An Independent Bid for the U.S. Presidency?

Michael Bloomberg, mayor of New York City, has called a meeting next week with a dozen leading Democrats and Republicans, who will join him in challenging the major-party contenders to spell out their plans for forming a "government of national unity" to end the gridlock in Washington. This bipartisan group of heavyweights say that if the likely nominees of the two parties do not pledge to "go beyond tokenism" in building an administration that seeks national consensus, they will be prepared to back Bloomberg or someone else in a third-party campaign for president next November.

Conveners of the meeting include such prominent Democrats as former senators Sam Nunn (Ga.), Charles S. Robb (Va.) and David L. Boren (Okla.), and former presidential candidate Gary Hart. Republican organizers include Sen. Chuck Hagel (Neb.), former party chairman Bill Brock, former senator John Danforth (Mo.) and former New Jersey governor Christine Todd Whitman. ...

Others who have indicated that they plan to attend the one-day session include William S. Cohen, a former Republican senator from Maine and defense secretary in the Clinton administration; Alan Dixon, a former Democratic senator from Illinois; Bob Graham, a former Democratic senator from Florida; Jim Leach, a former Republican congressman from Iowa; Susan Eisenhower, a political consultant and granddaughter of former president Dwight D. Eisenhower; David Abshire, president of the Center for the Study of the Presidency; and Edward Perkins, a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.

A letter from Nunn and Boren sent to those attending the Jan. 7 session said that "our political system is, at the least, badly bent and many are concluding that it is broken at a time where America must lead boldly at home and abroad. Partisan polarization is preventing us from uniting to meet the challenges that we must face if we are to prevent further erosion in America's power of leadership and example."

At the session, Boren said, participants will try to draft a statement on such issues as the need to "rebuild and reconfigure our military forces," nuclear proliferation and terrorism, and restoring U.S. credibility in the world.

"Today, we are a house divided," the letter said. "We believe that the next president must be able to call for a unity of effort by choosing the best talent available -- without regard to political party -- to help lead our nation."

Boren said he and Nunn, who often collaborated when they headed the Senate Intelligence and Armed Services committees, respectively, issued invitations to other moderates with whom they had served, and found that almost everyone was willing to come.

Boren said: "Electing a president based solely on the platform or promises of one party is not adequate for this time. Until you end the polarization and have bipartisanship, nothing else matters, because one party simply will block the other from acting."

Added Danforth: "My party is appealing to a real meanness, and an irresponsible sense of machismo in foreign policy. I hope it will be less extreme, but I'm an American before I'm a Republican."

Danforth has also written critically about the negative impact of religious conservatives on and within the Republican Party.

Bipartisan Group Eyes Independent Bid: First, Main Candidates Urged To Plan 'Unity' Government (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/29/AR2007122901476.html?hpid=topnews)

Wow! :wow: America moving back to the center!

1. What do you folks think of this development?

2. Do you feel the United States can benefit from less partisanship?

3. Do you think the movement has a chance of truly changing Washington?

4. How do you think the two major parties will react to, or counter, this "unity government" approach?

I'm not from the US, but this is really interesting on a global basis. It would be great to see more variety in the presidential race, to see what someone else might say or do if they got into power. It will make things even more interesting to see what will happen in US politics!

I've been trying to say that for a while. thanks Purplehawk for starting a thread on it. :)
would you vote for Bloomberg? I would, depending who are the candidates on both sides...
what about if Ron Paul, with all his newfound money decides to run as independent?

I've been trying to say that for a while. thanks Purplehawk for starting a thread on it. :)
would you vote for Bloomberg? I would, depending who are the candidates on both sides...
what about if Ron Paul, with all his newfound money decides to run as independent?

I don't know enough about Bloomberg to say one way or another, to tell the truth. He has certainly done much to improve the mess Giuliani made with the city's minorities and service workers, and my hat's off to him for that.

I just read this: Bloomberg Seeks New Way to Decide Who Is Poor (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/30/nyregion/30poverty.html?ref=washington) and liked it immediately. Believe it or not, the federal government is still using the 42-year-old standard from Johnson's Great Society, based on the annual cost of buying basic groceries. Bloomberg's new formula would consider the money families spend on necessities including rent, utilities and child care expense. It would also factor in the value of financial assistance received, like housing vouchers or food stamps.

This is a fresh idea and one that would benefit America's poorest families. We haven't seen anything like it since Johnson left office.

I think the rise of an independent party is interesting. I don't know much about Bloomberg, and If I had to hazard a guess I'd say that if he's considering running as a third party candidate he'd have a lot of ground to cover as he's really not known much outside of the New York area.

He has enough money to run a mainstream presidential campaign and never blink at the cost.

Michael Bloomberg, mayor of New York City, has called a meeting next week with a dozen leading Democrats and Republicans, who will join him in challenging the major-party contenders to spell out their plans for forming a "government of national unity" to end the gridlock in Washington. This bipartisan group of heavyweights say that if the likely nominees of the two parties do not pledge to "go beyond tokenism" in building an administration that seeks national consensus, they will be prepared to back Bloomberg or someone else in a third-party campaign for president next November.

