Bloomberg Is Leaving Republican Party - Page 21

Jacko · 06-24-2007

Edit double post

Jacko · 06-24-2007

That IS an interesting scenario...it just seems to me, that if push came to shove and things got really ugly (as they usually do), it would be fairly easy to make the VERY WEALTHY Bloomberg look like he was obviously buying the election and indeed looking too much like a king for American voters....I mean at $5.5 billion dollar estimated net worth...this is not just another rich guy..he is one of the richest in the world!

Did he have any trouble at all dealing with his wealth, and the "I am personally buying the election" potential issue in his previous elections?

PlayadelSoul · 06-24-2007

Interesting segment on the third party possibilities on Face the Nation, this AM. Now, Bob Schiefer is fair and balanced. Old school.

MWC · 06-24-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jacko

That IS an interesting scenario...it just seems to me, that if push came to shove and things got really ugly (as they usually do), it would be fairly easy to make the VERY WEALTHY Bloomberg look like he was obviously buying the election and indeed looking too much like a king for American voters....I mean at $5.5 billion dollar estimated net worth...this is not just another rich guy..he is one of the richest in the world!

Did he have any trouble at all dealing with his wealth, and the "I am personally buying the election" potential issue in his previous elections?

I think Ross Perot paved the way for people to be somewhat comfortable with the "rich man running" scenario.

For Bloomberg, it came up, but rich guys bankrolling their own campaigns is not an uncommon scenario for NY elections. In the 60's you had William F. Buckley run for mayor, then his brother run for US Senator; in the 80's and 90's you had Abe Hirschfield running for different offices; in the 80's you had Esteee lauder heir Ron Perlman run for Governor; over in New Jersey, you had Jon Corzine run first for Senator, then Governor.

Bloomberg does get accused of being out of touch with everyday folks.

Jacko · 06-24-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by MWC

[/b]

I think Ross Perot paved the way for people to be somewhat comfortable with the "rich man running" scenario.

For Bloomberg, it came up, but rich guys bankrolling their own campaigns is not an uncommon scenario for NY elections. In the 60's you had William F. Buckley run for mayor, then his brother run for US Senator; in the 80's and 90's you had Abe Hirschfield running for different offices; in the 80's you had Esteee lauder heir Ron Perlman run for Governor; over in New Jersey, you had Jon Corzine run first for Senator, then Governor.
Bloomberg does get accused of being out of touch with everyday folks.

Very good points! I just wonder how this would translate into the general electorate outside of New York/New York City.

(I'd forgotten about Ross

....Ross's "somewhat comfortable" may be the best Bloomberg can achieve)

STOGEY · 06-24-2007

Why is it that you lefties insist on taking a perfectly good synynom "era" from baseball and turn it into something political?

STOGEY · 06-24-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by southbound

Well, more likely Bloomberg insisted on some stage time at the Convention in exchange for hosting it and mobilizing the entire NYPD to hold back the CRUSH of protesters, myself included, who didn't want the convention held in the City at all! Many of the arrests the police made here that day are now being challenged -- the police were a little overzealous, it seems (I myself had a run in with a cop for simply wanting to step up on a certain sidewalk to enter a restaurant for lunch). This was one of Bloomberg's lowest moments and his constituents (myself included) were pretty upset! Believe me, the Republicans didn't "happily allow" him to speak. It's his money and his power they like -- not his politics.

I agree with you totally. The same thing happened here in Boston during the DNC convention.

STOGEY · 06-24-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jacko

That IS an interesting scenario...it just seems to me, that if push came to shove and things got really ugly (as they usually do), it would be fairly easy to make the VERY WEALTHY Bloomberg look like he was obviously buying the election and indeed looking too much like a king for American voters....I mean at $5.5 billion dollar estimated net worth...this is not just another rich guy..he is one of the richest in the world!

Did he have any trouble at all dealing with his wealth, and the "I am personally buying the election" potential issue in his previous elections?

I always thought that you dems didn't think much about a person who had money. I always put a persons character as far as importance goes, before a persons wealth.

STOGEY · 06-24-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by MWC

[/b]

I think Ross Perot paved the way for people to be somewhat comfortable with the "rich man running" scenario.

For Bloomberg, it came up, but rich guys bankrolling their own campaigns is not an uncommon scenario for NY elections. In the 60's you had William F. Buckley run for mayor, then his brother run for US Senator; in the 80's and 90's you had Abe Hirschfield running for different offices; in the 80's you had Esteee lauder heir Ron Perlman run for Governor; over in New Jersey, you had Jon Corzine run first for Senator, then Governor.

Bloomberg does get accused of being out of touch with everyday folks.

How can a person that is worth 5 billion be totally in touch with a common person,specially a person who made most of his money in the speculation business? All he is is a successful gambler.

