http://wcbstv.com/local/local_story_170181024.html

Quote :

" (CBS) NEW YORK New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is leaving the Republican party and has announced he is currently unaffiliated with a political party, CBS 2 HD learned Tuesday night. The move will clearly begin advancing rumors that the mayor is gearing towards a presidential run, which he has denied in the past. In a statement, however, the 65-year-old billionaire mayor indicated this doesn't change his plans for his political future. "I have filed papers with the New York City Board of Elections to change my status as a voter and register as unaffiliated with any political party. Although my plans for the future haven’t changed, I believe this brings my affiliation into alignment with how I have led and will continue to lead our City." On Tuesday, Bloomberg was in California attending a conference at the University of Southern California along with California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. The pair appeared on this week's cover of Time magazine. The California trip is part of a recent series of out-of-state trips, which has added to the speculation that he may run. On Monday, he visited the Google Inc. campus in Mountain View, Calif., a trip that four other announced presidential candidates have made. He was also in Los Angeles on Monday where he bashed partisan politics in Washington, saying it was putting "our future in jeopardy." He hinted Tuesday's exit from the GOP when he said the nation was on a "wrong-headed course" unless politicians could work together across party lines. In his statement Tuesday, Bloomberg went on to discuss his progress in leading New York City. “A nonpartisan approach has worked wonders in New York: we’ve balanced budgets, grown our economy, improved public health, reformed the school system and made the nation’s safest city even safer. “We have achieved real progress by overcoming the partisanship that too often puts narrow interests above the common good. As a political independent, I will continue to work with those in all political parties to find common ground, to put partisanship aside and to achieve real solutions to the challenges we face. “Any successful elected executive knows that real results are more important than partisan battles and that good ideas should take precedence over rigid adherence to any particular political ideology. Working together, there’s no limit to what we can do.” "

Even if this isn't a run at the White House, it sets a good example and sends the correct message.

6/19/2007 7:00:05 PM

Bloomberg / Schwarzenegger 4 prez!

6/19/2007 7:29:29 PM

Nifong / Sharpton

6/19/2007 7:31:43 PM

bloomberg and that dude from texas as the independents and split the repub vote insuring democratic victory

6/19/2007 7:42:39 PM

Bloomberg is ideologically nowhere near Ron Paul.

Bloomberg would take a lot of votes from Democrats as well as Republicans. He was a lifelong democrat before switching parties in order to become Mayor of NY.

Given the incredibly weak field out there right now, he would have a damn good chance if he were to run.

[Edited on June 19, 2007 at 8:05 PM. Reason : 2]

6/19/2007 8:03:03 PM

the NRA alone would keep Bloomberg out of the whitehouse.

6/19/2007 8:05:09 PM

I don't follow.

What power does the NRA have over the general election?

It's a fringe group that is no more powerful than several other politically active organizations.

[Edited on June 19, 2007 at 8:07 PM. Reason : 2]

6/19/2007 8:06:19 PM

Ask Al Gore

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0428-05.htm

And, why the NRA gets its way: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/18/politics/politico/main2698141.shtml


And compared to Gun Owners of America http://www.gunowners.org/ the NRA is pretty mainstream.

[Edited on June 19, 2007 at 8:14 PM. Reason : ]

6/19/2007 8:06:48 PM

He was a Democrat before he ran for Mayor of NYC.

Don't agree with him on everything, but as a Unity08 delegate, if Bloomberg becomes the candidate of that effort, I'll vote for him. He has the money to hurt the Democrats and Republicans, and that can only be a good thing.

6/19/2007 8:07:42 PM

I'd vote for him

6/19/2007 8:25:38 PM

with thompson getting the republican nod we need a good 3rd party candidate to split the repub vote

6/19/2007 8:31:27 PM

i think it's funny that you guys have already all assumed that thompson will get the nomination. primaries are SO far off. lots can and will happen between now and then.

