The Michael Bloomberg Thread

[Malice]

Anyone know his platform?
Assuming he ran, what has he done and what would he try to do if he ran...you can guess even if he hasnt come out with it by past work done.

[EdRyder]

Wishy washy as everyone elses???

[Malice]

Wishy washy as everyone elses???

You are so damn helpful

[The Senator]

He supports same-sex marriage, amnesty for illegal immigrants, universal health care, and strict gun control. He's adamantly pro-choice, agrees with the fundamentals of the Iraq War even though he thinks the United States screwed up their strategy in the long run, and is fiscally conservative to a degree.

In other words, he's more Nader than Perot.

[EdRyder]

Shame me into posting substance eh...
You know what I meant.
"Im a Democrat".
"Im a Republican"
"Im an Independent".
Then later on it'l be
"Im a little teapot".

You wrote-"You can guess by his past work".I say Its almost impossible to decipher him anymore.
The guy raised property taxes and chastised this administration for offering that rebate check.
He supports gay marriage and is anti death penalty.
All in all, a man far to complicated for one word slogan campaigns

[EdRyder]

Look i found an article from NPR (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18518874)

See I can be helpful

[The Senator]

Shame me into posting substance eh...
You know what I meant.
"Im a Democrat".
"Im a Republican"
"Im an Independent".
Then later on it'l be
"Im a little teapot".

You wrote-"You can guess by his past work".I say Its almost impossible to decipher him anymore.
The guy raised property taxes and chastised this administration for offering that rebate check.
He supports gay marriage and is anti death penalty.
All in all, a man far to complicated for one word slogan campaigns

Michael Bloomberg is a better politician than anyone currently seeking the Presidency. He didn't want to deal with the nonsense of New York City politics, so he dropped his lifelong affiliation with the Democratic Party so he could run for Mayor as a Republican. Then he got sick and tired of the labels associated with the Republicans, and because the Democrats basically abandoned him when he jumped ship, he decided not to affiliate himself with a political party.

The man is very, very smart. You have to be to essentially go from nothing to billions virtually over night. He's a dedicated philanthropist, an excellent businessman, and he's transformed NYC into a respectable city again. Last year, NYC had the lowest crime rate in 40 years. The city's economic growth is back on track, and he's successfully led NYC out of the uncertainty which followed 9/11.

Bashing him because he isn't teh Obama is stupid and uninformed, and if he ran against Obama, I'd cast my ballot for Bloomberg.

[Malice]

He supports same-sex marriage, amnesty for illegal immigrants, universal health care, and strict gun control. He's adamantly pro-life, agrees with the fundamentals of the Iraq War even though he thinks the United States screwed up their strategy in the long run, and is fiscally conservative to a degree.

In other words, he's more Nader than Perot.

Assuming you got it all correct...

same-sex marriage - ok with
amnesty for illegal immigrants - against adamantly
universal health care - against
strict gun control - against adamantly
pro-life - ok with
War- ok with

[EdRyder]

Michael Bloomberg is a better politician than anyone currently seeking the Presidency. He didn't want to deal with the nonsense of New York City politics, so he dropped his lifelong affiliation with the Democratic Party so he could run for Mayor as a Republican. Then he got sick and tired of the labels associated with the Republicans, and because the Democrats basically abandoned him when he jumped ship, he decided not to affiliate himself with a political party.

The man is very, very smart. You have to be to essentially go from nothing to billions virtually over night. He's a dedicated philanthropist, an excellent businessman, and he's transformed NYC into a respectable city again. Last year, NYC had the lowest crime rate in 40 years. The city's economic growth is back on track, and he's successfully led NYC out of the uncertainty which followed 9/11.

Bashing him because he isn't teh Obama is stupid and uninformed, and if he ran against Obama, I'd cast my ballot for Bloomberg.

I bashed him because hes not "teh Obama"?

It was stupid and uninformed of you to even make such a statement

[The Senator]

OOPS! Bloomberg is adamantly Pro-Choice, not pro-life. My bad.

[StorminNorman]

With McCain as the candidate for the GOP - there is no way Bloomberg can enter this election.

He has no base to appeal to.

[Matt]

I'm not sure about that Norman. While he is socially liberal and also pro-war, he is also very fiscally conservative and can play that to his advantage.

[EdRyder]

With McCain as the candidate for the GOP - there is no way Bloomberg can enter this election.

