The already wide-open 2008 presidential race could get even crazier if New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg (in photo) decides to enter the race as an independent, third-party candidate, as reports suggest he might.
Bloomberg will attend a bipartisan “unity†conference today at the University of Oklahoma with other moderate leaders such as outgoing Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, who’s been mentioned as a possible vice presidential candidate on a Bloomberg ticket.
Organizers say they want to encourage the major parties to field candidates that will move Washington, D.C., politics beyond their bitter partisan divide. If there’s evidence of continued gridlock on the campaign trail, Bloomberg might offer himself as an alternative, the thinking goes.
If he doesn’t run, it won’t be for lack of money.
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Chas on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- DavidB on Health care reform would save state money
- DavidB on Minority status in Senate; majority approval at home
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
33 Comments
He say not run recently. Rumor false, another Perot.
Just what we need, another New York liberal in the race.
How do liberals become billionaires? Do they steal their money from richer people? Where is Max when you need her?
He is a liberal by every reasonable definition of the term.
Blooming Berg is to the left of Rudy, to be sure.
Since when did wealth prevent liberalism?
Liberalism prevents many more people from becomming wealthy, but wealth does not prevent liberalism.
Most of the wealth, held by members of Congress, is held by Democrats, not Republicans.
The media has been pushing hard for a Bloomburg run. Not only is the corporate media upset two populists are difficult to ignore in the elections but a third party candidate will mean more ad revenue.
Bloomberg is a Republican and as such he cannot be a liberal. If Obama or Edwards are the nominees for the Democrats I hope he does not get in. If it is Hillary I don’t really care if he gets in. I don’t think he will.
Bloomberg is there to try and take focus and publicity from Ron Paul. Another shill for the hill.
Are you suggesting that Bloomberg would have the same effect as Perot, in takeing votes from one party’s canadate of the other? If so, which party do you see being most venerable?
When I look at the far left and the far right, regardless of party I get concerned. The largest concern is that the moderates of either party seem to be more flexable in basic beliefs, and seem to shift positions more easily. I guess I’m just becoming more wary of politicians.
Like Perot, I see Bloomberg taking votes from BOTH parties (or from neither) but probably taking a bit more from the Democrats. My reasoning: (a) some people who would stay home will come out to protest vote and (b) Bloomberg would represent change as will the Democratic candidate. The Republic candidate will represent ’stay the course’.
Pfeefer – as for taking attention away from Ron Paul how would that be a “Another shill for the hill” – unless you mean “Capital Hill”. After all, it is the Republics who really hate Ron Paul as evidenced by FAUX keeping him off their ‘debate’
Ben, I did in fact mean Capital Hill. I guess that phrase is generally used for Congress but it seemed fitting to use it. heh. And as for Fox “news”, are you saying that they aren’t “Fair and Balanced”?
Gee, would I say that about FAUX noise?
Kev
There are liberal Democrats, moderate Democrats and conservative Democrats.
The same is true of Republicans.
Bloomberg is a liberal.
He is also a New York liberal, not a Texas populist like Perot.
Paul – if he IS a liberal I would think that you would WANT him to run to split the vote.
Remember, folks, the man has not even declared.
Ben
Did not say what I wanted, said what I thought of him. ;)
hmmm …
;^)
The ONLY chance Sen Clinton has to get elected is if a 3rd party candidate enters the race. That’s the only way Bill Clinton got elected.
For this scheme to work though, the 3rd Party candidate needs to steal Conservative votes away from the Republican nominee. Bloomberg is NOT the one to do that. Bloomberg would be stealing NY from Sen Clinton. (Republicans won’t win NY anyway, unless the candidate is Rudy)
More Bad news for Sen Clinton:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
Daily Presidential Tracking Poll
Monday, January 07, 2008
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows that Hillary Clinton’s national polling lead has collapsed. Before the Iowa caucuses, Clinton held a seventeen-point lead over Barack Obama. Today, that lead is down to four percentage points in a survey with a four-point margin of sampling error.
