Bloomberg steals EV's from Democrats, handing Democrats the White House.

[opebo]

Bloomberg/Thompson/Clinton would almost hand for sure hand Thompson NJ.  NJ would be able to get there standard 45-49% Republican vote coupled with the Dems losing some votes to Bloomberg (Bloomberg could definetly get at 15-20% in NJ) and Thompson would win 44-41-16 or something like that.

No you've got it opposite, DWFL - Clinton would get a reliable 48-50% in NJ, and if Bloomburg got 15% most of it would come out of the Republican vote.

Ask yourselves, why would any Democrat leaner in the Northeast vote for Bloomberg knowing that this is a vote for the Republican candidate?

Obviously you do not understand NJ.  NJ people do not vote Democrat because they like Democrats, they vote that way because they hate Repubicans.  If NJ Democrats were presented with a 3rd party, they would flock to it.  I think Bloomberg would have a GREAT SHOT at WINNING NJ

But a vote for Bloomberg is a vote for the Republican candidate to become president!

Bloomberg bears no resemblance to a Rockefeller Republican. He's as liberal as it gets, more liberal than most democrats. Most of his votes will surely come out of the dems votes.

No, I never said that Bloomberg was a Rockefeller Republican, Conan.  I said that those that vote for him would be Rockefeller Republicans - people who over the last 8 years have become sick of the GOP as it stands (Southern Religious War party), but dislike Democrats.  Of course this is a relatively small group, but they are Bloombergs only possible support.

Ask yourself, why would any Democrat or Democrat-leaning independent vote for Bloomberg?  They know a vote for him is a vote for 4 more years of a Republican in the white house.  Most of them are going to be voting mainly to prevent that, so it won't matter if they don't like Hillary all that much.  (Not that Bloomberg is at all likeable anyway).  You're just radically overestimating the importance of a joke candidate.

[minionofmidas]

Reality check: While there are still some Rockefeller Republicans left in the Republican party, most people that could be loosely described as such (arguably that includes you, btw... ) never voted for George Bush. Think Bullmoose.

[opebo]

Reality check: While there are still some Rockefeller Republicans left in the Republican party, most people that could be loosely described as such (arguably that includes you, btw... ) never voted for George Bush. Think Bullmoose.

Well.. that's a good point.  But I still think that some of the shift in Bush's popularity in the Northeast from just slightly unpopular to extremely unpopular in the last few years represents a shift in relatively moderate Republicans who, while perhaps not Rockefeller Republicans, are still less extreme than the new Southern party.  In other words, someone out there got disaffected in the last few years.. who it is I don't know, but it is reasonable to assume it is someone who was more likely to have voted for Bush than those who've been disaffected since 2000.

[bullmoose88]

Reality check: While there are still some Rockefeller Republicans left in the Republican party, most people that could be loosely described as such (arguably that includes you, btw... ) never voted for George Bush. Think Bullmoose.

True, though its worth noting, in 2000 (if I could have voted) I would have voted for W. Then again I was a 17 year old high schooler who was pretty conservative...think Keystone Phil...maybe DWTL...no, not DWTL, I wasn't a delusional fool.

But it only took a few months of W's presidency to create a total conversion. Obviously if the I of now could have voted in 2000, I probably would have chosen the winner of the popular vote.

[StateBoiler]

I would vote for Bloomberg just cause I hate Democrats and Republicans.

[Tender Branson]

Obviously if the I of now could have voted in 2000, I probably would have chosen the winner of the popular vote.

The first step of the therapy always is to acknowledge you may have been wrong. After 7 years you are allowed to call "the winner of the popular vote" (and the legitimate winner of the election) by his real name - Al Gore

[minionofmidas]

Reality check: While there are still some Rockefeller Republicans left in the Republican party, most people that could be loosely described as such (arguably that includes you, btw... ) never voted for George Bush. Think Bullmoose.

