NEWS: Hey, Bloomberg. Make Your Damn Mind Up.

scylis said:
damnit, now I want triscuits.

Uncognitive said:
Bloomberg isn't "liberal" by any real definition other than "compared to some other Republicans". He's a moderate on most issues, and his public image has benefited enormously for not being nearly as much of a douchebag as Rudy Giuliani was when he was mayor.

What irks me most about the whole "Unity '08" line is that it presents people like Chuck Hagel as being "moderate" when they're really not. I love hearing a meeting of a bunch of Republicans described as "bi-partisan", too.

Oh, excellent article, by the way. Mmm...triscuits.

Colinism said:
It would take dedicated people and at least a few election cycles but in theory if you pulled a blue and a red state and turned them say Yellow that would greatly increase the importance of swing states, and it would show the states that are taken for granted that they in fact have the power to make themselves felt.

_Margot_ said:
I agree, the Unity '08 is a mess. The only Democrat I am aware of that is involved is Sam Nunn.

The following individuals are likely participants:

David Abshire
President of the Center for the Study of the Presidency

Michael Bloomberg
Mayor of New York City and founder of Bloomberg News

David Boren
Former U.S. Senator

Bill Brock
Former U.S. Senator

Bill Cohen
Former Secretary of Defense and U.S. Senator

Jack Danforth
Former U.S. Senator

Alan Dixon
Former U.S. Senator

Susan Eisenhower
Political Consultant

Bob Graham
Former U.S. Senator

Chuck Hagel
U.S. Senator

Gary Hart
Former U.S. Senator

Jim Leach
Former Member of the U.S. House of Representatives

Sam Nunn
Former U.S. Senator

Edward Perkins
Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations

Chuck Robb
Former U.S. Senator

Christine Todd Whitman
Former New Jersey Governor

Zarth said:

Yeah, I actually have to agree. He'd probably pull more votes from the Democrats than the Republicans nationally, and in this cycle.

Rafi said:
So I would imagine he would draw near equal numbers of votes from Republican and Democratic voters in a general election, depending on the candidates. Social progressives or just resolutely anti-Hillary voters would indeed be drawn from him. But so too would Republican moderates and nonreligious economic conservatives, if someone like Huckabee ended up as the nominee.

ericwine said:

Can you name many issues where Bloomberg isn't left of center?
I think there were some Dems involved with Unity '08, but most Dems aren't interested because they think they have a chance to win this year. It's a measure of how polarized the parties are that people like Hagel are called moderate - my congressman, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, is about as liberal as Hagel is conservative, and he gets called moderate too.

ardour said:

Do you guys in the US get the pepper and olive oil ones? So good.

scylis said:
damnit, now I want triscuits.

Colinism said:

No yellow was the only primary color left. Red, Blue, Yellow.

*he said while eating his chicken with pork fried rice and won ton soup*

DhD_No_Pants said:

See, I was sitting there thinking 'Don't blue and red make purple?'

Good article, Miz _Margot_. I didn't even know Bloomberg was still ghosting around about it. That kind of hesitancy and indecisiveness isn't really my cup of tea when it comes to a presidential candidate, even if they did stand a chance in hell of getting elected.

JekyllAndHyde said:
I think the idea of a third party is what people like, not the actual existence of one. How many electoral votes have a third parties accumulated on average? People talk about them all the time, but when it comes down to it, few actually vote for one. I suppose it's nice to have an extra option, maybe one who fits your views more than the main two, despite the uttler lack of possibility of winning, but I agree with the consensus here, they mostly just pull votes away from the main candidates.

In this case, for some reason I'm starting to think that Bloomberg wouldn't hurt Obama all that much (assuming both are actually running, of course) -- Obama seems to have people who actually want to vote for him as a person, not just because he's the de facto Democratic nominee.

Bloomberg's political calculation depends on being able to run down the centre of the political field - and right now the field is in flux. A Barack Obama nomination gives Bloomberg less room to run than a Hillary Clinton candidacy; a John McCain win makes less room for him, than if Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney or Rudy Giuliani were chosen

Uncognitive said:
Bloomberg isn't "liberal" by any real definition other than "compared to some other Republicans". He's a moderate on most issues, and his public image has benefited enormously for not being nearly as much of a douchebag as Rudy Giuliani was when he was mayor.

What irks me most about the whole "Unity '08" line is that it presents people like Chuck Hagel as being "moderate" when they're really not. I love hearing a meeting of a bunch of Republicans described as "bi-partisan", too.

Oh, excellent article, by the way. Mmm...triscuits.

InnocentSid said:
The Republicans have abandoned their fiscal policies for a strictly Jeebus-based policy. While the Democrats have abandoned everything for a "we-are-not-them" stand. Bloomberg's credentials puts him into an interesting position that would draw from both camps. Sadly, Americans cannot get away from the two party system. I would be for a third party candidate if he or she offered something new beyond another variation of the two tired parties. Bloomberg does not, just as Nader did not either. On the other hand a third candidate might be fun to watch, particularly if it weakens the Republican block.

_Margot_ said:

I am not a gambler, and the idea of having a third party candidate in there with hopes that it would take votes from the Republicans has me timid. You just never know.

InnocentSid said:

I survived this moron, I will survive another one whether he is a Dem or Republican. I don't have hopes for any change regardless.

smithers_jones said:
A Bloomberg candidacy would be great for the Dems as it would dilute the moderate Republican vote. Are there any of those left anymore?

JekyllAndHyde said:
I think the idea of a third party is what people like, not the actual existence of one. How many electoral votes have a third parties accumulated on average? People talk about them all the time, but when it comes down to it, few actually vote for one. I suppose it's nice to have an extra option, maybe one who fits your views more than the main two, despite the uttler lack of possibility of winning, but I agree with the consensus here, they mostly just pull votes away from the main candidates.