Conveners of the meeting include such prominent Democrats as former senators Sam Nunn (Ga.), Charles S. Robb (Va.) and David L. Boren (Okla.), and former presidential candidate Gary Hart. Republican organizers include Sen. Chuck Hagel (Neb.), former party chairman Bill Brock, former senator John Danforth (Mo.) and former New Jersey governor Christine Todd Whitman. ...

Others who have indicated that they plan to attend the one-day session include William S. Cohen, a former Republican senator from Maine and defense secretary in the Clinton administration; Alan Dixon, a former Democratic senator from Illinois; Bob Graham, a former Democratic senator from Florida; Jim Leach, a former Republican congressman from Iowa; Susan Eisenhower, a political consultant and granddaughter of former president Dwight D. Eisenhower; David Abshire, president of the Center for the Study of the Presidency; and Edward Perkins, a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.

A letter from Nunn and Boren sent to those attending the Jan. 7 session said that "our political system is, at the least, badly bent and many are concluding that it is broken at a time where America must lead boldly at home and abroad. Partisan polarization is preventing us from uniting to meet the challenges that we must face if we are to prevent further erosion in America's power of leadership and example."

At the session, Boren said, participants will try to draft a statement on such issues as the need to "rebuild and reconfigure our military forces," nuclear proliferation and terrorism, and restoring U.S. credibility in the world.

"Today, we are a house divided," the letter said. "We believe that the next president must be able to call for a unity of effort by choosing the best talent available -- without regard to political party -- to help lead our nation."

Boren said he and Nunn, who often collaborated when they headed the Senate Intelligence and Armed Services committees, respectively, issued invitations to other moderates with whom they had served, and found that almost everyone was willing to come.

Boren said: "Electing a president based solely on the platform or promises of one party is not adequate for this time. Until you end the polarization and have bipartisanship, nothing else matters, because one party simply will block the other from acting."

Added Danforth: "My party is appealing to a real meanness, and an irresponsible sense of machismo in foreign policy. I hope it will be less extreme, but I'm an American before I'm a Republican."

Danforth has also written critically about the negative impact of religious conservatives on and within the Republican Party.

Bipartisan Group Eyes Independent Bid: First, Main Candidates Urged To Plan 'Unity' Government (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/29/AR2007122901476.html?hpid=topnews)

Wow! :wow: America moving back to the center!

1. What do you folks think of this development?

I think it is a step in the right direction!

2. Do you feel the United States can benefit from less partisanship?

I have always believed that neither The Democrats or Republicans have it all right or all wrong. Of course, Libertarians are a bit more moderate than either one, but I don't think they have it all hammered out either. A meeting of the minds in a bipartisan arena is the only way our nation could possibly move forward.

We have been standing in a puddle for so long now we have webbed feet!

3. Do you think the movement has a chance of truly changing Washington?

As long as the fradycats from both major political parties still have support, and, let's face it, they will have it for a long time, there will never be enough strength to back this kind of bipartisanism...ashame!


4. How do you think the two major parties will react to, or counter, this "unity government" approach?[/QUOTE]

They will just keep doing what they are doing. I doubt they will change.

[B]They will just keep doing what they are doing. I doubt they will change.

You think? I'm not so sure.

It certainly won't be to their advantage to continue with business as usual. I don't see voters buying that any longer.

I think there's a reasonably good chance that if Ron Paul does not clinch the Republican nomination, he will run as an independent. Thousands of voters like me would likely follow him to the gates of political Hell if we had to. He's the last best chance for the U.S., and if that means he gets an {I} next to his name on the ballot, more power to the electorate.

We may have more than one Independent in this race, then. The New York Times has a story running tomorrow that Bloomberg is laying the groundwork for a run as an Independent. Apparently, his candidacy is going to be a topic of the meeting I mentioned in the opening post. Maybe THE topic.

"If the prospective major party nominees failed within two months to formally embrace bipartisanship and address the fundamental challenges facing the nation, I would be among those who would urge Mr. Bloomberg to very seriously consider running for president as an independent."

Chuck Hagel, also invited to next week's meeting, has said he would consider being Bloomberg's running mate.

Bloomberg Moves Closer to Running for President (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/31/us/politics/31bloomberg.html?hp)

1. What do you folks think of this development?
I would certainly look at voting for Bloomberg, particularly if Giuliani doesn't receive the nomination. He is also a moderate, with decent stances on social issues, and a tough stance on terrorism. If Rudy does get the nomination, he should stay away, as he would take votes away. Otherwise, he looks better than 95% of the other candidates out there.

2. Do you feel the United States can benefit from less partisanship?
Absolutely. I try to vote for people rather than parties, as there are elements of both parties that turn me off. Politics have become more a matter of shutting down the opposing party and making them look weak rather than coming to a sensible compromise, and that is something that needs to be changed if this country wants to get anything done.

