Home General Bloomberg Definite: Won't Run for President
formats

Bloomberg Definite: Won't Run for President

Published on February 27, 2008, by in General.

In Thursday’s New York Times, Michael Bloomberg writes that he definitely will not run for President this year.

He says he has changed his mind on one thing: that he may work for one of the other candidates in November.

9 Responses

  1. This Presidential election cycle started out with so many very good “name” candidates possibly running on third party lines: Paul on the Libertarian, Tancredo on the Constitution, Bloomberg and Nunn (a longshot but there was still a good possibility) as Independents. It looks like only the left leaning Greens might come through with a possible McKinney candidacy. Yes all you Nader people, I know that Nader is running. But I’m talking about fresh, well-known faces that could expand the number of voters voting for third parties, not a person who will only get the usual people to vote for him and no one else.
    I think I read that in the last Presidential race, third parties received the lowest percentage of the vote that they ever did, probably due to the polarization of the Bush candidacy. With Obama taking the “change” vote, it could be another bleak year for the third parties. I’m afraid that once again what I said before is still true in that the only thing that will change the voting habits of the general public would be something on the order of a major catastrophe, such as a severe economic depression like that of the 1930′s. That would be the only way that voters might wake up and see the destruction that the two party system has done to the country.

  2. It’s hard to believe that the 3rd party percentage of the vote in 2004 was lower than it was in every election from 1952 to 1964, when the Socialist Party died out and the most prominent candidates were from the Prohibition and Socialist Labor parties.

    I guess the so-called Independent Green Party of Virginia now has a lot of legal-size scrap paper on its hands.

  3. Eric Prindle

    Sounds like someone is angling for a position in a prospective Obama administration. VP perhaps?

  4. I wrote a post this morning about the coincidence of Nader picking a VP today and Bloomberg saying “he will not run as a candidate for President”.

    Of course I don’t seriously think that will happen, but stranger things have happened in politics.

  5. Trent Hill

    Neither Bob Barr, nor Smith/Moore/Keyes are out of the question yet.

  6. Bill Jenkins

    Looks like the hukster McKay from NY who has been out sayin g he is blomberg’s “guy” is without a sugardaddy, now he will have to get a job and work for a living.

  7. Gerald Pechenuk

    The man doth protest too much. Don’t be taken in by a bamboozler like Wall Street and London’s boy Bloomberg!!!! He IS RUNNING HARDER THAN EVER: He doesn’t want to have to answer UP FRONT for his fascist, Mussolini-like economic policies!!!

  8. Jack

    The minor party and independent share of the vote for president in 2004 was the lowest percentage since 1984, but it was only slightly lower than 1988.

    Incidentally, the media is all saying Nader got .3% in 2004. He actually got .4% (to be precise, .381%).

  9. I don’t think anybody in the media really cares about the difference between .3% and .381%, nor do most voters. Nor should they. The man got way less than 1%. That’s what the main story is. The secondary story is that he was on significantly fewer state ballots than he was in 2004, so of course his share of the national popular vote was going to drop dramatically. But that is rarely pointed out in the media.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>