Let's ask Bloomberg to back Paul

[nate895]

What if the Ron Paul army got Bloomberg to back Nader and split the left vote?

All the 3rd-party people here should like that simply to prove the 3rd-party idea.

Consider:

Paul=40% (wins)
Obama=30%
Nader=30%

Clinton won in 1992 with 43%.

http://hawks4ronpaul.blogspot.com/

That scenario is almost as far fetched as Bloomberg endorsing Ron Paul, the day Nader gets 30% of the votes for President and is endorsed by Bloomberg is the day Hell freezes over.

 

[hawks4ronpaul]

That scenario is almost as far fetched as Bloomberg endorsing Ron Paul, the day Nader gets 30% of the votes for President and is endorsed by Bloomberg is the day Hell freezes over.

I was using simple numbers. Without getting diverted in a point-by-point analogy, 1992 results might have seemed far-fetched but they happened.

The point is we do not want Bloomberg adding to a frontrunner.

 

[nate895]

I was using simple numbers. Without getting diverted in a point-by-point analogy, 1992 results might have seemed far-fetched but they happened.

The point is we do not want Bloomberg adding to a frontrunner.

The numbers from 1992 aren't that far fetched, considering Ross Perot was merely a little eccentric, and not eccentric and socialist, like Nader. Also, the Democrats have a higher tendency to coalesce behind the nominee nearly whole, while the Republicans can easily be split with someone like McCain or Giuliani leading the Party, as was the case with Bush I.

 

[hawks4ronpaul]

The numbers from 1992 aren't that far fetched, considering Ross Perot was merely a little eccentric, and not eccentric and socialist, like Nader. Also, the Democrats have a higher tendency to coalesce behind the nominee nearly whole, while the Republicans can easily be split with someone like McCain or Giuliani leading the Party, as was the case with Bush I.

Before the 1992 election (without the benefit of hindsight), pundits spoke of Perot in the past tense and he polled only 7% on 10/1/92 but a month later scored 19% on election day and probably changed the winner.

Without getting hung up on a specific person or a specific percentage, let Bloomberg fund a center-left independent.

 

[Lovecraftian4Paul]

Before the 1992 election (without the benefit of hindsight), pundits spoke of Perot in the past tense and he polled only 7% on 10/1/92 but a month later scored 19% on election day and probably changed the winner.

Without getting hung up on a specific person or a specific percentage, let Bloomberg fund a center-left independent.

Not entirely the story with polls. Perot was actually polling FIRST and SECOND place in the summer of '92, ahead of HW Bush and Bill Clinton. Pundits, for a short time, actually thought it might shape up as a Perot-Bush race, with Clinton in third place. Then, Perot did a stupid thing and dropped out for a month. He was also hampered by choosing a senile Admiral as his VP candidate. This made him be viewed as not very serious by much of the electorate. Still, he went up from his fall polls, and still won a stunning 19%.

 

[hawks4ronpaul]

Not entirely the story with polls. Perot was actually polling FIRST and SECOND place in the summer of '92, ahead of HW Bush and Bill Clinton. Pundits, for a short time, actually thought it might shape up as a Perot-Bush race, with Clinton in third place. Then, Perot did a stupid thing and dropped out for a month. He was also hampered by choosing a senile Admiral as his VP candidate. This made him be viewed as not very serious by much of the electorate. Still, he went up from his fall polls, and still won a stunning 19%.

Yes, my point is not really about Nader or Perot, it is simply that Bloomberg can help Paul even if Bloomberg supports some other independent, so we should be alert to guide Bloomberg in a useful direction.

1. Increase your vote.
2. Decrease each leading opponent's vote.

http://hawks4ronpaul.blogspot.com/