Centerfield

...especially interesting since Giuliani and Bloomberg really have similar positions.

But they're seen utterly differently by the (R) base.

Chuck Hagel has an interesting opinion. See here.

Well, we select our president only partly for his position on the issues. Leadership qualities, character, and other very personal factors weigh heavily in our decision.

Jon, would you say that Giuliani and Bloomberg are also seen very differently by centrists and moderates?

I do agree that a Bloomberg candidacy would guarantee a Democratic victory, just like the Ross Perot candidacy did. And frankly, I think Chuck Hagel understand exactly that. His support for a third party candidate is really support for a Democratic president; it's politically easier for him to support an "independent" rather than a member of the other party.

I think Bloomberg might have a better chance than Hagel. In the general election, an antiwar candidate might actually help a Republican win. And if a Republican gets shut out of the primary, might they switch to Independent and run? This could be a mess and global events could actually surprise everyone with a new variable.

I meant that if the Democrats really go left and continue strident anti-Bush bashing, Independents like myself might vote Independent or even for....... Add a difficult world event the Democrats missplay and then a good run by the right Republican could win.

P.S. I realize Hagel isn't running.

Bloomberg is left-of-center and wears the Republican label mainly because a center-left white guy would be dead meat in a NYC Democratic primary.

I'll agree with Maxtrue; if a Bloomberg-Hagel ticket did materialize, it would give centrist anti-Iraq voters an alternative, taking more votes away from the Democratic nominee than the Republican.

I really don't know Bloomberg from Adam, at least when it comes to his politics. I know he's an uber-wealthy bidness/media mogul, and that's about it...

Semms like a reasonable hypothesis to expect that a Bloomberg candidacy is good news for the democratic candidate. If he's too republican for democrats to vote for, then he steals his biggest share of votes from the GOP, no question.

But I have to wonder what his position on the war is. It seems just as reasonable to me to guess that he'll pull the biggestt component of votes away from the party nominees on the basis of his position on Iraq. If he's soc-lib + fin con + pro-war, he definitely pulls from the GOP. But if he's soc-lib + fin con + anti-war, the pull will be different. Ifd he tries to weasel, I can't see him getting away with that. If he goes for a federalism/partition/scaleback of US troop involvement position, he might even win.

The democrats have pretty much jumped ship on the war, and so they are what they are right now. So the interesting thing scoreboard to watch is the one showing how the positions of the GOP candidates evolve in light of evolving circumstances in Iraq and i domestic opinion on it. Seems to me there are plenty rumblings among GOP folks that they're ready to blame the coalition government as an excuse for a scale back or drawdown...war support continues to thin(if you count the changiung tone of those still "on board"), and many remaining supporters may be eyeing the doors. If Bloomberg enters and polls big on the basis of some form of a threatening-to -pull-the-plug position on Iraq, he could be the political positioning seed crystal for complete collapse of support for Bush.

I'd hate to see that, but it feels pretty plausible.

Eh, it depends. If the Dems nominate Hillary, I think Bloomberg will be more left on a lot of issues like poverty and the war. Many on the Democratic side may flock to his cause. I see it this way... If the nominees are Romney and Hillary, a Bloomberg candidacy will be interesting. If they are Giuliani and Obama, then he will not even run.

Many Democrats fear Bush will "allow" a terrorist attack before 2008 to cause fear and panic. What this reveals at the least, is a deep concern their position is rather weak on terrorism. Imagine in a year, AQ is expanding, Iran has 30,000 centrifuges running, Hizb’Allah is ready for round two, Musharaf is dead and Putin is increasing conventional forces near Poland and Central Asia. What administration will want to be considered weak? At what points do Blue Dogs bark?

America as we know it would not even exist if political division did not trump common defense. The Federalist Papers are a good source. Even the Constitutional ratification required security concerns to win the day. Slavery was swept under the rug as well as the conflict between North and South to reach a system creating common defense.

24 comes to NYC next year. Bloomberg has some tricks up his sleeve. Romney/Obama might just get Bloomberg the win, but he can spoil both ways. Most scenarios damage the Republicans more than Democrats.

As for strange things: imagine some terror attack in NYC, 24 is in NYC and Rudy comes back as Mr.9/11 with Hillary the New York State Senator. I wonder in crisis, who will sound dignified and strong. Bloomberg will be center stage. Doubt it will happen, but the news cycle like mutation rates have been known to jump. Crisis might require centrism this time around and many months are left before the election. It appears Bloomberg hasn’t made up his mind yet.