Posted on 05/15/2007 7:29:21 AM PDT by Jake The Goose
I have to learn a lot more.
Third Party though - I wish he would consider one of the parties.
This would hurt Hillary more than any republican (except maybe Rudy)
He’ll hurt the Democrats if he does this. Think Perot and Buchanan in reverse from 1992. The only reason he’s a ‘republican’ is because the NY GOP is a bunch of losers, and the Democrats wouldn’t let him be their nominee.
A dyed-in-the-wool limousine liberal, Bloomberg makes Rudy look like a John Bircher.
Why?
>>The only reason he’s a ‘republican’ is because the NY GOP is a bunch of losers<<
Exactly. The only reason Bloomberg ran as a Republican in NYC is because the line was shorter.
So - maybe we're all OK with this?
The only thing he endangers is NY (which we won’t win anyway, unless Rudy wins the Republican primary, which he won’t) and Hillary support elsewhere.
Why?
You mean why consider one of the parties?
Because third party runs are junk investments.
FYI - I voted for Perot - so I have some regrettable experience.
Just say NO to New Yorkers! Enough of all of them! New York already controls far to much of the USA with it’s Federal Reserve Bank, investment banking houses like Goldman Sachs, the leading stock exchanges, activist Attorney General, major media nexus and the rest.
Just say NO! to more New Yorkers running the rest of us like a colony. NO RUDY! NO HILLARY! NO BLOOMBERG! NO SHARPTON! NO NEW YORKERS FOR PRESIDENT!
There seems to be a consensus here.
Why does this sound so familiar?
The good news is, an East Coast aristocrat-wannabe like Bloomie will probably divert more Democrats than Republicans.
I wonder.....does Bloomers receive any Republican money from a larger fund (RNC)?
Your theme seems to be the majority.
I don’t think I have ever heard Bloomberg talk at length about anything.
Why would Bloomberg run? What makes him special?
I don’t know the answer to that.
If he want to run as an indy - I don’t he wants any ties to the RNC.
Good question though.
Well,if Bloomberg won’t run as a Democrat, a third party would suffice.
He’s a huge liberal. I think he would split the Dem’s and take very few Republican votes with him. He’d only take Republican votes in very blue states.
So I hope he runs.
I hae no problem with a self absorbed billionaire blowing his money on a unattainable goal...and yep, I think it will help the GOP if he actually does this.
The Weekly Standard has a good piece on this matter from last weeks issue, btw.
He might not have the effect of Perot and Buchanan in 92, thinking about it further. But he could take the same percentage of the vote Nader claimed in 2000.
I think he could draw off a rather large percentage of Democrats disenchanted with Clinton, for just one example.
Exactly...
Now that’s interesting. When we call Jews aristocrats the world is up side down.
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.