-
- Doctor Fate
- Ambassador
-
- Posts: 21062
- Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am
22 Jan 2016, 10:47 am
rickyp wrote:rayjay
In New Hampshire, the dynamics of each race impacts the other. For example, since Bernie and Hillary are neck and neck, independents are more likely to vote in the Democratic primary. As a result, more moderate Republicans may do worse in the Republican primary.
Kasich is running second there according to RCP... He's a genuinely sane choice and if he runs second perhaps he can be someone around which the non-Trump - non-Cruz could coalesce.
Maybe in NH, but I doubt it. And, after NH, he appeals to the Huntsman Republicans. He's more liberal than Romney and, imnsho, he's marginally more appealing to the conservative wing than Trump. However, I call Kasich "The reason we have a mute button."
-
- Sassenach
- Emissary
-
- Posts: 3405
- Joined: 12 Jun 2006, 2:01 am
23 Jan 2016, 12:48 pm
So here's a thought. If we do end up with Trump/Sanders as the nominees, would this potentially pave the way for a 3rd party centrist candidate ? There are certainly a lot of Republicans who loathe Trump and would struggle to bring themselves out to vote for him, and likewise there are a lot of centrist Democrats who would have a hard time voting for Bernie. That's potentially tens of millions of voters up for grabs if the right candidate came along with enough money to fund a campaign. I'll bet Michael Bloomberg has his eye on the situation.
-
- Doctor Fate
- Ambassador
-
- Posts: 21062
- Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am
23 Jan 2016, 1:41 pm
Sassenach wrote:So here's a thought. If we do end up with Trump/Sanders as the nominees, would this potentially pave the way for a 3rd party centrist candidate ? There are certainly a lot of Republicans who loathe Trump and would struggle to bring themselves out to vote for him, and likewise there are a lot of centrist Democrats who would have a hard time voting for Bernie. That's potentially tens of millions of voters up for grabs if the right candidate came along with enough money to fund a campaign. I'll bet Michael Bloomberg has his eye on the situation.
There are always Bloomberg rumors. Can we really imagine 3 guys from New York--two billionaires and a socialist--running against one another?
Oy.
The dynamics would be interesting. Many conservatives would probably go 3rd Party and really mess it up.
-
- Sassenach
- Emissary
-
- Posts: 3405
- Joined: 12 Jun 2006, 2:01 am
23 Jan 2016, 1:48 pm
It would be very interesting I think. Much more difficult to see which party would be more damaged by it. Last time Ralph Nader cost Gore the election, but Ross Perot did the same thing to Bush Sr. In this scenario you can imagine Bloomberg would take away votes from either end, although if I had to hazard a guess I'd say it would hurt Trump more. Democrats have nursed a grievance against Nader ever since.
-
- rickyp
- Statesman
-
- Posts: 11324
- Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am
23 Jan 2016, 3:57 pm
sass
So here's a thought. If we do end up with Trump/Sanders as the nominees, would this potentially pave the way for a 3rd party centrist candidate
No. Its too difficult and too late. Most States work hard to discourage third party candidates...
One reason so few federally filed presidential candidates actually appear on the ballot is that Article 1, Section 4, of the U.S. Constitution empowers the states to set their own election ballot criteria. So potential candidates face not just the federal filing hurdle, which is fairly simple, but 51 state hurdles, including Washington D.C.
Some states make the process easy. For example, Colorado requires candidates to “submit an affidavit of intent and pay a $500 fee.” USA Today says that in 2008 Colorado had 16 presidential candidates on the ballot.
But other states require thousands of signatures to be gathered, which means the candidates either need a network of supporters in those states who can sign, and get others to sign, a petition, or pay people to get the signatures. And the candidates would likely need a well-staffed headquarters to coordinate those state efforts
sass
If we do end up with Trump/Sanders as the nominees,
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... -5565.html
-
- geojanes
- Dignitary
-
- Posts: 3536
- Joined: 02 Oct 2000, 9:01 am
23 Jan 2016, 9:54 pm
-
- Sassenach
- Emissary
-
- Posts: 3405
- Joined: 12 Jun 2006, 2:01 am
24 Jan 2016, 12:40 am
No. Its too difficult and too late. Most States work hard to discourage third party candidates...
Bloomberg is a billionaire, and he probably has a lot of extremely wealthy people who would be willing to contribute as well. It would be comparatively simple for him to pay staff in every state to deal with the barriers to entry.
-
- danivon
- Ambassador
-
- Posts: 16006
- Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am
24 Jan 2016, 5:32 am
It would be very hard to get a third party nomination if you go past the Convention dates.
Each state has its own rules, but if a party does not already have access to the ballot in a state, it would usually have to get a petition raised with enough valid signatures. Other ways would be to have gained a certain level of the vote in previous elections.
So if Bloomberg or anyone else wants to run, they would have a choice:
1) start a new party. This would probably mean getting petitions raised now to meet deadlines to be on the 2016 ballots.
