Reply #9: On those very issues you cite--Bloomberg--pro-choice, secular Jew, has made a number of

[MADem]

NYC green initiatives (parks, taxis, the eight bucks to drive in NYC thing), a fiend on improving schools, founder of Mayors against Illegal Guns....

Hell, everyone else plays the Nudge, Nudge, Wink, Wink game--I'm betting these guys will too. Though there's one other possible way they might play it, by simply acknowledging that they aren't on the same page on every issue, and won't be, but...so what?


I'd laugh like hell if he breaks paradigm, and does not REQUIRE his VP to abdicate all of his long-held and cherished views, like most candidates do, to appear "united" on a ticket. That sort of flip flopping (Bush 41 rolling over on choice for Reagan, e.g.) always looks like a prison rape to me--very unpleasant, humiliatiing and soul-crushing to the idiot who forsakes his views in favor of ambition.

It would be interesting if Bloomberg played it that way--these are my views, my VP isn't on the same page, but what that means is that I will be exposed to the views of the other side....it's a concept...!

Per Cook:

Initial polling suggests that Bloomberg could make a respectable run as an independent and pull evenly from the two major parties. But getting from respectable to upwards of 40 percent would require cutting into the marrow of at least one, if not both, parties.

This would mean that his candidacy would likely be contingent upon each party nominating either badly flawed or damaged candidates. After all, with his money, Bloomberg wouldn't need to decide until late February, after the nominations are likely to be determined.

The most interesting scenario would be if Bloomberg were to win a plurality of the electoral votes and siphon off enough votes from the left to push the Democratic nominee into third place. Could a Democratic House really pick a third-place finisher to be president, or might they opt for a politically compatible independent who finished first?