If Bloomberg runs, Hillary is toast and the GOP nominee will win

All the more reason why we can't afford a Hillary nomination. Bloomberg will run as the anti-war candidate, which Hillary is definitely not. That'll split the progressive vote enough to allow the Republican nominee to win in some key states assuring their election. Obama will be able to blunt any Bloomberg impact. We can't afford to let Hillary win the nod or else the whole party goes down in the flames with her.

Or looked at the Bloomberg vs. Clinton or 9iu11iani in New York? What do you think?

How the hell will he not get any dissafected progressive voters? There's a lot of Kucinich, Edwards, and Obama supporters that would never imagine voting for war-mongering Hillary. Bloomberg is more in line with their philosophies than Hillary, so he'll be able to peel enough of them away from Hillary in key states like New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and maybe even New York to allow the Republican nominee to win.

Are you going to answer my question?

?

Pulling votes from both sides of the asisle can do that for you.

then there's one for hil/giul/nader/ron paul and in total nader/ron paul take 11% and hil giuliani receive the exact same support in the both polls (1 point apart or something). so i think it's the same 11% basically saying, yeah, we'll go with the "other". Bloomberg hasn't started to run yet, people really don't know what he's like. i think they don't realize he's pro-amnesty, pro-gay marriage, very strict gun control, banned trans-fats in nyc, etc. :).

i think when people find that out, it might be a different set that votes for him.

bloomberg could take a lot of those people, particularly if romney or huck were the nominee

Would you mind citing polls showing the contrary?

my jaw drop. Thanks. And does he or doesn't he like Clinton? Does he want to beat her or help her?

she's a panderer and he also thinks he can beat her.

Bloomberg seems to take his votes from both sides, but somewhat more from the GOP. However, in the swing states, the damage seems to be almost 2-1 against the GOP.


http://www.eyeon08.com/2007/06/20/bloomberg-effect/

The RCP average of six recent polls shows Hillary ahead by 1.8% in a one-on-one against Giuliani in the general election.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national.html

In a three way race against Giuliani and Bloomberg, Hillary would win by 6.5% if the general election were held today.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_giuliani_clinton_bloomberg-344.html

But notice at the first link above, both Obama and Edwards are polling better against Republican opponents than is Hillary. And it's also worth mentioning that McCain seems to be the GOP candidate we would have the hardest time defeating.

I am not fearful of a Bloomberg candidacy...

One thing current polls don't show, however, is how a Bloomberg campaign would change these numbers over time between now and November. My guess is it would tend to help the Democratic nominee even more. But that's just a guess as I said.

on youtube, or here, or on other websites, the names they call senator clinton, and the hatred they have for her, even about policies that she shares with barack, they call her a communist, and a witch, a bitch a c--t. But nothing like that for Barack. And too many people buy into it, even democrats, even supposed liberals. I think people are too scared of her. i think she will only win by a miracle. People hate women more than they care about health care or middle class status, or reproductive freedoms.

I wish she was a woman I liked. I think she's too conniving and not likeable. And then there's Bill, and then there's the whole dynasty thing. Take your pick. There's much good in all the Dems! But her 'bads' outweigh the goods in my opinion.

If that makes me anti-feminist, so be it.

And as for Bill, he was much better for this country than 'w' ever thought about being. But he's not running-supposedly.

different is she than gore?

different.

gore was for free trade, was not the most liberal senator. just asking b/c people seem to hate her and find similar people ok. but to be honest i don't know all the differences she and gore have.

Rupert Murdoch. Gore doesn't make decisions based on polls - obviously, or else he would be running right now.

Penn is poison.

He ran with the idea of 'Clinton fatigue' as an underpinning of his campaign. Mr. Penn correctly pointed out there was no such animacule abroad in the populace, and was fired for doing so. Had Mr. Gore run as the nearest thing to another term for Our Bill that could be got, the election would never have been in striking range either of thieves or Nader....

Thank you.

feminist should be looking for.

What Hillary is doing is anti-feminist.

graduated from law school, was the first female law partner at her firm and earned 5x her husband's salary to support their family and his campaigns for a dozen years, while still doing pro-bono legal work for children and families, taught law school, was chairman of the board for children defense fund, then went on to be the first first lady to be head of the health care task, then went on to be 2 term senator (at the urging btw, of Senator Moynihan). right. just a woman riding on her husbands coattails.

and even the Rose Law Firm looks a little fishy to me. She got hired after Bill was elected Attorney General. She became partner after he was elected Governor. Honestly, I wasn't even looking for this stuff but it jumps out at me. And even while she was a partner at the Rose Law Firm she plays a role in the appointment of judges? Yuck!

She wanted to run for Governor after Bill lost but decided not to because her unfavorables were so high so he ran again and won. I guess she has a history of wanting to continue where he left off. Is it because once she gets a taste of it she can't get over it?

I guess I'm supposed to be impressed by her background and some things are good...like the pre-k home instruction thing in Arkansas. But other things in her bio make me cringe.

check out wiki too. wouldn't it be sad if it were true, that it came down to that she's just a talentless hack with a cool husband? eep! either way, i thought about something this morning. she's going to lose GE if she wins the nom. That'll be a sad day for democrats.

You do realize that the Democrats and liberals who dislike Hillary do so for a completely different set of reasons that the RW does, don't you? It's a bit disingenuous to suggest that the left is "buying into" RW talking points, just because they both say that Hillary is wrong.

i see all sorts of points for disliking her, but there's a little something extra in there for her even when her policies and votes match others.

I really love how you all just make this stuff up as you go along.

running regardless of whom we nominate.

It's hard to get the full measure of his intent when we don't know what it is yet.