Well.. that's a good point.  But I still think that some of the shift in Bush's popularity in the Northeast from just slightly unpopular to extremely unpopular in the last few years represents a shift in relatively moderate Republicans who, while perhaps not Rockefeller Republicans, are still less extreme than the new Southern party.  In other words, someone out there got disaffected in the last few years.. who it is I don't know, but it is reasonable to assume it is someone who was more likely to have voted for Bush than those who've been disaffected since 2000.

Oh yes, quite right.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

IA-2 or IA-3 have a slight chance to be GOP gains but IA-1 should be safe for the Dems.

Flip IA-1 and IA-2 around. IA-2 is probably the safest seat the Democrats gained last year.

I disagree, Leech was a 15-term Representative, so the GOP should have a good bit of fresh blood ready to enter that race in '08.  It's still a probable Dem hold, but a fresh perspective can win races.  That's one reason why first-termers are often vulnerable, they've helped the other party to clear away dead wood.  On the other hand, IA-1 was an open seat because Nussle ran for Governor and won by an eight point margin.  There is no new blood effect to be had because the best of the new blood already had its chance.

The GOP don't have a bench in that district. It elected Leach long ago, and with his voting record and incumbency he became the only Republican who could win it. That was the most Democratic district in the country held by a Republican. It's gone forever now.

[Erc]

Even if everything stays at the status quo in the House, it isn't exactly comfortable for the Democrats...all it would take is one obstinate Democrat from any of 18 states to vote for the Republican to deny the Democrats a majority.  And considering that 34 states could be moved from one column into another (or from one column to a tie) by the switch of one seat, a race that goes to the house could be quite interesting.  That said, most of those 34 states are rather unlikely to switch (Rhode Island, say, or Idaho).

[Conan]

I tend to agree with the idea that Bloomberg would hurt Republicans more than Democrats.  I don't think any of his votes will come from the party faithful but I have a feeling he would take most of the right-leaning independents.  Also, If he did manage to flip any states to the Republicans in the Northeast I think those gains would be canceled out by Democratic wins in the peripheral South and the Southwest.

Why would a far left wing Jewish New Yorker who sounds gay, not that there's anything wrong with that, attract right wing votes? Can anyone here name a right-wing position of Bloombergs!? NO.

Did I say right-wing in there anywhere?  No, In fact I said that his votes WOULDN'T come from die-hard GOP voters.  I believe most of his votes would come from INDEPENDENTS that tend to vote with the GOP.  Most of these voters fled to the Democrats in 2006 because they were disaffected with the GOP but I have a feeling that they don't really want to vote Democrat.  Thus is makes sense for them to choose Bloomberg if the GOP runs some right-winger like Thompson or an unelectable candidate like Romney.  And if the choice is between Bloomberg, Romney/Thompson, and Clinton/Obama then the Democrats are going to win a plurality.

Yea.. right-leaning means leaning right wing? So before you lash out in defense, clarify or reread your own words.

[Conan]

Conan needs to look at the polls. Throw Bloomberg in the race and just about every matchup gives the Democratic candidate a double digit lead.

What you need to know is that people don't know who Michael Bloomberg is or where he stands on the issues. These polls are worthless. All people knew about Bloomberg is that he is the billionaire Republican mayor of NY. Now he is the independent mayor of NYC. They don't know that he's really a dem who switched to avoid a primary or that he supports gay marriage, is pro-choice, pro amnesty immigration bill, and a taxer. It's sad to see so many of the people on this forum lose so much credibility over Bloomberg. Even many of the republicans on this forum know Bloomberg will take votes away from the dems more.

[Conan]

Bloomberg/Thompson/Clinton would almost hand for sure hand Thompson NJ.  NJ would be able to get there standard 45-49% Republican vote coupled with the Dems losing some votes to Bloomberg (Bloomberg could definetly get at 15-20% in NJ) and Thompson would win 44-41-16 or something like that.

