|
Bloomberg leaves GOP
Drudge headline/top story right now. Third Party candidate? Things get interesting.
|
D to the R to the I.
|
I'm pretty sure he's a Monarchist... as long as he gets to be the King.
|
I think you're talking about the previous mayor.
|
six of one, half a dozen of the other? :)
|
Quote:
Fixed. |
If he decides to run, I don't see him being any more successful than Perot was in '92.
|
Quote:
which of course was WILDLY successful until he dropped out and then came back in. If he'd stayed the course he had a very good chance to win the election. I know Bloomberg is willing to spend like 5 times what the average campaign does. If he can market himself successfully, maybe it can work. |
Quote:
I think you are getting the '92 and '96 campaigns confused. edit: no, I was confused. |
Quote:
check your facts, brother. |
The current crop of candidates is so poor that one of the front runners is a guy who played a DA on Law & Order and isn't actually running.
If Bloomberg really does throw $1,000,000,000 into the effort and ends up with a popular VP like the Governator or Colin Powell or someone like that . . . who knows. The time is never good for a third party, but now seems like one of the best times that could be. Winning a majority of electoral votes would be tough (anything short of a majority throws the race into Congress, so winning a plurality would not be enough), but it would certainly make the race interesting. |
Quote:
Steven Hill would make a fine President. |
I hope he does run, I think he'd be an intriguing candidate.
|
anybody but Hillary
|
I still think somebody needs to bring the Whig Party back.
|
Quote:
It's amazing to think back about how he actually had a sizable lead in the polls at one point over both Clinton and Bush. I'd love to see a viable 3rd-party guy shake things up again. |
Here's an op/ed from the NY Post about all the things the City Council banned or tried to ban in 2006:
http://www.nypost.com/php/pfriendly/...ditorials_.htm If I recall correctly, Mayor Bloomberg was opposed to the ban on aluminum baseball bats. Everything else he was in favor of banning. Then there's this piece about the NY Department of Health monitoring diabetics (still not sure how they do this without violating HIPAA): http://www.nationalreview.com/commen...0604250655.asp And if I feel up to it when I get off the air tonight, I'll try and put together a brief list of all the absolute bullshit Bloomberg's been spewing in his attempt to gain access to ATF trace data. I'm really not a fan. :p |
Quote:
The Governator can't be VP. |
There's a lot of difference between Bloomberg and Perot. One, the landscape is different. Perot gained much of his popularity through his prime time TV buys. Bloomberg can do the same thing, but viewership on the networks is much lower than it was in 92. He'll have to spend more and use other outlets to reach the same level of audience.
Bloomberg doesn't have a national issue. Perot was all about the national debt and that's what got him noticed. What's Bloomberg's idea that's going to grab people's attention? Perot had no enemies when he began, but Bloomberg has enemies on both the left and right. It's true that Perot developed enemies as the campaign went on, but he had months where he wasn't attacked by the major candidates. Bloomberg is going to have a target on his back from day one. Perot, though far from charming, was compelling to listen to. He had a charisma on camera that got people's attention. I have never heard Bloomberg speak where he seemed magnetic in any way. One of Bloomberg's opponents is going to be the guy that picked him to run for mayor. What's going to happen when Bloomberg has to face Giuliani? Of course Giuliani is also going to have a hard time with that dynamic. Bloomberg has a record and Perot didn't. Perot didn't have to defend any policy decisions because he was a complete outsider. Bloomberg has spent years building a political trail. I don't think Bloomberg has a chance to win. |
Quote:
I think he idea will be that he is not a Republican or a Democrat. With the latest polls puting Bush at about a 25% approval rating and the Democratic led congress even lower I would think that would be a fantastic starting point. Do I think he would be any better than the two parties? No, but he sure could run on that fact that he isn't either of them. |
Quote:
Funny how that doesn't get talked about much... |
But running as "not one of them" leaves him with an incredibly difficult task. Lots of people on both sides take enormous pride in being "one of them". He'll lose the 27% that still loves Bush and the 27% that will vote for whoever the Dems nominate. He'll have to win 75 - 80% of everyone else.
I think an issue that could peel off hard core party voters ala the national debt is a much better option. |
The current crop is not nearly as weak as in 1992 when Perot ran. On the GOP side, you had a very weak incumbent who had to deal with a primary challenge. On the Dem side, you had a miserable field. Everyone talks about ghow Clinton ran such a great campaign, but it shouldn't be that hard to beat Jerry Brown, Paul Tsongas, and Tom Harkin. Bob Kerry was probably the most viable contender against him, but he never gained traction.
