ConnecticutMan1 thinks so.
I don’t think that adding Bloomberg to any ticket, never mind one with Ron Paul, is intended to lure in votes from the Democratic party membership or the left in general.
Interestingly, the Independent Green Party of Virgina, who got way more than the 10,000 signatures needed to put Michael Bloomberg / Ron Paul on the ballot, are allied with the Independence Party of America – a party apparatus created in case Bloomberg ran.
Hmmm, maybe that answers my previous post, wondering where they got the money to get all those signatures. There are two ways to get sigs, volunteers, and I doubt the IGVA has enough volunteers to get that many signatures (they got a total of 70,000 for various races), or you pay people to do it. That costs money. Maybe this is a backdoor run by Bloomberg?
The Independent Green Party of Virginia has apparently succeeded in getting the name of NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg on their presidential ballot with Ron Paul as the VP candidate. – and did so without Bloomberg’s consent.
Important. This is not the national Green Party but a splinter group that left the Green Party and allied themselves with the Independence Party in what no doubt was a spectacular frenzy of bad feelings and nasty schisms. However, they got way over the needed 10,000 sigs to put Bloomberg on the ballot, certainly quite an accomplishment.
However, did they do that via volunteers or are they bankrolled to the point where they can afford paid signature gatherers? If so, who are the donors?
PS Both major parties routinely pay for signatures. That’s not the issue. But, I’m wondering, are they a front group? if so, for who?
For the major parties, a Bloomberg run could be their worst nightmare.
The two consultants, Douglas Bailey and Gerald Rafshoon, told reporters Tuesday that Bloomberg’s name recognition, independent political affiliation and personal fortune make him unusually well positioned to break the partisan gridlock in Washington. “Michael Bloomberg, if he runs,” said Bailey, “will be elected president of the United States.”
Maybe. But tell me, how could someone that neither party is beholden to be able to break gridlock? It could just as easily be that both parties gang up on him and he has no allies. And for someone who claims to be centrist, we still have no idea what his views on the issues are.
An independent presidential run by New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg now looks like a near-certainty.
For Bloomberg to achieve 270 electoral votes in November, he would essentially have to supplant the Democratic nominee. Bloomberg’s strength would come in states like Democratic-leaning California and New York, not the GOP-dominated states of the South and West. That means creating a two-way contest with the Democratic ticket essentially pushed into a position of irrelevance — either that, or an election that could be decided in the House of Representatives.
Hmm, Bloomberg would certainly pull lots of potential Republican votes too, so I’m unclear on why the Democratic candidate would be irrelevant. But with a major third party candidate, the entire dynamics of the election would change. It would no longer be the tiresome ritual of two parties mud-slinging at each other.
If you then factor in a probable Green Party run by Cynthia McKinney and quite possible third party run by Ron Paul (who has specifically not ruled it out), you get the Republican and Democratic candidates, Bloomberg who says he will run right down the middle, and highly visible third party runs on both the Right and the Left.
If this happens, it will be an election unlike any we’ve had. With five prominent candidates, triangulation and the usual political machinations would be nigh on impossible. Rather than the standard slime-the-other-side approach. Campaign strategies would become so convoluted that they’d look like the image to this post. Perhaps the thought of such convoluted tactics will inspire them to talk about the issues as a way of differentiating themselves from the other candidates. It could happen.
On Sunday, the mayor will join Democratic and Republican elder statesmen in what the conveners are billing as an effort to pressure the major party candidates to renounce partisan gridlock.One person close to the mayor, who spoke on condition of anonymity so as not to be seen discussing internal strategy, stressed that Mr. Bloomberg would run only if he believed he could win.
“He’s not going to do it to influence the debate,” the person said.
Judging from the response from the liberal blogosphere, this is making liberals absolutely crazy. Oh, they fume, so now Republicans want to talk about bipartisanship, screw them. Uh, maybe that’s precisely what Bloomberg is talking about. Enough with this stupid the-other-side-is-always-wrong crap. The country needs results, it needs change, we do not need more train wrecks in D.C. with both sides howling that the other is responsible for all the problems.
You better believe that what Bloomberg is doing is resonating with the general public. The major parties ignore his message at their peril.
Washington Note says we need serious new direction, not fuzzy do-nothing bipartisanship, and hopes that is what Bloomberg means.
What the Republican and Democratic party members need to realize is that both of their party apparatuses have been taken over by a combination of ideological and utopian zealots as well as a policy-blind secretariat that passively follows the ideologues. The pragmatists and realists in both parties — particularly in foreign policy but also in other spheres as well — have been in decline.
I don’t believe that bipartisanship solves the challenges ahead. New policies might help restore some balance and the beginnings of a positive direction. But what is needed now are rebels.
I completely agree. We need real change.