Redstate

Y2J is right--Bloomberg is a hit here in NYC and will hurt Hillary among Dems, and help Barack. May give the GOP a shred of a chance statewide.

But Mike is also a better presidential candidate than any on the current Republican roster. Unlike Perot he's an experienced and very successful politician.

So keep an open mind.

Words fail me; highly unusual. Better than any candidate on the Republican roster? Hardly.

Bloomberg basically took the success of Giuliani and played babysitter. Once some sunshine passes over him, there is plenty Republican's and Independents will not find attractive. So in analysis, while we have basically no choice in NY and vote for the best alternative, national races are a whole different ballgame; and Bloomberg is the bat boy.

He should get out more and talk to people outside his sycophantic circle; the ego would deflate about 95%.

"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
Contributor to The Minority Report

national races are a whole different ballgame; and Bloomberg is the bat boy.

Nice.
--
Gone 2500 years, still not PC.

...in play, for the following reason:

I am a Southerner who has lived in upstate NY for the past year. And I can say without hesitation that the prevailing attitude among up-staters when it comes to the City, its politicians, and its politicians is one not-at-all veiled antipathy.

But, I do think a Bloomberg independent run could certainly make Florida even more interesting than usual - and perhaps even California.

I spent many years living in Upstate NY and it is BY FAR, more conservative leaning than the downstate suburban regions. The problem with the statewide vote in NY is that it is dominated by the overwhelmingly Democratic vote of NYC and the increasingly Democrat vote of the suburbs. And the moderately left leaning folks on Long Island and in Westchester, and even a number in the City itself, who will all be very familiar with Bloomberg's record in NYC, may find him appealing where they would otherwise vote Democrat.

Since a Republican can compete in upstate with or without an independent in the race, the fact that Bloomberg has the potential to peel away downstate voters that would otherwise go for the Democrat, will make the Republican more competitive there as well.

As someone in another comment alluded - it is not the registration or stated affiliation of Bloomberg supporters that is important. What is important is to see who they would vote for WITHOUT Bloomberg in the race. And my sense is that they would be Democrat voters in the absence of MB.

I don't think a Bloomberg candidacy hurts the Republican. Personally, I think he could draw equally from both sides, snagging a lot of moderate R's and D's and I's.

The Perot voter in general is at least moderately socially conservative, anti-immigrant, anti-trade. In other words, someone for whom Bloomberg offers nothing.

Of course, if the matchup is Hillary-Rudy I can't imagine what appeal another pro-choice, pro-immigration New Yorker would have to pretty much anyone.

"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill

Bloomberg is not going to run if it is a R vs. H. he has nothing to offer in that scenario.
MB is assuming that GOP will not nominate RG.

he has just sucked all the wind out of Thompson ... who is now just one of the other stories.

I can't imagine that Bloomberg is going to get any serious votes outside of the liberal NE, states that Thompson wasn't going to win anyways.

Now, a McCain/Bloomberg independent ticket might, because that would draw out enough of the RINO vote. But Bloomberg by himself? It's a non-event. He'll be lucky to get Ron Paul numbers.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

I am a conservative who would vote for Rudy in the General election with only a few reservations (gun control and court appointments). He is a man of great talent and a true leader. Bloomberg is a weasel who saw an opportunity to get elected simply by changing a letter following his name - not his ideaology. He has governed as a democrat.

As a gun owning Virginian, I have been exposed to what that oriface from NYC has tried to do in my state. Even if bloomberg was the republican nominee, I would never, ever vote for him.

Turn your premise around - anyone who would vote for bloomberg would never vote for a conservative. That's a more accurate gauge to use.

What many don't realize is that Michael Bloomberg would have gotten swamped if not for a single fact - he got a very strong endorsement from Rudy Giuliani, who cut ads for him and helped the campaign.

The GOP's only chance in 2001 was to ride Rudy's popularity and pray it got them through. Before 9/11, Rudy's ratings were starting to lag and it didn't look like even RG would get the GOP across the finish line. 9/11 changed everything, vaulted Rudy into the stratosphere and virtually guaranteed a win for whoever he endorsed.

