No one asked, but getting one is a different story.

As for Edwards: a lawyer who got rich standing up for little people against corporate monsters. That’s about the best use of a law degree any shyster can offer.

Indeed he was, although I think we would disagree on just what the evidence for that is. Suffice to say, I’m amused that you (of all people) would invoke the man.

“Bloomberg repels better Americans on the basis of the gun junk-lawsuit craziness alone”

Would it be possible to get a translation of that comment? I’m not sure what you mean by the phrase, “better Americans” (although I suspect it simply refers to anyone who agrees with you).

As for Bloomberg running as a 3rd party candidate, I’m all for it. In fact I hope Ron Paul runs as a third party candidate too. Anything that shakes up the 2 party system is fine with me.

Bloomberg repels better Americans on the basis of the gun junk-lawsuit craziness alone; but by default he is better than Giuliani. And he, too, Lived Through Nine-Eleven.

They won’t cause any ruckus simply because they are incapable of it and really don’t want it.

That’s the key (emphasized)!

It reminds me of one group in the 1980s working on constitutional reforms that fused rather than further separated powers, and banned ticket splitting, etc. Ugh.

No wonder they have contempt for (fear of?) third-party candidates and independent candidates (real ones, not Bloomberg) and why the Wall Street Journal will snipe at proportional representation any time it’s suggested. (The Journal would probably even be against approval voting.)

Or that have no definitive positions, i.e., are mushy moderates. (”Just don’t take away my bwankee, my big government in Washington and my middle-class entitlements!”)

As Yosemite Sam would say… “Dem’s fightin’ words!”. For some people that is.

Myself and many others have definitive positions but no candidates from the Big 2 that represent us. To me, all of them, Bloomberg included (with the exception of Ron Paul), seem like a bowl of oatmeal minus the “fixins”. Bland and lumpy. Unity ‘08 is just pure entertainment and no backbone. They won’t cause any ruckus simply because they are incapable of it and really don’t want it. They are sanitized safe activism, talk-festers, and feel-gooders spouting off how they are using technology to “do something revolutionary” . Yeah, do something like bring in a Bloomberg. Wow. That’s a zinger.

Bloomberg appeals to the 15% that election are fought over

Or that have no definitive positions, i.e., are mushy moderates. (”Just don’t take away my bwankee, my big government in Washington and my middle-class entitlements!”)

Don’t forget that it’s Hillary Clinton who is likely to be the Dem nominee. She repels more people than any other candidate. Bloomberg can exploit this, and he’s more competent and arguably more deserving of the GOP nomination than Giuliani. At least one Religious Right leader sold his soul to Giuliani because Giuliani at the time was the leader of the GOP field (may still be seen as such; we don’t know how far he’s really going to fall overall until after Feb 5) and the endorsement was made in an effort to defeat Hillary Clinton first and foremost. Bloomberg could exploit this, particularly if he was a GOP candidate eventually (not an independent; he wouldn’t do nearly as well) despite all the bad baggage he carries himself.

Nader, for all his other faults, has made more of a lasting [effect] on American life (can you say “seat belts?”) than all the current candidates combined

He is notoriously far left — Move-On or Green Party material — fringist.

Huckabee and Edwards are flip sides of the same coin: southern populists, anti-corporate crusaders, enemies of the east coast elitist establishment.

Huckabee is sincere, while Edwards is fake.

[Bloomberg is] a member of the east coast elitist corporate establishment. Just what this country needs [sarcastically]

He’d be grabbed by the GOP if needed, despite his liberal as well as country-club, OK-with-big-government background. I could see the GOP leadership trying that if Huckabee actually made more progress after Iowa (which I doubt will happen) or even in the case of McCain (too often self-serving).

Go back and look at the the 1992 elections results. the first president Clinton received about 45% of the vote and the first President Bush received about 35% of the vote.

It was 43-38-19. (Clinton-Bush-Perot)

Bloomberg = junk gun lawsuits = DQed by Americans of quality.

Bloomberg, a “centrist”? [snicker] And Unity ‘08, perpetuating nice, safe, quiet business as usual in overgrown Washington (”moderation” or “centrism” insofar as liberals are concerned), is a “reformist” organization. [snicker]

As if. Nader, for all his other faults, has made more of a lasting impact on American life (can you say “seat belts?”) than all the current candidates combined — in either party.

if the opposing major party candidates are poles apart, like Mike Huckabee, a Republican, versus … John Edwards

Huckabee and Edwards are flip sides of the same coin: southern populists, anti-corporate crusaders, enemies of the east coast elitist establishment. It would be more accurate to say that Bloomberg himself is poles apart from those two guys — he’s a member of the east coast elitist corporate establishment. Just what this country needs.

Not.

As for similarities with the Perot phenomenon, I just don’t see it. If the Perot movement has any lingering hangers-on, they would have more in common with someone like Ron Paul, not Michael Bloomberg.

Go back and look at the the 1992 elections results. the first president Clinton received about 45% of the vote and the first President Bush received about 35% of the vote. That leaves about 15% of the vote where elections really occur in addition to get out the vote.

No matter who the Democrats nomination, that candidate will get about 45% of the vote unless Ralph Nader or some other left of the Democratic candidate rns and picks off a couple of percent.

Does anyone believe that Bloomberg will get any votes from blacks, Hispanics, public employees, academics, or the welfare classes. Bloomberg appeals to the 15% that election are fought over and has almost no appeal to the core Democratic groups.

Since about 45% of the voters are automatic Democratic voters but only about 35% are automatic Republican voters

And 99.9% of Superdestroyer’s statistics are made up from whole cloth.

Since about 45% of the voters are automatic Democratic voters but only about 35% are automatic Republican voters, that leaves elections over 20% of the voters (and actually probably less). All a Bloomberg campaign does it splits that 20% three ways instead of two ways. Such a three way split ensures a Democratic party rout and makes it easier for the Democratic Party to get 60 seats in the Senate.