Bloomberg to run for US pres, $1b of own money

[cyberianpan]

Washington Times, Tue May 15
New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg is prepared to spend an unprecedented $1 billion of his own $5.5 billion personal fortune for a third-party presidential campaign, personal friends of the mayor tell The Washington Times.

Bloomberg, who is a social liberal and fiscal conservative, has "lowered the bar" and upped the ante for a final decision on making a run.

A $1 billion campaign budget would wipe out many of the common obstacles faced by third-party candidates seeking the White House.

The Bloomberg team is studying the strategies of Mr. Perot, the Texas billionaire whose 1992 presidential campaign helped President Clinton to win the White House with 43 percent of the popular vote.

"Mike has been meeting with Ross Perot's most senior people about how they did an independent run in 1992,"

Ok this is still tentative but it would be quite a shake-up to US politics if he runs & he might very well win...

cYp

[porter]

Won't win - but I'm sure Ms Clinton will be delighted. He'll doa Nader on the Republicans for sure. Run Michael, run!

[cyberianpan]

Won't win - but I'm sure Ms Clinton will be delighted. He'll doa Nader on the Republicans for sure. Run Michael, run!

It depends how he pitches himself. I think he'd steal from both parties:

Socially Conservative Reps: won't vote for him
Socially Liberal Reps: will vote for him

Moderate/Urban Dems: may vote for him
Blue Collar/Rural Dems: won't vote for him

Unlike Nader if Bloomberg ran he'd "take" at least say 15 points of the Rep vote... I suspect 10 points of the Dem vote is readily attainable also. Now at that stage voters could start looking at tactical voting & he could storm down the "centre".

cYp

[Binx]

Won't win - but I'm sure Ms Clinton will be delighted. He'll doa Nader on the Republicans for sure. Run Michael, run!

Nader took away a lot of votes from the Dems, and helped the republicans.

Thats the point. He'll do a Nader ON the republicans.

[FakeViking]

But if this very rich, ruthless individual bought the POTUS, he has control of the US Army, like Bush currently has! And a nuclear button at his side day & night!

Please forgive me, I can feel a trashy airport novel brimming up. And a movie...

[Defeated Romanticist]

He'll do a Ross Perot rather than a Nadar. Nadar was fringe. If puts his mind and his money into it he will be big news. Especially with Obamas lack of depth

[cyberianpan]

He'll do a Ross Perot rather than a Nadar. Nadar was fringe. If puts his mind and his money into it he will be big news. Especially with Obamas lack of depth

I think so too & there's too much chatter on this for him not to be considering, actually right now methinks he is floating idea to see what happens. Given that he doesn't have to do a primary he has a wider choice on when to declare, that said though once declares he has to go fully for it - unlike Perot who flopped in & out & in.

My take is he should announce either now or when firm favourites emerge from primaries - else if he announces intra-primary (or in close run-up) they'll overshadow him.

Remember he did manage to get elected mayor of NY already on a Republican ticket....

cYp

[paypal]

"Nader took away a lot of votes from the Dems, and helped the republicans"

That's quite inaccurate, since it assumes that people who voted Nader would have otherwise voted DEMOCRAT. I know a couple of such people, and if they hadn't voted Nader they wouldn't have voted at all. Their view was there wasn't any difference between Repubs and Democrats--that's precisely why they voted Nader.

It's a bit like saying that Pat Buchanan when he ran took votes from the republicans. Again it's much more likely that folks who voted for him would not have voted Repub (Bush) under any circumstance. That was the case for me at least!

[Jim84]

He could be just angling for a vice-president spot on the republican ticket.

[Binx]

"Nader took away a lot of votes from the Dems, and helped the republicans"

That's quite inaccurate, since it assumes that people who voted Nader would have otherwise voted Republican.

No, it assumes that people who voted nader would have otherwise voted democrat. The point, however inaccurate, that nader split the democratic vote and assured a lead for bush. Hence the republican funding of Naders campaign.

[/quote]I know a couple of such people, and if they hadn't voted Nader they wouldn't have voted at all. Their view was there wasn't any difference between Repubs and Democrats--that's precisely why they voted Nader.
[/quote]

This is probably true but over 2 million people voted for Nader and i would say that, if he hadn't run, enough people would have otherwise voted for Gore to get him over the line.