3. Do you think the movement has a chance of truly changing Washington?
I don't picture everyone holding hands and singing "Kumbaya," but it would go a long way in changing the perception that every time a Republican/Democrat opens his/her mouth, he/she is automatically wrong. Of course, for it to work, the electorate has to stop clinging to extreme liberalism or extreme conservatism and sacrifice some of their more extreme views for this movement to even get started. That will likely be the major hurdle.

4. How do you think the two major parties will react to, or counter, this "unity government" approach?
In the general election, the other parties will paint Bloomberg or any other newcomer as a fringe candidate, and try to convince the electorate that voting for him is like throwing away their ballots. Hopefully, they won't be fooled. Partisanship will still likely exist in Congress, and there will still be disagreements between the most liberal and conservative congressmen and the president. A non-partisan candidate may be the prize in a tug of war, or he may truly pull the Congress together.

1. What do you folks think of this development?
I think it's very interesting, unfortunately it probably wont be too successful.
I'd absolutely Love it if it worked though, because there's way too much party segregation and such that's getting too out of hand in today's world.

2. Do you feel the United States can benefit from less partisanship?
Yes, very much so. Out of the people I ask about who they would vote for (I'm only in High school, so not many actually CAN vote this upcoming election), they will tell me, but when I ask why, more than two thirds of them will say, "Because my parents are Democrats" or "The Republicans are SO much better than Democrats!", and if the separation of parties was gone, people might actually pay attention to what the candidates have to say, rather than voting for Hilary Clinton just because she's a Woman and a Democrat, or Romney because he's a Republican and he's "sorta cool".

3. Do you think the movement has a chance of truly changing Washington?
If the whole thing worked, it could very well change Washington, in many ways. But it has to find a candidate that can win the election without being in either party.

4. How do you think the two major parties will react to, or counter, this "unity government" approach?
Some, maybe many, would misinterpret it, thinking it means that they want to have only one single party, and then say that that would be unconstitutional. Even though in reality the goal would be more to abolish the party system in general, and have it be where people simply run for office based on their views, not by "their Party's" views.

Out of the people I ask about who they would vote for (I'm only in High school, so not many actually CAN vote this upcoming election), they will tell me, but when I ask why, more than two thirds of them will say, "Because my parents are Democrats" or "The Republicans are SO much better than Democrats!"

You might be surprised to know that an awful lot of voting-age adults have the same mindless views. I've gotten used to the blank silence when people are challenged after making statements like that. Kind of funny in a way.

I think the rise of an independent party is interesting. I don't know much about Bloomberg, and If I had to hazard a guess I'd say that if he's considering running as a third party candidate he'd have a lot of ground to cover as he's really not known much outside of the New York area.

This is Bloomberg:

first, like giulliani, he can be judged by his achievements rather than his talk.

He runs NYC like you might run a business. he invests in things that will bring money in eventually. the city is at a deficit now, but I don't know if it's all his fault. he looks at ny as a big coorperation, and tries to invest into it so that nyc as a 'business' will 'grow'. I think, since a city, state, or any government receives so uch money in taxes and needs to know how to spend it wisely so as not to go bankrupt, a BUSINESSMAN ought to run it. why is america in such a bad state? because bush had some failed businesses. he is NOT a GOOD business man.

The main thing he did was greatly improve the schools. The public-school teachers hate him, but that's no surprise - they are part of a union. he closed down some public schools, because they failed tol preduce educated children. he, unlike any mayor before him, got 'some' authority over the schools. the parents are the "boss" in the school system, which is the way it SHOULD be.

his gun laws are a bit too stringent

he banned smoking in bars and in buildings

he makes restorants have nutritiional facts on their menues.

he once cut funding for some art thing, but then payed from his own pocket for it.

he calls his mom every day.

he once called 311 (the non emergency 911 calls, to report a dead cat, or a pot-hole or a broken tree in the city) to tell the city that he saw a pot hole on x street and y ave. the city representitive picked up the phone, and he reported the problem. then she asked, "what's your name?" and he said "Mike Bloomberg" and she said "please spell it"- he told his mom that story, and she told him, "see? don't let all that fame get to your head."

he talks on the radio every friday you can hear him on wabc

more info on bloomberg: www.nyc.gov

Marty, are you aware the United States has elected just one MBA-type businessman as president in its entire history?

You think? I'm not so sure.

It certainly won't be to their advantage to continue with business as usual. I don't see voters buying that any longer.

The Republican's and Democrat's strategies for thwarting an Independent are very simple, yet very effective. Rally the voters who teeter on the edge by making them believe that if they vote for an Independent Candidate, with no official party backing that they are wasting their vote, since that candidate does not have a chance anyway. This is precisely what happened with Ralph Nader. Ralph had some pretty good ideas, and a lot of support from various sources on both major party fields. Then the talk happened about "If you vote for Ralph Nader you are simply throwing away your vote. He can't possibly win, so why are you voting for him?" This worked, and, although I stuck to my guns and voted for him anyway, he only scraped 3% of the vote.

