Bloomberg is definitely running for President

[Verily]

Was driving back from the bus stop, and heard on NPR as breaking news that Bloomberg has changed his party registration to Unaffiliated/Independent. Link as soon as I can find one.

Edit: http://wcbstv.com/topstories/local_story_170181024.html (link from Wikipedia)

[Verily]

If this guy acts as a spoiler for the Democrats (and thus throws the election to the GOP), I reserve the right to spend 2009-2013 bitching about the result.

He is more likely to hurt the Republican candidate.

...which current polls indicate. However, it depends what stance Bloomberg takes on Iraq. How many Republicans would honestly vote for an anti-war, socially liberal independent? With an anti-Iraq platform, Bloomberg would probably take votes from Dem-leaning independents (especially if a polarizing figure with high negatives such as Hillary wins the nomination). Which means say hello to four more years of failed policies.

Umm... When 70% of the country opposes the war, anti-war candidates take from everyone. Bloomberg is also center-right on economics, so few very poor voters (read: rural Democrats) will vote for him.

It's impossible to predict how things would work at this stage.

[Verily]

Could I ask the more informed members of this forum what would happen (based on the 2004 vote) if Bloomberg polled the same share as Perot in 1992 (about 18%). Would he win any electoral college votes at all or would he take votes from one specfic party?

His best chances at states are definitely New Jersey and Connecticut. I think his support would be a bit more concentrated than Perot's, probably enough to win both of those states on 18% of the vote. The very much pro-independent upper New England (Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine) would also be possible for him on 18% of the vote.

[Verily]

How would he do in the counties in the BosWash Corridor...I see him doing very well there...

He could probably win every county along I-95 in BosWash except Essex County, NJ, Philadelphia County, PA and Baltimore City, MD. Hometown love should be enough for The Bronx. Hudson County, NJ would be tough but doable.

Fairfield County, CT, Bergen County, NJ, and Nassau and Westchester Counties, NY would duel for his strongest showing.

[Verily]

How come today he claims he is "not running" again? The title of this thread is a bit misrepresenting.

All he claimed was that his "plans for the future have not changed". That's an intentionally evasive answer.

[Verily]

If this guy acts as a spoiler for the Democrats (and thus throws the election to the GOP), I reserve the right to spend 2009-2013 bitching about the result.

He is more likely to hurt the Republican candidate.

How would a liberal as big as Bloomberg is, hurt the republican?

You seem to have missed Bloomberg's support for fiscal conservatism.

[Verily]

If this guy acts as a spoiler for the Democrats (and thus throws the election to the GOP), I reserve the right to spend 2009-2013 bitching about the result.

He is more likely to hurt the Republican candidate.

How would a liberal as big as Bloomberg is, hurt the republican?

You seem to missed Bloomberg's support for fiscal conservatism.

What fiscal conservatism? He raised taxes as mayor and supports universal health care.

I support universal health care and increased spending on education. I also support severe reduction in welfare payouts, abolition of social security, and a balanced-budget Amendment to the Constitution. You can be fiscally conservative without mindlessly rambling on about taxes and labeling all government programs as evil and bloodsucking.

[Verily]

If this guy acts as a spoiler for the Democrats (and thus throws the election to the GOP), I reserve the right to spend 2009-2013 bitching about the result.

He is more likely to hurt the Republican candidate.

How would a liberal as big as Bloomberg is, hurt the republican?

You seem to have missed Bloomberg's support for fiscal conservatism.

You seem to not know Mike Bloomberg. Cigarette tax, new congestion tax, so many other taxes he's implemented or will be implementing. How do you think he's fiscally conservative? If a state/city has a surplus, you lower property taxes, so that's not fiscal conservatism.

Fiscal conservatism is about keeping things balanced, not about making taxes as low as possible and cutting services. Bloomberg's taxes all also serve some other purpose (and congestion pricing is more of a toll than a tax), and he's managed to give New York City quite a surplus. He's not the sort who would raise or lower taxes but rather rearrange the tax system.

If this guy acts as a spoiler for the Democrats (and thus throws the election to the GOP), I reserve the right to spend 2009-2013 bitching about the result.

He is more likely to hurt the Republican candidate.

How would a liberal as big as Bloomberg is, hurt the republican?

You seem to missed Bloomberg's support for fiscal conservatism.

What fiscal conservatism? He raised taxes as mayor and supports universal health care.

I support universal health care and increased spending on education. I also support severe reduction in welfare payouts, abolition of social security, and a balanced-budget Amendment to the Constitution. You can be fiscally conservative without mindlessly rambling on about taxes and labeling all government programs as evil and bloodsucking.

By this, I guess 95% if dems are considered fiscal conservatives.

Really? Tell me, what's your opinion of welfare? How about of free trade? Social security?

[Verily]

So if we assume 18% support (akin to Perot in 1992) and he actually wins some of the North Eastern states (the most likely being Maine, Connecticut, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Vermont and New Hampshire) which would give him a total of 45 electoral college votes, does it therefore stand to reason that as those were all Democratic states, he would take votes from the Democrats as opposed to Republicans?

Actually, no. In most of those places he'd win the lion's share of the current Republican vote, which is very liberal in New England, and drive the Republicans into third in every New England state. He'd also win Democratic votes, but not so many, giving him about a 47I-40D-12R (-14D, -32R) victory in Connecticut, for example. (Assuming he does well, obviously.)

[Verily]

Perot was more a Republican than Bloomberg is. That's why Perot did so well in the South and across the map. Bloomberg might take away from both parties, especially those who want an anti-war candidate, but not Clinton...but mostly in New England. I can't really see Bloomberg being strong in the mid-west or south. (Although it would be interesting if he pushes Rudy over in states like Oregon, and New Hampshire).

I have two maps up on the Atlas, one of a reasonably strong but third-place Bloomberg candidacy and one of a Bloomberg victory. I think, after some consideration, most posters will agree with them. Sounds like you would.