An independent with a real shot?

[hork]

Should he run he would likely be the first independent with a legit chance at winning since TR. And depending on the democratic primaries I might just be willing to toss my support behind him. Of course I'd have to wait and see if his beliefs change as frequently as his party affiliation.

[-mmm-]

Well I definitely give him a better chance than Rudy.

Hes already had a couple of luncheons with Chuck Hagel, which would definitely split the conservative vote if that was part of the ticket. And Hagel seems to be positioning himself for such a run as hes got a couple of hard right challengers in the Nebraska primary (hard right as in people who dont like his Iraq position, the flip of Lieberman since both are/were(?) pretty attuned with the party's social platforms).

[spoc22]

How can you possibly say that a RINO having a couple lunches with another RINO split the CONSERVATIVE vote? And trust me NEITHER of the have a snowball's chance in hell of making the ticket even as a VP candidate. Hagel wouldn't even be able to be re-eleceted in Nebraska. Your Lieberman reference totally lost me.

[P562045]

I am trying to remember. Was Bloomberg only mayor of NYC because of Rudy? I seem to remember the press in New York asking Rudy every New York second who he would endorse in the mayor's race back in 2001 and Rudy did not say anything until the finals weeks before the election. Rudy finally said Bloomberg and it may have just been a coincidence but Bloomberg did win.

If you don't remember this there may be a very good reason. All of this was happening in the last few months of 2001.

I just remember because the democrat in the race thought he was going to win until Rudy came along with his endorsement of Bloomberg. I can't remember the democrat's name that was running against Bloomberg but I seem to remember his first name was Mark or something like that. The guy running against Bloomberg was a little out their for my taste.

I do find this rather interesting from hork's article, "Throughout his 5 1/2 years as mayor, Bloomberg has often been at odds with his party and Bush. He supports gay marriage, abortion rights, gun control and stem cell research, and raised property taxes to help solve a fiscal crisis after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks."

It seems to me this may give democrats an alternative to whomever their nominee is next year. And it seems to me that Bloomberg will be able to get his message out whenever he needs to.

We could have Mrs. Clinton, Mayor Bloomberg, and Rudy and that would give the presidential race a New York feel to the race. I don't know how that style of politics will play out in the rest of the country though. I am sure it will turn off at least some people though.

[-mmm-]

Originally Posted by spoc22

Your Lieberman reference totally lost me.

Lieberman got challenged in his primary almost exclusively cause of his stand in the war in Iraq. Same thing is happening to Hagel now, just that its on opposite end of the ideaological spectrum. In fact rampant speculation is that he'll retire from the Senate rather than lose his primary to (in all likelihood) state attorney general Jon Bruning (though a couple others are weighing a run on the Republican side too...the mayor of Omaha and some businessman). Well its either just Iraq or the GOP cant stand to have moderates in its party (personally since I have family and friends there and from them Id say its alot of the first and a little of the 2nd, though Hagel isnt much of a moderate and is pretty hard right).

[-mmm-]

Originally Posted by coolpeter72

We could have Mrs. Clinton, Mayor Bloomberg, and Rudy and that would give the presidential race a New York feel to the race. I don't know how that style of politics will play out in the rest of the country though. I am sure it will turn off at least some people though.

Yankees/Mets talk has NEVER turned off people on these boards, why would that happen in the political arena?

[-mmm-]

OK this far out polling is to be taken with a HUGE grain of salt. After all in the 04 race at this point Lieberman was lapping the Democratic field at this point in the polling, and back for the 00 campaign Bush was buried in the 2nd tier column.

Link

This is saying that right now, if Bloomberg ran; Iowa, Missouri, Ohio and New Mexico would flip to the blue column. Of course in certain circumstances (esp running against Guiliani and Hillary), it would also favor the GOP in big sweepstake states like Cali and NY.

You asked how a RINO will split the vote spoc? Well going with the rule of thumb that 30% will vote GOP no matter what, 30% Dem no matter what...you've got 40% left to win over. In '00 and '04 the GOP strategy was to appeal to the base and pick up half of the rest of the votes, esp in swing states (ie Ohio, Missouri, Florida). Well after doing that for 8 years theres little political capital left for them and they've lost alot of confidence in that middle 40. People in that centrist "RINO" group who voted Bush last time will likely give a hard look at a Bloomberg ticket (ala Perot getting 19% back in 92).

[spoc22]

The flaw in your logic is that Perot was far to the right of Bloomberg and was trying to push for more than the Repubs were pushing for. Bloomberg changes parties as it suits him and has pretty much been left of center his entire career.

[SayOw]

[hork]

i was wondering how long it would be before someone brought up paul.

it is my sincerist hope and wish that he runs as an independent. talk about splitting the GOP vote.

problem i have with paul is he talks a good game but his voting record stands on its own and violates his talent for rhetoric

[Dawgcountry]

Originally Posted by hork

it is my sincerist hope and wish that he runs as an independent. talk about splitting the GOP vote.

Then Nadar jumps in to make it a fair & balanced.

[SayOw]

Originally Posted by hork

problem i have with paul is he talks a good game but his voting record stands on its own and violates his talent for rhetoric

Please elaborate...

Not sure how anyone that has never voted for a tax increase, has always been opposed to the war, voted against the Patriot act, wants to eliminate the IRS, he bases much of his policies on the constitution - literal interpertation - and to the best of my knowledge... is what he says.

Voting on issues summary.

(BTW: I'm sure you know this... he is a libertarian dressed in Republican's clothes...)

[spoc22]

Paul doesn't stand a bat's chance in hell of winning OR splitting the Repub vote. He's a whacko at best. His conspiracy theory stuff is laughable.

[-mmm-]

Originally Posted by spoc22

Paul doesn't stand a bat's chance in hell of winning OR splitting the Repub vote. He's a whacko at best. His conspiracy theory stuff is laughable.

I agree with you spoc. Overall hes got a libertarian platform (which really pushes his anti-war agenda, almost reminds me of the isolationists of the first half of the 20th century). But hes also been accused of being a racist and a homophobe.

[-mmm-]

Originally Posted by Dawgcountry

Then Nadar jumps in to make it a fair & balanced.

I like all this 3rd party discussion! Given how weak the Dem field is (all the lefties flaunt how much they love all their candidates...it'd be great if you could roll Obama's speaking ability, Edward's platform, Hillary's political machine, and Richardson's executive leadership into one, but alas each has such a strength and more glaring weaknesses);and how more pathetic the GOP field is (even their golden boy Freddie since the more I watch him talk the more he reminds me of Bob Dole when he ran for some strange reason, and Im not interested in how much more like Jack Bauer each one of those candidates are in which case we should give them standard issue codpieces); Ive been looking at some of the 3rd party stuff.

But Im also just tempted to cut and paste stuff spoc said about Paul/Bloomberg for something about Nader but I dont think thats necessary.