He has no base to appeal to.

Id question that.
Look how tight Florida was..,wheres the base that McCain appeals to?

[The Senator]

Id question that.
Look how tight Florida was..,wheres the base that McCain appeals to?

The left-leaning Republicans who want to vote for anyone but Clinton or Obama, the Republicans who support the war in Iraq, the Republicans who support McCain's immigration policy...

Basically, Republicans who like McCain are McCain's base.

[Raiden]

I'm not sure about that Norman. While he is socially liberal and also pro-war, he is also very fiscally conservative and can play that to his advantage.

I agree. If Bloomberg does run, I think he'd give both parties' candidates a run for their money. Whether he will win, though, is another question.

[Matt]

Of course he will not win. But he could put up pretty good numbers for a third party. I mean, think about it...a third party candidate who appeals to BOTH sides (Unlike Nader who only appeals to the extreme left and Perot who only appeals to the far right) and unlike most third parties, also has limitless funds. He could put up huge numbers.

[EdRyder]

The left-leaning Republicans who want to vote for anyone but Clinton or Obama, the Republicans who support the war in Iraq, the Republicans who support McCain's immigration policy...

Basically, Republicans who like McCain are McCain's base.

You think his base is the "blind party allegiance crowd"?
For a man who doesn't practice blind party allegiance himself?...
(one of the few things I actually like about McCain)

[The Senator]

You think his base is the "blind party allegiance crowd"?
For a man who doesn't practice blind party allegiance himself?...
(one of the few things I actually like about McCain)

Did I say that? I said his base were the people who like McCain and would vote for McCain. I used the Republicans in Florida as a lead in.

And yes, there is blind party allegiance with McCain. I know a few strong Republicans who supported Huckabee, Giuliani and Thompson, but switched over to McCain after it appeared he was likely to become the next nominee. There are people who will vote for McCain simply because he is a Republican. The Republicans who won't vote for him are the conservative extremists who hate him because he won't equate gay sex to man-on-dog sex or doesn't support torturing our enemies or doesn't support gunning down the entire Hispanic population because of a few illegal immigrants. But because the Republican party has been hijacked, actual Republicans have been silenced in favor of ideologues like Rush Limbaugh and Rick Santorum. And because they're the most vocal, and say the most outrageous things, they automatically become the voice of the party, which is stupid.

It looks like the Republicans are taking back their party, and I have a feeling 80% of the Republican Party-- if not more-- will support McCain in the general election.

[EdRyder]

Dude ,what crawled in your butt today? It was a simple question.I think you're reading a tone in my posts that isnt there.

As for the "Republicans taking back their party " quote-The turnout for Super Tuesday would say different.

[The Senator]

As for the "Republicans taking back their party " quote-The turnout for Super Tuesday would say different.

It doesn't matter how many people voted in the primary. It matters which percentage of voters voted for whom. In this case, 52% of Republicans who voted for McCain did not identify themselves as conservatives. I think that says something substantial about which direction the GOP is going in.

[EdRyder]

Ok but,Republican conservatives are the traditional 'base'.
Again,There is no 'Base' for McCain.
If you want to say he creates his own base"People who like McCain and would vote for McCain",..have at it.Taking back the party and recreating the party are two different things.

Im pretty sure StorminNormin meant the traditional meaning of the phrase 'base' when he said it.

[The Senator]

Ok but,Republican conservatives are the traditional 'base'.
Again,There is no 'Base' for McCain.
If you want to say he creates his own base"People who like McCain and would vote for McCain",..have at it.Taking back the party and recreating the party are two different things.

Im pretty sure StorminNormin meant the traditional meaning of the phrase 'base' when he said it.

You misread what I said. I said the party was hijacked by Christian Conservatives, and it has been under their control for the past eight years. The last real Republican who received his party's nomination for President was Bob Dole.

Republicans support limited government, lower taxes, and a strong national defense, among other things. They don't support tacking the Bible on to the Bill of Rights, going to the border and shooting illegal immigrants, or oppressing homosexuals solely on the merit of religious beliefs. Certainly, religion has played a role in Presidential administrations, but Christian voters have not been the sole target demographic of the Republican Party until recently. Catering to one demographic doesn't work alone (the fact that Bush was a strong Christian didn't get him elected; it was his status as a strong leader). John McCain is bringing the party back to where it was in the 1980s and 1990s-- and that's where the true base of the party lies.

