Who Wins if Bloomberg Runs?

| | Comments (15) | TrackBacks (0)

According to the NYT, Bloomberg has renounced his ties to the Republican Party. Good riddance. Bloomberg only became a Republican after he lost the Democrat primary. He then ran for mayor as a Republican and won.

The implication is that he may make an independent run for the White House. So will he take more votes from the Democrats or the Republicans?

My guess is that the Democrats will lose more to Bloomberg than the Republicans will. Bloomberg is a liberal. He is pro-abortion rights and anti-gun rights. He believes more government is the solution to all problems. The only reasons Republicans in NYC voted for him is that they did not have a real Republican to vote for, and the alternative was even more liberal than Bloomberg. The Democratic nomination process tends to result in the most liberal candidate's being nominated. Thus, the blue-collar, union, deer-hunting Democrats may be drawn to the less liberal Bloomberg.

Bloomberg could take votes from the right side of the Democrat Party, as Ralph Nader took them from the left-side. Run, Mikey, run!

0 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Who Wins if Bloomberg Runs?.

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://novatownhall.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1195

15 Comments

Ted said:

The man's got the charisma of a piece of toast.

What does he bring other than $5 billion he can blow on a campaign?

Jack: SHHH! This might be too good to be true.

zimzo said:

As usual, Jack, you're not too good on the facts. Bloomberg did not run in the Democratic primary. He ran in the Republican primary in 2001 against Herman Badillo.

Jack said:

Thanks, zimzo. You are correct. He was polling badly in the field of Democrats, so switched parties to run as a Republican.

jacob said:

Zimzo,
Bloomberg was running as a Democrat and losing badly in the polls to Ferrer. So he opportunistically switched parties, because he then received Rudi's endorsment and was crowned Mayor of NY.

His opponent, Ferrer, leading up to Democrat primary was a dyed in the wool socialist, and many in NY sighed a sigh of relief when Ferrer lost the general election.

The way you state it implies Bloomberg did not change parties once the campaign season started. Which is as wrong as Jack's factual flub as to when the bloomy did switch political parties. Which was a marriage of convenience to say the least.

Bloomberg only hates cigarettes worse than he hates guns. But the choice was him or that loon Ferrer.

jacob said:

Damn Jack, can't I get in a word egdewise before you go shootin your mouth off.

jacob said:

Ted,
A good piece of toast, especially with butter and orange marmalade, is far more attractive than Bloomberg.

zimzo said:

Apparently, Jacob, you know less about New York politics than Jack does. The Democratic primary was won by Mark Green, not Fernando Ferrer (who is hardly a socialist, except perhaps by your extreme right-wing standards). Bloomberg never ran for mayor as a Democrat. He switched parties to Republican before he filed to run for mayor. Rudy did not "crown" him mayor but actually tried to extend his term on an emergency basis so that he could continue as mayor after 9/11 (the original date of the primary), and sought to change the term limits law so that he could run again, until he backed down after an outcry.

Seriously, you guys should limit yourselves to talking about something you know about, whatever that is.

Jack said:

Ferrer lost to Green in 2001, but won in 2005, when Green did not run. It's an easy mistake to make. It's also irrelevant. Bloomberg realized that he could not win the Democratic primary, so he switched parties.

Giuliani DID endorse Bloomberg: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F00EED71F31F93BA15753C1A9679C8B63 This was a big boost for Bloomberg.

So, what proposals did Ferrer come up with that were NOT socialist?

Ted said:

And with Ralph Nader pondering another run for President 2008 could be a real clambake.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0607/4580.html

jacob said:

zimzo,
Please, read what I wrote. I said Bloomberg was trailing Ferrer in the polls. I never mentioned who won the Democrat primary. This is because Bloomberg switched parties before the primary and thus whoever was the winner of the Democrat primary is not germain to the conversation.

Bloomberg started off runnng as a Democrat because up to then he had been a Democrat his entire adult life. When he saw the writing on the wall he bailed and received Gulianni's endorsement.

These converations would be more pleasent if you read what was written. Can you read?

Your opinion of my lack of knowledge is also not germain. I could dwell on your lack of civility in general, but that also is not the point. I could further dwell on how you get insulted by people who turn your own tactics back on you. Which is frankly hilarious. But that as well is not the point.

In short, stick to the topic, your personel observations of me are none of my business.

Jack said:

I might also point out that Jacob (the Carpetbagger) grew up in NYC, and his parents lived there until a couple of years ago.

zimzo said:

I can read, Jacob. Perhaps the problem is that you can't write:

"Bloomberg was running as a Democrat"

No, he never ran as a Democrat. He was registered as a Democrat before he ran but he never ran as one.

"he opportunistically switched parties, because he then received Rudi's endorsment and was crowned Mayor of NY."

No he swiftched parties and didn't receive Giuliani's endorsement until five months later. Giuliani's endorsement actually didn't help as much as the fact that Ferrer refused to endorse Green and his voters abandoned Green.

"The way you state it implies Bloomberg did not change parties once the campaign season started."

Again, Bloomberg switched parties before he announced that he was running.

"many in NY sighed a sigh of relief when Ferrer lost the general election."

Since Ferrer was not running in the general election no one breathed a sigh of relief.

"His opponent, Ferrer, leading up to Democrat primary was a dyed in the wool socialist"

Ferrer wasn't his opponent until 2005. It's silly to say anyone to the left of Attila the Hun is a scialist. Ferrer was never a member of the Socialist Workers party. He was a center-left Democrat.

"the choice was him or that loon Ferrer."

No, the choice in 2001 was Bloomberg or Green. In 2005 it was Bloomberg or Ferrer.

So what did I misread? Are you big enough to admit your were wrong?

Jack said:

Democrat... Socialist... What's the difference?

Had Enough said:

Bloomberg said that New York would totally collapse without the illegals.

Leave a comment


Type the characters you see in the picture above.

Old Dominion Blog Alliance

Technorati

Technorati search

» Blogs that link here

ECOSYSTEM