Captain's Quarters -

This could be a year with a significant "alternative" candidate, perhaps more than one.

The GOP and the Donks are both pissing off their bases, and neither base is going to go to the other side.

Nader, Bloomberg, more? It could be like John Anderson or Ross Perot (or John Anderson and Ross Perot).

Is Ralph Nadar still alive?

If anyone, Bloomberg will draw from Democratic-leaning independents. This is the 3rd time he's switched parties (Dem --> Rep -->Ind), but he generally fits with Northeastern liberals. He'll be the 2008 version of John Anderson.

Ralph Nader is gonna run because I think the 2008 run puts him over the top on Harold Stassen. And, when Harold Stassen died (so he could no longer run), he'd made the Guiness Book of World Records on how many times a man's name could appear as a presidential candidate.

Last time out, Nader did not get even 2% of the vote. And, he missed the mark at getting taxpayer supplied "matching funds."

John Kerry got the bonkey nod after the gigolo flashed his wife's purse. (Then? After the race was over, and the gigolo failed, TheRazor went to the DNC, with her bills, asking for $3-million in refunds.)

I actually think Bloomberg see's Hillary's weaknesses. And, like Howie Dean in 2004, will be need to be pushed off the 2008 democrapic nominating stage.

Of course, this is just me. This is not news being reported anywhere. It can't be news, anyway. Since it happens in the future.

But these are the moves on the complicated chess board called American presidential politics. Not exactly one that's clear cut.

I also think that the GOP nomination ticket will look like Guiliani/Thompson. East and Middle; giving Tennessee a chance to be in the race, again. Where the people of Tennessee did not vote for Algore in 2000. While 2000 was a wild and wacky ride.

And, beyond presidential politics, given that the Ma and Pa Kettle Show has brought down the numbers for the "popularity index" of congress critters; it looks like the whole HOUSE, and 36 senators (with a mix of 12 republicans and 24 democraps running for re-election in 2008) ... will make for the kind of a race ... that the insiders used to ponder over drinks, inside smoke filled rooms.

Now, the Internet has come along and changed things. That's the wild card.

Wild cards are good.

Having good health, and no interference from the Man Upstairs, will make all the races, ahead, pretty inter-dependent.

I am reminded of Tom DeLay's words in his EXCELLENT book, as non-fiction as you can get on the runnings of our government; that the key pieces are TO BE ABLE TO SET THE AGENDA. And, then to know you'll be COMPROMISING to get things done.

That's the way DC works.

DeLay gives the example of how he set the agenda, following the GOP win in 1994, way more to the right than anyone else had done. And, he did this ON PURPOSE. MOVING BILL CLINTON TO THE CENTER.

Getting the team of horses TO THE CENTER is the trick. Don't be fooled that it's like a conventional horse race, so that on election day, in November 2008, if your horse wins ... you run to collect at the payout window. That's where politics and horse races differ.

DeLay, in his book, saw the problems of 2006 coming up. (I guess he knows politics. And, how to count!) He'll be back. Ronnie Earle can't keep up the legal charade forever.

As to Newt Gingrich; if you read DeLay's book, you'll see the internal problems that went on for ten years! Now, Newt also wants into the presidential thunder down the pike of candidates. He's trying to enter on the slogan that "Newt's got solutions."

HELLO, says DeLay. To Newt. It's the government, stupid. The government will never give the public solutions!

Fred's running on Reagan's model, which is the Barry Goldwater model of conservatism. SMALLER GOVERNMENT. If that can be done? By definition, we'd be curing problems. And, not creating more, worse, solutions. In abundance.

I'm also buying a ticket that Bloomberg stands a better chance at being the Bonkey candidate than ever. Not that he has a chance. But neither does Ron Paul.

Bloomberg could be a deciding factor. I think he has the potential to win as an independent. I mean, if Perot could get 20% of the vote, I see no reason why Bloomberg couldn't get 35%.

He's probably more dangerous to some one like Clinton or Obama rather than the Republicans. Can't think the Dems are happy about the prospect of a Bloomberg campaign.

History shows that any major third party activity in a presidential election will serve to undercut the winner's popular vote while not affecting their electoral vote: remember Perot snatching 19 percent of the vote in 1992 while getting no electoral votes for his efforts. John Anderson, who quit the Republican primary and ran in the 1980 general election to protest Reagan's conservatism, received 6 percent of the popular vote and nothing in the electoral.

