MyDD :: Maybe we SHOULD push Bloomberg to run

Maybe we SHOULD push Bloomberg to run

by yitbos96bb, Sat Jul 14, 2007 at 07:59:38 PM EST

Maybe we SHOULD be encouraging Bloomberg to run as an independent.

According to a Quinnipiac, a Bloomberg run has a positive effect on Democrats in 2008 in the key state of Ohio.

For example, Hillary enjoys a very slim lead in Ohio over Guiliani... 44-42%, which is within the margin of error. However, add Bloomberg into the mix and suddenly Hillary develops a 40-35% lead.

In a head to head matchup with Fred Thompson, Obama leads 44-34. With Bloomberg in the mix, Obama leads Thompson 38-27, gaining another point.

Other Head to Head matchups after the break...

* Clinton tops Arizona Sen. John McCain 45 - 41 percent;
* Clinton beats Thompson 47 - 38 percent;
* Giuliani gets 42 percent to 41 percent for Obama;
* Giuliani edges former Vice President Al Gore 44 - 41 percent;
* Obama beats McCain 43 - 38 percent;
* Obama tops Thompson 44 - 34 percent;
* Gore gets 43 percent to McCain's 42 percent;
* Gore beats Thompson 45 - 38 percent.

It seems like Clinton and Obama both fair well in Ohio... Guiliani is the only person currently close to either... He leads Obama by 1 point and is down to Hillary by two points, both within the margin of error. 2008 seems like is going to be an exciting time for us.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1322.xml?Rele aseID=1083

Poll

Votes: 13
Results : Vote Link : Polls

Tags: 2008, Obama, Clinton, Bloomberg (all tags)

Permalink :: 36 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: Maybe we SHOULD push Bloomberg to run (none / 0)

Where is Edwards in that poll.

You know I have noticed all that Hillary cannot win stuff has fallen a bit on this site,as poll after poll comes out showing she is winning already.

by bebe on Sat Jul 14, 2007 at 08:04:17 PM EST

Re: Maybe we SHOULD push Bloomberg to run (none / 0)

Hey i still don't want Bloomberg in because he might take out of dems in other states.

by bebe on Sat Jul 14, 2007 at 08:05:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Maybe we SHOULD push Bloomberg to run (none / 0)

According to the article, he helps out Hillary in NJ against Guiliani.

http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!

by yitbos96bb on Sat Jul 14, 2007 at 10:32:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Maybe we SHOULD push Bloomberg to run (none / 0)

you are right bebe. the rational for not nominating clinton by the naysayers are moot becase recent head to head gen election matchups.

African-american for Hillary 2008

by terrondt on Sat Jul 14, 2007 at 08:11:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Maybe we SHOULD push Bloomberg to run (none / 0)

but remember, they will say polls don't matter becuase they don't like the results. GO HILARY!!!!

African-american for Hillary 2008

by terrondt on Sat Jul 14, 2007 at 08:13:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Maybe we SHOULD push Bloomberg to run (none / 0)

There were polls having Gore and Kerry win the election as well... a LOT can happen between now and then, even in general.

Now that being said, I have never said Hillary can't win in the General... I think at least 5 of our candidates have a legit shot to win (the big 3 plus Dodd and Richardson)... I don't support Hillary for other reasons; not thinking she can win the general is not one of them. In fact I would be willing to bet you any amount of money that if you took a poll of MyDD the majority of people think she can win the General, but won't support her in the primaries due to policy stances or something else. Further more, take out the CLinton supporters and you STILL get a majority. Most of us think she can win, we just don't like her all that much.

http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!

by yitbos96bb on Sat Jul 14, 2007 at 10:31:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Gore in 2000 (none / 0)

...There were polls having Gore and Kerry win the election as well...

Uh, Al Gore won in 2000 by 543,895 votes.

543,895 votes

by Michael Bersin on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 08:04:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gore in 2000 (none / 0)

Fair point... Rephrasing...

