The Michael Bloomberg Thread

[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.

 

[Lightning Strykez!]

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

 

[The Senator]

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

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-****ing.

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.

 

[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.

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...yor_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

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.