Most of the time that I look at the Daily News is when the headline is as dumb as this one. I want to know what they are thinking.
FReepmail me if you want on or off my New York ping list.
Posted on 05/14/2007 4:53:28 PM PDT by neverdem
Last week, Michael R. Bloomberg, the New York City mayor, stood on a sunny public school terrace in Queens and told reporters that he was not running for president.
“I’m just going to be giving an energy speech in Houston on Friday and a commencement speech in Oklahoma Friday night,” he said, describing his national campaign-style travel plans. He added coyly, “I don’t know why you would think anything like that.”
So it...
--snip--
And while aides say he has not been persuaded to mount a campaign, he has fashioned a second-term agenda for the city that is in many ways as national as it is local, focusing on broad issues like interstate gun trafficking, illegal immigration, energy and environmentally sound growth.
--snip--
Mr. Bloomberg has said privately that he is not interested in a campaign simply to make a point or to be a Ross Perot-like spoiler. Like Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, he would be in only to win.
--snip--
For him to run — a determination he could wait on until early next year, after the major parties have selected their nominees — he would need to be convinced that the field was polarized enough to create an opening for his brand of moderate, pragmatic politics.
--snip--
And at the very least, being considered presidential material is a great source of entertainment for a man with middle-class roots who got his start on Wall Street counting bond certificates in un-air-conditioned bank vault in his underwear.
--snip--
“When it comes to issues like housing and gun control and national health, mayors have always spoken out,” said City Comptroller William C. Thompson Jr., who is seen as likely to seek Mr. Bloomberg’s office in 2009. “I think it helps keep New York City at the forefront of an urban agenda.”
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Ah, yes. Michael Bloomberg. ...The legend in his own mind.
Yeah-—he’d be a runaway candidate in all the pro 2A states.
He and Kucinich stand about the same chance.
Most of the time that I look at the Daily News is when the headline is as dumb as this one. I want to know what they are thinking.
FReepmail me if you want on or off my New York ping list.
The only circumstance under which it would be appropriate to support Bloomberg is if he were to run against Hitlery or Chuck Schumer. Otherwise, forget it.!
If he took 60% of NYC he’d probably still lose the state.
That means he’d end up with ZERO electorial votes.
I think we should be weary of a Bloomberg candidacy. There is a possibility he can be a spolier in some swing states. Namely Florida because of the large number of transplanted NYers and the large Jewish population.
I meant if he ran for the U.S. Senate. I didn’t express myself as clearly as I should have.
Bloomberg was never a Republican. He merely bought the GOP line out from under a bonafide political convert, Herman Badillo. I wouldn’t support that megalomaniacal midget for dogcatcher, let alone against Hillary or Schmuckie. He makes Slick Willie Weld look like Jesse Helms.
Bloomberg is a better adminstrator than Rudy. That and $2 will get you on the subway (or a slice of pizza, per Sliwa’s Law).
Time and situation, e.g. Islamism, matters. If Bloomberg is on Unity08, then the Second Amendment is an issue. The dems avoided that issue in the last eection, and it certainly helped them take Congress. Since 1994, if the Second Amendment was an issue, the GOP prospered.
Everybody talks about how Perot helped Clinton in 92 and 96. Foreign policy wasn't much of concern in those elections. John Anderson didn't hurt Reagan in 1980, and George Wallace helped Nixon in 68, IIRC.
Michael Bloomberg doesn’t get it that he’d be nobody without Rudy Giuliani. He should do the honorable thing and endorse Giuliani now.
George Wallace hurt Nixon.
How? Nixon won. Wallace was a dem from the "Solid South."
Wallace's votes came from Humphrey's Party, i.e. the dems, after they forced the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights on the South.
Plurality Wins in the 1968 Presidential Race: The Impact of George Wallace
This is exactly what happened in 1968 when George Wallace broke with the Democratic Party and ran as an independent against Republican Richard Nixon and Democrat Hubert Humphrey.
Nixon did win, but Wallace’s states would have gone to Nixon. Heck, the only reason Hubert Humphrey won Texas was because Wallace split the vote.
My point is that significant third parties can work either way. Ralph Nader got almost 200,000 votes in Florida in the 2000 election, IIRC. GWB received Florida's electoral votes because he exceded Gore's total by 500+ votes in Florida. Similarly, Bush lost the electoral votes of four other states if he had the votes that went to Pat Buchanan in 2000.
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.