Yeah, I was just knocking around ideas earlier. He would hurt the democrats more.
But I like him.
So I'm emotionally torn.
I'm with you... I wish he were a viable candidate, I think he's great.
Unfortunately, I still think viable third-parties will only come about through a governmental revamping of the electoral process... which I doubt many democrats or republicans would be down for.
More like a change in the entire system of government.
Yeah, I was just knocking around ideas earlier. He would hurt the democrats more.
But I like him.
So I'm emotionally torn.
I'm with you... I wish he were a viable candidate, I think he's great.
Unfortunately, I still think viable third-parties will only come about through a governmental revamping of the electoral process... which I doubt many democrats or republicans would be down for.
More like a change in the entire system of government.
We just aren't set up like parliamentary systems.
It wouldn't have to be anything parliamentary, really, just basing elections on the popular vote rather than electoral.
FirstComradeStalin on
0
Options
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
edited June 2007
I would be in favor of having a Parliament if it weren't for the fact that we'd need to establish a monarch first.
Yeah, I was just knocking around ideas earlier. He would hurt the democrats more.
But I like him.
So I'm emotionally torn.
I'm with you... I wish he were a viable candidate, I think he's great.
Unfortunately, I still think viable third-parties will only come about through a governmental revamping of the electoral process... which I doubt many democrats or republicans would be down for.
More like a change in the entire system of government.
We just aren't set up like parliamentary systems.
Making it so states aren't winner take all in the electoral college would spice things up quite a bit.
Yeah, I was just knocking around ideas earlier. He would hurt the democrats more.
But I like him.
So I'm emotionally torn.
I'm with you... I wish he were a viable candidate, I think he's great.
Unfortunately, I still think viable third-parties will only come about through a governmental revamping of the electoral process... which I doubt many democrats or republicans would be down for.
More like a change in the entire system of government.
We just aren't set up like parliamentary systems.
It wouldn't have to be anything parliamentary, really, just basing elections on the popular vote rather than electoral.
That would not make third parties viable at all. Aside from re-writing articles 1 and 2 of the Constitution, nothing will.
Wouldn't jumping in this late in the game really hurt him? Unless he launched a bang-up publicity campaign, I don't see his candidacy getting off the ground in the GOP, but an independent party might pick him up because they haven't got anybody else right now.
Speaking of, who is supposed to be running as a lib this go-round? I supported Badnarik in the last election, but have absolutely no clue of what they're up to now.
Wouldn't jumping in this late in the game really hurt him? Unless he launched a bang-up publicity campaign, I don't see his candidacy getting off the ground in the GOP, but an independent party might pick him up because they haven't got anybody else right now.
Speaking of, who is supposed to be running as a lib this go-round? I supported Badnarik in the last election, but have absolutely no clue of what they're up to now.
late? the campaigning has barely begun! most republicans or democrats you ask right now probably cannot give you any more than 4 candidates in either party that arent hilary or obama. Bloomberg will start off at least higher than half the candidates in both fields in terms of name recognition right now if he were to jump in
The two party system has shifted around a little bit over the US's history, but that took place before the Civil War (and perhaps sparking it). However, I don't see Bloomberg having too much of a chance of being more than a spoiler unless some bad shit goes down in the coming months.
But really, a lot of the most important political movement in the country is the form of the constituencies of the two major parties. They are basically just coalitions by another name, as there is a fair amount of diversity in a number of positions on each side.
I'd be most interested in primary reform at the moment. It makes no sense to me why Iowa and New Hampshire should have such a powerful influence by going first, and the states going last are effectively useless most of the time. Why should Presidential candidates have to suck the corn lobby's cock make sure they don't get screwed by the bandwagon?
If he does decide to run, he would interest me more than any of the other candidates. He a pragmatist and has shown he can wrangle an entrenched bureaucracy full of self-serving jerks and make it work. He also fiscally responsible and socially liberal. All plusses for me.
Out of any of potential candidates, I think he has the best chance of making the federal government less broken.
Wouldn't jumping in this late in the game really hurt him? Unless he launched a bang-up publicity campaign, I don't see his candidacy getting off the ground in the GOP, but an independent party might pick him up because they haven't got anybody else right now.
Speaking of, who is supposed to be running as a lib this go-round? I supported Badnarik in the last election, but have absolutely no clue of what they're up to now.
Um.