That is the problem with voters. They are fickle and fair-weathered fans. They will talk a good game about fighting the good fight, but in the end they like to be on the winning team. They should be more like us Cubs Fans. Rain or shine, winning or losing, The Cubs are our team...no matter what!

I like the White Sox better. :p

I think this generation of young people graduating from college is going to make a vast change in how we do a lot of things. They don't like the partisan politics their elders have practiced. They don't like ideologues any better. They are better informed than any class of graduates since my heyday in the 1960's. I think these kids would do more than consider a third-party or Independent candidate. They may well elect one!

1. What do you folks think of this development?
I've heard about this issue before and it's seems interesting. It would be nice to see a party that's united on issues instead of divided on them.

2. Do you feel the United States can benefit from less partisanship?
Yes, it's about time -- that we move away from it, it's not helping the country in any way.

3. Do you think the movement has a chance of truly changing Washington?
Sadly, not really -- due to how most politicians are. They won't truly "change their stripes or spots". They'll continue doing things as they've always been and things will continue to go on their merry way.

4. How do you think the two major parties will react to, or counter, this "unity government" approach?
They most most likely won't be to enthralled about it whatsoever. They will most likely view it as more competition and try and prevent them from doing anything or make any changes whatsoever.

I like the White Sox better. :p

Unless you live on the Southside of Chicago, don't go there...I was raised on the Northside, and lived 6 blocks from Wrigley Field. Wrong room for this debate, but suffice it to say...THE SOX SUCK!

I think this generation of young people graduating from college is going to make a vast change in how we do a lot of things. They don't like the partisan politics their elders have practiced. They don't like ideologues any better. They are better informed than any class of graduates since my heyday in the 1960's. I think these kids would do more than consider a third-party or Independent candidate. They may well elect one!

I have to differ in that just about every generation thinks that the graduating collegians are better informed than any class before them. Yes, they are better informed, just as I was when I graduated. I was also a Young Republican upon graduating only to wise up in my aged youth and become an Independent with Libertarian views. I sincerely doubt that this new group will be any different. They get swayed in college toward one party or another, with influence from parents and grandparents, only to rebel and finally pick a party based upon their own mindsets...They will still be worried that their vote won't mean a thing, so they will vote for the candidate that (1) Is most like their mindset, and (2) has the best chance of winning.

I am to cynical to believe that an Independent could possibly win, even though most Independents are of my ilk...I will still vote for them if they have good ideas, motives, and character.

I think this generation of young people graduating from college is going to make a vast change in how we do a lot of things.

Every group of graduates comes out fired with idealism but a couple of years trying to make a living and put a roof over their head soon damps the fire.

An independent will never win because they don't have a party. And the fundamental purpose of a political party is to get its members elected. So unless a third political party emerges and takes the place of the Democrats or Republicans, we're stuck with what we have.

Every group of graduates comes out fired with idealism but a couple of years trying to make a living and put a roof over their head soon damps the fire.

In this economy, some of them leave school only to live with their parents because they can't snag a job that pays enough to strike out on their own. E. J. Dionne's Thunder in the Heartland (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/30/AR2007123002239.html?hpid=opinionsbox1) takes a shot at why voters are so discontented with the two major parties, why - if its a choice of just the two major-party candidates, the Democrat is going to win.

wait there is another thing I forgot to say about Bloomberg: he earns one dollar ($1.00) a year for his service as mayor, also, his sister, and daughter are working in the mayors office with him for free (it took him a while to let them work there because people wouldn't let "favoratism" but he kept explaining that they are doing it for free - goodness - and he says he is very lucky that he gets to work with his beloved daughter and see her every day. not all fathers are that privillaged.

so: he calls his mom every day, works with his daughter... sounds like a great family man :) unlike another mayor I know :)

his relationship with giuliani is very strange. they don't seem to like each other much, but giuliani DID endorse him, and he did say that Bloomberg is doing some great things for the city and he appreciates him.
Bloomberg, on the other hand, never either said a bad word about giuliani. on the contrary, he keeps describing how great and organized the city offices were, and that he got a city in a very good condition, though still many things to be fixed.

I HIGHly doubt the two will ever run against each other. but you never know.

also, another great thing Bloomberg did was change some rediculous zoning laws around brighten beach, sold some useless property owned by the city (near brighton beach)

also the guy who owned Astroland (astroland is the oldest amusement park in america, I think) wanted to knock it down and build condumeniums there, because, he said, he was not making any money off it. so I'm not sure how bloomberg convinced him - maybe by changing the zoning laws and allowing indoor resturants around the area, and allowing bowling and other indoor fun but now for the first time since the 1800's they are FINALLY renovating astroland. (and it needed renovation. desperately. the cyclone, which is probably the oldest roller coaster in history, and is made purely of wood, was the only ride ever renovated there.) so for that I LOVE bloomberg cause I grew up in astroland :)
see, he takes even the "small" things into consideration.

