Well, it is moderately attractive because if they could get a viable third party formed out of all of this mess that would be A Good Thing. But, I'm not sure Bloomberg is a real exciting candidate for me yet.

Establishing a viable third political party not so much.  The 20th and now the 21st century have already seen any number of third party candidacies which managed to scrape together enough votes to qualify for federal money.  But putting together a viable political party is damned tough.  That's because, no matter how much of a charge we get from voting for Wallace, Anderson, Perot, Nader, and now putatively Bloomberg, real politics really begins at the local level.  And I'm not even talking Congressman or Senator, I'm talking city councilman, state representative, county commissioner, etc.  For that you need a message or theme or mission that ties the party together from top to bottom, commitment to do the hard work of finding people interested enough in what the party has to offer to sign aboard to work for it, and the money to fund the campaigns of the grass root candidates you're going to run around the country.

When was the last third party formed that ever achieved enough influence and support to get anyone elected?  I guess the Libertarian or the various Conservative parties have made some inroads, but even their success and profile in American politics is so weak that their national candidates are nothing more than a footnote in national elections.

Of course, part of the reason viable third party candidacies don't make the transition over to viable third political parties is that the Democrats and the Republicans are, relatively speaking, large and amorphous.  So large and amorphous they'll coopt the message the third party candidate had in the last election to make part of their current platform and without an overarching mission and minus any real back up to the charismatic (or slightly loony in the case of Perot) third party candidate, the movement just gets sucked into the quicksand of the two major political parties.

Not living in the Big Apple, I really don't have a clue what Bloomberg stands for.  But, if all he's bringing to the table is his name and a billion or two in funding for his campaign, don't be surprised to add him to the list of third party candidates who didn't end up igniting any real flames.

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Don't you need committed people to make get on the ballot in every state? Nader and Perot (who was more charismatic than Bloomberg, and more of a visionary as to how to get a simple but strong message across) had the theme or mission you talk about that aroused others to join the cause.

I've checked out Bloomberg's website, and it's pretty thin gruel right now. He's not going to get 33 1/3% of the electoral college vote on a platform of preventive medicine. I'm not sure competence is a winner after eight years of Bush, because virtually anyone else would look more competent.

Hmm, what burning themes could ignite a strong third-party candidacy? Single-payer health care reform ... out of Iraq now ... global warming ... tax the rich to pay for education ... immigration enforcement/Lou Dobbsism generally? Which of those would Bloomberg support?

Yes, committed people are definitely a requirement to effectively launch a third party candidacy and I'm not sure if Bloomberg has the charisma to attract said committed people.  What he has is money, power, and the relative obscurity of exactly what his main principles are.  The question really is what's on his mind.  Does he think he can buy his way into the White House as an independent candidate?  And does he feel, if he turns that trick, that he could govern as president without a party organization in Washington to turn to?

The common wisdom has it that he's filthy rich, bleeding cash, and will wittingly spend over $1 billion to get elected.  But will he?  Note that when he wanted to become mayor in New York, he didn't do it as an independent.  He was a lifelong Democrat who registered as a Republican when he realized the Democratic field was too crowded.  He spent openly as a candidate, but as a Republican candidate.  Say what you might about Bloomberg, but he's always been a savvy businessman and you have to ask would a savvy businessman see the wisdom of spending over $1 billion with no guarantee of getting what he's paying for?

But, if he is interested in doing such a thing, he should adopt every strong and socially progressive goal that neither the mainstream Democrat or Republican parties will touch with a ten foot pole.  Then, of course, the real trick happens should he manage to actually get elected to see if he can get any of those goals translated to legislation by a Congress composed of Democrats and Republicans.

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Does he think he can buy his way into the White House as an independent candidate?

<snip>

he's always been a savvy businessman

    Which makes me wonder if Bloomberg is actually angling to win it all, or play king maker and throw the election- if possible- to which ever candidate can offer him the better deal later on. Who Perot hurt or helped in 1992 is still an open question for a lot of political advisers, if their C-SPAN appearances are any guide. Given the closeness of the last two elections, it's possible that a swing of as low as 2% could decide the outcome. Bloomberg may not be able to win, but he might be able to swing that kind of influence. (Especially if the race ends up between Hillary and McCain, figures that don't exactly thrill all sorts of voters.) At the very least he'd be able to frame the debate between the two final candidates, because he won't be as easily dismissed as Nader or Perot were in the media. Would that be worth a billion to him? Heck, who says that would take a billion to pull off? 300 million might do the trick . . especially if there's some sweetheart deal after the election is over.

    Too cynical to be possible? Sure. But sometimes you have to wonder :)

Ex ignorantia ad sapientiam; e luce ad tenebras

Hmm, what burning themes could ignite a strong third-party candidacy?  

A big ol' bank account with too much to spend.

Well, that appears to be his major qualification, and that of a lot of politicians these days.