Here's something interesting from today's Washington Post...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/29/AR2007122901476.html

Quote :

"Bipartisan Group Eyes Independent Bid First, Main Candidates Urged To Plan 'Unity' Government New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, a potential independent candidate for president, has scheduled a meeting next week with a dozen leading Democrats and Republicans, who will join him in challenging the major-party contenders to spell out their plans for forming a "government of national unity" to end the gridlock in Washington. Those who will be at the Jan. 7 session at the University of Oklahoma say that if the likely nominees of the two parties do not pledge to "go beyond tokenism" in building an administration that seeks national consensus, they will be prepared to back Bloomberg or someone else in a third-party campaign for president. Conveners of the meeting include such prominent Democrats as former senators Sam Nunn (Ga.), Charles S. Robb (Va.) and David L. Boren (Okla.), and former presidential candidate Gary Hart. Republican organizers include Sen. Chuck Hagel (Neb.), former party chairman Bill Brock, former senator John Danforth (Mo.) and former New Jersey governor Christine Todd Whitman. The list of acceptances suggests that the group could muster the financial and political firepower to make the threat of such a candidacy real. Others who have indicated that they plan to attend the one-day session include William S. Cohen, a former Republican senator from Maine and defense secretary in the Clinton administration; Alan Dixon, a former Democratic senator from Illinois; Bob Graham, a former Democratic senator from Florida; Jim Leach, a former Republican congressman from Iowa; Susan Eisenhower, a political consultant and granddaughter of former president Dwight D. Eisenhower; David Abshire, president of the Center for the Study of the Presidency; and Edward Perkins, a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. Bloomberg, a former Democrat who was elected mayor of New York as a Republican, left the GOP this past summer to become an independent. While disclaiming any plan to run for president in 2008, he has continued to fuel speculation by traveling widely and speaking out on both domestic and international issues. The mayor, a billionaire many times over, presumably could self-finance even a late-starting candidacy."

I'm not surprised it has come to this, particularly for the Republican end of the field where the collection of candidates is lackluster at best. The whole Unity Government thing is probably a stretch, but I can envision a powerful, centrist third party candidate emerging to challenge the two parties. If it happens, it could be a serious revolt. Perhaps like how the GOP came to power, as the Whigs collapsed a new party emerged...?

12/30/2007 12:41:12 AM

if Ross Perot hadn't flip flopped back in the day, we would have a viable 3rd party today

12/30/2007 12:55:34 AM

Quote :

"particularly for the Republican end of the field where the collection of candidates is lackluster at best."

don't mean to sidetrack the thread, but the GOP has a top-shelf, star candidate in Sen. McCain. Republicans, as a group, are simply too stupid to vote for him. Again.

12/30/2007 2:28:01 AM

I want Bloomberg to run...just because I think it'd be awesome to have a candidate who didn't need to take anyone's money.

12/30/2007 11:38:52 AM

McCain ... a "Star Candidate"??

Dream on fanboy. There are no republican star candidates, even though I have my favorites...

A Bloomberg run could be serious. I would like to hear more about this.

12/30/2007 2:23:03 PM

Quote :

"don't mean to sidetrack the thread, but the GOP has a top-shelf, star candidate in Sen. McCain. Republicans, as a group, are simply too stupid to vote for him. Again."

mccain is

Quote :

"TOO FUCKING OLD"

12/30/2007 2:24:12 PM

no he isn't.

12/30/2007 5:42:50 PM

McCain is

TOO MUCH OF A TOOL

and most normal people realize that

12/30/2007 6:18:18 PM

^^^i'm pretty sure that isn't what's holding him back, anyway.


-McCain-Feingold
-immigration stance
-being hawkish on Iraq (although this seems to be less of a factor now)
-not voting for the Bush tax cuts since they refused to reign in spending


those are the big 4 things that hurt him, i think.


^ Are you kidding? Have you looked the tools he's running against?

[Edited on December 30, 2007 at 6:20 PM. Reason : asfd]

12/30/2007 6:19:16 PM

Quote :

"don't mean to sidetrack the thread, but the GOP has a top-shelf, star candidate in Sen. McCain. "

Fair enough. I do like McCain a lot, but at this point, I think his campaign is on life support. Sure, he picked up a few interesting newspaper endorsements, but in my opinion, he's simply made too many powerful enemies within the Republican Party to be able to win the nomination.

