Third-party follies -- Paul and/or Bloomberg in 2008

Forums: Politics, Third Party, Opposition Party
Email this Topic • Print this Page

I'm seeing a lot of chatter about what would happen if Ron Paul loses the Republican nomination and decides to run as a third-party candidate. A sample:

Huffington Post

Andrew Sullivan

John Podhoretz

Paul insists he won't do it, meanwhile:

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2007/10/05/ron-paul-no-third-party-bid-for-me/

Personally, I think Bloomberg's moment has passed and that it's very unlikely that he'll run. But Blatham suggested I include him, and there are many of the same issues involved. Such as:

Do you think the person WILL do it? Why or why not?

Do you think the person would siphon off more Democratic or Republican votes? Why?

Do you think it's possible that BOTH of them will do it (run as a third-party candidate)? Why or why not?

Etc.

What do you think?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 3,442 • Replies: 51

No top replies

I doubt he would do it, but I can see McCain as a third party candidate.

I can see Ron Paul running as the Libertarian candidate if he doesn't win the Republican nomination.

0 Replies

Let me begin by suggesting that a third party will only arise now in two realistic circumstances; the religious right get even crazier than they are now and seriously damage the republican party for the forseeable future through breaking away. I hope they are that crazy, but the republican party strategists know the danger and have their hooks into this community in order to stave off this possible outcome. It's unlikely.

The other realistic circumstance is a rich egomaniac. We've seen what Romney has been able to achieve with his own money, likewise Ross Perot, likewise Steve Forbes.

I'm close to certain that Ron Paul won't run as an independent. He hasn't and isn't holding open that possibility and though his donors may hope he might, he's not stringing them along. He's a principled fellow, in my estimation, and I think his speech is probably as close to his actual thoughts as anyone running.

But if he did, the last person one would want to trust on outcome is Podhoretz. Like his dad, he's a propagandist first and foremost. He surmises that much of Paul's support comes from dems. No evidence of any sort is advanced. But I've been down in Texas and talked to ardent Paul supporters there. They were all abused ex-bush voters who one could identify most closely with the John Birch tradition...anti-jew, anti-UN, anti-international bankers, anti-immigrant. Many, if not most, were ardent fundamentalist christians. He would draw votes from this community and they aren't dems.

As I think this won't happen, I'll leave off discussing what I think the consequences would be.

Jonathan Alter is a writer (newsweek) who I like a lot. He does his homework and is careful and nuanced in his writing and commentary. He threw me for a jolt two weeks ago when he said that his sources have said that Bloomberg is more serious about such an effort than people suspect. He might have this wrong, of course, but I'm no longer certain Bloomberg is out.

In another piece I read from Alter months ago, he stated what seems obvious...that regardless of his money, Bloomberg wouldn't win. In another piece, Alter forwards the idea that Murdoch personally favors Bloomberg even if Ailes is pushing Rudy's candidacy with all the tools at his disposal...

Quote:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/70998/page/2

The problem for us is that Bloomberg would market himself as a tough, fiscally conservative, experienced right-leaning liberal. That would hurt us to the point of a loss, I think.

0 Replies

Oh, I'm not saying I trust Podhoretz. I just included him as a sample of the range of chatter. (Huffington guy saying a Paul run would be a disaster for the Republicans, Podhoretz saying it would be bad for the Dems, Sullivan sounding positive about the idea and indicating he might vote for Paul if he ran as a third-party candidate.)

I was researching something when I came across this stuff and one thing I just noticed is that it's all from a bit ago -- before the ascent of Huckabee, at any rate. I think some of the dichotomies are therefore false -- Paul vs. Giuliani, for example.

I'm not really sure what I think yet... I tend to think that Paul would be bad for the Republicans and good for the Democrats.

0 Replies

soz

I didn't mean to suggest you were forwarding Podhoretz. I understood you were just tossing in relevant stuff you found.

0 Replies

IMO Bloomberg is too savy to throw his hat in the ring knowing that he could not possibly win. If he did however he would siphon off democratic votes.

0 Replies

Quote:

I'm close to certain that Ron Paul won't run as an independent. He hasn't and isn't holding open that possibility and though his donors may hope he might, he's not stringing them along. He's a principled fellow, in my estimation, and I think his speech is probably as close to his actual thoughts as anyone running.

