For some reason people are talking about Michael Bloomberg leaving the Republican party like it means something. I don’t think it does. Frankly, I share more positions on issues with the Republican party than Bloomberg does! As far as presidential aspirations, could there possibly be a less personable candidate? Especially in the wake of Giuliani, people in NYC wanted a mayor that was less blather and more efficiency and they got that in Bloomberg, but that doesn’t work nationally.
could there possibly be a less personable candidate?
Steve Forbes and Joe Lieberman jump immediately to mind.
I would not discount Bloomberg if/when he runs.He will be a much stronger independant candidate than Ross Perot.
While an independant candidate may not be able to win the White House under any circumstances, he will take votes away from both eventual party candidates and make things very interesting.
He is certainly not the most dynamic speaker but he makes sense to a lot of people and is not beholden to party politics. A lot of people are going to find him to be a very attractive candidate.
The nice thing about it would most likely be that he would strip votes from the Republican candidate instead of what happened with Nader.
I think Bloomberg switched so he wouldn’t be forced to endorse Giuliani. And he finally gets to get out of the Repug party without burning any bridges.
I share more positions on issues with the Republican party than Bloomberg does!
Really, like which ones? Or is that codespeak for Bloomberg isn’t a very good Republican. Because that’s true.
But as to the importance of Bloomberg getting in the race: what Hedley said.
“he will take votes away from both eventual party candidates and make things very interesting.”
This is true, but he takes votes away from both candidates in equal numbers, (at least according to the polls I’ve seen). This means he won’t change the outcome, just make it look different.
Not to mention 2008 isn’t 1992. There aren’t a lot of Democrats and Dem-leaning independents who are interested in a third party run, not to mention that even with all his money it’s tough to get on the ballots and in the debates.
“Not to mention 2008 isn’t 1992. There aren’t a lot of Democrats and Dem-leaning independents who are interested in a third party run, not to mention that even with all his money it’s tough to get on the ballots and in the debates.”
If he’s not in the debates, and I can see both parties trying to exclue him, then he’s finished.
I can see arguements for both including him, (democracy demands more voices be heard), and excluding him, (money can’t buy your way on the centre stage). It will be interesting to see how it plays out.