Another step taken to further complicate the campaign; a draft Bloomberg effort was started by former Republican and Democratic operators; http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/151f8a8a-c3ba-11dc-b083-0000779fd2ac.html I have no idea about where he would stand on issues but I like the idea of an independant who is wealthy enough that he doesn't have to play to the traditional monied power sources of either party. Although he is a lot like various candidates at this point....he has been divorced, he can be attacked for switching positions in that he has been registered as both a Democrat and a Republican. On a more serious point, I saw an editorial by some guy who had worked for Bloomberg prior to his having originally announced to run for Mayor of NYC. This guy acknowledged that many months before Bloomberg announced he had hired a staff that researched the viability of a campaign. I suspect Bloomberg is doing the same thing now with regard to a possible campaign for the Presidency. And then on a lighter note.....suppose Giulani and Clinton get the Republican and Democratic nominations of their respective parties and Bloomberg runs as an independant. Three New Yorkers running for President. (course you could say Hillary is from NY, Illinois, Arkansas--whereever) If that were to happen I think the country would revert to its pre 9/11 perspective....which was....."We hate New York"
Bloomberg is interesting, but only as a spoiler. His positions are fairly centrist, which means that there won't be a lot of differentiation between him and the other candidates. And of course, he stands no chance of actually winning, and with so many people voting either partisan, or based on electability, it's kinda a non-starter for a serious campaign. He will definitely suffer because outside the Beltway and North East Coast, his profile is pretty low, while the DNC and RNC candidates have been building a national campaign for a long time. Also, 10% nationally is required to participate in the debates, which are run by a private group. Maybe it's 15%. That's how they kept Nader off the stage. Unfortunately, our democratic system is not very democratic.
I agree with this part. And I do like Bloomberg, BUT... I'm not really going to think about it too much just yet. If Clinton is the Dem. nominee then depending on where Bloomberg comes out on the issues I may end up supporting him in the general election. He's a good mayor. But he's not someone who I would say is particularly strong on civil liberties, which is a big issue of mine so I'm not enthusiastic about him.
Spoiler? Like RP like RP voting based on electability--sort of like RP low profile..sorta like RP before the internet craze Has some of the same hurdles as RP, doesn't he?
Well, there is a difference. 1. What is Bloomberg's ideology? What is his platform? What is his legislative history? Since we're so into this stuff, what is his personal history? Who is endorsing him? 2. RP is definitely not a centrist. 3. Electability is the dumbing down of the process. To be honest, I would support Bloomberg, in an absence of Paul or a better match for my issues, just to see that damn 2 party system broken. It's like communist Russia. You have Statist A or Statist B. 4. Bloomberg does have an advantage because he won't get the CFR media snub treatment that Paul did. Most of the people assembling around him are CFR members, so he should get enough media attention to actually be a fairly well known candidate nationally, as well as leveraging his personal wealth into an aggressive national campaign. 5. There are some similarities, but I'd hesitate to put them too close. The challenges are very different. Where Bloomberg has money, Paul has grassroots. Where Bloomberg would likely run independent, Paul has opportunities with the Constitution and Libertarian Parties. I'd say that Bloomberg's opportunity to get into debates would be much greater than Paul's.
I know...I was yanking your chain. 1. ideology...I have no idea...didn't I reference that above? personal history? I got this strong strong feeling you won't find writings under his name as with RP. endorsement? I suspect they'll come from a mixture of dems and repubs that are out office and fed up with the partisanship in congress. He attended a meeting of such people in Oklahoma City (I think) where some people (who once had power and prominance) were similarly in attendance. 2. Oh definitely. Where Paul has uniquely radical ideas....and has been prominant at times as the lone voter on various bills, it would seem Bloomberg would approach problems from a very centrist perspective dramatically different than does RP. 3. Hm....I've liked independants and independant types too often. They typically don't do well in terms of electability. In one regard he is most like Ross Perot in that he has bucket loads of money and can advertise like crazy should he decide to do so. 4. hm...I don't even know what CFR is...and am too lazy at the moment to look it up. 5. Similarities with RP? yeah they both (should Bloomberg run) will/are attack/attacking the status quo. and as for getting into debates....if they don't let Bloomberg in he can afford to buy the debate hall...... Past experience, from what I read, is that Bloomberg approached running for mayor of New York in a similar manner, having a staff that studied this for months prior to doing so. I don't have any feel for his policy comments on national affairs going forward. But after all P&R needs a new guy to talk about
I know. It's a lonely thread though, and I would rather talk about Bloomberg than Huckabee. Agreed. A Ron Paul hate/love echo chamber sucks. CFR = Council on Foreign Relations The last nominee that was not CFR that I can remember was Barry Goldwater. I cannot remember the last President we have had that was not CFR.