[Newsbot]

<strong>Filibuster Cartoon</strong>
<strong>Title: </strong> <a href="http://www.filibustercartoons.com/archive.php?id=20070625" target="_blank">Blooming candidacy</a> (click to view)
<strong>Date: </strong> June 25, 2007

There has been much giddy speculation in Washington that incumbent New York mayor Michael Bloomberg may soon throw his hat into the ring and run for President of the United States. Bloomberg, a liberal former Democrat turned Republican, loudly dropped out of the GOP on June 19th, denouncing the present state of partisan politics in America. The media has since jumped all over this move as a fairly clear sign that Mayor Mike intends to run as an independent candidate in \'08. <br> <br>Bloomberg is very rich, and could run a strong campaign quite easily. As a fiscal conservative who is more liberal on social issues than most leading Democrats, his entry could likewise hurt both parties. Problem is, Bloomberg is still officially undeclared, and denounces all the rumors that he will run. Of course, we saw the same sort of coy behavior from another prominent New York politician a while back....

[Psudo]

I hope he runs. I don't think he has a chance, but I like to see third party candidates giving it the attempt. Also, unlike Ross Perot, I can't see him causing net harm to my favored party.

[Kjorteo]

The parallel this strip draws is spot-on, the point is very sound, and I highly approve of the message, but dang is that caricature of Bloomberg in drag creepy.

And no third party candidate ever has a chance, simply because they're third party candidates. That's just how the system works, with nothing for or against Bloomberg himself. Still, they're quite often refreshing for their ability to bring creative new unorthodox ideas to the table, and make the major parties either adopt them or risk losing votes. They're never going to win, but there's nothing wrong with keeping the Democrats and Republicans on their toes.

[Scape]

Bloomberg in drag? What about that other mayor of NY?

As for no third has a chance, look at the popularity of the senate. Both major parties are tracking at all time lows in popularity. This guy isn't Ross Perot or some Lebanese immigrant with delusions of liberty. He's a popular and successful mayor of one of the biggest cities in the world. He doesn't have to drag his ass though the primary because he can buy his ticket and still have more money than any of the major party candidates. His very record put to rest any myth of Giuliani competency. He has a very real chance of scoring a black eye in the smug aspect of both main parties to clean up their act, something most voters would pay money for.

[Kjorteo]

Yeah, but we're talking the Presidency, here--a race so afraid of risk that what kind of Christian the candidate is is considered a big deal. George W. Bush proved in 2004 that you can have approval ratings through the floor and still somehow win. And who's Bloomberg going to draw, anyway? Most of the registered Democrats and Republicans would vote for a balloon doggy sooner than the other party, the same can mostly be said for the major third parties (who have equally zealous closed-off bases,) moderate independent swing voters tend to break among Democrat/Republican lines if the election is too close to be safe for a meaningless protest vote, and Bloomberg is too much of a career politician to appeal to the apathetic politics-hating "Republicrats lolol" Rage Against the Machine fans.

Again, nothing against the man himself. He would be a decent candidate if he picked a major party and ran for the primary nomination. Even as an independent, he'd at least bring some unique ideas to the table that the major party candidates would have to work around or steal to keep the swing voters. And maybe, just maybe, he could draw enough of a crowd to spoil the election for one side or the other. But an independent isn't going to win. Let's not kid ourselves, here.

[ejacksonian]

Scape wrote:

Bloomberg in drag? What about that other mayor of NY?

As for no third has a chance, look at the popularity of the senate. Both major parties are tracking at all time lows in popularity. This guy isn't Ross Perot or some Lebanese immigrant with delusions of liberty. He's a popular and successful mayor of one of the biggest cities in the world. He doesn't have to drag his ass though the primary because he can buy his ticket and still have more money than any of the major party candidates. His very record put to rest any myth of Giuliani competency. He has a very real chance of scoring a black eye in the smug aspect of both main parties to clean up their act, something most voters would pay money for.

If you ever study the two party system in any detail, here's three things that generalyl happens:

1. The third party candidate manages to cost a party more electoral votes to one of the two parties than the others, therefore accidentally costing the election to them. The third party candidate then fades away, and so does his party.

2. The third party actually does better than one of the parties, and if this continues, replaces one of the two parties.

3. The third party manages to become continue to exist, but at a level that have little to no affect on the election.

If we had a runoff system for every state for presidential elections, this situation might change a little bit, but utnil then, no third party candidate in the USA will win unless they are out to replace one of the two parties as a main party.