Look at it from the strategic point of view - Paul absolutely, 100% cannot afford to say 'Yeah, I'll run as a third party candidate.' For two reasons:

1, it would immediately doom any and all hopes of winning the Republican primary, something which he apparently still believes is possible - and which isn't impossible if you look at the numbers.

2, It would dry up significant amounts of fund-raising which can still be used for a third party run.

I'm tempted to agree that he won't run in a third party; but I'm far from convinced that he won't. A close examination of his behavior shows that his statements, while consistently against it, are also consistent with someone who is keeping their cards close to the vest.

Paul, in the week after IA and NH, may find himself completely out of it with tons of money still in the bank. Think he'd just give it back?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

IMO Bloomberg is too savy to throw his hat in the ring knowing that he could not possibly win. If he did however he would siphon off democratic votes.

That's a very good point. Of course, egomaniacs view probabilites in a warped manner which puts them at the center of things. Perot must have thought he'd win.

But I have little indication that the fellow is that nuts. I bumped into him a couple of times in a diner we both favored. We said hello to each other and he didn't breathe fire.

There's supposition (take with a grain of salt) that he'd get himself into the VP spot.

0 Replies

Where is the second party to enforce decency if not democracy?
Why the hll we the rational human non-entities approve uphold admire adore appreciate the NONSENSE?

An Alleged "Two Party System"

By Ed Ciaccio

12/08/07 "ICH" --- -- The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18856.htm

"The Democrats are in on it too, deeply complicit in the torture and war atrocities. There is much hypocrisy in their very belated, very timid, very limited -- and deliberately ineffectual -- criticisms of waterboarding, aggressive war, presidential dictatorship, etc. And it is certainly true that the whole political system has become steeped in evil: dependent on war, dependent on corruption, dependent on deceit, and lawless to an astonishing degree. If Bush and his gang really were brought to the full measure of justice for their crimes -- and if the full extent of these crimes were to be exposed clearly and copiously -- then the system might indeed collapse, unable any longer to keep up the deliberate lies -- and the deep-seated self-deceptions -- that have allowed it to destroy so many innocent lives, for so many years, in so many countries...including our own.
http://chris-floyd.com/

0 Replies

Where to begin?

Paul---Consistent in his principles which I suppose is the same thing as principled, but the ardor of his followers reminds me of Lyndon LaRuche (sp?).

Like LL, if he runs on any 3rd Party platform, he will have no measurable impact. His supporters are very very very unlikely to otherwise vote for a Repub or Dem candidate. If he doesn't run, they will find someone else on the fringe or stay home.

BTW blatham ---you were in Texas talking to Paul supporters and didn't look me up? I only get one chance?

Bloomberg ---- I think he would be making more noise right now if he intended to run. If Rudy is the GOP nominee, he will never run ----but if he did, he would be as big a factor as Paul. If a more "conservative" Repub is the nominee, and Bloomberg runs, he will hurt Dems more than Repubs. I really hope he does run.

Rudy is the candidate the Dems should fear most.

Alter has a prophet of what might actually happen on the Right is a total laugh. He couldn't look to the right with objectivity even if The Undertaker had him in a headlock.

There is no Perot out there to save the Clinton ass.

0 Replies

Quote:

Rudy is the candidate the Dems should fear most.

Funny, he's the candidate we actually fear least.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Quote:

BTW blatham ---you were in Texas talking to Paul supporters and didn't look me up? I only get one chance?

You've caught me up. But the trip was family intensive.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

Rudy is the candidate the Dems should fear most.

Funny, he's the candidate we actually fear least.

Cycloptichorn

Congratulations on your appointment to Dem spokesperson.

You and other Dems should fear Rudy for the same reason he is vulnerable in the Repub primaries. He is a conservative who got elected in NYC. This means he is a Republican that can appeal to Democrats. He's pro-gun control, he's OK with gays and immigrants and he's pro-choice.

