Bloomberg. Got a shot?

[brekk]

Since there's a rather large thread about Ron Paul, lets see the samething about Bloomberg.

He just seperated himself from the GOP and is now officially an independent.

I was watching some political pundits today on CNN, MSNBC, etc. and they were talking about in the current climate if he does end up running he will have the best shot an independent has ever had. Neither party has any serious leaders right now. (GOP has Giuliaananai at 29%, and Dems have Hilary at about the same I believe) Many people in both parties are looking more towards the middle ground for candidates, and I think if he runs his campaign well and pushes certain issues with people each of party he could have a shot.

Being a multibillionaire will also help, as he can run his campaign and even flaunt his lack of collecting campaign funds in order to support certain groups causes. A politician who doesn't want/need the financial backing of lobbyists could be a scary/powerful thing.

Personally, if he does end up running I would right now put him as most likely to get my vote.

[Millie]

I'd vote for him in a split second if he ran.

Do I think he has a shot in hell? Probably not.

[Menoz]

What are his views?

[Aulirophile]

I'm told he doesn't have a chance in hell. :-\

Political conversations on forums are so bizarre to me. I'm too busy to keep up with politics just now but my Mother is a regular columnist for a few newspapers on politics and has her own radio show, so she knows everything. My boss is a big Ron Paul supporter, one of his regional orginizers is borrowing my boss's old laptop and I know the woman looking after his kids on the campaign trail.

The point being that when conversations like this come up I just pass along opinions of people who know, vastly, more then I do without knowing why such things are true. So don't flame me for saying he doesn't have a chance in hell without posting any reasons, if I knew/remembered the reasons I'd post them.

[krozman]

Since i'm a self proclaimed political expert, i'll tell you exactly what will happen.

He will wait until the primary candidates are selected, and based upon his ability to compete against those specifically, he will decide to run or not.

For example, if the nominations are Hillary Clinton (D) and Rudy Guliani (R), he will probably run, because he knows that he can compete for New York electoral votes (the idea of 3 new yorkers gunning for president should scare us all fyi), will take votes away from the Clinton base, and plenty more from the Republican base angry about Guliani's social policy issues.

If the republican nominations go the way of Romney or Thompson (even though he's not officially in the race), Bloomburg's chances of taking votes away from the base diminishes (although with Romney's flip flopping he might do it anyway).

If he runs, This is basically going to be a clinic on "what ross perot should have done." He probably will spend as much money as it takes, upwards of $500 million, and he wont constantly go in and out of the race like perot did.

There is a chance he could get electoral votes. More likely, however, it's just going to take enough votes away from the republicans to guarantee another clinton in the white house.

Bear in mind i'm a pretty hardcore republican, but since i'm an elder law attorney, I can actually see the benefits of more socialized medicine (note, i said MORE socialized medicine, not complete), so I would like to think a Democrat in the white house might actually fix some of Medicaid's problems, although honestly that's a pipe dream with the insurance lobby nowdays, and the dems would spend so much of the american's money, we'd still go broke.

[Cadrid]

I, too, am intrigued has to his views, at least concerning the most pressing issues of this period (Middle East unrest, health insurance, welfare, wage gaps, etc.). My initial (read: primal) impression is that he would show as much corporate favoritism as the Bush administration has, if not more, and anyone not making six- or seven-figure salaries would be given the shaft.

Maybe he has the character to prevent his personal financial status from influencing his political decisions, but I am more than a little skeptical after these past 6+ years. It's for this reason that I believe Bloomberg would have a huge handicap should he decide to make a run for Presidency. Again, I haven't followed the mayor's policies or viewpoints, so maybe he is a viable candidate. It's the fear of an elitist mentality further driving our country towards a second Revolution (or early grave) that has me worried.

[Millie]

Originally Posted by krozman

If he runs, This is basically going to be a clinic on "what ross perot should have done." He probably will spend as much money as it takes, upwards of $500 million, and he wont constantly go in and out of the race like perot did.

In a recent interview, he claimed he would spend up to $1 billion of his own money on a campaign.