I floated over to the DailyKos today and thought it was interesting how many viewed this from the left. Some were afraid that this would be a spoiler (a la Perot or Nader) though it probably would hurt the Republicans a lot more. Others said that Bloomberg was an AIPAC hack and simply another Neocon in disguise... An interesting thought.

12/30/2007 11:32:01 PM

I don't get the fascination with Bloomberg. The Nation isn't in awe of NYC like so many any the media seem to think.

12/30/2007 11:37:14 PM

^ Well all the media is based in New York, so it's natural they have a hometown bias, it's just that bias is spread and other biases are not spread if a person is not from New York or Los Angeles in this country. It didn't catch on in the Republican primaries why Kansans were ga-ga over Sam Brownback because Kansans couldn't express themselves.

Bloomberg is a great story. He was little more than a trader in the exchanges, saw a business opening in his daily work, left, started his own company, and became a billionaire off it. Then took over NYC from Giuliani and went from there.

I think more of it is just there's a segment of the population that are just sick of Democrats and Republicans both and that each party has failed on solving country's problems (I include myself in that group). They're more interested in not offending their resident wing groups and hack commentators. The candidate that can be most represented with these people that are sick of the two parties right now is Bloomberg, just cause he has enough money that he could threaten the two parties and could pull off the miraculous upset. Think Ross Perot early to mid-1992 before he dropped out. The one key difference in that analogy is Bloomberg is more sane, shrewd, and competent than Perot.

And then, if Bloomberg enters, and the perceived elitist Hillary Clinton wins the Democratic nomination and one of the perceived elitists Romney, Giuliani, or McCain wins the Republican nominations, there are rumors Lou Dobbs may enter. Dobbs would relish those two nominees and Bloomberg as he supposedly can represent himself as the only man for the working middle-class against a field of elitists that know nothing of common daily life.

Regardless, from the primaries to the general, 2008 is going to be a very fun election that is going to be unique from all others I believe.

[Edited on January 1, 2008 at 8:47 PM. Reason : /]

1/1/2008 8:46:21 PM

Lou Dobbs sucks.

Balls.

1/1/2008 10:05:32 PM

You gotta be fucking kidding me about lou dobbs. Why would people elect a fat gas bag who has never done shit to help anyone?

1/1/2008 10:52:19 PM

^ You just described Hillary Clinton, Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, John Edwards, Barack Obama, Fred Thompson...



The man has an audience with his views. Both in the TV sense and in the political sense. That can't be denied.

[Edited on January 1, 2008 at 10:57 PM. Reason : .]

1/1/2008 10:57:05 PM

I was a fan of McCain in 2000, and I would have absolutely voted for him over Al Gore in the general election.

but now that he has basically spent the past 6 years or so slobbing on the religious right's knob, i'm not real impressed by him.

... but back to the OP.

if Bloomberg makes an independent bid, I think that will sign seal and deliver the White House to the Dems. likewise if the Religious Right fields an independent candidate like they had been threatening before Huckleberry became a factor.

the only Indep/3rdParty that would hurt the Dems is if Nader ran again. In which case I think somebody, somewhere, would finally just go off and shoot* him.





[Edited on January 1, 2008 at 11:17 PM. Reason : * joe_schmoe disavows the use or threat of violence as political expression]

1/1/2008 11:13:48 PM

^^ please . As trendy as it is to say you hate everyone, most of those candidates are actually accountable to the public and have worked to help their constituents. In the real world, you can't make it as a politician without satisfying a good chunk of the population. They are miles away from this fat fuck dobbs.

1/1/2008 11:25:23 PM

we have TWO meaningful (and i mean that in the complete way) parties

not 2 hundred

unity? what a joke...

1/1/2008 11:28:16 PM

Quote :

"^^ please . As trendy as it is to say you hate everyone, most of those candidates are actually accountable to the public and have worked to help their constituents. In the real world, you can't make it as a politician without satisfying a good chunk of the population. They are miles away from this fat fuck dobbs. "

John Edwards was my Senator for six years.

I cannot think of one accomplishment for the good of North Carolinians outside of defeating Lauch Faircloth (not that great a politician in his own right either).

Quote :

"unity? what a joke..."

Yes. God forbid the notion that typical Americans don't think everyone should choose to align themselves with two parties that are increasingly becoming fascists on the right and socialists on the left. And anyone that tries to go to the middle once in awhile is hounded for being a surrender monkey by MoveOn and Bill O'Reilly.

