If Bloomberg runs as an indy. The House will decide the next president

[Perky]

Bloomberg is neither Nader or Perot. He is far more credible with moderate voters. If he says we need to get out of the war. There is alot of disaffected republican waiting for some one credible.

I am if Clinton is the nominee. I think we may well wind up with the election being decided in the House. This is not a knock on Hillary. It is simply that she has the most to lose from moderate voters who are fed up with the Repukes.

But the other thing is that this would doom Guiliani because he is a social liberal and a pro-business conservative If the pro business wing of the repukes jump on the Bloomberg bandwagon.... The republican party may become nothing more than the party of the Christian right and while they can not win with just one leg of the Reagan Coalition, they will get a plurality of votes in the south.

If the nominee is Hillary She might finish third in the South. not a problem because she was not going to win anyway down there. but it does likely mean that she would not get a national plurality either. I think that would doom her chances in winning the vote in the House should it come to that. Remember each state gets one vote. But you have to remember that while the SOuth might still vote for the Repuke and Hillary would almost definitely pull the NE. Swing states and states who Delegations are split evenly are going to be war zones.


Remember when SCOTUS ruled that Texas had the right to re-gerrymander whenever it saw fit so long as there was not voting rights issues.... I have not checked lately but state legislatures are about 28-22 Dem at this point, but House delegations are like 22-22-6 So get your thinking caps on ladies and gents. Its game on if Bloomberg gets in.

[Warren DeMontague]

1. And you know why this makes sense? Because NEITHER PARTY is speaking to a vast voting bloc.

And, no, it's not the "values voters". It's the urban, educated, professional, SOCIAL LIBERTARIANS. The people who want Government OUT of the churchin', moralizin', evolution denyin' business. The people who, yes, want some fiscal responsibility from their government- and they know that $400 Billion for Iraq is not "Fiscally responsible". The people who think the drug war is a sham and a waste of time. The people who think what consenting adults read, watch, or do in their own bedrooms is no one else's business, as long as everyone is a consenting adult. The people who were responsible for Terri Schiavo biting the GOP on the ass.

Neither party has succesfully articulated a platform that appeals to the vast "mind your own bid'ness" contingent in this country, choosing instead to trip all over each other going after the Jesus-crazed, church lady, morality police crowd.

[Perky]

3. the biggest reason they pander to the Church crowd is that

the church crowd votes. Dems want to split the voting bloc and repukes want to pander to it and keep them intact.\\You are right but I object to the negative tone. Social libertarians and business-focused individuals (middle mangers and entrepreneurs to be sure) and Goldwater Republicans are all up for grabs if Bloomberg gets in.

[Warren DeMontague]

17. I'm negative because I'm tired of our party tripping all over themselves to woo the "church crowd".

Know why they vote? Because they have at least one political party that actually listens to them- The GOP platform as written for the past several decades, with the HLA plank granting rights under the 14th amendment to fertilized eggs, would not only outlaw all abortion, but most likely outlaw the birth control pill as well. That is MASSIVELY outside of the "mainstream" of opinion in this country. Yet for us to actually advocate a Single Payer Health Care System, or gay marriage, or fact-based sex ed in schools with contraceptive availability, or an immediate end to the Iraq War, or legalization, regulation, and taxation of marijuana- those things are too "wacky", supposedly, for the 'conventional wisdom' pooh-bahs in our party to get behind.

The reason many social libertarians don't get out and vote more is that there's very little for them to vote FOR. Many can't figure out which party wants to run their personal lives less. My point is, there are other blocs besides the "church crowd"- which is not as powerful as some would have you believe- that we could be trying to figure out how to "woo".

[NeedleCast]

23. You are wise

n/t.

[NeedleCast]

12. I don't think I've ever been summed up so aptly

And, no, it's not the "values voters". It's the urban, educated, professional, SOCIAL LIBERTARIANS. The people who want Government OUT of the churchin', moralizin', evolution denyin' business. The people who, yes, want some fiscal responsibility from their government- and they know that $400 Billion for Iraq is not "Fiscally responsible". The people who think the drug war is a sham and a waste of time. The people who think what consenting adults read, watch, or do in their own bedrooms is no one else's business, as long as everyone is a consenting adult. The people who were responsible for Terri Schiavo biting the GOP on the ass.

Oh, hi!

I might actually get to vote for a candidate I like in 2008. Nice.

[qdemn7]

24. Description fits me too....

Except for one thing, you failed to mention and that is the RKBA. I'm profoundly pro-RKBA. Given Bloomberg's current bottom-feeding, shysterizing, scumbag, anti-gun vendetta, I wouldn't vote for him under ANY circumstances.

[Jacobin]

21. Exactly. That appeals to me completely

Thank you for summing it up so well.

:thumbsup:

And if the idiot 'political consultants' that these candidates listen to so intently ever woke up and saw what was right in front of them, they would run away with the WH (although, they would have a difficult time raising money from the military industrial complex, which funds all these crazies, which is the root of the problem)

[bluestateguy]

2. I'm sorry, where is the grass roots clamor for this guy to run?

Is there any grass roots enthusiasm for him outside of Manhattan and newspaper editorial board meetings? I don't care how much money he has, you need support from regular folks to get on the ballot in the states.

This is a silly speculation story and from here on out I am going to do my best to ignore it.