[Kiroy]

Originally Posted by Millie

In a recent interview, he claimed he would spend up to $1 billion of his own money on a campaign.

One of his + points is that he's so stupidly rich, that maybe lobbyists will have less sway on policy. I'm sure that shit goes deeper than money though.

[kedwyn]

I'm certainly no expert on election law but i was under the impression that it is impossible for an independent to win since they do NOT have a slate of electorates to vote in the electoral college.

Regardless I see third party candidates and the entire 2 party system as a total sham. Maybe its the conspiracy theory in me but it just seems way to convenient of a way to pick your president.

[Millie]

Originally Posted by kedwyn

I'm certainly no expert on election law but i was under the impression that it is impossible for an independent to win since they do NOT have a slate of electorates to vote in the electoral college.

Regardless I see third party candidates and the entire 2 party system as a total sham. Maybe its the conspiracy theory in me but it just seems way to convenient of a way to pick your president.

The two-party system pretty much is a sham. It locks the two candidates into a rigid system of values that appease a broad base of constituents, and no real progress on most issues ever gets made.

That said, it is theoretically possible for an independent to win the presidency. The electoral system is totally rigged by the two parties
(electors are selected by the ruling parties), and electors are not required by federal or state law to cast their votes for whomever won the popular vote in their state (a common misconception). So all of these things work against an independent. But theoretically, an independent can still win if the electors are sufficiently swayed by him.

Also, there may be no law forcing electors to cast their votes alongside the popular vote, but there is a strong de facto encouragement to do so. If a certain candidate totally dominated, say, California, and the California electors all voted for the popular-vote loser, there'd be an enormous scandal in the media.

Everyone has different opinions about the value and efficacy of the Electoral College. Personally speaking, I think it's a total crock. That said, it's here, and probably here to stay for quite some time. And yes, it presents a very strong impediment to any indepedent candidate's viability.

[Soriak]

Can you imagine what would happen if a candidate won the electoral college, but delegates cast their vote for another candidate causing him to win? As an observer, I think that'd be hilarious to watch. Especially if it went to the Republican Candidate and fox would stumble over itself trying to rationalize it

Would be a sad day for democracy though.

[Millie]

Originally Posted by Soriak

Can you imagine what would happen if a candidate won the electoral college, but delegates cast their vote for another candidate causing him to win? As an observer, I think that'd be hilarious to watch. Especially if it went to the Republican Candidate and fox would stumble over itself trying to rationalize it

Would be a sad day for democracy though.

Arguably, that's what happened with Bush in 2000. But even that was a closer call than the scenario you're talking about; I get what you mean. I think it would be pretty absurd. But in a weird way, it might be for the best. If the electoral college ever demonstrated itself to be so completely out-of-step with the popular vote, motions would be made to dissolve the electoral system once and for all. It would be the straw that broke the camel's back.

And, as I've stated, I think the electoral system is a camel whose back should have been broken long ago.

[findar]

im a retard after further review.

[James]

I'd vote for Bloomberg. In the one election year where it's clearly obvious Democrats are going to win, they go and fuck it all the hell up by running the first black man versus the first lady. Look, I'm all for diversity and shit, but come on. Bloomberg, in my eyes, has a damn good chance if he doesn't turn out to be batshit insane (which I'd bet money on he isn't), especially now that he's distanced himself from the Republican party.

[krozman]

Originally Posted by kedwyn

I'm certainly no expert on election law but i was under the impression that it is impossible for an independent to win since they do NOT have a slate of electorates to vote in the electoral college.

Regardless I see third party candidates and the entire 2 party system as a total sham. Maybe its the conspiracy theory in me but it just seems way to convenient of a way to pick your president.

You are right, but not because the 2 party system is a sham. There is a set procedure on getting on the ballot in each state, and people estimate it costs about $746,000 just to push the paperwork.

The 2 party system goes back to the founding fathers. Two parties are a result of history, and partial design. Just because both parties are corrupt doesn't mean the problem is the 2 party system. I'm sure if there were 4 parties, the lobbyists would make more rounds and corrupt them just the same.