Bloomberg then got reelected by running against a race-baiter who spent his whole campaign basically telling people that we needed to have a Hispanic mayor because it was his turn. The City, running smoothly, decided that Bloomberg was better than a guy who was all about identity politics and offered virtually no ideas for what he would do as Mayor.

PTM, you need to wake up and smell the coffee.... Bloomberg has absolutely NO following outside NYC and the NE. Money is not the be all and end all..... Got to have some huevos and stand for something...

But isn't New York City the center of the universe?!?!?!?!????

Run like Reagan!

At least to the glitterati who live there. The outer boroughs are simply there to serve them.

As in banning guns (even in another state even)?

As in banning fatty foods?

As in banning smoking in private establishments?

As in public funding for abortions?

As in sanctuary city for illegals?

Oh yeah - that agenda will bring'm out in Kentucky...

+He took the schools away from the unions and introduced real standards.

+He's managed an economy that if it were it's own country its be one of the top 20 in the world(well according to answers.com).

+Yes he believes that guns in a dense city of 8 million+ people cause more problems than they solve and out of state stores that make money off of straw purchases should be held accountable.

As for being a Haven for illegals how does it differ from Texas, Kentucky, or any state for that matter? Boarders need to be controlled by the federal government. If you want to know how Bloomberg as President would address the issue ask him.

I don't know about Kentucky but I think we'll all be surprised about the amount of support he'd garner and from where. He's not a man who has to suck up or pander to any audience, right or left, if people don't like him or his message he gets to be a billionaire as a consolation prize.

Right now neither major party is particularly popular and a person like Bloomberg, who is sane and an effective leader, might make some headway. I'm exited to see how this plays out.

I don't post here much because while I agree with much of the fiscal material I'm to the left of most posters on social issues. If a Bloomberg excites a Republican like me how many other republicans or fiscally conservative Dems will support him.

Thanks for the space but I'm going to return to lurking. I'm curious how Bloomberg plays out in this wing of the party too.

That or you really don't know much about Mike Bloomberg.

He is, as I have said a technocrat. He is not a "fiscal conservative" - he is not a tax cutter - he has not sought to constrain spending.

So, either you're also not as "fiscally conservative" as you claim, or you don't know a whole lot about the definition of "fiscal conservatism."

After all, Bloomberg isn't a fiscal conservative. He's hiked property taxes something like 20% if I remember correctly. And instead of flattening the tax code, he made it more jagged by socking it to highly productive wage earners.

It doesn't sound like you know much about straw purchases. Of course, Bloomberg didn't either or didn't care. His guys broke so many federal laws trying to find gun stores to sue, that the ATF finally had to make him quit, and the ATF isn't exactly known as a pro-gun group.

Yes he believes that guns in a dense city of 8 million+ people cause more problems than they solve and out of state stores that make money off of straw purchases should be held accountable.

Of course, I didn't realize that the Second Amendment was only valid if you live in a small town.

That's the winner! He's not really a Democrat either. As reldim has said, if you want to try to pigeonhole Bloomberg, he's a technocrat, and an extraordinarily determined and successful technocrat. He hasn't mismanaged New York City and in fact even The New York Times has had to applaud his technological competence in such things as dispatching police officers and improving quality of life.

He's an information-driven guy, brilliant in his way, but also at least when you first meet him, pretty self-absorbed and convinced of his own technological superiority.

He's also not in any sense a partisan in the way most people think of partisans. He prefers to eschew partisan politics and work behind the scenes, which is why he's not "charismatic".

and six years later decides that the Republican party is not for him either. His reason- "...I believe this brings my affiliation into alignment with how I have led and will continue to lead our city." Nothing as Reaganesque as "I didn't leave the Republican party, the Republican party left me". Just last year, he told a group of Manhattan Republicans about his run for mayor: "I couldn't be prouder to run on the Republican ticket and be a Republican." Sounds to me like a candidate who probably lacks some core principles. From what I do know, the few he may have don't align with the base of the party.

Has NY gotten better in the last few years?

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

I didn't really that those who did not better a situation were not competent.

He inherited a bad state of affairs immediately following a devastating hit to the economy and has managed to keep the City on its feet and out of fiscal trouble. He has maintained many of the improvements that Giuliani made to the City. I consider that competent (which is a far cry from good, inspiring, or other descriptors I could have used).

I think Bloomberg has been one of the best mayors in the City's history and that there are a lot of people in New York who think so also.

He hasn't been "inspiring" but neither was Ed Koch in my view, or David Dinkins, and he was much more inspiring than either of them on the fundamentals of running the city and actually making it work better. I've been to NYC recently and it's a much better town than I knew when I used to live in New Jersey.

An honest question. I grew up in and around NYC and lived in Manhattan itself from 2001 to 2005. I'm not entirely sure that I agree that Bloomberg is "one of the best" or that he did all that much for the City that hadn't already been done. He tinkered with the big changes that Rudy won his races on. Every major change that Bloomberg advocated was more nanny-state control.

I am not in your camp that Bloomberg has made the city all that much "better." I think his predecessor did the heavy lifting on that and he just managed to not screw it up.

And so I saw the worst of the Beane administration and the worst of the Dinkins administration, which it is true might not be the best appraisal of the City's mayors as my bookends for comparitive purposes. Koch was in the middle of that but I'll note that Koch supported Bloomberg in his mayoral bid despite Bloomberg's nominal (R) status.

---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

That's part of the reason just academically it'll be so interesting to see if Bloomberg runs and what he'll SAY in a debate with Giuliani as an Independent.

Can you imagine the crosstalk? It might be worth it just to hear the two of them try to knock each other down...

correctly, appeared with him on TV for the New Year's Eve celebrations of 12/31/01.

He personified New York.
David Dinkins was a bad joke. A reminder to libs that affirmative action can have negative consequences.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

But what New York needed after Giuliani left the office wasn't someone necessarily inspiring and flavorful as Koch was. They needed someone really kind of bland, technocratically very competent, and someone who knew how to make a lot of money while not getting themself into too much trouble. Bloomberg was a very fast learner and he stepped right into those shoes.

Whether there are enough people who are interested in a President who is similarly bland but super-technically competent and quietly (but forcefully) ambitious is an open question, one that I think he's trying to answer for himself.

______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

One thing that I'm trying to avoid by giving people my best recollections of Bloomberg and my best current takes on him is that he's not easily categorized -- and I think that's deliberate on his part.

I do think, though, that if he runs he'll be a very formidable candidate, if for no other reason than there won't be anyone in his campaign organization that has to microwave pizzas instead of having their food catered. He'll make sure his army is well-fed.

You know what I mean. I know there are a lot of people here at RS who would like nothing more than to think that a Bloomberg Presidential candidacy is a complete impossibility, but I don't think that's realistic at this point. Not for someone who has a billion dollars to spend. I'm not a Bloomberg supporter, and he hasn't announced his true intentions yet; what he's doing is testing the waters and seeing whether or not it's something worth investing his money in trying.

Business is good, real estate is still hot (but for how long?), crime is down for the most part.

Which market are you in ?
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

I am not "in" that market. I'm not sure I could afford one one of those "car condos" that people buy for a parking space. And if I did, I would have to live in it.

Given that he spent his life in liberal and Democratic circles and has filled his Administration with innumerable Democrats, I doubt he'd even no where to look to find a Republican to pick as a running-mate.

.

I would guess either Senator Hagel or Senator McCain would be the best bets for Mike Bloomberg's V.P. picks.

I'll be glad to get proper onion rings and garlic bread in Virgils. Give him more time and he will ban BBQ all together.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

After Michael Bloomberg spends $1 billion launching his anti-war, pro-nanny state campaign - he's going to devistate Hillary. Especially in the northeast, Florida, and California.

Because of his pro-amnesty stance, I feel that Bush likes having 'R' next to his name even though he sold out on one of the most important tenets of the conservative movement: protecting our borders.

While I still support the President overall, I agree with you. President Bush, is great on the War on Terror, and he tried to work on Social Security, but he has also done a lot of damage as the leader of the Republican party. He has not led a conservative movement. In a very real sense, he is a moderate.

Peter R - Praetorium.org

He's conservative on some issues and liberal on others. Not really many issues that he's moderate on.

Ok, when I was thinking moderate, I had the "average" idea in mind. I'll agree with your qualification. In my thinking, part conservative, part liberal is essentially one form of a moderate.

Peter R - Praetorium.org

That would be awesome. Bloomberg/Boren would be the home for all of the anti-Hillary Democrats and those the furthest to the left on the Iraq War - allowing the GOP to stun the world and sweep into the White House once more and lock up the Supreme Court.

It would also probably put Boren on record as more liberal than OK voters are comfortable with and make him vulnerable when he runs for re-election if he's not already term-limited.

... he's a FORMER Senator... he's currently president of the University of Oklahoma.

But that's Henry, right?

From Wikipedia:

"...
David Lyle Boren (born April 21, 1941 in Washington, D.C.) was Governor of Oklahoma from 1975 until 1979 and a Democratic United States Senator from 1979 until 1994. He is currently president of the University of Oklahoma. He is the son of former US Congressman Lyle Boren and father of current US Congressman for Oklahoma's 2nd congressional district Dan Boren.
..."

Unfortunately, our current governor is Brad Henry, the disaster that he is..... I'd take Boren over that empty suit... Or nearly anyone else...

With all of the ongoing disappointment that most conservative voters still have today with the Republican Party at every political level for a variety of reasons ("Shamnesty for illegal immigrants" legislation along with also the possible creation of the very socialistic "North American Union" this fall, out of control government spending by Republicans in Congress and elsewhere at every political level, President Bush not being as conservative as he should be during his entire duration as President as well as getting ready to turn the whole U.S. into a third world socialistic country, a Republican Congress and President Bush both creating another entitlement program-The Senior Prescription Drug Benefit Plan-instead of greatly trimming and privatizing the three other ongoing entitlement programs, a Republican Congress that grows government instead of shrinking government, a Republican Congress that practiced pork barrel spending and creating more regulations instead of decent spending cuts and deregulation reforms throughout government at every level and for always, the continued existence of "RINO" Republican politicians at every political level that often succeed in blocking decent conservative legislation from ever getting through, "RINO" Republicans at every political level who are social liberals and who are for gay marriage, for gun control, who are pro-affirmative action, and who are pro-choice on the abortion issue, Republicans at the federal level who very soon became just like the Democratic Party instead of always keeping to their promises of smaller government, privatization of government, eliminating some Cabinet positions in government, and always practicing fiscal discipline to the best of abilities and for always), why should people continue to seriously ignore both the Constitution Party at every political level and the Libertarian Party at every political level? Many conservatives are so disappointed at the Republican Party at every level right now that many of them may seriously consider next time voting for either the Constitution Party or the Libertarian Party from now on. It's not just the overall "leftist" vote that may become "splintered" on November 4, 2008, but it may also be the overall conservative vote that's also "splintered" on November 4, 2008.

Blam.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

Chuck Hagel in the VP slot won't attract any Republicans - he may even get primaried next year in Nebraska. People vote for the guy at the top, and the positions of the guy at the top. A Bloomberg/Hagel ticket won't erode any traditional Republican support where it will matter. I DO believe, however, that it may peel off some Democratic voters in places like Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania - the key swing states.
....women and minorities hardest hit”

Although the pundit class in Washington (supported by Mitch McConnell) seems to indicate that a lot of elected Republicans are going to abandon the war come September. Hagel will seem like a prophet rather than out of step with the Republican mainstream at that point (esp. since he has a hardcore conservative voting record on every other issue.)

I also think that the same Republicans who are attracted to people like Romney due to their business acumen will be attracted to Bloomberg. The so called "country club" Republicans will love him.

It will be interesting to see how it all plays out.

....that it will certainly be interesting!

Chuck Hagel, at least on Iraq, is in the same boat as Harry Reid and Russ Feingold. When you vote to cut funding, Republicans don't appreciate that - even the ones who don't like the war.....yes, there are some - I definitely have my reservations. Republicans and conservatives like myself who have had many problems with Bush and the way this thing was done, still do not align with people who want to yank the soldiers out today and cut funding. Chuck Hagel is viewed about the same by Republicans today as Lieberman is in Democrat circles.

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

It's hard to imagine Bloomberg feeling comfortable with Hagel for that reason. Hagel is in favor of extending the Bush tax cuts. I doubt Bloomberg is going to run on that.

