Skip to main content

View Diary: President Bloomberg? New third party, "No Labels", and the Interactive Voter Choice System (66 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  This is a set-up (6+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mattman, billlaurelMD, agent, fabucat, DWG, kevinpdx

    Bloomberg is running to get Sarah elected. Somebody check his bank accounts.

    •  maybe (6+ / 0-)

      Or maybe Bloomberg believes both Obama and Palin are so polarizing that he could win if they are the nominees.

      Personally, I don't seek Bloomberg as the kinda guy who gets in it to lose it.

    •  The only reason Clinton won in 1992 was... (0+ / 0-)

      Ross Perot. Without him siphoning off Republican votes, Bush 41 would have been reelected.

      Is Bloomberg doing the same for Obama?

      If Obama moves to the left to shore up support among his base -- which I hope he does -- then hard-core Blue Dogs will want a place to go, and Obama needs them to have a place to go other than all the way to the GOP. Especially if Palin gets the GOP nod, moderate Republicans will want a place to go, too, and that will completely isolate Palin.

      In the end, I think Obama would win that three-way battle, and be a more progressive president in the process.

      What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof*

      by Jimdotz on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 12:20:10 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  You hit the nail right on the head. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Jimdotz

        If Bloomberg tries to run indie or as a third-party candidate, he will simply deliver the White House to Obama just like H. Ross Perot delivered the White House to Bill Clinton.

        Another thing about Bloomberg wrt the Teabagging Brigades: they won't vote for someone with a surname like that. They won't even vote for someone with a surname like Lieberman.

        In defeat, defiance. -- Winston Churchill
        You can fool some of the people all of the time and they are called FOX viewers.

        by Pris from LA on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 12:56:20 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I think Bloomberg would have won in 2008. (0+ / 0-)

          He misunderestimated the change that the voters were willing to accept at the time, as evidenced by the election of our first black president. While Hillary didn't win the office, the country was clearly ready to elect a woman as president, too. Why would a Jewish president have been any more controversial than either of those?

          What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof*

          by Jimdotz on Mon Nov 29, 2010 at 01:03:41 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  According to the ct guys (0+ / 0-)

            'Jews run the world', and black people are just useful lackeys.  Therefore, in this worldview, a black person can only mess up, whereas a Jew, in their estimation, could do more 'damage.'

            Please don't flame me, just answering the question.

          •  You're both wrong here and why (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Jimdotz, sharonsz

            Palins followers are rabid. And they are also numerous. Not numerous enough to win a two party race, but in a three party race, she unfortunately has a very good chance. Her support is about 36%. If she picks up even a small percentage of Independants, Obama and Bloomberg could both have big problems.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site