How would a independent Bloomberg run affect the election?

Breaking news as you have probably already heard is Bloomberg is leaving the GOP and is officially "unaffiliated." If he runs, how will it affect the election?

:rofl:

Our electeds are a group of do-nothings who take roses cast at their feet, and makes manure out of them.

I chose "won't matter" because nothing does in this Party anymore. If they decide to win the election, they'll nominate someone who will win. If you think it is WE that do the nominating, you're mistaken. Mrs. Clinton is set up to buy this nomination... it is hers for the right price. We have but to vote for her or risk being marginalized on boards like this and elsewhere and made to look like "the problem".

I refuse to be assimilated, Borg-style, so nothing I think or say will soon matter here either. The influx of Hillary-bots frows by the day, and the bullying has begun full-force. I have to decide how much more of my energy I want to use to try and fight for a Party that no longer seems willing or able to fight for itself.

A Bloomberg run will be fun to watch, but in the end, I fear a Republican will win, no matter who's elected. It's been set up that way from the start. 36 years of Clinton/Bush rule of this country is in the cards, it seems.

Our own Party is in collusion to make sure that happens. Or they are the most incapable group of politicians on earth. You decide for yourself.

TC

I live in NYC and even here no one knows who he is.

Has he done anything?

And destroy the party system in New York? And make the streets safe for limousines to drag race?

Oh, and then there's the little problem with 311. 15% of 311 operators are city employees with benefits. 85% are not.

He draws off moderates of both parties and independents.

unless of course it's actually possible for an independent to win.

away from the Dem column....and instead gives a larger lead to the Republicans.......or to the Independent candidate. The Dems lose in any case....as most independents want "change"....and certainly, the right independent candidate would provide just that.

Believe it.

Of course, we have been infiltrated by paid trolls before. If the Dems fracture, the Republican wins. If the Republicans fracture, the Dems win. If they both fracture, I just start screaming.

The Mayor of New York, running against the ex-Mayor of New York, and both running against the New York Senator.

All we need now is Judge Roy Moore to carry the South.

I don't think Moore would carry the South, but the scenario of all those New Yorkers isn't good for the country. We do have states other than New York.

(Note: I'm not blasting New York. Merely pointing out that it isn't the only state).

So maybe they can get the fuck out of the Dem Party and join up with Bloomberg. That should help us.

Will siphon off "our" votes in big states as an "Indepemdent" because the Repug base plus will hold fast, especially against a Jew-- enough to make a loss ala Nader.

Please, please, Al swoop in and negate this wannabe.

I have absolutely no clue. And I doubt any of the pundits do, either.

Remember what Perot did. He backed out of the nomination just before the Democratic convention and almost all his support went to Clinton. If that had been before the GOP convention, it might have had a different effect.

This could go either way. If Bloomberg gets over 5%, he's in the debates and swings enough votes to affect the outcome.

be long on Republicans at more than one level of each state's ballot.

If Congressional Democrats cannot force Bush to set a timetable for withdrawal, public perception of the now-(barely)-Democratic-controlled Congress will sow frustration and anger.

Enter Michael Bloomberg to siphon frustrated voters of both parties. Independents may look Right to Romney and perceive he's a flip-floppin' nitwit, and then Left to Clinton and feel Bill's presence too strongly, and in the end may cast their votes for Bloomberg-Boren. Thompson isn't going to attract independents in great numbers if he wins the GOP nomination. Neither is Huckabee, and that's a longer shot than Thompson. McCain is on life support as we speak and Giuliani's support is beginning to fall away. I don't think McCain is within reach of the nomination at this point and I think Giuliani never was.

Clinton is. Her numbers are not commanding but currently they lead everyone else in the field. If Bloomberg announces, or is clearly preparing to run, Clinton's veep choice is going to have to be bolder. She'll have to choose someone considered both dynamic and fiercely individualistic to try and draw & hold independent voters. If her choice is too establishmentarian, Bloomberg pockets that demographic without lifting a finger. And that's assuming Clinton wins the nomination, which I don't think is going to happen.

With this switch to "unaligned," Bloomberg becomes the wild card in the 2008 race.

if he stays in the race or if he drops out and endorses Candidate X.

If the Dems choose from the war candidates, he will certainly take away votes that would have gone to the D column by default. Even my Yellow Dog dem Mom called me today and asked if she was "going to be forced to vote for this arrogant bastard", since she has vowed not to vote for a dem who voted for the war.

If Gore or Clark get in the race, as strong anti-war choices it will keep most of the D votes together and instead he would siphon from the GOP, as fiscal conservatives who won't vote for "the other team" would see him as a way of voting against the GOP, without directly supporting a dem.

:puke: Don't you hate it when BIG MONEY stacks our elections? :(

He sure is a Party hopper. After that election, he'll probably join the Greens or maybe the Libertarians (depending on which way the political winds are blowing.)

My guess:
For the Republicans, the negative affect (to them) is greatest if they pick a very conservative candidate - and the least if they pick a more moderate one. An exception is Guilliani as he may be seen as Guilliani with less baggage (though how that balances with 911, I don't know)

For the Democrats, the dangers are:
That people siding with Democrats because of social issues (abortion / homosexuality) might be spun off if they prefer Bloomberg for other reasons. (such as executive experience - which none of the top 3 have)


The electoral congress makes it interesting-
Scenario 1) Bloomberg as spoiler - ie: He is not strong enough to win many states. What will he do to the swing states - that depend on who gets more of the "middle"? In swing states, do we need more of the middle or do the Republicans? If it's us, we are hurt, because that is where Bloomberg's votes will come from. I don't remember whether I have ever seen this for the dozen or so swing states. (Note: if Bloomberg can actually win NY, NJ or CT, that makes it harder for the Democrats to get the electoral votes needed and could send it to the Congress)

Scenario 2 - Bloomberg as possible President-
The best shot for Bloomberg - The Republicans go with someone very conservative and the Democratic candidate is hit with something or is seen as not experienced enough or as unlikable. If, like Perot, he polls nearly a third, he could get some momentum. It might show whether the established party adds much.