He's not running as a Republican. This thread was started by his announcement that he is re-registering as an independent.
I'd bet that the condition for his entering the race will be if the Democrats cannot achieve some major victory on the road to ending the Iraq War in September/October.
At that point I think he'd assess that there was an opening in the center.
I don't mind the idea of Republicans having 4 more years. Sure, it'll bring us to the edge of destruction, but it will cement the destruction of their party as it is now, they'll have to reform into being less assclowny. (I'm talking about Bloomberg giving the Republicans the Presidency by running and not Bloomberg himself as President)
I occasionally think this way as well. The collapse of the subprime housing market and the resulting foreclosures, coupled with rising gas prices, could mean the utter tanking of our economy in the next four years. If that happens, whoever is sitting in the White House will be packing their bags come 2012. If it's a Republican and we're still in Iraq and/or have engaged Iran, it could mean BAD trouble for the party as a whole.
I find the reports of the Republican parties immenant demise to be greatly exaggerated.
I think of it like a race... the democrats may be in the lead, but it seems like they are having to run their hardest to keep it, while the GOP are just behind them running at an easy jog...
what I mean is, Republicans are still better at elections then dems are... and Dems have this nasty history of blowing "sure things." I don't think four more years of GOP rule will cause much damage to the GOP party.
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
it should be noted that there has been only two truly viable third party presdiential candidates in this country's history
Teddy Rossevelt - A purposeful spoiler for Taft. He ran solely because Taft pissed him off and he knew running would ruin Taft's chances for re-election
Ross Perot - A more comparable example. Until he dropped out then re-entered the race he had an ctual chanceof being a contender in 1992. IIRC at his peak he was actual within striking distance of both parties. When he dropped out and re-entered his chances were pretty much shot. Still got a decent number of votes in the end though.
He's not running as a Republican. This thread was started by his announcement that he is re-registering as an independent.
I'd bet that the condition for his entering the race will be if the Democrats cannot achieve some major victory on the road to ending the Iraq War in September/October.
At that point I think he'd assess that there was an opening in the center.
Ok, somehow I completely missed that. I read the whole thread before I posted, but that point eluded me.
Wonder_Hippie on
0
Options
ElJeffeNot actually a mod.Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPAmod
We've been hearing that the economy will colapse for years now.
I'm sure there will be a recession, because that is the business cycle, but I doubt any real doom and gloom predictions.
Even a recession can be enough to poison a presidency, if it lasts long enough.
Heck, even if it doesn't. *cough*GHWB*cough*
At any rate, New York already thinks of itself as the most important place in the universe. Electing their mayor would simply exacerbate this reeking egotism. I think we should disqualify all current and former mayors from the presidency for that reason alone.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
We've been hearing that the economy will colapse for years now.
I'm sure there will be a recession, because that is the business cycle, but I doubt any real doom and gloom predictions.
Even a recession can be enough to poison a presidency, if it lasts long enough.
Heck, even if it doesn't. *cough*GHWB*cough*
At any rate, New York already thinks of itself as the most important place in the universe. Electing their mayor would simply exacerbate this reeking egotism. I think we should disqualify all current and former mayors from the presidency for that reason alone.
If for nothing than to piss you off I wish for a Bloomberg, Hilary, Guilani race
nexuscrawler on
0
Options
ElJeffeNot actually a mod.Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPAmod
edited June 2007
First Hilary needs to become mayor of New York. Then we can have that three-way.
...
Oh god, that was such an extraordinarily poor choice of wording.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
We've been hearing that the economy will colapse for years now.
I'm sure there will be a recession, because that is the business cycle, but I doubt any real doom and gloom predictions.
Even a recession can be enough to poison a presidency, if it lasts long enough.
Heck, even if it doesn't. *cough*GHWB*cough*
At any rate, New York already thinks of itself as the most important place in the universe. Electing their mayor would simply exacerbate this reeking egotism. I think we should disqualify all current and former mayors from the presidency for that reason alone.
You know, parts of me even liked Bush Sr's presidency. He basically inherited something that was inevitable after the Reagan era. I see the opposite happening to the next president; if they manage their shit correctly, they'll be looked at like a fucking hero.
We've been hearing that the economy will colapse for years now.
I'm sure there will be a recession, because that is the business cycle, but I doubt any real doom and gloom predictions.
Even a recession can be enough to poison a presidency, if it lasts long enough.