[Edited on January 2, 2008 at 12:05 AM. Reason : .]

1/1/2008 11:43:50 PM

Quote :

"skokiaan: please . As trendy as it is to say you hate everyone, most of those candidates are actually accountable to the public and have worked to help their constituents. In the real world, you can't make it as a politician without satisfying a good chunk of the population. They are miles away from this fat fuck dobbs."

A riddle for you, then - or perhaps a paradox. The general satisfaction rate with Congress right now hovers somewhere around 30-40% - closer to the former. Yet the incumbency rate in a good election is still in the low 90% level - you almost have to be caught murdering children and/or puppies to lose your seat. So... how exactly do you explain these seemingly contradictory phenomena? Everyone hates everyone else's gasbags in Congress, but not their own elected clowns? Seems a little unlikely.

It seems to me that you don't necessarily have to please as many people as you might think to stay in office once you're in.

1/2/2008 12:30:07 AM

^and all this time I thought tarheel was another word for faggot

'unlikely,' indeed

1/2/2008 1:32:42 AM

Quote :

"Everyone hates everyone else's gasbags in Congress, but not their own elected clowns? Seems a little unlikely."

More or less, when given the choice between a new gasbag challenger and a gasbag incumbent with experience and name recognition, people go with the latter.

1/2/2008 1:40:19 AM

^There have been two consistent trends in polling for many years as it relates to congress:

1) People consistently give poor approval ratings to Congress.

2) People consistently give high approval ratings to their congressman.

1/2/2008 9:29:56 AM

Quote :

"1) People consistently give poor approval ratings to Congress."

Yup. O.J. Simpson has a higher public approval rating than Congress.

Quote :

"A riddle for you, then - or perhaps a paradox. The general satisfaction rate with Congress right now hovers somewhere around 30-40% - closer to the former. Yet the incumbency rate in a good election is still in the low 90% level - you almost have to be caught murdering children and/or puppies to lose your seat. So... how exactly do you explain these seemingly contradictory phenomena? "

The answer to this riddle is not that hard...and is quite obvious. It's in the interest of both parties to draw districts that ensure only one party could possibly win it. There's an old joke of how the old Soviet Politboro had more turnover from one session to the next than Congress.

The only real congressional "election" in better than two-thirds of the country is the incumbent party's primary, which has turnout rates of somewhere around 10-15%.




[Edited on January 2, 2008 at 9:45 AM. Reason : /]

1/2/2008 9:42:04 AM

^Competitive congressional primaries are extremely rare, unless the incumbant vacates their seat and/or is indicted.

1/2/2008 9:58:52 AM

Quote :

"^Competitive congressional primaries are extremely rare, unless the incumbant vacates their seat and/or is indicted."

Exactly.

1/2/2008 10:06:37 AM

Quote :

"I don't get the fascination with Bloomberg. The Nation isn't in awe of NYC like so many any the media seem to think."

To be fair to both Bloomberg and Guiliani though, being mayor of New York City is in some ways equivalent to being the governor of a small state. After all, you're running a city that has about the same population as the state of North Carolina.

Quote :

"if Bloomberg makes an independent bid, I think that will sign seal and deliver the White House to the Dems. "

A good possibility, but then again, at the rate things are going, the Republicans are pretty much doing that for the Democrats anyways. Also, I wouldn't underestimate Bloomberg; if he's going to throw in a billion of his own fortune, he's definitely going in for the kill. If he was running just to make a statement, he would have been better off just using that money to buy influence on Capitol Hill...

1/2/2008 11:43:20 AM

Quote :

"Flyin Ryan: The answer to this riddle is not that hard...and is quite obvious. It's in the interest of both parties to draw districts that ensure only one party could possibly win it. There's an old joke of how the old Soviet Politboro had more turnover from one session to the next than Congress."

This was actually part of the punchline I was getting to. The point was mostly that the idea that Congresscritters are individually supported by currying wide amounts of public favor is a farce - they play with stacked decks, working in districts custom-fitted to net them re-election and doing just enough to please the powers that be to keep things that way - i.e., keep their districts safe, fill their campaign war chests, etc.

The premise that Congress is a "popularly elected body" is a joke, and thus the premise that members operate from the support of the public, rather than through institutional advantage, inherently leads to conclusions which are, well, nonsense.

1/2/2008 1:54:57 PM