BUT, I still think his views are not purely capitalism. but even though, at least he doesn't throw away the tax money on useless projects.

and he did raise property tax, but then lowered it again...

edit:
OH, WAIT! and he rides the subway to work ;)

wait there is another thing I forgot to say about Bloomberg: he earns one dollar ($1.00) a year for his service as mayor, also, his sister, and daughter are working in the mayors office with him for free (it took him a while to let them work there because people wouldn't let "favoratism" but he kept explaining that they are doing it for free

Free or not, if they are not the most qualified people based on open recruitment it is nepotism...corruption if you will.


edit:
OH, WAIT! and he rides the subway to work ;)

Evenutally.

"Bloomberg, who famously rides the subway to and from City Hall, is driven from his home to an express subway station 22 blocks away by a pair of gas-guzzling Chevrolet Suburbans -- despite the presence of a subway station a short walk from his home"

UPI (http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Quirks/2007/08/01/bloombergs_subway_ride_begins_inside_suv/7545/)

Evenutally.

"Bloomberg, who famously rides the subway to and from City Hall, is driven from his home to an express subway station 22 blocks away by a pair of gas-guzzling Chevrolet Suburbans -- despite the presence of a subway station a short walk from his home"

UPI (http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Quirks/2007/08/01/bloombergs_subway_ride_begins_inside_suv/7545/)

very funny. he IS the mayor. he needs as much protection and security as any other major politician... in fact, when he decided to stay in his pent-house rather than go live in gracie mansion, they had to convert the building into 24hr security whatever. so whatever he does to get to the subway is only for security. the truth is, that for HIM it costs more to ride the subway, but because he's been doing it his whole life, he keeps doing it for symbolic reasons more than enything else.

Then why not use the subway station closer to his home? The one within walking distance?

probably because then he would need to transfer trains and it will get even more complicated for security. especially if the first train is in a different platrform and he'd need to go up and down tons of steps... :)

anyway, Ron Paul never denied that he will run as independent if he doesn't win primaries. what do you think his chances are? among the republicans, I think, the hard core ones, he will do well. (I love him, I am just alitle afraid about this isolationism that led to ww2) but what about the dems?

In a general sense, I'd like a strong 3rd party candidate on the ballot - preferably one who is "middle of the road". I'd seriously consider voting for a candidate who appears viable who is not from the Democrats or Republicans. I think that having more viable choices is good - I don't like being painted into one of two corners, since it doesn't reflect me.

Bloomberg may become that candidate. He has the money, and experience enough, and name recognition. If he does run, I'd seriously evaluate his position(s) up against the nominees for the major political parties in making my choice. I'll admit that I am influenced somewhat by polls - if he's polling 10% before ballot-day I probably won't vote for him, but if he's up around 30-40% then I would think of it. The same "rule" applies to any independent candidate I might support - I'd like to see them have a real chance before I vote, so that I don't end up sending my vote to a candidate with little chance (and end up with my least-favorite candidate, potentially)

I would certainly consider voting for a viable third-party candidate, but it's the viable that concerns me. I would not cast that vote if it appeared to give the Republican candidate even a hint of an advantage, as it did in 1992 and 1996 when Ross Perot's candidacy took votes from Bill Clinton.

On the other hand, I wouldn't be surprised at anything that comes with this election. We may well have Bloomberg and Paul running as Independents - and possibly even Obama, if Clinton or Edwards should get the Democratic nomination.

I would certainly consider voting for a viable third-party candidate, but it's the viable that concerns me. I would not cast that vote if it appeared to give the Republican candidate even a hint of an advantage, as it did in 1992 and 1996 when Ross Perot's candidacy took votes from Bill Clinton.

On the other hand, I wouldn't be surprised at anything that comes with this election. We may well have Bloomberg and Paul running as Independents - and possibly even Obama, if Clinton or Edwards should get the Democratic nomination.

That is exactly my problem with Third Party or Independent Candidates for President. Now, if everyone actually voted their minds and not worried that if they vote for the Independent that it would give an advantage to a candidate from another party by taking a vote away from their Counterpart Party's Candidate, then all would be great. But, unfortunately, most Independent minded voters don't stick to their guns. They get scared that their vote will be wasted if they actually follow their hearts and minds. That is the true voting crime.

That is exactly my problem with Third Party or Independent Candidates for President. Now, if everyone actually voted their minds and not worried that if they vote for the Independent that it would give an advantage to a candidate from another party by taking a vote away from their Counterpart Party's Candidate, then all would be great. But, unfortunately, most Independent minded voters don't stick to their guns. They get scared that their vote will be wasted if they actually follow their hearts and minds. That is the true voting crime.

:agree:

Do you think the electorate is feeling rebellious enough to pull it off in '08?

Truthfully, it really depends on the Democratic nd Republican candidates (obviously). If there are two strong candidates, then no Independant, no matter how popular will win. People tend to vote with their parties. Then there are also all those independant voters who are afraid that by voting for their independant candidate of choice, they will tilt the vote against their partisan candidate of choice, and therefore don't want to risk that chance. In the end, its usually just the voters who want their choice to stand out who vote for the independant. As viable as an independant candidate may seem, running as an independant is an uphill battle.
So no, I doubt the electoral college will take the plunge this year.

