but I hope that in the end, even if he doesn't get the nomination, I will still vote Democratic.  But if Hillary keeps giving me more reasons to not vote for her, then I hate to say I'd vote for Bloomberg.

It's not that I think that Hillary still can't win if its her v. Bloomberg v. (insert Rep. here), but it could be harder and not as much of a blowout as it should be with any Dem with the nomination.


by Big Haircut on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 10:30:12 AM EST

Re: Bloomberg polling (none / 0)

Isn't that a little harsh?  I don't see her through Republican lenses....I've followed her campaign, as well as her Senator career and career as first lady extensively.  I don't care for what Republican's say about her, nor do I believe half the crazy stuff they say about her.  Just because I don't like the woman that means I am wearing a Republican lens?  Why don't you take the Hillary almighty lens off for two seconds before you accuse me of how I think.


by Big Haircut on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 10:50:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bloomberg polling (none / 0)

LOL no problems then.  I guess for me, I want to vote Democratic no matter what.  So if Hillary gets the nomination, I will more htan likely vote for her, but I am not going to rally out and hear her speak or anything like that.

But I am just throwing out there the possibility of how some people feel and could feel.


by Big Haircut on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 10:58:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bloomberg polling (2.00 / 1)

Jerome-

How can you say its "likely" Hillary will win.  I'd say its 50/50 because it all depends on NV and SC (where Obama leads).  He wins those and we're back to even.

Frankly, I still don't understand your Hillary fetish.  Yeah, she's OK and I'll vote for her and all, but doesn't Terry McCauliffe, etc. make you ill?  Isn't she surrounded by the same crowd that did in Dean?  How can you support that?


Would you hire George W Bush to be YOUR latex salesman?
by jgkojak on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 10:31:27 AM EST

Re: Bloomberg polling (none / 0)

It's a prediction, that Clinton will win, what don't you understand about it?

...doesn't Terry McCauliffe, etc. make you ill?

Not anymore than Gibbs.


by Jerome Armstrong on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 11:12:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bloomberg polling (none / 0)

Yeah, its a prediction.  I just don't understand supporting Clinton in the primary.  Seems to go against the idea of changing the internal dynamic of the Democratic party.


Would you hire George W Bush to be YOUR latex salesman?
by jgkojak on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 11:25:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

If Clinton wins the Democrats lose (none / 0)

Her negatives are way too high. The Republicans know that and are savoring for a chance to savage her.


Listening comes first
by Moonwood on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 10:49:45 AM EST

Re: If Clinton wins the Democrats lose (none / 0)

Yes, but to some extent, the Rep's negatives are the war are higher.  All that means is it won't be a landslide victor with Hillary.  Which is fine--we need something to keep the adrenaline up :)


by Big Haircut on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 10:52:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If Clinton wins the Democrats lose (none / 0)

Then we can't win with Obama either because his negatives are the same or even higher than Clintons.


No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!
by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 10:57:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If Clinton wins the Democrats lose (none / 0)

Wrong - Obama doesn't have the Clinton negatives - This is Hillary's current tactic - I'm bad but so are you.  BS


Listening comes first
by Moonwood on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 11:29:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If Clinton wins the Democrats lose (none / 0)

There is some polling to suggest more voters have a negative impression of Obama.

However, the depth of animosity toward HRC is clearly greater than the depth of animosity toward Obama.

Also, the peculiarities of what's allowed to be said seem to allow people to tap into misogyny against HRC in a meaner way than the racism against Obama.


Rrrinnggg... Time to change the government.
by Carl Nyberg on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 11:44:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If Clinton wins the Democrats lose (none / 0)

That might be the conventional wisdom but after NH I'm not sure. People might feel it's okay to publicly put down women and not blacks but they might do it in the voting booths.


No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!
by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 11:53:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If Clinton wins the Democrats lose (none / 0)

Are you arguing that Democrats should reject Barack Obama because there may be a large number of voters who will vote against his b/c he's Black?


Rrrinnggg... Time to change the government.
by Carl Nyberg on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 11:58:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If Clinton wins the Democrats lose (none / 0)

Just facing facts.


No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!
by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 12:36:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If Clinton wins the Democrats lose (none / 0)

Go to Rasmussen and check them out. Last time I checked Obama was 46/pos 50/neg and Hillary 50/neg and 48 pos. That means Obama's net negatives are twice what Hillary has. But, hey, don't let little things like facts get in your way.


No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!
by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 11:51:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If Clinton wins the Democrats lose (none / 0)

I couldn't get the Rasmussen data.  But Gallup has Obama at 30% negative and Hillary at 48% negative.  