There were polls that had Gore ahead by A LOT, that came out right after the convention, just as there were polls that had Bush ahead. Gore got screwed royally, did win the Popular but was hosed in Florida by Harris, Lil Brother, and the usual gang of idiots. And we have suffered because of it.

http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!

by yitbos96bb on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 08:48:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

though (3.00 / 1)

It would be more reassuring if you guys could also come up with evidence that she won't be a disaster for the down-ticket races in red areas. Maybe it's a baseless fear, but I take it seriously.

John McCain is a Bush ally on Social Security.

by John DE on Sat Jul 14, 2007 at 10:04:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: though (none / 0)

I hear that argument and I don't know what evidence you have for that,can you give evidence or fact why she will be a disaster and obama won't.I just don't know the explanation for that.

by bebe on Sat Jul 14, 2007 at 10:11:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: though (none / 0)

She has legislators endorsing her from IOWA,NY to OHIO to FLORIDA to TEXAS to PA to CA to ARK,so apparently they don't think it will

by bebe on Sat Jul 14, 2007 at 10:14:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: though (none / 0)

True, but they don't know any better than we do. Its all speculation.

Really, its going to come down to JUST how much the GOP base HATES her. If they hate her as much as gay marriage and turnout like they did in 2004, then it may hurt. If they turn out like they did in 2006, then it won't hurt.

Unfortunately, all the polling in the world can't prove people will show up or not on Election day. IMHO, No way to prove or disprove this.

http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!

by yitbos96bb on Sat Jul 14, 2007 at 10:34:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: though (none / 0)

Because her presence will boost turnout. Kind of like how repubs used the gay issue to try to inspire their base to come out and vote in 2004. Edwards and Obama are not exactly darlings either. But they are not big name supervillains to draw out the right wing nuts in big numbers.

In any case, forget the electability as one can make cases for and against Hillary. Concentrate on who you like as your leader and let the last half of the primary states worry about electability, if at all.

You go with who you like best and then if you are really proud of your candidate, then your candidate will probably have supporters who can defend him or her with conviction.

by Pravin on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 12:47:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: though (none / 0)

The argument basically goes:

1) conservatives hate Hillary

conservatives are demoralized by the state of the Republican Party, and therefore their turnout will likely be lower because many who don't vote in every election will choose to sit this one out
Having Hillary as a nominee would negate the turnout argument, because she would motivate those conservatives considering sitting this one out to get to the polls because they desperately want to defeat her

There's not a lot of actual evidence for it. I don't think conservatives were exactly in high spirits in 2006 either, but they still had decent turnout. The major reason we kicked ass was our improvements in performance amongst independents (and, in some areas, certain smaller groups such as Hispanics), which is probably more important (and easier to achieve) in 2008 than depressing GOP turnout

Never separate the life you live from the words you speak. -Sen. Paul Wellstone (Minnesota)

by Max Fletcher on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 01:41:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Maybe we SHOULD push Bloomberg to run (none / 0)

I agree. Edwards should be included in Q-polls, of course. For the primary portions, both "with Gore" and "without Gore" results would be useful to have. For the general matchups, 4x4 (Gore/HRC/JRE/Obama vs Giuliani/Thompson/Romney/McCain), i.e. 16 matchups would be useful as well. Chances of McCain coming back are slim, but something tells me that he is more potent as an underdog than as the presumed front-runner.

by NuevoLiberal on Sat Jul 14, 2007 at 08:38:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Maybe we SHOULD push Bloomberg to run (none / 0)

Sorry... Not my fault... I'd include him if Q did... I thought it strange to include Gore, who hasn't declared and hasn't really postured like he is running, but not Edwards... apparently they have downgraded his chances, which, IMHO, is a little premature.

http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!

by yitbos96bb on Sat Jul 14, 2007 at 10:36:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Maybe we SHOULD push Bloomberg to run (none / 0)

I'm not sure... its all them... had they polled with Him I would have reported it. I noticed they left out Edwards and included Gore, which I thought was strange. I left him out isnce he wasn't in the race yet.

http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!

by yitbos96bb on Sat Jul 14, 2007 at 10:27:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Maybe we SHOULD push Bloomberg to run (none / 0)

Bloomberg polling 10% in General polls before he has yet to spend any money is a bad thing for Democrats and Republicans, especially considering the fact that he could spend 1 billion dollars on a campaign. He can buy any elected seat he wants, and that smacks the worth of our political system. Proves that whoever spends the most wins (most of the time it's true).