On the other hand, I wouldn't be surprised at anything that comes with this election. We may well have Bloomberg and Paul running as Independents - and possibly even Obama, if Clinton or Edwards should get the Democratic nomination.

First post. Sup. Dandy scenario here. Multiple independent candidates. I'd love to see Paul run as an independent. I'd love it even more if he selected Obama or another democrat (someone like Joe Lieberman) as his running mate. Or turn the table, Obama/Paul would have my vote.

That would be an interesting ticket.

d'ya hear the latest? Bloomberg and peter vallone want NYC to secede from NYS. can you believe that??
we pay NYS $11 billion in taxes more than we get back.
we also pay the federal government more than we get back. maybe we should secede from the USA

d'ya hear the latest? Bloomberg and peter vallone want NYC to secede from NYS. can you believe that??
we pay NYS $11 billion in taxes more than we get back.
we also pay the federal government more than we get back. maybe we should secede from the USA

Really? :err: Would it be like District Columbia or something more independent? May be it's right, because NYC is a huge city with huge budget. And large cities are often separated from other districts of the country. For example, in Russia Moscow isn't a part of Moscow region, it's another district.

Interesting - but unless it's a first step towards a bid for the US Pres it is a bit off topic.

I haven't looked into it in ~2-3 weeks but I'd seen some chatter about Bloomberg observing the primaries and then figuring out whether he'd want to run based on who was going to come out of them. Texas is I think the key, since he'd need to get a large number of signatures from voters who didn't vote in either Texas primary in order to end up on the ballot in Texas. I can't find the info at the moment, but I think he has only about a month following the primaries to get his name in, and it's 75000 or so signatures he'd need. Someone with better research ability than I might be able to dig that info out :).

Behold chparadise's wrath. Off-topic posts are subject to deletion and subsequent warnings.

what happened to Bloomberg?? gawd! he wants to be president but he doesnt want to be president.... look, If he is NOT a candidate as he claims, WHY does he speak out so loudly against the white house and the policies?
and the worst thing: he is the king of tax returns. so why critisize Bush for the one thing he does well? oh, I know. Bush is unpopular, so he is safe to belittle.
now he is suddenly behaving like a democrat and is against tax returns?? what's up with him? I don't like him anymore.

In a general sense, I'd like a strong 3rd party candidate on the ballot - preferably one who is "middle of the road". I'd seriously consider voting for a candidate who appears viable who is not from the Democrats or Republicans. I think that having more viable choices is good - I don't like being painted into one of two corners, since it doesn't reflect me.


The many votes that the Pelosi/Reid coalition have given to the President, such as the recent Senate FISA bill, seem to support that the two parties are closer ideolagically than not. Except for non-political issues such as abortion, gay marriage and the like, they are pretty close.

I'd have to say that I would prefer a third party candidate if they showed a much more diverse package, for instance on issues like socialized healthcare and education, public financing of elections and/or real campaign finance reform, the eliminaton of lobbyists, the removal of the electoral college, and a whole new look at the energy policy that at the very least, increased automobile mileage standards dramatically.

If you remember the debates, there were several times that Kucinich, Gravel and Paul - the three 'extremists' - did well in post debate polls, even though their actual time on stage was extremely limited by the debate moderators. Kucinich even won the DFA(Democracy For America - Howard Dean's organization) debate poll. I would have liked to see more coverage of those candidate's positions.

Of course, there already are the Green and Independent parties, but my understanding is that they don't have the same oppurtunities that the Dems and Reps do.

If only 55% of Americans voted in the 2004 Presidential election, wouldn't it seem reasonable to assume that 45% of Americans just are not energized by the existing two party system?

I may be wrong, but I believe that as long as a number of states give all their electors to the candidate who gets most votes, there will never be a president from a third party.

I may be wrong, but I believe that as long as a number of states give all their electors to the candidate who gets most votes, there will never be a president from a third party.

That is a pretty accurate assessment, IMO. The ability of any third party candidate to win outright is far less than the posibility of taking a significant minority of votes in states that could outnumber the major party contenders. If the third party candidate had 34-35% of all states popular votes, they would carry no delagates currently, but under a proportioned or popular vote system could posibly win. Of course there is also the "throw away" factor. There is little incentive to vote third party if it is a foregone conclusion that they can't win the whole state, while a change in policy would make the third party candidate more attractive and more viable. At least I tend to see it that way.

That is a pretty accurate assessment, IMO. The ability of any third party candidate to win outright is far less than the posibility of taking a significant minority of votes in states that could outnumber the major party contenders. If the third party candidate had 34-35% of all states popular votes, they would carry no delagates currently, but under a proportioned or popular vote system could posibly win. Of course there is also the "throw away" factor. There is little incentive to vote third party if it is a foregone conclusion that they can't win the whole state, while a change in policy would make the third party candidate more attractive and more viable. At least I tend to see it that way.

