The gun lobby is going to go after him HARD.

Va Tech and other tragedies aside, a politician simply cannot attack the gun folks and expect to get elected to a national office.

Not going to happen.

The New York Times had a little box with some quotes on various policy issue from Bloomberg. The only variance from standard liberalism I could detect was that he wanted to stay in Iraq.

You know all those people who "should" be voting for Democrats but don't because Democrats have cooties? They'll all vote for Bloomberg. They don't care that he's a Jewish big city mayor (Giuliana is a lisping, cross-dressing big city mayor, for fucks sakes), they only care that he's not a Democrat. All the positions, none of the cooties. Disaster for the Democrats if he runs.

they only care that he's not a Democrat. [...] Disaster for the Democrats if he runs.

I don't see how the second follows the first. If his appeal is to people who won't vote Democratic, how does this hurt the Dems?

Bloomberg matters not at all, which he knows, so he won't run.

Bloomberg would definitely help the Democrats. Republican voters, at this point, are desperate to vote for anyone who's not a Republican but not so desperate that they'd vote for a Democrat (esp. Hillary). Democrats, by and large, would not be fooled.

Polling data from April backs up the point. Hillary vs. Giuliani: 47%-47%. Hillary vs. Giuliani vs. Bloomberg: 46%-37%-8%.

Former Republican, so he takes more votes from the Republican side. Plus he's not a fascist. What's not to like about this scenario?

If Bloomberg stakes out a left-of-the-Democrats position on Iraq, of course, this could change. I suspect that this would help rather than hurt him win the Republican votes that are actually within his reach, as well as bring a torrent of disaffected Democrats. If he's for withdrawal and Hillary isn't, I would have real trouble voting for the latter.

If his appeal is to people who won't vote Democratic, how does this hurt the Dems?

Because he would be appealing to people who don't want to vote for Democrats, but would be willing after eight years of Bush. Most of his votes would come from independent voters seeking change - votes that would mostly go to the Democrat (even Hillary) if Bloomberg weren't running.

Bloomberg is more of a former Democrat than a former Republican. He switched to the Republican party for the exclusive purpose of running for mayor of New York. Tammany Hall, we hardly knew ye.

Who knows at this point? Anderson didn't have a significant effect on the Carter/Reagan race; Perot took votes away from Bush, if he had any significant effect at all; and the Bush/Gore/Nader smash-up was too weird to draw any predictions from.

Also, will Bloomberg run in a primary race? If so, which one?

SCMT gets it right, I think.

Most of his votes would come from independent voters seeking change - votes that would mostly go to the Democrat (even Hillary) if Bloomberg weren't running.

This is what I was thinking. A lot of people are willing now to vote even for a Democrat and presto, they don't have to if he runs.

A lot of people are willing now to vote even for a Democrat and presto, they don't have to if he runs.

That's true. But in the south, at least, I can't see those kinds of people being any more likely to vote for the Jewish mayor of NYC.

Bloomberg is pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, and pro gun-control. Why on earth would Republicans dissatisfied with the conservative bona fides of the current passel candidates turn to him?

It depends on how he comes out. Best case, he steals Republican votes away by getting the non-theocratic gay-hating small-government types. Worst case, he steals the types who would have sucked it up and voted for the Democratic candidate on the theory that the Republican party has demonstrated it shouldn't be allowed any more than coloring books and crayons for the next twenty years or so, but aren't dyed-in-the-organic-wool liberals.

I'm not sure how the numbers fall out, but I'm inclined to guess that independents at this point probably trend Democrat, so them going for someone else instead is a net loss for the Democrats.

In a three-way debate, though, where you've got two people discussing recognizably the same version of reality, the odd man out is going to look out of touch.

The non-reality-based segment of the electorate is larger than you think.

Some numbers.

12: That's the question. I think there are an awful lot of people who badly don't want to vote for the Republican now, but really really don't want to vote for a Democrat ever, and those will go for Bloomberg. I don't think we were going to get the "Democrats have cooties" votes regardless. They might have stayed home, but I don't think we'd have gotten them.

So there's a sub-fraction of people who don't want to vote for a Republican, don't want to vote for a Democrat, but are willing to vote for a liberal-ish mayor of NYC. That's, uh, Mickey Kaus, Michael Totten, and Marty Peretz?

There is such a constituency of so-called independents, I just don't know how significant they are electorally.

There is such a constituency of so-called independents, I just don't know how significant they are electorally.

Yeah, I don't either. They're most of the Republicans I know, but I know New Yorkers. This is why my gut feelings about how the country will jump aren't that reliable.

Meanwhile, "Ralph Nader says he is seriously considering running for president in 2008 because he foresees another Tweedledum-Tweedledee election that offers little real choice to voters."

Cool, if we could get Perot to throw his hat in the ring too this would be the greatest election evar.

