PDA

View Full Version : NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg leaves GOP... running for President as an indy?


jAZ
06-19-2007, 05:09 PM
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1927608620070619

New York City Bloomberg becomes an independent
Tue Jun 19, 2007 6:35PM EDT

NEW YORK (Reuters) - New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg said on Tuesday he was changing his political status to independent from Republican.

"Although my plans for the future haven't changed, I believe this brings my affiliation into alignment with how I have led and will continue to lead our city," said Bloomberg, who has been mentioned as a possible independent candidate for president in 2008 but says he has no plans to run.

Bloomberg, the billionaire founder of financial data and media firm Bloomberg LP, was a Democrat who became a Republican to run for mayor in 2001. He was re-elected as a Republican in 2005 and is barred from seeking a third term in 2009.

jAZ
06-19-2007, 05:12 PM
The NeoCon-less Rudy.

|Zach|
06-19-2007, 05:58 PM
He always seems pragmatic in the way he goes about his business.

jAZ
06-19-2007, 06:10 PM
Have we ever had a Indy Presidential candidate that was a former member of both the Repubilcan and Democratic Parties?

patteeu
06-19-2007, 09:40 PM
The obvious: He has even less chance than Ron Paul to be the next President.

My prediction: If Guilliani is the GOP nominee, Bloomberg would hurt the Republicans and help the dems. If anyone else is the GOP nominee, Bloomberg will hurt the dems.

Pitt Gorilla
06-19-2007, 09:45 PM
I'd take him over Rudy and Hillary. Sign me up.

pikesome
06-19-2007, 09:49 PM
The obvious: He has even less chance than Ron Paul to be the next President.

My prediction: If Guilliani is the GOP nominee, Bloomberg would hurt the Republicans and help the dems. If anyone else is the GOP nominee, Bloomberg will hurt the dems.

At the rate things seem to be going Guilliani's campaign might look like it had a run in with Jon Corzine's motorcade before the nominations come down.

I do agree, in essence, with your point.

Cochise
06-19-2007, 09:50 PM
While Bloomberg has little chance of getting my vote, it sure would be nice if we could advance past the two choices system that has been in place for so long.

jAZ
06-19-2007, 09:53 PM
My prediction: If Guilliani is the GOP nominee, Bloomberg would hurt the Republicans and help the dems. If anyone else is the GOP nominee, Bloomberg will hurt the dems.
The analysis I heard was that his best shot to *win* was a polarized (move to the base) election.... freeing up the center for him.

That would be something like a populist Edwards vs. a Reaganish Thompson.

They also pointed out that if it were Rudy vs Hillary... Bloomberg wouldn't run because he wouldn't do well as the 3rd option from NYC.

They also name-dropped Gore and Hagel as having been meeting with and supportive of Bloomberg.

As patteeu himself advocated (without the specific names)... a Gore-Bloomberg as an Indy ticket with the Bloomberg bankroll might just be unbeatable.
The obvious: He has even less chance than Ron Paul to be the next President.
A billion dollars says that's about the stupidest thing you've ever said... and that's saying something.

jAZ
06-19-2007, 09:57 PM
Oh, and if Obama won the nomination, Bloomberg wouldn't have any room at all to enter because they are both running on much the same "change the discussion" campaign.

patteeu
06-19-2007, 10:49 PM
As patteeu himself advocated (without the specific names)... a Gore-Bloomberg as an Indy ticket with the Bloomberg bankroll might just be unbeatable.

Speaking for myself, I can assure you and everyone else that I've never said any such thing.

What I have said is that a loose spending billionaire running as VP to a charismatic presidential candidate might be the best chance a third party could have at winning a presidential election, but Gore is not the kind of charismatic fellow I had in mind and even if Bloomberg did find a charismatic guy to run with, I think the odds would be stacked against them.

A billion dollars says that's about the stupidest thing you've ever said... and that's saying something.

A billion dollars isn't going to get Bloomberg elected. Sorry.

Direckshun
06-19-2007, 10:57 PM
The obvious: He has even less chance than Ron Paul to be the next President.