2) get the nomination of an existing third party that has significant access already. Only the Greens and Libertarians currently have access to enough states to have 270 Electors. No others even have access to more than 130 votes, but that could change with petitions.
3) get the nomination of a major party.
-
- Sassenach
- Emissary
-
- Posts: 3405
- Joined: 12 Jun 2006, 2:01 am
24 Jan 2016, 5:35 am
The article says that he's given himself a deadline of sometime in March to make a decision, because after that it would be too late. That suggests that he's well aware of the organisational difficulties and reckons he can get around them if he makes his mind up in time.
-
- Ray Jay
- Ambassador
-
- Posts: 4991
- Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am
24 Jan 2016, 10:10 am
Sassenach wrote:The article says that he's given himself a deadline of sometime in March to make a decision, because after that it would be too late. That suggests that he's well aware of the organisational difficulties and reckons he can get around them if he makes his mind up in time.
Yep ... it would be great and he's on the top of my list ... Bloomberg won't run against Hillary, but he would run against Sanders ... he probably would not run against a moderate Republican, but appears that he would against Trump or Cruz.
-
- Sassenach
- Emissary
-
- Posts: 3405
- Joined: 12 Jun 2006, 2:01 am
24 Jan 2016, 10:21 am
I must admit I'm not really a fan of Michael Bloomberg. His variety of nanny-state liberalism doesn't really do it for me. He'd undoubtedly be better than Trump, Cruz, Sanders et al though. You'd at least end up with a president who has some semblance of dignity, which is something. His record of bipartisanship could well turn out to be quite appealing as well. In fact, having a leader who doesn't have affiliation to either party might be just about the only way you can get Congress to function.
-
- Doctor Fate
- Ambassador
-
- Posts: 21062
- Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am
24 Jan 2016, 11:59 am
Ray Jay wrote:Sassenach wrote:The article says that he's given himself a deadline of sometime in March to make a decision, because after that it would be too late. That suggests that he's well aware of the organisational difficulties and reckons he can get around them if he makes his mind up in time.
Yep ... it would be great and he's on the top of my list ... Bloomberg won't run against Hillary, but he would run against Sanders ... he probably would not run against a moderate Republican, but appears that he would against Trump or Cruz.
This is funny to me--in this respect: Trump is, at best, a moderate Republican who has used overheated rhetoric. Nothing in his past, and not much in his present, suggests he is a "conservative." For crying out loud, he's proposing universal healthcare! He's to the Left of Hillary on that!
And, that's just one issue. I can find several where he seems more like a liberal Democrat than a conservative Republican.
-
- Doctor Fate
- Ambassador
-
- Posts: 21062
- Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am
24 Jan 2016, 12:01 pm
Sassenach wrote:I must admit I'm not really a fan of Michael Bloomberg. His variety of nanny-state liberalism doesn't really do it for me.
Exactly. This is why him getting in is golden to me. He is, in almost every respect, a Democrat--and one who believes there is nothing the government doesn't know how to do better than the individual does.
-
- Ray Jay
- Ambassador
-
- Posts: 4991
- Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am
24 Jan 2016, 12:24 pm
Doctor Fate wrote:Ray Jay wrote:Sassenach wrote:The article says that he's given himself a deadline of sometime in March to make a decision, because after that it would be too late. That suggests that he's well aware of the organisational difficulties and reckons he can get around them if he makes his mind up in time.
Yep ... it would be great and he's on the top of my list ... Bloomberg won't run against Hillary, but he would run against Sanders ... he probably would not run against a moderate Republican, but appears that he would against Trump or Cruz.
This is funny to me--in this respect: Trump is, at best, a moderate Republican who has used overheated rhetoric. Nothing in his past, and not much in his present, suggests he is a "conservative." For crying out loud, he's proposing universal healthcare! He's to the Left of Hillary on that!
And, that's just one issue. I can find several where he seems more like a liberal Democrat than a conservative Republican.
Yes, I agree that Trump is not a conservative ... Bloomberg does not agree with Trump's views on immigrants and Muslims.
-
- Ray Jay
- Ambassador
-
- Posts: 4991
- Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am
24 Jan 2016, 12:28 pm
Doctor Fate wrote:Sassenach wrote:I must admit I'm not really a fan of Michael Bloomberg. His variety of nanny-state liberalism doesn't really do it for me.
Exactly. This is why him getting in is golden to me. He is, in almost every respect, a Democrat--and one who believes there is nothing the government doesn't know how to do better than the individual does.
As it relates to gay marriage, abortion, and gun control, Bloomberg is a Democrat. But as it relates to economic policy he is not a Democrat. It's rare that you will agree with a politician on everything; Bloomberg is the best fit for me.
For impact on the race, I think you have to go state-by-state. If Cruz or Trump are up against Sanders, Bloomberg would take some Republican votes and many independent ones.
