Anyone Here Think There Will Be A Late Entry In To The 2008 Prez Race?

I heard Lou Dobbs (I know, he's an ass) say he thinks none of the current candidates will win next November, a more independent candidate. It made me wonder.

either that or McCain will get it and he'll be dead within a year or two, whereby Jebby steps in.

by its silence because the traditional third party challenge refuses to materialize, daunted by money and the 99.999 % of losing which is one reason there will be few donors. The media propositions as to who could do this are as much losers as the current crop of GOP candidates so they can't get excited even about the speculation.

A late addition however is possible among the GOP weak sisters, any of whom could be elbowed aside. Hagel and Gingrich seem to have been each crushed as soon as they seemed serious about such a temptation. So that is out.

Then remains the possibility of a Bush engineered "surprise" dark horse, although cronies not as ugly as sin and as dumb as bricks are pretty invisible. I bet they know what surprises are in the offing on their side. They have initiative and options, crudely limited by criminal complicity and rotter character, of course. On our side, it is the battle for choice itself and its predictable "inevitabilities" that marches lockstep through an imperfect somewhat gamed primary system as the sole actual democratic process left to the presidential selection.

Not much room for the people's will much less surprises. Dobb's is an outlier on a "third" party when once it was common speculation. The dance of control has devolved into the most minimal of games with smaller and smaller choice given to anyone.

will jump in, because America will look at those two and say, is that it? Not saying he'd be successful, but he'd be a factor. I think America wants a change, but I'm not sure that's necessarily going to be an advantage for Democrats--there are a lot of Independents out there who aren't going to be satisfied, combined with R's and D's who aren't going to be exactly "in love" with their nominees. Could shape up to be a very interesting three-way race.

but not without GOP permission. At this stage the bucks and the power control his choices. Several private billionaires have toyed with the possibility and enjoyed the celebrity, the aura- all personally undeserving except for their bank accounts. None of them went broke trying. If a billion dollars doesn't make you independent with media recognition, then there is a fat chance anyone can break into this sordid game. I think they all recognize they have to let money puffed ego turn them into tools to be gamed by the big shots and that they could never get close to anything.

and has high approval ratings--he's not Perot or Trump, he's a politician, no different than Rudy, except more accomplished. If Rudy is being taken seriously as a candidate, then Bloomberg should be as well--you're letting the money factor blind you to the fact that he's about as well-qualified as anyone else. The money, and the financial and media empire he owns, should make us take him much more seriously than we do right now--he's got a lot of personal advantages, and he's not nuts. My husband likes him and would vote for him if it comes down to Hillary, Rudy and Bloomberg--my husband is a former Repub who is now Indy, and couldn't give a shit about social-conservative stuff, but is a fiscal conservative (although I do have him sold on Obama, and I'm working on getting him sold on Hillary). That's who would be attracted to Bloomberg. I don't think anyone controls the guy--he left the GOP, and seems to do what he wants. Whether or not he'd be an effective candidate is another story, but again, the money is a sideshow--there is substance there. He's not all hot air, and he's not a single-issue crusader, and it would be a mistake to write him off as another eccentric billionaire.

That won't exactly rouse the nation.

It's a SYSTEM Currently, a two party system. This means that from your town to your county to your state to your nation, all along the way are public servants from one party or the other. You don't start at the top ( President) with absolutely no local support or political backing and then expect to accomplish things. All that will result is gridlock, in the unlikely miracle a 3rd party candidate runs for President and wins.

Will of the people? What people? I don't see any 3rd party guys coming to my door. I don't see any third party guys establishing party frameworks in my town. I don't see any third party guys establishing 3rd party clubs and electing delegates to a central committee. I don't see any third party guys having a state convention to create a platform to present to the national third party. I don't see any 3rd party guys running for office and winning*

So you tell me the will of the people want a third party guy, I have to ask, what party and what people?

* exception- Green candidates have a few electoral victories locally in various cities like Windham, Ct.

Cheney will nominate himself at an open convention.

More interesting than the Democratic Convention/coronation, that's for sure.

P.S. I might be wrong on that (Very often I am).

If the early front-loaded caucus/primary outcomes do not produce a winner in one or both major parties, then someone could waltz in after the shooting and shouting is over with and lay claim to the nomination.

Say, Al Gore or Gary Hart for the Democrats. (Bill Bradley? RFK Jr?)

Say, John Danforth for the Republicans. (Dan Quayle :puke: or Jon Kyle :puke: or Jim Talent :puke:)

Michael Bloomberg, who's been both a Democrat and a Republican, could run as an Independent. It appears he has a buck or two at the ready.

A longer shot would be an independent ticket of nutbag fundies, uniting behind a Brownback candidacy, say, comprised of people in the Judge Moore demographic.

that I've come to the conclusion that nothing is out of the question.

No one else has the money and organization to do it. (Okay, Gore might be able to, but he's not going to).