50 percent of Americans now "identify with or lean towards the Democrats", versus 35 percent for the Republicans. Apparently 4 years ago it was 43 to 43.

That 8 percent of the population who has changed their identification is probably people who can still be fooled by the Republicans and the media into not voting for any actual Democrat despite preferring Democrats in theory. Those people go for Bloomberg if the media likes him, which they presumably will since he shares every possible opinion with the elite media people.

Nader's getting nowhere. The hard left is the only place he could do any damage, and they're almost all still too upset about his role in helping to bring about the last eight years (even most of those who supported him, I believe).

Ralph Nader is why we can't have nice things.

3: I don't want to think of myself as agreeing with Ogged on this. Really, he just agreed with me in advance.

If Bloomburg ran, how much of his support would be from people who would otherwise not vote at all, and therefore irrelevant to the calculations of the main parties?

27: None.

28: whaddaya mean?

There is such a constituency of so-called independents, I just don't know how significant they are electorally.

I'm thinking of what happened in the Connecticut senatorial election. The Republican candidate was a joke. Lieberman lost the primary and ran as an Independent, and he beat Lamont narrowly. Now Connecticut's weird in that it has a lot of Independents, but what's interesting is how many Republicans Lieberman pulled. This is because the man is practically a Republican, but still.

18

You got my vote in 2004 so it is not impossible. I don't think Bloomberg is particularly well placed to appeal to anti-Bush Republicans however. He might draw more from anti-Hillary Democrats.

27: I think maybe a bunch -- the voters I'm talking about, the I-really-hate-Democrats-but-boy-the-Republicans-are-crazy-right-now crowd, might stay home in the absence of a third party candidate. I think their psychologically possible choices are Republican, not-voting, or third-party, with the latter two very attractive this election.

I think maybe a bunch -- the voters I'm talking about, the I-really-hate-Democrats-but-boy-the-Republicans-are-crazy-right-now crowd, might stay home in the absence of a third party candidate.

But would they have stayed home in '04 and '00, etc.? That's really the crowd that OFE is asking about, and I can't imagine the Man as a Grey Flannel Suit as the charismatic who pulls such people in.

Anti-Bush Republicans are angry at him for, what, exactly? The war in Iraq and immigration?

Pat Buchanan seems perfect.

30: The thing about Lieberman, though, is that he held on to people voting for him as the Democratic incumbent -- not enough to win the primary, but enough to take him over the top given all the Republicans and independents he drew.

More recently, [Bloomberg] has harshly criticized those who advocate pulling out of Iraq, siding with many Republicans who say it would hurt troop morale.

Oh well, fuck 'im.

31: I don't know that you're the voter we're talking about -- while I don't know you personally, you don't really seem to fall into the 'Democrats have cooties' mold so much as your own idiosyncratic mode of being wrong about stuff. The 'Democrats have cooties' crowd would be dousing you with gasoline and throwing a match in for some of the stuff you've said about 'supporting our troops'.

They're most of the Republicans I know, but I know New Yorkers.

Still a pretty special breed. Eh. Obviously, I'm speculating as much as anyone, but I have difficulty seeing Bloomberg having much success at all among voters in the deep south. His attitudes on gun control alone would sink him with southern voters who aren't already voting Democratic (and even with some of them).

Isn't Bloomberg's governing style simply Dick Cheney with less evil? Neither care for participatory, democratic politics. Bloomberg's record in NY is made up of a series of unilateral decisions, maybe half of which have been good, but none of which were "democratic" -- 311, the olympics, the west side stadium, the condo-based redevelopment of williamsburg, congestion pricing. He decides what would be the best "policy" and drives it home -- which is all well and good, but then why bother with democracy at all? Shouldn't the entire country just be run like the Fed -- let's leave it to the "experts."

Well, yeah. I don't want him to win anything, but that's not a risk. I'm just thinking he might drag the debate in a more fact-oriented direction, and take more votes from Republicans than Democrats.

Bloomberg should run *both* as a Democrat and as a Republican, just to spice up the primaries a bit.

41: I've been saying for years that we need to bring back the old Democratic-Republican party. Finally, a chance!

11: Populuxe, it may not have mattered electorally--because Reagan's victory in 1980 was such a huge blowout--but Massachusetts went for Reagan, and that can probably be attributed to Anderson's presence in the race.

I think that Bloomberg appeals to the "tired of partisan politics" crowd. There's a Silicon Alley Venture capitalist whose blog I used to read a lot who thinks that Bloomberg has done great things for the city. I went to look at his blog when I heard that Bloomberg was switching his registration. This guy has raised money for Democrats and has been a registered Democrat for more than 20 years. I'm not saying that New York won't go blue, but it does make me think that Bloomberg could hurt the Dems as much as the Repubs; maybe it would be a wash.

His post is here.