My prediction: If Guilliani is the GOP nominee, Bloomberg would hurt the Republicans and help the dems. If anyone else is the GOP nominee, Bloomberg will hurt the dems.
Except for the last part, I was with you.

I think issues-wise, Bloomberg would fare better with liberals than he would with conservatives. But that's the exact opposite of how it's going to play to the average voter.

ClevelandBronco
06-19-2007, 11:29 PM
a Gore-Bloomberg as an Indy ticket with the Bloomberg bankroll might just be unbeatable.

It's just possible that no one would win the majority of electoral votes in that hypothetical.

recxjake
06-19-2007, 11:33 PM
Bloomberg: I Will Not Run For President
The New York Sun did a story on a speech Michael Bloomberg gave at Google headquarters today. In it, Bloomberg gave the usual rant that the political process in America is broken and that Washington can’t get anything done because of partisan bickering, and that sort of thing — causing someone to ask him if he was going to be running for President as an independent. His response:

The public critique of the presidential contest could be part of an effort on Mr. Bloomberg’s part to lay the groundwork for an independent presidential bid. However, he insisted yesterday that he plans to serve as mayor through 2009 and then return to private life.

“I’m not a candidate for president,” Mr. Bloomberg said. “My next career will be in philanthropy. I’ve done the government thing.”

recxjake
06-19-2007, 11:34 PM
The NeoCon-less Rudy.


ROFL....

do some research...

Bloomberg was the biggest RINO is American history... He was a life long Democrat, and switched parties to be the nominee... the Republicans supported him just to keep an (R) in office in New York. He has one major thing going for him $$$. He wouldn't win any states, and by the time the general election is here, people will understand that he is not even close to a Republican and will most likely hurt a Democrat the most... he would be a good liberal alternative to Hillary.

Off the top of my head....

Tax Increaser
Supports Gay Marriage
Supports Massive Gun Control
Supports Illegal Immigrant Rights

Thats just the start...

recxjake
06-19-2007, 11:44 PM
from race42008.com

Who is Michael Bloomberg?

Mayor Bloomberg is an incredibly successful and enormously wealthy businessman (he was ranked as the 44th richest American and 142nd richest person in the world by Forbes magazine) who amassed his fortune with the sale of financial information terminals by the company he founded Bloomberg L.P. He holds a B.S. degree in electrical engineering from Johns Hopkins University, and later went on to receive an MBA from the Harvard Business School.

Mayor Bloomberg is a renowned philanthropist (he has donated nearly $300 million to his alma mater John Hopkins alone). His personal charitable contributions have been calculated to place them in the top ten of all philanthropic endeavors in the entire United States.

But the crucial question here is: what do Americans outside of NYC know of Michael Bloomberg? The answer, according to polling, is almost nothing. So the most important factor to consider in debating the impact of his entry into the 2008 race is what American voters will make of him when his political positions are well-known.

Who is Michael Bloomberg Politically?

The truth regarding Mayor Bloomberg politically is that he is a man of the American Left in the mold of fellow New Yorker Chuck Schumer, and perhaps the truest example of a RINO (Republican In Name Only) that there has ever been.

Michael Bloomberg was a lifelong member of the Democratic Party. When it became clear that he would be unable to win the Democratic nomination for Mayor, he abruptly switched his party affiliation to Republican in order to run in the Republican primary. The Republican party, seeking a better candidate to face a strong Democratic challenge from attorney and public advocate Mark Green, welcomed Michael Bloomberg as the best chance to retain the Mayor’s office. Bloomberg’s background as a successful businessman was particularly appealing in the wake of the rebuilding efforts after 9/11.

But where does he stand on the issues? Let’s review:

Abortion - Pro-Choice and opposes the PBA.

Gun Control - Bloomberg is one of the nation’s foremost advocates of gun control. He is currently the co-chair of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, a group whose proposals critics contend impact legal gun owners far more than they do criminals.