6/19/2007 9:09:51 PM

Quote :

"Nifong / Sharpton"

Now thats funny. Thanks


Thompson is the republicans best chance. Bloomberg running will only split NY, I dont think this hurts the republicans that much as much as the democrates. Dems gotta have NY.

6/19/2007 9:15:46 PM

^^^ puh-leeeze

Thompson is way overrated.

6/19/2007 9:45:19 PM

anyone want to put 10 bucks on it?

unless mason dixon polls are way overrated and hes not a republicans wet dream

hes like 1st in nc and sc....my sources say "the stage is set"

[Edited on June 19, 2007 at 9:57 PM. Reason : .]

6/19/2007 9:50:36 PM

Thompson is leading or close to leading all repub polls, and its not official that he is running yet.

And I can totally see him looking pelosi in the face and telling her to shut the fuck up. Priceless.

6/19/2007 10:11:37 PM

^^i would put money on it, but the one bet i made in SB was never paid to me (<cough> TreeTwista)

6/19/2007 11:12:23 PM

Hillary vs Guiliani vs Bloomberg would be one crazy scenario.

6/20/2007 12:32:31 AM

6/20/2007 12:54:47 AM

^ Thats kind of scary

Quote :

"Bloomberg would take a lot of votes from Democrats as well as Republicans. He was a lifelong democrat before switching parties in order to become Mayor of NY. Given the incredibly weak field out there right now, he would have a damn good chance if he were to run."

Doubtful. He won't have the backing of a major party which is all but necessary from a psychological if not a monetary standpoint. He's too liberal for most Republicans and too associated with Wall Street for most Democrats. Guiliani would win a 3 way NY head to head. Bloomberg is more liberal than Guiliani and would pull votes away from Hillary, not Rudy. I don't think he'd pull many votes outside of the north east really, which is already pretty much a Hillary lock-up.

Partisanship has existed since day one of the republic and that friction has been one of the strenghts of the United States. It is ludicrous to expect it to vaporize on account of one candidate with limited backing. I'm all about another party / option, but I want a candidate who will fight for the things I elected him to fight for, not just roll over in the name of cooperation.

Thompson has no fire in his belly, that is why he won't win.

[Edited on June 20, 2007 at 10:19 AM. Reason : .]

6/20/2007 10:15:55 AM

He's a billionaire.. he's got all the money he needs.

And I think you underestimate the number of people who are fed up with partisan politics. If he's aiming to be a center-point between the left and the right, *shrug* who knows.

I'm not saying he'll win if he runs.. that's a big big big longshot.

6/20/2007 10:24:51 AM

Quote :

"And I think you underestimate the number of people who are fed up with partisan politics."

Irrelevant. What matters is that the average politically active voter is likely to be aligned with one of the two major parties.

Ross Perot proved that money means nothing if you don't offer something different. He actually offered an alternative to Clinton and Bush but only pulled 19% of the vote (which is pretty impressive, really). Bloomberg only offers a middle ground between to moderates. I'm not sure what it is that he offers. I will conceed, however, that we really don't know his policy positions yet. wheelmanca19 is right though, the NRA will pose a huge obstacle for him.

[Edited on June 20, 2007 at 10:31 AM. Reason : .]

6/20/2007 10:30:38 AM

Quote :

"Ask Al Gore"

fwiw, plenty of gun owners and NRA folks refused to vote for Bush1 a second time due to his gun control stances

I think it is part of the reason he wasn't re-elected

[Edited on June 20, 2007 at 10:48 AM. Reason : ..]

6/20/2007 10:31:44 AM

Ross Perot was a short, funny-sounding, goofy looking political novice who pulled 19% of the vote in a time when voters didn't feel nearly as disenfranchised as they do now.

Bloomberg has been mayor of the largest city in the US. He's been successful as a businessman and as a politican. He's extremely smart and somewhat charismatic.

It's funny that you would talk about Perot as a counter-argument. Perot showed that a 3rd party candidate can be viable in the presidential election. Most people are tired of partisan politics, and if the Dems and Repubs nominate ideologues, the mainstream is gonna want something different.