He says that another "crappy nominee" would be enough to get him to quit the party. This guy likes Bloomberg, because he's "pragmatic, action oriented, driven to make a difference, and centrist."

39: Isn't that how a mayor typically acts? The current executive has actually encroached upon the powers of the legislature, and in so doing, created surveillance/torture programs that actually break the law. I don't see how that correlates to the redevelopment of Williamsburg.

Shouldn't the entire country just be run like the Fed -- let's leave it to the "experts."

Sounds like Bloomberg has Tim's vote wrapped up.

Bloomberg should run *both* as a Democrat and as a Republican, just to spice up the primaries a bit.

That happens in most elections in Pennsylvania for things like school board and auditor.

44: well, mayors and presidents are involved in different policies, but I see a similarity re: the concept of governance -- neither you nor I were asked about and did not vote for surveillance programs, and my point was that Bloomberg's approach vis a vis his own policies and his own constituents is similar.

34 is apt, but I think that the anti-Bush Republicans who are relevant to this discussion are the "sensible" Reps - the small banker types, who actually think evolution is probably true, who don't much like gays, but don't base their votes on gay-hate. These people were willing to go along with a lot of right-wing BS as long as they got their tax cuts and scary black lesbian Dems didn't get to run the government, but the last 6 years have been such a disaster that they're off the bus.

Since the Rs seem determined to run a candidate who actually endorses everything Bush has done, our "sensible" Rep won't stay home - I think he's (you know it's a he) motivated enough to stop this nonsense that he'd vote for a Dem (conceivably even Hillary). But with that smooth-talking corporocrat Bloomberg whispering in his ear?

Small town bankers are the Nader-loving hippies of '08.

OT: so we saw real-live digby accepting an award, but did we learn her name or not? what is it? also, she kind of resembles hilzoy, I think. they should form a league of superheroes or something.

I think digby should totally run for office. I like the way she thinks, and she gives a good, compelling speech. What else is there? But I don't think we have a name yet.

she kind of resembles hilzoy

Tone, too; that was part of what made me sure she was a woman.

47: Right, but the breaking-the-law part comes from the fact that congressional authority was subverted in the creation of those programs. Neither you nor I get ever get to vote on legislation (unless you're a legislator, if so, my bad). I don't know anything about local New York politics, but it doesn't seem crazy for a mayor to pursue policy initiatives without a public referendum. Though I guess that's how they do it in California.

48: Romney or Giuliani would get the laissez-faire oligarch vote. Folksy Grandpa Fred would presumably also get the oligarch vote, since he was a high-powered corporate lobbyist for a couple decades. McCain or any of the people with no chance at the nomination would not.

I'm pretty sure I saw her name somewhere. On Unfogged, even.

46: So what happens in the general election if the same person wins both nominations? Do voters just choose whether to vote for this person in the R column or the D column?

49, 50: I couldn't believe what an effective speaker she was (it still seems odd to assign a specific pronoun) - there was just a hint of shyness, but mostly she was just as strong with the spoken word as with the written. I mean, it was a prepared speech, but we all know that that means nothing for delivery.

I really hope that her coming out gives her a bigger platform - her analysis is so dead-on, and she can sell it in person....

52: You don't think Thompson has a shot at the nomination. I think he has a good shot at it, and the possibility of his being in the general election scares me.

46: Yes.

Best case: Clinton/Richardson/Obama/Edwards/a cat gets the Dems and Bloomberg skims off the noncrazy Republicans, the genuine Libertarians, and the Broder Brigades, leaving only the 20-27 per cent of heliocentrism truthers to back whichever gibbering, masturbating Holy Fire escapee the Republicans pick. Ideological hegemony, here we come!

The first sentence in 56 should end with a question mark.

So what happens in the general election if the same person wins both nominations? Do voters just choose whether to vote for this person in the R column or the D column?

It usually means that that person is so popular for whatever reason that any opposition was token anyway.

In races where there are a bunch of people running for 6 seats or whatever, the candidates seem to just do it out of the "Hey, why not" principle. It could leads to there being less than 12 candidates for those 6 seats in the general election.

56, by "Folksy Grandpa Fred" I mean Fred Thompson.

it does make me think that Bloomberg could hurt the Dems as much as the Repubs; maybe it would be a wash.

That's the conclusion of the SurveyUSA numbers in #17. It's probably the best anyone can say about a hypothetical candidate a year and a half away from the election.

Doesn't anyone think that Bloomberg could attract the "I hate partisan politics crowd?" And why are these people more likely to be Republicans than Democrats? See my 43.

62: Yeah, numbers this far out don't mean much. Remember Dean's unstoppable juggernaut?

63 - yes, but he wouldn't attract people who don't normally vote. (unlike Buchanan or Perot or even Nader) in that way he would be like Anderson...right?

