Bloomberg might run as independent (for real this time)

[JDeVriese]

On another note, this could be the election that finally dismantles the two party dynasty.

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Economic conservative
Social liberal

I will never vote for this man.

economic conservative? he's BIG, HUGE, on taxes and regulations. Socially liberal? uh no

I think he's socially conservative, fiscally liberal

 

[Matt Collins]

Imagine Rudy, Hillary, Paul, and Bloomberg all competing in the general election. Paul wins hands down!

Don't bet on it but damn it would be interesting.

 

[Hook]

economic conservative? he's BIG, HUGE, on taxes and regulations. Socially liberal? uh no

I think he's socially conservative, fiscally liberal

That's what I ws thinking (See post above). Economic conservative and social liberal is usually how people describe Libertarians.

 

[Matt Collins]

On another note, this could be the election that finally dismantles the two party dynasty.

I would cream my pants if that happened!

 

[Hook]

I would cream my pants if that happened!

I hope I never hear that again

 

[thisisgiparti]

economically conservative / socially liberal is libertarian. that is * not * Bloomberg. That smoking ban / gun control thing should tell you something. I would investigate his ideas about education, too. When he ran for office in New York, he had young campaign staff with clipboards conducting polls. One of them expounded on Bloomberg's ideas regarding education, and it sounded like communism to me. The results have been non-spectacular from most accounts.

 

[Fox McCloud]

this is rather strange....though, I don't see the point. If he doesn't have delegates, how is he going to do well after super-Tuesday? This would, in essence, destroy him; it's just be an effort to leech the popular vote away from everyone else, and not much more than that.

Either way, this is really really strange, and something is amok here, that's all I'm going to say....something is amok (my only guess is that the CFR sees Ron as an authentic threat that could become unstoppable, and thus, they'll try this junk).

 

[Adamsa]

Strange, I thought he alwasy denied it, and even gave a Sherman pledge?

 

[user]

After RP wins the GOP nom, if we face Hillary I hope we can count on the neocon base to vote for RP. If Bloomberg is in doesn't that change?

 

[Second_Tier_My_Ass]

yet another piece of stupid news to distract the media's attention from what they should REALLY be reporting on monday. damn.

 

[jorlowitz]

Semantics...

Are you sure you don't have that backwards? That describes Dr. Paul more than anyone. It basically means freedom in both areas.

People use "liberal" in different ways. Its classical definition is hands-off governance or more or less libertarianism. Its modern manifestation, on the other hand, is big L Liberalism--the Democratic party kind.

Bloomberg is fiscally conservative meaning he favors lower taxes, business friendly policies, and free trade...He is socially liberal for both reasons: one, he is open and welcoming of "alternative lifestyles" and two, he thinks guns and cigarettes are really bad and should be done away with. That's the Liberal side of why he's a liberal. It's an interesting mix of policy approaches.

 

[Matt]

It will be easy to discredit big money with little money. We'll need to go on the offensive a-s-a-p though. If we do we can make his "entry" sour like Fred's did.

Hmmm, I wonder if those crazy FredHeads might just switch to Bloomberg and start another forum...

 

[Man from La Mancha]

He would drive up the prices for prime time ads, but how many people like pushy billionaires compared to hard working common folk men like Ron?

.

 

[Second_Tier_My_Ass]

Hmmm, I wonder if those crazy FredHeads might just switch to Bloomberg and start another forum...

yes, one of us should get to work on that ASAP.

 

[RoyalTenenbaum]

I floated this question the last time there was a lot of Bloomberg attention, but let's see if anyone's got a new take on it (especially in light of the Libertarian Party's recent overtures to Paul).

- Say the Dems nominate Obama or Clinton (I think it'll be Obama), and
- The Republicans end up not nominating Paul - they nominate Romney, or Huckabee (it doesn't really matter who), and
- Bloomberg runs as an Independant.

Should and/or could Paul run as a Libertarian? Could he be convinced to do it? Would he be on all the states' ballots? Would it help if the Constitution party also nominated him?

The best case for Paul in a situation like that is the Dems nominate Hilary, and the Reps. nominate Huckabee. Hilary will not be able to hold onto people, and you might get a lot of fiscal conservative Reps. who don't like Huckabee, but don't go for Paul, switching to Bloomberg.

How exciting would a four way race - with four real contenders - be?

Thoughts?

 

[user]

I floated this question the last time there was a lot of Bloomberg attention, but let's see if anyone's got a new take on it (especially in light of the Libertarian Party's recent overtures to Paul).

- Say the Dems nominate Obama or Clinton (I think it'll be Obama), and
- The Republicans end up not nominating Paul - they nominate Romney, or Huckabee (it doesn't really matter who), and
- Bloomberg runs as an Independant.

Should and/or could Paul run as a Libertarian? Could he be convinced to do it? Would he be on all the states' ballots? Would it help if the Constitution party also nominated him?

The best case for Paul in a situation like that is the Dems nominate Hilary, and the Reps. nominate Huckabee. Hilary will not be able to hold onto people, and you might get a lot of fiscal conservative Reps. who don't like Huckabee, but don't go for Paul, switching to Bloomberg.

How exciting would a four way race - with four real contenders - be?

Thoughts?

I still think Hillary vs. Paul with no Bloomberg is the best scenario. Hillary is so polarizing that we should get some extra votes, even if they don't agree with RP on everything.

As for a four-way race, after hearing him recently I'm not sure RP would do it. Then if it's Hillary, Huckabee, and Bloomberg, Bloomberg could have a real shot because of how much the right hates Hillary and the left would hate Huckabee.

 

[wisconsinite]

It's also very possible Ralph Nader will throw his hat in the ring again if Bloomberg enters and messes up the 2 party dynamics.

 

[wisconsinite]

this is rather strange....though, I don't see the point. If he doesn't have delegates, how is he going to do well after super-Tuesday? This would, in essence, destroy him; it's just be an effort to leech the popular vote away from everyone else, and not much more than that.

Either way, this is really really strange, and something is amok here, that's all I'm going to say....something is amok (my only guess is that the CFR sees Ron as an authentic threat that could become unstoppable, and thus, they'll try this junk).

He doesn't need delegates because he wouldn't be running for the Democrat or Republican nomination. He'd be outside the system like Ross Perot in '92.

 

[Midnight77]

I still think Hillary vs. Paul with no Bloomberg is the best scenario. Hillary is so polarizing that we should get some extra votes, even if they don't agree with RP on everything.

As for a four-way race, after hearing him recently I'm not sure RP would do it. Then if it's Hillary, Huckabee, and Bloomberg, Bloomberg could have a real shot because of how much the right hates Hillary and the left would hate Huckabee.

Agreed with Hillary vs Paul. I think Obama would actually be more difficult to defeat than Hillary. So that would be our best chance.

If it comes down to Huckabee, Bloomberg, and Hillary or Obama ... Dr. Paul is getting written in on the ballot by myself. Nothing is going to stop me from voting for Dr. Paul in both elections.