[Scape]

What if the two main parties are running so poorly as to run themselves out of office by default? Does it not stand to reason then that the third party candidate need only have a pulse to have a chance? With Bloomberg he has the finances that he can skip the primaries and head strait to California to make major policy impacting campaign speeches that speak directly to the populist vote. He doesn't even have to worry about running a campaign he can simply pick and stick to a theme, what other candidate can do that without being seen as a sell-out to lobbyists?

Bloomberg does not have to run hard to defeat the GOP record and as a businessman Wall Street will not be a problem for him to court. Consider the Democratic alternative; Hillary has only now gotten the endorsement of a major business magazine. Can you imagine how the poorest candidate Obama would fair?

[BartSimpson]

Newsbot wrote:

<strong>Filibuster Cartoon</strong>
<strong>Title: </strong> <a href="http://www.filibustercartoons.com/archive.php?id=20070625" target="_blank">Blooming candidacy</a> (click to view)
<strong>Date: </strong> June 25, 2007

There has been much giddy speculation in Washington that incumbent New York mayor Michael Bloomberg may soon throw his hat into the ring and run for President of the United States. Bloomberg, a liberal former Democrat turned Republican, loudly dropped out of the GOP on June 19th, denouncing the present state of partisan politics in America. The media has since jumped all over this move as a fairly clear sign that Mayor Mike intends to run as an independent candidate in \'08.
<br>
<br>Bloomberg is very rich, and could run a strong campaign quite easily. As a fiscal conservative who is more liberal on social issues than most leading Democrats, his entry could likewise hurt both parties. Problem is, Bloomberg is still officially undeclared, and denounces all the rumors that he will run. Of course, we saw the same sort of coy behavior from another prominent New York politician a while back....

I hope he runs. He'll draw a lot of votes away from the Democrats since he appeals to them the same way John McCain does.

[Psudo]

I barely need to be here. Kjorteo is arguing my points for me.

Quote:

What if the two main parties are running so poorly as to run themselves out of office by default? Does it not stand to reason then that the third party candidate need only have a pulse to have a chance?

It stands to reason that such a situation is possible, but the description doesn't describe this election. Tues. November 4th, 2008 is still 1 year, 4 months, and 9 days off [1] and we're already discussing the major Presidential candidates from both major parties and even independents. We have a huge field of candidates in an election that is giving us a radically large period of time to study and decide. Do you really think we won't have exciting front-runners from the major parties over the course of the next 16 months?

[Scape]

Psudo wrote:

We have a huge field of candidates in an election that is giving us a radically large period of time to study and decide. Do you really think we won't have exciting front-runners from the major parties over the course of the next 16 months?

With the all party debates being held this early in the election cycle don't you think that retards the process? Let's say some wild card does come in, by what criteria do you see the current process lending this dark horse legitimacy? Isn't that the idea of a due process?

Ultimately any candidate for either party that is a serious contender would have already made waves by now or is in the race. Considering the lack of star candidates in the pack I would say not only does Bloomberg have a chance at winning, but may end up trouncing both parties. I can imagine the excuses they will have to make up to keep him out of the debates like they did to Perot. It should be fun to watch them in trying to justify leaving him out if he ends up polling like he is already.

[Psudo]

Scape wrote:

Ultimately any candidate for either party that is a serious contender would have already made waves by now or is in the race.

In most election cycles, the candidates would either not have announced or would just be announcing their candidacy for President "by now". Making waves as a front-runner is traditionally still nearly a year off.

In 2000, Al Gore announced his candidacy in June 16th, 1999. If that'd been this election cycle, that'd have been 10 days ago, hardly enough time to establish himself as a front-runner. No one is "making waves" precisely because of the length of time remaining until the actual election. No one but politics geeks gives a crap yet.

And, no, I don't see any way in which an early start to the campaign retards the candidates' chances. Fred Thompson might, but I don't.

[Scape]

The truncated version of the all candidates’ debate being held this early is only denying the public access to the candidates at the point where they are just beginning to flesh out policy. How is the public to scrutinise the candidates on policy before they get the nomination and become the defacto policy for the nation if they win?

[Lunchbox]

One of the big problems with third party candidates is that they're basically a "diet" version of either republicans or democrats. For example, the Bull Moose party was basically a bunch of Republicans pissed off at Taft, and all they ended up doing was stealing votes from Taft, allowing Wilson to win in his first run. Ralph Nader also does this to the democratic party (one of his stated goals), stealing that 2% that can make a difference in a lot of elections. In this system, voting is done out of disdain towards a particular party to which you belong

What's different about Bloomberg, and any potentially successful independent is that view of something different. You're electing somebody because of their beliefs, not their party's beliefs. If you're electing a democrat, then there's a very good chance that he's going to act in a way in which his party would approve of. If you're voting for an independent, there's the appeal (not guarantee) that this person will act in a way that they see beneficial for the country moreover themselves or their parties. The advantage of independents that gained Perot a lot of success before he finally ruined his chances in '92, is that your supporters are voting out of disdain for candidates, disdain for the parties, and for a hope in something new/fresh/different.