52, 56: Y'all are underestimating how unhappy the laissez-faire oligarchs are. Every single Republican is running to the right of Bush, on pretty much every issue. the L-FOs don't like Iraq, they don't like Bush's budgets, they're not even very happy about Gitmo (not because they care about the rights of terrorists, but because it seems like a bloody mess). Romney and Thompson both look (and smell!) like old-school, L-FO Reps, but that's not how they're running. "Double Gitmo" does not reassure Mr. Jones who, for the first time in his life, voted D in the last election.

The best chance the R has in '08 is for the press to pretend that all the loony shit he signed onto during the primaries was just a joke. But I think that they're all prostrating themselves so thoroughly, so early, that even the SCLM can't cover for them.

The real question whether Bloomberg is willing to spend a billion dollars of his own money on a campaign he has no real chance to win. My gut says he's smarter with his money than that.

People-powered Howard!

61: Yeah, that's who I thought you meant. Do you really think that he's just a vanity candidate? (Or that he will be a vanity candidate if he runs. He hasn't officially announced yet, right?)

65: Ned, I agree that he probably wouldn't attract people who don't already vote.

The best chance the R has in '08 is for the press to pretend that all the loony shit he signed onto during the primaries was just a joke.

That should be easy, since the press can't imagine how the Republican base actually believes this loony shit, and gives candidates all the leeway they need to pander to non-elitist views .

But I think that they're all prostrating themselves so thoroughly, so early, that even the SCLM can't cover for them.

No, no, the laissez-faire oligarchs are the branch of the Republican party that is fully willing to believe that their favorite candidate is lying and pandering to the other branches of the party (creationists, nativists) because it's the only way to get the nomination.

69, by mentioning him individually, I made it clear that he isn't in the category of "those with no shot at the nomination". I don't get your point.

The unpredictability is what worries me. It's a potential wild card in an election that the Dems are in great shape for.

I don't think his candidacy makes much sense if he's status quo on Iraq. His logical constituency is pretty freaking fed up w/ Iraq.

Doesn't anyone think that Bloomberg could attract the "I hate partisan politics crowd?" And why are these people more likely to be Republicans than Democrats?

Partly because, over the last 27 years, the Dems have been purged of most of their less partisan voters. Anyone who still identifies as a D after being called a pinko-faggot-muslim-lover for the past 25 years probably isn't going to jump at this point.

The ones to watch out for are the ones who didn't identify as D just 4 years ago. But, again, people hate this war and this president. 28%. Fred Thompson on his shining white pickup truck isn't going to make another 23% of the country suddenly think that Republicans are sensible grownups who can be trusted with the government.

37

The "Democrats have cooties" people are diverse. As has been pointed out in this group the only thing that unites many Republicans is hatred of liberals. But Bloomberg isn't the ideal candidate to appeal to liberal haters.

67: The Times made a good point: even a losing presidential campaign could raise his stature enough that he could become an even more high-powered philanthropy/public policy guy. It's probably a decent investment no matter what.

Y'all are underestimating how unhappy the laissez-faire oligarchs are.

I guess I am. What do they have to be unhappy about? Every domestic policy of the Bush administration is geared toward helping them at the expense of the American people, and those are the policies they are actually carrying out competently.

but he wouldn't attract people who don't normally vote.

People who don't normally vote don't vote. That's just the way it is.

People who don't normally vote don't vote. That's just the way it is.

True dat. I don't have the cites handy, but I think that most analyses of non-voters showed they'd split more or less like the people who do vote, if they cared. Which they don't.

I don't think he's going to run--he's been setting up his philanthropy (bought land for it, it's in the works) for the past couple of years, and he's pretty seriously into the coalition of mayors for environmental sustainability right now.

those are the policies they are actually carrying out competently.

Actually, not. The only people really doing well under Bush are the top 0.1% The next 0.9% actually did better under Clinton, and they're smart enough to remember it. I'm specifically talking about the small bankers - people running Podunk National Bank. They're not rich by any Bush-relevant standard. They don't feel comfortable about college costs, and they see what a chunk health insurance takes out of their budget (personal and professional), and they see the Rs offering nothing but budget deficits and culture-baiting.

77: Yeah, my uncle voted for Bush in 2004. That kind of disgusted me. 2000 was forgivable, because, you know, people have different political views. My uncle's taxes are lower. Kerry's proposals would have raised his taxes.

Torturing terrorists is fine, especially since he's not about to get tortured. My uncle was sort of anti-war, but not because he thought that the underlying policy was bad. The world (by which he means the U.S.) is obviously safer without Saddam in power. He knew that, like Vietnam, it would become a divisive issue domestically, but he doesn't care about it on the substantive merits. He does care that it might cause a Democrat to be elected, because then his taxes will go up.

82: If you start now, you could probably screw up his calendars such that he misses Election Day.

72: Looking back, I see I completely misread 51. I'm not sure how I came to this misreading.