Listening comes first
by Moonwood on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 12:25:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If Clinton wins the Democrats lose (none / 0)

No need to get nasty


Listening comes first
by Moonwood on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 12:26:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If Clinton wins the Democrats lose (none / 0)

Wonder why there is such a difference - hmm - are you telling the truth or did you make it up?


Listening comes first
by Moonwood on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 12:27:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If Clinton wins the Democrats lose (none / 0)

No I didn't make it up. There was a link a while back to the stats. I'll see if I can find it.

I'm not being nasty. I'm just stating facts.


No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!
by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 12:51:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If Clinton wins the Democrats lose (none / 0)

That is true, although that poll is the exception for now. In most, Clinton's negatives are far higher.


by animated on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 01:03:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If Clinton wins the Democrats lose (none / 0)

Here you go:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_c ontent/politics/election_20082/2008_pres idential_election/as_campaign_season_beg ins_only_one_presidential_candidate_is_v iewed_favorably_by_majority_of_voters

And its more recent than the Gallup.


No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!
by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 12:55:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If Clinton wins the Democrats lose (none / 0)

But the fact of the matter is, Obama's negatives are way different than Clinton's negatives.  You can't argue that, either.


by Big Haircut on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 12:53:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If Clinton wins the Democrats lose (none / 0)

Here:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_c ontent/politics/election_20082/2008_pres idential_election/as_campaign_season_beg ins_only_one_presidential_candidate_is_v iewed_favorably_by_majority_of_voters
No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!
by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 12:54:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If Clinton wins the Democrats lose (none / 0)

And why do Obama supporters constantly accuse people of making things up or lying? I don't lie or make things up. I don't say it unless I have something to back it up with.


No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!
by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 12:56:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If Clinton wins the Democrats lose (none / 0)

I am not saying you are lying.  Why do you feel the need to throw a tantrum because people don't agree with you!  Just take all the criticism (including mine) with a grain of salt and move on.


by Big Haircut on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 01:11:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If Clinton wins the Democrats lose (none / 0)

I'm not throwing a tantrum. Geez, if this is the attitude of Obama and his supporters in the GE then we're in for a whole lot of trouble. And now I understand why those women showed up in droves in NH. Any woman who stands up for herself is now defined as "throwing a tantrum". That patronizing attitude is really going to win you a lot of votes isn't it?


No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!
by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 01:35:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bloomberg polling (2.00 / 1)

Don't forget Ron Paul.

Paul is setting himself up to run as the Libertarian candidate, and the FOX debate debacle probably guaranteed that (thanks FOX!)

McCain, Huckabee and Romney all bug Libertarians (for different reasons) and will lead to Paul getting siginificant Ii.e. 4-7%) support that comes exclusively from the wingnut base.  (Not many people who would consider a vote for Paul would consider a vote for Obama or Hillary).  


Would you hire George W Bush to be YOUR latex salesman?
by jgkojak on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 11:09:45 AM EST

Ron Paul's max support (none / 0)

I'm thinking Ron Paul has a ceiling of 4% in the general election.

But Paul running will cause the media to cover Cynthia McKinney more. And if HRC is the nominee, McKinney will get significant numbers of votes.


Rrrinnggg... Time to change the government.
by Carl Nyberg on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 11:40:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ron Paul's max support (none / 0)

Don't bet on McKinney getting many votes. She'll say something that will kill her candidacy before it even starts. Maybe she'll start slamming Jews like she did before or maybe it'll be something else.


No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!
by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 11:55:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ron Paul's max support (none / 0)

One, it was McKinney's father who slammed Jews, not McKinney.

Two, if Democrats and AIPAC think equating anti-semitism with McKinney's critique of U.S. Israel policy is going to undermine her support, they are playing a very dangerous game.

I predict HRC will ignore McKinney as much as possible. Obama may try to negotiate a deal that keeps the Greens from campaigning in key states.


Rrrinnggg... Time to change the government.
by Carl Nyberg on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 12:02:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ron Paul's max support (none / 0)

You haven't been around McKinney much have you? Whatever, she's been in GA politics for quite a while and I'm sure the rest of the country will learn about her antics if she runs for President. Her own constituents had to go to John Lewis to get help with their problems. Thank heavens his staff was gracious enough to do what was needed. There's a reason she was kicked out other than her silly statements.


No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!
by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 12:59:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

this is a scenario I thought of (none / 0)

If Huckabee got the GOP nomination, the establishment GOP might try to run Bloomberg in some states and Huckabee in other states.