If those examples are any indication, a major third-party candidates will end up only undercutting the loser by exposing a major rift in the loser's coalition -- Perot exposed major dissatisfaction with H. W. Bush while Anderson was mainly talking to himself in the end.

The GOP's coalition is far more divided than the Democratic coalition is -- I think to the extent a third party will harm anyone in 2008, it'll be cutting against the GOP.

DU

Ross Perot had an issue that resonated with voters - the deficit. What does Bloomberg have? Partisanship? He won't catch on with that issue.

If anyone thinks Mayor Bloomberg is perceived as a Republican, they are mistaken. He is and always has been a liberal Democrat. He changed to Republican to get Guilani's endorsement, for the NYC Mayor's race.

Let the press endorse him, curry favor with him, build him up. He will only take votes away from the Democrats, especially Senator Clinton in New York.

Most Democrats know Nader is only a spoiler. His days of being a threat are over. He will test the water and find 2 to 3 percent isn't enough to get financial support. He won't run, he is only after headlines.

And, when Harold Stassen died (so he could no longer run)....

Carol, being dead's no barrier to running; see the Mel Carnahan election in 2000. According to Wikipedia, "...the deceased Carnahan won by the narrow margin of 48,000 votes."

In fact, if the major parties come up with more of their typically useless candidates next year, I'll be tempted to start a write-in campaign for Harry Moses Horwitz.

"...typically useless presidential candidates ...." Arrgh!

Can any of us, left or right, GOP or Dem, actually be "pleased" with anyone who is running at this point? No one is out there makes we want to hand out bumper stickers or go door to door drumming up votes. That includes those who are thinking about running, Newt, Al or even Fred. Heck for that fact no one out there is even causing me fear that they might even be elected. Put them in a jar, shake them up, spill them out and they all become the same darn person.

Nader may have knee-capped Gore in Florida, but if it hadn't been for the votes siphoned off by Buchanan, it wouldn't have mattered.

This year Nader could possibly do better than ever, especially if the Democrats nominate Hillary.

the nutroots will never forgive her for voting for the war, compounded by her refusal to beg for forgiveness.

I could see a sizeable fraction of the Democratic far left base jumping ship for the Greens this time.

The last three third party candidates that ran sabotaged their own parties and handed the elections to their philosophical opponents.

So... Go Bloomberg ! The local New York press, which means the entire MSM, thinks the rest of the country knows or gives a damn about him.

I hope he siphons enough looney left wing Votes that would go to Billary, to hand New York to Guiliani. That might mean a 49 state sweep, for him losing only DC and California.

The question is, would he and his coattails, sweep the House rightward as well, as recovering the Senate?

IMO the next president, if a Republican, will finally complete the repair of the Judiciary. A fifth and sixth conservative on the SCOTUS, breaking up the looney Ninth in two, and adding some right center jurists, and repairing the fourth US COP.

That and moving onto other battlefields, (tipping over Kim IL monarchy, the Persian theocracy, and the Syrian Nazi regimes), to kill and discredit the non-State terrorists, are the only real items the next President need address.

Science is conquering pollution, global warming is a farce which will implode, and new power sources for automobiles and power plants cure energy concerns.

Bloomberg get 35% of the vote? In what alternate reality. He barely got that much in New York City. He might pull 4 or 5 % in various liberal bastions, the rest of the country he will be well under 1%.

The last three third party candidates that ran sabotaged their own parties and handed the elections to their philosophical opponents.

So... Go Bloomberg.! The local New York press ,which means the entire MSM, thinks the rest of the country knows or gives a damn about him.

I hope he siphons enough looney left wing Votes that would go to Billary, to hand New York to Guiliani. That might mean a 49 state sweep, for him losing only DC and California.

The question is, would he and his coattails, sweep the House rightward , as well as the Senate?

IMO the next president if a Republican will finally complete the repair of the Judiciary, A fifth and sixth conservative on the SCOTUS, breaking up the looney Ninth in two, and adding some right center jursits, and repairing the fourth US COP.

That and moving onto other battlefields, (tipping over Kim IL monarchy, the Persian theocracy, and the Syrian Nazi regimes), to kill and discredit the non-State terrorists are the only real items the next President need address.

