Nader or Bloomberg for President

[Wags]

Bloomberg.com article - Nader Says He's Considering a New White House Run
Bloomberg.com: Worldwide

A Newday.com article - Brand: MacKay lays groundwork for Bloomberg bid
Brand: MacKay lays groundwork for Bloomberg bid -- Newsday.com

Folks between Ralph Nader and Mayor Bloomberg who do you think has a better chance of running? And if either one of them runs do they have a chance of winning?

GOD BLESS

[samclem]

Nader has an excellent chance, and America needs him now more than ever before. The field is confused and there's no clear frontrunner in either party. Sure, there have been calls for change, but no candidate offers the type of bold change that Ralph Nader can offer. America is ready, Ralph!! You've tried before, but the third time is the charm. You're not getting any younger, and this type of wide-open election is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.

Run, Ralph, Run--PLEASE!

[youbet]

I stll miss my 1966 Corvair Corsa. Screw Ralph. He's unsafe at any speed.

[Marquette]

Here have been my 08 predictions since November:
Clinton
McCain

Gore (green party)
Paul (libertarian)
Bloomberg (?)

[Wags]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marquette Here have been my 08 predictions since November: Clinton McCain Gore (green party) Paul (libertarian) Bloomberg (?)

I like Bloomberg as an independent. Are you talking about Ron Paul as a libertarian? Paul has some interesting ideas.

I think that if Ralph Nader and Bloomberg entered the race that it would make for a very very interesting race.

As for the GREAT AL GORE running on the Green Party that is a very good possibility. Do you think that GORE would take any votes away from the Democrat's nominee?

FWIW/FYI - Be careful what you say about the GREAT Al GORE because there are still some people in this forum who can not get over him winning the Nobel Peace Prize.

GOD BLESS

[FinanceDude]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wags FWIW/FYI - Be careful what you say about the GREAT Al GORE because there are still some people in this forum who can not get over him winning the Nobel Peace Prize. GOD BLESS

It is sacrilege to say the words "Great" and "Al Gore" in the same sentence.

Rehashinh scientific data that has been out for 30 years isn't ground-breaking.........

[TromboneAl]

If you get a chance to see the PBS special on Ralph Nader ("An Unreasonable Man"), watch it.

[Marquette]

Yes, I'm talking about Ron Paul. If it ends up that he uses the republican primary to build name recognition and then runs as an independent, then I think it's a fairly smart move.

If the election was last year, I would have thought Gore would do well. However, I think Joe American's mind is on the economy and I'm not sure if Gore has the chops to make that platform work.

Bloomberg should easily win the election. He's a republicrat. Actually, better, he tried out both parties and then decided to be an independent. He should be able to make the economy a central plank in the platform and he's moderate enough to have a wide appeal. If he bankrolls his own campaign then he can make election financing and corruption part of the debate as well.

Personally, I don't care... asking me if I want a republican or a democrat is like asking me if I want to eat dog poop or cat poop tonight. Both are stinky choices.

[Wags]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marquette Yes, I'm talking about Ron Paul. If it ends up that he uses the republican primary to build name recognition and then runs as an independent, then I think it's a fairly smart move. If the election was last year, I would have thought Gore would do well. However, I think Joe American's mind is on the economy and I'm not sure if Gore has the chops to make that platform work. Bloomberg should easily win the election. He's a republicrat. Actually, better, he tried out both parties and then decided to be an independent. He should be able to make the economy a central plank in the platform and he's moderate enough to have a wide appeal. If he bankrolls his own campaign then he can make election financing and corruption part of the debate as well. Personally, I don't care... asking me if I want a republican or a democrat is like asking me if I want to eat dog poop or cat poop tonight. Both are stinky choices.

There's an excellent article in the Christian Science Monitor - Ron Paul: an absolute faith in free markets and less government

Ron Paul: an absolute faith in free markets and less government | csmonitor.com

I agree with you Bloomberg could win if he enters.

As for the GREAT Al Gore you are right if the election would have been last year his chances of doing well would have been real good.

Of the current crop of individuals who do you think would win if the election was held today?

Do you plan to vote in November?

GOD BLESS US ALL

[cute fuzzy bunny]

The difficulty with 3rd candidates is that most people are republicans and democrats and vote for their offered yellow dog. Not the best available candidate.

All the 3rd candidate does is sap votes from one of the other candidates, usually the more moderate elements, and allow a more extremist candidate than the independent to win where they otherwise might have lost.

I got treated to an interesting situation this year. We registered to vote as "not specified" in the party category. As a result, all we got was an absentee ballot with the propositions on it and no ability to choose a candidate in the primaries. The democrats would have sent me a democratic ballot if I requested one from them in writing, but the republicans didnt want my vote. Period.

I guess the good news is that once the well financed parties choose their respective faceplates, I get to freely pick from those in the general election.

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by samclem Nader has an excellent chance, and America needs him now more than ever before. The field is confused and there's no clear frontrunner in either party. Sure, there have been calls for change, but no candidate offers the type of bold change that Ralph Nader can offer. America is ready, Ralph!! You've tried before, but the third time is the charm. You're not getting any younger, and this type of wide-open election is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. Run, Ralph, Run--PLEASE!

I'm always interested in 3rd party candidates. I remember looking into Nader a bit the last time he ran.

IIRC, his financial viewpoint was - if you have $20 in your wallet, and the guy next to you does not, Ralph wants to take $10 from you and give it to the other guy.

No thanks, Ralph.

-ERD50

[samclem]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERD50 I'm always interested in 3rd party candidates. I remember looking into Nader a bit the last time he ran. IIRC, his financial viewpoint was - if you have $20 in your wallet, and the guy next to you does not, Ralph wants to take $10 from you and give it to the other guy. No thanks, Ralph. -ERD50

Hey, Ralph has been great for America. He helped assure that the best candidate won on two separate occasions, and I'm hoping he'll run again and make it a trifecta. He wouldn't get my vote, but I might send him some money.

Run, Ralph, Run!!

[Gumby]

I have felt adrift since Gus Hall and Angela Davis stopped running.

[HFWR]

Nader has nothing to offer, and no chance in hell of winning. He should just stay home and watch it on tv...

As for Bloomberg, don't know enough about him.

[Marquette]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wags Do you plan to vote in November?

I'll be voting on Tuesday and in November. At this point, I'm torn between voting for who I want the most, who I want that has a chance of winning, or against who I want the least. We have open caucuses (doesn't matter how you registered, you can vote for either party).

[Wags]

There's an interesting NBC News article - An American parliamentary presidency?

Fineman: A parliamentary presidency? - Decision '08 - MSNBC.com

Excerpts from the article

Super Tuesday is a huge deal, to be sure, but the real action between now and November will be – uncharacteristically – in Congress.

Why? For one thing, the race between Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama could well come down to the votes of the Democrats’ so-called “super delegates,” the biggest chunk of which (271) are members of the House and Senate.

More astonishing and profound is this: It is likely two members of Congress will be running against each other for president – the first time this has happened in the history of the United State. (According to my colleagues at the Newsweek Library, we’ve had many senators as nominees, but never two simultaneously, and no members of the House at all.)

Why does that matter? Because this time, the candidates will have to run from WITHIN Congress, not AWAY from it, as they almost always do after their nominating conventions.

End of excerpts.

It's an interesting take on our elections.

GREAT Article but I still hope that an Independent runs.

GOD BLESS US ALL