Will Ron Paul Or Michael Bloomberg Run?

Will Ron Paul Or Michael Bloomberg Run?


What about both of them?

Rasmussen has the numbers…

Twenty-six percent (26%) of American voters believe New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is at least somewhat likely to make a third-party or independent bid for the White House in 2008. That includes 5% who say he is Very Likely to do so.

Twenty-nine percent (29%) say that Texas Congressman Ron Paul will run as an alternative to the two major parties. Eleven percent (11%) believe he is Very Likely to do so.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that roughly 15% of voters would currently vote for one of these two candidates in general election match-ups.

You hear that Paulties? 15%. That’ll get your guy in the debates. But no, keep chasing a GOP nomination that you have no hopes of winning. Throw good money at a losing cause. Good luck with that.

Ultimately, I don’t think Ron Paul doesn’t have the stomach for a 3rd party run because I don’t think he’ll jeopardize his congressional seat. On the other hand, Michael Bloomberg’s term as mayor is almost up and what’s a billionaire to do with too much time on his hands? Get 15% of the vote, that’s what.

But wait, what if BOTH of them run? Some more numbers…

At this time, the net impact of such third party efforts appears to benefit the Democrats.

In a head-to-head match-up between Romney and Obama, Obama currently leads by nine percentage points. When Bloomberg and Paul are added to the list of possible candidates, Obama’s lead grows to twelve points, 42% to 30%. Paul attracts 8% of the vote, Bloomberg 6%.

Hillary Clinton leads Romney by five in a head-to-head match-up, but her lead grows to fourteen points with Bloomberg and Paul in the mix—Clinton 46% Romney 32% Bloomberg 7% Paul 7%.

In a McCain-Obama poll, the Democrat leads by five. That grows to seven points with the third party options—Obama 40% McCain 33% Paul 11% Bloomberg 5%.

Any way you slice it, Republicans need to make sure that neither of these guys makes a 3rd party run because it’ll make an already up hill battle nearly vertical.

  • http://www.familiesforronpaul.com Aaron Walker

    You’re not making a very original assessment of the general election dynamics here. I have been screaming this for more than 4 months on sites all over the internet. A third party run by Paul will absolutely guarantee a Democrat victory in November. If anyone other than Paul wins the nomination, this too, will guarantee a Democrat victory in November. Look, let’s face facts with real simple logic. Huckabee is out of money and is only riding on ever decreasing momentum from his surprise finishes in Iowa and South Carolina. He’ll be dropping out after super Tuesday. McCain is riding the free media train that the MSM has let him board and will likely ride it all the way to the convention in September. Romney can write himself checks all the way to the convention and Paul has a grassroots movement that will carry him all the way there too.

    So, we’re looking at Paul, Romney and McCain. McCain cannot differentiate himself from the Democratic candidate and the naive American voter is going to vote for a Democrat just because they aren’t a Republican and they aren’t faced with a real choice. Romney, too, will be unable to differentiate himself sufficiently from the Democrats because of his record in Massachusetts… and I’m sad to admit that his religion will become an issue and very well may be used against him. Both candidates are warmongering fools who are in total opposition to well more than a majority of Americans who are against the war in Iraq. Only Paul has the ability to set himself apart from the Democrats and offer a real choice to the American voter. The fact that he speaks so passionately against the war will gain a lot of attention from Democratic voters and his straight talk about our destructive economic policies is going to be very well received. In a debate with a Democrat, Ron Paul is the only one who will be able to go toe to toe and actually walk away with victories.

    We must nominate Congressman Paul or we WILL have a Democratic victory. Mark my words and take them to the bank.

  • Chad Rushing

    Regarding Aaron Walker’s comments, I honestly believe that there are those in the Republican party that would prefer that a Democrat with neo-conservative leanings who will continue the Iraq War (such as Hillary Clinton) be elected before they would ever back a constitutionalist such as Ron Paul as the party’s nominee.

    I have come to realize this past year that those currently in leadership of the GOP are statists as much as the Democrats are which is why they despise Paul’s government-reducing policies. The only difference is that the Democrats do not try to disguise their socialistic positions with terms such as “compassionate conservatism.” Both major parties love big government and look forward to their turn at controlling it; they only disagree on which pet projects that big government should be directing all that power it has accumulated towards.

    Those who are anti-statist (libertarian) in their political views are quickly discovering that the modern GOP has little interest in defending and promoting their views, only in their votes on election day. Furthermore, they are banking on the anyone-but-Hillary mentality to win them the election regardless of whom they choose as their nominee, but I doubt it will pan out for them in the end.

  • http://itsthe21stcenturystupid.wordpress.com/ Jim S

    Nominating Congressman Paul does more to guarantee a Democratic victory than any other scenario. Of course it’s not going to happen but the Democrats can hope, can’t they?

  • Mike

    Judging from Paul’s new YouTube video that he put out, I think he is strongly considering a 3rd party run if the supporters keep providing the support.