As Bloomberg is viewed as a competent man associated with running New York, he has the possibility to edge out Giuliani in competence votes. As he is now sick of party politics and hanging around Schwarzenegger, he can beat out McCain, Clinton, and a few others in the "slave to the party" area as well. A lot of his new plans will also get points from the green crowd as well.

His big problems are that during his reign over New York, he's made new taxes and raised others. While what he did was economically and fiscally the best thing to do, Americans get dopey about raising taxes, and really take it to offense no matter how necessary it is, which will lose him votes. He's also never really revealed much of his beliefs in the way of national security, or the Iraq War, but these may come out IF he runs. He's also really knocked down in the whole charisma category, in which Obama rules, and Romney, Thompson, and Giuliani are fighting for (with very little success, save for Thompson).

All in all, I hope he runs, because he's very interesting, so I can get a better idea of him, but right now, I don't think he will.

[ejacksonian]

Scape wrote:

What if the two main parties are running so poorly as to run themselves out of office by default?

Possible, but improbable. In fact, if 2004 is any indication, people are ogint to stick harder to the two parties because of the 2000 fiasco, not less.

BartSimpson wrote:

Newsbot wrote:

<strong>Filibuster Cartoon</strong>
<strong>Title: </strong> <a href="http://www.filibustercartoons.com/archive.php?id=20070625" target="_blank">Blooming candidacy</a> (click to view)
<strong>Date: </strong> June 25, 2007

There has been much giddy speculation in Washington that incumbent New York mayor Michael Bloomberg may soon throw his hat into the ring and run for President of the United States. Bloomberg, a liberal former Democrat turned Republican, loudly dropped out of the GOP on June 19th, denouncing the present state of partisan politics in America. The media has since jumped all over this move as a fairly clear sign that Mayor Mike intends to run as an independent candidate in \'08.
<br>
<br>Bloomberg is very rich, and could run a strong campaign quite easily. As a fiscal conservative who is more liberal on social issues than most leading Democrats, his entry could likewise hurt both parties. Problem is, Bloomberg is still officially undeclared, and denounces all the rumors that he will run. Of course, we saw the same sort of coy behavior from another prominent New York politician a while back....

I hope he runs. He'll draw a lot of votes away from the Democrats since he appeals to them the same way John McCain does.

That's actually incorrect. According to the polls, Bloomberg takes more states away from Republicans than Democrats.

That said, I want to point out that Bloomberg has low name recgonition.


Scape, I think you are the under illusion (pardon my vocabulary) that the the Presidential system is favorable to third parties.

In fact, that's from the case. The way that presidential elections are done are incredibly hostile to third parties. Even if (and they are not) the democrats and republicans were willing to give ballot access to every third party, it would not help.

First, only one party can win the presidency. That's obvious. However, the consequences are devastating to third parties. First, that means onece a party wins the presidency, all other parties are shut out of the presidency. Everyone serves under the pleasure of the president in the executive branch, which means they also serve under the pleasure of his party affliations.

In other words, the only other way to beat this particular party out is to have a single unified opposition AND support to the current party in control of the Executive Branch.

That's why bloomberg will never have a chance, at least not in the way you want it to be. If manages to win and institionalize a party, it will only be to replace one the two major parties.

In fact, it's a vicous cycle. The only time third parties ever haver a chance is if they replace one of the two parties, which they become one of the two major parties.

In other words, third parties that win and sustain winning are no longer third parties, but a first or second party.

I will pose this question to you: Do you wish to really allow third parties to have a chance of winning, or do you simply want to replace both of the current major parties? Or do you want to simply want third parties to affect elections in less negative fashion than plurality voting?

Now these, are very different questions. IF you simply want to replace the two parties, than this will NOT change the party structure. If you want to change the two party structure, it will NOT replace the two parties. These two don't necessarily go hand to hand.

[EmperorLiam]

Bloomberg is a Democrat, even when he was a Republican, I never heard ANYONE refer to him as anything but a Democrat.

If he runs as independent, that shows how stupid he is. If he runs, if at all, it'd be in the Democrat party.

I've never heard any New Yorkers say anything positive about him or Guilani...

Also hes one of the 9/11 and Iraq are related goofballs.

A pro-war and pro-homosexual marriage candidate has ZERO chance of winning.