Big Obama partisans just don't post as much bebe. The idea that Clinton could struggle in the general still lingers among most of us.

by JeremiahTheMessiah on Sat Jul 14, 2007 at 08:16:43 PM EST

Re: Maybe we SHOULD push Bloomberg to run (none / 0)

Yeah but Obama supporters will be hard pressed to make the case with all the polls showing her defeating all republican candidates.Even in Southern and midwest battleground states in Ohio,Florida.

by bebe on Sat Jul 14, 2007 at 08:28:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Maybe we SHOULD push Bloomberg to run (none / 0)

When it comes to polls, all you can do is watch general trends. For the most part these head to heads won't matter. Nobody is taking Texas in 2008. That was touted left and right by a lot of Hillary partisans. I think Hillary can probably make Florida slightly more competitive than usual, but Ohio has been trending blue big in '06 (Won Governor, 1 US House seat, 1 US Senate seat)and hopefully big in '08 (4 US House seats worth fighting to take from the Repubs) So Ohio is hardly worth touting if current trends continue. Democrats have made inroads there and are continuing to do so.

The overall look in 2008 is bright for any Democrat. Republicans are burning money on micro-targeting. Why? They have to. Kids are coming out liberal in a 2-1 ratio. They'll need micro-targeting if they're going survive while refusing to evolve their parties views and initiatives. Since they are burning the money now, they won't have it to fight (as tough) in the election '08.

by JeremiahTheMessiah on Sat Jul 14, 2007 at 08:35:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Maybe we SHOULD push Bloomberg to run (none / 0)

agreed,no dem is winning texas.

by bebe on Sat Jul 14, 2007 at 08:41:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Maybe we SHOULD push Bloomberg to run (none / 0)

Don't forget WV, AR.

by dblhelix on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 02:52:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Maybe we SHOULD push Bloomberg to run (none / 0)

Who the FUCK cares what case a couple of supporters amke on a blog comment section. It HAS ABSOLUTELY NO IMPACT ON THE RACE. I'm not sure why you keep harping on this.

http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!

by yitbos96bb on Sat Jul 14, 2007 at 10:38:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Maybe we SHOULD push Bloomberg to run (none / 0)

Clinton is faring better than Obama against Giuliani, who is becoming very strong again, in national polls and state polls, after Thompson has been falling back a bit again after a few blunders. Clinton strongest against Giuliani is also what Quinnipiac is showing in their other polls (i.e. Florida, Pennsylvania.) I also noticed that Clinton makes short shrift of BOTH Guliani and Bloomberg in New York City (Giuliani was and Bloomberg is NYC's mayor) at 49% to 22% to 21%.

Ohio is considering moving up to Jan. 29, the same day Florida is holding primaries. Given the consistent polling strength Clinton has (she currently doubles up on Obama 35% to 17%,) that would be yet another massive firewall for her. If it comes about, the nomination may well be decided by Jan. 29, before it moves on to Feb. 5th.

by georgep on Sat Jul 14, 2007 at 09:08:39 PM EST

Re: Maybe we SHOULD push Bloomberg to run (none / 0)

There is more than enough time to overtake her George. More than enough time. Now if the numbers look like this in November and December, then you are probably right. She's much more establishment than Dean and the massive attack against her won't happen like it did to him. Of course in Iowa, it comes down many times to Organization, like Kerry showed us in 2004.

http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!

by yitbos96bb on Sat Jul 14, 2007 at 10:40:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Maybe we SHOULD push Bloomberg to run (none / 0)

I believe that if she is ahead in September, she will win the nomination. She is very strong in Ohio, doubling up on the competition, and now THAT whale of a state is perhaps planning to become one of the early states?