If Bloomberg and Huck combined got enough electoral votes, maybe they could sorta force Huck to take VP in the Electoral College.


Rrrinnggg... Time to change the government.
by Carl Nyberg on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 11:38:15 AM EST

Re: this is a scenario I thought of (none / 0)

Bloomberg isn't going to actually WIN any states.  The damage he could do is change the dynamic in certain states.


NJ Hussein Independent
by NJIndependent on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 11:57:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: this is a scenario I thought of (none / 0)

Hmmm... It doesn't matter if Bloomberg will win states. It matters if he can be persuaded that he has a chance of winning states.


Rrrinnggg... Time to change the government.
by Carl Nyberg on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 12:04:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: this is a scenario I thought of (none / 0)

Your whole point about electoral math and Huck taking the VP spot DOES hinge on Bloomberg having electoral votes.  He will not.


NJ Hussein Independent
by NJIndependent on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 12:15:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: this is a scenario I thought of (none / 0)

People attempt plans that don't work.

I'm not saying it's likely. I'm definitely not saying it will work.

It's theoretically possible. I don't know if Bloomberg can be sold on it, but it's possible. It doesn't seem more far fetched than any other strategy Bloomberg might try. All scenarios seem doomed to failure and humiliation to me.


Rrrinnggg... Time to change the government.
by Carl Nyberg on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 12:19:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bloomberg Is A Complete Ass (none / 0)

I just find this whole notion completely OFFENSIVE. Michael Bloomberg has the arrogance of the wealthy and thinks he is a viable candidate for PRESIDENT?

First of all, it's patently outrageous that he thinks it's an ETHICAL thing to do, since he owns a media machine.

Second of all, he isn't qualified in the least to be president. He can't even make up his mind whether he's Democrat or Republican.

This is just so freaking offensive. I hope voters in America LAUGH him right out of this vapid, arrogant delusion. It's pathetic.


"I never give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think it's hell." Harry S Truman
by Tennessean on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 11:53:48 AM EST

Re: Bloomberg polling (none / 0)

What if Bloomberg is only on the ballots in a few states if he runs? When would he have to start petitioning to get on the ballot? It seems to me that if he was going to run, he should do so very soon.


No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!
by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 11:57:58 AM EST

Re: Bloomberg polling (none / 0)

I don't see what Bloomberg has to gain with a run...  He certainly can't win.. the best he can hope for is a few electoral votes...  It would take a lot of money on his part and for what?  Rich people don't get rich by throwing money at stupid lost causes...  Yeah, Perot did it... but, Perot was making political waves for at least a decade prior... making a national ass out of himself for a long time...  Bloomberg actually has a reputation to uphold... his business depends on it... Ego aside, why would he run?  It would be a mess for nothing.

Thanks,

Mike


by lordmikethegreat on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 12:15:23 PM EST

Re: Bloomberg polling (none / 0)

Clinton has considerable strength and backing from the very elements that are Bloomberg's base (NY, Wall Street, fiscal moderate/social liberals, those looking for competence). I fail to see what his rationale would be in running against her.

In fact, I fail to see why he would run vs. Obama, who has made such an issue of post-partisanship.

The only candidate that Bloomberg would be sharply different from is Edwards with his anti-corporate, populist positions.

A Huckabee-Bloomberg-Edwards three way battle would be really interesting. That's one I think Bloomberg would have a chance of winning.


by Coral on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 12:25:28 PM EST

Re: Bloomberg polling (none / 0)

Well, but what you're saying is that Bloomberg wouldn't run against Hillary because they're substantively similar, and wouldn't run against Obama because they're rhetorically similar.

You could just as well argue that Bloomberg would run against Hillary because they're rhetorically different, and would run against Obama because they're substantively different.

I personally will have trouble believing this will happen until it actually happens.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 12:28:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'd consider Bloomberg if it were he v. Hillary (none / 0)

Could he be more corrupt and corporately-beholden than Clinton?  Pro-business certainly, but maybe he's genuinely socially liberal, at least, and owes less favors due to his wealth?  

I dont know enough yet.  I'm still hoping for Edwards or Obama.

Nobody can divide like Hillary.  I've been assuming I'd have to vote for her if she gets the nomination, painfully, but Bloomberg might offer me, and the many others like me (progressive, non-Clintonites) an alternative.


by Garret on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 01:11:43 PM EST

Re: I'd consider Bloomberg (none / 0)

For all the rhetoric you guys hurl at Hillary about being a "corpratist" you are going to vote for the ultimate "corpratist"? Oh well.


No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!
by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 01:38:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.