Bloomberg/Hagel 2008 Independent Ticket?

thatguyoverthere · 05-31-2007, 10:52 PM

In a feverish meth fueled dream this afternoon, a little bluebird landed on my shoulder and whispered to me that a fairy on a unicorn had heard from an elf the rumor that Republican NYC mayor Michael Bloomberg is considering an independent run at the 2008 election, and with Chuck Hagel as his VP candidate.

Personally, I think the time has never been better for a independent to run. General discontent with both parties might play a part at making such a candidacy viable as never before. Bloombergs' not that conservative anyway. Hagel is, but he opposes the Iraq war. Bloomberg also obviously doesn't have to worry about fundraising since he's already a multi-millionaire. He also has a degree of built-in brand name recognition because of his media empire.

What do you guys think?

avsp · 06-04-2007, 05:50 AM

Just how rich is he? Its 9 figure sums that are required isnt it?

OTOH in order to exploit/demonstrate the difference between him & the mainstream perhaps less ad spending would actually aid the ticket.

thatguyoverthere · 06-04-2007, 09:13 AM

Michael Bloomberg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by wikipedia

Bloomberg is among the world's richest people. He was ranked 44th by Forbes magazine in its list of 400 Richest Americans in September 2006. He was ranked 142nd in its list of the The World's Billionaires in March 2007.

Apparently he's a billionaire. He also has a lot of name recognition. Plus, his media empire is in financial news.

What I think is very interesting is that small money donations are drying up for the Republicans because of this new immigration bill. I think that the big money Republican donors will follow suit, and sit on their money for a while before deciding who to support. Their hearts are with the Repubicans, but even they may realize the Republican party label might be an insurmountable liability in 2008.

My point is that not only does Bloomberg already have name recognition and the ability to fund the entire campaign out of his own pocket, but because of his established reputation in financial circles combined with large money donors not yet donating seems to indicate that he could still raise a substantial amount. Add to that the disaffection with both parties, and I just can't help but think that conditions for a "perfect storm" for a wealthy independent candidate are better than the've been since Ross Perot. And Bloomberg is a more realistic candidate than Perot was.

I'm not saying Bloomberg could win, but his effect as a spoiler could be greater than anyone else's in a long while.

avsp · 06-04-2007, 09:44 AM

Thanks for info, ..., should've looked it up myself etc

He does seem well placed to appeal to the 'centre'. Should the Republicans pick a socially conservative candidate do you suippose Bloomberg candidacay would tend to 'split' the GOP vote more than the Democrat one?

thatguyoverthere · 06-11-2007, 10:51 PM

Very much so. Without an independent conservative ticket like this, I think many GOP'ers have the potential to just sit out this election, the war and the immigration bill being big factors. Of course, if Hillary is the Democratic nominee, that GOP support may change, but I think in any case a Bloomberg run would be just as significant (and most likely slightly moreso) than Ross Perot's run. Bloomberg is also not likely to self destruct like Perot did, and Perot still tipped the election to Clinton in 1992. To me, it's an interesting element that could change the dynamics of the race. Also, Bloomberg could come in fairly late. I don't suppose a ticket like that would even have to bother with the primaries. The press will be fatigued with the current crop of candidates, so a new one will get a lot of free publicity

lew · 06-18-2007, 02:07 PM

If Paul wasn't running, and there were a Bloomberg/Hagel ticket, I'd consider voting for it.

David Octavius · 06-23-2007, 11:03 PM

He has no shot of winning, popular vote means nothing, electoral votes do, Perot got 19% of the popular vote but 0 electoral 1992, the last time a third party candidate had a real shot was Teddy Roosevelt almost a hundred years ago and the last time a third party won was Lincoln in 1860 and that was due to major issues like slavery and state rights that divided the votes among candidates and of course it made the Republican party legit.

In order for Bloomberg to have a shot is if the other candidates happen to be Liberal also, so a Hillary - Rudy - Bloom race might split the liberal vote enough that none get the requisite votes to win but then it gets thrown into the House and I don't think either party would want an independent to win - such a thing might give us some silly ideas that the two major parties are not the only answer and cause a seismic shift in political attitudes, one could dream though