Mayor Bloomberg has drawn the the particular ire of the NRA over his Gun Control tactics in NYC and has sparked protests as far away as Virginia for bringing a lawsuit against two Virginia gun stores (for more on this story, as well as a “gun give away” to raise money for the legal defense fund of the owners of the Virginia gun stores, see here).

Gay Marriage - Favors the legalization of same-sex marriages.

Taxes - Bloomberg’s solution to the fiscal crisis faced by New York City in wake of the 9/11 was to impose billions of dollars in new taxes (a $3.5 billion dollar increase in 2003 alone). Cuts in unnecessary government spending were not on the table.

Personal Freedoms - Mayor Bloomberg may be the foremost “nanny-stater” to hold elected office in the United States. One of the first measures of his administration was the imposition of a smoking ban in NYC’s bars and nightclubs. In June of 2006, NYC became the first municipality to ban the use of trans-fat in city restaurants.

Immigration -Has described border enforcement as “futile” and supports comprehensive immigration reform in the mold of McCain-Kennedy. Bloomberg has issued an executive order to city employees instructing them not to ask or disclose information regarding a person’s immigration status.

In all likelihood, if Mayor Bloomberg were “Senator Bloomberg”, he would have an ACU rating somewhere in the 20’s. When viewed in their entirety, we can see that Bloomberg’s positions are hardly those of a candidate who will reach out to conservative/moderate Independents and conservative Dems.

Worst Case Scenario: Bloomberg 2008 = John Anderson 1980

A Bloomberg 2008 run immediately draws to mind the last time a liberal Republican mounted a serious third-party independent candidacy-Illinois Rep. John Anderson.

Like Bloomberg, Anderson’s run was initially greeted with great enthusiasm and the expectations of having a significant impact on the race.

John Anderson began at over 25% in national polls from the onset of his campaign. However, his support began to drop at a rate of about 1.5% a week-and towards the end, even more.

On election day, Anderson did win 7% of the popular vote, but the diffusion of that 7% over the nation as a whole led Anderson to fail to win even a single precinct in the entire United States. Disappointed in his inability to play even a spoiler role, Anderson became an advocate of Instant Run-Off voting.

Even with his $1 billion, it is difficult to imagine a geographic area that would be particularly receptive to his positions outside of the Democratic strongholds of the Northeast and perhaps the Pacific Northwest. And even there, his ability to defeat the eventual Democratic nominee is difficult to imagine.

Best Case Scenario: Bloomberg 2008 Leads to GOP Landslide

Many people of course would point to Ross Perot’s 1992 Independent run as an example of a worst case scenario (I would argue that Perot only made Bush’s loss worse. However, you can play with the numbers for yourself with Dave Leip’s essential Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections to see if you can reasonably get Bush to 270 electoral votes).

The fallacy in that argument is the assumption that former party affiliation, and not candidate ideology, is the primary factor in voters decision on third-party candidates- (I don’t like my party’s candidate, so I’ll vote for the other candidate from my party in the race.) It seems ludicrous, in my opinion, to assert that someone who decides to defect from one of the two major parties would do so for anything other than ideological preference.

Ross Perot was a lifelong Republican. In the 2008 crop of GOP candidates, Perot would fit comfortably into the Tancredo, Hunter, Buchananite wing of the GOP. So even if we persist with the assumption that Perot cost George H.W. Bush the 1992 election, we are talking about a bird of a different feather in Michael Bloomberg.

A better possibility is for Bloomberg to siphon the votes of Democratic leaning Independents away from the Democratic nominee. Even in a country that is perhaps more receptive than ever for a third-party, it is difficult to imagine rank-and-file Republicans defecting from Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, Mitt Romney, or Fred Thompson to a third-party candidate who is more Dick Durbin than Tom Coburn. The consequence of which in states like MI, OH, MN, WI, FL, MO, AR, OR, and PA (as well as other Northeastern states like NY and NJ depending upon the GOP nominee) should be a cause for excitement, not anxiety, for Republicans.

The key in understanding a Michael Bloomberg presidential run is the fact that he is closer ideologically to Ralph Nader than to H. Ross Perot.