No you've got it opposite, DWFL - Clinton would get a reliable 48-50% in NJ, and if Bloomburg got 15% most of it would come out of the Republican vote.

Ask yourselves, why would any Democrat leaner in the Northeast vote for Bloomberg knowing that this is a vote for the Republican candidate?

Obviously you do not understand NJ.  NJ people do not vote Democrat because they like Democrats, they vote that way because they hate Repubicans.  If NJ Democrats were presented with a 3rd party, they would flock to it.  I think Bloomberg would have a GREAT SHOT at WINNING NJ

But a vote for Bloomberg is a vote for the Republican candidate to become president!

Bloomberg bears no resemblance to a Rockefeller Republican. He's as liberal as it gets, more liberal than most democrats. Most of his votes will surely come out of the dems votes.

No, I never said that Bloomberg was a Rockefeller Republican, Conan.  I said that those that vote for him would be Rockefeller Republicans - people who over the last 8 years have become sick of the GOP as it stands (Southern Religious War party), but dislike Democrats.  Of course this is a relatively small group, but they are Bloombergs only possible support.

Ask yourself, why would any Democrat or Democrat-leaning independent vote for Bloomberg?  They know a vote for him is a vote for 4 more years of a Republican in the white house.  Most of them are going to be voting mainly to prevent that, so it won't matter if they don't like Hillary all that much.  (Not that Bloomberg is at all likeable anyway).  You're just radically overestimating the importance of a joke candidate.

Bloomberg is no joke. He's powerful and he knows how to use his money. People who underestimate him are kidding themselves. Bloomberg is very likeable, and if it wasnt for the fact that a vote for him is pretty much helping the GOP, I'd vote for him. Many will.

[auburntiger]

I tend to agree with the idea that Bloomberg would hurt Republicans more than Democrats.  I don't think any of his votes will come from the party faithful but I have a feeling he would take most of the right-leaning independents.  Also, If he did manage to flip any states to the Republicans in the Northeast I think those gains would be canceled out by Democratic wins in the peripheral South and the Southwest.

Why would a far left wing Jewish New Yorker who sounds gay, not that there's anything wrong with that, attract right wing votes? Can anyone here name a right-wing position of Bloombergs!? NO.

Agreed. I said on another thread that Bloomberg would hurt the Dems more than the GOP, and that is because he is a liberal, probably more than Hillary, thus would steal away votes from her.

[Conan]

I tend to agree with the idea that Bloomberg would hurt Republicans more than Democrats.  I don't think any of his votes will come from the party faithful but I have a feeling he would take most of the right-leaning independents.  Also, If he did manage to flip any states to the Republicans in the Northeast I think those gains would be canceled out by Democratic wins in the peripheral South and the Southwest.

Why would a far left wing Jewish New Yorker who sounds gay, not that there's anything wrong with that, attract right wing votes? Can anyone here name a right-wing position of Bloombergs!? NO.

Agreed. I said on another thread that Bloomberg would hurt the Dems more than the GOP, and that is because he is a liberal, probably more than Hillary, thus would steal away votes from her.

You seem to be one of the few people on this forum nowadays who isn't ignorant to reality. All people do is cite a poll and can't name an issue that won't be canceled out by one of his other positions in getting any GOP votes.

[Padfoot]

I tend to agree with the idea that Bloomberg would hurt Republicans more than Democrats.  I don't think any of his votes will come from the party faithful but I have a feeling he would take most of the right-leaning independents.  Also, If he did manage to flip any states to the Republicans in the Northeast I think those gains would be canceled out by Democratic wins in the peripheral South and the Southwest.

Why would a far left wing Jewish New Yorker who sounds gay, not that there's anything wrong with that, attract right wing votes? Can anyone here name a right-wing position of Bloombergs!? NO.