6/20/2007 11:00:48 AM

too bad bloomberg isn't much different than any other democrat



I don't see him taking much of the republican vote... I see him harming the dems more than the pubs

6/20/2007 11:05:01 AM

Perot isn't a quality argument, I'll give you that, but he's the only real world example in recent memory. My point is, neithger RG or HRC are idealogues. Bloomberg might have a shot in a Kucinich v Paul race, but not in a Guiliani - Clinton match up. One NY mayor is the hero of September 11th (right or wrong) the other is some guy with money. One NY politician has star power because of her husband, the other is some guy with money.

Steve Forbes might be a better example of how money, success and mild charisma do not make a successful run.

As much as people rant about "partisan politics" its comfortable and familiar. Keep in mind as well politicians spend large amounts of money pursuing "swing voters" because they will seal the margin of victory, but you can't win without your base. Both parties bring a base to the election, Bloomberg is just going to be a third guy chasing the swingers.

6/20/2007 11:08:51 AM

Quote :

"Ross Perot proved that money means nothing if you don't offer something different."

Ross Perot proved that money isn't everything.

Bloomberg's offered difference is that unlike prior independent, non-partisan politicians, he has accomplished numerous measurable improvements in his political jurisdiction.

He's still a longshot...

6/20/2007 11:16:16 AM

Quote :

"Steve Forbes might be a better example of how money, success and mild charisma do not make a successful run. "

LOL at mild charisma. I thought that guy was a fucking robot.

At least until he appeared on Saturday Night Live. That was funny.

[Edited on June 20, 2007 at 12:22 PM. Reason : 2]

6/20/2007 12:22:12 PM

Ross Perot could have very well won 1992 -- I think he would have -- but he shot himself in the foot. a few times.

after the first debate (near unanimous agreement that he won) he was leading the polls at 39% (with Bush 31%, Clinton 25%).

then on a nationally televised speech at the NAACP convention he called the audience "you people", and lost a lot of momentum with the resulting criticism.

he could have recovered from that, but spent his time getting really defensive, and appearing quite thin-skinnned to criticism.

then he dropped out of the race.

but his supporters continued to work for him, and got his name on all 50 states' ballots.

then, one month before the election, he changed his mind and said he would run again after all

he explained his drop out as a result of "republican operatives" trying to disrupt his daughter's wedding. which was just one of many paranoid-sounding accusations he regularly made against his opponents.



and still, after all that, he managed to pull 19% of the popular vote



imagine what he could have done if he didn't come off like such a crackpot.

6/20/2007 3:27:43 PM

Good point about Perot. And he was running against 2 decent candidates in Clinton and Bush Sr.

Bloomberg can skip the whole primary season, so if he is gonna run, I wouldn't expect an announcement until spring of next year. By that time, the nominees will be battered and bruised from ugly primary battles.

[Edited on June 20, 2007 at 5:48 PM. Reason : 2]

6/20/2007 5:46:02 PM

BLOOMBERG/POWELL 08!

6/20/2007 6:10:52 PM

i'll be damned. i could actually consider voting for that ticket.

it's never gonna happen though.

6/21/2007 12:40:23 AM

one strategist(forgot what side) said thats the "dream" third party ticket...cause whats his name got the economics down and one got the military down

6/21/2007 12:44:18 AM

Powell got the military down? hmmmmmm

6/21/2007 1:32:09 AM

Say Bloomberg/Arnold run, and they win.
Bloomberg dies.

...does Arnie now become President, even though the Constitution specifically says you have to be born in America to be President?

6/21/2007 3:47:12 AM

bush has brought the Republican party down to an all time low and Bloomberg has realized this....no surprise here.

Go ahead Bush, keep fighting your war against Iraq and their involvement in 9/11....

6/21/2007 4:26:04 AM

^^ Arnold can't be VP either..