The American electorate is not aware of this yet.

But they will be…

patteeu
06-19-2007, 11:54 PM
Except for the last part, I was with you.

I think issues-wise, Bloomberg would fare better with liberals than he would with conservatives. But that's the exact opposite of how it's going to play to the average voter.

Why do you think that? Just because he had an (R) next to his name for the past few years? Maybe. I would think issues would ultimately matter more than that though and that he'd end up drawing more votes away from the agent-of-change, pro-choice, anti-war candidate than he would from the Republican. Beyond that, I'd think he'd have more of an impact in the blue states than in the red states which would also tend to work against the dems.

Logical
06-20-2007, 12:02 AM
The obvious: He has even less chance than Ron Paul to be the next President.

....Less chance? No one that can spend a billion dollar on his campaign has less chance than Ron Paul, that is not realistic. He probably cannot win but to say he has less chance than Paul strikes me as odd.

patteeu
06-20-2007, 12:09 AM
Less chance? No one that can spend a billion dollar on his campaign has less chance than Ron Paul, that is not realistic. He probably cannot win but to say he has less chance than Paul strikes me as odd.

IMO, no one (currently on the horizon) running as a 3rd party candidate, even Bloomberg with a billion dollars burning a hole in his pocket, has a chance to win. As inconceivable as it is to me that Paul could win, at least he's running for the nomination of a major party.

oldandslow
06-20-2007, 07:44 AM
ROFL....

do some research...

Bloomberg was the biggest RINO is American history... He was a life long Democrat, and switched parties to be the nominee... the Republicans supported him just to keep an (R) in office in New York. He has one major thing going for him $$$. He wouldn't win any states, and by the time the general election is here, people will understand that he is not even close to a Republican and will most likely hurt a Democrat the most... he would be a good liberal alternative to Hillary.

Off the top of my head....

Tax Increaser
Supports Gay Marriage
Supports Massive Gun Control
Supports Illegal Immigrant Rights

Thats just the start...

So what you are saying is that we have a Rudy G. clone :)

jAZ
06-20-2007, 08:10 AM
IMO, no one (currently on the horizon) running as a 3rd party candidate, even Bloomberg with a billion dollars burning a hole in his pocket, has a chance to win. As inconceivable as it is to me that Paul could win, at least he's running for the nomination of a major party.
Seriously, just admit it was a stupid bit of hyperbole and move on.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-20-2007, 08:22 AM
Haven't we already had this discussion?

jAZ
06-20-2007, 08:49 AM
Speaking for myself, I can assure you and everyone else that I've never said any such thing.

What I have said is that a loose spending billionaire running as VP to a charismatic presidential candidate might be the best chance a third party could have at winning a presidential election, but Gore is not the kind of charismatic fellow I had in mind and even if Bloomberg did find a charismatic guy to run with, I think the odds would be stacked against them.
What you said, and what you are saying here are both "such a thing" and what I was refering to. Your clarification here is helpful though.

patteeu
06-20-2007, 11:32 AM
What you said, and what you are saying here are both "such a thing" and what I was refering to.

I disagree.

Your clarification here is helpful though.

I agree.

patteeu
06-20-2007, 11:33 AM
Seriously, just admit it was a stupid bit of hyperbole and move on.

Seriously, you should just admit that I'm right.

jAZ
06-20-2007, 11:43 AM
I disagree.
You can disagree that it was "such a thing", but it was in fact exactly what I was refering to.

patteeu
06-20-2007, 03:36 PM
You can disagree that it was "such a thing", but it was in fact exactly what I was refering to.

It may well have been what you were referring to, but it was a gross mischaracterization and therefore was not "such a thing."

Adept Havelock
06-20-2007, 03:57 PM
Ohh! A "Was Not, Was too!" fight![/grabs popcorn]

mlyonsd
06-20-2007, 04:28 PM
Wouldn't it be ironic if another Clinton was voted into the presidency primarily because of a third party candidate was in the race?