Jacko · 06-24-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by STOGEY

How can a person that is worth 5 billion be totally in touch with a common person,specially a person who made most of his money in the speculation business? All he is is a successful gambler.

Quote:

Originally Posted by STOGEY

I always thought that you dems didn't think much about a person who had money. I always put a persons character as far as importance goes, before a persons wealth.

**ryberg** · 06-25-2007

Sorry but -- and this you understand is just a question for curiosity's sake related to the current discussion and context, not obviously a hope of mine! -- why is Cheney not a candidate for the Republicans, again? I mean, you know, he's got all the VP experience Gore had when he ran in 2000, objectively speaking, at least -- 8 years as VP under a 2-term President and so on -- and no matter what you think about Gore, he did get the votes of some 50 million Americans. So just wondering, particularly in light of those comments about Republicans seeming to give more chances to their candidates to run than Dems and so on...

I feel certain even Cheney would recognize that the Executive (the President, of course) is still part of the Executive Branch, so that must not be it...

Steve

**ryberg** · 06-25-2007

Yes, thanks for the link, MWC. Finally had a chance to look at the article (thanks to a sudden nasty cold that wouldn't let me sleep this morning

).

I have two main reactions, for what they might be worth. First, logistically, aren't electors legally bound to cast their vote for the candidate who received the most popular votes in their state in every state except a couple (seems like Maine is one, can't remember the other, but no big state like they're saying would be required here). The article talks on and on about brokering a deal but is very vague on how precisely in the voting mechanisms the "kingmaker" figure taking one or two sufficiently large states would finally result in either of the big party candidates truly getting the kingermaker's electoral votes. In fact the only place they seem to be slightly more specific on that is in the comment that nobody really knows what would happen to those votes as the issue of electors voting as they are supposed to hasn't been tested much, legally.

So my impression -- and I'm asking if I'm missing something -- is that this whole scenario would fall apart because either those electors would just end up splitting their votes between the two big party candidates, in which case there probably wouldn't be enough for either to change what the result was going to be without counting these states in the first place, or their votes would stick with this kingmaker candidate, in which case it would all just be thrown to the house and (as Cuomo points out) the Dems would win because they currently have the votes in the house. So, either pffft or pffft.

My other impression, though, is that it's disturbing to read this description and think that anybody would think this is a good idea or a potentially promising way out of 2-party gridlock. The comparison here to the straightforward parliamentary approach and coalition governments in Europe is a bad one, I think, and makes the false assumption that two things that may appear similar on the surface are actually similar at their heart and go together well, like adjacent keys on a piano may look until you hit them together. In Europe, people go and have a choice of candidates and parties and platforms and vote for them, and coalition governments are produced if and when no single party has the confidence of a majority of the voters. Here you're not talking third party, you're talking an end run done by a rich guy who has his own agenda and who knows what he's going to do with it, possibly along with some rogue electors who also have their own agendas, and then courts getting involved over their votes and so on. It strikes me as no more similar in reality to parliamentary systems and coalition governments than vigilante justice is to regular, straightforward justice, and I think it's extremely thin ice for us to go skating on, myself...

Again, FWIW!

P.S. Certainly anyone opposed to doing away with the Electoral College would have to be vehemently opposed to this possibility, as well, as Gore won the popular vote in 21 states, by my count, just to get over the hump in the overall popular vote in 2000, and numerically you'd need to take 12 states to win solely via the Electoral College, but here, just take 1 and you've got power, baby!

Steve

**ryberg** · 07-07-2007

Wow, nobody's returned to post on this thread since I last posted on it in the pre-Catherine era?!?

(Like how I slipped that baseball synonym in there, Stogey?

)

Steve

sctx · 07-07-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by ryberg

Wow, nobody's returned to post on this thread since I last posted on it in the pre-Catherine era?!?

(Like how I slipped that baseball synonym in there, Stogey?

)

Steve

gee, maybe the rest of us find this thread dull and boring....but feel free to carry on w/o us

**ryberg** · 07-07-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by sctx

gee, maybe the rest of us find this thread dull and boring....but feel free to carry on w/o us

Ah, I see what happened now! I got here via a link Southbound provided over on another discussion when I asked her how her call to Obama went, so I didn't realize that I was on the Bloomberg thread -- was thinking I was on roni's big 2008 Presidential thread. My bad! Sorry, folks! Carry on! Nothing to see here -- move along!

Wasn't a boring thread at all, though, imo! I congratulate Southbound on starting it and enjoyed the discussion.