    Check it out though…


  • http://www.richardbrodie.com Richard Brodie

    Read Ellin Anderson’s beautiful and inspiring poem The Patriot’s House, and then think about how we, the “blessed”, can repent of our “failings” by actively supporting the one honest, consistent, and principled constitutionalist, Ron Paul, thereby fulfilling the founders’ promise of “peace and love”, and thus putting at rest the ghosts of our forefather’s who designed and built this nation. We simply need to say “Instead –“.

  • http://westanddivided.blogspot.com/ mw

    1) Ron Paul does a lot more for this country in his Congressional seat than he would do in a silly 3rd party run for President. He has shown he can get 10% in a Repulbican Primary with the help of independents. That would drop to 4-7% in a national election. Which does exactly squat. Stay in Congress Ron. We need you there.

    2) In any mix of the leading candidates, the Republican Party is going to lose the 2008 Presidential election, with or without Bloomberg and/or Paul participation. Which means we are on a hellbound train for at least two years of single party Democratic Government with a real possibility of a 60 vote Democratic plurality in th Senate. The only hope is that they are unlikely to do as much damage in two years as it took the single party Republican government to do in six.

    3) There is one additional possibility which is also unlikely but possible with Romney or McCain leading the Republican ticket. Since the Republican party is already so far behind the 8-ball and unpopular due to the policies of the Bush administration, (70% think the country is going in the wrong direction), and either candidate will experience tissue rejection from a significant segment of the GOP itself, the best answer may be to just swim with the tide, and work actively for the complete destruction of the Republican Party. History shows that there is no path for a 3rd party to succeed in our system. However there are precedents for one of the two major parties self-destructing and being replaced by a new second party. Problem being, you have to blow up one to make room for the new. This may be the year to do just that. It would be a fitting legacy for George W Bush. The man who destroyed the Republican Party.

    Justin, Could you add an “I told you so” tag for new posts? I am going to need it.

  • Cedric

    I think you right, mw. We do need him more in congress… but consider this. He’s done more to save our country and wake people up in the past year of campaigning, than he’s done his entire time in congress.

    Here’s my take. I think he’s waiting to see how strong his support is on Feb 5th, if it’s not quite enough to give a good shot in a brokered convention, but strong none the less. I can see him going for it. He’s waiting to see how things pan out, thats just smart. One thing is for sure, if he runs third party, his new donation totals would far surpass anything we’ve seen thus far. Although it’s harder to get on the ballot, if you have cash pouring in, its not quite as hard. Also, getting enough votes might be easier than anyone expects, when everyone can vote, and the only other options are Hitlery or an Insane-Mccain/Ghoulian ticket.

    Bloomberg, of course, is waiting to see if RP is going to run 3rd party, because if he does run, the Republicans need him to save their ass. Whatcha think?


  • http://www.americanplan.org Agnostick

    Justin, when you ask, “But what if BOTH of them run?”… are you asking:

    1) What if both of them run, concurrently, against each other (as well as the Demican and Republocrat nominees)…?


    2) What if the two join forces and run under one ticket? Bloomberg-Paul or Paul-Bloomberg?

  • http://itsthe21stcenturystupid.wordpress.com Jim S

    You would never see a ticket with both Paul and Bloomberg.

  • http://www.donklephant.com Justin Gardner

    I’m asking what if they both run on separate tickets, as the poll suggests. I agree that they’d never run on the same ticket. Definitely not what I meant.

  • Rob

    Paul’s best bet is to stick it out until the nomination is awarded or there’s a brokered convention.

    If there is a nominee, Paul should go back to the senate, crystallize his thoughts and start writing detailed proposals (without skimping on the specifics or facts) as to what he’d like to see happen with the country. Possibly form or endorse a government watchdog group.

    If there’s a brokered convention he should take whatever he can grab and then do what I previously suggested.

    He has the capacity to shape voters opinion, because he’s knowledgeable and has integrity, and his straight-forward honest approach appeals to moderates, young voters and the disenfranchised. This capacity can allow him to affect what issues the parties address and how they address them.

    He can have a significant impact on the country over the next decade maybe two, but it’s not going to be as President. He’s not going to win this year and realistically he’s too old to run again, but he doesn’t need to be President to help fix the country.

  • jp

    Why would paul run? Then he’d get torn to shreds when they revist the newsletters he’s been caught lying about and shown to at best be a knowing party in Racist, bigoted, homophobic and Conspiratorial Profiteering? He’s on record in 1996 saying he did write them, now he’s claiming over 17 years he never knew??? yeah right. Plus as this blog has shown, the financial records prove he was paying his Wife and Daughter from the profits.

    the media and political process could tear him to shreds with just that alone.

  • redfish

    Bloomberg’s ceiling his higher though. An earlier Rasmussen poll asked something like “would you consider voting for Bloomberg”. I think 29% said yes. (and he still is unknown to a lot of people). Ron Paul’s ceiling is a lot lower.