A Marist Poll

[H2O Man]

Late last week, a person taking a poll for Marist College in Poughkeepsie, NY, called my house. They asked if there was a registered voter who would be willing to answer a few questions about politics, and my son said, "You should probably talk to my father."

The questions were part of a survey to measure possible support for a potential 3rd party run by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. I am not really familiar with Mayor Bloomberg, and had assumed that if he did run, he would tend to hurt the republican candidate in the ’08 election. However, the nature of the questions that were posed made me wonder if that is accurate.

One of the first questions was about how I felt about the candidates in the republican primary? As a democrat, I am delighted, because they are damaged goods. How do I feel about the democratic candidates? Again, as a democrat, I am pleased, because I think that we have strong candidates.

What do I think of 3rd parties? Generally speaking, I think there should be more than three political parties. I think that if the democratic party is representative of the majority of people’s needs, our party would be easily able to create a coalition based on common interests. At the same time, I recognize that a 3rd party candidate can cause difficulties.

The questions that followed were focused on if Senator Clinton faced each of the republican candidates, plus Mayor Bloomberg. There were no questions about if either John Edwards or Barack Obama is the democratic nominee.

After the call, I tried to think of what it meant. I came up with three possibilities: (1) If Senator Clinton is our nominee, Michael Bloomberg thinks he can win; (2) If Senator Clinton is our nominee, Michael Bloomberg thinks his campaign would help her win by dividing the republican and independent vote; or (3) If Senator Clinton is our nominee, Michael Bloomberg thinks his campaign would help the republican, by splitting the democratic and independent vote.

In recent times, discussions about 3rd party candidates tend to focus on Ralph Nader in 2000. After this phone call, I was far more reminded of John Anderson in 1980.

[independentpiney]

1. I'd suspect it's #1

It may be he's considering that with the weakness of the republican field, he could pull in enough ABC republicans and right-leaning independents to beat Senator Clinton. Particularly if he sees not enough Democrats 'holding their nose', though I don't see that happening in real life.

[H2O Man]

3. Thank you .....

I do not know enough about Mayor Bloomberg to say. I'm interested in other people's opinions, and appreciate your answer.

[0007]

2. I vote for #3 of your reaction thought after the call.

If HC is our nominee, Michael Bloomberg thinks his campaign would help the republicans, by splitting the democratic and independent vote.

[H2O Man]

4. Thanks ....

Do you remember John Anderson in 1980? One of my friends, a liberal who taught political science and sociology at the local state university, thought Anderson was trying to advance the liberal cause. I never believed that. I do not pretend to know enough about Mayor Bloomberg to have any real insight, but with Anderson, I remember some "ABC" buttons ..... "Anybody But Carter."

[0007]

11. I do. Like I remember Joey Giambra extremely well in those same days.

We both dated the same woman in Reno Nevada. Needless to tell you who won.

[H2O Man]

12. Ha!

He was ending his career at the same time my friend Rubin was becoming a contender. As I'm sure you know, he fought mainly as a middleweight, but also against welterweights and what today are jr. middleweights. He fought out of Buffalo a lot. There was overlap in the guys he and Rubin faced.

My brother told me he saw Denny Moyer playing golf a lot. That was Joey's title shot at the then "new" jr. middleweight division. Fought him in Portland -- bad choice.

[PATRICK]

5. John Anderson, TR, George Wallace

A few with some significance. TR really wanted to hurt the corporate GOP- and did. George wallace wanted to slam the liberal Dems- and did. John Anderson wanted an honest breakaway from the two camps. Bloomberg is sneakier in all estimations. There is no real case for thinking in terms of success and building a third party is deeper than one's personal chances of winning. In terms of hurting, Hillary as a necessary condition means he wants to hurt Democrats, without being clear about it. GOP will turnout to hurt Hillary. Can't do that by voting Bloomberg. GOP dirt will turn people off in a proportion favorable to the GOP, especially if Bloomberg gives them a rationalized haven, a pox on both your houses. The media slant also turns away from the two choices and the causes. Putting more states into play and more dirty tricks with the complexity favors the GOP as does the media distraction away from an already unfairly treated Democratic party.

I think if one studied the statistics behind this, the net ponderables and the underlying cheating favor the GOP in a Bloomberg scenario with power accrued to him within that party if successful. After a loss the Dems would respect his cover and his "Third Party" could be a haven for disaffected GOPers until ready to be swallowed up again(with accrued Libertarians and Indies) by the GOP proper. A John Anderson in image, a GOP troll in reality.

[H2O Man]

9. With George Wallace,

everyone knew where he stood. John Anderson fooled people. So while Wallace was dangerous for the obvious, surface reasons, Anderson was dangerous for less visible reasons. There are often advantages of dealing with a Wallace.

[laststeamtrain]

6. I really do think a Bloomberg/Hagel ticket is cooking out there.

They're thinking about it.

Their platform will be 'anti-war' & draw upon people who're not bloody-minded no matter what party.

Look at how a nut like Ron Paul has attracted people.

It's a real wild card in the whole current shuffle.

Me? I'd prefer a new new deal but I don't think a lot of people know what the old new deal was.

Interesting times...

[H2O Man]

10. Bloomberg/ Hagel

I have heard that mentioned as a possibility before.

Strange days, indeed.

[Me.]

7. I Think If Hill's Negs Remain High And She Gets The Nom

I think Bloomberg will run. If Obama gets it, I don't think Bloomberg will jump in. The funny thing is that Bloomberg is more socially liberal than Barack, and I have more views in common with Bloomie.

He has been invited to that meeting in Okla., which has been described as being hosted by has beens and wannabes. Don't know about that but do know that when David Boren came out with his ultimatum that the candidates have 2 months to agree to bi-partisanship or they would start a 3rd party, I found it highly annoying. First of all, who are they to demand anything and secondly, where have these Big Brothers been the past 8 years? Now that a dem is likely to get the WH, they're going to demand partisanship?

[Me.]

8. I'd Like The Discussion To Continue

:kick: