Skip to comments.Bloomberg poised for third-party campaign
Posted on 05/15/2007 7:29:21 AM PDT by Jake The Goose
New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg is prepared to spend an unprecedented $1 billion of his own $5.5 billion personal fortune for a third-party presidential campaign, personal friends of the mayor tell The Washington Times. "He has set aside $1 billion to go for it," confided a long-time business adviser to the Republican mayor. "The thinking about where it will come from and do we have it is over, and the answer is yes, we can do it." Another personal friend and fellow Republican said in recent days that Mr. Bloomberg, who is a social liberal and fiscal conservative, has "lowered the bar" and upped the ante for a final decision on making a run.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
I have to learn a lot more.
Third Party though - I wish he would consider one of the parties.
This would hurt Hillary more than any republican (except maybe Rudy)
He’ll hurt the Democrats if he does this. Think Perot and Buchanan in reverse from 1992. The only reason he’s a ‘republican’ is because the NY GOP is a bunch of losers, and the Democrats wouldn’t let him be their nominee.
A dyed-in-the-wool limousine liberal, Bloomberg makes Rudy look like a John Bircher.
>>The only reason hes a republican is because the NY GOP is a bunch of losers<<
Exactly. The only reason Bloomberg ran as a Republican in NYC is because the line was shorter.
So - maybe we're all OK with this?
The only thing he endangers is NY (which we won’t win anyway, unless Rudy wins the Republican primary, which he won’t) and Hillary support elsewhere.
You mean why consider one of the parties?
Because third party runs are junk investments.
FYI - I voted for Perot - so I have some regrettable experience.
Just say NO to New Yorkers! Enough of all of them! New York already controls far to much of the USA with it’s Federal Reserve Bank, investment banking houses like Goldman Sachs, the leading stock exchanges, activist Attorney General, major media nexus and the rest.
Just say NO! to more New Yorkers running the rest of us like a colony. NO RUDY! NO HILLARY! NO BLOOMBERG! NO SHARPTON! NO NEW YORKERS FOR PRESIDENT!
There seems to be a consensus here.
Why does this sound so familiar?
The good news is, an East Coast aristocrat-wannabe like Bloomie will probably divert more Democrats than Republicans.
I wonder.....does Bloomers receive any Republican money from a larger fund (RNC)?
Your theme seems to be the majority.
I don’t think I have ever heard Bloomberg talk at length about anything.
Why would Bloomberg run? What makes him special?
I don’t know the answer to that.
If he want to run as an indy - I don’t he wants any ties to the RNC.
Good question though.
Well,if Bloomberg won’t run as a Democrat, a third party would suffice.
He’s a huge liberal. I think he would split the Dem’s and take very few Republican votes with him. He’d only take Republican votes in very blue states.
So I hope he runs.
I hae no problem with a self absorbed billionaire blowing his money on a unattainable goal...and yep, I think it will help the GOP if he actually does this.
The Weekly Standard has a good piece on this matter from last weeks issue, btw.
He might not have the effect of Perot and Buchanan in 92, thinking about it further. But he could take the same percentage of the vote Nader claimed in 2000.
I think he could draw off a rather large percentage of Democrats disenchanted with Clinton, for just one example.
Now that’s interesting. When we call Jews aristocrats the world is up side down.
Ok - I am learning from this thread.
I will seek the Weekly Standard article.
Thanks for that.
That said, he is indeed a LimoLib, and is very very socially left-of-center. His work to restrict gun rights is downright heinous.
I cannot imagine him attracting any "conservative" votes.
Great feedback - I just got off the phone with a buddy that lives in NYC.
He said exactly what you said.
He’s rich and he wants the job?
Maybe we can get him to run with Nader or Sharpton as his running mates.
He tinks he's impotent...And he's got da moolah.
But he has no platform. Even Perot had a platform.
Mayor Bloomberg is a Democrat.
He changed parties to run for mayor in New York when he couldn’t et nominated as a Democrat. He’s a liberal on most issues like the Second Amendment. Probably a Rudy Giuliani Clone.
Hope he runs as a third party candidate and steals Democrat votes.
I can’t stand the guy.
Then let him take New York from Hillary.
I would say we have a consensus.
His run would take more votes from Hillary than the GOP nominee.
Seems like that’s what everyone has to say.
Don’t think this wouldn’t hurt the GOP. He might make even RINOs look good, but the MSM will label him a Maverick republican who stands up against the special interest. That and his own money will buy a lot of votes.
There are several reasons, but the top 3 are:
Outstanding - thanks a ton for that.
I will do my homework.
Nice of you - I appreciate that.
We already have two spoilers. We don’t need a third!
Oh man. I felt good
I'd set aside twenty bucks
for last Mother's Day...
Most seem to feel that Bloomberg might take votes out of Hillary’s camp.
Maybe that’s a good thing.
There are a lot of Dems who don’t want to vote for Hillary.
If they won’t go GOP - maybe having an indy option isn’t a bad thing?
Given the tone of this thread - Bloomberg hurts Hillary.
I wonder how long before the Clinton camp goes after him?
and.... what will be his reaction to those attacks?
>Most seem to feel that Bloomberg might take votes out of Hillary’s camp.<
Let’s hope most are right.
Whatever the outcome - you have to admit - 08’ is getting more
wild by the minute.
It’s gonna get ugly out there.
Gotta love it - only in America.
Now either this gadfly Ross Perot wannabe is in, or he isn’t.
Chances of cracking the Democratican “code of silence” are somewhere between zip and none, and his chances are about equally as good breaking into the Republican column, despite his nominal party affiliation.
That pretty much leaves third-party, a track that Ross Perot took in 1992 and 1996, thus assuring the election of a plurality candidate.
But are we going to see a choice of New York, New York and (faux) New York?
America is better than that.
Or Kurt Saxon for that matter.
My pleasure. It appears most of the articles we are seeing about Bloomberg were written after TWS put him on the cover, but thats just a guess.
I have 3 concerns about a Bloomberg bid.
1) Bloomberg will claim to be a “social liberal and fiscal conservative”. From what I can tell, Bloomberg isn’t conservative on any level. However, if he claims this he might be able to sway enough disenchanted Libertarians to hurt us in Colorado and other western states that lean GOP/libertarian.
2) If Hagel runs with him, this gives this ticket the appearance of an alternative to Republicans and probably hurts whoever the GOP candidate is.
3) If Rudy does happen to be the GOP nominee, Bloomberg would hurt him in New York.
My husband used to work for Bloomberg, back in the days when he would have an employee picnic at his Connecticutt house. So I’ve shaken his hand a few times - he’s not a preposessing man in person. Even less so on TV or radio, one of the most annoying little gits I’ve seen or heard.
In the north-east, he could draw off the votes of the Weld-Whitman-Specter Republican wing, but in the rest of the country it wold be the Democrats interested if anyone. However, in the rest of the country, he’ll have minimal appeal so it might prove a net loss for Republicans after all.
On the other other hand, the prospect of him shovelling his money down a rabbit hole is pleasant.
You can’t be serious. You act as though you didn’t know that Mike Bloomberg was another Rudy Giuliani. Mike and Rudy are both liberals who came out of the political sewers that are NYC liberal politics. Both men are lowlife skunks.
You’ll try anything to get liberals promoted around this forum. ANYTHING! LOL