[EdRyder]

You misread what I said. I said the party was hijacked by Christian Conservatives, and it has been under their control for the past eight years. The last real Republican who received his party's nomination for President was Bob Dole.

Republicans support limited government, lower taxes, and a strong national defense, among other things. They don't support tacking the Bible on to the Bill of Rights, going to the border and shooting illegal immigrants, or oppressing homosexuals solely on the merit of religious beliefs. Certainly, religion has played a role in Presidential administrations, but Christian voters have not been the sole target demographic of the Republican Party until recently. Catering to one demographic doesn't work alone (the fact that Bush was a strong Christian didn't get him elected; it was his status as a strong leader). John McCain is bringing the party back to where it was in the 1980s and 1990s-- and that's where the true base of the party lies.


Making a play for the 80's base of consevatives by painting yourself as the "Reagan candidate" and at the same time trying to spin it as if "Reagan wasnt all that Conservative anyway"..It defies logic itself.

You brought up Christian conservatives as Bush's base.But he makes appeals to them as well.Claiming that somehow all the sneak attack, black baby, Karl Rove bs was somehow the fault of his own campaign.

I give him the credit for being able to scrape up voters outside the traditional base but,he cant keep reconfiguring himself as a different McCain of 2000.My memory is still good.

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a43/fightthefuture/mccain.jpg

When you have to keep reminding your own party that you are a republican something isnt right.

[The Senator]

Making a play for the 80's base of consevatives by painting yourself as the "Reagan candidate" and at the same time trying to spin it as if "Reagan wasnt all that Conservative anyway"..It defies logic itself.

You brought up Christian conservatives as Bush's base.But he makes appeals to them as well.Claiming that somehow all the sneak attack, black baby, Karl Rove bs was somehow the fault of his own campaign.

I give him the credit for being able to scrape up voters outside the traditional base but,he cant keep reconfiguring himself as a different McCain of 2000.My memory is still good.

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a43/fightthefuture/mccain.jpg

When you have to keep reminding your own party that you are a republican something isnt right.

John McCain is more like Reagan than any of the other Republicans who ran. Because of that, he doesn't need to invoke Reagan as some sort of masturbatory messiah like Romney did. So, because McCain didn't remind the Republicans every ten minutes that he worked closely with Reagan's administration, that his policies are very similar to Reagan's, he suffered in the middle of his campaign, and he's currently being forced to suffer at the fatty hands of Rush Limbaugh and other right-wingers.

Now, it's true that he's reconfigured himself to a different version of who he was eight years ago. But hey, that's politics, and obviously it's worked throughout this primary.

[Genesis 1.0]

Bloomberg? Riiiight.

The last third-party candidate who got anywhere near the presidency was Theodore Roosevelt in 1912, and he had been President before. Since then, four third-party candidates have gotten more than 5% of the vote. And each of them had something Bloomberg lacks: a popular issue that the major parties wouldn't touch. In 1924, the gop ran Calvin Coolidge, the most conservative President of the 20th century, and the most boring. But his Democratic opponent, John W. Davis, was pretty conservative too. And so Robert La Follette, the only progressive in the race, won 17% of the vote. In 1968, the Democrats were pro civil rights, and the Republicans were still largely persona non grata below the Mason-Dixon Line. So George Wallace, running against black rioters and white hippies, won five Southern states.

Wallace's slogan was "There's not a dime's worth of difference between the Democrat and Republican parties," if I'm not mistaken. which is pretty much what Ross Perot said in 1992. And on the issues Perot took up—the budget deficit and NAFTA—he had a point. With Americans angry about the economy and angry at Washington, Perot made NAFTA, which both George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton supported, a symbol of the public's discontent. Perot won 19% of the vote, mostly among downscale Republicans and independents who had backed Reagan during the cold war but by then feared Mexico almost as much as they had feared the U.S.S.R.

The third-party candidate with the best chance in 2008 would be a saner Perot. As in 1992, the GOP coalition is cracking along class lines. Many working-class Republicans and independents who backed George W. Bush because he was tough on al-Qaeda now want a President who is tough on globalization. Illegal immigration has supplanted terrorism on the list of concerns for the American right. And at the party's grass roots, voters are turning hard against free trade. Last fall a Wall Street Journal poll found that nearly twice as many Republicans think trade deals hurt as think they help.