As for "enough time," true. But there are problems that come with the Obama candidacy that Clinton does not have to contend with, so the odds are stacked in her favor.

by georgep on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 10:33:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Maybe we SHOULD push Bloomberg to run (none / 0)

The Dean campaign said the same thing. So did the Allen people in Virginia.

There are problems that come with all the candidacies, Clinton's included.

http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!

by yitbos96bb on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 04:44:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Gallup July 13th (none / 0)

http://www.galluppoll.com/content/defaul t.aspx?ci=28129

Nobody diaries this Gallup national matchup. Bloomberg takes equally the same percentage from both Clinton and Rudy.

Clinton: 45%
Rudy: 39%
Bloomberg: 12%

Hillary: We will finally have a president who doesn't mind pulling over and asking for directions. Am I right, ladies?

by areyouready on Sat Jul 14, 2007 at 09:21:40 PM EST

Re: Gallup July 13th (none / 0)

I don't usually diary head to heads as they are a waste of time. The only reason I did this was I found it interesting that Bloomberg was a benefit to Democrats in Ohio.

http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!

by yitbos96bb on Sat Jul 14, 2007 at 10:44:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Maybe we SHOULD push Bloomberg to run (none / 0)

This is a stupid idea. Ohio is already Blue: Democratic Governor in a race that wasn't even close and a new Democratic Senator, again in a race that wasn't even close.

Trying to get a Democrat in Independent clothing (Bloomberg) to run for President will only take votes away and place in peril the strong possibility that we will have a new Democratic President. Do you remember Ralph Nader?

And besides, who in the hell wants to support a guy that switches parties and affiliations on a whim for political convenience? He has exactly as much credibility as Lieberman in my book. To hell with the opportunists!

by DoIT on Sat Jul 14, 2007 at 10:26:54 PM EST

Re: Maybe we SHOULD push Bloomberg to run (none / 0)

Maybe he is true to what he belives and not a party affiliation.

by lafinur on Sat Jul 14, 2007 at 11:58:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Maybe we SHOULD push Bloomberg to run (none / 0)

I do not think he will run.

I would give Bloomberg a look depending on the democratic nominee.

The democratic party should not take my vote or that of any american for granted. It seems to feel that it can run out the clock and the american people will give them the presidency but that ain't necessarily so.

by lafinur on Sat Jul 14, 2007 at 11:57:48 PM EST

Re: Maybe we SHOULD push Bloomberg to run (none / 0)

yeah yeah yeah,you really are an egomaniac.

However i concede your point.

by bebe on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 12:00:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Maybe we SHOULD push Bloomberg to run (none / 0)

I'm with you. A lot of Republicans made the mistake of pulling the lever for their party out of party loyalty, and now most of them regret it. I won't make the same mistake.

Not all Democrats are good. If we end up nominating a bad one, I won't be around to help.

by Pope Jeremy on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 01:18:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

It ain't gonna happen (none / 0)

...If we end up nominating a bad one...

Joe Lieberman and Zell Miller aren't running, so you're gonna be okay.

543,895 votes

by Michael Bersin on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 08:08:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It ain't gonna happen (none / 0)

There are other Democrats some consider bad. Personally, I am estactic about 3 of them (Obama, Edwards, and Dodd) and ok with two of them (Hillary and Richardson). I'd put Bloomberg in the same level as Hillary or Richardson... better than a Republican but not my first picks. That being said if my choice is RIchardson and Bloomberg or Clinton and Bloomberg, I'm going with the Democrat over the independent.

http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!

by yitbos96bb on Sun Jul 15, 2007 at 08:58:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.