6/21/2007 7:10:03 AM

To run for VP you have to be able to be pres. I believe, so no, he cannot be vp

6/21/2007 7:15:14 AM

what if arnold is speaker of the house and the pres and vp die?

6/21/2007 10:18:46 AM

Arnold will make sure the Pres and VP dont die by instructing them to Get to the Chopper and reinforcing his message by telling them to Go Now

6/21/2007 10:22:11 AM

^^ He would be skipped over and it would go down to #4, the Senate Pro Tem, currently Robert Byrd.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_of_succession_to_the_US_presidency

6/21/2007 11:01:45 AM

few fox news people were saying thompson/guiliani ticket gets a lot of votes...

6/21/2007 1:56:42 PM

Quote :

"Nifong / Sharpton "

6/21/2007 6:06:00 PM

Poll: Bloomberg could have Perot-like effect
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/06/25/poll.bloomberg.schneider/index.html

Quote :

"What does the public make of Bloomberg? Forty percent of Americans have no opinion of him at all. Among those who do, the balance is mildly favorable (37 percent favorable, 23 percent unfavorable). And views are about the same among Republicans, Democrats and independents. Polls taken earlier this year showed that if Bloomberg ran for president as an independent, his support would have been in the single digits. With all the new attention since his party switch, Bloomberg's support seems to be on the rise -- 17 percent in a three-way contest against Clinton and Giuliani. That puts Bloomberg in third place, but 17 percent is still an impressive showing for a candidate who's not even running. Seventeen percent nearly matches the 19 percent of the vote Ross Perot got the first time he ran in 1992. Even if he doesn't win, some people think Bloomberg could affect the outcome of the race. "If he runs there will be two liberals in the race versus one Republican. So unlike the Perot phenomenon that really hurt Republicans, this has a chance to hurt Democrats," Republican strategist Scott Reed said."

Personally, I count Giuliani as a liberal, so it would really be three liberals, but I'm still not sure what kind of alternative he offers except for a different letter in the parenthesis after his name.

6/26/2007 8:42:25 AM

Ever since I've moved to NYC I've liked Bloomberg less and less as time's gone by. And I honestly don't know anyone up here thats a fan of his.

6/26/2007 1:16:11 PM

Bloomberg is a liberal Democrat--make no mistake about it. And if he were given any serious scrutiny--instead of the liberal media love fest that is jizzing over the idea of a three-way New York-style race--he would fold like a cheap suitcase. I mean, the guy has been a Democrat, a "Republican," and an Independent in the span of just a few years. Flip-flop much?

Concerning the Perot comparison, Perot spent around sixty million dollars during his run for president. Bloomberg could spend a half a billion dollars(!)--but he won't do it. Bloomberg wants to win and he's smart enough to know that he cannot--he can only siphon off votes from the other candidates just as Perot did.

6/26/2007 3:49:35 PM

New York Mayor Bloomberg Had Heart Surgery In 2000, Never Disclosed Procedure

Quote :

"(AP) New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who may seek the presidency as an independent, underwent heart surgery before he ran for mayor in 2001, a procedure that he had not previously disclosed. The billionaire media mogul had two coronary arterial stents inserted to relieve blockage in his heart in 2000. The surgery was first reported by Newsweek this week and confirmed Thursday by an individual close to the mayor, who spoke on condition of anonymity."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/06/28/ap/politics/main2994837.shtml

[Edited on June 29, 2007 at 2:20 AM. Reason : .]

6/29/2007 2:19:33 AM

^doesnt matter

6/29/2007 3:13:32 AM

^ The AP and CBS thought it did. And the health of a potential candidate does matter.

6/29/2007 3:52:33 AM

who gives a fuck if he got some procedure that helped him live...its not like he has to disclose that shit anyways...i think its lame that anyone would even try to make a big deal about that(which it really isnt...aint heard any other places talk about it)...what do u suggest, he not get the procedure done??? there are many more important things... omg this guy had to get stints and didnt tell anyone...alert the press!!!1

6/29/2007 4:03:38 AM