The Dems don’t seem to be too hot on the likelihood of Bloomberg running this year. Especially NY Times economist Paul Krugman…

Seriously, why does anyone think this makes sense? I read a lot of polls, and they suggest that the center of public opinion on the issues is, if anything, left of the center of the Democratic Party. This seems to be a solution in search of a problem.

Ron Chusid of Liberal Values weighs in on what voters REALLY think and why a guy like Bloomberg might make a whole hell of a lot of sense…

The current two party divide might be fine for those who hold one of the two sets of views held by the major parties, but not all of us entirely share one set or the other. In 2004 the Republicans were speaking of a permanent majority and by 2006 they were being voted out. There was not suddenly a decision by a block of far right Republicans that they were wrong on everything and therefore they would become Edwards/Krugman style Democrats, making for a new populist majority as Krugman believes exists.

In reality many people including independents, moderates, and “Starbucks Republicans” realized that the Republican policies were wrong. In a two party system that meant voting Democratic, but that did not mean we all agreed with every position of the Democratic Party. […]

This does not mean we accept big government solutions for all problems. The knee jerk offering of a government program to provide assistance in every circumstance by people like Edwards is just a transparent method of seeking voters and is simply a mirror image of Republicans offering tax cuts we cannot afford to receive the votes of their constituents.

Bingo. The country is trending less red and blue because we believe in social freedoms, economic freedoms and individual responsibility. But the primary system buries those opinions because it’s mostly the faithful who nominate, not the independent crowd. And so the need for a viable third way to expose the majority opinion.

The only issue is that the guy or gal who leads this third way needs to be a credible candidate. Ross Perot was the closest we’ve had in a while, but he was flaky and ultimately lacked credibility for the job of President. Still, he got 19% of the popular vote.

Then you have Bloomberg. New Yorkers, by and large, really like the job he’s doing. And shouldn’t that be enough? If you can run a city like New York and get reelected by over 20% as Republican, you’re doing something right. It’s like Schwarzenegger in California. Arnold has massive approval because he’s doing what he thinks is right, regardless of party affiliation.

So to add to what Chusid said, that’s why Bloomberg makes sense and that’s why I welcome discussion about how he could influence 2008. This two party boondoggle has gone on long enough. Time to muddy things up and create permanent minorities.

Politics Why Bloomberg?