Wrong Max. A “liberal” third-party candidate would take votes AWAY from Hillary just as a “change” third-party run took votes away from the challenger in 1992.
I heard on the radio (liberal media station KNSS) that Hillary is traling in New hampshire by a bunch.
Bloomberg is a liberal.
He’s a Republican In Name Only. And Bloomberg would hurt the Democrats more then he would the Republicans.
Democrats needs to find a Ross Perot type of Conservative 3rd Party candidate, if they want to win the White House. (That’s why y’all say so many good things about Ron Paul.)
Max – I remember well following the tracking polls in 1992. When Perot dropped out Clinton benefitted. When Perot re-entered Clinton’s numbers took a hit. Perot split the anti-incumbent vote exactly as would be expected.
Bloomburg has only one issue which gave him any prominance nationally: his attempt to repeal the Tiahrt amendment. Given that he consistently and repeatedly LIED about what the law was in that case, just WHY should he be remotely considered for the White House?
Absolutely not. Under any circumstances. I’d rather vote for Hillary (Ugh!).
GMC – I have to say that I have really paid little attention to Bloomberg. I’d be interested in seeing just what he claims to be.
That Bloomberg is even a topic of consideration illustrates just how pathetic the Republic Party slate of candidates really is.
Romney was supposed to be the Old GOP Big Business Country Club candidate, but his magic underwear scared off the evangelicals. Giuliani is the Warmonger Candidate, but his gay-friendly pro-choice, honk-if-you’ve-married-Rudy personal life repels the family values crowd. Huckabee is being branded by mainline Republic Party activist as a “conservative socialist” because he actually believes some of the stuff Jesus said about the poor, the weak, “the least of these my bretheren.” Hardly a plank of any Republic Party platform in recent memory. Fred Thompson was gonna be the new Reagan ’til he turned out to be closer to Bonzo than the Gipper. And the Bushoid hate Ron Paul because he considers the Constitution something more than “a goddamned piece of paper.”
Republic Party infighting is so deep and so nasty, I’m not ready to count out Newtie Gingrich to step up and offer himself as some sort of unifying candidate.
If Bloomberg were to actually be a liberal then he wouldn’t run knowing that his race would suck votes away from the Democratic candidate leaving a conservative in the White House. The only reason Bloomberg would run is out of ego.
In the link, the author argues that the attempt of Mr. Bloomberg, et al, to reach a bipartisan, centrist approach to American politics is being forced upon the parties by the voters, thereby making any third party run by the same unneeded and not necessary.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0107/p08s01-comv.html
Didja hear this from the Huckster’s speech yesterday in New Hampshire?
“…we have signed up to be part of God’s Army, to be soldiers for Christ,” he said.
Monkeyhawk, do you mean the same Huckster who wants to reclaim this nation for Christ?
Ben
Posted January 7, 2008 at 11:46 am | Permalink
Max – I remember well following the tracking polls in 1992. When Perot dropped out Clinton benefitted. When Perot re-entered Clinton’s numbers took a hit. Perot split the anti-incumbent vote exactly as would be expected.
—————————————————-
That’s right Ben, I remember too that Perot took 90% of the black vote, and had nearly 50% of the poor white Redneck vote as well. Perot stole mainly Democrat votes from Clinton.
huckster, lmao
I wonder what the many non-Christian Americans think about what would happen if he were President.
Here is my previously posted two-part suggestion for stopping the need for a third-party candidate:
1. Implement strict term limits in Congress
2. Remove the political party affiliation identifiers from voting ballots (the ‘R’ or ‘D’ on the ballot)
Bloomberg’s so dang crooked, he can’t even stand up straight to get his picture taken. (Check that photo out!)
Billionaires get ego’s so big they will hurt their own party to run for President.
Bloomberg would get a big thrill out of being a spoiler, but I don’t think his ego could take not winning.
He ain’t running.
A pox on all of you. I’m going with Unity 08.org
One Trackback
[...] WE Blog » The Wichita Eagle Editorial Department Blog added an interesting post on A third-party candidate in 2008?Here’s a small excerpt [...]