And why are these people more likely to be Republicans than Democrats?

Which isn't to say that there aren't people who like being Democrats more in theory than in practice. Might even be fairly common among high-powered urban elite types. But I think that such people are still a relatively small fraction of the population likely to vote. Could be enough to throw a state or two in a tight race. But I'm inclined to doubt it.

My guess is that the Bloomberg-hurts-Dems folks are correct, for all the reasons stated. But can we entertain, for a moment, the possibility Bloomberg could win?

Perot pulled down a hell of a lot of votes for a guy who wasn't a politician and who was, basically, a nut.

Despite the growing relevance of the netroots, the media may still have enough juice left next year to take down the Democrat. And the right-wing smear machine is likely to focus its fire on the Democrat exclusively.

Broderism is the defining ideology of political reporting in this country, and Broderites love Bloomberg.

And the Republicans are embracing Bush's policies, if not Bush himself. That's going to be tough to defend to voters once the primaries are over.

I dunno. Obviously, any third-party candidate is a longshot, but this country has become a very strange place. Who knows how strange the USA will be next year?

because then his taxes will go up.

This particular view makes smoke come out of my ears. And it's maddeningly common.

81: Do they care about that more than "RAISE TAXES vs. LOWER TAXES"?

(not that I can rationally comprehend anyone who thinks there is some sort of financial policy issue more important than our horrible health insurance system anyway)

85: Yes, I do think it's mostly high-powered urban elites who tend to be with the Democrats because of social issues. There aren't any pro-choice Republicans anymore. (There used to be a lot of them here. If you were looking for a pro-choice voter, you were probably more likely to find one who was a Republican in Wellesley than among the Irish-Catholic Democrats of Boston.

There aren't any pro-choice Republicans anymore.

Then when will we be rid of this hideous Specter?

Well, I just came back from the meeting, and we have decided that Bloomberg is way too nanny statist to get our vote.
It's Romney vs. Guiliani, edge to Rudy unless Thompson is in.
Pray that Hilary is not the Democtatic nominee. People will stand in line to vote for whoever is running against her. In the rain.

78 79

Ventura supposedly attracted a bunch of people who ordinarily didn't vote.

92: I wish I didn't have to believe a significant percentage of the population is crazy and/or stupid that way. Not that I like her, or her politics.

92: "Democtat nominee." Didn't you get the memo?

Pray that Hilary is not the Democtatic nominee. People will stand in line to vote for whoever is running against her. In the rain.

Wasn't this a meeting of Republicans who like to think they are libertarians? Wouldn't she be the most corporatist, status-quo Democratic candidate since Grover Cleveland? I thought you people were more rational than that.

I have no idea what "status-quo" was supposed to mean in 96. Please disregard that.

95. "Democtat nominee."

I thought about writing it the correct way, but cleaned it up for you lot.

Re: Hilary, I think she will win the popular vote, but the electoral college is not in her favor. More stay at homes if one of the others is nominated, but if Obama keeps shooting himself in the foot, she's got it.

Get the memo, "Democtit" is preferred now.

96. The Committee agrees with you, Ned. But whether it is holdover hate for her husband, or from her own special sauce, there seems to be a visceral dislike of Her that other people reserve for GWB.

98: Tassled, I haven't been following the Obama campaign at all. What has he done that you consider "shooting himself in the foot?"

88: I would certainly hope so. I know that we've got a few such people here who are willing to overlook a heftier tax bill in return for health-care, education and the rest, though this is a lefty crew.

It would be interesting to find out what the poll results would actually be, but I doubt any pollsters care that much about the political breakdown among households pulling down more than $200,000 a year. It's just too small of a population.

That said, I would not be surprised if you end up with something like the education breakdown, where the very top and bottom ends of the scale go to the Democrats while the Republicans take the middling chunk.

Bloomberg is too nanny-statish, so you're leaning towards the authoritarian Rudy?!? Dude, that makes no sense.

I mean, sure, Mayor Mike banned transfats in restaurants (which could be colored as regulating infrastructure, very normal), but Rudy banned dancing!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/18/AR2007061801752.html

Rudy banned dancing

No one said he was all bad.

Rudy is the Hero of 9/11. Bloomberg outlawed donuts. Plus, no one really thinks Rudy is a cross dresser. That was for a show, like Uncle Jim did at the Bohemian Grove. And Bloomberg is too rich.

Rudy is the Hero of 9/11.

That isn't a story that's going to stand up to a helluva lotta scrutiny, you know. Also: Bloomberg managed NYC's financial crisis after 9/11; a lot of the upper-middle class non-lunatic independants are going to be interested in that achievement.

Self-identified libertarians for Giuliani? Am I reading that right?

I suppose my "libertarian" acquaintance in law school who went on a hunger strike to protest the murder of Terri Schiavo still takes the cake. But he has competition these days.