Former OK Gov & Sen Boren has been discussed, and I also saw Harold Ford singing Bloomberg's praises - and suggesting he'd be a great contribution to the race. He almost looked like he was begging to get on the ticket.

Even if this was true (and I don't believe it is):

Because of the war being so unpopular and a Bloomberg/Hagel ticket could attract a lot of moderate northeast/western Republicans who want fiscal responsibility without all the hard core social conservatism.

So what? Republicans in places like NYC and CA are going to do exactly nothing for the Republican nominee in 2008 so why does it matter?

They are not going to be attracted to an independent candidate -- esp. after being burned by Nader last time.

Not so sure about that. The Cindy Sheehan types are ready to get burned again. A lot of the hard-core anti-war types are pretty angry with the Democrats for their failure to deliver on a pullout, impeachment proceedings, or anything they envisioned.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

overplay the anti-war stance of Dems. Most Dems I know (and granted I live in SC) are against the war, but understand that a pull-out will be difficult and that we are likely to be in Iraq in one form or another for another decade or so. Those kids at the anti-war rallies represent a small fraction of the party, but they are colorful and get a lot more press than they deserve.

overplay the anti-war stance of Dems. Most Dems I know (and granted I live in SC) are against the war, but understand that a pull-out will be difficult and that we are likely to be in Iraq in one form or another for another decade or so. Those kids at the anti-war rallies represent a small fraction of the party, but they are colorful and get a lot more press than they deserve.

With the anti-military comments from Democrat Senators, such a Reid, Durbin, Kerry and many others, plus Reps such as Pelosi, and Murtha, plus Democrat Party leaders such as Dean, in the news every day, I can't imagine that anyone is over estimating the Anti-War stance of the Democrats.

When the 2004 Democrat party nominee to be President of the US is a person, who confessed in front of the Senate Subcommittee on Foreign Affairs on 22 Apr 1971, that he had meet with the
enemy in Paris, adopted and was promoting the positions of that enemy; An enemy that was killing American soldiers in Vietnam, at the same time, he was meeting with them. I don't think anyone can possibly over estimate the Anti-War stance of the current Democrat party leaders.

"the GOP's yet-to-be-named socialist-lite candidate?"

Do you intend to be taken seriously, or are you like BS Bob and just like to be incendiary? LOL

Maybe I don't expect to be taken seriously by people who don't agree with what I type...are you moderating here?

Do you know that I have a list?

Do you know that you're on it?

Do you know what a Boom Stick is?

Well, let me explain that last one more thoroughly.

Blam.

(pause)

Well, it's not like the baby hadn't spit up on this shirt pretty thoroughly already.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

but it is fun to speculate. My actual feeling is that Bloomberg is almost completely unknown outside NY and he would have to spend a holy ton of money to buy the name recognition and have anything but the most minimal effect on the election either way. I think the MSM is attracted to this story because they are largely based in NY, but if you ask most South Carolinians (where I am from) who he was they would have no idea. Bloomberg is only known to Wall Street types and hardcore political junkies outside the Northeast.

Gore/Bloomberg as an Independent ticket would take at least 20-25% of the Democratic vote against Hillary. They'd barely get any Republican votes, and as I said earlier, if those people would consider voting for Bloomberg (or Gore), they most certainly wouldn't be voting Republican in 2008 anyway without them!

Donate to Fred Thompson's Campaign right here...you know you want to!

terms as the Democratic nominee. There are many who think Gore will enter the Democratic primary in the fall. If Gore were to pick Bloomberg as a running mate and run on the Dem ticket, that would be a hard combo to beat.

chance that Gore is going to run as an independent. None. Zilch. This year might spawn a bunch of fusion tickets, but Gore is not going to run to hand the election to the GOP. He's a terrible politician, but he's not a complete moron.

"My heart was here...I feel like I have unfinished business here." - Roy Hibbert

I think you are over estimating Mr. Gore's intelligence.

I'm pretty sure Bloomberg has endorsed the idea of amnesty in the past.

Donate to Fred Thompson's Campaign right here...you know you want to!

We can party as much as we want to. None of Bloomberg's campaign staff read anything posted here! :)

.

To Gov. Schwarzenegger, on leaving the party, I only have this to say:

Faster, please.

Run like Reagan!