Heck, even if it doesn't. *cough*GHWB*cough*
At any rate, New York already thinks of itself as the most important place in the universe. Electing their mayor would simply exacerbate this reeking egotism. I think we should disqualify all current and former mayors from the presidency for that reason alone.
At least New York has some justification for it. I'm sick and fucking tired of every president having to be from the fucking South.
Thanatos on
0
Options
ElJeffeNot actually a mod.Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPAmod
You know, parts of me even liked Bush Sr's presidency. He basically inherited something that was inevitable after a business cycle.
Fix'd. That recession wasn't even that steep. The economy goes up, then it goes down, then it goes up, and so on. And the president always gets blamed/credited for it. The last couple decades have been sort of unfortunate for the GOP in this regard. Bush I and Clinton both handled the economies admirably by pretty much doing fuck-all and letting it handle itself, which should always be the default option. Bush Jr. tried to game the system, with mixed results, though in the end I don't think the current economy has much to do with him.
Wait, what are we talking about? Oh yeah, Bloomberg. Smoking and trans-fat ban dude. Fuck that guy.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
He lost the primary when Reagan told him to sit the fuck down and he did it. That was a moment of psychological truth.
He was destined, like Carter and Ford, to merely fill the space between real presidents.
So, what does that make this Bush, a fluke*? He's been riding the ass-end of a boom for a while now, hasn't he? He consistently made an ass of himself in his first term (for me, at least), but managed to get reelected. Was it just because the democrating stabling was so unappealing? I mean, I don't consider him a real president at all; any president that considers themselves "the decider" clearly has no fucking clue how the American government works.
Considering that, what's in store for the next president? I just realized how horribly OT this is, but whatever. Ignore it if it's too off the mark and you can't wrap it back around to Bloomberg.
*Freud was right. I kept typing "fuck" there, took me three tries to type "fuck." I mean "fuck." Fluke.
As it stands right now, Bloomberg wouldn't do much to hold back the Democratic tide. He would, however, cause the Republican candidates a lot of consternation.
(Very) Early polling shows he'd garner more Republican votes than Democratic ones.
I think the evidence supports the general idea that Democrats are unwilling to endanger what they rightly see as their best chance in forever to retake the White House and solidify their majorities in Congress.
Hilary simply has more name recognition and attention right now.
The real question here is who would an independent like Bloomberg hurt more right now? He'd certainly draw most of his support from the middle. Ordinary people who are sick of partisan hackery and just want some shit to get done. Moderates are fleeing the GOP like rats from a sinking ship but I'm sure there's plenty wary of investing themselves in the Dems right now. The big issue is since he's just a mayor he has little to no forgein policy history. 2008 is going to be largely a referendum on Iraq and someone who's said very little about i is an oddity to say the least.
Not having experience on Iraq is a good thing, because he doesn't have to fight against a previous vote. I don't think the mayor of New York has much to do with Mexican Immigration, but he has put down a plank on it anyway.
Yeah, I was just knocking around ideas earlier. He would hurt the democrats more.
But I like him.
So I'm emotionally torn.
I'm with you... I wish he were a viable candidate, I think he's great.
Unfortunately, I still think viable third-parties will only come about through a governmental revamping of the electoral process... which I doubt many democrats or republicans would be down for.
The 2 party system has only broken down once, and that was in a civil war.
I hate to be off topic, but if the system started breaking down I would be sort of scared.
At any rate, New York already thinks of itself as the most important place in the universe. Electing their mayor would simply exacerbate this reeking egotism. I think we should disqualify all current and former mayors from the presidency for that reason alone.
California, DC, Texas, and Los Angeles are pretty much the same though. Anything that happens outside of the regional boundaries doesn't really happen.
I find the reports of the Republican parties immenant demise to be greatly exaggerated.
I think of it like a race... the democrats may be in the lead, but it seems like they are having to run their hardest to keep it, while the GOP are just behind them running at an easy jog...
what I mean is, Republicans are still better at elections then dems are... and Dems have this nasty history of blowing "sure things." I don't think four more years of GOP rule will cause much damage to the GOP party.
Also, assuming that Mitt Romney isn't going to catch fire and win the nomination (he won't, he just can't, too many people realize that if you throw water on him he'll melt), both GOP candidates are going to jump back to center for the election and have to stay there to get anything done with the congress in Dem hands.