For the Dem voters out there who are not comfortable with running from Iraq, don't see increased taxes as a good thing, really don't want a President who thinks you can talk the bad guys into giving up, and beneath it all think we have to kick Islamist ass, BUT who don't want to support the whole Conservative platform because they think it is too stringent, too pushy, and too mean----Rudy is a very viable choice.

It is essentially the same reason that Bloomberg would siphon off more Dem than Repub votes.

You are mistaken if you think that hard nosed Conservatives will sit out the election if Rudy is the nominee. Some will, of course, but then some hard nosed Liberals will sit it out if Hilary is the nominee. However, the hard nosed Conservatives are a lot more worried about Clinton, Obama or Edwards than the hard nosed Libs are worried about Rudy, Romney or even Huckabee.

Since you displaced Howard Dean perhaps you can do me a favor and spread your dismissal of Rudy throughout your party.

He's my 3rd choice, for reasons that might surprise you, but I will not only be voting for, but actively supporting him if he is the nominee.

I can't imagine that too many of my fellow Republicans will not be joining, at least as far as voting, me.

0 Replies

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:

Rudy is the candidate the Dems should fear most.

Funny, he's the candidate we actually fear least.

Cycloptichorn

Congratulations on your appointment to Dem spokesperson.

Thanks.

Quote:

You and other Dems should fear Rudy for the same reason he is vulnerable in the Repub primaries. He is a conservative who got elected in NYC. This means he is a Republican that can appeal to Democrats. He's pro-gun control, he's OK with gays and immigrants and he's pro-choice.

For the Dem voters out there who are not comfortable with running from Iraq, don't see increased taxes as a good thing, really don't want a President who thinks you can talk the bad guys into giving up, and beneath it all think we have to kick Islamist ass, BUT who don't want to support the whole Conservative platform because they think it is too stringent, too pushy, and too mean----Rudy is a very viable choice.

It is essentially the same reason that Bloomberg would siphon off more Dem than Repub votes.

You are mistaken if you think that hard nosed Conservatives will sit out the election if Rudy is the nominee. Some will, of course, but then some hard nosed Liberals will sit it out if Hilary is the nominee. However, the hard nosed Conservatives are a lot more worried about Clinton, Obama or Edwards than the hard nosed Libs are worried about Rudy, Romney or even Huckabee.

Since you displaced Howard Dean perhaps you can do me a favor and spread your dismissal of Rudy throughout your party.

He's my 3rd choice, for reasons that might surprise you, but I will not only be voting for, but actively supporting him if he is the nominee.

I can't imagine that too many of my fellow Republicans will not be joining, at least as far as voting, me.

Oh, we don't fear him for four reasons:

First, his personal life is a complete and total disaster.

Second, he is surrounded by corruption and shady business practices.

Three, he's crazy. As in, not sane. He is farther to the right, and more hawkish, then Bush on foreign policy. That won't fly.

Fourth, since it came out that he shepherded around his mistress on the taxpayer dime, his numbers have been sinking like a stone:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/images/2007-12-11_abc_wapo_rudy.jpg

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/images/2007-12-11_abc_wapo_gop.jpg

And there's even a fifth point. You're a fool if you think that Dem voters are going to vote another Republican into the WH for any reason. Foreign terrorism doesn't trump another four years of lies and deception. Now, you'll shrug this off as the opinion of a leftist. And maybe it is. But, where's your actual evidence that anyone on the left considers Giuliani a 'viable candidate?'

You should face the fact now that he will not be president. Now, McCain - there's a Republican I could get behind.

Cyclopticnhorn

0 Replies

These guys may well run as a third party hopeful...but I don't believe a third party in America is going to arise from this type beginning.

My prediction is based on an 'if'. If little is done about the invasion across our southern border...the shear number of 'new american's' coupled with our nation becoming more and more PC, plus less pressure on these immigrants to assimilate and/or the desire to... will lead to a new party.

We have seen this year and last demonstrations of unity and political power by this group...and the longer there's only hot air coming out of Washington...the more growth, unity and power will flourish.

Does this scenario sound more plausible to any of you?