These are good points, but I would hope that the term 'throw away votes' sees its last days soon. Teddy Roosevelt, as a third party candidate, the Progressive party, beat out Republican Taft in 1912 feeling that the main Republican Party under Taft no longer represented his or America's vision. I see no reason why the same thing should not happen today. (As a note, Wilson won with a total vote with less than the sum of Roosevelt's and Taft's. Chance are, if Roosevelt stayed in the Republican camp, the GOP would have won - I'm glad he didn't though.)

Roosevelt, I'm sure, had a lot of old party votes when he ran, but the principle is still the same. If the media provided as much coverage of independent's views, such as Nadar's, there would be at least a chance. To me, voting on a chance for what I would believe is a better American is not a throw away vote.

These are good points, but I would hope that the term 'throw away votes' sees its last days soon. Teddy Roosevelt, as a third party candidate, the Progressive party, beat out Republican Taft in 1912 feeling that the main Republican Party under Taft no longer represented his or America's vision. I see no reason why the same thing should not happen today. (As a note, Wilson won with a total vote with less than the sum of Roosevelt's and Taft's. Chance are, if Roosevelt stayed in the Republican camp, the GOP would have won - I'm glad he didn't though.)

Roosevelt, I'm sure, had a lot of old party votes when he ran, but the principle is still the same. If the media provided as much coverage of independent's views, such as Nadar's, there would be at least a chance. To me, voting on a chance for what I would believe is a better American is not a throw away vote.

The political parties were not nearly as powerful then as they are now and more importantly, then a "third party bid" could remain supported by the bigger party members and face a lot less financial and publicity disadvantages. That and there is no where near the name recognition for any of the potential third party players that is close to Teddy's in the day. He was a war hero and something of a celebrity before politics, wasn't he?
Either way, unless people realistically feel they are supporting a posible winner, they will demure to vote for the major party candidate they like best even when a third party option is available, because they are more concerned with letting their least favorite candidate in than they are putting futile support behind their favorite candidate. The Ross Perot example still lingers for both major parties.

....
Either way, unless people realistically feel they are supporting a posible winner, they will demure to vote for the major party candidate they like best even when a third party option is available, because they are more concerned with letting their least favorite candidate in than they are putting futile support behind their favorite candidate. The Ross Perot example still lingers for both major parties.

I think you are right here, but I think it is unfortunate that people will vote just to keep someone else out. I saw in one of the open primaries that Republicans voted Obama just so Clinton would not win.

I think also part of the problem is knowledge about issues. On Bill Moyer's show Friday, the statement was made that only 6% of high school grads(and not college grads), and 23% of college grads knew where Saudi Arabia, Israel, Iraq and Iran were on a map that had the names on them.

I think Bloomberg has kept out of the race so far because of the cost of the campaigning. He and Nader may come in at a later date. Nader has said in the past if Clinton wins the nomination, he would run. He has no chance of winning, but he has a message, like Perot did.

I think you are right here, but I think it is unfortunate that people will vote just to keep someone else out. I saw in one of the open primaries that Republicans voted Obama just so Clinton would not win.

I think also part of the problem is knowledge about issues. On Bill Moyer's show Friday, the statement was made that only 6% of high school grads(and not college grads), and 23% of college grads knew where Saudi Arabia, Israel, Iraq and Iran were on a map that had the names on them.

I think Bloomberg has kept out of the race so far because of the cost of the campaigning. He and Nader may come in at a later date. Nader has said in the past if Clinton wins the nomination, he would run. He has no chance of winning, but he has a message, like Perot did.

Bloomberg and Nader are really seen as one-issue candidates even if they do run. Perot started early and got a variety of issues covered and his platform was pretty well defined to most interested voters including social policy, foreign policy and economy. The problem is that little is actually known about their (Bloomberg, Nader and Paul) full platform or posible ability to do the actual job. No well rounded third party hopeful has presented themselves and entering late wouldn't help much for anyone who is starting out relatively unknown. It is a shame, this would have been a fertile election for some such candidate, but at this point there really isn't a viable option out there that I can see.

Nader began an exploratory committee (http://www.draftnader.org/) the day after John Edwards dropped out of the Democratic race. Don't follow that link if bright green offends your eyes: the page is green enough to gag a maggot.

Nader has also published an Open Letter to George W. Bush (http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/02/15/7094/).

"1. What do you folks think of this development?

I think Bloomberg is crazy. You can't run a third party election 9 months before. It takes a lot of bodies on the streets. That is what a party does.

Rush is suggesting that Bloomberg is trying to be a VP for Barack. I think Rush is crazy - at least I hope so. I do not have Bloomberg fever. I would love Bill Richardson for Barack.

Besides (I come from Canada that does have 3 parties & I've watched the US with their 2 party system for years) - a third party in the US is a pipe-dream.

Although, if he does do it, suddenly Barack will look like a grounded realist.

