I saw on MSN today that Bloomberg is seriously considering jumping into the fray! I think it might be refreshing - but I don't know much about him. How do you guys feel?

Obama has certainly shown immaturity and is not ready for the world stage.

Hillary? I like here but I don't believe she will be able to get anything done. If she IS elected, she will probably spend most of her time fighting Right wing attacks/propaganda like her husband did.

Giuliani - His 9/11 rhetoric is getting old.

McCain - has lost all respect and has shown that he is a doormat!

Romney - Looks GOOD, but that's it. His religion speech did him in.

Huckabee - silly name:)

Kucinich - probably the best, but people don't want a puny little dude for a pres. We want a tough guy. (Please watch the movie "idiocracy" to see where we are headed unless we are there already. Foolsworth, you like movies and you can quote from it rather than some 1950's movie that most of us have not heard of. BTW I am starting to think that Foolsworth is a computer program.)

Ron Paul - again good, but some of his policies are just out there. And he is seen/portrayed as a kook.

Who else?

He has a huge amount of money - many many times more than all the other candidates combined. He could spend hundreds of millions on a campaign and never even miss it.

He also seems like a decent guy, successful & doing a decent job at NY mayor.

So - I think he could be a good candidate for the republican side - the only real ones in that bunch are McCain and Ron Paul & neither of them will win the nomination

Obama is probably the best choice overall - but if Hilary wins the nomination - then I'd be looking for a strong candidate who could beat her - Bloomberg could be that guy.

I think overall so long as Huckabee, Clinton, Romney or Guliani don't become President than it'll be ok. Any of those people could be a disaster for the US.

Kucinich - probably the best, but people don't want a puny little dude for a pres. We want a tough guy.

Then don't look at him; just pay attention to what he says. He doesn't waffle, doesn't prevaricate, doesn't pander to anybody, and he sure as hell isn't afraid to say exactly what he thinks. He's the toughest guy in the bunch, by a long shot.

Then don't look at him; just pay attention to what he says. He doesn't waffle, doesn't prevaricate, doesn't pander to anybody, and he sure as hell isn't afraid to say exactly what he thinks. He's the toughest guy in the bunch, by a long shot.

I agree. I was being sarcastic.

So - I think he could be a good candidate for the republican side


Wouldn't he enter as an "independent"??

Wouldn't he enter as an "independent"??

Yes probably - but only because it's too late now to enter as a republican and get the nomination. If he did run and make it a 3 way race - then he'd probably split the republican vote like Perot did. Without Perot - Clinton would not have won in 1992

Yes probably - but only because it's too late now to enter as a republican and get the nomination. If he did run and make it a 3 way race - then he'd probably split the republican vote like Perot did. Without Perot - Clinton would not have won in 1992


I wonder what his stance is on "war on terror". Maybe he can get some dems votes too.

Hillary? I like here but I don't believe she will be able to get anything done. If she IS elected, she will probably spend most of her time fighting Right wing attacks/propaganda like her husband did.
You think the Right Wing will turn into pussycats with Obama in the White House? You're on crack. Right Wing will attack any Democrat in power.Without Perot - Clinton would not have won in 1992Not by a long shot. Bush Senior's approval numbers were well below 50 percent. Clinton did not so much win as Bush got his ass thrown out - deservedly so. Wouldn't he enter as an "independent"??Yes, he could not run in as a Dem or a Rep. He is a lifelong Democrat who ran as a Republican in NYC because the Democratic machine wouldn't let him in. Actually, if he entered the race as an independent this would probably cause the GOP to win the election - whoever it turns out to be. Dems cannot win without NY State electoral votes, and no one can win as an independent. Having said that, I think he has done a suberb job as mayor of NYC and would surely get my vote if he ran for President. He has more brains than the rest of the candidates put together and does not owe anybody anything. He is truly his own man.

Agreed to all. After last night's caucus win of Obama and Huckabee, I hope to "god" that Bloomberg runs. Everywhere it says that Huckabee won because of religious supporters. Where is this country going?

Like Iowa represents the whole country... I don't see the big deal.

Like Iowa represents the whole country... I don't see the big deal.
Regardless of if Iowa represents the whole country or not, it is still the first to vote in the Primaries. And being first has an influence, even if it should or shouldn't.

What it does is give momentum to a candidate.

It also impacts un-decided voters. If I were un-decided between Hillary and Obama, seeing Obama win in Iowa may be enough to put me into his camp over Hillary's.

Not to say who wins in Iowa will win the nomination, but it sure doesn't hurt, and if anything it helps. Especially to someone like Obama who won against the "inevitable nominee" for the Democrats, Hillary Clinton.

Like Iowa represents the whole country... I don't see the big deal.
IA is a better comparison to the country as a whole than most others.

IA is a better comparison to the country as a whole than most others.
Jeez... I hope 6 out of 10 Republicans in the whole country aren't evangelicals!

Jeez... I hope 6 out of 10 Republicans in the whole country aren't evangelicals!
85% of Americans describe themselves as Christian-how far they take it is up to them. there are Christians all thru the political spectrum, but 60% of 1/3 isn't that bad...not enough to carry a candidate to the white house, but enough of a block to make a difference.

Still, I think OD's explanation for why Iowa is important is a little more accurate.... I mean, seriously, Giuliani in SIXTH place? I'm pretty sure the rest of the country feels a little differently.

Still, I think OD's explanation for why Iowa is important is a little more accurate.... I mean, seriously, Giuliani in SIXTH place? I'm pretty sure the rest of the country feels a little differently.
he didn't campaign there.

he didn't campaign there.
That proves my point even more! All the major candidates didn't even campaign, and you're saying that it's representative of what's going to happen in the whole country.

That proves my point even more! All the major candidates didn't even campaign, and you're saying that it's representative of what's going to happen in the whole country.
not what going to happen, closer to what the rest of the country looks like than most states.

not what going to happen, closer to what the rest of the country looks like than most states.
Well I'm not convinced. I suppose it's hard to prove either way.

not what going to happen, closer to what the rest of the country looks like than most states.


right but if Giuliani HAD campaigned there, would things look differently? Since he DID NOT campaign there and he WILL campaign in other places, then it is not "apples to apples".

right but if Giuliani HAD campaigned there, would things look differently? Since he DID NOT campaign there and he WILL campaign in other places, then it is not "apples to apples".
it's not just that he didn't, it's that he couldn't afford to.

he also hasn't been campaigning in MI, and our primary is the 15th. if dollars = votes, Ron Paul will do well. he's getting out the message.

he also hasn't been campaigning in MI, and our primary is the 15th. if dollars = votes, Ron Paul will do well. he's getting out the message.

Ron Paul also has the advantage of a screwed up Michigan Primary. I know several Dems who plan to go vote for him as a joke.

I am still planning on voting in the Republican primary and writing in Nancy Sinatra.

Ron Paul also has the advantage of a screwed up Michigan Primary. I know several Dems who plan to go vote for him as a joke.
Good joke. :D

it's not just that he didn't, it's that he couldn't afford to.

he also hasn't been campaigning in MI, and our primary is the 15th. if dollars = votes, Ron Paul will do well. he's getting out the message.


The discussion is not WHY he did not run, but rather SINCE HE DID NOT RUN can you say Iowa represents the rest of the US. The answer is no.

Why is Bloomberg being such a bitch? Either run or don't run..