I'd like to know exactly what is motivating him. He barely won his first term as NYC mayor, edging Mark Green by a whisker. He's got some bucks. He's got some problem-solving skills -- more and better problem-solving skills than his predecessor.

But we haven't nominated anybody yet and neither have the Pukes.

There's a lot of "If this" and "If that" questions still out there before we can make firm guesses on a potential Bloomberg impact.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Fuck that.

lol.

They are a mess. The Democrats have plenty of attractive choices.

What a Bloomberg candidacy would do is provide a sort of 'halfway house' for moderate Republicans who cannot quite bring themselves to pull the 'D' lever, but who are through with the moral majoritarians and ultra-freemarketeers now defining their party. Such people make up about two fifths of the actual Republican vote, and without them, the hard cases cannot produce a majority in more than half a dozen states.

Thank you for everything, both of you. :toast:

Hopefully he would have a legitimate chsnce of winning.

Amazing! If Hillary wins the earth will explode, igniting the universe and ending all of existence? Did you think of this all by yourself?

Oh, and by the way, THE SKY IS FALLING!!

If Bloomberg jumps into that kind of race, we'll end up with President Huckabee!

The Unity exploratory committee people couldn't brief him without compromising this candidacy. I personally believe his is just as focussed on the Republican side. He spoke at RNC 04. His three guiding principles are ultra-pro-choice, free trade and the defense of Israel. Rudy, Huck or Mittens may arouse his interest. Who knows? Against Huck he could deeply split the Republicans into small government money men and women and the Christian Right. If it all looks good, I don't think he would have a problem "negotiating" with Rupert either.

Once the GE comes around, the best thing about being affiliated with a party is the money and organization that can come with it. Bloomberg doesn't have that worry. A billion dollars buys a lot of exposure, and there will be enough disatisfaction on both sides (assuming a Hillary nomination) to set up Bloomber for the win of the century.

And five in seven of it coming from Republican ranks, mostly in the Northeast and the West Coast.

He's consistently polling near 11% right now, with no real name recognition and not even technically being in the race.

My personal standard holds that anything within 2 percent plus or minus counts as a straight hit. You may do the eagle walk all up and down the pier at my expense if the outcome is beyond that parameter.

National third party runs always show less strength at the ballot box than they do in polling, particularly in early polling. Most people who bother to vote understand the system, and wish to identify themselves with someone who will be a winner: very few people actually vote for a candidate they know in advance will lose by a hopeless margin for any reason but party loyalty, which is another form of group identification they value as much as being part of a winning team. Voting is not an individualist act; it is a merging with a group, a team, a mob, a surrender of individuality into something larger and greater than oneself. There is nothing on the cards this year to indicate some tremendous upheaval from the normal patterns of human behavior is about to take place. Partisans particularly wildly exaggerate the degree to which their personal animosities are shared by the mass of the people. There is no one the Democratic Party is likely actually to nominate who will alienate an appreciable proportion of rank and file Democratic voters.

If the Hero of San Juan Hill and uber popular ex president can't win running on a third party ticket I don't see how Bloomberg can...

"And Mr. Bloomberg himself has become more candid in conversations with friends and associates about his interest in running, according to participants in those talks. Despite public denials, the mayor has privately suggested scenarios in which he might be a viable candidate: for instance, if the opposing major party candidates are poles apart, like Mike Huckabee, a Republican, versus Barack Obama or John Edwards as the Democratic nominee."

So she is the only one of the top tier the NYT doesn't mention him musing about running against.

Funny.

But Carter ran as a centrist in 80...

Hmmm. I really don't have much of a memory of that time, but do believe I was entitled to my opinion, and then dad kicked me out of the house when I was 17, because his opinion was the only one that ruled. Ah, those were the days.

There is no need to repeat Nos. 42 and 48, above.

then they 'lost it for a bit' and were telling us that Paul would take out Hillary, then when that bottomed out, they have discovered Bloomburg.

You all realize that the Green candidate, Cynthia McKinney will feed Bloomburg his guts for breakfast.

I would suggest that the Edwards, Obama camps are in desperation mode now since it looks like Hillary will be the nominee.

Once Iowa is over, then we move to NH. 44% of the voters are Indies. Better start chewing your fingernails now.

Oh Woe Is Us. A self-made strong woman who has spent her life working for those who really needed help, will be the nominee.

Just can't tolerate that can any of you?

And Cynthia would feed Bloomberg his guts? for b'fast??

Whatcha smokin'? PM me for my address~!

Almost every right wing person I know absolutely has a visceral hatred for her and most of the progressives I know do not like her at all. Maybe the center who does not pay attention will vote for her but it seem to me a bad thing if they have somewhere else to go.

Hillary won't be the Dem candidate and I have a sneaking suspicion that Bloomberg will become the Repug's Nader.

But what do I know? :shrug:




   Edwards '08 tees!

Bloomberg is not a self-absorbed anti-pragmatistic like Nader was/is.

Everyone knows what a devastating blow the 2000 fiasco was to Nader's formerly good reputation. Nader is now the eternal villain who enabled the creation of the worst Presidency and threat to American democracy in recent history. What sane person would want that type of thing to be forever associated with his name?

We could all go loonie before this election is over..

Fast becoming the irrelevant crazy uncle "future trivia" candidate?

Their fund-raising is going very poorly, and they will not be able to afford this tool....

"We can't afford to let Hillary win the nod or else the whole party goes down in the flames "

This is true whether Bloomberg runs or not. The ES&S/Diebiold/BigMedia troika will use Hillary's divisiveness (from the far right and left) as the reason why the Dem's lost -gosh- yet another Presidential election. Take that to the bank.

If we don't want a conservative Supreme Court for the next three decades, then we need to get behind JOHN EDWARDS lickity-split !!

and back away from it.