Michael Bloomberg is considered a liberal.

[kentuck]

As are all the Democratic candidates, whether true or not. If one liberal runs against another liberal, they will split the vote. If one runs as an Independent, he/she will take votes away from the other and the conservative will dance into the White House. Just my opinion.

[Warren Stupidity]

1. Bloomberg will run from the middle.

And will draw votes, as Perot did, as Anderson did, from both sides in approximately equal numbers. Unless he outright wins, which is very unlikely, such a third party candidacy basically has little or no effect on the utcome on the election. If Bloomber ran from the left as Nader did he might affect the outcome, but that is as unlikely as his running from the right.

[kentuck]

2. So, why gamble?

Why would he even run?

[Meshuga]

3. If he runs he has no chance of winning. What does he have to offer?

Unless he wants to play as spoiler. He would take more democratic votes since he is viewed as a liberal.

[Warren Stupidity]

5. Once again: he will run from the middle.

He will not take Republican or Democratic voters in any significant numbers: those voters rarely if ever do anything other than vote their party. It is the swing voters who can be persuaded, the independents. Consider DU - solid Democratic voters, 99% of them will vote and vote for the Democratic candidate. Consider that other site - solid reknucklian voters, 99% of them will vote if they can figure out how to get to the polls and will vote for the reknucklian candidate if they can read the ballot. Bloomberg might take more of the D-leaning independents than the R-leaning independents, but I don't see it that way. Rather a Bloomberg candidacy is more likely to draw disaffected R-leaning independents who are disgusted with the last 8 years of reknucklian misrule but are not happy about voting D. The D-leaning independents, also disgusted with the reknucklian disaster, have no such qualms about pulling the D switch.

[Meshuga]

7. I sure hope that is the case

With the past two elections being so close I fear any high profile candidate coming in spoiling it for us. But when you stop to think about it, who is going to vote for some filthy rich robber baron who has nothing to offer?

[Mother Of Four]

8. If nothing else...Bloom is an incredible businessman.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2004116109_apbloomberg200809.html

Right now they are doing heavy duty research, the same thing he did before expanding his "Market". He's testing the waters to see if an independent bid would be viable in the USA. It's called "Microtargeting"

He doesn't want to run if he can't succeed.

The variables are this...

Who wins either of the two parties noms.

This is what *I* think is going to happen -

If Hillary wins, unless something happens to where she can spank the R side resoundingly...He'll run
If Obama wins, he may or may not run depending on the R nom
If Edwards wins, I doubt he'll run...because in every "Market" study...(Polls) Edwards is spanking them all D vs R

He runs on Data, it's why he's worth 11.5 billion dollars. He never makes an "Uninformed" decision.

I'd be seriously afraid for the D's winning the whitehouse if he ran.

[last_texas_dem]

4. I would tend to agree

I do recall, however, some polls from back during the summer in which, when Bloomberg was included in the race against various Democratic and Repug candidates, he actually took away more from the Repugs. It surprised me at the time and I still find it kind of difficult to believe. Perhaps he appeals to 'pugs who don't like the R's continually sucking up to the religious right and just think, "Hey, Bloomberg's a rich businessman and ran as a Republican; he must be on my side." However, I have a feeling that a national campaign would bring more of his positions to light and would substantially decrease his support among Repugs.

[Deja Q]

6. Well, that explains Perot in 1992...

:yoiks:

[antiimperialist]

9. Then why polls are showing that he helps the Democratic candidate, whoever he/she is?

That's something you conveniently ignore.
He supported the Iraq war by the way.

[madville]

10. His positions are very similar to the top Democrats

The fact that he registered as a Republican to avoid the Democratic primary (he was a Democrat all his life until then)is not on most peoples' radar, they might remember him dropping the Republican party a year ago though. He is pro-choice, very anti-gun, for gay rights, supports stemcell research, he has generally supported the Iraq war.

He is very similar to Hillary Clinton and Obama on most issues and Rudy isn't that far away from them either.

He is liberal on most of the popular issues and seems to have a pretty good fiscal record with the budget in New York. He could be dangerous to our nominee if he gets on the ticket and people actually pay attention to his platform.

[antiimperialist]

14. What if people learn that he supported Bush and the war in Iraq in '04?

To tell people he believes in global warming won't cut it. Iraq and the Economy are the top issues.

[malachibk]

11. Socially he is a liberal

Pro-choice, pro-gay rights (though I think his flirtation with the Presidency has sadly prevented him from going further in NYC), pro-immigration. In many ways he's further to the left than any of the 3 main Dem candidates. AND he's not beholden to any special interests 'cause he's wealthier than...well, almost anyone.

If he picks a liberal-ish VP this NYCer will have a difficult decision to make.

If we want to prevent a Republican from dancing into the WH we should pick candidates that assure liberals like me are enthusiastic to vote for them.

[denem]

13. He 's DLC , Bloomberg out DLC's the DLC

His economics are Wall Street full on free trade. His foreign policy is basically Lieberman's: Israel first, and any neocon adventure necessary to secure it. He famously said that the Iraq war started on 9/11 at ground zero. Does this sound like a big Dem voter winner to you?

[malachibk]

16. Nope. And that's my sort of my point.

He's totally DLC. And so are HRC and BO. But when it comes to social issues and lobbyist $$ Bloomberg is better. That's what makes the choice so difficult for me. Of the "big 3" I'd vote JE over Bloomberg but it's doubtful he'll be the nominee.

[denem]

12. If Edwards wins Bloomberg will run

The guy is corporate central. He is talking a unity ticket, the very opposite of Edwards' fight them and beat them rhetoric. But more than anything else, Bloomberg is small government and pro choice. If he sees an opportunity to split the business wing of the Republican party away from the Evangelical base, he will go for it IMHO - and I don't think he wouldhave that much trouble dealing with Rupert to help him. Rupert is (of all things) a Roman Catholic who likes power, a lot.

[TwilightGardener]

15. He'll take a more-conservative VP, to draw from the R side, is my guess.

He's not going to run as a replacement Dem.