Picardathon on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
edited June 2007
And as for Bloomberg: have we ever had a president who went straight from "mayor" to "president" without any intermediate office? I mean I know NYC is a big place but still.
it should be noted that there has been only two truly viable third party presdiential candidates in this country's history
Teddy Rossevelt - A purposeful spoiler for Taft. He ran solely because Taft pissed him off and he knew running would ruin Taft's chances for re-election
Ross Perot - A more comparable example. Until he dropped out then re-entered the race he had an ctual chanceof being a contender in 1992. IIRC at his peak he was actual within striking distance of both parties. When he dropped out and re-entered his chances were pretty much shot. Still got a decent number of votes in the end though.
Teddy could have won as well if the Dems hadn't picked a reformer.
He lost the primary when Reagan told him to sit the fuck down and he did it. That was a moment of psychological truth.
He was destined, like Carter and Ford, to merely fill the space between real presidents.
You only say this because he lost, and part of that was a dark horse governer catching fire and bashing in the establishment, which no one saw coming.
what's funny is that people always talk like bush sr got killed by clinton, but if it wasn't for perot, bush wins that election in a walk. i think one of the most astounding presidential race stories of the past 50 years or so is perot getting nearly 20% of the popular vote. that's HUGE.
Pants Man on
"okay byron, my grandma has a right to be happy, so i give you my blessing. just... don't get her pregnant. i don't need another mom."
He lost the primary when Reagan told him to sit the fuck down and he did it. That was a moment of psychological truth.
He was destined, like Carter and Ford, to merely fill the space between real presidents.
You only say this because he lost, and part of that was a dark horse governer catching fire and bashing in the establishment, which no one saw coming.
what's funny is that people always talk like bush sr got killed by clinton, but if it wasn't for perot, bush wins that election in a walk. i think one of the most astounding presidential race stories of the past 50 years or so is perot getting nearly 20% of the popular vote. that's HUGE.
He wasn't religious enough, alienating the social conservatives.
He didn't invade Iraq and take down Saddam, alienating the hawks.
He raised taxes after promising not to, alienating the fiscal conservatives.
Bush Sr. lost a lot of votes to Ross Perot for a reason, and frankly I doubt had Perot been absent he would have won anywway.
To be fair, I wouldn't say Clinton was much of a President either. Fucker backed out of nearly every fucking thing he promised when trying to get elected. Not to say that I agree with all he promised, but shit. Don't ask, don't tell? What the fuck Clinton, what the fuck.
Triangulation turned a lot of people off, but I'm generally impressed with what Clinton got done after losing congress and being crippled by his infidelity.
Posts
More like a change in the entire system of government.
We just aren't set up like parliamentary systems.
It wouldn't have to be anything parliamentary, really, just basing elections on the popular vote rather than electoral.
And one party rule. I'm sorry, but American politics is too fucked up for me to get behind that.
Making it so states aren't winner take all in the electoral college would spice things up quite a bit.
Speaking of, who is supposed to be running as a lib this go-round? I supported Badnarik in the last election, but have absolutely no clue of what they're up to now.
late? the campaigning has barely begun! most republicans or democrats you ask right now probably cannot give you any more than 4 candidates in either party that arent hilary or obama. Bloomberg will start off at least higher than half the candidates in both fields in terms of name recognition right now if he were to jump in
But really, a lot of the most important political movement in the country is the form of the constituencies of the two major parties. They are basically just coalitions by another name, as there is a fair amount of diversity in a number of positions on each side.
I'd be most interested in primary reform at the moment. It makes no sense to me why Iowa and New Hampshire should have such a powerful influence by going first, and the states going last are effectively useless most of the time. Why should Presidential candidates have to suck the corn lobby's cock make sure they don't get screwed by the bandwagon?
Out of any of potential candidates, I think he has the best chance of making the federal government less broken.
Um.
He's not running as a Republican. This thread was started by his announcement that he is re-registering as an independent.
I'd bet that the condition for his entering the race will be if the Democrats cannot achieve some major victory on the road to ending the Iraq War in September/October.
At that point I think he'd assess that there was an opening in the center.
I occasionally think this way as well. The collapse of the subprime housing market and the resulting foreclosures, coupled with rising gas prices, could mean the utter tanking of our economy in the next four years. If that happens, whoever is sitting in the White House will be packing their bags come 2012. If it's a Republican and we're still in Iraq and/or have engaged Iran, it could mean BAD trouble for the party as a whole.