Rudy banned dancing

And dancing ferrets? He really hated those.

Also: Bloomberg managed NYC's financial crisis after 9/11; a lot of the upper-middle class non-lunatic independants are going to be interested in that achievement.

I agree that the Bureaucrat of 9/11 is a more compelling story than the Hero of 9/11.

That isn't a story that's going to stand up to a helluva lotta scrutiny, you know.

You apparently missed the 2004 election, in which Kerry was a coward and Bush a war hero.

This comment would work over here, too.

Here's the thing about "hero of 9/11": that's probably still many's people first impression of Giuliani, but in the course of a presidential campaign they are going to see a lot of the actual person, & his actual positions, and that aura is going to rub off a bit (just as Obama's "savior of the Democratic party" aura will) And he's already losing to Hillary in some polls.

I suppose this is the sort of Democrat Bloomberg could peel off. Though, as people point out in the comments there, a guy who supported Bush in '04 and Lieberman in '06 really shouldn't be considered better on Iraq than someone who voted for the AUMF in '03.

114- Indeed, the most popular candidates on 3 sides (D, I, R) are the three who haven't officially declared- Gore, Mayor Mike, and Rear Admiral Joshua Painter. Once you're in the race people learn more about you, your opponents attack you, and your aura diappears. People say that's why Gore won't run.

116.---That's why I still believe that this is just a giant feint on Mayor Mike's part. He's got a stack of pet causes, many of which need a broader base of support than NYC, and he's hoping that the rumors about a presidential bid will cause the national media to spread reports about his efforts on gun control, environmental sustainability, health coverage etc.

SO do you think Bill Clinton originally ran just to broaden his base of potential tail, figuring that once word of his womanizing ways got out he'd never actually be president, but might get some non-Ark. lady action?

118: Heck, that's why Chris Dodd is running right now.

Worked pretty well for Kucinich, too.

Kucinich and his lovely wife are the Hitler of Unfogged presidential-candidate threads.

"People will stand in line to vote for whoever is running against her. In the rain."

Only poor people have to stand in line in the rain to vote in this country, so you're in the clear, tassles.

Does anyone think this leaked Obama memo (or any of the other supposed gaffes) actually hurts him at all?

96: See, this is the crazy/stupid line I'm talking about. Visceral hate for Bush is somewhat more understandable at this point in time. Still a bad way to make decisions, but frustration from literally years of really shoddy administration has to show up somehow. Hillary though? Plenty of reason not to favour her, but taking an anything-but stance about here seems kind of wacky. So the line that `oh, it's just like some people hate Bush' doesn't seem to hold much water. It seem that they are both hated, but the reasons really don't seem that similar to me.

Does anyone think this leaked Obama memo (or any of the other supposed gaffes) actually hurts him at all?

I can't speak for anybody, but I don't think it matters in the least. However, I still think that Obama is this cycle's Howard Dean: big buzz, highly dedicated backers, lots of cash, but ultimately not going to win that many primaries.

There's still a non-zero chance that we get to the conventions with nobody having sewn up either nomination, and that chance is heightened by the compressed schedule. Two brokered conventions would certainly be entertaining from a spectator standpoint.

124: I agree with the first part of Apo's first paragraph. The second part exposes him as a complete racist, and so I am obligated to blog-shun him.

Please don't let it be Hillary. Please don't let it be Hillary. Please don't let it be Hillary. (repeat until convention)

I'm still pissed that Warner backed out.

123

"... It seem that they are both hated, but the reasons really don't seem that similar to me."

Well there is the dynasty thing.

Yeah, but that's not where the Bush hate comes from. It's not a positive, but it's not on anyone's top ten list of things they hold against him.

yeah, but there's a lot competing for those ten spots.

it's not on anyone's top ten list of things they hold against him.

Well, maybe Jackmormon's list.

It's not the TOP item on my list of things I hold against Bush. It's near the top for the things I hold against Hillary, though.

130 gets it exactly right.

Also, my faith in the universe has been restored by the fact that the cheesecake thread is now longer than the politics thread. I was worried for a while there.

the cheesecake thread is now longer than the politics thread

But not as long as the food thread.

First the Chinese food, then the oral sex.

129

I don't think that is right. It was driving the whole Bush national guard story for example. And it certainly isn't doing Jeb Bush any good.

135: Works better the othe way round, really. Unintentional capsicum transferance can really ruin a mood.....

136: That might have been true before his administration messed up pretty much everything they could get their hands on. But now? It's just proof that he's a priviliged brat who made an easy frontman for the executive branch.

138

But if being a privileged brat is the root cause of his adminstration's problems, why shouldn't that be high on the list of reasons to dislike him?

139: Incompetence and hanging out with a bad crowd are the root cause of his administrations problems. Being a priveleged brat is merely a symptom of why he was given the nod.