Did I say right-wing in there anywhere?  No, In fact I said that his votes WOULDN'T come from die-hard GOP voters.  I believe most of his votes would come from INDEPENDENTS that tend to vote with the GOP.  Most of these voters fled to the Democrats in 2006 because they were disaffected with the GOP but I have a feeling that they don't really want to vote Democrat.  Thus is makes sense for them to choose Bloomberg if the GOP runs some right-winger like Thompson or an unelectable candidate like Romney.  And if the choice is between Bloomberg, Romney/Thompson, and Clinton/Obama then the Democrats are going to win a plurality.

Yea.. right-leaning means leaning right wing? So before you lash out in defense, clarify or reread your own words.

Padfoot714's Dictionary of Political Terms:

right-wing: used to describe the far right of the Republican party.  People in this category are card carrying Republicans.  This is the GOP base and it is where Bush's current support comes from.

right-leaning:  used to describe independent voters that are not members of either political party but they usually vote for Republican candidates.  These members are not blindly faithful to the party.  If they are presented with an agreeable alternative to an extremist nominated by the base, they will choose that candidate rather than the GOP candidate.

[Smash255]

Conan needs to look at the polls. Throw Bloomberg in the race and just about every matchup gives the Democratic candidate a double digit lead.

What you need to know is that people don't know who Michael Bloomberg is or where he stands on the issues. These polls are worthless. All people knew about Bloomberg is that he is the billionaire Republican mayor of NY. Now he is the independent mayor of NYC. They don't know that he's really a dem who switched to avoid a primary or that he supports gay marriage, is pro-choice, pro amnesty immigration bill, and a taxer. It's sad to see so many of the people on this forum lose so much credibility over Bloomberg. Even many of the republicans on this forum know Bloomberg will take votes away from the dems more.

I think Bloomberg takes more votes from the GOP.  In part because after what happened wit Nader in 2000 I think Dems as a whole will just be very unlikely to vote for a 3rd party.  Bloomberg's past support for Bush (during his 04 re-election) and his support as well as contributions toward Lieberman last year hurts.

[Conan]

Conan needs to look at the polls. Throw Bloomberg in the race and just about every matchup gives the Democratic candidate a double digit lead.

What you need to know is that people don't know who Michael Bloomberg is or where he stands on the issues. These polls are worthless. All people knew about Bloomberg is that he is the billionaire Republican mayor of NY. Now he is the independent mayor of NYC. They don't know that he's really a dem who switched to avoid a primary or that he supports gay marriage, is pro-choice, pro amnesty immigration bill, and a taxer. It's sad to see so many of the people on this forum lose so much credibility over Bloomberg. Even many of the republicans on this forum know Bloomberg will take votes away from the dems more.

I think Bloomberg takes more votes from the GOP.  In part because after what happened wit Nader in 2000 I think Dems as a whole will just be very unlikely to vote for a 3rd party.  Bloomberg's past support for Bush (during his 04 re-election) and his support as well as contributions toward Lieberman last year hurts.

I see your point. But no one else has made that point. They think it's because of where he stands on the issues. However, if he does get more GOP votes, he's not going to get many votes at all then.

[Smash255]

Conan needs to look at the polls. Throw Bloomberg in the race and just about every matchup gives the Democratic candidate a double digit lead.

What you need to know is that people don't know who Michael Bloomberg is or where he stands on the issues. These polls are worthless. All people knew about Bloomberg is that he is the billionaire Republican mayor of NY. Now he is the independent mayor of NYC. They don't know that he's really a dem who switched to avoid a primary or that he supports gay marriage, is pro-choice, pro amnesty immigration bill, and a taxer. It's sad to see so many of the people on this forum lose so much credibility over Bloomberg. Even many of the republicans on this forum know Bloomberg will take votes away from the dems more.

I think Bloomberg takes more votes from the GOP.  In part because after what happened wit Nader in 2000 I think Dems as a whole will just be very unlikely to vote for a 3rd party.  Bloomberg's past support for Bush (during his 04 re-election) and his support as well as contributions toward Lieberman last year hurts.