The current field is much stronger with Clinton, Obama, and Edwards all much bigger names than anyone that ran in 1992. |
Somewhere in northeast Georgia tonight there might be at least a tiny hint of the perils of being "not-Bush" as your main selling point despite the President's dismal poll numbers.
In the race to fill the unexpired term of the late Charlie Norwood, the candidate that ran closest to Bush policies is comfortably ahead of 9 other candidates in a non-partisan primary. He'll still face a run-off since he's going to be somewhere in the 40's% of the vote, but his opponent is still to be determined. A (D) currently holds a 0.1% edge over an (R) that ran to the right of the leader but there's still absentee/early voters left to count in some places & those areas have favored the (R) over the (D) so far tonight. Now I'm usually reluctant to read too much into any isolated race & try to apply it to a bigger scale - personalities & local quirks can swing things quite a bit on the lower levels - but it does seem at least worth noting that the combined Democrat candidates in this race have actually attracted fewer votes (28% now vs 33% then) than a different challenger managed against a popular incumbent in Norwood just 7 months ago. And these candidates are at least a strong as that one was while the GOP contenders are all considerably lower in status than Norwood. |
Quote:
Here's the only thing the Constitution has to say on the matter, taken from Article II: Quote:
So for our purposes, the Governator could never be President. Curiously, the Constitution doesn't say whether he could be Vice President. There are no naturalization clauses for that office in the Constitution. The interpretation of some, then, is that he could serve as Vice President, because nothing specifically forbids it. However, were a Bloomberg/Schwarzenegger ticket to waltz into 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, and Bloomberg were to die or otherwise become incapable of holding his office, the line of succession would skip Schwarzenegger and Nancy Pelosi (or the then-sitting Speaker of the House) would ascend to the Presidency. The other interpretation would be that, as a non-natural born citizen, the Governator could never hold the office of President, and therefore would be legally incapable of holding any office which lies in direct succession to the Presidency, which in turn rules out his ability to serve as Vice President, despite any lack of direct Constitutional explication. In short, I'm not so sure he can't serve as Vice President. The Supreme Court would probably be called on to decide the matter, but there's certainly enough latitude for them to decide either way and still be within the spirit of the Constitution. |
12th amendment:
Quote:
no Governator |
Quote:
Okay. I missed that line. Good catch. You know what's funny, though, now that I re-read that? That amendment actually means that there are greater restrictions on who can be Vice President than on who can be President. Nothing significantly impactful, but it's still strange to me that the job Jack Garner once referred to as "not worth a bucket of warm spit" is still technically more restrictive than the Presidency. To wit: You can serve as President if you're 35, a natural-born citizen, and have lived in the United States for 14 years. That's it. Those are the only restrictions the Constitution places on who can be President. As Vice-President, though, you must be at least 35, a natural-born citizen, a resident of the United States for at least 14 years and have not previously served two terms as President (sorry, Bill). Also, it's not a requirement to be from a different state than the Presidential candidate, but since electors cannot vote for two candidates from the same state as themselves, it's not a good idea if the race is tight. Having both POTUS and VPOTUS be from, say, Florida would make things real interesting in a race as tight as the 2000 campaign. Would have been fun to have the chaos of Floridagate, and then on top of everything else, have Bush and Cheney both be Texas or Florida residents in that campaign. You'd have had Bush/Lieberman in office, and who knows how that would have turned out? |
Quote:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...51C1A9669C8B63 He had lived in Texas from 1993 until July of 2000. |
A couple of points:
1) Maybe Bloomberg is simply as angry as many centrists at the Bush administration and what it stands for. 2) If he is considering a run for president, maybe he wants to wait until Giuliani drops out on the Republican side. If Blumberg from the Bronx can be the first DH, Bloomberg from the Island can be the first independent president. It would be so nice to have someone from outside the primary system make a serious run. |
Quote:
Missed that in all of the hullaballoo back then. So we could've had Lieberman as veep after all. The thing is, IANAL, but the Times' interpretation of the 12th Amendment looks completely bogus to me. Here's what the Twelfth has to say: Quote:
The Times is trying to say that two guys from the same state can't be President and Vice President. I don't see anything in the Twelfth to support that. My interpretation, based upon the bolded text, there is that the 12th Amendment prohibits electors from voting for candidates for P and VP who are from the same state as said elector. So in this very specific case, Texan votes for Cheney would have been invalidated, and Lieberman would have gotten the post. Had Bush won California, though - or really any state of sufficient size to maintain the 270 electoral vote threshold without Texas - having the Texas electoral votes for Cheney thrown out would not have prevented him from becoming Bush's Vice President. Just my two cents. Would've stopped Cheney in 2000 because of a very specific set of circumstances; wouldn't have stopped, say, GHWBush in 1980 or 1984 had he been Californian. |
Dola,
put another way, the Twelfth implicitly allows electors to vote for TWO guys not from their own state; doesn't say a word about a Texan voting for two Californians. Therefore, the idea that both candidates could be Californian - or Texan, or from wherever - isn't a Constitutional disqualifer here. |
If the Democrats nominate Hillary, Bloomberg has a real shot as a 3rd party candidate... Otherwise, forget about it.