I'm sure there will be a recession, because that is the business cycle, but I doubt any real doom and gloom predictions.
I think of it like a race... the democrats may be in the lead, but it seems like they are having to run their hardest to keep it, while the GOP are just behind them running at an easy jog...
what I mean is, Republicans are still better at elections then dems are... and Dems have this nasty history of blowing "sure things." I don't think four more years of GOP rule will cause much damage to the GOP party.
Even a recession can be enough to poison a presidency, if it lasts long enough.
Teddy Rossevelt - A purposeful spoiler for Taft. He ran solely because Taft pissed him off and he knew running would ruin Taft's chances for re-election
Ross Perot - A more comparable example. Until he dropped out then re-entered the race he had an ctual chanceof being a contender in 1992. IIRC at his peak he was actual within striking distance of both parties. When he dropped out and re-entered his chances were pretty much shot. Still got a decent number of votes in the end though.
Ok, somehow I completely missed that. I read the whole thread before I posted, but that point eluded me.
Heck, even if it doesn't. *cough*GHWB*cough*
At any rate, New York already thinks of itself as the most important place in the universe. Electing their mayor would simply exacerbate this reeking egotism. I think we should disqualify all current and former mayors from the presidency for that reason alone.
If for nothing than to piss you off I wish for a Bloomberg, Hilary, Guilani race
...
Oh god, that was such an extraordinarily poor choice of wording.
You know, parts of me even liked Bush Sr's presidency. He basically inherited something that was inevitable after the Reagan era. I see the opposite happening to the next president; if they manage their shit correctly, they'll be looked at like a fucking hero.
Fix'd. That recession wasn't even that steep. The economy goes up, then it goes down, then it goes up, and so on. And the president always gets blamed/credited for it. The last couple decades have been sort of unfortunate for the GOP in this regard. Bush I and Clinton both handled the economies admirably by pretty much doing fuck-all and letting it handle itself, which should always be the default option. Bush Jr. tried to game the system, with mixed results, though in the end I don't think the current economy has much to do with him.
Wait, what are we talking about? Oh yeah, Bloomberg. Smoking and trans-fat ban dude. Fuck that guy.
Bush Sr. was an indistinguished non-entity.
He lost the primary when Reagan told him to sit the fuck down and he did it. That was a moment of psychological truth.
He was destined, like Carter and Ford, to merely fill the space between real presidents.
So, what does that make this Bush, a fluke*? He's been riding the ass-end of a boom for a while now, hasn't he? He consistently made an ass of himself in his first term (for me, at least), but managed to get reelected. Was it just because the democrating stabling was so unappealing? I mean, I don't consider him a real president at all; any president that considers themselves "the decider" clearly has no fucking clue how the American government works.
Considering that, what's in store for the next president? I just realized how horribly OT this is, but whatever. Ignore it if it's too off the mark and you can't wrap it back around to Bloomberg.
*Freud was right. I kept typing "fuck" there, took me three tries to type "fuck." I mean "fuck." Fluke.
(Very) Early polling shows he'd garner more Republican votes than Democratic ones.
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2007/06/20/bloomberg_would_be_spoiler_for_republicans.html
I think the evidence supports the general idea that Democrats are unwilling to endanger what they rightly see as their best chance in forever to retake the White House and solidify their majorities in Congress.
I hate to be off topic, but if the system started breaking down I would be sort of scared.
Also, assuming that Mitt Romney isn't going to catch fire and win the nomination (he won't, he just can't, too many people realize that if you throw water on him he'll melt), both GOP candidates are going to jump back to center for the election and have to stay there to get anything done with the congress in Dem hands.
Teddy could have won as well if the Dems hadn't picked a reformer.
what's funny is that people always talk like bush sr got killed by clinton, but if it wasn't for perot, bush wins that election in a walk. i think one of the most astounding presidential race stories of the past 50 years or so is perot getting nearly 20% of the popular vote. that's HUGE.
Yes, losing is one of the signature traits of losers. You have me there.
He wasn't religious enough, alienating the social conservatives.
He didn't invade Iraq and take down Saddam, alienating the hawks.
He raised taxes after promising not to, alienating the fiscal conservatives.
Bush Sr. lost a lot of votes to Ross Perot for a reason, and frankly I doubt had Perot been absent he would have won anywway.