John McCain is too pro-immigration for these latter-day Perotistas. And Mitt Romney is too hedge fund. If either of them won the Republican nomination, a souped-up Perot could win over downscale Republicans who like Mike Huckabee's anti-corporate populism. And he might pick up a few John Edwards supporters as well—white male union types who think Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are too pro-immigration and too NPR.

There's a name for this new-model Perot: Lou Dobbs, CNN's red faced, loudmouthed scourge of lawbreaking immigrants and job-shipping CEOs. Bloomberg, by contrast, would be the most pro-immigration, pro--free trade, pro--Wall Street candidate in the race. The third-party candidate he would most resemble is John Anderson, the fiscally responsible, culturally liberal Republican who ran as an Independent in 1980. Anderson won 7% of the vote, mostly among the young, educated and secular. But today those people are partisan Democrats. After Ralph Nader, there's simply no way that liberals are going to take a flyer on a candidate like Bloomberg, who is almost ideologically identical to their nominee but lacks a D next to his name.

Bloomberg has money, but American politics is littered with millionaires who couldn't translate their cash into votes just like Romney. And he has competence, but competence works only when it's connected to a compelling ideological vision. Ask Michael Dukakis.

Heh, Richard Hofstadter compared third parties to bees. They inject a new perspective into the political mainstream, and then they die. If Michael Bloomberg runs for President, he'll skip the first step.

[\S/JcDc\S/]

What an incredible waste of money it would be if he ran.

[The Senator]

What an incredible waste of money it would be if he ran.

What's $500 million of your own money if you have $11.5 billion anyway?

[\S/JcDc\S/]

What's $500 million of your own money if you have $11.5 billion anyway?

An incredible waste of money.

[The Senator]

An incredible waste of money.

Well, God forbid someone runs for President who doesn't belong to the two parties.

[ShadowBoxing]

I think Michael Bloomberg needs to take a page from ole' JLU Lex Luthor's handbook: "President? Do you know how much power I'd have to give up to be President?"

[The Senator]

I think Michael Bloomberg needs to take a page from ole' JLU Lex Luthor's handbook: "President? Do you know how much power I'd have to give up to be President?"

Well, his term as Mayor will be up in two years anyway, so he doesn't have anything to lose except $500 million he doesn't have use for. If I had that much money, I'd run, even if I was to end up a fringe candidate.

[StorminNorman]

I'm not sure about that Norman. While he is socially liberal and also pro-war, he is also very fiscally conservative and can play that to his advantage.

Most moderate democrats that would consider voting for a pro-war candidate would vote for McCain - the Primaries have shown that.

The moderate Republicans LOVE McCain - the Primaries have shown that.

The Conservatives of the Republican party can live with McCain - the Primaries have shown that.

The Hard Core Conservatives hate McCain - but they are not going to support a candidate that is even MORE liberal than McCain.

There is NO Appeal what so ever for a Bloomberg candidacy with McCain as the GOP choice.

McCains two glaring weaknesses (amongst Republican voters) are:
Immigration - Bloomberg wants Amnesty...
and
Party Loyalty - Bloomberg...would be running third party.

If Thompson was the GOP choice - Bloomberg had a shot.
If Mitt Romney was the GOP choice - Bloomberg MAY have a shot.
If McCain drops dead and Huckabee is the GOP choice - Romneys face will be so red! - AND Bloomberg MAY have a shot.

But with McCain Bloomberg has no appeal - I think even the majority of New Yorker's have said they wouldn't support him as President...

[The Senator]

From MSNBC:


Bloomberg: I won't Run
NEW YORK - After two years of playing coy about his presidential ambitions, Mayor Michael Bloomberg declared in a newspaper editorial Wednesday that he will not run for president as an independent and said he might support the candidate who "takes an independent, nonpartisan approach."

The 66-year-old billionaire businessman, who aides had said was prepared to spend $1 billion on his own independent campaign, wrote in an opinion column posted on the New York Times' Web site that he will be working to "steer the national conversation away from partisanship and toward unity; away from ideology and toward common sense; away from sound bites and toward substance."

Bloomberg, who has almost two years left in his second term at City Hall, had publicly denied any interest in running for president since one of his political advisers first planted the seed more than two years ago.
Story continues below

But his denials grew weaker in recent months as aides and supporters quietly began laying the groundwork for a third-party campaign.

"I listened carefully to those who encouraged me to run, but I am not — and will not be — a candidate for president," he wrote.