2. Do you feel the United States can benefit from less partisanship?

I don't know if it's partisanship or important votes being bought off. Personally I'd rather see less of the later. Partisanship is unavoidable - look at ship wars.

3. Do you think the movement has a chance of truly changing Washington?

No.

4. How do you think the two major parties will react to, or counter, this "unity government" approach?

If they elucidate any principles, I think the major candidates will examine them. But I don't think they will think of anything that Barack isn't saying already and / or that isn't the flavor of the times anyway.

I must say, I returned to nursing school as an old woman, and I am learning Therapeutic Communication techniques. When I was in high school a friend of mine did Peace Studies. I think some of these ideas that are so rich and productive are more diffuse in the younger population.

Cynicism is a scourge I've been suffering from. I need to clean house.

I may be wrong, but I believe that as long as a number of states give all their electors to the candidate who gets most votes, there will never be a president from a third party.

Excellent point.

.... It is a shame, this would have been a fertile election for some such candidate, but at this point there really isn't a viable option out there that I can see.

I agree. However, I think that it is more important to have a third party just so their ideas are presented on a national forum rather than winning an election. The idea that winning is everything is deafening in the US and I see it as detrimental.

I know that there will be general election debates and the independents and the greens will have some say, but I want them to have that say now when people are forming opinions about the current candidates.

I would guess that there are a lot of independents, Dems and Reps that don't know about Nader's anti-corporate positions. If they did, they would see an opinion that crosses all major issues including healthcare, the war, public financing, campaign reform, military spending, prison reform, Israel/Palestine, global peace and of course the environment. Even though he wouldn't win, there is a good chance that he would influence either party's postions, which is an accomplishment of its own.

He is so different in his opinions than the current crop of candidates that a national forum, which could have begun when the campaigning by the major parties began, comparing his platform with those of the existing candidates could do nothing but energize voters even more.

So, to sum up, a third(or fourth or fifth) party would introduce new ideas, influence major party decisions, energize voters. I see no down side to that.

If Nader runs, I know of at least one Dem that will vote for him, which may be the reason major parties don't want third parties.

It's official. Kind of. Michael Bloomberg: I’m Not Running for President, but ... (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/opinion/28mike.html?hp)

"I believe that an independent approach to these issues is essential to governing our nation — and that an independent can win the presidency. I listened carefully to those who encouraged me to run, but I am not — and will not be — a candidate for president. I have watched this campaign unfold, and I am hopeful that the current campaigns can rise to the challenge by offering truly independent leadership. The most productive role that I can serve is to push them forward, by using the means at my disposal to promote a real and honest debate.

"In the weeks and months ahead, I will continue to work to steer the national conversation away from partisanship and toward unity; away from ideology and toward common sense; away from sound bites and toward substance. And while I have always said I am not running for president, the race is too important to sit on the sidelines, and so I have changed my mind in one area. If a candidate takes an independent, nonpartisan approach — and embraces practical solutions that challenge party orthodoxy — I’ll join others in helping that candidate win the White House."

Well, Ralph Nader has thrown his hat into the ring for the third time. I voted for him in 2000, because he offered some real down-to-earth ideas for this country, and not just pointing out what is wrong with this country. He actually offered some reasonable plans to change it.

Bloomberg has said that he will not run as a Third Party, but who else do we have out there that should be considered, and what do they offer?

I may be wrong, but I believe that as long as a number of states give all their electors to the candidate who gets most votes, there will never be a president from a third party.

In theory you are incorrect, but in practice you are right.

In the general election the electors (generally, but there is not really a law) give all the votes of that state to the candiate with the most votes. Obviously, if the candidate with the most votes in that state is an Independent, then, in theory, he should get all of the state's electoral votes.

Now, if an Independent were to carry New York, Illinois, Texas, Florida, and California I could see him or her winning. Face it, though, Americans are sheep not lions. Most of us just follow the herd, and have to pick either a Democrat or a Republican. Hardly any of them are willing to be true to their own consciences and vote their own minds. They are Republicans because they believe promoting big business is the only way to improve this country. They are Democrats because they believe giving away many things to the people is the only way to fix problems (generalizations, yes, but accurate ones).

Independents are more often able to see the good of both sides and mitigate the negatives. But to vote for one is WASTING YOUR VOTE???

Did Senator Gravel really resign from the Democratic party? I know this is pure speculation, but does anyone think Senator Paul might do the same and the two will launch an independent bid?

Did Senator Gravel really resign from the Democratic party? I know this is pure speculation, but does anyone think Senator Paul might do the same and the two will launch an independent bid?

Looks like it Mom. Here's his website (http://www.gravel2008.us/) link and it's his top news item.

Looks like it Mom. Here's his website (http://www.gravel2008.us/) link and it's his top news item.

Wow! I'm just like out of words.........

I've never heard of Gravel...I guess I've been out of touch on some things! I did look at his website. So far, I'm not all that impressed with anything I've seen anymore than other candidates.

The only thing I remember about him is that he supports the Fair Tax and someone who posts in *** Demos thread (can't remember who) used to mention his positions on issues all the time.