The interesting question isn't why Bush is a bad president, it's why he was electable.

The root cause of his administration's mistakes is the inanity of the American electorate.

Internet convention would now have me say something about there being turtles all the way down.

And being a privileged brat is distinct from being a son of a political dynasty. You could have a competent, intelligent person whose politics you generally agreed with, and not vote for him because he was the son of a president and you didn't like concentrating power in a family like that; on the other hand, you could have a worthless idiot who had been propped up throughout his career by his wealthy family, and not vote for him because he was a privileged brat despite the fact that no one in his family had ever held political office.

I think people who oppose Bush on these grounds feel more strongly about the 'privileged brat' bit than the 'political dynasty' -- the objection to Hillary is only dynasty, not brat.

The root cause of his administration's mistakes is the inanity of the American electorate.

s/b "the Bush base." Don't blame me for that shit.

144: Everyone who could vote in the elections (particularly 2004) bears some responsibility.

Erm, how, if we voted (donated to, worked for) the other guy?

141

Untrue, Clinton had the same electorate and was a better President. Are you arguing it doesn't matter who is elected in 2008?

No man steps in the same river twice, Shearer.

No man steps in the same river twice, Shearer.

146: I meant that in general, `I didn't vote for the guy' isn't much of a defense. Doing the bare minumum of voting against him saves you from 4 years of kicking yourself if you didn't, but it isn't much in the scheme of things. The more effort you put into yourself, I guess the more frustration you individually can justifiably feel (particularly with everyone who didn't bother to show up on election day). Collectively however, the electorate got the government it deserved (who said that). 2000 was an interesting, and perhaps odd. 2004 should have been a landslide.

bah. in explaining how i worded 144 badly, i worded 150 badly. i give up.

I really hope you didn't do 148/149 on purpose, JM

Ain't sayin'.

143

"I think people who oppose Bush on these grounds feel more strongly about the 'privileged brat' bit than the 'political dynasty' -- the objection to Hillary is only dynasty, not brat."

I think there are actually multiple objections.

1) If you select someone primarily because they are well connected rather than because of demonstrated ability they can turn out (like Bush) to be really bad at the job. This potentially applies to Hillary also.

2) It is unfair to get a job based on connections. This applies to Hillary.

3) Growing up rich is bad for your character. This only applies to Bush but a similar objection (marrying to attain power is bad for your character) is commonly thought to apply to Hillary.

4) Dynasties are generally bad because power corrupts. This could apply to Hillary also.

Please excuse the double-post.

Please excuse the apology for the nonexistent double-post.

Please excuse the apology for the nonexistent double-post.

Please excuse the second apology for the nonexistent double-post.

please.

154: 1 and 2 are reasons not to let Bill's legacy influence one positively toward Hillary, but they aren't independent reasons to vote against Hillary (or Bush for that matter). All those are are statements that it's not good to pick leaders solely on their connections.

3 is nonsense -- she was a law student who married a law student. Whatever she thought of his potential, considering that a corrupt marriage for power because he ended up President is a thought process that would only occur to someone who despised her anyway.

and 4 is empty verbiage. Anyone who becomes President is powerful. If you want to talk about dynasties, you need to spell out your thinking.

Re: marriage for power. I think that WJC demonstrated quite early in his career that he was destined for great things. Being from a small state helps, esp. one with a powerful Senator. This does not mean that they didn't marry for love, just that it is not inconceivable that HRC had her eye on the future (as many brides do).

I think what TLL's trying to say is that he questions the judgment of anyone who would marry a lawyer. We don't want someone with poor judgment in the White House.

Describing marrying someone from a poor background who'd never been elected to anything as corruptly marrying for power is still nuts, whatever you think of his apparent potential. You could call that 'having faith in him', 'being by his side from the beginning' or whatever, but when she entered into that marriage, he didn't have any power to corruptly exchange for whatever she was bringing to it.

Without a preexisting hatred of the Clintons, a description like that wouldn't make any sense.

162: So you're not voting for Buck when he runs?

Christ, that could describe any Ivy-Ivy relationship. Marrying for power! She's obviously so attracted to power she went after someone not from New York or DC, but from friggin' Arkansas.

They married in 1975, he was elected Atty. Gen for Arkansas in 1976, Gov. 1978. Not exactly toiling away at BigLaw, waiting for his chance.

I think I can give an account in line with Shearer's #4, as it's the biggest reason I don't want HRC to get the nomination.

All candidates build machines to advance their political careers. It isn't very odd or ignoble, nor would it be out of character for most career oriented people in most professional fields. The Clinton machine--with some close relationship to the DLC--has existed in DC as either the Democratic power or a significant Democratic power since at least 1993. That's almost fifteen years, during which favors have been repaid, careers advanced, etc. (The Post, IIRC, had a story on the number of Dem operatives/policy types who were uncomfortable working against HRC because they felt they owed their current status to Bill.) If she has one term as President, that will be 20 straight years that the Clintons have been the most important people in the Democratic Party (give or take a couple years), and that their proteges have had their career tickets punched with the appropriate career stops. Twenty four years if she wins two terms.