Among his biggest obstacles was getting on the ballot, a process that varies wildly from state to state and would have required him to obtain hundreds of thousands of signatures according to a timetable on which the first key date is March 5.

Bloomberg did not say why he had decided not to run and was critical of the Republican and Democratic contenders, saying they appeared afraid to "level with" voters on many important issues such as trade, the environment and immigration.

"I believe that an independent approach to these issues is essential to governing our nation and that an independent can win the presidency," he wrote. "I have watched this campaign unfold, and I am hopeful that the current campaigns can rise to the challenge by offering truly independent leadership.

[jaguarr]

He doesn't say anything about a VP slot, though. I wonder if that's by design or just coincidence?

jag

[SuperFerret]

He's been denying it for months, how has this become official all of a sudden?

[The Senator]

He doesn't say anything about a VP slot, though. I wonder if that's by design or just coincidence?

jag

It definitely leaves the door open for a VP slot. It would be a smart move on Obama's behalf, since Bloomberg can basically guarantee him all the money he'll ever need. Of course, Bloomberg doesn't add a whole hell of a lot to the ticket, except managerial experience. But since Obama needs foreign policy experience more than he needs managerial experience, Bloomberg may be out of luck.

[hippie_hunter]

I don't think Obama will need foreign policy experience with a candidate. He played himself very well in last night's debate despite the fact that he acts like a moron in some instances such as wanting to meet Kim Jong Il and Ahmedinijad without conditions.

He needs to focus a lot more things than foreign policy.

[The Senator]

I don't think Obama will need foreign policy experience with a candidate. He played himself very well in last night's debate despite the fact that he acts like a moron in some instances such as wanting to meet Kim Jong Il and Ahmedinijad without conditions.

He needs to focus a lot more things than foreign policy.

I was truly referring to military credentials more than just general knowledge about U.S. foreign policy, which is an area McCain has Obama beat ten-fold. My honest opinion is that Obama's best pick for VP is retired General Anthony Zinni, who is basically the more qualified yet less hyped version of Wesley Clark. But if Obama is looking to sway independents and add executive experience to his ticket more than he is looking to balance it with foreign policy credentials, Bloomberg may be his man.

[The Senator]

He's been denying it for months, how has this become official all of a sudden?

Because while he denied it, he hired consultants and independent organizations to research how viable he would be in a general election campaign for the Presidency. No one does that for the heck of it.

[souvlaki]

I figured he probably would not run if Obama and McCain got the nomination. Nonetheless, I would be thrilled with an Obama/Bloomberg ticket.

[StorminNorman]

Bloomberg is a smart man.

He knew that if McCain was the GOP nominee, there was no demographic he could target.

[rdh007]

It definitely leaves the door open for a VP slot. It would be a smart move on Obama's behalf, since Bloomberg can basically guarantee him all the money he'll ever need. Of course, Bloomberg doesn't add a whole hell of a lot to the ticket, except managerial experience. But since Obama needs foreign policy experience more than he needs managerial experience, Bloomberg may be out of luck.

I agree with all that. If NYC was in the south or the west.

[hippie_hunter]

I was truly referring to military credentials more than just general knowledge about U.S. foreign policy, which is an area McCain has Obama beat ten-fold. My honest opinion is that Obama's best pick for VP is retired General Anthony Zinni, who is basically the more qualified yet less hyped version of Wesley Clark. But if Obama is looking to sway independents and add executive experience to his ticket more than he is looking to balance it with foreign policy credentials, Bloomberg may be his man.

I just can't see Bloomberg working with Obama. I see Bloomberg not running as President as good news for McCain more than him.

[Matt]

Great news for McCain, bad news for the rest of us. A third party candidate with a one billion dollar nation wide campaign would be revolutionary.

[Genesis 1.0]

Bloomberg? Riiiight.

The last third-party candidate who got anywhere near the presidency was Theodore Roosevelt in 1912, and he had been President before. Since then, four third-party candidates have gotten more than 5% of the vote. And each of them had something Bloomberg lacks: a popular issue that the major parties wouldn't touch. In 1924, the gop ran Calvin Coolidge, the most conservative President of the 20th century, and the most boring. But his Democratic opponent, John W. Davis, was pretty conservative too. And so Robert La Follette, the only progressive in the race, won 17% of the vote. In 1968, the Democrats were pro civil rights, and the Republicans were still largely persona non grata below the Mason-Dixon Line. So George Wallace, running against black rioters and white hippies, won five Southern states.

