Bloomberg to run?

My guess is that he has no intention of running, and is just keeping his name out there to fend off lame duck status (he's term limited out at the end of 2009) while he tries to complete his mayoral agenda, and because the attention is kind of flattering.

He won't break 5:30.

Too smart, too succesful, too independent and too jewish.

John Stockton wrote:

too jewish.

I don't get why people say things like this. They just assume it is true without any real evidence.

A black guy is at or near the top of the polls on the Democratic side of the presidential race and a Mormon is at or near the top on the Republican side.

A black woman is secretary of state, who followed a black man.

Minnesota just elected a Muslim to serve in Congress.

The oerwhelming number of Americans look well beyond things like this when voting.

you forgot about the connecticutian senator, who wants to destroy Iran.

I love peeps wrote:

you forgot about the connecticutian senator, who wants to destroy Iran.

We all want to destroy Iran.

we already did.... back in the '50s when we destroyed their hope for democracy and installed our powerbroker... guess that didnt work out too well tho did it?

WOW... and now this...

If Rudy Giuliani and Obama don't win the nominations he's gonna run cause then there would be plenty of independent votes to grab between polarizing figures like Hillary and some religious nut.

Doing well in the polls and get elected are two different things, especially when it comes to presidental elections.

But what is probably an even bigger problem is that even if he's not an atheist/agnostic jew like many in NY he's surely not very religious (or pretending to be like many candidates) and i doubt you can win a general election without playing the god card like mad.

Great guy, way better than all the other candidates but all he could do is to prevent any candidate from winning an electoral majority by winning 1-3 states.

I am actually a big fan of Bloomberg, and would love to see him as a presidential contender. The problem is the electoral college -- I just don't see an Independent being capable of picking up a single state. Ross Perot, despite garnering 19% in 1992, didn't carry even one electoral vote.

Now, if Schwarzenegger could be his VP candidate, it *might* put California's electoral votes in play for Bloomberg. That's a big if, though.

I think Bloomberg will serve out his term as mayor. With his name in play for a run at the Oval Office, he becomes less lameducky. He says he'll then turn into a full time philanthropist. I think he is going to spend the first half billion of the giveaway money while in the Mayors office. He thinks that we need fresh ideas and new eyes on how USA is presenting and positioning in self to the world. As an independent non candidate he can voice opinions that cut across all party lines. He can propose taking the best from each platform to solve issues he feels need action now. He has pet issues, well chosen and vaild but pet none the less, among them SS and Education. While he may not have all the answers he does have an interesting take on what the questions should be.He once said something about understanding when to stop fixing things and replace them with new ideas/incorporating new technology being the key to good management in these rapidly changing times. This non-candidate philanthropic gesture(although based on his ideas of what is needed) to the USA may be his way of kick starting looking into a fresh way of doing politics. The idea that we need to understanding the new global economy and Americas place in it is a subtle theme that runs through his ideas. Educational policy is a big thing with him also. Has he throw up the revamp of the NYC school as a starting point for central national level educational goals and guidelines?I guess we'll see because non-candidate or front runner, his money buys massive TV/print/electronic media space. You'll be unable to escape the Bloomberg factor(even as a non candidate)

Here is the way...(Bloomberg)...works. They hire the best and brightest they can find, pay them well, give them great insurance and retirement benefits, and work the heck out of them. I have never worked so hard in my life

wrote a former employee.

John Stockton wrote:

But what is probably an even bigger problem is that even if he's not an atheist/agnostic jew like many in NY he's surely not very religious (or pretending to be like many candidates)......

Those New York Jews sure do love their Moo-Shu Pork theory

of religion part III ????

You are correct that a candidate must embrace a religion to have a chance but Bloomberg is not a candidate he's just a guy with ideas about how to govern and enough money to get those ideas heard and talked about..

wineturtle wrote:

John Stockton wrote:

But what is probably an even bigger problem is that even if he's not an atheist/agnostic jew like many in NY he's surely not very religious (or pretending to be like many candidates)......

Those New York Jews sure do love their Moo-Shu Pork theory

of religion part III ????

You are correct that a candidate must embrace a religion to have a chance but Bloomberg is not a candidate he's just a guy with ideas about how to govern and enough money to get those ideas heard and talked about..

Good analysis (though it is probably not true about needing a religion. What was Reagan's? Lincoln's? Eisenhower's?).

Having Bloomberg even threaten to run for Prezzy will force other candidates to be more like him. I am lukewarm on Bloomy but his influence is bound to be a Good Thing from a party-platform angle. All the fringey, distracting ersatz-issues (abortion, homosexuality) will get marginalized to the far corners where they belong.

Just watched a clip of the WSJ-TV where they bashed Bloomberg for calling the high percentage of Americans believing in Creationism "scary" and problematic considering how high our educational standards need to be in order to compete with other countries in the future.

And that comes from the Wall Street Journal, now wait till religious right and wanna be prophets and jew haters like Al Sharpton jump in the debate about Bloomberg.

i dont quite get the attraction to this guy or why (other than he has a ton of money) some people are attracted to him.

i admit i am not from new york, so i do not pretend to know a whole lot about him.

my perception, is that he is a liberal jew from new york, who might be a bit more fiscally conservative than some.

i dont see how that makes him much different from rudy, or mccain. except he is not as well known and has more money.

this just does not seem like the kind of person that will get the base of the republican party all fired up to knock on doors and send out letters and do all the work needed to elect a president.

it also does not seem like like the type of candidate that will play well in the south, or much of anywhere outside of the northeast.

i just dont see anything from him going anywhere.

the reason there is such a buzz about fred thompson is in part because there is a desire on the republican side for a socially conservative candidate. mitt romney, the only other viable candidate seems to be rising to the top in the polls, largely based on his conservative views.

another pro choice republican is not going to get the nomination.

sam w wrote:

this just does not seem like the kind of person that will get the base of the republican party all fired up to knock on doors and send out letters and do all the work needed to elect a president.

...

another pro choice republican is not going to get the nomination.

Bloomberg just left the Republican party, creating a rumor that he will run as an independent.

Ol Grumpus wrote:

Bloomberg just left the Republican party, creating a rumor that he will run as an independent.

i had forgotten about that when i posted.

i think that gives him even less chance to win. he has to buy an organization in every state and he has to start from scratch. he has no long term connection to any local organizations in parts of the country where few have ever even heard his name.

he then has to convince party loyalists to abandon their party and vote for him because his ideas are better and at the same time convince people that in doing so they will not be wasting their vote by voting for someone who has no chance to be elected.

i dont see this happening at all.

don quijote, ross pero, john anderson, ralph nadar...

not even a small chance of winning. zero.

I agree that he would have very little chance of winning. But I don't see why he couldn't get at least as much of the vote as Perot did (19%). That would be enough to seriously affect the outcome of the election. So the question is whether he would draw more support from the Democrats or the Republicans.

sam w wrote:

i dont see how that makes him much different from rudy, or mccain. except he is not as well known and has more money.

Unlike those lifelong government employees, Bloomberg is a self-made billionaire who basically created the online financial information industry, and has been a far more effective, if less colorful, mayor than his predecessor.

On issues such as gay rights, gun control, and immigration, he's similar to where Giuliani was during his mayoralty, which is not the same as where Giuliani claims to be today.