McCain vs. Obama vs. Bloomberg

[Frodo]

How would you vote, and what would the electoral map look like if this actually transpired in real-life?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I'm too lazy to make a map now, might later, but since almost every single one of these scenarios always has a bunch of maps with Bloomberg winning states, I ask people who predict him to win any:

Why would Bloomberg win any states when the last time any third party candidate to win any states was in 1968 and the last time one who didn't run a region-based campaign won any was 1912?

[Tender Branson]

Obama/Clark

The map would be '92 like.

[Lief 🗽]

I'm too lazy to make a map now, might later, but since almost every single one of these scenarios always has a bunch of maps with Bloomberg winning states, I ask people who predict him to win any:

Why would Bloomberg win any states when the last time any third party candidate to win any states was in 1968 and the last time one who didn't run a region-based campaign won any was 1912?

Because Bloomberg has $1 billion to spend and he isn't insane?

[Ben.]

Clark is a bad choice for the veep post on a ticket led by Obama... Obama would need a balance of experiance (although not to the extent that it could contradict his "change" narrative... Bob Kerrey?).

[auburntiger]

Well, here's one where Bloomberg doesn't win any states, lol. In fact, here's two.

Scenario 1: a majority of Americans grow to like Obama, respond well to his message of change. Bloomberg, however, draws some liberal votes away from him, but he still wins narrowly.

Scenario 2: Obama falls flat on his face during the debates, making him look like the too inexperienced senator that he is, fumbling over questions like another 9-11 attack, going into Pakistan The American people trust McCain in dealing with the foreign policy issues at hand. McCain wins by a little.

[JSojourner]

Doesn't Bloomberg help the Republicans?  Because of his liberal social positions, wouldn't he siphon votes away from Democrats?

I have never been able to understand how this works.  Perot had moderate social positions, definitely center or center-left.  But he was a big business guy.  So he hurt the GOP, no?

Edumacate me.  Some of you are SO smart, I really learn a lot here.

[True Democrat]

Bloomberg will almost definitely not run if Obama gets the nomination, and most likely will not run if McCain gets the nod.

[Erc]

I personally can't see Bloomberg doing well (or even deciding to run in the first place) in this scenario.

There aren't too many people on either side who are going to be incredibly dissatisfied with their party's nominees  (except for the CARLHAYDEN types on the right and the few partisan Edwards supporters on the left), and both candidates appeal to independents.


As to JSojourner's comments...not everyone votes on social issues.  If the Republican is pretty much anybody but McCain, I'd likely vote for Bloomberg, and not only on social issues.

Perot did well amongst Republicans because there was a lot of dissatisfaction with Bush generally (evidenced by Buchanan's run)--due to the tax hikes, among other things.


It really depends on the candidates (and his VP pick), but Bloomberg isn't likely to have a disproportionately pull more Democrats than Republicans, or vice versa.  What is a possibility, however, is that Bloomberg pulls Republicans in places where it doesn't hurt them as much (like the Northeast), so the net effect is slightly in favor of the Republicans.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

[Nutmeg]

Clark endorsed Clinton.

And he would be a terrible pick.  This coming from someone who voted for him four years ago.