Cap
What's with the needless vampire imagery regarding Mr. Nader? wooden stake? garlic?

Clearly you just trying to distract readers from his important agenda: BRAINS!!!

Anyone can see that Mr. Nader is a ZOMBIE-american.

the nutroots will never forgive her for voting for the war, compounded by her refusal to beg for forgiveness.

Nah, that's not correct, all she has to do is step forward and man up and say she made a mistake ... but she simply can't do it ... it would be a sign of weakness as a woman and she simply can't have that either. So she would rather go through this election cycle letting everyone knew she was bamboozled by the chimp and his merry men.

Perot vs. Bush in 1992 & Nader/Buchanan vs. Gore in 2000 both had third party candidates going up against a then current administration's candidate. This time, the Repub & Demo candidates are going to be outsiders (closest thing to an insider would be a "third term for Clinton" view of Hillary).

Bloomberg is a Democrat -- there's video of him on the late, great Louis Rukeyser's show calling himself a Democrat. Nader would siphon off the hardcore Left, which might free the D candidate to be a bit more centrist -- liberal to be sure, but not like those "9/11 was a US job" wackos. I think that candidate would be most hurt by Bloomberg, who's a nanny-stater.

If those two do enter, it'll most likely mean the winning candidate gets under 40% of the popular vote.

In my opinion, Ralph Nader's political philosopy boils down to this:

So long as I and I alone am not running the US government, I would prefer anarchy to that government with anyone else running it.

MarkW said:

"Nader may have knee-capped Gore in Florida, but if it hadn't been for the votes siphoned off by Buchanan, it wouldn't have mattered."

Don't forget that many of those Buchanan votes were siphoned off by a faulty ballot design. Said ballot was designed, tested, and publicized by (surprise) Democrats, but when theings went wrong after the election, they were the first ones to blame others.

Monkei said:

"Nah, that's not correct, all she has to do is step forward and man up and say she made a mistake ... but she simply can't do it ... it would be a sign of weakness as a woman and she simply can't have that either. So she would rather go through this election cycle letting everyone knew she was bamboozled by the chimp and his merry men. "

One minor glitch with your scenario: Hillary has already admitted that she based her vote in favor of the war not just on what Bush's intel was saying. She has stated that she also relied on intelligence info supplied to her by members of her husband's Administration.

In other words, she wasn't just reading the intel that "Chimpy" was circulating in 2002, but the "Bubbah" intel that was circulating before recorded history began, in 1998.

Sounds like she was "bamboozled" by her own husband, not just by "Chimpy". It's not the first time!

I'd love to see Bloomberg and Nader in, but I wonder if they will cross Hillary. Running against Gore or Kerry is one thing, but running against the Clinton's who have a birthright, an entitlement to POWER is quite another thing. Vince Foster lined his body up himself after he shot himself in Ft Marcy Park. Ron Brown's x-ray's showing a lead storm in his head and a 45 caliber hole in the head were lost. Linda Tripp was threatened.

Hillary RAN the bimbo suppression unit. Hillary went to Juanita Broaddrick herself to keep her quiet. I hope Ralph Nader get's his back up to intimidation and I hope Bloomberg is too stubborn too. I'll pray for their safety.

Nader's vote in Florida exceeded the margin by which Bush beat Gore there. It is quite a leap to assume all or enough of those votes would have gone to Gore if Nader hadn't run.

Nader "siphoned" voters on the far left who mistrusted Gore and the Democrats. They might have stayed home or voted for another socialist/leftist candidate if Nader hadn't been on the ballot. No one asked them in exit polls, nor was any scientific survey conducted within a short time after the election, so any assertion of their behavior is pure speculation.

The claim of Buchanan votes in error is simply balderdash. The precincts where he received high totals were the same ones which he had run strongly in four years earlier in the GOP primary. The voters in these districts are predominately upper income retirees, and the counties had been using the butterfly ballot for nearly 20 years.

There's a word for those who think little old ladies who can keep track of 20 bingo cards at once can't figure out the ballot they've been using in every election: morons.

bamboozled by the truth, that's a new one.

I don't think many, if any votes were because of faulty ballot design.
The design was not that confusing, heck, 3rd graders were able to figure it out.
The areas where Buchanon did well in Florida, were the areas where he spent the most time and money.