Beyond that, not many folks that I can think of think he's worth dogscratch.
Posted on 06/29/2006 8:45:42 AM PDT by presidio9
Mayor Bloomberg has privately said he has more than enough money to run for President - and now he may have a potential entry strategy. Bloomberg's main political adviser, Kevin Sheekey, indicated that the mayor would be unlikely to challenge Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) - a friend who has been successful with the same category of independent voters to whom Bloomberg would appeal.
But Sheekey told The New Republic - in an interview with this columnist - that Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) would not be an obstacle, and could even be an ideal adversary.
"If John McCain gets beaten to the right - which is possible in a conservative Republican primary - and if Democrats elect someone through a primary who Democrats generally view as unelectable, there's a large segment of the American electorate that is looking for something different," Sheekey said.
That disaffected segment could translate into "36% of the vote in enough states to give you an electoral win," he added.
Clinton has been dogged by aperception among some Democrats that she's unelectable. And Bloomberg's candidacy would only be plausible in a deeply divided election between two candidates viewed as overly partisan.
If that were to happen, there's no doubt that Bloomberg has a big enough bankroll to fund an independent candidacy.
"I could easily put up half a billion [dollars]," Bloomberg said at an April dinner party, according to the gathering's host, public relations titan Howard Rubenstein. The 2004 Bush campaign broke spending records with outlays of $367 million - a third less than Bloomberg said he could spend.
The comment adds to the evidence that Bloomberg is seriously considering a run as 21st century version of Ross Perot, the Texas billionaire who briefly led polls for the presidency in 1992 and finished with almost 20% of the vote.
Democrats are starting to take Bloomberg's aspirations seriously - and view them warily. A Clinton adviser, Howard Wolfson, dismissed Bloomberg's presidential aspirations as "insane."
"He couldn't win," Wolfson said. "But unlike Perot, he would end up doing a lot more damage to a Democrat than a Republican."
Bloomberg has started to cast himself as an antidote to the nation's partisan divide.
"Both ends of the political spectrum share the blame" for the partisan paralysis, he said at the University of Chicago commencement this year. "And both seem unwilling to change."
The mayor has denied presidential aspirations publicly, but he has privately hinted that he's considering it: At a fund-raiser this month in Greenwich, Conn., he responded to questions about a run by saying, "Absolutely not. And anybody who's running will say exactly that."
Beyond that, not many folks that I can think of think he's worth dogscratch.
Put it this way: Bloomberg would most likely steal more votes from Hillary than any Republican challenger.
Yes, there is: Bloomberg.
At least Mikey wouldn't steal any conservative votes. He's more liberal than many Democrats.
NO. No one.
He would pull very few votes, and most of them from Democrats. He is delusional.
However, I could see him teaming up as a VP candidate with McPain.
No kidding, this guy is on ego overload.
Bloomberg ruined any slim chance he had at winning anything when he refused to condemn Professor Jeffries. Jeffries is a black professor at CUNY who gave a racist speech at a city-hosted "Unity in Diversity" event sponsored by the city.
Jeffries suggested if every white person dropped dead, the system would go on. There was more but too despicable to discuss.
In 1994 he compared Jews to skunks who stink up the place and said that Jews and the Mafia conspired to keep down blacks.
When Bloomberg was asked if action couldn't be taken against a taxpayer paid professor making such remarks at a city-paid event, Bloomberg said that the American Cancer Society have addressed these lunchtime sessions in the past so it's clear the goverment can't pick and choose.
Huh?
The resulting outrage among taxpayers took the heat off Jeffries and put it on Bloomberg who has doomed probably his chances of re-election in NYC, let along to the presidency.
A tumor is the cure???
Right and no first lady was ever elected senator until... What was your point again?
A Bloomberg third party candidacy would almost certainly split the left wing vote, and help the GOP candidate win. Only down side to that is the new president might get elected without a majority of the popular vote and would not have as great of a mandate as he might otherwise get.
... one ran for the office (they're now 1-for-1). NYC mayors have tried, and failed, to run for President before. The type of person who can get elected as mayor of NYC just doesn't play well to the rest of the country.
Unless its a Democrap that wins, you could have a Ronald Regan landslide and the Democraps would still b!tch.
A Republican who can win NY State is virtually guaranteed of winning a national election.
Look, I plan on voting against Rudy in the primary, but if the Democrats don't win NY, they lose. Plain & simple.
If Hillary gets the nod -- In '04 everyone thought Dean had it, and then Kerry came roaring up from near the back of the pack. Anything can happen, and we have a while to get there. All things considered 2008 is going to be a VERY interesting year. It will truly be the "fork in the road" in my opinion.
But it won't. There is no way the MSM is going to let any other Democrat than Clinton win the nomination. Think about the names they have been throwing around: Gore, Kerry, Daschle, Edwards? All losers.
Let us examine the 1860 presidential election and how the guaranteed and expected winner...lost. Stephen Douglas in 1859 was Democratic front-runner and absolutely expected to win. Abraham Lincoln was a long-shot at the Republican nomination and expected to be totally out of it or the vice-presidential candidate. This was history....almost written in stone. The Republicans were guaranted to lose.
Instead, the Democratic national convention convened in South Carolina, and Douglas was pushed into a corner to have an absolute platform on keeping things the way they were. Instead, Douglas took the same stand as any Democratic player for 50 years...the south has to eventually accept some change to the system....but no one ever enforced their platform. Douglas and Hillery are both of the same cloth...contenders but with no real backbone.
Lincoln meanwhile, came out at the Republican convention...hitting hard on the platform, and dislodged the favorite son...and eventually taking the nomination.
As the Democratic convention ended in total failure...they held another in Baltimore four weeks later...and Douglas had all the boys lined up to simple vote yes, so they could move on.
Along came the unsatisified southern Democrats...who stood up their candidate...Breckenridge.
The guaranteed win for Douglas went south...as he barely took 12 electoral votes. Breckenridge took 72 (all southern states and Maryland). And Lincoln? With his calculated gamble of his platform...took the beefy electoral states and scored 180 electoral votes.
The amusing thing...Douglas needed only 300,000 more popular votes to edge Lincoln nationwide...but we aren't in a popular vote situation. Without Breckenridge...(almost 850k votes national-wide)...Douglas wins.
So Bloomberg poses an interesting scenario. We can already guess that he is capable of taking New York (31 votes)...and can probably win another five eastern states (maybe 20 additional electoral votes). So he starts to control 51 votes possibly. Without NY and these eastern states...Hillery can't win the election...provided McCain is the expected player here that she must compete against. The problem is that you must get 270 electoral votes to win. And by a player like Bloomberg taking 51-odd electoral votes...its going to be impossible for either Hillary or McCain to beat each other enough to win that 270-mark.
Take a guess on what happens next.....I think that is what Bloomberg's intention might be. He knows he can't win...but he could certainly put both parties into massive deal/no deal situation. With all the voting district games, the fat cash payoffs of contributors, special favors, corruption throughout the voting system...why not go the extra step and force the House into a reality moment.
Remember...once the electoral college ends in a no-winner situation...it goes to the house where each state's representatives gather and each state has one vote which they must decide upon in their group. And the winner must get 26 votes of the 50. And only the 3 top candidates can run in this game. Hillary has made alot of enemies in the house...so there could really turn into fascinating situation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.