Wallace's slogan was "There's not a dime's worth of difference between the Democrat and Republican parties," if I'm not mistaken. which is pretty much what Ross Perot said in 1992. And on the issues Perot took up—the budget deficit and NAFTA—he had a point. With Americans angry about the economy and angry at Washington, Perot made NAFTA, which both George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton supported, a symbol of the public's discontent. Perot won 19% of the vote, mostly among downscale Republicans and independents who had backed Reagan during the cold war but by then feared Mexico almost as much as they had feared the U.S.S.R.

The third-party candidate with the best chance in 2008 would be a saner Perot. As in 1992, the GOP coalition is cracking along class lines. Many working-class Republicans and independents who backed George W. Bush because he was tough on al-Qaeda now want a President who is tough on globalization. Illegal immigration has supplanted terrorism on the list of concerns for the American right. And at the party's grass roots, voters are turning hard against free trade. Last fall a Wall Street Journal poll found that nearly twice as many Republicans think trade deals hurt as think they help.

John McCain is too pro-immigration for these latter-day Perotistas. And Mitt Romney is too hedge fund. If either of them won the Republican nomination, a souped-up Perot could win over downscale Republicans who like Mike Huckabee's anti-corporate populism. And he might pick up a few John Edwards supporters as well—white male union types who think Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are too pro-immigration and too NPR.

There's a name for this new-model Perot: Lou Dobbs, CNN's red faced, loudmouthed scourge of lawbreaking immigrants and job-shipping CEOs. Bloomberg, by contrast, would be the most pro-immigration, pro--free trade, pro--Wall Street candidate in the race. The third-party candidate he would most resemble is John Anderson, the fiscally responsible, culturally liberal Republican who ran as an Independent in 1980. Anderson won 7% of the vote, mostly among the young, educated and secular. But today those people are partisan Democrats. After Ralph Nader, there's simply no way that liberals are going to take a flyer on a candidate like Bloomberg, who is almost ideologically identical to their nominee but lacks a D next to his name.

Bloomberg has money, but American politics is littered with millionaires who couldn't translate their cash into votes just like Romney. And he has competence, but competence works only when it's connected to a compelling ideological vision. Ask Michael Dukakis.

Heh, Richard Hofstadter compared third parties to bees. They inject a new perspective into the political mainstream, and then they die. If Michael Bloomberg runs for President, he'll skip the first step.

Right on target yet again.:o

[Lightning Strykez!]

I'm not surprised by this outcome. Was anyone else? :confused:

[The Senator]

I'm not surprised by this outcome. Was anyone else? :confused:

Yes.

Bloomberg is an excellent executive who has never confined his ideology to one party or another. He was a true moderate who could appeal to a wide range of independent voters had he entered the race. He had hired consultants and surveyors to run underground operations in all fifty states to see how Bloomberg would affect the race there. He could have dumped $1 billion into an independent bid, making him viable on a national level as well as in every single state-- just as viable as McCain or one of the Democrats could have been, if not more. While his poll numbers were low in a McCain-Hillary-Bloomberg match-up-- 38% McCain, 39% Hillary, 11% Bloomberg-- those numbers never the less showed that he could be a viable threat to either candidate. His recent independent rhetoric, his coyness about a pending presidential bid, and the transformation of Unity 08 into a Draft Bloomberg movement by two prominent Bloomberg operatives hinted that he was seriously considering a Presidential bid. Why he didn't is beyond me.

[jaguarr]

I'm not really very surprised. I never got the sense that he was really serious about it. It just sort of struck me as a "Look at me!" kind of thing the way he went about it, and now with his whole "I'm not going to run, but I'm going to be active in the race." crap it's just more of the same attention-whoring.

jag

[rdh007]

Yes.

Bloomberg is an excellent executive who has never confined his ideology to one party or another. He was a true moderate who could appeal to a wide range of independent voters had he entered the race. He had hired consultants and surveyors to run underground operations in all fifty states to see how Bloomberg would affect the race there. He could have dumped $1 billion into an independent bid, making him viable on a national level as well as in every single state-- just as viable as McCain or one of the Democrats could have been, if not more. While his poll numbers were low in a McCain-Hillary-Bloomberg match-up-- 38% McCain, 39% Hillary, 11% Bloomberg-- those numbers never the less showed that he could be a viable threat to either candidate. His recent independent rhetoric, his coyness about a pending presidential bid, and the transformation of Unity 08 into a Draft Bloomberg movement by two prominent Bloomberg operatives hinted that he was seriously considering a Presidential bid. Why he didn't is beyond me.