Steve

06-24-2007	#302 (permalink)
Jacko añejo Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 30,889	That IS an interesting scenario...it just seems to me, that if push came to shove and things got really ugly (as they usually do), it would be fairly easy to make the VERY WEALTHY Bloomberg look like he was obviously buying the election and indeed looking too much like a king for American voters....I mean at $5.5 billion dollar estimated net worth...this is not just another rich guy..he is one of the richest in the world! Did he have any trouble at all dealing with his wealth, and the "I am personally buying the election" potential issue in his previous elections? Last edited by Jacko; 06-24-2007 at 10:02 AM..

06-25-2007	#311 (permalink)
ryberg playa maya guy Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: real America (reality-based community) Posts: 27,965	Sorry but -- and this you understand is just a question for curiosity's sake related to the current discussion and context, not obviously a hope of mine! -- why is Cheney not a candidate for the Republicans, again? I mean, you know, he's got all the VP experience Gore had when he ran in 2000, objectively speaking, at least -- 8 years as VP under a 2-term President and so on -- and no matter what you think about Gore, he did get the votes of some 50 million Americans. So just wondering, particularly in light of those comments about Republicans seeming to give more chances to their candidates to run than Dems and so on... I feel certain even Cheney would recognize that the Executive (the President, of course) is still part of the Executive Branch, so that must not be it... Steve Last edited by ryberg; 06-25-2007 at 06:17 AM..

06-25-2007	#312 (permalink)
ryberg playa maya guy Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: real America (reality-based community) Posts: 27,965	Yes, thanks for the link, MWC. Finally had a chance to look at the article (thanks to a sudden nasty cold that wouldn't let me sleep this morning ). I have two main reactions, for what they might be worth. First, logistically, aren't electors legally bound to cast their vote for the candidate who received the most popular votes in their state in every state except a couple (seems like Maine is one, can't remember the other, but no big state like they're saying would be required here). The article talks on and on about brokering a deal but is very vague on how precisely in the voting mechanisms the "kingmaker" figure taking one or two sufficiently large states would finally result in either of the big party candidates truly getting the kingermaker's electoral votes. In fact the only place they seem to be slightly more specific on that is in the comment that nobody really knows what would happen to those votes as the issue of electors voting as they are supposed to hasn't been tested much, legally. So my impression -- and I'm asking if I'm missing something -- is that this whole scenario would fall apart because either those electors would just end up splitting their votes between the two big party candidates, in which case there probably wouldn't be enough for either to change what the result was going to be without counting these states in the first place, or their votes would stick with this kingmaker candidate, in which case it would all just be thrown to the house and (as Cuomo points out) the Dems would win because they currently have the votes in the house. So, either pffft or pffft. My other impression, though, is that it's disturbing to read this description and think that anybody would think this is a good idea or a potentially promising way out of 2-party gridlock. The comparison here to the straightforward parliamentary approach and coalition governments in Europe is a bad one, I think, and makes the false assumption that two things that may appear similar on the surface are actually similar at their heart and go together well, like adjacent keys on a piano may look until you hit them together. In Europe, people go and have a choice of candidates and parties and platforms and vote for them, and coalition governments are produced if and when no single party has the confidence of a majority of the voters. Here you're not talking third party, you're talking an end run done by a rich guy who has his own agenda and who knows what he's going to do with it, possibly along with some rogue electors who also have their own agendas, and then courts getting involved over their votes and so on. It strikes me as no more similar in reality to parliamentary systems and coalition governments than vigilante justice is to regular, straightforward justice, and I think it's extremely thin ice for us to go skating on, myself... Again, FWIW! P.S. Certainly anyone opposed to doing away with the Electoral College would have to be vehemently opposed to this possibility, as well, as Gore won the popular vote in 21 states, by my count, just to get over the hump in the overall popular vote in 2000, and numerically you'd need to take 12 states to win solely via the Electoral College, but here, just take 1 and you've got power, baby! Steve __________________ Last edited by ryberg; 06-25-2007 at 07:27 AM..

06-24-2007	#301 (permalink)
Jacko añejo Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 30,889	Edit double post

06-24-2007	#303 (permalink)
PlayadelSoul Registered User Join Date: May 2005 Location: We'll know when we get there, We'll find mercy Posts: 8,963	Interesting segment on the third party possibilities on Face the Nation, this AM. Now, Bob Schiefer is fair and balanced. Old school.

06-24-2007	#306 (permalink)
STOGEY Allah Akhbar Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: salisbury, mass. Posts: 16,417	Why is it that you lefties insist on taking a perfectly good synynom "era" from baseball and turn it into something political?

07-07-2007	#313 (permalink)
ryberg playa maya guy Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: real America (reality-based community) Posts: 27,965	Wow, nobody's returned to post on this thread since I last posted on it in the pre-Catherine era?!? (Like how I slipped that baseball synonym in there, Stogey? ) Steve

register to remove these adverts