0 Replies

Sorry.
I Iraq there are more than 2 parties.
In India as well.
Germany is far far better than USA in this respect.
Israel as well.
Democracy prevails elsewhere better than in USA where you see
cola and cola light. i mean twso parties with the same missions to discord the whims and fancies or dreams of the citizens
If you compare the imported democracy and the supplier of democracy, Iraq is better in one respect namely voter participation under the risky condition.
The need for a third party in USA had never drawn attention.
The American electoral systzem is rotten to the core right from the beginning.
Seek Democracy elsewhere

0 Replies

Note this is a WSJ article.

Quote:

Where Bloomberg Fits in Election

Opportunity for Run Could Evolve
Based on How Primaries Play Out
By BEN CASSELMAN
December 13, 2007; Page A6

As Democratic and Republican presidential hopefuls stumped in Iowa and New Hampshire Monday, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg was in China talking about entrepreneurship. The setting was different, but the goal may have been the same.

Those close to Mr. Bloomberg said the 65-year-old billionaire is considering a White House bid, despite his repeated denials. Moreover, friends and advisers said, developments make a candidacy more conceivable.

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB119750876582325411.html?mod=blog

0 Replies

Ron Paul is a liberal on abortion.

Ron Paul is a liberal on foreign policy.

Ron Paul is a liberal on border security.

Ron Paul is a liberal on drug policy.

Ron Paul isn't going to take votes away from any half-way legitimate Republican.

0 Replies

let me put it succinctly.
American chatters( Not voters) are going to see a new RESIDENT and he is one who should regret( a short gape arrangement without power) for his post.
Thank you

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Finn dAbuzz wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:

Rudy is the candidate the Dems should fear most.

Funny, he's the candidate we actually fear least.

Cycloptichorn

Congratulations on your appointment to Dem spokesperson.

Thanks.

Quote:

You and other Dems should fear Rudy for the same reason he is vulnerable in the Repub primaries. He is a conservative who got elected in NYC. This means he is a Republican that can appeal to Democrats. He's pro-gun control, he's OK with gays and immigrants and he's pro-choice.

For the Dem voters out there who are not comfortable with running from Iraq, don't see increased taxes as a good thing, really don't want a President who thinks you can talk the bad guys into giving up, and beneath it all think we have to kick Islamist ass, BUT who don't want to support the whole Conservative platform because they think it is too stringent, too pushy, and too mean----Rudy is a very viable choice.

It is essentially the same reason that Bloomberg would siphon off more Dem than Repub votes.

You are mistaken if you think that hard nosed Conservatives will sit out the election if Rudy is the nominee. Some will, of course, but then some hard nosed Liberals will sit it out if Hilary is the nominee. However, the hard nosed Conservatives are a lot more worried about Clinton, Obama or Edwards than the hard nosed Libs are worried about Rudy, Romney or even Huckabee.

Since you displaced Howard Dean perhaps you can do me a favor and spread your dismissal of Rudy throughout your party.

He's my 3rd choice, for reasons that might surprise you, but I will not only be voting for, but actively supporting him if he is the nominee.

I can't imagine that too many of my fellow Republicans will not be joining, at least as far as voting, me.

Oh, we don't fear him for four reasons:

First, his personal life is a complete and total disaster.

Second, he is surrounded by corruption and shady business practices.

Three, he's crazy. As in, not sane. He is farther to the right, and more hawkish, then Bush on foreign policy. That won't fly.

Fourth, since it came out that he shepherded around his mistress on the taxpayer dime, his numbers have been sinking like a stone:

And there's even a fifth point. You're a fool if you think that Dem voters are going to vote another Republican into the WH for any reason. Foreign terrorism doesn't trump another four years of lies and deception. Now, you'll shrug this off as the opinion of a leftist. And maybe it is. But, where's your actual evidence that anyone on the left considers Giuliani a 'viable candidate?'

You should face the fact now that he will not be president. Now, McCain - there's a Republican I could get behind.

Cyclopticnhorn

The reasons you cite are why Republicans may not let him get out of the primaries.

1) Democrats care about family instability? Can you say CLINTON?

2) Can you say CLINTON?

3) He's crazy? Who in this field isn't?

4) Among Repubs. Dems didn't seem to care that Clinton used the Oval Office for BJ's.They are remarkably tolerant of love and lust

0 Replies

Third-party follies -- Paul and/or Bloomberg in 2008

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know