Did he do polling and determine he'd lose more money than necessary and probably not win? If I had to guess, that'd be it. I'm alright with the guy and would be open to his candidacy, but I'm probably not the average joe.

[Lightning Strykez!]

Well, maybe he'll be Obama's veeper.

[Raiden]

Well, maybe he'll be Obama's veeper.

That would be an awesome ticket. :word: :up:

[The Senator]

Did he do polling and determine he'd lose more money than necessary and probably not win? If I had to guess, that'd be it. I'm alright with the guy and would be open to his candidacy, but I'm probably not the average joe.

Well, no one knows for sure why he didn't run, but my guess is it had to do more with the likelihood he would lose rather than the amount he'd spend on his campaign. Bloomberg is worth $11.5 billion. Somehow, even if he put in half his net worth on a viable campaign and lost, I don't think he'd miss it much. Especially since he practically gives it away to charities and all that stuff on a daily basis.

[Lightning Strykez!]

That would be an awesome ticket. :word: :up:

Aye, but I have a feeling that Obama is going to bring in a female Veeper. Seriously.

[The Senator]

Aye, but I have a feeling that Obama is going to bring in a female Veeper. Seriously.

His only real option is Gov. Kathleen Sebelius from Kansas, and I don't know what good that would do him considering Kansas hasn't voted for a Democratic Presidential candidate since 1964. Plus, given her post-State of the Union response, she's not the most inspiring politician to come out of the west/ heartland/ South/ whatever region Kansas is in.

[souvlaki]

His only real option is Gov. Kathleen Sebelius from Kansas, and I don't know what good that would do him considering Kansas hasn't voted for a Democratic Presidential candidate since 1964. Plus, given her post-State of the Union response, she's not the most inspiring politician to come out of the west/ heartland/ South/ whatever region Kansas is in.

Actually, a recent poll showed that Kansas may be a swing state if Obama wins the nomination. If she got the VP slot, it may swing his way. Not my top choice for VP, but it would may put Kansas in play for the first time since Johnson.

[Gamma Ray]

Bloomberg would be a good president for repairing the economy. I'm almost sad that he's not running.

[The Senator]

Actually, a recent poll showed that Kansas may be a swing state if Obama wins the nomination. If she got the VP slot, it may swing his way. Not my top choice for VP, but it would may put Kansas in play for the first time since Johnson.

Kansas always votes against its own self interest, in terms of federal elections.

[jaguarr]

http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2008/10/02/2008-10-02_mayor_bloomberg_makes_it_official_im_goi-1.html

Mayor Bloomberg makes it official: I'm going to seek third term

BY CORKY SIEMASZKO
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER
Thursday, October 2nd 2008, 12:02 PM
http://assets.nydailynews.com/img/2008/10/03/amd_bloomberg.jpg Hermann for News Mayor Bloomberg publicly announced that he will run for a third term.


Mayor Bloomberg made it official Thursday - he's running for a third term to rescue the city from the Wall Street crisis.
The billionaire businessman ended months of speculation about his future by declaring his intention to rewrite city rules and "run for reelection."


"I plan to ask New Yorkers to look at my record... and then decide if I've earned another term," Bloomberg said at a City Hall press conference. "I don't want to walk away from the city."
Pitching himself as the most qualified person to lead the city while the markets are melting down, Bloomberg said "today, our nation and our city face unprecedented challenges."
"The consequences for New York City are very real. The $700 billion bailout is not a magic bullet ....this is not the time for fantasy. We may well be on the verge of a meltdown."


Bloomberg said guiding New York through the current crisis "is a challenge I want to take on for the city." He wouldn't say if he'd be run as a Democrat, Republican or Independent.
Asked whether his decision was motivated by ego, Bloomberg said "I don't think so."