1. I really don't like the ideological (not really the appopriate word--maybe just biases) biases of the people in her machine.
2. I'm not comfortable with anyone being that sort of power for that long in the Democratic Party, really.
3. If they have that level of power, that's your Democratic Party, in large part, for another decade after that, at least. It's remarkable to see how many of the fuckups (and not) in this Administration first show up (to me--maybe they were there before) in the Nixon Administration. You better really like Bill, HRC, and the faction of the Democratic Party to which they belong. Because that will be the only available option, in many cases, for a good part of your life.

nor would it be out of character for most career oriented people in most professional fields

I'm supposed to be building a machine?

166: It's Arkansas. That's only a path to POWER if Perot runs and the economy tanks under Bush Sr. Otherwise it's ARKANSAS.

Yeah, right. Next you're going to tell us that this power-mad harpy will never be President.

167:That's an interesting take on the dynasty argument, but I still don't buy it. The most important problem with Bush is the legacy he got from Nixon (and, I'd argue, Reagan's goofier acolytes), and not the legacy from his father, whom he has essentially ignored.

As for Hillary, the problem is - as you point out - a policy problem. If you oppose the DLC-types, you are bound to oppose Hillary. But that's not a legacy issue.

As for the "20 straight years of Clintons," well, you've already had a dozen or more of those years, by your reckoning, so the only thing we're really talking about is putting someone in a position to be president for eight years. Just like everybody else.

The idea that the Clintons have monopolized all of the oxygen in the Democratic Party, particularly for the last seven years, just seems wrong, to me.

171

1. As the Republicans originally argued, Bush is a continuation of the Reagan group (which itself drew from the Nixon group). His dad was a NE Republican, whatever his address. Bush's base is different from that of his dad, though his Admin originally looked like a mix of the two, but it seems like a lot of the GHWB people left early. And despite recent results, I bet Rove continues to be very important in the Republican Party, especially if the Democrats win the Presidency.

2. I don't think it's quite so easy to separate politics and policy. I tend to be pretty neolib, so many of the initial policies suggested by the DLC are going to be, at a minimum, in the bailiwick in which I am most comfortable. But there are going to have to be compromises, and I don't trust the direction that DLCers--as opposed NDN, perhaps, or other neolib-type groups--will compromise. That's politics and policy.

3. Eight years is not nothing, and being President is the best way to put your people in place. See this Bush Administration. Eight years of a different President means different tickets punched.

4. If you look at the stories that ran after her election, and for a good time afterwards, you'll see many, many stories referencing her as the most important Senator by virtue of her profile. (I suspect her Rolodex had a lot to do with it, too, but whatever.) There's a reason that Harry Reid suggested he might give way to a just elected second-term Senator for Speakership--her import. She has been the favorite for the Dem nomination since before '04, and the "dark" claim used to be that the DLC tried to nobble Dean.

Me.

160

"3 is nonsense -- she was a law student who married a law student. Whatever she thought of his potential, considering that a corrupt marriage for power because he ended up President is a thought process that would only occur to someone who despised her anyway."

I stated this badly, the claim is more that she has stayed in a loveless marriage because it furthers her political ambitions.

Okay, that's less idiotic. I'd still say it's motivated by people's previously motivated dislike of the Clintons, in that the only evidence that their marriage is loveless is that he's cheated on her, and I don't see similar disdain leveled at other women married to powerful men who are known to have cheated on them. But in a context where there was better evidence that they did dislike each other, that'd make sense.

160

"and 4 is empty verbiage. Anyone who becomes President is powerful. If you want to talk about dynasties, you need to spell out your thinking."

The argument here is that the corrupting effects of power are gradual and increase with time. The two term limit can be seen as an attempt to limit this process. Dynasties allow the corrupting effect to work over longer periods of time.

I've heard that, too. Poor Hillary. Stay in the marriage with a cheating husband? Proof, PROOF! that she's not a true feminist and she's a power-hungry harpy.

Leave him? Proof, PROOF! that she doesn't believe in fighting for your family.

Shorter rightwing: We really don't like her and we'll keep throwing mud until it sticks.

And again, that's not nuts. I can see reasons for not supporting Hillary just because she's related to a prior president. I think they get exaggerated because of irrational dislike of her for other reasons. That is, I don't think that Bush's 'son of Bush' rather than his 'privileged brat' status did him any significant harm, only good; Hillary's 'wife of Bill' status is doing her both significant good and significant harm.

there are so many reasons to hate hillary, i can't imagine bothering with personal reasons.