[Perky]

4. He will buy the grassroots

but I think it stems fro a desire for competence and maturity. People are simply leery of trusting any republican who favors the war and any dem who wants to "tax us to death".

They will turn third party if the independent seems credible.

[KoKo]

20. Ross Perot could get the "down home boys" with his Texas thang...

I just don't see Bloomberg picking up votes except in the Northeast and maybe CA...?

[CK_John]

5. I doubt it. He will either flop(8%) or win by a landslide (52%). n/t

[Perky]

8. remember its 51 seperate elections

I am not sure if he gets 8% of the vote in any state that he does not prohibit anyone from getting a straight majority anywhere.

He will pull Republican and Dem votes in the south

Republicans in the midewest and northeast
and Goldwater libertarians in the west.

[tammywammy]

6. What surprises me about this whole Bloomberg business

Is that I was chatting with a co-worker the other day about politics. And he said he wished Bloomberg would run, he'd definitely vote for him. This co-worker has always been a dem voter.

[SaveElmer]

7. FIrst, I don't think Bloomberg will run...and if he does...

He doesn't have a prayer...

I heard the same thing said about John Anderson in 1980...flop city...

I cannot recall a third party candidate in American history getting a significant vote unless they ran as a "protest" candidate...someone pissed off voters could latch onto...

Bloomberg, like Anderson is just not that type of person...

[Perky]

9. There is a differenc

Ross Perot has money but was a fruitcake.

John ANderson, George Wallace and Teddy Roosevelt has limiteed appeal and no money.

[SaveElmer]

10. Teddy Roosevelt came in second...

Behind Wilson...he can be considered a protest candidate when he ran as a Bull Moose

Bloomberg has money, but he is not going to outspend Hillary or Obama...he has limited name recognition outside political circles, and perhaps financial ones...he offers nothing particularly stunning or novel in terms of policy, and is not a particularly dynamic personality...and Democrats in particular won't vote for him....

Outside of DU, the field of Democratic candidates is quite popular...there is no groundswell of support for some better alternative...

On top of this, Bloomberg has been pretty explicit saying he is not gonna run...

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

13. Abraham Lincoln was a 3rd Party candidate.

At the time the two major parties were the Whigs and the Democrats.

[SaveElmer]

14. True...but of course...

The country was in the process of splitting apart, the Whigs had been dying as a party because of this split since 1856...and in reality, it was simply a reworking of existing party affiliations along regional lines (with a root in the slavery debate)...

Since I doubt secession is in our near future, I don't think that Lincoln's election is applicable in this case...

Compliments on the analogy though...my MA is in American History, so when anyone goes back that far to try and find parallels I always applaud the effort!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

18. Perhaps a reworking of party affiliations is in order now.

As I see it, the Republican and Democratic Parties are both playing to the same "moderate", and somewhat mythical, middle. While the left and right and holding their noses and voting for what they see as the "lesser of two evils".

A new "moderate" party could, at least, force the two dominant parties to clarify what they actually stand for, rather than merely contest for the for the mythical "middle".

[GreenPartyVoter]

16. Sh! 3rd party candidates are frowned upon here.

lol

[NYC]

11. Are you talking about Billionaire Bloomberg?

?

[Norquist Nemesis]

28. Not just Billionaire, but was a Democrat then a Republican and

was seen schmoozing with Chuck Hagel for lunch last week. So, he dissed the Dems, tossed the Cons, and is courting a very conservative anti-war war hero. Now, to those billions of dollars going to media ads...fundraising won't be a life-line for him. And no doubt he already has all of the rules and $$$ figures that it takes to get on the ballot of each of the fifty states.

So, I guess it's possible we'll have an actor, a billionaire, and a former first lady in the final three. Could be interesting! Verry, verrrry INter-resting!

[stevedeshazer]

15. Okay, I'm going to go out on a limb here about Bloomberg's chances

Zero.

It does not matter how much money he spends. Outside New York and New Jersey, nobody even knows who he is!

What states would he carry?

Let's go down the list alphabetically:

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas...

Hell, I can't even get past the "A"s and he's already lost, and since there are no "B"s, you get to:

California, yeah like THAT's gonna happen

Connecticut. Well, at least most likely voters have some idea who he is!

See how silly this is?

No way.

[KoKo]

19. The vocal right wing would feel they were thrown under the bus and

the tire tracks went back and forth over their bodies. Would the Repugs chance that? Voting for him in the Southern States and Mid-West Swing states?

[stevedeshazer]

25. I'm not sure what question you're asking me

But Southerners and Midwesterners are very unlikely to support a billionaire New Yorker.

[Jacobin]

22. So, ya think the 'a' states are gonna go for Hillary?

Or the Mormon goodhair guy?

(okay, they'll love Fred Thompson)

[stevedeshazer]

26. Hillary hasn't won the nomination last time I checked

She's raised the most cash, though. :eyes:

[CK_John]

29. Everyone in the "world" who buys or sells stocks know Bloomberg.

His media is considered one the best financial sources in the world. Every financial manager in the US knows Bloomberg and all of their clients. A lot people know Bloomberg. His name recognition it right up there with Paris Hilton.

[Kazak]

27. You've got it all figured out, eh?

Me too, Gore skates in, Bloomberg or no.