Bloomberg has - over the past few months - toyed with the idea of extending term limits, which voters approved by referendum in 1993 and 1996.
Changing the rules through a City Council vote would throw next year's elections into chaos - and probably trigger a legal battle.
If Bloomberg succeeds in getting on the ballot and gets reelected, he'd be the fourth mayor to serve a third term, joining Ed Koch, Fiorello LaGuardia and Robert Wagner.
It would also be a radical reversal of philosophy for Bloomberg, who has stridently opposed overturning term limits and once quipped, "My experience in business has been, whenever we've had somebody who was irreplaceable, their successor invariably did a better job."
Bloomberg insisted he still thinks "term limits is a good idea," but added, "The current law denies voters the right to choose who they want to vote for... the charter allows the council to change the law."
Bloomberg enjoys sky-high approval ratings and his longtime companion, investment banker Diana Taylor, has already given her seal of approval.
His plans to stretch a double term into a triple face fierce opposition from government advocacy groups - not to mention pols who hope to succeed him in 2009.
Also, some trusted members of Bloomberg's inner circle have also raised objections, including deputy mayors Patti Harris, Kevin Sheekey and Ed Skyler.
Bloomberg coped with a similar situation in 2001 when then-Mayor Rudy Giuliani considered staying longer because of the 9/11 attacks.
Giuliani eventually abandoned the idea and endorsed Bloomberg.

I don't care if you love him or hate him, this is wrong, wrong, wrong and I hope he encounters Epic Fail in his quest to change the election and term limit laws just to benefit himself.

jag

[The Senator]

New York City mayors have proven time and time again to be some of the most power-hungry politicians out there. As much as I like him, he really shouldn't do this.

People should look no further than 2001, when Giuliani tried to extend his term three months to deal with the fallout from 9/11. New Yorkers did not appreciate his efforts then, in the face of the worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil... so something tells me New Yorkers will not appreciate Bloomberg's efforts in one of the biggest financial crises to face U.S. markets.

[jaguarr]

Personally, I think both Giuliani and Bloomberg are fascists. Bloomberg fancies himself the Health Police with the bans on smoking and transfat in NYC he's ushered in. He's all about government control of the populace and I have a problem with that.

jag

[jaguarr]

Personally, I think both Giuliani and Bloomberg are fascists. Bloomberg fancies himself the Health Police with the bans on smoking and transfat in NYC he's ushered in. He's all about government control of the populace and I have a problem with that.

jag

[The Senator]

Personally, I think both Giuliani and Bloomberg are fascists. Bloomberg fancies himself the Health Police with the bans on smoking and transfat in NYC he's ushered in. He's all about government control of the populace and I have a problem with that.

jag

I understand transfat bans, as well as banning smoking in public places such as restaurants. I'm not well-versed enough in NYC politics to really know all of his policies; all I know is that this is going to be met with considerable backlash from New Yorkers. There's a reason why those term limit referendums passed. Mayors like Ed Koch were nothing less than monarchs and the city got sick and tired of it. Someone should thank a higher power that Giuliani didn't get re-election; who knows where that city would be right now.

[Raiden]

I don't think Bloomberg will get what he wants. As popular as he is as NYC mayor, New Yorkers won't accept his argument that he needs a 3rd term, just as they did when Giuliani wanted an extension and voters won't let him. It'd be far better if Bloomberg exit in a grace note, instead of power grabbing like this political maneuver.

[jaguarr]

Ehhhh...Bloomie isn't all that popular in NYC, I'm afraid. :o

jag

[MaskedManJRK]

Yeah, if Guianni got no support for his bid to stay on as mayor after a terrorist attack on the city, then I imagine that Bloomberg's going to be laughed and possibily beaten out of the state.

[Superman4ever]

He sounded like dictator. "There are times when you know the job is done...blah, blah I'm a self-important prick..."

[BlackestNight]

Sounds like Bloomberg has a messiah complex (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messiah_complex_(self-concept))

[AllThingsComic]

Bloomberg is pushing the middle class out of New York. You either have to be well off, or below the poverty line to live in this city. I make fairly decent wages, as well as my wife, we can barely make it. We live check to check and are planning on getting the hell outta dodge. Not that I don't love this city, born and raised in Brooklyn and Queens, I just can't afford it.

[Shifty]

Bloomberg is pushing the middle class out of New York. You either have to be well off, or below the poverty line to live in this city. I make fairly decent wages, as well as my wife, we can barely make it. We live check to check and are planning on getting the hell outta dodge. Not that I don't love this city, born and raised in Brooklyn and Queens, I just can't afford it.

That's already happened to London, so no surprise it would happen there.

[AllThingsComic]

It is a damn shame what is going on, i'm sorry to hear that Slinger.