I see your point. But no one else has made that point. They think it's because of where he stands on the issues. However, if he does get more GOP votes, he's not going to get many votes at all then.

I have said from early on, I don't think Bloomberg will win in any states.  Overall I don't see him getting much past 10%, possibly up to 20% in some states, NJ, CT, not much beyond there.  I think the core of his votes are going to come from moderate to Rockefeller type Republicans who traditionally still vote mostly GOP.  He may take some who have already left and typically vote Democrat, but more from those who still vote GOP, because those have already left are generally a bit happier as well as influenced away from voting 3rd party by the Nader 2000 factor.

[minionofmidas]

Conan needs to look at the polls. Throw Bloomberg in the race and just about every matchup gives the Democratic candidate a double digit lead.

What you need to know is that people don't know who Michael Bloomberg is or where he stands on the issues. These polls are worthless. All people knew about Bloomberg is that he is the billionaire Republican mayor of NY. Now he is the independent mayor of NYC. They don't know that he's really a dem who switched to avoid a primary or that he supports gay marriage, is pro-choice, pro amnesty immigration bill, and a taxer. It's sad to see so many of the people on this forum lose so much credibility over Bloomberg. Even many of the republicans on this forum know Bloomberg will take votes away from the dems more.

I think Bloomberg takes more votes from the GOP.  In part because after what happened wit Nader in 2000 I think Dems as a whole will just be very unlikely to vote for a 3rd party.  Bloomberg's past support for Bush (during his 04 re-election) and his support as well as contributions toward Lieberman last year hurts.

I see your point. But no one else has made that point. They think it's because of where he stands on the issues. However, if he does get more GOP votes, he's not going to get many votes at all then.

I have said from early on, I don't think Bloomberg will win in any states.  Overall I don't see him getting much past 10%, possibly up to 20% in some states, NJ, CT, not much beyond there.

I certainly don't see him getting beyond 10% nationally. His support may be very concentrated in the NE though, apart from a few places like the Chicago suburbs and Florida.

[bbt]

I believe that a Bloomberg candidacy would result in Bloomberg getting votes from............no one

Perot was more likely to gain votes in 92 than Bloomberg will be in 08.  A dishwater candidate who excites neither Democrats or Republicans, a NON FACTOR

[minionofmidas]

I believe that a Bloomberg candidacy would result in Bloomberg getting votes from............no one

Perot was more likely to gain votes in 92 than Bloomberg will be in 08.  A dishwater candidate who excites neither Democrats or Republicans, a NON FACTOR

Perot in 92 was far and away the strongest indy in most posters' lifetime (though it's kind of hard to see why, really), so that#s not saying much.

[AndrewTX]

At this rate I honestly believe that Bloomberg will take some liberal states, but is likely to take more Republican leaning states the Democrat ones.

Which 'liberal states'?  And you think he will take some Republican leaning states as well as Democrat leaning ones?  You seem to think Bloomberg will get an awfully large percentage.  WHY?  In all seriousness why would anyone outside of a few disgruntled Rockefeller Republicans in the Northeast vote for him?

I believe that he is going to play well in areas like New Hampshire, New Jersey, and Connecticut, all liberal leaning states. He might be able to play well in some states like Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas, Missouri, and some other places.

 I don't think he is going to come away with a victory, but I believe he will play just as well as Perot did in 1992. The American people are pissed at Congress, the approval ratings are at rock bottom. Once the campaigns start, the people are going to start looking for an outsider, someone outside the Washington belt. Giuliani isn't going to be that guy because he has been whoring himself out to the candidates during the 2004, and 2006 elections. I think he is going to play well as the "Fresh Face" candidate.

 That's my opinion on it. I know several republicans in the area who are ready to vote for him over all the other candidates in the field. Same goes for several democrats in the area.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

There is a possibility for a strong third party candidacy this time around, but if it ends up being Bloomberg, I expect Anderson 1980 type numbers rather than Perot 1992 or Roosevelt 1912.