NationStates Jolt Archive

This poses an interesting scenario. What do you all think of the idea?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20070515-123142-3314r.htm

He has a billion dollars to spend.

It's perfectly legal.

He's a very centrist candidate.

I think he would make a realistic candidate.

Not sure who he would take more votes from.

He has an actual chance of winning.

He has a billion dollars to spend.

It's perfectly legal.

He's a very centrist candidate.

I think he would make a realistic candidate.

Not sure who he would take more votes from.

He has an actual chance of winning.

That's the part I wonder about. He's not really a Republican, but he's afraid to be a Democrat. He should appeal to the liberals out there, but I don't know how many would consider him a left-leaning Republican.

That's the part I wonder about. He's not really a Republican, but he's afraid to be a Democrat. He should appeal to the liberals out there, but I don't know how many would consider him a left-leaning Republican.

Bloomberg is truly a moderate in a rational sense of the word. Even the conservative Washington Times calls him a social liberal and fiscal conservative right in the very article I linked. I'm not sure if liberal bias can be blamed here. I'm sure the late Rev. Falwell would call him a limo liberal, but F that guy he's dead and I never listened to him anyhow :eek: There's more to being a conservative than just socially conservative and that's what the right wing of the Republican party has failed to realize at this point. The rest of the country gets neglected because they are too worried about God, Guns, and Gays. I might be inclined to vote for either of the mayors from NYC, but then again being from there makes me biased. I think people like Rudy and Mike need to be placed into the "common sense party" bracket as their views just seems to square logically. They don't use religious of ideological bend to push their agenda, instead they chose reason to guide their positions. Anyone who is too far to either side of the spectrum is just nuts. They also tend to not want to listen or compromise because after all they are right. This goes for both the "loony left" and "rabid right."

That's the part I wonder about. He's not really a Republican, but he's afraid to be a Democrat. He should appeal to the liberals out there, but I don't know how many would consider him a left-leaning Republican.

Can't say I'm all that familiar with his politics.

Edit: and before you say it, yes, I'm already looking it up on google.

That's the part I wonder about. He's not really a Republican, but he's afraid to be a Democrat. He should appeal to the liberals out there, but I don't know how many would consider him a left-leaning Republican.

I doubt he'll appeal too much to liberals--we're pretty solid in the Democrats or nothing camp right now, because we feel, with some justification, that we're nearly back in control of the party. Don't expect much in the way of liberal defection, especially if he has someone like Chuck Hagel as a running mate, and if anyone but Hillary is the nominee. He'd need a perfect storm to win--and that storm would include a Republican nominee like Tom Tancredo or Sam Brownback.

I doubt he'll appeal too much to liberals--we're pretty solid in the Democrats or nothing camp right now, because we feel, with some justification, that we're nearly back in control of the party. Don't expect much in the way of liberal defection, especially if he has someone like Chuck Hagel as a running mate, and if anyone but Hillary is the nominee. He'd need a perfect storm to win--and that storm would include a Republican nominee like Tom Tancredo or Sam Brownback.

It's not a question of winning, more of a question of who he'll Perot.

[If that catches on, I claim it...]

I doubt he'll appeal too much to liberals--we're pretty solid in the Democrats or nothing camp right now, because we feel, with some justification, that we're nearly back in control of the party. Don't expect much in the way of liberal defection, especially if he has someone like Chuck Hagel as a running mate, and if anyone but Hillary is the nominee. He'd need a perfect storm to win--and that storm would include a Republican nominee like Tom Tancredo or Sam Brownback.

From what I can tell reading about him he seems to have the fiscal policies of a Republican and the social policies of a Democrat.

I think...

Which, if true, might appeal to the left, if not liberals.

Third partys generally tend to fuck everything up in a democracy like the US.

It's not a question of winning, more of a question of who he'll Perot.

[If that catches on, I claim it...]

It's a good one, and I'll certainly credit you if I use it. ;)

Of the two major parties, it seems to me that the Republicans are more ripe for a schism than the Democrats are, at least right now. The war could divide the Democrats depending on who wins the primaries, but for now the question seems to be whether Rudy can convince the religious right that he won't screw them over. But if he can't, and someone like Brownback or Huckabee gets the nod, you could see massive defections from the socially moderate side of the party to someone like Bloomberg.

I doubt he'll appeal too much to liberals--we're pretty solid in the Democrats or nothing camp right now, because we feel, with some justification, that we're nearly back in control of the party. Don't expect much in the way of liberal defection, especially if he has someone like Chuck Hagel as a running mate, and if anyone but Hillary is the nominee. He'd need a perfect storm to win--and that storm would include a Republican nominee like Tom Tancredo or Sam Brownback.

With the Dems deciding between Billary and Obama, and the GOPs running the 20 years later version of the dwarves, the perfect storm may be approaching....

Of the two major parties, it seems to me that the Republicans are more ripe for a schism than the Democrats are, at least right now.

Frankly, the GOP's been in an unadmitted schism for at least 15 years...

Remember Goldwater's comment to Dole that they were now the "liberal wing" of the GOP.

With the Dems deciding between Billary and Obama, and the GOPs running the 20 years later version of the dwarves, the perfect storm may be approaching....

The liberal side of the party is fine with Obama, less so with Clinton, though I think they'll vote for her over even an independent Republicans, especially if his running mate is an old school conservative. The key difference between the two parties right now is that the Democrats are having a tough time choosing between what they consider a good crop of front-runners. Even Hillary haters acknowledge that she'd be a formidable candidate. The Republicans are stuck because they can't figure out who'd even have a chance to win. When the third place Democrat is outpolling the first place Republican--even though this is way early--you know there's trouble. That, to me, is the making of a statement candidate, a la Goldwater in 1964. The party says "we're gonna lose, and we're gonna lose big, but we're gonna stick to our core principles."

It's not a question of winning, more of a question of who he'll Perot.

[If that catches on, I claim it...]

Nah, not Perot. If I recall right, even if all of perot's votes went to Bush in 1992 or Dole in 1996, Clinton would still have won, so Perot's presence was a non issue.

I think who he'll Nader is perhaps more appropriate, in terms of the general idea of "siphoning off votes for a similar candidate so that the opposing candidate actually wins"

Didn't he barely win reelection as New York's mayor, and only because he massively outspent his opponent(s)?

Anyone who is too far to either side of the spectrum is just nuts. They also tend to not want to listen or compromise because after all they are right.If someone is right, how could they be nuts?...unless reality is crazy...which is certainly possible.

I think who he'll Nader is perhaps more appropriate, in terms of the general idea of "siphoning off votes for a similar candidate so that the opposing candidate actually wins"Gore's positions were similar to Bush's, not Nader's.

The liberal side of the party is fine with Obama, less so with Clinton, though I think they'll vote for her over even an independent Republicans, especially if his running mate is an old school conservative. The key difference between the two parties right now is that the Democrats are having a tough time choosing between what they consider a good crop of front-runners. Even Hillary haters acknowledge that she'd be a formidable candidate. The Republicans are stuck because they can't figure out who'd even have a chance to win. When the third place Democrat is outpolling the first place Republican--even though this is way early--you know there's trouble. That, to me, is the making of a statement candidate, a la Goldwater in 1964. The party says "we're gonna lose, and we're gonna lose big, but we're gonna stick to our core principles."

Funny thing is that I'm more a libertarian-wing Goldwater sort. I'm loving good old "crazy" Ron Paul. Funnily enough, Obama is the only Dem who really jumps out to me as being a candidate I like... :)