|
Another argument could be made that Bloomberg is only removing himself from the GOP so that he can run as a 3rd party candidate, but is not really a 3rd party candidate, but a two-party guy trying to circumvent the system, ala Joe Lieberman.
|
|
Another question is whether Bloomberg expects to actually be "in it to win it," or whether he is just a bored billionaire who thinks that he'll be able to get a lot of cocktail party antecdotes out of the experience: "This one time, when I was running for president . . . "
If he thinks that it is only worth running to win, then I imagine that he won't invest the time and energy into the very very long shot of actually winning. If, however, he thinks that it would be a lark and has always wanted to meet Wolf Blitzer, then why not? |
Too bad the "GRIDLOCK!" guy is no longer available for the VP slot.
|
Headline should read GOP leaves Bloomberg
|
Quote:
Or maybe "was never a Republican in the first place" Quote:
|
So much for fiscal conservatism. Republicans used to have a place for that. Guess that's what happens when the Christianists run the show.
|
Quote:
Yeah, I'd say I'm one of those "pseudo-Republicans" who puts fiscal issues above social issues. If that defines me as something other than a Republican, then so be it. |
Quote:
It does sound rather RINOish if the social spectrum is consistently a low priority for you. Do keep in mind however that I apply that pretty consistently, which is why I wouldn't self-identify myself as a full-fledged Rep. either. I'm staunchly pro-choice, which is pretty much incompatible with the party's goals/direction. I find myself aligned with them on more issues than not, but do not consider myself (nor Bloomberg) an actual member of the party. |
I'm pretty sure Bloomberg has said in the past that he only joined the Republican party because at the time their Mayoral field was thin as opposed to the Democrats, and he saw an opportunity.
|
Quote:
The problem I have is that the Republican Party has decided to not only shift the weight it places between social/fiscal issues strongly to the social issues, but to completely ignore what has been a core belief of the party regarding fiscal policy, in campaigning but more importantly in practice. Since I really don't care one way or the other about many of the social issues everyone else seems to consider litmus tests, I could go along with candidates who take either position on those issues. It's just that the party is running candidates who are (a) touting their positions on social issues as the number 1 (and 2, 3, and 4) priorities, and (b) either ignoring or simply paying lip service to fiscal issues. |
Quote:
See, I disagree that one issue should define what a party's goals or direction is. It is simply one position on a myriad of issues. The fact that so many people in the party would take a stance for or against a candidate simply because of his/her position on this particular issue is symptomatic of the problem with the Republican Party today. |
Both parties have moved away from "here's a philosophy and a general set of principles upon which we agree" to "here's a list of policies and positions. You're either with us or against us."
|
Quote:
And there you might find the appeal of Bloomberg. His schtick is a total rejection of ideology. |
Quote:
I guess that's true. Which is why I'm having such a difficult time seeing where I fit, given that I have uniformly voted Republican based on the philosophy/principles of the party and not worried so much about the specifics. Of course, if they stuck to the part of the philosophy/principles I care about the most, I might not be so conflicted. |
Quote:
Don't forget Die Hard 2! The guy ran the whole damn airport and kept Dennis Franz in line. Coupled with his experience busting criminals on L&O, how could we not elect him?? |
Quote:
Which is fine ... but it still comes back to the question of whether you're accurately defined as "a Republican" under the current platform (or the more practical reality of what they actually focus on). Take it from a former Democrat, it would not be the first time in history someone has found a party moving away from their priorities/beliefs, etc. In a perfect world, a party would get everything right - social, fiscal, domestic, international, everything - but that doesn't seem to happen very often. I believe there's plenty of people who really don't (shouldn't?) have enough compatibility to be actual party members, but still find themselves more frequently aligned with one or the other by default. |
But party ID means different things in different places. Lincoln Chafee was chosen by Republicans in Rhode Island. He didn't get all the votes, but he was deemed the better choice by a majority of Republican voters.
I think we too often try to find a single definition for either party when those definitions vary from state to state. |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:30 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.